|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Debatabase Junior Topic |
| Summary: Should smoking be banned in public places? |
|
|
| |
Author:George Molyneaux ( United Kingdom )
George Molyneaux (UK) studied History at the University of Oxford. He reached the semi-finals of the World Schools’ Debating Championships twice (representing Scotland), the octo-finals of the World Universities’ Debating Championships and the semi-finals of the European Universities’ Debating Championships. He is currenlty the Coach of the Scotland Schools Debating Team.
Created: Saturday, September 02, 2006
Last Modified:
|
| |
For many years, governments have tried to reduce smoking by taxing tobacco, running advertising campaigns and putting warnings on packets. Recently, several countries have also restricted the areas in which people may smoke. Most bans apply only to enclosed places (meaning inside buildings, e.g. shops, restaurants, bars, offices, theatres, trains, bus shelters etc). Smoking is banned in all or most enclosed public places in South Africa, New Zealand, Italy and the Republic of Ireland. There are similar bans in the American states of California and New York. Smoking in enclosed public places was recently banned in Scotland. It will become illegal in the rest of the UK in 2007. In England and Wales, pubs that do not serve food can continue to choose to allow smoking.
Bans on smoking in public places in the open air (e.g. parks, streets) are less common. Smoking is banned in some streets in Tokyo (Japan). Smoking near the entrances of buildings is banned in some parts of Australia, Canada and the USA.
The proposition must define this motion clearly. They must state whether they would ban smoking in all public places, or only in enclosed public places. They must also make it clear if there would be any major exceptions to the ban (e.g. pubs that do not serve food, private clubs open only to members). However, this debate often works best if the proposition do not introduce lots of exceptions. |
 |
|
|
| Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking. |
|
Society accepts that adults can decide to harm themselves to some extent, so long as they do not harm others. This is why the proposition is not arguing that people should be banned from smoking in private. Passive smokers do choose to breathe in other people’s smoke. If they do not want to smoke passively, they do not need to go to places where smoking is allowed. There is therefore no reason to ban smoking in public. |
 |
|
|
| The opposition is wrong to say that people choose to smoke passively. In many places, there are no non-smoking bars or restaurants. Unless people refuse to go out with friends, they cannot avoid passive smoking. People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so. |
|
If enough people want to go to non-smoking bars, companies will set up non-smoking bars. If there are no non-smoking bars, this suggests that very few people want them. Some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. In any case, workers should be allowed to choose to work in dangerous conditions. This is accepted for jobs like mining, fishing and the armed forces. Individuals decide that they are better doing this work than not having a job at all. A complete ban is not necessary to protect workers anyway – ventilation fans can remove most smoke. |
|
|
|
| A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start smoking. In many countries, governments pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage smoking. |
|
It is legal to smoke tobacco, so governments have no right to try to make people stop. It is therefore wrong to argue that a ban on public smoking should be introduced to encourage people to give up. Smokers fund their own healthcare through the high taxes they pay on tobacco. In any case, heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to nicotine. |
|
|
|
| People will not smoke more at home. Smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood to remain content. A ban on smoking in public would force them to smoke less while at work. Over time, this would lower the level of nicotine they need to feel content. This would reduce how often they need to smoke. They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work. |
|
Banning smoking in public will encourage people to smoke more at home. This will harm other people in their house, particularly children. This is important, since children are not old enough to choose freely to smoke passively. Also, people smoking at home may drink more alcohol than they would if they went to a bar. This is because they can buy it more cheaply at a supermarket or off-licence. Drinking more alcohol may lead to other health problems. |
|
|
|
| It is more important to protect people’s health than to protect businesses. Pubs and clubs should adapt, for example by trying to earn more money from selling food. After a ban was introduced in New South Wales (Australia), only 9% of restaurants reported a drop in trade. |
|
A ban on smoking in public places would drive many bars, pubs and clubs out of business. Smokers would not go to these places. These businesses would also earn less money from selling tobacco. In many places, pubs and Working Men’s Clubs are important social places for communities. They also provide jobs for people with few skills in places with little other work. It is therefore important that they survive. |
|
|
|
| There have been few problems with bans where they have been introduced. Heavy fines put off companies from allowing people to smoke. A survey for the Scottish Executive found that 99.4% of premises were observing the ban three months after it was introduced. |
|
It would be impossible to police this ban in many public places. Small workplaces will often ignore the ban and are unlikely to be caught. Staff who do not smoke are unlikely to report smokers, in case their colleagues work out who told the authorities. |
|
|
|
| | This House would ban smoking in all public places without exception
This House would ban smoking in public places
This House would ban smoking in enclosed public places
This House would stub out smoking in public places
That smoking should be made illegal in enclosed public spaces
|
| View the full discussion |
Author |
Post |
Vega
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:45 am
|
|
I think smoking should be banned in areas that children are present. A child cannot make the choice of leaving an establishment whereas an adult can. We need to protect kids first. Adults can make their own decisions about whether to visit a smoking establishment or not. Secondhand smoke is dangerous but so is taking away people's rights. I used to be a fan of banning smoking and I actually like going to non-smoking establishments, but I think it is up to each business whether they want to allow smoking or not. -Vega Sinclair, Health & Dental Insurance Plans Advisor |
Sevantus
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 3, 2010 09:25 pm
|
|
Smoking should definitely be banned in public places. I'll mention a few reasons: firstly, it is a common medical fact that smoking will significantly increase your chances of a wide-range of cancers and other diseases; secondly, one study http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/second-secondaire/index_e.php shows that two thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is not inhaled by the smoker, but enters the air around the smoker, thus putting a higher-risk to diseases and death to the second-hand smokers than the 'actual' smoker; thirdly, third-hand smoke gets trapped in hair, skin, fabric, carpet, furniture, and toys. Babies are very susceptible to third-hand smoke since a baby breaths more quickly, and they spend a majority of their time crawling on the floor. And thus, as a study clarifies: "Babies can take in 20 times more third-hand smoke than adults."
And every time someone smokes by me in public areas it is like spitting in my face and handing me a death note. If we do not enable smoking to be banned in public places, we would be endangering everyone around us, including ourselves, and most importantly 'our' future by passing it onto babies.
|
taeshana
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 03:38 pm
|
|
I think it matters because what if a child inhales the smoke then have some type of breathing problem so what i am saying second hand smoke is as bad as smoking. |
|
|
Login
to leave a quick reply or
View the full discussion
|
|
|
|
