Its good that restaurants ban smoking indoors
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to expand on "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No, people don't. But what if all restaurants allowed smoking indoors? Where would the majority of the country go if they wanted to eat out? Why should the people who don't smoke, be "punished" by halving to share a space with smokers? I say, let the people who have the habit, go outside. That way they don't bother others with their habit. Only 18.1% of Americans smoke according to the american lung association. Why should 81.9% of america suffer from that? The majority of the country does not smoke. There fore the decision should be to the advantage of them, not the smokers. They can smoke in their house, outside, in many public places. Why where people eat? Here are some facts to back up my argument.
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.
A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine confirmed that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks, and concluded that relatively brief exposure could trigger a heart attack.
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and 22,700 to 69,600 deaths from heart disease each year.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke in a restaurant are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.
Now why should people be exposed to this while they are eating? Like i said before, the large majority of the country is non-smoking, so why should they half to be exposed to this, and where would they go to eat out? Sure some restaurants could have smoking, but not the majority. Because that's not fair to the people who don't have that habit. Thank you.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) You did not state that good is defined in this debate as being desired by you therefore we are speaking in a general sense, for all restaurants to ban smoking is certainly not fair not only is it unfair and undesirable for the owner of the property who of course would want to appear more customer friendly, it is dicriminatory against smokers who now would have to leave the property to smoke . If there were no laws against smoking in places such as restuarants then there would be competition , you could go to a restuarant that allows smoking or does not allow it , People would have freedom of choice and wouldn't that be more desirable and morally right (Worth of societies approval) ?.
I also am not telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies like i said earlier. If i said "we should ban smoking" then i would be telling people what they can and cannot be putting in their bodies. In this situation, it is simply that you shouldn't put that in your bodies HERE. Not that you shouldn't do it, just that you cant do it HERE. There is a big difference.
My opponent says "on a property that is not yours and that which you do not own and are not entitled to have a say on" Why are we still talking about this? No it is not my property, i am merely arguing why they SHOULD make it smoke free. Not why they NEED to.
My opponent said " for all restaurants to ban smoking is certainly not fair." Like i said in my earlier argument, and i quote "Sure, some restaurants could have smoking" My opponent must have been mistaken or mis-read my argument. For i did not say that all restaurants should ban smoking.
My opponent states " it is discriminatory against smokers who now would have to leave the property to smoke " Really? if that is discriminatory, then wouldn't it be discriminatory against people who don't smoke, to allow smoking in a restaurant? They would "now would have to leave the property" as you said earlier about smokers. You could argue that anything is discriminatory if it leaves someone out.
So my statement that "not all restaurants would need to be non-smoking", pretty much makes my opponents entire last paragraph untrue, as he was arguing to the point that all restaurants would be non-smoking.
The reason i stated facts about second hand smoke was because i wanted to let the reader know, how dangerous second hand smoke is, and how it would effect people if they were exposed to it in a restaurant.
My opponent says in the comment section "A public place is different as it not owned by a private individual , Restaurants , pubs and such are not really 'public places' therefore it should be up to the owner to decide how to run his business." Did i use the definition of a public place wrongly? I know a restaurant is owned by someone, and therefore it is their decision. Like i have said many times, this isn't about forcing owners to do this, its the idea that it SHOULD be this way. Thank you.
SebUK forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cool.dude 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I am not a smoker so naturally I don't like it in restaurants. But at first I agreed with con, but pro persuaded me. Con fore fitted the round so conduct goes to pro. I say con had better grammar.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.