Do you think that cigarette smokers should be allowed to smoke in public areas?

San Jose

NO! Non-smokers shouldn't have the smoke inflicted upon them. Smokers have a choice about breathing in that garbage. We don't

Some of us can't breathe when people are smoking, LITERALLY!

Fonz

Yes and perfume should be treated the same way as smokers. I hate it when someone walks by and they are so strong with the perfume that when you lick your lips it's bitter.

JAMIE

no i smoke but all you people who don't smoke look at it this way its ok to tell a smoker hey its bad for you to smoke that's socially acceptable but you walk up to a fat person and say hey you know eating that much is bad then see what the response is but the reason i think no i cause of kids cause they don't have a choice but adults can walk away in certain areas

Mercer Devil

If they are outdoors, definitely. The second-hand smoke danger only occurs in poorly vented indoor areas. Other people's desire to not see or smell a cigarette does not supercede my right to light up.

Edit: I'm a smoker, but I don't mind going outside to light up. I don't even smoke in my own apartment, and I live alone.

CHARITY G

Yes. Like sidewalks and such . . . as a Libertarian . . . I think you should be able to light up whatever and wherever you please as long as it's not private property.

No Name

Did you know that Hitler was an avid anti smoking guy....

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

Just google Hitler and anti-smoking... you will find all kind of stuff.

Look JUST LIKE what the libs are doing here

If you don't like my smoke... you have the RIGHT to move.

VoiceofCommonSense

Until the whiny non smokers started crying, this use to be a free country. Now we have too many bs rules. I feel if the non smokers can't handle it, stay home and cry. There you don't have to worry about any smoke.

Wake up!

Do you think that cigarette smokers should be allowed to smoke in public areas?

In public, most definitely and in private it should be the choice of the owner of that property, whither it is a bar, shopping center or restaurant. It is not the place of the government to dictate to me and other private property owners what we may do or allow others to do, as long as we are not breaking the law. Either something is legal or it isn't. Either smoking is legal, or it is not. If I want to juggle chainsaws while balancing on a unicycle, that is my business as long as I am on my property or the property of someone who has given me permission to do so and it is legal. If non smokers do not like what is happening on SOMEONE ELSE's private property, whither it be chain saw juggling or smoking, they are free to leave or not frequent that establishment in the future. They are free to make that choice.

I would like to point out is that there is absolutely no evidence , which proves that second hand smoke is lethal. NONE. I challenge anyone who claims otherwise, to prove it. I don't want any links to the latest liberal blog which rants about the dangers of second hand smoke either. I want links to peer reviewed work only. If it exists, I have yet to see it. Second hand smoke may be irritating, annoying and stinky, but it is no more dangerous than sitting around a camp fire.

ART

Yes
outside, bars, restaurants that have separate areas, and open area live events.
The dangers of second hand smoke is a myth. Junk science perpetrated by the anti smoking lobby. People walk down a city side walk inhaling every carcinogen imaginable and yet as a smoker walks past they cover their mouth and nose so as not to inhale a particle of second hand smoke. Think how stupid that is.

Glad you asked

Sweetdaddy Rex

Only in WELL ventilated, designated areas . I'm a smoker, and I am very careful not to impede on other peoples rights. If you live in California, MOVE !

Bryan

First define public areas.
Second define why non-smokers should have more rights than smokers.

I do not believe that people should be allowed to smoke in public buildings and I am okay with banning smoking near entrances to buildings. I against banning open air smoking. I am also against the government banning smoking in others private establishments.

The majority of smoking legislation holds that people have a right to a smoke free environment. I do not agree with this concept in any way. The right of a non-smokers is not to frequent an establishment which chooses to allow smoking. I exempt government buildings from this because people do not always have a choice in whether or not they enter these buildings. Business owners should be allowed to decide whether or not they will allow a legal activity to occur within the confines of their establishment. It has gone so far now that one city in California has banned the right of people to smoke in their own home if that dwelling has a wall which meets the wall of another dwelling.

D D

Indoors, no.

Outdoors, yes.

Joe from WI

It depends. If it's possible, I think establishments should create outdoor smoking lounges. I see them more and more. At baseball / NFL games smokers all gather in the outdoor smoking lounge. Everyone seems to find it satisfactory.

Eggchick

Well, I am not, as you say, a cigarette train, but this forum is for the purpose of voicing opinions, right?

If the area in which the smoking is allowed in public places can be sufficiently segregated from the non-smoking area so that those who chose not to inhale cigarette smoke are not forced to, then sure, why not.

The issue is not smoker's rights, but non-smokers' health. If smokers want to kill themselves, I have absolutely no problem with that. But I do not want to breath in that second-hand smoke (which has been proven to be deadlier than if one was doing the smoking).

For me, the issue is even bigger than possible lung cancer. I have asthma and a severe allergy to cigarette smoke and to be perfectly frank, the smoke could kill me pretty much immediately if it triggered a severe enough asthma attack. And it wouldn't take very much smoke to do it. Is this any different than a drunk driver causing a fatal accident? Not in my book, both could take my life. Do you think the "other half of the population" should get by with endangering the lives of non-smokers just to indulge in their habit?

Now, in a roundabout way, I agree with you on the smoking outside thing. It doesn't help. I work in a large office building in a major metropolitan area and when I walk out ANY door I am assaulted by cigarette smoke from a half dozen smokers at any given time. This just doesn't work for me. Give these people a room indoors with plenty of ventilation for smoking and that way I don't have to breathe it and they can be warm in the cold weather and cool in the hot weather.

genie.boynton

no! I live in Georgia and the best thing that ever happened to this state was when smoking was banned from restaurants! It is so much nicer for non-smokers to be able to eat without having to smell someone else's smoke!

sophist

Face it smokers, smoking etiquette is going retrograde. Where business find it financially viable to provide smoking areas, they do. That is just like it used to be prior to the Second World War. Smoking was frowned on in many public areas back then. However, facilities were provided for smoking. Also many wifes would not tolerate smoking in the house.

In many places today, smoking is prohibited because it creates a horrendous cleaning problem. It also decreases property value. Not only in housing but in automobiles. Add to that the health cost and one can only conclude that our attachment to smoking is on a fast decline.

The stats support this view. The cost of smoking is even beginning to decrease smoking world wide as more and more authorities become aware of them.

In short you are a burden on society just like welfare and drug addicts. We will support you and take care of you but only until we can wean you away from it.

Theo

no,ban smoking and tobacco.it is gross,dangerous and sinful.

Full of Questions...

No. Cigarettes have filters, so the smoker isn't getting that much tar in there lungs. There is still an enormous amount of bad things in them that is getting into the smoker, but in a public area the mainstream smoke, the smoke coming off the burnt end of the cigarette, is not filtered. Everyone around the smoker is getting all of the tar and whatnot in there lungs. Second hand smoke is worse than smoking. If you are in a public area, smoking, than you are affecting everyone else around, as much or more, than you are affecting yourself. So, no, ppl should not be able to smoke in a public area because they are not only killing themselves, but everyone around them as well. And these ppl getting killed have no choice or say in what is happening to there bodies.

LovesTheConstitution

Just as I cannot ride a motorcycle through the grocery store and I cannot throw things off a tall building onto the sidewalk below, I cannot present an airborne set of toxins and carcinogens into a public place. My rights end where they begin to harm others.

Every smoker should have a right to take in smoke - tobacco or otherwise - into their own body. They do not have a right to place it into others' bodies.

Unlike other products, cigarettes are mostly byproduct. The user inhales maybe 20 seconds, but because of oxidizers in cigarettes, the cigarette continues emitting smoke for about 12 minutes.

mattd

like many people have said yes we should beable to smoke outside, and if privately own companies choose to allow it in the place of buisness then so be it... it just seems like people are trying to be racist against smokers now??? wtf!!!

Lyn

I want to say no, but the libertarian in me thinks open public places where it causes least disruption to innocent by standers is OK. Closed public places is NO unless it is a Smokers lounge where they can freely poison each other.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: