It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States

This was not the agreed rule. The following was the agreed rule: "Con cannot make any new arguments in the final round, as Pro has no chance to rebut them. " (See round 1) The rule was not to confine discussion to rebuttal only on the final round, but to not create any new arguments. This round I will be restating my prior argument from rounds 2 and 3 that the proposal is unreasonably restrictive and I will be rebutting foe's position regarding banning smoking at remote locations. I will not discuss nor address any of foe's new evidence because it is burdensome to do so and there is a quicker method of resolving this debate that makes any inquiry in to the evidence moot. This brings me to my main point - EVEN IF WE ACCEPT AS TRUE FOE'S ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE, THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD STILL BE REJECTED AS UNREASONABLY RESTRICTIVE This is the proposal: "It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States" This proposal includes all public property (i. e. , presumably any real estate that is owned by any government entity). This proposal would ban smoking in too many locations where the smoker does not cause any other person any risk of exposure to secondhand smoke. Many of these locations could be listed, but a look at this map of state and federally owned lands should make the issue clear: . http://www.americaplundered.com... This proposal goes too far. There are reasonable alternatives other than this proposal that could address foe's safety concerns without unnecessarily banning smoking in areas where no risk of exposure to secondhand smoke would occur. In fact, many outdoor smoking bans have already been enacted which prohibit smoking at locations where there is a significant probability of exposure to secondhand smoke. For example, in California it is illegal to smoke "within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of a public building". [1] In Beverly Hills, smoking "is prohibited in all open air dining areas" and "within five feet (5') of an open air dining area, except while actively passing on the way to another destination. " [2] In Santa Monica it is illegal to smoke "[w]ithin twenty feet of the entrance, exit or open window of any building open to the public" or "[a]ny farmer's market", among other locations. [3] More of these smoking bans could be listed, but these examples should suffice to show that there are reasonable alternatives. FOE HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY REASON AS TO WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO BAN SMOKING AT LOCATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY WHERE THE SMOKER CAUSES NO OTHER PERSON ANY RISK OF EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE Foe has avoided any meaningful discussion of this problem in every round. These are foe's words regarding this problem: Round 1: Acceptance only / No arguments Round 2: No discussion of this problem Round 3: "If there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced, much in the same way speed limits aren't enforced when no one is around. " Round 4: "Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it is enforced when there is nobody around to enforce it. However, if someone is around, it becomes a health risk as explained above. " Foe's solution to this problem is unrealistic, unsatisfactory, and cavalier. Foe's response to this problem seems to be to acknowledge that it isn't necessary to ban smoking at locations on public property where there is no risk of exposure, but it wouldn't be that bad if we did it anyway because there's no chance that people who smoke in these areas would get caught. Foe is wrong. People could and would be penalized for smoking at locations where they cause no other person any risk of exposure but just so happen to be on public property. This is largely because the range of a law enforcement officer's (LEO) vision is much greater than the range of secondhand smoke. Foe's own evidence indicates that when one is as little as 6 feet from a smoker, the level of exposure diminishes substantially. [4 - "If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. "; "Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower"] Someone who, for example, is smoking alone on the side of a rural road would likely be in violation of this proposed smoking ban because roads are typically owned by public entities. Suppose that there just happened to be an LEO who saw this person smoking from 100 feet away. It would then be at the discretion of this LEO as to whether or not this person would be subjected to criminal and/or civil penalties for benign behavior. Abuse of LEO discretion has occurred in the past, and would occur pursuant to this proposal if it were adopted. We should not adopt proposals that give LEOs the ability to whimsically subject people to civil or criminal penalties for harmless behavior. This proposal would do exactly that. Sources - 1 - California Government Code § 7597 - . http://www.leginfo.ca.gov... 2 - Beverly Hills Municipal Code § 5-4-2 - . http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com... 3 - Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.44.020 - . http://www.qcode.us... 4 - "Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in outdoor settings a risk, study shows" - . http://news.stanford.edu...