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

I see that Con has forfeited this round. Extending my points from the previous round, I have a few more points to add: 5. To protect the health of citizens Drifting tobacco smoke, even outdoors, can trigger asthmatic attacks, bronchial infections, and other serious health problems in nonsmokers. This is especially true for the almost 100 million Americans who have asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, emphysema, and other breathing- related conditions which make them especially susceptible to secondhand tobacco smoke. Due to this, we have to ban smoking in public areas so as to avoid harming the health and threatening the life of innocent others. Smoking harms not only the smoker but also non-smokers, possibly in lethal ways, such as due to asthma attacks. Even for people without respiratory conditions, breathing drifting tobacco smoke for even brief periods can be deadly. For example, the Centers for Disease Controls (CD)] has warned that breathing drifting tobacco smoke for as little as 30 minutes ( less than the time one might be exposed outdoors on a beach, sitting on a park bench, listening to a concert in a park, etc.) can raise a nonsmoker"s risk of suffering a fatal heart attack to that of a smoker. The danger is even greater for those who are already at an elevated risk for coronary problems, such as men over 40 and postmenopausal women, anyone who is obese, has diabetes, a personal or family history of heart or circulatory conditions, gets insufficient exercise, has high blood pressure, cholesterol, etcetera. Smoking in public threatens and endangers the health of a lot of other innocent people. 6. The rights of non-smokers Society recognizes that people have a right not to be involuntarily exposed to known carcinogenic substances, even if only to small amounts and for brief periods. That"s why, for example, extensive and very expensive precautions are taken when asbestos ( a mineral fiber that occurs in rock and soil which increases the risk of developing lung cancer, mesothelioma and other lung diseases) is removed from buildings. This insures that people outside are not exposed even to minute amounts as they pass by, and so their health will not be threatened by such dangerous substances. Similarly, we would not tolerate someone who filed down old brake drums in a playground, thereby releasing even tiny amounts of asbestos into the air. Second-hand smoke is officially classified by the federal government as a "known human carcinogen", which is exactly the same category as asbestos. Health hazards put aside, being forced to breathe smoke is annoying and irritating to most people, especially when around 100 million Americans who have chronic conditions like asthma and bronchitis, which make them especially susceptible to smoke; and young children who are also especially sensitive. The irritation may cause coughing, watery eyes, etceteras, but overall, discomfort, whether major or minor. It should be noted that many activities are banned in public places simply because they are annoying or irritating, even if they do not pose a health hazard. Common examples include playing loud music on portable radios or boom boxes, engaging in sexually provocative activity, using profanity, dressing in inappropriately scanty attire, etcetera. 7. To improve the cleanliness of the area Cigarette butts discarded by smokers constitute the overwhelming majority of litter on beaches, as well as in many other public places like parks, playgrounds, and sidewalks. Smoking bans have been shown to substantially reduce the litter and therefore the costs of cleaning up beaches and other outdoor areas, as well as to improve the overall appearance and attractiveness of the area. A beach without smokers or cigarette butts lying around would attract a lot more tourists and business than a beach where smoke drifted around and cigarette butts were stubbed into the sand. 8. To set a good example for the younger generation Activities and images which might be inappropriate for young children and/or which might lead them into bad habits are often prohibited in public places, even if they pose no health risk and might even be appropriate in areas visited voluntarily only by adults. For example, scenes of an extremely violent nature cannot be broadcast publicly on a big screen outside a mall. These bans are imposed because watching such violent videos set a bad example for young children to see it done openly. Similarly, prohibiting smoking in outdoor places frequented by the public, public areas such as like parks, playgrounds, beaches, etcetera " shields young children from seeing smoking as a common adult behavior to be emulated, even if some may observe smoking by the parents and other adults in private homes. Other examples where activities are prohibited in public places because of their possible impact on children include gambling (permitted in casinos and tracks but not in public places) and displays of pictorial nudity (permitted in art galleries but not on sidewalks). Smoking bans have been used as measures in many countries due to the aforementioned reasons. Partial or total smoking bans are currently implemented in Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Singapore, etcetera. These countries or regions are all technologically developed and smoking bans have lasted for quite some time in those places (e.g. 10 years in New Zealand). This proves that smoking bans do work and that they are worth it. I hope Con does not forfeit the next round and I look forward to seeing his/her points. References: Secondhand Smoke Poses Heart Attack Risk, CDC Warns, Washington Post, April 23, 2004 Vital and Health Statistics: Current Estimates From the National Health Survey (1994) Pechacek, and Babb, "How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of secondhand smoke?" "The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004 Ventura, S.J., Mosher, W.D., Curtin, S.C., Abma, J.C., Henshaw, S. "Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: Estimates for the United States," 1976"96. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics 2000;21(56). http://www.michigan.gov... http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov... The Health Effects of Passive Smoking, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (11/97) http://www.who.int... "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders." Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development http://www2.epa.gov... http://www.recordonline.com... Carney, Smoking Bans Catching on at California Beaches, Boston Globe, April 19, 2004 Some Fume Over Smoking on Beaches, Orlando Sentinel Tribune Beach Smoking Ban Urged to Protect Sealife, The Observer Penn State Cigarette Litter Costs, Philadelphia Daily News Lake Group Seeks Smoking Ban, Chicago Sun- Times Outdoor Smoking May be Next on Restricted List, Researchers Say, University of Toronto News