This house would not ban smoking #3

I will just begin countering my opponent. Counter 1: Harm 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. Counter 2: Individual Choice On matter regarding individual freedom, Con argued since cigarette is so harmful and it is also addictive, tyrannical actions such as total ban of cigarette is justifiable. Both premises that Con’s idea forms on are inaccurate. Firstly, Con argued since cigarette is causing so much death for no reason, it should be banned. Nevertheless, Con failed to show exactly how cigarette is so bad and as bad as other drugs like cocaine. The truth is cigarette is not nearly as bad as drugs categorized as illegal. As I have explained, deaths due to cigarette are highly inflated and inaccurate. But not only that, cigarette usually causes far-future harms. It’s usually senior citizens that die indirectly by smoking. A string of time is taken for one’s continued smoking habit to cause serious harm. By the time cigarette normally affects one’s health substantially; one is most likely already at the age facing death. Research shows cigarette shortens about 10 years of one’s life. That much of harm is not nearly bad as other illegal drugs. Secondly, Con also argued about smoker’s harming the community and how nonsmokers have the right to not be hurt by cigarette smoke. That is exactly why smoking is already prohibited in some public places. I do not see any more intrusion of freedom (stopping them to smoke on streets) justifiable in any means. Smokers are already in situation where they can no longer harm others. Then are we saying we should ban cars since they emit pollutants? On the side note of my opponent discussing that smokers are the reason why nonsmoker will smoke, I consider that as totally irreverent. Nonsmokers in fact do start smoking out of curiosity but the reason why they smoke does not matter in discussing this motion, if there is practical and moral imperative of banning cigarette. Counter 3: Economic Benefits Con marginalized loss of the cigarette industry. However, it is not a minute loss. What else can be said about individuals losing their work and their company that they built their entire lives? And the reason for doing such thing is because smoking contributes in causing disease? Then should we shut all the alcohol companies down because crimes happen under intoxication? Are we saying we should destroy car industry since traffic accidents cause so much accident? How about someone who caused car accident after drinking? We ban both alcohol and car? That is what exactly statement “cigarette should be banned” is analogous to. Just because of its secondary effect that it contributes in causing, existence of cigarette as a whole is being blamed. We know cigarette is not nearly harmful as illegal drugs and it is not the job of government to decide the benefit of smoking. Just like game, it might not have any what my opponent might view was a benefit. But it is part of a hobby and a recreational activity that people should be given right to enjoy. Cocaine and cigarette is different by far. We are not saying we should keep something so dangerous like cocaine in the market. Can any government forbid one’s hobby of drinking until late in the night when it is obvious that hobby is harmful? No. Government has its limit though they have duty to protect its nations. Cigarette does not meet the standard of illegal drugs as I repeat so many times. Then why should we ban it? I await for my opponent’s next round.