Ban Smoking?

[jon_hill987]

Well as IS thought my smoking comment was out of place (which I admit it probably was, sorry) and suggested I start another thread on smoking, here we go.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201053.stm

 

I think this is a step in the right direction, I hate eating when people are smoking. I don't think the pubs/resterants will suffer at all from this. It may also incorage some people to give up, as it makes smoking seem less socially exceptable.

 

And before you say anything I would like to make clear that I have smoked, but don't now.

[Breton]

As much as I dislike smoking, you can't ban everything you don't like.

[jon_hill987]

I don't mean ban smokeing full stop, just in public places, As I see it you should be able to do what the funk you want at home/on your own land (see fox hunting debate) but in public it is a different matter.

[Kain]

In most places in Toledo, smoking is confined to outdoors or seperated rooms with seperate ventalation.

[ZBomber]

Hell, if you're gonna make pot illegal, why not make cigarettes illegal? People will probably still do it, but not in public places. I don't care what people do though really, as long as I'm not in the same area.

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by Breton

As much as I dislike smoking, you can't ban everything you don't like.

 

That's what I was going to say.

 

I say let each individual restauraunt or whatever decide wheter they'll allow smoking or not. The government doesn't need to decide for everyone....

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by TK-8252

The government doesn't need to decide for everyone....

 

I agree with you there, I normaly hate governments banning stuff like that, I wish everyone would decide for theirselves that smoking in public is a bad idea, but that ain't gonna happen.

[ET Warrior]

I think a ban on smoking in public places is absolutely wonderful. In Boulder smoking is banned in all public buildings and it's really REALLY nice.

[ZBomber]

Here in Mass, public smoking is everywhere. >_<

[El Sitherino]

While I don't smoke at public places, or tobacco for that matter. I still think it's rather harsh banning it from all public places. Set up smoking bars, bars specifically for smokers that are also drinkers. Instead what people are doing is just throwing smokers out on the streets, and then you have smoke filled streets, everyone puff puff puffing away.

[swphreak]

I think public smoking (Outside your home/building, walking on the sidewalk, sitting on the god damn steps, ect) should be banned. Smokers have every right to butcher their lungs, but when I'm trying to leave my dorm or alk to class, they should not be allowed to butcher mine with their second hand smoke.

 

People should still be allowed to smoke in certain buildings (restruants, bars, ect). If you don't like it, just don't go. I don't have a choice about it when I'm walking down the sidewalk or leaving my dorm.

 

It especially pisses me off right now because I have a horrible cold and breathing the smoke gives me a horrible cough.

[Druid Bremen]

Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak

I think public smoking (Outside your home/building, walking on the sidewalk, sitting on the god damn steps, ect) should be banned. Smokers have every right to butcher their lungs, but when I'm trying to leave my dorm or alk to class, they should not be allowed to butcher mine with their second hand smoke.

 

People should still be allowed to smoke in certain buildings (restruants, bars, ect). If you don't like it, just don't go. I don't have a choice about it when I'm walking down the sidewalk or leaving my dorm.

 

It especially pisses me off right now because I have a horrible cold and breathing the smoke gives me a horrible cough.

 

Hmm.. If the government would BAN smoking one step at a time, like, firstly, banning it in a few places, then increasing the number of banned places, until it covers the whole public area, it would be awesome. If they want to fill their lungs with tar, fine, but do it back at home, not a place where others can be affected by the second-hand smoke.

[El Sitherino]

I still think my smokers bar idea is great.

[toms]

I'm torn. I normally don't think that government should be telling people what to do. But I hate smoking!

 

Still, i think that the negative effects on OTHER people mean that it is allowable for governments to legislate to control their use.

 

I have no problem with people smoking in their own home (except when they have kids).

I guess it is then a case of either banning all smoking in public places and driving smokers indoors, or banning smoking in indoor bars and restaurants and driving them outside.

 

I'd probably rather have the later, as the smoke is much more invasive indoors. But then you could argue it is up to individual bars to decide about this sort of thing. But then again, they are subject to numerous other health and safety laws to protect their patrons and bar staff, so maybe this isn't any differenent.

 

I have to say that it was GREAT when i was in LA a few years abck and after a night out you DIDN'T come back with hair and clothes smelling of smoke or dry skin and eyes. Made hangovers so much more bearable.

THe smokers seemed to actually enjoy going outside to smoke as they all got to moan about the new law

 

It has also been noticible in the UK recently that when you do encounter smoke it is more intrusive, and more people moan about it. I suspect this is because you encounter it less often (what with trains, work, etc.. all being non smoking). Or maybe it is just my imagination.

 

I suppose another option would be a "smoking license" that worked a bit like a liquor license... meaning that bars that wanted to allow smoking (for personal or financial reasons) had to pay more to cover health costs, and provide better health cover for staff. OR alteratively license fee reductions for smoke free bars...

[Rogue15]

ban smoking around ENTRANCES. GOD that is so ****ing annoying when you get out of a restraunt that is smoke free, and you've got people standing right outside the door ready to kill you with their ****ing deathsticks-AND THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID SMELLING THAT **** EITHER. I wish people would start suing smokers for **** like that.

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by toms

I suppose another option would be a "smoking license" that worked a bit like a liquor license... meaning that bars that wanted to allow smoking (for personal or financial reasons) had to pay more to cover health costs, and provide better health cover for staff. OR alteratively license fee reductions for smoke free bars...

 

That idea I like, it not only gives pub/bar/club/resterant owners a choice but would help give people a smoke free atmosphere when they go out.

 

Originally posted by Rogue15

ban smoking around ENTRANCES. GOD that is so ****ing annoying when you get out of a restraunt that is smoke free, and you've got people standing right outside the door ready to kill you with their ****ing deathsticks-AND THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID SMELLING THAT **** EITHER. I wish people would start suing smokers for **** like that.

 

A little harsh, but I agree. you can always tell a non smoking building from the smell of the entrances, but unless smoking outside is banned noone will go far from the door to light up.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by toms

I'm torn. I normally don't think that government should be telling people what to do. But I hate smoking!

 

Still, i think that the negative effects on OTHER people mean that it is allowable for governments to legislate to control their use.

I completely agree.

 

My libertarian leanings say that the government should have no jurisdiction over what you do *until it impacts the safety / well being of others* (but not protect them from 'hurt feelings', but that is a free speech debate for another day ).

 

So, for some examples:

- Whether or not *you* wear a seatbelt impacts no one but you - gov't should have no say.

- Drunk driving endangers many - gov't has jurisdiction.

- Shooting guns in public areas is dangerous to all - gov't has jurisdiction.

- Smoking in your own house impacts no one but you - gov't should have no say.

- Doing drugs in your own house impacts no one but you - gov't should have no say.

- Second hand smoke is dangerous to all - gov't has jurisdiction.

 

Mike

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by txa1265

- Whether or not *you* wear a seatbelt impacts no one but you - gov't should have no say.

 

If you are in the back not wearing a seatbelt you can kill someone in the front and survive yourself. but in general a good point and exactly why smoking in public places sould be banned, it isn't just unpleasent, it harms other people.

[El Sitherino]

I think it should be up to the individual business. If you don't like the smoke you could always take your business elsewhere. Their allowing people to smoke would only (seemingly) hurt their business. I don't like sitting around other people that smoke, so I go to places that have chosen, themselves, to not allow smoking.

[Druid Bremen]

Originally posted by Rogue15

ban smoking around ENTRANCES. GOD that is so ****ing annoying when you get out of a restraunt that is smoke free, and you've got people standing right outside the door ready to kill you with their ****ing deathsticks-AND THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID SMELLING THAT **** EITHER. I wish people would start suing smokers for **** like that.

 

I think banning it in most public places like restaurants, pubs, etc would do. Truly, I feel the same way, except with my feelings a little toned down.. And by the way, your last sentence reminds me of the word "neighbour", which to some mean people who would sue for 20 years over a strip of garden 20 inches wide.

[toms]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I think it should be up to the individual business. If you don't like the smoke you could always take your business elsewhere. Their allowing people to smoke would only (seemingly) hurt their business. I don't like sitting around other people that smoke, so I go to places that have chosen, themselves, to not allow smoking.

 

But i think they need something to kick start the process. For centuries all bars and restaurants have allowed smoking. Because smoking was always acceptable.

 

It therefore becomes harder to get them to take the risk of banning smokers, as they fear it will lose them business.

 

In the UK laws have meant that all restraunts have to have no smoking areas, and as the popularity of smoking drops and more people USE those areas more and more restaurants have started to go non-smoking. But it took the law to kick start it by giving people a choice and allowing them to demonstrate a preference.

 

I don't remember EVER seeing a non-smoking bar/pub in the uk. So at the moment I don't have the option to "go somewhere else". So a smoking ban might loose them smokers, but not having one won't gain them non-smokers, cos we have to go anyway.

 

If a ban, or tax breaks, or whatever was introduced it would only really need to be a temporary measure until 50% or so of bars were non-smoking. Then bars could be allowed to re-introduce it if they wanted, but the non smokers would have somewhere else to go if they did.

 

Though of course, bars are a different issue to "public places".

[Mort-Hog]

The purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. Even from themselves.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

The purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. Even from themselves.

 

That is something I fully disagree with. If you intend the government to protect us from ourselves, then government better start banning smoking, alcohol, driving, fatty foods, flying, owning guns, etc.

 

Since all of those can cause death, it seems we need protected from them.

[Mort-Hog]

That is something I fully disagree with. If you intend the government to protect us from ourselves, then government better start banning smoking, alcohol, driving, fatty foods, flying, owning guns, etc.

 

Since all of those can cause death, it seems we need protected from them.

 

Well, there's already warning labels on cigarettes, alcohol adverts implore you to "drink responsibly", you can't drive a car without a liscence, you can't fly a plane without a liscence, and you can't own a gun without a liscence - and it's pretty damn hard to get a liscence anyway.

 

Fatty foods is the only that isn't really addressed by the government, but considering the growing problem of child obesity it's only a matter of time before they do.

[ET Warrior]

Yet even with those licences people are still killed in car wrecks, plane crashes, gunshot wounds, they get cancer from cigarettes and cirrhosis from alcohol.

 

 

So why isn't the government protecting us?