smoking in restaurants
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing that it is the right of the owner to decide whether or not he should allow smoking in resteraunts.
According the the 5th Amendment, "No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
If we were to enforce non-smoking laws within all resteraunts, we would be violating the owners property rights. This is not acceptable behavior, and is utterly unconstitutional.
Now we must ask ourselves; how would the government force a ban on smoking inside resteraunts? The government could tell the owner that he is legally obligated to do so. But what if he still lets them smoke? Then the government would send him a fine, or nothing would have been accomplished since the legislation. But what if he refuses to pay the fine? Then he gets arrested, and a whole bunch of mess happens.
It is not like anybody within the resteraunt are being forced to inhale the second hand smoke. They can all get up to levae if they so desire. But forcing other people to comply to your standards is utterly immoral, and illlegal. Why should the government be able to do so?
JaidaDebates167 forfeited this round.
Sure, if the resteraunt owner refuses his/her patrons the opprotunity to smoke inside of his resteraunts, then they could be asked to leave if they do so anyways. However, if the resteraunt owner doesn't care/wants smoking inside of hist resteraunt, then he should be able to allow, if not encourage such behavior. Based on what then does my opponent has said, we should ban smoking in restraunts because it is repulsive, makes the food taste bad, and concerns other customers.
With the exception of the third argument, based on what does my opponent believe that smoking is repulsive, or makes food taste bad? An opinion? She just assumes these facits are true, and offers no evidence to support these notions. In regards to the third point, as I have already stated, is silly. If customers are inconvienenced, they are free to leave, and if the owner feels the reprocutions are enough to ban smoking within his resteraunt, he should, but doesn't have to.
People have the right to do what they wish with their own property.
Its distracting, the smell, the texture, everything about a cigarette is flat out disgusting. I am stating to ban smoking in restaurants, not every where around the world, though it would be nice if we lived in a world where no one smoked. No one should smoke where other are trying to enjoy themselves, especially others who don't smoke. Many places would consider there smoker and non smoker sections in there restaurants. This is what I'm arguing against.
My opponent has offered nothing but opinions and baseless claims. She has not yet asserted why we should create a smoking ban at the cost of peoples liberty, except through opinions. Arguments extended.
What facts? That in your opinion smoking is unpleasent and disgusting? That smoking causes chance of death? Everything has a chance to kill everybody. It all boils down to how much money you are willing to spends/how much force you are willing to use to prevent your own, inevitable death from occuring. If people don't want to work where smoking is allowed, they can find work elsewhere. No case has been presented that adequately explains why the ban on smoking would be worth the cease of our personal liberty.
Since Con did forfeit, I urge a vote pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF everything else tied