NEGATIVE

With the electoral win of President-Elect Rodrigo Duterte, the possibility of a

Ferdinand Marcos Burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LMB) can be a
reality. My stand on this issue is- No, Duterte should not allow the Burial of the
late president and dictator based on legal and moral grounds. I will argue that
even if Duterte will allow him to be buried as a soldier, not a hero, Marcos
should still not be buried in LMB.
Republic Act 289, entitled, An Act Providing for the Construction of a National
Pantheon for Presidents of the Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the
Country is the law governing the privilege of burial in the LMB. It states that,
To perpetuate the memory of all the presidents of the Philippines, national
heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of
generations still unborn, there shall be constructed a National Pantheon which
shall be the burial place of their mortal remains.
More than just a burial ground for the presidents, national heroes and patriots,
the LMB was built as symbolic ground to commemorate people who took part
in the history of the nation, and contributed to nationhood. The
commemoration of these heroes is aimed to inspire future generations and to
serve as role models of youth and the unborn.
Given this premise, is the burial of Ferdinand Marcos justifiable as a means to
inspire and emulate future generations, and is the life of Ferdinand Marcos,
regardless of him being a president or a soldier, something that should be
given the title of being a hero? The answer is no.
Firstly, Martial Law remains to be one of the darkest periods of recent
history, with 70,000 people imprisoned, 34,000 tortured and 3,240 killed, as
per Amnesty International report. Many lives were lost, basic freedoms were
suspended, and democracy was at its lowest point. Martial Law victims are
classified as heroes under Republic Act no. 10368, which states that,
"it is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and
sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture,

enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights

violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986"
The burial of Ferdinand Marcos would therefore be an insult to the
heroes of Martial Law, which in fact, are already recognized by the law as
heroes more than just victims, and is already trying to compensate their
families for the loss of their family members during the regime.
The likes of Judy Taguiwalo, who was raped, detained while pregnant, and
subjected to different torture devices will be forgotten. The Dictator who
allowed the torture, killings, and disappearances of Jose Lacaba, Carlos
Centenera, Natham and Susan Quimpo, and other victims shall be vindicated
because of this burial.
The burial would make Ferdinand Marcos a hero despite the political
abuses that he committed during his regime. Making the oppressor of the
heroes of Martial Law a hero as well is a contradiction that we cannot afford to
propagate to the next generations.
Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos once said in an interview, Let us leave history
to the professors, to those who study the history of the Philippines. It is not our
job. Our job is to look at what the people need at present. Bongbongs
statement is an attempt to forget, and to revise the realities of the past. History
is not only confined within the realm of the professor, of the student, and of the
historian. History determines our collective identity as a people and as a
nation. Burying Marcos in the Libingan ng Mga Bayani would not be
representative of our collective identity as a nation- because we are a nation
which fought a dictator, and a nation who learned.
AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL

In defense of Martial
law: Why Marcos is a
hero
The burial of the late President Marcos is not an issue on Martial Law victims.
But if you would insist, then Ill take toll on it. Yes, there were a lot of people
who have died from Martial Law. There are a lot of victims of torture, sudden
disappearances and so on and so forth. This is a written fact, and I concede
on your claims. BUT, lets go back to the main root of Martial Law. Why was it
declared? Simple: There was complete chaos in the country plus there were
assassination attempts to the first lady, Enrile, and even the president himself.
The armed forces were immobilized and impotent. There was no income
coming into the government. That is why he had his last resort: Martial Law.
Was it in any way unconstitutional? HE JUST APPLIED THE CONSTITUTION.
It was strongly necessary. As a leader, you have to overlook and control
certain things if theres no peace and order anymore. Let me leave the
Marcos critics this burden: If you are in his position that time, and people were
against each other or so to speak even the government, how can you solve
the problem as the President? Remember, Marcos aced the bar examinations
twice. His knowledge of the law and constitution was par excellence.
Marcos is a hero; Aquino aided the NPA

Burying Marcos won't make him a hero, because he already is a hero. A war
veteran who fought side by side with our guerrillas who thirst for freedom and
a president that made the Philippines a better country. With his innate
intelligence he made the lives of many Filipinos easier by providing a lot of
infrastructure projects, which I mentioned in the opening remarks. The thing
about being named hero is that not everyone will hail you as one; the thing
about FEM, however, is that a lot of people still consider him a champion, and
he truly is.

Talking again about the victims of Martial Law wouldnt do you any good. If
turpitude or morality is to be taken into account for one to be called a hero,
then why do we consider Emilio Aguinaldo as a hero? It is also a historical fact
that he ordered the execution of Andres Bonifacio, who was a famous leader.
It is also a historical fact that he ordered the execution of Juan Luna, who has
a great battle plan to win the war against conquerors. All of these, and still we
consider him a hero. I also want to point out Benigno Aquino III whos
considered to be a hero despite helping the rise of NPA during the Marcos
regime Point is, a lot of people are still considering them heroes despite the
activities linked to him.
On revisionism
It is not an attempt to forget, but rather a call for us to move on with the past
issues. This is not to forget or revise what was written but to allow ourselves to
heal from the past. In fact, this should be remembered and put to greater
national discourse, but to destroy the whole family with issues from the past is
very wrong. Forcing BBM to say sorry is very wrong. Whatever wrong deeds

of any father cannot be passed to his son/daughter. It is not hereditary in

nature. Decades have passed. Let the dead rest to where it truly belongs.
For my arguments:
1. Of the 47,228 remains interred at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani, 32,268 were
military personnel who died in the infamous Death March from Bataan to
Capas, Tarlac during World War II. Marcos was there too. Again, this uplifts
the earlier argument in the opening stance that he deserves to be buried in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani because has been a soldier and was alongside
Filipino and American soldiers in the death march.
2. He may not be a Champion of human rights abuses but does it make him
less a hero for fighting for our country? Does it diminish his achievements and
lifetime service as a public servant? I believe not. His achievements and
contributions stay the same even with a lot of bombarding issues. Issues dont
make his contributions less significant nor his burial make him a better man or
escape from the ghosts of the past. We are just going to put him where he
belongs and let the issue cease.
3. This issue has always been opposed by well-known schools. It is because
of most historians and antimarcos law students that this burial is still an
unending issue up to now. They are the ones who are followed/listened to
most of time because they love to speak out, they love to express themselves.
But, do they speak for the Filipino people as a whole? Their perspective is not
everyones perspective. Just look at how many votes BBM got for VP position..
plus I have some friends who are not pro marcos but who are okay with the
burial. It just shows that the burial issue has long been overdue. Its time to
move on. For me, some are just overreacting on this issue. Hear the common
Filipino!

Look at how many Marcos supporters there are. We must listen to their side
too, and not just the historians or the law students. They should not be the one
to dictate us besides, is this still an issue on their respective fields? I believe
not. Let him be in the heroes cemetery.
He was a war veteran.
He was our former president.
He applied the constitution when it was necessary.
He had a lot of contributions to the country.
The house of congress already gave the go signal.
Issues dont make his contributions less significant nor his burial make him a
better man or escape from the ghosts of the past.
A lot of people are still considering him a hero.
Historians and law students dont speak for the whole Filipino nation, much
like from the People Power.
We are to bury the man, not to praise him.
Again, let those who are long dead rest for they cannot defend themselves.
Let our sense of justice and humanity be bigger than our personal pains.
The affirmative side stands strong. For all of these, I have never been more
proud to propose the notion that FEM truly deserves to be in the heroes
cemetery!

NEGATIVES REBUTTAL

Why moving on from

the atrocities of
Marcos is a great
injustice to the Filipino
people
Author: Holden De La Cruz
UPDATED: 3 MONTHS AGO
VIEWS: 2283

TWEET IT! SHARE ON FACEBOOK SEND VIA EMAIL

Editor's note: This article is part of the Kami debate series on whether the late
President Ferdinand Marcos should be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. This is
the rebuttal of the negative side represented by Niko Aguilar against the
affirmative side's article Why it is our responsibility to bury Ferdinand Marcos in
Libingan ng mga Bayani. Kami.com.ph does not necessarily share the views of
the author.
This debate has to be assessed in totality, and in a nuanced perspective. Negative side
acknowledges that Ferdinand Marcos, indeed, was an exceptional Ilocano, a bar
topnotcher despite his detention, and a man who spoke to the public without any
manuscripts. These, however, unfortunately, are not the valid standards that will
automatically give him the privilege to be buried in the commemorative grounds of
heroes who fought for the nation and its people: the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.

The issue on Marcos burial should go beyond the issue of legality, its also an issue of
propriety. Is it proper then, to put a dictator who caused the killing, torture,
disappearance and detention of almost a hundred thousand of activists struggling for
social change; who put the Philippines into a huge debt, just because he built
infrastructure projects? More than just the rhetoric that he deserves it because he was
a solider or a president, it should be noted the LMB is a commemorative and symbolic
ground of heroism, and heroism doesnt mean being a plunderer, and a dictator who will
instantly kill political opponents.
While its an issue of propriety I will still rebut the legal argument that my opponent
launched. Marcos involvement in the Guerrilla warfare during the World War II is still a
myth that it yet to be proven. While I concede that Marcos built different infrastructure
projects during his regime, it should not be taken into a vacuum. It should be weighed
with Marcos human rights violations, plunder cases and political abuses during the
Martial Law regime. Lastly, I would argue that Marcos burial would further become a
divisive tactic, and will not end historical judgment to the late dictator.

Photo credit: www.pinoyexchange.com.

On Marcos being a guerilla fighter

In an article written in 1986, archived in the New York Times website entitled, Marcoss
Wartime Role Discredited in US Files, reports say that the US Army concluded that
Marcoss leadership in a guerilla resistance unit was fraudulent and absurd. In the
archives of the Army, there was evidence proving that he led the guerilla group named
Maharlika in 1942-1944 during the Japanese Occupation. The US Government, in
1986 had the attempt to let Marcos speak about these findings (or the lack thereof)
about his claims on his involvement during the Guerilla Warfare, but he declined to
respond. According to the Article, after the war, Marcos tried to appeal for recognition of
the Maharlika unit, but was denied because his claims were distorted, exaggerated,
fraudulent, contradictory and absurd.

While the contention of Marcoss wartime role is still unanswered, it cannot be used as a
justification of his burial at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. Documents are needed, and the
burden of proof still relies on the Marcoses in order to credit this justification.
The Marcos Regime
Becoming a president does not automatically entail heroism. My opponent argues that
in his presidency, he built many infrastructure projects. Firstly, these infrastructure
projects did not transcend economic benefits to the people during that time. According
to SWS, the highest recorded poverty rate in the Philippines is 74%, which was reported
in April 1983. According NSCB, poverty rate spiked highest at 44% in June 1985.
Secondly, these infrastructure projects were used as instruments to legitimize the rule.
Gerard Lico, as cited by one of my favorite History professors in UP Baguio, Mr. Mathew
Luga writes, (the infrastructure projects are) Massive loaned investments in buildings
were to project to the international community an impressive myth of overnight
industrialization, rendering an illusion of fast-paced progress in the country., but
resulting to:
Yes, he was never convicted of any crime, because he died before any criminal case
against him could be decided upon. Still, courts from Singapore, Switzerland and the
United States already proved that the Marcos family accumulated ill-gotten wealth. Even
our own Supreme Court in a 2003 case already ruled that the family has amassed illicit
assets, saying that [t]he Marcoses had dollar deposits amounting to US $356 million
representing the balance of the Swiss accounts of the five foundations, an amount way,
way beyond their aggregate legitimate income of only US$304,372.43 during their
incumbency as government officials.. Enough evidence already proves Marcos to be a
plundererin no less than four courts from different countries how enough is enough
to conclude that he is a plunderer and still allow him to be buried into the
commemorative grounds of our national heroes?
AFPR G 161 374 also provided that [t]he remains of the following shall not be interred
in the Libingan ng mga Bayani: a. Personnel who were dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from the service. This was what happened in 1986:
Marcos was dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from service by the people
who joined EDSA I. While it may be conceded that the post EDSA I situation is not the
democratic haven we envisioned after a dictatorial rule, it was a legitimate show of
dissent, of unity of opposition against a tyrannical rule in our history. It was a start of
democratic transition, and a show of power of collective action to
separate/revert/discharge a dictator from his power.

In addition, Section I of Republic Act No. 289, provides for the construction of the
LNMB to perpetuate the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national
heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of
generation still unborn. I dont see someone who allowed his citizens to die because of
their opposition to him, someone who was proven to steal public funds for his own
interest, and whose lineage actively revisions and lacks remorse on the human rights
violations that their rule committed.
On Justifying the Implementation of Martial Law
This is an unfounded excuse to defend him. Yes, the declaration of Martial Law was
constitutional under the constitution he furnished for himself, but nowhere in the 1935
Constitution, and even in Proclamation 1081 itself, is there a provision that grants
authority to the AFP to torture suspected criminals. Even Article IV, Section 20, of the
1973 Constitution expressly states that, [n]o force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against [any person].
Secondly, Manuel Yan, the AFP Chief of Staff 1968-1972 said in an oral interview that
Martial law was not needed that time. He remarks,
Kakaunti lang ang conflict sa Mindanao noon. Hindi naman malala ang sitwasyon diyan
sa New Peoples Army na kayang sugpuin naman ng ating armed forces through small
unit actions onlyTayo ay nagtatag ng units of the Armed Forces against
demonstrations. Tayo ay bumili ng anti-riot equipment to be able to quell this student
unrest peacefullyHindi Kailangan ng Martial Law.
Secondly, affirmative may argue that there was a growing communist threat in the
country. This was true, but Martial Law exacerbated it. According to sources, Marcos
and martial law were NPAs biggest recruiter, where numbers rose from 1,028 armed
guerillas, to 22,000 after he fled away from Malacanang. NPAs believe that change
cannot come through election and electoral reform, especially the massive cheating
incidence during the 1969 and succeeding elections under his regime. How can you
expect someone to believe in state rhetoric? People radicalized because of his rule, and
turned to armed struggle as a solution to overthrow the system.
And If he really did what he was supposed to do, he should have ensured that the rights
of all citizens, including those accused of rebellion or insurrection, are protected
according to the very constitution that he crafted himself. Instead, he let the number of
human rights violations to reach the thousands. Truth be told, he did not do what

needed to be done. At best this was an arbitrary move, but at worst, a move for his own
political gain- to suspend the elections and prolong his stay in power.
On the 2011 Joint Resolution
Yes, he was never convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. But the decided cases
of ill-gotten wealth are enough evidence to conclude that he is not worth a heros burial.
Such court decisions here and abroad are based on clear evidence and are merely not
a form of political move.
To bury Marcos in the LMB is to distort the very sense of heroism founded upon our
collective national past of heroes who fought for liberation, not for the demise of our
people. To give him a heros burial is to acknowledge that someone can be a plunderer
and a human rights violator and still be called a hero in the end. And allowing this
contradiction of propriety is too much of a cost just to reiterate our sense of humanity
and respect for the dead.
The national discourse regarding Martial law is already happening, and we do not need
To bury Marcos at the Libingan [just] to invite discussions on what the man really was,
human as he is. The LNMB is a place to commemorate heroes, not a space to debate
about controversial people.
Yes, Marcos cannot defend himself, but more especially to those who died without
fairness and justice during Martial Law; who died and still questioning why they were
tortured and killed by the regime. They, too cannot rest peacefully, or at least their
relatives who are still searching for justice, if we praise the man who turned a blind eye
to their deaths, and whose son lacks remorse on it.
Marcos deserves burial, yes. They can do it anytime, but a heros burial is improper. We
are not monsters for forbidding such act. Its an attempt, not as big as an act of justice
to those who were killed, tortured and disappeared during his regime. Its an act telling
to our future that being a plunderer and a human rights violator is not heroic even if you
build hundreds of infrastructure projects that did not even benefit entirely the whole
population.
We judge a dead man by the legacy that he left. Marcos left a nation that has barely
recovered from the political, social and economic injustices of his regime. We do not
need more blood nor hate. We just have to refuse a dead man his heros burial because
he does not deserve it.

Yes, history and historical judgment will always be divisive, and people will always
choose a side of the fence. But to move on, forget the other side and bury him at the
LMNB just to break this divisiveness is injustice. No, history is not written by the victors.
The dialectic of the victor-defeated, oppressor-oppressed is too thin. History is written by
common people- of the contemporaneous, of the eyewitness. History is never
propaganda; it is grounded on historical reality. History is ours- of the nation who
suffered under the Mans regime. Let us not forget. We will never bury the man in the
LNMB because clearly, he does not deserve it.
CURFEW

8 Reasons Why I Support A Statewide Curfew For

Teens
MY WORD
December 31, 1993|By Duane Schwingel

I strongly disagree with a ''My Word'' column that opposed a statewide curfew for teenagers. I strongly agree with ''the movement now afoot'' to institute a curfew for these
reasons:
1. A curfew would support parents. We always have had laws against children smoking,
drinking and staying out late. When intimidated Moms or Dads lose control over
rebellious kids, it is a comfort to know that our society has laws telling parents, ''We
know you don't want your kids out late. We're going to back you up!''

2. A curfew would give more responsibility to the parents. Some complain that the
activities of the good teens would be restricted because of the misbehavior of some,
thus ''spoiling it for everybody else.'' Regardless of a person's ability to maneuver his or
her car safely at 80 mph, there are laws that restrict speeding because of those ''bad
apples'' who wrecked. A curfew law would simply hold parents more accountable for the
actions of their children.
3. A curfew would protect children. It would protect them from criminals. It would
protect them from exploitative adults. It would protect them from their own immaturity.
4. This law would be enforced impartially. We stake our future on the premise that laws
should be administered fairly, and we always safeguard this principle with checks and
balances. Regardless of a failure to realize these ideals perfectly, our country's success
has been based on their progressive realization.

5. A curfew law would be applied judicially. We always entrust our judges to issue
waivers, permits and exceptions - and this teen-age curfew law would be no different. It
would be simple enough to issue work permits, parentally approved passes, etc., based
on standards that are reasonable and judged on individual merit.
6. A curfew law would help police officers to do their ''real job'' better. We ask them why
they're not out catching the real criminals. Let's give them time to do it, instead of
burdening them with baby-sitting duties.
7. This law would encourage compliance. All laws that are based on common sense
reinforce good behavior. What you permit, you teach. To say that a curfew would cause
those who break it to be lawbreakers is a nonargument, going in circles. Obviously, if
there is a law against doing something, when you do that something you are breaking a
law. Speeding laws make lawbreakers out of speeders.
8. This law would recognize the difference between childhood and adulthood. Adults
always have had more privileges than children; hence, more responsibility. There is an
even more dangerous ''movement now afoot'' to blur those distinctions in the name of
children's rights, aided by modern myths of adolescence. Obviously, few would approve
of toddlers drinking in bars at midnight. Opponents of teen-age curfew laws, however,
fail to indicate where they would draw the line.
Yes, children should be taught responsibility and respect for the law. Certainly, a law
should never be adopted that is not based on sound principles. Even more dangerous is
the growing attitude of lawlessness in our children. The attack began when established
rules of behavior were removed - first in the home, then in the schools. A curfew would
be our last stronghold.

8 Reasons To Oppose A Statewide Curfew Law For

Teens
MY WORD
December 27, 1993|By Emily Enfinger

I strongly disagree with the movement now afoot to institute a statewide teen-age
curfew. I object to the idea for these reasons:
1. It would be an abridgement of personal freedom. When a person, by law, is not
allowed outside after a certain time, then that person's freedom has been taken away.

2. Crime is what should be punished, not the appearance of such. Increased crime is
caused by a variety of factors, mostly lack of parental guidance and lack of adequate

punishment in the courts. If someone is doing something wrong - such as abusive

behavior, drunken driving, disorderly conduct, even loitering - then he or she should be
arrested for those specific actions. To restrict the activities of all teen-agers because
some misbehave is similar to the teacher keeping the entire class after school because
one child acts up. This might be acceptable in the classroom occasionally, but it is not
as a blueprint for state law.
3. Making a law that only the law-abiding are likely to obey is not the answer. This would
be a punishment of the noncriminal. The only ones who would be likely to alter their
behavior are those who care about the law; they are the ones who don't need to be
controlled.
4. Parental control would be abrogated. If a parent declares a curfew, that is his or her
decision, not the state's. At the same time, a parent should have the right to decide if
his or her teen-ager is responsible enough to be ''out after dark.'' Would this proposal
mean that I could not send my law-abiding 17-year-old to the store for me after 11 p.m.
on a nonschool weekday if I so choose? What right would the state have to incarcerate
or fine my child for going to the store?
5. Selective enforcement would be a problem. The argument can be made that ''the
child going to the store will not be the one arrested.'' What does this really mean? That
the law will be selectively enforced? Perhaps white children from the suburbs could be
out but nonwhite children from the city could not.
6. A curfew would teach disregard for the law. Most people would not curb their lawabiding children from being out after 10 p.m. This would teach the lesson that state
laws do not really have to be obeyed.
7. This is a misuse of the police. We already have a situation in which the police are
expected to monitor victimless crimes. I would prefer to see the police and courts
concentrate on hard-core crime, not activity that is ''against the law but not a crime.''
8. I am sympathetic to merchants whose businesses are damaged by teen-agers who
loiter at night, causing loss of business. But there should be laws that address this
particular problem, not ones that curb legal and nondisruptive behavior.
I believe that children should be taught responsibility and respect for the law. I believe
that a law should never be adopted that, from the outset, can be seen to be
unenforceable. Even more dangerous is a law that would restrict a large group from
legal and nondetrimental activity to curb criminal behavior done by a small group of
people.
I hope our legislators would recognize this proposal for what it is: One more step in the
restriction of our personal rights.

SMOKING Should be banned

Nega.

If smoking should be banned because it causes cancer or kills people, why arent fast food
restaraunts banned. They cause cancer. And what about soda, soda causes cancer. So do
doughnuts. There are plenty of things that cause cancer. If people who say they should be
banned actually paid attention or did research on what they were talking about then they
would know this.

Not Banned
5. Tax Revenue.
In 2013 the government collected $43.9 billion in tobacco tax revenue, and
over half a trillion dollars since 1998. (This includes state and local taxes and
settlement money.) If tobacco users are not providing that revenue, the rest of
us will have to cough up the bucks! (Or government spending will be cut.
4. 46.6 Million Americans Smoke (CDC, 2012).
And that does not count those using chewing tobacco and snuff. With such a
high percentage of Americans (that number is adults) doing something, it
would be a major imposition to suddenly stop the activity. How many things
do you enjoy that less than 46.6 million Americans partake in?
3. Economy.

Thousands of farmers and industrial workers are employed by the tobacco

industry. In the US, (as of 2013) 13,570 people worked in the tobacco
manufacturing industry at a mean annual wage of $58,330. That is a lot of
people with good jobs! The US exports (in 2010) about $1.2 billion worth of
tobacco per year. We ban production here, other countries will reap the
benefits.
2. Religion.
Native Americans use tobacco in religious ceremonies. We would not want to
limit the practice of their faith or stigmatize any part of it.
1. Pursuit of Happiness.
The founding of this country as expressed in the Declaration of Independence
makes it clear that people should be able to pursue happiness that does not
infringe on others. Washington and Jefferson grew tobacco crops. Skydiving
and snowmobile riding costs lives, should they be banned? Ice cream is not

essential to life and it causes health problems, should it be banned? Where

does it end?
Banned
5. Effects on Appearance.
Tobacco use (mostly smoking) causes premature aging and wrinkling of skin
on the hands and face. Just look at a smoker and compare to a non-smoker
of the same age. Fingers get yellowed, teeth get discolored and besides
stinking, their clothes and furniture they use usually have burn marks in them.
Smoking gives you horrible breath making you kissable only to other smokers,
and who wants to kiss someone that is chewing tobacco? You will probably
never realize you missed out on that foxy chick or cute guy because you
smoke.
4. Second Hand Smoke.
In this category we include the tremendous cost to non-smokers to foot the bill
for the medical care and absenteeism of smokers with their health problems.

The cost of insurance each of us pays reflects the billions in insurance claims
because of wildfires and home fires, not to mention motor vehicle accidents.
Then there are the innocent people injured or killed in those fires and
accidents. Smoking by pregnant females is harmful to the baby, and inhaling
second hand smoke has now been shown to damage health as well as
disgust non-smokers.
3. Fires.
Smokers are 7 times more likely to have a house fire than non-smokers.
About 1000 Americans die each year from smoking related home fires. The
NFPA says smoking causes 90,000 fires per year in the US, and that 90% of
wildfires in the US are caused by smoking.
2. Motor Vehicle Accidents.
Studies have indicated smokers are distracted an average of 12 seconds while
fumbling around with a cigarette compared to only 10 seconds for the
distraction caused by cell phone use! Cigarettes while driving are more

dangerous than cell phones. For real. If you drop a cell phone on your lap,
you do not panic. Drop a lit cigarette on your lap, and it becomes quite an
important task to find that smoke fast! (A lit cigarette is burning at 1100
degrees F.) Answers.com claims 76% of car accidents are caused by
smoking. British researchers say 50% of smokers have caused or almost
caused an accident because of smoking (Daily Record, October 15, 2007).
1. Mortality.
Almost half a million Americans per year die prematurely because of tobacco
use (many others die due to tobacco use around the world). Almost everyone
knows a friend or relative that died early because of the ill effects of tobacco.
Lung cancer, emphysema, high blood pressure (leading to diabetes, heart
attack and stroke) as well as cancers of the mouth and throat. These are bad
things!