CreateDebate


Debate Info

50
54
Yes. No.
Debate Score:104
Arguments:75
Total Votes:121
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (34)
 
 No. (41)

Debate Creator

TMadden38(187) pic



Should tobacco products such as cigarettes be banned?

Yes.

Side Score: 50
VS.

No.

Side Score: 54
4 points

Debates about smoking and other similar things... Of course they should be banned. THEY ARE NEGATIVE TO HUMANS. They damage health, people waste money on them while they could use that money on actual USEFUL things. If you find you have more than enough money and you think that justifies buying shit like cigarettes then why not instead GIVE that money to someone who has too little or not enough?

Side: Yes.
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

THEY ARE NEGATIVE TO HUMANS.

So is meat. Should we ban that too?

They damage health, people waste money on them while they could use that money on actual USEFUL things

"Useful" to whom? If people stop "wasting money" on cigarettes, what would that money go towards?

If you find you have more than enough money and you think that justifies buying shit like cigarettes

I'm fairly sure that the reason people take up smoking isn't because they're rich.

then why not instead GIVE that money to someone who has too little or not enough?

Why should they? It's their money, they don't owe anyone anything. Sure, in an ideal world, everybody's rich and happy, and blah blah blah. But in reality, there are winners and losers. Those with money are winners, and those without it are losers.

Side: No.
nummi(1432) Disputed
1 point

So is meat. Should we ban that too?

Meat?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? We are omnivores...

"Useful" to whom? If people stop "wasting money" on cigarettes, what would that money go towards?

Like buying things that don't damage health or things they might actually need one day, or just keep it for "rainy" days, or just give the money to those who have too little of it for an "adequate" life.

I'm fairly sure that the reason people take up smoking isn't because they're rich.

Pretty much my point. They have little money, yet they buy crap like cigarettes. Then they wonder why they have monetary problems, like can't pay the rent, can't buy something they need fast, etc.

Why should they? It's their money, they don't owe anyone anything.

Why should they waste it on pointless crap? Because their idiots? Fine by me.

Sure, in an ideal world, everybody's rich and happy, and blah blah blah. But in reality, there are winners and losers.

Wrong, there are the smart and the stupid. The stupid are those who consider the world as "winners and losers".

Those with money are winners, and those without it are losers.

You are so wrong. Money is just a TOOL. And that is all it should be regarded as, not the purpose of life, not the point of keeping on going.

You don't live to get more money. If you do you're stupid.

Side: Yes.
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

...people waste money on them while they could use that money on actual USEFUL things.

It's not your buisness what they do with their money. Oh you got internet, ok that is a waste of money that could be sent to homless people that don't want to work!

If you find you have more than enough money and you think that justifies buying shit like cigarettes then why not instead GIVE that money to someone who has too little or not enough?

You can give, give, and give but if that person does not pick themselves up somehow they will always be in that state. You can't just give them a fancy life, they got to work for that themselves.

Side: No.
nummi(1432) Disputed
1 point

Oh you got internet, ok that is a waste of money that could be sent to homless people that don't want to work!

In what way is internet useless? You do know all it is used for? Doubt it, you would not have said what you did if you did know.

Homeless that don't want to work? As far as I'm concerned the homeless who don't want to contribute to the rest in some manner might as well die off.

You can give, give, and give but if that person does not pick themselves up somehow they will always be in that state. You can't just give them a fancy life, they got to work for that themselves.

Working doesn't mean that a person or a family can live off of that income, much more might be needed. There are plenty of examples here where I live.

Who said anything about giving them a fancy life? You seem to fail at understanding what I said. "Too little or not enough" means they don't have enough money to pay for rent, food, clothes, and other basic items, or not enough to pay for some of those. How exactly does that include luxury items?

Side: Yes.
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Cars are negative to humans. Fatty foods are negative to humans. Alcohol is negative to humans. Sugary drinks are negative to humans. Water can kill you if you inhale it.

Live life wrapped in cotton wool if you want, but don't go telling me what I can and can't do just because you don't like it. How about we start banning sex because it results in pregnancies, STDs and sadness.

Side: No.
3 points

Cigarettes and cigars should be banned because of the effects they do to the body. These effects don't apply just the user; smoke dissolves into the air, affecting more than just the smoker. Think of it as releasing Chlorine Gas into the air; the fumes will spread and harm many people.

Another problem is that Cigarettes have been known to start fires, so property can be damaged, not just people. They also cause people to lose about $1000 a year. In my opinion, cigarettes are just a waste of peoples' lives and money; unless you grow Tobacco.

Side: Yes.
1 point

If you put your lips around a cigarette and drag, many, many times, you'll be dead 20 years early or so.

If you put your lips around the tailpipe of a running automobile, you're dead in seconds.

Yet people sitting in traffic jams, surrounded by running cars, don't drop dead.

What the people who push the second hand smoke scare tactic don't seem to realize is the degree to which things dissipate in air. If it didn't, hanging around a freeway would surely be lethal. So don't let anyone blow several cigarettes into your face and don't linger in rooms hot boxed with cigarette smoke and you should be fine.

So unless you are trying to set up a system that blatantly infringes on civil liberties, you really have no reason to ban smoking.

In the meantime, if I may draw your attention to a much more worthy concern: alcohol. Harmful to it's users and even more harmful towards those that don't partake but are subject to the accidents and violence it begets.

Side: No.
2 points

Yes because tobacco products such as cigarettes do nothing but bad things to people. They are expensive and unhealthy.

Side: Yes.
CriticalEYE(29) Disputed
2 points

They are expensive? What the hell does cost have to do with the price of tea in China? While you are busy dictating what people can do with THEIR bodies, why don't you advocate outlawing sunbathing at beaches. Skin cancer is a bitch.

Side: No.
aero2(2) Disputed
1 point

That's like saying we should let people do crack a little at a time. Sure, it won't kill you instantly, but there's a reason it's outlawed.

Side: Yes.
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

What does money have to do with it? If they want to blow their money, fine by me. it's not the goverments descion. If cigarettes is to be ban, then all of you who want drugs to be legalize needs to shut up because clearly you do not know what you are talking about.

Side: No.
1 point

Cigarettes are only expensive because of excise tax rates from state and federal.

Side: No.
2 points

You see, Chuck, it does harm others, not only yourself... They're expensive too, which is not a good thing given our current economic situation!!

Side: Yes.
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

As I just said to another guy, second hand smoke is not an issue when people are responsible. I gave the example of restaurants and pubs, having smoking zones and non-smoking zones. That way, the only person harmed is the smoker.

And I don't know what you're talking about regarding the economy. Cigarettes are addictive, which means that more will be sold. Seeing as the tax on cigarettes is fucking huge, money is freed for job creation, infrastructure, etc, which all benefit the economy. Addictive products are an exception to the rule that low tax rates stimulate activity.

Side: No.
Jungelson(3959) Disputed
1 point

Your statement is a little contradictory.

"Second hand smoke is not an issue when people are responsible;e" and "cigarettes are addictive, which means that..." Well yes they are, but addictive things you don't ten to be responsible with. you don't think "oh i'll just have one, and that's it" you have 10 or 20. If you're living at home with your children, you think "oh ill just go in to the kitchen" will do any good? Because it won't. And what's there good about poorer people (usually the ones to buy ciggies) wasting all their money on a slow and painful death?!

Side: Yes.
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Au contraire, it betters the economic situation. The majority of the money from a pack of fags is taxes. The more cigarettes are bought, the more money goes into the economy. That was the whole point of quantative easing.

Side: No.
2 points

The tobacco and the cigarettes should be banned little by little even for who wants to smoke. If the people smoke, the producers will continue producing. If they do it, more and more people will commit the error too cause the propagandas will continue. And some people do want to stop smoking. And more, if you smokes is your choice, but it is annoying for non-smokers and it prejudice the passive smokers too! It is a bad thing for who smokes, who doesn't do it and for who wants to stop because of the examples that that person has!

Side: Yes.
2 points

Eventually. At the moment, culture is the only incentive to start smoking. After that it's addiction. They shouldn't abruptly be banned, because that would be somewhat catastrophic given how much tobacco is apart of our culture.

Instead, we simply need to ween culture off cigarettes. Then, when people stop having incentive to smoke other then to be retarded, that's when we ban it. But at the moment, it cannot and should not be done. I have a lot of friends who smoke because they cannot afford anti-depressants. Taking that away from then abruptly would, again, be wrong. What we should be focused on is making people's lives better so they don't have incentives like stress to make them desire to smoke. Then we get rid of tobacco products.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Yes, it harms others, not just yourself, it shouldn't be legal.

Side: Yes.
anachronist(889) Disputed
2 points

Only if they are standing right next to you breathing in the smoke. Don't want to get harmed by second hand smoke? Stop hanging around a smoking area! How about I ban you from driving in case you hit someone?

Side: No.
1 point

yes please do! people die that way and nobody wants that. if u do smoke consider stopping and look up online what it can do to you plus what's in a cigarettes. you will be disgusted.

Side: Yes.
2 points

And if people are fully aware of the effects smoking and the ingredients they contain and yet still choose to continue, is this not their business...and NOT your's?

Side: Yes.

i see no reason why they shouldn't be banned. people who smoke not only harm themselves but people around them as well. passive smoking is more harmful than active smoking. what did passive smokers do to deserve this?? and tobacco is an addictive substance so definitely addictive substances should be banned; once you get used to it, it's hard to kick the habit.

Side: Yes.
1 point

I think they should be banned, but should not be abruptly banned. I personally hate cigarettes because I have asthma and when someone around me is smoking, I can't breath. If they were just harming themselves by smoking, then whatever; it was their choice in the first place. But they don't only harm themselves by smoking. I don't think a lot of people realize how bad it really is for someone, like me, with asthma or something like that to have to always have to be afraid that while walking through town, someone nearby will be smoking and they suddenly won't be able to breath anymore. It happens that fast sometimes...

I understand that some people use cigarettes and such as a "last resort" if they can't afford to get anti-depressants or things like that, but it needs to stop. Not abruptly, like I said before, but gradually we do need to get cigarettes and tobacco products out of people's every day lives.

Side: Yes.
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Well stop standing next to them! You don't have the right to stop people doing what they like just because you don't want them to. I don't have a right to tell you not to eat fatty foods or drink alcohol, even though both of those can harm others around you.

Side: No.
1 point

Yes, because It does no good but only bad. It takes us to the silent death.

Supporting Evidence: Computer world (newcomputerwizard.blogspot.com)
Side: Yes.

Yes they should. But they will never be. They bring in too much money for the government to ban them. They see it as the individuals choice. They keep a product on the market, and see who is foolish enough to kill themselves.

Side: Yes.

Yes. Tobacco is harmful to human health and statistics show.

Side: Yes.
anachronist(889) Disputed
2 points

So are burgers. Wanna ban those too? What is it with you fascists?

Side: No.
1 point

I think cigarettes should be banned because it damages your lungs, and cigarettes are actually worse than other illegal drugs such as heroin and marijuana.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Yes and I will reiterate this again. It harms your body, your body is blessing onto you yet you continue to abuse it. Think about others in poor health who would give anything for a new bill of health, yet here you are, actively poisoning your body.

I have a friend who has asthma and cannot be around people who smoke, i'm not interested in what the stats are and to what extent secondary smoke harms others, the fact is that it does and nothing gives you the right to inflict harm on others, there is no justification for that. Same applies to alcohol, why do would people drink something that inhibits your senses and common sense i might add, but i guess thats another debate for another day.

Side: Yes.
3 points

Choice of the individual. If you wanna coat your lungs in delicious toxic shit, be my guest. But it's not anyone's place to tell others what to do with their personal life, unless it harms others.

Side: No.
Rosesown(34) Disputed
2 points

It harms others, which means you are giving the smoker the choice, but the "victim" no choice on inhalation. Gross.

Side: Yes.
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

The effects of second hand smoking are vastly exaggerated. Unless you're literally blowing 50 cigarettes a day into someone's face, they're not going to be affected. It's why restaurants and pubs had smoking zones and non-smoking zones.

So that's no reason to ban cigarettes.

Side: No.
1 point

Should junk food also be banned?

What these type of debates essentially come down to is violence. Banning something requires coercion. What gives anyone the right to tell others how to live? There are many practical reasons why smoking is bad, but there are better ways to get people to stop doing harmful things than by doing harmful things! Education, rational arguments, ostracism, etc.

Side: No.
Rosesown(34) Disputed
1 point

Junk food is different from smoking, though. Junk food only hurts the person who is eating it, but smoking hurts the person and the people around them. Your argument is invalid.

Side: Yes.
CriticalEYE(29) Disputed
1 point

Carcinogens are found everywhere. Do you cook your food? Guess what, it's carcinogen heaven.

Side: No.
aero2(2) Disputed
1 point

Smoking itself i believe should be banned, but your argument is saying that we should only ban things that hurt others as well as the original source.Junk food only hurts someone if abused. Same with everything else. But you're stating that we should only ban everything that affects others as well as the user. That's basically banning everything. Religion ain't too strong on me, but their views on greed, malice, and every other sin is possible on everything.

Side: No.
Integrity(73) Disputed
0 points

That was not my argument, it was just an example of something else that's bad for you. I do agree that smoking negatively effects those around you as well, so it's not the same thing. How about alcohol? That negatively effects others, should that be banned? What about a woman eating raw fish while pregnant, should that be banned?

My argument was that to ban something requires coercion. Please provide your reasoning for why you think banning cigarettes should be violently enforced, and why that would be okay.

Side: No.
1 point

I think, not immediately because:

1. it may cause dissatisfaction among the people.

2. people who smokes during many years would try to find alternatives which might be more harmful

3. it is their free choice to smoke

Side: No.
1 point

Everything'll eventually kill you, even life. Tobacco products shouldn't be banned, but they should probably be regulated better.

Side: No.
1 point

What will you do now when you bone? Nothing because tobacco is a great thing for boning so it's like saying bonafide without tobacco :(

Side: No.
1 point

Yes, cigarettes and tobacco does nothing but bad, but it isn't the goverments decison to choose what the people can and can't do with themselves. If a person wants to smoke a cancer stick then fine, let him smoke a cancer stick. It's his body, not yours.

Side: No.

Banning cigarettes, like banning any other drug, is a violation of an individuals civil liberties. We don't ban McDonald's because it is harmful. Tobacco is not harmful to others if used properly, however the freedom for me to swing my arm ends at your face, meaning that I don't have the right to blow smoke into your face.

Cars kill thousands of people each day, we don't ban them do we.

I suggest that the opposing side take a moment to google "alcohol prohibition" and see for themselves just how effective prohibition is. I would also suggest they read George Orwell's 1984, for a taste of what a totalitarian state would be like to live in. Are we seriously suggesting extreme authoritarianism as the correct way to go about doing things? I mean hey, that turned out great with the Nazis and Stalin and North Korea.

Stop being a totalitarian, authoritarian, fascist smoking Nazi.

Side: No.
1 point

You want to know what I think? I think that debates are stupid and pointless. One side will always win and one side will always lose. And the side that wins will go and fascistically impose it's will onto the ones that disagree. And the ones that disagree strongly enough become freedom fighters, and that is how a revolution is started. Just like the old debate, Will there ever be world peace? No, because it is in human nature to bicker and fight. We will always have differentiated opinions. Why hasn't this debate been solved, or any others on this site for that matter? Because no one can do a damn thing about these problems without pissing a lot of people off.

Side: No.

Autistic intervention is the sole reason for most violence in today's society. Tobacco use will still exist even if it is banned, and the consequence will be the black market because the scarcer the product is in relation to supply and demand due to the prohibition, the riskier the production, so the prices will be higher, for there will be more violence.

Side: No.