The Instigator
JaidaDebates167
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LibertyCampbell
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

smoking in restaurants

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 1 vote the winner is...
LibertyCampbell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,693 times Debate No: 20700
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

JaidaDebates167

Con

Smoking in public places such as restaurants is inappropriate for not only themselves, but everyone around them. Though there are some restaurants that has smoking/non smoking areas, I believe smoking should not be allowed where others are trying to eat their food and enjoy themselves. Smoking in general is very unhealthy for you, causing many types of cancers, dental health and many more, and it can damage someone else's health by smoking near them. Some cases show others who dealt with second hand smoke have had serious health problems, such as heart failure and breathing problems. When smoking in a place where people are eating, it can be such a distraction. Eating your food and all of a sudden smelling the cigarette smoke, losing your appetite. Smoke can travel far, and for the ones who are non smokers will notice. Children are in most danger of this occurring. When young children are exposed to second hand smoke, it can really damage them internally, and may face harder health issues when they are older. Smoking in restaurants also can effect its employees. I don't believe they enjoy taking someone's order and having intoxicated smoke in their faces. And they may work there all the time, being exposed to smokers everyday, and damaging their health little by little. I personally will not enjoy working where customers can smoke in their corners while others eat. Smoking in restaurants should not be an option. They should get rid of smoking areas and have the restaurant not allow smoking inside at all. If others want to smoke, they can go outside, simple as that. Even better, they can start to quit, saving themselves from horrible side effects. If our country got rid of smoking areas in most public places, it can save others from effects it brings on non smokers, and maybe encourage smokers themselves to quit.
LibertyCampbell

Pro

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?
Debate Round No. 1
JaidaDebates167

Con

JaidaDebates167 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JaidaDebates167

Con

Yes, others can have the opportunity to leave, but it still doesn't give the right for people to smoke in restaurants. Sure, others can get lung cancer if they choose to, but I know others around them don't. Banning smoking in restaurants can ease off the tension of second hand smoke and others can have better safety. Like I mentioned, if others choose to smoke, they can excuse themselves, smoke outside the restaurant, and when they are finished they can return back inside. Owners of restaurants may let customers do what ever they want, but some just let the customers know smoking is not allowed. No use of government fines there. Smoking in general is just repulsive, why do it when you are about to enjoy a meal? If the government does ban smoking in restaurants, they would be doing others a favor and saving the risk of peoples lives.
LibertyCampbell

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 3
JaidaDebates167

Con

Here's the thing, some places have restaurants that have a place for smokers, and for non smokers. I personally do not like the idea of even having a smoking area. I once went to a restaurant were smoking was allowed on one side, while non smokers stay on the other side. Even as I walked through the doors, I felt the smoke reach in my eyes, the smell of the cigarette and trying to not inhale the toxicated smoke. Its not a good look for any restaurant, the smell, the way it tires your eyes. Since then, I have never went to another restaurant where you were allowed to smoke.

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.
LibertyCampbell

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 4
JaidaDebates167

Con

Nothing but opinions? I have posted facts about smoking in an previous argument. Smoking can cause serious problems to your health (cancers, teeth decay, heart failure). Many people around the world has died because of the side affects smoking gives. The purpose to ban smoking anywhere you go is to concern someone else's safety. The base of my argument is that smoking in public places should consider not allowing others to smoke in their work space.
LibertyCampbell

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
JaidaDebates167LibertyCampbellTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF everything else tied