The Instigator
Nik
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
doopydoopdoop
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Smoking ban

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/27/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,625 times Debate No: 6070
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Nik

Con

Basically, quite a hot topic in Europe, the (sort of) recently imposed indoor smoking ban (in England anyway) In my opinion is completely ridiculous, and should be changed. Let me outline a few reasons why:

1.It should be up to the establishment to decide on whether or not to allow smoking inside their premises, so that they can decide for themselves whether or not a smoking ban within their premises would be appropriate, for example allot of restaurants would probably choose to impose a smoking ban inside to allow all of their guests to enjoy their food and their stay as much as possible, where as a night club would be more inclined to allow smoking so that people can stay inside and enjoy the music.

2.Some traditional establishments such as shisha bars, have had to close down because of the ban, as no one realy wants to smoke shisha outside. And the traditional English character of a smokey local pub with the stained yellow walls has been replaced by the horror of sterile gastro pubs.

3. The smoking areas that many establishments already had in place before the ban were effective enough to segregate the smokers from the non smokers allowing each group to enjoy their time as much as possible without being disturbed by the other.

4. The government pokes its nose enough into our affairs without it having to, constrain one of the few legal pleasures we have, and force us to do it in the rain or cold. And if it was sunny and nice we would probably go outside anyway.

As you have probably guessed I am a smoker, and I do understand that its very unhealthy, and secondary smoking is also very unhealthy. I do not want a health debate about why I should stop smoking, Just why the government SHOULD HAVE and HAS imposed a complete smoking ban inside all public areas, without the establishment owners having any say.
doopydoopdoop

Pro

This stance is derived from the capacity for one individual to impair the health rights of another.

In response to your first argument it should not be up to the establishment to determine what particular health behaviors are practiced on their premises. This argument is entirely self-evident, I'm sure you could imagine the response if health regulation such as sanitation were made optional.
A business must operate within the health guidelines of its greater community. This is because it represents a conflict of interest; it is often not in the best interest of the business to keep the patrons health as a priority, this is why legislation must be enforced. If smoking on premises is profitable to the business, then the business will allow this to continue. Obviously this decision is not in the best interest of the patron and therefore should not in any instance be in the hands of proprietors.

Your second argument is entirely relative. However, if some individuals do prefer Smokey pubs and yellow walls, they do not have the right to impose health risk on other patrons. You must ask yourself if limited atheistic pleasure outweighs the right to breathe smoke free air, and the answer of course is no.

Your third argument makes the assumption that segregation in pubs was effective. This assumption is for the most part incorrect. Firstly, you must clarify as to what amount of secondary smoke represents a harmful threshold to the individual. One would argue that even limited accidental exposure to secondary smoke is harmful. It is self-evident that it is impossible for a pub with no scientific knowledge or equipment to create an area that entirely prevents exposure to second hand smoke. Pubs and especially nightclubs are generally poorly ventilated. Furthermore there is no way to determine the actual number of cigarettes smoked at anytime in the premises. However, until you clarify what is a safe level of second hand smoke and how to quantify this in a pub environment I will not comment further. I would like to point out that there is no intrinsic or intuitive level of smoke that is acceptable and you will probably find that zero tolerance is the best approach.

Lastly you must ask yourself if your "Legal pleasure" outweighs others legal right to smoke free air. I too am a smoker, but I see the hypocrisy in my behavior. What right do I have to affect the health of another individual?
Debate Round No. 1
Nik

Con

Nik forfeited this round.
doopydoopdoop

Pro

doopydoopdoop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nik

Con

Nik forfeited this round.
doopydoopdoop

Pro

doopydoopdoop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nik 8 years ago
Nik
Sorry about not posting an argument, completely forgot about this debate!
No votes have been placed for this debate.