The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks ( Take 2 )

That said, I will start with my arguments. I would also like to clarify that,Argument 1: Tobacco is recognized for its medicinal properties by Native Americans. As represnted by video provided, Tobacco seems to be recognized for its medicinal perperties, as it has been for centuries (see link in paragraph two of round one in the original debate). The group heard in the video is the "Dream Seekers Native American Youth Group" [1] In fact, it is viewed as a "sacred medicine". I would like to turn the attention of my opponent and my audience to this diagram: Shown above is the Medicine Wheel, which is divided up into five parts. The eastern part (shaded yellow) is understood to include the sacred medicine of tobacco. An excerpt on the Native American view of tobacco provided here:"Tobacco (the East) is held as a scared plant by most First Nations peoples. Tobacco connects us to the spirit world; it absorbs prayers and carries them to the spirit world. If a request is accompanied by an offer of tobacco that is accepted, the promise must be honoured. Tobacco can also be used to thank the Creator for his gifts: if you enjoyed good weather, you could leave some tobacco on the ground, and say thank you for the gift. Tobacco is generally not smoked, except on special ceremonial occasions" [2]As implied by the video shown, and the evidence provided here, the benefits of smoking tobacco in a responsible context apparently outweighs the risks involved. Argument 2: Anti-Smoking campaigns are not incredibly honest. It would come as no surprise that the tobacco companies would be dishonest concerning their products, because that is how the people in charge can earn money and making a living to support themselves and their families; but what most people do not notice is that anti-smoking campaigns, too, are not telling the entire truth about the risks of smoking tobacco. Worse, they make baseless claims, portraying smokers as filthy people deviants one minute, then as weak cancer sufferers the next. Consider the following image: There are several logical issues associated with this single advertisement.1. Style over Substance: Using the slogan "A Tip from a Former Smoker" is an example of the Argument by Slogan fallacy. This is when "a slogan (catchy phrase) is taken as truth because it sounds good and we might be used to hearing it" [3]2. Argumentum in Terrorum: The faded colors, horrifying imagery, and the quote "record your voice for your loved ones while you still can" appear to have been created to "scare smokers straight. " This is an example of an Argumentum in Terrorem: you cannot prove something to be true with fear. An Argumentum in Terrorem acts as thus: "If you don’t accept X as true, something terrible will happen to you. Therefore, X must be true. "[3.2] I could just as easily say that, if x person does not believe in God, then x person will suffer in hell eternally. The logic does not follow.3. Confirmation Bias: How many smokers do the voters and my opponent see who look like this woman? I would assume not many. In my lifetime, I've only known one smoker to have a stoma. The likelihood of developing cancer from smoking is actually quite small (I will be elaborating on that later). That said, anti-smokers would need to have filtered out all of the healthier smokers to find the people who have serious smoking problems at the bottom of the barrel - thus, the confirmation bias fallacy. Why all the fallacies? Why can't they just provide the evidence in these ads so that we can consider smoking tobacco rationally? To answer, listen to what anti-smoker Michael Siegel has to say about such a debate:"Do not get into arguments with the [tobacco] industry about the scientific evidence. This is exactly what the industry wants. It wants to draw public health practitioners into a debate . .. But all the industry needs to do to succeed is to create a debate. This will cast doubt in people's minds and convince the public and policy makers that there is some sort of controversy or debate out there over the health effects of secondhand smoke. This is, of course, not at all true. There is no debate in the scientific community. But the perception of a debate or controversy may be all that is needed to sway policy makers against voting for clean indoor air legislation. " [4]There is no debate? There is always a debate, no ifs, ands, or buts. Discouraging debate is the equivalent to discouraging rational and free thinking. Argument 3: The health benefits of smoking tobacco. So if the Native Americans believe tobacco can be a good thing, and anti-smoking campaigns are dishonest, what health benefits of smoking are there then? Believe it or not, many. A short list compiled by FORCES included these health benefits to smoking, along with links providing information on the scientific studies which discovered them:- "Smoking protects against parkinson's disease"- "Smoking improves human information processing"- "Higher nicotine cigarettes produce greater improvements [in information processing] than low nicotine cigarettes"- "Nicotine can reverse the detrimental effects of scopolamine on performance"- "Smoking effects are accompanied by increases in EEG arousal and decreases in the latency of the positive late component of the evoked potential. "- "Smokers in general are thinner than non-smokers, even when they ingest more calories"- " ". .. All smokers had less plaque, gingival inflammation and tooth mobility than nonsmokers and similar periodontal pocket depth. " "- "Smokers have lower incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis than nonsmokers"- " "Hypertension and postpartum hemorrhage were lower in smokers" "- "RBCs [red blood cells] from cigarette smokers contain more glutathione and catalase and protect lung endothelial cells against O2 [dioxide] metabolites better than RBCs from nonsmokers. "- "There is a low prevalence of smoking in ulcerative colitis. This disease often starts or relapses after stopping smoking. "- "Smokers have a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease than nonsmokers- "Urinary cotinine concentration has confirmed the reduced risk of preeclampsia with tobacco exposure. "- "smoking may protect against neural tube defects. "- "Maternal smoking may hinder mother-child transmission of Helicobacter Pylori infection. "- "Research indicates that nicotine holds potential for non-surgical heart by-pass procedures. "- "Nicotine has positive effects on cognitive performance in Down's syndrome. "- "Nicotine has a positive effect on inflammatory bowel syndrome. "- "Not ONE of the over 100 diseases attributed to smoking can be PROVEN by sound scientific methodology to be "caused" by smoking. "[4]And finally, in terms of secondhand smoke,- "The huge passive smoke study the WHO tried to bury clearly shows that passive smoke has a protective effect on those who are close to the smoker . .. Moreover, of the 100+ studies performed to date on passive smoking, only a small, minor one has shown a statistically significant increase of risk for the non smokers. All the others have not. " [4]Argument 4: "Smoking does not cause Lung Cancer (according to WHO/CDC data)" James P. Siepmann, MD [5]I would argue that smoking packs upon packs of cigarettes a day may be a problem, responsible use of cigarettes can have benefits, and more, have very low risks for developing cancer. "Would you believe that the real number [of smokers contracting lung cancer] is <10%? "(Siepmann, M. D. ) [5]In fact, I would encourage my opponent and the voters to take a look at the data collected here: . http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...and here. http://www.lcolby.com...That, although smoking rates have gone down in the past several decades, cancer rates have shot up. Clearly, if smoking were the culprit for cancer, wouldn't these cancer rates have decreased? Furthermore, the data provided here . http://www.lcolby.com...shows that, although Japan is notorious for having the most smokers, it also has some of the healthiest people in all of the world. "Furthermore, although they have the highest smoking rate of any major nation, the Japanese are remarkably healthy! At birth, a Japanese male has a whopping life expectancy of 75 years (as opposed to 72 in the U. S. A. ). Japanese girls, at birth, have a life expectancy of 80 years. Those are the highest life expectancies in the entire world. "[6]It actually appears that smoking does not have much influence on the life expectancy of the smoker. In fact, many of the world's oldest were smokers, including- the actor Patrick McGoohan, who passed away at age 80- poet James Whitmore, who passed away at age 87- regular smoker Bir Narayan Chaudhuri, who "died prematurely" at the young, young age of 141. (yes, 141). - Sir John Mortimer, who passed away at the age of 85- And many others, as seen here: . http://www.forces.org...Concluding statement: In light of tobacco's medicinal history, its benefits, and the questionable nature of its opposition, it is clear that the act of smoking tobacco clearly contains benefits which outweighs the risks. Its benefits include prevention Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's, as well as improving human information processing, and many others. Upon reviewing the evidence, the resolution stands. [1] - . http://www.cdbaby.com...[2] - . http://www.med.uottawa.ca...[3.1] - . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[3.2] - . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[4] - . http://www.forces-nl.org...[5] - . http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...[6] - . http://www.lcolby.com...