CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
15
Yes. No.
Debate Score:29
Arguments:40
Total Votes:29
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (14)
 
 No. (14)

Debate Creator

YeshuaBought(726) pic



Should smoking tobacco be outlawed?

Yes.

Side Score: 14
VS.

No.

Side Score: 15
No arguments found. Add one!
2 points

No, I do not think it should be outlawed...but, I do believe we need to do a better job of telling people about the consequences...

Side: No.

I'm scared Andy. This ish is addictive. I am an addict to tobacco, and I don't want anyone to feel like me. Love ya, muah, upvote for free speech.

Side: No.
FromWithin(6611) Clarified
2 points

You are an addict because YOU CHOSE to take that first cigarette just as millions have chosen to take drugs, etc., etc. etc.

People who do not destroy their lives simply choose to say no to that first cigarette, to that one night hookup, to that drinking and driving, to that abuse of alcohol, etc.

What is it about people who constantly want to blame the object instead of the person behind the object?

They say it is the cigarette, or the gun, or the 20 ounce soda, etc.

People no longer want to take personal responsibility for their lack of will power when it comes to their own choices in life.

Progressives have ushered in this no fault Godless culture whereby speaking out on personal accountability for irresponsible choices is no longer allowed. It's not politically correct to state the obvious. The Left says we Conservatives are too judgmental. The Left would rather watch a generation of people destroy their lives rather than hearing the simple truth. It's a nation's insecurity to admit their own shortcomings. It's all about anti God and anti personal responsibility. People want to love themselves just the way they are. It's not their fault! According to the Left, we re all perfect just the way we are.

We used to say it like it is...... DON'T TOUCH THAT HOT IRON OR YOU WILL GET BURNT!

Don't take that first cigarette! Don't abuse alcohol! If you do, you brought the addiction on yourself! People should once again be shamed for dong stupid irresponsible things.

Side: Yes.
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

Let's say smoking, cigarettes and alike tobacco products, were banned federally today in the US. Aside from the withdrawal effects all addicted smokers would endure(keeping with your "consequences" phrase), what negative effects would you see? Would these be greater than the positive effects of banning something so destructive to society?

Side: Yes.
1 point

We all know it's bad for you. If you want to smoke anyway, then you do so as an informed adult capable of making your own decisions. Let em' smoke, and let em' take responsibility for their own lives, and how quickly and by what method they end them.

Side: No.
1 point

You don't have the right to destroy your body. I almost DIED due to my addiction. Those fuckers are killing people on purpose. When aspestos was discored to be a bad product, it was banned, so why not tobacco products.

Side: Yes.
SexyJesus(257) Disputed
1 point

Then we are of differing opinions. I believe you should be allowed to do whatever you please to your own body and life, to include destroying it.

Second and at the risk of offense, if you are addicted to something, in almost all cases this was entirely the result of your own choices.

Third, asbestos isn't banned. It's certainly more heavily regulated now that we are informed of how harmful it is- much like tobacco- but if an individual for whatever reason decides they want to snort it like cocaine, it's their choice.

Fourth, Those Fuckers are giving people what they're asking for. People are actively making the choice to buy another cigarette, another drink, another crack rock, and Those Fuckers are just trying to put food on the table for their families. It's just capitalism.

And fifth, three months ago I watched my father die of chronic alcoholism and various other addictions. I'll miss him, but that was his choice of how to go, and I don't pity him.

I congratulate you on your choice to kick your addiction. You took personal responsibility for your health and your actions and for that, you have my genuine respect. However, that choice of whether to continue and die or quit and live was yours, every day leading up to that critical change and every day since, and no one else's. As it must be for all people with addictions.

Side: No.
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

Let's say a close relative or friend of yours dies somewhere within the 7000+ people in the US who die from lung cancer every year caused by second-hand smoking or the 30,000+ who die annually from heart disease caused directly by second-hand smoking; from people you claim are taking responsibility "for their own lives". Are you allowing them responsibility over the lives of others, as well? Not to mention, "how quickly and by what method they end them"?.

Side: Yes.
1 point

I smoke precisely because it is bad for me.

I use it to sublimate my self-destructive impulses. I don't skydive, rock climb without a rope, pick fights with strangers in bars, gamble, cuss out judges, weave in and out of traffic, or engage in other risky and ultimately self-destructive behaviors.

I am consciously trading acute risks to my well-being for a chronic one.

Absolutely I don't think anyone else should bear the costs of my decision to smoke.

That does not mean that laws should restrict our choices regarding what we should do with our own bodies, but rather laws should require us to be held accountable for the costs of our choices.

Taxes should not pay for my smoking related medical care for exactly the same reason taxes should not pay for rock climbing or football injuries, abortion, pre-natal care, childbirth, or supporting anybody's kids.

Side: No.
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

Let's say one day you discover that your smoking addiction directly led to another's death; would your position on smoking change? You mention nobody else bearing the cost of your smoking, but you're speaking purely monetarily. You aren't taking into account that second-hand smoking kills tens of thousands of people every year just in the US. Even if your rebuttal is "I only smoke indoors, alone, away from anyone else, etc." this doesn't lessen how dangerous smoking is for the atmosphere and others taking into account not everyone smokes alone, indoors, away from contact from any other humans or animals.

Side: Yes.
marcusmoon(531) Clarified Banned
1 point

You aren't taking into account that second-hand smoking kills tens of thousands of people every year just in the US.

Who told you that? How do they know?

Even if your rebuttal is "I only smoke indoors, alone, away from anyone else, etc." this doesn't lessen how dangerous smoking is for the atmosphere and others taking into account not everyone smokes alone, indoors, away from contact from any other humans or animals.

Am I correct in assuming that you do not drive or do anything else that has any harmful effect on others?

Side: Yes.
Dermot(5461) Disputed
1 point

So why aren’t cars , factories and machinery banned that throw out pollutants into the atmosphere?

Why are they not made pay for affecting our health ?

Your exaggeration of the effects of secondhand smoking is the much used used but intellectually lazy argument of the armchair moralist

Side: No.
Amarel(3880) Clarified
1 point

The odds of chance of death while skydiving is .0007%.

What are your thoughts on children becoming wards of the state?

Side: Yes.
marcusmoon(531) Clarified Banned
1 point

Hi, Amarel.

The odds of chance of death while skydiving is .0007%.

A larger percentage of steps out of a flying airplane result in people falling to their deaths than steps across level ground, up or down stairs, or even off of curbs. :)

What are your thoughts on children becoming wards of the state?

SHORT ANSWER:

Government does nothing well, so the fewer ways government is involved in people's lives the better.

I shudder to think of kids being cared for with the same lack of attention and incompetence as our nation's highways, bridges, and dams.

LONGER ANSWER:

I worked for Child Protective Services, and it is extraordinarily rare that there is occasion for kids to be wards of the state, and vastly rarer that there is any such need (with the exception of juvenile incarceration, which is also greatly over-applied.)

Children should never be wards of the state unless they have no living parents or relatives, or willing adoptive parents.

(Generally, there are vastly more prospective adoptive parents than adoptable children. Often eager prospective parents are denied adoption because they are not the same race as the child they want to adopt. This is yet another downside of racist policies instituted by the left.)

People should take responsibility for the the results of their choices, and be held accountable for their own actions. When it comes to parental responsibilities, in aggregate, governmental activities and programs decrease parental accountability.

In fact, many taxpayer supported programs reduce the incentives for personal reproductive planning and consideration of consequences of reproductive decisions by reducing personal accountability.

Side: Yes.