If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

== '''If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out! - 11/7/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/If-a-business-wants-to-allow-smoking-then-the-so-be-it-government-should-stay-out/1/)''' ==

Round 1
italia4356: "People do not have to go to a business it is thier choice. though it may be more convienent for people includding my self to eat in a smoke free environment that doesn't make it right. The right sollution is for people to ask the resteruant owner to make it a rule that their is to be no smoking if the smoke is bothering them or find another resteruant. And if there is no other smoke free resteruant near by then people should maybe tell the owner that they will not be eating at their resteraunt and or eat at home or somewhere else that they can find smoke free."

Ivisman96: "The crux of your argument seems to be that businesses should be exempt from laws protecting their patrons from themselves. While I have no problem with people's suicides, I don't believe that a business that serves the public should have the right to facilitate it. The problem is...smoke is carried on the air. Last I checked, people need to breathe. So, what about the workers ? Sure, they don't HAVE to work there. What about delivery people ? Mailmen ? Garbage Men ? Vendors ? Repairmen ? By allowing smoking in an ongoing business that serves the public, it in essence becomes a toxic zone for anyone that steps foot in the premises. Government's job isn't too protect people from themselves, but from hazards. That's why we don't have buildings made with asbestos or lead paint anymore. And cigarette smoke, in it's current form of being carried on the air, contaminates all around it and creates a toxic environment for all that need to breathe. To say nothing of walking in front of the doors that when open will allow a waft of smoke to escape and make it's way to some passerby's lungs. It should most definitely be banned in restaurants."

Round 2
italia4356: "You almost make a good point, but it is flawed.

Point 1.) A person chooses to be a mailman or a garbage man or a repair man. For the example of a mail man, the mail man to the best of my knowledge is aware that he will be making deliveries to various homes and businesses. if the mail man learns that his job requires him to make deliveries to a business that allow smoking and he disapproves of putting himself at risk of inhaliling second hand smoke then it is up to the mail man to talk to the owner of the business and ask him to forbid smoking because it is putting me the mail man at risk of lunge cancer every time I the mail man make a delivery to the business. If the business owner chooses to continue to allow smoking then it is up to the mail man to come up with ways to persuade the business owner to change his smoking policy. For example get support from fellow mail men to also confront the owner. Maybe picket the business on their days off or whenever, shows sighns of what lung cancer can do, maybe even have a strike, their are many different ways to persuade people. If worse come to worse the mail man should tell his boss that he does not want to do the deliveries anymore if his boss sends him anyway then it is up to the mail man to either keep trying to persuade the business or find another job that is less hazardous for his health. Good luck!

I think an important message to remember is what seems to be the RIGHT choice NOT the easiest choice. Point 2. So you want to make it a law to ban smoking in private businesses. Ok, well then what about the car you drive, what about the factory down the road spewing loads of god knows what into the air of huge proportions. What about every combustion engine in our country spewing out poisonous co2 such as chainsaws, weedwhackers, dirtbikes and so many more. Should there be a law against my neighbor mowing his grass because I could be breathing the exhaust from his lawnmower? When will the laws end, if we had it your way we would we will eventually have so many laws that it will be against the law to move."

Ivisman96: "Thank you for your reply. I'm not sure if you are in the workplace, but workers have certain rights and in no case should have to go into a hazardous environment. OSHA regulates this. (OSHA.gov)

Also, not to be condescending, but having mailmen picketing and/or talking to the owner's is not going to happen and it is naive to think so. It's not a matter of avoiding hazards, it is regulating those hazards so that in a free society, a normal person won't be surprised by that hazard. The kind of logic that you state that people can just avoid those types of places where smoking is allowed should be changed to maybe a 'members-only club--ONLY smokers allowed" with subsequent air recirculation systems that don't allow any smoke into the environment. The costs for that along with no nonsmokers coming in would be too big a cost to bear for the restaurants. And what happens when the restaurant doesn't make it and goes belly-up ? How do you decontaminate a building that has years of smoking buildup ? Again it is a health hazard. An example from OSHA's website follows:  ' By implementing these smoking ban provisions, the Agency believes that even a reduction in workplace smoking will reduce risk to smoking employees by a significant amount." As I said previously, the role of government is to protect people from hazards (including in the workplace environment), not from themselves. Personal pleasure should not trump public health. OSHA (which stands for Occupational Health and Safety Act) protects against unsafe workplaces. Cigarettes contain thousands of cancer-causing and other lethal chemicals. Putting those substances into the air which can be breathed in by people who choose NOT to smoke is immoral and soon will be illegal. Your second argument is a no-brainer. All of the items you mentioned are necessary for our society to function at the level it is at. Even still, they are regulated to produce less and less pollutants. Rarely is it concentrated in a public area, but when it is, carbon-monoxide alarms are going off all over. Smoking serves no useful purpose. It is a recreational drug that cannot be contained. If smokers want to continue to feed their addiction, they should have to wear a toxic suit complete with it's own air supply. To foist their poisons into the air for others to breathe pretty soon will be criminal. Smokers contaminate the air but are not more strictly regulated to reduce their pollutants as other things are. Do you know that my asthma medication increase in cost six-hundred percent this year?? The reason ? The propellant used to get the medicine into my lungs wasn't environmentally friendly. But yet we are still arguing about letting smokers smoke. Because they are addicted and can't quit. The medical costs alone are staggering. Throw in lost productivity, litter patrol, etc. and it is just too much. It needs to be banned outright. Personal freedom in America is important. However, smoking is not a matter of personal freedom. It is a poison that makes the air toxic to breathe and should not be allowed ANYWHERE let alone in enclosed areas where other non-smoking people have just as much right to be in."

Round 3
italia4356: "I don't know who OHSA is, but additional rights given to employees is a whole other topic of debate. Every person in the United States is entitles to certain rights but it is a persons choice to work for a business, so if that person chooses to work for that business then that person gives up all of their rights except one which is thier right to leave. People choose to work for companies, people choose to go into businesses. Now banning all smoking in government building I would 100% agree with because government buildings are public buildings which people some point in their life may have to go into to straighten something out or get a car inspected or something in that manor, go to court. If people choose not to go into a public building when some type of problem occurs such as going to a mandatory court hearing for a traffic ticket then a warrant for that person arrest will be issued, so they have to go to that court room. But if a person chooses not to go into a bar that permits smoking no warrants of arrest will be issued they can simply keep on walking. but you bring up that if a person chooses to walk by on a public side walk that the bars second hand smoke may seep out or come out as the door open and now the person has breathed in the toxic gas unwillingly which is a valid point that I had not thought of previously. so we agree on a common problem but your solution is wrong.

You can not escape that if you make it a law to ban a business from spewing poisonous gas into the air for the citizens to breath then what is to stop someone from making a law against driving cars with combustible engines. You say because cars are necessary but car are not necessary at least not in every case, in many cases it is a convenience. Are you saying there is no one in the country that can walk, skate, ride their bike or use some other means besides a car to survive or even just go to work. What about people who just enjoy going on joy rides. Those people may be having a joy ride but through out their entire ride they are poisoning every person in the near area at least in some small or not so small way. Is joy riding necessary lvisman? How do you justify joy riding? Should we make joy riding against the law? And that is just one example there are so many more. We agree on a common problem lvisman but you must agree with me that your solution is too flawed to be the right answer to the problem."

Ivisman96: "A person should not have to choose between enjoyment and a toxic environment. Indeed, NO business should be open to the public (and they are not with the exception of smoking)that has a toxic environment. What if a private business owner wanted to spray formaldehyde through a mister system because he likes the smell ? Everyone would be in an uproar and he would be shutdown. Smoking is no different. Cigarette smoke contains formaldehyde. Any of the chemicals in cigarette smoke when taken individually and introduced to an indoor environment would be a public health hazard and would be banned. I fail to understand how smoking is different. I've said it a number of times, but it bears repeating...it is not about personal freedom. It is about public health. And the government is about the public health. People are brainwashed that smoking is somehow different. It is not. It is proven to make people ill and die. To allow it in enclosed spaces is wrong. A judge in Arizona barred a couple from smoking in their HOME. That's right, their HOME. It was a fourplex and the smoke constituted a health hazard for the other 3 units.

As far as automobiles and joyriding, you have a good point. We are ALL responsible for the environment; however, I stand by my original statement. Overall, autos, factories etc, serve a useful purpose. Smoking, when used as directed, kills. Period. It serves NO useful purpose (with the exception of keeping a steady supply of patients for Oncologists and Morticians). The government is on the path to ban smoking altogether. By taxing it and limiting it's use it is attempting to get people to quit through other motivations (too expensive, too much hassle) because as addicts, they rationalize why they do it and minimize the risks. I've tried to approach this round from a public health view, but the employer aspect relayed in previous rounds is still important. OSHA has a law that states thus: Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, often referred to as the General Duty Clause, requires employers to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees". Section 5(a)(2) requires employers to "comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act". By allowing smoking in their place of business they are in direct violation of this act. In addition, as it pertains to air quality, "the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to adopt standards addressing indoor air quality in indoor work environments. The basis for this proposed action is a preliminary determination that employees working in indoor work environments face a significant risk of material impairment to their health due to poor indoor air quality, and that compliance with the provisions proposed in this notice will substantially reduce that risk." Smoking kills. If it just killed it's adherents I wouldn't care. But because of it's transmission protocol, it is inhaled by all. Just because it is 'socially' acceptable does not make it right. If we are banning lead paint, asbestos, etc. because of toxic environment concerns, cigarette smoke should be banned as well."

Round 4
italia4356: "lvisman you are repeating your self I fully admit that you have opened my eyes about how second hand smoke coming from a business that permits smoking can seep out the windows and doors and on to public property where people walk and those people could inhale the toxic fumes of cigarette smoke unwillingly and you and I believe that is wrong. So we got that far you and I agree on a common problem but we do not agree on solution.

You keep pushing my point of if it is the right answer to make smoking in a business against the law because it affects innocent people outside the property line of the business why shouldn't it be against the law to drive a car, or run a lawnmower with neighbors around, or ride a dirt bike near people, or simply to hold a weed whacked next to your neighbors house and rev it in your hands because you like the sound of the engine, why shouldn't any of those things be against the law as well? You say " Overall, autos, factories etc, serve a useful purpose."(lvisman) What purpose does holding down the throttle of a weed whacker because you enjoy the sound serve, or what purpose again does going on a joy ride serve, there are so, so many more examples. You can't just push this point I am making under the rug, you do not give a valid answer you are just avoiding it.

Your talking about a business that effects innocent people in the nearby street but again what about cars. Listen to what the National Safety Council has to say about car emissions, "Cars also emit several pollutants classified as toxics, which cause as many as 1,500 cases of cancer in the country each year." (NSC). According to the EPA "driving a car is the single most polluting thing that most of us do".(EPA)

I think people such as your self lvisman don't give the majority of people enough credit. I would go about things in a different way. One suggestion would be to take 100% of the money collected from cigarette tax and put it back into educating people about how bad smoking is. I use so smoke little more then half a pack a day and no one needed to make it against the law for me to stop. The TRUTH commercials and other various information about how horrible cigarettes can effect a persons health is all I needed, well a lot of will power is definitely needed as well but I did it, my father who smoked much more then I did, did it, and if me and my father along with loads of other people who have quit can do it then anyone can do it because we are all humans just like everyone else except lvisman he might be an alien. Ha, just kidding, not really, but I think that my tax idea is pretty good. Just remember that making it illegal to smoke in a business does not stop people from smoking. My solution is a real solution that would not only help people to completely quit smoking but it would give people education, sense of achievement and no laws would be needed to do it. We shouldn't exploit people for their mistakes and take their money from taxes and use it somewhere else. Give the money back to the people with a problem in the form of education which would help people to quit. You have to have some faith in people. Laws are just going to outcast people and make them angry and depressed. Education will help people to stop their addictio for themselves and make them feel better about themselves in the process. What do you think lvisman?"

Ivisman96: "I think you mean well, Italia, but I believe you're naï¿½ve. I'm all for education. Cigarette taxes are already going for education as well as public health programs. Consider the following excerpt from the May 27th, 2007 edition of the Oakland Press:

"Smokers pay a premium for their habit in Michigan. At $2 a pack, Michigan's cigarette tax is among the highest in the country. The money goes for health programs, the state general fund and the School Aid Fund. For every $2 collected, schools get 83.2 cents, the general fund gets 39.4 cents, Wayne County gets 1.2 cents and the rest goes to fund health programs and the state portion of Medicaid. The Wayne County portion is for care of the indigent. Under state law, counties with a population of more than 2 million get a slice of the cigarette tax." And that is similar to other states' programs. So, the education is out there. You yourself credited some sources. "The TRUTH commercials and other various information about how horrible cigarettes can effect a persons health is all I needed" to quit. The people who still smoke don't need anymore education to quit. They need incentive. My mother said she would never quit. Until they took out half a lung. She lasted 5 years and then it came back in May. She was dead by Christmas and will never know her two grandkids (nor they her). I would rather people be a little ticked off and be forced to quit from law than from illness or death. You wanna save people ? There you are. I applaud your efforts to back up your claims with facts. Your argument about cars polluting and causing cancer is pertinent. However, consider this: According to Cancer Facts & Figures 2007, "for 2007, an estimated 1,444,920 new cases of cancer are expected, along with 559,650 cancer deaths. Lung cancer remains the top cancer killer among both men and women, the report shows. Around 160,390 deaths are expected in 2007. About 213,380 people are expected to develop lung cancer." We all know that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer as well as other cancers, COPD, emphysema, etc. 1500 (0.1% of all cancers) being caused by cars (with cars as prevalent as they are) isn't too bad. The crux of your argument lies in other things being just as bad as smoking; weed-wacking because you like the sound. I believe this to be a stretch and, while highly unlikely, I'll give you that. It could happen. But here is the important difference. All of these other items you listed weren't being used as intended. They were being MIS-used. Anything being misused has the potential to be harmful. Cigarettes, on the other hand, kill and cause illness when used as directed. And therein lies the rub. In a perfect society, we would have non-polluting cars, no crime, safe food to eat, etc. Until we have that perfect society we need to content ourselves with eliminating non-essential, harmful substances. And smoking, being a number one killer, is a good place to start. Oh, and the comment about having faith in people ? I do in spite of themselves. But one could ask--How can you have faith in people when they continually do things that are at odds with what all the world knows is wrong and harmful ?"

Round 5
italia4356: "First off, I am very sorry for the loss of your mother lvisman, that really is sad and I guniunly feel for you. I believe you and I want the same thing, we are looking out for the best interest in people and want to make the best choice to ensure peoples safety, and health and what is best for a society. My sole argument right now is that your sollution to the problem is flawed. We both believe in the same problem and I do not know for a hundred percent that my sollutions are correct but what I feel I do know is that your one sollution is incorrect.

The fact that you can not come up with a solid answer to respond to my comment that if business are banned from allowing smoking then every other thing that comprimises a persons health unwillingly should be banned as well, is means for me winning the debate on the that fact alone. You can not come up with a defense because no defense exist. To Recap: My argument is this: If we ban business from allowing smoking because the second hand smoke could go out side the private property line of the business and comprimise a persons health who is walking on public property, then why is there not a law that would ban all combustable engines or anything else which would comprimise a person health without a person knowing and or consent. lvisman has no logical response to my argument, he continually tries to justify his claim by saying "Smoking serves no useful purpose." yet he has no response beside repeating him self to my response which is that there are countless instances of useless use of other things that produce poinsonous gas just as smoking does. How is the purpose of smoking different then the purpose of joyriding, riding a dirtbike, playing with a gas powered remote contolled air plane, going sport fishing in a gas powered boat, the list is endless. No one person can proove that the purpose of smoking a cigarette is greater then the purpose of going on a joy ride in a hummer. Are we going to make a law against joy riding? We are going to need alot of laws. Is joy riding "mis using" a Hummer lvisman? Some people like to take joy ride to relax, somepeople like to smoke in a bar, both have the potential to harm innocent people. My sollution: take a 100% cigarette tax money and use it to fund smoking provention and smoking education about how harmfull it is, if people are still smoking then the education methods need to be adjusted not give up on the people. I needed people to have faith in me."

Ivisman96: "Hi italia. If I've repeated myself, it is because my message is not getting through. I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it. I've looked at it from an employer/employee standpoint, a public health standpoint, a governmental oversight standpoint,etc. Your main position has been "well, you can always avoid it (smoking places)", to which you admitted that there is the problem of containment so that it may be impossible to avoid inadvertently. Your 'avoidance' theory is naive at best, and irresponsible at worst. You seem to think that people should be able to do whatever they want if they own the business. Using your logic, if a business-owner wants to have gasoline in open containers on their property (a legal substance), they should be allowed to. They can't because it is a hazard. It is the governments job to protect the public from hazards.

Your other arguments are that education should solve all the problems. I've shown that the 'education' is there. Can you really say with a straight face that people don't know the dangers ? C'mon, like Phil is fond of saying, I've got a bridge to sell you. You yourself stated that the education (from more than one source) helped you to quit. You keep repeating that I avoid answering your objection about making everything else illegal (cars, etc). I have answered that numerous times, but I'll say it again. Cars cause less than 99.9% of cancers. The sun causes more than that. Shall we ban the sun ? Cars, weedwackers,factories, etc. were all created with a main purpose. Cars, transportation. Weedwackers, landscaping. Factories produce goods. Cigarettes, when used as DIRECTED, cause illness and death. Period. It is the combination of LEGALITY of the substance and social acceptance that we are even having this debate. Smoking is the #1 avoidable health risk. Because it is carried on the air, it not only endangers those that smoke, but also those that do not. The government has the right to regulate the WORKPLACE and THE PUBLIC HEALTH both of which smoking impairs. Period. Your 'solutions' are non-solutions. Eventually smoking will be illegal. Until it is across the board, the government has a right to regulate businesses open to the PUBLIC both from a safe workplace environment standpoint and a public-health safety standpoint."