The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

Regardless of how the cost has been paid, it is a cost nonetheless. The sheer magnitude of health-related cost (~ 193 billion in 5 years) is a real threat to the solvency of the national health care system. The American People do not Want it The principle invoked by my opponent is self-evidently untenable. My opponent apparently agrees (or at least does not disagree) that smoking is harmful. By asserting that: "We really should not force all these people to stop smoking that have been doing so all their life," con apparently suggests that "We should not keep all these people from harming themselves since they have been doing so all their lives. " By the same token, government perhaps should not ban drunk driving since for many irresponsible drivers, drunk driving is like a daily routine. The federal government has a legitimate interest in guarding one"s safety, and it should attempt to its best to prevent any harm falls upon its citizens. Concerning about the proposed solutions My opponent"s argument can be divided into three parts First, my opponent suggests that the proposed solution would not be effective since many young adults pay no heed to the law. [Young Adults] Second, pro suggests that the proposed solution fails to consider the loss of employment. [Jobs] Third, pro suggests that the cigarette industry would have to go underground and the situation could become even worse. [Industry] Young Adults "A 10% increase in price has been estimated to reduce overall cigarette consumption among adolescents and young adults by about 4%. " Since young adults have very limited income source, it is not unreasonable to assume that most of them are very sensitive to the price of the product. If a 10% increase in price has deterrent effect on the purchase of cigarettes, it is plausible to assume that the higher the price, the lower the sales of cigarettes. Young adults may not abide the currently law primarily because they could afford the purchases. If the sale price is increased to a prohibitive level, young adults would be deprived of the mean to purchase the items considered harmful to themselves. Therefore, it is not implausible to assume that the proposed solutions may work on young adults. Jobs My opponent also suggests that the loss of jobs offers a compelling reason to stop the government"s ban on smoking. However, by the same logic, one could equally assert that young adolescences should be allowed to drink in bars because the removal of this particular group of consumers would undoubtedly decrease the overall alcohol consumptions, thereby leading to job loss (less demand). What my opponent fails to consider is the fact that smoking is harmful, and it is therefore inappropriate to the general population. People should be taking care of themselves and learn to show respect to their bodies. Self-indulging is one step away from the self-destruction. Industry Unlike heroin, cigarette smoking is not prohibited in most of other nations around the world. In other words, heroin is illegal in almost all the countries whereas smoking is not. In order to reach his conclusion (go underground), my opponent must assume that tobacco industry would not survive without the help of domestic sales. The assertion is not true. As I have stressed, the industry could shift the focus from the domestic consumptions to international sales. By establishing a proper sales network, perhaps even with government subsidy, the tobacco industry could continue earning a substantial amount of profits in absent of domestic sales. Therefore, there is not sufficient reason to believe that the industry will necessarily go underground to combat the government ban. Why is cocaine illegal Muscle degeneration is one of the adverse effects experienced by many cocaine users. But it is not the main reason why cocaine is illegal. Cocaine is a Schedule II Narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule II control substance is defined as The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United Sates or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. The control act does not specify the adverse effect of each substance. Instead, cocaine falls under Schedule Ii control substance primarily because it has a high potential for abuse (addiction) and abuse of the cocaine lead to severe psychological or physical DEPENDENCE. Similarity vs. Difference Con suggests that since cocaine has a stronger effect on users (every 5 to 10 minutes) than nicotine, cocaine and cigarette are different. The stronger effect of is primarily because cocaine is manufactured and produced in a form with relatively high purity whereas the concentration of nicotine in cigarets is relatively low. However, Con overlooks the fact that cigarette smokers smoke repeatedly to accommodate the effect (consider how long it takes for one to finish one cigarette). The higher frequency of cigarette smoking compensates the weaker effect thereby making the cigarette smoking as danger as smoking cocaine. Besides, nicotine is merely one of the substance in cigarettes. There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 4,000 chemicals, ad many of them are carcinogenic. Cigarette smoking increases the risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung diseases and many other ailments. Smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States. Besides, more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Moreover, smoking causes an estimated 90% of al lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women. [1] The adverse effect of smoking cigarette is comparably strong to smoking cocaine, if not stronger. Therefore there are compelling reasons (health concerns, inflated health costs, and similarity between nicotine & cocaine) to ban the sales of cigarettes. Smoking Cessation Pro"s argument suggests that government intervention is not NECESSARY since there are alternative solutions available. However, what matters the most is not whether there are alternative AVAILABLE, but rather whether these alternatives are EFFECTIVE. The current statistics is not encouraging. Quitting isn"t easy. About 70 percent of smokers want to quite, and about 40 percent make an attempt to stop smoking each year. [2] However, quitting for good often requires multiple attempts. Nicotine is highly additive. By attempting to refrain from smoking, body goes into nicotine withdrawal. In other words, smokers who attempt to quit smoking are in fact fighting against their own desires, a grueling process that only the strongest men can endure. If over 70% of people eventually regret what they have done, why shouldn"t government be allowed to ban the use right from the beginning? Thank you. [1]. . http://www.cdc.gov... [2]. . http://www.everydayhealth.com...