The Instigator
TheEnergyHippo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mexecutive
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places in Bulgaria again.

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  
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: 7/20/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 889 times Debate No: 35801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheEnergyHippo

Pro

Hello this is my first debate ever. I am against the fact that the new government may allow smoking in public places. It is simply bad for the people that don't smoke and come to have a good time.
Mexecutive

Con

Good evening. I would rebut my opponent's argument saying that "it's simply bad for the people that don't smoke and come to have a good time," by saying that non-smokers should be aware of the freedom of choice of smokers on the notion of smoking. If that were the case, then having chocolate as harmful to health would instantly result to anti-chocolate protests, even though those protesters (I believe to be 99.9% non-smokers), don't understand is that a life of someone is with his or her own.

I would argue that smoking should not, and never be banned in public areas, because of the points like:
> They are public. Areas that are public can be used in whatsoever case, like in posting democratic/nationalistic posters, vulgar or thought-provoking graffiti, besides public smoking. Smoking can be said of as an expression of individuality, if not freedom. Having banned smoking in public areas would only lead to believing that the government is against smoking in general, which brings me to my second point.

> Smoking is a multi-billion dollar industry. Smokers and non-smokers alike benefit from the industry, because it can be used to fund a lot of things, like schools, infrastructure, and other ways in which society can benefit. Banning smoking in public areas would lead to decreased sales in both the national and international tobacco industry, and can hurt those people working in the industry, including farmers who have depended on selling their tobacco will have to cope with decreased sales; besides general farmers, I would also point out that Pomaks, a Muslim minority in Bulgaria, depends on the crop for cash; banning would ultimately kill the livelihood of these people. Bulgartabac, the state-turned-privatized company, grew 166%, effectively bringing more jobs to the Bulgarian economy.

We believe that by banning smoking in public areas would be a detrimental effect to the smokers and those who service them in the tobacco industry, and can be irrevocably linked to the state's economy.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1
TheEnergyHippo

Pro

Thank you for debating. Since this is my first debate I made a mistake by saying public places. I don't know how I had to say it but I meant restaurants, bars, hospitals and any other closed/semi-opened areas.

I would like to point out that smoking was made illegal into those places by the ex-government. The new government is trying to legalize that again which is one of the reason for some people to go to the protests against the new government now.

I know that people should have freedom but I don't think it is needed to smoke inside closed/semi-opened areas. The smokers can simply leave temporary the restaurant to smoke out their ciggaretes and not harm the people that don't smoke and don't want to breath the smoke. It is not such a problem for a smoker to leave the place to take a small smoke.

Even if that made the economy a little bit worse, which I don't believe will happen because banning the smoking in those places won't be a reason to make any problems for the smoking industry.

I again say sorry for my mistake. I bet you thought about banning it in parks and other places like that. But if that changed your perspective over this debate I will close the debate if you want. Like I said this is my first debate and I didn't pay much attention when making it and I can't speak english that well so I am really sorry.
Mexecutive

Con

I would rebut my opponent's argument, saying that he "doesn't think that it is needed to smoke inside closed/semi-opened areas;" as The Sofia Globe reports, investigators found widespread violations of Bulgaria's smoking ban, which entails the crucial relationship of customer and business owner, which the customer can be said of as smoker or not; in short, smoking is done by the smokers themselves that they would do anything in order to get their fix. I would argue, along with restaurant and bar owners, that we would rather pay the fines concerning breaches of the smoking law rather than deprive our loyal customers who are smoking of the chance to visit our place.

I would argue further that smoking is a very hard habit to kick out, much like addictions to various stuff, like chocolate and sweets, video games, and the such. Having smoking banned does not actually do anything to solve the problem in Bulgaria, as reported by the Sofia Globe. It's not a problem, yes, but it is an irritating fact to go out into the cold to just smoke in the middle of a conversation.

My opponent also said that "banning the smoking in those places won't be a reason to make any problems for the smoking industry." Though I said in the first round that smoking a multi-billion dollar industry, I focused on how the tobacco industry is affecting those who work in it, in Bulgaria. There's also a link about the tobacco industry and the restaurants and bars: 85% of the patrons of most of the "public spaces" that my opponent says are smokers. Banning would ultimately deprive the affected business owners of customers, thereby losing money, both on the side of the Bulgarian tobacco industry and some parts of the hospitality industry, along with the deprivation of the "expression of public freedom" from the smokers themselves. If a typical restaurant loses 10 out of twenty crew because of low customer turnout for business, then Bulgaria would find itself with 30,000 young unemployed people. Banning smoking, as we believe to be made clear, would only lead to a detrimental effect to many aspects of the Bulgarian society.

To bring more points to the debate, having banning smoke resulted also with the Bulgarian government introducing a staggering tax hike to most cigarettes being sold in Bulgaria. I believe that this would only worsen the situation, because we believe that a tax hike could entail smuggling in Bulgaria and may bankrupt Bulgartabac, whose employees depend on the privatized company for livelihood.

Banning smoking in public places in Bulgaria should be reconsidered, and revoked in order for society to function as it is.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 2
TheEnergyHippo

Pro

I would like to thank to my opponent for this reply.

"I would argue further that smoking is a very hard habit to kick out, much like addictions to
various stuff, like chocolate and sweets, video games, and the such. Having smoking banned does not actually do anything to solve the problem in Bulgaria, as reported by the Sofia Globe. It's not a problem, yes, but it is an irritating fact to go out into the cold to just smoke in the middle of a conversation. "

It is a really bad habbit to kick out but unlikely the other addictive stuff you pointed out smoking harms people that are around smokers. The problem for me and the non-smokers is the smoke from cigarettes and banning them from closed areas will fix the problem. Also I think that breathing that horrible smoke during a conversation is worse than going out outside to for 5 minutes or less to take a smoke. It is not cold in Bulgaria anyways.

"My opponent also said that "banning the smoking in those places won't be a reason to make any problems for the smoking industry." Though I said in the first round that smoking a multi-billion dollar industry, I focused on how the tobacco industry is affecting those who work in it, in Bulgaria. There's also a link about the tobacco industry and the restaurants and bars: 85% of the patrons of most of the "public spaces" that my opponent says are smokers. Banning would ultimately deprive the affected business owners of customers, thereby losing money, both on the side of the Bulgarian tobacco industry and some parts of the hospitality industry, along with the deprivation of the "expression of public freedom" from the smokers themselves. If a typical restaurant loses 10 out of twenty crew because of low customer turnout for business, then Bulgaria would find itself with 30,000 young unemployed people. Banning smoking, as we believe to be made clear, would only lead to a detrimental effect to many aspects of the Bulgarian society."

I don't know what that link that says that 85% of the patrons are smokers. Even if they were I don't think it would affect anything. Like I said they can just go out and take a smoke it's not like they smoke every 10 minutes. I don't see how it would affect the smokers if they got out for abit. There is no reason that this law will lead to a loss of customers. If smoking gets legal again in the restaurnts then non-smokers will not go to there because they will not be satisfied with the fact that there will be smoke in the entire place.

"To bring more points to the debate, having banning smoke resulted also with the Bulgarian government introducing a staggering tax hike to most cigarettes being sold in Bulgaria. I believe that this would only worsen the situation, because we believe that a tax hike could entail smuggling in Bulgaria and may bankrupt Bulgartabac, whose employees depend on the privatized company for livelihood."

Since I don't understand English quite well I didn't understand the last paragraph. It think you are trying to tell me that the government introduced a huge tax to the ciggaretes producers. I don't see a reason for Bulgartabac to bankrupt since I don't think why such a tax exists or the reason for it to exist.

In conclusion to this I would like to say that the fall of this law would be worse for the non-smokers than the smokers. I am not sure about that tax. I think that you had a lot of good points. However there will always be people who are not happy with the law. If the law stays it will be bad for non-smokers, if it it doesn't it it will be worse for the smokers. But I think that it is abit worse for the non-smokers.
You can try to give me some sources in the next argument.
Mexecutive

Con

Mexecutive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheEnergyHippo

Pro

I have nothing else to add too :/
Mexecutive

Con

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