My personal opinion on banning public smoking has not changed because I still believe that public smoking should not be banned.
Some specific research sources and statistics I used that helped justify my opinion was the graphs and information I have gathered from a reliable book, Smoking by Lila Gano. The graph showed that many people involved with the tobacco industry rely on the sales of cigarettes very much (Gano, 1989, pp. 39-40). Also, over 100.2 billion cigarettes were exported to 109 nations in 1987 mostly to Japan, Belgium, Hong Kong, and Saudi Arabia(Gano, 1989, pp. 43). These informations allowed me to justify my opinions by realizing that cigarettes are important to farmers because if the sales on tobacco are low, they are not able to pay the loans so the government also losses from tobacco loans. Also, according to the site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13569976/ns/health-addictions/ , if public smoking is banned it will increase the risk of lung and heart disease for non-smokers by 30%. The reason behind this fact is that there is no where for smokers to smoke but inside their own houses. This will lead families with relatives that smoke to have a negative affect on the family relationship and health. According to one of the sources the opposite groups used, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/should-cities-ban-smoking-in-public-places/, “the Boston Public Health Commission will consider a sweeping ban on tobacco consumption, which would end the city’s four remaining cigar bars”(Should Cities Ban Smoking, 2008). Also it stated that, “reducing adult smoking may eliminate role models who lead children to light up” (Should Cities Ban Smoking, 2008). Though, it will be harder to reduce the number of adult smokers if public smoking is banned because they’re desire to smoke will increase since they will have limited areas to smoke and it will be hard for the smokers to stop smoking if they have another family member that smokes in their house. From this site, I personally think that it is not very reliable so my opinion on public banning is not affected very much.
There were many things that have been said in the actual debate that helped justify my opinion. One member from the other team, Maggie, stated that smoking causes damage to the environment. This is not wrong but if they care about the environment so much, they should worry about car fumes since they release more carbon monoxide than cigarettes do. My opinion was strengthened by my teammates, Natacha’s statements. Natacha supported my opinion when she talked about how many workers who smoke will become more stressed out if they cannot smoke anywhere they want to. Also, Natacha said that almost 70% Chinese males are smokers. This means that if public smoking is banned in China, only 30% men will benefit from it. Also, Natacha said that the risk for non-smokers to get heart and lung disease will increase by 30% if they are in the same room as the smoker. This justifies how it will increase risks for some disease for the non-smokers that are under the same roof as the smoker than being in the public where people smoke.
In a nutshell, this debate had strengthened my opinion on how public smoking should not be banned because many smokers will loose their freedom to smoke in public and there will be an increase in heart and lung disease for non smokers.