The Instigator
IceClimbers
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

Cigarettes should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 58218
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

IceClimbers

Pro

I think they should be illegal first round accept
Zarroette

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
IceClimbers

Pro

There is no Rules how you want to argue. I would like to say that Cigarettes are like a drug but the only difference its kills you slowly, there is no reason why cigarettes should be legal it doesn't have any good about it, the state should banned cigarettes because its very bad, I will plead my case more 3 round.
Zarroette

Con

Should cigarettes be illegal?


I thank IceClimbers for initiating a debate on what is an interesting topic.

A1: A huge amount of taxation revenue is generated from cigarette sales

Cigarette taxation has been raised 72 times in the States, from 2000 to 2007 [1]. This should give you an idea of how much the U.S.A relies on cigarette taxation for the government. In 2011, ~17 billion dollars in taxation revenue was generated from tobacco sales [11]. Obviously, this is a noticeable amount of money, and to lose this will mean that taxation will be required from elsewhere.


A2: It would badly hurt business and the economy

Since the UK implemented a smoking ban solely in bars during 2008, business revenue has declined 15%, 10% of bars are now operating at a loss, and 60% of businesses were forced to lay off employees, just to stay in business [2].

“In 2010, the combined profits of the six leading tobacco companies was U.S. $35.1 billion, equal to the combined profits of Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and McDonald’s in the same year” [7]. To make smoking illegal, would wipe a huge amount of the U.S.A’s economy, which is obviously not an economically sound idea. Why? Think about the job loss and the missing taxation revenue.

A3: Things which are dangerous are often beneficial

In 2010, there were “an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000” [8], from road accidents in the U.S.A. Should cars be banned, because clearly they are so dangerous? No, because cars serve a purpose.

Sport is also relatively dangerous, and an unnecessary risk. Physical exercise could easily be found in less harmful activities like rugby and football, in things like skipping.

“From 2002-2003, 870 people were admitted to ACT hospitals for sports and recreational injuries. From 2002-2003, the ACT had the highest hospitalisation rate per 100,000 population for combative sports with 3.7 compared with the 2.7 for Australia as a whole. One million sports injuries occur each year, which suggests one in 17 Australians, suffer an injury. The annual cost of sports injuries in Australia is an estimated $1.65 billion.” [4].

Clearly, a lot of sport are harmful things to participate in, yet people are still allowed to do this! Why is that?

Liberty.

Smoking serves a different kind of purpose, one in which the Founding Fathers built America upon. It is the right to personal autonomy. As John Stuart Mill, in his On Liberty work states: “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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” [5].

Is everyone in society forced to smoke, because he/she was being held at knifepoint? It is a choice, and with the help of school-based smoking awareness programs, which give children access to real information about tobacco usage, the choice can be informed [6].

The tenant of ‘it is harmful’ does not suffice as a reason for banning, as there are plenty of harmful activities which are beneficial, as I have shown. Allowing people to smoke is one of them.


A4: Drug Cartels and the Black Market

Historically, prohibition has been disastrous. In during the 1920s and early 30s, prohibition in America merely lead to crime rackets, dealing in contraband, being established [7].

Despite marijuana being illegal in the U.S.A, “over 102 million Americans (41 percent of the U.S. population) have used it during their lifetimes, 26 million (10 percent) having used it in the past year, and over 15 million (6 percent) have admitted that they use it regularly” [9]. Making a popular drug illegal, has shown to have very little effect on people’s choices, at least in this regard. What’s worse is that locking-up marijuana uses costs the U.S.A over 1 billion dollars a year! [14]

So how are people getting these illegal goods? Drug cartels. The Mexican drug cartels, which supply a lot of drugs to the U.S.A, has resulted in the deaths of over 60,000 people, in violent drug-gang related incidences. Mexico is already the main supplier of marijuana to the U.S.A. Almost 70% of recovered guns, from 2007 to 2011, from Mexican activity related to crime, were sold in the U.S.A. Drug cartels and Black Markets are something to avoid [10].

The lesson to be learned is that the banning of popular recreational drugs leads to Black markets and drug cartels.

A5: Electronic cigarettes

An electronic is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol [12]. It does not release nicotine, which helps to curb addiction [13]. These cigarettes are clearly not bad. Why should they be banned?

References

[1] http://www.taxadmin.org....

[2] http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk...

[3] NHTSA ('Traffic Safety Facts 2010 Data') .pdf, NHTSA.dot.gov June 2012

[4] http://sma.org.au...

[5] http://www.gutenberg.org...

[6] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[9] http://www.alternet.org...'s_still_illegal

[10] http://edition.cnn.com...

[11] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

[12] Bertholon, JF et al. (Nov 2013). "Comparison of the aerosol produced by electronic cigarettes with conventional cigarettes and the shisha". Rev Mal Respir (30(9)): 752–757.

[13] Saitta, D; Ferro, GA; Polosa, R (Mar 2014). "Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes.". Therapeutic advances in chronic disease 5(2): 50–61.

[14] http://www.alternet.org...

Debate Round No. 2
IceClimbers

Pro

IceClimbers forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
IceClimbers

Pro

IceClimbers forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
RFD
Conduct - Forfeit, Sources equal and arguments Con.

Arguments:

The noob snipe aside, I found Con's arguments rather interesting. The economic arguments were not very convincing, the more interesting ones were the arguments regarding black market, and lack of efficacy of banning comparable drugs such as marijuana.

The e-cigarettes argument is flat out false according to the (small) research that has been done on them, but Pro never contended this nor anything else.

Con's argument regarding Cars & Sports is just flat out bad, and at best amounts to a tu torque fallacy, or a red herring. So what if people get injured in sports, it has nothing to do with the debate.

Anyway, full forfeit so arguments Con. Excellent now you have 3,000 ELO, hurry up and send me our debate so I can claim another 3,000+ scalp :-)
Posted by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
SNIPER nac
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Noob sniper
Posted by W1ll1ph0n3 2 years ago
W1ll1ph0n3
Prohibition never worked.
By making cigarettes (and every other drug) illegal you simply help the black market and encourage "underground" drug trafficking. The best way to deal with drugs is to legalize them in a controlled way so that the state can always intervene when things go wrong.
Posted by Monkofnimic 2 years ago
Monkofnimic
you know who doesn't support bans on smoking or drinking? Churchill
#ruleBritannia
Posted by AdamLanza-AmericanHero 2 years ago
AdamLanza-AmericanHero
You know who supported smoking bans? Hitler
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Sniiiiiiiipe!
Posted by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
i banned you for a reason........... why are you still able to comment on my debate ?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ah, cigarette ban eh??
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by texans14 2 years ago
texans14
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided good arguments and pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit, arguments because CON actually made arguments and sources because CON actually provided sources.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited, which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. S&G - Con. In the rounds Pro did post, there are evident grammatical and spelling errors including improper capitalization. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to maintain the BOP by refusing to provide rebuttals and counter-arguments after round 1. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources throughout this debate to further validate their contentions, whereas Con utilized such sourcing. This is a clear 7-point victory for Con. Complete destruction.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF con is a noob sniper.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff, had nearly zero evidence, and no sources.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
IceClimbersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No competition, Con won in 2nd round.