Should smoking be banned in public?

What Darth Fierce said.

I saw a bumper sticker once that said, "I don't mind if you smoke if you don't mind if I fart."

a_g *note to self: go to restaurant, eat several bean burritos, make an extra side trip to smoking section...*

 

Darth Fierce, i am one of the most considerate people you will meet ( when it comes to smoking ). i personally do not smoke in restaurants. i always walk away from entrances, even in the rain or blistering heat. i can not speak for everyone. i know i would feel bad if i heard somebody complain to the waitress that their meal is ruined. i would feel worse, however, if my rights were taken away even more than they already are.

EDIT: i also don't mind if people fart near me... i take it as a challenge!

 

pkloa: Good for you, because that's always how I behaved when I smoked. Also, because smoking was not allowed where I worked, I waited eight hours for a cigarette, even though I was often about ready to chew through metal by the time the day was over. My smoking coworkers would break the rules and sneak a cigarette, but I wouldn't. Even at home--my husband has allergies, so I never smoked in the house, or in the car when he was with me.

Unfortunately, many or most smokers don't seem to care about anything other than their craving.

 

pkloa and ag
I do need to say: Of the smokers I know, almost every one of them is very considerate, as you are/were. As with everything in life, it's the few that ruin it for the whole.

 

It's just those few bad smokers that make the rest of the responsble smokers look bad...kinda like how the rest of the world views all Americans as dominating, rude, imperialists. Isn't there a term for that? Taking the bad of the whole and designating that to the rest of the population?

Ciou-See the Sig

 

I do not know if it should be outright banned in public, but it certainly should be limited.

I have heard many a law proffessor say "My right to swing my fist ends right before your face." I would say, your right to spread smoke ends right before my mouth.

At my work, most of the people smoke during the 2 breaks outside. Now I have to breath a little of this smoke because I go out to my car and sit and listen to the radio, so when I walk past them I have to hold my breath.

 

coolguy, if a group of people are gathered, smoking, you would walk through it in the first place? that's like if you know the proverbial fist is going to stop right before your face, would you lean into it? if it offends you, aren't there ways of avoiding it completely? your way of holding your breath is indeed one way.

 

Here's a story published today about the hazards of second-hand smoke.

 

thank you for the link, i have known since long before i started smoking the dangers it presented to me. i knew that it can cause damage to others. i do not have any clue how much second hand smoke it takes to actually damage a normal, non-allergic person. i have never seen a report that actually gives the statistics of second-hand smoke's effect on people. i agree that a person can be at risk from second hand smoke, but it is my belief that to actually blame health problems on second-hand smoke, extremely long exposure for a time period of years would have to exist.

the plane stewardesses have a valid argument, stating that the smoke is recirculated in the airplane for the 10-12 hour flights. flying everyday for 20 years in these conditions would undoubtedly cause health problems. that is why i agree with no smoking on airplanes. even if i have to rip armrests up to try to calm down.

however, passing a person or group outside, or eating at a ventilated restaurant for 1- 1 1/2 hours could never present a problem to your health, IMO. thank you again for the link.

 

Exactly what I said, proloned exposure is a bad thing. Couldn't you put up with it for like an hour? I can, it doesn't even effect me.

 

I cant even hardly breathe when Im around smokers smoking.


I think there was a new study that said Second Hand smoke is deadlier than actually smoking.

 

"New studies" in any field tend to be bull****. They are ALWAYS biased towards whatever end is trying to be proved. I could go out and research and poll people and manage to skew the collected evidence to say that second-hand smoke is not harmful, and you could talk to the same people and read the same sources and come up with a completely opposite conclusion.

 

Arg, nice unbiaded study of everything....

Not saying that smoking is not harmful, it is, but it is a persons choice.

Of course, there will NEVER be any large scale banning of tobacco in America, for one simple reason.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/sintax020701.html

(btw, how do you make a link?)

The governments are making a good chunk of cash from taxes on tobacco. Since it is addictive many smokers wont quit just cause it costs more. Our pure loving government it making more money off the cancer sticks than the tobacco companies!

I dont like smoking, but occasional second hand smoke is harmless. Maybe if i was stuck in a small cabin 8 hours a day sucking in the fumes, it would be bad, but as is in every day places, it is not a big deal.

 

Mastadge-

You might want to watch the language, the mods do not take kindly to profanity in here.

As far as your theories on new studies, I would not call them blatantly false, but rather sometimes inconsistent. To show direct, causative effects, one would need a long-term (30 yr+) double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the effects of not only cigarettes, but second-hand smoke as well. Such a study would have to involve thousands, at an enormous cost, to be valid. It would be a monstrous undertaking.

Instead, we have individual, prospective and retrospective studies which follow those who smoke as individuals and groups over many years, as well as looking back at the smoking history of those who present with certain medical problems. The tobacco companies have known for decades about the addictive properties of nicotine and also the harmful effects of smoke, yet continued to peddle a lethal product, oftentimes to young people. In the absence of the placebo-controlled trial, they often decry any causation between cigarette smoking and significant health risks.

As far as the 'why don't we ban cars argument', stop to consider this: cigarettes are a product when, used as intended, will kill you. Over 90% of lung cancers are related in some way to smoking; the lungs are simply not an organ prone to develop cancer in the absence of exogenous carcinogens. Cars cause death, but not as their primary function.

So should smoking be banned? In public, absolutely. It is more harmful than some narcotics, the only difference is that the effects take much longer to show up. In private, well, I don't much support it if you have children, because they may develop ashtma, in addition to the cancer risk, but it is one's home, and such a ban would be near impossible to enforce.

Practically though, tobacco is entrenched in our society, and it will be very hard to get it out.

Peace,

V-03

 

As far as the 'why don't we ban cars argument', stop to consider this: cigarettes are a product when, used as intended, will kill you.

Also, stop to consider, cars, when used as intended, produce much more pollutant and poisonous gases than a person that smokes.

 

I DO think smoking should be banned in public, second hand smoke is far too devastating. I live out in California and I can say it is great to walk in a restaurant and not worry about the smokey smell that used to overwhelm a person upon entering. Other states should follow the lead!

 

Problem with banning tobacco is that it is so deep in our society, that if sucessfully banned, why not ban other things? Why dont we ban fatty foods? They will kill you just as dead as cigs can. Factories pollute the air much more than cigs, so do SUV's, ban them too. Guns are made to kill things, they should go too!

 

I don't sit with my mouth over the muffler of my car and inhale the exhaust, CUBIE_HOLE. And the pollution from a car is far more dilute than that of inhaled or second-hand cigarette smoke, millions of cars or not. If it weren't, we'd all be dead of carbon monoxide poisoning.

But the way, sunlight causes skin cancer, lack of sleep accelerates aging, fatty food causes heart disease, airplanes increase exposure to cosmic rays at high altitudes, yadie-yadie-yada.

Cars exhaust are a side-effect, as are all the things I mentioned above. Cigarette's are designed to pump poisons into your body.

Period.

V-03

 

Yeah, well I still cant breathe very well around smokers.

 

Smoking has to be allowed in public as we have no laws regulationg their use.

 

Well, it could be argued that people who support the taxes on cigarettes support taxation without representation. I mean, smokers are being taxed more, but they are getting no more representation in the government now that they are paying more.

Also, if they are banned, what will we do? First off, there will be a huge black market for them, probably worse than drugs that are already illegal. And what then? So how will we punish them? A whole lot of emotionally draining therapy wasting tax payer?s dollars? Prison? How? Is a harmless inconvenience on you worth all this trouble?

 

Unfortunately, second-hand smoke related diseases can not be classified as "harmless inconviences"

 

I was refearing to when it is casual, like walking down a streat or what not. I should have been more spesific, and it was a mistake that i was not.

But please. I just thought of that argument and I want to know if it has ever come up and what not. Please, rise above nit picking and get the idea of what people are trying to say.

 

I think there was a new study that said Second Hand smoke is deadlier than actually smoking.

Oh please! Explain to me how inhaling the smoke directly and taking it in at it's most concentrated state is less harmful than breathing it second hand. How does this work? Is there something in my body that chemically changes the smoke and makes it more harmful? Use your brain...that doesn't make sense.

Anyways...I can kind of see the arguements for not smoking in restaurants or malls, but it should still be left up to the business owners. Second, would a public ban include me smoking in my car?

 

Oh please! Explain to me how inhaling the smoke directly and taking it in at it's most concentrated state is less harmful than breathing it second hand. How does this work? Is there something in my body that chemically changes the smoke and makes it more harmful? Use your brain...that doesn't make sense.

Secondhand smoke isn't sucked through a filter. Of course, even I will admit that it's a bit obtuse to think that smokers aren't also passively inhaling the primary smoke. But that's beside the point... the fact is that secondhand smoke is deadlier than firsthand smoke... regardless of who inhales it.