Smokers' Rights

Thank you for a quick response. :)" Likewise. "My opponent begins by pointing out that already existing facilities could add special smoker sections in order to segregate them from the non-smokers. However, as mentioned in the previous round, cost is an issue. Even just to renovate a home costs thousands of dollars(http://www.ontariocontractors.com......). Adding to and restructuring every public facility would not be very cost efficient although more so than building new facilities altogether. Regardless, both options would cost massive amounts of money and it would just be way more practical to enact specific laws against smoking in public places." That was one solution to get smokers and non-smokers both willing to go to the same place. Of course I also support individual buildings have their own policy, but do not support the government making any laws on the subject. If a place is non-smoking only it should have a sign, the government should not dictate who can smoke and when and where. Places may not let people smoke in them, places may refuse to sell to someone for any reason, but the government should have no say. If a place is smoker friendly then a sign should be optional, and would be in good taste if it was a place you wouldn't expect someone to smoke at like McDonald's. If a place is or is not smoker friendly those hurt by that policy have choices. Like with McDonald's they can choose to suck it up for the 15 minutes, or they can go through the drive thru, or they could even make a petition requesting change of policy. I don't see what is wrong with that. "Secondly, the health of people, especially children exposed to second-hand smoke was an issue. Banning smoking in vehicles with children is a particular issue, with the second-hand smoke being 27 times more toxic than that in a home(http://www.guardian.co.uk......). As mentioned in the previous round, this smoke can lead to many health problems and the smoke exposure in vehicles is more severe thus leading to a higher risk. As for homes, there is a simple solution to that. The parents can smoke outside while the children are inside the house and vice versa. Most parents who smoke already do that anyway so it would be very little change for them." How much more harm does smoking cause then walking down the street with all those cars? Anyway I am not arguing that it is right to smoke outside rather than in, that is in fact my exact stance. I am arguing against the smokers having to hide in their house to smoke because they can't even smoke in their front yard. Smoking inside the home can lead to the chemicals being left behind, and is counter productive and should not be forced on anyone, especially those with children and/or pets, or those that have children/guests and/or animals in the house often. Everyone should be able to choose for themselves to smoke or not smoke where they please, but to also be informed and have a say about those that smoke around them. Banning smoking in vehicles with children would be difficult because it is hard for a police officer to know if someone has a child in the car, or if the person is smoking without having the window open. Because it would be hard to tell more smokers would smoke with the windows up to avoid being caught increasing the risk to the children; it would be counter productive. "Thanks again for an interesting debate!" No problem, it was a pleasure debating with you, and I urge voters to vote fairly.