The Instigator
WeepyRhino
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ambivalentsoul
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should smoking in public places be banned

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: 12/4/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 66349
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

WeepyRhino

Con

There will be 3 rounds:

1) Con argument 1,2, Pro rebuttal 1,2

2) Con argument 3,4, Pro rebuttal 3,4

3) Con conclusions, Pro conclusions
ambivalentsoul

Pro

I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WeepyRhino

Con

There are many reasons why smoking bans originated, but most of these have medical origins. Research has shown secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are common. Those who live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposure to it. Non-smokers who worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.
Smoking bans are also imposed because they improve air quality in restaurants and other establishments. In New York, it is now illegal to smoke in all hospitality venues. Studies by the Center for Disease Control have shown the air quality in New York establishments to be nine times higher than those in New Jersey where smoking remains legal. Studies have also shown employees are exposed to far fewer toxins in areas where smoking is banned in the workplace. In Norway, tests showed a decrease in the nicotine levels of both smokers and nonsmokers when smoking bans were enacted in the workplace.
Critics of Smoking Bans
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality, many people are still opposed to smoking bans in the United States. Critics in the smoking ban debate include the well-known musician Joe Jackson as well as Christopher Hitchens, a political critic. Usually, people who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an example of the government interfering in people's lives. They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-smokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke. Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner and draw distinctions between public places, such as government buildings, and privately owned businesses, such as stores and restaurants.
Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and exposing a new set of people to their secondhand smoke. Some have even argued that local bans on smoking will increase DUI fatalities. Those who wish to smoke will be forced to drive further away to do so, although no evidence has been found to support this theory.
Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more common in the United States. Whether the rights of the non-smoker to breathe in fresh air outweigh those of the smoker to smoke freely is a matter of opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban debate.

Because smokers have rights too ... smoking is legal and people have a right to make their own decisions even if it is bad for them. If the government were to ban everything that's bad for people then you have to ban fast food too because that will clog your arteries and give you a heart attack if you have too much. Cigarettes are the same sort of thing.

As for second hand smoking, it's all about ventilation., the outdoors is a natural ventilation system. Indoors, they can put in ventilation systems that cut down on second hand smoke. Because places like bars and restaurants are public but are also business owner's private businesses, those business owners should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their business. If an owner decides to allow smoking, then people that are paranoid that the guy smoking a cigarette with his beer is going to give them lung cancer can go somewhere else. People should all have choices.

Smoking bans are really a kind of tyranny imposed on smokers by the non-smoking majority. While they might not approve of smoking, banning it is really rather cruel. It's as if you were thirsty and had a bottle of water but were told by the government you weren't allowed to drink it.

The last thing I'm going to tell you is creating a smoking ban is pointless if you don't enforce it. That means you need to create a smoking police and a system to punish smokers. That costs money and is a questionable priority given that there are murderers on the loose.

Thank You,
WeepyRhino
ambivalentsoul

Pro

ambivalentsoul forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
WeepyRhino

Con

WeepyRhino forfeited this round.
ambivalentsoul

Pro

ambivalentsoul forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ambivalentsoul 2 years ago
ambivalentsoul
You should have probably put four rounds if you wanted the debate to work how you explained.
No votes have been placed for this debate.