Smoking ban in public areas

I don't feel as though the arguments I proposed in my last statement were appreciated or answered, and so I will let them stand and instead respond to every one of my opponent's arguments in a step-wise manner, below: 1. "The main problem was how to make non-smokers comfortable and at the same time try to reduce a number of smokers. I am sure that somebody will listen to smoking ban and respect others. I think that this is very important to make non-smokers comfortable, because they are not guilty of this situation. " Response: I think non-smokers are already very comfortable. I don't smoke, and I couldn't be any more comfortable. Of course they aren't guilty for some other people smoking, so I'm not sure that this is relevant to the point at hand. 2. "Because smoking is not allowed in public, people can smoke in their homes instead. This would mean that as long as they are out of their homes: at work, when they eat out, at the movies or even at the parks, they cannot smoke. " Response: I would much prefer someone to smoke in a park than in their home. Smoking inside, particularly if other people (especially children) are around, is much more hazardous. I think that this may be common knowledge, but if not it can be found from many sources (here's one from Health Canada: . http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...). If someone is addicted to smoking and would generally walk to the nearest park to smoke, banning them from doing so would just make smoking more accessible and more dangerous (because they would just smoke the exact same amount in their home instead). 3. "If smokers choose to quit or even think of quitting because of the inconvenience of not being able to smoke in public, would it not, more so, prevent a non-smoker from smoking? " Response: If is a big word, and it's one that doesn't mean much in discussions about addiction. Your argument is very much true, but smokers aren't going to choose to quit because they can't smoke in public (please see my initial arguments for points and sources on this). If someone is addicted to something in the way that a smoker is addicted to smoking, telling them that they can't do it in a specific place is only going to push them into a different place to do it. This wouldn't make smokers quit at all, it would just herd them into different (and frankly more hazardous) places to do it. Non-smokers don't have many good reasons to take up smoking as it is, but the ones they do have would be unchanged by this ban. 4. "In addition I would also like to POINT out that smoking ban can help public places be less toxic and polluted. " Response: This is simply not true: smoke doesn't follow any of our laws, and if everyone smokes in private places (for example, inside a home), the smoke is going to eventually leave that home through a window, door, or chimney, thereby polluting the city exactly the same amount as if that person was smoking outside on the street. 5. "Nowadays people don't really care about others. Although everybody knows an obvious etiquette not to smoke when surrounded by many people, a large number of smokers don't seem to care so much about it. " Response: Private places are generally more densely populated than public ones. Imagine 10 smokers dispersed evenly through a public park versus the same 10 packed into a small, private building that traps the smoke in and suffocates everyone inside (smokers and non-smokers alike) until someone opens the door. As such, that argument furthers my point instead of yours. 6. "Smoking SHOULD be banned in public areas, because it cause many problems for non-smokers and the environment. " Response: I think there has been a misunderstanding in the way you've interpreted my initial argument. Banning smoking in public areas is actually going to cause MORE problems for non-smokers and make absolutely no difference to the environment. For those many reasons outlined in my responses, I deny that smoking in public should be banned. ;)