The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks

Now both myself and my opponent have provided our stances on smoking, this debate will now be moving into the second round, where we both will be presenting our arguments. After this round, the negative cross examinations and rebuttals will begin.Argument #1: Tobacco's medicinal history.I would like to begin my first argument with an excerpt from an article from Dr. Mitch Fadel, PhD:"Nicotiana tabacum is the main species of commercially grown tobacco today. Nicotiana quadrivalvis is a native species of the western North America. It grows wild from southern Oregon to southern California. It was also cultivated by Native North Americans. Lewis and Clark on their expedition up the Missouri River (1804-1805) found this tobacco being grown by the Arikara, Mandan, and Hidatsa Indians of South Dakota and North Dakota. Nicotiana multivalvis is another native tobacco of western North America cultivated by Native Americans. It was an important ceremonial and ritual smoke plant. Its distribution extended from the Pacific coast eastward. Here is a short list of various historical uses of tobacco. Most of these uses were taught to Europeans by the indigenous peoples all around the world that cultivated and used tobacco. Analgesic to alleviate pain, to treat parasitic worms, anticonvulsive, diaphoretic, diuretic, poultice for boils and insect bites, as an emetic, for various dermatological conditions like rashes, to treat colic, for kidney problems, to treat apoplexy, snakebite, toothaches, dizziness, fainting, as an antidote against other type of poisonings, to curb insanity and it was even used to try to cure tuberculosis." (http://cigars.about.com...)The credentials of the author of this article may be found here:(http://cigars.about.com...)I would like to argue that tobacco clearly has a medicinal history, as it was used for hundreds of years by native americans, then doctors of the United States throughout the 1800's, as a medicinal plant:"Having suffered from periodic attacks of asthma since the age of nine, Proust was familiar with the range of contemporary treatments for the condition: over the years, he had been prescribed opium, caffeine, iodine, and morphine (which had once been injected by his father, Dr Adrien Proust), his nose had been cauterized numerous times, he had adopted a milk diet, and he had occasionally attempted to relieve both his asthma and his hay fever by visiting health resorts, such as Evian-les-Bains, on the shores of Lake Geneva. However, as his note to his mother suggests, Proust’s favoured remedy involved the inhalation of smoke from anti-asthma cigarettes or powders...Proust was not alone in attempting to relieve his asthma with medicated cigarettes or combustible powders. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the inhalation of fumes from burning preparations of stramonium, lobelia, tobacco, and potash became increasingly popular amongst asthmatics and their physicians throughout the world."(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)Author's credentials copy pasted here: "MARK JACKSON, *Mark Jackson, BSc, MB BS, PhD, Professor of the History of Medicine, Centre for Medical History, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK"I would like to challenge my opponent to prove that tobacco has had absolutley no medical history.Argument #2: Less smokers does not decrease cancer rates.Contrary to what one would expect, as the rate of smokers has declined over the past century, the rates of cancer have actually gone up. I would like to point to the chart here: http://www.lcolby.com...; and here: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...that cancer rates have indeed shot up within the past decades. I would like to argue that, clearly, if contracting cancer from smoking were so prevelant, but the rate of smokers has declined tremendously within the past several decades, why, I ask, are the level of cancer cases not declining? Why are they increasing? What is happening?Furthermore, I would like to also point out that Japan is notorious for having high levels of smokers - and yet, they are also known for having higher levels of people with longer lifespans. "Let's look at Japan. As we have seen, Japan is practically tied with Hungary for the highest rate of cigarette consumption in the world. It turns out, however, that the male LCDR [Lung Cancer Death Rate, "LCDR"] in Japan is 0.5%. That's approximately one-fifth the rate in Hungary; approximately one-third the U.S. rate. The LCDR for females in Japan is also astonishingly low, 0.2%. " (Colby)The chart on the cigarette consumption and argumentively significant LCDR's in various parts of the world may be found here: http://www.lcolby.com...Argument #3: Doctors, too, perscribe perscription drugs which carry risks.As I briefly mentioned earlier in my statement, Doctors are known for perscribing perscription drugs such as Ritalin and Adderal, and both of which have been tied to being quite similar to cocaine. I believe it goes without saying that cocaine is a much harder drug than the nicotine found in cigarettes, and yet Adderal and Ritalin are both perscribed by doctors to ADHD patients, despite the fact that these drugs. If we are to accept, then, that Adderal and Ritalin are harder drugs than nicotine, then we must admit that these doctors might as well be handing out cigarettes to children with ADHD."Using Adderall over an extended period can increase the risk of critical cardiovascular problems and strokes. There are also significant mental health issues associated with the long-term use of Adderall, such as depression, hostility and paranoia. In children, protracted use of Adderall may inhibit growth." (http://drugabuse.com...)Argument #4: Tobacco smoking does carry some benefits.And yes, doctors recognize these benefits too. This is something called "The Smoker's Paradox"An example of Doctors reconizing "The Smoker's Paradox" can be found here:http://www.medpagetoday.com...And here:http://www.biomedcentral.com...And, on a more casual basis, here (although I contest "the numerous documented negative health effects of smoking" as it is referred to here):http://en.wikipedia.org...I would also like to extend the link I posted once again, which is this: http://www.forces-nl.org...Although I more strongly defend the arguments posted here which have hyperlinks attatched to them leading to research concerning health effects of smoking. I challenge my opponent to dispute the health claims of smoking, although more specifically in this debate, thatA: Smoking reduces the risk of Alzheimers (or possibly even 'cure' it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...).B: Smoking reduces the risk of Breast Cancer.C: Smoking reduces the risk of Parkinson's Disease.D: Smoking improves Human Information Processing.The debate will now be passed over to my opponent, who will express his/her arguments against smoking.