The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Smoking in Public Areas Should Be Banned

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 51102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Smoking in public areas should be banned.
There are a number of reasons for this:
1. Second-hand smoking (inhalation of fumes from someone else's smoking).

2. Discourages people from walking in certain areas (ex: discourages people from walking near certain areas at public malls).

3. The banning would encourage smokers to quit by reducing the amount of places they can smoke.

I will get further into these points as the debate progresses, but I just wanted to make sure not to intimidate anybody with a wall of text. For now, these points should serve their purpose at summarizing my arguments.


Smoking in public area's shouldn't be banned for that.

1) Many people smoke in those area's and which if banned, cause a protest.

2) It doesn't discourage smokers to quit.

3) Think of enforcing this ban.

As will I get further into these points as well others while bringing down your third point. I wish you luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your arguments.
I will now begin by analyzing my opponent's points, and then build upon my own.
My opponent stated that:
"Many people smoke in those area's and which if banned, cause a protest."
Protests are not guaranteed, especially for something so small and justifiable like this. It is not in private areas like in front of shops or on people's properties, this is public areas like National Monuments and in front of malls. I hardly think that people will cause a protest for this ban because of the reasoning behind it. Furthermore, I do not believe that the opposition represents the entire population of smoker's when he/she says a protest would start. One cannot assume that every smoker would be against this ban.

My opponent then went on to say:
"It doesn't discourage smokers to quit."
Yes, that is exactly what I said in my first statements. Smokers will want to quit from this. Isn't that a good thing?

"Think of enforcing this ban."
How is this relevant at all? You would enforce it like any other ban. We are here to discuss whether or not it should be banned, not the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Now to build upon my own points.

Second-hand smoking is becoming an increasingly prevalent problem in places all over the world. People smoke in inappropriate or crowded areas, and the fumes expunged by the cigarettes are inevitably inhaled by a non-smoker. This is a serious problem because it discourages people for walking near the smokers (due to the bad smell) and because it causes serious, often times lethal health problems. Smoking is know to cause cancer. However, what most people are not aware of is that the carcinogens from their smoke can be absorbed by others around them. For example, a person who is constantly around smokers but doesn't smoke themselves is at serious risk for developing health issues like cancer.
To quote my source:

"Secondhand smoke (SHS) is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC " a branch of the World Health Organization). "
"Non-smokers who breathe in SHS( second hand smoke) take in nicotine and toxic chemicals by the same route smokers do. The more SHS you breathe, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body."

It is an undeniable fact that second-hand smoking exists and that it causes cancer at the same rate as regular smokers. How is this fair to non-smokers, especially in a public area? Is the opposition really suggesting that we should expose our citizens to lethal carcinogens every time they take the bus? Let smokers poison our children with harmful toxins?
This is extremely ridiculous and backwards logic. Less smoking in public areas = less cancer, and the numbers prove it. Numbers do not lie. Here are the numbers I am talking about:

"An estimated 42,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers
About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
Worse asthma and asthma-related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children
Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year "

So, it would be more beneficial to society if smoking was banned in public areas than if it were to continue.


The proposition firmly stands by its statement that smoking in public areas should be banned.


BladeXFire forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


The opposition has forfeited last round, and has failed to come up with any arguments against this case.
The proposition stands by its arguments that smoking in public areas should be banned.

Non-smokers who are passing by actual smokers become just as much at risk when inhaling the air around smokers. When smokers do this around public areas such as schools, malls, and on public transit, it becomes impossible for non-smokers to avoid inhaling carcinogens caused by smoking. This is extremely unfair to non-smokers, and is violating their basic freedoms as human beings. This is called "second-hand smoking" and is becoming increasingly prevalent, with thousands of people dying from cancer caused by second-hand smoking every year. For more detail on the stats on this, or for more information about second-hand smoking, please refer to my arguments and sources in Round 2.
Thank you.


I forfeited due to not being in town, and I won't be able to type my case and attack yours, due to I will have to get up early, and I have sleeping disorder's so I have to go to bed early, so you win this debate, Sir. But i will be back.
Debate Round No. 3


The opposition stands by its argument that smoking in public areas should be banned.


BladeXFire forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.