Could a ban on smoking, in all public places, be considered a serious option?

  • Yes.

    I prefer not to die, beause some bums decided to smoke near me, outside the corner store.

  • I believe a ban on smoking in all public places is a serious option, because smoking is a choice, not a need or a right.

    I believe that banning smoking in all public places is a serious option. Smoking is something that a person chooses to do, and there is no reason that smoking in public places should be necessary. Furthermore, since second-hand smoke can be so harmful, I believe the right of others not to be exposed to second-hand smoke supersedes the smoker's desire to smoke where they please.

    Posted by: elliso23
  • Yes, a ban on smoking in all public places is indeed a viable option, and should be seriously considered, because smoking harms everyone's health, not just the smoker.

    Smoking harms our health. That's a fact. Nobody should be able to expose others to second-hand smoke anymore than they should be allowed to stab an unsuspecting bystander with an infected HIV needle. People who choose to smoke should do so in an environment that is free of traffic, to prevent others from suffering the ill effects of their second-hand smoke.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • My own personal opinion on this dictates my decision. Smoking is disgusting.

    I would be completely for an all smoking ban. I realize that the tax dollars generated by the cigarette industry could not be replaced by any other industry, but the dollars saved treating smokers for the various illnesses they can contract as a result of smoking would surpass that amount by twice I would think. This is also not to mention the number of non-smokers with smoke related illnesses because of their exposure. If you smoke, do it on your time and in your space, not in mine or in public places.

    Posted by: Ment0n3
  • I support smoking ban in public places for the benefit of general public.

    Smoking in public places also causes passive smoking for the non-smokers around, affecting the health of the people around. According to a study, it was proved there are high risks for passive smoking compared to active smoking, so I believe one should not be encouraged to smoke in public areas for common good.

    Posted by: SaroM0vi3
  • A ban on smoking in all public places is a serious option that we should consider.

    A ban on smoking in all public places is a serious option that we should consider. Bans on smoking in public places are already in effect in many large cities such as Seattle and New York. They have led to a much better quality of life for non-smokers who should not be subjected to the harmful medical effects of second-hand smoke.

    Posted by: NatBIab
  • A smoking ban can and is enforceable in many places as public opinion is so heavily against smokers.

    Smoking bans are commonplace in many cities and states throughout the US and Europe. These bans are regularly enforced through citations to individuals and businesses. This has been well received as the awareness of the health risks of second hand smoke have increased. The public negative opinion of smoking in general has also helped mitigate the political fall out for regulating private behavior like smoking.

    Posted by: E Olson
  • A smoking ban in public places is a very serious option to curb second hand smoke harm.

    Arkansas recently instituted a smoking ban in all municipality owned places. It keeps mothers from smoking at the play ground and exposing other people's children to second hand smoke. Although I believe people should have the freedom to do as they please, I don't think it should be at the expense of others. Police could hand out tickets for such violations, and eventually they will stop smoking in the park or they won't have enough money for cigarettes.

    Posted by: StormGra
  • A smoking ban can be enforceable if all citizens are watchful and aid police in their job.

    Enforcing a smoking ban in public places is pretty much up to the owner/manager of the shop, bar, restaurant, etc. If they put up signs to notify their customers of the smoking ban, and tell anyone smoking that they cannot do so, the ban should work quite well. There are always the few people who will try to get around the ban, just because they can. We have a smoking ban in Iowa, and I think it works extremely well.

    Posted by: BMaritza
  • Yes, because a smoking ban in all public places protects the freedom of the people as a whole.

    A ban on smoking in public areas should be given serious consideration. Second-hand smoke has been shown to have adverse health effects. On top of that, many people find it unpleasant and distracting. The smell of smoke often lingers in my hair and clothes even after I leave public places, like bars and bowling alleys. A public smoking ban would protect non-smokers (the majority) from unwanted and potentially hazardous interference from smokers. The rights of the smokers can still be upheld in private. Just because someone enjoys doing it, doesn't give them the right to do it in public if it disturbs and hurts other people.

    Posted by: ShowKiII
  • Really?

    When smoking in public places like parks, people can move freely, they can easily move from the smoke. When smoking outdoors, smoke dissipates in less than 3 minutes! On top of that, it's not going to make anyone quit smoking like they are trying to accomplish! It's taking away the rights of a person. Obesity is a bigger health risk to this generation than smoking! Pull your heads out your butt! Come on, if someone is smoking next to you, move! Walk away! There are more harmful things in the air today than smoke!

  • I am against banning smoking anywhere, because it is an infringement of freedom.

    The freedom of the people of America has been trampled on recently from seat belt laws, to airport security, and now to smoking bans. Decisions concerning my personal safety are mine to make alone. The government has authority, as defined by the Constitution, period. There is no provision in the Constitution for the freedom-infringing laws concerning personal health. Therefore, there should be no such laws.

    Posted by: QuietMan71
  • Banning smoking in all public places would require such a legal mess of enforcement, that it would not be worth it.

    Back in the days of prohibition, when we thought we could do so much good by officially banning all alcohol sales, we saw what would happen if we tried to ban smoking in a similar way. People already know enough about the facts about smoking, so I don't think the cost and the mess involved with banning smoking is worth what little we might gain from it.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • I think we need a reasonable balance. As long as smoking remains legal...and prohibition is bad...smokers need to be catered to.

    A smoking ban is excessive, unless we intend to prohibit tobacco. While there are undoubtedly places smoking needs to be banned both to protect the health of others from secondary smoke and to reduce the risk of fire, all public places is going too far. It affects nobody if somebody is smoking in a park or being careful in the street.

    Although tobacco is a health problem, we still need to balance people's rights.

    Posted by: C0urtIight
  • I oppose banning smoking in all public places, because we have to balance smoker's rights and non-smoker's rights.

    People should have a right to breathe clean air and people should also have a right to their lifestyle choices. I support banning smoking in indoor facilities, because of ventilation issues, but I support people being able to smoke outside as long as they do not litter. If they litter, then they should get a fine for that.

    Posted by: labusy
  • A ban on smoking in public places is unlawful due to it being called a PUBLIC place, and thus, not a serious option.

    I believe that if there was a smoking ban in all public places, it would not be a good option. This is because it is called a public place for a reason, and the smokers go there to lower their stress and quickly place more bad things onto their body. Smoking can now be considered a religion, and it anything went against its use, many people would be unhappy and start smoking in their houses instead of the public places.

    Posted by: N34rIyGaIv
  • Goes against civil liberties

    Imagine having to wait until you get home to light up.
    People would get withdrawal symptons
    Also the law would be flouted to prevent this from happening
    people have rights.Leave the poor people who smoke alone.
    We do not want nanny states. Hope the government sees sense. The end. Richard

  • Only if you want your country to be oppressed by schizophrenic control freaks.

    Dear anti-smokers, keep your filthy stress at home. STRESS KILLS
    “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” ~Jiddu Krishnamurti
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C.S. Lewis

  • Priorities all wrong

    Shouldn't they be concentrating on getting junkies off the street!! Leaving needles in parks and down back streets!! Giving them free Meth everyday!!! So what if I want to smoke in the street..I'm not dealing 20 Regal king size to kids and killing them!! Seriously people get your priorities right!! Would you rather see someone smoking or some piss head smacked up on the street!!!

  • Taking away our rights.

    If people don't want to be around second hand smoke then they can just leave. In Minnesota an attorney Mark Benjamin says "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." If we have Shakespeare in the park, can't we have Shakespeare in the bar?" People should not be denied the right to smoke. Bars are hurting because of this. If actors are able to smoke in the theater then people should be able to smoke in the bars.

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