This house would not ban smoking #1

I thank Con his well-crafted round. The debate basically came down into few clashes. I will proceed in systematic order. Clash 1: Harm and its collateral damage Both sides talked about harm of cigarette how it is enough or not enough to cause a ban. Under this category, Con argued 1) that cigarette is causing so much harm already, 2) that it is unfair to treat diseases that might resulted from cigarette and 3) that cigarette harms others. On Con’s first point, he gave death rate of cigarette. Nonetheless, such figure is very questionable since cigarette cannot be a direct cause of death despite it increases chance. Also, taking from the fact that 40% of citizens (US) are smokers, the number cannot be seen as drastic. Please remember that it is nearly half that chooses to smoke. In usual cases, it also takes a smoker few decades for the smoker to result in possible disease and we are talking about those who smoke a pack each day. Viewing the usage rate and frequency of usage, cigarette fundamentally is not harmful enough to be categorized illegal. By the time a normal 20 year old smokers to reach the age where they can incur disease due to their smoking habit for 4~5 decades, their death cannot simply be seen as death due to cigarette but also due to old age. Smoking might contribute partially to their life that ended 10 years earlier but just shortening one’s life few years after an entire life of usage cannot be seen dangerous enough. On Con’s second point, he complained about having to pay for patients that incurred disease due to cigarette. While I re-emphasize that cigarette can only contribute in causing diseases, I state that not all 40% of the entire citizen which is smoker end up in hospital and that at such old age, smokers or nonsmokers will both end up in hospital due to old age since it is pretty obvious that it takes very long time for cigarette to inflict disease on ordinary people. It is increasing risk of disease at far-future which we know already that just about anyone face higher risk of disease at far-future. We don’t know if a 70 year-old grandfather who is a smoker would not end up in the hospital if he never smoked in his life. Old age already causes vulnerability. Smoking habit merely contributes. It is likely that even nonsmokers would be hospitalized and my Con would need to pay for their medicine as well. Smoking habit merely contributes. But on the other hand, when my Con gets a seriously disease for some reason, smokers will pay for his medical fee. We have to give to receive. That is the spirit of society. Blaming everything on cigarette is fallacious. Also on the same point, I do not understand why anyone will complain having to pay for medical feel. Out of annual tax that one pays each year, only minimal portion is used for Medicare. Additionally, major disease that cigarette allegedly causes which is lung cancer is a disease that are often insurance at a very low rate. In the case of Korea, lung cancer patients face serious economic burden. I don’t see any reason why Con would want to complain. On Con’s third point regarding community, there is a huge misunderstanding. I never defined this topic as to argue smoking should never be banned but my definition was that cigarette should not be banned completely. On the other hand, I have proved there can be other measures that are less drastic, sacrificing, efficient and unforeseeable that does not include total ban of cigarette which shows Con failed his BOP. Cigarettes are banned at public places. That is enough. Smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in places where they can infuse dissatisfaction. On cases where nonsmokers have to be with smokers like cases of family, I do not see any cases where a family would wish to split just because of a member’s smoking habit. It’s a family. Families are supposed to discuss, forgive, sacrifice and love. US court also denies smoking habit as legitimate reason for divorce. Smokers and companies are already oppressed enough. In Korea, cigarette companies are not even allowed to launch a sports team. Their advertisements are very often sanctioned by media and government. Do we really want a reverse discrimination? Clash 2: Balancing between reason to keep and reason to ban This category was also dealt very broadly. Con and I argued mainly on three aspects under this category: individual freedom and loss of ban. 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 argued smoking is no longer choice of individuals. I argue there are un-ignorable rate of smokers who smoke on irregular basis. Those people choose to smoke on some occasions. Those who smoke daily, as Con said, they have people who has to be exposed to their smoking habit like a family. It is very widely known fact that families ask a smoking member to stop smoking. Each year, many smokers start the year off by deciding to quit smoking. There is rehabilitation system if one desires. But on top of that, there are harmless alternatives to assist in process of quitting. People do have the choice to smoke. Smokers buy cigarettes themselves. It is a rational decision to walk to the store, choose the type of cigarette and pay. There are cigarettes with weaker degree of nicotine as well. It is a rational choice though I admit that for smokers, it is very tempting to smoke. Banning something that does not inflict harm that is anywhere near illegal drugs and something that people can in fact quit is state tyrannical. It is just like obesity. I am sure nearly or more than 70% of obese people would want to quit overeating but they enjoy eating when they eat fast food. It is beyond doubt smokers enjoying smoking. The harm is not nearly enough to call for ban. Second point under this category is the part where government explicitly imposes state tyranny. Con marginalized loss of individuals in the cigarette industry. However, it is not a minute loss. What else can be said about individuals losing their work, their clients and their company that they built their entire life? I have proven that harm of cigarette is not nearly enough for it to be banned. When it is not enough at all, it is tyrannical for government to shutdown companies. Clash 3: Unenforceable On top of the fact that cigarette is in fact not as harmful as the prejudice and governments do not have legitimate reasons to ban cigarette, it has also been proven that there is huge loss of money, job and democracy in this motion. Now, I want to argue on top of all those facts, banning cigarette is simply unenforceable. Con explained that is why law exists. Laws cannot protect everything but it symbolizes. I want to ask why cigarette has to be symbolized as wrong or illegal. I proved reasons as to why cigarette cannot be categorized as illegal drugs. Banning cigarette is not only tyrannical, but it is also something that we can’t even start, enforce and regulate. Cigarette ban is unjustifiable, tyrannical and impossible.