Smoking in public....should this be banned?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Here in the UK our government is trying to ban smoking in all public places ie pubs, clubs etc. There is even talk about people paying a fine if they do smoke where the should'nt.

I can understand the logic behind it, but if a person chooses to smoke then fine. We all know the dangers surrounding it.

They allready have a ban in place in Ireland.

Are there any other countries that have this ban?




posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
A lot of cities in Canada (including mine, Ottawa) have this ban. I have to admit it has merit - as a former smoker, I hated going to the cafe next door before work in the morning to pick up a carrot muffin, and discover it tasted like nicotine... and you can actually SEE in bars now



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
It's inevitable. Unfortunately, people think they will live years longer if they ban smoking so they may avoid 2nd hand smoke. Public smoking was banned in the city I live in in USA... Good thing I dont smoke anymore...

- Attero



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I'm not one for banning things, but I can't say I'd mind. I prefer to stay out of bars usually because it's smoky and I hate the way *I* smell when I leave. You can feel the filth on your skin, and smell it in your hair and clothes. My lungs tighten up just getting a whiff outside, so I try and avoid smokers, but I'm not always successful. However, I'm the one that owns that problem - not the smoker. I avoid them when I can, and get annoyed with they crowd around doors I HAVE to walk through at school or work, but a bar isn't a place I have to be, and they have just as much a right to be there as I do. Smoking sections in restaurants is a nice compromise, and smoking lounges and outdoor smoking booths are reasonable also. To ban something that so many people are addicted to and slaves to is not going to fix the problem. Nonsmokers can't regulate the world.

In pubs and bars, it should be up to the owner of the establishment. They are the ones that would benefit or not financially from changes made to their policy.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I think I might find it easier to quit if they would just go ahead and outlaw smoking. Really.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Outlaw smoking!? HAHAHAHA... It'll never happen.

The tobacco companies have too much to lose.

On the other hand, If they outlawed tobacco then legalized pot.

[edit on 11/15/2004 by Assassin]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Well, I don't like smokers inflicting their habit on my air space. I also have a problem cuz smokers have rights, too.
I feel it should be up to the employer or store to enforce smoking bans. It is no the log of any level of government.
I think it is fair for insurance companies to charge more to smokers.

Assassin. yeah the tobacco companies would have a lot to lose. EXCEPT, if you noticed, most of them have successfully diversified and/or merged. They are now part of the conglomerates. You need a new score card.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Smoking is banned in food outlets in Australia with clubs and bars following.
Many clubs and bars already ban it in general public areas, in saying this many have an area designated for smoking. Fines and penalties seem a little severe to me as the management of establishments having the right to refuse entry, if you inform people they ususally comply. As a person who has worked in the hospitality industry I can say that I wont miss it even though I am a smoker. I have walked into many bars as a smoker and smelt the stench of stale smoke which has had me exiting quickly.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
They are now part of the conglomerates. You need a new score card.


Yeah, tell me about it...

At least if they did outlaw it, these companies would be brought to their knees
after losing a few billion a year income...
(they wouldn't get the 'two to the back of the head' but, they'd be on their knees for a few years).

[edit on 11/11/2004 by Assassin]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I am quite sick of the government getting this seriously into our lives.

In America at least, it should be up to the place to decide, and if they lose business because of it and shut down til there are not more, well that's what the market wanted.

We're capitalists boys, we're TRYING to let the market decide. I guess the Federal Government has forgotten that.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Its not as simple as just letting the market decide.
Lets replace the ccigarette with weapons grade plutonium, would you like to dine or drink next to someone with plutonium hanging around their neck.
When you start getting sick, you will be looking for who is responsible. The government has the duty to protect its citizens
It is after al Biohazzardous material



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
First off, I am a smoker.

I totally understand the no smoking indoors rule..I don't even do it in my own house. Unless you count the garage, in the cold cold winter. I have mixed feelings about bars..

I also understand banning it at storefronts, and office fronts..Looks bad smells bad.

Sometimes there is an overreaction..
I "lit up" at the back of a store, while waiting for some things that I had purchased to be loaded into my truck.. This lady, who was sitting on the curb about 20 feet away, with her baby on her lap..She gave me a sidewards glance, made some LOUD coughing sounds, gathered up her baby, and walked another 20 feet away..I hadn't even exhaled my first puff!...
I wanted to tell her, that her kid looked like my Avatar..

Which was more rude? Me lighting up? or her reaction?



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The greatest argument (in fact the ONLY argument) I have hared in the UK against the ban on smoking in confined public spaces is this: It is an infringement of our rights and nobody, let a lone government has the right to remove our right to choice. Pretty rich for someone to say I have the right to pollute the air around you, inflict secondary smoke related disease and possibly death to you and make you stink like a turd too. But you have no right to choose not to have these same things enforced upon you.
I predict by the time our children are grown adults they will be astounded to hear people could smoke in public, it will make them laugh like we laugh now at adverts from the 50's and 60's telling us smoking was good for our throats.
John Cleese once said that he was in a restaurant eating a meal when a couple on the next table finished eating and started smoking. He asked them to stop while he ate and they refused. So he went over and farted at their table while they ate dessert. What's the difference indeed, except farts can't killI suppose!



[edit on 11-11-2004 by The Teller]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan West
Its not as simple as just letting the market decide.
Lets replace the ccigarette with weapons grade plutonium, would you like to dine or drink next to someone with plutonium hanging around their neck.
When you start getting sick, you will be looking for who is responsible. The government has the duty to protect its citizens
It is after al Biohazzardous material


Right, but I did not say that the states could not exercise reasonable caution with business code (which is needed for simple order and effectiveness).

Being in proximity of second hand smoke is the same as asbestos.

"carcinogenesis is seen as a multifactorial, multistage process that takes place over a relatively long period of time."

Source

This is certainly something someone can reasonably make a choice about. This is not like radiation poisoning, or anything nuclear.

Who ever said let people be crazy?



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Im a smoker....

I can understand not smoking in working places and other areas like this. But what do people expect when they go to a bar or night club? Actually, bar and night club owners in cities that have this ban are starting to complain about it because they're losing buisness. Also, most of the people that are so for banning smoking in these places, never even go to them. This is just taking the whole "lung-hugging" way to far.

I'm almost seeing the anti-smoking thing in America as the prohibition of the new age. Pretty soon I'll be a criminal just for having a smoke. What the hell is goin on?


You have the right to walk away from me when I light up a smoke. Maybe you should go outside when I have a cigarette.


Second hand smoke.... you have more chance of getting a brain tumor from your cell phone or cancer from drinking tap water. Seriously


[edit on 11-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
If you ban smoking, why not drinking? You think second hand smoke is bad, how bad is drunk driving, or domestic disputes fueled by alcohol?

In NYC city they banned smoking in bars, but around midnight the bartender says it's ok to smoke, the inspectors don't come out that late.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Let's just ban everything that the majority dislikes. It's pathetic how worried people are about things like smoking. Like they're going to live forever anyway! It really makes me mad how much people desire to limit the freedoms of their peers.

- Attero



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Some of your Avatars give me a headache...
Could you take them outside?

Curme, I totally (or should I say teetotally) agree with your drinking comment..
I almost posted the same thought..Second hand drinking=being hit head-on by a drunk driver..



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Shoot I can do one better than that even... Automobiles should be banned. Cars kill more people then smoking and drinking every year!!!

DOWN WITH THE AUTOMOBILE!!!



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Maybe some of you people have already got tumours from smoking. To say move away from me while I smoke or whatever is the whole point of the issue. You are being proactive in smoking; a non-smoker would be infected without choice. It is this arrogance from smokers that astounds me. They will then say, well I've been a smoker all my life why should I give up now. No you havent. You were not born puffing on a cancer stick; you took up the HABIT at a later stage. So the fact is we are ALL non-smoker, just some BEACAME smokers.
Yes the drink driving analogy is a good one, and you can then take it to base by saying well ban cars. But the whole point of a smoking ban is to enforce responsibility of a user to the innocent non-user. IE a smoker should not give a non-smoker cancer. So the law is exactly the same as the law that states "you cannot drive a car while drunk". So the analogy only serves to boost the argument of the anti-smoking lobby. If you kill someone whilst drink driving you should be punished. If you kill someone whilst smoking now you are NOT punished. Get the idea, or has the nicotine rotted your brain cells.


[edit on 11-11-2004 by The Teller]

[edit on 11-11-2004 by The Teller]



  exclusive video


top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join