CreateDebate


Debate Info

169
136
yes no
Debate Score:305
Arguments:143
Total Votes:366
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (83)
 
 no (68)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3287) pic



Should tobacco be banned?

yes

Side Score: 169
VS.

no

Side Score: 136
14 points

Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.

One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population, that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking - an activity which kills millions of people each year.

Smoking tobacco not only gives the smoker a high chance of an early grave it gives those around him/her the same chances due to second hand smoke. What does all of this lead to? An irresponsible government that lets Americans continue to poison ourselves and do nothing about it.

5 years ago | Side: yes
8 points

why do people need tobacco its killing them....thats so stupid

5 years ago | Side: yes
MKIced(2308) Disputed
3 points

A lot of people try it out of peer pressure when they're young and can't stop because it's addicting. Nicotine is an addicting substance and the main component of tobacco.

5 years ago | Side: No
5 points

I mostly agree with you, except I don't think the government is responsible for saving individuals from themselves. I think the reason we should ban tobacco is that smokers cause harm to other people by using up our health care resources.

5 years ago | Side: yes
4 points

I definitely agree, 2nd hand smoke is a horrible way to die it should be considered as murder. Here's a joke!

So a man gets diagnosed with lung cancer by his doctor, the man asks if this was of natural occurrences or if he was near radiation ( jokingly of course ), the doctor looks at him and says you can't fool me this report says you smoke cigarettes! The man utterly confused says no my wife does!

Wasn't that hilarious! The man DIES A COUPLE YEARS LATER!!!! Punch line? Who needs 1 when you have GOLD LIKE THAT!!!

5 years ago | Side: yes
lawnman(1104) Disputed
4 points

Should Tobacco be banned?

Hey, wolfman

Before I begin, you already know what my position is about banning tobacco; I opposed your argument, but more on that later.

The first matter at hand is that the entirety of your argument completely missed the point of your debate, your argument answers the question: Is smoking tobacco healthy? And nothing in your argument syllogistically proves that tobacco should be banned. You might of said something like: “Should the smoking of tobacco be banned?” Had you of done so, there would be an agreement of the question and your argument. No, I am not denying your claims about the statistics of tobacco smokers, I am indicating to you that those statistics are irrelevant, off point, to the question of the debate. Banning the smoking of tobacco and banning tobacco are separate questions.

Now, in response to your argument, regardless of the question you attempted to answer, I will respond to the argument and not address the question of the debate.

“Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.”

The act of smoking tobacco does not kill anybody. Your argument begins with an undistributed subject, smoking. Are you meaning: “all smoking” or “some smoking”? The predicate is also undistributed. You claim as though the quantity of people supposedly killed by smoking is reason enough to ban tobacco, while at the same time ignoring other statistical supremacies such as 42 million abortions per year in the world. Nor does it speak of medical complications that kill more people than smoking tobacco. If you are going to use statistics to validate your argument, I will tell you the order in priority by which things should be banned. Smoking will not be high on the list of banning.

Moreover, men who smoke an occasional cigar or pipe are unlikely to die because of smoking. Therefore, some smoking is not a proven cause of death. People who do not smoke tobacco die of the same diseases as smokers. Some smokers die by causes that are not related to smoking.

Tobacco has many other uses and abuses other than smoking.

Also, do you honestly think a politician has the right to govern vices? The presupposition that all smokers smoke in the vicinity of others who smoke not is jumping to conclusion. The presupposition that I shall die of smoking, rules out my death by drowning.

There are many other issues of your argument that are less than logical, allow us to consider the above before we address the others.

I told you as an ally I would challenge you as an ally. So don’t think I intend offence.

5 years ago | Side: No
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
6 points

My point of the debate was should tobacco be banned. My reasoning? When people smoke tobacco the chemical nicotine physically addicts them to the drug, therefore in most cases making them addicted. Then after smoking for a good couple years most people start to lose their physical abilities by a slight margin. Then after smoking for lets say 25 years and now they are in their 40s. Many people will come down with lung cancer, emphysema, etc etc. My reasoning is that the government bans the smoking of pot, cocaine, meth, etc etc. Is it not the governments responsibility to not allow people to do drugs ( or anything else ) that subject other people to injury?

My main point is second hand smoke. That is my main reasoning for why smoking tobacco should be banned. People that are being subjected to second hand smoke are doing so against their own will. That is wrong in many counts. I never listed the amount of people that do not die from smoking I only listed the amount of people that DO smoke and die because of health complications do to smoking tobacco.

I addressed my debate topic. The reason it should be banned is it physically addicts people to the substance. Kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides and fires combined. It kills people that are merely subjected to the smoke. Now tell me how I missed my own debate topic. What the hell do abortions have to do with anything? We are talking about tobacco. Do not count abortions as murder as the fetus feels nothing up to a certain point in the pregnancy. That is a different debate all in itself.

Going by your once in awhile outlook on smoking a pipe or a cigar. What about smoking some crack every once in awhile? If I shoot up some crack once a week I am probably not going to die now am I? Does the government ban crack? They sure do. Does crack kill nearly as many as tobacco? Hell no.

5 years ago | Side: yes
Pdubstisdar(1) Disputed
3 points

Yes, you can challenge his statiostics, but whether they are totally correct is not the point. The fact of the matter is, smoking undeniably kills millions each year. That is the statistic that should unanimously decide whether smoking or any form of tobacco should be legal. DEFINATELY NOT!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
iamdavidh(4848) Disputed
4 points

And like alcohol, crack, marijuana, cocaine, etc,

making it illegal won't stop one person who wants to partake from taking a puff.

Meanwhile, a huge source of revenue will be lost. A huge new expense will emerge from trying to enforce the law, lock up the criminals, and keep them in jail.

Prohibition has never worked, it didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs, it wouldn't work with tobacco. The only difference is, instead of legitimate businesses and government getting their cut, all of the profits go to gangsters, murderers, and terrorists.

5 years ago | Side: No
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
4 points

True but crack and marijuana are already banned. Tobacco kills millions MORE per year than drug overdoses per year. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work back when we had wagons, who expected it to? I'd say it works with cocaine since there is a very slim number of crack heads on this planet.

5 years ago | Side: yes
tje0454(1) Disputed
2 points

first off i agree with you about where the revenue would go if tobacco was banned/made illegal. There would be another drug anyone could get off a dealer. And just because people will still smoke tobacco if it became illegal doesn't mean that it should simply be legal. But just because revenue will be lost by corporations doesnt automatically mean that something shouldnt be banned.

4 years ago | Side: yes
4 points

Tobacco products should never be banned because ultimately it is a person's choice. The government already makes enough choices for the general public. If the government banned tobacco, people would find any necessary means in buying, selling, and using tobacco products despite the ban. This is reminds me of the war on drugs. It would be prohibition all over again except tobacco.

Tobacco was used as currency in the colonial period of 1612-1776, so even with a ban, tobacco will always have great value.

4 years ago | Side: No
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
2 points

What in the world does tobacco being used as currency in the colonial period have to do with anything?

Tobacco products should never be banned because ultimately it is a person's choice.

Sure the smoker's choice, not the person inhaling second hand smoke.

If the government banned tobacco, people would find any necessary means in buying, selling, and using tobacco products despite the ban.

Some people would find any necessary mean, just like some people find ways of obtaining cocaine and other illegal substances. If it was banned it would diminish the numbers, not raise them.

4 years ago | Side: yes
JBXXX(53) Disputed
3 points

Since you seem to like statistics why don't you find one that actually means anything. Like what percentage of those people that died from smoking didn't regret smoking. Tobacco isn't crack, many smokers actually enjoy smoking and understand the risks involved. While secondhand smoke is a killer, if someone is obeying the law and smoking outdoors there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to choose to do so.

4 years ago | Side: No
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
1 point

Lets ask the couple hundred thousand kids that contract lung cancer from second hand smoke. Did they regret smoking? Oh wait they never smoked, so I guess your right they couldn't regret it.

My whole point is that it should be against the law, who cares if a smoker understands the risks involved. I am talking about that kid who is inhaling the smoke against his/her will.

4 years ago | Side: yes
chanc112(1) Disputed
2 points

Illegalising tobacco wouldn't stop the use of it, just like marijuana. marijuana is banned, still it's really widely used. It will cause more bad than good if we prohibit tobacco. all it will do is cause more crime (e.g criminal organisations like mafias).

The prohibition of alcohol in the US 1920-1933 was a complete failure. It will just be the same, but a lot worse.

3 years ago | Side: No
fukdawolfman(3) Disputed
1 point

Dawolfman you are a fucking idiot. tobacco shouldnt be banned ya its bad and everything but its none of governments business. our country was founded on having the least government control possible. Your just asking to have a socialist country. Il bet your some kind of obama lover you jackass

4 years ago | Side: yes
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
1 point

Fukdawolfman, you sir are a fucking idiot.

I would make an attempt of understanding your lunacy but just by going from your name I can see that arguing with you would be the same as arguing with the chair I'm sitting in.

4 years ago | Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6718) Disputed
1 point

Most idiots like you don't even know what socialism is. Don't go around using words you don't know - I'd say about three letters should be the maximum.

4 years ago | Side: No
flymike(1) Disputed
1 point

no you are a fucking idiot, you want the least government control possible.?? government=elected

capitalism=anything for profit+not elected

haha you thing you are free coz your country is called a ''democracy'' ???

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

smoking is one of the number 1 killers in the world. it not only kills the person smoking, but the people around it. Smoking gives you cancer and other health problems. once you see someone die from smoking what makes you continue to smoke. it doesn't make sense.

smoking should be banned in all public places to reduce the number of people killed each year. no body wants to be eating while someone is smoking right behind them.

the government should make smoking illegal and take responsibility of the fact that they are contributing to the deaths.

3 years ago | Side: yes

perhaps thay should just ban nicotine! that is the main physically addicting substance in cigarettes. then it would be like smoking pure tobacco. less people would then use it because its only purpose would be to make you stink and poison you. does anyone have a problem with this solution?

5 years ago | Side: yes
5 points

Should cigarettes be illegal? Yes, cigarettes should be illegal. They would be illegal except for the fact that the government, state and federal, makes so much money off taxing them. Any other substance, plant, etc., that causes as much physical harm as tobacco does not, and will not, get FDA approval. Imagine, if you will, if tobacco products were just discovered today and the growers wanted to get approval to market it. There is no way that would happen. Tobacco has no redeeming qualities, at least none that I am aware of. So I say that cigarettes should be illegal.

Cigarettes should be illegal because they the effects of smoking are dangerous. They take 443,000 lives of people every year in United States, alone. Then over the whole world, there are over millions of deaths in a year. Many states and restaurants have already started to try to control the issue. Some states have a law that says people can only smoke outdoors and many restaurants have special seating areas for smokers. While this does help it doesn't eliminate the problem completely. Also smoking also leads to alcohol use. It leads to it because both are intoxicants which are harmful to life and your body. Then alcohol use leads to many accidents and deaths.

Also, cigarettes should be illegal because there are many theories and speculation about using cigarettes. The industry of tobacco is not doing well, because there are many other companies that worked hard to beat this company. For example, there is a company that many electronic cigarettes. You blow in the cigarette and then smoke comes out. There is also another one that is a candy cigarette. It has a shape of it but instead of smoke, sugar that you can eat comes out. Also, there is a new injection that is still being tested in labs that clean out your lungs. My source here is healthcare magazines. Also, there are many foreign countries problems along with the cigarettes. For example, the country who import the cigarettes to us, may add a certain deadly chemical that is very harmful to the body.

Cigarettes should be illegal because they are a grave public hazard. There are many health care risks with smoking. Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances. When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700°C at the tip and around 60°C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins. As a cigarette burns, the residues are concentrated towards the butt. The products that are most damaging are: tar, a carcinogen (substance that causes cancer) nicotine is addictive and increases cholesterol levels in your body carbon monoxide reduces oxygen in the body components of the gas and particulate phases cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). The damage caused by smoking is influenced by: the number of cigarettes smoked, whether the cigarette has a filter how the tobacco has been prepared. Smoking is also a delivery system for toxic chemicals and carcinogens. The nicotine in cigarettes is HIGHLY ADDICTIVE, and mostly can’t be unavoidable.

4 years ago | Side: yes

Well I think tobacco should be banned from public stores & that all the tobacco crops should be replaced with food crops.

It shouldn't be illegal for anyone to use because that would create alot of problems.

It's stupid that liberals want to ban guns because people have been killed by them but they support smoking which has killed alot more people than guns.

5 years ago | Side: yes
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
3 points

Not true, are you forgetting about wars? We don't use sticks now do we. We use guns. Tobacco has not killed nearly as many people as guns have all in all. Murder and gun incidents are at just a couple thousand a year in the USA while tobacco is nearly to a million just in the US.

5 years ago | Side: yes
darkrye2 Disputed
1 point

Actually, tobacco has killed more people than all of the american wars combined. PWNED

3 years ago | Side: No
Warlin(1212) Disputed
2 points

I don't think the liberals support smoking, more or less the CHOICE to smoke. People who decide to take up smoking know full well what they're going to be doing to themselves. They're reminded constantly every day by their friends and their family and people they don't even know. Their habit is banned from restaurants and public forums in most states.

These people KNOW what they're doing to themselves. As long as there's a market for tobacco, there's going to be someone selling it.

I think instead of banning tobacco we should raise the price per carton and put higher restrictions on it. We should enforce a more blatant warning logo. We should make it a crime to smoke in the presence of a child. Ban nicotine, you know, all of that jazz.

Why should the guy who smokes three packs a day ruin it for the guy who has the occasional cigarette(once or twice a week) when he drinks?

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I don't have much to support me, but I really disagree with any type of alcohol, drug, or otherwise smoking use. So I think it would be great to have it banned, though the crime rate would go up, and those who are already addicted to it right NOW (is tobacco addictive...?) would have difficulty with this new law.

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Of course it should it kills millions of people a year! But that will never happen. If the Government tries to ban tobacco people will rebel and smoke anyways, just like when they tried to ban alcohol.

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

should be BANNED!!!! yeaaa

it hurts our earth and your lungs

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

i think tobacco should be banned because many people are losing their lives with health problems mostly cancer and the one thing that comes in my mind when people say tobacco is, BANNED TOBACCO MEANS BANNED CANCER!!!

1 year ago | Side: yes
2 points

Yes because it causes cancer , c,o,p,d and other deadly illnesses & it gives asthma to children who don't smoke

1 year ago | Side: yes
1 point

Side Effects of Smoking Cigarettes

Every year hundreds of thousands of people around the world die from diseases caused by smoking - Smoking KILLS.

One in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit. Half of these deaths will occur in middle age.

Tobacco smoke also contributes to a number of cancers.

The mixture of nicotine and carbon monoxide in each cigarette you smoke temporarily increases your heart rate and blood pressure, straining your heart and blood vessels.

This can cause heart attacks and stroke. It slows your blood flow, cutting off oxygen to your feet and hands. Some smokers end up having their limbs amputated.

Tar coats your lungs like soot in a chimney and causes cancer. A 20-a-day smoker breathes in up to a full cup (210 g) of tar in a year.

Changing to low-tar cigarettes does not help because smokers usually take deeper puffs and hold the smoke in for longer, dragging the tar deeper into their lungs.

Carbon monoxide robs your muscles, brain and body tissue of oxygen, making your whole body and especially your heart work harder. Over time, your airways swell up and let less air into your lungs.

Smoking causes disease and is a slow way to die. The strain of smoking effects on the body often causes years of suffering. Emphysema is an illness that slowly rots your lungs. People with emphysema often get bronchitis again and again, and suffer lung and heart failure.

Lung cancer from smoking is caused by the tar in tobacco smoke. Men who smoke are ten times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers.

Heart disease and strokes are also more common among smokers than non-smokers.

Smoking causes fat deposits to narrow and block blood vessels which leads to heart attack.

Smoking causes around one in five deaths from heart disease.

In younger people, three out of four deaths from heart disease are due to smoking.

Cigarette smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of low birth weight, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and perinatal mortality in humans, which has been referred to as the fetal tobacco syndrome

If we get rid of smoking, it will be easier to breathe, we'll stop some polluting, hospital beds will be freed up because there are no longer people getting sick from the drug and everyone will save money...in a year enough to pay for a ski-doo or a used car!!!!!!!!! SAY NO TO DRUGS!!!!!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Tobacco products should never be banned because ultimately it is a person's choice. The government already makes enough choices for the general public. If the government banned tobacco, people would find any necessary means in buying, selling, and using tobacco products despite the ban. This is reminds me of the war on drugs. It would be prohibition all over again except tobacco.

Tobacco was used as currency in the colonial period of 1612-1776, so even with a ban, tobacco will always have great value.

What will happen with a ban on tobacco? A black Market similar to that of illegal drugs now.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Smoking kills people and it kills people who are inocent too. Second hand smoke is more dangerous than the actual cigarette in most cases. SMOKING KILLS!!!!!!!! IT KILLS THE PLANET, OTHERS, YOUR BODY, YOU, YOUR WALET, ETC!!!!!!THIS IS A MAJOR THING...IT SHOULD BE BANNED....WE CAN HELP THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE THE BAN BUT IT WILL COST LESS THAN TO HAVE TO HAVE FUNERALS AND MEDICAL BILLS FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

VERY TRUE SMOKING IS DEADLY WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO KILL ALL OR THOSE THINGS....YOUR WALET AND YOUR LIFE IS THE WORST...POLLUTING THE AIR IS BAD TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

they havent banned it because it is just making so much money

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I understand the yes and the no parts of the question but I´m inclined with the yes part. Tobacco is worse than any non smockable drug. Tobacco causes various diceases to the user but to everyone that is around.

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

It should be banned because it can kill people and also can kill other people and the Earth would be better if it was. Also, people have asthma.

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

yep!! tobacco should be banned. all it has ever done is harmed everyone's health!!!! also it is very addictive. so course it should be banned!!!

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I think that people should stop useing tobacco because its killing them and its giving people cancer and other diseases.

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Yes beacuse Not only is it costing the consummer alot of money but also the government and tax payers want to pay to help sick children, education, help make the world a safer place not to help the druggies contuinue living for a mistake they new was going to cost them!

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

tabaco should be illegal because it is a very addictive drug and kills over 5 million people a day wold wide it is a desgusting thing to do and personaly i will never whant to try them :*

i have some familey members who are addicted to cigarettes and now have lung cancer and gag green on ther feet !!!

3 years ago | Side: yes
ExclusiveCat(1) Disputed
1 point

I'd like to know your source for your first contention, because by my math only 14.400 people die every day...

307 days ago | Side: no
1 point

smoking is bad badddddddd badddddddddddd baddddddddddd badddddddddd!!!:(

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

:::(:*:&:6:^:%^%:m my code for:

I hate smoking it is bad!

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

i think tobacco should be banned because its causing so many people to die and get various types of cancer and its not right.

3 years ago | Side: yes
ExclusiveCat(1) Disputed
1 point

I personally think it's the person's choice to do what they want as they are an independent adult. If they acquire the health issues it's their burden. "its not right" - did you think about the economy state we're in?

307 days ago | Side: no
1 point

I think smoking tobacco (cigerettes, cigars and pipe tobacco) should be banned and not all tobacco products such as dips and chews. The reason for this is the health risk for second hand and third hand contact and the civil rights/liberties of the non users that it imposes on. Somone argued that people will still find a way around the ban and get there fix somehow so the gov. should get its cut... Well let them get there fix just in a smokless form and the gov. can still get its cut without it imposing on non users. But how much of the monies collected are being spent in healthcare for the problems it causes? I think its stupid that you have to be 18 in order to buy it to get the first hand or mainstream form of smoke but you can be an infant and get all the second and third hand or sidestream contact without your control and for the person that brought up the point about abortions killing more and so banning tobacco wouldnt be at the top of their list, well let me guess it should be banned because of the civil liberties and rights to life that it has before birth, well why should they disappear once they are born because they are going home to a household that smokes in the home and its exposed to second hand and third hand contact because it cant up and walk somewhere smoke free. So while you should have the right to harm yourself if you choose, i.e mouth, throat, neck cancer etc. You should not have the right to impose on the civil rights and liberties of those who are non users because of second and third hand contact.

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Tobacco should be banned because the harm to others (many) outweigh the satisfaction of the user (few).

The satisfaction of the user that comes from the addictive nature of nicotine and is an avoidable, artificial factor. Addiction causes withdrawal symptoms (pain) when not fed. Feeding the addiction alleviates this pain which would not exist if not addicted. The net gain equals zero. The only reason smokers like smoking is because they get hurt if they don’t. It is unethical to put people in such a position.

Also, smoking and second hand smoke hurts society and individuals alike. With a rise in disease rate comes more medical care costs which, in my country, is paid from taxes and insurance paid for by other people. Also, a lower work efficiency (through disease and smoke breaks) can affect a nations economy. On the other hand, mortality rates increase causing a shorter life span what equals less costs.

However, a tobacco ban limits the freedom of smokers to do as they please. Smoking on the other hands limits the freedom of non-smokers to live in a smoke free environment (disregarding other pollution focusing on one thing at a time) as well as the freedom to not pay for the self-caused harm of others.

Problem is, how would you go about setting up such a law affection millions of people. Addicts would surely rebel against it as they will definitely experience withdrawal symptoms. Maybe distributing on prescription until the whole generation died out.

In the end, a nice bonus would be that farmland used for tobacco can be used to grow much needed food to alleviate worldwide food shortages. What adversely can cause overpopulation as another problem.

In my opinion keeping people from becoming addicted is the absolute goal rather than limiting current addicts. The choice to smoke is not always fully conscientious. Despite laws forbidding acquiring and use of tobacco, minors do smoke and get addicted before passing the age of consent affecting them throughout their lifetime. While the majority start at a young age with the idea of being cool, curiosity or succumbing under peer pressure, it is unlikely an adult would start whilst knowing the effects of smoking. As it is unlikely anyone would want to be dependent on something.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Bohemian(3464) Disputed
1 point

The adverse health affects of drinking Drain-O greatly outweighs any satisfaction one may gain from drinking it, so by the same reasoning should we not also outlaw the consumption of every harmful substance?

Isn't it up to the individual to decide whether to engage in a dangerous activity?

2 years ago | Side: No
jmih666(2) Disputed
1 point

No, that’s not the reasoning. This argument focuses on the effect, not the act itself. There are more stakeholders than just the person performing the activity. It’s an utilitarian argument stating that the choice on the matter needs to benefit the majority. You can look at this dilemma from all sorts of moral and ethical perspectives. You state that the act itself is bad and laws should apply on all similar situations even if they cannot be compared. That is one way to look at it but it would make life pretty grim, unnecessarily complicated and unpractical.

As for the decision of individuals to engage in dangerous activities. It is indeed their freedom to do so as long as they are capable to make that choice and harm no others (which is easily done). However, the governments that individuals are subjected to have the moral duty to keep its people out of harm’s way, as far as it is reasonably possible, through laws and regulations. It is up to governments how they apply those laws. And they will try to keep as many people as possible happy, which is pretty much an utilitarian approach. Likely the ones that bring the most cash.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.

One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population, that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking - an activity which kills millions of people each year.

Smoking tobacco not only gives the smoker a high chance of an early grave it gives those around him/her the same chances due to second hand smoke. What does all of this lead to? An irresponsible government that lets Americans continue to poison ourselves and do nothing about it.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Because it can kill people at it has lots of cemecals in it like battery fluid and paint and toilet cleaner all that and nicotene and it can turn you lunhg black so all the People think that we souldent ban it well you are so thick to not !!!

Thank you

Littlemix123 xoxo

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Naughty abdbhuvrhbvbefbhvakhldfvbnfdsvbvhbfvkh,fbvkhesvbskfhvbklbhfvyi kabrkvluybkfj befyibvkrfygvbkfhs

2 years ago | Side: yes
Hellno(16027) Disputed
1 point

At least Gibberish was semi-clever with his bullshit.

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

It really should cause this is for australis but 15,000 people die just from smoking

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Smoking has been shown to be dangerous to health. Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer have all been linked. A further issue is that smoking costs governments millions of pounds because of the large number of people who need treatment in hospitals for smoking related problems. There is also concern today about passive smoking. Recent research has shown that non-smokers can suffer health problems if they spend long periods of time among people who do smoke.

2 years ago | Side: yes

I'm smoking a cigarette as a type this and i don't see why its any of the governments damn business if i want to. If the government has to ban something they should try banning something that has a serious impact on people that don't partake in it, like drinking. Smoking will kill me someday, but if it doesn't life will kill me.

I also think it's funny everyone is so concerned about secondhand smoke given the number of automobiles in the world. You put your lips around a cigarette and you're working to increase your chance of disease, stroke, cancer, etc... but if you put your lips around the tailpipe of my car your dead in 60 seconds. When I'm stuck in back-to-front traffic, stuck in a sea of thousands of cars spewing toxic gas all around me, I wonder why it is people are so keen to legislate against cigarettes and not automobiles.

Oh, right, they don't like how it smells and cars are just so convenient.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I have been a smoker for a long time. However, I am of the view that the tobacco should be banned because (a) it is addictive (b) it takes away many choices after it becomes an addiction (c) its use has many health-based issues and it is scientifically proven (d) it has an economic value, which money saved, can be used positively.

Tobacco can only have limited usage for medicinal purposes and like many kinds of poisons, shall be banned except for scientific and medicinal purposes. The argument about "free trade" etc. does not hold good. If we extend the same arguments, the world should have been free of hunger, poverty and many diseases by now. Period.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

There is other side/aspect to this argument. People who claim that they can be killed by smoking as by anything else DEPEND on the WELFARE SYSTEM or Free Medical Service system in countries like New Zealand. WHY the Government and people's taxes shall support someone's bad habits and the medical issues generated due to those bad habits. Why that enormous burden on public exchequer shall not be utilised for better medical care to those who live a healthy lifestyle and keep away from tobacco - chewing or smoking or intaking in any other manner whatsoever!? I am all for ban on tobacco products in market - every kind, except for medicinal and scientific purposes.

2 years ago | Side: yes
ChibiPillow(11) Disputed
1 point

In the united kingdom smokers pay huge amount of tax on their cig and tobacco around £5/6 for 24 so if you smoke lets say 200 a week to make this easy your paying an extra 50/60 tax a year. Additionally, there is evidence to show that smokers, within the UK, put more money into the nhs than what they take out meaning that the tax payer isn't paying for the implications of the bad habit the bad habit is allowing for more medical treatment to be available.

Furthermore, please tell where you would find the money lost through the tax on tobacco if you banned it your looking at finding billions of pounds suddenly needing to be found a lil fact In 2009/10 tax year it was estimated to be £10.9 billion. Taxes as a result would be soaring taxes to fill this gap.....

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

I have smoked for 22 years and am having a terrible time quitting. It is a nasty habit. There is nothing good about tobacco. It is proven that it kills thousands of people yearly. How can tobacco companies get away with killing people knoingly. Isn't that murder. Anyone else who knowingly kills another person let alone thousands upon thousands of them would be charged with 1st degree murder. What makes these people any better. Oh, that's right it's because the government makes millions on taxing cigarettes so they will just look past the whole killing people thing. Prescription drugs that have adverse affects get recalled, so why not tobacco. It's not right to purposefully go around getting people hooked on something you know damn well will be almost impossible for many of them to quit and will kill tonz of people nad anyone who can do that for a living to make a profit off of someone else's suffering should be embarrassed to be a human being, and should not be allowed to keep doing this to people for one more second. And the government should be ashamed for allowing this to go on for so long. They are all putting money before peoples lives. Shame on you all.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

My father smokes, and I hate it. I really wish he would stop, but he won't, no matter how many of his cigarette tins I bury, or how much of his tobscco I replace with tea leaves. If only the government wasn't so greedy for tax money, and it was banned.

1 year ago | Side: yes
1 point

The issues of tobacco smoking are complex, Only the individual user can change his/her mental attitude as to the deep seated need for polluting their bodies /and the whole environment with numerous toxic substances, We as a society have allowed many other polluting elements into our everyday existence, creating a no win situation. Tobacco smoking is one of the most invasive yet preventable habits. By respecting ones own body, and taking responsibility for their own actions, goes a long way to stomping out this destructive habit, thereby bringing down the criminal Tobacco Empire, The truth of the matter is Anyone taking up smoking is causing many people through second hand smoke untold misery, and morally speaking is inexcusable.

1 year ago | Side: yes
1 point

because if you think about it second hand smoke is a big deal and what if some parents dont want there kids exposed to it!

339 days ago | Side: yes
1 point

should tobacco be banned in public places? i would like to know.

339 days ago | Side: yes
1 point

Tobacco should be banned because it is very deadly. It can cause lung cancer. Another reason tobacco should be banned is because if you smoke around kids it can be considered second hand smoke. If people REALLY want to mess up THEIR health then so be it! But drugs are causing MORE and MORE deaths. We are putting OUR life in danger for NO good reason.Someone out there MUST be guilty. PLUS, all the people that ARE chewing tobacco or using tobacco...You are killing YOUR own lungs! What did your parents teach you??? Anything in your pea sized mind?!?! I don't smoke but my grandfather did. He died last year because his lungs failed on him. The Next person can be the STUPID @@@ smoker that is reading this! STOP! QUIT! GET HELP! DO IT for AMERICA! I BELIEVE IN YOU! :)

149 days ago | Side: yes
-1 points

a3748122@owlpic.coma3748122@owlpic.coma3748122@owlpic.coma3748122@owlpic.com

4 years ago | Side: yes
-1 points

yes it is bad email me at a3748122@owlpic.com so i can hear your story

4 years ago | Side: yes
6 points

Yes, tobacco is very bad for you, but mostly because the cigarette companies add so many harmful chemicals to their products, like tar, formaldehyde, ammonia, nail polish remover, CO2, and many more.

I don't think they should be banned, because the industry is full of money and if cigarettes were banned, the economy right now might not be able to handle it. However, cigarette companies should be held accountable for the things they put in cigarettes. I think they should go back to just plain old tobacco or be fined if otherwise.

5 years ago | Side: No
5 points

Of course tobacco is malevolent physically and mentally. However the problem is not the substance, it's the abuser. People use these materials like smoking and alcohol and drugs to self-medicate and get a buzz, but they rely on it instead of fixing themselves. So instead of spending god knows how much tax dollars trying to eradicate it and keep them away from it, why don't we instead focus on these people's troubles and reduce the need for it altogether.

Think back to Prohibition.

5 years ago | Side: No
6 points

You know p6667, I've been smoking longer than most of you have been alive! The government taxes the hell out of tobacco and in all the years I've been smoking I've not been asked, NOT ONE TIME, if I need help with quitting and that our tax dollars might pay for it. I'd love to know where this money goes!

5 years ago | Side: No
jessald(1906) Disputed
3 points

Tobacco doesn't compare to other drugs in terms of buzz. Alcohol makes people feel good and more outgoing. Cigarettes don't do much besides getting you addicted and making you look like an idiot.

Good point about tax dollars though. The War on Drugs has shown us the futility of trying to enforce a ban. But there are better ways to curb tobacco use, like taxing the hell of it, for example.

5 years ago | Side: yes
ThePyg(6745) Disputed
6 points

tobacco is a stimulant while alcohol is a depressant. the only reason why people think they feel good is cause they get really stupid when shit faced. but really, anyone who has drunk a lot doesn't actually feel good. it's a party drink, and it fucks you up.

it doesn't drown away emotions, just makes you sadder. this is why people are much more likely to commit suicide when intoxicated.

smoking usually makes people feel like they can work harder while not altering their mind or body majorly. it's a boost, while relaxing them at the same time.

plus, drinking and driving is a much bigger endemic than second hand smoke (mainly because second hand smoke has been proven as a TRUE killer). it's considered just as harmless as fueling up your own car.

5 years ago | Side: No
I_GOT_THIS11 Disputed
1 point

Well I think you're honestly wrong, if tobacco was never created there wouldn't be any abusers. how can you abuse something that wasn't created. its all about money and the government don't care what happens to you they keep this product to keep the money going and the population down. its messed up but so true... people shouldn't be blamed by a temptation that is shown everywhere. would u get mad if u saw someone tease a baby with candy and them not give it to them it? that's the same thing here.. they're teasing people and giving it to them.

153 days ago | Side: yes

Good Lord no! The government wants their fair share, the hypocrites! They will never ban it and I don't think it should be but I'd like to see it more fairly taxed!

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

If tobacco is banned then, as stated previously by someone, the government would just find something else to make money on. Ya know, marijuana is made illegal and yet cigarettes and such aren't, and they're much more bad for you than such other drug. Do you hear of Cancer patients smoking cigarettes to help them eat without hurting their lungs. The only con of the example stated is loss of short term memory. But no, cigarettes and other tobacco products are addictive stimulants that people say help relieve stress but actually strengthen it. It hurts your lungs and shortens your's and others' lives. Plus it makes you smelly. My argument is rather twisty and doesn't fit at all with my view, and it has really nothing to do with the debate, but I figured that I should just put that out there. Marijuana was selected as an example, by the way, because it is one of the very few drugs that isn't actually really bad for you at all yet is still illegal, whereas tobacco (a substance of horrible side effects and no pros at all) is legal. So... yeah.

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

I smoke cigarettes and cigarillos occasionally but I've never had a habit of it. I'm okay with them as long as they are outside. Banning it would drive it underground and would just make the traffickers and Native Americans a lot of money.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Any argument on the positives or negatives of cigarettes is quite honestly pointless. What you are suggesting is not greater education about the dangers of smoking or a government program to help smokers quit if they wish, but simply a complete ban on the product. This is not practical nor is it ethical in our society. We have seen this exact sentiment in the past, "because I think it hurts you and the people around you, I'm gonna make you stop doing it." Bad way to think because even if you do not get a ban, you still promote discrimination against the smoker which really doesn't help anyone. So really this entire argument comes down to one argument, does anyone really have the authority enforce their morals on another?

4 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Making tobacco illegal doesn't solve anything. Its all about moderation. If anything should be made illegal it should be the nicotine and caffeine that makes it so hard to personally moderate these products we crave.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Nope, we need to ban fast food first. It's just as bad if not worse than tobacco. Idk, I guess I really don't care all that much. Everyone acts like it's the only thing that kills you slowly but uh, I mean honestly, is it?

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

everything is killing us slowly. even oxgen kills us slowly. i think it should be banned because it has such a high mortality rate. not to mention my parents smoke and i dont want them dying anytime soon. plus it smells horribly! it sinks into my clothes and it won't come out! does anybody have a cure for that by the way? i was thinking something with baking soda but i dont know.

5 years ago | Side: yes
3 points

The only cure for the cigarette smell is to smoke for about 3 years, then you won't be able to smell it anymore.

Buy them online from overseas, you won't have to pay our exorbitant taxes.

5 years ago | Side: yes
Warlin(1212) Disputed
1 point

My point is, if they ban cigarettes, they're just going to find another vice to get people hooked on. It won't change anything.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Well, i really agree that people should stop smoking for the environment and health of ourselves, and future generations. but banning tobacco is useless, just like prohibition of other drugs like marijuana and weed. They are illegal, but still tons of people worldwide do them. all it did having people hiding in places where police officers are unlikely to find them to do them. and the negative effects of it are, it caused more crime and mafia-fighting etc. Of the number of smokers today, the prohibition of tobacco will be a complete failure just like the prohibition of alcohol in the US

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Well, i really agree that people should stop smoking for the environment and health of ourselves, and future generations. but banning tobacco is useless, just like prohibition of other drugs like marijuana and weed. They are illegal, but still tons of people worldwide do them. all it did having people hiding on street corners etc to do them. and the negative effects of it are, it caused more crime and mafia-fighting etc. Of the number of smokers today, the prohibition of tobacco will be a complete failure just like the prohibition of alcohol in the US

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

If the idea of banning something is done in deference to the wishes of a vast majority of people, then smoking should be banned. In fact, Galileo was imprisoned because he went against the popular theory of the geocentric theory of the solar system. However, if we go by scientifically researched facts and direct experiences, then we have no ground whatsoever, to really ban smoking.

It has not been proven that smoking causes cancer or in fact any damage to anyone whatsoever. One just has to google for research on tobacco, and you will find the research publications which give you the truth about the effects of smoking. In fact there is a school of thought which has found that smoking reduces / delays the onset of parkinsons disease and even alzheimers disease, improves alertness, and improves memory among other things.

I have known, -and am sure that many others have- many people who have been smoking for many years altogether and they have no cancer, or any other diseases. I have not come across any person whose death has been diagnosed as arising from smoking. In fact, I have come across more people who had nothing to do with smoking ( active or passive ) and who have died of lung or other cancer.

The human population is divided into those who are prone to cancer, and those who are not. Studying the correlation of smokers who die of cancer and ignoring smokers who do not died of cancer results in a spurious correlation.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Myth one: Tobacco reduces the productivity of our workforce, therefore bad for the economy.

Counter Argument:

(1) Tobacco Companies have actually provided a significant amount of jobs for the unemployed.

(2) Tobacco Companies are integral in the growth of our GDP, given the amount of smokers there are in society.

Myth 2: Tobacco is poison to the body and therefore is morally wrong.

Counter Argument

(1) Smoking stimulates open-mindedness as it allows conservatives to interact with risk takers and to explore alternative philosophies to life.

(2) Smoking can be a catalyst in aiding people to be more focused on socially positive attitudes by taking a stance advocating quality of life vs economical productivity

Myth 3: Smoking is bad for your health

(1) It prevents mental illnesses by providing an outlet for stress

(2) It protects you from worser addictions such as:

- sexual addiction leading to rape

- heroin addiction leading to broken homes

4 years ago | Side: No
K1ll3r(52) Disputed
1 point

Myth One is right, but the others....

Myth 2: Tobacco is poison to the body and therefore is morally wrong.

Counter Argument

(1) Smoking stimulates open-mindedness as it allows conservatives to interact with risk takers and to explore alternative philosophies to life.

(2) Smoking can be a catalyst in aiding people to be more focused on socially positive attitudes by taking a stance advocating quality of life vs economical productivity

Myth 3: Smoking is bad for your health:Yeah, it is.

(1) It prevents mental illnesses by providing an outlet for stress:True, but it harms your body, called video games or trolling.

(2) It protects you from worser addictions such as:

- sexual addiction leading to rape:How?

- heroin addiction leading to broken homes:How?

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

of course second hand smoke might be unhealthy, but if you arent smart enough to move away from someone smoking then well you might as well start smoking in the first place.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I hate to say no.

It does indeed kill, and deform babies. Believe me, I want none of it. But considering the numbers of acohol users when was banned makes me think that banning it will do no good. Banning acohol started gangs, and caused an underground industry to arise, and the government got no share. That's why they unbanned it, to get money, it's heartless, I know, but it's fact. As long as the government is making money from it, they won't ban it. I have friends who smoke tobacco, saying they want to quit. We need to start showing more and more programs to quit, to drain out the tobacco industry, and we won't have to ban it.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

SHOULD IT....bit to late to ban it now. I cant stand smoking , I wish I never started, its a dirty, addictive, stinky, costly habit......i tell myself i am stupid for just handing over 200 bucks to a hypnotist to try and quit. Ive tried patches,they gave me nightmares. Ive tried cold turkey,that just turned me into an even bigger bitch than i am now. I cough and wheeze and take another puff from the poison.My skin is grey and sallow and leathery.I cough phlehm every day. If you ban smoking, i will die,Or, go to jail for asault,or i will just go back to smoking the bark curls of gum trees(experimented at 7). I started smoking cigarettes when i was 11. I am now 37. I regret ever starting. My advice to kids- dont even start.My advice to non-smoking adults-good for you. In this day and age, we are well educated about the bad affects of smoking.If only this education was around long ago.BTW- a man has just sparked further research into the debate of smoking/second-hand smoking causing lung cancer.He has lung cancer and firmly suggests that smoking/second-hand smoke, is not the cause of lung cancer.....Ive lost the add but when i find it again i will post a link.

4 years ago | Side: No
Elvira(3250) Disputed
1 point

Put a cigarette in stagnant water and let it rot a little, then remove it and put it in a tub. Every time you want a cigarette, sniff it.

1 year ago | Side: yes
1 point

Banning tabacco cannot be a serious proposition. Let say you ban it today, the black market will be up and running by tomorrow and awareness will drop. Besides there are many practical uses for tabacco even if it might be somewhat detrimental to the users health. Banning things does not solve anything, regulation and or education are the more important thing to focus on. We didn't ban fast food because it was unhealthy, we educated people on the fact and let them make they're own decision. Thats the difference between living in a free society and living in North Korea, lets keep it that way.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

i think it very bad for the human body they should legalize it i mean now becouse life would be better

4 years ago | Side: No

Freedom of choice is the most profound and critical aspect of this issue. The government nor thy neighbor should have the power and authority to prohibit anyone that wants to smoke. America would only have to relive the events of alcohol prohibition and live in the current events of illegal substances. This is black market. Society doesn't benefit from a black market.

Although tobacco kills 500,000 people a year, what good would it be to prohibit it when there is a drug in the cigarette that purposely is a addictive substance. It wouldn't change the fact many deaths will occur because people will still smoke.

4 years ago | Side: No
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
0 points

Although tobacco kills 500,000 people a year, what good would it be to prohibit it when there is a drug in the cigarette that purposely is a addictive substance. It wouldn't change the fact many deaths will occur because people will still smoke.

The purpose in prohibiting smoking isn't for the benefit of the smoker. I could care less about the smoker. My problem is with all the hundreds of thousands of kids that get diagnosed with lung cancer per year due to second hand smoke. It's not only kids either, smoking harms everyone around the smoker including the smoker him/her self.

Also with something illegal it becomes harder to obtain, with it becoming harder to obtain the amount of smokers dwindles. When something is available to the masses through public stores then it is easy to obtain. When the only way to get a substance that is illegal is through back alleys it becomes harder to obtain. Get it?

America would only have to relive the events of alcohol prohibition and live in the current events of illegal substances. This is black market. Society doesn't benefit from a black market.

What are you talking about ... ?

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

tobacco should be legal at age 14 there nothin better than putting in a dip of snuff after school

4 years ago | Side: No
DaWolfman(3287) Disputed
2 points

This site is for intellectuals, not mental patients. Though we do appreciate you trying to sound like your IQ is above 40, it just isn't and there is no point in pretending. Thanks again, but if your brain can't process what a debate is just you know go frog gigging and muddin'. I am sure these are leisure activities even your small attention span can handle.

4 years ago | Side: yes

Looks like you angered somebody - and on the first day of your return, too.

4 years ago | Side: No

Matter of fact, there shouldn't even be a age limit. You should be able to smoke at any age.

4 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Smoking tobacco is a persons choice. They know what harm will become of them. And it does help the government with money when they purchase it. It should stay legal because really its a persons choice to smoke it and if they were to take it away our economy will go down the drain more.

3 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Smoking tobacco is a person's choice, not the government's. Banning tobacco will only create a black market.

Marijuana and Tobacco are some of the least harmful drugs, and so many people take them that banning them is hardly effective.

3 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No! Let people live their lives... government needs to stay out of it. Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

3 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Its anyones choice if they want to smoke tobbacco or not. anything can kill you these day. you could die just stepping out your damn door. There is no reason it should be banned. thats what this country is about, freedom. Its smokers faults there smoking

3 years ago | Side: No
1 point

A lot of revenue depends on them. That is the sole reason it hasn't been banned yet. This will be a huge stake at loss. It'll be a really huge risk to the nation while the boom is so far away.

It is bad thing... That cannot be changed.

Though the mental output can be manipulated. There should be constant check on people. Counselling so that the market crashes. Banning is also not a good solution since it can lead to illegal activities.

3 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No, it should not be banned anymore than soda pop or candy should be banned. There is no cement proof that tobacco actually causes cancer. Perhaps cancer is rather caused by genetics like obesity. Is sugar the cause of obesity? Or is sugar and a genetic disposition the cause of obesity?

Perhaps some people smoke because it is enjoyable and relieves stress, or they bond over a few cigars. So why should the will of a few be imposed on everyone.

At one point in history onanism was said to cause blindness. Now it is accepted that is does not. Or what if I said the world was flat instead of round. Look out your wind does the ground not appear flat.

I rest my case.

My view is largely supported in this article:

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap1.htm

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

yes.tobacco should be banned cause of anyone over 18 has take their own decisions.if they want to use they should use. if government sell the tobacco, people are allowed to use it.

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

No.tobacco should not be banned cause of anyone over 18 has take their own decisions.if they want to use they should use. if government sell the tobacco, people are allowed to use it.

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

If tobacco should be banned for killing people, should not alcohol also be added to that list. Alcohol kills just as many people. Heck why we're at it why not ban starches and butter. We could control obesity better by banning candy, fast food shops. When does it end, because some people don't like something and has a greater voice (or louder) they have the right to interfere in others lives. Alcohol is a lot more dangerous then tobacco will ever be.

2 years ago | Side: no

I will agree to ban tobacco if you will agree to ban all fast food restaurants, foods that are high in cholesterol and transfats. I would also like you to ban watching more than 1 hour of television per day. And I would like to impose a fine on people who don't exercise regularly. The cost of fat people to our society is just as deadly as smoking. If we're going to start cracking down on unhealthy activity, let's not be half-assed about it.

Coke and Pepsi! Gone! Alcoholic beverages gone! If you're more than 20 pounds overweight, you will be required to join a court-mandated fitness program.

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

Yes smoking it kills you...yes there is evidence that passive smoking is harmful however if smoked out of the range of a none smoker why not ? In the end it is my body if i wish to smoke why shouldn't I ?

Furthermore, it is harsh to say but there is a money issue i live in the UK and the tax on cigs are high. The tax taken from smoking pretty much funds a large part of the nhs and other such things. If we were to ban smoking , meaning no one buying them, where would the money that the gov just lost come from ? Taxes in other areas would go soaring up which i would love to see since it might teach alot of the anti smoking a brigade a harsh truth that smokers, though it may not seem, help them by keeping their taxes etc low

Also i would not want to even imagine what an uprising would happen through out the country the amount of smokers going against the gov etc imagine the prisons it would be chaotic..

2 years ago | Side: no
1 point

I am a pipe smoker, age 21, no health problems

As for my first argument, the tobacco industry holds about 660,000 people just in the manufacturing and distribution sections, this doesn't include the farmers or the retailers. Taking away tobacco would lead to unemployment rates like never before. the farmers cant simply plant other crops because all of their equipment, sheds, and barns are made specifically for tobacco. The loss of all these jobs means less taxpayer revenue going into the all ready in debt government.

Argument number two, As for the health concerns, most of them apply only to cigarettes. Most if not all pipe and cigar smokers do not inhale, leading to the only major health concerns or cancers that they develop as being oral which in most cases are easily removed or cured. This being stated the average pipe smoker lives on average two years longer, yes longer, than the average non-smoker. This means that the only logical thing that should be banned would be cigarettes.

Argument number 3, secondhand smoke is the smoke that is inhaled while being around someone who is smoking. If you dont like the fact that someone is smoking around you ask them to please put it out, if that doesn't work simply get up and walk away. There is absolutely no reason you would "have" to stay around someone who is smoking. I do have a problem with people who smoke cigarettes around their kids all day long though they shouldn't have to be exposed to so much smoke on a daily basis, if your going to smoke with children go in te garage or outside and do it. This doesn't apply to pipe or cigar smoking in my opinion just because of how infrequently kids are exposed to the smoke. A normal pipe smoker sits down and relaxes while enjoying his favorite blend, relaxing cant easily be done with children running around. Leaving your kids in your car while your stuck in traffic is worse than having them around smoke for a few hours a week.

So in conclusion, should tobacco be banned, no, there is no need for it.

1 year ago | Side: no
1 point

tobacco creates so many jobs it creates 662,402 direct jobs and 1,150,111 indirect job.

1 year ago | Side: no
Cuaroc(5349) Disputed
1 point

and how many direct deaths and indirect deaths does it cause?

1 year ago | Side: yes
1 point

People have the right to smoke. You can't force people to do things based on your own personal opinion. I personally don't smoke because i understand the dangers involved with it, but if someone else wanted to do so i wouldn't care. They are making a decision to smoke. They know it's going to shorten their life, but they still smoke because it gives them pleasure. Anyway, my point is that we can't shove our personal ideologies down peoples throats. By the way, I don't believe that the Government has any reason to ban any "illicit substance," these drugs only affect the user.

1 year ago | Side: no
0 points

no, because those that enjoy smaoking should be able t. Fairplay that they arn't aloud in pubs, clubs and pretty much every other building but allow people to have a quick ciggee!

5 years ago | Side: No
0 points

Fuck that. i know it's not eloquent but prohibition never never works.

5 years ago | Side: No


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.