The Instigator
cloppbeast
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
JTSmith
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Smoking Bans in the United States

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,226 times Debate No: 4100
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

cloppbeast

Con

Smoking bans encompass a severe form of collectivism that is beyond the scope in which the American form of Democratic government is intended. The sole purpose of the United States government is a form of collectivism that is supposed to protect the rights of each individual: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Smoking bans do not protect the rights of anybody, but rather, protect the preference of the majority.

There are some who insist that smoking bans are intended to protect the the public health. If this were the case, why aren't those same people fighting against sky-diving, the NFL, underwater welding, pizza delivery, construction, the NHL, ice road trucking, lumber jacking, automobiles, and the list goes on and on. Everything is dangerous but that doesn't mean that everything should be illegal. Every person has a choice whether to participate in dangerous activities, a "personal responsibility", if you will. (apologies to all the liberals. I know how much you hate that phrase) If a person doesn't want to be harmed by second hand smoke, that person shouldn't enter a smoking bar or restaurant, in fact it is the individuals obligation.

By prohibiting smoking to protect, a government is using force to restrict the property rights of proprietors, and the pursuit of happiness of smokers. If the government would leave the issue alone, it would find that the free market would better suite the desires of everybody, including the majority. Bar and restaurant owners are solely interested in making money, and therefore will do whatever it takes to make the most money. If the majority of their customers are appalled by smoking, then of course, the majority of bars would prohibit smoking. This may explain why bars and restaurants throughout the country have been prohibiting smoking without the institution of a smoking ban. That is not to say that every bar or restaurant will be smoke free becase there is a niche, probably a much larger than most beleive, who prefers a smoke filled bar or restaurant. In England, after the institution of their smoking ban, pubs are experiencing signifigant losses in profits which could result in the loss of 78,000 jobs. Pub's profits are down 15%, 10% of pubs are operating at a loss, and 60% of pubs have been forced to layoff employees, who coincidentally were supposed to benefit from the smoking ban.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk...
JTSmith

Pro

The real issue here is public health, and consideration for others.

First, I will discuss public health. Your remarks regarding public health a a bit ridiculous. My opponent said:

"There are some who insist that smoking bans are intended to protect the the public health. If this were the case, why aren't those same people fighting against sky-diving, the NFL, underwater welding, pizza delivery, construction, the NHL, ice road trucking, lumber jacking, automobiles, and the list goes on and on. Everything is dangerous but that doesn't mean that everything should be illegal.

I can give you the differences between the activities you listed and smoking.

1. The activities you listed have a CHANCE of hurting you. They are only risks. Smoking doesnt have a chance of hurting you. IT DOES. Furthermore, it hurts everyone around more than it hurts the person actually smoking! Smoking is ALWAYS harmful and it is harmful to more than the person doing it.

2. The activities you listed are risks only to the person involved. It is their choice to take the risk. Smoking (like I said before) hurts everyone around. It is a personal choice that is harmful to the health of others. I dont wanna lose 8 years off of my life because people around me were too inconsiderate to smoke somewhere where others cant take in the second hand smoke.

Smoking is a HUGE public health risk. It is harming everyone who is even near a smoker. If people wanna smoke, they can do it in the privacy of their own homes or in areas specifically designated for smoking.

Second, there is the matter or majority consideration. In your opening paragraph you said the following:
"Smoking bans do not protect the rights of anybody, but rather, protect the preference of the majority."

Thats exactly what smoking bans do and thats the way its supposed to work. The MAJORITY rules in a democracy. The fact is, most americans dont smoke. A majority of Americans would prefer public smoking bans. Democracy then requires that such a law must be passed.
In this government we should try and cater to everyones needs the best that we can. In the respect we need to focus on the majority. With smoking bans in place, smokers may not have the freedom to smoke where they please, but without them, the majority doesnt have to freedom to roam where they please without taking in harmful smoke.
It comes down to this. What is our priority???
A smokers comfort???
or a non-smoker majority's health???

That seems like a pretty easy choice.
Debate Round No. 1
cloppbeast

Con

You have made several fallacies in your argument.

1) //Smoking doesn't have a chance of hurting you. IT DOES.//
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick review of the statistics reveals you're mistaken with this assumption. Out of the hundreds of millions of people who are surrounding by second hand smoke each year in the United States, according to an EPA study, only 3,000 of them will die each year due to second hand smoke. Your rational that second hand smoke will inevitably hurt everyone who is in its presence is clearly false, otherwise the number killed by second hand smoke would be hundreds of millions. Obviously, second hand smoke doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, even though it could hurt a small percentage. Compared with various other risks second hand smoke is relatively mild. Automobile accidents kill 40,000 people per year; household chemicals kill 17,000 people per year; Obviously, you would never support a ban on automobiles or household cleaners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) //The activities you listed are risks only to the person involved. It is their choice to take the risk. Smoking (like I said before) hurts everyone around. It is a personal choice that is harmful to the health of others. I dont wanna lose 8 years off of my life because people around me were too inconsiderate to smoke somewhere where others cant take in the second hand smoke.//

Your fallacy with this remark is typical among smoking-ban activists. You accept no responsibility for choosing a smoking bar, restaurant, or hotel. By walking into an establishment that allows smoking you are making the choice to accept the risk of second hand smoke. Sure, the smoke may hurt you, or simply irritate you, but it was your choice to enter the establishment. If you wish to avoid being "harmed" by second hand smoke, you should either stay home or choose a non-smoking establishment. Similarly, a football player cannot complain when he gets hit by a 380 lbs. lineman because by stepping on the football feild he accepted the associated risk. The same goes for bars and restaurants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct that a MAJORITY rules in a democracy, but only for PUBLICALLY owned property and the law of the land; however, there are various rules that the MAJORITY must obey in order to protect the rights of all individuals, including individuals who own bars and restaurants. Rights are exactly what prevent the MAJORITY from restricting your freedom of religion or your freedom of speech and your property rights. Property rights are the cornerstone of democratic government and a free society and cannot be violated by the preference of the majority. The proprietor reserves the right to choose whether he allows smoking on his property, regardless of what the MAJORITY wants. Why? because that is his property.

Understandably, most people prefer a smoke-free environment. What most pro smoking-ban collectivists don't understand is that the free market is the most efficient in delivering their needs. If the majority of a free society wishes a particular commodity to be a certain way, in order for the capitalist to make the most money he will be forced to comply; otherwise he will fail and go out of business. In that respect, the majority does rule, but not by force in the case of government sanctions. The consumers of a particular commodity dictate the decisions of the producer; because, after all, the producer is interested, almost entirely, in making money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just out of curiosity, do you find this quote of Thomas Jefferson acceptable. Judging by your infatuation with the majority rule you do.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
JTSmith

Pro

JTSmith forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cloppbeast

Con

cloppbeast forfeited this round.
JTSmith

Pro

I will close my argument with this.

Smoking Bans are NOT about a smoker's health. They are about the health and consideration of non-smokers .
With smoking bans in place, there will still be plenty of places for smokers to enjoy a cigar or a cigarette. They can smoke in smoking bars, and in the privacy of their own homes. They can smoke in smoking restaurants. They can smoke in their cars. They would simply be banned from smoking in public places, like on the street, in parking lots, outside restaurants.

Its about OUR health. Not YOURS.
If you are soo addicted to smoking that these limitations are painful then you have a huge problem.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
//They can smoke in smoking bars, and in the privacy of their own homes. They can smoke in smoking restaurants. They can smoke in their cars. They would simply be banned from smoking in public places, like on the street, in parking lots, outside restaurants.//

No they can't. Do you understand what a smoking ban is? A smoking ban prohibits smoking in all "public" places. There is no private property concerns with a smoking ban. ALL bars, ALL restaurants, ALL hotes, ect. would be prohibited from allowing smoking. It is not only restricted to publically owned property; it prohibits smoking in private "public" establishments.
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
He didn't address any of my logical arguments at all and just blurtted out a bunch of nonsense about public health ignoring anything i said. WOW!
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
2 people voted for him?

This website sucks
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
You are right GaryBacon, most pro-spoking banners don't understand the argument. For instance, if you were to argue that people who don't like second hand smoke shouldn't participate in smoking bars, their argument will invariably be that other people smoking is affecting them. They do not accept any responsibility for going into the smoking establishment, rather than choosing a non-smoking establishment.
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
Although I'm a non-smoker, I too am opposed to the smoking bans. I had debates with people about this, but most people failed to comprehend the philosophical implications.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
cloppbeastJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03