• highschool student

    i disagree with what EducatedAlfonso said only because our country is based off what the people choose isnt that a democracy? isnt that what our own very country stands by? if a person chooses to smoke let him do so on his own time, in the sanctity of his privacy. I personaly agree that smoking bans are a fair way to go about things.

  • Smoking ban should be comprehensive

    Smoking should be banned at every area where any other living thing can be harmed. Smoking has no benefit and carries a very long list of hazards for smokers as well as others. Smoking is simply waste of health and money.

  • What about the people who don't want to 2nd hand smoke.

    What if there are people who don't want to smoke and go out to eat. I hate going into a public place where there are people are smoking it up.

  • Smoking tobacco is harmful to all people, and those who choose not to do so should be protected from the decisions of others who smoke.

    Just as the legal system is set up to (in part) protect its citizens, smoking bans are set up to protect the health and safety of all people. All people should have the right to not be physically harmed by others, and smoking in public places make it almost impossible for non-smokers to avoid being physically harmed while in public.

    Posted by: enygmatical
  • Smoking bans in public places are legal because smoking affects the health of non-smokers.

    There have been many studies done and have shown that smoking significantly affects the health of non-smokers. Second hand smoke has been proven to have increased ear infections as well as other illnesses in children. It has also been proven to cause many other illnesses in adults. It is important to limit the exposure to those who try to stay away from it.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • I support banning smoking in public areas, because I do not believe it is against the rights of the smokers.

    I support banning smoking in public areas, because of the health risk it imposes on the general public. It has been proved that second-hand smoke can be just as dangerous to someone as smoking itself. I do not believe it is against a smoker's rights to ban public smoking to protect their fellow Americans.

    Posted by: SigClever
  • Yes, due to health concerns of others, banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

    Places of public assembly need to be no smoking zones. These places of public assembly are open to people who have the right to breathe fresh clean air that isn't contaminated with cigarette, cigar, or pipe smoke. There are children and adults with illnesses who should be able to walk free, without the worry of breathing in toxins.

    Posted by: WillowsErv
  • Yes, because smoking bans are implemented to look after the overall health of citizens.

    Smoking bans are legal, because they are a way to promote the overall well-being and health of the population. Smoking bans make dining out and other social gatherings tolerable for those who cannot be around cigarette smoke. They also reduce the risk of health complications, which saves thousands of dollars on health care treatment.

    Posted by: WardGrad
  • It is legal to ban smoking in public places, yes, but within limits.

    Smoking in public places should be prohibited, but smokers should be allowed to smoke in designated locations. Companies should not completely eliminate smoking areas, as has been the trend in the recent years. Treating smokers as children is not right, as they are free to make their own educated choices based on the information that is freely available.

    Posted by: takeaminute
  • Smoking bans in public places are definitely legal, in order to protect non-smokers.

    In our society, we protect its members by enforcing laws to keep others from either intentionally, or inadvertently, harming those members. The side effects of smoking, whether as a participant or bystander, are harmful and even deadly. No person should have the right to inflict harm or death on another. Private places for smoking allow those that choose to ingest nicotine to do so, without inflicting the effects of their decision on those who do not.

    Posted by: VersedMitch26
  • The right to choose is a basic human right

    If I want to smoke in a public place, then I have the right to do so. It is a basic human right, virtually the same as women wanting the right to choose to have an abortion. I believe that in a public, open-air place, I should have the right to choose to smoke if I so desire. There is virtually no evidence that smoking in an open-air place will cause non-smokers harm from second-hand smoke. The same goes for impressionable children, there is very little evidence to support the fact that children seeing a stranger smoking will cause them to take up the habit. There is also little evidence to support that smoking harms the wildlife. Therefore I should have the right to choose to smoke in a public, open-air place if I so desire.

  • There is no significant epidemiological evidence that second hand smoke is harmful.

    As there is no epidemiological evidence that second hand smoke is significantly harmful, the smell of tobacco smoke and the politically correct drive, smoking bans, under the gross perversion of science that it is about the health of non smokers. The UK health and Safety executive, can not produce epidemiological evidence that SHS (ETS) is significantly harmful, and nor can the USA OSHA, this is because the pooled epidemiological studies into SHS (ETS) show a relative risk of approx (RR) 1.19 which is roughly the same as water and safer than thousands of other products or foods.
    Here is what the UK HSE stated shortly before the English smoking ban in HSE OC255/15 article 9.
    9 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
    Ventilation was the way forward, not creating an apartheid of smokers and non smokers.

  • Power of Choice

    The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty definition: Power of choice. If I want to smoke outside, I should have the power of choice. Inside the non smokers have a choice to be smoke free but when outside their choice can be to leave the area.

  • Studies and statistics have been miss leading to the public.

    This is a Republic NOT a Democracy. For years special interest groups have been claiming all types of horrific consequences for smoking and then second hand smoke became dangerous. The studies have not proven any danger what so ever. Cigarette smoke does smell if confined to closed spaces. But people have a right to freedom and property rights. Simple inexpensive lounges and areas with proper ventilation can be set aside to accommodate those that do smoke (approx. 70+ million). They pay taxes and fight to protect our freedoms. The most brilliant individuals that have ever lived used tobacco. The whole smoking agenda is pure propaganda. Remember Germany 1930’s (that great Democracy). We have a constitution that this country was established by and we do not intend to let people who think this a Democracy destroy the greatness of this country. Home the brave and the free.

  • They are absolutely not fair towards those who smoke.

    It's one thing for a smoking ban to include places where both smokers and non-smokers must use together(i.E. Inside government buildings, public transit), but it's absolutely unfair to require owners of private businesses they can't cater to smokers instead if that's what they'd rather do. Due to the fact some are sensitive to smoke, require those places to post 'this is a smoking establishment' or to post that they do have a smoking area/room(and to post such signage indicating that such an area exists, and that it has to be physically walled off from an indoor non-smoking area if both indoor smoking and non-smoking areas are available, and that the non-smoking area has to be bigger), and that employees sensitive to smoke be allowed to not work in areas that are smoking.

    The war on smoking has gone WAAAAAY too far, especially when those campaigning for bans are now selfishly trying to ban smoking in outdoor places like every part of a park, inside 100% of motel/hotel guest rooms, running their mouth about third-hand smoke or danger about cigarette smoke exposure outside(when NO proof has been found about either proving that it's dangerous), etc. Also, those who campaign for selfish smoking bans tend to use them as a steppingstone towards more bans of various things later, such as on large soda drink sizes(i.E. The court-halted ban in NYC). What ever happened to the American ideal of free choice and personal responsibility, including not patronizing establishments with smoking policies they disagree with?

  • It's a right to smoke.

    Smoking in public places is a right. That's like telling someone that they can't go somewhere just because not everyone likes smoking. I don't think it's fair not to let smokers into certain public places. I think that it is really stupid. I don't understand what everyone has against smoking anyway. Yeah it's not the best thing for your health, but it's still the person's choice if they want to smoke of not.

    I don't understand why people all of a sudden want to criminalize smoking anyway. It was not a big deal a few years ago. I get that people don't like the smell or the risk of second hand smoking, but why should smokers not be allowed places? If you go somewhere where you know there will be smokers, don't go. Don't try to criminalize smoking just because you don't want to be around it.

    You will be around smoking all of your life. If you don't want to be around smokers, don't go to the places where you know they will be. If you still go to these places, you obviously don't care that much. Making it illegal would just be stupid. It would cause a lot of drama, and that doesn't sound very fun. Yeah, smoking is seriously harmful to the people who do it (and the people around them) but so is drinking and driving. You're not supposed to do it because it is really harmful and can kill others as easily as it can kill you. Yet people still do it. Why? I have no idea. You can't stop someone for doing something you want to do. It's not fair to judge others for what they do. A lot of people that smoke now started smoking when they were younger. A lot of them wish that they could quit too, but it's not that easy. Nicotine is highly addicting. (Or so I've been told. I'm not a smoker.) There is absolutely no good reason that people don't want you to go certain places, just because you smoke.

  • No

    A recent study lead by the Berkeley institute in the U.S has exposed the dangers of smoking indoors.
    It is called 3rd hand smoking and is just as bad if not worse then 2nd hand smoking. This occurs when cigarette smoke is mixed with a common indoor pollutant called nitrous acid and turns into a dangerous carcinogen called TSNA.
    This is extremely dangerous not only for adults but even worse for children through dermal uptake as it absorbs into all surfaces in the room.
    I have been touched by cancer several times in my family and two of those family members had never touched a cigarette in there lives. This drove me to do something about it as I believe that non smokers should not be exposed to these dangers due to others that choose to do so. I discovered that for many years now they have had highly advanced technology in the U.S the U.K and also Germany to detect cigarette smoke and enforce non smoking areas.

  • The founding fathers of this country were tobacco farmers, and it is our Constitutional right to enjoy fine American tobacco, anywhere in the USA.

    This country was founded on tobacco farming. It is one of our greatest exports. The writers of the Constitution fully accounted for our right to enjoy farming, smoking, and chewing tobacco in America. President John Adams, Chester Arthur, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and many more all have enjoyed and should protect our right to enjoy tobacco in public places in America. These Presidents smoked in the White House, which is a public government building.

    Posted by: Sk8brdrCar
  • It is not constitutionally correct.

    Remember that this is not a question about smoking or 2nd hand smoke being good or bad, the ability of the federal government to regulate controlled chemicals or drugs is not stated in the Constitution and teh Constitution clearly states that if it doesn't say the federal government can do something, then the federal government can't do it. The state government should be the ones to regulate this type of thing, not federal, and depending upon the state smoking may or may not be banned, and it is also the responsibility of the people to smoke without giving second hand smoke to anyone else. the government was created to protect the rights of others, and if you aren't infringing upon the rights of others by giving them second hand smoke, like if you smoked in an empty parking lot with no one else around, then you aren't taking away anyone else's rights and therefore a smoking ban would just be taking away your right to smoke. If you wan't to take away your own rights then that's yur own choice and the government shouldn't be able to do anything about it. I am against smoking AND government control, and I am for the constitution so even though i don't approve of smoking, it's not my place to make other people stop.

  • It is unfair towards smokers to make smoking in public places illegal, because smoking is a personal right, just like driving.

    In my opinion (and I am a non-smoker), smoking is a personal right and the smoker pays taxes every time they purchase cigarettes. Similar to cars, smoking pollutes public places. If cars are allowed to pollute public places, then there is no reason cigarettes should be prohibited from polluting public places.

    Posted by: FeIBuddy

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.