CreateDebate


Debate Info

42
73
Yes Na
Debate Score:115
Arguments:70
Total Votes:140
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (29)
 
 Na (41)

Debate Creator

maddy2928(7) pic



Should All Tobacco Products Be Banned?

Yes

Side Score: 42
VS.

Na

Side Score: 73
4 points

I think so because it hurts mother earth and your lungs. So its a loose loose

Side: yes
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
4 points

People should be able to choose whether they want to smoke or not. If people stopped smoking then we would have more people out of work because those jobs wouldn't be needed anymore. How does smoking hurt mother earth?

Side: na
hmicciche(660) Disputed
1 point

If burglery were outlawed, then all the burglers would be out of work. ;)

As a society, we can and do make decisions to not allow someone to do harm to others purely for their own financial gain. It's been demonstrated, for example, that second hand smoke is harmful. It's been shown that smoking while pregnant harms the fetus.

Should we allow the tobacco industry to continue to harm people so they can maintain their profits? The fact is, the industry knew long ago that smoking was harmful, but spent tons of money to hire scientists to lie for them. Oh dear, now those cancer-causing lying sons-of-bitches are out of work. (Well no. Now they are being employed by the energy industry to lie about global warming. Fact.)

Now if people choose to smoke and limit the harm to themselves alone, fine. But otherwise, the industry needs to regulated and the practice of smoking in public spaces forbidden.

Side: yes
1 point

That would be a good idea. It doesn't do anything good for you, and it is something we should all live without. But, I am not for Government taking over, and I'm am for our own rights.

Side: yes
1 point

they should ban it becuase it is a senceless thing that does nothing for you but hurt you

Side: yes
1 point

Smoking is objectively harmful to an individual, this is fact, and this argument is unarguable, yet a ban will do nothing. Two reasons why a ban is senseless. One, it will create a black market akin to the days of prohibition and currently the war on drugs, and two, smoking is a matter of choice. Sure, a ban would eliminate choice , but taking choice away is unfair and lacks freedom. If people should choice to smoke, then they should be responsible for their actions.

Side: na
sitopren(13) Disputed
1 point

Those who smoke should be responsible, exactly. However, the reality looks different. Although smoking at public places is forbidden, I observe smokers at stations quite frequently. Although the harm of passive smoking is proven to be significant, such offense isn't considered as grave as physical violence. There's no reason to regard smoking as a personal choice, as long as a socially harmless exercise of this freedom doesn't seem to be possible. Moreover, restricting the tobacco trade will mostly prevent young consumers to become addicted to nicotine.

Side: yes
1 point

yes it should be banned ...........

tobacco is of no use ....

it doesn't have a single positive thing ........

Side: yes
1 point

The overconsumption of tobacco in the industrial nations cause a wrong usage of a significant amount of valuable land in the developing nations, frequently suffering from hunger. For example, in Malawi, as FAO reports ( http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4997E/y4997e0i.htm ), alternative crops have been unable to replace tobacco, which has a high world market price, making Malawian product reasonably competitive. In order to restore worldwide sustainable agriculture, the over-valuation of tobacco should be properly adjusted by restricting its consumption.

Side: yes
1 point

Even though I wholeheartedly agree that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, the effects of second hand and THIRD HAND smoke should definitely not be allowed on this Earth. Not only does it harm 70-90% of the US's nation, but it contains around 4000 extremely harmful chemicals that can cause more than 40 types of cancer. Also, secondhand smoke has twice as much tar and nicotine per cigarette and that has 5 more times carbon monoxide than first hand smoke. Pregnant women, young children, and newborn babies are extremely sensitive to these types of smoke.

Supporting Evidence: Sources for Argument (www1.umn.edu)
Side: yes

Kinda, sort of, maybe.

I beleive that Tobacco products should not be banned. However, I believe that tobacco products, as well as all drugs, should be taxed extremely high. If a single pack of cigarettes, or a single tub of dip were $20-$30 then, most people would stop using the tobacco, or any other drug.

Side: Other
1 point

Yes, just replace it with weed, a much less health damaging drug. In fact, there have been NO recorded deaths due to usage of the drug.

Side: yes
1 point

It's not only damaging the smokers lungs, it's damaging the lungs of the people around the smoker.

Side: yes
1 point

Its costing the us tax payers billion, and its destroying life...Lets banned it

Supporting Evidence: Scented crystals (www.scentaroom.com)
Side: yes
1 point

I think they should be banned because Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Between 1964 and 2004, cigarette smoking caused an estimated 12 million deaths, including 4.1 million deaths from cancer, and 5.5 million deaths from cardiovascular diseases.

When smoking tobacco, the user inhales tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, and 200 known poisons into the lungs. The nicotine in cigarettes is powerfully addictive.

Side: yes
0 points

I'm not too sure about the banning of tobacco products. I do however lean towards this side.

But I would definately like to see the banning of cigarettes.

Side: yes
0 points

if people choose to smoke and limit the harm to themselves alone, fine. But otherwise, the industry needs to regulated and the practice of smoking in public spaces forbidden.

Side: yes
2 points

I don't smoke, but I hold that people should have the freedom to smoke where they choice albeit it is a disgusting habit.

So, if you are referring to second hand smoke, where are the studies that unequivocally prove the dangers of second hand smoke.

Side: na
hmicciche(660) Disputed
0 points

The Mayo Clinic, a very reputable source, has this to say about second hand smoke:

"The Surgeon General reported in 2006 that scientific evidence shows there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

"Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 250 of which are toxic. And more than 50 of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are known or suspected to cause cancer."

"Health experts have recognized the relationship between secondhand smoke and health risks for decades."

Any questions?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

Side: yes
5 points

Next thing you know, they'll be talkin' 'bout banning alcohol - then we've got the prohibition all over agin!

Side: na
Tillerman(29) Disputed
2 points

They'll never ban alcohol, on this one point your safe.

They won't because for:

Democrats, alcohol is responsible for too many battered wives and disrupted families that force dependence on welfare and other social programs, which in turn produces votes and die hard supporters that are ever so grateful, despite the fact that their families were only given money on catch that they remain dependent on the government money because if they show any tangible signs of becoming independent, they will yank that money away long before the person can afford independence. But that affects votes in so few people, it's replaced by all the newly intensely grateful people out there.

As for Republicans, well, too many people want to drink alcoholic beverages that it would cause them a great loss of support to suggest such a thing, and then the big businesses that depend on consumers to buy their products would become greatly diminished, creating a huge job losses in the private sector, and Republicans tend to support the freedom of businesses and they listen to lobbyists on behalf of big businesses. Of course so do democrat too apparently as evident by their tremendous amount of financial support received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right before they collapsed. Obama and Bill Clinton, the two highest that I heard got like $300,000 altogether in campaign contributions from them. While McCain, the Republican candidate against Obama, only got like $20,000 total. Of course now that they've collapsed and brought the rest of us with them, I doubt they are giving very much to campaigns anymore.

Side: I didn't even know we could make tags
TERMINATOR(6752) Disputed
1 point

I was not saying that alcohol should be banned, rather - quite the opposite. I do not think that it should be banned at all, as per my reference to the prohibition.

Side: na
1 point

think about the dumb stoners out there. What are they goin to roll there weed with, toke with, a plastic bottle? well I think not i say no to banning tabacco products and anything smoke related. And if anyone wants to smoke a cigarette i feel they should, because in our country of the united states of america we have rights and thats what makes our country so great.

Side: na
4 points

People have the right to do what ever they want inside the laws. That includes ruin their bodies. So if people want to smoke then get out of their way and let them smoke.

Side: na
hmicciche(660) Disputed
1 point

"People have the right to do what ever they want inside the laws"

Obviously. And once tobacco products are made illegal, people won't have that right.

The question is, should we make tobacco products illegal, which really is the only effective way to ban their use.

Side: yes
Volker(89) Disputed
1 point

"The question is, should we make tobacco products illegal, which really is the only effective way to ban their use."

That's circular reasoning. We should ban them because that's teh only way to ban them.

Side: na

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.

Side: na
TopShottah(41) Disputed
1 point

Isn't this question regarding the legality?

.

Side: yes
2 points

Did I not address this in my response? Not sure what you are referring at.

Side: na
hmicciche(660) Disputed
1 point

While it is true that "As long as it legal under the law, tobacco products use is a matter of choice." What is being argued is if we should make the use of tobacco products illegal and take away people's choice. Your answer fails to declare a position on that question.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6752) Disputed
1 point

If it were illegal, people would be getting their hands on it the same way they do drugs.

Side: na

The government tries to restrict too many things on the public. They treat people like little children, with them the parents. They take everything away and give the people little if any freedom.

Side: na
sitopren(13) Disputed
1 point

If the ban (or a restriction) could successfully decrease the demand of tobacco, its value would surely decrease too. There wouldn't be any point to use inflating materials as currency (so we don't use it today, do we?). Rather, we should give farmers of developing countries the opportunity to grow more important crops to prevent local hunger. I admit that this alone isn't a reason to ban tobacco products, but such an environmentally damaging (huge consumption of water, exploitation of forests) industry must be substantially restricted.

Supporting Evidence: "World Agriculture & Environment" by Jason Clay: Tobacco (www.panda.org)
Side: yes
1 point

I believe that it is the persons choice if they want to smoke or not. They have rights that should not be taken away. If they want to hurt themselves that is their problem, but they still have the right to do it.

Side: na
3 points

No, people should be able to choose their poisons. However, the industry should be regulated and the practice f smoking in public places, discouraged.

Side: yes
2 points

LOL. Ban tobacco and make it yet another gateway drug!

If tobacco is prohibited, it forces people into attempting to obtain it by other means. Suddenly all the drug dealers out there have got a whole new clientele to service! This is already a problem in Australia, and tobacco isn't illegal here yet, it's simply taxed so heavily that people have trouble affording smokes. So people grow and sell "chop" - home grown/home dried tobacco. It rips your throat out because it's not been processed in any way, but it's a much cheaper way of supporting your addiction.

Side: na
2 points

People have a right to kill themselves. People know about lung cancer and addiction. If people know the dangers, theres no point in denying them. Their going to get it anyway.

Side: na
1 point

No, govermnent shouldn't have the right to prevent adults from harming themselves. Government is necessary to solve conflicts between people but not to tell people how to live.

Besides, every form of drug prohibition creates a black market and a crime problem that is bigger than the problems caused by the drug itself.

Side: na
1 point

the government should ban tobacco products and free speech on the Internet.

Side: na
2 points

____________________Under what grounds??-----------------------------------

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.

Side: yes
1 point

The problem with this is, who gets to decide what gets banned? Frankly, as long as you aren't hurting other people, you should be allowed to do whatever the heck you want to do. This applies to everyone.

That being said, prohibition also showed that banning certain items from public consumption can actually greatly increase their use, albeit illegally, and cause organized crime to greatly increase. Whether or not this would happen with tobacco is up for debate, but tobacco isn't really harmful another [TO OTHER PEOPLE] to take the jump and find out.

Side: na
1 point

While I do kind of think cigarettes should be banned, for the reason of secondhand smoke, I do not believe that it is necessary to ban other tobacco products. People have the right to put whatever they want to into their own bodies, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Why should the government take away this freedom to adults just because it is unhealthy?

Side: na
1 point

As in every "product banning" debate, the question does not revolve around the product itself, but around the people who use it.

Should we ban ALL related products? Should we ban alcohol? Harmful things will always be out there, its a fact, the problem is the way people use them, and the lack of education we get in regards to this matters. Banning things has never helped, we have banned cocaine, marijuana, crack, meth, LSD....people still use all that stuff, and pay a lot more money to do so. We should focus on educating society to have some sense of logic about the products rather than just banning everything we use, because those laws can come and go, but if the actually decide as a society not to buy-use-make something, it will just go away on its own. Banning something will just lead to a black market grouth, because with no supply, comes lots of demand.

Side: na
1 point

Agreed it's unhealthy.

But people have the right to do whatever the hell they want and I am pretty sure they're aware of the consiquences.

Side: na
1 point

I think governments should raise the taxes to make tobacco priced unreasonably high. That would save many entities the hassle:

1. Most smokers will quit (only the rich and the stupid will have less chance of quiting)

2. Tobacco companies wont go 100% out of business, they already made trillions so their case against the tax raise will be negotiable

3. Government will make a lot of money out of that tax

4. Keep the country free of smugglers and black market dealers (like what is done with drugs now).

Side: na
1 point

If any of you read my first post that I'm editing now, I'm an idiot. I don't know why, but somehow I got on the tangent of answering for the sake of alcohol, not tobacco.

Anyway, no because it's not dangerously mind altering substance. Yeah, there's the fear that it causes cancer and is not healthy for people, but enough legislation has already been made so that it's not a public health risk.

I'd probably support a fine of some sort for a pregnant women caught smoking, and in the case of where a stranger, friend, or family member who refused to stop smoking around a pregnant mother or children that did not have the choice to vacate an area, i.e. a nursery, playground, classroom, child care center. I'd support this because the child in the mother's whom does not deserve to be damaged just because he or she is completely dependent on the mother. Nor do children deserve the damaging/possible damaging effects of smoke just because they are forced to stay in a certain location due to the fact that they aren't given the freedom to make their own choices, such as not to go to school, or to leave the nursery, e.t.c...

Side: na
1 point

Not all tobacco stuffs should be banned cuz people can get immuned to it. We cant really live only experiencing good and healty stuffs, we sometimes need to face tough ones.

Side: na
heyyyy(35) Disputed
1 point

I think that people should get the idea, that smoking this Tobacco will serverly damage a persons body, and thats why it should be band, so we don't get immune to it. i'm sure thats not the intention, to grow this tobacco plant in order for us to be immuned to it, damage our bodies, and to say that its the tough time, when not everyone does this drug, but in a way, i think the tobacco drugs should definetly be banned.

Side: yes
1 point

Of course not, that would just give business to gangsters and criminalize good people. We are all going to die! I think we should have the freedom to live and die how we choose.

Side: na
1 point

By banning the use of a product that generally harms only the individual using it a government sets the precedent that this sort of anti-individualistic behavior is justified in all contexts. A government that stands against individual liberties is inherently harmful to the populace and should be avoided at all reasonable costs. Of course the government should regulate how tobacco is distributed and where it can be consumed; because once tobacco products are publicly used they become detrimental to the public good.

I don't stand in support of the use of tobacco, I only stand in support of civil liberty.

Side: na
1 point

I think it is enough to ban Tobacco products like cigaretts in public places and in closed buildings and transport, other than that it is a personal freedom, i mean if you are not harming anyone lese but yourself then it is your own problem, and we are all adults and know what is good for us don't we?

Supporting Evidence: SEO Software (www.skyhighlinker.com)
Side: yes
1 point

I actually agree with you here, people can find meaning in life as an individual if they make a meaning of it. Meaning for human existence as a whole? I don't think so however.

Supporting Evidence: buy phentermine online (www.online-phentermine.com)
Side: na
1 point

I admit that this alone isn't a reason to ban tobacco products, but such an environmentally damaging (huge consumption of water, exploitation of forests) industry must be substantially restricted.

Supporting Evidence: best diet pills (www.online-phentermine.com)
Side: na

Cigarettes are legal for anyone the age to buy them, so, there is no need to ban them.

Side: Na