Should We Ban Public Smoking

Introduction: I don't understand the format at all, so I'm just going to try to follow along. My opponent said the first round was just for questions and clarifications, but posted the transcript of a lengthy speech on the topic of the debate. The speech is directly pertinent to the argument, so after I make my clarifications I am going to discuss it briefly. Clarifications: First, I would like some clarification as to whether a public place means government owned property, like parks and city buildings, or whether this also includes private property that is open to the public, such as grocery stores and restaurants. The speech seems to imply that restaurants are included but I want to be sure. Second, I want to establish what that this debate is not about. It's not about whether or not smoking is beneficial to the individual. It's not. This debate is about whether we should ban smoking from public places. Remember that to ban smoking is to prevent people from smoking and to punish them in some way for doing so. It is meaningless to say that something is "not allowed" in a abstract sense. It is "not allowed" in the sense that people have deemed it not allowed and back up their statement of prohibition with a credible threat of physical enforcement. Comment on Pro's Speech: Pro's speech is an favor of the banning of smoking all together. Most of his statements don't really needed to be addressed because banning smoking in public would not stop people from smoking in their own homes, and thus would not solve the problems caused by smoking to the healthy of individual smokers. The only relevant part of his speech is about smoking in restraurants. Well, restaurants are privately owned establishments. The owner of the restaurant has a right to determine whether or not people can smoke on his property. If you don't like the fact that a restaurant allows smoking, don't go there. It saves you the trouble of dealing with smoke and it hurts their business, which really is the most effective way you can get a business to change its policies. Second hand smoke is mainly a risk for people who live with people who smoke indoors. In outdoor areas where smoke is not contained, second hand smoke can be avoided simply by not standing next to smokers. You are unlikely to inhale smoke for more than a few seconds. If you're going to worry about this incredibly slight damage you might as well sue people for bumping in to you. My opponent's extrapolation from statastics about damage from restaurants assumes that you always go to a restruant that allows smoking and you breath in second hand smoke the entire time you're there. I hate second hand smoke, so I avoid restaurants that allow smoking and I don't sit near people who smoke. Also, the statistics on second hand smoking assume that damage from it to lifespan correlates linearly with exposure. I think it's much more plausible that damage from small exposure is negligible and it increases exponentially for those who live with smokers and inhale lots of second hand smoke. So, second hand smoke can be avoided almost entirely and it dangerous only to those who are chronically exposed. Breathing in second hand smoke for one minute (which is a long time to stand around a smoker if you don't like it) will have absolutely no long term affects. This incredibly minor risk is not enough to justify forcibly restricting the right of smokers to do what they want with their own bodies and property.