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

The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

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: 12/10/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,717 times Debate No: 28036
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I and baseballkid will be debating on the legitimacy of a complete ban on smoking in the United States (all 50 states & the District of Columbia). As Pro, I will be affirming the resolution whereas baseballkid will take the opposite position. This debate will consist of 5 rounds.

First Round: Acceptance & Clarification(s).
Second Round: Main Argument (No Rebuttal).
Third & Fourth Round: Rebuttal(s).
Fifth Round: Summary ONLY. No new argument.

Legitimacy: The quality or fact of being legitimate (

May both of us enjoy this debate and let"s begin.


I agree to the conditions and think that smoking should not be banned.
Debate Round No. 1


I would to thank baseballkid for accepting this debate
The word "smoking" (in the resolution) refers to "cigarette smoking" exclusively, unless stated otherwise. Two type of smoking will be introduced in the following argument: cocaine smoking and cigarette smoking.

Table of Content
Mechanism: Cocaine smoking vs. Cigarette smoking
Health Effect: Cocaine smoking vs. Cigarette smoking
Conclusion: Cocaine and Cigarette, they are twin brothers

1. Introduction
Cigarette smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Cigarette smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general.[1] In this debate, I will strive to establish the linkage between smoking cigarette and smoking cocaine in an attempt to show that if the United States bans the cocaine, the federal government should also ban cigarette smoking nationwide. In the United States, cocaine is Schedule II according to the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.[2]

2. Mechanism
Cocaine is an additive drug derived from coca or prepared synthetically, used as an illegal stimulant.(Oxford Dictionary) In an attempt to represent the similarity between cocaine and cigarette, it is better to understand how cocaine is abused. There are generally three routes of administration used for cocaine: snorting, injecting, and smoking.[3] It is the smoking route that would be the focus of this discussion.

Smoking cocaine involves inhaling cocaine vapor or smoke into the lungs, where it would subsequently absorbed into the bloodstream.[3] The intensity and duration of cocaine"s effects usually entail increased energy, reduced fatigue, and mental alertness.[3] In general, the faster cocaine is absorbed into the bloodstream and delivered to the brain, the more intense the high.[3] Smoking cocaine is considered to produce a quick and strong high.[3] On the other hand, faster absorption usually means shorter duration of action.[3] High from smoking cocaine, in general, may last only 5 to 10 minutes, thereby creating a constant demand for drugs to sustain the high.[3]

Cocaine is a strong central nervous system stimulant that increases levels of dopamine.[3] Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that mediates pleasure in the brain. A neurotransmitter is a chemical substance that causes the transfer of the impulse to another nerve fiber.(Oxford Dictionary) Dopamine is considered to be associated with pleasure reward.[3] Normally, dopamine is released by a neuron in response to a pleasurable signal (e.g., watching sports or the smell of good food), and then recycled back into the neuron that released it. Releasing of dopamine stimulates one to seek our pleasurable activity. Cocaine would actively prevent the dopamine from being recycled, thereby causing an excessive amount of the dopamine to build up. It is this excess of dopamine that is responsible for cocaine"s euphoric effects.[3] With repeated use, cocaine can cause long-term changes in the brain"s reward system which would eventually lead to addiction (repeated consumption in order to sustain the pleasure).[3]

The additive substance in Cigarette is nicotine, a toxic colorless or yellowish oily liquid. It acts as a stimulant in small doses. (Oxford Dictionary) Nicotine essentially works in the same way as cocaine in terms of its biological process in human brains. Basically, nicotine increases levels of dopamine in the brain reward circuits, and actively prevent dopamine from being recycled back thereby accumulating an excessive amount of neurotransmitters.[4] This reaction is similar to that seen with cocaine abuse and is thought to underlie the pleasurable sensations experienced by many smokers. Long-term brain changes induced by continued and repeated nicotine exposure result in addiction.[4] Cigarette smoking, similar to cocaine smoking, produces a rapid distribution of nicotine to the brain. The acute effects of nicotine dissipate quickly, as do the associated feelings of reward, which causes the Cigarette smoker to continue demanding more cigarettes to sustain pleasure.[4] Therefore, in term of the working mechanism, nicotine is no different from cocaine.

3. Health Effect
In terms of health effect, smoking cocaine can experience acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke. Bing-patterned cocaine use may lead to irritability, restlessness, and anxiety. Cocaine abusers can also experience sever paranoia, an effect rarely realized by cigarette smokers.[3]

Cigarette smoking, to a certain extent, has more sever effect on health than cocaine smoking. There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 4,000 chemicals.[5] At lest 50 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer. Nicotine is considered the culprit of addiction. Cancer causing agents are substance such as tar. General consensus about the health effect of cigarette smoking includes increased risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung diseases, coronary heart disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body where it runs through the abdomen), and other numerous type of cancers, including but not limited to, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, cancer of the pharynx (throat) and stomach cancer. In addition, smoking may also have many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome. Nicotine withdrawal symptoms include irritability, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbances.[1]

4. Conclusion
Cocaine and Cigarette are no different. In fact, they are twin brothers. In terms of the chemical mechanism, they both fundamentally change the brain"s reward system by blocking the recycling of dopamine. In terms of long term health effect, smoking cigarette may even cause more problems than smoking cocaine due to the fact that there are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes and at least 50 of the chemicals generated from burning are carcinogenic. Therefore, if the United States outlaw the sale of cocaine, so should it ban the sale of cigarette.

Thank you.



I will first say that I hope this goes as well as our debate on nuclear energy.

1: The smoking of ciggarettes gives us a large amount of money in taxes.
The United States is in a time where we need any money that we can get. We are trillions in debt and any money we get can help. The federal government collects nearly $7 billion annually in cigarette excise taxes.Taxes are not the only government revenue from cigarettes. Settlements in the late 1990s to end state lawsuits against tobacco companies mean that the cigarette industry is paying states nearly $250 billion over 25 years. The incredibly large amount of money headed to the government is needed.

2.The American people do not want it.
According to a recent nationwide survey of registered voters by Zogby International, 45% of Americans said yes to a ban n smoking.(1) We should not make the americanpeople do something that the majority of people do n want. We have to take a look at the last time something like this was banned. The prohabition of alcohol was a miserable failure. The likleyhood of this happining is very high.
3. It would not solve the problem

Big tobacco wouldn't disappear; it would just change hands and go underground, discarding its high priced lobbyists in favor of people more skilled in violence and intimidation.There would be hundreds of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users and this would just cost us more money. You just need to look at cocane and heroin for this as the drug market for them is not legal and they are still used often.

A total ban on smoking would put us down a large amount of money, we would be going against what the people want, and would not even solve the problem.



Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank baseballkid for presenting his arguments.
Con attempts to negate the resolution from three different aspects: Economic Consideration, Public Sentiment, and Unintended Consequence (if ban is issued). I will be addressing all three contentions in sequence.

Table of Content
1. The Smoking of Cigarettes Gives Us A Large Amount of Money In Taxes
2. The American People Do Not Want It
3. It Would Not Solve the Problem
4. References

1. The Smoking of Cigarettes Gives Us A Large Amount of Money In Taxes
It is well known that tobacco industry is powerful and indeed they contribute multi-billion dollars in taxes to the treasure. Nevertheless, Con overlooked the economic COSTS associated with smoking. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
During 2000-2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion lost productivity.)[1]
Cigarette smoking results in 5.1 million years of potential life lost in the United States annually.[1]
Secondhand smoke costs more than $10 billion.[1]

The sheer magnitude of health-related cost (~ 193 billion in 5 years or $38.6 billion per year) significantly outweighs the income tax revenues that are collected from tobacco industry (~7 billion annually). The tax revenue alone may not be sufficient to thwart the federal government efforts to proscribe cigarette smoking. In addition to the health-related cost, the lost of potential life to cigarette smoking also provides moral argument to ban smoking nationwide.

2. The American People Do Not Want It
There are several potential problems with the survey
According to the survey, "The analysis of findings is from nationwide telephone survey of LIKELY VOTERS conducted July 21, 2006 through July 26, 2006."[2] Therefore, the results may not have a nationwide application even if the target sample is 1,200.[2] In essence, likely voters may not represent the entire nation.
The questionnaires miss the option of "No opinion" Here are the questions being asked in the survey: Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strong oppose a federal law making cigarettes illegal within the next five to ten years? The miss the option of "No opinion" may bias the result.[2] [It is possible that many people would have no opinion on the issue, but nonetheless are compelled to give answers]
Among the supporter of such ban, the strongest support for making cigarettes illegal is among 18-29 year-olds, with 57 percent of them in favor of criminalizing cigarette smokers. The surprising results may partially due to media exposure and anti-smoking campaign, partially due to the recognition of harmful effect of smoking. In the United Sates, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers. In fact, more than 80% of adult smokers begin smoking before 18 years of age.[3] Therefore, IF WE ASSUME that the younger the smokers, the stronger their animus toward smoking, it is not unreasonable to assume that by including people who are younger than 18, who represent a non-significant proportion of smokers, the percentage of supporters would be higher.

Therefore, this particular survey cited by Con may not represent an accurate picture of national sentiments toward smoking.

3. It Would Not Solve the Problem
By broaching the point, Con apparently assumed that:

The government should not adopt a solution to a problem if there is a reasonable doubt that purported solution may not solve the problem.

Con"s concerns have a practical application, but it is not impossible to avoid/pacify the presupposed repercussion by tailoring the ban in a way that takes the interest of tobacco industry into consideration while also achieving the EFFECT of nationwide ban. Some solutions include:

From the Industry Aspect:
Since many nations other than the United States do not ban cigarette smoking, the United States could attempt to negotiate free treaty with those nations in order to increase the cigarettes exports.
The Federal government could levy heavy taxes on the sale of cigarettes in order to dramatically reduce the domestic consumptions. A 10% increase in price has been estimated to reduce overall cigarette consumption among adolescents and young adults by about 4%. In addition, increases in cigarette prices can lead to significant reductions in smoking prevalence by increasing cessation among smokers and reducing smoking initiation among potential young smokers. [3]
Offer tax credits to the tobacco companies in an attempt to compensate their loses on the sale of cigarettes in the domestic market.
Encourage tobacco industry to seek new revenue sources. e.g., Cigar smoking.

From the Consumers Aspect:
Higher prices may deter consumers from smoking. There the Federal government could levy heavy taxes on the sale of cigarettes to prevent people from purchasing cigarettes.
Offer tax credits/incentives to prevent people from smoking.

Therefore, it is not necessary the case that the tobacco industry would have gone underground if the government issues a complete ban. The nationwide ban can be achieved even if the ban appears to be a domestic regulation. Tobacco industry may continue earning a significant amount of revenue under the ban from the government and/or oversea sales. For the consumers, the ban may be hard to adapt initially. However, by providing a workable mechanism, the ban should be gradually accepted by the majority of the society.

Thank you.

4. References


I will defend my arguments and then attack my opponents.

1: cost: I would first like to say that my opponent ignores the annual 25 billion due to other tobacco deals. I also fail to see how it would have medical costs. The smokers would have to pay the hospital or they would be paying insurance. The unable to work costs are real but they still do not outweigh the taxes and money we would lose from banning tobacco. The morals my opponent brings up are irrelevant because we are not forcing them to do this.

2: The fact of the matter remains that people do dislike this. We really should not force all these people to stop smoking that have been doing so all their life. My opponent now goes on to talk about a bunch of statistics. I argue that in my next point."it is not unreasonable to assume that by including people who are younger than 18, who represent a non-significant proportion of smokers, the percentage of supporters would be higher." This should be common sense that people that do not smoke care less about the bill. To alienate more than 1/5 of the people entirely is still horrible. This is even ignorinng the people who are against it that do not smoke. horrible.

3: My opponent in attacking my second topic says"In the United Sates, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers. In fact, more than 80% of adult smokers begin smoking before 18 years of age". This is already against the law and people do not care and they are still breaking the law. Why would they ad hear to this law when they are already breaking laws now. The resolution states that we are enacting a ban not just trying to gt the results of it. My opponent talks about industry and he ignores absolutely all of the people that would lose jobs because of this ban. My opponent talks about tax credits and this would just cost us even more money which makes my first contention even stronger.
ban:Bans are formed for the prohibition of activities within a certain political territory It will be completely prohibited. My opponent is incorrect in the fact that he thinks that the ban does not have to go underground. The business would go underground and it would end up just like heroin today.

I will now attack my opponents arguments.
1: "then yes it is shown to suppress appetite and eat away at your muscle"
( This is one of the largest reasons why cocaine is illegal. When you become addicted this is what happens. Smoking in the terms of this debate does not do this.

2:My opponent gives another very large difference between cocaine and cigarette smoking. He talks about the need for cocaine every 5 to 10 minutes where smoking cigarettes is just not this way. They have a different main drug from nicotine to cocaine is huge. They are really not even comparable because of the very large differences. The working difference is different because of the fact that the cocaine can cause damage to muscles unlike nicotine. This is shown by my earlier link.

3: I have already proved the difference in tobacco and cocaine so I will just address cigarettes.
My opponent talks about how the reaction goes and the only real problem is that it makes you want to have to much. This can be solved by many things including self control and if need be there are many medicines that help make slowing down easier. The buildup of dopamine helps add pleasure. This is not a problem.

I have proved that Cigarettes are very different than cocaine and I have shown the cost to be on my side. I have shown how it hurts the American people and how this bill would not solve anything in the first place.
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank baseballkid for presenting his arguments
Even if we do include related deals (processing, packaging, transporting, and adverting or example), my opponent has yet offered a concrete number for comparison. Regardless of how the cost has been paid, it is a cost nonetheless. The sheer magnitude of health-related cost (~ 193 billion in 5 years) is a real threat to the solvency of the national health care system.

The American People do not Want it
The principle invoked by my opponent is self-evidently untenable. My opponent apparently agrees (or at least does not disagree) that smoking is harmful. By asserting that: "We really should not force all these people to stop smoking that have been doing so all their life," con apparently suggests that "We should not keep all these people from harming themselves since they have been doing so all their lives." By the same token, government perhaps should not ban drunk driving since for many irresponsible drivers, drunk driving is like a daily routine. The federal government has a legitimate interest in guarding one"s safety, and it should attempt to its best to prevent any harm falls upon its citizens.

Concerning about the proposed solutions
My opponent"s argument can be divided into three parts
First, my opponent suggests that the proposed solution would not be effective since many young adults pay no heed to the law. [Young Adults]
Second, pro suggests that the proposed solution fails to consider the loss of employment. [Jobs]
Third, pro suggests that the cigarette industry would have to go underground and the situation could become even worse. [Industry]

Young Adults
"A 10% increase in price has been estimated to reduce overall cigarette consumption among adolescents and young adults by about 4%." Since young adults have very limited income source, it is not unreasonable to assume that most of them are very sensitive to the price of the product. If a 10% increase in price has deterrent effect on the purchase of cigarettes, it is plausible to assume that the higher the price, the lower the sales of cigarettes. Young adults may not abide the currently law primarily because they could afford the purchases. If the sale price is increased to a prohibitive level, young adults would be deprived of the mean to purchase the items considered harmful to themselves. Therefore, it is not implausible to assume that the proposed solutions may work on young adults.

My opponent also suggests that the loss of jobs offers a compelling reason to stop the government"s ban on smoking. However, by the same logic, one could equally assert that young adolescences should be allowed to drink in bars because the removal of this particular group of consumers would undoubtedly decrease the overall alcohol consumptions, thereby leading to job loss (less demand). What my opponent fails to consider is the fact that smoking is harmful, and it is therefore inappropriate to the general population. People should be taking care of themselves and learn to show respect to their bodies. Self-indulging is one step away from the self-destruction.

Unlike heroin, cigarette smoking is not prohibited in most of other nations around the world. In other words, heroin is illegal in almost all the countries whereas smoking is not. In order to reach his conclusion (go underground), my opponent must assume that tobacco industry would not survive without the help of domestic sales. The assertion is not true. As I have stressed, the industry could shift the focus from the domestic consumptions to international sales. By establishing a proper sales network, perhaps even with government subsidy, the tobacco industry could continue earning a substantial amount of profits in absent of domestic sales. Therefore, there is not sufficient reason to believe that the industry will necessarily go underground to combat the government ban.

Why is cocaine illegal
Muscle degeneration is one of the adverse effects experienced by many cocaine users. But it is not the main reason why cocaine is illegal. Cocaine is a Schedule II Narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule II control substance is defined as
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United Sates or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

The control act does not specify the adverse effect of each substance. Instead, cocaine falls under Schedule Ii control substance primarily because it has a high potential for abuse (addiction) and abuse of the cocaine lead to severe psychological or physical DEPENDENCE.

Similarity vs. Difference
Con suggests that since cocaine has a stronger effect on users (every 5 to 10 minutes) than nicotine, cocaine and cigarette are different. The stronger effect of is primarily because cocaine is manufactured and produced in a form with relatively high purity whereas the concentration of nicotine in cigarets is relatively low. However, Con overlooks the fact that cigarette smokers smoke repeatedly to accommodate the effect (consider how long it takes for one to finish one cigarette). The higher frequency of cigarette smoking compensates the weaker effect thereby making the cigarette smoking as danger as smoking cocaine. Besides, nicotine is merely one of the substance in cigarettes. There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 4,000 chemicals, ad many of them are carcinogenic. Cigarette smoking increases the risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung diseases and many other ailments. Smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States. Besides, more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Moreover, smoking causes an estimated 90% of al lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.[1] The adverse effect of smoking cigarette is comparably strong to smoking cocaine, if not stronger. Therefore there are compelling reasons (health concerns, inflated health costs, and similarity between nicotine & cocaine) to ban the sales of cigarettes.

Smoking Cessation
Pro"s argument suggests that government intervention is not NECESSARY since there are alternative solutions available. However, what matters the most is not whether there are alternative AVAILABLE, but rather whether these alternatives are EFFECTIVE. The current statistics is not encouraging. Quitting isn"t easy. About 70 percent of smokers want to quite, and about 40 percent make an attempt to stop smoking each year.[2] However, quitting for good often requires multiple attempts. Nicotine is highly additive. By attempting to refrain from smoking, body goes into nicotine withdrawal. In other words, smokers who attempt to quit smoking are in fact fighting against their own desires, a grueling process that only the strongest men can endure. If over 70% of people eventually regret what they have done, why shouldn"t government be allowed to ban the use right from the beginning?

Thank you.


COST: "Regardless of how the cost has been paid, it is a cost nonetheless" The cost was paid by the smoker and this could really only benefit the American economy. The money will be paid to the hospital so the hospital will have its money. I did offer a comparison and you must have not see it.There is income due to an annual 25 billion plus the taxes which add 7 billion annually.

The government should by trying to value freedom above everything else. This is why in many states marijuana is getting legalized. On to the real argument we should not make more than 1/5 of the American people stop smoking. This is a land of freedom and we should do whatever we need to to keep this right.

Young adults part:I think you are saying that because people buy it less when it is more costly it is likely that people will buy it less when it is not legal.( This is not legal and it is getting used quite a bit at 80%. Why would people stick to this law when they do not with weed or coke or heroin? The people will keep smoking and this will just make the cigarettes that are smoked unregulated and as such even more unsafe.

JOBS: My point is that taking away money when we are in such a harsh time is not the smart thing to do. Again, we should value freedom and taking away these freedoms will not be worth it.

The ban of cigarettes would ban it. "Bans are formed for the prohibition of activities within a certain political territory"
This would ban the production and smoking of it. The government subsidy would just cost even more money and this makes my first point even stronger. It would have to go underground as because even if the creation is not banned it would still be illegal to smoke and that would mean that people would have to do not legal things to get their hands on it. We can look at prohibition and the drug war or how well this type of thing works out.

To wrap up my case it would cost so much money, go against the American people as many people do smoke, and not do its job and just make more things to fight in the drug war and make it a bigger war.

cocaine vs cigarettes legality stuffs
Drug Abuse: misuse, maltreatment, or excessive use. This mans that if you take to much you die. This really means overdose. You cannot overdose on cigarettes while you can on cocaine. This plus the muscle problems. There are just way to many holes in this.

similarity vs. difference
My opponent is preaching the effects of cigarettes as of right now. Cars cause deaths so should we ban these as well?
Fatty foods cause many of the things that were brought up but do we ban these as well?
This like i have been saying for a while is a matter of freedom and not anything else.

Smoking cessation
These people choose to start smoking. THIS IS PERSONAL CHOICE! We should try to not take away things that people do for a reason. "why shouldn"t government be allowed to ban the use right from the beginning?"FREEDOM

I have proven that cigarettes are very different from cocaine and I believe that freedom is far more important than having our government ban anything that could cause and problems.
Debate Round No. 4


Final Rebuttal
Even if an annual $32 billion ($25 billion + $7 billion) can be derived from tobacco industry, the health cost associated with the smoking is mounting up to #38.6 billion per year (~ $193 billion in 5 years), a cost cannot be ignored. The sheer magnitude of health cost suggests that the objection to a nationwide ban on smoking cannot be fully justified by the economic benefits alone.

The new argument advanced by my opponent signals a shift in his position. By inserting the personal freedom argument into the debate, my opponent overlooks the fact that no right is absolute. Like most rights, personal freedom is not unlimited. It is not a concept that enables people to pursue a certain activity at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason he or she alone choses. While the Federal government recognizes the personal freedom also acknowledge that some federal regulation in areas protects by the personal freedom is appropriate. Federal government may properly assert important interests in safe-guarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting life. The advancement in medical technology has helped establish the fact that smoking is the leading cause of many miseries suffered by most smokers. As noted above, smoking account an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly five deaths, each year in the United States. Besides, more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Moreover, smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women. Therefore, even if personal freedom may, to a certain extent, justify the unhealthy life currently experienced by many smokers, Federal government has a compelling interest in further regulating the tobacco industry in an attempt to safe guard personal health. The fact that nearly 1 in 10 teens said they smoke marijuana at least 20 or more times a month should not be considered a compelling reason to object to the nationwide ban on smoking. By introducing the troubling facts, Con appears to suggest that since people are doing it (smoking marijuana) regardless of the national regulation, the government should just leave people to enjoy their unhealthy social behavior. By the same logic, one could equally assert that government should not bring rapists and murders to justice since rapes, murders, and many other socially condemned behaviors also occur on a frequent basis. The notion is palpable indefensible. Therefore, whether a significant portion of teens currently enjoy the unhealthy life style is largely irrelevant to if smoking should be banned.

Drug industry goes underground primarily because drugs such as cocaine is illegal to possess in most of countries around the world. Tobacco, as noted above, is not illegal to manufacture. Even if the United States outlaws the production of tobacco, industry would survive and thrive eventually by exploring the international market. The tobacco industry is resilient and it is not unreasonable to believe that tobacco industry would survive if the government ever attempts to hammer the industry. In the worst scenario, the government could even attempt to subsidize the industry, which may cost a significant amount in a short run, but it could save billions of health care cost (consider ~$193 billion in 5-year interval) in the long run. It is deal that people should take.

Similarity vs. Difference
My opponent suggests that since driving cars and eating fatty food also lead to death, why shouldn"t the government make attempts to ban them as well? The answer to the question is somewhat related to the nature of tobacco and behavior of smokers. Smoking is an addictive behavior since nicotine, one of the most toxic substance in cigarette, is additive and none of other 6000 chemicals could effectively ameliorate the harmful effect. Unlike smoking, nether driving nor eating unhealthy food is considered an addictive behavior. Deaths result from driving, for example, are partially due to drivers" driving skills, partially due to temperament of the drivers, and partially due to some uncontrollable external factors. Therefore, whether car driving or eating unhealthy food should be banned is irrelevant to whether smoking should be prohibited on the national level.

Last round is for summary.

Thank you.


I will just go through how each point went starting with my own case and then with my opponents.
COST: My opponent continues to throw out the "medical costs" of cigarettes but the fact remains that the people who smoke still pay the hospital. THEY STILL PAY. I have said this before and it was ignored. The taxes and deals with tobacco industries outweigh the "medical costs" that the smokers pay. I would also like to point out the prison costs that many people would fill considering 1/5 of Americans are breaking this law and not all will change.

Wronging the American people: It is bluntly wrong to make everybody who smokes just stop. If people did not want it they would stop doing it. I go back to the very beginning and my opponent never brings up how this would be any different than the prohibition of alcohol. This would end up the same and it did not work out well in the first place.

It would not solve the problem: "Drug industry goes underground primarily because drugs such as cocaine is illegal to possess in most of countries around the world" Drugs go underground because people want to get their drug on and if they get caught they go to jail. People will still smoke even when the ban is over and there will be violence and we will also have to spend money to attack the new drug cartels that come up because of the recently banned cigarettes. We would also be spending money on jail cells and prison related costs.

My opponents arguments: He entirely drops his talk about cocaine and instead pukes up fact after fact of how smoking is bad and bad be banned. He brings the argument to a moral one in my freedom arguments. People want to smoke and it is morally wrong to stop all these people from doing what they are doing. The difference between rapes and murders is that someone else is harmed. We have laws to stop secondhand smoke so they are only doing things to themselves.

The benefits of letting people smoke is far better due to economic benefit due to less prison costs, taxes, and deals between the tobacco company as well as the wronging of 21% of the American people and the fact that is would cause problems due to cartels, prison space, and the loss of jobs because of the lowering of demand.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DoubtingDave 3 years ago
Hey pro, care to debate me on this?
Posted by MacGruber 3 years ago
What about Puerto Rico? Guam? We have protectorates, too.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 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: Conduct goes to Pro for the more indepth responses. S/G is a tie, both had goof grammar. Arguments go Pro for coverage anf refutation; his analytics on Con's evidence made for some strong refutation. Sources for pro for better anaysis on empirics.