Is it fair for people to have to endure second-hand smoke because people smoke in public places?

  • I'm tired of hiding

    I've smoked for years now. I try to be as respectful as I can with my choice to smoke. No matter where I am I try to keep smoke out of people's face and keep my distance. The problem is, non-smokers will walk up to a person smoking a cigarette and then complain. WTF am I supposed to do at that point? Non-smokers complain constantly about the smoke around them. I have been sitting in a casino already smoking a cigarette, and a person sit next to me, turn and ask ME to get up and move because they don't like smoke. The problem seems to be non-smokers want a smoke free world. They simply want to pick at the smoker's rights until it is illegal to smoke. Is it fair for people to have to endure second-and smoke because people smoke in public places? How about if you don't like the smoke THAT much just walk a couple feet away. I'm tired of frantically trying to find a place to smoke out of the way.

  • Yeah ok, smokers smell, so do you.

    Inhaling second hand smoke is not as dangerous as breathing in exhaust in metropolitan areas. If you want to legislate away smoking, logically, you must legislate away cars. There is no proof that second hand smoke in outdoor environments is harmful. In fact, all the reports (including the big one from the FDA in the 90's) used subjective correlation to base its conclusions on. In fact, government sponsored investigations should not be held with such high esteem. The US government controls the taxation on the product, they are continuing to raise the taxation on liquor as well and have even prohibited it in the past based on not-so objective reasoning. They also have been fighting a costly moral war on drugs for decades. They are not the best people to be getting objective information about a narcotic from.

  • Second Hand Smoke Junk Science

    The second hand smoke scare is the biggest hoax on the American people ever. You ask why would anyone want to do this? Well do your research and see what new products have been introduced since the great debate over second hand smoke.. Well that should be enough to convince anyone but I realize most people believe the government and their great agencies like the CDC. So another question you might ask: Why does the CDC studies focus on just cigarette smoke and not all pollution? Over all air pollution is not on the forefront of the CDC agenda even though there is far more evidence that car exhaust is far more harmful than second hand smoke. Comparing second hand smoke to car exhaust is like comparing a cup of water to an ocean and yet no complaints to the contrary. Why is that? I've heard arguments from stupid people that say "well we have to drive, we don't have to smoke".. Driving is a fact of life but doesn't change the fact of the harm the pollution the car puts off is killing people. Complaining about second hand smoke is like complaining because someone farted in a sulfur plant or because someone peed in the forest, well you get the point, I hope!

  • Learn about second hand smoke.

    No good doctor will tell you that your chances medical consequences from inhaling second hand smoke will be significant if you are outside. Unless you are sitting directly in front of the person (in which case I'd recommend moving) wind, natural and man made from cars, buses etc will rapidly disperse the carcinogens. If you are outside in a major US city, the other carcinogens in the air from vehicle exhausts and the like will be more dangerous. If your argument is that it annoys you via the smell, that is a slippery slope where we establish a precedent in which it can be legislated which smells people can and cannot emit. Should we draft a law saying you cannot leave the house if you have not showered? I personally find it very uncomfortable to ride public transportation next to someone who has not showered and smells it. Should we ban them from being outside?

  • Oooohhhh, what a palaver!

    If some people are not in the privileged position of being able to enjoy the fragrance that tobacco emits, then endurance would appear to be their next viable option.

    For those who are worried about the exaggerated health aspects, fear not. If the humble tobacco leaf were as deadly as some would have you believe, then the majority of smokers would surely have been stricken down within the first year of their newly chosen pastime.

  • No, second-hand smoke causes health issues no matter where smoking is allowed.

    There should be more taxes on cigarettes and continued growth in banning it in public places. The smell and the choking feeling my lungs get make me give praise to the people who got that idea going. More and more cities are imposing that law. These days I will refuse to patronize a place that allows it. Because the next town over that has a smoking ban has that same restaurant or place of business, I will go further for it.

    Posted by: WilldL0v3ly
  • Public means for everyone, not just for non-smokers.

    When someone leaves their house, they are exposing themselves to whatever is in the air - secondhand smoke, car exhaust, food odors, pollen, etc.. People who choose to smoke are making a personal decision, which is not up to the rest of the world. People who choose not to are also making a personal decision. Just because both people are in the same area doesn't mean that one always gets to force their personal choice on the other. If the property belonged to one or the other, that person would get to decide whether smoking is allowed; public means it doesn't belong to either of them so neither can force their decisions on the other.

    Posted by: Qu3yNea
  • People don't have to sit there and inhale it, they can move!

    If someone doesn't like second hand smoke, they can easily get up and move away from it. And, if the second hand smoke is in an outdoor area, there is no real danger of inhaling it unless the person is sitting right next to the smoker. In such a case, they can simply get up and move.

    Posted by: R0m4nticCar
  • Yes, the reaction to second hand smoke has gone too far.

    The causes of cancer are complex, and it is a long stretch to say that exposure to periodic second hand smoke causes cancer. Air pollution alone may be a far larger cause of cancers. If the issue is therefore only having to deal with bad odors, then people who wear cologne or don't bathe shouldn't be allowed in public.

    Posted by: R43Shep
  • Non-smokers should have the right to breathe clean, non-toxic air.

    It's been scientifically proven that second-hand smoke carries the same amount of health risks as smoking does. People who choose not to smoke should not be put in situations and places where they are unwillingly subjected to the unhealthy carcinogens that smokers choose to produce. Aside from being downright rude, it infringes on the non-smoker's rights.

    Posted by: MarkBuII
  • No, it is not fair for people to have to endure second-hand smoke, as people should not have others' unhealthy choices forced upon them.

    No, it is not fair for people to have to endure second-hand smoke, as people should not have others' unhealthy choices forced upon them. Second-hand smoke has been shown to have a number of significant negative health effects on those experiencing it. While everyone can make up their mind as to whether they are willing to bear the negative effects of smoking on themselves, they should not be allowed to force this danger on the people around them. Smoking in public places unfairly exposes others to dangerous substances against their will.

    Posted by: PreciousMiguel78
  • It is unfair for people to endure second-hand smoke, because it is something that affects their health.

    There are many non-smokers who specifically choose not to smoke because they do not want to have their health affected by smoking. It is not fair for a smoker then to light up in public and pollute the air for someone who chooses not to smoke. There are many, too, that have illnesses that would be worsened if they breathe the smoke in. Judgment should be made on what is healthier for society.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • People should not have to endure others second-hand smoke in public places.

    People choose to smoke or not to smoke. Those who smoke have that right, but others should not have to endure their second-hand smoke in public places. If they want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes that is their privilege, but they should not be allowed to smoke in public places where others frequent. People who choose not to smoke should be able to go to restaurants, stores, etc. without being subjected to others' second-hand smoke. If they wanted to be subjected to smoke, they probably would have taken up smoking themselves. Also, if you are around people who smoke, you smell like it when you leave. I do not want to smell like smoke because I have been at a restaurant where someone is smoking.

    Posted by: babydollxix
  • I agree that it isn't fair for people to inhale second-hand smoke, because it can be lethal.

    Not only is it not fair, it's criminal for someone to be exposed to second-hand smoke against their will. Take children, for example. It should be unlawful for parents to smoke within 50 feet of their kids, or in any enclosed space of any size. It's against the law to knowingly give someone AIDS, and this is no different. Smoking kills, period.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • People should not have suffer the side effects that come from enduring second-hand smoke because people smoke in public places.

    There are many proven ill effects of second-hand smoke. If someone breaths in enough second-hand smoke, if could have nearly the same cancerous affects of being the actual smoker. Second-hand smoke also carries a bad odor that will stick on people's clothes, and makes some people cough or get sick.

    Posted by: EImerN4th
  • Just because someone wants to smoke in a public place doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

    Second hand smoke is dangerous to all involved. If someone doesn't smoke then they are vulnerable when around someone who is smoking. Workers and customers in bars and restraints who don't smoke have to put up with the smokers and it is affecting their health. If smokers want to jeopardize themselves they can but others should not be placed in the path of danger because of their habit.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy
  • Non-smokers should not ever be forced to endure second-hand smoking.

    The known risks of second hand smoke are such that no one should be forced to endure them. Work places, and true public places (airports and the like) should ban smoking except in segregated areas. While private businesses should have the option of providing smoking bans (thus choosing to cater to a smoking or non-smoking clientele), no one should ever have to endure second-hand smoke in a public place.

    Posted by: N3r0nKrooI
  • It is not fair to have to endure second hand smoking, it is a health risk, smoking should be banned in public places.

    The people who choose to live a lifestyle where their health is put at risk should not be given the power to affect the health of those around them. Second-hand smoking is actually more dangerous than first-hand smoking and if a person ,who is a non-smoker, has to endure the experience of taking in smoke in public places just because that area is not a smoke free zone, they have every right to be upset. If they themselves are not out to ruin their health, why should they give anyone else the right to? It is greatly unfair that the elderly, pregnant women, little children all have to become victim to the poorly chosen lifestyle of another.

    Posted by: MyHier
  • It is not fair for people to have to endure second hand smoking because the smokers are damaging people's bodies who don't smoke themselves.

    I believe that people who have to endure second hand smoking because of people smoking in public places, is not at all fair. The smokers are damaging other peoples bodies because they are smoking and the excess smoke goes it someone else's system. This is just as bad if they were the ones holding the cigarette, but nothing can be done anyway.

    Posted by: N34rIyGaIv

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