An argument against the smoking ban smoking in the united states of america

Since the early s, most states and cities have banned smoking in public indoor spaces such as bars, restaurants, and offices. These bans were sparked by contemporary research that, for the first time, proved the harmful, carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke.

An argument against the smoking ban smoking in the united states of america

Thank you Tashjar for your argument. For those reading, his argument can be found here.

Recent Opinions

Con brings the principle of Personal Liberty into the mix. The Harm Principle proposed by John Stuart Mill states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

I demonstrated last round that 1 in 5 deaths in America are the result of cigarette smoking. Annually are the result of secondhand smoke. Clearly smoking has a demonstrable, harmful, deadly effect on others.

An argument against the smoking ban smoking in the united states of america

Applying the harm principle then justifies a smoking ban. Harmful effects on jobs and the economy: Essentially Con argues against smoking bans by referencing the money made. Consider if you would the reality that by allowing harmful substances like tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life.


Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41, deaths per year from second hand smoke. A smoking ban would negate or at least mitigate the damage done to society in this way.

I leave this contention with a few questions. What good is a job if you are not alive or healthy enough to work? What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41, people to be killed by others annually?

An argument against the smoking ban smoking in the united states of america

What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost? Consider this contention mitigated. While this is perhaps true. No law eliminates law breakers, it does however arm the people with the ability to hold trespassers of the law accountable by law.

We also know that a ban would discourage and diminish the amount of people who do smoke and the harm. Consider what I provided in my opening argument. A rise in gangs considering the dangers of gangs, this sounds like an interesting argument from con.

Though I doubt the dangers of gangs compare to the 1 in 5 who die from cigarette smoke.

Debate Argument: Smoking Bans in the United States |

Perhaps con could substantiate this contention by somehow demonstrating the harm compared to the harms of smoking. The only argument not refuted outright at this point is the contention of the rise of gangs. Though, this argument is not fully thought out or presented. Until con presents a clear demonstration of the harms, it remains that the harm of smoking outweighs the harm of gangs.

We see that a smoking ban is just. Report this Argument Con Due to personal reasons, my opponent and I have decided to tie this debate.- A Proposal to Ban Smoking in Public Areas Every year, there are over , smoking-related deaths in the United States.

A large percentage of these are due . Smoking, in the United States, is ruled entirely by individual state laws, as the United States Congress has not yet enacted any nationwide federal ban.

The following article debates on whether smoking should be banned in public places or not.

Big Issues

An Argument for the Smoking Ban Essay - Have you ever been in a restaurant eating your favorite food, then just when you are about to take a bite, you inhale a cloud of . Read chapter 5 The Background of Smoking Bans: Data suggest that exposure to secondhand smoke can result in heart disease in nonsmoking adults.

including a brief discussion of the history of tobacco policies that led to bans and the current status of bans in the United States and globally.

it had formed as California GASP (Group Against. Essay on Arguments For and Against a Smoking Ban. It was in that the Surgeon General of the United States first published a report on the ill-effects of smoking cigarettes, and within a year the first law requiring health warnings on cigarette packages was in effect.

More about Essay on Arguments For and Against a Smoking Ban. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.”(4 th source round 2) A Ban likely does reduce smoking, and in the cases it doesn’t, allows justice to be served to those who are harming others.

Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places?