The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Cigarettes should become illegal-completely

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 35436
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




I think cigarettes should be illegal in the U.K everywhere, not just in public places. If people are caught with cigarettes, i'm not going to suggest a punishment, but it will be against the law to smoke them-like any other illegal drugs eg: cannabis. So, i am looking for someone who thinks that cigarettes should still be legal in the U.K.


I live in the US, but I will gladly debate for the sake of a great country like the UK.

I Accept
Debate Round No. 1


Good, and thanks for accepting. So here's my main argument: Well, as you and i will know cigarettes have devastating effects on people, however once people start, the cannot stop, becasue of the nicotine in cigarettes. I'm not going to go into all the effects of cigarettes, however I'm sure you will know that effects include lung infections/cancer and lots of other diseases. Since you live in America, here is some more information, to back up my sources. The 1982 United States Surgeon General"s report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality [death] in the United States." This statement is as true today as it was then. Also tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Because cigarette smoking and tobacco use are acquired behaviors; activities that people choose to do About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 443,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

You might say well, if a person chooses to smoke, then they can. They can make there own choices, and if they want to potentially be a victim of a fatal disease, that's fine. However there are two things wrong with this statement.

The first thing wrong with this statement, is that as you will know there is passive smoking. If one person decides to smoke, there kids or friends could easily start smoking by peer pressure, or by breathing in smoke from a near-by persons cigarette. (passive smoking)
The second wrong thing with this statement is the fact that deaths and illnesses due to smoking are costing our health system, the NHS, an extraordinary amount of money. Here is the first paragraph from and article from the independent, written in 2009.

Smoking costs the NHS more than "5 billion a year - up to five times the previously accepted figure, researchers have revealed.

Now, in out country today, smoking has been banned in public places, however, everywhere else they are still allowed. I think that is smoking was banned in our country, it would save many lives, it would save lots of money, and it would make our country a cleaner place. Even though you might say that some people just can't stop i'm sure if it was illegal and they were confiscated if they were seen smoking, then eventually they would stop and slowly smoking would come down to the level of illegal drugs in the present day. Finally i would like to say, that i think since cigarettes are actually a drug, they should, if they were made illegal, should be treated in the same way as illegal drugs and the same punishment.


Quick Note, Doing any of these signs: * ` ^ will signal a footnote at the bottom of the argument.

Cigarettes are bad, we all agree on that.

More than twenty countries were part of the British Empire.

Most of them are no longer colonies and have become independent. Why? Because they want to be free. To keep the freedoms of the people. So by taking cigarettes you are stripping the people of their freedom.

Freedom: The quality or state of being as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action.

By completely banning cigarettes you are legitimately putting constraint on the people's choice of action.

Cigarettes are also don't alter your point of views as meth, heroin, or cocaine does. (Those are a harm to public safety, and should definitely be banned and enforced) But chances are, if you strip cigarettes from the public, the addicted ones will do a lot to get them back, before they are completely rehabilitated.

If you enforce the laws around cigarettes, instead of actually banning them*, then you will end up with an ending result of lower cigarette purchase and usage rates, and you haven't stripped the people of their cigarettes!

Thank you for this great debate, and I wish you the best of luck in the second round. (Or third round, whatever you prefer)

*outlaw any advertisements of cigarettes, double the tax of cigarettes, turn the open streets into smoke-free zones without letting the media know, etc
Debate Round No. 2


Okay, first of all I can kind of see what you are saying about freedom, however, there are lots of laws in the UK which are stripping people from their freedom however, they are stripping people of there freedom for the better. In think this is what they should do with cigarettes. You take the choice to buy cigarettes, however people know it's illegal the may nor choose to buy them initially and also for some people smoking is not a choice because of such things such as passive smoking etc, which I explained in the last round.

Passive smoking is the involuntary inhalation of smoke from cigarettes smoked by other people. Passive smoking occurs when a non-smoker inhales secondhand smoke produced by smokers in his or her vicinity.

My second point is that even though you might be saying that laws around cigarettes might stop smoking, in our country laws for cigarettes are being placed all the time, and this is really not stopping smoking completely. If cigarettes were just completely banned, then even though some people might try very hard to get them, most people will be much less tempted to have them if they know they are breaking the law. So, people deserve to be stripped of cigarettes because of not just was cancers and diseases it could cause them, but what diseases and cancers it could cause other people if they take it smoking without opting to do it, either by peer pressure or by passive smoking Also this would be a much quicker process than what you are suggesting and our country has more important things to worry about so time is also a big factor.

Peer pressure- social pressure by members of one's peer group to take a certain action, adopt certain values, or otherwise conform in order to be accepted.


Drugs twist your mind, you really want that drug!

Meth Addicts will do anything EVEN KILL to get more Meth. Violent protests would ravage the area, while others will get it illegally smuggled, if you just quadruple the taxes on them, then so many more people would try to protest, get it illegally, or even make it themselves. By banning cigarettes, you are legitimately putting a halt to a whole lot of people who are THINKING about smoking, but you can't do it with addicts. Instead, crack down on illegal smuggling of drugs, and tax the cigarettes like ten times the original amount. You will have an end result of "stopping smoking" without stripping people of their freedoms. Governments should gladly ban things that cause unnecessary safety hazards. Smoking is not a hazard, so don't ban it.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Flipbook 3 years ago
So I just got voted down because the voter disagreed with me. Thanks Much Sweetbreeze. I'm challenging you to a debate, and i'm going to see if your good!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I originally came to see if Sweetbreeze needed to be countered. While it was a weak RFD, I will allow it to pass as my vote, rather than providing a counter. Therefore, I will vote as a tie. I will explain my (Sweetebreeze's) vote here. Conduct- Con, your ranting at the end was very unprofessional. It was minor, yes, but unnecessary and came off as desperate. However, I would not have warranted a point to either side for this. I will not vote on it, however, because sweetbreeze gave no points on S/G, which I would've given to Pro. Essentially, her vote still has given as many points as mine would've. Args- While Pro's arguments were weak and unfounded, Con didn't provide enough holes in Pro's case to warrant a negative ballot. Freedom is not the same in the U.K. as in the U.S.. Thus, the freedom argument, probably the most valid one presented, was proven invalid. Sources- Neither side used sources. Sweetbreeze didn't award any point. Neither shall I. S/G- This actually
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I've always agreed with Pro on this debate. Pro has said that cigarettes are bad for your health and should become illegal. I agree.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro proved that cigarettes are indeed bad for your health but he fell short of establishing why this warrants cigarettes to be completely illegal everywhere. Lots of things are bad for your health but that doesnt mean they should be completely illegal. Arguments to the con since he gave enough to defeat Pro's rfd