CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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?
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.
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.
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 agree. I don't think smoking's a good thing, I just don't see why it should be banned.
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.
Yup, I agree. If this was a debate on why smoking is bad, I wouldn't be disputing you. Unfortunately, you've not provided a reason to actually ban it.
Why should they waste it on pointless crap? Because their idiots? Fine by me.
Not sure what you're disputing here then. You agree that if idiots want to waste their money on crap, they should be allowed to. Precisely my position.
Wrong, there are the smart and the stupid. The stupid are those who consider the world as "winners and losers".
I don't know why, but I thought of the Monty Python sketch when I read this.
What's your favourite colour?
Blue
WRONG!
Basically, it's completely subjective. To call someone "wrong" about the way they view the world is pretty arrogant.
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.
Right, it's a means. I thought that was implied in my comment. But to some, it's a means to achieve their purpose. Therefore, those with money are winners, in my eyes, as they have a means to achieve their goals.
You don't live to get more money. If you do you're stupid.
Why? You've said "stupid" a lot without actually explaining how striving to earn money makes you stupid.
And what was their average weekly exercise rate? Living healthily requires also eating meat and regular physical exercises.
I bet most of those subjects didn't do any real physical training.
That study is inconclusive, it does not include every aspect it should. You either do it thoroughly, including everything, or don't do it at all, especially studies like this. It gives many people false information.
Eating meat is necessary for a physically healthy life.
I'm surprised you couldn't notice the flaws yourself (the things not included).
I don't think smoking's a good thing, I just don't see why it should be banned.
So people wouldn't waste money they might, and in very many cases will, need later. And if they get into trouble with money, who will they turn to? The government, if there is no one else, and in many cases there is no one else.
You've said "stupid" a lot without actually explaining how striving to earn money makes you stupid.
If you do something that earns you a lot of money then good for you, but don't do whatever it is just for money. Money should not be the purpose for doing things. It acts as a motivator for work. If something needs done and there is no money then that something won't get done.
Many go for any work with the biggest salary, even if they hate it and thus they can literally die of stress, and stress-related diseases. It's best to find whatever one likes and makes one happy and accept it, and live a healthy, happy life than a miserable one. If money is what makes one happy then...
Money keeps people like slaves, it is all they work for, to get more of it.
Eating meat is necessary for a physically healthy life.
I shit you not, so is arsenic. But that doesn't mean we should be encouraging vast chains of arsenic stores, Kentucky Fried Arsenic or whatever. Because too much arsenic is detrimental to your health (not that you needed me to tell you that, but meh).
Same with meat. While, obviously, one needs more meat than arsenic to maintain a healthy lifestyle, I would hazard a guess that the average human consumes far more than is needed.
So people wouldn't waste money they might, and in very many cases will, need later. And if they get into trouble with money, who will they turn to? The government, if there is no one else, and in many cases there is no one else.
Libertarian hat on here. It's their money, if they waste it, they should live with the consequences. It shouldn't be the government's job to spoon feed its people, sheltering it from all the dangers of life, because that ends up with people rebelling.
I shit you not, so is arsenic. But that doesn't mean we should be encouraging vast chains of arsenic stores, Kentucky Fried Arsenic or whatever. Because too much arsenic is detrimental to your health (not that you needed me to tell you that, but meh).
And too much oxygen can kill.
if they waste it, they should live with the consequences.
And yet they don't like that so much, do they?
It shouldn't be the government's job to spoon feed its people, sheltering it from all the dangers of life,
Then what is the point of government? If not the managing of human society?
All the dangers? Even viruses, natural disasters, etc? If they hit, they hit. No sheltering (perhaps a little bit), simply managing the results.
because that ends up with people rebelling.
People rebel because things are too bad for them. If they had more money in their pockets their life would be in that aspect a little better and they'd be less inclined to rebel.
Still better than bartering.
Why barter? Why any kind of trading?
If everyone would do their job because it is necessary for the upkeeping and advancement of society there would be no need for trading. If someone needs something they get it, no bartering, no buying, no selling. Considering how infixed money is none of it will ever happen.
Tough shit. Keep in mind that I'm only referring to the monetary side of things here. Obviously if they get lung cancer or something, then they're still entitled to the same healthcare. I'm saying that they shouldn't get handouts as a result of screwing up with their money.
Then what is the point of government? If not the managing of human society?
I would put it more as "maintaining order".
All the dangers? Even viruses, natural disasters, etc? If they hit, they hit. No sheltering (perhaps a little bit), simply managing the results.
OK, I didn't think I needed to clarify this, but in times of mass crisis, then of course the government should help its people. I was just speaking on a small scale, id est, drugs.
People rebel because things are too bad for them. If they had more money in their pockets their life would be in that aspect a little better and they'd be less inclined to rebel.
If the government were to give people complete freedom over their personal lives, rebelling would be moronic. It would be THEIR fault, not the government's, if shit hit the fan. Nothing would be achieved, and no-one would join the cause.
Why barter? Why any kind of trading?
If everyone would do their job because it is necessary for the upkeeping and advancement of society there would be no need for trading. If someone needs something they get it, no bartering, no buying, no selling. Considering how infixed money is none of it will ever happen.
'Tis a utopian style of thinking. Alas, as you said, it will never happen. Nor will it ever be attempted, I think. I certainly hope it isn't.
...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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is crack illegal? In the past the legal status of substances has had little to do with the health of the populace, I'm interested to know if our government started practicing otherwise.
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.
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.
"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?!
"Second hand smoke is not an issue when people are responsible;e" and "cigarettes are addictive
No, my point was that second hand smoke isn't addictive, compared to first hand smoke.
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.
I can speak from experience here. My father smoked in the kitchen for 13 years, and not once did I ever become a severe nicotine addict. Like I said, the effects of second hand smoke are exaggerated.
And what's there good about poorer people (usually the ones to buy ciggies) wasting all their money on a slow and painful death?!
Nothing. I don't support smoking, but I support the freedom to smoke. If you want to poison yourself, do it.
I', not talking about the levels of addiction, i'm talking bout the fact that the second hand smoke contains very harmful ingredients (i won't bore you with the list) which can be inhaled by children. once adults start to smoke, it is hard to get rid of. For the sake f their children, i suppose they will have the will power to quit, but just one cigarette can alter a baby's life a lot. And not the actual cigarette, the second hand smoke.
i'm talking bout the fact that the second hand smoke contains very harmful ingredients (i won't bore you with the list) which can be inhaled by children.
Which, for the quadrillionth time, does almost fuck all to children. And if it did, then that's still no reason to ban cigarettes. That's a reason to encourage responsibility.
but just one cigarette can alter a baby's life a lot. And not the actual cigarette, the second hand smoke.
Prove to me that smoking one cigarette in front of a baby will alter its life.
I'd rather people didn't smoke, and yes, in public places there should be certain limitations, but there is no reason to actually BAN cigarettes.
No, no you see typical stuck up assholes likes you can go around saying stuff, AND DON'T YOU DARE FUCKING ARGUE WITH THIS, THIS IS WHAT YOU MEANT, like you were talking about the fact it doesn't do harm to children. Then you said, you sick psychopath "even if it did, that's still no reason to ban them" Oh yeah lets all give our baby's anorexia, cancer, schizophrenia, nah its fine, we can ban them and help lots of people, but no why not. Why don't we bring back heroin. If people want to do that shit, their problem. That's what you're saying. The way you talk sounds like you have no regard for human life. Don't you argue back quoting me trying to prove your side of the argument is the right side, BECAUSE IT'S NOT i am trying to say "lets ban cigarettes because it is harmful towards people" and you're fighting desperately against that.
Could be difficult, seeing as this is a debate site.
ike you were talking about the fact it doesn't do harm to children
Nope, I said it does far less than said by the likes of you, and certainly doesn't do enough to warrant a ban.
Then you said, you sick psychopath
It's only online debate; why you have to be mad ;)
"even if it did, that's still no reason to ban them
Have you lost the ability to read past those words?
Oh yeah lets all give our baby's anorexia,
Wow, I had no idea anorexia was infectious.
cancer,
Or cancer.
schizophrenia,
Or even schizophrenia. You sir, are quite the genius.
we can ban them and help lots of people, but no why not.
Are you saying we should ban diseases?
Why don't we bring back heroin.
We should, along with legalizing all drugs.
If people want to do that shit, their problem. That's what you're saying
And you're yet to prove me wrong.
The way you talk sounds like you have no regard for human life.
If fucking morons want to coat their lungs in disgusting shit, let them. What's so shocking about this?
Don't you argue back quoting me trying to prove your side of the argument is the right side
This is hilarious. You're on a debate site, grow up.
lets ban cigarettes because it is harmful towards people
Jeez, after wading through all the vitriol and bad grammar, we arrive at your actual argument. OK, cigarettes are harmful to two sets of people: the smokers, and second hand smokers. HOWEVER, as I have said, the effects of second hand smoke are smaller than made out, and as such, should not affect the legality of the product. As for the smokers, it's their choice. Banning it would cost the taxpayer too much in punishment, and would increase usage.
What is so difficult to understand about that? Please give me a formal, intelligible response.
Oh no, those poor tax collectors. So to you human lives are worth less than a tax payers bonus? Shame on you. As a human being i would expect some logical reason like "Actually, it helps people because..." and "It's better because..." but your only defense is "Well its not my problem, if they want to, then let them" Sire, that is no argument, human lives are of the utmost importance. Hey, why not, if fucking morons want to go around shooting people, why not let them. It's only the same as smoking, you know, taking peoples lives. But you'd object to that, i hope, so wy not smoking? Maybe someone doesn't want to smoke anymore, but can't help it because thy're weak minded. Are you just going to let them sink? I'm sorry my argument is not up to the standards of intelligence you expected, but i cannot put it in plainer words than, it is a fact, mankind would be better off without cigarettes.<Simple
Do you have any idea how many things are harmful to humans? Banning all of them would be ABSURD. I could quite honestly list THOUSANDS of things if I cared enough to.
I can't believe you see prohibition as more important than freedom.
While I sympathise with your argument I feel you're neglecting two crucial factors,
1. Smoking is great stress relief
2. Smoking is consider cool, this is largely because it is a social aid (in the same way that alcohol is) as it creates a sense of commonality, its sort of tribal, even in the simple act of asking for a light you break the ice (or social barrier), cigarettes are also a technology that create an increased sense of calm in a self conscious person who is on their own by provided them with a stage prop upon which to focus their attention, thereby reducing the feeling of social awkwardness.
If you put your child in an enclosed box and blow several consecutive drags into the box and leave your child to simmer for a while, yes, second hand smoke is harmful towards the child. But I could call the being grossly irresponsible with your smoking habit; the alcoholic equivalent of pouring liquor all over a baby.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
just one person blowing 50 cigarettes to another person's face is not going to happen. but there are many people who smoke around us the whole day so the effects of passive smoking isn't really as exaggerated as you think. and only restaurants and pubs have no smoking zones. what about other places?
Lets put a ban on smoking so the people in pubs can't enjoy a cigarette (because it might harm others) before they get into a car and kill someone drunk driving. That makes sense. I think it's funny we would be discussing cigarette bans in the same breath we mention bars, when between alcohol and cigarettes is plain to see which one has a greater impact on those who don't partake: alcohol.
But this is my point. In Britain, we did have smoking zones and non-smoking zones. But in 2007(?) smoking was banned in public places altogether. The old system worked fine, no-one ever became addicted to nicotine or dropped dead in public because of the smokers.
I've seen a lot of second hand smoke studies done in inclosed areas, essentially hot-boxing the text subject in a room full of smoke, and this is the argument people standing 50 feet from me on a windy day use to complain about second hand smoke. By the same rational, we would all die if we came within a few feet of a running vehicle. This issue in particular bugs me as a smoker because it's such a blatant scare tactic. Commercials with a clouds of exhaled cigarette smoke (with a skull face) forming up to chase around children an such, I mean, come on. Any moron should understand that smoke (like car exhaust) dissipates over time, not bands together to seek out and harm individuals.
Similarly, this is why I do understand a ban on indoor smoking in public areas.
These are three examples from three different medical journals. Recent studies suggest secondhand smoke is EXTREMELY harmful. I assure you the effects are not exaggerated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This doesn't necessarily mean violent, your going to extremes. People won't start a war over this. Of course people won't like this, but you will never get everyone to agree. Your argument is drinking alcohol negatively affects others. How? I'm not talking about mental, I'm talking about physical. People can get second hand smoke from these types of things.
Banning smoking absolutely requires violence, you cannot get around that. How else would you "ban" something, unless you enforce it against the will of people who would do it otherwise? Please explain the reason why you think that is okay. Just because people "will never get everyone to agree" is not a justification for initiating force. People don't have to agree on anything, we're allowed to live differently (and should be able to). There are non-violent, civil ways to deal with disagreements in society. I think banning smoking would be going to extremes, trying to control the behaviour of other people.
Drinking alcohol negatively effects others when that person gets behind the wheel of a car, is drunk while supposed to be taking care of children, when becoming an angry drunk, when damaging property, etc. I was also referring to physical damage, not mental (although mental is harmful, so I think that should be included as well). Junk food can also negatively effect people by having to pay higher taxes for health care.
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.
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.
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.
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.