Smoking in Public - Ai vs Laughing Man

[Manchester Black]

~Smoking in Public - Should it be legal?~

Topic: Whether or not it should be legal to smoke in public.

Debaters: Ai (1), Laughing Man (2)

Format: 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2

Judges: VampyreLord

Ai will be debating for smoking in public and I will be debating against it. Please don't post in this thread unless you are a part of it.

Vampy: Doing so WILL result in punishment.

[Ai]

Whether or not it should be legal to smoke in public.

An interesting topic to say the least, this is a topic which in itself challenges the very free rights of smokers everywhere. We of the affirmative..Me myself and I argue the fact that it should be legal for smokers to smoke in public as we define the topic as.

Legal to smoke being that people are allowed to smoke where and when they feel cigarettes and cigars.
In public being large open public spaces and not shops or bars which in Australia it is already illegal to smoke in such places indoors or where it isn't a designated smoking area due to the fact that other patrons really don't have much choice. There-for public places is assumed to be wide open parks or streets etc.

/me ughs at spelling

I will endeavor to put across the argument that legally we should be allowed to smoke in public, and that where this law does exist in country's be kept for the following few reasons.

- It is a act of right of freedom for a person to do so in a public area.
- It cannot be solely attributed to the cause of lung cancer in other patrons in said area.
- To remove this right would be impossible to police.

It is for these reasons that I argue that it should be kept legal to smoke in public places.

[Manchester Black]

I will obviously be arguing that it should be illegal to smoke in public places.

Now I’m sure we can both see the problem with smoking in enclosed spaces such as a bar, pub, restaurant, coffee house, or something of that nature. But when it comes to the topic of smoking outdoors should laws be any different? I say no, because to be honest, the problem isn’t very different.

Even when a person is outside; if there’s a smoker in the vicinity, they can tell. Just because a person is smoking in the open air, does not mean that the smoke doesn’t linger, and drift around to other people (unless you’re smoking in the middle of a desert all by yourself).

Smoking in areas such as a park or an open air mall is bad enough that it can be considered a hazard to others. It’s pretty common knowledge these days that second hand smoke is basically just as bad as smoking the cigar/cigarette yourself. So if a person were to stand in a park and smoke around others, they’re putting the non-smokers at risk by possibly exposing them to second hand smoke. I myself have experienced, first hand, being around a smoker outdoors and it’s really not that much better than sitting with them inside. The smoke still manages to linger over, and if you’re thinking “well just walking by won’t do any damage”, that’s not entirely true either. Research shows that second hand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through can endanger a person, especially someone at risk of heart disease.

You also mention that it cannot be solely attributed to the cause of lung cancer in patrons in said area. Maybe not SOLELY, but allow me to just list a few facts about second hand smoke according to the American Lung Association.

- Second hand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans.
- Second hand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
- Second hand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers each year.
- The current Surgeon General’s report concluded that scientific evidence indicates there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, and reduce heart rate variability, increasing the risk of heart attack.

These facts indicate that second hand smoke is still a very dangerous thing, and is not something I would want to be breathing in for any amount of time. They also indicate that second hand smoke contains harmful chemicals that are not only a threat to humans, but our environment as well.

Smoking in public may be an act of right of freedom, but that doesn’t make it right, and that doesn’t make it any less harmful to nonsmokers. It may currently be a right of freedom, but that’s something that’s being debated by governments all over the world (and us).

You are correct in saying that it would be impossible to completely 100% enforce a law that smoking in public is illegal, but it certainly would deter plenty of smokers from lighting up if there is risk of being fined. So by making smoking in public illegal, not only does it cut down on the amount of smoking in public, and the amount of deaths and diseases related to second hand smoke, but it just might reduce the number of smokers period. People just might want to kick the habit entirely if it means being fined every time you smoke in a public place. That sounds like a pretty good outcome to me.

To conclude my opening statement; I believe that it should be illegal to smoke in public places due to the severe health risks it places on nonsmoking bystanders. Regardless of whether or not smokers are inside or outside, the risks still remain.

[Ai]

Yes smoking is still a hazard to others whether it's indoors or outdoors. I think however that the following should also be brought to light for your attention that refutes this argument.

- Car Exhaust is detrimental to a persons health and yet we're all subjected to it on a daily basis as soon as we walk down the street.
- We receive radiation from sources such as radar towards, Radio signals, Microwaves etc which by themselves don't do much but when combined have been shown to be just as bad as inhaling second hand smoke.
- The amount of plastic materials in our daily lives are raising the averages persons percentage level of polymers in the body due to the constant exposure to such things.

The point i'm getting across that in a persons daily life they are subjected to not just Second hand smoke but a wide range of chemicals, situations and a lifestyle which not only inflicts detrimental effects to our health but in most situations encourages it. It would be great if we could stop this but the fact of it is that we don't because we want the benefits.

A smoker smokes for the benefits of the feeling of it. A person standing nearby can choose to stand nearby in the open public area and subject themselves to the second hand smoke or they can make a decision to move away and save their health. However as was said, most people won't. Not because they don't have a choice but because they take the chance of inhaling second hand smoke then taking the trouble to move away.

The smoker so far has done nothing wrong except introduce this choice in the other person. Something which that other person probably does daily by getting in their car and driving through a city street where others are walking. Would we ban cars from doing this....No we haven't even discussed it....Theres not a lot of difference between the car and the smoker in an open public space.

As to your statistics on second hand smoke and it's danger we're not debating whether or not it's dangerous or not. I acknowledge that smoking can cause a lot of detrimental effects to the human body. What we are debating is whether people should be allowed to smoke in public spaces.

Smoking in public may be an act of right of freedom, but that doesn’t make it right, and that doesn’t make it any less harmful to nonsmokers. It may currently be a right of freedom, but that’s something that’s being debated by governments all over the world (and us).

Driving a car and possibly crashing into someone and killing them is an act of right of freedom, But does that make it ethically right to put a 18-21 yr old behind the wheel of a 1-2 ton hunk of metal which if it goes wrong will do a lot more damage then second hand smoke does, Do we debate banning this?..No because we have right of freedom not just for the driver but for the people that may be involved in an accident.

A person has the right of freedom to go through an area where a smoker is smoking and to subject themselves to the second hand smoke. When they start blaming the smoker for their conscious decision to go through that area is wrong it's blaming others for your own mistaken decision.

Yes it may be inconvenient but lets face it...Life isn't fair and you don't always get things your way.

Moving on i've already demonstrated in these counter arguments the following.

- It is a act of right of freedom for a person to do so in a public area.
- It cannot be solely attributed to the cause of lung cancer in other patrons in said area.

Now I can attest to my final point

- To remove this right would be impossible to police.

Let us say that smoking has been banned in public..People everywhere rejoice for a grand decision they've made. but wait for it.

I'm walking down a alley and I see two people smoking. I rush back grab a cop and tell them whats going on. The police man returns to find the two standing there innocent with a few butts on the ground nearby. Nothing can tie them to the butts except another persons testimony which isn't concrete evidence.

Even if they were fined which this fine could then be thrown out of court the law as I think I've shown would be impossible to enforce and dole out punishment. A wise man once said.

"Never make a law you know won't be followed"

This can be attributed to this argument. Such a law if and when made wouldn't be easily enforceable by the police and governing bodies. It would drive it underground and make the second hand smoke in such areas even worse.

To conclude my current speech I make a counter argument against my opponents opening statement.

I believe that it should be illegal to smoke in public places due to the severe health risks it places on nonsmoking bystanders.

I believe it should be illegal for people to drive on roads due to the severe health risks that it places on non-driving and other drivers as well...Yet we all know this isn't going to happen.

Such a risk is not the fault of the smoker alone but blame can also be placed on the person who is receiving the second hand smoke as they make a free decision to go through said smoke. Just like the smoker makes a free decision to smoke.

[Manchester Black]

Yes smoking is still a hazard to others whether it's indoors or outdoors. I think however that the following should also be brought to light for your attention that refutes this argument.

- Car Exhaust is detrimental to a persons health and yet we're all subjected to it on a daily basis as soon as we walk down the street.
- We receive radiation from sources such as radar towards, Radio signals, Microwaves etc which by themselves don't do much but when combined have been shown to be just as bad as inhaling second hand smoke.
- The amount of plastic materials in our daily lives are raising the averages persons percentage level of polymers in the body due to the constant exposure to such things.

The things you mention are advancements in technology and have pretty much become a necessity to function in everyday life. Smoking on the other hand is a choice each individual makes, and is not as necessary as say a car.

The point i'm getting across that in a persons daily life they are subjected to not just Second hand smoke but a wide range of chemicals, situations and a lifestyle which not only inflicts detrimental effects to our health but in most situations encourages it. It would be great if we could stop this but the fact of it is that we don't because we want the benefits.

You are right that people are subject to numerous health risks every day. This is a cold hard fact. But that being the case, why add on yet another health risk like second hand smoke to the already huge list of health risks a person encounters every day? That wouldn’t make sense. You are also correct that a lot of people ignore everyday health risks because they want the benefits. But there are absolutely ZERO benefits in smoking. The feeling of smoking is not a benefit, it’s just a pleasure. Pleasure =/= benefit. So there’s really no point in having smokers smoke at all, let alone walk around in public subjecting others to it. The bystanders aren’t the ones who should have to go out of their way to move away from second hand smoke. Smoking is a poisonous, hazardous habit and such a thing should not get priority over everyday people’s lives. Smokers are the ones who should have to go out of their way.

Moving on. There is a huge difference between the car and the smoker. I think it can be agreed that a car has pretty much become a necessity in everyday life as I mentioned before. So the person driving down the street is just going on with their day. They need that car to get to work or whatever it is they’re doing. A smoker does not NEED to smoke. And they do not have to stand around a bunch of other people and do it.

As to your statistics on second hand smoke and it's danger we're not debating whether or not it's dangerous or not. I acknowledge that smoking can cause a lot of detrimental effects to the human body. What we are debating is whether people should be allowed to smoke in public spaces.

My statistics weren’t meant to prove that second hand smoke is dangerous. Like you said; we all know that. They were brought up to provide insight on just how hazardous it is for smokers to be smoking in public and breathing out second hand smoke around everyone.

Driving a car and possibly crashing into someone and killing them is an act of right of freedom, But does that make it ethically right to put a 18-21 yr old behind the wheel of a 1-2 ton hunk of metal which if it goes wrong will do a lot more damage then second hand smoke does, Do we debate banning this?..No because we have right of freedom not just for the driver but for the people that may be involved in an accident.

Again, cars have become necessary to function in everyday life. Smoking is not. The comparison can’t really be made.

A person has the right of freedom to go through an area where a smoker is smoking and to subject themselves to the second hand smoke. When they start blaming the smoker for their conscious decision to go through that area is wrong it's blaming others for your own mistaken decision.

The person is not always in control over whether or not they’re around a smoker. Smokers are not stationary things that people can maneuver around. Smokers move around and walk into the paths of others as well. Not only that, but second hand smoke floats around in a pretty wide radius from the smoker. So the area in which people would have to avoid is pretty large. Put a few smokers in a small park and it’d clear the whole place out if everyone was trying to avoid the second hand smoke.

Yes it may be inconvenient but lets face it...Life isn't fair and you don't always get things your way.

That’s not a legitimate argument.

In response to your example about the two men smoking in the alley, and how the law couldn’t be enforced; this is an instance where the law doesn’t really need to be enforced. The two men are in a back alley and no one I around anywhere so honestly, who cares. If they were standing in a park however then that would be a problem. But like I was saying, if people know that smoking in public could get them a fine, they won’t do it. And if they have to break this law, they’ll be like the two men you mention; resorting to going to hidden, secluded areas so…problem solved.

This can be attributed to this argument. Such a law if and when made wouldn't be easily enforceable by the police and governing bodies. It would drive it underground and make the second hand smoke in such areas even worse.

No it wouldn’t. There’s no way it would make it worse. It would either remain the same or get better. How could incorporating a law, increase public smoking?

I believe it should be illegal for people to drive on roads due to the severe health risks that it places on non-driving and other drivers as well...Yet we all know this isn't going to happen.

Such a risk is not the fault of the smoker alone but blame can also be placed on the person who is receiving the second hand smoke as they make a free decision to go through said smoke. Just like the smoker makes a free decision to smoke.

I’ve already rebutted this car/second hand smoke, driver/smoker analogy multiple times. No need to do it again.

In conclusion; the argument that non-smokers should have to avoid smokers isn’t a very fair one. When there is second hand smoke floating around in public, pedestrians shouldn’t have to go out of their way to avoid the smoke. The smokers are the ones that just “have” to smoke. So if they really need to, they can do it on their own private property, not in public where they expose everyone else to the harmful things in second hand smoke.

[Ai]

The things you mention are advancements in technology and have pretty much become a necessity to function in everyday life. Smoking on the other hand is a choice each individual makes, and is not as necessary as say a car.

To each individual that takes up smoking once addicted it becomes necessary in their own views that they undertake it each day. Just like an addiction to smoking so is our views on cars and technology..we as a species have become addicted to technology so the comparison is still relevant.


You are right that people are subject to numerous health risks every day. This is a cold hard fact. But that being the case, why add on yet another health risk like second hand smoke to the already huge list of health risks a person encounters every day? That wouldn’t make sense. You are also correct that a lot of people ignore everyday health risks because they want the benefits. But there are absolutely ZERO benefits in smoking. The feeling of smoking is not a benefit, it’s just a pleasure. Pleasure =/= benefit. So there’s really no point in having smokers smoke at all, let alone walk around in public subjecting others to it. The bystanders aren’t the ones who should have to go out of their way to move away from second hand smoke. Smoking is a poisonous, hazardous habit and such a thing should not get priority over everyday people’s lives. Smokers are the ones who should have to go out of their way.

To a smoker they benefit in their own minds from each cigarette they have as it sates their desire for one. Pleasure and benefit can be one in the same plenty of times. Take sexual intercourse for example. It's not needed all the time yet people undertake it for pleasure but also because it can benefit them for passing on their genes.

A bystander certainly isn't required to move out of their way, Since the term bystander imply s that a person is standing still watching a smoker as they smoke. A person moving through where a person is smoking is subjected to poisoneous fumes as you state however they are exposed for such a brief amount of time that overall your much more likely to get lung cancer from other sources then from a second hand smoker which you walked by in a public area. If this debate was about whether or not a smoker should be allowed to smoke around others in any situation then that might be different however as a public area is something through which the public in general move through all types of people the exposure time is brief and extremely limited.

however take this postulation if a person starts smoking in a empty public space then people start moving through it then the smoker was there first. Such is a public space it is there to be shared with the public. It certainly isn't polite to smoke in the presence of other non smokers however as it is clearly evident in todays society politeness and courtesy is something which has taken a backseat to selfishness.


Moving on. There is a huge difference between the car and the smoker. I think it can be agreed that a car has pretty much become a necessity in everyday life as I mentioned before. So the person driving down the street is just going on with their day. They need that car to get to work or whatever it is they’re doing. A smoker does not NEED to smoke. And they do not have to stand around a bunch of other people and do it.

A smoker suffers addiction in much the same way you or I suffer the addiction of technology If I came to you and asked you to stop using any form of technology you would be hard pressed to do it even if you genuinely wanted to. This is the same situation a smoker finds themselves in. They need to smoke due to the addiction they have.



My statistics weren’t meant to prove that second hand smoke is dangerous. Like you said; we all know that. They were brought up to provide insight on just how hazardous it is for smokers to be smoking in public and breathing out second hand smoke around everyone.

However those statistics failed to mention the effect that wind speed and dispersal rates have on second hand smoke hanging around a smoker in an open public area.

Those were measured in a controlled scientific experiment which would have taken into account the perfect conditions. If it's a windy day the smoke will be dissipated so quickly that second hand smoke becomes less of a problem, Not to mention the direction the wind is coming from. Statistics that fail to take into account every factor involved in a situation can hardly be used as a firm base of evidence.


Again, cars have become necessary to function in everyday life. Smoking is not. The comparison can’t really be made.

I've already mentioned the similarity that cars have to smoking through our addiction to technology now to show you just how similar they are. Currently on the planet earth cars out number humans 2-1. The emissions coming from these vehicles has become such a massive problem that we have started to irreversibly damage our planets eco system by adding to the already present Global warming.

I would be more worried about the effect Cars have on the population then Second hand smoke does in Public spaces. Because most of these public spaces are located right near busy main streets.

The comparison between Cars and Cigarettes is quite close indeed.


The person is not always in control over whether or not they’re around a smoker. Smokers are not stationary things that people can maneuver around. Smokers move around and walk into the paths of others as well. Not only that, but second hand smoke floats around in a pretty wide radius from the smoker. So the area in which people would have to avoid is pretty large. Put a few smokers in a small park and it’d clear the whole place out if everyone was trying to avoid the second hand smoke.

Once again I point out that your assuming that there is nothing such as wind speed or direction relevant with these smokers. I also find that a person is always in control of where they can move. Unless of course by smoking the smoker somehow controls the persons legs for them. A person makes a concious decision to walk near a smoker. The fault cannot be laid full on the smoker rather it can be laid a large amount at the bystander as the bystander being a non smoker probably knows full well of the health disadvantages that second smoke can cause. They should be using this knowledge to avoid it rather then by moving through it.

A smoker is not a stationary thing however neither is the second hand smoker if I can call them that..Or rather potential second hand smoker. The potential second hand smoker has everything a smoker has and probably has legs which work just as well..It becomes quite easy to get around a smoker if you really don't wish to go through second hand smoke.


That’s not a legitimate argument.

I find that it is, Just because i'm walking along in a public area and I see an open path going near a smoker doesn't mean I have the right to tell the smoker demanding they stop smoking before I pass by. A public space means the public will be using it for various things, It doesn't mean "This is my area alone and everyone else has to do what I want for myself and others".


In response to your example about the two men smoking in the alley, and how the law couldn’t be enforced; this is an instance where the law doesn’t really need to be enforced. The two men are in a back alley and no one I around anywhere so honestly, who cares. If they were standing in a park however then that would be a problem.

It is however an open public area which can be subject to non smokers passing through. If your arguing your side then every public area counts. We're not debating which area's this debate includes as the definition of the topic has already been set which you didn't argue against or offer any changes to at the initial argument.

But like I was saying, if people know that smoking in public could get them a fine, they won’t do it. And if they have to break this law, they’ll be like the two men you mention; resorting to going to hidden, secluded areas so…problem solved.

It's illegal to drink an open bottle or can on streets in Australia however daily and weekly many many people do it. This occurs because it's a nearly impossible law to control. It's only enforced if a police car happens to be driving past and they see someone doing it which is easily hidden if the person see's a policeman/car coming. The same is true with smoking. easily hidden and it would follow the same path easily.


No it wouldn’t. There’s no way it would make it worse. It would either remain the same or get better. How could incorporating a law, increase public smoking?

It wouldn't increase public smoking because that imply s that it would increase the number of people smoking on the street I meant however that it would increase the health risk for smokers who sought out smaller out of the way public spaces as the smoke would be thicker and hang around more.


In conclusion; the argument that non-smokers should have to avoid smokers isn’t a very fair one. When there is second hand smoke floating around in public, pedestrians shouldn’t have to go out of their way to avoid the smoke. The smokers are the ones that just “have” to smoke. So if they really need to, they can do it on their own private property, not in public where they expose everyone else to the harmful things in second hand smoke.

In conclusion to this statement from you I pass along a quote I made in my previous post.

"Life isn't fair and you don't always get things your way."

Apparently the way you argue it the non smokers are the ones that just "Have" to walk through the area where a smoker is smoking. if they make the free decision to do this then they pass up the rights for themselves to complain about the possible risks and repercussions. Now if this debate was about indoor public spaces and closed public areas where a person doesn't have a choice then maybe that argument would stick however it isn't and it doesn't.

[Manchester Black]

To each individual that takes up smoking once addicted it becomes necessary in their own views that they undertake it each day. Just like an addiction to smoking so is our views on cars and technology..we as a species have become addicted to technology so the comparison is still relevant.

Again, you’re comparing cars to smoking and they just are not comparable. Smoking is NOT a necessity to function in everyday life like cars and other technologies are. Sure in the mind of a smoker they may think they have to smoke in order to function. But if you take away their cigarettes they can still manage just fine. It’s all a mental thing. However if you take away someone’s vehicle, it’s going to be pretty difficult to say…get to their job.

To a smoker they benefit in their own minds from each cigarette they have as it sates their desire for one. Pleasure and benefit can be one in the same plenty of times. Take sexual intercourse for example. It's not needed all the time yet people undertake it for pleasure but also because it can benefit them for passing on their genes.

Pleasure and benefit CAN be one in the same, but not when it comes to smoking. Besides the car/smoking analogy, you also seem to keep going back to what a smoker THINKS is good for them or right in their mind. This does not matter. What matters is reality. Smoking has absolutely ZERO benefits to the human body. Smokers are the ones breathing hazardous fumes into the air. They should be the ones making exceptions and going out of their way, not the rest of us.

A bystander certainly isn't required to move out of their way, Since the term bystander imply s that a person is standing still watching a smoker as they smoke. A person moving through where a person is smoking is subjected to poisoneous fumes as you state however they are exposed for such a brief amount of time that overall your much more likely to get lung cancer from other sources then from a second hand smoker which you walked by in a public area. If this debate was about whether or not a smoker should be allowed to smoke around others in any situation then that might be different however as a public area is something through which the public in general move through all types of people the exposure time is brief and extremely limited.

There’s no need to nit pick at the term bystander. You’re taking it too literally. You know what I meant. Now, going back to my opening statement:

“Research shows that second hand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through can endanger a person, especially someone at risk of heart disease.”

The “brief amount of time”, is still hazardous to a persons health when they pass through second hand smoke.

however take this postulation if a person starts smoking in a empty public space then people start moving through it then the smoker was there first. Such is a public space it is there to be shared with the public. It certainly isn't polite to smoke in the presence of other non smokers however as it is clearly evident in todays society politeness and courtesy is something which has taken a backseat to selfishness.

Thank you for admitting that smokers shouldn’t smoke in the presence of non-smokers. Why? Because non-smokers choose not to destroy their lungs. So why should they be forced to have to maneuver around smokers just to maintain their decision to stay away from smoke? They shouldn’t. Smokers should have to smoke on their own private property and time.

A smoker suffers addiction in much the same way you or I suffer the addiction of technology If I came to you and asked you to stop using any form of technology you would be hard pressed to do it even if you genuinely wanted to. This is the same situation a smoker finds themselves in. They need to smoke due to the addiction they have.

They don’t need to smoke, they just think they have to. Besides, we’re not arguing whether or not people should be allowed to smoke. We’re arguing if they should be allowed to do it in public. If a person feels the need to smoke and wants to while they’re at home, then that’s fine. Puff away. But they shouldn’t subject others to their fumes.

However those statistics failed to mention the effect that wind speed and dispersal rates have on second hand smoke hanging around a smoker in an open public area.

Those were measured in a controlled scientific experiment which would have taken into account the perfect conditions. If it's a windy day the smoke will be dissipated so quickly that second hand smoke becomes less of a problem, Not to mention the direction the wind is coming from. Statistics that fail to take into account every factor involved in a situation can hardly be used as a firm base of evidence.

How do you know what kind of environment those statistics were gathered in? You don’t. Sure, wind may blow smoke away from one area, but it’s just blowing it into another. So some people are freed from the smoke, while others are having it blown in their face..

Once again I point out that your assuming that there is nothing such as wind speed or direction relevant with these smokers. I also find that a person is always in control of where they can move. Unless of course by smoking the smoker somehow controls the persons legs for them. A person makes a concious decision to walk near a smoker. The fault cannot be laid full on the smoker rather it can be laid a large amount at the bystander as the bystander being a non smoker probably knows full well of the health disadvantages that second smoke can cause. They should be using this knowledge to avoid it rather then by moving through it.

A smoker is not a stationary thing however neither is the second hand smoker if I can call them that..Or rather potential second hand smoker. The potential second hand smoker has everything a smoker has and probably has legs which work just as well..It becomes quite easy to get around a smoker if you really don't wish to go through second hand smoke.

Once again I will point out, that the burden should not fall on the bystander. They are not the ones who are doing something that is harmful to a person’s health. Also, it’s not always easy to just “get around” a smoker. The smoke lingers in a pretty wide radius, so walking through it is highly probable if it’s in the area. The fumes are also still in the air, whether you can see the smoke or not. So although one may think they’re avoiding harmful smoke, they may still be breathing in chemicals that aren’t visible. This is all irrelevant however, because smokers shouldn’t be out in public places, forcing other to go out of their way to walk around them just because they can’t kick a harmful habit.

I find that it is, Just because i'm walking along in a public area and I see an open path going near a smoker doesn't mean I have the right to tell the smoker demanding they stop smoking before I pass by. A public space means the public will be using it for various things, It doesn't mean "This is my area alone and everyone else has to do what I want for myself and others".

The smoker shouldn’t even be there in the first place. They can go smoke on their own time, not the time of others.

It's illegal to drink an open bottle or can on streets in Australia however daily and weekly many many people do it. This occurs because it's a nearly impossible law to control. It's only enforced if a police car happens to be driving past and they see someone doing it which is easily hidden if the person see's a policeman/car coming. The same is true with smoking. easily hidden and it would follow the same path easily.

It would be better to have a law against it than not having a law. At least if smoking in public is illegal, when a person does it, there is a chance they can get fined. Without a law, people will be doing it without a second thought. It’s illegal to speed, but people still do it. However if speeding weren’t illegal, imagine how the streets would be. It’s a law that upholds itself out of fear of getting caught.

It wouldn't increase public smoking because that imply s that it would increase the number of people smoking on the street.

“This can be attributed to this argument. Such a law if and when made wouldn't be easily enforceable by the police and governing bodies. It would drive it underground and make the second hand smoke in such areas even worse.”

^You’re the one who said it would make it worse. Not me.

Apparently the way you argue it the non smokers are the ones that just "Have" to walk through the area where a smoker is smoking. if they make the free decision to do this then they pass up the rights for themselves to complain about the possible risks and repercussions. Now if this debate was about indoor public spaces and closed public areas where a person doesn't have a choice then maybe that argument would stick however it isn't and it doesn't.

No, the non-smokers are the ones who HAVE to walk around the smokers…at least according to you. Which shouldn’t be the case.When someone is smoking in the public, they become something that is in the way. That shouldn’t be the case. They shouldn’t be out there with everyone else. Second hand smoke is dangerous to everyone, whether it be an adult, a child, a person with an existing lung disease, a person with a heart condition, a person with asthma, etc. It doesn’t matter if you’re standing in it, walking through it, or having it blown in your face. Smoke is bad, and smokers shouldn’t be out in public with those who don’t want to expose themselves to the harmful chemicals in second hand smoke.

[Ai]

Nice last post from both of us.

Vamps needs to Judge this now. Props to him if you go get him. I enjoyed our little debate.

[Manchester Black]

I enjoyed our little debate.

As did I. It was a good one. I PMed Vamp so it seems now we just wait.

[Vampyrelord]

Congratulations to both of you - all in all, I thought this was a really good debate, but guys – your arguments would have more weight if you could back up any statistics or official quotes or reports with a link or reference.

There were also one or two iffy arguments:

The point i'm getting across that in a persons daily life they are subjected to not just Second hand smoke but a wide range of chemicals, situations and a lifestyle which not only inflicts detrimental effects to our health but in most situations encourages it. It would be great if we could stop this but the fact of it is that we don't because we want the benefits.

Undeniably true, but smoking is something which “benefits” (for want of a better term) the smoker and the smoker alone, not the people who pass him by, who suffer the same detrimental effects he has chosen to inflict upon himself. Furthermore, the fact that modern chemicals are constantly subjecting us to good and bad effects doesn't mean we shouldn't take action against any harmful chemicals we can take action against, like cigarette smoke.

I'm walking down a alley and I see two people smoking. I rush back grab a cop and tell them whats going on. The police man returns to find the two standing there innocent with a few butts on the ground nearby. Nothing can tie them to the butts except another persons testimony which isn't concrete evidence.

Surely this is an irrelevant example though, since the key reason for banning smoking in public is that it hurts people other than the smokers – these two smokers in your example wouldn't be able to get away with it on a crowded public street where people will be hurt by it, they can only do it in places where no non smokers will be bothered. Clearly if this argument about enforcing this ban only applies to the few cases where it doesn't matter if they smoke outdoors since they aren't hurting the public because they are doing it where no one can see them – in alleyways and such.

So if they really need to, they can do it on their own private property, not in public where they expose everyone else to the harmful things in second hand smoke.

You were a bit lucky here – your opponent could easily put this argument under pressure by pointing out that if people just smoke in or around their homes the whole time, they might be constantly poisoning, say, their kids, or their elderly mother. Surely it's better for a few pedestrians in the open air to be subjected to one lungful of smoke than to have kids breathing it all day in a house where it will linger? Think of it as diluting the toxins, as it were. Of course, whilst it looks bad that you used an argument that could have been easily attacked, it looks equally bad that your opponent didn't spot it.

To each individual that takes up smoking once addicted it becomes necessary in their own views that they undertake it each day. Just like an addiction to smoking so is our views on cars and technology..we as a species have become addicted to technology so the comparison is still relevant.

This doesn't really hold water. Smoking is an optional leisure choice, whilst cars have real practical uses, and are often a necessary part of the modern lifestyle, for commuters or single parents for example, and it would be much harder to justify getting rid of them on public health grounds given that there are clearer public benefits, like allowing people to exercise freedom of movement and find the best job for them, even if it isn't local.

A bystander certainly isn't required to move out of their way, Since the term bystander imply s that a person is standing still watching a smoker as they smoke. A person moving through where a person is smoking is subjected to poisoneous fumes as you state however they are exposed for such a brief amount of time that overall your much more likely to get lung cancer from other sources then from a second hand smoker which you walked by in a public area.

What if I was waiting at a bus stop, or in a queue outside a shop or something similar, and the person next to me starts smoking? Even if I'm only there for 10 minutes it's pretty bad, and I can hardly leave the queue, can I?


It wouldn't increase public smoking because that imply s that it would increase the number of people smoking on the street.
“This can be attributed to this argument. Such a law if and when made wouldn't be easily enforceable by the police and governing bodies. It would drive it underground and make the second hand smoke in such areas even worse.”

^You’re the one who said it would make it worse. Not me.
Eh? This is taken out of context, he actually said: “It wouldn't increase public smoking because that imply s that it would increase the number of people smoking on the street I meant however that it would increase the health risk for smokers who sought out smaller out of the way public spaces as the smoke would be thicker and hang around more.”

...which undermines your rebuttal.

That aside, the arguments were of high quality, and I will now get to grips with the core arguments you were making:

Ai: Your arguments were largely focused around the idea that a ban on smoking in public would be impossible to enforce, and that people on the streets don't have to stand around smokers all day – if they walk past quickly or cross the road they will be subjected only to small amounts, which is not sufficient harm or inconvenience to push through an illiberal and unenforceable ban on something no more harmful than other activities like driving.

Laughing Man: You were arguing that even small exposures of second hand smoke are harmful, and that the general public should not be subjected to this damage for an unnecessary leisure activity. You also argue that even if difficult to enforce a ban would reduce the number of people who smoke in public.

Ai, I think the essential problem with your enforcement argument is that you argued the wrong way; that it was impossible to enforce, which is clearly not 100% true:
It would be better to have a law against it than not having a law. At least if smoking in public is illegal, when a person does it, there is a chance they can get fined. Without a law, people will be doing it without a second thought. It’s illegal to speed, but people still do it. However if speeding weren’t illegal, imagine how the streets would be. It’s a law that upholds itself out of fear of getting caught.
Indeed, your argument that we shouldn't ban stuff unless we can do it effectively doesn't really hold (except in a few cases like prohibition where a ban encourages organised crime); because, as Laughing Man pointed out, all that's doing is effectively condoning it, and making it a negative right (a right that only exists because it hasn't been taken away, rather than positive rights which are legally protected. Of course, not all positive rights are good and not all negative ones are bad).

Instead you could have argued that it would be a huge waste of police time and money, when they could be out dealing with more serious criminals who cause more harm than the odd puff of smoke. Such an argument would have been a lot harder to refute, as your opponent would have to demonstrate that smoking in public is a serious enough risk to be worth diverting police resources.

For this reason I am giving the Debate to Laughing Man. If you had argued that a ban on smoking would be a serious waste of police resources for something which is only a minor inconvenience for the public to avoid, then you would have probably won, although it would depend of course on your opponent's reaction to these arguments.

So, congratulations to the winner Laughing Man, but also to Ai for a well fought debate – it was a seriously tough decision, and it took me hours to decide this verdict, so thanks for ruining my evening guys :<

lol, j/k

But seriously, well done to the both of you :)

[Ai]

Congratulations Laughing man, I enjoyed it..T'was Fun.

/reps to Vamp and Lm.

[Mr. Killa]

i sided with Ai :p lol

gj you guys and congrats

[Vampyrelord]

Indeed, a good debate all round.

/archived