Amazon.com Widgets

Ban on smoking in public places: Is a smoking ban necessary to protect non-smokers?

  • I think this should be banned everywhere....

    If someone has to smoke in their own home, go for it...But people in public don't need to breathe the smoke in, especially children. A public place like a restaurant may have smoking allowed or not, I suppose it depends on who owns the restaurant and their beliefs but someone who doesn't smoke will not want their children or anyone else to smell like or breathe in smoke, but that's just my opinion. :)

  • Yes it is!

    Smokeing in public places should be banned because non smokers don't need the second hand garbage that comes from smokers. Not only that things like tar that are in cigarettes are harmful to the lungs and, can cause lung cancer or some other type of cancer. So therefore people shouldn't even be in the first place, let alone letting others get the worst end of the whole Smokeing ordeal. That and also the tar and, other garbage that is in the cigarettes can get so built up in a smokers lunges that a smoker would have have a hard time breathing.

  • Smoke doesn't magically stay in one smoking area

    Yes, I do believe that banning smoking in public places is necessary to protect non-smokers from the effects of smoking. For some unknown reason people tend to think that smoke stays in the smoking section and does seep into other areas. Public places should either band the use of cigarettes or other smoking products or provide a closed in area where smokers can enjoy their smoke and at the same time keep their harmful smoke among each other.

  • Public Smoking Bans Are Necessary

    Yes, a ban on public smoking is necessary to protect non-smokers. Second hand smoke is a very real and present threat. Many studies have shown how detrimental second hand smoke can be to non-smokers. Allowing smoking to occur in public is thus a disservice to non-smokers and should be banned.

  • Smoking Ban Protects Non-Smokes

    Bans on smoking in public places make plenty of sense. These bans protect non-smokers from smokers that choose to subject people to secondhand smoke. With that in mind, such bans are in place in various parts of the country, and they have shown promising results without many issues or problems.

  • Some do not want to be around it.

    This may come off a little bias because I have never been a smoker; but, yes, I am for smoking being banned in public areas, or at least inside of them. Some people can have serious negative side affects from breathing in second-hand smoke so why take the risk of hurting someone?

  • I think so.

    As a former smoker, I used to be annoyed when I had to first start standing outside, but I understood the reasoning behind it. People who don't smoke shouldn't be subjected to the smoke of other people when they are out in public. We know for a fact how dangerous second hand smoke can be.

  • Yes, it's good to ban smoking in public.

    In more recent years, it has been discovered that secondhand smoke is dangerous in any level. People standing near someone who is smoking are also being exposed to nicotine. The EPA has declared that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen, and it can bother people who have asthma. People who do not smoke are having their own rights infringed upon if they're in the presence of smokers. In order to protect others, it's important to require smokers to smoke in privacy.

  • Smokinh Bans Are Needed

    It is proven fact that second hand smoke is harmful to other people, and it makes sense to regulate it. It shouldn't be allowed in bars and most public spaces. However, there must be a limit to this. People should be allowed to smoke outdoors in public so long as they do not litter.

  • Smoking bans are absolutely necessary.

    It's sad that something that should be common sense has to be made into a law but I do think smoking bans are absolutely necessary. Cigarettes contain all kinds of harmful chemicals and carcinogens and those that don't smoke shouldn't have to be subjected to those negative effects when they're simply trying to breathe.

  • Should be up to the owners

    If the owner is the one paying the bills they should be allowed whether or not to decide to allow it. It's legal thus it shouldn't be treated as something that is illegal. I don't see any reason why having smoking and non smoking facilities as not an option that makes sense.

  • Should be up to the owners

    If the owner is the one paying the bills they should be allowed whether or not to decide to allow it. It's legal thus it shouldn't be treated as something that is illegal. I don't see any reason why having smoking and non smoking facilities as not an option that makes sense.

  • Depends on the "public area"

    Private property open to public should be left to owners to decide. Bars, eating establishments, etc. Non smokers have choice to go to smoking/non smoking places. Makes room for new businesses that are non smoking. Leads to more jobs, etc. True public areas not owned by private party I'm OK with.

  • Depends on the "public area"

    Private property open to public should be left to owners to decide. Bars, eating establishments, etc. Non smokers have choice to go to smoking/non smoking places. Makes room for new businesses that are non smoking. Leads to more jobs, etc. True public areas not owned by private party I'm OK with.


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