Recently, the state I live in has decided to put a ban on smoking, making it illegal to smoke in all public areas (restaurants, movie theatres, etc).
The group that supported the law is now trying to make it illegal to smoke in your car with children under 18.
We (I don't smoke though) can't even smoke in country club bar rooms.
I personally think it's a bit intense, seeing as how a LOT of people I know smoke.
Thoughts?
I fully expect smoking to be completely & totally illegal anywhere and everywhere in the United States within the next 5 years.
Not even in your own home, even if you don't have kids, or pets, or plants, etc... even if you're in a small, completely enclosed, hermetically-sealed box so that nobody except you has to breathe cigarette smoke. 
And I also expect the penalty for "prohibited smoking" to be stiffer and/or more costly than the penalty for drug possession or D.U.I.
Smokers are becoming the new environmental & health-conscious culture's scapegoats.
Virginia's the same way, vita.
Ban smoking, because it's so horrible and affects everyone around the person smoking... then build hundreds of housing developments all across the state so more people with more cars can cram the highways and add lots more pollution. 
First off let me state that I AM a smoker. I agree that it's a filthy, unhealthy habit and am constantly trying to quit.
Ok, now that that's out of the way, here's my problem with smoking bans - They are IMMORAL and UNETHICAL.
If the US were to make smoking illegal, PERIOD, I would GLADLY support this ban, but the fact remains that it IS legal, and will remain legal for a long long time. Just look at the money it generates for the government. That in itself is the primary reason it's still legal.
Now as far as specific smoking bans, such as restaurants, etc... this is just wrong. The government needs to keep their hands out of this all together and let the local markets dictate smoking policies. I've NEVER seen a problem with smokers in a non-smoking establishment (even when it's not technically illegal).. it just doesn't happen. If a specific restaurant wants to make themselves a non-smoking establishment, hey that's great! They've obviously realized a marketing need to do so, and if they get more customers as a result, well more power to them.
However on the flip side, if a restaurant CHOOSES to be smoker-friendly... and somebody does not want to be exposed to that atmosphere, then they should simply NOT VISIT that facility. As smoking becomes more and more taboo in this culture, you'll find that the number of smoker friendly establishments will continue to decline.
Recently, in a town near me they passed a similar ban on a one year "trial" basis... and after a year, the public DID NOT renew the law... so once again it's legal to smoke there again. I would support a law making it illegal to smoke in a "non-smoking establishment" and maybe even require restaurants, etc. to put up a NO SMOKING sign in their front window... or maybe even a SMOKER FRIENDLY sign to educate patrons on what to expect, but in all honesty I've never seen that to be a problem, hence no need to put it into law.
When it comes to smoking around children... well I have mixed feelings about that. Personally I feel that studies tend to over-hype the dangers of second hand smoke, and I don't feel a 30 minute car ride with someone who has one or two cigarettes is going to cause any long term health problems... unless they are constantly exposed to those conditions. I would hope that people were ethical enough not to smoke around small children, especially in small, cramped non-ventilated areas... but as far as making it illegal... well it makes sense, but it's pushing the boundaries.
What would be next? Making it illegal to eat red meat around children... as they may learn bad eating habits... How about making it illegal to pass gas near people, as the scent may be offensive... Or requiring all toxic substances to be kept locked so the children won't accidentally ingest some and get hurt....
Once you open this can of worms, EVERYONE gives up some freedoms, whether they are smokers or not. I think this whole anti-smoking law thing is just a trend, as I'm already seeing it starting to lose support.
This is a real simple message to the government though... bite the bullet and either make smoking legal or illegal... and let economics dictate what happens next.
I say smokers wanted to smoke in public should wear a bubble helmet where the smoke doesn't affect others. you damn smokers!
I say non smokers should be legally forced to stay at least 5 miles away from any given smoker at any given time.
Or, we could also try and think of something that might work.
I can't even stand the smell of the smoke and even a smoker..It makes my stomach hurt...damn that smell
| bluefossil wrote: |
| I say smokers wanted to smoke in public should wear a bubble helmet where the smoke doesn't affect others. you damn smokers! |
| polarBear wrote: |
I say non smokers should be legally forced to stay at least 5 miles away from any given smoker at any given time.
Or, we could also try and think of something that might work. |
| creezalird wrote: |
| I can't even stand the smell of the smoke and even a smoker..It makes my stomach hurt...damn that smell |
Unfortunately for smokers, I used to be one, these are common attitudes to smoking and smokers these days, totaly unrealistic and uninformed over-reaction.
A smoker waliking along a street is not going to produce enough smoke to affect anyone for more than a fraction of a second as they pass by, and if you are that worried then don't inhale as they pass.
Problem is, what about all the vehicle and factory pollution that we all breath every day. This pollution has become so bad that it threatens our environment and yet governments are making smoking into a bigger issue.
I wonder why?
Could it be to divert attention from the real problems of real polution?
I grew up in a home with a smoking father, doesn't seem to have done me any harm. I smoked for 8 years myself, but gave up nearly a year ago because I found I didn't bother eating enough when I smoked, if I was hungry I'd just light up another cigarette and keep working thinking "I'll eat later" I was constantly 2 or 3 kilo's under weight since I stopped I have put on 3 or 4 kilos and I look healthier because of that.
When I retire I will probably take up smoking again, I enjoy it and I don't care much about the health issues as I will probably die of old age before they catch up with me.
Alcohol has a much greater effect on society over a wide reaching scale of problems, from drunk driving to beating your wife, and complete in the gutter alcoholism.
Why is all the attention on smoking and almost none on alcohol?Agreed, paul_indo, especially the comments you made concerning alcohol and society's apparent acceptance of the lives lost & destroyed by it.
I know the above sentence rings cruel, but... well, it seems to be so.
Personally, I'm amazed that alcohol advertisements are back on television.
And pretty much every one I've seen is trying to appeal to young people, setting up a scenario of a party atmosphere with lots of beautiful people, sexual innuendo, good music and just an all-around great time... which drinking this flavored malt beverage will give you, you know.
I've never known anybody who smoked a few cigarettes (not pot, folks - just regular tobacco), then got behind the wheel of a car and killed a family of six.
I'm more concerned about sitting on a public toilet seat or being exposed to god-knows-what while sitting in a doctor's office than I am about being around somebody who smokes.
You usually can make the choice to move away from a smoker, or ask them politely to move away from you. Most people won't throw a hissy fit if they realize that their cigarette smoke is bothering you.
Whenever I'm out in public, I try to make a conscientious effort not to get around other people while I'm smoking.
And as far as the smell of cigarette smoke goes, well... I've smelled some perfume on women in the grocery store that truly made me wanna gag.
It seems to me that a lot of these obsessively health-conscious people have this attitude that the world around them is their exclusive property and that you should be burned at the stake if you do something that negatively affects their air/water/food, etc.
I've had several encounters with people who have gone out of their way to come over to me so they can breathe in the smoke from my cigarette, cough furiously, make a scene and loudly remind me that I'm personally responsible for destroying the environment and giving innocent people cancer.
Now, these are the same types of people who drive giant gas-guzzling SUV's while talking on their cellphones and weaving in & out of lanes on the highway, slurping down gallons of Starbuck's coffee and tossing the disposable cups out the window or in the trash. I don't smoke, but I think some of these laws are harsh towards smokers and some businesses. This hooka bar I went to once is not going to be a hooka bar anymore, and I don't know, it may even go out of business. People went there becuase of what it was. Anyway, I do think smoking is unhealthy, but I think it's a personal choice (as long as people are aware of its affects). Now people can't go to this place (A SMOKING PLACE, NOT ANY REGULAR BAR OR RESTAURANT) to get away. kind of sucks.
My city has been smoke free for something like 2 years now and my state just passed a smoking ban. I am somewhat in favor of smoking bans but with limitations.
As a child my mom was a 2 pack a day smoker and my dad was almost at 3 packs a day. I had chronic bronchitis and several health related issues that seemed to almost cease to exist when they stopped smoking. I myself have never started smoking because of this.
When I go out to eat at a restaurant I like the fact that I don't have to think about which restaurants are smoking and which aren't. I really don't like being around smokers when I am eating. However when I go out to the bar I have no problem going to a bar that has smokers, that is expected. I think that is really should be the establishments choice as to whether to offer smoking or not but I think there needs to be incentives for non-smoking establishments and some places like restaurants and schools that are definitely non-smoking.
As a kid my health was greatly effected by my parents' smoking as was their own health (mom died of cancer, dad had a triple bypass). I think it is extremely unethical to smoke that much around your child. It may not put their lives at risk but it does affect them. However I don't think that it should be something that should be made illegal.
Something that hasn't been brought up here is one of the reasons of most smoking bans. Not the customers but the employees of places like a bar that has a lot of smokers. Bartenders and waitresses that work in establishments where the patrons are constantly smoking can be exposed to 3, 4, 5 packs a day of second hand smoke. That is definitely detrimental to their health over time. It is true that they don't have to work there, but should their choices of places to employment be limited like that? Jobs are hard to find for a lot of people and non-smokers may be semi-forced to take a job in a smoke filled bar to pay their bills. Is it right to put them in that environment?
Smoking bans have in place here in Ireland for a while and it is so much more pleasant to go out at night and not come home stinking of smoke but as I am still quite young and go clubbing too there is a downside and that is that after about 5 years stuck in a sweaty club everyone tends to pong a bit.
Prohibition doesn't work and never has done so to ban smoking entirely would be foolish however it is perfectly acceptable to say that if you want to pollute yourself then go ahead but don't expect others to put up with it. I don't agree with smoking bans in wide open public spaces but in enclosed public spaces it should never have been allowed. Why is that the argument seems to be about smokers being denied their rights whilst the majority who do not smoke should have their right to smoke free environments should be ignored.
When it is an argument between two competing rights then it surely sensible to see who is most affected and it is clear that the right to not be polluted by second hand smoke which can significantly increase a persons chance of early death is more important than a smokers right to simply light up a public place when it would be much easier for them to go outside and light up if they need to.
I totally support the ban. but I just think some of the comments are very harsh. I know a lot of nice people who are smokers, they picked up smoking at very young age without really knowing what it is.
Imagine those 60, 70 year old who have been smoking for the most part of their lifes. It very difficult give up at this stage. If we banned it totally, it would be too difficult for them. They also have human rights.
Government should educate people from young age which is what we are doing. And we should do more on this. Perhaps enforcing stronger on selling the cigarettes to under age.
I don't think smoking should be made illegal except in non-smoking areas. Recently a law was put in my country with these black warnings of risk of smoking on half a pack ( usually called dead skulls because of the black and white color with all the stupidities written on them ) and personnaly I dont think it will help people stop smoking, just making it more unusual for people.
| AutoTechGuy wrote: |
First off let me state that I AM a smoker. I agree that it's a filthy, unhealthy habit and am constantly trying to quit.
Ok, now that that's out of the way, here's my problem with smoking bans - They are IMMORAL and UNETHICAL.
|
So how is it immoral and unethical? You still have the right to smoke in the privacy of your own house. Just not in the public where non-smokers have the right not breath in the toxins that are coming out of your cigarettes.
| Quote: |
When it comes to smoking around children... well I have mixed feelings about that. Personally I feel that studies tend to over-hype the dangers of second hand smoke, and I don't feel a 30 minute car ride with someone who has one or two cigarettes is going to cause any long term health problems... unless they are constantly exposed to those conditions. I would hope that people were ethical enough not to smoke around small children, especially in small, cramped non-ventilated areas... but as far as making it illegal... well it makes sense, but it's pushing the boundaries.
What would be next? Making it illegal to eat red meat around children... as they may learn bad eating habits... How about making it illegal to pass gas near people, as the scent may be offensive... Or requiring all toxic substances to be kept locked so the children won't accidentally ingest some and get hurt....
Once you open this can of worms, EVERYONE gives up some freedoms, whether they are smokers or not. I think this whole anti-smoking law thing is just a trend, as I'm already seeing it starting to lose support.
This is a real simple message to the government though... bite the bullet and either make smoking legal or illegal... and let economics dictate what happens next. |
Over hyping second hand smoke? I hardly consider lung cancer, heart disease along with lung disease over hyping.
When you are comparing eating red meat to smoke, you are comparing apples to oranges. Eating red meat does not effect the people around you. Smoking does. The lovely chemicals of formaldehyde, arsenic, cadmium, benzene, ethlyene oxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, methanol, hydrogen cyanide are floating in the air everyone breathes.
Perhaps you need to further your informational studies instead of listening to the tobacco makers propaganda of smokers rights instead of health. There are numerous amounts of studies done by the Mayo Clinic to Center for Disease Control and other various worldwide studies.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm
http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html
I'm all for you guys being able to smoke, but just do it where it doesn't effect anyone else.Just because you want to kill yourself doesn't mean that everyone else around feels the same way. I hate when people smoke around me, but I delt with it. Now, we these laws, I can't help but think "About time".
Not many states make it illegal to smoke in your car with someone less than 18, but if they start doing it, I hope my state follows. 18 might be a little extreme, but I want to bash people who smoke, with the windows up, and a baby in the car. That's just wrong.
Just because you don't want use wooden containers it doesn't mean those living close to plastic factories and oil refineries have to die of leukemia. Just because you don't want to walk to work it doesn't mean all of us have to breathe car exhaust's burnt oil smoke. Just because you want to decide what's better for me without asking me about it, doesn't mean I should do it.
See?
Any ban on smoking is ridiculous. Laws are here to protect rights. The argument for bans is that second-hand smoke somehow restricts someone's right to life. Following this logic:
Driving cars should be banned because people die in accidents.
Eating twinkies should be banned because of the rate of deaths due to heart disease.
Honestly, why don't we just restrict every possible freedom that causes some risk to others? And where's the limit? There isn't any! No guns allowed to anyone, no medication, no playing golf for fear of lightning strikes.
The USA is supposedly the land of the free. Let's try and live up to that, eh?
We in Quebec, Canada now have had smoking banned from all public places since March 2006. At first many people were complaining about it and clubs and restaurants were complaining they would lose a lot of buisness.
And they felt the instant withdrawal...but over time people came back.
I am not a smoker and I agree with this ban, of course there are many other things that can kill me...car pollution, exposure to cell phones(Supposedly), wi-fi Signals (Supposedly), and a big mac(Forsure),and a million other things.
But the way I see it is that this is a preventable health affect.
An average smoker in Canada costs more for health care then a non..Smoking is bad period.
Now on the other things, hopefully alternative energy sources will help us eliminate air pollution from car's and industries.
And eventually Big Macs will contain zero calories. (Joking On This One)
One more thing I got this from the BBC just to give you an idea. I understand maybe your point about freedom of rights, but when I'm at a bar and next to me are two guys blowing smoke in my face, why is it that I have to suffer with them. Smokers are always a minority of a population....Why do the majority have to suffer by not going to a bar on the weekends because it's full of smoke from 20% of the inhabitants.
"Smoking will become the biggest killer in developing world countries within the next 20 years, government-backed research says.
Deaths from smoking-related diseases are expected to surpass those caused by the Aids epidemic.
The report forecasts that within two decades 8.5 million people a year will be dying in developing countries because of smoking.
A billion people round the world are currently smokers, and tobacco-related illness currently kills 3.5 million a year. "
Came From "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1238854.stm"
IF you want to smoke go ahead, but if every country in the world has Smoking related deaths as the biggest or one of the biggest killers something must be done to protect the greater good.
I think they should remove them completely there are no benefits except the negative point of waking up in the morning with less money in your waller everyday because you smoke to much.
But what do I know, you can all do what you like except if it affects others in a negative matter. My state has similar laws. Even though I am a smoker, I must say I agree with a lot of these laws.
Hi Frihosters,
I'm against smoking in public places and bars. People who dont smoke, don't have a choice, they have to be in the places where people smoke.
That's no good.
©Wolfie
Smokers should be more considerate if you ask me. If you want to smoke, please find some place that you won't affect non-smokers. I have nothing against smokers, but I don't like people smoking near me. If I put myself in places like smoking zone, thats my problem and I won't blame anyone. But some people smoke where they shouldn't, with some nasty attitude.
I once encountered a scenario where a few smokers sit at the table next to me and my family. When they start smoking, me and my younger sister (who don't like the smell of the smoke, especially when we smell it during our meal time) start covering our nose. Thats the least we can do, but these smokers notice our action, and started inhale towards us, this really piss me off. Worst off these smokers are not teens that "can't think", there are people around their 30s and should be matured enough to think.
| AutoTechGuy wrote: |
| First off let me state that I AM a smoker... |
Y'know what? I don't have a problem with smokers. I just want them to stay the hell away from me when they're doing it. It smells like crap and I have asthma. I rather not experience either one (smelling like crap or getting an attack).
Last edited by QrafTee on Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:29 am; edited 1 time in totalThe only reason smoking is still legal is because smoking company's pay big bucks to the government.
I personally think smoking should be banned in 5yrs.
That sounds a bit harsh, but, smokers, by the time you pay for 1 month of cigarettes, you might have well spent the money on quitting. 
| gh0stface wrote: |
So how is it immoral and unethical? You still have the right to smoke in the privacy of your own house. Just not in the public where non-smokers have the right not breath in the toxins that are coming out of your cigarettes.
|
And don't I have the right to breath clean air as I ride my bicycle to work?
Fat chance. most large cities in the world have far greater problems with air quality due to vehicle and factory pollution than due to smokers. They are working on the problem in some cases but it will be decades before many cities have "clean" air.
Smoking is not something that pollutes a cities air. It only effects the immediate vicinity so any bans should be based on logical restrictions as to where people can and can't smoke. Total public bans are evidence of the arrogance and stupidity of legislators and a breach of individual rights. | paul_indo wrote: |
And don't I have the right to breath clean air as I ride my bicycle to work?
Fat chance. most large cities in the world have far greater problems with air quality due to vehicle and factory pollution than due to smokers. They are working on the problem in some cases but it will be decades before many cities have "clean" air. |
You actually should be having that right. Most cities already have some pollution prevention and limits and it will only increase. That the vehicle and factory pollution is a bigger problem than the one caused by smoking is not really true, at least not in Europe. However, what you forget is that the right and need for transportation and producing something in a factory is far more important than the right to smoke. They are 2 separate issues and both need to be worked on. It's not because the - far more difficult - problem of pollution is not or poorly being treated, that the - easy to solve - problem of smoking shouldn't be dealt with.
| paul_indo wrote: |
| Total public bans are evidence of the arrogance and stupidity of legislators and a breach of individual rights. |
Sure they are a breach of individual rights, but going as far as calling it an evidence of arrogance and stupidity goes beyond my imagination. Because if smoking would have been invented recently, it would have been made as illegal as drugs and distributed by the maffia for very high prices. And most countries have a widely accepted complete ban on drugs. (which I don't agree with)LOL! You go to know about this now.
Places in India have been following this crap rule from ages now and nothing seems to be changing.
This is just the beginning of the many rules that are going to implemented.
| paul_indo wrote: |
And don't I have the right to breath clean air as I ride my bicycle to work?
Fat chance. most large cities in the world have far greater problems with air quality due to vehicle and factory pollution than due to smokers. They are working on the problem in some cases but it will be decades before many cities have "clean" air. |
The difference between cigarettes and factories and cars are the factories and cars are necessities. Smoking isn't. Cars and trucks provide transportation for crops, building supplies, lumber and other various materials fairly quickly. Factories provide jobs and the ability to create useful items.
Cigarettes provide neither nor anything beneficial.
The only reason that the tobacco industry is around is that they were here for an extremely long time provide the government with substantial money for idiotic people who were stupid enough to get hooked on cigarettes in the first place so that they essentially have a grandfather clause.
| Quote: |
Total public bans are evidence of the arrogance and stupidity of legislators and a breach of individual rights. |
Breach of rights? I suppose. But you forget the rights of people who DON'T smoke nor want to be anywhere near smoke. I have the right to live healthily with breathing in the lovely chemicals of formaldehyde, arsenic, cadmium, benzene, ethlyene oxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, methanol, hydrogen cyanide which smokers choose to partake. Humans were not inherently born to smoke.OK, so how much of this essential transport and manufacturing is used to produce and transport totally useless products like Play Stations, TV's SUV's and most of the other nonessential junk in the modern world.
Very few of the vehicles on our roads "need" to be there, they are a luxury. But one that few will do without. How much pollution is created to produce electricity to power all the nonessential products in our homes.
Smoking is a very minor contributor to pollution.
I wonder how much pollution is created to power all these "Luxuries" for non smokers and how much a pack of cigarettes a day produces?
If you give up your Play Station or PC games I'll give up smoking.
Ooh, hang on, I don't smoke anymore. And not for health reasons by the way Well you should give up your useless luxuries anyway.
i feel smoking and drinking should be made illegal everywhere... will curtail pollution, bring down death rate, will save trees, and will help many families from ruining
Well, that's really good. I wish it were like that here in Sweden, you can't smoke on restaurants and busses but everywhere else. Smoking smells and kills. Why not make it illegal? But it's hard fot them who already smoke. Maybe we should go slow but careful.
| myworld wrote: |
Smoking bans have in place here in Ireland for a while and it is so much more pleasant to go out at night and not come home stinking of smoke but as I am still quite young and go clubbing too there is a downside and that is that after about 5 years stuck in a sweaty club everyone tends to pong a bit.
Prohibition doesn't work and never has done so to ban smoking entirely would be foolish however it is perfectly acceptable to say that if you want to pollute yourself then go ahead but don't expect others to put up with it. I don't agree with smoking bans in wide open public spaces but in enclosed public spaces it should never have been allowed. Why is that the argument seems to be about smokers being denied their rights whilst the majority who do not smoke should have their right to smoke free environments should be ignored.
|
I agree with you that smoking shall be banned in public places but not totally prohibited, because people can still do what they want if they are alone at home.
Prohibition just encourages illegal traffic and maffia business.
The only problem is that people who get sick because they have smoke cost a lot to the community that pay for their treatments even if it's their own fault. But I guess we cannot afford that because there are numerous other similar cases : guy driving too fast and having an accident, somebody taking risk in any activity and being injured...
So it's part of the "living in community deal" | paul_indo wrote: |
OK, so how much of this essential transport and manufacturing is used to produce and transport totally useless products like Play Stations, TV's SUV's and most of the other nonessential junk in the modern world.
Very few of the vehicles on our roads "need" to be there, they are a luxury. But one that few will do without. How much pollution is created to produce electricity to power all the nonessential products in our homes.
|
Your argument is flawed. Smoking can also be considered a luxury.
You do realize that 6 billion plus people and growing around the world who depends on these trucks, airplanes, boats to deliver food, building supplies, lumber, clothing along with others.
Not everyone has the ability to ride a bike. Some people have to commute an hour plus drive to get to work. Where riding a bike is out of the question. You need to increase your argument game. No government is going to ban cars, trucks and airplanes as they transport goods.Maybe so, But Government's here anyway are whipping out places where you can smoke.
About 5yrs ago, you could smoke anyway, now you cant smoke:
[list=]In Pubs
In Shops
In Community Buildings
In Parks
In Workplaces
30m from Parks
30m from Schools[/list]
Pretty much the only place you can smoke now is in your house.
yeah, taxes just went up in tx another $1.00 per pack. making most cigarettes just around $5 a pack... and yes i am a smoker. I might start this new drug that you take it and has a 98% success rate of getting people to stop smoking.
| gh0stface wrote: |
Your argument is flawed. Smoking can also be considered a luxury.
|
No more so than soft drinks or jam on your bread.
For over 100 million people in this countriy it is the only "luxury" they can afford. 3 or 4 cigarettes a day.
| gh0stface wrote: |
You do realize that 6 billion plus people and growing around the world who depends on these trucks, airplanes, boats to deliver food, building supplies, lumber, clothing along with others.
|
True, I have no problem with manufacturing or delivering essential goods. The fact is though that much of the modern worlds resources are not used for essential goods but for the TV's, playstations, fancy biscuits and toys and god knows what else.
Just take a walk through your local mall. How much of what you see in the shops is really necessary? Even most of the clothing is just fueling the fashion industry.
| gh0stface wrote: |
Not everyone has the ability to ride a bike. Some people have to commute an hour plus drive to get to work. Where riding a bike is out of the question. You need to increase your argument game. No government is going to ban cars, trucks and airplanes as they transport goods. |
Of course everyone can't ride a bike. But why should I have to breath their pollution, which is hundreds of times more than a few cigarettes?
Hey, don't forget I don't actually smoke myself. I just think this whole argument against smoking is absurd when compared with the real problems of pollution in the world.I fully support banning smoking in public places, but not in your own home (at least for now) to transition to a complete outlaw of smoking.
I live in a country where smokin indoors has become illigal and you know what, people dealt with it just fine. We go outdoors to smoke now and personally I feel alot better about it because it smells better and I feel now that it's really a personal decision. Now my non smoking friends can come with me outside if they want to and no one is forced to inhale second hand smoke...
| paul_indo wrote: |
Of course everyone can't ride a bike. But why should I have to breath their pollution, which is hundreds of times more than a few cigarettes?
Hey, don't forget I don't actually smoke myself. I just think this whole argument against smoking is absurd when compared with the real problems of pollution in the world. |
The thing is, you are STILL comparing needs versus rights. Smoking isn't a need. No one needs to truely smoke. It is a right.
Yes cars/trucks causes some pollution. But those are the necessary evils in order to transport goods across the world while there are no beneficial aspects for smoking cancer sticks besides for profit.My state has done the same thing. You can't smoke in a BAR! Can you believe it? "Please don't smoke next to me, I'm currently in the proccess of destroying my liver". What a joke. I support there being smoking and non-smoking sections, but come on, the government first helped the tobacco companies get you addicted and now all of the sudden they want to tell you "don't do it"? My state also has a high tax on cigarettes, I pay almost 7$ a pack. It's disgusting. I was sitting on a bench smoking outside school once, and this lady sat next to me, and then had the nerve to ask me not to smoke in front of her. Now my state is banning trans fat. I think the fact that they got away from banning smoking in most places has to do with it. Remember, some things may not be all that great to do, but once you start making prescident on taking away people's rights, then it's all down hill from there.
i think they should ban farting as well, in every state!
Smoking is surely bad for health, and if sucks. It is better to have it banned. Someone has mentioned that it generated revenues. There must be something else that would replace the hole gap. It must be BANNED in PUBLIC PLACES. It makes the atmosphere so "unwanted". As a matter of fact, many people's mood is ruined by this filthy "rod" of a few centimeters. There must be smokers zone where only smokers would be rule. Haha, they can even smoke for free by going there. There will be no need to even light a cigarette. 
what's more important is that the rule/ban is implemented. in my country, although there is no smoking in air conditioned places, ppl are still allowed to smoke in the same restaurant... they are just segregated to smoking or non smoking in the same structure without any kind of barricade whatsoever 
you still smell the smoke... why bother doing it anyway? And in shopping complexes... it's almost certain the toilets are filled with smokes cause these smokers just can't be decent enough to step out of the premise to take a smoke. They prefer the toilet...
I've yet to see anyone being fined over here for smoking even with the ban and all. 
Smoking should be legal everywhere, all the time, even with children in the car.
In fact, children should be taught to smoke in school physical education classes, and there should be cigarette vending machines in the school cafeteria.
Indeed, children should be encouraged to use their lunch money on cigarettes, instead of the swill they call food in the cafeteria these days.
The kids will lose weight, be more popular, and won't have to worry about how to pay for their retirement, since they will die of cancer long before they can start raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
Smoking is EVIL. Every cigar or cigarette product you smoke is doing you damage. Now, it is fine for you to take cigarettes yourself and destroy your own body. But when you smoke in the presence of others, forcing them to inhale the smoke, then that is not fair.
Smoke at home and don't make others passive smoke.
| paul_indo wrote: |
Problem is, what about all the vehicle and factory pollution that we all breath every day. This pollution has become so bad that it threatens our environment and yet governments are making smoking into a bigger issue.
I wonder why?
Could it be to divert attention from the real problems of real polution?
...
Alcohol has a much greater effect on society over a wide reaching scale of problems, from drunk driving to beating your wife, and complete in the gutter alcoholism.
Why is all the attention on smoking and almost none on alcohol? |
There is a big difference between smoking and air pollution. Both cause health problems. That's all they have in common.
Smoking is not useful. It is a mild addiction but one which causes huge healthcare costs. And don't forget that tobacco industry is a multibillion business which makes a few very rich and causes millions to get sick or even die. Smokers and tobacco industry should pay for the healthcare not us.
On the other hand pollution is caused by industrial activities which are more or less useful to us and even necessary. To stop pollution we must give up civilization or alternatively pay huge costs for energy, etc.
Concerning comparison with alcohol let's remember Prohibition in US or more recently on a smaller scale Russian Government's war against vodka. All that governments can do is to collect higher taxes on liquor. Also driving, etc under influence is punishable. Smoking while driving is not! 
It's true and if you don't like breathing in industrial fumes, move to a rural area. If you don't like smoking, move to.....
Until quite recently I lived in Scotland where the no smoking ban came into force a little while ago.
Any enclosed public space (usually classed as indoors with only a couple of exceptions) was included in the ban as was public buildings and even public service vehicles such as buses and company vehicles such as vans and cars if owned by a business.
While I agree with all of this, I am a smoker but understand the non-smokers’ view.
However I think the over-zealous politically correct council overstepped the mark. Allow me to explain:
If one of its tenants in a council house requested repairs to be made to their home, as is their right in a landlord/tenant relationship they received a letter to confirm when the repairs would be made to their home.
On the bottom of the letter a paragraph went to on say that to fall into line with the new public buildings smoking ban the council would not allow its employees to access a home unless there had been no smoking in it for three hours prior to the employee arriving to carry out the work. 
This is encroaching on the tenants human rights (if they can’t smoke while at home), the rule would be almost impossible to police and many of the council employees are smokers and all of them, even non-smokers who I spoke with thought the idea was crazy.
I wonder where it will end, or indeed if it ever will. Although I hope there is no smoking everywhere,but I think that is not a easy task.
Hongkong?
I know that the little government of this little area has a lot of strange laws and rules. Such as ban public smoking and arrest someone who just downloads some pirate movies and musics. Yes, you can say that they just want to protect the public. But I think they behave curious. Human right is much more important than other issues.
| vita wrote: |
Recently, the state I live in has decided to put a ban on smoking, making it illegal to smoke in all public areas (restaurants, movie theatres, etc).
The group that supported the law is now trying to make it illegal to smoke in your car with children under 18.
We (I don't smoke though) can't even smoke in country club bar rooms.
I personally think it's a bit intense, seeing as how a LOT of people I know smoke.
Thoughts? |
One thing is for sure. The issue has got everyones attention off more serious problems in the world and it costs virtually nothing to implement.
Eventually they stand to loose from lose of tobacco tax but there is no upfront cost involved.
Restrictions on smoking are indeed a good idea. bans are simply not a democratic way of controlling the situation.
People keep saying how it is a luxury and yet I bet half of those saying that eat at Fast "junk" food outlets which contribute dramatically to the obesity in western countries over the last 10 or 15 years. This also costs millions of dollars in health care so I think all fast food should be banned to save those people from obesity.
No more soft drinks no more cake no more fast food no more alcohol only good healthy natural food.
korbit, I am not picking on you, but many arguments are based on similar logic.
| korbit wrote: |
Any ban on smoking is ridiculous. Laws are here to protect rights. The argument for bans is that second-hand smoke somehow restricts someone's right to life. Following this logic:
Driving cars should be banned because people die in accidents.
Eating twinkies should be banned because of the rate of deaths due to heart disease.
Honestly, why don't we just restrict every possible freedom that causes some risk to others? And where's the limit? There isn't any! No guns allowed to anyone, no medication, no playing golf for fear of lightning strikes.
The USA is supposedly the land of the free. Let's try and live up to that, eh? |
All seem to pick, if one law is unreasonable, then all other laws must also be void.
This logic failed in the sense, that we know laws are imperfect, and often based on need of the time, some even based on the political party that is in control.
Laws get amended, annulled, added, so they change hopefully for the better.
THus, I do not feel arguments should be based on laws of unrelated issues to justify our preference for another set of laws.
Personally, I do not agreed with smoking, what is the benefits of smoking? Is it purely for one self, self image, my mother used to smoke raw tobacco to relief pain, but she stopped when she has better and cheaper alternatives.
I do not know how you feel, but I dislike even talking to someone who had just finished his/her puff of "death" in an enclosed lift.
The after smoke effect is still around polluting the air I need to breath.
Let us see the benefits and drawbacks.
With regards. Well... ...Today I diagnosed a co-worker's video problem. ...Turns out the Video card fan was all gummed up with this orange-ish gummy stuff.
...Apparently, that's what people who smoke are putting into the air...
...And people have problems with CO2 from power plants?
Dude. ...Get the smoking gone. This is just not right!
I have to laugh here in Jakarta where they banned smoking on the main 6 lane thoroughfare in the central city.
If I ride for more than 15 minutes on my motorcycle or bicycle in Jakarta my body, particularly face neck and arms, is covered with black grunge from vehicle exhausts. When you shower afterwards the water goes black.
Boy I'm glad I don't have to worry about breathing the cigarette smoke. Ha Ha I don't see what the problem is, in my province of Ontario, Canada we have a smoking ban in all enclosed public spaces, of course you can still smoke in your homes and car and whatever private property, Its healthier for you and its a good way to encourage people to quit smoking. I mean I understand the arguments for and against it, but there are much more arguments in favor of bans but in the end I think the pro's outweigh the cons to smoking bans.
Wow. Are you kidding me?
I'm with them 1000%. I cant stand smokers (not being rude) But come on, i know its addicting but with a kid under 18? With someone that DOESN'T smoke PERIOD?
I agree with them on this one
You can't ban smoking, it gives business to marfia, blackmarketers and criminals.
Tax it high and limit its use.
yeah, we have similar bans here. it's a law that you can't smoke in your vehicle with children under 18 or in many public areas.
Making smoking illegal I can understand, since it affects the area around you as well yourself, but I don't see why smoking on private property should ever be a problem.
But illegalize Alcohol? Good god, how will ugly blokes like me EVER get a girlfriend?
| creezalird wrote: |
| I can't even stand the smell of the smoke and even a smoker..It makes my stomach hurt...damn that smell |
The smell makes me go on a spitting spree to try to get the smell out of my mouth. It's ridiculous some of the things that are illegal and this isn't.if smoking would have been prohibited when i was a kid, i guess i wouldn't be addicted now ^^
