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

Resolved: Tobacco should be made illegal

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,139 times Debate No: 22177
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




we know the drill first round acceptance/definitions


any of several plants belonging to the genus Nicotiana, of the nightshade family, especially one of those species, as N. tabacum, whose leaves are prepared for smoking or chewing or as snuff.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


C1: Unhealthy

Yes, this is going to be one of my contentions AGAINST banning tobacco.


-lung cancer
-heart disease
-cardiovascular disease
-cancer [1]

fast food:

-sugary (bad for some people like ADD)
-weight gain
-Just as unhealthy as tobacco [2, 3, 4]

The argument here is what is sounds like: Sure tobacco is bad, but so is fast food. Many things that are very legal are bad for you, just because something is bad for you is not grounds for a goverment to ban it.

C2: Tax revenue from tobacco

This is one of the biggest pluses to tobacco being legal! If it is legal it is creating goverment revenues through these taxes! In 2009 the goverment was raking in 17 million dollars from the tobacco tax! [5] It is common for many local governments to be dependent on these taxes from tobacco. [6]

---> Now why is this an issue? This means banning tobacco will significantly reduce revenues therefore increasing federal and local debts. Also as many local governments are dependent on this tax banning it will cause local governments to wither away. Banning tobacco is bad for the goverment, this means the state has no reason to ban this substance.

---> Sub Point, Taxing tobacco lowers users without a ban

Not only does taxing legal tobacco help the governments pocket books, but it decreases users without an all out ban! Raising tobacco prices through these taxes significantly reduce youth and overall tobacco users. [7] If we rose tobacco prices 10% youth users decreases 11%. [7, 8]

Graph from source 9:

Now data from 1970 al the ay through 2006 show a decrease in userss, and it wasn't until 2000 (when the taxes rose) when users dereased. [10] This shows we can significantly reduce users without a ban, all it takes is a tax.

C3: Banning it would create a black market

This is obvious. Drugs are currently banned, and there is a significan drug trade spreading violence and drugs ilelgally. [11] A quote from a hisory teacher:

"When you ban something, people smuggle it. When you ban something, it gets used illegally, dangerously, and violently"
-Mr. Ryder

Banning someing just crates a black market where people make the substance MORE dangerous then it already is, and the market for the substance becomes violent. We see it with drugs, [11] we saw it with alcoho (organized crime came about) [12], and it will happen againif we ban tobacco. [12] Banning tobaco will just... Increase violence of the drug usage! Tobacco is legal and is creating things called the e-cigarette. [13] Is it perfect? NO! But it is safer then normal smoking, but only legal markets can create these safer versions. If it was ilelgal all research towards making smoking safe would END, making it less safe. People would use the traditional smoking method. Making it illegal forces the traditional burn our lungs method. Allowing smoking would help fund the methods of safer smoking and therefore save lives. It would A. save lives (no black market), B. make smoking safer. Banning cigarettes create a black market and reverse all research to making it safer.


Banning tobacco would make smoking less safe as it would impede any research making it safer. Bannign tobacco would create a black market, killing people through worse substances (when llegal it makes it less safe as it impedes research making it better for you) and through organized crime. We can reduce tobacco users through a tax, and we don't need to ban it. We can keep it legal and reduce users. And although tobaco is bad for you, so it to much food, or computer, or anything really! If banning something soely on it is bad for you is the argument, then the same logic can be pplied for almost anything. Vote CON

[8] R.J. Reynolds Executive D. S. Burrows, “Estimated Change In Industry Trend Following Federal Excise Tax Increase,”


I thank my opponent for such a stimulating debate, and I apologize for my argument coming in so late. I would most certainly be in support of making tobacco illegal in the United States. My opponent has conceded the idea that tobacco is unhealthy, so it would be rather redundant for me to write an entire contention explaining the effects of lung cancer, emphysema, second-hand smoking, etc, so I will move on to other arguments in my case (and all resources of my arguments can be found in my next rebuttal):

Contention 1: Drugs can be regulated and controlled.
Drugs in general can be controlled if the correct strategies are implemented into effect in the country, comparing the control to marijuana in the United States, which has been effective for the United States acording to Dr. Robert L. DuPont, the former director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse:

"Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation. The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure...Reducing marijuana use is essential to improving the nation’s health, education, and productivity. New policies can greatly improve current performance of prevention strategies which, far from failing, has protected millions of people from the many adverse effects of marijuana use."

Illegalization can actually reduce the rates of drug abuse as he reports, as well as previous reports from the United States Department of Justice.

Contention 2: The economy can still function.
People could probably enter into other jobs and enter into other corporations that could expand in order to make the economy function.

Please excuse the poor argument.

Debate Round No. 2


C1: Drugs can be regulated and controlled

My opponents argument here is poor, as it revolves around the thought that illegalization is the only way to control a substance. As I have stated there are ways like price control that an lower tobacco users as well, without the all out ban. he majority of tobacco brands advertise on price. [1] As we know the tax would raise price, and then the advantage buying cigarettes would decrease. [1] And lower users. Also other ways to control smoking are effective, such as putting the pictures on the carton. [2]

The basis of my opponents argument is highly fallacious. Her way basically is attempting to ban them, and thinking that is the only way to decrease users. This is false, as I ave showed ways where tobacco is legal and the ways to lower costs without abolishment are many. The argument is void as there are other ways to lower tobacco users.

Also legalization has helped many countries in other countries. Lets relate this to drugs. When Portugal decriminalized all drugs users actually decreased. [3] Sure illegalization may lower users, but there are other ways to control it and legalization in some cases is support. My opponents argument is false.

C2: The economy can still function

My opponents argument is here a fallacy. She is assuming firing millions of people will not hurt the economy, and is assuming they can find other jobs. One thing she misses is doing this many people will go into withdrawals as then cannot access the drug except illegally. This will form a whole generation of irritable people who enter crime to obtain the drug. Second she forgets my tax argument, how local governments rely on these taxes. This would increase deficits, and therefore hurt the public workers as well. Millions of jobs are from tobacco directly and indirectly. [4]

Banning tobacco would mean many jobs would be lost and other indirect insustries would be hurt. Bannign tobacco would hurt the economy.



ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


As it is a conduct violation to post [new] arguments last round, and this is last round, I hope my opponent decides not to do anything drastic. As of now, I am urging a con vote.

Summary of my arguments:

---> Sure tobacco s bad, but so is fast food. Wanna ban fast foo?
---> Keeping it legal would increase tax revues which many governments are dependent on
---> There are ways to decrease users without a ban
---> banning it is economically detrimental
---> Banning tobacco would make a black market

Vote CON.


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF seriously scarlet wtf >.<