CreateDebate


Debate Info

72
64
Yes, it should No, it should not
Debate Score:136
Arguments:66
Total Votes:161
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it should (31)
 
 No, it should not (35)

Debate Creator

hhioh(454) pic



Should smoking be banned?

Smoking could be argued to be counter-productive, harmful to others (second hand smoking) and shorten one's life... but it is done out of choice. Should it be allowed or should it be banned?

Yes, it should

Side Score: 72
VS.

No, it should not

Side Score: 64
7 points

It should be banned in all public places and at home if you have children.

You have the right to harm your own body, but you don't have the right to harm others. It may be your choice to smoke, but it is the choice of those around you to inhale second-hand smoke.

Side: Yes, it should
5 points

Smoking of tobacco should definetly be banned for numerous reasons (e.g. kills, costs the NHS a metric sh*t-ton of money), but on the other hand smoking things such as marijuana which have very few side effects and can be used medicinally should be legalised.

Side: Yes, it should

Yes many people are dying, the only reason tabacco companies are winning is because when they point out people who are smoking they say they have never been better. This keeps the debate live. Most models of marbolo ended up dead. it has to be banned.

Side: Yes, it should

smoking should be banned just poison is banned because they are the same, well, almost, people smoke for pleasure but poison is stealthy and quick while smoking takes you slowly. It's like someone gave you a drug that coverts pain into stress relief

Side: Yes, it should
3 points

I think smoking should be banned. There is no point to smoking at all because if you keep smoking you could get lung cancer, heart disease ,cardiovascular disease ,respiratory disease and many different diseases. It is bad for your health and you could die from smoking. Also when you smoke you age faster.

Side: Yes, it should
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
4 points

Do you have any idea how many products people use a day that are unhealthy for them and don't even know it?

At least with smoking it's a choice. The consumer KNOWS it's bad for them, but they CHOOSE to continue using anyway.

And hell, who cares if someone chooses to die faster. It's a choice.

Side: No, it should not
kari(57) Disputed
4 points

Smoking does in fact harm one's health.

But, if it is harming our health, why does the government have to intervene in such a problem?

It is your own health and if they want to suffer, shouldn't we give them the freedom to suffer?

We never forced them to smoke and have lung cancer. Did we?

Side: No, it should not
TeaPartyHrdy(6) Disputed
2 points

I can guarantee smokers are very aware of all the risks involved in smoking. There packages are covered with warnings of all sorts. It is their choice to use cigarettes NOT yours or the governments. Just let people have freedom and stay out of their lives, honestly...

Side: No, it should not
3 points

Smoking should be banned because:

1. Passive smokers get more harm than active smokers. It means people surrounding that smoker are at a greater risk of getting heart disease. In order to support my argument I will give you a link to the article which proves my words http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/273/13/ 1047.short

And if it is banned, other people will be in safe

2. Smoking in public places is equivalent to drinking, throwing trash on the street. These actions are banned, but why smoking is not? It is also causes a lot of inconvenience for people and society.

We should be considerate and think about other's wealth too. At least smokers should think about their own health and try to give up smoking

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

I think it should be banned, only because of the fact that not only the people that are smoking are dying but because of second hand smoke. It kills others that may be smoke free. Plus there are over 200 poisons in tobacco smoke alone. This kill your brain cells, it hurts your lungs, and it's not healthy either. Smoking should be banned because it's not fair to the people that don't smoke but get smoked around. They could die because of someone else's bad habit.

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

Smoking of Tobacco and Cannabis should be banned. First, they're both bad for you(i know people always get mad when i say Cannabis is bad for you, but look up Cannabis and psychosis or Cannabis and mental disorders, and you'll find plenty of evidence that it is bad for your brain), plus, if we used all the land we use to grow tobacco and traded that with food plants, world hunger would end tomorrow.

Side: Yes, it should
swordtenchi(11) Disputed
4 points

Even though you say they should be banned, would a ban truly be effective at reducing the number of smokers vs. moving the problem somewhere else?

Even when cigarettes are highly taxed (NYC, Spain), cartels spring up to provide them in the face of high prices. A significant underground economy would certainly accompany a total prohibition of cigarettes, as shoving legitimate suppliers out of the market would increase alternative suppliers' incentives to capture consumer surplus for cigarettes.

Side: No, it should not
2 points

Everyone know that smoking can kill you and no one around you wants to be with you so if you cant stop buy a FREAKING NICOTINE PATCH OR SOMETHING

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

yes if you smoke l then later in your life you will have heart problems! people that somke are pretty much killing themselves!

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

yes if you smoke l then later in your life you will have heart problems! people that somke are pretty much killing themselves!

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

Nowadays the problem of smoking is actual. In my opinion, nonsmoking people should not take a backseat, because they are innocent victims and hostages of a disastrous social phenomenon. We should combat this problem, because it bothers us to live. We need to help smokers overcome their addiction. Firstly, we should convince smoking people, that their harmful habit exposes to danger their own life. In fact, every cigarette contains a lot of harmful matters. Second, we can offer psychological help. Psychologist can help those people, who smoke and explain them that it is a waste of money. But the best method of refusal from smoking is willpower. The third thing, which we can do, is to tell about life without cigarettes. The health can become better. Heart rate and blood pressure will come in standard, the level of carbon dioxide and cough will decrease. The risk of lung cancer will be decrease. Therefore, smoking is a bad habit; it is not the best way to get rid of stress, but the best way to kill yourself. Smoking is egoism, every person should think about people surrounding him. It is not stylish - it is disgusting.

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

Smoking should be banned in ALL government facilities.

In ALL privately owned places, it should be up to the owner to allow or prohibit it.

Side: Yes, it should
2 points

Yes, in the UK, the percentage of British smoker's in 1979 was 45%, by the early 1990s is was 30%, by 2010 it was 21%.

So while it is decreasing, it is doing so very slowly, and during this time, many people are dying. Around 107,000 people died in 2007 in the united kingdom due to smoking-related diseases, 86% percent death's from lung cancer are from tobacco smoking.

Banning smoking would prevent many deaths from happening.

Supporting Evidence: source: (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Yes, it should
1 point

Yes, it should be because it didn't give any healthy benefit to all people. It ruin human lung that may result in cancer and I think government especially law makers should be vigilant by this smoking problem.

Side: Yes, it should
1 point

Smoking cigarettes should be illegal because they can shorten the life of a normal human.

Smoking cigarettes should be illegal because it can give you lung disease.

Smoking cigarettes should be illegal because it can make you lose your teeth.

Side: Yes, it should

Yes it should. Not only smoking affects you, it affects the people around you... 2nd hand smoke

Supporting Evidence: Do not allow smoking (www.healthline.com)
Side: Yes, it should
0 points

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs

Side: Yes, it should
4 points

While it's obviously not healthy so is a bunch of things we don't even know about that we come in contact with everyday.

And while we may not know about those things we know about smoking. And we CHOOSE to continue to smoke.

It's a choice, it's not like anyone is forcing anyone to smoke, and we know the effects.

Side: No, it should not

You raise a good point but tell me what do you think about companies that know the effects but still sell them do you think that's fair for the customer? I don't see why cocaine is illegal and smoking is legal

Side: No, it should not
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
2 points

They give proper warnings for the customer. They don't really hide the fact that the product is bad for you.

And because the degree of effect they have on the consumer. And the time it takes.

Side: Yes, it should
Apollo(1608) Disputed
3 points

It's only a choice for the people smoking. What about the children at home that develop asthma because dad was exceeding his rights? Or people in linking places you didn't choose to have lung problems?

It's not fair to those who are forced to inhale second hand smoke by no fault of their own and despite their choice to be free from it.

Side: Yes, it should
Kyra(20) Disputed
1 point

Good point but some people have no choice as I said in my argument there is second hand smoke, so some people really don't have a choice. It's not fair that others choose to do it and others suffer with them even though they try to stay clean.

Side: Yes, it should
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
2 points

Not true, due to current laws you can't smoke in that many public places. Smokers generally can only smoke outside or in private homes. So, if someone is choosing to stand next to them it's their choice again. No where outside does a nonsmoker have to be that close to a smoker to get any effects.

Side: No, it should not
2 points

People say the only reason why it's not is because the tobacco companies pay so much money to the government. I agree that in an ideal world, cigarettes would be banned, but in the worlds current state, I have to disagree.

In the US, the government takes around 16 billion USD, just from cigarette tax. On average, that's about a third of the cost of a cigarette packet, there's then the corporate tax on the companies, the wages, the advertising, there's simply a huge amount of money in it. Even if they wanted to, most governments would have big problems banning cigarettes.

And yes, I know this question was probably meant in from a social aspect, but if you want it to be realistic, you have to look at every aspect. And also, I don't smoke cigarettes, I'm not defending smokers.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

To me, an ideal world would be one that people are free to put any substance in their body.

So really, smoking wouldn't be banned. Hell, it wouldn't even be regulated. Completely up for the people to decide.

Side: No, it should not
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
3 points

In my ideal, yet realistic world, there wouldn't be such a thing as cigarettes. They're such a pointless idea, smoke them, they'll taste awful and mess up your lungs, and eventually you'll feel like crap whenever you don't and use them as a way to feel normal again.

But when you're talking about substances, I'd say that weed & hash should be legal, in comparison to the positives, the negatives really aren't that big a deal. In my ideal world, they'd be fine. With sensible use, it's great fun and has little negative effects. And where would there be a need for cigarettes?

Side: Yes, it should
Apollo(1608) Disputed
2 points

But smoking puts harmful substances into the bodies of others as well. Is that ok in your perfect world?

Side: Yes, it should
1 point

I tend to agree with you there. However, the health costs far exceed the money made through taxation.

I agree that the difficulties in banning cigarettes would be too great. Here are some of the potential problems:

- It will turn 1/4 of the population (the number of smokers) into criminals.

- The wasted resources into policing it.

- Does anyone remember what they learned at school about prohibition and its effects?

- The even more dangerous black market cigarettes.

In Australia, various governments have taken steps to reduce smoking:

- A blanket ban on all cigarette advertising and sponsorships.

- Graphic images depicting the effects of smoking.

- Anti-smoking TV advertisements.

- Huge taxes on cigarettes.

- Recently, plain packaging has been introduced with the most of the front containing a graphic warning.

Side: No, it should not
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

Without looking at statistics, I can't say I'm surprised. But banning cigarettes would most likely not eradicate smoking, most probably not reduce it that much as it'd be so hard to enforce, as you implied. And it'd be years before there's a recognizable easing off in hospital bills, whereas it'd be today that tax is lost.

Yeah, Australia's taken a good step against smoking I'd say. I'm English, and there's attempts towards banning cigarettes being put on show, shops can still sell them, but only if they're asked for. It'd reduce casual smoking a bit, I guess, but nothing major. I'd say these are all steps in the right direction.

Side: Yes, it should
1 point

Very good points man. it would defiantly cost the public a lot to police it, especially when dealing with dangerous drug cartels.

Side: No, it should not

If they want to do it, let them do it. If you wanna go around banning everything harmful to the human body you may as well just nuke us all and be done with it; because almost everything is harmful to the human body in one way or another.

Side: No, it should not
2 points

I think that people have the right to have vices, because control over one's body regardless of others' objections is important in a free society. However, it's important to recognize that whilst also recognizing that smoking imposes a social cost--medical expenses and human capital degradation due to cancers, hypertension, and other health problems, the effects of which are not confined to the smoker.

Bearing this in mind though, increasing the price of smoking generally is more effective than a blanket ban. Traditional cigarettes and cigars could also be phased out in favour of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction measure.

Side: No, it should not
2 points

Smoking is a certain damage on people's health. It causes many health issues, the most spread of which is lung cancer, the reason of thousands of people's death. Yes, the fact of its unusefulness to the human body is not even debatable.

However, when it comes to the ban of smoking at all, it takes more than just an argument of health issue. In my opinion, the question of human rights outweighs the previous one. Why should some be boarded on their rights because others want it? it is up to other people if they don't want to smoke, but making other people banned on their habits is not right. Everyone should be responsible for their actions only, and stay out of somebody else's business. After all, if smokers would get negative consequences on their health, they should accept it, because they take responsibility for their decisions. And if people decide to smoke, so be it. People should respect each others' decisions, no matter how risky it can be.

Side: No, it should not
2 points

Cigarette smoking is definitely an unhealthy habit, but completely banning cigarette smoking would definitely be a violation of human rights. Cigarette smoking does not effect one's ability to drive, operate machinery, hold a steady job, or be a decent parent. The only thing it does is put the smoker's health at risk. At this point, smoking is banned in all public places except the great outdoors where there is plenty of space for non-smokers to dwell while they are outside to avoid secondhand smoke. In New York, the state government is indirectly trying to ban cigarette smoking by jacking up the price of cigarettes. Four years ago, in Long Island, NY the average price for a pack of cigarettes was $4.50; now it's up to $10.00. Smokers should not have to have a hole burned through their pocket because they smoke cigarettes. So, yes, smoking is in no way good for smokers health wise, but it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their health and should not have to pay five dollars per pack of cigarettes in excise taxes because it is unhealthy... why not ban the sale of snack foods and carbonated beverages while you're at it?

Side: No, it should not
2 points

The government does not have the right to do that .

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Before I begin I will start with an observation: The affirmative of this question needs to argue that tobacco should be illegal, but the negative can still support regulations while upholding tobacco's legality.

Points:

-The fact that an item may be a risk to one's health does not mean it should be illegal. Cars kill thousands every years and are quite dangerous but still retain their legality. The government can regulate traffic laws to make cars safer without unnecessarily outlawing them. Likewise, there can be designated areas for smokers this way no one else has to intake their smoke.

-Restricting freedom in the name of safety is bad. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean the government has the right to regulate our lives and protect us from it. Give me liberty or give me death. I do not want a body to tell me what I can and cannot do. For an example to put things into perspective: does the government have the right to listen into our phone calls, follow us, or interrogate us in the name of counter terrorism? The idea that the governing body can restrict our freedoms in the name of safety or the general welfare of society permits the restriction of freedom.

Side: No, it should not
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

I agree with your point, but I'd just like to be a dick and point out that after the PATRIOT Act, the US government does have the right to:

"listen into our phone calls, follow us, or interrogate us in the name of counter terrorism".

Assuming that you're an American, that is. Although I'm pretty sure there are equivalent laws around in most countries, I've only really heard about the US one because it's the most talked about.

Side: Yes, it should

Thanks, but im not American, I'm Cuban-Syrian. Please don't listen to the stereotypes, that's why I don't like pointing out my nationality. BTW wanna be an ally or are our points of view too different.

Side: Yes, it should

Also, another idea that I just had, a large reason why cigarettes are unhealthy is the massive number of chemicals put into them. This is done to generate a larger profit. If a government organisation, not for personal profit, created a brand of 'healthy' cigarettes, with small amounts of nicotine, and tobacco, along with paper, a filter, and some gum to keep it all together, would that be anywhere near as unhealthy as cigarettes currently are? It's to my understanding that the tobacco caused only a tar build up (which can be negated through exercise to an extent), while it was the chemicals & poisons that 'confused' cells and made them cancerous, among other things. I'm no expert at all, but I think I've read something along those lines.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

I totally agree that smoking is horrible. The reason the tabaco companies still make drugs is not only to make money but to help people... in a sense. Pretend just for a moment that you have been smoking a pack a day for two years then all of a sudden no more cigarettes. They have stopped making cigarettes and not even illegally is there any way for you to smoke. Not only would you greatly suffer but you could die from loss of your pleasure. What i do suggest though is that they slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they make and then completley stop. Forcing people to reduce their amounts of smoking and completley stop too. Then i think the gouvernment should be able (from the thousands of dollars they have gained from tabaco) to give each smoker 1000$ each for any sicknesses they might need to pay for.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to.

Smoking? Yes, that is an act of killing oneself.

But the question is, is there a need to BAN it?

Why can't we just make a law that forbids smoking in places where there are more than 40 people?

I don't see the necessity of banning such an act.

There are so many people who rely on smoking for relieving stress and people who have smoked for several years.

If we suddenly ban it, what would happen to them?

They would SUFFER!!!!

Would people who have been addicted to smoking suddenly become normal citizens who aren't addicted to smoking? No

Since there are people who are addicted and since banning won't benefit the society, there is no need to ban smoking as a whole.

Side: No, it should not

If I got a dollar for every time this question was asked on here, I would be $20 richer. Look at any number one of those for my response.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

no it should not. many people would be angered by this. what we need to do is ban it from public places so that it hurts no one but the smoker. i know many of you will say who cares if it angers people but thats not the only thing we need to consider. in an ideal society people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. so educate people about smokings health issues ban it from public places but ultimately the person should have the right to smoke by themselves. not to mention the money the government gets from smoking.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

I choose not to smoke because its on healthy. But to ban completely because someone in congress thinks they know whats best for me?? I DONT THINK SO... In America, we are meant to be free of ridiculous laws and regulations like this. That's why thousands of Americans gave up their lives in ridding the colonies of the British regime.

Besides, if tobacco is banned, its just going to start an underground market for it, creating a lot of unnecessary violence over something as silly as cigarettes.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

I don't smoke. I think it is a disgusting thing that has influenced the world in bad ways only. However, what happens if it gets banned? Won't everyone just get sudden nicotine cravings? The only solution in my mind is to slowly up the price on tobacco until it is removed from the shelves for good.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

While it's obviously not healthy so is a bunch of things we don't even know about that we come in contact with everyday

Side: No, it should not
1 point

It's only a choice for the people smoking. What about the children at home that develop asthma because dad was exceeding his rights? Or people in linking places you didn't choose to have lung problems?

It's not fair to those who are forced to inhale second hand smoke by no fault of their own and despite their choice to be free from it.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Smoking is a certain damage on people's health. It causes many health issues, the most spread of which is lung cancer, the reason of thousands of people's death. Yes, the fact of its unusefulness to the human body is not even debatable.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

I totally agree that smoking is horrible. The reason the tabaco companies still make drugs is not only to make money but to help people... in a sense. Pretend just for a moment that you have been smoking a pack a day for two years then all of a sudden no more cigarettes. They have stopped making cigarettes and not even illegally is there any way for you to smoke. Not only would you greatly suffer but you could die from loss of your pleasure. What i do suggest though is that they slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they make and then completley stop.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

We can't ban smoking entirely. Some people are saying that it's bad for heatlh (which I think is mostly said), but it's truly someone's choice whether to smoke or not. We should only ban it in public places. Smokers will suffer greatly if they can't smoke anymore;they smoke to relieve stress and relax their minds.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

No smoking should not be banned, as people we should have that freedom, I understand that smoking should be restricted in libraries and public areas. But to completely ban it? No. I believe that all drugs should be legalized, on the package it will say all the side effects and people will be aware of the negative results but we should have the freedom of choice.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

It isn't my choice to tell you what to stick in your mouth. However, I struggled with smoking for many years and managed to quit. I could never go back to that stressful way of living. People should be allowed to do that but please, keep it out of everyone else's faces.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

no, its addictive, do you know how much revenue is generated from the sin tax alone?

-btw I don't smoke.

Side: No, it should not

Smoking is legal. Also, States make plenty of revenue from the taxes levied upon cigarettes.

Side: No, it should not