CreateDebate


Debate Info

132
91
YES NO
Debate Score:223
Arguments:161
Total Votes:230
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (78)
 
 NO (78)

Debate Creator

saivishal(5) pic



ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?

YES

Side Score: 132
VS.

NO

Side Score: 91
8 points

Yes I am against smoking because it is really bad and unhealthy for your body and you can get lung cancer and even die from smoking.

I just reached 2.5K points!

Side: YES
5 points

Yes, and this is just the harmful effects on the smoker himself. Consider all the other harmful effects that the smoker impose on people around him. I think smoking is inherently bad. Just compare the short term gratification and long term health effects.

Side: YES
4 points
CONGRATS
Side: YES
Sitara(11101) Clarified
1 point

Weed is fine, and so is tobacco. It is that chemical shit that they add that gets ya. Both weed and tobacco have been smoked for centuries with minimal effects but then some idiot started adding bad stuff. There is more to this story than meets the eyes is all I am saying.

Side: YES
4 points

Almost every day I pass some fucking smokers, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to kill their lungs, places away from the public.

Side: YES
4 points

Almost every day I pass some fucking automobiles, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to drive, places away from the public.

Almost every day I pass some fucking industry, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to build things, places away from the public.

Almost every day I pass some fucking people having a fire in their fireplace in the comfort of their own home, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to enjoy a fire, places away from the public.

Almost every day I pass some fucking people having a BBQ, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to kill their lungs, places away from the public.

Side: NO
nummi(1435) Disputed
4 points

Automobiles are actually necessary for society's progress. So is industry. Fire in the fireplace, if there is no alternative or cheaper source of warmth present then it is justified, it is necessary for a decent life (you've heard of such a thing as a winter?). Barbeque is cooking food (I'm not gonna tell you what food is for, figure it out yourself).

Smoking is not necessary nor needed. Never has been and never will be.

Honestly, think first.

Side: YES
1 point

If I ever see you, I'm going to take a hit the size of hurricane Issac and blow it in your face.

Side: NO
nummi(1435) Disputed
3 points

That is so sweet. Thank you!

But seriously, if you met me and you had malevolent intentions toward me and you actually cared to act them out then you'd end up in a hospital. Not joking at all. And furthermore, if you actually saw me you'd probably reconsider...

And smoking should be illegal, just as are other drugs. You want to go further? Just read VecVeltro's arguments again 'cause they reflect reality not your wishful thinking.

Side: YES
2 points

I'd rather people didn't smoke, but if that's your thing, I ain't gonna stop you.

Like cannabis, or broccoli, or... foot fetishists...

Yea, I got nothing.

Side: YES
3 points

People smoke broccoli and foot fetishists??? Well that's just strange.

Side: YES
3 points

O yea, massive scandals over here in Britain when Boris Johnson was caught smoking car freshener in a shisha pipe.

What can I say, us Brits are fucked up.

Side: YES
2 points

Well, it's not for me but some people are crabby as hell when they don't have their smokes and I'd rather deal with the smoke than some bitchy twit!

Side: YES

Smoking causes respiratory problems, and bonds between your family will weaken. your family members will also get respiratory problems due to secondhand inhalation too. You also have to pay for cigarettes

Side: YES

yes, I am, many say that the government intervening in smoking does nothing, actually, if you regulate it, you will get less smokers, as proven in Canada

Side: YES

I am against smoking. I think it should be disallowed in public places due to the harms caused by second hand smoke, the person would be harming other people when they inhaled the smoke. Smoking on private property should be at the discretion of the owner.

Smokers typically respond with "well you should leave", but why should they leave? So we're not allowed to enjoy the same public space as you are? Just because you want to satisfy your addiction? You want to satisfy your addiction so bad that you don't care if you harm other people's lungs? Carelessness towards the fact that you're harming others is immoral in my opinion.

Side: YES

There's some middle ground to this, no?

One, I can't speak for wherever you live, but smoking is already by and large disallowed in public places, and in a lot of private ones, too. I can smoke a cigarette in my car while I'm driving on the road or if I'm walking down the street, but I can't smoke at my apartment complex, or at my past/present schools, or local parks, or shopping centers, beaches, etc. When you smoke cigarettes you pay a lot more attention to all the places you're not allowed to smoke cigarettes, and there are many.

So there are Designated Smoking Areas, places where people can go to smoke that are off the beaten path and won't bother anyone. If you dislike smoke, I suggest you steer clear of these areas.

As for everywhere else, well, you're not guaranteed good air quality in the Bill of Rights, and there are numerous other factors that play into bad air quality other than smoking, although smoking is disproportionately attacked, probably because it smells bad. Or so I hear. For example, you are libel to encounter automobiles, factories, dwellings, BBQs, bonfires, and people dousing themselves with hairspray or some other spray product in public, too. All of these things pose a substantial risk to your health as surely as smoking does. Are you for putting a public ban on any of these things, or are you okay with just walking away from a BBQ some people are having at the park because you dislike the smoke? It seems only natural to take steps to remove yourself from a situation you dislike; it seems infantile to ban an activity in public because you dislike it.

Given that DSAs do already exist in great abundance, choosing to be in a DSA and then complain about air quality comes across as whiny and pointless. That would be like choosing to stand next to a public grill at the park and then getting angry when people start to cook on it. Or standing next to a fire pit at the beach and getting upset when people make a bonfire there. Of insisting on being in a busy parking and then complaining about all the exhaust fumes. To some extent you do have the ability to remove yourself from a situation you dislike, and to some extent that is the most reasonable course of action.

Like I said in the beginning, there is some middle ground; I know there are some areas that are not DSAs or places where smoking isn't allowed, and you may encounter smokers, there (like you might encounter a car spewing exhaust or a factory vent dumping pollution into the air). If you're really so offended and terrified by second hand smoke like this, I would advise investing in a gas mask, because cars and factories aren't going anywhere any time soon. Bu in regards to these situations, I'd be happy to discuss instituting DSAs everywhere public, but not banning smoking everywhere public.

Side: YES
2 points

In regards to what you said about being guaranteed good air quality in the bill of rights; You are not guaranteed that, I'm aware.

You spoke of factories, vehicles, BBQs, etc, some of those things are absolutely necessary to live in the modern world. As for BBQs, I don't know anyone who happens to dislike that smell, although I do imagine there must be people out there who dislike the smell. Do BBQs damage lungs as much as cigarette smoke? I don't think BBQs cause lung cancer.

Smoking cigarettes and such is not absolutely necessary at all. It might feel necessary to the smoker, because he is chemically addicted to the substance. But it is really not necessary to live in the modern world.

When I say that smoking should be banned in public, I mean anywhere outside that the government owns. Smoking is not a necessity of modern life, and it raises the chance of lung cancer significantly to people who happen to be nearby.

Side: NO
2 points

Yes, I'm against smoking. Because it is very harmful to health. Of course the whole world knows that smoking is bad, but they continue to smoke not understanding how it is actually harmful. Continued dependence on cigarettes leads to heart disease, shortness of breath, it becomes hard to breathe, the person does not maintain strong physical exertion. Smoking also spoils genes. Children born to parents who smoke have a weak immune system.

Side: YES
2 points

yes!! smoking is a horrible, terrible thing to do and it affects your lungs badly! if you smoke too much, your teeth will rot, your breath will stink of smoke, and worst of all.... you'll get lung cancer!! lung cancer is horrible and it could cause you to die. so smoking is a horrible thing, and i suggest you shouldn't smoke!

Side: YES
2 points

A cigarette stick has many undesirable chemicals like tar or nicotine. Studies show that people reduce their life span by 11 minutes every time they smoke.

Side: YES
2 points

People can lung cancer and heart diseases as a result of smoking.

Side: YES

I am against smoking since it gives more negative effects to the user.

Here are some bad effects of smoking:

Here is a top 10 list of negative effects of smoking:

1. Coughing: Smokers coughing that is. After a not predetermined time of being a smoker, you will begin to experience smokers cough, because your body uses this as a way to try and get rid of the toxins you inhale while smoking.

2. Yellow teeth: many smokers when they realise the state of their smile, that have gone from bright white to almost yellow stop smiling all that much, or try to hide their teeth while smiling.

3. Trouble with blood circulation: After contaminating your blood for a period of time with the smoke you inhale and that therefore gets into your blood stream, your blood will not circulate as freely in your body as it used to, and your arteries will begin to clog. The ares furthest away from the heart, (hands and feet) will be first to get lowered their blood flow, and you will begin to experience cold hands and feet.

4. Lessened glowing of your skin: A healthy skin have a natural glow about, but with the clogged arteries, the lessened blood flow, will slowly make your skin greyer, and more pale than it used to be.

5. Ugly yellow fingertips: The smoke that several times daily gets in contact with your skin at the fingertips, is slowly going to make the fingers on the hand you hold the cigarette with into ugly looking yellow fingers.

6. Lessened ability to smell the lovely flowers: Well maybe you don't really care about the smell of flowers, but another negative effect of smoking is that rather shortly after becoming a smoker, you taste buds and your ability to smell well be severely worse than before. The good news however is that they return rather quickly after quitting.

7. Lessened lung capacity: Your overall fitness levels are determined largely by the capacity of your lungs, and a negative effects of smoking is a slowly deteriorating lung capacity. When I smoked I had a test as I were doing sport at a serious level, but had collapsed during a track test, and were told my lung capacity were well below par for my age group.

8. Lower Energy: When you smoke, your immune system never relaxes for very long. Immediately when smoke gets in your body, the immune system start fighting it, and is therefore working on overdrive so to speak. That extra use of energy has to come from somewhere, and it does. The energy used is taken from your overall energy levels, Along with that, the lesser lung capacity reduces your bodys oxygen intake, which again reduces your energy levels. so you can expect a lower energy level overall from smoking.

9. Bad breath: Often times when I were a smoker I would wake up dry mouthed, and my girlfriend refused to kiss me because of my bad breath. This point should require no further explanation.

10. Less oxygen for your brain: Lower oxygen in your blood also causes the brain to get lesser oxygen then it needs to function optimally. This may cause you to have a worse than average ability to focus on things, and it may also cause dizzy spells.

These are just some of the more obvious negative effects of smoking, that your body suffers under being a smoker, in the long term your risk of severe blood clogs, lung cancer and heart diseases will dramatically increase the longer you are a smoker.

Source: http://www.itkorner.net/t506-top-10-negative-effects-of-smoking

To put it short, smoking kills and is a waste of time, energy, and money. So why bother? If I am to choose between smoking and masturbating, I would choose masturbating since it is free and isn't risky to health.

Side: YES
2 points

Yes I am against smoking, because it not only harm people who smoke but it is also very bad for the people who surrounds you. That is why dont think only about you but also your surroundings

Side: YES
1 point

Yeah!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! THINK OF THE HELPLESS FAST-BREATHING CHILDREN!!!

Side: YES
2 points

I am agaisnt smoking because it damages health. Where-ever it should be illegal or not is something for debate.

Side: YES
1 point

YES I AM 100% AGAINST SMOKING. SEE FOR YOURSELF.

TRY 1 CIGARETTE AND YOU CAN'T STOP. THIS RUINS YOUR LUNGS AND YOU DIE.

Side: YES
1 point

Everyone knows about the dangers of smoking. The impact is said and shown in schools universities, on posters in the streets, even on the cigarette packs. World Health Organization tells us that more than one billion people are smokers in the world, because smoking is a hard habit to break because tobacco contains nicotine, which is highly addictive. Like heroin or other addictive drugs, the body and mind quickly become so used to the nicotine in cigarettes that a person needs to have it just to feel normal. Because of this people find it difficult to break the habit of smoking and it is best way not to start smoking.

Side: YES
1 point

I am so anti I can't even describe how anti I am and how angry I am with these idiots. Every day they buy a cigarette box, they could save a live from malaria!! Some people are disgusting and selfish.

Side: YES
1 point

Smoking causes severe long term damages. So yes, I am against it. I also have asthma.

Side: YES

Always have been!

Side: YES

I am against people smoking cigarettes but I do not support making them illegal, its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like smoking. Your gonna take away someone's rights cause you don't agree with them? What are you, 9?

Side: NO
VecVeltro(412) Disputed
4 points

Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?

In this case, whose liberty weighs more? In a public place, does a smoker's liberty outweigh my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment? Am I obligated to leave whenever someone pulls out a smoke? Or is it the otherway around and the smoker is expected to not smoke if he might endanger the clear air of others?

I'm against smoking for the sole reason that I'm against all drugs. I don't find it to be ethical to have the state support self-destructive behavior. The state should not strive for fully fledged freedom, it should strive for the health and well-being of its citizens.

As I take it, your idea of liberty boils down to ''its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like _____ (insert blank with).'' With this principle you can allow anything. While I may not like it and be personally against it, I have no right to take away another's liberty to walk around naked, shoot heroin or have sex with animals for example.

Let me turn what you said around - Does a smoker have the right to take away my personal liberty for clean air because he doesn't like the idea of not-smoking?

Side: YES
2 points

Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?

Not really, the smoker isn't blowing the smoke into your face an following you around, if you don't like the smoke than leave, also your property (if you don't want it to be) is smoke free and there are many other areas that are smoke free.

In this case, whose liberty weighs more? In a public place, does a smoker's liberty outweigh my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment? Am I obligated to leave whenever someone pulls out a smoke? Or is it the otherway around and the smoker is expected to not smoke if he might endanger the clear air of others?

If you don't like the smoke, take a few steps back, move away from them or just leave, they aren't rubbing up against you and breathing it in your face, rather than saying that we should ban their right to smoke how about you take a more reasonable route and stand at a distance that doesn't invade their personal space.

I'm against smoking for the sole reason that I'm against all drugs.

I support smoking for the sole reason that its their right, I hate smoke from cigs, I hate the smell and it does damage to them, but they can do as they want.

I don't find it to be ethical to have the state support self-destructive behavior.

If a state allows fast food stores to open are they supporting self-destructive behavior? Its just as bad as tobacco so it is self destructive. The state isn't supporting it, they just aren't condeming it and locking people up over having a burger and fries.

The state should not strive for fully fledged freedom, it should strive for the health and well-being of its citizens.

The job of the state is to protect our freedom, and people would still smoke, today all drugs accept for alcohol and tobacco are illegal and they are VERY (yes, they are everywhere and cheap) plenitful, you can buy drugs anywhere. You wouldn't stop people from smoking you'd just force them to buy it from other sources and smoke it somewhere else. And again, if its unhealthy and they know it, its fine, their choice. You have no right to take away their liberties cause you don't agree.

As I take it, your idea of liberty boils down to ''its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like _____ (insert blank with).''

No, but thats what it boils down to on drugs, its their choice, not the governments and not yours. The government is not meant to be a baby sitter that watches our every move ad tells us exactly what to do, they have no role in my life when it comes to drugs.

With this principle you can allow anything.

If your being niave about it, then yes. I don't support murder because that personal choice led to the death of someone else, I don't support rape because it led to the rape of someone else. Using drugs isn't hurting anyone else.

While I may not like it and be personally against it, I have no right to take away another's liberty to walk around naked, shoot heroin or have sex with animals for example.

Having sex with animals is different because there is a 99.99% chance the animal didn't want to have sex with the human, thus, its rape. As for heroin, again, its illegal but people still do it and its everywhere and when its illegal its not controlled, anyone can buy it and there is not quality control. I'd rather have heroin addicts shoot heroin in an a place where they know what they are taking and if they try to get help they don't have to worry about being thrown in jail.

Let me turn what you said around - Does a smoker have the right to take away my personal liberty for clean air because he doesn't like the idea of not-smoking?

Their not, you can walk away, you don't have to breathe in their smoke, its like saying people playing guitar in the park are violating your right for a quite park, just leave.

Side: NO
2 points

Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?

If you choose to be in one of the few public places where smoking is actually allowed, yes, yes they are. However I would like to point out that automobiles, factories, people have BBQs, and the like are all also infringing on this imagined right to clean air. However if you were chilling in the middle of a busy road, or directly beside some factory vents, or standing next to someone elses BBQ, standing there and bitching about the air quality and how everyone else driving and producing and cooking is taking away your liberty to be in an environment with clean air, I think you'd get laughed at. Someone might be kind enough to point out the obvious solution to your problem: move someplace else. This is a classic example of people going way out of their way to make their environment adapt to them instead of taking easy steps to adapt to their environment.

There are a whole shit ton of places smokers can't smoke; I know this, as I'm a smoker myself and pay attention to these things. We can't smoke indoors and when we can smoke outdoors, in a public place, it is never in central areas but off to the side. So if you choose to hang out in a DSA and then expect your complaints about clean air to be taken seriously, you've got another thing coming, my friend.

It seems to me that laws are already in effect to solve this problem you guys are debating back and forth on. There are designated smoking areas for smokers, and everywhere else is a smoke free zone. There's some unaccounted for middle-ground, yes, but realistically unless you are calling for a ban on all things that pollute our air - cars, spray cans, industry, wood-fires, etc - you shouldn't single smoking out. It's unfair. If you want totally clean air, go move out to the unexplored, fresh wilderness out there somewhere. If you want to live anywhere with other people also living there, get used to some degree of air pollution. Simple as that.

Side: NO
1 point

well said.

Yes, smoking is bad yet it is sometimes a treat to few. Yet, taking them away is going kill jobs (those who make them), cut the income of cigarette companies, make people go insane because they dont have there cigs, and overall is killing our rights. I dislike cigarettes but removing them is just as bad.... BUT! The question says are you against smoking...well i am :3

Side: NO
2 points

I don't smoke, but I'm fine with others having the right to smoke.

At this point, the idea that the lifestyles we choose will truly impact our lives is childish. We are all going to die. Some wish to die with a cigarette in hand, others wish to die with completely healthy lungs.

I support choice. Not legislation.

Side: NO
2 points

I think the conclusion you've come to is ridiculous. "We're all going to die, so smoking doesn't matter". Okay, well you can live to be 70-80 without smoking. Or you can die at age 50-60 right when you retire due to lung cancer all because of your 30-40 years of smoking. That's 20-30 years you could have spent enjoying your retirement money.

Now, I agree with you that we should not make legislation to stop people from smoking. I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.

Side: YES
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
1 point

Public... as in a publicly owned building?

I guess.

But outside does not harm people's lungs. And inside a privately owned building is up to the owner, not the government.

Side: NO
2 points

Smoking's fun. And it doesn't hurt anybody unless they are standing right next to you inhaling it. And if you're that fucking worried about accidentally inhaling a couple of carcinogens, I take it you walk everywhere with a gas mask on because car exhaust fumes are far more harmful. Not to mention the fact that any kind of smoke contains carcinogens.

So unless you want to make cars, trains, planes, open fires, gas burners, stoves, fossil fuels, etc etc illegal, shut the fuck up about banning smoking.

Side: NO
2 points

Smoking's fun

Huh? smoking;s fun?

And it doesn't hurt anybody unless they are standing right next to you inhaling it.

That's why we want to stop it

I take it you walk everywhere with a gas mask on because car exhaust fumes are far more harmful.

No they aren't. and do you think we always smell car fumes? More commonly we smell smoke from cigarette

Side: YES
1 point

You don't think smoking is fun? You must have never smoked the good stuff.

And if it "harms" (slightly annoys) the people standing near the smoker, take a step back or ask him to, seriously, its not that hard, thats what I do when someone is smoking a cig, I take a step back.

Side: NO
1 point

Huh? smoking;s fun?

Yes.

That's why we want to stop it

That's like trying to petition to shut down a factory because you insist on standing right next to their exhaust vents and breathing in all the fumes. If that's your position, you deserve all the second hand lung cancer you've got coming to you.

No they aren't. and do you think we always smell car fumes? More commonly we smell smoke from cigarette

You can smoke cigarettes for years and years and not necessarily even have any adverse health effects; anyone who puts their mouth around the tailpipe of any car for, say, 60 seconds, will die. This is why I think it's funny people spend so much time bitching about second-hand smoke from cigarettes when there are a multitude of other sources of air pollution in the world, some a good deal more dangerous than cigarette smoke, although they are admittedly less smelly to non-smokers, and I think that's the real issue, here. Well, I'm sorry you don't like how cigarettes smell. Personally I think curry smells like a seasoned butthole, but you won't see me suggesting we should "stop" Indian restaurants on that basis.

Side: NO
1 point

Smoke what?

Tobacco and nicotine and tar, now that stuff's disgusting, and it'll kill you eventually.

Smoke weed everyday, and you'll live a good, happy life.

Side: NO
1 point

I am not against smoking, but what I don't like very much is, that when people get lungcancer from smoking, I have to pay their hospital bill.

Side: NO
1 point

I am not against smoking, but what I don't like very much is, that when people get lungcancer from smoking, I have to pay their hospital bill.

That's why we are against smoking

Side: YES
giverupper(247) Disputed
1 point

Okay, but don't you think you should be against taxes instead of smoking?

Because it isn't really the smokers fault that they get free lung cancer transplants, it's the government that decided this.

And actually a lot of smokers are libertarian, because they want the age limit of and the prices down - so the typical smoker acutally votes for a liberal society. Which means they aren't voting for free lung operations and hospital visits.

Do you understand, I know this is easy to misunderstand, so just tell me if you don't ;)

Side: NO
aikaT(14) Disputed
1 point

Loung cancer is not only deseace which can damage your health. There are variety of illnesses caused by smoking.

Side: NO
1 point

if people want to harm their own bodies by smoking, who am i to make them stop, it's not our problem, if you have tried once but they don't listen then you cannot really change their habits.

Side: NO
1 point

No, I smoke my self but I always smoke out door's away from people and always ask someone if its ok if they are with me. I also dislike people who want to ban smoking for good. This is my body and my life and I will put what ever I want into it. I know the risk's and the danger I'm not stupid but I live in a free country and will not be told what I can and can not put into my own body.

Side: NO

Am I against something people do on their own free will and have the right to do? No, I am not.

Side: NO
1 point

No, of course not. I have no right to deny someone else a personal choice that doesn't affect me. As other posters have said, it's incredibly easy to avoid second-hand inhilation of cigarette smoke, if you're even that worried about it.

As for a government ban on the stuff...it appears too many people have forgotten (or just haven't learned) about the failure of Prohibition on alcohol in the 20's and how it created a booming bootlegging industry. There is always going to be a high demand for drugs and in general anything with intoxicating effects. Treating these matters of personal choice as criminal issues rather than medical issues is downright preposturous. Furthermore, if someone is addicted to cigarettes..why does it make sense to jail them rather than give them the means to break their addiction? Seems to me they're worth more to society if they're put on a path towards....working, and stuff.

Side: NO
1 point

I'm not against smoking. I'm against cigarettes. Prevention is better than cure.

Side: NO
1 point

Ok. I started smoking when I was 17. I would like to think I have control as I smoke only once a week. I disagree with people that think it is morally wrong because whilst it does damage your body it is still yours. If people are smart about it smoking might be considered socially acceptable again

Side: NO

I hate cigarette so freaking much but that doesn't mean that everyone else should stop smoking. It's their right to smoke. I mean it can literally kill you but it's not up to me to decide it's up to the smoker.

Side: NO
Sitara(11101) Clarified
1 point

Weed is fine, and so is tobacco. It is that chemical shit that they add that gets ya. Both weed and tobacco have been smoked for centuries with minimal effects but then some idiot started adding bad stuff. There is more to this story than meets the eyes is all I am saying.

Side: YES
1 point

Weed is fine, and so is tobacco. It is that chemical shit that they add that gets ya. Both weed and tobacco have been smoked for centuries with minimal effects but then some idiot started adding bad stuff. There is more to this story than meets the eyes is all I am saying.

Side: NO

Since smoking is not illegal, people do have the right to smoke.

Side: NO
0 points

i am not against smoking i am a smoker myself and i dont see nothing wrong with it and for those of you who do no one cares so why argue!!!!!!!!!!

Side: NO
Kingly342(29) Disputed
1 point

Well, smoking causes cancer. And, Nothing wrong? there are many things wrong with smoking! It's not fair on the people with asthma!

Side: YES