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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should tobacco have an age limit?
In this debate, I want you to explain why you think it should, or why you think it shouldn't have an age limit.
'It is dangerous' is not a valid argument, since playgrounds also are dangerous considering how many children have been killed there.
'One should decide for him/herself if they want to smoke, not the government'
That is not a valid argument either, because then you could also say, that one should decide for him/herself if they want to kill people, not the government.
I don't see the problem with deciding some things are within the purview of social law, and some are not. For example, playgrounds vs smoking for children.
Everything is potentially dangerous, this does not make mankind impotent to decide some things have more benefit than danger and others do not have more benefit than danger.
Might we be wrong sometimes? Sure, and we often are I'm sure.
But there is nothing wrong with trying, and in this case I'm fairly certain we are correct.
The problem with the premise is it eliminates all opinion either way, because each uses extremes and all things taken to extremes can be linked to your two points.
It's a pattern of trying to simplify all things, the problem is very few things, if anything, is actually simple.
Okay, that's a general point about the way the debate is setup. I do have a point for this specific subject.
Smoking leads to long term health problems, and starting before the lungs are fully developed increases the risks of these problems. At the same time children are less able to truly understand "long term" as it relates to them and are not as able as an adult to make decisions based on long term consequences. They may understand the idea of something being bad in the long run, but are less able to make the connection between themselves and what those long term hazards are, especially should it happen to be something they want to do in the moment for whatever reason.
As adults part of our collective job, even if their parents are idiots and are not doing it themselves, is to ensure the little future us-es are not unduly hampered by dangers and poisons before they themselves are able to make an adult decision about whether they want to smoke, jump out of planes, dive with sharks, whatever.
When they are an adult and able to truly understand the dangers and how they truly relate to them, that it's not just theory but a real thing that effects them, then they can make whatever choice they please. At least they should be allowed to.
Could that be seen as a slippery slope?
Sure, if one chooses to look at it that way.
I don't buy that view though. I think we are capable of drawing lines, however vague they may be, and adjusting these lines as we see fit as thinking reasonable animals.
I think the idea that we are not capable of at least trying to discern where these various lines may be does not do us as a species justice.
My child might think smoking is a good idea at the age of 10 when the harmfull effects of smoking seems a long way off and any way it makes them feel grown up, but may see life very diffrently when he/she is 18 and wants to be an athlete.
Smoking should be an adult choice when you have a better understanding of the implications of your actions. Very few adults take up smoking and children are suckers for advertisment.
You can still be an athlete and smoke. I cant tell you how many national-level swim meets I snuck out of to light one up in the parking lot. When my old team had the pool to ourselves we used to take bong rips and try to swim two laps underwater before exhaling.
Uncured tobacco is a hallucinogen, and while tobacco today isnt uncured, it still has slight hallucinogenic effects, which makes cigarettes the REAL gateway drug into other things.
Im all for free choice but really people? you want kids puffing down cigarettes because they wont understand the health risks that go along with it and how it tars your lungs and not to mention kids would become addicted at a young age and would lead to obesity of all kinds, if you think there should be no limit on tobacco you are crazier than me
Idk, i got being too young to smoke, im not sure what its asking, uncured tobacco will make you trip, and pure tobacco isnt THAT harmful, tobacco today is only harmful because of all the additives and poison
I think tobacco should keep its age limit, after all, people under 18 can still get cigs, just know someone who is 18 and bam, your smoking something that doesn't get you high.
Why not?????????? Tobacco affects others which may kill them. as they get addicted then they have lung cancer and die. Adults can control their adiction(hardly)
I understand.. Actually, scratch that. I don't understand why people enjoy smoking.
In my opinion, tobacco should be banned... everywhere. It is not beneficial in any way, and ruins lives, rather than saves them. However, this is obviously not a realistic point, so I'll just say that the age limit could be 21 years old I guess.
Normally I wouldn't agree on government regulation of anything. But tobacco has many proven negative health benefits. I think it should have an age limit much the same that children are not allowed to drive a car. Meaning 10 years old children would definitely not understand the risks of smoking and should be protected until such a time as they can understand said risks.
The reason libertarians don't believe in a restriction on tobacco is because smoking harms no-one but the smoker. Killing someone however, clearly does, and thus most libertarians are for some sort of measures to prevent it.
And tobacco is actually proven to harm you, making it dangerous. Any incidents occurring in a playground are merely circumstantial, and not caused by playgrounds.
Smoking does actually harm people around you. Ever heard of second hand smoking ? It puts you on a greater risk of getting lung cancer and COL.
And tobacco is actually proven to harm you, making it dangerous. Any incidents occurring in a playground are merely circumstantial, and not caused by playgrounds.
Okey, let's take another example then.
What about all the stuff you put in your mouth ? I bet over half of that has a bunch of dangerous chemicals that can seriously harm you. Still this hasn't got any age limits.
Smoking does actually harm people around you. Ever heard of second hand smoking ? It puts you on a greater risk of getting lung cancer and COL.
Statistics? Source?
Unless you're (to quote Guitaristdog) "blowing a hit the size of Hurricane Issac" in their face, the effects of smoking are negligible. And even then, that's a reason to ban it in public places, not to age restrict it.
What about all the stuff you put in your mouth ? I bet over half of that has a bunch of dangerous chemicals that can seriously harm you. Still this hasn't got any age limits.
And why isn't that? Why don't we ban doughnuts, or KFC, or fizzy drinks?
Because only the consumer is affected. It's not the government's job to coat us in bubblewrap. People wanna coat their lungs in vile shit? Let the people coat their lungs in vile shit. They're paying for it.
I could give you more if those aren't enough. But ask any doctor, I bet every doctor will tell you, that any kind of smoke, if it's smoking directly or second hand smoke, it is bad for you no matter what, and it can cause asthma, all sorts of cancer and COL.
And why isn't that? Why don't we ban doughnuts, or KFC, or fizzy drinks?
Because only the consumer is affected. It's not the government's job to coat us in bubblewrap. People wanna coat their lungs in vile shit? Let the people coat their lungs in vile shit. They're paying for it.
I don't know which side you're on now. You put your vote on no, but now you're .. doing the opposite.
And your links are humourously bad. For two reasons.
The first is that I don't dispute the existence of second hand smoke. I'm well aware that it's harmful. What I wanted was a source to show how much second hand smoke is needed to significantly harm someone. Chocolate is also harmful, and if you eat enough, you will die. But it's such a high amount that there's no point banning it. I wanted you to prove that second hand smoking was not like chocolate.
Secondly is that your sources are just terrible, bar one. You sent me two links to cancer.org, which didn't tell me anything about how much second hand smoking is needed to harm. Same with the second site. Your third source, well, I laughed hard. It is actively disagreeing with you, calling the effects of second hand smoking "exaggerated" and "the work of nannies". I'll accept Wikipedia, though it still doesn't do what I asked, and the final site is clearly biased to steer kids away from smoking.
In future, read your own damn sources.
I could give you more if those aren't enough. But ask any doctor, I bet every doctor will tell you, that any kind of smoke, if it's smoking directly or second hand smoke, it is bad for you no matter what, and it can cause asthma, all sorts of cancer and COL.
Don't dispute that. All I wanted to know was how much second hand smoke is needed to cause significant harm.
I don't know which side you're on now. You put your vote on no, but now you're .. doing the opposite.
Your third source, well, I laughed hard. It is actively disagreeing with you,
Disagreeing ? I have no opinion, no one can disagree with me, nor agree.
Don't dispute that. All I wanted to know was how much second hand smoke is needed to cause significant harm.
If people are constantly breathing in smoke, it is harmful. If chokolade is more or less harmful I don't know, but all I know is that second hand smoke is harmful.
Disagreeing ? I have no opinion, no one can disagree with me, nor agree.
Right, so we go from "second hand smoke harms you" to "I have no opinion". OK dude...
If people are constantly breathing in smoke, it is harmful. If chokolade is more or less harmful I don't know, but all I know is that second hand smoke is harmful.
I must say, when it comes to stating the obvious, you're a true master.
I know this. My question remains unanswered though.
That depends on the person of course. Some are more sensitiv than others.
If parents smoke in the house, their children have a high risk of getting asthma, cancer and all kinds of other diseases.
Lots of people suffer from the consequences of smoking, not because they smoked themselves, but simply because their parents smoked in the house.
To smoke inside was normal .. like 70 years ago or less maybe, but many many still do it - I know lots of parents who smoke inside, and it breaks my heart.
I mean .. you said in the first post, that smoking only harms one self.
That was the point I was disputing .. the other points you made I didn't dipsute because I agree with you on those.
I am only trying to say that isn't true. I never said there were statistics or anything over how many people die every year, I simply said that smoking does harm other people around you while you smoke, because not 100% of the smoke you inhale stays in your lungs. Actually only 30% is stuck in your lungs, while 70% of the inhale you're breathing out again.
That means that there are chemicals in the air for other people to breath in.
But the harm to these people is inconsequential, unless statistics say otherwise.
I will amend the statement to smoking only really harms the smoker. Second hand smoke may harm others, but by such a tiny amount it's not worth counting. Like the mass of an electron.
Unfortunately, I somewhat doubt the validity of the first source. No papers are quoted, and a study was carried out by a British journal. In Britain, you can't smoke in a public place, so I'm not sure how they would have got their figures.
And the second source is propaganda, again with no papers cited. I'm still unconvinced.
But don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to prove anything, I personally don't think second hand smoking is a big problem. I just wanted to comment on that you say smoking only harms oneself. But whatever, let's move past this ;)
Smoking does actually harm people around you. Ever heard of second hand smoking ? It puts you on a greater risk of getting lung cancer and COL.
Second hand smoke it usually looked at as if you and the smoker were hit sharing. If you looked at it objectively you would understand that there is a world of difference between inhaling all the smoke into your lungs, holding it, then repeating it many times rather than simply smelling it.
Røyking skader faktisk menneskene rundt deg. Hørt av second hand røyke? Det setter deg på en større risiko for å få lungekreft og COL.
Andre hånden røyk det vanligvis sett på som om du og røyker ble truffet deling. Hvis du har sett på det objektivt du ville forstå at det er en verden av forskjell mellom inhaling alle røyk inn i lungene, holder det, og deretter gjenta det mange ganger i stedet for bare å lukte det.
Is the extend to which second hand smoking actually damages other people really relevant here? As far as I understand it, we're discussing whether an age limit is appropriate or not. How does the effect it has on other people change your perception of whether it is good to equip young people with cigarettes? As there aren't that many of them the impact of second hand smoking on the general society wouldn't be huge.
I started a debate on whether there should be age restrictions for anything, but age restrictions for tobacco are ridiculous.
The parents are the ones who are supposed to decide if a child SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to do something that may be harmful towards their health. Never have we truly agreed that it is the duty of the government to restrict items from children just because there's some overly angry parents out there who want the government to do their job for them.
Instead, what we have done is just pass laws with no real argument other than "it's bad for you." The issue is that... well, shit, a lot of things are bad for you. Now, this only becomes a pattern. Porn was almost banned for that very same bullshit. Luckily it would have violated free speech laws. Unfortunately, there are actual laws saying that porn CAN NOT be distributed towards children, yet there is no specificity in what constitutes porn. Other issues came from banning vending machines from public schools because it encourages obesity.
Truly, the argument to be against age limits is that there is no real argument for age limits... specifically tobacco. Sort of like the arguments on whether there is a God or not. Maybe God DOES exist, but until someone provides a true argument showing that he does, it's pointless to argue against his existence.
There is no test for becoming a parent, some are good at it and some are not.
I personaly don't belive anyone under the age of 18 should be alowed responsibility for their children, the grand parent must accept responsibility, if not then the state should take them into care.
And I'm not a fan of the state getting involved in peoples liives, it's simply someone needs to step in and sort out the idiots so I don't have to deal with their fk ups later on in my life.
To hell with it, I'll even go the whole authoriterian route and say, your going to be parents? Okay, Take this test. Didn't pass? No problem, we'll look after the kids and pay for it out of your wages/social security, you can take the test again in three months.
Harsh? Brining up kids until they become adults is harsh. yet people constantly think it's going to be a peace of cake, comes naturally or some other bull and then society pays the price.
Right I'm calm now!
So yeah, there should be an age restriction because it would restrict access and some parents can't be trusted to boil an egg.
There is no test for becoming a parent, some are good at it and some are not.
Okay.
I personaly don't belive anyone under the age of 18 should be alowed responsibility for their children, the grand parent must accept responsibility, if not then the state should take them into care.
Right... and this assists your argument how?
it's simply someone needs to step in and sort out the idiots so I don't have to deal with their fk ups later on in my life.
Underage people LEGALLY being allowed to smoke cigarettes effects you how? I feel that Liberal propaganda fucks people's brains up and I would rather not deal with it, but I'm not going to advocate legislation against it.
your going to be parents? Okay, Take this test. Didn't pass? No problem, we'll look after the kids and pay for it out of your wages/social security, you can take the test again in three months.
Why? Who makes the test? Why are they best for deciding what constitutes a proper parent and not? Are nudists capable of taking care of children? Gun advocates? Racists? Muslims? Homeless people? Anarchists? Gays?
Harsh? Brining up kids until they become adults is harsh. yet people constantly think it's going to be a peace of cake, comes naturally or some other bull and then society pays the price.
Examples? Evidence?
there should be an age restriction because it would restrict access and some parents can't be trusted to boil an egg.
It doesn't, It just highlights my view that children/teenagers make some very bad choices, if you assume that parents should decide whats best for their children they might think differently if they have to deal with the consequences.
Underage people LEGALLY being allowed to smoke cigarettes effects you how? It would make it more difficult to stop my child succumbing to peer pressure, Children don't understand the risks associated with smoking.
Unless your advocating that this is in some way paid for by the parents too. I suppose if it's their home what does it matter. Well maybe they have insurance for that sort of thing, should everyone then just pay higher insurance to cover the costs.
I feel that Liberal propaganda fucks people's brains up and I would rather not deal with it, but I'm not going to advocate legislation against it.
When you say liberal please define.
Do you mean the right wing authoritarian government of the US Democrats as opposed to the ever so slightly more right wing but more authoritarian Republicans?
If its the democrats you mean it's possibly because a little more reality is always more painful than fiction and fiction seems to be the present republicans specialty.
Why? Who makes the test? Why are they best for deciding what constitutes a proper parent and not? Are nudists capable of taking care of children? Gun advocates? Racists? Muslims? Homeless people? Anarchists? Gays?
Homeless people?? really?
If the government has the power to remove children from people on the premise of it's in the childs best interest, then why can't they decide before hand who is capable of parenting.
People are expected to pass a driving test before been allowed to drive in public, would you use the same argument for a driving license?? IE are nudist, gun advocates, racists etc allowed to take driving test?
I'm not suggesting we question peoples moral values but rather, whether they have the basic skills necessary and giving them a test might give them a proper understanding of whats involved. Do a mock test, can't pass? Do some study, it's still a damn site easier than than raising a child.
It just highlights my view that children/teenagers make some very bad choices
Based on your own opinion.
Playing violent video games or watching porn could be considered a bad choice that has long term affects. It does not justify any legislation preventing this.
more difficult to stop my child succumbing to peer pressure, Children don't understand the risks associated with smoking.
Children don't understand the risks associated with eating bread and noodles. in fact, carbohydrates and cheese are the biggest killers in this country, and the fact that many parents feed their children much of this stuff is cause for concern.
I find it hilarious that the anti-tobacco lobby actually attack the anti-fastfood lobby because they think their issue is far more important than the other.
I personally believe that neither should have the ability to write laws that dictate the rest of our lives.
o you mean the right wing authoritarian government of the US Democrats as opposed to the ever so slightly more right wing but more authoritarian Republicans?
I don't believe that you understood what I meant. I meant that despite how I may view "liberal propaganda" it would not justify making it illegal or restricted for children.
If the government has the power to remove children from people on the premise of it's in the childs best interest, then why can't they decide before hand who is capable of parenting.
Because the questioner isn't as simple as "do you rape or murder children," which is ground for taking a child away. Murder and rape are obviously bad. But we might as well require standardized tests making sure that everyone doesn't plan on killing or raping. This is not an issue limited to children.
As well, saying "government takes children away from 'bad' parents, so why can't they just prevent child rearing if they see fit?" is not an argument for your position. It's a fallacy built on the expectation that I even agree with these child custody laws.
First, Third, Sixth, Seventh source
Anecdotal evidence. Not valid.
Second, Fourth source
A blog about how raising a child is "hard." Yeah, duh. so is playing Dark Souls. Refers to no evidence in your favor, though.
Fifth source
A detailed blog concerning some common myths. Not evidence in your favor.
I could go on
In providing no evidence? Yes, I don't doubt that.
That's okay you don't have to trust me to make laws, I wouldn't trust you!
Excellent point. That's why we can't raise each other's children. Luckily, we don't have the ability to create legislation that goes after either.
sorry I havent responded sooner but I'm quite busy at the moment
so here are just some quick responses
Based on your own opinion
well this is a debating web site however there is growing scientific concensious on this view, for example the following abstract on a paper relating to developmental science
the following refers to research done that determins that tobacco advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke, it also refers to strategies used by tobacco industries to target teens.
Playing violent video games or watching porn could be considered a bad choice that has long term affects. It does not justify any legislation preventing this.
Yes it does, because, playing violent video games or watching porn could be considered a bad choice that has long term affects.
Children don't understand the risks associated with eating bread and noodles. in fact, carbohydrates and cheese are the biggest killers in this country, and the fact that many parents feed their children much of this stuff is cause for concern.
carbohydrates and cheese in excess, but then why do parents purposely feed their children this if they know how much harm it does?
I don't believe that you understood what I meant. I meant that despite how I may view "liberal propaganda" it would not justify making it illegal or restricted for children.
Just to clarify then, is this what you mean?
Liberal propaganda is the use of distorted media coverage, half truths, deceit, liberal denial, and liberal bias to promote liberal political goals, ... ? thats the conservaive view, although it couldn't be considered a literal interpretation.
If so not relevent, children don't vote and are not their target audience.
Because the questioner isn't as simple as "do you rape or murder children," which is ground for taking a child away.
I thought the reason for taking a child into care was serious concerns about the safety or welfare of a child, this covers a range of issues not just rape and murder.
It's a fallacy built on the expectation that I even agree with these child custody laws.
Why would I assume that? You think playing video games is akin to rearing children!
First, Third, Sixth, Seventh source ->Anecdotal evidence. Not valid.
As oppose to what? you need to define what is acceptable as BOTH evidence AND what is acceptable as examples, and then explain why these meet neither. At what number does anecdotal evidence approach systematic evidence?
Second, Fourth source ->A blog about how raising a child is "hard." Yeah, duh. so is playing Dark Souls. Refers to no evidence in your favor, though
If your agreeing that raising children is hard but that doesn't imply that society is paying a price for bad/lack of parenting skills, which is the other part of my statement then I would refer you to the following US gov statistics referring to foster statistics.
Excellent point. That's why we can't raise each other's children. Luckily, we don't have the ability to create legislation that goes after either.
Everyone has the ability to influence legistration.
But the statement "Should tobacco have an age limit? " The answer is still yes, because tobacco companies will try and get younger and younger customers as they are more susceptable to marketing, smokers are extremly brand loyal. There will be no restrictions on retailers and unless parents decide to spend every moment of their life monitoring their children until they become an age when they no longer need adult guidence, it wont be their choice.
for example the following abstract on a paper relating to developmental science
Yes, peer pressure. No doubt. However, this wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to you making the assumption that peer pressure's existence justifies legislation dictating what teens can and can't buy.
As for the other two studies, you gave me the same one on the Gambling Task, which I hardly see refers to your argument.
Yes it does, because, playing violent video games or watching porn could be considered a bad choice that has long term affects.
I suppose I'm just seeding you to make more statements on how you want government to step in and legislate every time you see a potential hazard in some way.
Is the answer always going to be government regulation? You come in the ideologies of Al and Tipper Gore and the entire Reefer Madness debacle.
But really, I won't try to push this any further. Our views are that Me: Just because there is a potential for danger to one self does not justify government making decisions for us... yours is "yes," at least for those under 18. I know, a simplification, but can you at least see where we're not getting anywhere here?
carbohydrates and cheese in excess, but then why do parents purposely feed their children this if they know how much harm it does?
I don't even see how this has to do with what I was saying. I was talking about the justification for regulating children's diets through legislation if you support tobacco regulation.
f so not relevent, children don't vote and are not their target audience.
No... what I'm saying is that JUST BECAUSE I may think that something is harming the minds of the younger generation, no matter what it may be (liberal, conservative, gay, homophobic, propaganda) does not justify putting legislation against it.
I thought the reason for taking a child into care was serious concerns about the safety or welfare of a child, this covers a range of issues not just rape and murder.
Determined by a handful of bureaucrats. As well, child services would be best left to a state or county level to create diversity in just how government is taking children away from us.
I thought the reason for taking a child into care was serious concerns about the safety or welfare of a child, this covers a range of issues not just rape and murder.
You brought it up saying that the existence of them somehow proves a point, yet I don't agree with them, so your point is still unknown.
you need to define what is acceptable as BOTH evidence AND what is acceptable as examples
Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable evidence. It's good when you have actual, scientific evidence already in the field. However, on this specific topic you've only provided those blogs which consisted mostly of anecdotes or opinions. Nothing scientific, making me question whether I can accept that forcing people to take tests before having a child is justified. I do not justify legislation barring our ability to procreate on anecdotes.
There will be no restrictions on retailers and unless parents decide to spend every moment of their life monitoring their children until they become an age when they no longer need adult guidence, it wont be their choice.
It's funny, because people had this big fear over violent movies and video games, yet the private sector has been very successful at keeping kids from getting violent video games and movies. Not that it's perfect, but neither is legislation, which actually FORCES people to concede with a way of life they may not accept. the idea that vendors are just going to sell cigs to kids all the time is paranoia. And even more so, it's built on an assumption that it's bad to let human beings make decisions for themselves.
The examples where to highlight how children think diffrently to adults about the consequences of their actions.
where Al and Tipper gore responsible for the parental advisory labels?
Thats a question. But I agree with those labels they're education not legistration.
Reefer Madness is an awsome movie, espesially if your stoned.
My cynicisim on the food is that this is basic stuff parents should know that in excess they are bad. In the same way people who drive need to be aware of the damage they can do to other people while driving a car.
propaganda is not a good example for legistration, But I understand the premise of the statement.
Child care where I live it is a mater for the state most counties wouldn't have the resources for it.
I know what anecdotal evidence is, my point was you asked for both evidence and examples and I belived these where examples. my fault for not simply saying that.
I NEVER suggested ANYONE should decide who should procreate.
Retailers are notoriously dynamic on their approach to self regulating, as a lot of it can depend on their view or, in their opinion. Where I live a parent can buy their minor alcohol, tobacco, almost any age restricted product. The restriction applies only to retailers. It is also illegal to provide these items to any minor who is not in your care.
we're not talking about humans making decisions for themselfs, we're talking about minors making decisions for themselfs.
As a foot note the parent test was a bit of a rant, that's why I followed with "I'm calm now." Also would be moot here as a health visitor is assigned to all expectant mothers.
People should have the right to do what they wish to there body. As long as its not hurting others, ( boo hoo my grandpas dead is not hurting.) Why would you want to deny a 60 or 70 year old smoker the right? I want to die happy. I think they do too.
Another thing to think about is the minimum age to smoke. Most kids can get smokes if they need them. It would be much easier for a grown person. I will smoke what i want, when i want.
If kids are dumb enough to smoke it... let it be... thats what ive got to say... you know it doesnt make you cool... OOh look at me im so cool ive got lung cancer... I mean today we have 11 year olds looking for a smoke... but thats their choice... they started to smoke... so thats there problem ... not ours...
