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

Smoking Should be Banned

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: 8/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 60114
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Banned means "prohibited in all public places".
Round one acceptance only.
BoP is shared.


I accept the challenge, but just to make this straight. Do you mean that smoking is supposed to be completely banned or just banned in public places.
Debate Round No. 1


Completely banned.
It feels odd doing this side of the resolution, I was completely for the ban, then I debated against kc1999 about the resolution.....and he changed my view topsy-turvy. Oh well. Let's see how this goes.

1. People have freedom of choice. If you ban smoking completely this does not give the people their freedom of choice. The government has no right to infiltrate the individual freedom of choice. If you ban smoking you would be doing an "immoral" choice by violating such freedom, and the people would more than likely overthrow the government or massively complain like the alcohol ban. In fact, the alcohol ban was massively ineffective. [4]
2. Economic benefits of smoking. India gained $2.1 billion from cigarettes, Yunnan alone gained $8.3 billion dollars, and Turkey has more than 530$ million dollars, even with severe tobacco taxes. [1]
2b. Furthermore there is a country named Malawi that 90% depends on tobacco exports, yet is still impoverished. If we ban tobacco completely Malawi would lose 5 million jobs and $165 million yearly. People would die of starvation if we banned smoking completely.
3. Jobs. The tobacco industry provides the US more than 600,000 jobs. It also directly influences 1.6 million workers in America. It gives 10$ million to the government by taxes. [2] The US would doubtfully survive the crash if smoking was banned, and around the world 30 million jobs are created by JUST farming the tobacco.
4. Peopel would still get more regardless of the ban. Nicotine is so darn addictive people would go to the black market and still smoke because the psycological effects force people to smoke until you reach the substance "equilibruim". [3] Again, with the alcohol-ban's ineffectiveness--seriously, do you expect people to stop just because you banned it? Nope.
5. This (addiction) is actually a mental issue, not a psysical issue. Even DSM V puts addiction as a mental condition. We cannot arrest people for a mental issue, it is not a legal issue.

With this, I have negated the resolution. Onto you, pro.



-I would like to thank my opponent for inviting me to this debate and choosing such an interesting topic to discuss.

About cigarettes and the addiction of tobacco:

Cigarettes are one of the main reasons for premature death. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Preventation, Americans of the ages of 18 years and older smoke tobacco cigarettes. 443,000 deaths occur yearly in the U.S. from smoking. Smoking greatly affects the population of the nation.


As I have mentioned before smoking affects the population. Smoking affects the population's health and its economy. Not only does smoking effect smokers it is also capable of effecting the health of many non-smokers. Cigarettes are also capable of affecting the outside environment. Children, while breathing the smoke of the cigarettes are able to get diseases like bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, ear infections, and so much more (1).

Deaths and Health

One out of every 5 deaths in the states is caused from smoking. Smoking gives diseases such as lung caner, liver cancer, emphysema, leukemia, etc. cigarettes are also capable of damaging your sexual life and the pulse of your heart. In Alaska 492 people died from smoking while in California there was roughly 36,687 (1). In the 20th century smoking killed over 100 million people (2).

Financial Burden:

Due to the cost of cigarettes and the influence that it has on people, the United States spends $193 billion on this burden annually. $5 billion are spent on medical costs and $4.6 billion on cigarettes (1).


Control of research and media:

Smoking corrupts the opportunity for research by forcing scientists to conduct research on topics like decoy or distraction research. Basically, everything is dependent on tobacco industries and corporations. Tobacco industries also sponsor the media. Newspapers and many news television and the radio is forced to write good critiques on cigarettes. Tobacco industries have also forced companies like Phillip Moris to invest in CIGNA to censor the health information on cigarette packs (2).

Smokers dislike their habit:

Most smokers despise their addiction to cigarettes. Smoking is very indifferent to drugs like Marijuana, Caffeine and Marijuana. 10-15% of people who drink alcohol become habitual addicts to it, while 80-90% of people who smoke momentarily become addicted to cigarettes. A famous Canadian tobacco executive admitted, " smoking is not like drinking, it is rather like being an alcoholic."

Debate Round No. 2


I am perfectly aware of smoke's harms, but they are irrelevant because people had the decision to kill off themselves, it is their choice to harm their bodies.

As for financial burden, the huge loss of jobs makes the government earn less money since there are less people to give taxes and all that to the government. 600,000 people losing their jobs? Whoa, that's a lot of tax that could have been earned.

Smokes' corruption: Scientist can earn more money from more research, isn't that good? Besides, you only support my point that with smoke's ban comes huge crash of industries, since my opponent agrees to my point and even said tobacco industries sponsor nearly everything; therefore the ban has a much more negative impact than even I stated above. Thank you opponent, thank you very much.

Irrefuted arguments:
-freedom of choice
-Malawi gonna get wiped off the map
-Loss of jobs
-Crashes of industries (thanks to my opponent's source)
-ineffectiveness of the ban
-it's a mental issue, not a legal issue


-Thank you for a very wonderful argument, I could see that you have partially understood what I have explained.


Let's start by discussing about the health and the death of the people. You choose to exclude the fact that smokers don't only harm themselves, but they also harm the people around, especially children. And remember, the diseases that non-smokers get from breathing in the tobacco smoke is the same as the diseases that smokers get.

Tobacco industry corruption: You don't understand, these corporation are continuously forcing scientists to do the same experiments, these companies are forcing them to find evidences that smoking isn't not all that dangerous. It's not about the research; it's about finding solutions to help people. If it wasn't for these industries we would've made such extravagant discoveries. Tobacco sponsors are literally threatening these companies/medical facilities. You also have chosen to exclude the story of Phillip Morris. A company that was forced to censor health information on cigarette packs because tobacco industries threatened them.
Debate Round No. 3


Harming other people: Other people can just walk away. :/

Industry corruption: What do you mean, scientists aren't finding solutions? Did they not invent the safer version of smoking?


Irrefuted/Dropped arguments:
-freedom of choice (ban=immorality of the government)
-Malawi gonna get wiped off the map
-Loss of jobs
-Crashes of industries (thanks to my opponent's source)
-ineffectiveness of the ban
-it's a mental issue, not a legal issue



-Thank you once for your submission.


First of all, you choose to deny the children, the family members. I have seen parents who smoke near their children, and other family members. So, walking away might not even be an option.

A safer version of smoking, what are you talking about, these scientists are working for tobacco industries that produce only tobacco.

Also, electrical cigarettes have its flaws too.

1. E-cigarettes have a lithium battery, which is very detrimental to your health.
2. They contain liquid nicotine.
3. They are toxic.
4. No quality control.
5. FDA wants regulations for these cigarettes.
6. Reusability.
7. Cost less than actual cigarettes.
8. Banned in public places (New York, Chicago).
9. Second-hand vapor.
10. Lung Damage.


Don't Smoke and vote for me!

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
the 2cd one was a vote-bomb
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
thought i won that round, there were two votes.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
I'm half expecting you to post a massive 8,000-character argument just to gain back footage. :P It might, but it deducts your conduct point and is far too risky.
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
I have *
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
I am sorry I am mentioned marijuana twice
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
Yeah... I know it's odd. I am just a huge fan of Jimi Hendrix
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
pro has a profile pic to support his view.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued very well that smoking is bad for society but did not address Con's arguments in the second round. For example the 30 million jobs lost, and outlawing a metal issue were his strongest.