The Instigator
mms21
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
magic_magpie
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

smoking

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 1 vote the winner is...
magic_magpie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 91117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

mms21

Con

I feel that smoking is one hundred percent wrong, 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.
according to nosmoke.org In recent years, studies have concluded that tobacco and secondhand smoke are not only dangerous to people, but also to pets. Specifically, with respect to secondhand smoke, researchers have found that exposure to tobacco smoke has been associated with certain cancers in dogs and cats; allergies in dogs; and eye and skin diseases and respiratory problems in birds.
second hand smoking is a big reason for cancer. I also believe that smoking will soon be the main cause for death, and when adults show kids its okay, then they tag onto it and it goes on and on. I feel It should be illegal for all those reasons.








http://www.livestrong.com...;
http://www.no-smoke.org...
magic_magpie

Pro

Salutations!
First I would like to say I do not smoke and I think it is a gross habit.
Second, I am wondering if you want to limit our discussion to cigarettes or if it can include other forms of smoking?
I do hold a belief that it is a gross habit, and I still think making it illegal would be a bad move. I will now go thought your points one by one.
For the first of your points, I might hypothetically believe that two males getting married is wrong (I do not actually have any problems with it), but that belief is not a reason to make it illegal in of itself.
443,000 deaths is a lot, but 7,000 people die because of doctors sloppy handwriting, 33,800 from motor vehicles, and 41,100 people kill themselves. those numbers thought smaller but still take lives in the thousands. but that is not a reason to make cars for example illegal, because they have a place. So does smoking, thought admittedly smaller,but I will come back to this after you answer my first question.
You also said smoking is a "substantial financial burden to society" I would like know how you got this conclusion and or a source. Cigarettes bring in millions of tax dollars so it seems to me to be making money for society.
Also of those 443,000 deaths 41,000 where due to second hand smoke. That number could be made smaller, legislation could be made without outright banning smoking. This could also help with the issue of pets. A possible example could be making smokers smoke X meters from persons or animals that are not smart enough or old enough to understand the possible side effects. Also make smoking outside of smoking zones a bigger offence.
Now for my arguments
Grown adults should be able to to make their own choices, even if it is a bad one, as long as it does not harm another person who does not want to be involved. If they make choices that kill them, it may be sad, but they earned there Darwin award so why should society have stop them.
If you look at the Alcohol Prohibition, it did not stop people from drinking. It just pushed it underground where it could not provide the tax benefit. The Prohibition ended up costing millions to be unsuccessfully enforced and lead to the loss of millions in tax dollars.

http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mms21

Con

The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation. Most of the richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to steepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces. One option that deserves more attention is the enactment of local or national bans on the sale of cigarettes. There are precedents: 15 US states enacted bans on the sale of cigarettes from 1890 to 1927, for instance, and such laws are still fully within the power of local communities and state governments. Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would also put a halt to one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilisation, and would effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation. The primary reason for abolition, however, is that smokers themselves dislike the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human liberties. Abolition would also help cigarette makers fulfil their repeated promises to "cease production" if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm.
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.

http://www.livestrong.com...
magic_magpie

Pro

Deadly is often defined something like "causing or able to cause death". A cigarette in of itself is not able to cause as nearly as much death as an atomic bomb, or a sword or a gun. Have cigarettes lead to the deaths of more people than anything else, maybe, but hard numbers supporting that would be hard to find, If they exist at all. Cigarettes also did not come on to the scene till 1865 when they started being commercially produced, the blade on the other hand has been killing for most of human history.

"Most of the richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to stepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces."
This part of your argument gives plenty of ways to fight cigarettes without banning it, witch I am not ageist. A lot of the money lost comes from lost productivity, another deterrent is firing the unproductive, there you can kill two birds with one stone. Income from tax dollars is greater than the stated the medical cost.

This next point I will Try to make very clear. Banning cigarettes will not completely remove them from the world. They will be sold illegally, acquiring them will become more danger for the people that do not want to give them up, the quality will likely go down making them even less healthy. and will lead to the incarceration of newly created non-violent offenders. Possible good people will go to jail over an addition. The people's suffering will change, not go away.

You said "Smoking is not a recreational drug" witch is true, but smoking is not a drug in the first place, it is a way to absorb drugs. As someone who has spent some time in the colorful state of Colorado people proudly smoke and do it for recreation.
Also it does not expand liberties, liberty is about freedom! It is taking away a freedom of choosing to try smoking or not. I will also quote
Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Debate Round No. 2
mms21

Con

if you look closely, more people smoke than as many bombings.
Key facts; Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
Tobacco kills around 6 million people each year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Nearly 80% of the world's 1 billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries. The tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced, killing around 6 million people a year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

Nearly 80% of the more than 1 billion smokers worldwide live in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of tobacco-related illness and death is heaviest.

Tobacco users who die prematurely deprive their families of income, raise the cost of health care and hinder economic development.

In some countries, children from poor households are frequently employed in tobacco farming to provide family income. These children are especially vulnerable to "green tobacco sickness", which is caused by the nicotine that is absorbed through the skin from the handling of wet tobacco leaves.
Yes I know that it will not get rid of them forever. going back to the drugs, Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco"including cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, and chewing tobacco"contain the addictive drug nicotine. Nicotine is readily absorbed into the bloodstream when a tobacco product is chewed, inhaled, or smoked. anything that is addictive and could cause death is a drug.
yes we are a free country as in America but we have Laws like drugs are illegal as in cocaine and heroine, meth, etc.... and you can SMOKE THEM and thats smoking. Although smoking has fallen sharply in the US, from about 40% of the population in 1970 to only 20% today, the proportion of smokers stopped dropping around 2004. There are still 46 million American adult smokers, and smoking kills about 443,000 Americans each year. Worldwide, the number of cigarettes sold " six trillion a year, enough to reach the sun and back " is at an all-time high. Six million people die each year from smoking " more than from AIDS, malaria, and traffic accidents combined. Of the 1.3 billion Chinese, more than one in ten will die from smoking.
minting money
Central Banking"s Final Frontier?

Anatole Kaletsky weighs the views of Raghuram Rajan, Adair Turner, Stephen Roach, and others on how far today"s increasingly exotic monetary policies can and should go.

Earlier this month, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it would spend $600 million over five years to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use. But Robert Proctor, a historian of science at Stanford University and the author of a forthcoming blockbuster entitled Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, argues that to use education as one"s only weapon against a highly addictive and often lethal drug is unpardonably insufficient.
"Tobacco control policy," Proctor says, "too often centers on educating the public, when it should be focused on fixing or eliminating the product." He points out that we don"t just educate parents to keep toys painted with lead-based paints away from their children"s mouths; we ban the use of lead-based paint. Similarly, when thalidomide was found to cause major birth defects, we did not just educate women to avoid using the drug when pregnant.
magic_magpie

Pro

Thalidomide is legal and is recommended in some cases treat different conditions. We taught doctors about its harmful possibilities and tell women how are or may become pregnant that it should be avoided so it would seem educating women is what we did. The lead paint point is comparing apples to oranges, lead paint can effect people how do not even think the paint on there wall is different than any other paint. People might live in a house and have no clue that they are being exposed, they are not choosing to be exposed, but a person does not smoke with out making a choice, and if people can see or smell is someone is smoking they have the to choose weather to stay near the person or leave.

Those peoples deaths all five million is a result of a choice they made. What gives us the right to take away there ability to choose if they want to smoke or not. You say it is one of the biggest public health concerns "the world has ever faced" but then why does it not come up as much as Zika or or the bird flu did. I will also call into cosederation that it kills so many more people that old pandemics like say the black death is because there are many more billions of people than there where in the dark ages. Besides that if your numbers you gave are acurite the fraction of smokers dieing yearly is minuscule.

You said "Nearly 80% of the more than 1 billion smokers worldwide live in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of tobacco-related illness and death is heaviest." I will point out a consequence that you might not have thought of bye making cigarettes illegal. If someone is addicted they will experience withdraws. That can lead to anger and deppreshon an very painful sometimes. How are these poor countries going to deal with this. They can't pay for quitting aids like patches, or therapy. People can feel like they are dieing and have symptoms that could prevent them from working for weeks. That could cripple a lot of family's living off of low incomes or that farm from themselves.
You also said "Tobacco users who die prematurely deprive their families of income, raise the cost of health care and hinder economic development" three quarters of smokers live past 65 the average age of retirements, so how much income is really being lost. At that age the kids will be working and the spouse will be approaching death in the next couple of decades smoker or not.

The children that pick leaves have a job that would lost hurting the poor family's that have to have there children work. The working conditions could be legally improved with out banning tobacco
Drugs are not bad by nature even addictive ones that can kill. Meth is illegal yes but that does not mean that it should be. People should have the write to treat there body how they like.

I will also bring up the job loss that will follow banning cigarettes, how will you do that? That will happen to the unsold/unused stock? What will become of the Farms?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ZachZimmey 6 months ago
ZachZimmey
@mms21-
It appears that you have copied the latter half of your last debate round from a Project-Syndicate web article.
"minting money Central Banking"s Final Frontier? Anatole Kaletsky weighs the views of Raghuram Rajan, Adair Turner, Stephen Roach, and others on how far today's increasingly exotic monetary policies can and should go."- This appears to have been an ad you copied.

https://www.project-syndicate.org...

You failed to give any credit to this website with your argument, meaning you called this your own work. That is also known as plagiarism (which is illegal, btw) and means that your arguments are invalid.

You also copied most of your second argument, but you at least gave a web link. However, you still failed to put quotations around the "borrowed" work.

Pretty cheap.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ockham 6 months ago
Ockham
mms21magic_magpieTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro, since Con plagiarized in the final round by not citing the sources she copied and pasted from. Spelling and grammar was equivalent on both sides. Pro had more convincing arguments, for a couple of reasons. First, Con never really addressed the point about Prohibition or the fact that people will just continue smoking illegally, which Pro raised in two consecutive rounds. Secondly, Con plagiarized most of her post in the final round, so none of the plagiarized arguments can be considered. Sources goes to Pro, since they cited more sources and did not plagiarize.