The Instigator
armychick
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
thelemite
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/23/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,106 times Debate No: 2111
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (21)

 

armychick

Pro

I strongly agree that smoking should not be allowed in public places.. As a citizen of the United States I do believe our rights are important. We are given the choice to be a non-smoker or a smoker. I choose to be a non-smoker, but my rights are violated when I'm out in a public facility and I'm forced to inhale second hand smoke. By that and these three reasons, I think smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places to an extent.
First off, I know the effects that come from smoking and just being around those who do smoke, and honestly it's quite terrible. Just from being around those who smoke your chances of getting cancer increases. Also, if you happen to be pregnant and you inhale second hand smoke your baby could be born premature and or have birth defects. The effects of being around those who choose to smoke are quite dangerous.
Secondly the rights of non-smokers are violated. I hate it when I go out to eat with my family or go bowling with my friends and I have to inhale and smell cigarette smoke. One, I don't feel like getting cancer. Two, cigarette smoke irritates me, because of my allergies. There are many people that are actually allergic to cigarette smoke. I feel really bad for those who can't go to their favorite hangout or restaurant just because people smoke there. It's actually quite sad.
Initially we can solve this problem. I know smokers have rights too, and violating their rights is wrong also. By that we should inform them about this problem and give a solution. The solution to this problem is to designate more non-smoking and smoking areas. For example, have a smoking and non-smoking area separated in the restaurant or facility. If some like want to smoke and hangout at the same time, create a separate area where they can do so. It's the facilities choice in what they think is best to do, so it's best to fallow their rules and regulations.
In the end everyone can be happy and have their rights at same time. It's understandable when a non-smoker doesn't want to inhale cigarette smoke and it's understandable that a person has the right to smoke. Really, all we have to do is find compliance and a solution that fits most. We can do this by setting up town meetings or meet with business owners. Everyone can do something to help the world a little more; it just takes courage and strength.
thelemite

Con

I would like to begin this debate by thanking my opponent for suggesting it. As a long time smoker this argument is obviously very dear to me. Also, let me state that I am a polite smoker. In other words, I will be courteous enough to ask if it is okay if I am in someone else's home or work area etc. I think that rude smokers are just that rude and should be dealt with as the situation warrants. A strike to the adams apple at worst, a kind "please don't do that" at best. But this debate is about smokers in general so that is what I will address.

>>>I strongly agree that smoking should not be allowed in public places.. As a citizen of the United States I do believe our rights are important. We are given the choice to be a non-smoker or a smoker. I choose to be a non-smoker, but my rights are violated when I'm out in a public facility and I'm forced to inhale second hand smoke.<<<

Here is the gist of the matter. Can you please show me where an individual gets this "right" to be free of second hand smoke in public? And do these so called "rights" pertain to just cigarette smoke or is it all carcinogens? Is it limited to just carcinogens or is it any offensive odor? The fact is that this is not a right at all but a desire. This I can understand but that does not make it right to limit my freedom and liberty to make my own decisions because you are offended by something in public. Now in your own home or office, you do have a right to kick a smoker out on his butt for smoking in or on your property. But that right does not extend to public places.

>>>First off, I know the effects that come from smoking and just being around those who do smoke, and honestly it's quite terrible. Just from being around those who smoke your chances of getting cancer increases. Also, if you happen to be pregnant and you inhale second hand smoke your baby could be born premature and or have birth defects. The effects of being around those who choose to smoke are quite dangerous.<<<

This argument would only pertain to living with a smoker and breathing second hand smoke for extended periods of time. Outside of that you argument is bogus. The effects of the carbon monoxide from the motor vehicles driving on the street far outweigh the effects of someone smoking a cigarette across the street or across the room from you. Are we going to outlaw driving in public?

>>>Secondly the rights of non-smokers are violated. I hate it when I go out to eat with my family or go bowling with my friends and I have to inhale and smell cigarette smoke. One, I don't feel like getting cancer. Two, cigarette smoke irritates me, because of my allergies. There are many people that are actually allergic to cigarette smoke. I feel really bad for those who can't go to their favorite hangout or restaurant just because people smoke there. It's actually quite sad.<<<

Again with this "rights" thing, since I've already addressed this I'll move on. 1. You won't get cancer unless A. you have a genetic predisposition to get cancer and B. You are continually breathing second hand smoke continually for a long period time that far exceeds the time it takes to eat dinner. 2. For the folks who are allergic to smoke, my deepest sympathies. But that does not negate my right to do a legal thing in public. If you were allergic to peanuts, would you expect that we enact laws to prohibit eat peanuts in public? Can we please get serious here? And why would a place that allowed smoking be considered a favorite anything by a person who can't stand to be around it? This argument doesn't wash either.

>>>Initially we can solve this problem. I know smokers have rights too, and violating their rights is wrong also. By that we should inform them about this problem and give a solution. The solution to this problem is to designate more non-smoking and smoking areas. For example, have a smoking and non-smoking area separated in the restaurant or facility. If some like want to smoke and hangout at the same time, create a separate area where they can do so. It's the facilities choice in what they think is best to do, so it's best to fallow their rules and regulations.<<<

Now here is something that we can agree on. Let the business owner decide. Unfortunately though, here in Florida and other states, the state has decided that I can't smoke in a public place, whether the owner of the establishment likes it or not. Nor will they allow everyone who requests a special license to allow smoking in their bar to have one. They are restricted to a certain amount each year and lottery held for them. On top of that, they cost an arm and a leg to get one.

Smoking is a legal activity. Period. I have no problem being polite to non smokers but I have the right to do a legal act in public. We are not talking about sex so please don't even use that tired argument against legal acts in public please.

At first I was apprehensive that this debate was going to go five rounds. But I realize I have much to say and this is going to be good.

I give the floor to my opponent.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
armychick

Pro

You're very welcome :)
Thats great that you are a polite smoker but sadly not everyone is..
Basically in the first Paragraph my Con is going Pro..
By the way, its not smoking in general, its smoking in public places.

In the 2nd paragraph he said that non smokers that the right to inhale it or not. ---> Honestly what do you want me to do not breath the whole time? Or leave because I don't want to be around them. If you say leave that is terible! I have the right to be there.

3rd point ---> its a good point but realize some are alergic to it.

4th point ---> Its good they put restrictions on smoking, maybe they'll save some lives.

In the end the only reason we should put restrictions on smoking is to help you. The effects of smoking are terrible, we just want to help. It's sad... my mom wouldn't quit smoking even when I suggest. So, I cried infront of her and told her I wished I would get lung cancer from second hand smoke so you'll quit. She finally quit. So, I guess its true. It takes something extream to make people realize.

Sorry arguments are so short. Haven't had a lot of time lately. :) Thanks for the debate :)
thelemite

Con

>>>In the end the only reason we should put restrictions on smoking is to help you. The effects of smoking are terrible, we just want to help. It's sad... my mom wouldn't quit smoking even when I suggest. So, I cried infront of her and told her I wished I would get lung cancer from second hand smoke so you'll quit. She finally quit. So, I guess its true. It takes something extream to make people realize.<<<

Since everything before this point was nonsense, I'll address this then continue.

Thank you for your good intentions, but I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP! If I wanted to quit smoking, I would. Furthermore, it is not the government's responsibility to help me or anyone else quit smoking.

I am 40 years old and I have been smoking for 31 years now. I knew when I started smoking that it was bad for me and that I would probably have physical repercussions from doing so. My point is that it was MY choice. For anyone my age or even 10 years older, we have known since the beginning that cigarette smoking was bad for us. There is a warning on every pack, there have been billions spent on commercial advertising, print advertising etc. warning us that smoking is bad. For the government to come along and prosecute tobacco companies is hypocritical and just plain wrong. Not that that has ever stopped the government from doing something.

Well, since my opponent failed to post any sort of argument this round, I'll wait and see if they continue the debate before I invest any more time in it.
Debate Round No. 2
armychick

Pro

Basically all he said against my points were that they were nonsense. So pull those points threw because they were untouched.

>>Thank you for your good intentions, but I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP! If I wanted to quit smoking, I would. Furthermore, it is not the government's responsibility to help me or anyone else quit smoking. <<<

For those who want the help and want to quit can't. Smoking is a hard and dangerous habit. So, you shouldn't make this debate about you.

the next paragraph.
True. We may know the effects and even the fact what is in it, but think of this.
You have kids. You smoke. You know the effects and know that it's terrible for you. But your childern see you smoke and they see you as their hero. They are very likely to take smoking up.

That exmaple can work in the public eye. Childern see their favorite celebity smoking on tv or in the movies. They are very likely to do it. Thus, smoke shouldn't be allowed in public places.

By the way. What are you talkin about. I didn't post aguements?

I debate in a different way. I'm an LD debater, so im just taking this as one debate. So, basically i think we are debating differently. Again sorry for late replys, I have a lot of work to do to get ready for my big debate turnament. Thanks for the pacients.
thelemite

Con

Unfortunately due to time constrictions I am unable to keep debating. I've made the gist of my arguments and that is freedom and liberty. The government has no right to make money off smokers then pretend to care about our health.

My time has been taken up by producing a podcast. I invite everyone to come listen as we will be talking about this and many more other aspects of Freedom and Liberty of the individual in America.

Please come listen at www.freedomandliberty.mypodcast.com

Please leave a comment and let me know that you heard about it here at Debate.om.

Respectfully,

Rick Pearlstein
Debate Round No. 3
armychick

Pro

1st of all the government only makes the money from taxing on the cigerettes. The tobacco company makes more then anyone! Taxing is normal.

And we the people are trying to change the law.
There were citizens arguing about this in congress. Doesn't anyone remember this? It's not just the government.
thelemite

Con

thelemite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
armychick

Pro

I'm so sick and tired of people saying that smoking isn't that big of deal. Millions of people die from it and you're spending A LOT of money on this killer substance. It's not like if you don't have it you'll die. You're better off with out it. Geeze I can not believe you people are saying that it's not that big of a deal. Teens every where are working to solve this problem because they care. So, why can't you!?

Vote Pro... It's the right thing to do!
thelemite

Con

Your right, smoking is bad. But so are so many other things, that doesn't give the government the right to take away our freedom and liberty to make our own decisions and live with the conseqences of those decisions. Period.

Millions of people get heart disease, should we outlaw beef? Or outlaw obesity?
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by toria_2metal 6 years ago
toria_2metal
i totally agree with Kels.
Benjamin we are breathing in stuff that already harms us there are other harmful stuff out in the air besides smoke.
Posted by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
Benjamin , People that don't smoke have all the rights. Smoking is illegal in many states at bars and restaurants. If I want to smoke in a public place ie park , street, sidewalk etc. I can , I have that right. if a nonsmoker doesn't want to be near me , then don't come near me. I try to be as courteous as I can , but as long as cigarettes are LEGAL then people can smoke them in a public place. The government doesn't care about second hand smoke or cancer. They care about the revenue that comes from cigarette sales. When they make cigarettes illegal then they can tell me I can't smoke in a public place.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I voted for the wrong person accidentally take one away from the instigator. fat people are next on their list
Posted by BenjamminL04 6 years ago
BenjamminL04
Not smoking does not infringe upon other peoples rights, but smoking does. I just wanted to make a statement, i'm really not very good at debating. apologies if i just make a fool of myself. But anyway i believe that smoking does not make anything better, in any situation. it does not promote better air quality, nor help a person's health, nor does it leave a pleasant scent. Cigarettes probably don't taste good either, I've never actually smoked one. You could make the same argument for drinking, saying that it does not make anything better. We do punish people for drinking and driving and killing somebody, yet we do not punish people who get cancer from secondhand smoke? Is it a smokers right to expose other people to another cancer causing agent?

People who don't smoke want to help the people that do smoke to stop doing it. Yes it's your choice, but it is not another person's choice to breathe in toxic fumes, you shove that onto them. Nonsmokers have a right to be in a place, but they are not harming the smokers, yet the smokers are harming the nonsmokers.

I feel like I'm rambling now. please respond, thank you for replying to my comment. It helps me learn how to better say what i want to say.
Posted by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
benjamin , When the government stops taxing cigarettes for the amount they do then they can tell me which places I can smoke in. A restaurant is actually not a public place , that is a private establishment. A public place would be the street , a beach , a sidewalk , a park etc .. I can smoke at all of these as long as cigarettes are legal. When they outlaw them then I will let the government tell me I can't smoke outside. Also what about a smokers right?
Posted by BenjamminL04 6 years ago
BenjamminL04
I believe that it is an infringement on nonsmokers when smokers do smoke in a public place. I think that smoking should be banned entirely in public facilities. Having a smoking section in a public facility is the equivilant of having a peeing section in the swiiming pool. Smoking kills people and does nothing to better a person. Nobody sees it as "cool" any more, and the excuse that it "relieves stress" is entirely wrong.
Posted by Donlatt 6 years ago
Donlatt
Great job, thelemite. You really know what you're talking about.

Although, I think you should have stressed the fact that these areas armychick is calling 'public', such as bowling alleys, are in fact private businesses, and smokers have the right to smoke as long as the business allows it.
Posted by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
You're missing the point , as long as the government keeps smoking legal and profits off the sale of cigarettes they can't stop people's rights to smoke in a public area. It is not your job to decide if people smoke or not. Some people want to smoke, it is legal to smoke so they have a right to smoke. If you don't want to smoke then don't. That is your right. As long as the government profits off me smoking I should be able to smoke in public places.
Posted by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
army chick , are you kidding me ?????? Do you know how much of the money a person pays for cigarettes is taxes which go to the government !!!! I pay for a carton of cigarettes in MA .. $58-60 On base when I buy cigarettes (no taxes ) I pay $30-34 That is $30 in taxes !!! That all goes to the government. Yes the government is in debt but that is because although they are making money off tobacco they are spending money on other things.
Posted by toria_2metal 6 years ago
toria_2metal
dude pick up a cigarette smoke it and shut up. I'm sick of hearing about ohhh the non smokers die of second hand smoke. there are MORE IMPORTANT things to be worrying about than smoking in public.

Kels-hahahaha you crack me up. tell em how it is.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bloodgood 5 years ago
Bloodgood
armychickthelemiteTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 5 years ago
mrbullfrog11
armychickthelemiteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 6 years ago
griffinisright
armychickthelemiteTied
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 simplyme 6 years ago
simplyme
armychickthelemiteTied
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 meganlg43 6 years ago
meganlg43
armychickthelemiteTied
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 toria_2metal 6 years ago
toria_2metal
armychickthelemiteTied
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 Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
armychickthelemiteTied
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 armychick 6 years ago
armychick
armychickthelemiteTied
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 polka-dots323 6 years ago
polka-dots323
armychickthelemiteTied
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 sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
armychickthelemiteTied
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