This house would not ban smoking #1

As the rule of debate states, I will proceed with rebuttal to Con’s argument. Before that, I’d like to amend to what Con said is the essence of the debate. It is very true we should discuss if the harm of cigarette is bad enough for it to be banned. But we also cannot forget to evaluate the plausibility of the motion. Rebuttal 1: Addiction The addictive nature of cigarette can be defended in few aspects. I will show why we can’t simply argue that smoking is not a rational choice made by people. It is an excuse. Firstly, not everyone is required to smoke. Individuals make cognitive and decisive movement to start smoking. It is true that some cases individuals get into smoking due to peer pressure but they still have the final say to smoke or not. Secondly, smokers will be frequently suggested not to smoke by parents, spouses, children or even friends. Smokers are given opportunities and reasons as to why they might stop smoking. It is not like smokers are left alone, being driven only by their desire to smoke. Smokers are also fully aware of harms of cigarette. By choosing to continue smoking habit despite advices from loved ones and full comprehension to the harm, the action of smoking is pretty rational. Thirdly, smokers do not have to smoke. There are nicotine patches, nicotine gums, and electronic cigarettes that helps a smoker in many different ways to abstain from smoking. Government and cigarette company also launches program to help people suffering from addiction. There are alternatives, programs, family, friends, children and loved ones that will encourage and help in one’s process of quitting smoking. One has to ignore all these factors to be still smoking. It is not a valid excuse to say “it’s addictive” to provide reasons why so many people fail to abstain smoking. Rebuttal 2: Fatalities Now the figure that Con gave regarding deaths caused by cigarette is very questionable. Drug-related deaths figures are very often inaccurate since it depends on method the victim consumed. In most cases, death with victims that had two or more kinds of drug at the point of death counts for all the drugs that were seen in the body [1]. Not only that, it is impossible to confirm cigarette usage was the direct cause of death. I do not disagree that cigarette is very harmful to health. Nevertheless, it is only an indirect cause. We can’t know if the critical reason of death was solely due to smoking habit. Moreover, smokers do not die within just a year of smoking. It takes decades and decades for one’s health to be increasingly deteriorated just because of cigarette. During the decades, one has countless reasons and chances to quit smoking. They can always quit if they try really hard. Referring back to the motion, we need to discuss if the harm is enough. I have shown that the number my opponent gave is inaccurate to begin with and also showed it takes decades and decades for one’s health to be at risk purely because of smoking habit. Try eating McDonalds every day for 40 years. Won’t that cause so-called ‘deaths” as well? Rebuttal 3: Society Con gave interesting argument regarding how smoking hurts society. His point “smoking is expensive” and “smoking ruins communities” both falls under this category. On his point “smoking is expensive”, he complained that ordinary citizen will have to pay for hospitals for smokers while he advocates and protects the society. This is a contradiction because smokers are part of the society as well. They deserve to be treated in hospitals. Complaining to pay tax to cure victims of cigarette is already very anti-social. Are smokers not citizen? They in fact make up around 40% of the entire population of the US. When nonsmokers get sick, won’t they be treated with tax that smokers paid? Smokers create huge tax revenue. Regardless, they do not complain about tax revenue they created being used for other purposes. Cigarette is not also a direct cause to diseases. Just about anyone can get sick. One has to contribute to the society to benefit. Moving on to the argument that smoking ruins communities through means of second hand smoking, I have a very simple alternative. Prohibit them in public places like we are doing right now. In the case of Gangnam District of Seoul, smoking is banned on roads [2]. Restaurants have discretion to prohibit smoking as well. Potential harm that cigarette might inflict on society can be prevented very easily. Now regarding how smoking splits family, I would just like to say normal families won’t separate just because of one habit. That is not the spirit of family. You forgive, tolerant and persuade. Through discipline and humanity, social harms that smoking inflicts can be and are already eliminated. Rebuttal 4: Personal Freedom My opponent questioned the point of smoking in the first place. Smoking is a recreational habit that might help one release stress and can also serve as socializing method just like alcohol. But regardless, it is very irreverent and the reason why “point of smoking” relates back to my previous argument. It is spirit of democracy. No matter how pointless an action can be, it is up for individuals to decide. Smoking, which can be harm-free to the society under disciplines, should not be banned just because it is allegedly pointless when it is not pointless. We ban things that cause harm to society. I have shown smoking can be arranged to cause minimal harm to the society. I also have shown that deaths related to smoking are inaccurate. Now it is up for individuals to decide if they want to smoke or not. We don’t just ban things. I wait for my Con’s defense and rebuttal to be previous argument. [1] . http://www.tdpf.org.uk...; [2] . http://www.theappl.com...