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.
Then do not smoke. If a public place is in any way offensive to you, you can leave. And outdoors, you aren't being made to smoke, you just have to deal with a little smelliness. First world problem.
It makes a lot more sense to make the smokers leave, since they're the ones getting everyone else sick. Does lung cancer count as a first world problem?
Smokers also have the right to smoke. Have the right to occupy public places and the freedom to smoke. Banning such a thing is ludicrous and show's how much dependence this society has on government. Instead of asking politely to move or move yourself. You want to take away someone elses right. It's disgusting and repulsive behaviour and I don't care how good you think your reasoning is.
Cancer isn't a problem. There are many cures out there. Hydrogen peroxide (food grade) has been proven to cure cancer and a vast amount of other illnesses but, big pharma and FDA don't ever want people to know or believe that knowledge. They would spread disinformation and discredit it as best they can. Yet they will prescribe patented drugs that have been proven to kill individuals over time or the side effects end up having to be countered by other patented drugs and those drugs side effects countered with other drugs. It's a vicious money making cycle.
And here's a little flaw to your "It makes a lot more sense to make the smokers leave, since they're the ones getting everyone else sick." theory. Everyone has cancer every day all day. Your body can naturally fight it off. A mole although benign is still cancer. Cancer the body keeps in check. There is also the pesticides you eat, the crap thrown into the air from factories, cars, and a huge list of other things that are in the air that can be contributing to the development of malignant cancer of the lungs. But, because you see a smoker you automatically assume that that is the most dangerous thing. Yet, it is the unseen that potentially proves to be the most dangerous. (Virus (Ebola), bacteria(Salmonella), radioactive waste fallout from nuclear bomb testing + disasters like fukashima/chernobyl)
Seriously... you can stand up wind. Up wind! And I'm trying really hard not to to lose my cool here. I mean, inside a building I can understand. You can't breath... but, outside? You're crossing a line bud. What's next? you going to tell me when and where I can shit in my own home? Why are you standing so close to smokers anyway? Sounds to me like your purposely putting yourself in harms way then bitching about it.
There are people who have never been around smokers there entire lives and still end up developing cancer.
Should we place a ban on cars because they emit pollutants into the air (makes us sick and creates a smog atmosphere) and kill people every year due to human error and stupidity? Because of situations the individuals could have taken to avoid accidents? People have died instantly because of reckless drivers.
But I want to pee directly on people. If they can move, that infringes on my sacred rights. (Or were you talking about smoke? Do people need to switch tables every time the wind changes?)
What's next? you going to tell me when and where I can shit in my own home?
Absolutely not. The difference is that's private property. Very different from raping innocent people with your smoke.
I was talking about the smoke. Does it really matter that much? I've seen cities decimated with smog from all your damned automobiles and you have the audacity to say I can't smoke around people... Fuck you and the shit train you rolled in on.
Maybe I wouldn't like smog, but there's no smog here, so I don't think about it. Smoking, on the other hand, is a really big deal. Yes, even one cigarette. It's disgusting, and I don't want to breathe it just because some retard doesn't know it's rude to smoke in public places.
Should we place a ban on cars because they emit pollutants into the air (makes us sick and creates a smog atmosphere
No, in fact we already have laws on car emmisions, and are trying to to make them more and more healthy to the enivroment and people. The difference is, we have a need for cars in and other vehicles in society. We don't have a need for cigarettes.
Because of situations the individuals could have taken to avoid accidents?
What does this have to do with the pollutant topic? People have the right to smoke like people have the right to drive, but they don't have the right to endanger people with these activities.
People have died instantly because of reckless drivers.
And people have suffered slow, painful deaths, in a hospital bed while cancer practically eats them alive, because of smoking, so what's your point? Death is death, there is no worse.
I hope you're trolling! There is no upwind in a building. There is the still air that gets replaced by the flowing smoke.
I can see you like to pick and choose what I say without actually listening. I said I can understand smoking in a building and banning that. No, I'm not trolling.
Those people get unrelated cancer. The facts prove that People who smoke are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke.
Lung cancer still happens even for the non-smokers and at times not because of tobacco smoke. Your "facts" as you put it state that chancers increase dramatically.
No, in fact we already have laws on car emmisions, and are trying to to make them more and more healthy to the enivroment and people. The difference is, we have a need for cars in and other vehicles in society. We don't have a need for cigarettes.
What does this have to do with the pollutant topic? People have the right to smoke like people have the right to drive, but they don't have the right to endanger people with these activities.
The above. It's called ingenuity and it requires loving and accepting thoughts for all to even begin.
And people have suffered slow, painful deaths, in a hospital bed while cancer practically eats them alive, because of smoking, so what's your point? Death is death, there is no worse.
My point is that there are millions of different ways to die. Eliminating one isn't necessarily all that big of a help because people for what I have witnessed primarily focus on one issue while a bigger picture is clearly visible.
No one's trying to take that right, they are simply allowing people who don't wish to be put in the smoke's harmful path to be safe.
Have the right to occupy public places and the freedom to smoke.
Smoking is a harmful choice you should be allowed to make for yourself, it's not a choice you should be to force onto people, which is what you're doing if your second hand smoke reaches them.
Cancer isn't a problem.
...?
There are many cures out there.
Just because cures exist doesn't mean you should be put in harms' way because of someone poisoning you. People have the right to own guns, yet you shouldn't have to be legally allowed to be shot just because you can survive it. The smokers that poison you, make you pay for the medical bills (not fair), they make your insurance rates go up if you go to the hospital (not fair), they also could potentially kill you. Whether or not cures exist, everyone doesn't have access to them, hence the reason people still die because of cancer.
Everyone has cancer every day all day.
Yet the cancer that's caused by the poisons in cigarette smoke, are deadlier.
No one's trying to take that right, they are simply allowing people who don't wish to be put in the smoke's harmful path to be safe.
You are trying to take that right away. If people don't want to be put in harms way then move out of it.
Smoking is a harmful choice you should be allowed to make for yourself, it's not a choice you should be to force onto people, which is what you're doing if your second hand smoke reaches them.
Nobodies forcing it on you.
...?
Seriously, do you even know how cheap food grade hydrogen peroxide is?
A drop of 0 hydrogen peroxide in a big glass of water is the dose and cures cancer within months. It becomes a problem when people are ill informed and believe that hospitals are not just in the business for the money. Here in Canada there are a bunch of lawsuits going on for watered down chemo therapy drugs.
By allowing smokers to smoke indoors, they are infringing on the rights of people who wish to be healthy. Seeing as how the people who wish to be healthy are not infringing on anyone's rights with theirs, but the cigarette smoker is, the cigarette smokers' are pushed aside.
If people don't want to be put in harms way then move out of it.
Makes perfect sense. Since I don't want to be shot or stabbed by someone with the right to use those weapons wherever they are, I must simply dodge those weapons for my own life.
Nobodies forcing it on you.
By smoking in a poorly ventilated room, you are indeed forcing the smoke on us. The smoke can go nowhere but into the air that we breathe. If the rules is for us to just move how do we avoid it if it's in the air? Don't breathe? Or no at that point we leave the restaurant. having our right to be there, that harms no one, oppressed by your right to smoke, that can harm everyone.
Seriously, do you even know how cheap food grade hydrogen peroxide is?
Okay? Big whoop, the cure is cheap. A band aid is cheap too, yet people shouldn't have the right to just go around cutting people.
It doesn't matter what the cure is, how easy, or available it is. What matters is that the non smokers have a right to be smoke free.
Dude, that's not even the issue so, step off. It's already illegal in Canada and im assuming the US to smoke inside a public building. I don't object to that. I have a problem with people trying to ban me from walking down the street and having a cigarette because of the chance someone might pass me by and whine. There is plenty of air to dilute the smoke and I highly doubt the trace amounts you may or may not inhale are of any real consequence in the long term. I wouldn't recommend smoking in a building because it is very much like a fire. You'd suffocate.
Since I don't want to be shot or stabbed by someone with the right to use those weapons wherever they are, I must simply dodge those weapons for my own life.
It's already illegal to do those things. So, if someone is coming at you with either of those then they are probably psychopaths. Generally, smokers are not psychopaths looking to hurt anybody.
Okay? Big whoop, the cure is cheap. A band aid is cheap too, yet people shouldn't have the right to just go around cutting people.
Go fuck yourself. The big picture behind that statement is all the meaningless deaths all in the name of making a dollar and the fear of cancer caused by inhaling smoke isn't much to worry about BECAUSE THE CURE IS SO DAMN CHEAP.
It doesn't matter what the cure is, how easy, or available it is. What matters is that the non smokers have a right to be smoke free.
I'm assuming you are still on about the building thing. Seriously, your argument doesn't matter.
Rather than copying all of those reasons second hand smoke is still bad, if not worse, I just provided the link.
I read in a different article, that I don't entirely believe but don't dismiss either, that said second hand smoke is actually worse for people than the smoking itself.
Getting cancer and or dying is a problem, first or third world.
Everybody knows second hand smoke can be harmful, and I don't dispute that. And I have also heard arguments that second hand smoke can be worse than first hand. The primary reason for this, from what I understand is that it is unfiltered. That's shaky ground to base an argument from, since it doesn't account for filterless cigarettes or pipe tobacco, or the fact that the lungs filter most of the nastiest stuff so the worst culprit is the (relatively small) amount that comes off of the end of a lit cigarette.
The thing that is very germaine to this issue is quantity. Even if s-h is more harmful, that is measured by comparing the potential or likely harm caused by s-h in EQUAL quantities to f-h. Now it IS very possible to have s-h actually be present in higher quantities than the first hand taken in by a smoker. A poorly ventilated room with many smokers in it is the most obvious example.
But unless one is in that kind of situation, the s-h is in much smaller amounts and is heavily diluted by the time it reaches you.
So we get to the title of this debate, which specifies "public places". I don't know what its like where you live, but around here, public places are almost exclusively outdoors. In open air, most of the smoke quickly rises and whatever remains is VERY diluted by the time it reaches you. The chances you are going to get cancer from that are astronomically small. You just are't getting enough pure smoke. So to try to claim that my smoking ten feet away from you at a park is going to be detrimental to your health is being more than a little dramatic and naive.
Even if s-h is more harmful, that is measured by comparing the potential or likely harm caused by s-h in EQUAL quantities to f-h
If it's even slightly harmful and can be prevented why should it even be allowed? It may not be bad to take small doses of second hand smoke, but they add up and eventually if you get enough they will start have some harmful effects.
But unless one is in that kind of situation, the s-h is in much smaller amounts and is heavily diluted by the time it reaches you.
With no law in place what's preventing that from becoming the case? What will they make a law allowing only a certain number of smokers? They can't do that, because now we'd be cutting off the rights of only some of the smokers, which the people on the side opposing me would also probably be against.
public places are almost exclusively outdoors.
I'm sure no one's arguing that you smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke outside, I was under the impression that we were arguing about a smoker's right to smoke indoors.
Non-guaranteed harm, especially in a situation where the people being affected can remove themselves, is something that I would argue generally does not require legislation.
If it's even slightly harmful and can be prevented why should it even be allowed? It may not be bad to take small doses of second hand smoke, but they add up and eventually if you get enough they will start have some harmful effects.
You are aware that the human body has an immune system and can repair itself, correct? Small amounts of smoke, inhaled with time in between, will almost certainly be cleansed in due order. Assuming small, irregular quantities, it will not "build up" over time.
With no law in place what's preventing that from becoming the case? What will they make a law allowing only a certain number of smokers? They can't do that, because now we'd be cutting off the rights of only some of the smokers, which the people on the side opposing me would also probably be against.
Do exactly what my state and several others have done, limit smoking only to public, open places as well as private residences and shops who's dominant income comes from tobacco (hookah bars and tobacco shops mainly). There is no such thing as smoking break rooms or smoking sections in restaurants in my state any more. If we smoke, its outside, at home or in our cars. Its a mild restriction, and although many smokers complained about it, years later most of us have adapted fully and never bitch about except in the middle of winter.
I'm sure no one's arguing that you smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke outside, I was under the impression that we were arguing about a smoker's right to smoke indoors.
Firing a gun off into the air is non guaranteed harm, yet that's illegal. Unless you think that should be legal then there goes my example, and our whole argument.
the people being affected can remove themselves
Why should the people making decisions that affect virtually no one, be forced out for their health, because of the people making decisions that could harm others?
You are aware that the human body has an immune system and can repair itself, correct?
Yes, but that doesn't make it right to try to harm people just because they'll heal, or because they'll survive. A person could easily heal from a small puncture wound yet if someone does that to you, you are within your legal right to press charges, and the act of making that initial wound is already illegal because people are ensured by their rights to their health.
limit smoking only to public, open places as well as private residences and shops who's dominant income comes from tobacco (hookah bars and tobacco shops mainly
As your opponent, I'm happy to say I agree to this. Smokers deserve their right to their unhealthy behaviors, like people who drink deserve their right, so long as both of them keep the danger for the most part to themselves.
Firing a gun off into the air is non guaranteed harm, yet that's illegal. Unless you think that should be legal then there goes my example, and our whole argument.
Its a little easier to cover your mouth, turn away or walk away than it is to dodge a bullets raining down from the heavens.
Why should the people making decisions that affect virtually no one, be forced out for their health, because of the people making decisions that could harm others?
Again, it depends on the scenario. Outdoors the health concerns are minimal. Indoors is a different story. But if one finds a venue uncomfortable or dangerous, they don't have to go. Life is full of compromises and sometimes you have to pick your battles.
Yes, but that doesn't make it right to try to harm people just because they'll heal, or because they'll survive.
Its hardly an active attempt at harm. And the same could be said for a car with filthy exhaust that drive by me on my walk to work. Or people wearing certain perfumes that trigger allergic reactions in others. Or accidentally punching someone while you dance enthusiastically. Attempting to legislate every potentially dangerous activity is impossible.
Smokers deserve their right to their unhealthy behaviors, like people who drink deserve their right, so long as both of them keep the danger for the most part to themselves.
Yeah, I think the way my state handled it is the best way to do so. Both sides compromise, both side win at least a little.
Its a little easier to cover your mouth, turn away or walk away than it is to dodge a bullets raining down from the heavens.
It's the same basic premise. In both events you, a person not potentially harming people, is asked to go out of your way to support the rights of someone who is potentially harming people.
Outdoors the health concerns are minimal.*
Yea this is actually what makes me wonder why we're still arguing. We both agree that smokers should be legal outside, and not legal inside. The only disagreements we have is what we consider public places.
I want more proof then that. I want the actual study results and the methods in which they were conducted. Estimations are redundant because I could estimate (guess) 15000 and the real number be 1000.
I do not want to make smoking illegal. I just want smokers to keep to a certain area and not inflict their habit on others. Second hand smoke often causes nausea and headaches, among other things. When I was a smoker, I would turn around and walk away if someone walked towards me because my code of honor said to not inflict my habit on other people. Does that make sense?
This would lead to the same right people who drive cars have. They cant control there car exhaust fumes and so everybody must inhale whatever is spit out. I figure tgat this is relatable to smoking.
Electric cars aren't clean. Instead of burning gasoline in your car's engine you're getting power that came from a plant that was most likely either powered by petrol or coal.
Electric cars dont have to be taking there energy from coal burning power plants. Electric cars are clean. The tech team at my school built there own "green" energy converter. Two actually. One with solar power and one with wind, which doesnt really produce that much. Also there truly cleaner than a typically car because the derive most of there power from electricity. We dont have hydroelectric plants, nuclear plants, solar power, wind turbines, etc. That alone makes the car green which makes my I-MiEV clean since I get my power from our green converter.
Your argument is contradicting your saying it's your choice and your body and you want to be smoke free yet you also want to ban smoking in public areas even though the people that smoke have the choice to smoke or not because it is their body and their choice...
Yes, the right of the people who care for their health trumps the right of the people who are careless about theirs. If, of course, we still are capable of generating some reasonable values.
They should ban smoking because some people don't like it and some children will die. If the person smokes and keep on going he will have a heart attack.
Well I guess we don't know, so we'll just have to try everything until we get arrested! I got a cigar, some ganja, an cig that was dipped in LSD and some crack. Lets get a' smokin!
Smoking is just something people do, Saying that you can not do it in a public place is like saying you are not allowed to show your thoughts in a public place. It's just something that defines who you are :)
Never have I ever heard someone introducing themselves as ''Kevin, the smoker'', or ''Hi, I'm Kevin and I smoke''.
Smoking a cigarette doesn't define you, does eating burgers define me? No, the only thing that is different with eating a burger in public and smoking a cigarette in public is, that burgers don't make the people around you fat too.
Jesus this is ridiculous. If you want a shit government to govern you and allow it to be legal, then fine. But don't say " You can have it, just not near us..."
Freedom, seems a necessity our society no longer needs ( but is crying out for.)
Why? The Federal Government (not including state and local governments) own about 30% of all the land in America, if you're gonna tell me that you "can't get away from the smokers" I'm calling bullshit.
