Smoking tobacco should be illegalised completely.

This is turning out to be a good debate. I like that amieturtl3 really grappled with my arguments while trying to defend her own. Some of my arguments assume an American perspective because I didn't know amieturtl3 was from the UK. The health system in the UK is different than in the US, so the effect on the tax burden would be different in the US than in the UK. For the rest of the debate, I'll assume we're talking about whether smoking should be banned in the UK. I used several reductio ad absurdum arguments in response to amieturtl3's three arguments. She responded by saying that we shouldn't take her reasons in isolation, but altogether as a cumulative case. She effectively rebutted my argument from public education with this construal of her case, but some of my other points remain in tact. Since it comes down to a cumulative case rather than taking our reasons in isolation from each other, we should settle this debate by weighing the cumulative case on each side. The case for a ban (1) Preventable health problems for smokers, (2) preventable health problems for second-hand smokers, (3) higher tax burden due to health services, (4) discourages bad habits in the next generation The case against a ban (1) Loss of jobs, (2) higher crime rate, (3) creation of organized crime, (4) larger tax burden due to increased law enforcement, jails, addiction treatment, (5) diminished freedom, (6) ineffectiveness of law Comparison A cursory glance reveals a stronger case for keeping smoking legal. But amieturtl3 and I have not resolved all our differences. For one, her point about second hand smoke shouldn't count since it's possible to ban smoking in public places, but keep it legal in private places. Amieturtl3 didn't respond to that point, so we can mark that off her list. For my case, amieturtl3 agreed with all of my points except (3) and (6). Her response to the points she agreed with was basically to say that the effect of them is off-set by her case for banning smoking. Let's look at her reasons for rejecting (3) and (6). Her response to (3) is to say that times have changed. But they have not changed. The ban on illegal drugs like marijuana has created organized crime that exists to this day. Smoking is likely to make things worse because people are accustomed to having the right to smoke, and there are more tobacco users than marijuana users. So we should keep (3). Her response to (6) is just to deny it. I guess you have to ask yourself whether a ban on smoking would prevent smoking. Did a ban on alcohol prevent drinking? Does a ban on marijuana prevent marijuana use? Since people can grow their own tobacco and tobacco is highly addictive, banning tobacco will not prevent its use. So I'm going to insist on keeping (6). Let's compare again. Revised case for a ban (1) Preventable health problems for smokers, (2) higher tax burden due to health services, (3) discourages bad habits in the next generation. Revised case against a ban (1) Loss of jobs, (2) higher crime rate, (3) creation of organized crime, (4) larger tax burden due to increased law enforcement, jails, addiction treatment, (5) freedom is diminished, (6) ineffectiveness of law Revised comparison Now, a cursory look reveals an even stronger case in favor of my position. But let's take a closer look. First, she claims that smoking causes preventable health problems. A ban might reduce the incidence of smoking, but it would have little effect since many people are going to smoke anyway, and there will still be significant health problems due to illegal smoking. Second, she says a ban on smoking will relieve a tax burden due to health services no longer being required. But since many people will continue to smoke, there will still be a tax burden from health problems. Plus, there will be an extra tax burden from the extra law enforcement required. Plus, with all those people in the tobacco industry losing their jobs, there will be a decrease in tax revenue since those people will not have an income, and that puts a higher tax burden on everybody else. So over all, the tax burden will be much greater if smoking is banned than if it remains legal. Third, let me say one more thing about the tax burden due to health services. If this argument carries any weight, then the government would have the right to enforce dietary restrictions. It would have the right to ban cake and ice cream since (1) it causes obesity and diabetes, (2) which are preventable, and (3) banning them would discourage bad habits in the next generation. Any sort of unhealthy lifestyle would be fair game for the government to ban. And that runs right up against my point about freedom and liberty which the UK and the US both value greatly. There are legitimate points on both sides, but overall, I think my case is clearly stronger. Thank you, amieturt3, for keeping it interesting.