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.
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?
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.
If burglar were outlawed, then all the burglars would be out of work.
Burglary is outlawed. You can't just walk up to someone and take their things.
I do agree that we shouldn't have smoking in public places, but we can't just ban smoking. If we banned everything that was harmful to us then we would live in very boring place with no fries and cake (other things too).
Are we going to outlaw guns just because it kills people too? Outlawing the tobacco industry just because it causes harm to people is unfair regardless whether the scientists knew the dangers of smoking and lied; those people made a choice, and they must take responsibility for their choice even if others were misleading. People really need to be responsible for their actions, and not go crying to the government.
The answer is allowing people to make the choice to quit, and not forcing them to quit by passing some arbitrary law. This is only way that tobacco will fade away, but face it, tobacco is never going away. Tobacco was used a currency during the colonial period from 1612-1776; it was valuable then, and it is still valuable today.
"Are we going to outlaw guns just because it kills people too?"
No, we are going to outlaw using guns to kill people. Oh, we already have.
In the same way, we are going to outlaw tobacco when it is harmful to others. Pay close attention to my argument. I am calling for the regulation of the industry and the banning of smoking in public places, due to the document dangers of second hand smoke.
"No, we are going to outlaw using guns to kill people. Oh, we already have." So why not tobacco? We are now. Everybody dies, what is the difference.
You should also pay close attention to my argument because I am arguing that people should be able to smoke in public places if they chose due to the miss documentation of second hand smoke.
Chewing is one of the oldest ways of consuming tobacco leaves. Native Americans in both North and South America chewed the leaves of the plant, frequently mixed with lime. Modern chewing tobacco is produced in three forms: twist, plug, and scrap. The term "Chewing" is actually somewhat misleading. Chewing tobacco is consumed orally, but it is rarely enjoyed by actually chewing. An experienced tobacco chewer generally takes a small amount and places it in the bottom lip of the mouth, between the gum and the teeth where it is gently compacted tighter and tighter into the chewer's lip. Frequently when chewing it is common to spit and discard of excess saliva caused by the tobacco, justifying the existence of the spittoon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Well, I found a different study from the British Medical Journal found a study to the contrary. The Surgeon General is an partial opinion because he works for the government; what a surprise that he supports it. The government will stop at none to destroy the tobacco industry.
"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD.[1]
The second-hand smoke myth: junk science's greatest triumph.[2]
"The Surgeon General is an partial opinion because he works for the government; what a surprise that he supports it."
Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?
"The government will stop at none to destroy the tobacco industry."
Proof of that claim?
James Enstrom's study, published in the British Medical Journal, is flawed for several reasons:
There's no information on smoking habits after 1972, even though the observation period went another 26 years. "We don't know if the nonsmokers continued to be exposed to secondhand smoke, or if their spouses continued to smoke," Thun tells WebMD.
Since the participants were an average of age 52 when the study began in 1959, many smoking spouses could have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage before 1972, when Enstrom started his observation phase. This would have affected the secondhand smoke exposure of the nonsmokers. In addition, environmental factors such as secondhand smoke are less apparent in older ages.
Participants were first enrolled in 1959, when secondhand smoke was pervasive. "Most people were exposed to it, pretty much everywhere, whether or not they were married to smokers."
The finding is based on only 10% of the original study participants.
* The tobacco industry funded the study as part of an ongoing campaign to publish studies that question the dangers of secondhand smoke. "It views secondhand smoke as one of the most dangerous components against it, since it's what causes cities and states to restrict public smoking," says Thun. "And it actively seeks out this kind of research to confuse the public."
This from the link you proved to support your argument that second-hand smoke is a government conspiracy against the poor picked on tobacco industry. So, hey, way to undercut your own argument!
How is the government destroying the tobacco industry? The anti-tobacco campaign in public places that they created and fueled by people like yourself.
If you work in the government, you work for the interests of the organization and nobody else. The Surgeon General is the operational head of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC) and thus the leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the federal government. It is a political position because s/he must be confirmed via majority vote by the Senate, and if it was purely a scientific position, it would be no need for it. Surgeon General reports to the United States Assistant Secretary for Health, s/he is also appointed, and the boss of that office is also appointed.
So, your suggesting that the British Medical Journal is rubbish and the Mayo Clinic is far superior. OK!! Those are not flaws, but only Criticism.
The tobacco industry is funded the study because they are just trying to clear their name concerning second hand smoke.
You suggesting that the tobacco industry is some evil entity only on the war path to kill innocent victims just for profits.
PROOF THAT CLAIM?
The second source has all sort of studies on the junk science of second hand smoke, and the third damning the anti smoking campaign and of course Pen and Teller.
Thanks for outlining the administrative structure of all these pertinent bodies. However, your reply was not pertinent to this question:
"Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?"
Yes, you proved that there is a government. You have not proved there is a government position separate from the generally accepted science on the question of the harmfulness of smoke.
The tobacco industry is funding the anti-smoking campaign for first hand anti-smoking as a form of reparation to the dangers of smoking as well to clear their names of the myth in second hand smoke. Nobody denies the dangers of first hand smoking.
Why are you blaming the tobacco industry for the irresponsible choices that those people made? Regardless whether what they know now or then, it doesn't mute the fact that they still made the choice. You are excusing choices that people made in the past and present.
We are not going to ban cars because the car companies knew all this time that people could get in accidents and die. Or, ban alcohol because beer companies knew that it causes adverse effects to the liver and impairs driving.
yes, my response was pertinent to the question. Outlining the administrative structure is important because the surgeon general is a fucking political position. Political positions have ideological agendas, scientific positions did not. Former Surgeon General Carmona was highly critical of the Bush Administration for interfering with and suppressing scientific findings which conflicted with the Administration's ideological agenda.[1] [2] Republicans-Pro business Democrats-Pro Government
"So, your suggesting that the British Medical Journal is rubbish and the Mayo Clinic is far superior. OK!! Those are not flaws, but only Criticism."
The British Medical Journal simply publish a study other scientists found to be flawed. That's not me suggesting anything about the journal itself. And no, its not just criticism by these other scientists. Its criticism that the study is flawed.
Flawed.
Not scientifically valid.
No fucking good.
No truth to the claims it makes.
But hey, the Surgeon General works for the government as so is a scientific whore for some position you have yet to prove the government holds. But a scientist funded by the tobacco industry is beyond reproach,even if his study is flawed. Nice logic there buddy.
You amaze me. You simply amaze me. If you were to argue against yourself, you couldn't do any better than this.
Sounds like somebody is getting upset? All you are focusing on one study that WebMD posted with criticism from other research. It is just one study. You only provided one study that I didn't read because I don't care what the Surgeon General has to say. You probably didn't even at the other sources. Clam down!!!
No, you amaze me, you simply amaze me. You are in denial and brainwashed on the idea of second hand smoke.
My mother grew up with parents who smoked constantly throughout her entire childhood until she moved out at 19, and she never smoked a cigarette. 19 years of exposure should show signs of something. She shows no signs any of the adverse effects. She and I choice not to smoke. My uncle's wife has lived with him for 50 years, and she has no symptoms. Regardless of what this studies says or that study says, first hand experience is the most important.
You just rely on the government for everything. Ban this and ban that, regulate this and that because it hurts little Susan or Billy.
"How is the government destroying the tobacco industry? The anti-tobacco campaign in public places that they created and fueled by people like yourself."
The anti-smoking campaign is largely paid for by the tobacco industry.
"As part of a $206 billion dollar settlement, major tobacco companies like Philip Morris agreed to pay for advertising campaigns to educate consumers about the dangers of tobacco. Not only were they barred from advertising their own products or sponsoring events geared towards teenagers, they also had to contribute millions annually to support these anti-smoking ads in every state." [1]
Cigarette manufacturers engaged in a 50 year massive racketeering scheme that included falsely denying the adverse health effects of their products, falsely denying that nicotine is addictive, falsely representing that “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes present fewer health risks, falsely denying that they marketed to kids, and falsely denying that secondhand smoke causes disease.
Says one commentator:
"Like smoking, lying is a tough habit to break. Tobacco companies have been lying to the American people for decades about the harmful nature of their products "
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.
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.
I know, that's why I said, "They'll never ban alcohol, on this one point your safe."
I used the phrase "your safe" because I was alluding to your perceived opinion that alcohol should not be banned.
Then I just went off into a tangent as to why it wouldn't be banned.
Oh, I see, your getting hung up on the "dispute" option I chose. I only chose that because you said that they'd ban alcohol next, and I disagreed even though it's obvious you were just being sarcastic to emphasize the ridiculousness of even considering banning tobacco.
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.
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.
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.
The question isn't questioning people's habits on smoking. It is questioning whether it should be legal or not. Your answer refers to people's options not whether or not it should be banned.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
____________________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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
