Banning Smoking in Public Places

[Mer_de_Noms]

If cigarettes are legal, smoking should be too.

It's unfair to force smokers to deal with non-smoking areas, when smoking is a legal practice.

 

[enouwee]

If cigarettes are legal, smoking should be too.

It's unfair to force smokers to deal with non-smoking areas, when smoking is a legal practice.

That's nonsense. Guns are legal too, but are you allowed to shoot anywhere you like?

 

[Mahucharn]

2nd hand smoke is about 2ce as bad as regular smoking, if we made it to where you could only smoke in private places then alot of people would be alot more helpful

>Actually, only government economy

Well what do you think pays for war? And the governments salaries? The government's economy has alot of effect on us.

Bottom Line for Mahucharn: Smoking should be baned from public places because of 2nd hand smoking but cigarrettes shouldn't be banned all together because that would a) ruin our economy, and this is just another variable of what could happen: b) drive people insane to the point where we would have several cults of smokers.

If cigarettes are legal, smoking should be too.

It's unfair to force smokers to deal with non-smoking areas, when smoking is a legal practice.

Thats another good point BTW.

 

[Lime]

You cannot base legislation and law off of knee-jerk reactions and personal preference.
The question isn't whether or not this is fair to non-smokers or smokers, or whether or not smokers should wait.
The question is: is this what is RIGHT?
And no, it's wrong.

Regardless of how fair, or healthy, or good smelling, or economy promoting, or whatever, it's still wrong, because it violates the owner's right to private property. The owner of a restaurant or establishment should have complete domain over their restaurant or establishment. Saying they should wait until they are somewhere private is ridiculous, restaurants are privately owned, and thus should be allowed to do as they please.

If a restaurant manager decides of his own volitional choice to not allow smoking, then it is okay, but it is not the place of the government to hold a gun to his head and demand that he make his restaurant healthier. You are not entitled to go to any restaurant, as exemplified by the right to refuse service. By the same token, you are not allowed to set the terms and conditions of a service offered to you. You may take it or leave it, but to go to government and ask for coercion in your favor is tantamount to communism. It implies the following: "We are too stupid to make good decisions by ourselves, please, force good decisions on us"

I think that's what people are missing, there is no difference between owning a house and a restaurant. You may smoke if you want in your own house, because it is YOURS, no one else's. The exact same is true for a restaurant: it is not public property, it is a matter of property rights, and if the owner of any given establishment wants to allow smoking it is his right to do so, because the restaurant is HIS.

Also, if we are going to ban smoking in restaurants because it is unhealthy, shouldn't we ban drinking in bars? Drinking is horrible for you, and it leads to DUI's and all the related complications. We should also ban hamburgers and steaks; they are high in fat and red meats have been consistently proven to be unhealthy. We really ought to ban things like breathing, because 100% of people who have died have used oxygen at some point in time: it is clearly dangerous.
Do you see the error in your logic?

 

[Miz]

Actually, you were banned from drinking Alcohol for awhile in "colonial" days.

Also, Rheias said it was their "right" to smoke? Really? It ain't in the constitution You have no "right" to actually smoke.

The rights in the constitution which you spelled wrong seth ,
Is the rights the Government can not removed... but yes their is no right to smoke there is just no law against it...

You cannot base legislation and law off of knee-jerk reactions and personal preference.
The question isn't whether or not this is fair to non-smokers or smokers, or whether or not smokers should wait.
The question is: is this what is RIGHT?
And no, it's wrong.

The main reason after what you said is, the government is afraid of what will happen if you ban something someone needs for an addiction if someone is an addict. There brain, most of there body and emotions need the thing there addicted to, and if a human or any living creature needs (or thinks it needs) something but can not get what it needs, it will be willing to fight for it...

Addiction however can be unlike a real need can be ignored if you force yourself to quit. This is hard for most people thats why they take medication, join groups and clubs of other smokers trying to quit to get support.

But the main problem with creating a law to ban smoking is this famous quote.
"The government is here to protect us, but when does the government go to far. "

 

[Ghan]

I have something to add about the question of one's right to smoke.

I quote from the United States Constitution:

The 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This basically says that the rights stated in the constitution do not deny other rights not stated.

The 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This basically means that everything that the Constitution does not talk about is left to the states and the people.

Therefore, I conclude that in the US, you have the right to smoke.

As to the question of banning it in public places, vote on it.
Call a national vote and decide it that way. If the people want to put some regulations on it, fine. But that doesn't mean it will be completely gone....

In private places there can be no infringement. The owner has exclusive rights there and should be able to allow/deny smoking as he or she wishes. The government should have no say there.

 

[U are a noob]

Smoking should be allowed.

Why? The only reason smoking is even allowed is because of the amount of money it racks in. I'm not talking about direct sales through each pack. Smoking causes a lot of other things that makes the government money.

>So? People fuel our economy, if you go around killing people, who's going to run the economy?
First of all when smoking happens it does not kill people instantly or quick. Smoking causes diseases which takes money to cure or treat which means taxes and taxes go to the government. Because these diseases don't kill instantly or within a 1 year process they will require the person to get more treatment which will lead to cost of the treatment and where ever there is cost there is tax.

The more bad smoking causes the more money you need to spend on curing or treating what ever it has done which will give more taxes to the government.

>This could eventually (and probably will) branch out to bigger areas. Let's say it becomes hereditary, and generations will have weaker lungs. With all the smog already around, could be scary.

Poor lungs will cause more treatment required and that will go through the same cost/tax stage.

 

[TheDamien]

So, we should allow smoking so that the Government has the chance to exploit dying people? Wow. It doesn't even work like that - smoking costs the country through the health care system and lost productivity. The CDC estimates the national cost of smoking at 7$ per pack, which is more than the taxes can compensate for.

God knows the global cost of smoking when you factor in things like tobacco agriculture and environmental damage.

 

[U are a noob]

So, we should allow smoking so that the Government has the chance to exploit dying people? Wow. It doesn't even work like that - smoking costs the country through the health care system and lost productivity. The CDC estimates the national cost of smoking at 7$ per pack, which is more than the taxes can compensate for.

Wrong. Health care is payed by the people through taxes. If we were like some other country's with 'free' health care maybe we would cost from it but the current order you have to pay for you health care so the government makes money off that too. The cold blooded truth is not about the good that smoking its only about how much money it gives the government.

>lost productivity
?
You mean people who are injured can't work? Thats also wrong because of the US's over population. There will always be at least 50 people ready to take some one's job and perhaps for less which is a increase in productivity.

 

[hell_knight]

I know someone who is a smoker , and I myself am I non-smoker.
I approve of this idea as we all know 2nd Hand smoking is bad as well , but still permit "smoking only areas" possibly increase the amount of these areas as well. They don't need go home everytime to smoke with more of those around.

 

[U are a noob]

So, we should allow smoking so that the Government has the chance to exploit dying people? Wow. It doesn't even work like that - smoking costs the country through the health care system and lost productivity. The CDC estimates the national cost of smoking at 7$ per pack, which is more than the taxes can compensate for.

God knows the global cost of smoking when you factor in things like tobacco agriculture and environmental damage.

No. If you include health care system then you have to include the money saved by having people die before 65 so they can't collect social security.

 

[Bronxernijn]

I am in favor of banning smoking in public places, and to create *smoke only* areas instead.

But smoking as a whole is the problem in my opinion.

 

[Zakyath]

"Bullshit" says that passive smoking being dangerous is, well, bullshit. I don't really know what to believe. I don't really care if someone near me smokes but some people can't be in the same room as someone smoking, so I definitively think smoking should be banned in public areas. It already is in Sweden.

 

[duyen]

OMG people, smoking plays hardly any role at all in pollution, cows release more dangerous gases when they fart then a cigarette does.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Wrong. Health care is payed by the people through taxes. If we were like some other country's with 'free' health care maybe we would cost from it but the current order you have to pay for you health care so the government makes money off that too. The cold blooded truth is not about the good that smoking its only about how much money it gives the government.

>lost productivity
?
You mean people who are injured can't work? Thats also wrong because of the US's over population. There will always be at least 50 people ready to take some one's job and perhaps for less which is a increase in productivity.

Health Care is payed by companies you work for, who in turn deduct a certain percentage of your income to help pay for health care. Cigarettes are one of the most heavily taxed items in the country, hence why they're so expensive.

"Free" health care, such as what Obama wants to do, will be payed through raising everyones taxes.

The US isn't overpopulated. The problem is that illegal immigrant workers are doing work a normal American would do for a lot cheaper, so they get hired. A lot of factories have moved to Mexico or China anyways.

OMG people, smoking plays hardly any role at all in pollution, cows release more dangerous gases when they fart then a cigarette does.

I agree. Methane is a larger contributor to greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Water vapor is the largest factor.

As much as I agree with banning smoking in public places, there will always be places to smoke. Maybe people will open up smokers restraunts or something.

As an asthmatic, I know being near a smoker can really affect my breathing, so I hate being near smokers as much as possible simply because I like to breathe. :thup:

 

[duyen]

As an asthmatic, I know being near a smoker can really affect my breathing, so I hate being near smokers as much as possible simply because I like to breathe. :thup:

You... like to breath? Weirdo

 

[Sintoras]

I live in Austria which is one of the few counttries in the EU as far as I know that don't have a real smoking ban. You're allowed to smoke everywhere except designated non-smoking areas.

And it won't change very soon either because a lot of politicians and (ironically) the Health Minister smoke.

 

[Bronxernijn]

OMG people, smoking plays hardly any role at all in pollution, cows release more dangerous gases when they fart then a cigarette does.

Never had a farting cow sitting next to me actually.

 

[duyen]

Never had a farting cow sitting next to me actually.

Maybe you need to get out more

I'll quote myself

OMG people, smoking plays hardly any role at all in pollution, cows release more dangerous gases when they fart then a cigarette does.

 

[Flare]

We have a smoking ban in public places here in Ireland, and I personally believe it should apply in many more countries. As Ghan said (and I believe the same applies in Ireland), people have the right to smoke BUT do they have the right to potentially cause harm to others around them?

Fair enough if people choose to start smoking, but what about those who don't want to smoke (for whatever reasons). Why should the majority of people suffer as a result of a minority. If they choose to smoke, they should respect other people's choice not to smoke.

Personally, I don't mind people who smoke, but it does become a pain when they smoke next to me.