*DEBATE* Should public smoking be banned? Winner = Klock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :Jin:

I don't think your comment of looking "cool" or "hard" is well justified as to be fair their are many laws people break not to look cool or hard just for their own convinience.*

Erm infringement of human rights? That would be an infringement of my freedom if I had to reconsider my route in a public area due to certain people making me feel uncomfortable. This is why this is such a delicate subject because we need to consider the point of view of the smokers and non-smokers.**

---

**Ill ask around tomorrow at school. I have a male teacher who smokes. Il see what he has to say; if you were thinking that idea?

*What I was saying there was meant to be; Children as young as 10 are smoking to look older and to fit in with the crowd. They also think they will get harder, and hang around with the hard people at school.

This subject is never ending. We could back up every reason, then somebody could just shove another reason, right back at ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :Jin:

To throw in my final point of tonight,

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

---

I doubt it. I'm sure people would take proper responsibility if their smoking. Unless of course they wanted the house to be covered in cigarettes. They'd also be pressing their cigarette on an ashtray or something too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :Jin:

To throw in my final point of tonight,

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

---

Yes, but the difference would be huge. The number of people that would die because of the house fire would most likely be less than the number of people that are currently dying from passive smoking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

Yes, but the difference would be huge. The number of people that would die because of the house fire would most likely be less than the number of people that are currently dying from passive smoking.

---

Just how many house fires are caused by smoking though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

I doubt it. I'm sure people would take proper responsibility if their smoking. Unless of course they wanted the house to be covered in cigarettes. They'd also be pressing their cigarette on an ashtray or something too.

---

But it still is an everday occurance that some household fires are caused by cigarette stubs I think it was 1 in every 5 fires I will research into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :Jin:

But it still is an everday occurance that some household fires are caused by cigarette stubs I think it was 1 in every 5 fires I will research into it.

---

Why not smoke outside?

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

I personally think so. Think of how many house fires there are in the past few years due to cigerette butts and smoking. If they do not want a risk of a fire, then why dont they consider going outside in the yard?

Ill try and get some statistics.

If people considered going home for a cigarette. then think of how amny journeys they would have a day. Loads. Waste of petrol. And they would be losing more money than they are at the moment from the cigarettes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lozza

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

I personally think so. Think of how many house fires there are in the past few years due to cigerette butts and smoking.

Ill try and get some statistics.

If people considered going home for a cigarette. then think of how amny journeys they would have a day. Loads. Waste of petrol. And they would be losing more money than they are at the moment from the cigarettes.

---

Then in the end. The government wins.

I thought housefires caused by smoking was rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lozza

If people considered going home for a cigarette. then think of how amny journeys they would have a day. Loads. Waste of petrol. And they would be losing more money than they are at the moment from the cigarettes.

---

I doubt that people at work would go home for a cigarette. Think of it from a different perspective. People would be more likely discouraged to have a smoke knowing that they would have to go all the way home.

And, money isnt really the issue here - smokers know that they are going to be spending plenty for their precious cigarettes. Its a matter of respecting other people by not smoking in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

Then in the end. The government wins.

I thought housefires caused by smoking was rare.

---

As Jin said: 1 out of 5 are caused by smoking.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

I doubt that people at work would go home for a cigarette. Think of it from a different perspective. People would be more likely discouraged to have a smoke knowing that they would have to go all the way home.

And, money isnt really the issue here - smokers know that they are going to be spending plenty for their precious cigarettes. Its a matter of respecting other people by not smoking in public.

---

But then non-smokers might not care. Loads of people don't care if someone smokes. But im not saying Everyone doesnt care because there are people that do care, and get stressed, which is also bad.