BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban would harm the wider economy

A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in1. Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent.2 1 BBC News, “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs”, BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13948624 2Pakko, Michael R., 'Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans', The Regional Economist, January 2008, http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=3
Lower healthcare costs

The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco1. Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation2. 1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012, http://global.tobaccofreekids.org/files/pdfs/en/success_SoAfrica_en.pdf 2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm
Unenforceable

It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement1. This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west. Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures. 1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/06/26080617
Pack labelling or taxation a better alternative

Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick”1. If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar. Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups2, or even counterfeit cigarettes,3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time. 1 Kluger, 2009, http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1911796,00.html 2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014, http://www.phasa.org.za/use-roll-cigarettes-south-africa/ 3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014, http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/tobacco-tax-hikes-boost-illegal-traders/
Lower healthcare costs

Smoking caused disease causes large expenses for healthcare systems, something which is particularly burdensome in countries without the rich well developed healthcare systems of the developed world. In the UK lung cancer, one of the diseases caused by smoking, costs £90 per person or £9071 per patient.1 Even the cost per head of population is higher than Ghana’s entire healthcare budget of $83.4 (about £50) per person.2 The reduction in smoking, which would be triggered by the ban, would lead to a drop in smoking related illness. A study in the US state of Arizona showed that hospital admissions for smoking related diseases dropped after a ban on smoking in public places3. This would allow resources to be focused on the big killers other than tobacco – including HIV AIDS. 1 The National Cancer Research Institute, ‘Lung cancer UK price tag eclipses the cost of any other cancer’, Cancer Research UK, 7 November 2012, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/lung-cancer-uk-price-tag-eclipses-the-cost-of-any-other-cancer 2 Assuming Ghanaian health spending of 5.2% of GDP which is $40.71 billion split between a population of 25.37 million from World Bank Databank http://data.worldbank.org/country/ghana#cp_fin http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS 3 Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban”, American Journal of Public Health, March 2011, http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.179572
Easy to introduce

A ban on smoking in public places would be simple to enforce – it is an obvious activity, and does not require any form of complex equipment or other special techniques . It would largely be enforced by other users of public places and those working there. If it changes attitudes enough, it could be largely self-enforcing – by changing attitudes and creating peer pressure1. 1 See Hartocollis, Anemona, “Why Citizens (gasp) are the smoking police), New York Times, 16 September 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/nyregion/17smoking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Nip the problem in the bud

Smoking rates in Africa are relatively low; a range of 8%-27% with an average of only 18% of the population smoking1 (or, the tobacco epidemic is at an early stage2). That’s good, but the challenge is to keep it that way and reduce it. A ban on smoking in public places at this stage would stop tobacco gaining the widespread social acceptability that caused it to thrice in the 20th century in the Global North. The solution is to get the solutions in now, not later. 1 Kaloko, Mustapha, 'The Impact of Tobacco Use on Health and Socio-Economic Development in Africa', African Union Commission, 2013, http://www.carmma.org/sites/default/files/PDF-uploads/AU_report_English_FINAL.pdf, p.4 2 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “What we do: Tobacco control strategy overview”, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, no date, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Policy/Tobacco-Control
Unenforceable

Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin1 and New York City2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either. Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned.3 1 AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,563424,00.html 2 Huff Post New York, 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/nyc-smoking-ban_n_822144.html 3Kaloko, Mustapha, 2013, http://www.carmma.org/sites/default/files/PDF-uploads/AU_report_English_FINAL.pdf, p.18
Pack labelling or taxation a better alternative

If it’s not enforceable, enforceable solutions ought to be used instead. It would be easier to enforce pack labelling and branding requirements, from larger and clearer health warnings to even brand-free packs. Of course, American-style lawsuits by governments against tobacco manufacturers could be tried, as suggested in Nigeria1. 1 IRIN, “NIGERIA: Govt hits tobacco companies with whopping law suit”, irinnews.org, 9 November 2007, http://www.irinnews.org/report/75239/nigeria-govt-hits-tobacco-companies-with-whopping-law-suit
Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.

Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock. It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them. The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others[1], need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable. [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.
Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.

Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do. The purpose of the Act[1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians.[2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech. [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64. [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010.
Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted.

Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice[1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned. For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state. Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism. All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins[2], with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society. [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation. [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight.
Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.

Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one. Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society. In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.
There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.

It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable[1]. There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense. Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them. Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent. [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.
Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.

If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal[1] could be assumed to be sympathetic.  These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases. [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008.
Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.

Religious belief is the most widely used and historically enduring framework for discussion of the universe around us and our place and role within it. Pretending that it not part of civic discourse is simply living in a fantasy world. The views expressed by Hammond are widely and genuinely held and deserve to be heard. Those who oppose them should, of course, be free to do so. Simply banning their expression doesn’t make the views go away. However impossible opposing sides in this argument may believe it to be, the other side could be right, that gives them the right to be heard[1]. [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Lords are right to limit homophobic hatred law’, 10 July 2009.
Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.

Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.
Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted.

Homophobia should indeed be confronted but penalising it is not the solution – just as it wasn’t for racism and sexism. These views should be confronted and challenged, which doesn’t happen by banning their expression. Indeed using legislation in this way is more likely to make the homophobe feel justified. Freedom of speech and equality have generally worked hand in hand and will do so in the case of homophobia as well. Banning ideas doesn’t threaten bigotry; indeed historically it has tended to be the tool of the bigot, not the liberal.
Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.

It is simply unfair to ask people to be the victims in a societal experiment on the basis that it will all be okay in the end. In a context like this the language used is not only offensive but also threatening. This legislation may not be great constitutional theory but provides very real protection of people’s safety and quality of life. In addition to which, homophobia long enjoyed the sanction and protection of the state it is interesting that when that is reversed just a little it becomes an assault on free speech.
There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.

This is simply a myth. Society routinely legislates to prevent offence with restrictions on what can be said or done within a broadcast or in print. This particular case does not relate to a private conversation between friends but to a public address. As such the response of the police officers was not some Orwellian nightmare but a responsible protection of public order and a show of respect for those who, quite rightly, had taken offence at the remarks. We are rightly cautious of the state intervening too far into the private sphere but this was a public event – by the speakers own choice.
Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.

Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.
Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:

Just because efforts to contact extraterrestrials to date have proven unsuccessful does not mean they are not out there. In fact, as communications technology develops over time, humans' ability to project messages and to receive them will increase manifold. Extraterrestrial transmissions could well be beaming toward Earth, but humans might simply lack the capacity to receive them. There could be an interplanetary conversation happening right now, and no one would even know (Sagan, 1973). Only by pushing the boundaries of science and of human imagination can such technological improvements arise. The paradigm of exploration must be maintained with the scouring for life amongst the heavens. improve this
The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones:

The potential for sharing of knowledge, were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, might well be more limited and difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they would have to say, even if they could be heard. They could simply be too alien. There is no reason to believe that any aliens are going to benevolent they could very well be hostile. (Brin, 2006) We should not therefore be attempting to contact aliens to share technology rather we should be focusing on advancing our own technology. 1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation. improve this
Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:

The benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on space exploration and trying to contact extraterrestrials, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense. As to the paradigm of exploration, efforts to explore parts of space, as well as our own planet would continue. The paradigm is not shattered by the choice to take a cautious approach toward extraterrestrial life, which is likely a waste of effort anyway.
Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:

Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the effort to contact extraterrestrials. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by mankind's collective search for intelligent life in space, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration and the search for intelligent life among the stars can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. The search for extraterrestrials is a very real means of promoting such thinking.