The Instigator
lovedebate11
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

smoking should be banned

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,112 times Debate No: 26034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

lovedebate11

Pro

iam pro on smoking should be banned arguing with microsuck
the rules..

3 rounds
voting period 2 weeks
time to argue 72 hours
max: 8000 characters..

my arguement..
In this debate I will taking the position that smoking should be banned, whilst my opponent will be assuming the position that smoking should remain legal.
Round 1 will consist of opening arguments solely and any definitions either side wishes to post. Round 2 will be for rebuttals and any further arguments. Round 3 will be for defences and further rebuttals. Round 4 will be for a summary of arguments and conclusion with final point.

Round 1:

Smoking - The inhalation of the smoke of the burning of tobacco encased in a cigarettes, pipes or cigars. (1)

Point 1 -- There can be no doubt that smoking is harmful to ones health. Each year, nearly 6 million people die from tobacco, with 600,000 of those people non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. One person dies every 6 seconds from a tobacco related illness (2) and the American Cancer Society has stated that more people die from smoking than AIDS, car crashes, alcohol, drug abuse, fires, suicides and murders combined each year. This startling fact should not come as a surprise to anyone who understand the effects that the some 4,000 chemicals in a typical cigarette have in the human body.

Tar is a sticky black substance that forms deposits inside the lungs of those who inhale the smoke, causing lung cancer and a myriad of respiratory diseases. Carbon monoxide is a compound that reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells leading to respiratory problems and can also damage the linings of the arteries, allowing fat to build up inside them, leading to a potential heart attack. These are just 2 of the other 200 "toxic" chemicals found in tobacco smoke. (3)

Smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Moreover, smoking accounts for 14% of premature deaths and 10% of all infant deaths. It is clear from this evidence that smoking is extremely harmful to the human body and a responsibility of governments is to protect its people from harmful things. It is for this reason that cocaine, rape and speeding are all illegal and if the same logic was to be applied to this subject than tobacco products would join that group.

Point 2 -- As briefly alluded to in some of the statistics above, smoking doesn't just effect smokes, it also affects those around them too. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to inhaling someone else's tobacco smoke. Why do they have to die? Moreover, 28% of children who died in 2004, had deaths attributable to second hand smoke. Is it fair for someone who wants to remain healthy, to have to share the street with a smoker who has no regard for the problems that their disgusting "habit" causes. If the claim to personal freedom is made, then why is the claim of non smokers being ignored?

Point 3 -- Smoking also leads to impoverishment of those in lower income countries. 80% of smokers live in middle to lower income countries where the health care is at best, inadequate and therefore they carry the greatest burden. (4) In families from countries that fall into this category, children are sent out to work on the tobacco in order to gain money for the family. They are exposing themselves to the risk of contracting green tobacco sickness which is caused by absorbing the nicotine through the wet leaves. Additionally, the plethora of deaths caused by smoking means that families are left without a means to provide an income and this leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle as a direct effect of smoking. All the while, the CEO's of these multinational tobacco companies are living green of the billions that they are making from this sickening trade. If political leaders condemn the actions of Mubarak and Gaddafi, then they are guilty of first degree hypocrisy if they do not include Michael Szymanczyk in the same breath.

I wish my opponent all the best in this debate.
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for challenging me to this debate.

Smoking should remain legal within the United States because the government has no control over what we do with our finances, our body, and our lives. Moreover, bans on smoking, drugs, alcohol, and other substances have failed in the past. There is therefore no reason to suggest that smoking bans will have any more success.

Contention 1: Smoking bans is Unconstitutional

The government has no control over what we do with our bodies. Indeed, smoking is bad for you. However, so is eating too much snack foods, cutting yourself, and other things that are legal.

This war is unconstitutional because of the commerce clause which states [1]:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfareof the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

  1. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
  2. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  3. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  4. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  5. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  6. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  7. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  8. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  9. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  10. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  11. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  12. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  13. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  14. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  15. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  16. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
  17. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nowhere does the constitution grant Congress the power to:

1) Forbid the sale, possession, or use of drugs;
2) Prohibit drug sales within the same states; or
3) Intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars.

Because we have the right to our bodies and the government has no power to stop drugs via the constution, it should remain illegal.

C2: Similar Laws have Failed

Similar laws such as the war on drugs and the prohibition of alcohol have failed. In fact, it is strongly supported that the war on drugs and the prohibition of alcohol
increases crime [2]. Moreover, it has done nothing to prevent the use of drugs and alcohol. There is therefore no good reason to suggest that smoking bans will work -- especially considering that humans have smoked for over 10,000 years [3].

C3: Positive Effects

It is true that smoking is, for the most part, bad for your health. Howevver, there are positive effects of smoking:

"A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson's disease. Specifically, the new research shows a temporal relationship between smoking and reduced risk of Parkinson's disease. That is, the protective effect wanes after smokers quit."[4]

That is one of several of the positive effects.

Good luck to my opponent.

References

1. http://www.usconstitution.net...
2. Stossel, J. (2011)
No They Can't: Why Government Fails but Individuals Succeed.
3. http://www.randomhistory.com...;
4. http://www.forces.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
lovedebate11

Pro

thank you microsuck for accepting and for the argument..

Reasons why smoking should be banned.

In the United Kingdom people complain about the health service. Not enough GP"s and sometimes there is a need to wait for weeks for an referral appointment. The NHS (The health service in the UK) spends every year "1.4 and "1.7 billion on smoking related illnesses. Every day 1000 patients are admitted into hospital because of smoking related illnesses. Just imagine how many beds it would free up if there would be no smokers anymore. I know that if they would stop smoking that it would not immediately make things better but eventually it would. It would free up the health service in the UK and other countries.

So why does the government allow smokers to continue. Well for the start because in the UK the government collects every year "9 billion an tobacco duty. But with the cost of smoking rising in the UK and the flights into eastern European countries falling many people actually buy cigarettes abroad for which the government actually doesn"t get any tax duty.

On tobacco plantations children as young as 3 are working every day to provide the tobacco needed for cigarettes. I personally think that this is a disgrace and the tobacco companies should be fined for this. But often they blame the contractors and avoid any responsibility.

Smoking is also one of the biggest polluter. In a cigarette there are around 4000 chemicals and 400 toxic substances. These chemicals and toxic substances are then filtered and what is done with the cigarette filter? Its thrown away. Often simply on the road and eventually ends up in landfill sites.

thanks
Microsuck

Con

My opponent plagiarized from http://socyberty.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lovedebate11

Pro

thanks for the website even though it contained all about why smoking should be banned... well here is my argument..

tobacco use is the major cause of preventable and premature death and disease worldwide, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC reports that 46 million Americans age 18 years and older smoke cigarettes, 443,000 smoking-related deaths occur annually in the U.S. Smoking affects the population, causes premature deaths and is a substantial financial burden to society.
Population

Smoking affects the population in many ways. It affects smokers' health and controls their smoking habits and use of time, and the spiraling cost of tobacco makes it an expensive pastime. Secondhand smoke affects others and pollutes the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, children are susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are growing and developing. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have increased risks of sudden infant death syndrome, middle ear infection, asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis.
Preventable Deaths

Annually, one of every five deaths in the U.S. is related to smoking, due to conditions such as pneumonia, bronchitis, lung cancer and emphysema, according to the CDC website. Smoking may affect sexual performance and increase the risks of heart disease and infections. Deaths attributed to smoking varied from state to state during the years 2000 to 2004, with Alaska reporting 492 deaths and California reporting 36,687 deaths, notes the CDC. The good news is, according to a report from the CDC, some states show signs of improved health of their citizens and a decrease in smoking rates, deaths and health care costs due to increased awareness, education and resources available to help people fight the smoking habit.
Cost

Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs.
Microsuck

Con

My opponent once more adds new arguments and fails to respond to my arguments. Her arguments were ONCE AGAIN plagarized from http://www.livestrong.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
lovedebate11

Pro

lovedebate11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
even the plagiarized wasn't perfect grammar.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
It was pretty obvious she was plagiarism: her grammar went from complete sh*t to perfect. Something was a-miss there.
Posted by Jay_Whiz 4 years ago
Jay_Whiz
I don't smoke (and I never will), but banning smokes is very unconstitutional. It's bad for you, yes. But if you think about it, weed is illegal too. And how many people do you know smokes weed? A LOT. So it just increases criminal activity to get smokes to the public and just gives them another reason to shoot each other for. Therfore banning anything that has to do with what's part of everyday American life will be ineffective point blank.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
No dang smoking ban is going to keep me from my cigarettes. >:[
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
lovedebate11MicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: plagarism is bad for ones health
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
lovedebate11MicrosuckTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagarized and never addressed either con's constitutionality arguments or his adverse side effects argument. Pro had valid points (even if they were plagarized), but con was able to present stronger points.