Legal Smoking Age |
Debate Rules
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
- Topics are not to bash others.
- Immature behaviors/comments will not be tolerated.
- Please remember, not everyone thinks like you. People have different ways of thinking and different perspectives. Let's respect each other's thoughts and responses.
- PLEASE, search before making new topics--especially popular topics like "God" and "Abortion" etc.
- PLEASE, read through the thread or at least a couple pages before posting. We have to maintain a certain level of maturity in here.
  |
 Jun 22 2004, 09:01 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
im' edible  Group: Member Posts: 1,529 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 23,022  |
QUOTE(l_baybeexgrl_l @ Jun 22 2004, 8:58 PM) why would smoking be legal?? .. i mean seriously... the cigarette companys are literally KILLING you... so your willing to risk your life just inhaling burning tobacco smoke into your lungs and damage your system just for a minute of smoking? .. blahhhhhhhhh i agree. well i voted >21. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 24 2004, 02:32 PM
Post
#77
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 7,048 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 22,696 |
smoking at any age should be illegal.... i mean its horrible for u as it is.... especially second hand smoking
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 24 2004, 02:48 PM
Post
#78
|
|
 Dark Lord of McCandless Group: Member Posts: 2,226 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,761 |
A lot of things hurt your health. Doesn't mean they should be illegal.
People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves. The more we entrust to government, the more it will turn on us. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 29 2004, 01:05 AM
Post
#79
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,795 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,421 |
QUOTE A lot of things hurt your health. Doesn't mean they should be illegal. People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves. The more we entrust to government, the more it will turn on us. BUT if it merely hurt the individual, then sure.. its alright.. the problem with smoking is that it hurts those around them.. second hand smoke kills |
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2004, 02:34 AM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 300 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,855 |
if theyre gonna ban all the stuff to do with what I like in life: steroids, pro-hormones, andro, ehpedrine, creatine(its next, guaranteed), etc etc...if theyre gonna ban all that stuff(thats ahwole nother debate i can go for hours on) then ban smoking
smoking IS dangerous to you and others everything above is at MOST dangerous to yourself, and in most cases not even that if used properly |
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2004, 03:52 PM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,443 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 18,050 |
heres when people are legal to smoke how bout never its so stupid
 .:tony:. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2004, 05:35 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Dark Lord of McCandless Group: Member Posts: 2,226 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,761 |
QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ Jun 29 2004, 1:05 AM) BUT if it merely hurt the individual, then sure.. its alright.. the problem with smoking is that it hurts those around them.. second hand smoke kills That's a stretch. Should we ban computers, because the radiation and electromagnetic fields they generate can cause brain cancer in people nearby? By having a barbeque, I'm releasing nitrates into the air that could potentially cause lung cancer down the line. Certainly, we shouldn't abolish that? Something should only be illegal if it is a clear and direct harm to others. Banning something that is indirectly harmful does more harm to the individual than whatever product is banned. You can strecth that as far as you want. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2004, 11:33 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,795 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,421 |
QUOTE That's a stretch. Should we ban computers, because the radiation and electromagnetic fields they generate can cause brain cancer in people nearby? By having a barbeque, I'm releasing nitrates into the air that could potentially cause lung cancer down the line. Certainly, we shouldn't abolish that? Something should only be illegal if it is a clear and direct harm to others. Banning something that is indirectly harmful does more harm to the individual than whatever product is banned. You can strecth that as far as you want. The examples you provided are far less harmful than secondhand smoke.. secondhand smoke is a direct harm to others |
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 10:51 PM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Dark Lord of McCandless Group: Member Posts: 2,226 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,761 |
QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ Jul 2 2004, 11:33 PM) The examples you provided are far less harmful than secondhand smoke.. secondhand smoke is a direct harm to others So is enforcing smoking laws. Smoking is a victimless crime... the only way to enforce laws against it is to violate people's privacy. I can understand you arguing that we should abolish smoking IN PUBLIC... buit if you want to abolish smoking entirely, that means that you are passing laws against a victimless private action... the only way to do that is to violate people's constitutional rights. Violating individual rights is MUCH worse than secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke MIGHT increase your chances of cancer by 1% 25 years down the line, but enforcing smoking laws could RUIN your life by putting you in jail and seizing all of your money -- just like the War on Drugs does. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 10:59 PM
Post
#85
|
|
 monster hunter Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 1,203 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 18,188 |
10 seems reasonable. AFter-all, all it does is kill you off slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 11:20 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,795 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,421 |
QUOTE So is enforcing smoking laws. Smoking is a victimless crime... the only way to enforce laws against it is to violate people's privacy. I can understand you arguing that we should abolish smoking IN PUBLIC... buit if you want to abolish smoking entirely, that means that you are passing laws against a victimless private action... the only way to do that is to violate people's constitutional rights. Oh right, we shouldnt invade peoples privacy and make sure they dont smoke at home, its their life, their home.. but in public it affects all those around them.. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 11:21 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Dark Lord of McCandless Group: Member Posts: 2,226 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,761 |
If you follow a strict definition of "public" I can live with that.
Restaurants, office buildings, stores, malls, hotels, etc. are NOT public... they are private facilities owned by the owner. The individual owner should be able to set their own guidelines for smoking. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 11:23 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,795 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,421 |
QUOTE Restaurants, office buildings, stores, malls, hotels, etc. are NOT public... they are private facilities owned by the owner. The individual owner should be able to set their own guidelines for smoking. I suppose you're right.. but they should have areas set aside for smoking, or signs notifying nonsmoking/smoking.. I just realli get annoyed at breathing in second hand smoke while walking down the street.. that should not be allowed |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: