The Instigator
OracleNot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
shoutevenshy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are smokers discriminated against by not allowing them to smoke in public places?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 79512
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

OracleNot

Pro

I believe they are being discriminated against because of the arguments that have been used are not being applied to other harmful emissions; Cars, Aircraft, Power Stations etc. etc. Why aren't they banned? If the powers that be are serious in their concern for our health and welfare then surely anything that emits harmful carcinogens should also be banned?
shoutevenshy

Con

The difference between a car and a cigarette is that the cigarette does not have any beneficial advantages for anyone, not the smoker or the people around him. A car has its risks, however it is a practical thing for everyone, as you can move between places using minutes where you otherwise might had used hours. There are risks with everything, however there is no reason increasing risks where they are completely unnecessary. Smoking is an unnecessary habit that can do harm to the smoker as well as people involuntary exposed to it.
Debate Round No. 1
OracleNot

Pro

First of all I disagree that smoking is a habit, I believe it to be an addiction. In response to your argument I would suggest that maybe the Bicycle may be a better form of transport given the benefits to health and the environment and this would then also negate your argument that the car is a necessity if all you are saying is that it is a method of getting from A to B Many children that live adjacent to motorways have a higher risk of asthma. Also the risk by exposure to cigarette smoke is much lower than the health risks of being exposed to car/lorry exhaust fumes, especially those that run on diesel fuel for example. It is a clear case of discrimination against individuals that choose to smoke is it not? Why isn't smoking banned then? Why is alcohol not banned, given your argument about necessity?
shoutevenshy

Con

Bicycles are a fine alternative for cars, however for people living far away from their work they would have to take out hours out of the day just to get to where they work, when they with todays technology don't have to. I am sure you are right when you say that the risk by exposure to cigarette smoke is much lower than the health risks of being exposed to car/lorry exhaust fumes, however I would seriously like to know (with sources), how much car/lorry exhaust fumes it takes to make it more risky than cigarette smoke, and how many people get ill due to exposure from fuel compared to how many get ill due to exposure to tobacco smoke.

I am not in disagreement with you when you list all the risks caused by cars. I am well aware that a car is far from the healthiest form of transportation. However you can't deny the fact that it is very practical, I imagine you use these forms of transportation daily. Do you drive or use other forms of fueled transportation like trains or buses? Does it make your life easier? I'm gonna assume that the answer is yes, and if it is no, I imagine you have a life not revolving around children or a work that is distant from your home - that is good for you, however I don't think my point is invalidated by that.

Smoking is an addiction, as you corrected me. It is a satisfaction, it is unnecessary, it comes with no benefits what so ever, and on top of that it is said to cause numerous diseases and conditions. Not to mention if you expose a PREGNANT LADY to smoke from tobacco her baby is in risk of malnutrition, because the tobacco blocks the nutrition to travel from the placenta into the baby's stomach, let me add this is also where the baby gets its oxygen from. That can lead to several life threatening disorders and death for the baby, as well as ausperger syndrome, spasticity and other disorders that can threaten the quality of life for the baby.

I'm not gonna argue that fueled transportation doesn't have its downsides, however I don't see how you could compare such a practical thing as a car to such an unnecessary thing as smoking.

To answer your question why alcohol isn't banned - I don't know why it isn't banned. Alcohol is different from smoking because technically it only harms the drinker (if you don't include the harm the person does under the effects of it) I don't think it would be unreasonable to ban alcohol, however the prohibition in the US taught us that banning alcohol did not turn out to be effective at all. Banning smoking is not gonna be effective either, but there is no reason why people should be forced to breathe unnecessary and dangerous smoke into their lungs wherever they go.

Smoking is not banned, we are not banning smokers. Everyone can smoke if that is what they want. Just keep it away from the other people, who take advantage from their right NOT to smoke.
Debate Round No. 2
OracleNot

Pro

You have given very good reasons for the effects of secondary smoking but the argument is not about that. I have agreed that it is harmful but the question is, are smokers being discriminated against? You have given the reasons why it is thought that banning smokers from public buildings and have argued well on the health grounds but you have not addressed the fundamental question. What is the meaning of discrimination? Does it apply in this case and are there any measures that could be taken that would avoid this and at the same time provide safety from secondary smoke inhalation. I believe that there is. With the technology we have at our disposal today we can design safe smoking areas in Airports, Railway Stations and other stress related areas of which there are many, which,may not be a problem to non smokers but does cause problems to smokers.
I think that in this day and age of "We know best" it is ok until it is used in a dictatorial manner and it only achieves to marginalizes members of society. We should at least be trying to find a solution that achieves the aim without inadvertently arriving at this position of discrimination.
I thank you for your well argued opinions and your good grace in your responses. I accept all your arguments but I do not think that this is not discrimination.
shoutevenshy

Con

"You have given the reasons why it is thought that banning smokers from public buildings"

Banning smokers? Never have I once heard of anyone being banned from a building simply because he is a smoker. SMOKING is banned in buildings, not smokers. Now if people got banned simply because of the fact that they smoke, that would be discrimination, however that is simply not the case.

My dictionary defines discrimination as treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

In most swim halls it is not tolerated to run, because it is wet and you can cause great deal of harm to yourself and others if you fall. Now, do they discriminate runners? Is Michael Johnson not allowed in swimming halls because he is a runner? No! of course not, he just needs to do it somewhere else, and while in the hall he needs to obey the rules that they have provided for their costumers. These rules are made for the safety of everyone, they are not mean or discriminating rules.

Thank you for the debate, interesting and different topic.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by finley5 1 year ago
finley5
No smokers are not being discriminated against. It is a smoker's choice if they want to damage their own body but they can't make that choice for other people. Smoking is proven to have harmful effects to adults and even moreso to children. It would be irresponsible to allow them to pollute the air in public spaces, especially indoors. The argument could stand that people are allowed to drink in public, which is also not good for them but it typically doesn't affect others. If they are disturbing to the point that they are that is illegal also. There is almost always a posted area they can use. All the while comingling and commisserating with fellow smokers. You would think most smokers would understand that others dont want their heath compromised. If they didn't have the habit they wouldn't either
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
Likewise :)
Posted by OracleNot 1 year ago
OracleNot
Imagination is a wonderful thing but can muddle thinking. Always love your imagination but always guard against the results it produces. It invariably produces assumptions.
Kind Regards
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
Haha, yes you are right, however I would almost imagine such passion for smokers could only come from one ;) I stand corrected.
Posted by OracleNot 1 year ago
OracleNot
I don't smoke!! never have done, one must never assume :)
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
Hahaha! Don't give up so easily. Stand up for your beliefs, go smoke inside public buildings.
Posted by OracleNot 1 year ago
OracleNot
Ok you win :)
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
I did grasp that argument, thank you. I still stand by my reply - I don't think it is discrimination, I think it is simply an intolerable act. Discrimination is when you are unfairly treated - banning people to smoke inside buildings is not an unfair treatment, it is a very fair and rational demand.
Posted by OracleNot 1 year ago
OracleNot
I think you have not grasped the fact that I was talking about the actual act of smoking in a public place and the freedom to do so which has been withdrawn on health grounds, I have not argued the health grounds. I have argued on the discrimination this has caused and the solutions that should be sought so as not to discriminate the individuals right to smoke in a public building; EG Airports, Railway Stations................... Thank you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.