What are your opinions on a comprehensive smoking ban?

[Lan(r)12]

The situation is quite complex. Im more focused on the aspect of a mandatory smoking ban in all businesses, even if the business owner and/or property owner is against said measures.

 

If a property/business owner wants to allow smoking, isn't it their choice to do so? If they want to ban it, isn't it their choice to do so?

 

Wouldn't a smoking ban be somewhat totalitarian legislation in that smoking is a legal act/product?

 

I believe that the person who owns the estabilishment should decide whether or not they want to allow this on their premises.

If the government chooses a ban for their buildings, so be it.

 

I also think, for health purposes, that smoking shouldn't be allowed in medical facilities.

 

What do you all think? Please explain your position, thanks.

[GutZ]

I enjoy pushing buttons...I find it orgasmic. I Just quit smoking so my opinion is biased. I start at 13 and M a 25 years old now so that's quite some time.

 

All I know is that people who complain about it are usually hypocrites.

 

It should be up to the owner, as long as they warn about the enviroment, I see no issue. I live in Canada though and pretty much all buildings except your house and some apartments don't allow you to smoke indoors.

 

I am cool with that. Outside is good for me. If people don't like it....tough.

[Lan(r)12]

thanks for your input GutZ

[the tree]

I'm very much in the "what the hell is so hard about going outside for a few minutes?" camp, although I occasionaly concede to "it's really cold out can't I just lean out the window?".

 

If a property/business owner wants to allow smoking, isn't it their choice to do so? If they want to ban it, isn't it their choice to do so?

If you're going to have a law - it has to be applied consitently.

 

Wouldn't a smoking ban be somewhat totalitarian legislation in that smoking is a legal act/product?

It's only legal up until it's banned - just like every other drug. It's really no worse than the existing bans - not to mention that smoking is a lot more harmful than a lot of banned drugs.

 

I believe that the person who owns the estabilishment should decide whether or not they want to allow this on their premises.

This works only if you don't consider the duty of care that a buisness owner has towards it's customers - they can't for instance decide whether they want to allow aspetos in thier building or not, or whether they want lead in thier paint.

 

I also think, for health purposes, that smoking shouldn't be allowed in medical facilities.

Medical facilities aren't the only place that you get sick people - they need to go shopping, go to work (to an extent), ride the bus and que in the post office just like everyone else.

 

Actually medical facilities raise an interesting issue: if someone is being kept in a mental asylum - is it really fair to impose a smoking ban on them when they will already be under mental strain?

[Kaeroll]

I'm in favour of it being banned in all public environments. I'm not overly interested in arguments for and against; for me it boils down to not wanting to have a coughing fit when some inconsiderate ass blows smoke in my face in the street. Comes with the asthma.

[The Bear's Key]

Yes, but only in environments where people must travel to get to destinations.

 

For example, bus stations, malls (to other stores), hospitals (to patients), correctional facilites indoors, lobbies, hallways, buildings with lots of different offices, etc.

 

But to tell a restaurant owner its customers are forbidden to smoke, totally nincompoop idea and policy. Especially in bars, I mean common -- you're already drinking.

 

I don't mind people smoking around me (cigs or herbage) even though I'm a non-smoker. In my face would be unwanted, otherwise the government needs to make a way smarter policy.

[Psycho]

 

But to tell a restaurant owner its customers are forbidden to smoke, totally nincompoop idea and policy. Especially in bars, I mean common -- you're already drinking.

Yes, but your not forcing everyone else to drink with you.

[Mr Skeptic]

To ban smoking would be a terrible idea. What we have now is far more effective than a ban, and a ban would simply be counterproductive and impossible. Smoking is now uncool and expensive and I understand is declining rapidly. A ban would give it the allure of illegality, and would end the taxes and regulation we have now, cost a fortune to enforce, and could have a high human cost depending on how it is enforced. Edit: and would contribute to crime and the black market.

 

If a ban on smoking is desired, the way to get there is by progressive un-cooling of smoking, not with a blanket ban. But it should probably be the property owner's choice whether to allow smoking or not, IMO, and the same goes with marijuana and other drugs.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[The Bear's Key]

Mr Skeptic is correct. We should learn from Prohibition.

 

Yes, but your not forcing everyone else to drink with you.

You have the choice of entering a smokey bar or restaurant. I forgot to include another exception I'm OK with, though.

 

If a city or area is lacking in similar business, thus giving people little choice but to enter the smoking place, then I can support a restriction. But if you have many choices, why not let business decide if they want to attract smokers and potentially lose customers who don't smoke?

 

Businesses might be required to hang a "smoking" visibly. But what's the point of that, even? It doesn't hurt someone to ask if the place is non-smoking.

 

Lastly, food and smoking have practically gone together hand-in-hand for enough people that it's a shame to rob them of the pleasure when dining out. They must have a place to enjoy the vice, without being inconvenienced especially all the clientelle in the restaraunt were smokers (or at least OK with it enough to dine there).

 

Yes, but your not forcing everyone else to drink with you.

However, everyone is drinking.

[Psycho]

You have the choice of entering a smokey bar or restaurant. I forgot to include another exception I'm OK with, though.

Not really considering one person smoking makes the whole bar smokey and in every bar at least one person would be unless it was banned.

If a city or area is lacking in similar business, thus giving people little choice but to enter the smoking place, then I can support a restriction.

So every place in the world then...Especially if you are drinking as you will just forget whether or not you can smoke in a particular bar.

 

Lastly, food and smoking have practically gone together hand-in-hand for enough people that it's a shame to rob them of the pleasure when dining out.

Well they will most like enjoy the food better now they can taste it properly.

 

However, everyone is drinking.

No their not, I know plenty of people who don't drink who will come out to a bar and play pool or watch football.

 

You seem to be basing your whole argument on the premise that if the majority of people want to kill themselves then the rest of the people should just shut up and die along with them.

[iNow]

I'd say unless you are in your home, outside, or in a smoking zone (heck, maybe even a smoking-based establishment like a head shop... that'd be fine) then it should be banned. They did exactly that in my city, and there was all this outcry about freedom and harm to business at the bars downtown. It was all rubbish. People just stepped outside to smoke, and the rest of us are happier and healthier for it, and businesses barely even saw a blip on any of their financials.

 

Now, back when I was a smoker, I'd have been pissed... but, I've quit, and I must say that the bans make life better for everyone.

 

 

Well, the smokers may feel like second class citizens, but if the shame and ostracism helps their health and decreases my insurance premiums, then I'm okay with that.

[The Bear's Key]

So every place in the world then...

Nope. Big cities have tons of restaurants.

 

Especially if you are drinking as you will just forget whether or not you can smoke in a particular bar.

Then have businesses be required to hang a "smoking" note visibly if they allow the practice.

 

Well they will most like enjoy the food better now they can taste it properly.

Bad argument that could lead into other cultural vices not good for you being taken away by lack of foresight and respect for others' personal health decisions.

 

No their not, I know plenty of people who don't drink who will come out to a bar and play pool or watch football.

True enough. I've done so myself. But if the smoke bothered me, I'd stay home, not expect others to cater to my will.

 

You seem to be basing your whole argument on the premise that if the majority of people want to kill themselves then the rest of the people should just shut up and die along with them.

How so, when I specifically mentioned the areas where people have to go through (to reach a destination) as off-limits for smoking?

 

Well, the smokers may feel like second class citizens, but if the shame and ostracism helps their health and decreases my insurance premiums, then I'm okay with that.

Same response. This bad argument could lead into other enjoyed vices not good for you being excessively restricted and then outlawed.

[iNow]

Same response. This bad argument could lead into other enjoyed vices not good for you being excessively restricted and then outlawed.

Well, my actual argument is much better, so I'm not too worried.

Their choice is killing me if I'm any where in the vicinity.

 

I'm not okay with that. I'm not okay with their choice killing my friends, and I'm not okay with their choice killing the strangers in the area.

 

If they want to slowly kill themselves, then so be it, but the impacts on my health are real and measurable, and hence the support for a ban is relevant and real.

[coke]

Well the only reason why smoking wouldn't be allowed is the pollution- however pollution outside is much larger from cars and their exhaust- gasoline doesn't exactly burn very clean either and can make just as bad second hand smoke.

 

So, I disagree iNow. The pollution from cars is much larger and the combustion occurs at high temperature and creates several nitrogen oxides which are much more poisionous.

 

There is really nothing from secondhand smoke that's not in that type of pollution. What are you afraid of, 0.001 mg nicotine you accidently inhale when walking by a smoker? Is it going to get you addicted?

Edited April 7, 2009 by coke

[iNow]

Well, I smoked cigarettes for over a decade, and I've now quit them for good. I'm not too worried about second hand smoke making me addicted... Frankly, that's just stupid.

 

Plus, I smoke nice cigars a few times per month, so it's not like I'm some anti-smoking nazi.

 

 

Anyway, secondhand smoke... The harm is real and measurable, and I'm not looking to prevent you from smoking, just prevent you from doing so near me, my family, my friends, and all of those strangers who shouldn't have to be impacted by YOUR personal choice:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=health+impact+of+second+hand+smoke&spell=1

[The Bear's Key]

People, do we really want to step across that line? What of concerts being too loud for people with sensitive ears? Or in a bar where the entertainment is a loud band?

 

Next we'll get a nice dose of harmful movies we shouldn't allow because they *cause* violence and mental craziness. And same for video games that might affect innocent bystanders.

 

Then you got car stereos or people with music outdoors, which might intrude on the sensibilities of those who can't stand the godawful and *malignant* content.

 

Go ahead, open the can of worms. Guaranteed you won't like the contents.

 

If they want to slowly kill themselves, then so be it, but the impacts on my health are real and measurable, and hence the support for a ban is relevant and real.

My proposal covers that. In areas where people must travel to reach a destination, it's off-limits for smoking. And in restaurants/businesses where it's allowed, require a "smoking" note tacked prominently.

 

There's a way to do things smartly, and a way to royally screw it up by unforeseen dominoes crashing into other areas of everyone's lives.

[coke]

I think the poll results are fair- no smoking in public streets but in any building, it is the propery owner's right to decide...

 

Sorry for my outburst, Inow, I really did get the impression you're an anti-smoking nazi... should have read the post before where you said you used to smoke...

 

I smoke very little, no more than a couple cigarettes a day... but if you are only allowed to smoke in your house, you won't be able to show off how cool you are when you have a smoke in a public place... (lol, no just kidding)

 

It does bother me how it really shortens your respiratory endurance while running, but come on at this age who runs anyways?

 

I think really smoking bans are just so you don't like stand there and blow smoke in people's faces, or everybody having to smell your smoke at a restaurant...

[Kaeroll]

People, do we really want to step across that line? What of concerts being too loud for people with sensitive ears? Or in a bar where the entertainment is a loud band?

 

Next we'll get a nice dose of harmful movies we shouldn't allow because they *cause* violence and mental craziness. And same for video games that might affect innocent bystanders.

 

Then you got car stereos or people with music outdoors, which might intrude on the sensibilities of those who can't stand the godawful and *malignant* content.

 

Go ahead, open the can of worms. Guaranteed you won't like the contents.

You're making unfair comparisons. Violent media have never been shown to cause "violence and mental craziness" in an otherwise normal individual; passive smoking has been shown to cause harm, regardless of what the tobacco industry wants us to think.

 

Concerts are likewise a different story. I went to my favourite Italian restaurant a couple of years ago on Valentine's day, and it was absolutely rammed. The woman at the table next to me lit up and the smoke blew over my face and food. I didn't consent to that by entering the restaurant; going to a concert, you explicitly consent to being exposed to loud noises, and any sane regular concert-goer buys earplugs. I don't know of the equivalent protection for the lungs.

 

I don't think this is a 'can of worms' unless you want to be an asshole about it.

[YT2095]

here in the UK, you`re allowed to burn rubbish in your back garden anytime you like, and Nov 5`th almost every street has at least 2 bonfires going and fireworks.

 

I`ll put 30 seconds of a bonfire and a handful of fireworks against a Years worth of my pipe smoke!

I prefer smoking outside anyway, and if I did want a nicotine hit whilst indoors I have a small tin of snuff in my waistcoat pocket that does the job perfectly

 

the Pollution argument is a Joke!

[GutZ]

Well, I smoked cigarettes for over a decade, and I've now quit them for good. I'm not too worried about second hand smoke making me addicted... Frankly, that's just stupid.

 

Plus, I smoke nice cigars a few times per month, so it's not like I'm some anti-smoking nazi.

 

 

Anyway, secondhand smoke... The harm is real and measurable, and I'm not looking to prevent you from smoking, just prevent you from doing so near me, my family, my friends, and all of those strangers who shouldn't have to be impacted by YOUR personal choice:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=health+impact+of+second+hand+smoke&spell=1

 

 

 

Do you drive a car?

 

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4739269&q=health+impact+of+car+exhaust&uid=1222770

 

 

So yeah if you could like stop using it around other people....that would be great. I know walking everywhere would be hard but....I don't care about you or any of your concerns....just mine. Thanks.

Edited April 7, 2009 by GutZ

[Lan(r)12]

Well, I smoked cigarettes for over a decade, and I've now quit them for good. I'm not too worried about second hand smoke making me addicted... Frankly, that's just stupid.

 

Plus, I smoke nice cigars a few times per month, so it's not like I'm some anti-smoking nazi.

 

 

Anyway, secondhand smoke... The harm is real and measurable, and I'm not looking to prevent you from smoking, just prevent you from doing so near me, my family, my friends, and all of those strangers who shouldn't have to be impacted by YOUR personal choice:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=health+impact+of+second+hand+smoke&spell=1

 

Actually, according to an article published in the British Medical Journal, SHS isnt half as deadly as everyone thinks it is. The EPA study that said it was has been vacated by the US Courts, by a federal judge.

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

 

Thats the article that found NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION between SHS and some illnesses everyone believes they cause.

 

And no one is ever forced to go into a smoking allowed store. So why should the store be forced to change? If the smoking allowed thing becomes so detrimental to their profits, they WILL change their policy, thats the beauty of capitalism. This change will come naturally. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. This was demonstrated in the '20s.

 

And cars DO emit infinitely more deadly fumes than a carton of cigarettes ever could, and they are also contributing to the killing of Global Dimming (i think)...which isnt good.

 

If cars are allowed to foul up the air we breathe, the less deadly cigarettes should be able to as well, logically speaking.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

here in the UK, you`re allowed to burn rubbish in your back garden anytime you like, and Nov 5`th almost every street has at least 2 bonfires going and fireworks.

 

I`ll put 30 seconds of a bonfire and a handful of fireworks against a Years worth of my pipe smoke!

I prefer smoking outside anyway, and if I did want a nicotine hit whilst indoors I have a small tin of snuff in my waistcoat pocket that does the job perfectly

 

the Pollution argument is a Joke!

 

 

Good Lord, my sentiments exactly.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Do you drive a car?

 

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4739269&q=health+impact+of+car+exhaust&uid=1222770

 

 

So yeah if you could like stop using it around other people....that would be great. I know walking everywhere would be hard but....I don't care about you or any of your concerns....just mine. Thanks.

 

Excellent GutZ, excellent

 

*rubs hands* Yes, dance puppets, dance.

[iNow]

If the only argument you've got in your favor is that I drive a car, so I should be okay with another source of cancer being pushed on me by others, then you're going to fail. It's that simple. It's a stupid argument, and so is the argument that the "finances and profits are going to suffer" as my own city has amply proven when it implemented its ban on smoking in public places. Counter intuitively, many businesses are doing better because people don't avoid them and their smoke-filled environment anymore.

 

ALL data favors the ban, and the only thing opposing it is personal addiction, disregard for others, and slippery slope arguments.

 

Sorry guys. Not good enough, and if you can't do better, I'd suggest you move along and accept it.

[insane_alien]

I'm in favour of it being banned in public buildings (and that ban is in place in the UK ) but i think it should be optional to maybe provide a smoking room of some sort as the current situation leads to a choking cloud of fumes and coughing smokers at every office doorway.

 

another option is to simply outlaw tobacco. Edit: not that his will stop it. just look at every other illegal drug as a case study

[Lan(r)12]

Outlawing tobacco would devastate my state's (Kentucky) economy as well as those surrounding it.

 

Right now, tobacco is the only cash crop that is applicable in our states.

If the government outlaws tobacco, they should provide subsidies that would allow us to purchase new quipment to raise different crops and such. Most city people dont even think about these things when they scream for prohibition.

 

It would cost WAYYYY over 100,000 dollars to currently change operations...if the taxpayers would be willing to foot the bill, we would gladly change to soybeans or something in that nature.

 

And iNow, those arguments are perfectly valid. Just because you don't agree with them doesnt make them wrong.

Every time you use your AC or heater, fumes from otehr cars are coming in as your car uses air form OUTSIDE.

There are no filters of any sort. Yet that us ok with you?

 

The Logic is:

If you are ok with driving a deadly gas spewing machine, you should have no problem sitting in the vicinity of smoke.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Lan(r)12

[iNow]

And if I'm not okay with driving a deadly gas spewing vehicle, and so don't? What then? I say again... That argument is weak, and as a general rule, when I disagree with an argument it's precisely because it's wrong.