[Baseballl]

Topic: Should Smoking Be Outlawed In All Public Buildings?
Yes: Traver
No: Dragonman565

Competition Ends: May 16th, 3PM Eastern.

[Traver]

Of course it should. If people want to smoke and ruin their lungs, let them do that. But they should not be allowed to ruin other people's lungs as well. I get really dizzy and my throat starts to ache when I'm in a smokefilled room, why do I have to suffer because some other people want to smoke? (+3)

Passive smoking (meaning people who don't smoke, but have to inhale smokefilled air, such as children living with parents who smoke) is not as dangerous as smoking, but it's still lethal in every way. You inhale a lot of the things that are found in cigarettes (or whatever the smoker is smoking), and it increases the risk for getting lungcancer for people who have never smoked, but are subject to passive smoking at their work by 16-19%, as well as increasing the risk of getting suffering from different heart illnesses by 25-35%. I honestly don't think people should be allowed to inflict this kind of damage upon other human beings. (+5)

All figures are from www.sundhedsstyrelsen.dk (+5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Total: +13 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 10 May 2005 - 07:12 PM

[Baseballl]

Current score as of this post:

Traver: 13
Dragonman: 0

[Dragonman]

Should smoking be outlawed in all public buildings? Last time I checked, in all of the public buildings where people are likely to be under the threat of second-hand smoke (such as libraries, museums, etc.), have no smoking signs and prohibit smoking in their buildings themselves. In some restaurants there smoking sections and non-smoking sections so that smokers have a places to eat where they won't be forced to stand outside during their meal. (+4)

Prohibiting smoking should be up to the owners of the buildings. There's no reason to ban smoking from all public buildings so that smokers have nowhere to go. Some can't help it because they started when they were young (when the effects of smoking weren't very well-known), and now don't have the will to go through withdrawal. Right now the restrictions are fine. In public buildings where everyone is around each other such as libraries, stores, museums, etc., smoking is prohibited. However, other buildings have the option of going in a separate area like at restaurants. (+4)

There's no reason for smoking to be outlawed in all public buildings. Smokers aren't parading around public buildings and being cramped up with non-smokers where they're forced to inhale the smoke. In the few public buildings that do allow smoking for more business, they give their customers the convenience of separating form each other. (+2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +10 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 13 May 2005 - 07:02 PM

[Traver]

If, as you are saying, smoking is prohibited in most buildings, and in the few that are not, they are secluded, then why do I often experience the opposite? Why do I have to suffer because of some one else's needs? It's like saying that restaurants can decide themselves whether or not they want toxic gasses to float around in their restaurant. (+3)

*not done, I gotta go eat*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +3 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 13 May 2005 - 07:03 PM

[Dragonman]

If, as you are saying, smoking is prohibited in most buildings, and in the few that are not, they are secluded, then why do I often experience the opposite? Why do I have to suffer because of some one else's needs? It's like saying that restaurants can decide themselves whether or not they want toxic gasses to float around in their restaurant.

*not done, I gotta go eat*

Exactly, it is their decision. If the owners wish to have customers that smoke, they should be allowed to be given that option. Since when have you sat in a restaurant with your family and started coughing from smoke that is contained in a section secluded from the non-smokers? (+2)

A point I forgot to bring up earlier...What looks worse? A restaurant providing a secluded section for smokers, or arriving at a restaurant with people leaning against the buildings smoking? You're more likely to inhale smoke arriving and exiting a restaurant that makes smokers go outside instead of inhaliung it from a smoking section away from the non-smokers inside. (+3)

P.S. I know you're not done, just wanted to provide something more since I didn't post much last time. I'm also sorry for the lack of links/evidence, I've been looking forever and can't find anything that supports smokers soming in public buildings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +5 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 13 May 2005 - 07:05 PM

[Traver]

The last time I went to a restaurant with a non-smoker area is... Well, I really can't remember, since I have never seen such a restaurant. I always get really tired and dizzy when I'm at a restaurant because of the smoke. (+1)

People should NOT be allowed to smoke in public, simply because it is hazardous to other people's health. Stabbing someone is hazardous to their health as well, which is why it is illegal. (+1)

And while it is true that some people can't assemble the willpower to quit smoking, banning smoking would give them another incentive to quit, which might be exactly what they need. In a time where smoking causes many thousands of deaths every year, we should be encouraging people to quit smoking, not give them the signal that it's okay, and that we don't really care. (+3)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +5 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 14 May 2005 - 02:12 AM

[Dragonman]

People should NOT be allowed to smoke in public, simply because it is hazardous to other people's health. Stabbing someone is hazardous to their health as well, which is why it is illegal.

When someone stabs someone they do it purposefully. Smokers don't smoke just to harm others with secondhand smoke. (+1)

And we're not debating the issue of smoking effecting the smokers themselves, just the effect soming has in public places. And I believe it much better to simply have separate sectiosn for smokers inc ertain public buildings such as restaurants where you're in the same area throughout your stay. last time I check restaurants that are likely to get people of all ages provide smoking areas and non-smoking areas, or don't allow smoking at all. Places such as bars may allow smoking throughout the whole place since older men are likely to be smokers because of the popularity of it when they were young. (+4)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +5 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 14 May 2005 - 02:14 AM

[Traver]

I rest my case (sounds important to say)

[Dragonman]

I'd just like to conclude that secondhand is indeed harmful, but can easily be avoided in the obvious public buildings like restaurants (which is one of the major cases with smoking in since people are eating there), and can also be probated by the owners of buildings if they wish to keep it a smoke-free zone so that all ages can enjoy a smoke-free stay. Prohibiting and non prohibiting smoking from their buildings means they wish to attract certain crowds or have the capacity to give people the option of avoiding the smoke. (+3)

I also rest my case (it does sound important. ).

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 14 May 2005 - 02:16 AM

[Baseballl]

Final Score:

Dragonman: 23
Traver: 21


Winner: Dragonman