Smoking Ban

“To simplify the debate: Pro wants to ban all forms of smoking in no specific place. This means that the idea alone of smoking must be banned. ” Correct. I will try to make my standpoint and resolution more simple and obvious next time I debate. Thank you for the clarification. “With your first point which concerns the health of all the smokers, I would say that that is fact. No one can say that smoking is healthy, because clearly it is not. But the questions are: Is total ban the solution to this social problem? Can total ban really be effective? Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible? ” A. Is total ban the situation to this social problem? I believe it will help. Right now if people see a young person smoking they might think something along the lines of: What a stupid decision. If a person sees a young person doing illegal drugs, it's a different story. B. Can total ban really be effective? To a great extent, I believe so. Opinions of a common person will not change anytime soon, however many years after it's banning it will be seen as something more than a stupid decision, which I believe it should for reasons stated above. Air pollution and secondhand smoke would then be limited, thus saving many livesC. Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible? I'd say it is. Cocaine and others drugs were legal during the Civil War. People's opinions on it weren't completely negative like today, for example. When it was banned, some people still used it, but over time it became less used. Wouldn't you agree that the ban has prevented many from using it today? Some still do, yes, but its use over time has become much less commonplace than what it used to be. You do not see cocaine racked up on shelves at a convenience store, do you? That helps. “All the arguments that you presented in this debate are useless. We are not debating whether smoking is healthy or dangerous. It’s a fact that smoking is dangerous. So, do not expect me or anyone to debate that smoking is good to your health. I rather would debate the idea of a total ban that you proposed. ” Please save refutations and attacks for Round 3. That is debatable in itself. I believe it was actually quite useful for my arguments. Yes, it is a known fact that smoking is dangerous, however most do not realize the magnitude of how bad it is. Most people have a simplistic view that is is only bad for the smoker and possibly for the people close to them. Not many are even really aware of how bad it effects the air quality, for example. I was simply stating to the readers and yourself that it effects people who aren't even around smokers very often. Most are not aware of how many die by the hand of secondhand smoke, either. Thousands of people die per year from secondhand smoke. They don't even smoke! People do not have the right to kill me because of their poor life choices. Most are not aware that smoking in general kills more people than alcohol use, illegal drug use, HIV, motor vehicle accidents, and firearm-related incidents combined. I was simply explaining how much worse smoking is than what most people realize. In my opinion the leading cause of preventable death should be prevented. It was my argument. I'm sorry if you wouldn't use those arguments personally, but that's not my problem. And no, I didn't expect you to say that smoking was healthy, I have no idea where you got that accusation. I expected you to agree it is unhealthy. I simply started this debate to see what someone against a smoking ban would think overpowers all of what I have said. I'm also sorry I had to repeat some of what I said in Round 2, however I felt it was necessary. “The total ban of cigarettes is not good for many reasons. First, it would have a severe negative economic impact. Those people who work in that industry would lose their jobs. Also, the government can no longer collect tax revenues from legitimate tobacco manufacturers. Instead, black markets of cigarettes will occur that the government would not be able to tax. Having said that, the economy will suffer. ” And more jobs would be opened with all the smoking rehabilitation centers that would be started. Think of all the jobs that are for helping people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Think how spread across the country that would be, think of all the jobs that would open up. Stacked on top of that, I don't believe that people who work for a lung -and -heart killing company overpower the lives of those tens to hundreds of thousands who die from secondhand smoke. Or the lives of all those who got lung cancer, heart disease, or developed a respiratory illness simply because of the smoke of cigarettes. I also don't think it overpowers something that is ten times worse for the air than car diesel exhaust. “Second, countless people would go to jail because they cannot stop their addiction. Smoking is addiction. Many people tried to stop smoking but they failed. Banning smoking would not stop that addiction, but it would only made them find a way to acquire cigarettes in a black market. They will continue to smoke because it has been their way of life. Hiding in a place that they will not be caught by police is what they will do. A life of a drug addict or criminal afraid of police is what they will acquire. With that, many of them would be imprisoned which would also result to an overcrowded jails. ” If rules were made for the illegalization of cigarettes piece-by-piece over the years, then by the time cigarettes are considered an illegal drug, all/most of the people who worked for the cigarette companies would have died or retired. People quit just to quit all the time. (All the time is an exaggeration of course, but you get the point). Rehab centers would help others. Law abiding citizens wouldn't have to worry. Cigarettes are addicting, yes, however plenty of people would stop because of its illegalization, especially if the law were made to get stricter as time went on. Keep in mind there will always be those who buy and do illegal things from the black market, however the average person would not risk the consequences that would follow if they were somehow caught by authority. Most people are law-abiding. Most would also be relieved. Have you not noticed all those people who are trying to quit? Making it so they can't get the cigarettes without breaking the law would help most normal people. There are also substitutes that help, like E-cigarettes. Just the pleads from friends and family not to break the law should be enough for the majority of people, I'm assuming. “What we need to do to help smokers get away with their addiction is to increase tobacco tax and encourage and promote healthy life, not your proposed total ban which is very hard to implement and would have grave personal and economic impact. ” If you think making it illegal won't help their addiction, then how would increasing the tax? As a society we already encourage and promote good health, however most people still start smoking. How often do you listen to commercials simply because their encouraging and promoting their product? People dismiss these claims. Plenty of adolescents start smoking to be 'cool' and naïve adults start is for different reasons, but they certainly dismiss that we, as a society, “promote and encourage a healthy life. ” Thank you for debating me, Juris. I will learn from a few of the mistakes I have made here for future debates.