CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You don't have the right to pump addictive carcinigens in your body and BURDEN the healthcare ssystem.
Hmm...
Your point is that burdening the health care system is an argument against people being free to do things that are likely to result in medical care.
By your reasoning, we should outlaw unprotected sex because "You don't have the right to pump [semen which can result in pregnancies] in your body and BURDEN the health care system."
You might want to rethink your argument.
I can see requiring everybody personally to bear the financial cost of their own decisions. That is only fair.
However, the fact that everything we do has some health effect or other, means that under your model, almost everything we do would be either required or prohibited on the basis of its impact on the health care system. Anything that has a negative effect on cardio-respiratory health, anything that is hard on joints or could result in injury, anything that causes emotional stress (which is the single greatest root cause of health problems) and anything that promotes a sedentary lifestyle would be prohibited.
I remember the first time I smoked a cigarette. After that first drag, my lungs made sure I knew in no uncertain terms that inhaling smoke was bad for me.
My salivary glands pitched in their two cents worth, too.
I knew without question that any choice to take a second drag was against my self-interest, and a very poor health decision.
At that point there could have been no addiction, no habit even.
All on my own, I chose to take a second drag, to finish that cigarette, and ultimately to have a second one, and a third, etc.
So, when you say things like, "They sold me the addictive product that almost resulted in my murder," it is completely obvious by your use of the word murder that you are trying to blame someone else for YOUR choices.
It did not almost result in your "murder", but in your suicide.
The discussion of addictive properties of tobacco is a red herring, a fallacy meant to distract from all the points at which you chose freely to smoke.
It was your choice the whole time.
Even if you want to pretend the addiction encouraged the choice to smoke, or pretend that at some point you had no choice, there were many drags you took before it was physically possible for you to be addicted.
Besides, people quit smoking all the time. I have stopped for five years or more three separate times.
Every single time I smoked a cigarette, it was by my choice.
Likewise, every single time you smoked a cigarette, it was by YOUR choice.
The dignity of adulthood depends on taking responsibility for our choices, including every cigarette we ever smoked, and for the results of choosing to smoke them.
Fact: I did not choose my biochemical response to that first cigarette. Addiction is a neuropsychiatric disease. I was addicted when I inhaled second hand smoke long before I started smoking. I can't help the way my body reacts to nicotine, end of story, you are on a time out.
Let's say, for now, we ignore everything aside from the line "People are actively making the choice to buy another cigarette, another drink, another crack rock...".
I'm inclined to ask, do you not know what addiction is? Nor what effects is has on the human brain? Your ignorance on this subject is severely showing. You're also failing to mention second-hand smoking at all, which is even more dangerous than first-hand smoking due to the fact that victims of second-hand smoking don't smoke. What are your thoughts on this? Or do you not care because you didn't research the subject and simply mashed together whatever popped into your head at the time of reading the headline?
I'm inclined to ask, do you not know what addiction is? Nor what effects is has on the human brain? Your ignorance on this subject is severely showing.
Understanding addiction does not necessitate the preclusion of choice concerning addiction. The countless people who have overcome their addiction never do so by accepting that they have no choice in their actions.
You're also failing to mention second-hand smoking at all, which is even more dangerous than first-hand smoking
There is no evidence to support the notion that second hand smoking is worse than active smoking. There may be good reason for him failing to mention second hand smoke:
Let's say you're partually right in your first point; However, addiction is different for different people. Someone can be addicted to cigarettes stronger than a crack addict is addicted to crack, it varies greatly from person to person. Also, I'm sorry, but neither of your sources are evidence. Link me an actual study, or even a government or .edu/.gov/.org website. Using news media sites to support your claim is silly.
If you're meaning to imply second-hand smoking isn't dangerous, you're severely ignorant on this subject and cherry pick what you choose to believe very heavily. It's fine wanting to be right, but there are times when you need to swallow your pride and accept that you're wrong. Search "second hand smoking effects" and click on nothing but .gov, .net, .org, or .edu sites; Or any legitimate research studies that show corrolation with other studies to prove your claim.
Using a Forbes and Slate article to try and prove your point.. That's laughable.
However, addiction is different for different people
Yes well, so is discipline. But choice is not removed.
Using a Forbes and Slate article to try and prove your point.. That's laughable
You’re being lazy. Both news articles cite primary sources. Forbes posted their primary article Journal of the National Cancer Institute right at the top. Slate shows cites various primary sources to show that early smoke alarmists were exaggerating. The first large population studied was in the UK where the University is Bath found a 2�nefit as opposed to the 60% previously claimed. The Forbes cites a study by the JNCI which has a sample size of 76,000 women and shows no link between second hand smoke and cancer.
The primary sources used in these articles are perfectly valid. Laugh all you want, but stop being lazy.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent)". Straight from the given source, though feel free to research it and the claims yourself. If you can refute this at all, I'll start to take your argument half-seriously. Until then, you're cherry-picking and spreading misinformation and I won't placate that; it only leads to your detrimental opinions to spread. Some people may read this and actually agree with you and that's frightening.
Your words, and I quote "and shows no link between second hand smoke and cancer". You mean to now tell me this wasn't to suggest second-hand smoke isn't carcinogenic? Also, one of your articles is from 2013; my sources are current to this year and show thousands of people die every year from cancer caused by second-hand smoking.
If I may ask, what's your stake in defending second-hand smoking so adamantly? Are you a smoker yourself? Do you think it'd be infringing our rights to ban smoking? I'm curious.
Your laziness is extending to your own source. It’s less current than mine. You can see this by clicking the primary sources they are citing.
I don’t have a stake in defending second hand smoke, I have a stake in accurate information. When you come out screaming about the ignorance of others, but are clearly not fully informed yourself, I feel the need to fill that gap. You’re welcome.
Did you not read where I put that you can check up on the source to ensure what I used from it holds current? The source I gave you was to show second hand smoke is labelled a carcinogen, which holds true to today. Please inform me on how I'm ignorant. Simply typing "second hand smoke effects" will allot you numerous sources that back any figures I give.
I can appreciate one who seeks to challenge misinformation, but your efforts in this instance is misplaced. I can't help but feel another reason for you to challenge me, but I won't press you for that.
Did you not read where I put that you can check up on the source to ensure what I used from it holds current?
Yeah, and then I checked. And your source isn’t current. They cite primary sources that are more out of date than the primary sources cited in my article. I checked. Anyone else can check. I suggest you check as well.
I can appreciate one who seeks to challenge misinformation, but your efforts in this instance is misplaced
Not really. I showed that that the effects of second hand smoke are exaggerated and you replied that second hand smoke has negative effects. Good thing for me that I haven’t made the point that you are countering.
I can't help but feel another reason for you to challenge me, but I won't press you for that.*
Oh thank god. I was really worried you were going to press me concerning your feelings.
You're also failing to mention second-hand smoking at all, which is even more dangerous than first-hand smoking
That’s simply not true
due to the fact that victims of second-hand smoking don't smoke.
The “victims” of secondhand smoking are minuscule and how do definitely establish the link ?
Or do you not care because you didn't research the subject and simply mashed together whatever popped into your head at the time of reading the headline?
Actually that seems to be what you’re doing , why is reaction to alternative viewpoints seemingly so hostile ?
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"?.
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.
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.
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?
Let's say you did even a little research on the subject beforehand; as you know, many federal health organizations have statistics on the effects of second hand smoking. How do they know it was second-hand smoking, you ask? When a patient is diagnosed with lung cancer and physicians find that their lungs are identical to a smokers', even though they say they've never smoked in their lives, what would you assume is the cause? It doesn't take more than a bit of thought to put 1+1 together and get 2. Your second argument pertains to the idea that simply because something carries negative effects, it should be banned. This is not my position. My position is that when an entity, object or idea carries negative consequences that outweigh the positives in terms of maintaining health, happiness, and advancement levels, it should be labelled a detriment to society and disposed of. In your example of driving, for instance; cars are being made safer and safer for the environment every year, and are heavily regulated in terms of safety standards. Are cigarettes being made safer as time progresses? No. Do cigarettes provide a highly essential function to much of modern society and globalization, leading to the advancement of our civilization? I don't believe so. The positive aspects automotive vehicles bring a developed or developing society outweighs the negative effects they carry; with one of the top contributors to that being drunk driving, and it is also my position that alcohol should either be much more heavily regulated, if not banned as well. Make a case where you can justify substances such as meth and cocaine being illegal, but not cigarettes. The catch is you can't be hypocritical in your argument, even once.
Update: If you still aren't inclined to take my word on the dangers of second-hand smoking, and fail to do any research on the subject yourself, I've compiled a few government and organization sites that show you the statistics.
If you can find evidence backed by legitimate organizations that disprove the evidence provided by sources I provided, please share and I'll quickly begin to question my entire existence; as I've been unable to find much that proves otherwise that isn't simply misinformation by smokers or those on behalf of tobacco companies.
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.
