Amazon.com Widgets
  • Most Definitely Yes

    Smoking harms the user, Harms the environment, Harms the user's family, Harms the people around the user in public places. Cigarettes have toxins that promote growth of long cancer which will have both physical consequences on the user and emotional distress for the family which they do not deserve. All of this can be easily avoided, What is the point. Relaxation is not worth lung deflation.

  • Smoking helps no-one

    We should ban smoking first in order to help them stop their unhealthy addiction that has no positive outward to themselves. Then, We should put them into rehabilitation to help them find other interests and positive passion. If we don't ban smoking, Those who get addicted will continue to increase which will potentially be harder and require more resources to help all of them get healed in the future.

  • It should be banned

    1) in the long run, Smoking contributes to air pollution
    2) it has absolutely no benefits
    3) you are being selfish by smoking (2nd hand, 3rd hand smoker)
    4) the money spent on making cigarettes could be used for something that actually is important.
    5) by banning smoking, Less people would get cancer and smoking related diseases, And less money will be spent treating them

  • It is Bad for both People and the Environment

    We obviously all know that smoking causes a range of health problems and diseases, Like cancer. If we banned these, Fewer people would die from cancer, And fewer teenagers would rely on smoking as a depression or anxiety coping mechanism. Cigarettes are also horrible for the environment. They end up on our beaches and in our oceans, Which releases toxic chemicals into our air and water. Marine life and often get poisoned by them, And sea birds often choke on them. So please be mindful and don't smoke.

  • Don't care about the user. . .

    They can do what they want with their bodies. But in a place where they cannot conceivably control the smoke they are putting out from getting to others. . . Then they are infringing. Smoking as a whole should not be banned, But in places with public access smokers should not be allowed to affect everyone else around them without penalty.

    It should be civil enough to say, Non-smokers get the right of way as far as public spaces go. If there are none present and a couple of smokers want to do their thing, That should be fine also, At a distance.

    I think they way its currently regulated is enough. No further bans are necessary. Vaping needs to be revisited for this same infringement however. It should not be treated any differently just because its covered up with more pleasant aromas. Its still clearly hazardous.

  • Smoking is terrible.

    My headline sounds like something on the 'yes' side, Doesn't it? Well, Smoking shouldn't be banned. Yes, It can harm your lungs, And sometimes even kill you. But if people are aware of the risk, They should be able to if they want, As long as it doesn't harm other people.

  • The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't put in my own body.

    It is already illegal to smoke basically anywhere so there is no global health concern. Most smokers risk the health of no one but themselves and obviously we don't give a f**k about that. Smokers pay more taxes than anyone else in the country so there is no monetary concern. In fact it would actually have a negative impact on country finances. Which is the last thing we need right now.

    At this point people are complaining about the fact that we have the right to smoke in our own homes. It's simply ridiculous you can't even make an argument to ban smoking while alcohol (the most dangerous drug in the world) is still legal. Deaths from diabetes rival those from cancer so we should probably ban sugar while we're at it. What you're proposing is just as ridiculous.

    Also anyone who thinks banning smoking will stop people from smoking is delusional. It will only stop us from paying taxes on cigarettes.

  • I hate smoking, I'll never do it, But it's not the government's place to decide

    Smoking is very harmful to the person that chooses to smoke, And it has no benefits at all. That's not the point I wish to address, However. I will argue that it is not the government's place to decide whether smoking should or shouldn't be allowed, For it is up to the individual whether or not they should take the risk to smoke. Freedom to make these choices should always be left to the individual, Rather than a government that "knows what's best for you". A mentality like this leads to things such as prohibition or the current debate over Marijuana, Where the government largely oversteps their boundaries.

  • Smoke at your own risk

    It is up to each individual whether or not they should smoke or not. Just because the ones who abuse this privilege died from smoking does not mean it should be banned. A similar situation would be if a child drowned in a public pool. Would it be reasonable to close the pool? The answer is no because the child entered at his/her own risk. Instead, The public pool may post a lifeguard or require lifejackets. We should offer a similar solution for smokers. We should opt to educate as many people as we can about smoking and allow them to decide whether or not they will do it.

  • It's people not smoking

    I can smoke 1 cigarette and say if I am a healthy person and have good lungs, And all of that nothing is going to happen. Smoking only becomes so dangerous once you get addicted to it.

    Smoking is also a coping method not all people smoke merely to look cool or just for the fun of it. And for those people we ought not to ban smoking but rather to help fix their problems.


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.