Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

In my opinion, banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do. Secondhand smoke is very hazardous to the health of those who unfortunately must breathe it.

Now, I am not saying it should be banned entirely in public, there should be designated smoking areas aside from places of interest for non smokers.

My second point is environmental defense. America in it's natural state is beautiful, but walking down the street it is nearly inevitable that you see cigarette buds scattered along the way, and that does not do the atmosphere justice.

I sincerely thank my opponent for posting this important and controversial debating challenge and I consider it my honour to accept it.

In actual fact, what my opponent is proposing is a lot less Draconian than the laws that already exist in my own country: England. Here, one is not allowed to smoke anywhere except in completely open spaces or in one's own home. This means you can't smoke anywhere on a train or in a railway station, or even in your car if it is company vehicle. You can't even smoke in a private member's club. Obviously, therefore, smoking in a pub, hotel, restaurant, office or any other public building is completely prohibited and designated smoking areas are also strictly forbidden. So, if my opponent's suggestion that there should be areas set aside for smokers were implemented over here, I'd be as happy as a sand boy in a desert!

Never mind that though, why should smokers be ostracised from society by being sent to an area set aside from the mainstream in order to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar, as my opponent recommends? Tobacco is a completely legal substance and people have been smoking socially for many centuries. Yes, there are health concerns, but pollution form traffic and industry is a a far bigger problem. Should we ban all cars and shut down all the factories while we are at it?

With regard to my opponent's point about cigarette butts - littering is an offence whether it be spent tab-ends or sweet wrappers - this matter is already dealt with under existing legislation.

In the final analysis, everybody knows smoking makes a bloke look cool and hard in front of the birds and it is my suspicion that the bans on smoking that now exist in so many European countries were introduced by spiteful, resentful male lobbyists who ended up with dowdy, frumpy old slags because the good-looking fly-girls thought they were boring squares with no joie de vivre. Is that a good reason to introduce discriminatory anti-smoking laws? I don't think so.

First off, you are welcome for posting the debate. But to business, you bring up your home country and state that smoking is prohibited among open spaces, but if you had designated smoking areas you would be happy as a sand boy in a desert.

So what is wrong with the idea of restricting smoking to designated areas? If it would make you happy, and not harm or force anyone to breathe in the smoke, wouldn't everybody win?

And yes, tobacco is a legal substance, that is why people should still have the ability to smoke, in certain areas. But, one should not be forced to breathe in these dangerous particles because they want to play in the park for example.

Also, smokers are not being "ostracized from society" These designated places are set aside, but while in the confines of society. Any one is welcome in a smoking spot, but then they at least have the choice of breathing in the particles.

About the traffic and industry. One does not breathe in the particles directly from a car, unless perhaps he is in the middle of the street which is illegal anyways. One must also not walk through an industry either, seeing as they are not places of interest and would be no purpose of going close enough to one to where you could directly breathe in the smoke.

And yes, littering is an offense but it is not enforced with cigarettes and as you can see by the ground outside your home, they are still everywhere. But that would drastically change if you could not smoke anywhere.

Thanks for continuing this debate, I appreciate it. As you may have realised, it is a subject close to my (at risk of cancer) heart!

The thing is, though, by segregating smokers, who represent a sizable minority of the population, in social contexts, you are dividing friends and family. Inevitably, on a night out in London, in practice, when the smokers in a group go outside, many of the others follow them, not wanting to be left out of the conviviality. Those left behind, not wanting to get cold or adverse to the smell of smoke, often feel isolated and neglected - left out of the crowd.

I would be happy, as I said, if there were areas, as my opponent suggested, where a group could sit and eat, drink and smoke, if they were all agreeable, but, unfortunately, the staff have the legal right in many countries to work in a smoke-free environment so such a solution is no longer practicable.

I do feel, however, that while smoking is unhealthy and people should be informed of the very real dangers associated with it, it should not be banned. This would be to curb civil liberties and could be the thin end of the wedge. What would be next? Alcohol is unhealthy, that is why it is prohibited in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do we really want to live in such a sterilised society?

Not me. Not many of the voters, either, I would suspect. In the light of this, please vote Con in defence of civil liberties and freedom of personal choice.

Thank you.

You are welcome, thank you for joining me for this debate.

The thing is, nobody is segregating smokers. You choose by your own free will to smoke, but those who are enjoying the "mainstream" as my opponent states, should not be forced to breathe in the dangerous particles. Sure, you can take the rare cases where people may feel neglected, but does that justify forcing people to breathe smoke against their will? It appears as though your argument is as much an argument against your point, if not more than it is against mine.

Now, my opponent is trying to justify it by saying people will feel neglected for 5 minutes while their friends/family have a cigarette. But does this rare 5 minutes of feeling of neglect, justify health problems for the rest of ones life? I don't think so.

I have a short story to share.

My grandpa, owns and runs a bowling alley, where smoking inside was previously allowed. Well, he recently went to the doctor for a check up. The doctor thought he was a regular smoker. A man who has never smoked a cigarette in his life lung's looks like a smokers. Should this really be okay? or do you put a couple minutes with the feeling of neglect in before millions of people's health? That sounds wrong to me.

And your next point, you say "it should not be banned." I did not say it should be banned, I do not think it should be banned either. But it should be restricted as my previous points clearly state, in a manner which is not demeaning.

And About 80-90 years ago in the united states they prohibited alcohol, and it resulted in absurd increases in crime rates. Therefore no I don't think it should be banned either, but people are not forced to drink alcohol like they are forced to breathe smoke, completely irrelevant in my opinion.

Please disregard my opponent's plea for your votes. But instead please read over the debate and vote for what you believe. Not just because your a smoker or not a smoker, but for the debate.

But I would also like to counter his defense for civil liberties with, civil liberties are not being attacked, the health of everyone is being aided and defended while still allowing others who wish to enjoy a cigarette to do so. Everybody wins in that case.

The will for someone to smoke wherever they want should not be put ahead of the health of everyone around the smoke, but instead we should look after the free will of the people who do not want to breathe the smoke.

Thank you for the debate.

Many thanks to my opponent for his last argument, which was undeniably well thought out, reasonable in its tone and seemingly convincing. Mr. Hanson is clearly a most worthy adversary.

Nevertheless, it behoves me to highlight some serious flaws in his arguments, to whit:

1 - Nobody need breath secondhand smoke. In America, for example, there are many establishments that prohibit smoking within their buildings, indeed, depending on which state you are in, finding a pub or another entertainment venue that welcomes smokers is becoming increasingly difficult to find. With this being the case, there is no need to legislate so that all public venues should make separate accommodation for non-smokers.

2 - Employees are not forced to work in smokey environments. If they choose to work in a pub, bowling alley or casino that allows smoking, they should expect to breath in secondhand smoke, just like miners, shipbuilders and policemen accept that there is a certain amount of risk to their health associated with their jobs.

3 - Banning smoking in certain areas is the thin edge of the wedge. That's what happened in Europe a few years ago and it led to a total ban, just like the Nazis in Germany started boycotting Jewish businesses led to an attempt to completely exterminate the Jewish race.

In conclusion, there is no need to legislate against smokers - people wish to avoid breathing in secondhand smoke already have ample opportunity to do so - they can go to Starbucks for a latte and a croissant while people like me and my friends go to the pub for a glass of wine and a smoke. Keep the status quo and everybody's a winner man!

Thank you.