Smoking in Public Areas Should Be Banned

Thank you for your arguments. I will now begin by analyzing my opponent's points, and then build upon my own. My opponent stated that: "Many people smoke in those area's and which if banned, cause a protest." Protests are not guaranteed, especially for something so small and justifiable like this. It is not in private areas like in front of shops or on people's properties, this is public areas like National Monuments and in front of malls. I hardly think that people will cause a protest for this ban because of the reasoning behind it. Furthermore, I do not believe that the opposition represents the entire population of smoker's when he/she says a protest would start. One cannot assume that every smoker would be against this ban. My opponent then went on to say: "It doesn't discourage smokers to quit." Yes, that is exactly what I said in my first statements. Smokers will want to quit from this. Isn't that a good thing? "Think of enforcing this ban." How is this relevant at all? You would enforce it like any other ban. We are here to discuss whether or not it should be banned, not the effectiveness of law enforcement. Now to build upon my own points. Second-hand smoking is becoming an increasingly prevalent problem in places all over the world. People smoke in inappropriate or crowded areas, and the fumes expunged by the cigarettes are inevitably inhaled by a non-smoker. This is a serious problem because it discourages people for walking near the smokers (due to the bad smell) and because it causes serious, often times lethal health problems. Smoking is know to cause cancer. However, what most people are not aware of is that the carcinogens from their smoke can be absorbed by others around them. For example, a person who is constantly around smokers but doesn't smoke themselves is at serious risk for developing health issues like cancer. To quote my source: "Secondhand smoke (SHS) is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC " a branch of the World Health Organization). " "Non-smokers who breathe in SHS( second hand smoke) take in nicotine and toxic chemicals by the same route smokers do. The more SHS you breathe, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body." It is an undeniable fact that second-hand smoking exists and that it causes cancer at the same rate as regular smokers. How is this fair to non-smokers, especially in a public area? Is the opposition really suggesting that we should expose our citizens to lethal carcinogens every time they take the bus? Let smokers poison our children with harmful toxins? This is extremely ridiculous and backwards logic. Less smoking in public areas = less cancer, and the numbers prove it. Numbers do not lie. Here are the numbers I am talking about: "An estimated 42,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults Worse asthma and asthma-related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year " So, it would be more beneficial to society if smoking was banned in public areas than if it were to continue. Sources: http://www.cancer.org... http://www.who.int... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www1.umn.edu... The proposition firmly stands by its statement that smoking in public areas should be banned.