Smoking Should be Banned

From the outset I would like to dismantle the attempt at defining smoking by my opponent. They claim that smoking is a "choice" made by someone. Well, when someone is walking behind a smoker and they inhale the sidestream smoke, they are not making the choice of inhaling the tobacco smoke, rather they are just naturally breathing and this tobacco smoke just happens to be polluting the air space at that time. Secondly, you do not inhale tobacco, you inhale the smoke from burning tobacco. Rebuttal 1 -- My opponent makes the bold statement that if tobacco were to be banned, it would result in economic problems. Firstly, the contribution of tobacco money to the economy of a nation is grossly overstated. Whilst, a few billions of dollars may be brought in each year from various exports and taxes; this shrinks in size when compared with the $200 billion dollars lost a year dealing with the negative consequences of tobacco. (1) On the topic of jobs, would it not be commendable for a government to stop people from making death dealing drugs and instead move them into a job or career where they could actually benefit their nation and contribute to the strain placed upon their hospitals. Rebuttal 2 -- The economic aspect is dealt with in Rebuttal 1 but I would like to make the point as to whether money is more important than 6 million human lives a year. Moreover, the cultivation of tobacco can be economically detrimental to developing countries. When resources are put into tobacco production they are taken away from food production. Large amounts of firewood that could be used domestically for fuel and heating are instead used for the curing of tobacco. Rebuttal 3 -- Tobacco contains a compound called nicotine. This compound is what causes the addiction and tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body. As mentioned above, the most destructive of all ingredients in a cigarette is tar; and by the way, tar is naturally there, it is produced by the burning of tobacco. My opponent claims that it is the manufacturers fault for placing of of these chemicals in tobacco. As I have shown the two most problematic of chemicals are already there in tobacco. Moreover, it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans, the fact of the matter remains that cigarettes contain these things and will cause great damage. My opponent makes the valid claim that we should not put a ban on something that is not itself harmful. I accept this position but what is being debated here is not the banning of tobacco, but the banning of cigarettes, pipes and cigars. In short, the smoking of tobacco. Tobacco is a plant found naturally on 5 different continents. It would impossible to ban this plant. But it's harmful use should be banned. Rebuttal 4 -- "The lighter side of smoking." I'm not sure if my opponent didn't read the statistic that 600,000 non smokers die from smoke each year or just doesn't care but there is no light side to something that is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. The long perpetuated myth that smoking relieves stress can be simply destroyed. When a smoker begins smoking they lay the foundations of a nicotine dependence. Soon enough, their brain tells them that they need more of this nicotine to sustain themselves. It is during periods of no cigarette consumption that tension begins to build up. Once lighting up, the cells are fed their nicotine and it is this that leads to the feeling of relaxation. Basically, it is just a placebo effect. You tell yourself that you will feel more relaxed and therefore feel more relaxed after smoking. If someone wants to relieve stress then why not go for a walk, or listen to relaxation music instead of breathing in these 4000 nasty chemicals. Furthermore, my opponent seems to think that the cost of smoking to your health is not too important. Smoking also costs a person a great deal amount of money a day. A 20 pack of cigarettes costs around ï¿½7 here in the UK. Now, if someone was to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, this would be ï¿½14 a day. Now multiplying that by 365 means that the total cost a year on killing yourself would be ï¿½5110. I leave it to you to think of what else could be done with that money. Rebuttal 5 -- The idea of personal choice is important but I would like to make a comparison here to elucidate the reason as to why smoking should be banned. If a company produces food that is poisonous or another company makes a car that has safety defects, these products are removed immediately. Since all tobacco products are highly poisonous and lethal, they should be taken off the market. Moreover, governments should intervene when someone is seeking to harm themselves. It is the role of a government to take care of its citizens and ensure their safety is a top priority. Allowing their citizens to kill themselves would mean a government which neglects its people and overlooks the importance of a healthy nation. In order to address the situation created by my opponent of an old woman isolated from society choosing to smoke I would suggest that it would be wrong for the family of this woman to leave her alone as if she doesn't matter. Now the fact that people would be visiting her would now mean that her smoking would damage their health and therefore should be rightly banned. Further point 1 -- Briefly mentioned above in Rebuttals 1 and 2 were the negative economic aspects of smoking. The cost to a health service is colossal and one of the reasons why hospitals struggle to cope. Smoking related diseases account for over 20% of all hospital issues and if this were to be cut, them more time would be placed on other pertinent issues. Further point 2 -- In a poll conducted in the UK, 70% of respondents claimed that wanted to quit smoking. Restrictions will aid them in their quest to rid themselves of this problem and is surely a benevolent act on the part of a government.