Amazon.com Widgets
  • Tobacco harms others

    If tobacco didn't harm others than yourself, I wouldn't be for making it illegal. However, it's dangerous to others. I think we should make sure people can't hurt others, but if they wish to hurt themselves by smoking, then it's their choice. Risk cancer if you want; I don't want it.

  • Yes, it's pointless.

    Life would go on if tobacco became illegal. In fact, life would be better - for everyone. Since cigarettes and other tobacco products causes many ailments, it would help the health care system a great deal if tobacco products were not sold in stores like they're candy. I know there are already a lot of restrictions on where people can smoke, but that doesn't solve a lot of problems cigarettes cause. The majority of cigarette butts are not biodegradable and still emit many carcinogens. So all that crap is going back into the environment, where it will affect other people and animals, now known as third-hand smoke.

  • Tobacco kills people!

    I'll get straight to the point. Tobacco is poisonous, as is smoking. Banning it would not be a drastic move, as their are already enough laws in place that you may have difficulty smoking wherever you like. Only 15 percent of the population in our country smokes, so it would only be affecting a small percentile of citizens.

  • Should be banned.

    Tobaccos need to be banned. The reason is it is bad to our lungs. Our teeth would become black and our lung will become weak and black. There are studies that if you do tobacco, your life will be much more shorten than not doing and live all your life.

  • Yes it should be banned

    Yes because many people sell them illegally and many people die from tobacco and smoking. If people didn't sell them illegally and didn't illegally buy tobacco I would maybe say it was okay but, you can not trust everybody To buy and sell tobacco because many people are not truthful.

  • Yes, Tobacco kills people.

    There isn't a positive side to smoking. It can give you lung cancer or COPD. Its a waste of money. Cigarettes are laced with toxins. I understand people use it as a stress reliever but there are other ways to relieve stress. Smoking doesn't just affect you it affects the people around you. So think about this next time you light one up .

  • Yes it should

    It should because any type of tobacco or cigarette kills many people on a daily basis. It decreases your lifespan by 15 minutes for every single one you smoke. If you google a comparison of a person who doesn't smoke, with who does, there is a large difference. My padre is a smoker and his doctor told him that if he wants to live for more than 5 years he needs to stop because it is killing his body.

  • Freedom of choice

    I think that people should be allowed to do dangerous/harmful things, so long as other people are not affected by it. People should understand the risks involved in the dangerous/harmful, then you're allowing them to do what they want, which is a positive thing in my view. 50 words now.

  • Let's take the arguments against

    1) "It kills people." So does driving, eating McDonald's, taking Rx medications, and using a variety of household products in confined spaces. Ban everything? Isolate everyone?
    2) "No, I mean it kills other people, like with second hand smoke." OK OK I get this argument. I'll only smoke over here. Don't they already have a law for this in most places? If not, it's common courtesy.
    3) "But, even if you smoke over there, you're still ruining your health, decreasing your productivity, and increasing your healthcare costs, which is a detriment which society then has to support." Well, take a look at the response to 1). A lot of those things have similar effects, too, and if you're going to tighten that social contract, better do it for everything. In fact, I'd really like to see you try. Come back to me with a rough draft and then we'll talk.

    Until then, I'm operating under the assumption that people generally have the freedom to do what they want as long as they aren't impinging on anyone else's freedoms.

    4) "But wait wait, one more, the mere fact that cigarettes exist as an industry is funneling resources into a hole that isn't beneficial in the least for humanity, which, by extension, is impinging on people's potential rights by stealing resources that could otherwise be utilized productively! AHA." I think the social contract covers that, too, actually. But that was quite creative. If you're willing to go that far, beyond a social contract, into an ideal economic framework, that's quite ambitious just to get rid of cigs. Still, I'd like to see what you come up with.

    5) "I promise, last one. So, cigarettes are addictive, right? After a person is addicted, he essentially loses the ability to stop. So, we should ban cigarettes because they directly impinge on our ability to decide to quit. How about that?" Unfortunately, that fails too, because physiological and mental addictions can form for a variety of substances, ranging from psychoactives to very common foodstuffs, and even our bodies' own stress response hormones, and you would have to prevent them all to substantiate such a distinction.

    6) Can anyone think of any other compelling arguments? I'm curious.

  • Of course not. Too many people enjoy it.

    There is no reason whatsoever to ban tobacco or tobacco use. Too many people enjoy using it; too many farmers make their livings from it; too many industrial workers, production people, advertizers, store owners, etc make their livings from it. It is yet another example of a few do-gooders trying to establish their opinion as the law. BTW, it won't work: it's too easy to grow.

  • Just no no!

    Every person that has ever chewed, smoked, or dipped with tobacco has been aware of the risks that he or she is taking. For some people it is all they have to calm themselves down or create some sort of routine in their life. Tobacco is an antidepressant that could prevent a person from losing their mind. If a person chooses to use tobacco then that is their choice.

  • Banning tobacco is fascism

    Okay it seems like everyone that supports this is either a complete fascist or just an imbecile. It is a fundamental right for you to do what you like to your own body, to that argument I can find no rebuttal. Yes it may harm your body, make you smell bad and lose your friends however so does fatty food but we do not ban that. IT ISYOUR CHOICE. The reason a significant number of people disagree with tobacco is that there is a massive stigma attached to it. The only possible, almost valid counter-argument is that it harms others. However if you do not want to get harmed, move out of the way!

    P.S You will inhale as much toxic smoke standing by a bonfire for two hours as you would standing by a smoker for eighteen hours.

  • Gov. has no right

    Government in the United States regardless of belief has the right to tell me that I cannot smoke a cigarette, same goes to marijuana, even heroine. Large sums of profit from the "War on drugs" lines the pockets of some very corrupt people. Cartels grow and process the drugs, the CIA ships them into the country, hands the drugs off to the Mafia/ Mob, then the police arrest any competition, and prosecutes anyone in possession of the drugs. Wardens of prisons and local the Jail get all kinds of money from this system and it also has to do with manufacturing a collapse of the economy for control of the "free" people of the United States of America.

  • No, tobacco shouldn't be banned.

    The US would lose the income of tobacco sales and it would badly affect the economy. Also, people would still smoke, even if its illegal. It's an addiction, and, just like drugs, they wont stop using it just because its illegal. It wouldn't help anything to ban tobacco. That is my opinion on banning tobacco.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.