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

Should Public Smoking Be Banned?

It has been a hot topic of 2005 that as to whether public smoking should or should not be banned in the Uk.

With much more scientific research going into the effects of passive smoking (breathing in others cigarrette smoke) there has been a long term investigation as to whether ban smoking from certain public places eg; pubs, or the whole general public.

"Evidence shows in Helena, Montana where there has been a ban in effect since 30th March for six months have shown that heart attacks have reduced by almost half and as a result of this non smoking environment it has encouraged smokers to smoke less or quit altogether."
Research - New Scientist Magazine

The streets are predicted to become supposedly cleaner especially in common areas such as high streets and town centres where ciggarette butts on the floor are a common sighting.

A poll in May 2005 stated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC News

The poll of more than 1,500 people by market analysts Mintel found 52% support for a ban, including two-thirds of non-smokers.

---

However, one of the main concerns of the general public and certain officials is suitible punishments as to people who break the rules of the ban and also who is to enforce it. Also will smokers feel that they are being unfairly treated as they chose to take part of a lawful activity.

Trials have already taken place in New York, Northern Ireland and Norway with promising results, so this leaves the question,

Should smoking in public be banned in England?

Rules
Please do not comment with "yeah it should" or "No it shouldnt" please make relevent points and point of views aswell as evidence to back up your post. Please do not treat this thread as a way of means to announce whether you or someone you know, smokes or not. It is implied by the term "smoking" we refer to the smoking of tobacco.

no it shouldnt i think there should be designated areas where people can smoke. smoking is somewhat of a lifestyle choice if you choose to smoke its you personal decisions to settle this matter it shouldnt be completely banned because there isnt really a reason it should be its a person choice. if smoking was banned it would cause an uproar in the streets due to the fact over 50% of the world smokes so yea btw jin i beat ur tetris score on Us forum ;)

I think smoking should be banned altogether! But obviously thats not going to be possible.

As for banning it in public places, I think deffinately, yes. But this may cause alot of problems. People are going to break these rules, which means crime is going to go up. Leading to other crimes etc.

Well I think anyway. But i do thnk that it should be banned in public places

It should because have you ever stood beside a smoker? they homp. plus it's not good when about 100 people are smoking and you are breathing it in. Everyone is breatheing in second hand smoke which is more harmful that smoking itself.

I don't believe in should be banned in public places.
Although, obviously, there are health risks attached with passive smoking I believe we have free will and the people who decide to smoke should be able to smoke where they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssricky

no it shouldnt i think there should be designated areas where people can smoke. smoking is somewhat of a lifestyle choice if you choose to smoke its you personal decisions to settle this matter it shouldnt be completely banned because there isnt really a reason it should be its a person choice.

---

But where would these designated areas be? Would they be suites in office blocks with well ventilated rooms for people to smoke in? Who would put the cost forward for these rooms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave

As for banning it in public places, I think deffinately, yes. But this may cause alot of problems. People are going to break these rules, which means crime is going to go up. Leading to other crimes etc.

---

I do not see the crime rates actually increasing or people breaking the ban rules commiting other offences, most people may consider themselves to be able to get away with having the odd cigarrette in public and probably laugh at the possible consequences of publically smoking if there was a ban which would highly likely be having your cigarette stubbed out and a verbal warning from a police officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeymac

Everyone is breatheing in second hand smoke which is more harmful that smoking itself.

---

I haven't really heard of it being MORE harmful but I have certainly heard of it being almost just as bad.

Of course it still raises the issue that would business' lose out, as a drinker and social smoker, in my personal experience I need a cigarrette if I drink, but if my pub is banning smoking and I can't possibly stand outside and smoke I would probably be more inclined to drink at home or a friends where I may smoke.

The pubs may lose out on business but also may gain business from a different market such as famillies. As such they might decide to create separate segregated area for smokers but what if my friend is a non-smoker and would rather not sit in a room where SEVERAL smokers have gathered. They may have accepted to be around me as I smoke as I am only one person but with other smokers in the room it is a different story.

In my personal opinion I find the solution to be in a timed ban so from lets say morning rush hour (8 til 10) and evening rush hour (3 til 5) no one may smoke in public and as for pubs no one may smoke inside pubs until after 7pm.

This is a different story where I live. Marijuana is being legalized in Canada - so banning msoking in public areas won't even be brgouht up here.

However, I am all for banning smoking in public places. Why pollute the lungs of children who have never touched a cigarette in their life? It pollutes yourself and others who don't even have a choice.

Another reason that I am for banning smoking in public areas is that I think that this will have a positive affect on global warming, if this was to be a worldwide decision. One country may not make a noticable difference, but if the law was put into affect worldwide, I am sure that only positive things could come of it.

The life expectancy in all countries would be sure to go up as well.

For those reasons, I am all for banning smoking in public areas.

[QUOTE=:Jin:]But where would these designated areas be? Would they be suites in office blocks with well ventilated rooms for people to smoke in? Who would put the cost forward for these rooms?[QUOTE]
But where would these designated areas be? well we are discusing smoking in public so designate areas in alleyways, certain streets like lines painted on teh ground, in areas in certain parks, areas in subway stations, infront, behind buildings, rooftops even :P or patios in bars and restaurants.
Would they be suites in office blocks with well ventilated rooms for people to smoke in? that wud be one place but there cud also be rooms with air filtration devices to purify the air or rooftops of buildings like i said before
Who would put the cost forward for these rooms? well i wud say the tabacos companys due to teh fact if they did pass this law and were given this option to keep smoking leagel i think they wud pay it :P

any other questions former tetris champ ;)

I really dont know if i am pos or neg on this

Posotive points


- non smokers get clean air

-non smokers who work in a smoking place (me in a bar/restraunt) wont wake up with that horrible feeling in thier lungs in the morning- when you are out with your friends in a pub and you are happy drinking having a laugh and some drunk man comes and askes for a lighter and gets in your way - that wont happen any more :D

- the opinnion of smokers is sooo messed up and wrong " we can smoke if we want we pay for it so why should we be told to stop ?" blah blah.. it is so wrong they dont realise they are damaging other peoples health- when people have to go outside to smoke in the rain they might not bother and try to give up (healthier nation)

Negative points

- people will stop smoking and there is soooo many jobs that link to smoking and also the tax profit on tobacco willl go down which means other tax will go up

- they have banned smoking because its bad for peoples health why dont they ban junk food which is equally as bad for you ? simply because tobacco sales have went down e.t.c

- some pubs will suffer people might just rather to stay in and smoke and drink which means small bussinesses will suffer


Its all really going to be sooo intresting what is going to happen when the law falls into place it could go really well

people stopping smoking blah blah then a few months we will see a strugle with jobs on tobacco or maybye the taxes or maybye this has all been taken into plan alreday ?

or people could just get majourly moody there might be more fights and squabbles and fines all over the places for companies refusing to follow this rule

it all really balances out ..

Should be banned everywhere, full stop.

Edited by :Jin: [Forum Administration]:

6. If you are going to make a point please back up the point with evidence or statistics.

7. Please do not make any short pointless comments like "It's wrong" or "I agree" etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article.

Should be banned everywhere, full stop.

---

reason? ne negitives to what wud happen if this was passeD? please think before you post -.-

By the way for the record I am not allowed to win any of these debates although I will still put my opinion forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corey777

This is a different story where I live. Marijuana is being legalized in Canada - so banning msoking in public areas won't even be brgouht up here.

---

Not at all a valid comment, smoking tobacco is legal yet they are still considering a public ban. Just because cannabis is legalized doesnt mean they wont consider potential bans.

I would be suprised if they chose to allow the public smoking of cannabis as it is a substance that alters normal perception and it is possible to become under the influence of cannabis by passive smoking causing a risk if someone was to drive etc after passively breathing in smoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :Jin:

By the way for the record I am not allowed to win any of these debates although I will still put my opinion forward.



Not at all a valid comment, smoking tobacco is legal yet they are still considering a public ban. Just because cannabis is legalized doesnt mean they wont consider potential bans.

I would be suprised if they chose to allow the public smoking of cannabis as it is a substance that alters normal perception and it is possible to become under the influence of cannabis by passive smoking causing a risk if someone was to drive etc after passively breathing in smoke.

---

im pretty sure they wud put forth precautions and warning about smoking marijuana and driving it is basic common knowledge if it was legalized there would be rules and laws set down to make it safe even tho others wud do things to make it illegal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :Jin:

Not at all a valid comment, smoking tobacco is legal yet they are still considering a public ban. Just because cannabis is legalized doesnt mean they wont consider potential bans.

I would be suprised if they chose to allow the public smoking of cannabis as it is a substance that alters normal perception and it is possible to become under the influence of cannabis by passive smoking causing a risk if someone was to drive etc after passively breathing in smoke.

---

Just before I say this, my first comment wasn't towards the debate - it was what is happening where I live.

Anyways, why would they consider banning tobacco in public areas when they are legalizing marijuana in public areas? Your comment doesn't make sense at all really.

Your second comment is valid, but unfortunately is being overseen in Canada, as it is in the process of legalization =\

Edit: This has gone a bit off topic. Perhaps this post should be withdrawn from the discussion

I believe it should.
1) It's killing the people who do it.
2) The second hand smoke is killing people.


Think logically here. If you're doing something that is harming something, that is legal it should be made illegal. Seriously it's like they don't mind killing people.
Second hand smoke is the smokers killing other people, which is murder in my books. So, yes, that is illegal but yet, they don't get imprisoned.


Yes, it should be banned.
Not just in public, but everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idlewild

I believe it should.
1) It's killing the people who do it.
2) The second hand smoke is killing people.


Think logically here. If you're doing something that is harming something, that is legal it should be made illegal. Seriously it's like they don't mind killing people.
Second hand smoke is the smokers killing other people, which is murder in my books. So, yes, that is illegal but yet, they don't get imprisoned.


Yes, it should be banned.
Not just in public, but everywhere.

---

umm u do know that smoking in public has been happening since world war 1 and no one has died of second hand smoke in public yet except for a few waitresses :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idlewild

I believe it should.
1) It's killing the people who do it.
2) The second hand smoke is killing people.


Think logically here. If you're doing something that is harming something, that is legal it should be made illegal. Seriously it's like they don't mind killing people.
Second hand smoke is the smokers killing other people, which is murder in my books. So, yes, that is illegal but yet, they don't get imprisoned.


Yes, it should be banned.
Not just in public, but everywhere.

---

Banning smoking everywhere is not the solution. Some people need a cigarette at stressful times - or just to get them through the day.

And keep in mind, what about people already addicted? Every smoker will go into withdrawl. What a cranky world that would be for the first few weeks.

And think about the negative affects. Cigarettes are expensive because they are taxed so highly. If those taxes disappeared, this money would be needed and would just end up taxing non-smokers higher than they already are. Whether it be from income tax or sales tax - the government will find a way to get it from the public.

And, banning smoking would lead to more crime. People would be growing tobacco and we would have the same problem as marijuana right now. There would be more conjestion in the court system and quite frankly, we don't need that right now.

If smoking were to be banned, the government would need to stop manufacturing cigarettes.

I see all these advertisements on smoking and what it does to you, how deadly it can be, and they even write a little detail such as: "SMOKING CAN CAUSE LUNG CANCER". What I don't get is do they bother telling us how bad smoking is, yet wanting to make money from it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

If smoking were to be banned, the government would need to stop manufacturing cigarettes.

I see all these advertisements on smoking and what it does to you, how deadly it can be, and they even write a little detail such as: "SMOKING CAN CAUSE LUNG CANCER". What I don't get is do they bother telling us how bad smoking is, yet wanting to make money from it?

---

Actually, cigarettes are distributed by private tobacco companies. The nasty pictures and text you see on the packages are rules set by the government that are given to tobacco companies. This is to try to discourage smoking obviously.

I could come up with a few points on each side of the debate. I'll decide at the end which side I am for and which side I am against.

I will fist start off with Yes, it should be banned in public places then move on to No, it should'nt be banned.


Reasons For.
Smoking in public places might become band, which also includes on the street, in a pub and everywhere else really. There is a risk of passive smoke, and this will increase anyones chances of getting lung cancer from someone elses smoke. We dont't want to die from anyone elses smoke. The only we we can stop this, is by not allowing it in the public places. Maybe they could just ban it from the rush hours (8:30am To 6:30pm). Between these timings you wernt allowed to smoke on the street. As for the other places, I find it stupid. Pubs have fan filters, I should know this because some of my family own pubs; even my dad, and he smokes, it doesn't bother anyone. When I go up and help him, it doesnt bother me. I even go and talk to the locals, it doesnt bother them either. So as for the Pubs and Clubs it should not be banned there. There are some problems this may cause, such as; people getting cranky because they aren'y allowed a cigerette on the street, and at work. Another problem that it might cause is people will still do it. No doubt about it. The litter is getting bad because of the cigerette butt ends, they are all over the place, the only solution is to make it a rule that if you smoke,a nd you stampyour butt ends on to the public floor, you will get fined, a minimum of £20. So far, no one as died from second hand smoke, except from maybe people who work in smoking places e.g a pub and have asma.

I will now move on to the arguments against banning it.

Reasons Against.
Smoking in public places should not be banned. I think this because if they do ban it, then people will still do it. If they ban it, a smokers life will be at risk still because all of the adrenalin and the nicotine will build up in the body, the only way to stop this is by not banning it or allowing it in hardly any public places at certain times. If the government don't mak this a rule, then many people will lose there lives, but its the way life goes, we will all die sometime. But as the saying goes; I'd rather be late in this world, than be early in the next. It hasnt really bothered anyone up to when the Government had suggested this; then the arguments started with whether it should, or not. Most people I have asked have answered with No it shouldnt be banned. If the Government ban smoking then I think more people might start and do it. In school, We ban chewing gum, people still do it to look "cool". What I'm implying is that, if we ban it, more people will do it too look "cool" and "hard" in front of there mates and to impress the opposite/same ***. What about the people that smoke in cars, while there driving. Is the motorway classed as a "public place" because I dont think police would patrol the motorwa and roads, just for people we can't cut a bad habit.

In conclusion I think It Should be banned in some public places such as; the streets and the roads and motor ways, if they count. I also still think it Should Not be banned because people would think they look cooler and harder if they break the law. No doubt about it, people will still do it. If the Government decide to ban it in all public places then its stupid! Especially in the pubs and clubs. The only people that it really bothers, is the people that breathe it out right infront of your face, and you get a coughing fit for the next 20 minutes. If they also decide to ban it, then they should atleast let the smokers smoke somwhere else and have a time gap where they shouldn't smoke and a time gap where they are allowed to smoke. Maybe the times between 8:30am and 6:30pm, which is 30minutes before the rush hour and 30 minutes after the rush hour.

I ma of babbled on a bit, but these are my personal views on something that doesn't really bother me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lozza

When I go up and help him, it doesnt bother me. I even go and talk to the locals, it doesnt bother them either. So as for the Pubs and Clubs it should not be banned there.

---

Sure, it may not bother you or the locals, but think about what it does to your health. Although you may not cough when near a smoker, it does not mean that you are avoiding all of the affects. It is very possible for people to die from second hand smoke, but the smoker still lives? How is that fair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

Sure, it may not bother you or the locals, but think about what it does to your health. Although you may not cough when near a smoker, it does not mean that you are avoiding all of the affects. It is very possible for people to die from second hand smoke, but the smoker still lives? How is that fair?

---

As I said after. Not many people Die from Passive smoking. How many people do you know, that don't smoke and have died from passive smoking? I even asked all my teachers about this issue they said all the same, I asked a non smoker and a smoker. They said what I've just said.

If the non-smokers choose to take a route to work, and they pass many smokers, and they think they are at risk, they the should reconsider there route to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

Actually, cigarettes are distributed by private tobacco companies. The nasty pictures and text you see on the packages are rules set by the government that are given to tobacco companies. This is to try to discourage smoking obviously.

---

Then why is the money made basically going to the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

Then why is the money made basically going to the government?

---

through taxes placed on cigarettes thats why the price on them is always rising it takes away from everyone elses taxes by raising the price of smokes

I wouldn't base the passive smoking death toll on what you've heard. The statisitics are that 3000 people die from lung cancer alone from passive smoking. Passive smoking is also responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma annually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lozza

As I said after. Not many people Die from Passive smoking. How many people do you know, that don't smoke and have died from passive smoking? I even asked all my teachers about this issue they said all the same, I asked a non smoker and a smoker. They said what I've just said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lozza

If the non-smokers choose to take a route to work, and they pass many smokers, and they think they are at risk, they the should reconsider there route to work.

---

Why should non smokers who are not being harmful to anyones health by smoking be inconvenienced by people who obviously aren't respecting the public's health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssricky

through taxes placed on cigarettes thats why the price on them is always rising it takes away from everyone elses taxes by raising the price of smokes

---

That's ridiculous, putting tax on cigarettes! $10 to give yourself cancer, PLUS tax!

I'm glad though that the government don't allow smoking in places such as cafés, and childen playgrounds. I don't really see smokers around too, so I guess those advertisements have been effective, or people have been in debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

I wouldn't base the passive smoking death toll on what you've heard. The statisitics are that 3000 people die from lung cancer alone from passive smoking. Passive smoking is also responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma annually.

---

Maybe so.

I think there is no end to these debates, thats whats so, on going about them. We can all quote on what someone says then change it right back at them. Lmao

I was just trying to balance up my argument. Im trying to find a debate for my speech in English, and I have to balance it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

That's ridiculous, putting tax on cigarettes! $10 to give yourself cancer, PLUS tax!

I'm glad though that the government don't allow smoking in places such as cafés, and childen playgrounds. I don't really see smokers around too, so I guess those advertisements have been effective, or people have been in debt.

---

they put that big price on smoking to discourage people from smoking cuz it is costy :$

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

Why should non smokers who are not being harmful to anyones health by smoking be inconvenienced by people who obviously aren't respecting the public's health.

---

That, I agree with. But what can be done about it? Absolutely nothing, unless the smokers shouldn't be smoking in the area of it isn't allowed, you either gotta put up with it, or be elsewhere. That's the unfortunate way.

Another point. If you smoke, your house tax and everything to do with housing goes up, a lot.

This is true.

Its the way life is. Put up with it, or change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

That, I agree with. But what can be done about it? Absolutely nothing, unless the smokers shouldn't be smoking in the area of it isn't allowed, you either gotta put up with it, or be elsewhere. That's the unfortunate way.

---

That is the whole point of the debate. What you have just said is proof that smoking tobacco should be banned in public areas. If people want to smoke, fine, just don't bother others while doing it. Go somewhere where other people aren't being annoyed or harmed (your house..) and that way no one will complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lozza

Another point. If you smoke, your house tax and everything to do with housing goes up, a lot.

This is true.

Its the way life is. Put up with it, or change.

---

Where does it say this? I never knew this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssricky

they put that big price on smoking to discourage people from smoking cuz it is costy

---

Yet the government puts the money to waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

That is the whole point of the debate. What you have just said is proof that smoking tobacco should be banned in public areas. If people want to smoke, fine, just don't bother others while doing it. Go somewhere where other people aren't being annoyed or harmed (your house..) and that way no one will complain.

---

Unless you're smoking alone, there will always be people bothered by it. But most likely they'll say nothing, or they'll just make coughing noises or wave their hand infront of their nose.


Edit - ACK jeez I just noticed I double posted. Sorry >_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

Where does it say this? I never knew this.



Yet the government puts the money to waste.

---

My mum works for the council and has told me. My mates dad smokes and his house is near exactly the same as mine, and they pay more than my mum; which is a non smoker. I have no evidence, thats why I didn't put it in my section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lozza

My mum works for the council and has told me. My mates dad smokes and his house is near exactly the same as mine, and they pay more than my mum; which is a non smoker. I have no evidence, thats why I didn't put it in my section.

---

Well. Either the Government really have a cunning way to stop you, or they just want more revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLuweesH

Unless you're smoking alone, there will always be people bothered by it. But most likely they'll say nothing, or they'll just make coughing noises or wave their hand infront of their nose.


Edit - ACK jeez I just noticed I double posted. Sorry >_<

---

If you are the only smoker in your home, most likely you will be smoking alone. The rest of the family won't let the smoker smoke in the house (most likely) as it affects everyone else's health and in my opinion leaves a nasty stale smell. So, they will probably be smoking in the backyard alone, in the privacy of their property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluweesh

Well. Either the Government really have a cunning way to stop you, or they just want more revenue.

---

Sadly, Im thinking the second option is more likely.

Like corey says tobacco companies are private companies none are governmentally owned.

A lot of people have died from cancer which was the result of passive smoking, just recently the owner of my local had to sell his pub because he developed lung cancer despite being a non-smoker for 30 years. Also its not just adults that get effected its children too.

Technically the term public should mean an area where the general members of the public are there so if I smoked in my car I am not effecting anyone else really.

Also I see no statistical evidence only claims, like I said before 52% out of 1500 people surveyed were for the ban of smoking in public places 1/3 smokers themselves.

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.

Also the so call "Fashionable Smokers" are generally underaged teens and they by law should not be buying cigarrettes anyway but they still do (although its not illegal for them to smoke them)

Quote:

---

If the non-smokers choose to take a route to work, and they pass many smokers, and they think they are at risk, they the should reconsider there route to work.

---

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.

I usually have to smoke outside or at the very least dangerously leaning outside my window, so it really isnt effecting others or my housing prices.

The government puts most that money back into the NHS for the people effected by smokers and other anti-smoking organisation. yeesh lighten up on the way they handle money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corey777

If you are the only smoker in your home, most likely you will be smoking alone. The rest of the family won't let the smoker smoke in the house (most likely) as it affects everyone else's health and in my opinion leaves a nasty stale smell. So, they will probably be smoking in the backyard alone, in the privacy of their property.

---

Say I got married to a smoker, I wouldn't care, The only time I'd tell my husband not to smoke is if I became pregnant and when a young child is born. Except from those exceptions, he could smoke in the house. By the way, this is my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lozza

Say I got married to a smoker, I wouldn't care, The only time I'd tell my husband not to smoke is if I became pregnant and when a young child is born. Except from those exceptions, he could smoke in the house. By the way, this is my opinion.

---

That would be your choice, which would be fine. But, smoking in the public is against many people's will as they would rather not have to worry about health issues from passive smoking.

Also, what about when the child is developed. Do you really think that it would be fair on the child, who probably has no real intelligence on smoking to smoke in the house? I don't think so.

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?