Banning Smoking

Smoking is almost universally regarded as a dangerous and addictive substance-this is something that both sides need to accept in this debate. What will be issues of contention, though, are whether the government has a responsibility to intervene on the right to smoke and whether banning smoking will make it more or less harmful.

Context
Rates of smoking have consistently fallen in Australia since increasing awareness about the dangers of smoking in the 1960s. Further, the government has already taken several actions against the tobacco industry-currently, we have a 24c tax on each cigarette, education campaigns through school, advertising and on cigarette cartons and prohibitions on smoking in certain public areas. For the affirmative, banning smoking is seen as a simple extension of these actions; for the negative, the status quo has succeeded in reducing smoking and no further action is required.

Examples

 * That we should ban smoking
 * That we should ban cigarettes

Cases
Model:
 * Prohibition on buying, selling or smoking tobacco-based products
 * Increasing investment on subsidies of nicotene patches and quitting programmes

Issues
In this debate, a third speaker will usually discuss:
 * Whether the government has a responsibility to intervene on the right to smoke. This will likely come down to whether consent is given and whether passive smoking is a real phenomenon.
 * Whether this will result in more or less smoking, and whether it will be more or less harmful.
 * The effect on the broader community-crime and revenue-raising arguments.