Your Choice

I will be arguing for a U.S smoking ban.Thank you for accepting. It is assured that I am looking forward to this debate. I will be pro on smoking ban (a rather weak topic for me, I must admit.) Good choice on your part. I will kick this off with arguments. May I remind you that no rebuttals are allowed in the second round, only arguments, as agreed upon.--Argument I: Deaths and Risks--Main source: CDC (Government Website)The first and foremost topic I will be using is the amount of deaths and injuries caused by smoking.Many say that you can not put a price on a life, and I see that, in my eyes, as true. However, smoking takes this statement, eats it, digests it with acid and normal organs such as the small intestine, then poops it out.--Sub-Point I: Deaths--Smoking causes an insane amount of injuries (internal, mostly) and deaths. Studies show that 444,000 lives are taken in the U.S each year just from smoking (1). This counts for about 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S alone (1). This is more than AIDS, (non-smoking) car accidents, and drinking COMBINED.The deaths of these people are not all smokers. A counted 9,000 deaths by second hand smoke occurred in the U.S in 2007-08 (2), and 300,000 new cases of pneumonia in infants occurred.. This is just in the U.S, not even worldwide.--Sub-point II: Cancer--Next, you know the whole cancer craze we are struggling to find a cure for? Smoking is much to blame. Smoking is the leading cause of all cancer, as well as the leading cause for cancerous death. That means, if a smoking ban was enforced, cancer rates would drop significantly, thus lowering deaths and suffering throughout the United States.To further prove my points, CANCER sites are putting up the bad effects of smoking in an attempt to stop (or decrease) the amount of cancer in our society today (3). If cancer is caused by smoking, as shown, this means that a number of animals tested on becomes unnecessary. We are constantly trying to find a cure for cancer by testing on animals and experimenting. If smoking goes down, the number of animals tested on would experience a little drop, and scientists won't be as pressured to find the "holy grail" of modern medicine.--Sub-Point III: External Injuries--An unheard part of smoking is the external injures one might suffer. While drinking is clearly a bigger influence on driving, smoking comes in close behind or ahead in other injuries.Studies show that smokers, on average, are 2.5x more likely to suffer injuries at work, 1.5x more likely to suffer injuries while driving, and 2x more likely to suffer any unintentional external injury at all (4).Aside from the smokers, other injuries (still external) could happen to non-smokers. A main concern is fires starting in forests, parks, even houses. In fact, the leading cause of house fires are caused by cigarettes (5). More people die in fires caused by smoking than any other cause of a fire.In conclusion of this argument, I have shown that if a ban is put into effect:-Cancer rates will drop significantly-Deaths will drop significantly-Dangerous house fires will drop significantly-Risks of second hand smoke will drop significantly-Infants will be safer, as well as children and elderly-Workplaces will be safer, roads will be safer, and people would be safer overall-Animal testing will be (slightly) reducedI conclude this set of arguments and will now proceed to the second part of my arguments.--Argument II: Litter--My second point as to why smoking should be banned is how smoking increases litter and increases both contamination and chances of contamination.Litter. We all know about it and how it pollutes, yet we all still do it. Some smokers do not litter, but many of them do. And even a small population of cigarette litter can mean a lot of harm.Cigarette litter is small, many thing, but is actually HUGE. Litter accounts for 1/3 of ALL litter in the U.S (6). In addition to that, they are also accounting for 28% of the litter washing up on the beaches around the world. Don't believe me? Well, to put this into account, there are two billion cigarette butts being flicked every single day (7). That's about 1.7 billion pounds of cigarette butt litter. The San Francisco area spent $11 million just cleaning it up alone (also 6).Cigarette litter, is not biodegradable like many people think (8). This means they do not sink into the environment and are a constant threat to animals. 801 dogs (non-wildlife) in a study consumed cigarette butts from their owner (9). Furthermore, cigarettes kill 1 million birds and 100,000 animals per year (10). So not only does cigarette litter pose a threat to humans, but also to animals too.Enough with that. Now let's see what the cigarette butt, when littered, actually does. What it does (to say shortly) is release toxic containment's into the soil, water, and dirt of our Earth (11). This can make water unsafe to drink and plants unable to grow.In conclusion of this argument, I have shown that a smoking ban will:-Decrease wildlife deaths-Decrease money spent on litter-Decrease contamination throughout U.S-Decrease pet consumption-SIGNIFICANTLY decrease litter-Water and plants would be saferI wrap up this argument and my arguments overall.Thank you for reading. I hand this debate over to the side of con and wish him the best of luck.(1) http://www.cdc.gov...(2) http://www.cdc.gov...(3) http://www.cancer.org...(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(5) http://www.esfrs.org...(6) http://www.nytimes.com...(7) http://whyquit.com...(8) http://www.no-smoke.org...(9) http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...(10) http://intraweb.stockton.edu...(11) http://www.longwood.edu...