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

Should cigarettes 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 34,572 times Debate No: 23224
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




cigarettes should be banned not only does it kill hundreds of people a year but They kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined.


I am going to accept debate, and let my opponent further explain his reason for he beliefs as to why the act should be illegal.
Debate Round No. 1


Smokers can be the most inconsiderate people in the world is a reason why cigarettes should be illegal. Truthfully, this bothers me severely when smokers don't have the courtesy to take their habit elsewhere, which most non-smokers, the majority of the population, find to be offensive.

Most of people who smoke started when we were much younger, as a result of peer pressure (smoking parents, smoking friends, etc.),and not mature enough to understand the possible future consequences, or not convinced of how powerful the addiction would become. When smokers must stray away from smoking, it brings on the withdrawal symptoms, including but not limited to anxiety, irritability, nervousness, and depression; these symptoms can be very intense and unforgiving in nature. which can possibly lead to suicide

one may ask why not just take the steps and quit? it because of the "good" feeling it leaves behind. In less than ten seconds upon the first inhalation, nicotine passes into the bloodstream, crosses the blood brain barrier and begins acting on the brain cells. The nicotine just ingested will begin to mimic one of the most important neurotransmitters, Acelytcholine. This action provokes the body's excitation chemicals that include adrenaline and noradrenalin, which causes an immediate rush of stimulation by increasing the blood flow to the brain. This leaves smokers feeling energized and alert. Within 20 to 30 minutes after the last cigarette, however, a smoker's energy level becomes sharply reduced. That "charged up" feeling the smoker had minutes before begins fading away and the craving for nicotine quickly returns. Psychological dependence is a major factor that can prohibit a well-intentioned person from quitting smoking because nicotine has such amazingly powerful, reinforcing qualities. this is why it should be banned all together because in a since the body becomes dependent on it and smoking to much becomes a hazard to the body

The most important reason cigarettes should be banned illegal because it kills people millions of people. more than HIV and aids and not only does it kills Cigarette butts discarded by smokers constitute the overwhelming majority of litter on
beaches, as well as in many other public places like parks, playgrounds, and sidewalks. Smoking bans have been shown to substantially reduce the litter and therefore the costs of cleaning
up beaches and other outdoor areas, as well as to improve the overall appearance and attractiveness of the area


Saying smokers can be inconsiderate is irrelevant to why they smoking should be illegal. It is ones opinion if the act of ones �smoking is consider indecent.
As well as the fact that it causing harm to the body because fact of the matter it is no secret that cigarettes cause harm to the body.�

Much of what my opponent has said can be simply argued with the simple fact that it is ones right to smoke.�

Purchasing tobacco is not something that any old child may go out and do. While they may not be 100% effective in insuring that they are not picked up by children; Purchasing tobacco already has a legalized age in place ment to prevent children from walking into a store and buying it.�

I don't believe it should be banned from public places, or someones private property. I understand not smoking inside restaurants, bars or whatever, but outside 25 feet from the front door that should continue to be allowed.

The idea of completely banning cigarettes seems highly implausible. Very Simlar to the Prohibition it will simply cause people to go out and smoke illegally. It is pretty much impossible to tell someone the have free will however they are unable to smoke. If in fact tomorrow it is stated that cigarettes are in fact illegal. It will simply cause the cost to go up to those who are addicted to smoking and will become similar to current illegal drugs such as heroine, cocaine, or methamphetamine in the respect that it would open the door to new crime.
Debate Round No. 2



my opponent said smokers being inconsiderate is not a relevant reason why smoking should be illegal however second hand smoke kills thousands of people yearly this is a relevant reason because innocent lives are being taken due to this highly addicting product. Second hand smoke comes from both the smoke that smokers exhale (called mainstream smoke) and the smoke floating from the end of the cigarette, cigar, or pipe (called side stream smoke).

It may seem pretty harmless, but second hand smoke actually contains thousands of chemicals — from arsenic and ammonia to hydrogen cyanide — many of which have been proven to be toxic or to cause cancer (called carcinogens). High concentrations of many of these chemicals are found in second hand smoke. In fact, secondhand smoke significantly increases a person's risk for:

respiratory infections (like bronchitis and pneumonia)
asthma (secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma and can trigger attacks in those who already have it)
coughing, sore throats, sniffling, and sneezing
heart disease

So secondhand smoke doesn't just impact a person in the future. It can cause problems right now, like affecting someone's sports performance or ability to be physically active.

my opponent says people have the right to smoke however they do not have the right to pollute the air and potentially causing illness to others.

Just because it is legalized does not mean its rights. for example abortion is legal however that does not mean its right.

my opponent then says if banned it will cause people to par take in illegal activity however this is why we pay axes for our police to stop this activity.

Once again cigarettes should be illegal because it causes death, people throw there buds all over the place and it is a health hazard.


Another reason why cigarettes should not be ban as a matter of liberty, the Government shouldn't be telling anybody what they can and can't put into their bodies, even if it is toxic/harmful.
�You have to be an adult to purchase cigarettes and it is a Personal choice to smoke. These are supposed to be your rights as a free american citizen.
�The packaging on the cigarettes does state that it is harmful and there are health risks to it however it is ones choice wether or not they wish to put the substance into there body at the cost of its health risk.�
If cigarettes where ban under the single arguement that they are harmful then what would be next step,what someone can eat?
The same would also hold true with saying that the government should put a ban fried greasy foods because the truth is obesity is also a health risk claiming the lives of all those who CHOOSE to eat foods harmful to the body.
Debate Round No. 3


Being my arguments was not augured we have to assume my opponent agrees with my prior argument

He then goes on and give more reason why cigarettes should not be banned. He talks about liberty and how the government cannot control your action this is false because suicide is unlawful so in a since they can control what you do or put limitation on what you can do.

He then states cigarettes tell you they are harmful however they are additive therefore people who smoke are not contemplating whether it is good for them or not they just need that cigarette because of the chemicals in it. My challenger then talks about cigarettes in regards to obesity stating fried food is bad for the body just as cigarettes my response to that is the government understand obesity is a problem and made certain restaurants like McDonald's cut there portion size to try an address that issue. Hence obesity does not kill as many people as tobacco does once again cigarettes kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined.

Cigarettes should be banned because they kill millions of people

they are harmful to the body

they get tossed around the street

and last and not least second hand smoke kills meaning you can die from cigarettes and not smoke them


The fact that cigarettes are harmful and kill people is not something which is up for debate. It is a well know fact there is propaganda and advertising that is in fact harmful. However the fact that they harm you is no reason as to why they should be ban. Someone who commits suicide and is successful can't be charged. Some one who survives is given treatment. So wouldn't it seem more reasonable to provide help?�
Cigarettes do not kill immediately in the way of suicide, the cause illness that do.�

The fact that they are addictive is also irrelevant as to reason why they should be ban because it goes hand in and with the fact that there harmful. If they where addictive but not harmful then it wouldn't matter. To much of anything would kill you.�

Then my opponent sated that the government did something to try and lower obesity. In their acknowledgement that it is wrong however it was not ban. Limiting food size can be looked upon the same way the government taxes cigarettes. This in no way helps the argument that cigarettes should be illegal. �One in 8 Americans is obese, which cause a number of �illnesses related to death
Debate Round No. 4


in my closing agreement I will like to thank my challenger for his time and effort on this topic. may the best man win and remember smoking kills


Thank you for you respose.
Batman is was impressed
Robin was not.

So does AyeVerb
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JacobHession 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an obvious win for the Con side. bxneville100 was the superior debater in all regards, although the final round was a tad distasteful. The pro had poor arguments and refutation throughout that was easily trumped by the Con side. The pro's arguments were badly formulated and illogical. There is no doubt that the pro lost this debate.
Vote Placed by seraine 6 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Going to vote Pro here, because Con never refuted the second hand smoke argument. However, I'm giving Spelling and Grammar to Con for obvious reasons, and Conduct because Pro copied much of his 2nd round argument without citing. 3:2 Pro.