The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Smoking Should be allowed During school

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,008 times Debate No: 6760
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




In advance i would like to thank anyone who accepts this debate.

I will clerify what i mean by this topic.
Resolved: Smoking Cigarettes should be allowed during school, such as lunch breaks and class breaks. (Not in class just to state)

Good Luck to my opponent.


I would like to start off by taking a moment and thanking my opponent for instigating this debate.

That said, I'll go ahead and make a case...

1) Smoking is illegal

The legal age to smoke is 18. This means that only seniors, a select group of seniors, would be legal to smoke at school. I understand that smoking takes place anyway, but a school can't condone smoking.

2) Having cigarettes on campus increases availability

This pretty much speaks for itself. When aforementioned seniors have cigarettes on them, and are free to smoke them on campus, this only allows the freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and the under-age seniors more access to cigarettes. As a school, their job is to ensure each student is safe and productive. By allowing cigarettes on campus, the school is indirectly condoning the use of nicotine, which violates the law.

3) Allowing cigarettes on campus is hypocritical.

Several school programs (D.A.R.E. for example) advocate against cigarettes. Health classes warn of the dangers of smoking, and now a school is going to say "Okay, you can smoke."? This is wrong and hypocritical, and teaches children to disregard everything the school does. This destroys the value of an education, and leads to a semi-anarchist government within the school.

4) Allowance encourages advocacy

If a school allows smoking, it sends the signal that smoking is an okay activity, which, referring to the health programs (such as D.A.R.E. again) we know it's not. Cigarettes are the only legal drug that has been banned from advertising on TV.

5) Cigarettes cause harm to smokers and bystanders in the vicinity.

Smoking kills about 443,000 Americans annually. [1] This is certainly a trend we don't need to encourage (see point 4) Secondhand smoke kills 50,000 Americans annually. [2] Again, a trend that doesn't need to be encouraged. I know this only applies to indoor smoking, but it wasn't clarified where smoking will be allowed during school.

6) Smoking hurts the economy

$88 billion is spent on cigarettes every year [3] but smoking costs $167 billion annually due to losses in health care and productivity (people available to do work) [4]. Certainly not a good thing looking at the current economic scenario.

Also, [5] is a cool page to look at, rather sad really. It shows how much people could save if they quit smoking and invested in CD's... I'm not sure, but I think cigarettes cost more than the $2.50 per pack they assume. Either way, the numbers are there... enjoy

I'm going to open the floor to my opponent now. I can clarify anything in comments if need be. I'll refute/ extend case in the second round if need be. Once again thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate, and I wish him luck as well.


Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thanks Hoose for accepting my debate. Also i would like to throw out there im going through some stuff now and im trying to get through it, so i will make this debate as good as i can.

1. My opponent states that smoking is illegal. He is right if you are under the age of 18 you cannot smoke. So technically seniors would be the only ones. This is still smoking during school. It is going to happen anyways so why would you try to stop it.

2. Having cigarettes would increase availability. Even so this is another debate for another time.

3. We have these progams so why couldnt they get rid of it? There is plenty of hypocritical things going on in school. Teachers tell kids not to bring their problems to school, yet teachers do. Teachers tell students dont use your phone in class, yet teachers do. There is plent more of these. I am not implicating that you smoke during class! How is smoking during lunch or class breaks destroying education?

4. Once again this is not really a big deal. Even the cigarette company puts that smoking is bad and warnings on the boxes, yet people still do it. They could have a sign saying smoking is bad and let kids do it.

5. Most people who smoke know its horrible for them yet they still smoke.


There could be places for people to smoke. Restaurants have designated areas for a reason, why cant schools? These places could consist of snoking rooms, outside places and things like this. It would only be hurting the smokers.

School is a very stressful place. I know sometimes myself, i feel like having a cigarette because of all the work. This could be a easy way out instead of starting fights, and getting mad at teachers.

I will add on to these points in the next round. I have to go do some stuff sorry.
I would like to thank my opponent again for accepting this debate.


Let's start off with some answers...

1) My opponent grants that seniors would be the only people allowed to smoke, and says this doesn't matter because smoking is going to happen anyways. Schools are federal buildings (or at least state buildings). This means they get their funding from the government. They can't endorse smoking, they can't allow it; if they do, their funding gets cut. No funding, no school. No school, no place to debate about whether smoking should be allowed. However ineffective the system is at stopping teen smokers, completely allowing it isn't feasible and isn't realistic.

2) My opponent grants my point of increased availability, and dismisses it as "another debate for another time". However, it's completely relevant. My case needs to be looked at holistically, each point links into another. Increasing availability increases the deaths and monetary loss I mentioned at the end of R1.

3) The hypocrisy of school is where we start to see some clash. These programs can't get rid of it because there are people who don't care. Apathy is a very destructive habit. Couple this with nicotine and it's easy to see why 443,000 people die every year and $167 billion is lost...

4) Once again my opponent dismisses one of my points. My opponent claims that it's perfectly fine for schools to advocate smoking. I'd like to press for an explanation, and at the same time offer my explanation. Nicotine is a very addictive drug. Those who are going to smoke it/chew it are going to do so regardless of the law. Those who are deterred by the law aren't going to because... they're deterred by the law. (Circular logic is great, isn't it? :D ) The earlier someone gets ahold of the drug, the more likely someone is to use it. The more people who use it forces those statistics to skyrocket! Lots more people die, lots more money is wasted (look at it nation-wide).

5) My opponent once again dismisses my point on the number of people who die from tobacco and says that those who smoke know it's horrible for them. You have to remember that nicotine is an addictive drug. Maybe they want to quit but can't (look at all the quit smoking gum...). Besides, do we really want to see these horrible statistics climb?

6) My opponent completely drops my point on the economy...

To refute my opponent's case:

* On designated places to smoke: Indoors causes second-hand smoke, outdoors is still a endorsement of smoking and causes all the negative effects outlined in R1 and defended above

* On the stresses of school: There are better ways of stress control, and if 7 hours a day is enough to stress someone out, they probably shouldn't look to drugs to help them...

For these reasons you can NEGATE. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 2


LoveyounoHomo forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited the last round... A simple glance in the comments section will garner this information:

"I can no longer debate
Vote Con"

I'll agree with my opponent... extend all my arguments and vote CON

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by scot2 8 years ago

The federal Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act (TSYPA), which came into force 1994-02-08, prohibits the sale of tobacco products in Canada to persons under the age of 18. The federal legislation is meant to reinforce, but not limit or restrict, provincial sales-to-minors legislation regarding tobacco products. Indeed, certain provinces, namely Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, and British Columbia have increased the legal age for the purchase of tobacco products to 19. (However there is no legal age on when you can smoke, it is only the age you are able to sell to.) yay go canada
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 9 years ago
I can no longer debate
Vote Con
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 9 years ago
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
we have cops all over our town & after getting an MIP tobacco, i decided to find somewhere else besides school & work to smoke. Somewhere more discreet.

Oh, and DARE sucks.
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 9 years ago
=) word
Posted by theitalianstallion 9 years ago
Keep the smokes outside; if there's smoking in the parking lot, I'm cool. Inside, I have a problem; by the track, we now have a problem.
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 9 years ago
it could mean that =). At my school me and some buddies go out to the parking lot and smoke. Totally against school code but hey
Posted by ELOCMADA 9 years ago
do you mean in the lunch room I would have no problem if there was a smoking and non smoking parts
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 9 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LoveyounoHomo 9 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70