The Instigator
lovelife
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
InsertNameHere
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Smokers' Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
InsertNameHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,147 times Debate No: 12852
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (43)
Votes (5)

 

lovelife

Pro

There should be no law against smoking while walking down the street or in ones vehicle/home, or in some/most places.

Unless marked as a non smoking place people should be allowed to smoke there.

If a place is marked non smoking and one smokes there then there should be three steps to get them to stop before police notification.
1) Politely remind them of the rules of the place.
2) Make a public announcement/reminder that smoking is not permitted.
3) Politely ask them to leave.

If they refuse to stop then the police will be notified and actions would be taken.

The rules of who can smoke when and were should not be up to the government but up to private entities.
If you want your house to be smoke free just put a sign in front or in plain view in your living room.

It wouldn't be that hard for the non-smokers that wish not to be affected by smoke to avoid it under this situation.
INH has the worry of a public bus stop, and I had the idea of having a smoking wait area across the street or something. It would just be a smoking area, perhaps a canopy that marks it as such and it would be effective for keeping those that don't want smokers too close away from them.

I believe restaurants should keep the smoking/non smoking areas, and just make them separate rooms. People can either choose where they wish to be seated or if they don't really care can be seated wherever has the most room.

Under this system people can keep their rights, while not infringing on others as much as criminalizing public smoking, or making it 100% legal.
InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate that stemmed from an earlier discussion. Good luck to both of us! :)

As I stated in the earlier discussion I feel that smoking should be banned in all public places. My opponent opposes this and brings up a few points against it.

One argument brought up by my opponent is the segregation of public establishments into smoking and non-smoking sections or even separate facilities. however, this could be seen as problematic as it would require twice as much space and/or twice as much money to build. For example, one special energy-efficient bus stop in Alaska is estimated to cost about $875,000 to build(http://www.adn.com...). This is for one single facility and even then it costs much more than the average bus stop. Having to build two would just double this high price. This is not cost efficient and would likely be paid for through taxes.

Secondly, if smoking is banned from public places there would likely be fine in place if you tried to smoke in public. This would be incentive so there would be little need for constant reminders from law enforcement to stop. Also, smoking on one's private property would be permitted just as my opponent suggested. However, measures would have to be taken to avoid unwanted contact to the second-hand smoke. Unlike many public places where people don't really have a choice to be around other people, a person could choose not to enter somebody's house if the homeowner was smoking.

Thirdly, my opponent mentions separate smoking sections in public places. Again, building separate facilities isn't very cost efficient and most places would be better off by just banning it altogether.

Another issue is vehicles. Oftentimes there are people with young children who smoke while their children are in the car with them. This can also be problematic as second-hand smoke can effect a child's development. It can also lead to illnesses such as asthma, ear infections, pneumonia and bronchitis, or if it's a really young child, SIDS. http://www.epa.gov... Of course, this isn't limited to only vehicles where children are present, but any public place where children are present. However, due to the limited and confined space of a vehicle it is where children could especially be at risk.

Now to my opponent. Good luck, once again!
Debate Round No. 1
lovelife

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My opponent believes it would cost more to make more places, I am not saying make more places, I am saying edit existing places and when new places are built build them differently.
If one wishes to smoke at an outdoor bus stop they should be allowed to do so away from the general public, and in a designated smoking area clearly marked. They would not have to stay there after they get done smoking, but would not be allowed to smoke in that crowd.
As far as public places such as resturaunts it would just be smoking/non smoking with a door, not seperate buildings.

My opponent argues about the safety of kids, but really any number of thing can add to kids being unhealthy. I would say that banning parents' or any one else's right to smoke would be about as silly as banning them from buying their kids food from a fast food place.
Most of the time when people smoke in the car they have a window open so little/no smoke actually affects the children.
The way it would be would actually hurt the kids more because telling someone they can't smoke outside because someone might not like it would force them inside. Smoking inside a house with children even which would force the children to live in second hand smoke.
Giving them public freedom will help it cause less harm.
InsertNameHere

Con

Thank you for a quick response. :)

My opponent begins by pointing out that already existing facilities could add special smoker sections in order to segregate them from the non-smokers. However, as mentioned in the previous round, cost is an issue. Even just to renovate a home costs thousands of dollars(http://www.ontariocontractors.com...). Adding to and restructuring every public facility would not be very cost efficient although more so than building new facilities altogether. Regardless, both options would cost massive amounts of money and it would just be way more practical to enact specific laws against smoking in public places.

Secondly, the heath of people, especially children exposed to second-hand smoke was an issue. Banning smoking in vehicles with children is a particular issue, with the second-hand smoke being 27 times more toxic than that in a home(http://www.guardian.co.uk...). As mentioned in the previous round, this smoke can lead to many health problems and the smoke exposure in vehicles is more severe thus leading to a higher risk. As for homes, there is a simple solution to that. The parents can smoke outside while the children are inside the house and vice versa. Most parents who smoke already do that anyway so it would be very little change for them.

Thanks again for an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 2
lovelife

Pro

Thank you for a quick response. :)"

Likewise.

"My opponent begins by pointing out that already existing facilities could add special smoker sections in order to segregate them from the non-smokers. However, as mentioned in the previous round, cost is an issue. Even just to renovate a home costs thousands of dollars(http://www.ontariocontractors.com......). Adding to and restructuring every public facility would not be very cost efficient although more so than building new facilities altogether. Regardless, both options would cost massive amounts of money and it would just be way more practical to enact specific laws against smoking in public places."

That was one solution to get smokers and non-smokers both willing to go to the same place. Of course I also support individual buildings have their own policy, but do not support the government making any laws on the subject.
If a place is non-smoking only it should have a sign, the government should not dictate who can smoke and when and where.
Places may not let people smoke in them, places may refuse to sell to someone for any reason, but the government should have no say.

If a place is smoker friendly then a sign should be optional, and would be in good taste if it was a place you wouldn't expect someone to smoke at like McDonald's.
If a place is or is not smoker friendly those hurt by that policy have choices.
Like with McDonald's they can choose to suck it up for the 15 minutes, or they can go through the drive thru, or they could even make a petition requesting change of policy.
I don't see what is wrong with that.

"Secondly, the health of people, especially children exposed to second-hand smoke was an issue. Banning smoking in vehicles with children is a particular issue, with the second-hand smoke being 27 times more toxic than that in a home(http://www.guardian.co.uk......). As mentioned in the previous round, this smoke can lead to many health problems and the smoke exposure in vehicles is more severe thus leading to a higher risk. As for homes, there is a simple solution to that. The parents can smoke outside while the children are inside the house and vice versa. Most parents who smoke already do that anyway so it would be very little change for them."

How much more harm does smoking cause then walking down the street with all those cars?
Anyway I am not arguing that it is right to smoke outside rather than in, that is in fact my exact stance. I am arguing against the smokers having to hide in their house to smoke because they can't even smoke in their front yard.
Smoking inside the home can lead to the chemicals being left behind, and is counter productive and should not be forced on anyone, especially those with children and/or pets, or those that have children/guests and/or animals in the house often.
Everyone should be able to choose for themselves to smoke or not smoke where they please, but to also be informed and have a say about those that smoke around them.
Banning smoking in vehicles with children would be difficult because it is hard for a police officer to know if someone has a child in the car, or if the person is smoking without having the window open.
Because it would be hard to tell more smokers would smoke with the windows up to avoid being caught increasing the risk to the children; it would be counter productive.

"Thanks again for an interesting debate!"
No problem, it was a pleasure debating with you, and I urge voters to vote fairly.
InsertNameHere

Con

Before proceeding into the final rebuttals I'll again like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate.

My opponent feels that it should be up to the particular business and places in question to decide whether to allow smokers in. However, in this case those who don't want exposure to the smoke are still being exposed as long as smoking is allowed in that facility. If places become more and more smokey less non-smokers would want to go to those places. To protect everybody, it's much more effective if the government just enacts non-smoking laws everywhere.

Another important point to factor in is the annual cost of treating smoking related diseases. It is estimated to be about $73 billion a year(http://www.megaessays.com...). Less exposure to second-hand smoke would cause these massive figures to decrease.

Lastly, smoking in vehicles and homes was mentioned. I will like to point out that when I made the point about being able to smoke in your own home that does include the yard. It's still on your own property. With this rule applied and less people wanting the smoke left behind inside their houses, would encourage smokers to go outside. This would leave the children/pets/etc. safe from the smoke as they could stay inside the house. As for the ban in vehicles, it could be regularly enforced by road blacks, similar to what is done to detect drunk drivers and people who aren't wearing seatbelts. If you're seen smoking you could be given a fine. The smoke would probably still be visible outside even if the windows were closed too.

Now to the voters, please vote fairly! :)
Debate Round No. 3
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlexJan 1 year ago
AlexJan
Greetings! I am non-smoker, moreover, I have an allergy to cigarette smoke. So in my opinion smokers hasn't right to smoke in a public place and in the restaurants, even on the outside, because I can't come in. Maybe I am very rude, but I hate smoke. Green team always helps me for my work. I am a writer in one of the best online writing company - www.custom-paper-writing.org - if you need any paper help - do not hesitate to contact with me 24/7!
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Panda didn't vote bomb me o.O
I guess its to show they read it.
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
whats the point of voting if you not gonna give points? Panda and Koopin
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
lol. xD
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Lmao I know I should...I'm just too lazy.
Posted by 4tunatecookie 7 years ago
4tunatecookie
Haha, okay. xD A piece of advice though, if your opponent sources, then you should too. :]
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
"Passive smoking is very annoying though. I mean, is smokers pay over £7 for a packet of cigarettes whereas non-smokers get to inhale for free!"

Lol good point. I doubt I'll ever smoke but I swear to kira I'm addicted to sexond hand smoke.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Passive smoking is very annoying though. I mean, is smokers pay over £7 for a packet of cigarettes whereas non-smokers get to inhale for free!
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Everyone hates the real life stuff being brought up, but I'm sure everyone's done it.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
I used to use real life experiences for these things, but then I get accused of appeal to emotion.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
lovelifeInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
lovelifeInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
lovelifeInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
lovelifeInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
lovelifeInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02