The debate "This House believes that the world should prohibit smoking and that it should be illegal." was started by
May 2, 2015, 7:32 pm.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
AdamChase posted 1 argument, Liona posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Shahmir posted 4 arguments, Getmurked posted 1 argument, Seraphim posted 1 argument, scooter6381 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
AdamChase, Raydiff3r, Chabii, jonatron5, hae_bae, Asa, ufufugh, Liona, rionagh99, toughgamerjerry, DarkAngelAnarchist and 13 visitors agree.
Shahmir, Getmurked, Seraphim, scooter6381, S2Sethi, Violet, skyfrancois_97, sdiop and 10 visitors disagree.
even if something is illegal, won't people still use it? how many people smoke weed, do cocaine, or do heroine? last time i checked it was very illegal to do so. outlawing something won't stop it in most cases it expands the usage, in the few countries that have legalized such drugs have seen a decreased very much so making cigarettes that produce no intoxicating effects besides the nicotine effect that makes you addicted, making that illegal would be pointless because people would still try/ use the "drug" in case
What I'm getting from your idea is that of the passive smoker. This idea can be countered with rebuttals from the law. In status quo, we have prohibited areas of smoking or they will be caught.
It is also the case where there are various designated areas to smoke. It is also important to that most smokers are probably people who can be tolerable. I say this as a passive smokers are extremely rare cases and rarely are the main factors of a problem. Unlike alcoholics, smokers are people who are not intoxicated and can not harm you any other way.
I don't care if anybody wants to kill himself by smoking, however, I would ban smoking because it is also harmful for others who can not decide to poison themselves or not.
Well, that's why it's an informed choice. It's the reason why cigarettes are not promoted or advertised in many countries.
Its because we inform smokers that smoking is indeed not good through means like education, the packaging of a box and various other means.
So, it's quite problematic to say they don't know the harms of smoking because we already informed them of the harms, and they still smoke. This is also the case with things like boxing, eating junk food and much more. Are you going to ban those too?
What I meant here was cigarettes and other dangerous items related. Because if youre smoking, if you u didnt realise, you're killing yourself from inside.
I would just say freedom of choice and justification of that choice as well as how it has no third party harms.
I disagree. I am not a cigarette smoker or anything but if it exists in nature, it should be freely used for whatever purpose, whether it be justified or not. Not only that, if smoking should ever be prohibited, humans will be blocked from medicinal benefits of plants such as cannabis, which is a natural painkiller.
smoking anything? just cigs? or weed? both? elaborate
Well, I don't think so. Elaborate please?