Public Smoking Ban?

Voice of Liberty

I am not a smoker by the way.

1. If a business establishment chooses to allow its patrons to smoke, then let them. YOU have the choise to avoid that situation.

2. Do not punish smokers because YOU are not willing to give up some freedoms like where YOU CHOOSE to go and who YOU CHOOSE to be around.

3. Why should you be able to push your OPINIONS on others?

LorgSkyegon

No ban.

1. Freedom of businesses and people

2. Cars kill people, we don't ban them

3. It is a slippery slope. It will inevitably lead to more bans on personal and business freedom

â™ª pepperkittyn â™ª

No (I am not a smoker, by the way).

1) It's a person's choice as to whether or not they want to destroy their bodies.
2) Out in the open air, if you don't like it, stay away from it.
3) They have already banned it from most bars, restaurants, and indoor public places. Banning it from the outdoors would be "shaking an iron fist" more than anything.

That is my thought on the matter. The smell offends me, yes, so I get away from the stench.

rob7685

No, there shouldn't be one. First of all, the threat of second hand smoke is exaggerated. I'm not saying it isn't harmful. However, it would require constant exposure over many years to cause the effects some claim it does. Second, it's not supposed to be the government's decision whether or not to allow smoking. That decision belongs to the business owners. Third, if you really want to influence a business owners decision, don't go there if they allow smoking. If enough people do it, smoking will be abolished within that building. Trust me, I've seen it work.

Diabelle

No I don't. I'm a Scottish smoker who has got use to the ban. Even in the most drunk states I and everyone still goes outside to smoke. It is hard, the governemnt thinks that smokers will give up because they have to walk outside to smoke. We have all got use to it and it is a way of life. English smokers will think that it is easy because the ban is coming in in the summer. Wait til the deepest darkest days of winter, wind, rain, (just wait and see) then you will change your mind. But you will accept it, because you have no choice but to.

In the days of human rights and all that crap, the number of people who say that they can't wait to walk into a pub which is smoke free, they want the world.

WHAT ABOUT OUR RIGHTS

If they don't like smoke go to somewhere that is smoke free, or don't go into that particular pub. I think it should be the decision of every establishment whether they want smoking or not.

I will say this, England, your pubs will get quieter and business will be affected. All those do gooding anti smokers will never make up for the money smokers spend in the pub. Drinking and smoking go together like salt and vinegar. Fish and chips. You get my drift.

Steve E

I don't smoke, and I don't care if other people want to. It doesn't bother me at all. I go to Casinos in Vegas all the time and gambling and smoking are ubiquitous.

Godmom_Jr

No! (I am a smoker)

1) It's enough that you are not allowed to smoke in most restaurants and public buildings. But how far does it have to go. How far is too far for the government to step in? Smoking outside and in your private home/car should not be an issue!

2) If the smell offends you, go somewhere else!

3) And then there's the "pollution" question, PLEASE! Get real!! Cigarette smoke is not even CLOSE to being an issue of pollution!

Yes
1.I am a liberal and believe there should be laws to protect the people against themselves.
2.I believe all personal freedoms should be banned.
3.Would you listen to the advice of someone who lets their dog lick their kids butts because they have diaper rash and then go on national television to brag about it?I did.

nitr0bike

Three reasons. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. It's your life to do as you may, as long as it doesn't harm others. Smoking is a liberty that is given us by the constitution. If you enjoy a smoke now and then, or 30 times a day, it's your pursuit of happiness that counts, not the government's. The declaration of Independence clearly states why we left tyrant rule. Now, are we going to keep eroding our God given rights in the name of money? The insurance companies are funding the fight against everyone. All they want is to make it mandatory for us to pay insurance, then use our money against us. They purchase congressional influence to make whatever they don't like illegal. They pay for "studies" that justify their position and make it look like the opposing view is invalid. They forget the freedom of choice in our lives.
By the way, I kicked the habit years ago. But I still feel we must fight for our freedoms, or we are condemned to a bleak future.

Monica N

Why they should be there:

1) Smoking is unhealthy, and passive smoking damages people.
2) Smoking makes non-smokers feel physically unwell, especially in public dining places.
3) Smoking costs a lot of money, both for the smoker, and for the health service.

Why there should not be a smoking ban:
1) Everyone has the right to do as they want.
2) The smell of cigarettes covers the smoke of piss and vomit in bars.
3) It brings extra money in because cigarettes are taxed.

redvelvetflames4ever

This whole smoking ban has gotten way out of hand. First of all there is no proof or cases of anyone dying from second hand smoke or getting lung cancer from second hand smoke. I do believe it should be banned in certain areas of a public park (childrens playground or an area where there are alot of children.) It is common knowledge the public smoking bans began after the US Environmental Protection Agency fudged the numbers on there report regarding second hand smoke and lung cancer cases. The tobacco industry and its allies were quick to attack the EPA report and filed suit to have it vacated and they won an important victory in 1998 when a North Carolina federal judge ruled that the EPA had made serious procedural errors and, worse, had "cherry-picked" its data to reach a preordained conclusion. What has been found is a possible link of second hand smoke and breast cancer in women. Again, still not 100% conclusive. Second hand smoke does cause respiratory problems in children. 100% conclusive and I see no reason to smoke around children anyway. Kill yourself not your kids or any other children around you.

james c

I think there should be a ban in public places like pubs, shops, hotels etc.
1) Health
2) Health
3) Health

LuluBelle

Yes

1. Secondhand smoke kills.
2. The smell makes me nauseous.
3. It pollutes the air.
4. I give a damn.
5. I like to smell nice, and not like cigs.

sketch_mylife

Absolutely...harmful second hand smoke...disgusting waste and filthy...a proactive approach to get those who smoke to quite seeing as it won't be as easy to light up anywhere.

Arian

2 hand smoking is bad it can kill the smoker and ifajfijsas

Eagleflyer

I don't smoke,but . . . in response to Lulu Bell
No.

1. [Secondhand smoke kills] Outdoors?? HAH! B effing S

2. [The smell makes me nauseous.] That's honest at least. So do diesel fumes - lets shut down all the trucks and railroad trains and VW Rabbits

3. [It pollutes the air.] Not compared to cars. Let's all not drive and look at all the money we'll save and the smug satisfaction we'll have by telling the Arabs and the oil companies to go take a flying leap off an oil derrick.

4. [I don't give a damn.] Again, we are just full of honesty today. Don't give a damn about somebody needing a cigarette but unable to light up for fear of offending some goody two-shoes driving a Hummer.

5. [I like to smell nice . . . ] As if!

Any Republican 2012

Who's right is more important???

1) The person who wants to fill not just his lungs, but the lungs of everyone around him with nasty, toxic, poisonous smoke

or

2) The person who just wants to breathe clean air when they go out in public.

I side with the latter.

x2000

1. A person should not do something to harm another person.

Do not need any other reasons.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: