Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

*** DDO Census: Smoking Ban ***

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

*** Have at me ***
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:02:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
trying to shamelessly get into the hof. I approve.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:11:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 6:02:46 AM, headphonegut wrote:
trying to shamelessly get into the hof. I approve.

My entire existence is trying to shamelessly get into the HOF.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:20:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 6:02:46 AM, headphonegut wrote:
trying to shamelessly get into the hof. I approve.

Lol the second thread was about 2 months over due xD
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:50:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:

A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned. It's arguable that things like TV and junk food have, on balance, brought about more harm than good. Does that mean they should be banned? Of course not. That's why utilitarians refer to the Harm Principle for this sort of thing.


1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that no inwardly benefiting industry should be allowed to exist?


Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

Junk food and obesity cost us up to $300 billion. Does that mean we should ban it?


And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

There are a lot of expensive hobbies that cost much more than $3000 a year...


2 - Secondhand Effects.

Simple solution -- ban smoking outside of private property.


3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

They got themselves addicted. It's common knowledge that smoking can become addictive, and nowadays it even says as much on the packages. People are free to be careful with how often they smoke, or even abstain from starting in the first place. Moreover, it is possible to become unaddicted if you seek out help from the right places.

The fact that smoking is addictive just goes to show that there's going to be an enormous black market for cigars if a smoking ban is implemented. This sort of policy is disastrous -- it's just going to force us to waste more money on the failed "War on Drugs" effort, and exacerbate all of the problems that Mexico faces with drug cartels.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 7:19:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 6:50:07 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:

A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned. It's arguable that things like TV and junk food have, on balance, brought about more harm than good. Does that mean they should be banned? Of course not. That's why utilitarians refer to the Harm Principle for this sort of thing.

It does from a Utilitarian point of view. And when most of those harms are on people without their consent, it does.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that no inwardly benefiting industry should be allowed to exist?

Nay. Just establishing that it's a waste of money, and therefore spending towards it is not a 'benefit.' When offering a benefit v negatives framework, you must equally negate benefits as well as posting negatives.

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

Junk food and obesity cost us up to $300 billion. Does that mean we should ban it?

May people would say so. However, junk food mostly only hurts the consumer (and it's a complete choice. The addiction to it is passive, as opposed to aggressive addictions from drugs.) You eating junk food does increase my costs, but it does little else. My case establishes an array of harms that build the overall grand negative. One harm by itself Isn't important, but I didn't post just one.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

There are a lot of expensive hobbies that cost much more than $3000 a year...

Hobbies are not comparable tp deadly addictions that hurt the children while offering no benefit outside of a few minutes of relaxation.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Simple solution -- ban smoking outside of private property.

I've already explained in my case why that won't work. You literally ignored the whole case. Smoking in homes infect homes nearby, and secondhand smoke carries over to thirdhand smoke. Plus children live in homes. In fact, the worst secondhand effects are from household-based interactions with smoke.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

They got themselves addicted. It's common knowledge that smoking can become addictive, and nowadays it even says as much on the packages. People are free to be careful with how often they smoke, or even abstain from starting in the first place. Moreover, it is possible to become unaddicted if you seek out help from the right places.

Getting yourself addicted doesn't negate your right to quit. The right to say no after a bad decision is more important than the right to start in the first place.

The fact that smoking is addictive just goes to show that there's going to be an enormous black market for cigars if a smoking ban is implemented. This sort of policy is disastrous -- it's just going to force us to waste more money on the failed "War on Drugs" effort, and exacerbate all of the problems that Mexico faces with drug cartels.

A black market is not an argument for legalization. There's a massive black market for assassination and murder, but those shouldn't be legal. Also, by what means is the war of drugs a failure? All accounts claiming so are based on status quo... Drug still exist (or are 5% higher now than a year ago, or w/e), therefore the war failed. In truth, the war has helped end the cocaine epidemic, and is likely the reason why drugs are still largely underground. Marijuana is the only drug managing to thrive in the drug war, and that's only because legalization is such a big topic.

The drug cartels only earn half of their money from drugs. They are powerful because of weak governments in Middle America. Not because of the size of the black market.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 8:13:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 7:19:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/19/2015 6:50:07 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:

A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned. It's arguable that things like TV and junk food have, on balance, brought about more harm than good. Does that mean they should be banned? Of course not. That's why utilitarians refer to the Harm Principle for this sort of thing.

It does from a Utilitarian point of view. And when most of those harms are on people without their consent, it does.

No... literally no utilitarian claims that acts should be criminalized on the basis of aggregate utility calculations. It's way too subjective to be an acceptable framework for deciding government policy with. Swimming pools kill thousands of children per year, yet provide enjoyment to millions more. Same for junk food. How do you weigh those harms and benefits against each other? You can't. Not objectively. That's why utilitarianism's *founder* (John Stuart Mill) came up with the Harm Principle to deal with issues of government policy, and why the majority of utilitarians ascribe to it.


1 - Costs of Smoking.

It seems that all the stuff you said about economics merely serves as a filler argument, and that the second-hand smoke argument is what your case is really riding on, so I'll just focus on that instead.


2 - Secondhand Effects.

Simple solution -- ban smoking outside of private property.

I've already explained in my case why that won't work. You literally ignored the whole case. Smoking in homes infect homes nearby, and secondhand smoke carries over to thirdhand smoke. Plus children live in homes. In fact, the worst secondhand effects are from household-based interactions with smoke.

That's simply a matter of putting more regulations in place. Require consent from family members before allowing non-single smokers to smoke inside the house. Smokers who don't have consent can instead go to public smoking zones to smoke. In apartment complexes, landlords already have the right to confront their tenants about things like smoking. There's tons of proposals for "smoke-free laws" out there, and many of them have proven to be highly effective in case-studies. Also, I'm not really buying that smoking outside the house has significant carry-over effects to other houses. Cite your source.


3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

They got themselves addicted. It's common knowledge that smoking can become addictive, and nowadays it even says as much on the packages. People are free to be careful with how often they smoke, or even abstain from starting in the first place. Moreover, it is possible to become unaddicted if you seek out help from the right places.

Getting yourself addicted doesn't negate your right to quit. The right to say no after a bad decision is more important than the right to start in the first place.

Bare assertion. And anyways, like I said, they CAN quit if they really want to...


A black market is not an argument for legalization. There's a massive black market for assassination and murder, but those shouldn't be legal.

Lmao, there's an enormous difference between murder and smoking, and you know it. The former is inherently a violation of someone's right to life. The latter only results in a rights violation if it's repeatedly performed without caution for an extended time period.

Also, by what means is the war of drugs a failure? All accounts claiming so are based on status quo... Drug still exist (or are 5% higher now than a year ago, or w/e), therefore the war failed. In truth, the war has helped end the cocaine epidemic, and is likely the reason why drugs are still largely underground. Marijuana is the only drug managing to thrive in the drug war, and that's only because legalization is such a big topic.

Drug usage is still alive and well in this country. That's not disputable.


The drug cartels only earn half of their money from drugs. They are powerful because of weak governments in Middle America. Not because of the size of the black market.

That doesn't mean that a financial boost won't make them substantially stronger. The policy you're advocating just adds tobacco to their list as another major source of revenue -- it's literally like volunteering to help fund their efforts.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:40:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 8:13:37 AM, spacetime wrote:
A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned.
I disagree with this point. If something produces more net harm than net benefit, we shouldn't have it. I don't think the examples you cite (i.e. junk food) actually fall within that category, but that in itself is debatable.
Senpai has noticed you.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:50:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Who are the debaters?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 3:56:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:40:15 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 12/19/2015 8:13:37 AM, spacetime wrote:
A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned.
I disagree with this point. If something produces more net harm than net benefit, we shouldn't have it. I don't think the examples you cite (i.e. junk food) actually fall within that category, but that in itself is debatable.

I'll c/p what I wrote to DK:

Literally no utilitarian claims that acts should be criminalized on the basis of aggregate utility calculations. It's way too subjective to be an acceptable framework for deciding government policy with. Swimming pools kill thousands of children per year, yet provide enjoyment to millions more. How do you weigh those harms and benefits against each other? How can you determine that the happiness of millions is worth the deaths of thousands? You can't. Not objectively. That's why utilitarianism's *founder* (John Stuart Mill) came up with the Harm Principle to deal with issues of government policy, and why the majority of utilitarians ascribe to it.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:14:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 1:50:19 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Who are the debaters?

Any one who wants to debate. It's a forum debate
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:45:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 3:56:43 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/19/2015 12:40:15 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 12/19/2015 8:13:37 AM, spacetime wrote:
A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned.
I disagree with this point. If something produces more net harm than net benefit, we shouldn't have it. I don't think the examples you cite (i.e. junk food) actually fall within that category, but that in itself is debatable.

I'll c/p what I wrote to DK:

Literally no utilitarian claims that acts should be criminalized on the basis of aggregate utility calculations. It's way too subjective to be an acceptable framework for deciding government policy with. Swimming pools kill thousands of children per year, yet provide enjoyment to millions more. How do you weigh those harms and benefits against each other? How can you determine that the happiness of millions is worth the deaths of thousands? You can't. Not objectively. That's why utilitarianism's *founder* (John Stuart Mill) came up with the Harm Principle to deal with issues of government policy, and why the majority of utilitarians ascribe to it.

You can't objectively prove anything. Objective moral truth and value judgments don't exist. All moral value standards are necessarily subjective. That doesn't make them any less meaningful. I subjectively value human lives. I subjectively value majority human lives. I also subjectively value my life.
My philosophical ideology is as close to nihilism as you could probably get, so maybe we agree on more than we disagree. :)
Senpai has noticed you.
kingkd
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:56:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

*** Have at me ***

Pick me donald I have experience in this topic
The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper
-Barack Obama
"I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more."
airmax1227
"Water is wet."
airmax1227
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 10:02:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 9:56:12 PM, kingkd wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

*** Have at me ***

Pick me donald I have experience in this topic

Lol this isn't a Census debate... just a census thread. Like a forum debate. You can particapate freely.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 10:54:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 9:45:52 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 12/19/2015 3:56:43 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/19/2015 12:40:15 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 12/19/2015 8:13:37 AM, spacetime wrote:
A general critique of your approach here is that just because something has more harms than benefits doesn't mean it should be banned.
I disagree with this point. If something produces more net harm than net benefit, we shouldn't have it. I don't think the examples you cite (i.e. junk food) actually fall within that category, but that in itself is debatable.

I'll c/p what I wrote to DK:

Literally no utilitarian claims that acts should be criminalized on the basis of aggregate utility calculations. It's way too subjective to be an acceptable framework for deciding government policy with. Swimming pools kill thousands of children per year, yet provide enjoyment to millions more. How do you weigh those harms and benefits against each other? How can you determine that the happiness of millions is worth the deaths of thousands? You can't. Not objectively. That's why utilitarianism's *founder* (John Stuart Mill) came up with the Harm Principle to deal with issues of government policy, and why the majority of utilitarians ascribe to it.

You can't objectively prove anything. Objective moral truth and value judgments don't exist. All moral value standards are necessarily subjective. That doesn't make them any less meaningful. I subjectively value human lives. I subjectively value majority human lives. I also subjectively value my life.
My philosophical ideology is as close to nihilism as you could probably get, so maybe we agree on more than we disagree. :)

I'm a moral subjectivist as well. But we need some sort of consistent framework to decide government policy with in order to properly function as a society, and for that purpose, I advocate a pragmatic ethical approach. Pragmatism operates upon the subjective values that society as a whole tends to uphold -- in other words, the "common sense" view. Banning everything which can be construed as harmful (on balance) is not pragmatically feasible because it would also entail banning things like junk food and swimming pools.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 10:54:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 10:02:37 PM, donald.keller wrote:

Lol this isn't a Census debate... just a census thread. Like a forum debate. You can particapate freely.

Indeed. Feel free to participate...
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:40:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 10:54:13 PM, spacetime wrote:
I'm a moral subjectivist as well. But we need some sort of consistent framework to decide government policy with in order to properly function as a society, and for that purpose, I advocate a pragmatic ethical approach. Pragmatism operates upon the subjective values that society as a whole tends to uphold -- in other words, the "common sense" view. Banning everything which can be construed as harmful (on balance) is not pragmatically feasible because it would also entail banning things like junk food and swimming pools.

Maybe I'm reading your stance incorrectly, but it appears as if you are conflating 'everything that is harmful' with 'everything that produces more net harm than benefit/good'
There are harmful things that are ultimately more beneficial than harmful. Indeed, I would agree that banning 'everything that is harmful' is pretty stupid, but some things are more harmful than good. The latter I would definitely agree to ban.
Of course, how to gauge whether or not something is more harmful than good is subjective. I would use standards like human life, economic societal benefit, suffering/happiness, etc.
For example, I think the fast food industry produces more good than it does harm in the jobs that it creates, lives that it sustains, food that it provides at prices that are manageable for the majority of the populace, etc. Those factors outweigh factors like obesity imo. Personally (and subjectively) I don't think your example negates as strongly as you might think.
Not that I'm supporting utilitarianism, I'm merely supporting the subjective notion that things that are more harmful than good should not be implemented. :)
Senpai has noticed you.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:43:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
On that note, if smoking produces more harm (factors such as death, health deterioration, suffering) than good (factors such as "free will" and happiness), then I think a ban is reasonable.
Senpai has noticed you.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:44:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
And of course each factor has its own asserted spectrum/scale of moral weight value
Senpai has noticed you.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:20:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 7:43:35 AM, Beginner wrote:
On that note, if smoking produces more harm (factors such as death, health deterioration, suffering) than good (factors such as "free will" and happiness), then I think a ban is reasonable.

Well I feel smoking, being as addictive as it is, is restrictive of free will. As I stated in my case, the right to say no outweighs all rights of choice, even the right to say yes in the first place (if the right to say yes negates all future rights to say no, for example).
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:24:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:20:28 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/20/2015 7:43:35 AM, Beginner wrote:
On that note, if smoking produces more harm (factors such as death, health deterioration, suffering) than good (factors such as "free will" and happiness), then I think a ban is reasonable.

Well I feel smoking, being as addictive as it is, is restrictive of free will. As I stated in my case, the right to say no outweighs all rights of choice, even the right to say yes in the first place (if the right to say yes negates all future rights to say no, for example).

Ah yeah. That's an issue I also have with smoking. What if it's not the person saying yes/no? What if it's the drug addiction making them say yes/no? The one-time right to say 'yes' with clear unaffected judgment is negated, imo, by the loss of the ability to say no in the future (due to addiction)
Senpai has noticed you.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:20:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Number 3 is imo not much of an argument. It is flatly incorrect to suggest that smokers cannot choose to stop smoking. Addiction is a risk associated with smoking, but it is also a risk associated with many things, such as coffee, fatty foods, sex etc. In fact, non substance addictions (re: psychological manias) are all examples of things that cannot be banned no matter how much control you have over a populace.

The 'line' which you'd need to draw to determine what substances are too risky in terms of addiction would be too subjective to significantly substantiate into a compelling case requiring a change in law.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:22:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

The argument was good.


2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

Nice


3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

I don't think this is much of an argument.


*** Have at me ***
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:00:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 7:40:49 AM, Beginner wrote:
At 12/19/2015 10:54:13 PM, spacetime wrote:
I'm a moral subjectivist as well. But we need some sort of consistent framework to decide government policy with in order to properly function as a society, and for that purpose, I advocate a pragmatic ethical approach. Pragmatism operates upon the subjective values that society as a whole tends to uphold -- in other words, the "common sense" view. Banning everything which can be construed as harmful (on balance) is not pragmatically feasible because it would also entail banning things like junk food and swimming pools.

Maybe I'm reading your stance incorrectly, but it appears as if you are conflating 'everything that is harmful' with 'everything that produces more net harm than benefit/good'

No, I understand that. Which is why I added "on balance."

There are harmful things that are ultimately more beneficial than harmful. Indeed, I would agree that banning 'everything that is harmful' is pretty stupid, but some things are more harmful than good. The latter I would definitely agree to ban.
Of course, how to gauge whether or not something is more harmful than good is subjective. I would use standards like human life, economic societal benefit, suffering/happiness, etc.
For example, I think the fast food industry produces more good than it does harm in the jobs that it creates, lives that it sustains, food that it provides at prices that are manageable for the majority of the populace, etc. Those factors outweigh factors like obesity imo.

Many would disagree with your assessment that the benefits of junk food outweigh the harms (widespread health problems). Many would also disagree with the harms of smoking outweigh the benefits (pleasure and relaxation). Violent videos games, pornography, swimming pools, alcohol, and even motor vehicles... any of those can be subjectively construed as being an overall detriment to society.

Personally (and subjectively) I don't think your example negates as strongly as you might think.
Not that I'm supporting utilitarianism, I'm merely supporting the subjective notion that things that are more harmful than good should not be implemented. :)

Exactly. You yourself acknowledge that these utilitarian calculations are incredibly subjective, and that's precisely why it isn't a viable framework for deciding government policy with. For that purpose, we need a more consistent mechanism. Like I already said, the pragmatic approach is far superior to the utilitarian approach because it takes into account the subjectivity of morality, and functions off the "common sense" values that society as a whole tends to uphold. Under pragmatism, given American society's value on personal autonomy and the patent absurdity of banning everything which can be subjectively construed as harmful, it is obviously not permissible to ban smoking. Not based on DK's cost/benefit arguments, anyways. Even hardcore utilitarians have recognized that DK's approach is flawed, and have come up with the Harm Principle to keep their ethical system consistent with society's values. Rather than banning smoking, the government should just regulate it to minimize its harms.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
kingkd
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:23:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Secondhand smoke is the biggest iproblem here imo. Nothing outweighs it
The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper
-Barack Obama
"I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more."
airmax1227
"Water is wet."
airmax1227
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:38:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:00:20 PM, spacetime wrote:

Many would disagree with your assessment that the benefits of junk food outweigh the harms (widespread health problems). Many would also disagree with the harms of smoking outweigh the benefits (pleasure and relaxation). Violent videos games, pornography, swimming pools, alcohol, and even motor vehicles... any of those can be subjectively construed as being an overall detriment to society.

To be clear, I'm saying aggregate utility calculations are subjective in the sense that you can't weigh things like happiness and death against each other. How much happiness does something have to generate before it's worth the death of one person? How many more deaths would violent video games have to cause before it becomes justifiable to ban them? How much more pleasure would smoking have to bring to make it worth keeping legal? Like with all questions of morality, the answers depend on how much moral value you put on life, happiness, suffering, autonomy, etc -- they will vary from person to person.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:54:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:23:35 PM, kingkd wrote:
Secondhand smoke is the biggest iproblem here imo. Nothing outweighs it

If an activity inadvertently results in harm to others under certain circumstances, what's the appropriate solution -- completely banning it, or regulating it to minimize the occurrence of those "circumstances"? Because under the former option, you would also have to ban driving, playing sports, drinking alcohol, shooting guns, and a sh!tload of other things.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:09:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

*** Have at me ***

I won't have at you because people like you make life for everyone suck. I will just not associate with you do business with you or help you in anyway. If I see you in trouble I will let you die.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:18:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:09:35 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

*** Have at me ***

I won't have at you because people like you make life for everyone suck. I will just not associate with you do business with you or help you in anyway. If I see you in trouble I will let you die.

Have fun with that.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:23:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:18:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:09:35 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The thread will start off on a controversial topic, where I post arguments to start the debate. (Remember, I am not the only person you are debating, and if you agree with my side, feel free to give your own arguments separate of mine.)

DDO Census: Planned Parenthood (http://www.debate.org...)

Rules of Debate:
- Keep clean.
- Don't overly spam someone. They should feel encouraged to partake.
- No "this belongs in X forum" posts. This series will move over many forum topics, and it's easier to just keep it in one forum. Plus it's a series, so it's better to post it here.

Remember, this thread is for everyone, Pro and Con.

=== Topic ===

The Federal Government should Ban Smoking.

=== Arguments ===
I will throw out arguments to start the debate. These are not necessarily arguments I may use in an actual debate.

1 - Costs of Smoking.

The costs of smoking far exceed the benefits. The Tobacco Industry is what can be considered an inwardly benefiting industry... It does little to grow industries outside of itself. Unlike, say, the auto industry which employs materials, labor, and services from a wide range of industries, cigarettes do not. This means that money spent in this industry is lost on it, harming other areas of the economy. The industry meets the very definition of wasteful spending. Smoking is assumed to cost the average user as much as $2 million in a lifetime (http://time.com...)

Along with these costs, there are also costs to ourselves. $140 bn is wasted a year trying to fix smoking-caused issues in the US alone. The Government spends tens of billions in medical assistance. Almost $150 billion is lost in lost revenue and labor due to deaths and sickness from smoking.

And the loss of personal income to cigarettes ($3,000 a year for a pack a day, assuming only one parent smokes) can harm the household financially, including harming all the children involved.

2 - Secondhand Effects.

Secondhand Effects hurt tens of millions a year. Five million children are assumed to die early because of secondhand effects. This violates the right to bodily autonomy and right to life, as these children had no choice. Smoking outside the house, and even in another apartment, is ineffective at preventing secondhand effects. It's now believed thirdhand effects exist as well.

SHS has killed 2.5 million non-smoking Americans, and causes 34,000+ heart disease deaths each year among non-smokers. These deaths were a direct violation of a number of rights far more important than the right to smoke. The right to life, right to security of self and future, and bodily autonomy are harmed by smoking, negating the smoker's own personal bodily autonomy.

Smoking can cost someone tens of thousands in their life, despite having never touched a cigarette.

3 - Smoking Violates the Smoker's Rights.

The right to say yes once is negated by the removal of that very right. The most important right, more than any other, is the right to say no. If something revokes that right, all choice is lost. Getting to chose between 20 brands of cigarettes, but not getting the right to say no to them, is not freedom of choice. Smoking is corporate invasion of basic human rights. Million of people wish to quit smoking, but can't because their inherent right to say no to cigarettes is negated by the drug.

Companies profiting off people's inability to quit their product... A product that kills them and tens of thousand others each year, is no different than a company profiting off slavery.

*** Have at me ***

I won't have at you because people like you make life for everyone suck. I will just not associate with you do business with you or help you in anyway. If I see you in trouble I will let you die.

Have fun with that.

I am indifferent, I need do nothing. You on the other hand have to convene a group of fascist aholes and cram your fascist views down peoples throats at gun point using law enforcement as your jackbooted thugs.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%