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

Smoking bans are unconstitutional

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: 10/23/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,130 times Debate No: 39354
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe such things should be left to small business or places that want to ban it. To give big government power (and I'm not conservative) to make laws banning things is similar to Prohibition. It's tyranny. Only institutions should be able to determine whether to ban something or not.


Hi Rupert,

This will be my first debate on this site, so we'll see how it goes. :) I have to first ask what part of the constitution does this law infringe on? Also, this debate therefore have to be taken to a state level rather than a federal level as it is the individual states that apply such laws. Your argument appears to be this, not that it is unconstitutional but rather it betrays some of your personal political ideologies.

1. You claim that this should be something left to the business owners and not the government. Actually, the government makes all kinds of standards for business owners including health standards, so naturally it would seem logical to ban something definitively linked to cancer (second-hand smoking) to protect the citizens from irresponsible business owners.

2. You attempted to draw a connection to the prohibition and that it is giving the "big government" more power to do thing such as that. This argument is the slippery slope fallacy, and the presupposition is likely an emotional one rather than logical one. Also, it is refuted by the fact this is not handled on the federal level, but the state level.

3. You contend that this law is tyranny. Which is "cruel and abusive rule by a governing body." I also have to disagree with this, we live in a republic in which we vote for representatives on the federal and state level to voice the wants and desires of the people. These representatives elected by the people have not only made this law, but have not attempted to repeal such a law, and was deemed Constitutional by the State Supreme Courts. This is not tyranny or an abuse of government, this is the government acting in a healthy way for the good of it's citizens (to protect them from the harmful effects of second hand smoking).

4. Your last contention is that "only institutions should be able to determine whether to ban something or not." This is basically a repeat of your first argument, just worded a little bit differently. However, can you please point out where in our Constitution it states anything to the effect of what you stated here?

Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Adam2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of them convinced me, but True Scotsman delivers at the end. He gives reasons as to why bans are not unconstitutional.