I'm sick of breathing in selfish people's smoke, it makes me Ill and every family member that has died in my family over the years is because of smoking related illness. Smokers should get help and give up asap as it WILL kill them eventually, it WILL. FIRST HAND SMOKING, 2ND HAND SMOKE OR THIRD HAND SMOKE ...... IT DOESN'T MATTER, IT KILLS, WE NEED AN OUTRIGHT BAN IN THE COUNTRY TO PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE. All smokers smell awful, rotten teeth and bad breathe, I just don't understand I really don't as to why people can't get strong and kick the habit.
Why would you want to even smoke,do you know it is so dangerous.
If you are smoking and harming yourself why harm other in the public.
People who smoke in public portray a bad example. Children are easily influenced in their growing stages. They imitate the people around them because they cannot differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore they perceive the actions they see around them as the way things should be. Besides that, teenagers who see people smoke in public take it as precedent to start smoking as well. There is a saying that goes "monkey see monkey do," which tells us that people imitate the actions of others as they see it in their daily lives.Thankyou
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
You have an activity that can kill the person doing it and harm all those around them. In a public place why would you allow that do go on? Smoking needs to be banned in all public places. Most of society don't smoke and don't want to be exposed to smoke.
There are many people with health issues that would greatly benefit from a prevention of smoking in public places, however, I want to focus more on the etiquette of it. Smoking in a public place affects not only yourself, but the other people around you. Smoking is your choice and I'm fine with that, but if you're smoking in a public place, you tend to bother the non-smokers around you. Lets use another example that isn't drug related. When you're inside the privacy of your own home, you tend to forget about etiquette. It's true. Let's say you're coughing a lot. If you're by yourself, you tend to hack it up and cough without covering your mouth; however, if you went in public and did that, you're affecting not only yourself but the others around you. Others know that you don't cover your mouth inside your own home, but it's common courtesy to cover your mouth even though it isn't a law. Now to end my argument, I'll list the health effects smoking in public has on other people. 1) Second-hand smoke. Most people don't enjoy the smell of cigarettes and enjoy not receiving second hand smoke if they can help it. I don't have to explain what's bad about second hand smoke. 2) You make it hard for people with asthma to breathe. The smoke affects their lungs which causes their throat to close up making it harder to breathe. When they're gasping for clean air, all they can smell is cigarette smoke which doesn't help their cause. 3) Smoking causes bronchitis for those with sensitive lungs. Approximately 24 million American adults have sensitive lungs. If they inhale cigarette smoke, they have a high risk of receiving bronchitis. Bronchitis is essentially an inflamed cough that lasts for weeks. Which is the equivalent to coughing with a sore throat. It's painful, bloody, and hurts to wake up in the morning. Just because you need a cigarette doesn't mean you should smoke in front of other people. Please smoke in designated smoking areas. Thank you.
People usually are confronted with situations where someone is smoking and you're just standing there, inhaling their smoke. If this happens too often, and you're too shy to ask them to stop, this could vastly damage your health.
I, myself, am confronted with this situation from time to time and try to start coughing to see if they understand what they're doing, but it never works.
In my country (Australia) smoking is banned in public places and it does not cause a problem. Research has found that passive smoking is even more dangerous than smoking to ones health. Maybe people have a right to destroy their own health but they don't have a right to destroy the health of other people.
Second hand smoking is more harmful than actual smoking.The air that the public breathes should not be filled with this kind of poisons.Even infants and small children will be forced to breathe the air, and this can severely harm their growth and development.
Smoking should be allowed only in private places.
Smoking should be banned in public places as it can cause other in public to get exposure from second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is found to be able to cause disease such as cancer, disabilities and even death. People in public who themselves chose not to smoke should not have to suffer from the consequences of smokers smoking in public places.
Smoking is not only harmful to the person doing it but the people around them as well. I hate when people smoke in public places, it gives me allergies and massive headaches. I don't think its necessary for them to smoke while kids are around or when people are trying to eat at a restaurant.
Non-smokers outnumber smokers in adults about 4:1 (1). I don't think this argument is about finding a safe place to breathe as much as it's about the opinion of a portion of the non-smokers who find smoking distasteful. There's no guarantee that legislation will dictate smokers' long-term habitual behavior, and generally, people who quit for good do it on their own initiative, not by another's will. By handing an issue like this over to the government, we rid ourselves of one more freedom to be enjoyed.
I think the real question to be asked here is "Do I chose to handle my own freedom responsibly, or do I chose to let others handle my freedoms for me?" For smokers, are the benefits of smoking truly worth the personal consequences? For non-smokers, is second-hand smoking so bad for you that you'd rather potentially remove these people from your daily life altogether? Smokers do BY FAR the most damage to themselves, not others, whereas drunks and fireworks present much more tangible threats to those passing by. I read more annoyance in the "Yes" section than sorrow and grief, so I'm going to assume that issuing a ban doesn't have smokers' well-beings at the forefront of the thought process.
I am not a smoker, yet I do not agree with the smoking ban. While I personally find the smell of lingering smoke to be repugnant, I would not wish the limit the freedoms of those who choose to smoke should they desire to. Yes, smoking is harmful to all involved, however it is possible for establishments to designate smoking and non-smoking areas, respectively. Not once as a child did I suffer (or even directly smell) smoke from a smoking section and while this is personal anecdote, I apply it here to demonstrate that it is possible to cater to both smokers and non-smokers and this can only benefit business.
People who do not like to smell or be around smoke, could just as easily choose to eat or visit an establishment that prohibited smoking on their property. For whatever reason, proponents of the smoking ban like to think that lifting the ban would result in every single public space being polluted with smoke (as if it ever was beforehand). The majority of smokers I encounter are respectful of others and choose to smoke away from crowds and in open spaces, even downwind.
As for the argument "I shouldn't have to not eat somewhere because people want to smoke, THEY should go somewhere else!"; your choice to abstain from smoking is exactly that. Your choice. Nobody forces you to eat or attend venues that would allow smokers inside, and in fact plenty of businesses would happily provide non-smoking alternatives knowing that they would attract large business from those who find it repulsive and distasteful.
Establishments get to set their own rules with their own properties; smokers and non-smokers alike can go wherever they desire that caters to their personal preference; everybody wins.
I don't believe it should be. People would have nowhere else to go if there was. Suppose a state park outlawed smoking in it. It would lose a bunch of people and revenue from smokers. I know that my dad, who is a smoker, loves to go hiking and camping. If it was outlawed, he would stop or break the law.
Smoking is a life choice and shouldn't matter to those who don't smoke. Certain restaurants have smoking seating or patios for people who want to smoke. If you don't like it, go somewhere else, or ask for a seat farthest away from the smoking area. You can avoid it if you need to.
I don't believe smoking should be banned in public places, but I do agree with the idea of smokers being restricted to smoking sections. Since I've always been a "responsible" smoker (meaning I don't smoke in front of doors or around children or in poorly ventilated areas), I've seen time and time again that by me going out of the way of non-smokers, I'm not bothering them with my habit. In fact, most smokers are "responsible" smokers. However, just because I, and many, many others like me, voluntarily remove ourselves from the non-smoking populous when we smoke, doesn't give the non-smoking populous the right to force segregation on smokers. Historically, we've sat in different sections of restaurants, we've smoked in designated areas at the workplace and in and around other public institutions, and have gone out of our way to keep the second-hand smoke as far away from the non-smoking and sensitive populous. Now, we're not allowed to smoke in and/or within 25-35 feet from these places, whether the sensitive populous is there or not. It's discriminatory and prejudiced, especially since plenty of accommodations existed for non-smokers beforehand.
That's the personal reason, but there is also an economic reason, as well. I'll provide a small backstory to it as well. I'm a musician and have spent a lot of the last decade or so in clubs and bars. Clubs and bars depend on liquor sales to stay afloat, and smoking bans have contributed to a decline in liquor sales (since smokers who drink REALLY want to smoke, as do some non-smokers when they drink). The decline in liquor sales has contributed to the closing down of many clubs and bars across the country, many of which were small, independent establishments. For proof, compare the state of Deep Ellum (which, for those of you who may not know, has been a nationally-recognized hub of music and culture for nearly 100 years) ten, fifteen years ago compared to the state of Deep Ellum now.
In summary: Outright, sweeping smoking bans do more harm than a lot of people let on. Sure, it guarantees the non-smoking populous a way to keep cigarette smoke away, but at the cost of the smokers themselves and certain types of businesses.
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no n o n. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no non no no no no no no no no no no n o tb
No! Smoking should not be banned from public places because it feels like that the Congress or Representatives are controlling our lives! Is that what we want?! As a smoker, I believe that banning smoking outside would really upset me because I wouldn't have a place to smoke! The HUD apartments has banned all smoking to be outside. We should fight for this right to not ban smoking in public places. Smoking is a choice that we all chose to do. If the non smokers don't like the smell of smoke, they can leave the area. It used to be first come, first serve. But now the non smokers think that they have the right to put the smokers on the back burner so that they can vote to ban the smoking in public areas.