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.
Or at the minimum make it as healthy as possible. If that is possible. An example is to take rat poison out of cigarettes. That would be a start.
Obviously banning smoking would just create a huge black market because people are selfish greedy cunts and want to pay to kill themselves for some toxic 'happiness'
All drugs should be legalized nonetheless more restrictions on smoking industry because users of drugs are not innocent victims. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to use drugs.
No, smokers have every right to smoke as do drug users have every right to abuse drugs. Smokers and drug users have every right to fuck up their life. That is what freedom is. I am not going to feel sorry for any smokers or drug users. They made that choice. Apparently, you want to make that choice for them by taking their cigarettes and drugs away. Restricting the smoking industry is pure oppression as well as illegal drugs.
Well, if oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust of individuals making decisions, then by your definition, oppression is good.
The problem is that widespread drug use degrades and harms society as a whole. No individual should have that power. This is the reason why governments are created; to makes sure each gets their own dues. Being harmed by the choices of others goes against that tenet and the government should be obliged to stop that from happening.
How does one, two or a dozen deadbeat drug addicts harm society. They have no value to society. That individual has no power. Truthfully, they help because by them failing, it allows others to succeed for those who want to succeed.
What the drunk driver who crashes into the school bus killing several completely innocent children.
Or the fact that drug addicts are more likely to turn to crime in order to pay for their habit because nobody wants to hire them because they are drug addicts.
Hard drugs and alcohol are harmful to society and we'd be better off without them.
Every action an individual makes will ultimately affect other people which may infringe on the rights to live of others.
The sad reality is that it's not just one or two people, it's 12.8 million. The American taxpayers have to pay extra costs that are caused by drug abusers, "Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the nation approximately $66.9 billion. Every man, woman, and child in America pays nearly $1,000 annually to cover the expense of unnecessary health care, extra law enforcement, auto accidents, crime, and lost productivity resulting from substance abuse."
Or at the minimum make it as healthy as possible. If that is possible. An example is to take rat poison out of cigarettes. That would be a start.
Why don't we just live in a completely sterile society made of nerf foam where nothing has carcinogens and all food is bland and tasteless.
What ever happened to accepting the inherent dangers in life? We all can't live forever, and some things have health reprecussions, but we can choose what we expose ourselves to. If you don't like smoke, don't go to bars and clubs.
Nobody ever claimed that smoking has benefits to society.
However, cigarettes are a product, so in so buying this product, you are agreeing to the terms of damaging your health. Furthermore, cars are a product, so in so buying this death machine, you are also agreeing to the terms of damaging your health. There is no difference.
Only smart, open minded, long term people agree for smoking based on freedom.
So if it has NO BENEFITS... and MANY MANY PROBLEMS... shouldn't it be removed from society? Isn't that logical? Would you let cancer do it's job on you or would you try and fight it??
Cars are a form of transport. It has a use. A benefit to society.
Only stupid fucks agree for smoking - ESPECIALLY based on freedom.
First of all, you are a dumb fuck. I never said anything about lack of police force. Raping, stealing and murder is police action. Wow, you really are dense.
NEWSFLASH!!! There are other forms of cancer than just smoking.
Let me take it slow for you.
Work hazards by inhaling chemicals can cause cancer. Should we stop working?
Drinking Alcohol can cause cancer. Should we stop drinking alcohol?
Deodorants may cause breast cancer. Should we stop using deodorants?
Feminine products can cause cancer. Should women stop using these products?
Chewing tobacco can cause cancer. Should they ban that to?
Other than History Channel, Discovery, Nat Geo and maybe TLC, what benefits do TV bring?
Lol. Who the fuck said anything about police force?
Why are you continuing to bring cancer up?
Do you still not understand that I am making a comparison???
I'll answer your retarded questions anyway - I'm bored enough to do that.
We should not ban anything that gives society benefits. However if there are huge amounts of negatives, we should always search for better alternatives OR if the negatives are severe enough we should ban them.
We should stop using alcohol.
We should stop using deodorants that cause breast cancer
We should stop using ANYTHING that causes cancer
What benefits do TV bring? Surely you must be able to think of better examples than that.
Or are you enough of a dumb fuck that not only do you misunderstand my analogy but you can't think of ANY OTHER benefits of TV.
Even so... it still has benefits. Tell me the negatives. Remember negatives of TV rather than the abuse of TV.
Since you are so smart. Enlighten me with how tv is so beneficial since it is the greatest thing. Police, the people who prevent and investigate crime.
Since you didn't provide positives, no negatives.
What about work hazards? I guess you agree that we should continue to work despite it is harmful potentiality.
I believe that the smoking industry should have more regulation because they create a product that is a menace to society. When a person smokes --unless it is completely in private-- they introduce these harmful elements of tobacco products to those who don't smoke --those that haven't made that choice. I am against the government regulating the individual; I want to avoid that as much as possible. That only leaves one option... the companies themselves should be regulated. Instead of trying to stop cigarette smoke the smoke can just be made futile. There is a public health concern that calls for this; the same concern that calls for regulation on alcohol. It's stacking commercial interest vs public good and, I think the public good should win out.
Smoking is a choice, and should be a free one without so much interference from the government through tobacco industry regulations. It isn't our government's job to make these kinds of decisions for us, or try and penalise us because of public disapproval or changing tastes.
What about smoking in public places? Should the people that choose not to smoke be forced to endure eating in a smoke filled environment because the government can't make laws to stop those people (according to your statement).
Smoking is a choice regardless because unless something is holding a gun to your head, nobody has the right to tell you if or where you can smoke. Sure, it is a disgusting habit, but I just ignore it.
Second hand smoke is not completely 100% scientifically proven. Studies suggest but not proven unlike it's counterpart first hand smoking is scientifically proven. Yeah, smoking at a gas station and hospitals are bad but other than that right to smoke.
Please no studies because I had a large discussion with hmicche about second hand smoke.
What about smoking in public places? Should the people that choose not to smoke be forced to endure eating in a smoke filled environment because the government can't make laws to stop those people (according to your statement).
You can always leave the room, or avoid such areas. It's a reasonable trade-off for individual choice.
Put another way, you don't see so much concern from people nearby for the fumes that come from welding, soldering, burning campfires, barbeques, operating combustion engines, etc. Or did you think that the emissions from these common activities were harmless? We choose to grant these liberties to people with the acknowledgement that you can always leave or bear with it.
Leaving every restaurant sounds very easy, until every restaurant has smoking. Even better, you get to walk through a huge chain of smoke at the front door of every building. For someone to not go near any smoke for the rest of their lives, they would have to just stay at home. I never said anything about not putting restrictions on those other things listed, this debate just happens to be on the smoking industry.
Leaving every restaurant sounds very easy, until every restaurant has smoking. Even better, you get to walk through a huge chain of smoke at the front door of every building.
Restaurants have smoking sections, and a big cloud of smoke is more a nuisance than a threat to life.
I never said anything about not putting restrictions on those other things listed, this debate just happens to be on the smoking industry.
Good point, can you please give some examples of restrictions you would like on the smoking industry?
Bojangles has a line of red tiles that separates the smoking and non-smoking section. Does that sound like it really works?
No smoking in public places, No smoking around public places(i.e no smoking within 20 feet of the entrance of the building), no smoking in or around schools, etc.
