This house would not ban smoking #1

The essence of this debate comes down mainly to three parts. I will highlight each part and show at the end of the day how Con misinterpreted the case and has lost on those points. Essence 1: Harms to the users Down the bench in this debate, Con continuously discussed that cigarette is harmful but he never was able to connect that premise to this motion, discussing if there is a legitimate excuse to completely ban cigarette. I will point out how harm that Con talked about does not equal to legal reasons to ban cigarette. Firstly, the harm that my opponent is talking about is surely exaggerated and radical. As I have mentioned, researches shows on average, smoking habit only can shorten one’s life for about ten years. It is also a truth that it takes a long time for habitual smoker to have recognizable vulnerability to diseases. It takes about 40 years for one to finally have him/her life threatened by cigarette. Secondly, reasons for “death by cigarette” also include a lot of other factors such as exercising habit, dietary habit, lifestyle and etc. There is so much more than smoking habit. Cigarette is a scapegoat in this situation. What my opponent is doing here is similar to blaming Ford for all deaths caused on road by Ford cars, blaming Heineken for murders and rapes committed by criminals under the influence of alcohol. Thirdly, the addition of cigarette is drastically different than that of illegal drugs. Though cigarette might be addictive, the addiction is controllable. My opponent’s argument that smoking is no longer a choice will only work in case like cocaine where addiction simply cannot be quit without help. As to cigarette, it is very possible to quit with strong. Indeed there are countless cases where smokers succeed in quitting. It is just that it is hard. When it is so possible to quit on your own, how can one ever claim smokers are no longer smoking on their own volition? The fact that many people fail to quit smoking does not prove anything on my opponent’s premise that smoking is no longer people’s will. Just because many people fail to quit, it does not prove the extremely addictive nature of an object. Many fail losing weight but it does not mean overeating is addictive. There is a reason why gambling, alcohol, game and cigarette are legal when cocaine, heroin and ecstasy are illegal. The essence is the strength of addiction. Those things that are legal can be quitted by one’s volition whereas illegal drugs cannot be quitted without external help. Bottom line, my opponent’s claim that addictive nature of cigarette means that smokers are no longer exercising freedom to smoke falls completely flat. Do you ever see a smoker running desperately to 7/11 to buy a pack of cigarette and suck on them crazily, like how a drug addict might? Smokers are definitely choosing to smoke. Essence 2: Harms to others Even on this, it is evident my opponent exaggerated and misinterpreted. He enforced the idea of second hand smoking is analogous to murder. I will combat this shortly. As given from my previous examples, smoking is illegal in public. As my opponent correctly argued, the action of smoking is quite unique which makes capture of smokers in public place noticeable. Law does not protect every freedom. Governments are free to encourage smokers to smoke less and prohibit them to harm others in public but governments cannot intervene more than that since anymore sanction than that, the government will have no legal ground to enforce. As for situations where nonsmokers have to be with smokers, there are so many alternatives. My dad used to be a smoker and he only smoked in one particular room of the house. This is actually very common in families where smoking member smokes in isolation to prevent secondhand smoking. The situation is simple, unlike how my opponent views pessimistically. Con also said smoking will ruin families and the community. In response to that, I would like highlight cigarettes nowadays are legal and yet there are no cases of the entire community and families breaking down by cigarette. Essence 3: Plausible legal grounds to enforce a total ban This is the burden of proof that my opponent carried and failed. I ask voters to focus deeply into this part. He successfully explained some reasons why smoking might be harmful but he never landed those ideas to the motion. This debate was evaluating if there is an enough ground for a government to enforce a total ban based on the status quo. Before I start analyzing this main essence, I would first like to state that there is no problem in the status quo to deal with. Why shouldn’t cigarette be categorized under illegal drug? The reason is that in many different ways, cigarette is not nearly as harmful as illegal drug. Let alone the fact that cigarette can be quitted with one’s strong will when illegal drug cannot, the harm that illegal drugs cause to human body is incomparable with cigarette. Again, it takes a long-term abuse for one’s life to be susceptible to death. Viewing from the fact that only one country on the entire globe forbids cigarette, countries view the type of harm that cigarette causes to be insufficient ground for a total ban. There are also other things that are legal and should be legal and yet are analogous. For example, alcohol is an unhealthy substance that causes many problems but is perfectly legal. However, we know reasonable usage of alcohol does not cause critical damage to one’s health, and for that reason, alcohols and cigarette should stay legalized. Another analogy is teenage dating and game that are roots to many teenage problems. But does a government forbid teenage dating just because it causes problem? That type of privacy intrusion is not justifiable and is against right to pursue happiness. Lack of “benefit” does not mean a ban. Smoking is a recreational activity. Con fails to see the reality. If smoking was so painful and not enjoyable, are all smokers’ masochists to put a pain on themselves voluntarily? Also, Con is over relaying on the figure that 70% of smokers want to quit smoking. But majority wanting to quit does not disprove enjoyable nature of smoking. Game addicts will want to quit game but that does not mean games are boring. Put simple, my opponent’s statistics mean nothing. It is not the role of government to decide of a certain recreational activity is pointless or not. Governments do not intervene with personal choice to drink vodka until 3 a.m. in the night though it benefits no one but is harmful just like cigarette. By saying we should ban cigarette, we are also saying such behavior I stated above should be banned too. What does the court says? On lawsuits where cigarette companies were sued by sick, vast majority of the court verdicts admitted the fact that cigarette contributes in diseases but cigarette companies should not be legally accountable since cigarette itself is nothing to blame. The law does not even force cigarette companies to pay for the loss of individual smokers. That already proves that there are no legal ground for cigarette to be blamed for one’s death from cigarette since the potential harm was warned. Then how can the same law impose a total ban on cigarette? Cigarette is not a scapegoat to start blaming for one’s bad decision. There are social smokers who only smoke on some occasions. If we ban cigarette that is unlike illegal drugs, it opens up window for anything harmful to be banned. Games cause harm to children in many ways and is also addictive but can a government ever force a child not to play any game? Government can protect and try to help out but their action to ban is crossing the line. The spirit of democracy is not where governments babysit the nation. Conclusion Blaming cigarette and calling a ban is analogous to blaming Heineken and Ford for death caused by drunk-driving. Cigarette itself does not carry enough harm to be illegal. People should stop finding scapegoats.