The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Resolved: Tobacco consumption ought to be banned in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 83860
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




Select Winner, 2.5k
No new arguments last round. Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speech


1. No forfeits
2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc.)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. The BOP will be shared
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Pro in this debate will advocate a ban, Con will support the status quo

Good luck


I accept with the understanding that BOP is in fact on pro, being that he is the one advocating a change in the status quo. I await pro's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1



The BOP is shared, per round 1. As the rules explicitly and clearly state the grounds of the round, BOP is shared


Pro will support that something ought to be banned if there is a net detriment to society, as the goal of a government is to better the lives of its people.

Contention 1: Cost
For some reason can't paste images. But I can paste the link to the image.Economic "benefits" of smoking are easily outweighed. According to the American Cancer Society, tobacco related healthcare costs and loss of productivity netted 193 billion in the US. Every pack of cigarettes, which is on average 6.36, costs society $35. Tobacco use is bad for society as a whole because non smokers are forced to pay part of the medical bills and nonsmokers also get the disease. Half of people who continue to smoke will die of smoke-related illnesses.

The Federal govenment states that it costs society around 52 billion a year, but even this could be an underestimation, as "Dr. Banzhaf asserted that the Government did not take into account diseases of nonsmokers that could be attributed to smoking by others." Either way, tobacco usage has such a large economically detrimental effect that is should be banned. Even non users must foot the medical bill, as the government helps pay for medical bills of people who are unable to, and non smokers must pay the tazes to the government

Contention 2: For the Users themselves

As Dr. Sullivan said 'Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as intended cause death,'.
Cigarettes have over 7,000 chemicals according to CDC. Hundreds of those are toxic and 70 are carcinogens. The government ought to ensure the well being of its citizens and ban smoking.
According to Dr Robert N Proctor, Department of History, Stanford University, cigarettes kill 6 million people a year.

"Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring "decoy" or "distraction research",5 but it has also corrupted popular media, insofar as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes.7 The industry has corrupted even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees.8 Tobacco companies have bullied, corrupted or exploited countless other institutions: the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, sports organisations, fire-fighting bodies, Hollywood, the US Congress"even the US presidency and US military. President Lyndon Johnson refused to endorse the 1964 Surgeon General's report, for instance, fearing alienation of the tobacco-friendly South. Cigarette makers managed even to thwart the US Navy's efforts to go smoke-free. In 1986, the Navy had announced a goal of creating a smoke-free Navy by the year 2000; tobacco-friendly congressmen were pressured to thwart that plan, and a law was passed requiring that all ships sell cigarettes and allow smoking. The result: American submarines were not smoke-free until 2011"

The smoking industry infamously proclaimed for years with false research that smoking was safe. This resulted in misinformation and millions of easily preventable deaths. This also nullifies any so called economic benefit of smoking, as most of the studies meant to portray tobacco positively are sponsored by the corporations themselves. They have a monetary incentive to keep the industry alive by killing people and getting them addicted to smoking.
Tobacco is a highly addictive poison because of nicotine, which makes smokers physically reliant on smoking. Most smokers want to quit but cannot.
85% of smokers have tried to quit, according to Gallup. According to Center of Disease Control this number is at 68.9 percent. The fact is that most smokers do not even want to smoke but smoking once or doing a dumb mistake forces them to smoke for the rest of their lives, inevitably killing them and harming everyone around them.
Robert Proctor rebuts the freedom argument with "The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers "enjoy" smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare"so rare that the industry used to call them "enjoyers". Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that "If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week".12 American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how "fortunate for us" it was that cigarettes "are a habit they can't break"."

Contention 3: Secondhand Smoke

This contention is enough to win the debate. Voters, pay attention. Seconhand smoke nullifies freedom, as recipients of secondhand smoke do not choose to smoke, they simply breathe and suffer the effects of others selfishly choosing to smoke.
The Surgeon General Report concluded that 2.5 million American citizens died of secondhand smoke since 1964. What more do you need for an all-out ban? A counterplan of restricting smoking to private places will not help as smoking in private simply keeps the smoke inside the home and will cause the secondhand smoke to go straight to all the other people inside the home- such as the other family members, especially children.
"It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.""Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States." (This is citing the previous Surgeon General Report)
A study by David M. Homa, PhD1, Linda J. Neff, PhD1, Brian A. King, PhD1, Ralph S. Caraballo, PhD1, Rebecca E. Bunnell, PhD1, Stephen D. Babb, MPH1, Bridgette E. Garrett, PhD1, Connie S. Sosnoff, MA2, Lanqing Wang, PhD found that from 2011-12, 58 million people were exposed to secondhand smoke.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) from burning tobacco products causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, and coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer in adult nonsmokers (1,2). No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists (2). SHS exposure causes more than 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year, and approximately $5.6 billion annually in lost productivity "

Contention 4: Environmental
" In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U.S. environment.2 Cigarette butts are the most common toxic waste found in cleanups and the number one item found on California highways.3 4 And contrary to popular belief, they do not decompose completely.5"
Cigarettes have toxic chemicals in them that threaten aquatic ecosystems when they leak out, according to( Slaughter, E., Gersberg, R., Watanabe, K., Rudolph, J., Novotny, T.E., "Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components to Marine and Freshwater Fish, Atherinops affinis and Pimephales promelas,").

"cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 38% of worldwide debris". These numbers are from Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups
A ban would be effective, as "Smokefree beach laws help reduce butts on beaches by 45% according to the Audubon Society". Banning will reduce the vast litter amount.
"Globally, approximately 4.3 trillioncigarette butts are littered every year. Smokers in the USA account for over 250 billion cigarette butts, in the UK 200 tons of butts are discarded, and Australian smokers litter over 7 billion cigarette butts annually. In most Western countries cigarette butt litter accounts for around 50% of all litter.

Every littered cigarette butt can take anywhere from two to twenty-five years to biodegrade.

Dropped cigarette butts have been the cause of house and apartment fires, as well as some of the largest and most destructive forest fires. Fires caused by cigarette butts claim the lives of about 1,000 people and injure about 3,000 people each year."

"When people congregate in an airport baggage area or enter a smoking lounge where many brands are smoked, the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg (see Reference 3). Although 14 mg may not seem like a lot of mass emitted, each cigarette weighs only about 0.9 grams total, making it an extremely potent source of air pollution for its weight.

As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this booklet, the 14 mg of particles emitted by each cigarette is really a large amount of particulate matter mass, causing extremely high indoor air pollutant concentrations when a cigarette is smoked at home or in a car. The chapter "Where does the smoke go?" presents calculations that you can do yourself to illustrate that a single cigarette smoked indoors is a potent source of exposure to toxic pollutants, causing concentrations indoors that are often higher than the federal air quality standards designed to protect public health in ambient air outdoors."

Cigarettes cause air pollution, which will happen even if smoked inside, as ventilation ensures it flows outside. Cigarettes are a major source of litter pollution, which costs millions to clean up. Litter costs around 11 billion to clean. If we use the cigarette litter estimate of 38%, this is 4.18 billion a year.


Tobacco use is detrimental to society as a whole by causing addiction and death even to non users. Voters can vote on secondhand smoke alone as I prove it causes diseases and death to innocents not choosing to smoke. Even if Con takes up a libertarian framework he cannot win. But if you want more, tobacco causes addiction to users and users do not even want to smoke, nullifying freedom. Smoking has a heavy cost on the environment and society. Vote Pro


Thanks Pro
Black Market DA

Drug prohibition doesn't work. I attack Pro's plan as an extention of the war on drugs, he simply adds another drug to the laundry list of other illegal substances in the status quo. Upon the legislation of the proposition we should prepare "for a black market the likes of which will make Prohibition pale in comparison."[source #1- subsect.1]

Even without a tobacco ban now we are already seeing tobacco black markets. In many states like NY and Massachusetts their high taxes have caused interstate black markets. A "recent paper found that 64 percent of cigarettes in Boston come from Pennsylvania."[1-3]. If tobacco becomes illegal, post-plan, cigarettes will gush in from places like Mexico where tobacco will still be legal. Tobacco bans have also created black markets(BMs) in the past. For instance Nazi Germany implemented a smoking ban, cigarettes from places like the U.S. and France came in rapidly [1-4]. Furthermore, "The “war on drugs” has not reduced drug use, crime, or poverty" and has infact "increased addiction." This is we know that nearly every single person currently smoking will turn to underground markets when the plan is passed.

Image result for tobacco smuggling
The biggest concern comming from a BM trade is from cartels and terrorists. "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has tied cigarette smuggling operations to drug rings and organized crime...One of the most notorious global traffickers is the Algerian terrorist Mokhtar Belmokhtar[1-3]." For trafickers, this mode of smuggling makes sense as, "a kilo of cocaine gets you 20 years, but a truckload of cigarettes maybe gets you a year [1-3]." Postplan we will litterally be funneling tens of billions of dollars to terrorists and drug trafickers. This gives terrorists the means to aqcuire biological or nuclear weapons, gives cartels recoures to buy more weapons, amd empowers them to keep on raping stealing and murdering, including inside the U.S..

What's even scarier is the response the police will have to the increase in crime, drugs, and terrorism. Take this example of their mindset, "I write as a recently retired member of the U.S....ATF. If our aim is to curb smoking and deter crime, we must embrace a policy of stiffer penalties, well-funded enforcement, and stronger cooperation among agencies[1-6]." To put it simply, the police will respond with extreme militarization. This militarization will continue to ensare minorities and "permanently stigmatizes drug offenders in ways that effectively created a racial cast system within labor, negating the life opportunities available to people of color, and often forcing them back into contexts of criminality upon which most have found it hard to escape[1-7]" Its not just minorities affected however, everyone is at risk of being trapped in the militarized anti-drug apparatus, everyone is at risk for trangressions of their liberties. What's more, the money spent souping up the police with ray guns and transformers directly trades off witht the money the available for drug education[1-8].

This argument turns his entire case

Econ DA

U.S. tobacco industries currently bring in ~35 billion dollars, and pay ~15billion in total taxes. their workers hold about 200,000 positions. The plan litterally kills 200k jobs in one fould swoop.

"Here are some aspects of the impact of unemployment on our society: Mental health problems, general health issues, Tension at home, Loss of trust in administration and the government which may lead to political instability, Tension over taxes, fear and insecurity even in the currently employed people, Increase in the rate of crime, Suicide, a decrease in social outings, Employment gaps, and loss of skills."

Now factor in the amount of money we'll have to pay these families in unemployment. Another important note is that most of these people are farmers, meaning they are already heavily in debt. With their employment suddendly cut off they will seek immesurably deeper into debt, exaserbating the long term economic consequences. And, these job losses will impact people of color the most, who are 13% less likely to find employment after job loss. The plan will cause economic reccession.


Google Inc. should initiate a global campaign against tobacco and alcohol consumption and seek the help of international anti-tobacco/alcohol advocates in: preventing youth smoking/drinking, helping smokers/drinkers quit, and helping them stay tobacco/alcohol free.

Image result for google global
The CP reduces tobacco consumption globally while avoiding every single disadvantage to the plan, furthermore it will help solve alcohol consumption and drunk driving.

The CP would entail many things. Google owns YouTube, and has a heavy influence on the websites it hosts. In the proposed initiative Google would do things like have YouTube (who they own) run more anti-smoking advertisements before videos that would have an enormous impact on an expansive viewer audience that no other media company has. Google could partner up with anti-tobacco advocates in places ranging from China, France or Malaysia to locate people whose lives have been substantially altered by tobacco consumption and pay them to be in the commercials. The initiative will show commercials which show graphic images of smoking diseases and will focus on a why-to-quit strategy as well as personal testimonials from sick smokers. The commercials would be tailored to specific regions, showing the moral and bodily implications of smoking. Goog would encourage programs like AA but for smokers, perhaps in an online forum, which would give smokers a community to engage each other with and help get them get tobacco free. It will make sure not to promote government intervention however, and will put influence on the persons’ exercise of free will. Another important thing Google would do is tell smokers about the many ways there are to wean themselves off of tobacco and educate people about healthier alternatives like eSig’s, which drastically reduce lung damage and cancer risks. They have the reach, influence, and money to get the job done

What’s important about the CP is it its vast reach. Even if my opponent had solvency, his reach is stuck to the United States. The CP on the other hand has the potential to reach anyone around the globe with internet access, which is quite high in this day and age. This means I have access to hundreds of millions of lives that the plan doesn’t even come close to reaching.

Anti-tobacco advert campaigns work, Tobacco Free Florida, 15'

"Hard-hitting anti-smoking media campaigns effectively raise awareness about the serious toll that tobacco use takes on one’s health and the many lives it affects… Strong evidence proves that graphic, hard-hitting anti-tobacco ads work, and those that arouse strong negative emotions perform better than those that do not. Hard-hitting media campaigns are not only effective at promoting quit attempts, they also reduce youth initiation… Studies show that emotionally evocative media campaigns featuring graphic images of smoking-related diseases are effective in motivating smokers to quit… According to a study published in June 2010, ads that utilize a why-to-quit strategy with graphic images of the physical consequences of smoking and ads that use testimonials of personal loss from smoking were perceived as more effective among smokers than other ad categories."

"the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2012 Tips From Former Smokers (Tips) campaign motivated 1.6 million smokers to make a quit attempt. More than 100,000 U.S. smokers will remain quit as a result of the 2012 campaign. An estimated 6 million nonsmokers talked with friends and family about the dangers of smoking[1-5]"


Cites in link
Debate Round No. 2


kingkd forfeited this round.



According to the rules we agreed to a forfeit is against the rules and means there is an automatic loss. Vote con
Debate Round No. 3


kingkd forfeited this round.


Vote con on the forfeit, or, vote on the conceeded case turn.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
>Reported vote: RarityIsReady// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: FF

[*Reason for non-removal*] Given that forfeiting was against the rules, a forfeit on this debate can be used to justify argument points. While voters should present the rules as the direct reason for awarding these points, due to the nature of this particular debate, the debate will be treated as a concession and therefore votes that award Con points will not be moderated.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
>Reported vote: Sam7411// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: If Pro had continued his argument, which made some fair points, he could've possibly won this debate. However, he broke the rules and forfeited.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't justify the source points allocation.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 9 months ago
You gonna post
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 10 months ago
if the cite I gave you in the debate doesn't work, use this one.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 10 months ago
good arguments man
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 10 months ago
can you get rid of the no kritiking rule because I'm probably going to challenge you're ethics/morals arguments, and maybe say capitalism bad.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 9 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: As R1 states, violation of any of these rules results in loss, forfeiture, thus loss.
Vote Placed by RarityIsReady 9 months ago
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 rich123 9 months 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 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: pro forfeit