Date: Sunday April 26th 2015
Participants (from 8 countries):
USA: Rick, Rebecca | Tunisia: Amine, Marwa | India: Santosh, Sunita | Bangladesh: Mohammad | Pakistan: Eshaal | Morocco: Anas | China: Miranda, Tata | Argentina: Johny | China/USA: Angie
Team A: (Yes) Rick, Amine
Team B: (No) Santosh, Mohammad, Eshaal, Anas, Miranda, Tata
Team C: (On the fence), Johny, Angie
Host: Rebecca
Moderator: Marwa
Team A Summary:
- Smoking benefits the economy, because cigarettes are heavily taxed by local and federal governments. This money is used to pay for multiple things
- Responsible smoking is a freedom of choice. Responsible smoking is defined as not smoking around other people that do not smoke, not littering your cigarette butts on the ground.
- If smoking was outlawed, and the police had to try and enforce it, then those police would not be able to spend time with more serious criminal offenses, such as theft, robberies etc.
- It’s about people’s rights, and if you outlaw smoking in public, then what is next?
- Responsible smoking involves educating people about the dangers, so that other people are not affected by second hand smoke
Team B Summary:
- 600,000 people die each year from second hand smoke
- People in Hong Kong often wear mask to protect themselves against second hand smoke
- Second hand smoke is very dangerous, causes disease, health care issues and a lot of money
Team C Results/Summary:
- Johny= A
- Angie= B
- Moderator/Mawra= A
Due to the initial tie, the moderator was asked to vote, and she voted for Team A, making it the winning team. Several other critical points were brought up by Team C
- One of the key terms discussed during this debate was the definition of “Public”. Most places in USA and other countries offer smoke free areas, and in some countries/states, you are not allowed to smoke inside public buildings. A key point here, was that public is also defined as a park, beach etc., so if you are by yourself in this type of public environment, how can it affect other people?
- One other point brought up during the discussion was the rationale that if smoking is a harmful substance, and brings in money for employment/economy, why not justify the same reason for other drugs?
For people who did not join the live discussion, feel free to contribute the ideas in comment blanks below.