Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Smoking

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 09:45, 21 July 2010 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
← Previous diff
Current revision (12:13, 11 February 2011) (edit)
Riya bansal (Talk | contribs)

 
Line 68: Line 68:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-=== Harming to others: Are smokers harming other people? ===+=== Feasibility: Is the banning of tobacco use feasible? ===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
Line 74: Line 74:
==== Yes ==== ==== Yes ====
-*'''Smoking forces others to 'passively smoking':''' In a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers (family members, colleagues, customers, etc.) are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. It is estimated that passive smoking kills approximately 80 000 people in the EU alone every year. (Brussels estimates that 15% of all deaths in the EU could be attributed to smoking.) Beyond the health risks, smoke can also be extremely unpleasant in public spaces, in the workplace or in bars and restaurants. (Data indicates that almost 86% of EU citizens are in favor of a ban on smoking at work.) Smokers are therefore causing discomfort - as well as actual harm - to others. On top of the harm cause to the smokers themselves, this is surely enough reason to ban smoking.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16] 
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +
==== No ==== ==== No ====
-*'''Evidence about "passive smoking" is dubious.''' Few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16] +*'''Restricting smoking, done by billions of people, is unreasonable.''' It would be unreasonable to criminalize an activity indulged in by about one sixth of the world population. The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband. It would also mean that governments would lose tax revenue from tobacco sales - a major source of income for national health and other resources in many countries.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16]
-*'''"Passive smoking" can be reduced without draconian restrictions.''' It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate, banning it altogether would be excessive.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16] 
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-=== Feasibility: Is the banning of tobacco use feasible? ===+=== Harming to others: Are smokers harming other people? ===
|- |-
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
Line 90: Line 89:
==== Yes ==== ==== Yes ====
 +*'''Smoking forces others to 'passively smoking':''' In a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers (family members, colleagues, customers, etc.) are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. It is estimated that passive smoking kills approximately 80 000 people in the EU alone every year. (Brussels estimates that 15% of all deaths in the EU could be attributed to smoking.) Beyond the health risks, smoke can also be extremely unpleasant in public spaces, in the workplace or in bars and restaurants. (Data indicates that almost 86% of EU citizens are in favor of a ban on smoking at work.) Smokers are therefore causing discomfort - as well as actual harm - to others. On top of the harm cause to the smokers themselves, this is surely enough reason to ban smoking.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16]
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
==== No ==== ==== No ====
-*'''Restricting smoking, done by billions of people, is unreasonable.''' It would be unreasonable to criminalize an activity indulged in by about one sixth of the world population. The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband. It would also mean that governments would lose tax revenue from tobacco sales - a major source of income for national health and other resources in many countries.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16]+*'''Evidence about "passive smoking" is dubious.''' Few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16]
 +*'''"Passive smoking" can be reduced without draconian restrictions.''' It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate, banning it altogether would be excessive.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=16]
|- |-

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Should the government take actions to deter individuals from smoking?

Background and context

Tobacco is one of the most widely-used recreational drugs in the world; mainly in the form of cigarettes, but also in cigars and pipes, and in combination with cannabis and marijuana in 'joints'.
Although most countries put age restrictions on its use, over a billion adults smoke tobacco legally every day, and supplying this demand is big business. As well as having serious health consequences for smokers themselves, the pollution of other people's atmospheres with cigarette smoke also makes this an environmental issue.Attitudes have changed rapidly over the past twenty years. In the developed world, public opinion has shifted against smoking. By the 1990s, the sheer weight of evidence had forced major tobacco companies to admit that their products are both harmful and addictive. Many governments have substantially increased taxes on tobacco in order to discourage smoking, and often to alleviate the economic costs of smoking-related illness. However, while smoking has declined amongst some groups, it has increased amongst others - particularly young women. Meanwhile restrictions on the industry in the developed world have seen a new emphasis on developing nations, and new markets. Key questions for this debate are: Is it the proper role of government to legislate to protect citizens from the harmful effects of their own lifestyle decisions? Does tobacco advertising increase tobacco consumption? Do health warnings, however much of the cigarette packet they cover, reduce consumption? What would be the effects of banning smoking in all public places, or even completely?[1]

See Wikipedia: "Smoking" for more background.

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Protecting smokers: Should governments restrict smoking to protect smokers?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Cigarettes are harmful; governments should take action against them. With little doubt that smoking is harmful to individuals, governments should take actions to protect its citizens and ban smoking. There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. Smoking is the single biggest cause of avoidable death in the EU as 0.5 mil. people die due to smoking annually in the 27 member bloc alone (this figure rises to over 1mil. deaths in Europe as a whole). World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population; that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking - an activity which kills millions of people each year.[2]
  • Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug: In fact, recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can. Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 18, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit.[3]
  • Most smokers want to quit; restrictions do them a favor. Most smokers say that they want to quit, so further restriction or a ban on tobacco would be doing them a favor. In work places, where smoking is banned, the proportion of daily smokers drops by 22% and their awerage consumption drops by 5 cigarettes per day.
[Add New]

No

  • Governments must defend freedom of choice to smoke. While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.[4]
  • A comparison of tobacco to hard drugs is inaccurate: Tobacco is not debilitating in the same way that many illegal narcotics may be, nor is it comparable to the likes of heroin in terms of addictiveness, nor is it a mind-altering substance that leads to irrational, violent, or criminal behaviour. In this sense it is much less harmful than e.g. alcohol. The fact that so many smokers give up every year is testament to this.[5]
  • Many things are addictive; alienating tobacco is unfair. Addiction shouldn't be the major criteria for banning tobacco consumption, because other acceptable products are addictive. Coffee and physical exercise can both be considered addictive, but neither would be considered appropriate for being made illegal on this basis. For this reason, addictiveness should not be a main criteria in the legal considerations of this debate.[6]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Corporate responsibility: Should government target cigarette makers?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Cigarette makers should pay a price for creating harmful products. If a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned.[7]
[Add New]

No

  • Cigarettes are very different from dangerous cars or poisonous foods: As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. Cigarette companies are, therefore, not failing their consumers by producing cigarettes; the consumers are getting what they asked for. The individual's right to choose a certain effect is not being infringed upon, as it is when a certain good fails. Therfore, people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them.[8]
  • Many products are unhealthy; alienating cigarettes is unfair. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.[9]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Feasibility: Is the banning of tobacco use feasible?

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

  • Restricting smoking, done by billions of people, is unreasonable. It would be unreasonable to criminalize an activity indulged in by about one sixth of the world population. The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband. It would also mean that governments would lose tax revenue from tobacco sales - a major source of income for national health and other resources in many countries.[10]


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Harming to others: Are smokers harming other people?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Smoking forces others to 'passively smoking': In a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers (family members, colleagues, customers, etc.) are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. It is estimated that passive smoking kills approximately 80 000 people in the EU alone every year. (Brussels estimates that 15% of all deaths in the EU could be attributed to smoking.) Beyond the health risks, smoke can also be extremely unpleasant in public spaces, in the workplace or in bars and restaurants. (Data indicates that almost 86% of EU citizens are in favor of a ban on smoking at work.) Smokers are therefore causing discomfort - as well as actual harm - to others. On top of the harm cause to the smokers themselves, this is surely enough reason to ban smoking.[11]
[Add New]

No

  • Evidence about "passive smoking" is dubious. Few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.[12]
  • "Passive smoking" can be reduced without draconian restrictions. It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate, banning it altogether would be excessive.[13]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

A drug? Should tobacco/nicotine be considered a drug?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Cigarettes and many illegal drugs are similar in that they are harmful to the user, and are highly addictive.


[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Tobacco ads: Should smoking advertisements be limited or banned?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Harm of cigarettes are cause enough for restrictions on ads. There should be a ban on all tobacco advertising due to the knowledge of its ill effects.[14]


[Add New]

No

  • Ads do not force people to smoke. There is no good evidence that either of these measures would have an impact on the rate of tobacco consumption. Cigarette companies claim that advertisements are merely to persuade people to switch brands, not to start smoking in the first place. People start smoking through peer pressure - indeed the more of a 'forbidden fruit' cigarettes become, the more attractive they will be to adolescents. As for health warnings, if the knowledge that cigarettes have serious health risks deterred people from smoking then no-one would smoke any more. People start and continue to smoke in the full knowledge of the health risks.[15]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Tobacco anti-adverts: Are these ads effective?

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

  • Neuromarketing study claims these ads are counterproductive. According to one of the largest neuromarketing studies ever conducted (see the book Buyology or its websites), adverts stating harmfulness of smoking and emphasizing health risks are in fact counterproductive - they effectively activate those parts of brain that trigger craving for cigarettes. And warning labels on cigarette packs are of no effect whatsoever.


See also

External links

Books

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.