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 can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
today very often see under age teens indulging in smoking and drinking. They often say that they are mature enough to do so! they say that the age bar for smoking and drinking must be lowered down.So what is your opinion?????
Yes, a true free society will have no smoking or drinking age. How did the American youth manage to survive without the government micromanaging our lives before 1984.
I could less what alcohol drugs and cigarettes can do to the human body. It is more about the freedom to choice and freedom of body, and the youth of 1980's should have to pay for that choice in paying the health costs, so that when people see the higher health costs come out of their own pocket, not someone's pocket, then free people willfully decide not to consume these products. All of this can be voluntary action, but no ideas of coercion appear to be working since people still drink and smoke.
When you're smoking and drinking, you are causing not only your own body damage, but also others.
If my boyfriend smokes when Im with him, he can cause me a lot of diseases.
Drinking have killed millions of people, who didn't even drink themselves.
One thing is driving drunk.
I know you probably say, that you don't do these things, but you can't allow just SOME people to smoke and drink.
If it was up to me, both cigarettes and drinking should be banned at all age.
Not becouse I don't want people to have fun or freedom, no. I want the freedom too, but as long as people keep drinking and smoking, I don't have it, no one has it.
Cuz cigarettes and alcohol is addicting, you're forced to do something. Do you call that freedom? Then your freedom is very weird sorry to say.
So while you're having your so called 'freedom' others are suffering from it.
Alchololics suffer. The children of the alcoholics are suffering. If you really think, that drinking and smoking is just affecting you, then think again.
When you're smoking and drinking, you are causing not only your own body damage, but also others.
Forcing people into doing things that they are voluntarily unwilling to do also damages others because there will be resistance.
If my boyfriend smokes when Im with him, he can cause me a lot of diseases.
Weak links between those.
If it was up to me, both cigarettes and drinking should be banned at all age.
When drinking was banned, it only created the most notorious gangster, Al Capone, in the crime era of Prohibition, and now created the drug cartels in Mexico and United States.
Forcing people into doing things that they are voluntarily unwilling to do also damages others because there will be resistance.
What exactly are you talking about?
When drinking was banned, it only created the most notorious gangster, Al Capone, in the crime era of Prohibition, and now created the drug cartels in Mexico and United States.
So.. ?
At least they're keeping it away from me and others who are trying to get 'freedom' from smoke.
If it was shown that cell phones cause brain tumors do you think it should be unlawful to possess one? Why do you think the government should outlaw every conceivable hazard to yourself? Do you think the role of government should include protecting you from yourself?
Yes, but if cellphones cause tumors, then WHY they cause tumors would be important. If it's the cellphonic rays that are emitted from a cellphone, then all cellphone towers would have to immediately be shutdown. You could not even be in the country side, because if those cellphonic waves hit you, BAM. Tumors.
Regarding second hand smoke- if you don't like it, stay away from people who do. If I want freedom to do something, and you want to take it away, then that's simply not fair for me. If you want to avoid smoke and drinking, then don't go to bars or hang out with people who do that stuff.
If you don't like to be killed, stay away from murderers.
Seriously that sounds so stupid to me.. stand away from smokers.
First of all (I'm not completely sure, but I saw on the news, that cellphones do not cause tumors, but that's not the point here) If cellphones caused tumors, it would only affect you, and the person you're talking too.
You both have the freedom to not call, or not to answer the phone. If you do, and you get a tumor, it is your responsibility.
When you get lung cancer, COL or asthma or some other disease of smoking, it is also your own responisbility.
If you get one of those smokers diseases because your parents smoked in your house .. then you were forced to live in a house full of smoke.
I did not say "killed" I said breath in smoke. You can easily tell who smokes and who doesn't, because unlike a murderer who could be anyone, a smoker probably carries around cigarettes. The difference is huge, and the fact that you even compared smoking and murder makes me not want to even finish typing this.
I am against smoking. I think it's gross and makes you smell bad. That's why I don't hang out with smokers.
If parents smoke, it is sad and unfortunate, but I would not try to force people to not smoke.
Perhaps making a law forbidding parents with children under 18 to not smoke would be reasonable, but to prevent a single adult from smoking on his own time because you feel you are morally correct is only taking away his freedom.
Can you find more than 500 cases where children developed cancer and died solely due to their parents smoking?
I ask for 500 cases because although I doubt you could even find 50, and even 500 is barely a dent in the population, it would provide evidence for what you are claiming.
And again, I do not find it stupid to ask for proof. 500 cases of this is not unreasonable. With a population of at least 5 million kids, with 10% or so of the parents smoking, that would lead to a LOT more than 500 cases. Yes, sensitive people exist. What should I do about it? Should I stop swearing and wear a mask in case they find my face offensive?
Should I abandon being an atheist because it might insult people who believe in the supernatural? Should I just bow down to every person who says I shouldn't do something because it might hurt other people? Did you know that breathing produced CO2? That's a deadly gas. Perhaps we should all stop breathing as well, in case someone chokes on my breath.
My point is I couldn't care less if my second hand smoke, smoke that either lingers in my own house that I own with my money, or smoke that blows away and dissipates in the breeze if I'm outside makes someone 5 feet from me cough. Either move upwind or stay away. I don't even smoke. I do that. I stay away from people who smoke because I find it gross and smelly. I would NEVER dream of taking away their right to do it though.
I am really surprised you think that there are less than 500 incidents of people dying of second hand smoking.
If you know that less about smoke, then I think we should stop right here.
Yet, you want to remove that right from all people, which I think is unreasonable and despotic.
I want to remove the right from parents to destroy their children's lungs. Thats what I'm trying to do.
When do you think we have freedom? Is it when alcohol, marijuana and whatever you can come up with is legalized without age limit?
How is that freedom. How is it freedom to be forced to live in a smoke that kills you. I don't understand you people.. to become a free country, legalize everything. Legalize murder, legalize robbery.. as long as you feel free, who cares about others?
Are you aware of what cars, sharp objects, and paracetamol can do to your body?
They can destroy it. The youth right now are having a blast of a time, and in 30 years we'll have good memories and stories to tell. Do you think we should never have fun in case we hurt ourselves?
You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.
What I don't like about cigarettes, alcohol and drugs is, that it doesn't always cause only yourself harm.
Are you aware of how many people die because of these things, without doing any of them themselves?
Are you aware of how many innocent victims died because of some drunk driver? It wasn't their fault, they didn't drink.
Are you aware of how many people struggle today, whit asthma, COL, lung cancer and several other diseases, because their parents smoked in the house?
The people who have diseases from smoking, they didn't all smoke by themselves. Someone smoked for them.
When you smoke, you only get about 30% of whats in a cigarette in to your own body. the rest goes in to the air, for others to breathe.
Can you see why I hate these three things so much?
If I drank and it only would cause myself damage, I wouldn't say anything about it. Then I think everyone should be allowed to do all of them. But that's not the way it is.
But I didn't really get if you were supporting or disputing me.
Are you aware of how many people die from crossing the road? Do you know how many people have been hit by sober drivers?
Yeah, parents shouldn't smoke near their kids. Simple solution: smoke outside.
When you smoke, you only get about 30% of whats in a cigarette in to your own body. the rest goes in to the air, for others to breathe.
I have no idea where you got that statistic from, but there seems to be some strange rumour going round that second hand smoke is actually worse for you than smoking. This is clearly a load of bollocks. If that was true, hardly anyone would have to buy cigarettes, they'd just stand around some other person with a fag.
If you don't want to breath in second hand smoke don't stand next to someone who is smoking it really is that simple.
So, to recap:
People crash cars whilst drunk. People will also crash whilst sober, and the majority of people, believe it or not, are not retarded enough to drive whilst drunk.
Second hand smoke has a small effect on those breathing it in. Don't stand next to smokers.
Don't ban everyone from having fun just because you don't want to.
Are you aware of how many people die from crossing the road? Do you know how many people have been hit by sober drivers?
People who were hit by a sober driver, it probably was an accident. And if not an accident, then it was a crazy driver. And those two things we can't do much about. But we can do something about drunk drivers. We can ban alcohol.
Yeah, parents shouldn't smoke near their kids. Simple solution: smoke outside.
Wow, you just solved a big problem in our world.
Sorry to say, parents still do this. Pregnant women smoke, parents smoke inside. Kids even smoke. You haven't solved anything sorry.
But still, if the parents smoke outside it still affects the children, but there is smaller chance of them getting any disease, but it's still there.
When people smoke on the porch, balcony or whatever they have, when they go inside, some of the smoke manages to come inside to, when they open the door.
Can you smell when someone just got a smoke? Yes you can, because the smoke is still on them and in them.
They breathe smoke out even after their done smoking. They breathe it out to the kids to breathe in.
If their smoking outside, then they lower the chance of their children to get diseases yes, but the risk is still there.
If that was true, hardly anyone would have to buy cigarettes, they'd just stand around some other person with a fag.
Yeah, I know that isn't true.
But it is true, that you only get 30% of the cigarette in your own body when smoking. The rest goes out in the air around you. And that air is the same air that someone else is breathing in. You know how smoking goes right? You breathe something in, and then you breathe out a Grey smoke? That's the smoke I'm talking about.
If you don't want to breath in second hand smoke don't stand next to someone who is smoking it really is that simple.
It isn't that simple.
Parents still cause their children diseases because they smoke, even if they smoke outside. And the smoke a smoker smokes out to me to breathe, it isn't just hanging around the smoker. It goes into the whole room. And if outside, it goes with the wind, and someone can breathe it in. And if that person is very sensitive or something, they can easily develop asthma. The risk is low, yes I know. But it is there.
People crash cars whilst drunk. People will also crash whilst sober
A drunk driver is in 13 times as much risk, as a sober driver is.
35,3 of every car crash is alcohol related.
I searched some facts about alcohol, and I'll give you six here:
1. 250,000 people in America died in alcohol related accidents in the past 10 years.
2. Presently 25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents, in America.
3. 500 people in America are killed each week in alcohol related accidents.
4. 71 people are killed each day in alcohol related accidents in America
5. One American life is lost every 20 minutes in alcohol related auto crashes.
6.It is estimated that one out of every two Americans will be involved in an alcohol related accident in his or her lifetime.
Second hand smoke has a small effect on those breathing it in.
That goes for some people. Some people are more sensitive than others, and you can cause lung cancer, COL and asthma, and several other diseases if you smoke.
Don't ban everyone from having fun just because you don't want to.
I want to ban it. I don't see the fun in giving others cancer.
People who were hit by a sober driver, it probably was an accident.
Same with drunk drivers. I doubt you've ever touched alcohol in your life, but trust me, it does not turn you into a homicidal psychopath. What you've demonstrated is that people shouldn't drive drunk. That is all. By your logic, we should ban cars, as more people die from being run over than die from being run over by drunk drivers.
You haven't solved anything sorry.
Again, you have not demonstrated that cigarettes should be banned, only that parents shouldn't smoke around kids.
You know how smoking goes right? You breathe something in, and then you breathe out a Grey smoke? That's the smoke I'm talking about.
Yes, I'm not 3, and I have actually done these things before deciding to condemn them. The second hand smoke does contain some carcinogens, but so does all smoke. Wanna ban open fires, gas outlets, burning fuel? No? Why? If you don't want to inhale second hand smoke, then don't, it's really not hard. Don't stop everyone enjoying themselves because you are afraid you might raise your risk of lung cancer by like 1%.
Basically, you seem to have a ten year old's understanding of civil liberties. When something's danger significantly outweighs its benefits, then maybe it can be banned. Take the earlier example. Why not ban cars? They cause thousands of deaths every year, they release harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, and it costs thousands in taxpayer's money to service roads used by cars. You tell me, why aren't they banned? It's because number one, the advantage of having the ability to travel so quickly from A to B greatly outweighs the disadvantages, and number two, we can't just ban everything that causes harm, or we'd be living inside small huts made of cotton wool, where we'd have to apply for a permit to go outside.
Similarly, the happiness and fun that comes from alcohol greatly outweighs the fact that some idiots try to drive and end up hitting other people. You can't punish an entire population for the crimes of a few.
Again, with cigarettes, the harm is caused almost completely to the smoker themselves. We need to treat adult humans as equals, able to make their own decisions, and we don't need some old fart politician telling us what we can and can't put in our mouths. Yes, some arseholes smoke around their kids, but we can't punish everyone in the country for those few people being dick cocks.
Also, I see you have the common skewed stats about smoking risks. The biggest risk by far from smoking is actually the effect on the vascular system, which can cause heart attacks. The risk of lung cancer is much lower than the anti smokers would have you believe. Only ten percent of long term smokers actually get lung cancer. What the anti smokers do is use the backwards statistic, using the percentage of people with lung cancer who smoke instead of the people who smoke with lung cancer. This is because people are more scared of cancer.
I think you think that the fact people die because of something is reason enough to ban it. You are an idiot. When you have eliminated every risk from your life, come back and tell me. This would probably require never crossing a road, never eating hot food, never using sharpened implements, never carrying heavy objects etc etc.
Clearly, you didn't read the last argument I posted properly. In it I talked about the risks of smoking. I stated that the biggest risk by far is the vascular diseases caused by smoking, not the cancer part.
I also talked about misuse of statistics, and you've done exactly what I was talking about. You've given me a backwards statistic. You've given me percentage of people with disease who smoked rather than people who smoked that got the disease.
I don't think you understand I don't give a shit about how bad smoking is for smokers, you seem to think that because something harms the user, it should be banned. Go live in North Korea for a while and see how that feels.
And by the way, it's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and I can't find the right way round stats because anti smokers prefer to use backwards stats as they look worse.
You've given me percentage of people with disease who smoked rather than people who smoked that got the diseases
That's because I don't care if people smoke. If smokers get diseases from smoking, its their own fault. No one asked them to smoke.
What I care about is the people around smokers, who are affected in a horrible, and sometimes chronicle way.
I don't think you understand I don't give a shit about how bad smoking is for smokers, you seem to think that because something harms the user, it should be banned. Go live in North Korea for a while and see how that feels.
What I meant is what I just said above.
I really don't care about smokers. If smokers get COL, lung cancer or whatever, its their own fault.
If a person who fx. had smoker parents, and they smoked around their child, it is horrible to think of, that the child is suffering, or maybe it will suffer from some diseases. That is horrible, and if you don't agree with me on, that it is horrible, than you're horrible too :)
And by the way, it's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and I can't find the right way round stats because anti smokers prefer to use backwards stats as they look worse.
I don't know what backwards stats are, but those facts I'm coming up with are found on the Internet. If they're true or not .. who knows.
But what is true, is that it is dangerous to smoke.
And I know its dangerous to drink water too, but you need water. You don't need nicotine.
Once again, you haven't shown that we should ban smoking, you have shown people shouldn't smoke around other people.
I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, if you don't want to inhale second hand smoke, don't stand next to smokers. What do you not understand about that?
Clearly, you don't have a firm grasp on what the statistics you have used represent. Reread my previous two arguments for an explanation of what backwards statistics are.
A murderer intentionally seeks out victims and hurts them on purpose. A smoker is just enjoying themselves without any inherent intention of harming people. You can't avoid a murderer by standing away from them. You can avoid smokers by moving away from them.
Even if someone was to die from passive smoking, it wouldn't be anyone's fault, as they shouldn't have stood next to a smoker in the first place. Murder is killing with predetermined intent to do so. Suicide is when someone kills themselves. Seeing as it is your choice whether you stand next to smokers or not, you are closer to committing suicide than being murdered.
Don't stand next to a smoker? tell that to a three year old kid who lives in a house full of smoke. Tell it to move and keep away from its parents.
Do you even read what I've written? Do you even consider the opposing viewpoint? What am I saying, you're an authoritarian oriented Christian, of course you don't. Seeing as you've completely ignored several points I have previously addressed, it feels as if you are arguing with me without even listening to what I have to say, either that or your reading comprehension needs improvement.
Anyway, the fact that a few absolute cunts decide to smoke around their kids is no reason to ban everybody from smoking, it's just a reason to not smoke in front of your kids.
You don't ban pillows because some parents use them to smother their children, so you can't ban smoking because some parents do it in the presence of children.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. No one's saying you can't help children suffering from second hand smoke. You can do both, you know. This debate is more about America than where I live (here you can smoke and have sex at 16, but you can't buy alcohol and cigarettes till you're 18. You can drink at any age with parental consent). Because the buying age of 21 is ridiculous, and doesn't solve any problems. Some people want to reinstate prohibition, but we all know how well that works, and is working right now, that is, not at all.
Because smoking is a passive activity. Being harmed by second hand smoke is something you can avoid, the smoker isn't trying to hurt you.
All those things you listed are aggressive activities, where the intent is to seek out and harm other humans.
That given, you haven't explained to me why we shouldn't ban cars.
I think you should read a book called 1984 by George Orwell, brilliantly written, and a good allegory for authoritarianism, otherwise known as fascism, which is what you are advocating (I also love him because his books support libertarian socialism).
There is a possibility that you can harm yourself or others with a car.
But to smoke is 100% bad for you.. there is no maybe. Its like drinking chlorine or something.
I call myself a libertarian, but you would probably disagree.
I want lower taxes, and instead more expenses (I'd rather pay my own hospital bill, than pay other's abortions, because in my country there is 100% free abortions for all people - and I am against that, but I am forced to pay for them)
Where I live, people pay up to 70% of taxes (depends on how much they make, millionaires pay like .. 70%)
That's is why I am a libertarian, not because I want freedom.
don't get me wrong.. I want freedom in a way, where everybody can eat what they want, have the sexual orientation they want .. and you know. Those stuff.
But children can't decide for their own.. to lower a smoking and drinking age is in my eyes stupid.. because they are simply not mature enough to drink or stop when they had enough.
I know, I am a young person myself - I am only 17. I party with people that drink till they must go to the emergency room.
I see minors drinking everywhere .. and if we lower the age .. they'll probably drink more, and younger people are gonna drink too.
You imply it. Unless we want to debate a "true free" society.
To be completely ("true") free, there would be no enforced limits/restrictions; free to roam as it pleases.
And that's essentially the definition of anarchy.
Anarchy as a political ideology is very utopian. One which states there is no use for rules, no need for government because everyone acts within a moral and productive manner, I would argue this to be wishful thinking but innately unrealistic.
Anarcho-Capitalism has no restrictions because libertarian law has no use of violence or coercion except in cases of murder and other violent crimes, and as far as I can see anarchy has the same punishment system.
So, AC still stands as a true free society. The only difference between anarchy and AC is anarchy will be in the stone ages and AC would be advanced society, otherwise, if anarchy was an advanced society, it would be AC.
They are prosecuted for the act of violence or aggression.
Then AC has restrictions and thus is not a true free society.
What happens if someone commits murder or rape in anarchy? Is it a congratulations.
If anarchy were to exist in it's ideological form, no murder or rape would ever occur. While everyone has the freewill to do it, no one would ever choose to do so.
In it's realistic form, an anarchist society has no consequence for murder or rape. But vigilantism would come forth and disrupt the anarchism for a short period of time.
As a side note: I hope you realize I'm not arguing for or in favor of anarchy.
What I'm trying to show you is that it's meaningless to call AC a "true free society" because it's only an unrealistic Utopian idea.
It's like trying to sincerely argue something as absolutely perfect by all means.
The prosecution of the act of violence is not an restriction on a truly free society because of its ex post status. Banning smoking would be a restriction of freedom due to its ex ante status, but don't worry, there is no cigarettes in anarchy society because they don't exist.
It is impossible to think that in anarchism, murder wouldn't ever occur considering there is no wealth being created, people will plunder including acts of violence to get what they want because it is impossible for wealth to be created in anarchy because there is no property rights.
AC is not just some utopian idea, that is only your deluded perception, to even suggest that it is impossible is imperious.
The prosecution of the act of violence is not an restriction on a truly free society because of its ex post status.
Incorrect. To restrict is to keep something from doing something else, to hold in a limited space, etc.
If you punish someone for a deed, you disfavor the action in which you are punishing them for and obviously would rather them not do that deed. But if they do commit that deed again, they will yet again be punished.
This is a restriction.
You are attempting to keep them from doing something simply by a human consequence being attached.
Banning smoking would be a restriction of freedom due to its ex ante status,
That is another example of a restriction, yes.
but don't worry, there is no cigarettes in anarchy society because they don't exist.
In an anarchist society, everyone would have to either be in favor of smoking or at least consent everyone smoking. If not, then smoking would not exist in the society of anarchists. This is why I said anarchism is utopian. It's unrealistic because cigarettes do exist and all that is needed to break an anarchist society from being purely unrestricted is to restrict the cigarette usage or be in existence there while people disagree.
It is impossible to think that in anarchism, murder wouldn't ever occur considering there is no wealth being created,
Wealth (or lack thereof) is not solely responsible for the existence of murder.
people will plunder including acts of violence to get what they want because
Not in a (utopian) anarchist society. People would have the freewill to do so...all the choice in the world to do that... but they simply wouldn't. That's what anarchism banks on.
it is impossible for wealth to be created in anarchy because there is no property rights.
Again, that is up to the hypothetical people in the anarchist society.
AC is not just some utopian idea,
I did not state that AC was a utopian idea, I said the phrase "true free society" is an unrealistic, utopian idea.
that is only your deluded perception, to even suggest that it is impossible is imperious.
I have been nothing but friendly in this discussion but if you proceed to make such insulting claims and refuse to (at least) flex your (possible) presuppositions, then I have no choice but to decline continuing debate.
My entire argument from the beginning was simply correcting you on your usage of "true free society" and that using the phrase is pointless and unrealistic. Nothing else.
I have been nothing but friendly in this discussion but if you proceed to make such insulting claims and refuse to (at least) flex your (possible) presuppositions, then I have no choice but to decline continuing debate.
Well, unfortunately, the insulting claim actually came from yourself with the suggestion that a true free society is unrealistic, utopian idea, yet history shows cases of anarchist communities. and even anarcho-capitalism. The American Old West is the best example.
My entire argument from the beginning was simply correcting you on your usage of "true free society" and that using the phrase is pointless and unrealistic. Nothing else.
Again, a true free society is not pointless and unrealistic because it has happened before in the past.
Well, unfortunately, the insulting claim actually came from yourself
Incorrect. The insult came from your post. Your post, you. Not me. It didn't come from me.
with the suggestion that a true free society is unrealistic, utopian idea, yet history shows cases of anarchist communities. and even anarcho-capitalism. The American Old West is the best example. Again, a true free society is not pointless and unrealistic because it has happened before in the past.
Simply because it has existed does not refute the claim that it's an unrealistic utopian idea. Anarchist communities existed, either not in their pure form or in very small communities. When I speak of unrealistic utopian, I was applying it to your label of "true free society" which I imagine would be claimed as the solution to each community.
This is what I said to anachronist, and it's another analogy that may help you understand what my initial objection what about:
I was arguing pure 100% freedom (absolute freedom). I was arguing that someone cannot claim absolute freedom of a society that has laws.
It's like arguing the pure blankness of printer paper. Someone cannot claim the printer paper is absolutely blank of marks when they have a pencil line or dot on the paper. Even if it's small, it's still there and refutes the idea that the paper is absolutely 100% blank of marks. This is what I have been arguing the entire time with the other debater (PrayerFails).
Incorrect. The insult came from your post. Your post, you. Not me. It didn't come from me.
No, it started with you.
Simply because it has existed does not refute the claim that it's an unrealistic utopian idea
Actually, it does refute the claim. Utopia is an visionary of perfection in a political system, but AC has no politics because there is no government; on the other hand, communism was seen as an utopian society, but it failed and still is.
I was arguing pure 100% freedom (absolute freedom). I was arguing that someone cannot claim absolute freedom of a society that has laws.
Not sure what you don't understand, but AC doesn't have statutory laws, it is founded upon common law; hence no government. Therefore, absolute freedom is attainable.
No, anarchy means a society with no leaders. You can be free and still have a leader, it is just what that leader does that changes. I do not support right wing economics in any way, I find them to be selfish, greedy, and inconsiderate. However I do sympathise with the libertarian viewpoint. I'd quite like to live in an anarcho-syndicalist society, like this one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there are still leaders, they just serve the people instead of the people serving them.
That's what a lot of anarchist society's are like. Anarchy can be used in various ways, one pertaining to no leaders. One to lawlessness. One to both.
But I think one could make a fairly solid argument that without leadership of any kind, lawlessness is inevitable. At first someone may reject that argument, imagining a group who decides on what is acceptable together; my contention is this, what if someone goes against what is acceptable or unacceptable? Is there enforcement? If there is, that's where a leadership (being singular or plural) is enacted. If there isn't enforcement, then it's essentially lawlessness.
You can be free and still have a leader, it is just what that leader does that changes.
I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing pure 100% freedom (absolute freedom). I was arguing that someone cannot claim absolute freedom of a society that has laws.
It's like arguing the pure blankness of printer paper. Someone cannot claim the printer paper is absolutely blank of marks when they have a pencil line or dot on the paper. Even if it's small, it's still there and refutes the idea that the paper is absolutely 100% blank of marks. This is what I have been arguing the entire time with the other debater (PrayerFails).
I do not support right wing economics in any way, I find them to be selfish, greedy, and inconsiderate. However I do sympathise with the libertarian viewpoint. I'd quite like to live in an anarcho-syndicalist society, like this one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there are still leaders, they just serve the people instead of the people serving them.
I'm not very versed in economics. But I have liked the idea of a capitalistic barter society. The problem being, any ideology we have come up with to run a society has it's flaws.
I find the statement "a few shots" to be, at the best, a major understatement. You honestly believe that minors will have the self control to stop at a "few shots". There are plenty of adults who don't have that much self control.
Do you ever support arguments, or is it just "dispute town" up in this bitch? :P
Seeing as you've kinda irritated me with this P.C bullshit, let me rant for you:
May I ask you who's body it is that I inhabit? In case it wasn't blatantly obvious, let me tell you; my body. Is it the police's body? No. Is it the government's body? No. Is it Michael J. Fox's body? No it most certainly is not.
So what right does the government have, and the police to enforce, to try to stop me doing things with my body? As long as I'm not harming anyone else, why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with my body? AGAIN, it is my body. Want me to repeat it? My body. Mine.
When a child is under the care of their parents it should be just that; under the care of their parents. It shouldn't be the government coming in and parenting the kids for them, and then continuing that on when they turn into adults anyway. Granted, the government should step in if the parents are fucking pedophiles or some shit, but that's a given.
If I want to drink (I can legally anyways, but for this example I'm talking about before I was legal) I'll drink, if I want to hit a bong I will, if I want to take acid or shrooms or some shit, I fucking will.
Not one person on this Earth has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body unless what I'm doing is physically hurting someone else.
1. It restricts non-drug related production from what ever the plant or fungi is derived from. This creates less efficient product development, more waste, etc.
2. It imposes cultural values of one group onto another, even if there is little to no health risks if handled by the cultural standards of the group being imposed on.
3. Standards and regulation of delivery systems can more effectively handle for public health risks.
4. The black market restricts resources for addicts to become clean on the "white" market.
5. The government Treating all cases of illegal drug possession or consumption as a criminal act isn't as effective as alternatives when it comes to economic, public health, freedom, etc. Prisons are not rehab centers.
6. Adolescences is a modern invention, we treat people in their early twenties like they are incapable of making good decisions, and we underestimate the ability of our children, who often act how they are expected to act. If given accurate information, most can make a well informed decision.
Thus alcohol, cannabis,some mushrooms, and so on should be legal and with few restrictions.
Tobacco however needs more restriction, but should stay legal.
1. It has very few uses other than as a drug, mainly being ornamental or a host for bio-engineering.
2. The cultural standards used in many areas are inadequate to effectively handle it's risks. Which leads to my suggestion in number 3.
3. Subsidizing hookahs and taxing the hell out of pre-rolled cigarettes and similar would reduce various health concerns.
4. Well Its doubtful cigarettes would be a viable black market drug after a few generations pass under it's ban, it not being illegal allows for the sell, marketing, and supply of various resources to help with addiction.
6. Teens are currently decreasing their tobacco use.
If tobacco had more regulation on it's production and delivery systems then the age of licence could be lowered with little worry of an increase in health concerns. However, At the same time number 4 makes me wonder if the cost of the initial first 3 or so generations of having it illegal would be worth the long time benefits. I suppose i'm a bit on the fence about tobacco.
At 18 years old you are offically a adult so why do you have to wait 3 more years to drink beer? I think smoking is stupid and if you can controll how much you drink its not that bad.
Yepp Pr develop an addiction later on. With parental guidance, children listen to adults. So if the adults say "that's enough" they'll listen. If the adult says "that's enough" to an 18 year old, then they'll burst out "fuck you i'm old enough to decide" then get completely pissed.
Ah screw you man i thought i could reason with you, but no you still think that asking is a good thing. Its like shooting people "Oh its ok if you shoot them responsibly" would you say that, no. But smoking is killing people. I am not going to argue with you anymore, because all you seem to do is qupote people and say "this is wrong" you have no argument of your won, there is no justification for smoking and apparently i can't remember if it was you or someone else, you've said so much bullshit, but someones point said that smoking is cool. Which i see as a stupid thing to say; it's not cool to kill yourself, why should being cool be any part of this. Smoking in any form is bad. in ANY form, and oyu must accept that we're not living in the 60's anymore.
but no you still think that asking is a good thing.
Asking? What are you on about?
Its like shooting people "Oh its ok if you shoot them responsibly" would you say that, no.
Did you actually read my rebuttal? In fact, have you read a SINGLE WORD of what I've been saying?
But smoking is killing people.
Yes, the smoker, the person doing the smoking. Thus it is his choice, and not ours, to do so.
because all you seem to do is qupote people and say "this is wrong"
It's called "debate", you should learn how to sometime.
you have no argument of your won,
OK, because I'm far nicer than you, I am going to once again summarize my argument into a handy dandy paragraph.
I do not encourage smoking myself. Having personally witnessed the devastating effects of long term use, I agree that they are a detriment to humanity. However, I support the freedom of the individual, and the freedom of choice. Stripping away these two basic freedoms makes our society no more than a group of dogs and masters. Couple that with the fact that the war on drugs has caused so much death, yet increased drug use, and one must arrive to the conclusion that prohibiting ANYTHING is a negative.
Now, if nothing else, please rebut THAT paragraph.
you've said so much bullshit
What have I said that is bullshit?
but someones point said that smoking is cool.
Ah, I believe that was Garry. And, having reread his argument, he wasn't saying that. He was saying that smoking is an effective ice breaker to social barriers, which makes it very useful in group situations. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong though.
it's not cool to kill yourself
Just to point out: Smoking ≠Suicide.
Smoking in any form is bad.
OK, I believe I've found the crux of your argument, which was difficult. Luckily, it's weak. But first, I need to ask a question.
Do you believe that ALL bad things should be banned?
Do i believe all bad things should be banned? Well, things like chairs can be seen as bad-lazy. Things like bottled water can be bad-less nutrients. But these things don't drastically alter our lives. Something that can shorten your life by 20+ years, yes, they should be banned. I know no one else who thinks the way i do, so am not surprised no one understands. But there was a time before mass settlements, banks and fast food joints. A time when man was a hunter, and lived in small villages. Of course the health care back then was terrible, but we can introduce a bette rhealth care, without all the obese fat people from bad foods. No i haven't read the mojourity, you seem to sum up all of what you say in your conclusions. I know what i have written, so i don't bother reading the quotes. Smoking, is bad, in so many ways, and i want to stop this. How can you object, disregarding anything else that has been previously said, but how can you object to the fact that i would like to help people by banning smoking. And, you would like to keep smoking, thus harming people?? I see no logic sir, i have tried to converse with you in as many ways i know possible, but you think that smoking should be allowed? Again, no logic, no justification.
Something that can shorten your life by 20+ years, yes, they should be banned.
So should meat be banned?
I know no one else who thinks the way i do, so am not surprised no one understands.
Don't kid yourself, this style of thinking is ten a penny. I've already rebutted 3 people just like you in this debate alone.
But there was a time before mass settlements, banks and fast food joints. A time when man was a hunter, and lived in small villages.
Where are you going with this?
but we can introduce a bette rhealth care, without all the obese fat people from bad foods
What are you proposing, faticide?
No i haven't read the mojourity, you seem to sum up all of what you say in your conclusions
That explains why you're incapable of rebutting my points, and just go on rambling tirades.
I know what i have written, so i don't bother reading the quotes
Are you actually saying that you don't bother to read what I'm rebutting?
How can you object, disregarding anything else that has been previously said, but how can you object to the fact that i would like to help people by banning smoking
Simple. It wouldn't help. For the.. 4th(?) time, look at the war on drugs. Hundreds, if not thousands of people dead, the taxpayer is charged millions, and the use of drugs increases. All because people tried to ban drugs.
You would see a similar thing if you banned smoking.
And, you would like to keep smoking, thus harming people??
No, I would love to see smoking disappear forever. But, I support the CHOICE to smoke, not smoking itself.
I see no logic sir, i have tried to converse with you in as many ways i know possible, but you think that smoking should be allowed? Again, no logic, no justification.
OK. Please read what I have said, then you may just find something. 'Cos it's kinda difficult to find logic and justification if you DON'T FUCKING READ MY ARGUMENTS!
Sir, meat is not bad for you, if you look at the design of the human stomach you would see that, we are designed to eat meat. Far too larger quantities yes, buit just a single ciggie can take years off your life. And you say i need to calm down, take a look in the mirror.
The government should be the decider on what's appropriate for individuals and children when it comes to substance use. I drank with my family since I was 16, and a member of my family drank red wine every day since she was 8 only to live to be 102.
People, believe it or not, are not retards. While some of them will let their children do w/e they want, most of them discipline their kids. asking government to help discipline the kids is nonsense.
Yea, I think this would be good for alcohol, but not cigarettes. When I say good, I mean good for teaching young adults how to handle alcohol. For cigarettes, I think they should keep the age limits. Of course, i am referring to the age limits in IL. I am not sure of all the rest of the states.
I am choosing "yes" for only one reason. In my book, if you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to have a beer. In other words, if you are serving and are below 21, you should be served. Cigarette smoking at 18 sounds about right for me. You are an adult. Smoke away I say, if that's your thing. 18 year olds make for idiotic drunks that get people hurt. I was one of them a long time ago, so I speak from experience. All of these are just MY opinions, though.
Smoking no 18 is fair enough, the legal age for many things including going to fight and die for your country, take another persons life, and watch your friends get killed right before your eyes. But you can't have a beer in that same country? tell me how you can be to young for one and just the right age for the other
They had might as well anyway the amount of young people smoking and drinking under age nowadays is insane, I don't care much for smoking all I know it's a way to slowly kill yourself. Alcohol I suppose could be OK in small amounts though.
I'm 15, I get pissed every weekend, and regularly smoke tobacco and occasionally weed. I'm also a straight A student with an IQ of 145. I know that cigarettes and alcohol harm me, but the benefits greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Why spend your entire life worrying about your health, and then die anyway?
It's 18 here too, but that doesn't change the fact that those below 18 as low as 14 don't make "parties". The point of those "parties" is drinking, and... that also leads to other things, like going fat for 9 months. The age limit by law says nothing, until they are caught, of course, and captured...
Where they get drinks? The just turned 18 buy them.
i strongly feel age for smoking and drinking should not be lowered down as it can disturb the hormonal balance of the body!it can adverse impact on the minds of the youth. we all are aware of its other harmful diseases caused by these.+speaking from a teens mind it would take away the fun of sneaking and breaking rules. So from both sides i think the age bar of 21 for smoking and drinking is perfectly fine.
So can getting drafted/going to war. Yet our government would see that happen at 18. Which one has more potential to mess with your body and mind, alcohol and cigarettes or explosives and bullets? When you're legally considered an adult you should be able to make health choices for yourself. If you want to raise the age one is considered an adult to 21 that's a different matter, but you'd also be pushing back the age one could fight in a war or get called into jury service.
When you're legally considered an adult you should be able to make health choices for yourself.
Being legally an adult is not the same as being mentally adult. And 18-year old can easily be mentally a child, I've seen that plenty.
If you want to raise the age one is considered an adult to 21 that's a different matter, but you'd also be pushing back the age one could fight in a war or get called into jury service.
Fighting a war is a good thing? Since when? The only people who are really "fighting" (its actually more like a family dispute but whatever) are the ones running the sides, the mentally children "politicians" and whatnot. The ones carrying and using guns are just toys. Do people, the ones who do the killing, start wars? No.
Jury? Don't know exactly what it is but what I have seen and heard is extremely stupid. Unless the jurors or whoever they are are professionals, someone who have learnt it.
If anything raising the par will give people more time to actually grow up (with current ways it is rather necessary), not just physically but what really matters - mentally. Especially in the US, the education there sucks so bad, and it does influence one's mental growing up.
And yet ALLOT of people much younger then 21 Drink. ALLOT of people 21 will go buy the alcoholic drinks so the minors can drink them. so this age 21 thing is really stupid cause like i said minors still get hold to alcoholic beverages. and I'm 17 so of coarse i know what I'm talking about. if its not gonna work overall then its useless.
So 21 year old's don't have enough self control to stop from giving liquor to highschoolers. imagine if you gave a bunch of high schoolers the ability to legally buy and drink alcohol, who would they give it to? As much as the law is broken, its still breaking a law so it still limits the number of kids who drink, albeit not as completely as one would hope.
Thats the thing, it doesn't work. kids still smoke and drink so you disputing me is kinda stupid. yes it may encourage more minors to drink but what about the millions that already do? seems kinda allot to me
I understand that there are already millions of minors that drink, but if you allow 18 year olds to drink it makes liquor more readily available to even younger kids. Just because someone breaks a law doesn't mean the law is a bad one. The fact of the matter is that studies show liquor has adverse effects on minor's minds and making it legal for 18 year olds would be stupid to the highest degree. The fact of the matter is that by lowering the drinking age MORE kids under 21 would be drinking and damaging their minds.
Since everyone who are on the 'Yes' side say that its a persons choice wether or not to smoke, im gonna tell you a few thing about tobacco.
I think you all have heard about lung cancer right? And I also think you're tired of hearing about that. So Im not gonna tell you about lung cancer, cause Im well awared of that you already know about that.
Afterall, lung cancer isn't that bad. You either survive, or you die peacefully without pain.
Some people say, that you're gonna die anyway, so why not smoke?
I'll tell you why.
Have you ever heard of a disease called COL? It stands for chronic obstructiv lung disease.
You can get COL without smoking, but 9 out of 10 patients with COL are smokers.
And more than 1 out of 3 of smokers gets this disease.
I guess you're aware of, since the name say 'chronic' , that this is unhealable.
COL makes you unable to breath out.
You can breath in just fine, but at some point your lungs are full, and you need to get the unnessecary air out of your longs. Those muscles in your lungs that push your lungs together, to get the air out, dosen't work.
Simply your have to push the air out every single day, everytime you breath.
You think this is nothing?
Try for only one minut, push the air out everytime you breath, with all the power you have. Try it.
Its exhausting right?
Imagine doing that everyday, everytime you breath, it will feal like someone is strangleing you.
That is only one of 100eds of diseases you can get from smoking.
Its in the law, that its illegal to poison a person. Tobacco and alchohol is pure poison. I don't understand why its on the market.
To have a high age limit for cigarettes and drinking will not stop teenagers from smoking or drinking, Im well aware of that.
But to lower the age will encourage the kids to think, it isn't so bad after all, it'll do nothing good. Tell me one reason what lowering the age is good for?
But to lower the age will encourage the kids to think, it isn't so bad after all, it'll do nothing good. Tell me one reason what lowering the age is good for?
it'd be good cause like we all know minors are gonna smoke regardless.
The problem is that drinking and smoking being a bad thing has really only come with media's stigma. If you are told something is bad over and over often you want to know why and you want to experience why rather than listen to others. It is the same with people who have been smoking for years and see an ad about lung cancer, they will be a little on edge but eventually go back to smoking. Changing an age range/ taking a more active role in a child's life, to remain on topic in case of smoking and drinking, often that stigma is removed and they will come to their own conclusion. It also comes down to how parents raise their children. Personally I have no problem with the age limit being where it is in America, it does not affect me to be honest, though I do not foresee a complete societal meltdown from lowering it.
The problem is that drinking and smoking being a bad thing has really only come with media's stigma.
Well, men back in the days used sell their house for a little bit of alcohol.
Some children back in the days worked, because their father drank all his salery away. Some children went hungry, because .. the father sometimes sold all their food to get some alcohol.
That alcohol is bad is not because of media. It's because it has been destroying families for ages and even killed and raped.
NO!!!!! thats so stupid! if they lower the age, it will result in VERY VERY VERY BAD THINGS! god so many people die from smoking and drinking, to lower it would be like giving a dog chocolate. swimming through tar. moving in quicksand. not having a parachute while sky diving. 2012. COMBINED!
If a person below 21 has their sights set up drinking or smoking, then nothing in this world would stop them. Most of them will get alcohol or smokes before they reach 21 anyway.
Yeah, and lower the age limit would do the trick to get fewer people to smoke and drink? you're being redicolous by saying, that they drink anyway.
If people under 21 drink or smoke 'anyway', then their breaking the law, and the government should do something about that instead of lowering the age limit.
If you read my other comment on the other side, you would have seen I said to lower it to 18, no lower. Trust me, I knew alot of people 16 and above that smoke and drinked. The goverment can't really do anything about it. Sadly, we can send our troops to die, but they can't have a beer.
The government should not send 16 nor 18 nor 89 year old away to die, why don't you do something about that, instead of using all power to lower some stupid age?
You're just proving my point by coming with this argument.
Whoa, don't get your undies in a wad. How did I prove your point? I never said a thing that supported your comment. You need some glasses or something.
no, of course not. they are bad for your health and if younger ones take them, it wil effect them more because they're not as strong, and if hey start at younger age, the more tey will take them. is that wat the world wants? for everyone to be alchoholics and smokers? i don't think so. also, the more we have people smoking, the more people in this world will get affected. did you know by just smelling the cigarette, it is 80% of actually smoking it? this means that when you smoke, not just are you affecting yourself but others too.
also, if you drink all the time, it'll be a bad influence. when you drink, it makes you want more and what if you drink drive? not just are you against the law, but has a high posibility that you'll hurt innocent people.
No the smoking and drinking ages need to be raised if anything. I strongly believe that smoking and drinking ages are too low. The people in this country need to get their act together and raise the smoking and drinking ages. Smoking and drinking are two really bad habits that need to be stopped.
It will also increase the black market trade which tends to be violent and financially support violent groups which sex traffic, sell harder drugs, etc.
If you say you are mature enough, then do it, you obviously aren't. I support legalizing drinking with your parents, but not harmful things like smoking. Maturity is not ruining your body.
I noticed that lots of people think it should be lowered for purposes of freedom.
Um... freedom is worth nothing if it's just the freedom to damage yourself.
There is no reason to let younger and younger people have the rights to damage themselves. Does anyone else see the flaw in logic here?
There is no reason to have a freedom if that freedom doesn't contribute to bettering yourself. I think some of you need to learn the difference between being oppressed and being protected.
i think strongly about this topic i come from a long line of drinkers and smokers and it has messed up my family life my dad was going to the Olympics and he was in great Britain to practice and he got drunk and fell of a building and broke his spine and was in the hospital for his training time and spent to much money to train didn't get the training and then went back home broke and my mom made a nuff money to live and he got a job and i think everything happens for a reason and i think that happened to right this to try to lower the drinking and smoking age because it can affect allot of people and have and if i could i would stop the production of smoking and drinking i want the world to progress to become smarter and evolve
America, this place is all about choice, and the freedom to do as one desires. Yes, it is, but so many people are unaware that they are not completely matured until your early twenties. the average is from 20-24. It is vital to maintain the substance let out into your people, so i think the limits and understanding of the these limits would justify why these things are the way they are.
Smoking and drinking are large problems in our society. 80% of people, for example, who have lung cancer smoke. That isn't a good statistic at all - it shows smoking is a very bad thing. None of these are good for your health.
To make people who are younger than the drinking and smoking age vulnerable to these things is preposterous!
I think, if anything, the age should be made higher - but that is something else.
There should be one age at which society considers people "adult" and that should be the trigger for the list of adult privileges and responsibilities, such as drinking, voting, getting drafted into the military, smoking, etc.
But instead of dragging everything down to 18 or younger I'd favor pegging everything at 21. Heck, people are still pretty stupid and wreckless the moment they get out of high school - let's defer everything except driving to then. And the only reason driving is exempt is because transportation is a legitimate societal need long before the other topics.
