TED Conversations

Schubert Malbas

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

This house believes that smoking should be banned in public places.

OPENING REMARKS ON THE SIDE OF THE AFFIRMATIVE:

We do not wish to prohibit smoking per se. We do recognize however that smoking is optional but breathing is not. Smoking bans exist in order to prevent the effects of second-hand smoke on the breathing public.

Smoking is positively associated to increase the incidence of many types of cancers, cardiovascular disease such as heart disease and atherosclerosis, lung diseases like emphysema and many other illnesses. Smoking is indeed harmful to both smokers and those inhaling second-hand smoke.

It has also been demonstrated that smoking in indoor public places creates a significant increase of the level of indoor air pollution compared to indoor places with a smoking ban.

Thus laws that prohibit smoking in all public places will promote a healthier environment and will have a positive impact on public health.

OPENING REMARKS ON THE SIDE OF THE NEGATIVE:

A smoking ban that encompasses all public places is construed as a violation of personal liberty and the flagrant restriction of one's exercise to this right.

The State, above all else, should protect the rights of both smokers and non-smokers alike. It is important for our governments to regulate rights rather than to curtail it.

The definition of a public place should also be delineated. Some private business owners of hotels and restaurants may wish to allow smoking among their patrons. Will a total smoking ban restrict the property rights of these business owners and cost an unnecessary loss of income without just compensation?

MODERATOR:

Join this conversation!

Do you know of the economic and human consequences of related public health practices in your area? Are there are other important issues like tobacco-funded research and other things that we ought to take into account in framing the discussion?

What do you make of these and other arguments put forward? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • Oct 31 2011: Many years ago the US government went after those who made & sold alcohol. Talk about a dumb move! People made home brew & sold it on the sly. The same would happen with tobacco. Just like the ban on marijuana. It is now being tossed around to make it legal. It seems that the more you suppress an item the more people want it. I agree that folks should be able to chose freely about what food etc. they put in their bodies, the clothes they wear, & where they wish to live & how they wish to live. You start getting too many restrictions & folks will rebel every time.
    • thumb
      Nov 2 2011: you make an excellent point with marijuana. it seems that when more prohibitions are set, more people will go against the grain. As was the case of marijuana, one may find constradicting oneself in the future. it's sad really.
  • Oct 30 2011: My city banned smoking in public places (mainly restaurants and bars) a few years ago. On the whole I believe that it's worked out quite well.
    • thumb
      Oct 31 2011: yeah i agree that the rationale for creating such a law for reasons of public health is a no-brainer.
      it only becomes difficult when we consider how it affects the liberties of smokers, and becomes controversial when some groups will try to lobby against such a measure.
    • Nov 4 2011: As I understand it, this debate is about smoking in public places outdoors, such as parks or city streets, as most states have already banned smoking indoors in public places in almost every establishment. The problem with such a ban is that it would likely do more harm than good. Many people live in homes with no private outdoor space, so such a ban would force them indoors and increase the risks to their friends and family.
  • thumb
    Oct 30 2011: Already enforced in my country. Love it!
  • Oct 29 2011: As a smoker, I agree that we shouldn't smoke in public indoor places. That only seems right.
    But the smoke & other pollutants that come from industry are even a worse problem.
    • thumb
      Oct 29 2011: thought so myself when, after writing my post, went outside my apartment and smelled the distinct stinky air coming from gas-guzzling cars that pass through the street where I live. you're right, most carbon emissions come from the industries
  • Comment deleted

  • Oct 29 2011: Hi and hello there!
    I would think, smoking is a mute point. We as humans, have so much on our plate. The Cancer Social club is a, very rich institute. Let us debate about trans fat? Oh, do you know how much the cancer society is worth?" ( no cure yet?)
    With Respect To Ya!! Take care Schubert
    • thumb
      Oct 29 2011: yeah, i agree with you totally that a lot of funds for research is still begging for that ELUSIVE cure.

      i guess, though, that these organizations are also using money for other more TANGIBLE uses such as patient care, public health education, and preventive measures such as vaccines and cancer screening,where the Societies need constant funds day in and day out.
      • Oct 30 2011: Hi Schubert, I hope your guess is right. You do know, that if a human does not have insurance, said human has to pay, out of the pocket for cancer screening? Where is the Cancer Society? A human will ask for help, from them. They say no. They are in need of funding? I have a very poor view of the cancer society. They have more money, then the national debt. With Respect to You!! :)
    • thumb
      Oct 29 2011: still, smoking is a big problem. 900,000 americans die each year due to causes directly attributable to smoking, says Chris Jordan in his TED talk.

      is it therefore necessary for the government to INTERVENE? and to enact this public health measure if only to make it difficult for smokers to maintain the habit?
      • Oct 30 2011: Hi Schubert, again!!
        It costs money for the government to intervene. The back pockets of the government are living off the charitable contributions of the rich and the powerful.
        Smoking is a small problem. Obesity is a small problem. Trans fat is a small problem. High fat content, is a small problem. The governments do not need to regulate humans. Humans need to smarten up and put a rubber over their head and snap out of it!! The government wants to be a part of our stupid live styles an cash in on it. (small problem, the governments are a bunch of stupid idiots) Well Schubert, I vented! Thanks for listening! (take care you!) :)