Should cigarettes be banned?
Yes.
Side Score: 17
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 22
|
|
|
|
|
Smoking should be banned because as per government rules killing ourselves(suicide) or others is a crime then why not smoking by which one spoils their lungs and releases smoke by which surrounding people will be effected and its be-ind hazard in the way that one can be addicted to that and destroys their future. Therefor we can say that one who kills others will be punished by government then present to how many smoking people should govt take action upon them Side: Yes.
|
But the government regulates many, many things. Most drugs are banned federally, and the FDA technically controls and regulates nearly all the food that enters your body(unless you're entirely self-sustaining as far as your food and water source goes; if so, good for you, 0.0001% of the US population[estimating]). As long as I'm not endangered by those things, people are free to use them How do you account for the dangers of second-hand smoking in this capacity? If your argument is to simply ban smoking in certain places, my counter would be "what about households with children in them where the parents smoke indoors?" Is it really freedom when the child can't control whether he/she breathes what you call "poison" in their own home? Are you implying children have less rights to health and safety than adults? Saying "you're not endangered by other people smoking" is pretty naïve, to be frank. Side: Yes.
How do you account for the dangers of second-hand smoking in this capacity? Way over exaggerated , I’m from a country and generation where most everyone smoked and during pregnancy also , my wife and I are non smokers and fit as fiddles , incidentally so are all my friends from self same society and circumstances and not one of us has suffered adverse health effects Side: No.
1
point
I surprisingly support this claim. Yes I do think their should be regulations on tobacco, cigarettes to be exact but also some maybe even most will not follow those regulations. So the only really way is to make it so that their is a severe punishment that will make them scared and may cause some people to stop, but not all cause even though their are laws doesn't mean that those laws will stop anyone from not breaking the law. Side: No.
1
point
Jogot, So the only really way is to make it so that their is a severe punishment that will make them scared and may cause some people to stop... Most foolish personal decisions are foolish because the consequences are undesirable, and often dire. We generally don't need government to get involved in our lives because the natural consequences are enough. Just let people make our own decisions and let nature take its course. Smoking is no different. I think emphysema is a severe enough punishment that we can leave the government out of the conversation. Side: No.
If cigarettes were full-on banned, meaning no store was allowed to sell them anymore and nobody was allowed to produce them, how could most not follow that? There are already numerous health warnings on cigarette packages, nobody cares about those. Non-smokers are subject to second-hand smoke which causes cancer, asthma attacks, and weaker immune systems in children. Side: Yes.
1
point
2
points
"cigarettes are affecting others as well" When you used your computer to write this, fuel needed to be burned to provide the power. This caused pollution which affects others. "those drugs are basically just killing them and it would be our humanity to help them" Does the same apply to alcohol? "Even drugs affect others in form of abuses." If drug users abuse others then they will be arrested for the abuse they committed. The fact that they used drugs was not the problem, plenty of drug users don't abuse others. The same argument applies to alcohol, do you want alcohol to be illegal too? Side: No.
You make many claims and yet fail to back any of them up instead you ignore or flee any robust challenges to your assertions, I told you before your claims regarding second hand smoke are absurd , how do you defend them ? No doubt you can as usual ignore actual test studies and facts in favour of holding onto your flawed worldview , to do otherwise might shatter your belief in your deeply flawed position A 2009 meta-analysis conducted by the Institute of Medicine concluded that the impact of smoking bans on short-term heart attack rates was real and substantial: “Even a small amount of exposure to secondhand smoke… can cause a heart attack,” one member of the IOM panel informed the New York Times, urging that “smoking bans need to be put in place as quickly as possible.” This report had, however, omitted one of the largest studies of secondhand smoke and heart attacks conducted to date. A 2008 study covering the entire country of New Zealand—a population smaller than England’s, but bigger than the American towns previously studied—found no significant effects on heart attacks or unstable angina in the year following implementation of a smoking ban; hospitalizations for the former had actually increased. Side: No.
|
