Debate On Smoking Should Be Permitted In Public Places To Do Homework

Yes because...

second-hand smoke is harmful, just like smoking is. i really feel that smoking in public places should be banned, because not only is it harming the health of smokers, but also the health of others around them. in my opinion, smoking in public places, especially places with a lot of people is a pretty selfish thing to do. i find that second hand smoke is very annoying, because everytime i walk past someone smoking, i always feel that i have to hold my breath. smoking seriously harms people's lungs, but so can second-hand smoke. ah sorry, i misspelled the title. i meant "yes of course"

>>>
The problem with designated smoking areas is not alway the public, but also the employees. What if said business doesn't have smoking employees? Say in a restaurant they have a smoking area even with ventilation. The larger the area, the larger the vent, the larger the vent the more powerful it needs to be, the more powerful it needs to be the louder it is. This would disrupt the non smokers as its just an annoying noise created to feed the poor addicts their poison. But what if we wanted to dull down the power or remove the vent all together? Keep the area away from the non smokers sounds ok but now you're asking the waiter/waitress, busboy, manager, cleaning crew, bar tender, ect. to go through these areas to serve, clean and address customers regardless of whether they smoke or not. No a manager does not NEED to go through and would then be making it their own decision, but the other staff still needs to do their job. Asking a restaurant to hire only employees that 'dont mind' inhaling the second hand smoke is, in my opinion, far fetched and out of line. It is bad enough that smokers get to go outside every 30 minutes to smoke for 5-10 minutes while non smokers have to work work work work all day without those breaks. Now we're going to suggest that smokers get jobs over them just because smoker need to inhale their cancer sticks?

No because...

Yes, it is a real problem. The smoke bothers every non-smoker. But a complete ban is not necessary. I mean, those public places can save up some money so they can build special areas for non-smokers and those areas would be vent. This way would thank both parts: the part of population that smokes and love smoking while at a restaurant and the part of population that doesn't smoke and can't stand the smoke. So if somebody wants to smoke, let him do. As long as it doesn't socialy harm anyone. And by using this special areas for smokers, everyone would be happy and the restaurants would make profit.
P.S.: sorry for my bad english but it's not my native language. But i hope i proved my point.

Loosely speaking, "smoking bans" mean it is illegal in that country to smoke tobacco in workplaces and other public places, e.g., in hospitals or hotels, to prevent the health problems that can arise as a result of accidentally inhaling other people's cigarette smoke. However, of the countries that have smoking bans, there is wide variation in what public places are actually included. For example, smoking is banned in all restaurants in Berlin, but in Austria large establishments are allowed to have separate rooms for smokers1. In Japan, only some companies (like McDonald's) ban smoking in their buildings2, whereas in China a ban introduced in 2011 means smoking is illegal in all enclosed public spaces3.

As well as these differences between countries that do have smoking bans, there are some countries where there are not yet any restrictions on smoking in public places. These countries include Costa Rica4 and Jamaica5, where bans are still only in consideration.

Because of this variation across the globe, it is important to discuss the reasons for and against having smoking banned in public places, and what kinds of places should be included. However, for simplicity's sake, this debate will discuss whether smoking should be banned in all enclosed public places.

1 Steves, Rick, 'A wunderbar welcome in Austria and Germany', CNN Travel, 5 March 2009, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-05/travel/austria.germany.travel_1_jewish-history-museum-new-town-hall-tours/2?_s=PM:TRAVEL 

2 Koh, Yoree, 'McDonald's to Snuff Out Smoking in Japan', The Wall Street Journal, 10 August 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2010/08/10/mcdonald%E2%80%99s-to-snuff-out-smoking-in-japan/

3 'New National Smoking Ban'CRIenglish.com, 6 May 2011, http://english.cri.cn/7146/2011/05/06/2702s635887.htm 

4 Garlow, Stephanie, 'Smoking rates: Lighting up in Latin America', Global Post, 8 July 2011, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/que-pasa/smoking-rates-latin-america-who 

Hunter, Nadisha, 'Gov't Dragging Feet On Smoking Ban - Doctor', The Gleaner, 4 July 2011, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110704/news/news7.html

Title 

Exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke goes against their rights.

Point 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a list of rights to which the United Nations has declared that all human beings should be entitled) states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"1. More than 50 studies carried out worldwide have found that people are at an increased risk of lung cancer if they work or live with somebody who smokes2. Given these very serious health risks, it goes against people's human rights to be exposed to second-hand smoke when they have not chosen to breathe it in. To avoid this happening, smoking should be banned in public places, so that non-smokers can be sure that they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke.

1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', General Assembly of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

2 'Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking', World Health Organisation, Vol.83, 24 July 2002, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf

Counterpoint 

It is very difficult to properly scientifically measure the risk for non-smokers of being exposed to second-hand smoke. To do a proper experiment, scientists would need to find a large group of people who had never been exposed to cigarette smoke before, split them into two groups, and then systematically expose one group to second-hand smoke for a period of time while the other group stayed smoke-free. They would then have to wait and see if more of the group exposed to second-hand smoke developed lung cancer than the other group over their lives. This would be a very expensive and time-consuming experiment. Besides this, it would be very difficult to find people who had never breathed in cigarette smoke and keep half of them that way for their whole lives for comparison. Because of these difficulties in the ideal experiment, scientists often just use questionnaires, asking people to try and remember how many cigarettes the person they live with smokes in a day, for how many hours a day they are exposed to smoking, etc. These kinds of studies are far from precise, since human memory is not very accurate, and so no truly scientific conclusions can be drawn1. Therefore, it is not a fact that non-smokers exposed to the smoke of others are at a serious health risk, so the proposition cannot say that having to sometimes be around other people who smoke goes against non-smokers' human rights.

1 Basham, Patrick, and Roberts, Juliette, 'Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary?' Democracy Institute, Social Risk Series Paper, December 2009, http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf

improve this

Title 

This ban would lower healthcare costs.

Point 

Counterpoint 

Title 

This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether.

Point 

Not being able to smoke in public will make it more difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. For example, if they are no longer able to smoke in the pub, smokers would have to go outside – possibly in the rain or other uncomfortable weather – and be away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. So, a smoking ban would encourage smokers to smoke less frequently and maybe even give up. This can be seen in countries already with smoking bans. For example, a study in England found that in the nine months after the smoking ban was introduced, there was a 5.5% fall in the number of smokers in the country, compared to the much lower fall of 1.6 % in the nine months before the ban[1]. This can only be a good thing, since giving up smoking decreases the risk of death, even for those suffering from early stage lung cancer[2].

[1]Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008.

[2]Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340.  21 January 2010.

Counterpoint 

While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral.

1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-cigarettes-idUSTRE7552S620110606

improve this

Title 

This ban would be easy to introduce.

Point 

Counterpoint 

This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1.

1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,  http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/our_case/

improve this

Title 

This ban would be difficult to enforce.

Point 

Given the popularity of smoking, a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places would be difficult to enforce, requiring constant vigilance by many police officers or security cameras. It has been reported that smoking bans are not being enforced in Yakima, Washington 1, Atlantic City2, Berlin 3and other places. In New York City, the major has said that the New York Police Department (NYPD) are too busy to enforce the ban on smoking in their parks and on their beaches, and that the job will be left to citizens4.

1. Guenthner, Hayley, 'Smoking Ban Difficult to Enforce in Yakima', KIMA TV, 1 April 2011, http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/119039579.html 

2. Sajor, Stephanie, 'Smoking Ban Not Enforced at Atlantic City Casinos', ThirdAge.com, 25 April 2011, http://www.thirdage.com/news/smoking-ban-not-enforced-at-atlantic-city-casinos_04-25-2011 

3. AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,563424,00.html 

4. 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/nyc-smoking-ban_n_822144.html

Counterpoint 

In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people.

1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/06/26080617

improve this

Title 

Smokers have a right to enjoy themselves.

Point 

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"1. So, smokers have the same rights as non-smokers and should not be targeted because of how they choose to live their lives. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" 1.If some people get their rest and leisure by smoking with friends in a pub, it seems that governments should make it possible, by at least having smoking areas in pubs, restaurants, etc. A ban on smoking in all public places would mean smokers could never enjoy themselves like they want to, at least not legally. There are many groups which feel that the rights of the smoker are being ignored, e.g. "Forest".

1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Counterpoint 

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc.http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

improve this

Title 

This ban would put many pubs, clubs, etc. out of business.

Point 

If smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, they will not spend as much time in them, preferring to stay at home where they can smoke with their friends. This will put many pubs out of business. In fact, since the smoking ban was introduced in the UK, many pubs have closed and blamed their loss of business on the smoking ban1. The Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign estimates that the smoking ban in the UK is responsible for 20 pub closures a week2. This is an unfair consequence for the many pub-owners across the world.

1 'MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs', BBC News, 29 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13948624

2  'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs, http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/our_case

improve this

Counterpoint 

While pubs and restaurants might lose money from some smokers initially, they will gain money from those who are more likely to eat/drink somewhere if they know they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke. Even the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign admits that pub business is on a decline in the UK anyway, and that the current economic environment in the country is probably partly to blame1. Some pubs have actually seen improved business since the introduction of a smoking ban, like the Village Pub and Grill in Wisconsin, who say that they get more families coming to eat during the day, and have non-smokers staying longer in their bar 2 The lack of smoke indoors also makes pubs a better environment in which to work.

1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs, http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/our_case

2 Linnane, Rory et al., 'One Year After State Smoking Ban, Village Pub Sees Better Business, Health', ShorewoodPatch, 6 July 2011,http://shorewood.patch.com/articles/one-year-after-state-smoking-ban-vil...

Bibliography 

Basham, Patrick, and Roberts, Juliette. "Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary?" Democracy Institute Social Risk Series Paper. December 2009.
"MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs." BBC News. 29 June 2011.

BBC News. “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs.” BBC News. 29 June 2011.

BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

Blackwelders, Edward. “Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder.” Criminology Research Project Inc. 2009-2010.

Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008.

Fei, He. “New National Smoking Ban.” CRI English. 6 May 2011.

Garlow, Stephanie. “Smoking rates: Lighting up in Latin America.” Global Post. 8 July 2011.

Grens, Kerry. “Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study.” Reuters. 6 June 2011.

Guenthner, Hayley. “Smoking Ban Difficult to Enforce in Yakima.” Kima TV. 1 April 2011.

Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health. 101(3). March 2011.

Hunter, Nadisha. “Gov’t Dragging Feet on Smoking Ban – Doctor.” The Gleaner. 4 July 2011.

King Fahd International Airport. “GACA starts practical steps for smoking ban at airports.” King Fahd International Airport. 28 December 2010.

Koh, Yoree. “McDonald’s to Snuff Out Smoking in Japan?” The Wall Street Journal. 10 August 2010.

Linanne, Rory, Andrews, Tom, and Maley, Mark. “One Year After State Smoking Ban, Village Pub Sees Better Business, Health.” Shorewood Patch. 6 July 2011.

McCormack, Simon. “NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor.” The Huffington Post. 11 February 2011.

Smith, Louise. “Smoking in public places: the ban in force – Commons Library Standard Note.” Parliament. 20 May 2011.

Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340.  21 January 2010.

Sajor, Stephanie. “Smoking Ban Not Enforced at Atlantic City Casinos.” Boomer Health & Lifestyle. 25 April 2011.

Save Our Pubs & Clubs. “Why we want government to amend the smoking ban.” Amend the Smoking Ban. 2011.

Spiegel. “Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany.” Spiegel Online International. 2 July 2008.

Steves, Rick. “A wunderbar welcome in Austria and Germany.” CNN Travel. 5 March 2009.

The Scottish Government. “Smoking ban gets seal of public approval.” The Scottish Government. 26 June 2006.

Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” 1948.

World Health Organisation – International Agency for Research on Cancer. “Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking.” IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 83. 24 July 2002.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *