This House believes that a full smoking ban should be implemented in public places

Firstly, I will state the many harms of smoking. 1. Both tobacco and cigarette smoke contain harmful substances which are carcinogenic. This is a widely-known fact that is accepted by health institutes and governments worldwide. 2. Smoking also causes many health problems Smoking leads to heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm (a balloon-like bulge in an artery in the chest), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), asthma, hip fractures, and cataracts. Smokers are at higher risk of developing pneumonia and other airway infections. 3. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States Smoking causes more deaths each year than HIV, Illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries and firearm-related incidents combined. I will elaborate as to how this point justifies the banning of smoking in public areas later on. Reasons as to why smoking should be banned in public places: 1. The aforementioned harms apply to second-hand smoking There are two kinds of second hand smoke; side-stream smoke, smoke from the lighted end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar; and mainstream smoke, the smoke exhaled by a smoker. Sidestream smoke has higher concentrations of cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) and is more toxic than mainstream smoke. And, it has smaller particles than mainstream smoke. These smaller particles make their way into the lungs and the body"s cells more easily. When non-smokers are exposed to SHS (second-hand smoke) it"s called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. Non-smokers who breathe in SHS take in nicotine and toxic chemicals by the same route smokers do. Thus, the aforementioned health hazards and harms apply to second-hand smokers as well, harming non-smokers whose only "sin" was walking by a smoker in the street. 2. Second-hand smoking affects the health of many others As mentioned above, when non-smokers are exposed to SHS (second-hand smoke) it"s called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. This is because second-hand smokers are taking in the smoke involuntary. It's a basic fact that all humans have to breathe, and when they do so while a person is smoking in the same area, they involuntarily inhale some of the smoke, thus submitting them to the many harms of smoke. Second-hand smoke kills children and adults who don't smoke. Exposure to SHS while pregnant also increases the chance that a woman will have a miscarriage, stillborn birth, low birth-weight, growth retardation as well as other pregnancy and delivery problems. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a federal agency responsible for health and safety in the workplace, is concerned about SHS as a carcinogen at work. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA recognize there are no safe levels of SHS, and recommend that exposures be reduced to the lowest possible levels. SHS in the workplace has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and lung cancer among adult non-smokers. The Surgeon General has said that smoke-free workplace policies are the only way to prevent SHS exposure at work. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating the building cannot prevent exposure if people still smoke inside the building. An extra bonus, other than protecting non-smokers, is that workplace smoking restrictions may also encourage smokers to smoke less, or even quit. As quoted from cancer. org, "Everyone can be exposed to SHS in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers. The Surgeon General has suggested people choose restaurants and other businesses that are smoke-free, and let owners of businesses that are not smoke-free know that SHS is harmful to your family"s health. Some businesses seem to be afraid to ban smoking, but there"s no proof that going smoke-free is bad for business. " It has been made quite clear that a single smoker smoking in a public place affects the health of many others. It is not only inconsiderate but immoral to allow people to harm other's health for an act that harms themselves. Smoking is optional, whereas breathing is not. 3. To promote a healthier population Banning smoking in public places will not only prevent health damage to non-smokers but also discourage smokers and encourage them to quit smoking. This policy has been adapted in many places. For example, in Hong Kong, smoking in indoor public places has been banned since 2007. Now, according to the Thematic Household Survey Report No. 53 released by Census and Statistics Department on 8 November 2013, the daily cigarette smoking prevalence of Hong Kong was 10.7%, the lowest rate recorded since 1982. With less smokers, less people will be affected by the negative effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighbouring towns without bans showed no change. The decline in heart attacks was attributed to the ban, which reduced exposure to second-hand smoke. Other countries with smoking bans include New Zealand, which passed legislation to progressively implement a smoking ban in schools, school grounds, and workplaces; Ireland, which implemented a nationwide ban on smoking in all workplaces; Norway, where similar legislation was put into force; Turkey, where smoking is banned in indoor public areas, Smoking was banned in all public places in the whole of the United Kingdom in 2007, when England became the final region to have the legislation come into effect (the age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on 1 October 2007). Other examples include India and Australia. The public also appears to agree with this. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans favoured completely smoke-free restaurants. Another Gallup poll, consisting of over 26,500 Europeans, conducted in December 2008, found that "a majority of EU citizens support smoking bans in public places, such as offices, restaurants and bars. " The poll further found that "support for workplace smoking restrictions is slightly higher than support for such restrictions in restaurants (84% vs. 79%). Two-thirds support smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs. " The support is highest in countries which have implemented clear smoking bans: "Citizens in Italy are the most prone to accept smoking restrictions in bars, pubs and clubs (93% " 87% "totally in favour"). Sweden and Ireland join Italy at the higher end of the scale with approximately eight out of 10 respondents supporting smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs (70% in both countries is totally in favor). " The World Health Organization considers smoking bans to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking bans are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes. When effectively implemented they are seen as an important element of policy to support behaviour change in favour of a healthy lifestyle. Banning smoking in public places has helped to cut premature births by 10 percent, according to new research from the United States and Europe. 4. To reduce health care costs Banning smoking in public places reduce health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labour in the community thus protected, making that workforce more attractive for employers. In the US state of Indiana, the economic development agency included in its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth encouragement for cities and towns to adopt local smoking bans as a means of promoting job growth in communities. 96 billion dollars has been spent in the US tackling smoke-related healthcare costs, much of which is paid by taxpayers through publicly-funded health programs. By banning smoking in public places and discouraging smokers, taxpayer money can then be used for better purposes such as developing economy and increasing job vacancies. I look forward to Con's arguments, and will be bringing up more points in later rounds. References: . http://www.cancer.gov... . http://www.tco.gov.hk... . http://www.cdc.gov... . http://www.cancer.org... . http://www.tobaccoatlas.org... . http://www.nejm.org... . http://www.who.int... . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.cancer.org... . http://www.cdc.gov... . http://circ.ahajournals.org... . http://www.bbc.com...