|
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. 221 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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!!! 219 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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. 220 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 220 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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. 218 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 217 days ago | Tagged As: 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. 220 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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? 220 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 220 days ago | Tagged As: 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? 218 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
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. 221 days ago | Tagged As: No
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! 219 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 221 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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. 221 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 220 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 220 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 221 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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 61 days ago | Tagged As: No
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 61 days ago | Tagged As: No
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. 21 days ago | Tagged As: No
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 15 days ago | Tagged As: No
|
- New Activity
- Most Heated
- Most Recent
- Most Arguments
- Most Votes
- Debate Research
- My Debates
- My Waterfall
- Public Waterfall
- Newest Recruits
- Most Persuasive
- Most Provocative
- Most Outspoken
- Most Creative
- Alphabetically
- My Allies
- My Enemies
- My Hostiles
