The Instigator
Weiler
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Sitara
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Smoking bans should be repealed.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Weiler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 38247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Weiler

Pro

Smoking bans should be repealed. It should be solely the right of individual or corporate property owners to decide if and where smoking is permitted on their property.
Sitara

Con

The right of nonsmoking people to a smoke free environment is a fundamental right. Smokers have no right to force their habit on other people. Second hand smoke can make people sick. What about the nonsmoker's right to choose health? If you want to smoke, do not force your habit on other people. Smokers need to stick to the smoking areas and stop forcing their habit on other people.
Debate Round No. 1
Weiler

Pro

I am not suggesting, not would I, that non-smokers somehow be forced to expose themselves to second-hand smoke. Non-smokers always have an option of using non-smoking areas, or refusing to patronize businesses that allow smoking. It is smokers only affected by all out bans in states like my home state of Maryland.

Smoking bans hurt business. Although the CDC has publicized studies claiming there would be little to no effect on business (http://www.cdcfoundation.org...), empirical evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.davehitt.com...).
Sitara

Con

If you are against smoking bans, you are saying that smokers should have free reign, there is no way around it. Smoking bans do not hurt businesses, they help them, because nonsmokers will actually want to be on the premises without fearing illnesses from second hand smoke.
Debate Round No. 2
Weiler

Pro

That is quite simply the opposite of what I said. If I own a restaurant and wish to open a smoking section to cater to smokers I should be allowed to do so. I am saying the government has no place in this decision. If non-smokers do not like my smoking section, they can patronize a different business. If a business chooses to be smoke-free, smokers have the same freedom to accept it, or go elsewhere. This is a property rights issue, not a health issue.
Sitara

Con

I agree about the customers, but my concern is for the employees who may not be able to find another job and I would be willing to compramise and say that there can be an outdoor smoking shelter attached to the property. They had something similar at an airport I was at once, or, dun, dun, dun, you could have a special room designated for smokers. That way the door prevents the smoke from traveling. My concern is worker's rights, the customers can go somewhere else.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sitara 4 years ago
Sitara
Thank you everyone for your honestly. I will keep your advice in mind for later debates. This has been fun.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
WeilerSitaraTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources so I had to give him points there (Con, your other arguments were good but sources would have made your argument immensely better). Other than that, Con made more convincing arguments by acknowledging the right of the employees and the right of non-smoking patrons to not breathe second-hand smoke. 99% of the people should not have to accommodate a smoker because of his addiction; rather the smoker and his addiction should have to accommodate 99% of the people!
Vote Placed by slin2678 4 years ago
slin2678
WeilerSitaraTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro came from the perspective of private rights while Con confused rights with choice. Pro is correct in that businesses should be free to decide who they want as patrons. In a free society, people can then decide whether they want to visit that establishment. Denying business owners their right to choose is an encroachment by the government. Freedom means the ability to make mistakes. Con brings up employee health. Again, personal choice. No one forces someone to work. In fact, there are enough welfare programs now where you don't have to work. So that is a false argument. Source points go to pro as he's the only one that provided sources.