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

Tabacco rights

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
greengoblin123 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/15/2020 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 123865
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Cigarette smoke contains over 4, 000 chemicals, Including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, Tar, And carbon monoxide, As well as formaldehyde, Ammonia, Hydrogen cyanide, Arsenic, And DDT.
Nicotine is highly addictive. Smoke containing nicotine is inhaled into the lungs, And the nicotine reaches your brain in just six seconds.

This is my add on defintion for tobacco, This is the only definition i will provide.

I will argue that the use of tobacco helps no one, Provides no benefit but for over taxation on a product that kills and keeps killing. Kills the user and those around him/her and as a government we must protect our people and stop them from killing themselves with these made to be addictive drug and ban tobacco.


I will be arguing that adults should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, Although we do need to have restrictions on when/where we can smoke.

The main premise behind your argument is that cigarettes are extremely unhealthy and addictive, And therefore they should be banned so that we can prevent them from causing harm to people. Whilst I do agree that cigarettes are extremely unhealthy and addictive, I contend that this alone is insufficient to conclude that we should ban cigarettes. Cigarettes may be unhealthy, But so is alcohol (studies have shown that alcohol and cigarettes have a similar death toll). However, Most people who want to ban cigarettes have no issue with banning alcohol. If you do think that we should ban alcohol, Please let me know in your second argument. If you do not think we should ban alcohol, Why do you think banning alcohol is different to banning cigarettes, Given that they are similar in terms of how harmful they are?

Cigarettes should be legal because even though they are harmful, People should be allowed to do things which harm them if they want to, As long as other people are not being harmed. I myself am not a fan of cigarettes, And I do not plan on ever smoking a cigarette. However, That does not mean that other people who may want to smoke cigarettes should have that opportunity taken away from them. Now, To this you may argue: "But can"t cigarettes also harm other people through passive smoking, When people inhale the smoke from other peoples" cigarettes? " To which I say yes, That is correct. However, Just because we should let smoking be legal, Doesn"t mean that we should not have restrictions or regulations as to when and where we could use cigarettes. We should have designated "smoking zones", Where you are allowed to smoke cigarettes, And then the only other people who will inhale the smoke are other people who are already using cigarettes. In addition, It should be illegal to smoke a cigarette in a variety of contexts; for example, In a house if other people are there (because they may inhale the smoke), In a school, In a park, Etc. Just because smoking should be legal does not mean it should be legal everywhere in every context. I also want to add that people under a certain age (say 18) should not be allowed to smoke, Because until you reach that age, Not only is smoking even more harmful than it is for adults, But also because the brains of children are not as developed as that of adults, And therefore they are not capable of making these sorts of decisions (i. E. Whether or not they should smoke), Unlike adults.

In addition, If cigarettes are banned, This will create a black market on cigarettes, Where people will purchase cigarettes illegally from dealers (this is already the case with other drugs which are illegal, Such as marijuana). Often, Dealers can make "dodgy" drugs which are cheaper to make, And these are even more harmful than the original drug (in this case, Cigarettes) and this will result in even worse health outcomes for the consumers. In addition, This will result in more non violent people (the consumers of the black market) being thrown in jail, For something which I have already argued should not be illegal (i. E. Smoking a cigarette).

It is possible to have cigarettes be legalised but to encourage people not to use them. For example, I believe that in schools, We should educate students about the dangers of cigarettes as part of their Health classes. I also believe that the government should ban advertisements which promote the use of cigarettes, And that the government should run advertisements that encourage people to not use cigarettes, And also educate people on the harm which cigarettes can cause. In addition, We should place a tax on cigarettes so that when you purchase a cigarette, You need to pay an extra tax for it. This is very useful because the tax revenue can be used to fund various programs, Which benefits society as a whole. Also, The tax discourages people from purchasing cigarettes in the first place. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes if they really want to, But we should make sure they understand the dangers of smoking, And we should provide incentives for them to not smoke.

In conclusion, Smoking cigarettes should be legal, But we should have some restrictions on them and we should incentivise people to not smoke them.
Debate Round No. 1


hat smoking causes many kinds of cancer, Heart disease and respiratory illnesses which are
fatal for many sufferers. The industry still does not publicly accept that smoking causes
lung cancer.
2. That annual global death toll caused by smoking is 4 million. By 2030, That figure will rise
to 10 million with seventy percent of those deaths occurring in developing countries.
3. That nicotine is the most important active ingredient in tobacco; that the tobacco companies
are in the drug business; the drug is nicotine and that the cigarette is a drug delivery device.
The industry maintains it is a simple consumer goods industry.
4. That nicotine is physiologically and psychologically addictive, In a similar way to heroin
and cocaine - rather than shopping, Chocolate or the Internet. The overwhelming majority
of smokers are strongly dependent on nicotine and that this is a substantial block to
smokers" quitting if they choose to. The industry still maintains that nicotine is not
addictive in the sense used here.
5. That teenagers (13-18) and children (<13) are inherently important to the tobacco market
and that companies are competing for market share in these age groups. The industry
maintains that its business is only focussed on adults.
6. That advertising increases total consumption as well as promoting brand share. The
industry flatly denies this.
7. That advertising is one (of several) important and interlocking ingredients that nurture
smoking behaviour among teenagers and children. The industry denies its advertising
influences the smoking behaviour of children.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Yoshikage69Kira 2 years ago
If we're going to ban tobacco then we'll have to ban alcohol too. Also legalize weed since it's harmless.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Somehow the scary bear from FNAF, Seems appropriate for the subject.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.