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.
Cigarettes should be illegal for any age. All they do is give you lung cancer and make you smell bad. Now marijuana, well that should be legal. I don't think it should be legal to smoke in public, however.
If I want to smell bad and die early, shouldn't that be my decision, not yours?
I'm not sure if this kind of response holds well with an activity like smoking. Cigarette smoke doesn't just harm the smoker, it does injury to other people. Secondhand smoke kills, as a matter of fact. If a smoker wants to fill their body with carcinogens, then they can do it in the privacy of their own home or car. But the moment they use cigarettes in public, they are necessarily endangering others' health. So, while I don't think that cigarette smoking should be banned altogether, I do think, however, that it should be banned in the public sphere.
If a smoker wants to fill their body with carcinogens, then they can do it in the privacy of their own home or car.
And many do.
But the moment they use cigarettes in public, they are necessarily endangering others' health.
If by Public you mean outside, then I would be inclined to disagree. If you mean inside of public buildings, then I would agree with you. Many states already have similar smoking bans within buildings.
So, while I don't think that cigarette smoking should be banned altogether
If you want to smell bad and die early, then something is seriously wrong with you. I reccommend therapy. Ask most smokers and they will tell you that they regret picking up the habit. Cigarette smoking causes many people to die each year. My grandfather had cancer due to smoking and was given a 10 percent chance of survival. Luckily he pulled through, although he is significantly weaker and skinnier. He can't even climb stairs on his own. I fear this will happen to the rest of my family as well, because most of them do smoke. My parents, my sisters, and my aunts and uncles all smoke, and every single one of them regret it. It not only affects the smoker, but the people around them as well. I was born prematurely due to my mom's smoking and I have health problems due to secondhand smoking. Why should others suffer because of someone elses bad habit?
Be that as it may, making cigarettes illegal would prevent none of these problems. As we have seen from the prohibition of alcohol, making something illegal does not prevent it's use. All it does is turn cigarette smokers into criminals.
Why would you choose to smoke for that reason? That's crazy.
That's not the reason, that's simply the consequence. Many people smoke, because as teenagers they took up the habit because to them it represented a 'forbidden fruit' and a sign of adulthood. Some take it up because of social pressures. Many people continue to smoke well into adulthood because it relieves stress or simply because they are chemically addicted. However you cannot solve addiction by making a substance illegal. If only it were that simple.
Furthermore I do not think we should limit anybody's liberty unless it necessarily interferes with the Liberty of another. It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. If I want to engage in an activity that only endangers my own well-being then I should be free to do so.
Also it's worth mentioning that I don't smoke at all, and I think smoking while pregnant should be a punishable offense.
I don't think there is a legitimate defense for smoking, not even on libertine grounds. For, it's not the kind of activity that only "endangers" the smoker's well-being. And if one can argue that the right for someone to swing their fists in the air ends at another's nose - and I agree with the colloquial argument, then the same criterion should be held for something like smoking, if the point has meaning. You cannot smoke anywhere where there are other people around and argue that it does not necessarily negatively impact them.
And as an aside: how can you propose that smoking while pregnant should be a punishable offense? Why is pregnancy a special case? I understand that there is an other involved. But that can be said about smoking anywhere that's populated.
I don't think there is a legitimate defense for smoking, not even on libertine grounds.
I don't think there is a legitimate justification to ban smoking, especially outside.
For, it's not the kind of activity that only "endangers" the smoker's well-being.
Perhaps if it is in a confined space, which one is compelled to enter, otherwise I would say any negative affect is negligible, or self-imposed.
And as an aside: how can you propose that smoking while pregnant should be a punishable offense? Why is pregnancy a special case? I understand that there is an other involved. But that can be said about smoking anywhere that's populated.
Well for one, the pregnant mother and child are physically bonded wherein the child receives all of his/her life-substances from the mother. Secondly, the unborn child is much more vulnerable to inhaled smoke, it also doesn't have the option to escape.
You understand that pregnant mothers smoking should be ended. Good, but you also think smoking should remain legal. Everyone knows that cigarettes are very addictive, you even said so yourself. How will a pregnant mother avoid smoking for 9 full months if she is already addicted to cigarettes? Sure she can use nicotine patches, gum, or some other type of medication to help her quit but from what I've heard, they don't work that great. It also depends on the will power of the mother. If cigarettes were made illegal altogether, then there would be better results. I realize that cigarettes will make there way into society again somehow, but the number of smokers, secondhand smokers, and premature births caused by mothers that smoke will greatly decrease. Look at marijuana for example, it's illegal and many people do smoke it, but people don't do it in public and the amount of people who do smoke weed is much less than it would be if it was legal. With both marijuana and tobacco outlawed, there will be absolutely no public smoking. This will greatly reduce the amount of second hand smoking, and parents that smoke will want to set a good example for their children, so second hand smoke from family members will be less as well. I'm sure doctors can tell if you're smoking while pregnant too, so pregnant mothers will avoid smoking while pregnant, especially if the doctor has to report these illegal acts to the police.
You understand that pregnant mothers smoking should be ended. Good, but you also think smoking should remain legal.
Yes, Personal liberty.
Everyone knows that cigarettes are very addictive, you even said so yourself. How will a pregnant mother avoid smoking for 9 full months if she is already addicted to cigarettes?
In most cases the concern for her child is more powerful than the urge to smoke. I've seen many smokers quit after becoming pregnant.
I realize that cigarettes will make there way into society again somehow, but the number of smokers, secondhand smokers, and premature births caused by mothers that smoke will greatly decrease.
Or they might just get their cigarettes illegally and smoke inside, thus increasing secondhand smoke.
Then there is my solution, allow people to smoke outside or in designated areas which would also reduce second-hand smoke, but wouldn't bankrupt the tobacco industry costing millions of jobs.
Look at marijuana for example, it's illegal and many people do smoke it, but people don't do it in public
What difference does that make?
parents that smoke will want to set a good example for their children
If parents wanted to set a good example, they would do so already.
You took parts of my statements and answered them before reading the rest...
"In most cases the concern for her child is more powerful than the urge to smoke." (I can't make the letters bold on iPad)
Most cases? It needs to be all cases. I answered how this could be solved. Read my whole argument before you start drawing conclusions.
"Or they might just get their cigarettes illegally and smoke inside"
Did you even pay attention to the statement of mine that you bolded? It says "I realize that cigarettes will make there way into society again somehow". I obviously understand people will get tobacco illegally.
"What difference does that make?" (marijuana)
Read the rest of what I said about that...
"If parents wanted to set a good example, they would of done so already"
No, because tobacco isn't illegal. Most parents don't want their kids to follow in their footsteps as cigarette smokers, but they're kids know that cigarettes aren't illegal. If they were illegal, parents wouldn't want their kids to see them breaking the law. That would be considered a bad example to their children.
You don't have an asterisk? I don't know I've never had an iPad.
Most cases? It needs to be all cases.
The reality is that you won't be able to prevent all cases. No law can change that.
Did you even pay attention to the statement of mine that you bolded? It says "I realize that cigarettes will make there way into society again somehow". I obviously understand people will get tobacco illegally.
That wasn't the implication. The implication was that making it illegal, would cause greater use inside, where smoke can accumulate and second-hand smoke can be much more potent.
Read the rest of what I said about that...
I read what you wrote. It doesn't explain why smoking in public places is worse than smoking privately.
No, because tobacco isn't illegal. Most parents don't want their kids to follow in their footsteps as cigarette smokers, but they're kids know that cigarettes aren't illegal. If they were illegal, parents wouldn't want their kids to see them breaking the law.
That has nothing to do with them wanting to be a good parent, it has to do with them not wanting to get smacked with a large fine. Doing something to avoid a punishment doesn't make you look like a good person.
If someone wants to set a good example for their children, they can do so without a ban on cigarettes. This argument is pretty flimsy
There is no positive argument for cigarettes. They have terrible effects on your body. I always thought of cigarette smoking as a slow suicide. I'm big on living your life to the fullest. We only have this one chance, why take the chance of getting lung cancer when it can be so easy to avoid? I realize some people may actually genuinely enjoy smoking cigarettes and that's fine. If that is the case then I say go for it! So maybe you are right and cigarettes should remain legal. I also agree that the amount of jobs that would be lost if it was illegal is a problem. With all that being said, I'll get to what this debate is really supposed to be about, and that is whether or not the smoking age should be raised to 21. Yes, it should. 18 is too early of an age for someone to start destroying their lungs. Maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that once they get to 21, they will have lost interest in smoking. They most likely will have gotten secretly addicted long before 21 though...
You will notice, that I have never argued that cigarettes aren't bad for you. They are very bad for you, and is the reason that I do not smoke myself. However I don't like the idea of the government telling us what is good for us, this is up to the individual to decide. If someone wants to gain a little temporary enjoyment in exchange for detrimental long term health affects, that is their decision to make. As long as you are not hurting anybody else, then I don't believe the government has the authority to regulate it and is precisely why I believe that marijuana should also be legal. In the cases where smoking does harm other people as with second-hand smoke and pregnant smokers, I believe this is fair ground for regulation.
As for raising the smoking age, I will echo the sentiments of saturbaby(sp?). It doesn't matter what the legal age is, most smokers started the habit as teenagers and pre-teens. The only reason it is even at 18 is because this is the legal age where one becomes an adult. I assume the age 21 was chosen to mirror the national drinking age, and while I disagree with the drinking age (and the authority to determine drinking age at a federal level) the age 21 was chosen because this is the age when the brain has become fully developed, and alcohol can impair this development ever so slightly. The same cannot be said of smoking, so putting the age at 21 is entirely arbitrary and would not affect smoking habits whatsoever.
In all my years I can't recall a single smoker who began the habit after turning 18, which is why it would be ridiculous to raise it to 21.
Understandable that merchants shouldn't be allowed to sell to children who are under 18 since they are still dependent of a guardian AND smoking is proven to be bad for you, somehow.
But the idea of raising the smoking age to 21 is unjust. When you're 18, you're a legal adult. If the government wishes to recognize you as an adult, it shall treat you like an adult. We're old enough to make decisions, according to the legal world. So why do they still bar us from doing it?
Why does it matter what the legal age to buy them is?
Teens get it no matter what, at a much younger age, one of my friends started smoking at twelve. If anything it should be illegal for them to smoke and have cigarettes, half the problem is they can stand outside with there friends and look "cool" but not get in trouble for it.
But that's just me, all my friends smoke and it's their choice
I think smoking should be banned completely. First, we start off with public smoking to be illegal, then, once tobacco companies harass the governments enough to piss them off a lot, we shut them down for good.
Cigarettes do not cause people to kill other people or does not cause your mind to be shifted in a state of intoxication like alcohol does so why should it be increased for the age of use? If the government wants to care about the health of the teenagers in this population, then they might as well try to improve health care and then tell people what to do to improve their health but dont try telling people how they should improve their health when your health care system is not even proper.
In my opinion it shouldn't be changed. I think by the age of 18 you should be mature enough to decide whether you are gonna smoke or not. I am 16 and I've smoked for a couple years I know that I want to or if I don't want to. I just think that everybody I know that smokes started smoking before they were 18, so why put it off for the people that already smoke?
