PDA

View Full Version : Smoking? Should it be illegal?



Pages : [1] 2

Gr0ud0np0wer
10th May 2008, 7:53 PM
Cigarrettes have been to focus of mnay a Debate across the world. I think, since any Debate Threads like this are lost in the back pages, it must be re-born.

I personally think Cigarretts should be illeagal. Every person on this planet could charge Cigarrette comapnies with manslaugter. Many people argue "But Marajuana is just as bad for you" that is not completly true. All though Marajana is harmfull to your system, it is not guaranteed to shorten your life-span like Ciggs are. All Mj does is create a dependancy. It does not physically harm you instantly. I still do not suppor the drug, Im just saying there is a difference.

Back to Cigarettes. The smoking companies have created a deadly trap for smokers. They have purposley designed Cigs. to be addictive. Have you ever seen the things that are in a Cig? You really dont want to know. There are things liem Hutane, Arsenic, and other dealy poisens.

Have you ever seen pictures of what a Cig. does to your insides, your lungs shrivel up, and can snap of with excessive smoking. It is estimated that with each puff you lose 5 minutes of your life. Thats 5 minutes that you wount have time to spend with your loved ones, or go see the beauty of the world. Thats 5 min. that could be lost sitting around the house holding some-one you love.

Then there is the Cancer, Cancer is one of the most malicious infilctions in the world. It eats and eats and it wont stop. There is no cure for it, there is only unsure treatment...event then it can come back and claim your life. I have lost over 10 family members to Cancer due to smoking.

Other people claim that every day items can kill you as well, why not outlaw them? That is ture, but are the Guarenteed to harm you? No, they are not. A car is not ensured to kill you, or injure you in any way, not as long as you drive saftley. But a Cig. will always do damage.

Then there is second-hand smoke. This is the worst part of a Cig. If your going to hurt youself feel free, but dont hurt others. Know that if you smoke around people you are killin them as well. The ones you hold so dear are being slowly eaten away at by you.

Eeven if they dont outlaw Cig. completely, at least make it where you cannot smoke them around others.

Consider that next time you think about lighting up.

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 8:03 PM
Manslaughter? It's more like suicide. That's like saying all guns should be illegal because people get hurt. It isn't the product, it's the owner.
They're making a business out of what they can. If you want it, you take it. If you don't, then I suppose you complain about it on a Pokemon fansite's forums.

Shinin
10th May 2008, 8:08 PM
I personally think Cigarretts should be illeagal. Every person on this planet could charge Cigarrette comapnies with manslaugter.

It's the smoker's decision to smoke, they can quit if they don't want to die an early death.


Back to Cigarettes. The smoking companies have created a deadly trap for smokers. They have purposley designed Cigs. to be addictive.

That's called good business. Again, the smokers should try and quit if they think it's so bad for them.


Other people claim that every day items can kill you as well, why not outlaw them? That is ture, but are the Guarenteed to harm you? No, they are not. A car is not ensured to kill you, or injure you in any way, not as long as you drive saftley. But a Cig. will always do damage.

Not always. Some people are lucky enough to have no real downsides from smoking, although they are very rare.


Then there is second-hand smoke. This is the worst part of a Cig. If your going to hurt youself feel free, but dont hurt others. Know that if you smoke around people you are killin them as well. The ones you hold so dear are being slowly eaten away at by you.

This is why they outlawed smoking in public indoor facilities.


Eeven if they dont outlaw Cig. completely, at least make it where you cannot smoke them around others.

They did. You could get some second hand smoke outdoors, but not nearly as much as indoors and there's barely a risk as there aren't nearly as many smokers around as there once was.

Profesco
10th May 2008, 8:18 PM
I happen to be one of the kinds of health nuts who thinks all substances with harmful self effects and second-hand consequences should be gotten rid of. But that's a teribly inappropriate position to take in a debate. It would come down to arguing moral objectivity, which is nearly impossible to get people to agree on a single context for.


That's like saying all guns should be illegal because people get hurt. It isn't the product, it's the owner.

Anyway, the use of a cigarette is not the same as the use of a gun. The cigarette, once used, is gauranteed to inflict damage on oneself, and in most situations, on other people in the vicinity. Guns are not a gaurantee, in that the recreational or habitual use of a gun is usual target practice or a shooting gallery of some sort. And when a gun is used with a fatal or violent intent, it is in the name of justice. All other scenarios are illegal uses of guns, and thus should be considered illegal.

HyenaHaze
10th May 2008, 8:21 PM
Smoking weed is healthier than cigs, but I don't see that being legalised any time soon. Plus, if you suddenly make cigs illegal, you do know how many people will die because their body can't handle the withdrawal stages, right?

Pinata Panda
10th May 2008, 8:28 PM
it should but no has any proof
it makes you die faster so everyone
just keeps thinking its fine

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 8:28 PM
Every person on this planet could charge Cigarrette comapnies with manslaugter. Many people argue "But Marajuana is just as bad for you" that is not completly true. All though Marajana is harmfull to your system, it is not guaranteed to shorten your life-span like Ciggs are. All Mj does is create a dependancy. It does not physically harm you instantly. I still do not suppor the drug, Im just saying there is a difference.banning it because its bad is stupid. it is their choice to smoke it and theyre happy doing so. continuing this course of logic also enables us to ban junk food, fast food, alcohol, etc.


Back to Cigarettes. The smoking companies have created a deadly trap for smokers. They have purposley designed Cigs. to be addictive. Have you ever seen the things that are in a Cig? You really dont want to know. There are things liem Hutane, Arsenic, and other dealy poisens.its not their fault. this is what a cigarette HAS to obtain in order for somebody to even like smoking it.


Then there is second-hand smoke. This is the worst part of a Cig. If your going to hurt youself feel free, but dont hurt others. Know that if you smoke around people you are killin them as well. The ones you hold so dear are being slowly eaten away at by you.1) car pollution kills people a lot faster than second-hand smoke.

2) people can still walk away.

HyenaHaze
10th May 2008, 8:30 PM
it should but no has any proof
it makes you die faster so everyone
just keeps thinking its fine

This is a debate forum. Can you be a bit clearer, please?

Haruka of Hoenn
10th May 2008, 8:41 PM
I don't think that cigarretes should be completely eliminated. Many people smoke, but it's not our fault if they get poisoned, etc. It's their choice if they want to smoke or not, no matter how bad the choice is. They are taking the risk, and it should be their responsibility. There's nothing wrong with sitting with a bunch of friends, talking and enjoying a smoke for some. They enjoy that, and they have every right to do it if they want to. However, they shouldn't be so careless around other people. For example, if there was a young child in the house at the time, the men could just go outside and smoke.

Smoking should be prohibited in public places, because people who actually care about their health will be at risk. And just because some people don't care if they're harming themselves by smoking, others who do care will be harmed as well. Smoking should only be allowed in certain places such as bars, etc. That way, smokers can do what they want, and those who want to avoid cigarrettes at all costs don't have to worry about second-hand smoke.

Having parents that smoke is another sad story. Fist of all, it sets a bad example for the children. Plus, it increases the child's exposure to second hand smoke, and increases the chance ofthat child getting sick. I think that parents smoking should be illegal. It puts them, and the children in danger. Also, it can tear families apart. Who wants to see their family member's life be slowly eaten away by smoking? This is just what happens in most episodes of Intervention. It's a really sad thing to have your family go through. The age limit for smoking should be enforced a lot more. Also, cigarrette manufacturers should list all the things that are put into the cigarrettes in the pack, so the smokers who buy them will know what they're dealing with. Hopefully, when more people realize what smoking can really do to you, smoking will be stopped altogether.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 8:43 PM
i agree with public places like airports in where people have to go but bars and private owned places? why should they have to listen to the gov't? some profit off of smoking. let the free market handle it.


Having parents that smoke is another sad story. Fist of all, it sets a bad example for the children. Plus, it increases the child's exposure to second hand smoke, and increases the chance ofthat child getting sick. I think that parents smoking should be illegal. It puts them, and the children in danger. Also, it can tear families apart. Who wants to see their family member's life be slowly eaten away by smoking? This is just what happens in most episodes of Intervention. It's a really sad thing to have your family go through. The age limit for smoking should be enforced a lot more. Also, cigarrette manufacturers should list all the things that are put into the cigarrettes in the pack, so the smokers who buy them will know what they're dealing with. Hopefully, when more people realize what smoking can really do to you, smoking will be stopped altogether.this wouldnt even be a feasible ban.

Pingouin7
10th May 2008, 9:06 PM
banning it because its bad is stupid.
What, other than it harming you, made pot banned then?

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:07 PM
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Shinin
10th May 2008, 9:07 PM
What, other than it harming you, made pot banned then?

Harming other people.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:19 PM
harming other people? how?

manoflego
10th May 2008, 9:19 PM
yes, it should for sure be illegal

HyenaHaze
10th May 2008, 9:20 PM
yes, it should for sure be illegal

Want to tell us why?

Shinin
10th May 2008, 9:23 PM
harming other people? how?

Some people can act violently when high, or make stupid decisions that get other people hurt. It's uncommon, but I've seen it happen.

Profesco
10th May 2008, 9:23 PM
banning it because its bad is stupid. it is their choice to smoke it and theyre happy doing so. continuing this course of logic also enables us to ban junk food, fast food, alcohol, etc.

Wouldn't the world be a cleaner, safer, and healthier place without these things?

*sings "I'm gonna soak up the sun"*

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:26 PM
Wouldn't the world be a cleaner, safer, and healthier place without these things?no, it would be better not trying to stuff people in prisons because theyre trying to get the pursuit of happiness.

HyenaHaze
10th May 2008, 9:31 PM
I'm gonna eat my junk food, smoke my cigs, and die a painful death if I want to. Jeez.

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 9:31 PM
no, it would be better not trying to stuff people in prisons because theyre trying to get the pursuit of happiness.

Pursuit of happiness only applies when you aren't taking away someone else's right to pursue happiness.
Like, just because raping women makes you happy, doesn't make it legal.
I'm not saying you said that, but the point still stands.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:34 PM
your point fails because somebody smoking cigarettes in their privacy and where theyre allowed to takes away nobody's rights.

Drake Pokétrainer
10th May 2008, 9:34 PM
I think it should be banned.
Tabaco is a hard drug and even some soft drugs are illegal. But the sad thing is that people have been smoking since Colombus took the tabaco plant from America. (I'm not counting the native americans).

I hope you guys get my point.

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 9:35 PM
your point fails because somebody smoking cigarettes in their privacy and where theyre allowed to takes away nobody's rights.

Correct. But that wasn't what I said...

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:36 PM
I think it should be banned.
Tabaco is a hard drug and even some soft drugs are illegal. But the sad thing is that people have been smoking since Colombus took the tabaco plant from America. (I'm not counting the native americans).

I hope you guys get my point.no i dont get your point. you just want to increase crime rates in this country and make it more dangerous.


Correct. But that wasn't what I said...well, using your thinking, its practically implied. pursuit of happiness counts if it doesnt harm anybody that isnt forced to breath in it.

HyenaHaze
10th May 2008, 9:38 PM
I think it should be banned.
Tabaco is a hard drug and even some soft drugs are illegal. But the sad thing is that people have been smoking since Colombus took the tabaco plant from America. (I'm not counting the native americans).

I hope you guys get my point.

We're Americans. Tradition means WE CAN'T STOP. No matter WHAT! We must smoke, our ancestors did! (Now that I have that rant of my chest...)

EDIT: Does anyoe besides me notice the connection between cutting and smoking?

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 9:38 PM
well, using your thinking, its practically implied. pursuit of happiness counts if it doesnt harm anybody that isnt forced to breath in it.

Wha...?
What I said was that just because something makes you happy, doesn't mean it's right.
You're just restating what I said...

Profesco
10th May 2008, 9:39 PM
no, it would be better not trying to stuff people in prisons because theyre trying to get the pursuit of happiness.

Lol, I said nothing about the criminal aspect of it. Just that those things could be destroyed and the world might be better for it.

I'm slipping out of your grasp, GhostAnime! Haha!

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:45 PM
well, the world would be better if you keep it legal because you increase violence by illegalizing something when obviously people will do anything to get a pack of cigars.

gengar, demonstrate why its not right.

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 9:54 PM
well, the world would be better if you keep it legal because you increase violence by illegalizing something when obviously people will do anything to get a pack of cigars.

gengar, demonstrate why its not right.

I'm not saying it should be illegal (for the third time)!
Reading comprehension, much?

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 9:55 PM
then i corrected you on the pursuit of happiness point. whatever. the top message went to profesco.

Rabid Jigglypuff
10th May 2008, 10:00 PM
well, the world would be better if you keep it legal because you increase violence by illegalizing something when obviously people will do anything to get a pack of cigars.

By harming others with second hand smoke, it goes against others' right to live.

Profesco
10th May 2008, 10:02 PM
Loldeloldelol!

If those things were completely destroyed, we wouldn't need laws about them!

I've escaped yet again, GhostAnime! I'm too slippery for you!

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 10:04 PM
By harming others with second hand smoke, it goes against others' right to live.that is, if they are forced to breathe in it. they can either not go into the restaurant or walk away. this is no different than a man playing loud stereo.


If those things were completely destroyed, we wouldn't need laws about them!

I've escaped yet again, GhostAnime! I'm too slippery for you!i.. dont understand.

Profesco
10th May 2008, 10:25 PM
that is, if they are forced to breathe in it. they can either not go into the restaurant or walk away. this is no different than a man playing loud stereo.

So, you place the rights of individuals who are being completely normal, only using their natural rights that came with existence, below those of the indiviuals who are adding something harmful to the environment the groups exist in?

The basic priority should be the least common denominator. You should be free to go anywhere without encountering something harmful. Not the other way around, where our freedom is restricted by those who choose to add this harmful variable.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 11:17 PM
then they have a right to protest in that said restaurant. they arent forced to go there, so they do have freedom.

~GreeN~
10th May 2008, 11:20 PM
smoking should be illegille in the united states

wynnyelle
10th May 2008, 11:24 PM
Smoking should be illegal if there are minors living in the house. Children should not be forced to breathe secondhand smoke in their home.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 11:25 PM
you know, if you ban smoking in public places, you actually force parents to smoke in their own home.

so...

GrizzlyB
10th May 2008, 11:33 PM
then they have a right to protest in that said restaurant. they arent forced to go there, so they do have freedom.

So, you agree that they have freedom to go to whichever restaurant they want, yet are not given a choice on whether or not they can breathe freely in it? Sounds like quite the double standard. No one's forcing people to smoke, either, nor is it in any way protected by the Constitution.

Also, Profesco, you're acting super-ditsy. It's worrying me. :(

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 11:34 PM
if it isnt banned, it is protected.

xXMew~LucarioXx
10th May 2008, 11:35 PM
In a way, yes. Like, smoking with minors in the house should be illegal unless you go outside to smoke. Same with at restruants. Only, put like a sign up in the window telling people that there is a smoking sections. If you don't then that is illegal. But smoking itself shouldn't be. Its a big part of the economy believe it or not.

Pollutionoflife
10th May 2008, 11:36 PM
Not illegal, but only allowed to 18+

xXMew~LucarioXx
10th May 2008, 11:36 PM
In a way, yes. Like, smoking with minors in the house should be illegal unless you go outside to smoke. Same with at restruants. Only, put like a sign up in the window telling people that there is a smoking sections. If you don't then that is illegal. But smoking itself shouldn't be. Its a big part of the economy believe it or not.

GhostAnime
10th May 2008, 11:38 PM
Not illegal, but only allowed to 18+well, this is already in effect..

Profesco
10th May 2008, 11:57 PM
then they have a right to protest in that said restaurant. they arent forced to go there, so they do have freedom.

Still, what comes first? Basic rights, or additional rights?


So, you agree that they have freedom to go to whichever restaurant they want, yet are not given a choice on whether or not they can breathe freely in it? Sounds like quite the double standard. No one's forcing people to smoke, either, nor is it in any way protected by the Constitution.

Also, Profesco, you're acting super-ditsy. It's worrying me. :(

Tee hee! I was hoping to condition an atypical response from my buddy GhostAnime. Something more substantial (and interesting) than "I don't understand." I'm glad you caught on, GrizzlyB!

it all started with eevee
11th May 2008, 12:00 AM
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Smoking should definitely be illegal.
- Every other addictive drug is illegal. Why not tobacco?
At least, it should start out with making it illegal for kids to smoke. Because (however you might think it already is), it isn't. That should be the first step before anything big like making it illegal for everyone.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:01 AM
what do you mean by that? a right is a right.

eevee, its already illegal to sell it to kids.

Pollutionoflife
11th May 2008, 12:01 AM
well, this is already in effect..

Not where I live x.x;;

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 12:12 AM
if it isnt banned, it is protected.

Okay, good. Smoking in a public building in banned in my state.


well, this is already in effect..

Ironically, there's a loophole in my state's laws that lets people under eighteen have and smoke tobacco, but not purchase it.


Tee hee! I was hoping to condition an atypical response from my buddy GhostAnime. Something more substantial (and interesting) than "I don't understand." I'm glad you caught on, GrizzlyB!

You sound like a hide-n-go-seek champion, or something like it. Maybe in a past life...

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:18 AM
Okay, good. Smoking in a public building in banned in my state.and i think that ban is stupid.

smoking is legal, and if your right is infringed upon in a case where you can leave, it should stay that way in public owned places such as bars.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:27 AM
You sound like a hide-n-go-seek champion, or something like it. Maybe in a past life...

How insightful of you. I am an excellent hider, and an even better seeker.

@GhostAnime: I have the right to stand outside. You have the right to stand outside. You also have the right to flail your fists in a punching fashion outside, if you want. You happen to want to punch on the exact spot where my face is. I don't want to move, so should you be allowed to punch me in the face, or should you punch somewhere else?

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:28 AM
that analogy doesnt work. i dont have the right to punch you in the face but i still have the right to twist my fists around. if i punch you in the face, i am the violator. if i dont, then i am fine in what im doing.

however, both analogies dont match up in the simple fact that i still have a right to smoke wherever that right is and you can still not go to that restaurant or not go to that smoking section. its that simple really.

Colditz
11th May 2008, 12:32 AM
A do agree, but not to everything. It'd be impossible to just go and forbid ciggs, but there shold be stronger rules in order to protect the people around the smokers.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:34 AM
It does work. The cigarette is not your fist; the secondhand smoke is. If you smoke wherever you want, and your smoke reaches me, and I am exercising my right to not breathe nasty smoke, you are the violator.

Same goes for the restaurant deal. I shouldn't have to conform my basic, natural rights around your questionable one. You should be limited in what rights you can infringe upon.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:41 AM
but you still have a right to MOVE AWAY or NOT GO TO THE RESTAURANT. you are not FORCED TO BREATH IN THE SMOKE.

unless you give a situation where you are forced, youre merely having the government nanny me about something you cant do.

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 12:50 AM
but you still have a right to MOVE AWAY or NOT GO TO THE RESTAURANT. you are not FORCED TO BREATH IN THE SMOKE.

unless you give a situation where you are forced, youre merely having the government nanny me about something you cant do.


And he still has the right to enter the restaurant, too, and, once there, is forced to breathe the smoke.

That is a situation where one is forced to breathe smoke.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:53 AM
but you still have a right to MOVE AWAY or NOT GO TO THE RESTAURANT. you are not FORCED TO BREATH IN THE SMOKE.

unless you give a situation where you are forced, youre merely having the government nanny me about something you cant do.

So in effect, anybody who doesn't want to breathe smoke either has to hold their breathe indefinately (medically harmful), or leave the restaurant they wish to be a patron of?

So like I said before, you're prioritizing the smoker's rights over the nonsmokers. That is backwards.

jaxonferz
11th May 2008, 12:58 AM
it should totally be illegal. it wont be though and heres why
when someone buys a pack of cigs they have to pay taxes. the taxes on cigeretts are outrages. since the taxes are so high the goverment makes alot of money on it and the goverment is greedy.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:00 AM
That is a situation where one is forced to breathe smoke.nobody's forcing him to stay at the restaurant.


So like I said before, you're prioritizing the smoker's rights over the nonsmokers. That is backwards.im not prioritizing anybody; im merely recognizing rights here. the owner has a right to allow whoever he wants in the restaurant; its equivalent to his house. if you dont like smoking in his house, you have no right to make the rules of his house. that includes something else they own: a restaurant.

using the gov't to nanny me isnt really the right thing to do. the free market already bans smoking/separate sections in MOST public restaurants anyway. why do you need the government to ban smoking in places you really wouldnt go to in the first place?

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 1:08 AM
nobody's forcing him to stay at the restaurant.

He's either forced to leave or forced to breathe smoke. He doesn't have any rights regarding patronizing the restaurant, then, does he?

Profesco
11th May 2008, 1:09 AM
im not prioritizing anybody; im merely recognizing rights here. the owner has a right to allow whoever he wants in the restaurant; its equivalent to his house. if you dont like smoking in his house, you have no right to make the rules of his house. that includes something else they own: a restaurant.


So in effect, anybody who doesn't want to breathe smoke either has to hold their breathe indefinately (medically harmful), or leave the restaurant they wish to be a patron of?

The nonsmoker is FORCED to change his lifestyle to conform to the smoker's whim.

And for good measure, I wouldn't care who banned smoking from anywhere, just so long as it's banned.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:13 AM
He's either forced to leave or forced to breathe smoke. He doesn't have any rights regarding patronizing the restaurant, then, does he?he has a right to protest if he really wants to go there that much. the fact remains that he isnt forced to breathe in the smoke.


The nonsmoker is FORCED to change his lifestyle to conform to the smoker's whim.what lifestyle are you talking about? since when was one single restaurant was a lifestyle?


And for good measure, I wouldn't care who banned smoking from anywhere, just so long as it's banned.now youre just being selfish. you want it banned even when the only people who attend a place smoke there?

Profesco
11th May 2008, 1:35 AM
So what if Mr. Nosmoke protests, and his protest causes smoking to be banned from that establishment? Is that alright?

Maybe not his whole lifestyle... Let's say Mr. Nosmoke eats dinner at Restaurant X every Friday for ten years. Nobody has smoked inside for that entire duration. Today, Mrs. Puff (XD) visits the restaurant and starts smoking, and Mr. Nosmoke is quite perturbed by this, as he now must either breathe her smoke, hold his breath indefinitely, or leave his choice of diner. His right to eat at this restaurant without breathing toxic smoke is taken away, according to your stance.

For that last part, I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you're talking about...

Kabuto
11th May 2008, 1:36 AM
It should be, but it is not. There's too much money to be made. >_<.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:38 AM
mr. nosmoke can politely ask the smoker to move away. he can also move into a section where there is no smoke (you know, usually sophisticated restaurants you eat at everyday tend to be, ya know sophisticated, thus, theres at least a non-smoking section).

or, he can politely ask the manager to tell the smoker to leave/move away because they hate breathing in the smoke. if all else fails, you spend your money elsewhere and/or protest. if you get enough people, he will do whatever nets him more profit.

oh, but lets ignore the fact that if most people want smoking banned, the restaurant would have done it in the first place thus the gov't isnt NEEDED.

now why do you need the government and tax dollars to nanny something YOU are easily responsible of? why cant the free market just do its job? why cant you respect the owner of the establishment's property? if allowing smoking brings them profit, then they have a right to allow smoking (this is most likely a bar or a place you wouldnt be caught dead at anyway). if banning smoking created a profit for the place, then they will ban it. if making separate sections created a profit for a place, then they will create it. the gov't doesnt need to step in and do anything.

now actually take responsibility for yourself and realize how selfish it is to say that a place should ban smoking even if the only people there WANT to smoke. that is using the government quite unfairly.

maxx unlimited
11th May 2008, 1:41 AM
I think it should, considering how many people it brings pain and disaster to.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 1:47 AM
now actually take responsibility for yourself and realize how selfish it is to say that a place should ban smoking even if the only people there WANT to smoke. that is using the government quite unfairly.

GhostAnime, you're sounding awfully rude to me! >: (

I'm going to take hiatus from this debate for a while. I either need more help from GrizzlyB, or some time to come up with a good response...

*yawns*

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:50 AM
profesco, how about this: you tell me why you need the gov't to step in when the public can already indirectly decide whether smoking should be banned at a place or not?

Hydrohs
11th May 2008, 1:50 AM
Sure, I think cigarettes should be illegal, but the point is, they will never be made illegal. They're too big of a money maker. Cigarettes will continue to thrive until people stop using them of their own accord. No sooner.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 1:56 AM
profesco, how about this: you tell me why you need the gov't to step in when the public can already indirectly decide whether smoking should be banned at a place or not?

Well, like I said before, I guess I don't really mind how it got decided/banned, just as long as the rights of the nonsmokers were protected.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:58 AM
they are protected if they go to a restaurant that protects them; usually the places they want to go to.

they arent protected at a place they would never go to; usually where the place that protect the smoker's rights.

and the people who make sections get the best of both worlds.

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:12 AM
I am happy to see this thread go so much attention in just a few hours. You arguments make a lot of sense, but I would like to point out one more thing.

Smoking inside a house by yourself does not mean you are not spreading second hand. If you live in an apartamant, smoke can travel through vents.

Also, before any-one argues about "lite" cigs. sure they have hole in them to let out nicotine, but where do you think all those holes are? In you mouth when you smoke it.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 2:14 AM
you really think smoking travels as far as through air conditioning vents?

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:15 AM
In a way, yes. Like, smoking with minors in the house should be illegal unless you go outside to smoke. Same with at restruants. Only, put like a sign up in the window telling people that there is a smoking sections. If you don't then that is illegal. But smoking itself shouldn't be. Its a big part of the economy believe it or not.

Smoking sections are not effective. Even though smoker are seperated from others it is often only by a few short feet. Its not like sceond-hand cant travel that far in a few minutes.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 2:16 AM
only a few feet? more like on the other side of the restaurant. where have YOU been? =p

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:16 AM
Yes I do, its a gas, it can trvel anywhere. Its like liquid, as long as it is there its going to go somewhere if its not conatained. Its not like it semply ceases to exist when you puff it out.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 2:17 AM
in that case everybody will die early due to second-hand smoke.

oh wait.

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:18 AM
as for the few feet thing...sorry for the exaggeration but, you know what I mean. Its not like its a big distance, particualrly when you consider the size of an average resteraunt.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 2:19 AM
Life expectancy down, cap'n.
Smokers have rights too. That's all I'm sayin'.

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:23 AM
of course they have rights, they are human beings as well. But some actions need to be restricted. I saw a few pages back that an argument was going on about Smoking and kids. Sure it is illegal to sell cigs. to kids, but its not illegal for them to smoke them.

Im not saying that we should cut off smoking this instant, I realize that some people have a dependancy. We can check those people into re-hab and wait for them to "heal" in time thier body will re-adjust to thier nicotine free diet. Then smoking can be more firmly abolished.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 2:24 AM
you will never abolish smoking. some people dont want to quit. people who smoke already KNOW its unhealthy.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 2:24 AM
Jesus, rehab is like sending someone to hell. I've been there and....not fun.

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:25 AM
would you rather send some-one to hell for a while then sending them to any early grave for-ever...

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:26 AM
and I realize that smoking will never be truley abolished, this is just an area for people to state thier opinions...

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 2:27 AM
try not to double post.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 2:31 AM
would you rather send some-one to hell for a while then sending them to any early grave for-ever...

Short while? Pffft. They kept me there for 4 frikkin months. And if they don't want to quit, that's their problem.
Have you ever been to rehab? It often makes people WORSE.

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:31 AM
srry about that...but you understand my point right. To put it simple smoking is bad, its not good and its not healthy. Im not saying it will ever be illegal, beacuse it wont.

I just dont like the whole concept of smoking. People are addicted to it, and you cant just stop something like that, it would take years, but we can at least enforce laws about it to make it stricter.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 2:33 AM
But why would you want to enforce laws like that? People get addicted to a lot of things, and laws and rehab aren't going to stop them.

Gr0ud0np0wer
11th May 2008, 2:33 AM
4 months isint that long compared to an eternity. All im saying is smoking is bad, its not good. Its not healthy. I know it will never be truley illegal, that would take years if it even would happen. All im saying is that laws about should be enforced a bit more.

I leave this aregument at that...i hope you understand my veiws about smoking. What i dream of may never happen, but its still a nice dream.

A world without smokers.....how nice would that be.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 2:36 AM
However, what if you don't die early from smoking? There are 80 year olds who smoke. There are 40 year olds that don't smoke and die from something else.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 2:37 AM
groud0n, you have to realize that you cant force your agenda on other people. part of living in america and why its so great is because of the liberties. even if it includes the pursuit of happiness in sacrifice of your health. you undermine those things when you ban smoking period.

The_Panda
11th May 2008, 2:39 AM
Smoking is incredibly dangerous and poses a very serious health risk (trust me, operating on heavy smokers is NOT fun). I don't see how anyone can deny it does kill you. However really for anyone who proposes a ban, saying smoking is bad/harmful is not enough. You need to show why it should be banned. That is, that banning it would be any better - something I adamantly dispute.

aquajet16
11th May 2008, 5:24 AM
you will never abolish smoking. some people dont want to quit. people who smoke already KNOW its unhealthy.

Yup, even my uncle who is a DOCTOR can say that smoking is harmful and he even said to me tons of cancers which can result through smoking.


You need to show why it should be banned. That is, that banning it would be any better - something I adamantly dispute.

But the only problem with smoking is not on the smoker but more with the people near them. When smoke gets into innocent children and thus they also inhale the smoke which is according to research, more dangerous than smoking. Smoking shouldn't be banned in my opinion but only put limits to it like smoke only in a private place or a smoking area. Smoking should only be banned in Gasoline Stations and Hotels or other public places which carry a no smoking sign.

Dark SpOOn Bender
11th May 2008, 8:32 AM
Cigarettes only cause pain and suffering in peoples' lives for obvious reasons, so you shouldn't relate them guns which can be used for good in many situations.

The problems with making cigarettes illegal is:
1. So many people are addicted already.
2. It's a big businuss that brings in a lot of money.

There is no other excuse besides those two as to why smoking is still legal. They are pretty sad and disgusting reasons, but they are hard to get rid of and that's reality unfortunately.

And just as a note - smoking isn't only suicide where "we live in a free country and can kill ourselves if we want to!" Smoking can greatly deteriorate the health of others as well.

Mandi.
11th May 2008, 8:40 AM
Oh no no nooo.

You know how many insane people we'd have after that.

I, myself am addicted to smoking. I hate it, but I need them now.

It's people's choice. Let them if they want.

Dusk
11th May 2008, 8:46 AM
Who cares if someone wants to smoke. It brings them a just little bit of happiness into their pathetic, pointless lives.

This is just like making Guns illegal, it won't happen. At least not until those silly Americans write remove that right to bear arms.

Dark SpOOn Bender
11th May 2008, 8:49 AM
Who cares if someone wants to smoke. It brings them a just little bit of happiness into their pathetic, pointless lives.

This is just like making Guns illegal, it won't happen. At least not until those silly Americans write remove that right to bear arms.

I guess you completely skipped over my post.

First off, I said that somking doesn't only affect you. Using the excuse that it is your choice to kill yourself with cigarettes is not a viable excuse because people have died from second hand smoke too. Second hand smoke is a MAJOR problem, so it isn't only about the physical well-being about yourself when you smoke. That is why I care if somebody wants to smoke ;/

Second of all, making smoking illegal IS NOT like making guns illegal. Cigarettes only have negative side effects whereas guns are necessary weapons to be used in dire situations. True, guns have and will always be abused, but cigarattes could never be a good thing.

Again though, cigarettes are never going to be illegal, at least not for a very, very long time, because of the amount of people who are addicted and need them and because they bring in the bucks.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 9:42 AM
Heck YES!
It should be a capital crime!

Because it seems there's no other way these people are going to get the message!

TogeticTheRuler
11th May 2008, 10:18 AM
Who cares if someone wants to smoke. It brings them a just little bit of happiness into their pathetic, pointless lives.

This is just like making Guns illegal, it won't happen. At least not until those silly Americans write remove that right to bear arms.

Why are you insulting smokers by calling them pathetic? They tried smoking, they are addicted to it, they know the effects but are too adicted to break away from it. But that doesn't neccesarily make the smoker a bad person.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 10:49 AM
I'd like to see a defense of smoking's inevitable effects outside the smoker.

We can certainly all agree that if somebody wants to smoke, for themselves, we can't say they're not being fair. That's a disclaimer right there, and anybody who ignores it will henceforth be referred to as a nincompoop.

However, it is simply impossible to smoke a cigarette without having an effect outside oneself. And, Like DSB said, those effects are only ever completely negative. Granted, GA makes a fair point that in, when far enough from other people and totally isolated, these effects are pretty much nonexistant, but really, how often are people securely isolated when they smoke? My own college campus anecdote provides a nice example.

I would like to see a justification of public smoking being acceptable, when the consequences of said action affect all other people in the vicinity, literally ignoring those persons' rights to not breathe toxic smoke. And since secondhand smoke has proven over and over again to be deadly, this is literally a situation in which the smoker is being given a pass to harm innocent people (perhaps fatally) without consequence.

I'm also wondering about the environmental effects. All those toxic chemicals can't be good for the planet, let alone the waste of cigarettes; the butts and dried papers/tobaco and whatnot. Perhaps someone with some insight about this particular perspective could post the information?

GrizzlyB
11th May 2008, 11:05 AM
Ah, Profesco, I must apologize for jumping out of our foxhole at such a critical moment earlier. A thousand pardons.

Anywho, continuing the focal point of the argument against smoking of the complications it brings regarding personal liberties, I must bring up I point that I ought to have previously: when the Declaration of Independence alludes to the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the pursuit of happiness is in the context of being able to choose your profession, have property, live wherever one wants, and other such things of the sort. That is not smoking, stealing, causing a ruckus, or any other such uncouth behavior (otherwise, states couldn't ban smoking in any way shape, or form). Just to clarify that point.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 11:11 AM
Profesco you made an EXCELLENT point; it's not just about what the smokers are doing to themselves, what they do to others has to be taken into account.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 11:38 AM
Outlawing cigs will create crime, not to mention the government has there hands in the tobacco industry and are making huge amounts of money.

I myself am a smoker and decided 2 days ago to quit I always knew it was bad for me as would everyone else that smokes, but it was still my personal choice and no laws should oppose that.

@profesco
Your argument that out door smoking harms others is completely stupid, outside there is ventilation unlike in doors and if so inclined you could avoid the smoke. Smokes aren't
so toxic that there going to poison the entire atmosphere and there aren't enough smokers to fill the world of smoke.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 12:13 PM
@profesco
Your argument that out door smoking harms others is completely stupid, outside there is ventilation unlike in doors and if so inclined you could avoid the smoke

My argument may think "time flies" means throwing a clock out the window, but I wouldn't call it completely stupid.

Anyway, the fact remains that in close-quarters public spaces smoke often does reach nonsmoking persons. I suggest you read the anecdote I posted about my own college campus. I'm certain there are more examples of like situations, too.

Rose_of_the_Night
11th May 2008, 12:16 PM
Personally, I think that either it should be made illegal or the nicotine take out of it so that people don't get addicted to it. It is killing thousands of people in europe alone every year and smoking has nearly broken up my family SEVEN TIMES.

$Cash$
11th May 2008, 12:55 PM
Yes it should be
It wouldn't stop teens/young adults from smoking but it would stop older people who don't have any connections to dealers and discourage people from starting up

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 12:56 PM
profesco, youre still repeating yourself, people still usually have a choice to walk away.

grizzly, now youre just twisting the constitution in your own words. smoking is a legal activity in all 50 states.

Shiny pokemon lover
11th May 2008, 1:00 PM
Yes, it should be illegal! It hurts people and often kill them. They should stop to produse tobacco plants completely!

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:02 PM
Yeah i apologize about that i only skimmed your post. I still have not read your argument about your campus but i will assume that it got really smoky, even if that you'll only be in that environment for a short amount of time and its still ventilated but i don't think it will cause harm.

There is very few people that have gained harm from second hand smoke indoors and there is even less if none that have gained it from out doors. The thing that harms you is the frequency that your exposed to the smoke. It would be more damaging to someone thats sits around in a smoke filled house than to some who has a pack a year. You will probably be exposed to that situation for, what, 10 minutes tops.

I do however agree with you on one part, and that is you have to be exposed to smoke that you do not enjoy. when me and my friends smoked we made sure we didn't do it around high foot traffic areas so we didn't force other non smokers to breath our smoke. I do realize however some people aren't as courteous, and do partly agree that there should be no smoking in high traffic or tightly packed areas. The thing about this is that someone must determine where to place these bans and the laws will most likely be superfluous or over bearing on smokers


Personally, I think that either it should be made illegal or the nicotine take out of it so that people don't get addicted to it. It is killing thousands of people in europe alone every year and smoking has nearly broken up my family SEVEN TIMES.

As I have said before smokers know that it is dangerous and addictive as long as it doesn't harm others they should have the right to smoke. Your also heavily biased i am sorry that smoking has almost broken up your family, but that is the decision of your family and should not influence that laws on tobacco. And from personal experience when they cut chemicals out of the tobacco its not as satisfying.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:05 PM
i am terribly disappointed in how many people want something banned simply because they dont like the activity even done in privacy.

its no different than wanting games banned because somebody just doesnt like them. come on people, i know youre all socially inept people who dont understand smoking and smokers but at least recognize somebody's pursuit of happiness.

chuboy
11th May 2008, 1:06 PM
If you ban smoking more people will get hooked on it. The appeal will be far greater to teens who want to be rebel and break the law and smoke tobacco. People will get cigarettes whether it's legal or not.

People have to make choices in life for themselves and honestly, anybody who is stupid enough to poison themselves with tobacco smoke deserves to die from chronic lung cancer. Think of it as a filter for improving the gene pool.

Besides, if smoking should be banned because it kills people, then guns should be banned too. And alcohol, and cars, and electricity, and water, and oxygen.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:09 PM
Yes it should be
It wouldn't stop teens/young adults from smoking but it would stop older people who don't have any connections to dealers and discourage people from starting up

This is completely stupid this would increase the dangers involved with smoking just like pot if i want it ill get it. I've been bashed and robbed when buying weed and I've had it laced, the exact same thing will happen with tobacco. And don't say that old people wont be able to get it i know many 70+ that smoke or know where to get pot. The kids will also grow up thinking how bad it is and when they try it and realize how it isn't that bad they'll try harder drugs, this is why weed is know as a gateway drug.

Rensch
11th May 2008, 1:11 PM
Only in public areas. Perhaps even in pubs, since it would be unfair to the astmatic who can't go out because of all the smoke.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:16 PM
People have to make choices in life for themselves and honestly, anybody who is stupid enough to poison themselves with tobacco smoke deserves to die from chronic lung cancer. Think of it as a filter for improving the gene pool.


A little harsh don't you think. What you have to realize is that smokers aren't some alien creature, there normal humans and while there treats vary from yours they don't deserve to die. I would have worded it "they don't deserve sympathy". And anyway the gene pool would more greatly benefit from complete fuking idiots like your self burning to death.

$Cash$
11th May 2008, 1:18 PM
Tobacco laced ? lol you can't exactly sprinkle coke on tobacco and not have anyone notice
Some people won't be able to get it, my mom for example doesn't know any dealers if smoking was illegal she wouldn't be able to light up all the time anymore which will eventually lead to her death
Weed isn't a gateway drug by the way, if anything i'd say ecstasy is the gateway drug, because that leads to pills/coke quickly depending on the user

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:19 PM
yes, and pizza is a gateway food that leads to drug use.

chuboy
11th May 2008, 1:21 PM
A little harsh don't you think. What you have to realize is that smokers aren't some alien creature, there normal humans and while there treats vary from yours they don't deserve to die. I would have worded it "they don't deserve sympathy". And anyway the gene pool would more greatly benefit from complete fuking idiots like your self burning to death.

Thanks for the flame, dude! Can you think of a reason why anyone who chooses to pay someone to kill them slowly with a slurry of toxic chemicals has a right to complain that they didn't know it would give them cancer and that it's not their fault they're sick? No.

I'm not saying smokers should be burned at the stake, I'm saying that just because it's not banned doesn't mean people HAVE to smoke, and the ones that do have no reason to place the blame on anyone else but themselves.

@$cash$: That's a naive mindset. If tobacco were banned, then dealers who had the stuff would probably put coke or something in the smokes before they sold it to the addicts at inflated prices. Then the people who smoked these cigarettes would become addicted to cocaine as well = more business for the dealer.

That's why all drugs should be legalised. There would be no drug dealers if you could get safe doses of drugs you wanted at realistic prices from a chemist. Although you may think MORE people would become addicted, the opposite would happen. What, exactly, is rebellious about a person who walks into a store and buys a dose of ecstasy? If anyone can get it, it's not rebel, and therefore people will not use it to show off to their friends (which is how a lot of addictions start). No one will think "Wow, he's hard, he takes drugs against the law", they think "Ew, this guy is an addict."

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:25 PM
i dont know if you people realize this or not but smokers already know its unhealthy.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:26 PM
yes, and pizza is a gateway food that leads to drug use.

Really? You don't know how many friends I've had that have tried weed and then gone "wow this isn't as bad as everyone says", and then moved on to harder drugs. If tobacco was outlawed it would automatically gain a stigma with younger generations and once they try it some will start going on to harder drugs. No need to be a smartarse.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:31 PM
Thanks for the flame, dude! Can you think of a reason why anyone who chooses to pay someone to kill them slowly with a slurry of toxic chemicals has a right to complain that they didn't know it would give them cancer and that it's not their fault they're sick? No.

I'm not saying smokers should be burned at the stake, I'm saying that just because it's not banned doesn't mean people HAVE to smoke, and the ones that do have no reason to place the blame on anyone else but themselves.

But you said people that smoke deserve to die of lung cancer. Deserve means thats what they should get. Smokers, as i have said, know its unhealthy and if smoking ended up killing me i wouldn't blame anyone else but myself

$Cash$
11th May 2008, 1:35 PM
That's a naive mindset. If tobacco were banned, then dealers who had the stuff would probably put coke or something in the smokes before they sold it to the addicts at inflated prices. Then the people who smoked these cigarettes would become addicted to cocaine as well = more business for the dealer.

Most people would realize their tobacco is laced since coke is a strong stimulant.. how can you lace tobacco which gives you a little buzz with hard drugs without someone knowing something is different

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:35 PM
Really? You don't know how many friends I've had that have tried weed and then gone "wow this isn't as bad as everyone says", and then moved on to harder drugs.you dont know how many people ive know that did weed and ate pizza first.

hint: you are committing a logical fallacy.

btw, dont double post.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:37 PM
Tobacco laced ? lol you can't exactly sprinkle coke on tobacco and not have anyone notice
Some people won't be able to get it, my mom for example doesn't know any dealers if smoking was illegal she wouldn't be able to light up all the time anymore which will eventually lead to her death
Weed isn't a gateway drug by the way, if anything i'd say ecstasy is the gateway drug, because that leads to pills/coke quickly depending on the user

Ive had weed laced and it almost killed me. And yes weed is a gateway drug it is usually the first illegal drug anyone tries.

Also chuboy people don't think addicts are h4rdc0re they thing of them as losers.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:38 PM
concrete donkey needs to stop using faulty reasoning.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 1:43 PM
you dont know how many people ive know that did weed and ate pizza first.

hint: you are committing a logical fallacy.

btw, dont double post.

I'm saying there is a stigma attached with weed, the effects are blown out of proportion and if people try it and decide they've been lied too they might think that other drugs are not as bad. Pizza however doesn't have a stigma attached. That sentence alone is a logical fallacy but you forgot about the whole paragraph which made it correct.

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 1:45 PM
It wouldn't make any sense to ban it just because it damages the smoker's health- one could use the same reasoning to attempt to build fattening, unhealthy foods merely because obesity is a major cause of death. If other people want to perform actions that could harm themselves, that's fine, as long as it's isolated from the people around you (meaning that no one else is negatively affected by it).

However, because of second hand smoke, smoking does have a negative effect on those around you, and I don't see why that in itself isn't reason to ban it. Sure, you can just move away from the smoker, or tell them to stop, but I don't see how that's any different than, for example, someone throwing paint at anyone that walks by- yes, you can just take a different route, or attempt to get close enough to tell them to stop, but you shouldn't have to in the first place.

chuboy
11th May 2008, 1:46 PM
Most people would realize their tobacco is laced since coke is a strong stimulant.. how can you lace tobacco which gives you a little buzz with hard drugs without someone knowing something is different
By the time they know it has cocaine in it they are already getting a buzz. Besides, cocaine is highly addictive and it only takes a few before you are hooked. And what kind of idiot dealer is going to fill their cigarettes with just tobacco? They aren't honest in the first place.

It may seem ironic, but the healthiest way to smoke is to buy your products from regulated companies.


Also chuboy people don't think addicts are h4rdc0re they thing of them as losers.
All the more keeping drugs legalized and regulated would reduce drug use.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 1:50 PM
no. nothing about it is correct. how about you read the forum rules and realize that you are debating improperly by committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html) fallacy.

ill reply when you make an actual point, concrete.

$Cash$
11th May 2008, 1:51 PM
Not all dealers are shady people who want to lace their products to get people hooked. If someone is buying tobacco regularly, they're probably going to get hooked eventually whether it's laced with coke or not, and coke is an expensive drug it's not profitable to lace an addictive chemical with another addictive chemical when one is sufficient

chuboy
11th May 2008, 1:53 PM
Is it not? Tell me, if only one dealer's cigarettes give you the high you like (i.e. the one laced with coke), you're only going to buy from them, and once you're addicted enough you will pay anything. That's how lives are destroyed. Best to play it safe and let the morons who want to smoke buy their own death without bring anyone else down alongside them.

Concrete Donkey
11th May 2008, 2:05 PM
no. nothing about it is correct. how about you read the forum rules and realize that you are debating improperly by committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html) fallacy.

ill reply when you make an actual point, concrete.

Ok i realize what you mean.

UmbreonLord
11th May 2008, 2:10 PM
Smoking shouldn't be illegal. If fools want to get cancer and kill themselves, thats fine with me. Not the fault of the NHS when you die from it. Only yourself to blame and your stupidity to submit to peer pressure.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 3:02 PM
However, because of second hand smoke, smoking does have a negative effect on those around you, and I don't see why that in itself isn't reason to ban it. Sure, you can just move away from the smoker, or tell them to stop, but I don't see how that's any different than, for example, someone throwing paint at anyone that walks by- yes, you can just take a different route, or attempt to get close enough to tell them to stop, but you shouldn't have to in the first place.

Yes, Cosmos. This is the point that our main opponent, GhostAnime, seems to either not care about or not understand.

Everybody has Right A. One person wants Right B. If this person is granted Right B, then Right A is taken from everybody else.

Right A: freedom to go wherever they want without risking health issues from toxic smoke
Right B: freedom to release toxic smoke wherever they want

Until you do something with this argument, GhostAnime, for what it is, I don't exactly know where else to take my debate...

10Sunkernlimit! Ha!

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 3:07 PM
the smoker can release it wherever they want but the non-smoker can choose to breathe in it wherever they want.

until you give me a situation where they are FORCED to breathe in the smoke, you have no argument. again, youre just repeating the last one. well, ill repeat mine until i actually get an answer because both have rights to not be near each other.

Isaac
11th May 2008, 3:13 PM
Smoking shouldn't be illegal. If fools want to get cancer and kill themselves, thats fine with me. Not the fault of the NHS when you die from it. Only yourself to blame and your stupidity to submit to peer pressure.

I think it should be illegal, I mean what about the inocent people who dont smoke, a few could die from second hand smoke. Now is nessarly there fault for dieing when THEY dont even smoke? no.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 3:17 PM
i think the only innocent people who have to be forced to breathe in that smoke are children, and you put them at risk when you force their parents to only smoke at home or outside.

so allow them to smoke at places; AWAY FROM CHILDREN, and maybe that wont happen.

perhaps some of you should consider thinking outside of the box.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 3:22 PM
Since most smokers seem to be just too stupid to realise what we've been telling them for the last 30 years or so about cigarettes, are too weak to give it up, or they don't care about themselves and the people around them.

The first step should be that hospitals refuse to treat smokers for anything, it makes sense given they recover slower and are going to kill themselves anyway. Why should people with better chances of survival (as they're not committing slow suicide) have to wait for while these smokers get treatment that won't do that much good in the long run?

That might give some of them second thoughts, and then after that we then work into banning smoking.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 3:24 PM
your plan is idiotic and you are ignorant of the reason WHY people smoke. it fails.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 3:31 PM
your plan is idiotic and you are ignorant of the reason WHY people smoke. it fails.

It isn't idiotic, it makes sense: why waste public resources on them?

Some smokers know they'll get lung cancer, and they go on while waiting for it to get treated knowing they'll have longer to smoke. Take that out and maybe, just maybe, some will have second thoughts.

It'll at least stop the waste of resources on these people.

As far as I'm concerned I don't care if they're peer pressured into or get hooked they're still weak because they don't give up and extremely stupid knowing what the consequences are and still smoking.

Isaac
11th May 2008, 3:34 PM
Since most smokers seem to be just too stupid to realise what we've been telling them for the last 30 years or so about cigarettes, are too weak to give it up, or they don't care about themselves and the people around them.

The first step should be that hospitals refuse to treat smokers for anything, it makes sense given they recover slower and are going to kill themselves anyway. Why should people with better chances of survival (as they're not committing slow suicide) have to wait for while these smokers get treatment that won't do that much good in the long run?

That might give some of them second thoughts, and then after that we then work into banning smoking.

U cant refuse people into hospitals just because they smoke! I mean itisnt good to spoke, but ur just as bad as smokers killing people through second hand smoke.

It'll at least stop the waste of resources on these people.

As far as I'm concerned I don't care if they're peer pressured into or get hooked they're still weak because they don't give up and extremely stupid knowing what the consequences are and still smoking.

Besides those people pay good money for the resources.
So u dont believe in second chances?

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 3:37 PM
you cant refuse care for them simply because they like smoking. thats like refusing care for people who are gamers because they lack exercise and if they get a blood clot, you kick them out.

if they can pay for the treatment, they should be allowed the treatment.

and you still fail to realize WHY they smoke. they know its unhealthy. they are ADDICTED to smoking.

can we get an argument from somebody smart and not just some child advocating "SMOKING IS BAD 4 U!"?

ursaloom
11th May 2008, 3:37 PM
eh, easier conclution that makes everyone happy: make them 3 times more expensive, will cut it down very much, in my country a package of cigarettes is like 35$ for 20 cigs, for that money i could have bought a video game wich lasts longer and is addictive in a better way.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 3:37 PM
U cant refuse people into hospitals just because they smoke! I mean itisnt good to spoke, but ur just as bad as smokers killing people through second hand smoke.

Why not?
Haven't you seen or heard the studies that have proven smokers recover slower and suffer more complications in hospital operations then people who don't smoke?

I know it isn't a savoury concept but it is practical; we save money that is being wasted on people who don't care about their own health. Ghostanime, there's a difference between someone who just sits around on the comp or couch and someone who is smoking: on the couch okay you're not getting exercise but you're not ACTIVELY harming your health.

There is little excuse, in my opinion, for people who smoke any more. We have known what it does to people for 30 years, it is drilled into these people's heads at school and still they do NOT listen.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 3:41 PM
no umbreon your plan isnt practical. people smoke for the feeling and not care for the effects; it has nothing to do with scaring them. we scare them enough as it is. they dont care. they are addicted.

just realize that banning smoking is impractical and you are too young to realize how this country even works.

Isaac
11th May 2008, 3:45 PM
Why not?
Haven't you seen or heard the studies that have proven smokers recover slower and suffer more complications in hospital operations then people who don't smoke?

I know it isn't a savoury concept but it is practical; we save money that is being wasted on people who don't care about their own health. Ghostanime, there's a difference between someone who just sits around on the comp or couch and someone who is smoking: on the couch okay you're not getting exercise but you're not ACTIVELY harming your health.

There is little excuse, in my opinion, for people who smoke any more. We have known what it does to people for 30 years, it is drilled into these people's heads at school and still they do NOT listen.

Not really those people pay money, so we spend some and getsome to.

I think we should ban smokeing, but those who still smoke try to give them some sort of medicine that HELPS w/ trying to make them less addivtive. And eventually eradicating the addiction

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 3:54 PM
Not really those people pay money, so we spend some and getsome to.
I think it's very rare that everyone treated in hospitals pays back all their bills themselves (you know community healthcare), much less that they pay it right back then and there. Might be different in other countries but here the hospitals would be out of pocket.


I think we should ban smokeing, but those who still smoke try to give them some sort of medicine that HELPS w/ trying to make them less addivtive. And eventually eradicating the addiction

That sounds reasonable...
Still I have a lot of contempt for smokers, particularly younger smokers, since they know it's addictive and bad yet they ignore that and take it up.

There was this really great sketch on a Australian comedy sketch show about smoking a while back: there's a smoker out the front of a building smoking, they offer a cigarette to a young woman who's walked out of the building, then this car drives up and lowers its window, out of the window comes a Tommy Gun and it shoots the smoker, then the tag-line is "QUIT... This time we're serious!"
Loved it!

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 4:02 PM
the smoker can release it wherever they want but the non-smoker can choose to breathe in it wherever they want.

until you give me a situation where they are FORCED to breathe in the smoke, you have no argument. again, youre just repeating the last one. well, ill repeat mine until i actually get an answer because both have rights to not be near each other.

Let's go back to the example with the person who throws paint at anyone who walks by. People can stay away from him, they can attempt to tell him from afar not to do it, but does that make his actions fine, just because no one is FORCED to have paint thrown all over themselves? Through his actions, the person is causing a major inconvenience from everyone else around them. I don't think anyone seriously wants to have to tell every smoker they meet to stop smoking or walk around them.

It's obvious that the example of someone throwing paint at people isn't something that should actually be allowed to happen, but what is the difference between this and smoking, besides smoking being generally more accepted?

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 4:09 PM
Gee and let's think how many times have you walked out of or to the entrance of a building only to catch the nauseating scent of cigarette smoke from a crowd of inconsiderate smokers who've camped out there in a break?
Where's your chance not to breath it in then? If you don't want to breath it in, you have to hold your breath til you get inside (which is something you shouldn't have to).

Shinin
11th May 2008, 4:09 PM
Let's go back to the example with the person who throws paint at anyone who walks by. People can stay away from him, they can attempt to tell him from afar not to do it, but does that make his actions fine, just because no one is FORCED to have paint thrown all over themselves? Through his actions, the person is causing a major inconvenience from everyone else around them. I don't think anyone seriously wants to have to tell every smoker they meet to stop smoking or walk around them.

It's obvious that the example of someone throwing paint at people isn't something that should actually be allowed to happen, but what is the difference between this and smoking, besides smoking being generally more accepted?

Holding your breath for a few seconds or walking around someone is hardly an inconvenience.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 4:15 PM
Holding your breath for a few seconds or walking around someone is hardly an inconvenience.

It is a inconvenience!

What if you're asthmatic or used to be, I was the only thing that sets me off is cigarette smoke, and it sets you off before you can cover your nose?
What if you can't hold your breath cause you're hurrying or have a condition that doesn't let you?

And here's the ultimate question: Why should you HAVE to hold your breath? What right do the smokers have to tell you 'well to bad for you'?!

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 4:17 PM
Let's go back to the example with the person who throws paint at anyone who walks by. People can stay away from him, they can attempt to tell him from afar not to do it, but does that make his actions fine, just because no one is FORCED to have paint thrown all over themselves? Through his actions, the person is causing a major inconvenience from everyone else around them. I don't think anyone seriously wants to have to tell every smoker they meet to stop smoking or walk around them.if the owner of an establishment allows some guy to throw paint at somebody, then thats them. i guarantee you most restaurants wouldnt do this anyway.

i see where you tried to go with your comparison, though. it doesnt work.

as for outside in the open.. uh, well why would i want to walk near somebody who said theyd throw paint on me? making threats to my rights not to have paint thrown on me is different from some guy just smoking and the smoke traveling which he isnt deliberately trying to put smoke in my face. if a smoker purposely threatens to smoke wherever you go, then yes, that is violating your rights. but we dont ban pets outside because some guy can follow you around with a dog making you sick.

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 4:31 PM
as for outside in the open.. uh, well why would i want to walk near somebody who said theyd throw paint on me? making threats to my rights not to have paint thrown on me is different from some guy just smoking and the smoke traveling which he isnt deliberately trying to put smoke in my face.

You're right, I guess, the comparison was pretty flawed. My point, though, was more along the lines of the effects of each scenario. Even if the smoker isn't deliberately smoking to damage those around him, the smoke still presents a danger, whether he means it to or not.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 4:33 PM
it presents a danger. so does a dog. people have allergies. should we ban dogs outside and kill all of them? no. we just tell people to stay away from dogs.

perhaps if you asked the smoker nicely to move. perhaps if you just simply walked around him. breathing in a few puffs of smoke isnt going to kill anybody and if you have asthma, well, you should be more wary just like a person on allergies.

The Doctor
11th May 2008, 4:36 PM
Eh, I'm bored, so I decided to throw my views on this.

In case you're not aware, the UK has enforced a type of smoking ban. It hasn't completely stamped out cigarettes, but basically, you're only supposed to smoke them outside. You can't even smoke in your own house. It isn't really a ban, more like a humiliation tactic: look down a street of restaurants and bars and you'll see an individual hunched over a cigarette, but in a rush to do so. The government may as well have put a sign behind these individuals saying, "THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO STEP OUTSIDE TO LIGHT ONE UP. DON'T BE LIKE THEM."

My late grandfather himself was a chain-smoker, and my parents did when they were young. I don't know if they were aware of the risks of smoking, but they cared for the effect, like GhostAnime said. If you want to smoke, and possibly die because of it, that's fine. It's your life, not mine, and I have no right to dominate it. Tobacco is a recreational drug, like caffeine; you take it at your leisure. While I don't plan to smoke, that doesn't mean I'm going to snap at people who light up anyway, nor will I fall out with my friends because they decide to smoke. It's their business, and I have no right to get involved. Neither does the government. It's not like they're unaware of the risks: there are health warnings on those packets, you know. If you want to stop, then you can stop. If you're going by the logic of "ban it because it's bad for your health", then junk food, alcohol and the like will have to be banned as well.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 4:36 PM
Again I agree with CosmosSage.

Plus there's generally a lack of thinking and courtesy on the part of smokers, from whom non-smokers will inhale second hand smoke, they just get out of a building and go for their cigarette they don't stop to think (or care) that people will be going in and out of that and will have to breath the air they're polluting.

And again there's a big difference between having a smoke (which has ALL sorts of chemicals in it not just Tobacco) and having an alcoholic drink or a coffee. Excess of alcohol can harm the drinker, I dunno about caffeine, but ANY amount of cigarette smoke does the smoker (and those who cope second hand smoke) harm.
There are laws about keeping the level of chemical discharge from cars down, so people don't get carbon monoxide poisoning, how/why should a cigarette be considered any different?

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 4:40 PM
then im sure the owner of that building will say something if they cared. of course if this building was something a people HAD to go in, then yes, that smoker is violating rates.

but banning all smoking isnt the way to do that.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 4:46 PM
then im sure the owner of that building will say something if they cared. of course if this building was something a people HAD to go in, then yes, that smoker is violating rates.

I EXPERIENCE that every day I go to TAFE, a low priced Uni, and virtually every day I end up having to breath some of it cause of the way it wafts around the entrance and sometimes inside the buildings.
The TAFE allow smoking on their grounds, not in the buildings, which I find enraging cause you can't stop smoke by saying "this is a non-smoking area don't waft in here"!


but banning all smoking isnt the way to do that.
Oh yes it is, if you ban it completely then people can't smoke at all, thus they can't get into packs outside building doors.

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 4:46 PM
it presents a danger. so does a dog. people have allergies. should we ban dogs outside and kill all of them? no. we just tell people to stay away from dogs.

That's an interesting point, but smoking, unlike dogs, doesn't have any benefits at all to its use, besides perhaps giving slight, temporary relief to the smoker.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 4:47 PM
that IS the benefit.

why is a benefit necessary, though? all that matters is that its a right.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 4:48 PM
That's an interesting point, but smoking, unlike dogs, doesn't have any benefits at all to its use, besides perhaps giving slight, temporary relief to the smoker.

Exactly.

Smoking has no redeeming quality and harms everyone, not just some people who're allergic to dogs or cats, it is in fact poison (there's cyanide in those things you know?).

The Doctor
11th May 2008, 4:55 PM
Exactly.

Smoking has no redeeming quality and harms everyone, not just some people who're allergic to dogs or cats, it is in fact poison (there's cyanide in those things you know?).

I believe smokers are aware of running the risk. Much the same way those who eat at McDonalds or Burger King or KFC run the risk of diabetes, clogged arteries, etc. Smoking does have a relaxing effect: it was considered healthy in the 20th century as it calmed you down, and WW1 soldiers lit up before going into battle to sooth their nerves (I think it goes without saying this was before the health risks associated with smoking were discovered). But it's the right of the individual to choose what they want to do. If they want to smoke, then they can smoke. If they want to stop smoking, then they can stop smoking. They have the right to do so.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:04 PM
car exhaust kills you faster than second-hand smoke. just thought id point that out.

sapphire_addict
11th May 2008, 5:10 PM
I think people have a right to smoke until they die, but i think that they really shouldn't and just chew nicorette gum.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 5:11 PM
I believe smokers are aware of running the risk. Much the same way those who eat at McDonalds or Burger King or KFC run the risk of diabetes, clogged arteries, etc.

There is NO relation between smoking and fast food.
Fast food is only dangerous in excess, smoking is dangerous in ANY amount.


Smoking does have a relaxing effect: it was considered healthy in the 20th century as it calmed you down, and WW1 soldiers lit up before going into battle to sooth their nerves (I think it goes without saying this was before the health risks associated with smoking were discovered). But it's the right of the individual to choose what they want to do. If they want to smoke, then they can smoke. If they want to stop smoking, then they can stop smoking. They have the right to do so.

I understand the calming (and addictive) chemical effect of cigarettes is well known but the facts are the facts: It's dangerous for you.
It's in the best interests of these people that they stop, not to mention tax payers who pay their hospital bills & for the world in general with all the pollution, if they won't voluntarily then finding a way to stop them should be genuinely considered.


car exhaust kills you faster than second-hand smoke. just thought id point that out.
It can still kill and take away quality of life, and I do not take kindly to the idea someone might have shortened MY life because THEY wanted to have a smoke.
What about my rights huh?

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:12 PM
well, you were the one that stood close to him. car exhaust is nearly inescapable is large cities.

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 5:21 PM
well, you were the one that stood close to him. car exhaust is nearly inescapable is large cities.

Yes, but there's actually a benefit to someone driving a car- it actually is accomplishing something, whereas smoking isn't accomplishing anything at all.

As for why that matters- Smoking obviously poses a danger to those around the smoker. The smoker's actions can only be justified if the benefit of him smoking is more significant than the problems caused by him smoking. As the only benefit that comes to mind is that the smoker's craving temporarily disappears, and as this is cancelled out by the smoker's dependency increasing, the behavior can't be justified. Driving a car actually gives a significant benefit to those driving.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:23 PM
the fact remains that not many people die DIRECTLY to second-hand compared to regular air pollution.

and if they do, well, they didnt use their right well or were children who had no other alternative (i already explained this).

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 5:27 PM
Second Hand Smoke is dangerous, maybe it's not doing as much to you as to the person who's committing slow suicide but it still damages you. Especially with kids who have no choice cause their parents smoke.

The fumes from Driving aren't addictive and you don't go out of your way to poison yourself, smoking is directly introducing all sorts of poisons into yourself (and the environment).

Jade1212
11th May 2008, 5:30 PM
Smoking should be illegal if there are minors living in the house. Children should not be forced to breathe secondhand smoke in their home.

i actually agree,but instead the parents can only smoke when the minor is not there to breathe the air.Example,when there at school.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:33 PM
air pollution (http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm)

second-hand smoke. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422#four)

now thats 50,000 to 3 million. also note how those second-hand breathers HAD to breathe in a lot of smoke in order for them to die, so they had to be either children or just didnt walk away from enough.

now, most people will say cars are a necessary need even though they contribute to most of the air pollution and smoking is just for pleasure, but dont forget that most of you also still have rights and if we ban smoking from public places, that costs tax dollars to clean up extra littering and you increase the chance of a smoker smoking with their children. so there ARE benefits to letting the free market decide.

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 5:37 PM
now thats 50,000 to 3 million. also note how those second-hand breathers HAD to breathe in a lot of smoke in order for them to die, so they had to be either children or just didnt walk away from enough.

Wait, you're comparing second-hand-smoke deaths in the US to pollution deaths in the world. There's obviously going to be a huge difference.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:38 PM
woops. my mistake. didnt read down further. its actually 70k.

my point still stands, though.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 5:41 PM
Thank you, Ghostanime, you've pointed out exactly why smoking has to be completely banned.

If you just ban it in some places smokers will just move to somewhere else to smoke, and the simple fact is most will just get angry that they can't smoke where they want to, they don't consider the health and environmental issues.

Also there are SO many smokers who don't give a damn what the FACTS about smoking are, they've just decided they're going to do it come hell or high-water (regardless of how they go about it).

The only way to stop it is with a complete ban.

CosmosSage
11th May 2008, 5:43 PM
woops. my mistake. didnt read down further. its actually 70k.

my point still stands, though.

All right, then. There's still a larger number of deaths due to air pollution, but note that the majority of that pollution is actually a result of something being accomplished (examples: production of goods, public/private transport, etc.). On the other hand, smoking isn't accomplishing anything at all, and it still causes a comparable number of deaths to pollution- and that's only counting people killed by second-hand smoke.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:44 PM
well, a complete ban didnt stop people from drinking alcohol and our current ban on weed didnt stop people from smoking weed.

instead, we waste money for sending people who smoke weed in their privacy in jail because they smoke weed in privacy.

and of course the smokers dont care if its unhealthy; they think its worth it. thats no reason to take it away from them, though.


On the other hand, smoking isn't accomplishing anything at all, and it still causes a comparable number of deaths to pollution- and that's only counting people killed by second-hand smoke.why should we address more than the people who dont want anything to do with the smoke?

anyway, i already addressed this: they were either children or didnt use their rights well. you also have to consider that youll do more harm illegalizing it in public places because that encourages them to smoke closer to their families (the ones who dont want to be involved in it).

so instead of wasting tax dollars and harming more innocent children, how about we give them a place for them to smoke based on the free market and let people have the responsibility to not breathe in smoke?

Dark SpOOn Bender
11th May 2008, 5:47 PM
profesco, youre still repeating yourself, people still usually have a choice to walk away.

People who don't smoke shouldn't be controlled by the smokers. It should be the other way around. We should be allowed to walk wherever we want without the fear of breathing in smoke.
Plus, you don't have to stand right next to a person to be a victim of the effects of second-hand smoke. Somebody is standing on the sidewalk and you don't want to walk into the busy street to go around them, you could walk right through their smoke. When I used to live with my father, he NEVER smoked in the house, but he would smoke a lot outside the house. Even if I waited an hour, the smoke would still be sitting in the air and I would have to breath it in if I wanted to go anywhere. I have asthma too, so it doesn't have to take years and years of second-hand smoke to do serious damage.



i dont know if you people realize this or not but smokers already know its unhealthy.

Obviously they didn't give a damn when they started. Smoking is your own conscious choice because nobody is going to shove the cigarette in your mouth. I used to have sympathy for people who smoked, but I honestly don't anymore.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 5:50 PM
im not opposed to banning smoking on a busy street.

but.. why are they smoking on a busy street? maybe its because they cant in a public place that allowed them.

kochoupink
11th May 2008, 5:51 PM
I think smoking is a perfectly nasty idea, and it would be nice if no one did it. But it can't be outlawed. By making it illegal, lawmakers would be giving it a sort of rebel cachet, turning it into something "cool" again, after its finally started to lose its fashion appeal.
The only way to stop people from smoking is to continue to stigmatize it, eventually making it so socially unacceptable that no one will want to start. A straight-up ban would be a terrible idea.

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 6:00 PM
im not opposed to banning smoking on a busy street.

but.. why are they smoking on a busy street? maybe its because they cant in a public place that allowed them.

Yeah and that's the right approach, we shouldn't make the law in favour of the smoker but the person who has a right NOT to have to put up with smokers.

I think there's a difference between the idea of banning smoking to banning alcohol, drinking isn't nearly as harmful as smoking. I just don't see there being any other way to stop smoking then just banning it because there will always be smokers.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 6:06 PM
edit: actually nevermind that last point but drunk driving is still much more serious.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 6:12 PM
Smoking doesn't get you high/drunk or anything. That's why it's legal. You can drive a car and smoke, but you can't drink and drive a car....

Isaac
11th May 2008, 6:15 PM
Smoking doesn't get you high/drunk or anything. That's why it's legal.

Last time I checked itis legal to drink Bear, and whine. They both make you drunk right?

Night_Walker
11th May 2008, 6:24 PM
edit: actually nevermind that last point but drunk driving is still much more serious.

Yes but that's alcohol in excess.
Smoking is harmful in any amount.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 6:34 PM
but drunk driving harms more people. 250k injuries isnt anything to scoff at.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 6:39 PM
but drunk driving harms more people. 250k injuries isnt anything to scoff at.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 6:59 PM
Yeah, smoking may kill you after a while, but being drunk can kill you now. Just last week a guy from my school died of alcohol poisining.

Hunter_RuLe
11th May 2008, 7:02 PM
Making stuff illegal does not stop the market for it as the demand (and thus supply) will remain. The best thing you can do to discourage smoking is raise high taxes on cigarettes and stimulate/force cigarettes companies to give information to their consumers about the effects of smoking. The income of the tabacco taxes should be spend to education about cigarettes and health care for victims. Another thing you could do when trying to stop smoking o is trying to give smoking a much worse image, make it uncool to smoke.

In the end all adults have their own responsability, they can either spend their money (and health) on smoking or not. In a free country everyone should have their right to make their own choice, giving that they have got the opportunity to get all the information they need to make a good decision.

Nodoka
11th May 2008, 7:07 PM
I personally think smoking should be illegal; it's terrible for you and the people around you. I realize many people are addicted, but maybe if it was illegal they'd have a bit more motivation?

It's really unfair for those of us who don't want to die of cancer that when we're walking around at shopping centers, parks, or anywhere really we have to deal with cigarettes :/ So, simply stated, yes, it should be illegal.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 7:11 PM
The people who say it should be illegal because *whine whine second hand smoke, it's bad for you whine* should be shot. Let's put things in perspective, shall we? There are MILLIONS of smokers. People all over the world smoke. Our life expectancy is going down instead of up despite medical advances, global warming is threatning the planet, every 12 seconds a new human being is born in America, pushing our population to the absolute brink, and you guys are worried about inhaling a little tar.
Did I cover everything there?
Edit: As well as the fact inhaling second hand smoke every now and then does about as much as when you clean your home with amonia or come home too early from a bug-bombing. Second hand smoke will make you cough, yes, and you may get an upper respritory infection, but seriously, unless you go to bars every night then you're not really at risk.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 7:19 PM
nobody's even talking about car exhaust. they breathe in that more than second-hand smoke; and more often than not, you have a choice in breathing in second-hand smoke.

you all say cars are a necessary need but whos to say people will agree with you? these are clearly subjective arguments and have no place for the government to rule over. let the public decide which places should ban smoking or not and you wont have this problem.

Hunter_RuLe
11th May 2008, 7:27 PM
I personally think smoking should be illegal; it's terrible for you and the people around you. I realize many people are addicted, but maybe if it was illegal they'd have a bit more motivation?

It's really unfair for those of us who don't want to die of cancer that when we're walking around at shopping centers, parks, or anywhere really we have to deal with cigarettes :/ So, simply stated, yes, it should be illegal.

Maybe smoking should be banned from some public places (like it already is in hospital iirc), but you can't make it illegal. People that have a big issue with smoking should just go to bars/ect. where smoking isn't allowed.

Emperor Giratina
11th May 2008, 7:38 PM
Yes, I agree to the fact that smoking should be made illegal, when anybody is smoking, he is severly damaging his own health and has a high risk to suffer from heart diseases and lung cancer.... Also, when somebody is smoking, not only he is damaging his own health, he is also damaging the health of the people around him when he exhales smoke... These people who are getting thier health damaged by the smoke but are not smoking a cigarette or a cigar are known as 'passive smokers'....... Which MEANS... That the smoker is not only ruining his own health, he is also ruining the health of the people around him.... And basically, smoking only has cons... no pros and that's final.... And I now come to a conclusion that smoking should be made illegal and cigarettes and cigars should be banned across the world.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 7:43 PM
i am so happy most of you are just kids and teenagers who have no idea how the world works.

Nidogod
11th May 2008, 7:48 PM
Also there are SO many smokers who don't give a damn what the FACTS about smoking are, they've just decided they're going to do it come hell or high-water (regardless of how they go about it).

The only way to stop it is with a complete ban.

You sound like that fat anti-smoking guy on South Park who was comical in the way that he was so outlandishly extreme about it. Who are you to decide if an adult wants to have a cigarette or not? Adults understand the risk, and they decide whether or not they still want to have a relaxing smoke regardless of whether or not you personally agree with smoking or not.


It's really unfair for those of us who don't want to die of cancer that when we're walking around at shopping centers, parks, or anywhere really we have to deal with cigarettes :/ So, simply stated, yes, it should be illegal.

I don't know where you live, but here in New Jersey the only places you can really smoke are on (most) public streets, and your own home. FFS, you can't even smoke in casinos here. I don't know what the laws are like everywhere else in the world, but if they are anything like my state, there's not a single place where a smoker can smoke and a non smoker has no option but to deal with it.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 7:52 PM
i am so happy most of you are just kids and teenagers who have no idea how the world works.

I'm a teenager! I know how the world works after being kicked out of my house.....meh.

Profesco
11th May 2008, 8:34 PM
Okay, GhostAnime. Let me point out that for the purposes of my arguments, HOW smoking in a given area becomes banned/illegal doesn't matter. I will be arguing simply that it should be disallowed to occur there.

Now, I give you that the choice to smoke is a personal right. My arguments won't favor removing the right to choose to smoke.

I want to get things under control here, because it seems to me that you're missing something from my argument, or purposely not acknowledging something. I'm sure that's not the case, however, as I know for a fact your debating style intends to cause that little disruption. And I do want to understand what you are leaving out of your answer to my argument.

Please go back to my earlier post that included the "Right A" and "Right B" statements, and show me where you see a problem or a... well, a whatever that makes me wrong.

I've got to leave for a Mother's day lunch, but when I return, I look forward to getting my lines straight so I can understand your argument against mine better. 'Kay? I'll see you later.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 10:11 PM
profesco, your argument was put together fine. it was just missing ONE huge detail that you didnt even think of considering: the owner of the establishment.

you are ignoring him. it isnt about who has more 'rights', because the owner of the establishment has more rights than both of them. why should we take his right away? furthermore, why have a policy forced on all public places? we cant just use the government to pass our personal agendas. that is selfish and an infringement on the owner's right's.

Dark SpOOn Bender
11th May 2008, 10:15 PM
The people who say it should be illegal because *whine whine second hand smoke, it's bad for you whine* should be shot. Let's put things in perspective, shall we? There are MILLIONS of smokers. People all over the world smoke. Our life expectancy is going down instead of up despite medical advances, global warming is threatning the planet, every 12 seconds a new human being is born in America, pushing our population to the absolute brink, and you guys are worried about inhaling a little tar.
Did I cover everything there?
Edit: As well as the fact inhaling second hand smoke every now and then does about as much as when you clean your home with amonia or come home too early from a bug-bombing. Second hand smoke will make you cough, yes, and you may get an upper respritory infection, but seriously, unless you go to bars every night then you're not really at risk.

I should have just ignored your post from the get-go because of the immature first sentence, but I can't help myself. You honestly think that smoking isn't enough of a problem? You have things out of perspective if you don't think it is. You also have things out of perspective if you just laugh at second-hand smoke. Over time, second-hand smoke can become very harmful. You don't have to have somebody blowing smoke up your nose every second to experience its effects. Second-hand smoke is a risk for anybody, and I love how you say "inhaling a little tar" isn't a big deal. Do you have any idea what tar is and what it does to your body? You aren't supposed to be breathing in ANY tar :/


nobody's even talking about car exhaust. they breathe in that more than second-hand smoke; and more often than not, you have a choice in breathing in second-hand smoke.

How so? How do you have a choice in breathing in second-hand smoke? The person you live with smokes, so I guess you should just pack up and leave because that's the easiest answer. Maybe when walking down the street you should avoid every person who smokes, but that isn't exactly possible. It isn't our choice to inhale second-hand smoke. It is the smoker's choice to breath in smoke and force others to breath it in with them. Don't blame the people who don't smoke because if they wanted to clog up their lungs with tar they would be buying cigarettes instead of trying to avoid them.

Car-exhaust obviously adds to breathing problems, but, as we all know, cars have become a necessity. Transportation has positive effects on our lives, whereas cigarettes are ONLY bad. Nothing good comes out of smoking, absolutely nothing. This thread is about SMOKING. We all know there are other things in the world that have health risks, but we aren't discussing those. You think because your sources say that car fumes are a bigger problem means that smoking should just be brushed under the rug? Imo, the less harmful substances we inhale the better.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 10:25 PM
I should have just ignored your post from the get-go because of the immature first sentence, but I can't help myself. You honestly think that smoking isn't enough of a problem? You have things out of perspective if you don't think it is. You also have things out of perspective if you just laugh at second-hand smoke. Over time, second-hand smoke can become very harmful. You don't have to have somebody blowing smoke up your nose every second to experience its effects. Second-hand smoke is a risk for anybody, and I love how you say "inhaling a little tar" isn't a big deal. Do you have any idea what tar is and what it does to your body? You aren't supposed to be breathing in ANY tar :/

Ah, I can't help it. I've got more things to worry about than smoking, so I just don't see it as that big of a deal. In retrospect, I really don't see anything as that big of a deal. And as for my "immature first sentance", I'm just a little ticked off at all these people who say "smoking is bad, make it illegal" and nothing else to back themselves up. You, however, back yourself and I respect that.
At any rate my lungs are pretty screwed as-is, so smoking/inhaling second hand smoke just isn't a problem to me. I can understand, though, if someone is allergic to smoke. As much as smoking seems to be a problem, I've been around smokers all my life and my lung problems are all inherited.

Dark SpOOn Bender
11th May 2008, 10:33 PM
Well, smoking is bad and only bad, so when you think about it, it really shouldn't be allowed. It's just too bad that it's too late considering how many people need cigarettes now and how much money is coming in from those cigarettes.
Making it illegal at this time is not practical and would probably cause many problems down the road.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 10:34 PM
True, this. The economy would be just a tad bit off kilter if cigs stopped being sold. People would move to other countries to gets their fix, and it'd just be a mess.

Oh, I'm all for banning ciggs around schools. Especially elementary schools. They have weaker immune systems.

Dattebayo
11th May 2008, 10:40 PM
Yes, it should be illegal. Smoking kills more people than wars and bee stings I guess. I hoping if Obama is elected president, his first step should banned smoking.

HyenaHaze
11th May 2008, 10:42 PM
Yes, it should be illegal. Smoking kills more people than wars and bee stings I guess. I hoping if Obama is elected president, his first step should banned smoking.

Please, just stop posting in the debate forums.

GhostAnime
11th May 2008, 10:47 PM
i already addressed your busy street thing, spoon, but as for living with your parents, well, maybe you could ask them to smoke outside. if it was too cold, then maybe if they had a place to smoke in public (hence, you people want this ability gone), they would be discouraged about smoking at home.

but smoking at home is impossible to enforce; but you increase the chances of it happening by banning it in public places.

Dark SpOOn Bender
11th May 2008, 10:55 PM
but smoking at home is impossible to enforce; but you increase the chances of it happening by banning it in public places.

It's a lose-lose situation.

GrizzlyB
12th May 2008, 5:22 AM
Okay, I know this was way back there (this thing was moving!), but I feel obligated to respond.


profesco, youre still repeating yourself, people still usually have a choice to walk away.

grizzly, now youre just twisting the constitution in your own words. smoking is a legal activity in all 50 states.

Am I now? In the Supreme Court Ruling in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., case 111 U.S. 746, handed down in 1884, states:


Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.

The Court has spoken. I rest my case, sir.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 5:26 AM
well, smoking for the pleasure is still a legit reason to do it; whether its stated in the constitution or not.

GrizzlyB
12th May 2008, 5:43 AM
Well, yes, of course, yet it is not protected by under the Declaration due to stripping away any right that might protect it of other people.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 5:45 AM
what are you talking about? i just said smoking is legal (in general) in all 50 states.

masteroftime
12th May 2008, 5:47 AM
guns kill, they're illeagl.
cigarettes kill, they're not???
I see no logic in this. And its GROSS.

I know someone at my school (junior high) who smokes. It's screwed her life so bad. She has a job to pay for them, and is in debt all the time.

And honestly, who likes eating in a resteraunt next to a smokefilled table? It smells bad.

AND IT CAUSES FIRES! I'm a firefighter, FYI.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 5:49 AM
guns kill, they're illeagl.
cigarettes kill, they're not???
I see no logic in this.youre right: not a single thing you said was logical. banning guns AND cigs is double the ridiculous. crime rate shoots through the roof.

masteroftime
12th May 2008, 5:51 AM
your right. I have no place in debate forums. Shoot me.
what I said was...

-smoking costs money
-screws your money
-smells terrible, and no one wants to be around it
-causes lots of damage.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 5:53 AM
-smoking costs money and MAKES money for the US by the high taxes
-smells terrible and if anybody didnt want to be around, they wouldnt already be around it
-same thing for 'damage'.

masteroftime
12th May 2008, 5:57 AM
-at the cost of human lives?
-What if they're forced to? (like in a resteraunt/movietheater/apartment nextdoor)
-It's caused lots of fire damage and has burned down houses (and people). How can you argue that that is positive?

GrizzlyB
12th May 2008, 6:24 AM
what are you talking about? i just said smoking is legal (in general) in all 50 states.

And I'm saying that if smoking is one of the inalienable rights of men as laid out in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, as you're claiming (whether you do so intentionally or not), it could not be banned in any way, shape, or form, regardless of circumstance. This is something that my state has most certainly done, and has not been brought before the Supreme Court, and is therefore not in violation of any part of those documents, and therefore not a violation of smokers' rights, as they have no explicitly protected rights.

Dark SpOOn Bender
12th May 2008, 6:47 AM
Smoking around here has been banned from most public establishments. The food in restaurants actually tastes like food and not tar. I enjoy this change, but those elderly people down at the bowling alley were really ticked off.

Hakajin
12th May 2008, 8:21 AM
This is not about cigarrettes being harmful- most would admit they are. This is about a person's right to do damage to her own body. I think smoking should be legal, just not in public buildings like restaurants and not around children.

Second-hand smoke is really not that bad unless there's heavy exposure in an enclosed area, because the concentration is so low. The other person is not breathing enough to matter much. People like waitors and children are most at risk. It's worse inside because it's smoke doesn't disapate as well, and they're more likely to get long-term exposure.

Outlawing smoking in public has been done in many places, but I'm not as sure about how to moniter the second. Still, it's no different from parents drinking and driving with kids, which I see pretty frequently, or feeding them fast food all the time.

Regan
12th May 2008, 8:33 AM
Smoking should be illegal because it sucks for everyone.

Thread owned.

Hakajin
12th May 2008, 8:46 AM
So does fast food. There are some things that are just too big for the law to deal with completely. When it's something that causes mostly personal harm instead of harm to others, its often better to make it legal so the government can regulate it.

chuboy
12th May 2008, 9:14 AM
Smoking is bad, but banning smoking will not stop people doing it. It will just make more people criminals.

griffins_guardian
12th May 2008, 10:39 AM
So does fast food. There are some things that are just too big for the law to deal with completely. When it's something that causes mostly personal harm instead of harm to others, its often better to make it legal so the government can regulate it.

Yes, but eating fast-food can not hurt random other people around you. Smoking can (second-hand smoking).

Also, unlike fast food, cigarettes can be physically addicting. I believe you can't get addicted to fast food, not physically, anyway, you can really really like it, but not really get addicted.

DanPMK
12th May 2008, 12:46 PM
Most people agree it should be illegal. The only thing stopping it is money. If a chainsaw wielding maniac had the same money as Big Tobacco, he'd be out running around killing people right now, and we'd be debating it because it'd be legal.

It is easy to buy people in power :(

Gym_Leader_Hanrick
12th May 2008, 2:18 PM
i think it should be made illegal for many reasons. i do have a few but i wouldnt want to bore you to tears with them. in the uk, its illegal to BUY ciggerettes under the age of 18. you can smoke them at any age you want which i think is terrible. i walk down the street and i see 10 y/o's smoking. such a waste of money and of a life.

chuboy
12th May 2008, 2:25 PM
So you think banning cigarettes will miraculously stop people smoking? Newsflash, people already smoke things against the law, banning does NOTHING to stop them.

DanPMK
12th May 2008, 2:28 PM
That's a terrible stance to take. People still get murdered, and that's against the law. Should that be legalized?

People need to stand up for what's right and make their voices heard.

chuboy
12th May 2008, 2:37 PM
Murder is killing someone else, that's why it's wrong. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.

DanPMK
12th May 2008, 2:38 PM
Yes, and that's precisely why smoking should be illegalized. Second hand smoke has killed /millions/ of people who do not smoke themselves. Smoking around children, in particular, is child abuse, in my opinion.

Walking Contradiction
12th May 2008, 2:40 PM
I believe that one can harm oneself just as much as one wants, as long as it doesn't cause harm to other people. So based on that, smoking in public should be banned because of the cancer stuff. Smoking in private I see no reason why that should be banned. No government can prevent people from committing a slow suicide.

chuboy
12th May 2008, 2:44 PM
Yes, and that's precisely why smoking should be illegalized. Second hand smoke has killed /millions/ of people who do not smoke themselves. Smoking around children, in particular, is child abuse, in my opinion.
In the interest of preventing this debate from sliding into a slope of fallacious arguments, I'm going to ask you to back up that statement about how many people passive smoking kills with credible sources.

By the way, you can kill other people with LOTS of things that aren't illegal, like water and cars. Maybe we should ban those, too!

Shy Guy
12th May 2008, 2:45 PM
Now lets see, Smoking gives you lung cancer and causes pollution it also somehow increases Global Warming. Of couse it should be illegal or banned actually

Gym_Leader_Hanrick
12th May 2008, 2:48 PM
Yes, and that's precisely why smoking should be illegalized. Second hand smoke has killed /millions/ of people who do not smoke themselves. Smoking around children, in particular, is child abuse, in my opinion.


100% agree with you there. and i also agree with walking contradiction. smoking in your own home is okay within reason. i think that people who smoke in homes should go into their gardens (or backyards) to smoke. or maybe have a smoking room if they can afford it.

@ chuboy: i know people break laws every day. it cant be stopped but it can be avioded if people will wake up and relize the damage that they are causing. the world can be a better place if people just take a minuet to realize what they are doing.

chuboy
12th May 2008, 2:48 PM
Oh god...the quality of this debate approaches that of the Polls section or the Games forum with each continuing post...

@GMH: It can't be stopped but it can be avoided? I feel out of place here....

Gym_Leader_Hanrick
12th May 2008, 2:50 PM
Oh god...the quality of this debate approaches that of the Polls section or the Games forum with each continuing post...

then leave. if you dont like this debate of have nothing else to say then leave.

DanPMK
12th May 2008, 2:53 PM
In the interest of preventing this debate from sliding into a slope of fallacious arguments, I'm going to ask you to back up that statement about how many people passive smoking kills with credible sources.

By the way, you can kill other people with LOTS of things that aren't illegal, like water and cars. Maybe we should ban those, too!

This post has convinced me to stop replying here, as you're too far gone. How unfortunate :(

chuboy
12th May 2008, 2:53 PM
I think it's a great debate, it's just that save for a few, no one here is capable of posting a coherent response to an argument, backed up by fact. Most of these posts are along the lines of "zOMG smoeking is bad it should be baneddd!!!!one".

Not much to debate here really at all...

Gym_Leader_Hanrick
12th May 2008, 2:55 PM
I think it's a great debate, it's just that save for a few, no one here is capable of posting a coherent response to an argument, backed up by fact. Most of these posts are along the lines of "zOMG smoeking is bad it should be baneddd!!!!one".

Not much to debate here really at all...


then you find us some facts then.

chuboy
12th May 2008, 2:57 PM
Find us some facts for what, specifically? You are giving ME reasons why smoking should be banned and backing it up.

FACT: People should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.
FACT: Smoking does not harm other people when done in accordance with current laws any more than other, legal, things do.

Therefore, smoking should remain legal while people are allowed to drive cars or own knives.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 3:02 PM
-at the cost of human lives?
-What if they're forced to? (like in a resteraunt/movietheater/apartment nextdoor)
-It's caused lots of fire damage and has burned down houses (and people). How can you argue that that is positive?
-most restaurants YOU want to go to already ban smoking, you can walk aruond someone in a theatre (they probably banned it too), and you can ask your next door guy to not smoke but if he refuses then you can take it up to a higher authority and do some kind of compromise.
-LOL lets ban fire.


And I'm saying that if smoking is one of the inalienable rights of men as laid out in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, as you're claiming (whether you do so intentionally or not), it could not be banned in any way, shape, or form, regardless of circumstance. This is something that my state has most certainly done, and has not been brought before the Supreme Court, and is therefore not in violation of any part of those documents, and therefore not a violation of smokers' rights, as they have no explicitly protected rights.smoking is legal in all 50 states; restricting it can technically be done by them. im merely arguing that it shouldnt be restricted.


Smoking should be illegal because it sucks for everyone.

Thread owned.you didnt list a single point. inability to debate noted.


Yes, but eating fast-food can not hurt random other people around you. Smoking can (second-hand smoking).the only people who you cant absolutely get around are the ones you live with, and maybe they wouldnt smoke in the house if it werent banned in public places. also, banning it from ALL public places creates more litter; thus, takes more tax dollars to clean up. all this could have been done if you just let the PUBLIC decide where to ban smoking and where not to, but no, you couldnt own up to any responsibility, instead, you threaten children and litter.


Also, unlike fast food, cigarettes can be physically addicting. I believe you can't get addicted to fast food, not physically, anyway, you can really really like it, but not really get addicted.addiction is besides the point.


Most people agree it should be illegal. The only thing stopping it is money. If a chainsaw wielding maniac had the same money as Big Tobacco, he'd be out running around killing people right now, and we'd be debating it because it'd be legal.

It is easy to buy people in power :(this isnt the only reason why smoking will never be banned.

hanrick, your facts are wrong if you are talking about the US. only about 40k die due to second-hand smoke (and we're talking about A LOT of it, as well). more than likely they didnt move away from it or were forced to breathe in it when living with one who did smoke (not only would it be impossible to enforce, but you encourage this by BANNING SMOKING).

chuboy
12th May 2008, 3:03 PM
fine. you will get your facts. be patient though.

In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking-related diseases and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will have shortened life-spans due to smoking.

taken from wikipedia.

this is one reason why smoking should be banned. 500,000 deaths a year. people throw away their lives as if it means nothing.
You can recieve an infraction from the mods for citing Wikipedia in the debate forum. Read the rules <_<

Gym_Leader_Hanrick
12th May 2008, 3:05 PM
im sorry i mustve missed that one. i'll delete my preivous post then

Dark SpOOn Bender
12th May 2008, 4:35 PM
Therefore, smoking should remain legal while people are allowed to drive cars or own knives.

Why is second-hand smoke not a problem with some of you. It's still a health risk, an unecessary one I might add, regardless of what numbers you can pull out of your butt.
I am going to repeat myself again. Cigarettes have NO positive attributes. The only thing they can do is harm somebody, unlike cars and knives which have their own intended uses. They most certainly can be harmful, but that isn't their only purpose. There is a chance of doing harm to yourself at practically any time of the day with anything, but cigarettes are one of the few things that are actually out to harm you.

The only reason smoking should still be legal is because of the amount of smokers addicted and the amount of money being made off of them. If made illegal, those would turn into some serious issues very quickly.
It shouldn't remain legal because "cars and knives can hurt you and they are legal so cigarettes should be legal to!"

Gym_Leader_Hanrick
12th May 2008, 8:36 PM
Why is second-hand smoke not a problem with some of you. It's still a health risk, and unecessary one I might add, regardless of what numbers you can pull out of your butt.
I am going to repeat myself again. Cigarettes have NO positive attributes. The only thing they can do is harm somebody, unlike cars and knives which have their own intended uses. They most certainly can be harmful, but that isn't their only purpose. There is a chance of doing harm to yourself at practically any time of the day with anything, but cigarettes are one of the few things that are actually out to harm you.

The only reason smoking should still be legal is because of the amount of smokers addicted and the amount of money being made off of them. If made illegal, those would turn into some serious issues very quickly.
It shouldn't remain legal because "cars and knives can hurt you and they are legal so cigarettes should be legal to!"

that was well spoken. i totally agree with you there.

there is only one downside to illegalizing smoking. the stock market for smoker's/tobacconists will crash

Profesco
12th May 2008, 8:48 PM
profesco, your argument was put together fine. it was just missing ONE huge detail that you didnt even think of considering: the owner of the establishment.

you are ignoring him. it isnt about who has more 'rights', because the owner of the establishment has more rights than both of them. why should we take his right away? furthermore, why have a policy forced on all public places? we cant just use the government to pass our personal agendas. that is selfish and an infringement on the owner's right's.


Ohh, so that's what you've been getting at! Okay, I think I understand now. You're not so much arguing the smokers' rights as you are the rights of the owner of wherever we're worried about. Thanks for clearing that up for me, GhostAnime. :)

Hm. Yes, I suppose I really haven't thought to consider that angle.

But I still think it's a situation where the rights of one person can't supercede the general rights of the nonsmoking population. I'm not sure how you would go about getting around the fact that smoking creates a health risk for everyone in the general vicinity. I can't help but repeat that allowing public smoking is literally forcing a forfeit of the rights of nonsmokers. They must either be subject to poison chemicals, or their right to freedom and health is forfeited.

Hero
12th May 2008, 8:51 PM
Whilst it's fair to argue the moral side of making smoking illegal (i.e. health issues, other peoples' especially), it is essentially pointless because smoking, much like alcohol, is taxable. Point being, while the government can earn a pretty penny (in fact it earns a massive penny) from the tax on cigarettes, there isn't a cat in hell's chance that smoking will be made illegal.

Profesco
12th May 2008, 8:59 PM
That's probably the truest statement in the whole thread. But we're debating "should," not "will."

I thought the expression used was "snowball" or popsicle." I've never heard it with "cat."

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 9:12 PM
there is only one downside to illegalizing smoking. the stock market for smoker's/tobacconists will crashyou also forgot increased smoking with minors, increased crime, increased second-hand smoke in children, etc.


But I still think it's a situation where the rights of one person can't supercede the general rights of the nonsmoking population.this isnt the case because if there are more people who dont want smoking, the owner will ban it without the government.

Profesco
12th May 2008, 9:27 PM
this isnt the case because if there are more people who dont want smoking, the owner will ban it without the government.

Great! Like I said, I don't care who bans it or how they ban it.

Isaac
12th May 2008, 9:41 PM
The people who say it should be illegal because *whine whine second hand smoke, it's bad for you whine* should be shot. Edit: As well as the fact inhaling second hand smoke every now and then does about as much as when you clean your home with amonia or come home too early from a bug-bombing. Second hand smoke will make you cough, yes, and you may get an upper respritory infection, but seriously, unless you go to bars every night then you're not really at risk.

What if ur just a little kid and cant get away from ur dad smoking. Why? because hes ur dad

ironknight42
12th May 2008, 10:15 PM
as much as much as I think its bad to smoke people should be allowed to smoke on their property so long as they are exposing someone who has no desire to be exposed so if you have little kids go out side to smoke it hurts the little kids alot more so go ahead and smoke get cancer what ever just do it outside or in your own home and don't start forest fires