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

Cigarettes should be banned from society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 89868
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Cigarettes should not receive a complete, immediate ban from society.
I would like to scope this argument to the entirety of Australia, and define the topic as a complete ban of cigarettes. Meaning all use and possession of cigarettes will result in a heavy fine and possible community service and jail time. As the negative speaker I strongly disagree with this and believe that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban from society. I also believe that the effects of a complete ban of cigarettes will increase the level of crime in Australia, as well as create an additional struggle on the economy from the importation of the substance. The complete ban of cigarettes also will create another band of drug crime, and the illegal manufacturing of cigarettes will become unsafe as no standard amounts of nicotine or other chemicals will be controlled by regulations, such occurrences have repeatedly been recorded across other drug crime including that of cannabis and illegally manufactured supplements.

However I believe that cigarettes should become more controlled in the factory process and use of cigarettes. This means there will be increased government promotion of e-cigarettes as a temporary alternative, and the ban of the use of cigarettes in all public places, as well as an increase taxation and a differing, safer formula in smokes overtime. I also believe that the job is not to completely ban cigarettes, but instead change and regulate the manufacturing process so a decrease in harmful substances and nicotine in each cigarette to create a controlled smoking environment that will assist in the deduction of smokers. I also feel those whom have placed 'cigarette user' on their medical records should receive an increase in mandatory checkups to maintain knowledge of possible diseases and to advertise counseling for cigarette users. I agree that cigarettes are an unhealthy way of life that circulates through families as a part of society, but I also believe that banning of dangerous substances in the past has led to an increase in long term effects and a complete, immediate ban is not a safe option.

Cigarettes should not receive an complete, immediate ban from society.
Thank you.


This arguement presents an overview of the controversy over tobacco control, with links to documents in HTML and PDF formats available from PolicyBot, the free online database and search engine that also resides on The Heartland Institute"s Web site. You can go directly to the "Smoking" topic in PolicyBot and view hundreds of documents without the assistance of this essay by clicking here.

Why Defend Smokers?

Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised.

There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places. The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.

A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. These persons aren"t defending the tobacco industry, they defend smokers for several reasons:

Smokers already pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any cost they impose on the rest of society.
The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.
Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has "loaded the gun" for lawsuits against other industries.
Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.
The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about safer options such as electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
Appeals to "protect the children" don"t justify the war being waged against adult smokers.
Punishing smokers "for their own good" is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.

i have the right to post new fact supporting my arguments next round
Debate Round No. 1


In the positive speaker's first argument they took into account many valid points that should be taken into consideration when voting on this debate, they showed statistics and links to a very informative website that should be viewed by anyone interested in the smoking debate, however, when analysing the arguments put forward by the positive speaker one notices the repeated failed attempts at making grounds with the limited evidence and lacking arguments.
He attempted to rebut my point focussing on tax raising cigarette prices, he then provided extensive evidence about why these tax raising is a good thing. (To quote directly from the positive speaker, "smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; and that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society...") I believe all of the listed evidence the negative speaker has provided in this case prove even further that smoking should not receive a complete ban. If a complete ban did occur, cigarettes will become the next cannabis, being used illegally in the shadows creating a horrible economy and even worse lifestyles for those getting caught in the society.
The positive speaker next describes how we should be sceptical of professional anti-smoking campaigners, and I agree, over the many years of the greater population feeling very mixed emotions towards the subject, the number of these campaigners have grown and the amount have extensive personal gain gives the audience a lot of reason to want these campaigners gone. With a government funded and supported campaign, the advertising and such will be taken care of by government paid for employees receiving no additional pay other than necessary.
To finalise his statment the negative speaker provided many valid points that to my great supprise, backs up my argument. He listed the many reasons why a complete ban would be deteriorating towards the smoking and economic society, he described past bans as "hurts small businesses and violate private property rights." And even stated that "punishing smokers "for their own good" is repulsive" this remark in itself clearly benefits my argument (that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban).
In short, for further arguements supporting my case, please re-read the positive speaker's round two speach.

Cigarettes should not receive a complete ban as, put simply, this will effect smokers, society and even the economy worse than the current stage.


crap never mind i thought i was not wanring the band
Debate Round No. 2


Lily.l forfeited this round.


Dedpewl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.