The Instigator
doyou.loveme
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
brittwaller
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points

should cigarettes be displayed for sale?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,282 times Debate No: 3397
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (17)
Votes (16)

 

doyou.loveme

Con

this house does not support cigarettes being displayed for sale.

Listen.
Do you want your society being polluted by the utter disturbance from cigarettes?
well the display of cigarettes in shops definitely encourage this.

In the United Kingdom, there have been talks about banning cigarette displays in a bid to reduce smoking and discourage children from starting, ministers are also proposing the removal of vending machines in pubs and restaurants.

Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said: "It's vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that."

the fact of influencing children is another major for the ban of cigarettes being displayed.

She added: "Children who smoke are putting their lives at risk and are more likely to die of cancer than people who start smoking later."

Measures that make it easier to sell nicotine replacement gums and patches are also being considered.

Children who are confronted with cigarettes in their local shops are more than likely to pick up the habit of this kind of behavior being ok, thus leading to youth smokers in our community.

tell me do you want your child to suffer?

than banning the display of cigarettes should be a major priority for the government.
brittwaller

Pro

"Do you want your society being polluted by the utter disturbance from cigarettes?"

-What pollution and what specific "utter disturbance" are you speaking of? But for a simple answer, I would say yes, as I am a smoker and enjoy smoking many, many, many times a day.

"In the United Kingdom..."

-First, I'll say it: children should not smoke.
Second, where I live, there haven't been cigarette vending machines anywhere for about 10 years, at least.
Third, I don't see how removing vending machines from bars ("pubs") would have any affect on underage smoking, as one has to be older to get into the bar than one does to smoke.

"Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said: "It's vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that.""

-There are two things that come to mind when the government of a nation (or anyone else, for that matter) starts talking like this: 1) that it is not up to the government, but to parents, etc. to provide this kind of education; and 2) that at the end of the day, no matter how hard one may try, one cannot completely eliminate "bad behavior [x]," in this case children smoking. Even children do what they want, regardless of, or perhaps even in spite of, adult instruction to the opposite end and possible punishment. I don't see what affect removing cigarettes from "behind the counter" would have, either, as they aren't sold to children in the first place. In any case, I don't think seeing cigarettes for sale is a primary motivator for anyone, including children, to smoke. I would imagine that children who do smoke don't smoke just because they see cigarettes for sale - they see adults doing it and want to be more "adult" and/or "cool."

"the fact of influencing children is another major for the ban of cigarettes being displayed."

-This sentence is non-sensical. Could you be a little clearer and more concise, please?

"She added: "Children who smoke are putting their lives at risk and are more likely to die of cancer than people who start smoking later.""

-Probably true, but I am not arguing that children should smoke.

"Measures that make it easier to sell nicotine replacement gums and patches are also being considered."

-Irrelevant.

"Children who are confronted with cigarettes in their local shops are more than likely to pick up the habit of this kind of behavior being ok, thus leading to youth smokers in our community."

-The behavior is "ok," for adults. Do you have any evidence that shows that cigarettes displayed behind a counter at a convenience store are any more likely to contribute to a child, or any person really, starting to smoke than any of the other factors in that individual's life (seeing adults smoke, peer pressure, etc)? In other words, is there something to support this statement, or did you just bring it off the top of your head?

"tell me do you want your child to suffer?"

-I don't have any children.

"[Then] banning the display of cigarettes should be a major priority for the government."

-I doubt the banning of "displayed cigarettes" will ever be a major priority of the government, nor should it be. First, there is too much money to be made by vendors, tobacco companies, and the government for such an idea to be implemented. Second, as cigarettes are not sold to children in the first place, I don't see how (if such an idea were implemented) it would stop those that are going to smoke from doing it as they are getting the cigarettes to smoke from some third party. Even if they are removed from "behind the counter," they will still be available to anyone meeting proper age and ID requirements, and all the other factors that may influence a child to begin smoking will remain unchanged.

Thus, cigarettes should remain "on display."

Back to you
Britt
Debate Round No. 1
doyou.loveme

Con

Did you know that Most stores that sell cigarettes place them on counters between things kids like....candy, pretzels, and chips. Why do you suppose they do that????
Because tobacco companies pay them A LOT of money to keep cigarettes there.

The tobacco industry tricks kids into thinking that smoking is "cool" through their advertising, promotions, sponsorships of sporting events, and by paying to get their brands of cigarettes to appear in the movies. But tricking kids is only part of the story. Another important part of their plan is to make it easy for kids to get cigarettes. They know that about 90% of the adults who smoke started before the age of 18. So they realize that if they are going to hook new customers, they have to do it when they are young. So what better way to get them hooked than by first making kids think smoking is "cool", then making it easy for them to get tobacco products?

One way that they make it easy for kids to get cigarettes is through self-service displays (cigarettes that are on or in front of the counter.) They pay stores a lot of money to keep them there! This is one way that they spend over 16 million a day on advertising and promotions.

Why do they feel it's worth it? Because it works at getting cigarettes into the hands of children. Children learn to group things that belong together at an early age. Do you remember when you were little, teachers had you match objects? You know, things like a raincoat, an umbrella, and boots. The tobacco companies know that kids make associations. When they pay stores to display cigarettes, candy, and chips next to each other on counters, they are sending a strong message to children. They are telling kids that cigarettes are in the same class as the food they like to eat, so kids think cigarettes are safe. People who run the tobacco companies are pretty clever, aren't they? They start tricking us when we are very young.

Self service displays, besides being a "point of sale advertisement," not only trick children into thinking that tobacco products are safe, they also provide an easy way for children to get them. The young can easily get their hands on tobacco products when they are on or in front of the counter. Many stores, like WaWa put candy or other items children like near the cigarettes. (At Easter WaWa placed Easter candy and coloring books on top of a large end cap display.Children wanting the candy and books had to reach over rows of cigarettes packs to get them!)

It seems natural for children to hang around aisles in stores where there's candy or toys, so clerks don't pay attention to them. In addition, store clerks are often too busy waiting on customers to watch these displays. To make matters worse, the tobacco companies often package cigarettes with items that are attractive to kids; key chains, cameras, brightly colored pens...... The industry encourages children to shoplift cigarettes to get what is packaged with them. Once outside the store, they are tempted to try the cigarettes, or they give them to their friends.

Cigarettes cost pennies to make. If kids initially get addicted by shoplifting, the industry knows they'll have lifelong paying customers. What a great investment for the industry!

Self service displays should be banned because:

They send the wrong message to children. The cigarettes are placed between things like candy and pretzels. By association, children think cigarettes are as safe as the food they eat.
They provide easy access. Children are able to shoplift cigarettes, because the displays can not be monitored by busy clerks.
Children are more likely to be sold cigarettes from self service displays than form those displayed behind the counter, and to conclude i will repeat

Self service displays should be banned because:

They send the wrong message to children. The cigarettes are placed between things like candy and pretzels. By association, children think cigarettes are as safe as the food they eat.
They provide easy access. Children are able to shoplift cigarettes, because the displays can not be monitored by busy clerks.
Children are more likely to be sold cigarettes from self service displays than form those displayed behind the counter.

Thank you for your time Brittwaller

From
Ryan
brittwaller

Pro

I apologize for the amount of time it took for me to respond; I've been a little busy the past few days.

Now:

"Did you know that Most stores that sell cigarettes place them on counters between things kids like....candy, pretzels, and chips."

and

"One way that they make it easy for kids to get cigarettes is through self-service displays (cigarettes that are on or in front of the counter.)"

-Personally, I am not familiar with either situation. It may be that our state law simply differs, but in all my time buying cigarettes I have never seen them displayed *on* the counter at all, whether they be between "candy, pretzels, and chips" or in one of these self-service displays you speak of. Everywhere I have been, including package stores and tobacco shops, as well as common corner-stores, keep their cigarettes completely behind the counter. A person cannot simply pick them up and put them down to buy - you have to specifically ask for what you want and the clerk will get it from behind them. Larger stores (Wal-Mart, etc) have a separate checkout aisle where you have to still ask for them from a clerk. So we're clear, I thought that this was what you spoke of in the resolution - displays behind the counter, as you presented nothing about these "self-service displays" in your opening argument.

However: you say "...Most stores that sell cigarettes place them on counters between things kids like....candy, pretzels, and chips." At its simplest, most means more than half. Do you have any evidence to support this statement? If so, you provided none in your argument.

As far as your argument about shoplifting: it seems that these self-service displays would not be stolen from by just kids, but by everyone. Especially now - cigarettes are getting quite expensive. These displays don't seem to make much sense, economically.

You also say, "... the tobacco companies often package cigarettes with items that are attractive to kids; key chains, cameras, brightly colored pens...... The industry encourages children to shoplift cigarettes to get what is packaged with them."

-Perhaps the cigarette promotions in your area differ from those in mine, but the most I've ever gotten with a pack of smokes is a free lighter; I can see keychains being a possibility, and even pens(?), but I've never seen or heard of a free camera coming with a pack of cigarettes.

In any event, none of this changes the facts that: 1) the information is out there, in the public domain, about cigarettes. They are bad: this is nothing new and I venture that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone, including children, who think otherwise. 2) Cigarettes are legal; advertising, promotions, product placements, and their manner of display are all incidental, as cigarette companies and vendors are within their rights on all of these. 3) Even if your shoplifting theory holds water, I don't see how you can put responsibility on the shoulders of anyone except the child that shoplifts cigarettes, and possibly their parents. If a parent doesn't have enough sense to teach their child that a) smoking is bad for them and they shouldn't do it and/or b) that stealing is wrong, that's on *them*, not big tobacco or vendors. If such moronic people did not have children, perhaps not so many children would smoke.

At the end of the day, even if cigarettes were not displayed at all, I feel little would really change, as children always want to act more "grown-up" than they are, and are quite clever at achieving their ends if their minds are set on it.

To end: "By association, children think cigarettes are as safe as the food they eat." I think that is a little bit far-fetched. Children are young, not idiotic.
"Children are able to shoplift cigarettes, because the displays can not be monitored by busy clerks." If the displays are on the counter, as you said, then they most certainly can be monitored by busy clerks, as where else is a clerk going to be except behind the counter at the register for the great majority of their shift.
"Children are more likely to be sold cigarettes from self service displays than form those displayed behind the counter..." How did you arrive at this conclusion? It is illegal to sell cigarettes to *anyone* without the proper ID, much less obvious children. How many clerks are willing to risk their jobs, as well as possible fines and incarceration, by selling a child cigarettes? Not many, I would think.

Enjoyed it, Ryan. See you around the site.

Britt
Debate Round No. 2
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
And here I thought I was being clever, witty, and original by making a play on words... Damn :(
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
He has a book by the title of Paradigms Lost, and another, Paradigms Regained.
http://www.anova.org...
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
No Britwaller. I don't even know who that is. Why do you ask?
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Paradigm Lost: just curious, but does your username have anything to do with John L. Casti?
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
Doyou, this is why I believe you have lost the debate: Let me first start out by saying that I've battled with nicotine in private life, on and off, for many years. I see the destruction they cause. And I wouldn't hesitate to say that they are worse, in many ways, than a lot of street drugs.

But having said that, that is not the issue of this debate. The debate is whether ads should or shouldn't be displayed. If nicotine is legal, which it is, then how can you force a company not to advertise legally? That is their right to advertise, just like its the right to post anti-smoking ads too. That's how free societies work.

It seems to me that you must lobby to make nicotine an illegal substance, period! BUT until that time, you can't force the proscriptions that the Public Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo, is suggesting.

Its a case of good intentions, none of which I deny, but the wrong approach since it runs counter to our freedoms.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
At least we are in agreement there, sadolite.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Big nanny govt "We know whats best for you and we will decide what your personal choices will be."
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
You are right, Yraelz, it is very bad for me:) I will try and post this today, but I have some stuff to do and places to go, so it may not be until tonight/tomorrow. And yes, your second round gives a better impression of your debate skills than does your first.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
P.S. Brittwaller, that is bad for you. -.-
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
You also challenged me to this debate and then canceled it. I was really excited. =(
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rshortman 8 years ago
rshortman
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kelstwa 8 years ago
kelstwa
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sleepless 8 years ago
Sleepless
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by whitesoxfan450 8 years ago
whitesoxfan450
doyou.lovemebrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30