M-13 - Smoking in Public Places

[FirefightingMuggle]

Ahhh, yes, but two wrongs seldom make right. Saying that just because Non-smokers had to put up with smokers, who were a majority 15 years ago, should mean that smokers should have to put up with the non-smoking majority now. It's not right. Nor was it right when non-smokers were asked to "deal with it".
There has to be compromise on this issue, seeing as there will never be total agreement. Perhaps banning smoking inside all public places is harsh. Perhaps all public places should be required to build a smoke room, that is sealed off from the rest of the building, and has air purification systems in place, so that smokers should have to go into the "smokers room" if they want to smoke. Smoking outside of that room would be prohibited.
But that's segregating the smokers, saying that they have space to smoke so do it there.

Basically, what it comes down to is that whether or not a business/building is smoke free should be decided by the owner(s) of that business or building. Government buildings are techincally owned by the people, so if the people want them smoke free, then they shall be smoke free. Joe's Bar and Grille is owned by Joe. If Joe wants to allow smoking, then that's Joe's choice. A lot more restraunts are smoke free now. If you don't like smoke, seek out those restruants. I know in my area Applebees, and Hosses are both totally smoke free. Ponderosa has a seperate room for smokers that is enclosed with glass, and has doors so that the smoke won't get out. McDonalds, Wendy's and Burger King in my town are all smoke free. There are maybe 4 restraunts that do have a smoking section. There are probably 10 or 11 that are smoke free. The non-smokers have a lot of smoke-free choice. Most of the apartment buildings in my town are also smoke free, as are all the stores and public offices. The only exceptions to the "government builings are smoke free" rule are the 3 fire stations. All three of them allow smoking before and after, but not during business meetings. All three also have air purification systems. Generally, the smokers all sit together (at least in my firehouse) and share one ashtray. Then when they are done smoking, they go and talk to the other firefighters.
A little compromise, and a lot less complaining by both sides would be really helpful in resolving this issue. You can't please everyone all of the time, but you can try to compromise to make both sides happy, at least a little bit.

[Marie Lexis]

Actually I think that because of everything that has been happening with science latly that people are seeing how bad smoking is less people are smoking like you said. And because of that since the majority hates smoking and smoke in general it should be banned in public places where alot of people go. I think it should depend on where it is. Like in resturants, there is no reason why someone can't go outside to smoke. I for one don't go into resturants anymore because I think it's disgusting. It is a nasty habit especially if they can't wait a 1/2 hour to smoke. There is no reason why they can't. Your right Savoy Truffle, it is not fare. We have had to put up with smoking for awhile. And we've had to walk out the door every time a group of people lit a cigeratte. Now it's smokers turn walk out the door if they don't like it.

[Chrysalis]

The major problem I have with smoking in public buildings and pubs or restaurants is that it endangers other people's health, and therefore the right to smoke becomes obsolete, because a person's rights end when they cause harm to other people.

The difference between alcohol and cigarettes is that drinking alcohol doesn't directly harm other people, unless it is combined with something else, such as driving. Caffeïne doesn't harm anyone except the users, that's why they're free to drink it if they want to, it's their choice to endanger their health(I'm speaking of excess caffeïne here). Whereas smoking directly harms the surrounding people.

[FirefightingMuggle]

Actually I've seen incidents where alchol use becomes a trigger for people to act violently and harm others around them. Ask my ex-boyfriend if he ever got arrested for domestic violence that was resulted from his consumption of alcohol. I bet he'll say yes. He got drunk and beat me up for no reason. And I've seen this with other people too. Alcohol in some people can cause violent behavior, as it is a drug that can alter personality. Instant &*^@!#$, just add alcohol...

But back to the topic at hand. I'm just saying that yes, we as a society need to do something, but you can't tick off half of the people. The government needs to come up with some kind of compromise that would cut down on the number of places that one can smoke at, or a compromise that limits the use of tobacco to private property only. In no public place could anyone smoke. Or leave it up to individual companies and businesses. Banning something all together is only leaving the use of that substance to a dangerous black market, like the current drug situation, or speakeasys and gangster scenario of the Prohibition days. It doesn't work. I will never work. Herion is illegal, and it is abused by people every single day. The legal status of the substance has no bearing on if people will use it. Yes, there are people who don't use Herion because it is illegal, as would there be with cigarettes, but at the same time, the substances are uncontrolled, and therefore more dangerous because they are not regulated. I fear that an all out ban of cigarettes would lead to them become a black market item. On the black market they could have other drugs added to them, causing further dangers to health. Today, cigarettes are regualted by, I believe the ATF, and are taxed by the government. They may be dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous if people were purchasing them from some gun named Fast Fingers Eddie in the alley behind WalMart.

[Chrysalis]

I don't want cigarettes to be banned altogether. People should be allowed to smoke them, it's their own choice. However I don't want them interfering with my personal space and that usually is the case in public, enclosed buildings. I'm using the word public here in a very broad sense, I also mean movie theaters, restaurants, bowling alleys, basically where places the whole population visit. Honestly, people are never satisfied. The current smoking sections are a joke and everyone knows it, because the smoke just wafts over to the non-smoking areas. Enclosed smoking sections would seem like the solution, only people the complain about segregation. Well I'm sorry but it's your own bad habit, and it's interfering with other people. For the record I don't like alcohol very much either and I've seen people drink and drink and drink like there was nothing else. They didn't even get tipsy, thank heavens. It sounds like a scary thing to watch. And drugs are a complete no-no. So basically I'm against any drug,and tobacco belongs there.

[Marie Lexis]

It kills more then alchol because it can affect other people around them more easily if you are around it all the time. There is still no reason why someone can not practice self control. If they can't then they need to get help and quit smoking all together. Smoking is the leading cause of death. If people were to further understand this more then maybe instead of banning it in public places they might be able to get rid of cigerattes for good. Most people say nothing is going to happen to them. But then they die from Lung Cancer or some heart disease or some other sickness because they won't pay attention to what others have to say.

[crookshanksmom]

I lived in California for 3 years. Smoking was banned in all public buildings-restaraunts, bars, stores, along with government buildings. No one complained about having to go outside to smoke. It was just something smokers had to deal with. Now I'm back in NJ, and smoking is legal in restaraunts and bars here (only in certain sections). However, I've noticed that often, smoke drifts from the smoking section to the non-smoking section, and I can smell it when someone lights up. I don't want to have to smell that when I'm enjoying lunch or dinner. My husband also hates it, and he has asthma so he really shouldn't be subjected to that at all. Smokers are screaming about having rights, but their rights really are taking away our rights. Saying we should have to patronize other stores is unfair and another way of taking away our rights. We are not saying at all that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke, we are just saying that their right to smoke should not infringe on our rights to breath clean air in places we enjoy.

[Marie Lexis]

I lived in California for 3 years. Smoking was banned in all public buildings-restaraunts, bars, stores, along with government buildings. No one complained about having to go outside to smoke. It was just something smokers had to deal with. Now I'm back in NJ, and smoking is legal in restaraunts and bars here (only in certain sections). However, I've noticed that often, smoke drifts from the smoking section to the non-smoking section, and I can smell it when someone lights up. I don't want to have to smell that when I'm enjoying lunch or dinner. My husband also hates it, and he has asthma so he really shouldn't be subjected to that at all. Smokers are screaming about having rights, but their rights really are taking away our rights. Saying we should have to patronize other stores is unfair and another way of taking away our rights. We are not saying at all that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke, we are just saying that their right to smoke should not infringe on our rights to breath clean air in places we enjoy.

Exactly. I don't even go into resturants that allow people to smoke. I can't stand the smell. So any time my parents and brothers go out to eat I stay home so I don't have to smell something so disgusting. I mean come on...we have rights to. And the only way that something like this can be accomplished is to have smoking rooms. But then like someone else said it makes people feel like they are being segregated. Well I think that smokers need to get over it and face the facts that other people care about there health and they don't want to get sick from somebody elses disgusting habit.

[crookshanksmom]

Take-out has become more popular with us than eating out because neither of us likes to have to sit and smell someone else's habit while we are eating. Seriously, you would not pass gass (usually) in a restaraunt, because it very well may smell bad, why smoke? Perhaps smoking in restrooms should be allowed as an alternative. I know some states have very cold, harsh winters and to be fair, maybe smokers should have some sort of shelter to smoke.

[Marie Lexis]

Smoking in restrooms is the same thing as smoking in resturants. There are still people in there and they will still have to smell the smoke mixed with other things. I know they can leave and everything but they still would have to smell it for those few seconds or even minutes that they are in there.

[FirefightingMuggle]

I agree with all of you that say that smoking should not be banned entirely, but that people should not be forced to breath in the smoke of others. I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate on the issue.
Just play hypothetical here: Say smoking was banned in restraunts, movie theaters, malls, stores, government buildings, gas stations, schools, convienience stores, museums, concert halls, airports and sporting arenas. But smoking was allowed in all outdoor parks, amusement parks and on beaches so long as the smokers were in the "designated smoking areas" and fully allowed at all stand-alone bars (that is to say bars that do not serve food), dance clubs that do not serve food, private clubs (American legion, VFW, the like), and outdoor areas that were not parks, amusement parks or beaches.
What are the feelings there?

[crookshanksmom]

I don't mind smoking in outdoor areas, such as parks and amusement parks, so long as the smokers are not smoking while on line for a ride-because no one wants to wait for an hour, then have to get out of line because someone starts smoking. And private facilities should be able to decide for themselves (country club clubhouses, clubhouses at gated communities/apartment complexes and the like). But indoor places where people gather should either be non-smoking or have specific, closed-off areas designated for smokers so non smokers don't have to deal with smoke.

[Marie Lexis]

Say smoking was banned in restraunts, movie theaters, malls, stores, government buildings, gas stations, schools, convienience stores, museums, concert halls, airports and sporting arenas.
Actually smoking is banned in most of those in alot of areas. They definitly don't allow smoking in schools, movie theatres, stores, convienience stores, museums, airports. As for the rest of them they are to large to even notice anything like that. So it's really not an issue.


But smoking was allowed in all outdoor parks, amusement parks and on beaches so long as the smokers were in the "designated smoking areas" and fully allowed at all stand-alone bars (that is to say bars that do not serve food), dance clubs that do not serve food, private clubs (American legion, VFW, the like), and outdoor areas that were not parks, amusement parks or beaches.


But I do think it would be best if people were only allowed to smoke in amusement parks and beaches but not anywhere else. Because alot of people really can't notice anything in outdoor areas, except for standing in line for something and someone in front of you or behind you is smoking...then you can really smell it and it is dangerous to your health.

[des06]

Saying we should have to patronize other stores is unfair and another way of taking away our rights.

You have the right to patronize any store you want. You do not have the right to dictate the conditions of the store to the store owner. You wouldn't go into Express and tell them to turn up the heat because you didn't want to get a cold would you? This is no different.

Also crookshanksmom, how long ago did you live in California? I ask because I think I remember this law being repealed but I was young enough at the time that I could be imagining this.

Actually smoking is banned in most of those in alot of areas. They definitly don't allow smoking in schools, movie theatres, stores, convienience stores, museums, airports. As for the rest of them they are to large to even notice anything like that. So it's really not an issue.

In most if not all of the cases you mention smoking was banned by the owner not by law.

[crookshanksmom]

I moved back to NJ the beginning of April, so this is fairly recent. It was rather pleasent going to any restaraunt/pub and being able to eat without smelling someone else's nasty habit.

[Revolution]

I heard somewhere that you weren't allowed to smoke in cars if other people were in it. Even if it were your family. But they do allow you to smoke at home, so what difference does it make? They might as well smoke in the car, because their family is anyway going to inhale the smoke.

[Marie Lexis]

In most if not all of the cases you mention smoking was banned by the owner not by law.


You actually think that the gov't is going to let people smoke in schools. They are kind of gov't property if you didn't know. And museums and the other places it was banned by the gov't.

I heard somewhere that you weren't allowed to smoke in cars if other people were in it. Even if it were your family. But they do allow you to smoke at home, so what difference does it make? They might as well smoke in the car, because their family is anyway going to inhale the smoke.

Actually in a car you are all smashed in together. But at home you can move around away from the parents or go outside. That's what I do. My parents refuse to smoke around us at home so they stay away from us when they are smoking. And if they do then all the vents are open in the house.

Although if you are baby then I guess that you can't get away from it obviously but everyone else can.

[Wab]

I heard somewhere that you weren't allowed to smoke in cars if other people were in it. Even if it were your family. But they do allow you to smoke at home, so what difference does it make? They might as well smoke in the car, because their family is anyway going to inhale the smoke.

You might as well smoke in a car as you'll be suckign in huge amounts of carbon monoxide anyway.

[des06]

You actually think that the gov't is going to let people smoke in schools. They are kind of gov't property if you didn't know. And museums and the other places it was banned by the gov't.

I don't understand your point. Most of the places you mentioned smoking is banned by the owner not by law. Schools and some museums are owned by the government so the government makes smoking legal/illegal. It does this by law but there seems to be a rather obvious distinction between the government's capacity as an owner and its capacity as a lawmaking body.

[Chrysalis]

Thought I'd just offer this interesting tidbit. Pinkpop is one of the biggest festivals in Europe. The organisor is an active non-smoker and as a result smoking is banned during the festival. He even got an award for promoting non-smoking.

[Marie Lexis]

I don't understand your point. Most of the places you mentioned smoking is banned by the owner not by law. Schools and some museums are owned by the government so the government makes smoking legal/illegal. It does this by law but there seems to be a rather obvious distinction between the government's capacity as an owner and its capacity as a lawmaking body.

I'm not talking about federal gov't. The local gov't bans things like that in my town and towns around here. And people still do it. Like you can get arrested for smoking in a gas station but people still do it. Even though the gov't does not own the place directly they can still ban smoking in it if it is a serious health risk. Like in large stores and museums.

[Chrysalis]

Smoking in a gas station is particularily dangerous because of the risk of explosions. It's sheer stupidity to light a cigarette there.

[Marie Lexis]

Smoking in a gas station is particularily dangerous because of the risk of explosions. It's sheer stupidity to light a cigarette there.

That's what I said. But the person in there just told me that she does it all the time and it hadn't happened yet.

[Queen of Wise]

As a person with asthma, my views on this will always be the same. I dont think smoking should be allowed in public places for many reasons. Second-hand smoke is very dangerous, and people who have asthma like me shouldnt be around it. If I breath in cigarette smoke, my throat closes up and I cant breath:( So, no it shouldnt be allowed in public places, and as for "smoking" sections of restaraunts, they dont help at all. If you smoke, you should be considerate of those who dont, and go outside:)

[CrookShankksie]

Here in Canada, in our city-they've done a good job of changing the laws...
There is no smoking period in any of our buildings, even bars...
People who are smoking outside, are required to be at a certain distance away from the building's doorways...
And there are new changes underway-they'd like to see adults with children-smoke outside of their own homes as well...which I think is awesome for those kids...
Slowly but surely, those of us who don't smoke, won't have to put up with the filthy habits of smokers, for much longer...
Smoke outside, then everybody's happy, and breathing!

[Marie Lexis]

Here in Canada, in our city-they've done a good job of changing the laws...
There is no smoking period in any of our buildings, even bars...
People who are smoking outside, are required to be at a certain distance away from the building's doorways...
And there are new changes underway-they'd like to see adults with children-smoke outside of their own homes as well...which I think is awesome for those kids...
Slowly but surely, those of us who don't smoke, won't have to put up with the filthy habits of smokers, for much longer...
Smoke outside, then everybody's happy, and breathing!


I want to move to Canada! They should do that in America. Mostly because I think that smoking revolves around people's lives here.

Free to Breath!

[des06]

I have several friends who are highly sensitive to perfumes and odors of that nature. Whenever they walk past Bath and Body or The Body Shop or other stores of that type they have to cover their mouths/noses when they walk by. In my view this is comparable to the extreme reaction people with asthma and other sensitivities have to smoke. And yet we don't ban all perfume-like odors do we?

I'd also like to say once again that by knowingly going into a shop that allows smoking YOU are subjecting yourself to smoke NOT the smokers.

[mina]

I have several friends who are highly sensitive to perfumes and odors of that nature. Whenever they walk past Bath and Body or The Body Shop or other stores of that type they have to cover their mouths/noses when they walk by. In my view this is comparable to the extreme reaction people with asthma and other sensitivities have to smoke. And yet we don't ban all perfume-like odors do we?

I'd also like to say once again that by knowingly going into a shop that allows smoking YOU are subjecting yourself to smoke NOT the smokers.

What if you don't know, or what if you need to go into that particular store in order to get something you need? What about the smokers everywhere else?

Perfume does not cause people to get lung, and the various other types of cancer (as well as Emphysema and the like). I'm not saying that heavy perfume isn't a nuisance, and that people shouldn't be considerate though.

[Katie_Bell]

THis is a tricky subject. I think that all people should have the right to do as they wish, but not if it is at the expense of others. I think that somking should not be allound unless there is a way to control it and contain it in one area. Smoke makes me sick so I don't really want to smell it when I'm going out, but I don't feel I have the right to infinge on anyone's rights.

[~oSiRiS~]

I think they should ban it. Not because of the smoke. It doesn't bother me. What does is all the morons who throw thier cigarette butts on the ground. Is it that hard to throw them away?
The little birdies are going to get cancer because they use it for thier nest. We don't want the little birdies get cancer now do we? :)

[Wab]

Perfume does not cause people to get lung, and the various other types of cancer (as well as Emphysema and the like).

But it can trigger a fatal asthma attack.

[Chrysalis]

That is true. However perfume is not as commonplace as smoking. And the amount of people who suffer from allergy to perfumes and deoderants are considerably less. Besides perfumes are not as hazardous as cigarettes. In addition to asthma attacks, cigarettes cause lung cancer and lower energy(but that is only when you smoke), among various other things.

[Wab]

I would only agree to a ban if the product were made illegal.

But no givernment is going to do that because they make to much money from the tobacco lobby and the taxes tobacco brings.

Plus they can get votes when they need it by pandering hypocritically to the no-smoke lobby who (if they ever achieve their goal) will move on to nitpick us about something else.

Want health? Ban the internal combustion engine, fossil fuel power, plastics, food colouring, preservatives, and most of the other things that make life comfortable.

[crookshanksmom]

Want health? Ban the internal combustion engine, fossil fuel power, plastics, food colouring, preservatives, and most of the other things that make life comfortable.

Cigarettes do not make life more comfortable though. Maybe to smokers, but subjecting non-smokers to thier habit is unfair.

[des06]

What if you don't know, or what if you need to go into that particular store in order to get something you need? What about the smokers everywhere else?

Perfume does not cause people to get lung, and the various other types of cancer (as well as Emphysema and the like). I'm not saying that heavy perfume isn't a nuisance, and that people shouldn't be considerate though.

There wouldn't ever be a time where a person had to go into a specific store because a product wasn't stocked anywhere else. It just wouldn't happen-it would **** off too many consumers.

Banning smoking outside is ridiclous. The smoke spreads thinly nto the surrounding air very quickly. Unless you are standing right next to the smoker passing by a smoker isn't going to cause you to get lung cancer or emphasema or any other smoking-related diasease.

Cigarettes do not make life more comfortable though. Maybe to smokers, but subjecting non-smokers to thier habit is unfair.

I think what Wab was saying, and do correct me if I'm wrong Wab, was that cars, power plants, plastics, food coloring, preservatives and many other things cause many more diaseses and much more pollution than smoking. Especially the first two that I listed. Cars and power plants pump so much smoke into our atmospheres. Smokers aren't even a blip on the radar in comparison.

[crookshanksmom]

I think what Wab was saying, and do correct me if I'm wrong Wab, was that cars, power plants, plastics, food coloring, preservatives and many other things cause many more diaseses and much more pollution than smoking. Especially the first two that I listed. Cars and power plants pump so much smoke into our atmospheres. Smokers aren't even a blip on the radar in comparison.

I understand that-I just thinking smoking in enclosed spaces (stores, theaters, restaraunts, etc) should be banned. I don't mind people smoking outside-it's easy to move away from them. It's not easy to move away from someone when you've just been served a meal in a restaraunt and someone lights up and their smoke waftes over to you, ruining your appitite. You can't just leave then, you do have to wait for the waiter to come with the check. Same in stores-sure, you might be able to step out of line, but what if you really need the item you're buying, such as toilet paper or milk?

[mina]

There wouldn't ever be a time where a person had to go into a specific store because a product wasn't stocked anywhere else. It just wouldn't happen-it would **** off too many consumers.

Banning smoking outside is ridiclous. The smoke spreads thinly nto the surrounding air very quickly.

SOo...what if you live in the country and there is only one store around? Should you be forced to drive an hour away to the next store just because someone can't step outside to smoke?

I agree somewhat with not banning it outside. I do think it should be banned in places where you have to stand or sit in close quarters. The smoke doesn't spread around enough just because you are outside. You can still smell it quite well, which means it is entering your body.

Unless you are standing right next to the smoker passing by a smoker isn't going to cause you to get lung cancer or emphasema or any other smoking-related diasease.

Yeah, but few people are paying attention to what they are doing when they are walking. I am tired of almost getting burned by careless people's cigarettes. Plus the litter really builds up from smokers who can't take three steps to actually throw their cigarette out.

We don't want the little birdies get cancer now do we?

Of course not! :)

[~oSiRiS~]

Yeah, Seriously The people that toss the cigarettes out the window while thier driving need to stop too.

Burnt about 6 holes through the paint on the hood of my car from the ashes.

[Wab]

I think what Wab was saying, and do correct me if I'm wrong Wab, was that cars, power plants, plastics, food coloring, preservatives and many other things cause many more diaseses and much more pollution than smoking. Especially the first two that I listed. Cars and power plants pump so much smoke into our atmospheres. Smokers aren't even a blip on the radar in comparison.

Essentially my point.

But where I am smoking is banned from just about every enclosed space except pubs. Which is fine by me. I think that other people should be be allowed to engage in their vice while I indulge mine.

[~oSiRiS~]

Bars,clubs, casinos, ect I have no problem people smoking in and would not want to see them banned in those places. I don't smoke but every once in a while I do puff on a cigar when I am playing poker. They should be required to install air filters in places where they are not banned.

Resturants I would like to see them banned. Some of those cheap cigarettes(like the ones my grandma smokes) smell horrible. They make me sick from the smell. Thats not what I want smell when I am sitting down for a nice meal.

Where I used to live just passsed a law banning smoking in either all public places or just resturants. I don't remember what it was.

[crookshanksmom]

I would like to see cigarettes banned completely, but I doubt it would work. They tried banning alcohol in the 1920s (prohibition) and speakeasys and the like popped up everywhere. But I honestly do not understand why someone who knows smoking is bad for your health (heart disease, elevated blood pressure, lung cancer, emphasema) would start smoking anyway.

[~oSiRiS~]

Because its the "cool" thing to do.

Most people I know that smoke started young. Like 7th or 8th grade because they thought it was cool.

Most people ignore the health problems they might cause. I say might because its not certain you will have health problems. I know people that died in the upper 90's age wise and smoked almost a pack a day. They never had any health problems that cigarettes can cause. Since its not 100% certain you will have problems and the problems won't come till later in life. People look past them.
The younger people see thier parents and actors smoking and they do show any signs of having health problems and think its ok to smoke.

[crookshanksmom]

Consider this: A person who smokes a pack a day basically flushes $1,820 a year. ($5 times 7 days a week times 52 weeks a year). Why would anyone want to waste that much money, smell like an ash try, and have the possibility of damaging their health? Especially since more people have health issues due to smoking than those who are healthy and smoke.

[~oSiRiS~]

Well in my case, money is not important. Its not that hard to get more. I have wasted more money on that on more stupid things than cigarettes. But I do not think smokers care about the money they waste.

[Fiddle Faddle]

As an Irish smoker, I have to say that those who recommend that smoking should be banned outright in public, enclosed spaces, hace you really thought it through? The government here introdiced such a ban at the end of March - but without proper thought. For example, if one is forced to leave a pub, and stand outside the door to have a cigarette (when drinking out of doors has been illegal for a number of years), should the establishment not be obliged to safeguard your drink? As a young woman, I am constantly aware of the dangers of date-rape drugs being slipped into my drink - and being forced to hide it unattended is something I consider of much more immediate danger than smoking.
Similarly - it is one thing to ban indoor smoking (in places of work) in California, where the weather is reasonable, but to force those of us who have an ADDICTION to brave sub-zero temperatures and lashing rain, is also irresponsible from a health stand-point. Scientific research has shown that with an average ventilation system, smoke will linger in the air for a MAXIMUM of 8 hours - so an indoor (enclosed from the rest of an establishment) smoking area, with proper heating, where a drink can be consumed, seems to me to be a much better idea than the knee-jerk reaction of an outright ban.
Yes.. those of you who disucuss basic good manners - such as respecting other peoples' space and health certainly have a point, but those who do not understand the agony of a craving are in a poor position to judge how far a ban should go.
On the bright side, apparently the smokng ban here in Ireland has spawned a new "smoker solidarity" and has led to many new relationships, as men and women outside smoking have a number of advantages - an easy opener - "do you have a light", something in common - a rant about the draconian law - and a conversation away from pounding music... So there is hope for a new generation of vice-ridden children!

[crookshanksmom]

The way I see it, smokers have a choice. Smoke outside, and if you dislike the weather, there are a host of ways to quit, from hypnosis to perscription medications.

[~oSiRiS~]

Nope I don't know what it feels like to be addicted to something. I do not get addicted to things.
In bars smoking is fine. Thats what people do there.

A normal resturant I think should be banned.

I live in michigan and I spent many of times with no coat standing outside a establishment with friends while they puff down a cigarette. Its not that bad. Maybe I am used to the cold.

Who knows maybe some day someone will create a healthy cigarette and we won't have to have this debate.

[Wab]

I would like to see cigarettes banned completely, but I doubt it would work. They tried banning alcohol in the 1920s (prohibition) and speakeasys and the like popped up everywhere. But I honestly do not understand why someone who knows smoking is bad for your health (heart disease, elevated blood pressure, lung cancer, emphasema) would start smoking anyway.

Because nicotine gives you a hell of a rush and is extremely addictive.

[crookshanksmom]

Because nicotine gives you a hell of a rush and is extremely addictive.

So people know it's addictive. They know it's bad for you. And they still choose to start smoking? Where are their brains?

[Queen of Wise]

So people know it's addictive. They know it's bad for you. And they still choose to start smoking? Where are their brains?
Yeah, I don't understand that either, why would you smoke if you know it's going to do that to you?? Almost all the kids at my school started smoking in Junior High, even though they knew what it does to you.

[Deliah]

As an ex smoker I can understand both sides and I'm against too many rules and restrictions because they just make things interesting (I started smoking basicaly because I was told its bad and stuff).

Best thing is to appeal to the brain of the smokers and ask them to treat non smokers with respect ...

[Queen of Wise]

As an ex smoker I can understand both sides and I'm against too many rules and restrictions because they just make things interesting (I started smoking basicaly because I was told its bad and stuff).

Best thing is to appeal to the brain of the smokers and ask them to treat non smokers with respect ...
Yeah, alot of kids I know do alot of stuff because their parents tell them not to. Suprisingly, that idea doesn't appeal to me, because I've actauly read the details of what happens to your body when you smoke and do drugs, and I don't fancy myself being 30 years old and on an oxygen machine:(

[heathermione]

When you're 13-15 you don't usually think that horrible stuff can happen to you. You look at old people with tracheotomies and cancer and you don't think...wow, if I smoke for 20 years, I can have that too. Usually by the time that sort of reality sets in, you're already hooked...

[Queen of Wise]

When you're 13-15 you don't usually think that horrible stuff can happen to you. You look at old people with tracheotomies and cancer and you don't think...wow, if I smoke for 20 years, I can have that too. Usually by the time that sort of reality sets in, you're already hooked...
Well you ought to know, they teach it in health class, or at least they did when I was 13. And they even taught it in elementary school. Personally, I watched my grandfather die of cancer, and my mom watched him take his last breath before he died. She said he looked in so much pain, and so I don't want to do that to my body. Besides, I have asthma, and being within 20 feet of cigarette smoke makes me have breathing problems.

[crookshanksmom]

I think anti-smoking programs should start apealing to preteen and teenager's vanity. Many teens are very vain creatures, and if you tell them how it discolors your teeth, causes premature wrinkles, yellows your nails and fingers, and makes you smell bad-you know, tell them the outside problems as well as the internal ones-maybe they'll realize that it's not a pretty habit. And most teens want to be pretty, because most of the time being pretty is associated with being cool.

[mina]

Well you ought to know, they teach it in health class, or at least they did when I was 13. And they even taught it in elementary school.

Yeah, but most kids don't pay any attention in health classes (or at least that is how it was in my school). I think they need to actually see what smoking causes for them to understand.

[Wab]

So people know it's addictive. They know it's bad for you. And they still choose to start smoking? Where are their brains?

Same place as all those grossly obese people who know that stuffing their faces is bad for them.

Human nature.

[Queen of Wise]

Yeah, but most kids don't pay any attention in health classes (or at least that is how it was in my school). I think they need to actually see what smoking causes for them to understand.Yeah, ay my school, if an administrator catches someone smoking, they get a referral and they have to take a 2 hour after school class, that shows you all that.

[FirefightingMuggle]

The thing that really makes me mad about some anti-smoking groups is the lengths that they will go to basically harass the public into thinking like them. Sit and watch, and really pay attention to some of those TRUTH commercials. Some of them are good, and show real people with real problems, but some of the commercials are down right harassment. Like the one where the girls were on the street with the models of babies, one looked healthy and the other grossly deformed. They were basically shoving the models at people and asking people to choose which baby they would want. Well, sorry, but DUH. Everyone is going to choose the Healthy baby, seeing as everyone would want their children to be in good health. And there was something they did with dog do-do that was pretty much disgusting as well. The other one that really ticked me off is the commercial where they put body bags all around a building and yelled at the tobacco company about all the people that they kill. I don't think that any of these commercials was very effective. If you want to teach people about the hazards of smoking you need to show real people having real effects. Show people on oxygen, people with cancer, emphysema...people who have to gasp for breath just to stay alive. Don't just harass people or companies and then make it into a commercial. Don't put dog poos on the street and tell people it's like smoking. That's not education, it's propaganda. If you want to educate, you have to show the effects. If you want people to stop doing something, you have to show them the effects, not just tell them. We basically live in the world of "show me". People are skeptics. You can tell someone something all you want, but in the end, they want to see results. So, show the results. Make it real, and people will believe.

[Fiddle Faddle]

Crookshanksmom, you have a point - yes, smokers do have a choice, but then so do non-smokers. A downright ban is plain fascist. People have faults and vices, and while a little consideration in indulging those vices is to be expected from basic good manners, they still have the right to indulge them.
Personally, I do not smoke in restaurants (and did not even when it was legal here), and if ever, outside my own home, I am asked to extinguish a cigarette in a POLITE manner, I would do so immediately, and with good grace. I would also abstain from smoking inside my own home in the presence of a guest who iis asthmatic or allergic to smoke, etc.
BUT the point is, I got addicted to cigarettes before I had any idea of the dangers involved. My Grandmother got addicted during the Blitz of London in World War II, when bombs were falling around her head. Would you really tell her to face the pouring rain when she goes for her one night out a week? I certainly would be ashamed even to suggest it. The same goes for so many older people whose one pleasure is a drink or a meal at the weekend. Why destroy that with draconian legislation?
A little bit of tolerance and good manners from BOTH sides is all that is required to prevent the need for the state to impose an outright ban.

[JofpGallagher]

So people know it's addictive. They know it's bad for you. And they still choose to start smoking? Where are their brains?
My brains are inside my head, thanks.
Always it looks easy or logic to follow healthy decisions, but reality shows a different picture. Excercising, looks logic and healthy, yet many people do not do that. Good eating habits are logic and healthy, yet many people do not do that.

I didn't choose start smoking when I knew all that stuff. I started at 12. I assure you that I wouldn't've chosen smoking at 20 for the same reason I have never done drugs. Because I knew drugs damage your health. However, at 12 I didn't know it or maybe I didn't understand the damages of cigarettes. In addition, at 12, you cannot expect the same maturity regarding to decisions than an adult. I made a decision, and I regretted it.
In last years, I have reduced my smoking habits quite a lot. From two packs to only about 10 cigarettes. It is very hard to quit, and I have tried it.

I want to say that no one should smoke. It's terribly addictive and hard to quit.

Regarding to those fanatics anti-smokers, oh well, I will never forget the day I was in a bus station with lots of buses wit hthe engine on. The smoke was horrible, and I started to have a headache. One man lit a cigarette there, and immediately a woman started to cough (on purpose) besides him, and she started to say "things" to the man about polluting her air. For God sake, I laughed a lot, it was almost un-breatheable because the buses, and this woman found a simple cigarrete the cause of their cough?...Give me a break!

[Kalypso]

I've tried smoking, my two half sisters chain smoke, my grandad died of cancer probably caused by smoking, my dad used to be a heavy smoker and now has got a load of health complications because of it and a lot of my friends smoke. Most people I know that still smoke want to give up but can't.

It cannot be realistically disputed that smoking is harmful. Because of this, I think it is logical that smoking should be discouraged, perhaps by a public bam. Not only for non-smokers, but for people who only smoke socially it might very well be an added incentive to quit.

Putting pubs etc aside, I think smoking should definitely be banned in places people do not have the option not to go to - eg all public transport, workplaces, banks, shops etc. Luckily, most of these places have this sort of ban in place already, but ten years ago it would have been very different.

When most buses and offices first banned smoking (about ten or fifteen years ago), people didn't like it. But now it's the norm and it is accepted. If somebody smoked on a bus it would be regarded by most as rude and unnacceptable (not to mention the bus probably does not allow it). My point is that the same arguments came up then as now. In 50 years or so, it's quite probable smoking will have been banned most places, perhaps even altogether, and it will be regarded as OK.

I read in a (UK) newspaper a few days ago that Blair was trying to get a ban on smoking in public in place and I hope it comes to something even though it probably won't because he wants to leave it up to individual councils I think.

What I would like ideally is for there to be better medical facilities to help people quit smoking because at the moment it is incredibly hard. I don't know if that would be possible but if it were easier to quit I think that might be more effective in reducing the amount of smokers than just banning it because eventually less people would want to smoke in public anyway.

I think it should be classed as abuse to chain smoke around children though and I elaborated on this quite a bit earlier on but I don't have time to go into it again right now.

But basically I think that there should be some kind of compromise where smokers don't feel that they are being treated as second class citizens but people can still go out without being forced to smoke. Last time I went to see a band in a pub less than a third of the people in there were smoking but everyone had to inhale the smoke.

(Plus, Wab said earlier that 90% of people with lung cancer were smokers implying that passive smoking was not a major cause of it, but I think it's quite likely that people who grew up with parents who smoked or who went places where people smoked would perhaps be more likely to smoke anyway, so although they were passive smokers to begin with the environment they were in influenced them to start smoking also. But that is just a theory and may be completely wrong.)

[FirefightingMuggle]

Not really about Smoking in Public, but any animal lover will appreciate these articles...

Smoking and Cats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2165722.stm)
Passive Smoking and Pets (http://www.ie.pedigree.com/Pedigree/en-ie/Articles/Health+Care/Health+Problems/Passive+Smoking+and+Pets.htm)
Smoking around Pets (http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/News/006.htm)
Pets experiance effects of second hand smoke (http://www.dailyillini.com/mar03/mar19/news/stories/campus01.shtml)

Just a little something, something to keep discussions going at a rampant pace.

[crookshanksmom]

Ideally, a ban on smoking in public places won't make a smoker feel like a second-class citizen. I would be all for a small, enclosed room with proper ventilation in building for smokers. Maybe it is similiar to segregation, but not 100%. I'm not saying they should stay there when shopping/viewing a concert/eating at a restaraunt/drinking at a pub, but they should go to the smoking room to indulge in thier habit. That way, if it is extremely cold or extremely hot outdoors or raining or snowing, they have a sheltered place to go that will not irritate the sensitive noses of non-smokers.

[angel65]

omg !!!! i hate them ......i cant stanf the smell

[Mundungus Fletc]

As a smoker I totally agree with a ban in enclosed public spaces.

A few years ago I was working in an office which had a smoking room. It was a wonderfully subversive situation because people from all different levels of the organistion used it. It became an informal gossip exchange. I could atalk causally to people way above me in the organisation and very junior staff could talk to me. I learned a great deal about non smokers who worked for me.

[Marie Lexis]

Actually smoking can effect people in different ways then most. A simple cigerrate can cause someone to start coughing constantly why it is lit. It just happens to be the way the person is or was around cig. My parents had quit smoking for like 2 or 3 months and then they started back up again. And the smoke really bothered me because I wasn't used to it anymore. And they are to insensitive towards my feelings about it. They complain that I complain about it. But what they don't understand is that they are killing themselves along with my brothers and me. They have smoked all my life and when they quit smoking I had coughed up about half what they did from them quiting. People say that it is just a cig. and no harm, but I believe that if you complain about someone else complaining then you don't want to face the truth that you are dying because of a habit that is the hardest to break. The family doctor is begging my parents to quit. But they won't. And they complain that I complain and they complain that he complains.

The only plus side to them start smoking is that I've lost weight because I'm either in my room doing exercises and kickboxing to get my anger out or I'm outside with friends or walking around the mall. But out of the three of us...I'm the only one getting the good end of the stick.

[Sirk Rolyat]

In utah you are not allowed to smoke inside public buildings. And it depends on there you are outside. You have to be at least 50 feet from any building unless its your own house of course.

[AcrylicDrama]

In my city in Alberta (Canada), smoking is not allowed anywhere that minors are. So only bars still allow smoking.

And I think that's the way it should be. A smoker can step outside for a moment to smoke or use the special designated "smokers room" which many buildings now have, but people who are trying to escape the smoke indoors can't do the same. "Well, I think I'll go outside and have a quick breath, I'll be back before our food arrives." Not quite cool, in my opinion.

[Shauna]

I am a singer, and when people smoke around me I can feel the effects on my voice for days sometimes. People who smoke around me are directly damaging my career. If I cannot move away, then I have no qualms about asking them to move or put out their cigarette. Usually people comply.

Some people simply cannot do without their cigarettes, though. And for them, I think it is a good idea to have a smoking room.

Shauna

[~Tonks~]

In my city in Alberta (Canada), smoking is not allowed anywhere that minors are. So only bars still allow smoking.

And I think that's the way it should be. A smoker can step outside for a moment to smoke or use the special designated "smokers room" which many buildings now have, but people who are trying to escape the smoke indoors can't do the same. "Well, I think I'll go outside and have a quick breath, I'll be back before our food arrives." Not quite cool, in my opinion.

I completely agree with you. Fresh air is better air. A smoker can choose not to smoke but a non-smoker can't choose not to breathe it, and personally I don't feel like I should have to avoid the interior of a public establishment just because I chose not to get addicted to a substance and other people have to feed that addiction.

I would never go to such extremes as to say it should be outlawed in all public places, because even I feel it would be ridiculous to try to make it illegal to smoke outside, but a lot of people are rude about it. They'll light up in a crowd and bother everyone around them. The worst is when they walk in front of you and the wind is blowing toward you.

[Bouncing_Ferret]

I'm living in Australia at the moment, and there's so much anti-smoking legislation and stuff - in a few years it will be impossible to smoke anywhere! Which really annoys me, as I've grown up as a true Brit with those great hazy old-fashioned pubs with the brightly coloured, out of place cigarette machines in every corner. It's just an ingrained part of my culture, smoking. I like the atmosphere smoking creates in places, so personally, I've got nothing against smoking in public places.

Then again, I can see other peoples' pov's. Whenever I'm in London with my mum, the only place we can go to get coffee is Starbucks because they don't allow smoking, because she hates having to drink or eat through a haze of smoke. And during summer, it does seem far more sensible for people to smoke outside in beer gardens and so forth. Personally, though, eating or socialising or anything around smokers doesn't bother me at all. In fact, my favourite thing is sitting around a table with good wine and a cigarette. But for the sake of everyone who doesn't like being around smokers, I think it's better if smokers are restricted somewhat around public places.

However, I definitely don't want smokers to be run out of restaurants, pubs, parks, and every other public place, as that's infringing on peoples' rights to indulge in a perfectly legal practice. :)

[Classical_Wizar]

I don’t know I used to smoke so I would hate to not be able to light up when I felt like it. As a non smoker I can understand not wanting to walk behind someone that is, but I usually past them by. Beside I never could understand why someone would walk behind me maybe I’m just paranoid I hate people driving behind me too but that's off topic. To ban all places though is ridiculous to me even with a smoking section it doesn’t always help, my school had a smoking section but sometimes smokers would move away from there. In restaurants it works better and houses but of course for dorm parties people didn’t seem to ask if they could or not. Anyways back to the topic and end of my rant. Buildings and restaurants have the right to ban smoking if they feel like it but to ban public areas like the park or a city is impractical to me.

[starxgazer]

My parents smoke, but they go outside to smoke. I don't think people should be aloud to smoke in public. If they want to smoke, they should atleast do it in their own privacy in their homes. I dislike the smell of smoke on me. And I see it fairly rude to light up in public.

[Bouncing_Ferret]

And I see it fairly rude to light up in public.

Really? It's so interesting, the whole different cultures thing. With me, and most people I know, as long as people don't favour their cigarette over answering my question or something, then it's not seen as rude at all. Just as if somebody took a drink bottle out of their bag and drank from it. But just a little more unhealthy...

[Classical_Wizar]

If they want to smoke, they should atleast do it in their own privacy in their homes. Funny I see the opposite. If they are smoking outside I can move away or stay indoors but inside the smoke lingers around and I feel trapped. But to each his/her own.

[red_fairy]

I agree with Classical Wizar. When people smoke, I prefer for smokers to smoke outside. The smell doesn't linger nearly as long.

[HP_names_all_taken]

I am against smoking in public rooms, like pubs etc. I don't mind that much when it's outside, but second-hand smoke endangers people lives, and if I did smoke then I wouldn't want the guilt of harming another person over my head. They have designated smoker areas in cafes and such, but smoke just drifts over. It's smoke! Smoking areas in one open-plan room just doesn't work.

[Ana-Magus]

As a smoker - I only smoke OUTDOORS!!!

I am from New York State, in my county - you can not smoke indoors AT ALL - not even in a bar. When I moved to Las Vegas, I actually found it very strange that people were smoking indoors. Even as a smoker, I was bothered by the smoke around me.

I smoke outside because:

Smoking indoors bothers others
It makes your house smell
It decreases the resale value of your car if you smoke in it

I know I need to quit, but it is, in fact, a real addictive habit. It's very hard to do.

[free_girl]

Since I have asthma, you can guess that I love smoke! Not! It should be banned everywhere except in those portable toilets! :tu: You hate me not now smokers, but you'll save money in the end. My dad has. :cool:

[Kirsten]

If it was up to me, tobacco would only be available on prescription. That would ensure people were not able to start smoking, and would be easier to help people to quit - just prescribe them 20 less a week until they're down to nothing!

I think Singapore has it right - you can smoke in your house, outside, or in designated smoking areas. Nowhere else. And there's a $500 fine (about £250) for people who break the law.

I'm allergic to *** smoke. It hurts my eyes, gums up my contact lenses, gives me a headache. makes me feel nauseus and triggers my asthma. I almost never go into pubs or clubs now because the smoke makes me feel so rotten I can't enjoy myself. If smoking was banned, I would go out a lot more. Nobody is allowed to smoke in my flat and I prefer not to socialise with smokers, because their habit makes me ill. The minute someone exercises their right to smoke and lights up in a room, that removes everyone else's right to breathe clean air.

ETA: the board won't let me type f_a_g smoke. Just want to point out that f_a_g is not just an offensive term for gay men, it's a valid UK word meaning cigarette!

[Harriet139]

How do you feel about smokers smoking in public places? I mean, it's fine for them to do it at their home if they want to, but in public? Smonking and non-smoking sections, and so forth. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is the smoking section a legitimate way of dealing with the situation, or is it just like a peeing and non peeing section in a pool? And are there other ways to deal with this? And, btw, don't forget to mention if you're a smoker or not, because that will probably influence your views.
<NON-SMOKER AND WILL NEVER START!!!>I think smoking is a terrible thing to do if you do there is a place in my heart for you to STOP! If you do you go very low in my book! I ask you to stop because every time you smoke you lose SEVEN MINUTES off your own life. I am deffently against smoking areas because it just give smokers the opportunity to get lung cancer and smokers cough!

[Harriet139]

As a smoker - I only smoke OUTDOORS!!!

I am from New York State, in my county - you can not smoke indoors AT ALL - not even in a bar. When I moved to Las Vegas, I actually found it very strange that people were smoking indoors. Even as a smoker, I was bothered by the smoke around me.

I smoke outside because:

Smoking indoors bothers others
It makes your house smell
It decreases the resale value of your car if you smoke in it

I know I need to quit, but it is, in fact, a real addictive habit. It's very hard to do.


You write all this but say it's too hard?

The winner says "It is difficult, but it is so possible. The loser says "It is possible, but it is too difficult.

[Ana-Magus]

<NON-SMOKER AND WILL NEVER START!!!>I think smoking is a terrible thing to do if you do there is a place in my heart for you to STOP! If you do you go very low in my book! I ask you to stop because every time you smoke you lose SEVEN MINUTES off your own life. I am deffently against smoking areas because it just give smokers the opportunity to get lung cancer and smokers cough!


Thank you!!! I need all the positive feedback I can get! I know I need to quit, but it is an addiction and I know I need help!!!!

Can anyone tell me their quitting stories and how they succeeded????

I've tried to quit before and I was unsuccessful. Then someone told me that the craving really never goes away - is that really true???

[WickedWitch21]

As a smoker, I'm very respectful about other people.
There are very few restrictions about smoking in public places here in Argentina. I really think it should be banned in certain places or situations. I particularly hate when I'm walking down the street and the person ahead is smoking.

[Marie Lexis]

You write all this but say it's too hard?

The winner says "It is difficult, but it is so possible. The loser says "It is possible, but it is too difficult.


Do you even know how hard it is for someone to quit? My parents have tried to quit about a dozen times. But because of stress they can't.

[nicolasa]

As a non-smoker, I prefer that smokers smoke inside. It seems that when they go smoke outside, they crowd around the doors to get into buildings, and that makes it worse because you have to walk by a group of people and a cloud of smoke to get in. If they were spread out, and didn't crowd the doors, I wouldn't mind, since I do try and hold my breath as I walk quickly past anyway.

[Wab]

There was an interesting insight into all this from an Irish publican whose pub is a daily ritual for an 86yo pipe-smoker. In the past the old bloke would enjoy a few pints and a pipe. Now he has to totter outside (in all sorts of weather) between drinks for a puff.

[Twilight]

I'm a non-smoker but I have no problem with smoking sections where they have them. In California, that's not an option, but a lot of states it is. I have no problem with it. I don't have a problem with them smoking outside either. The only thing I hate is when I see people smoking, and they have their kids right there... Babies are worse. Second hand smoke is horrible, and is almost just as bad as smoking itself.

[Jocelyn A]

I don't smoke (pretty much because I think it's stupid to damage your body and because, frankly, it's nasty.) I live in california, where, people can't smoke inside restaurant. When I used to work in one, I was glad in the fact that people had to go outside to smoke. It's great because people who don't want to inhale the smoke don't have to anymore. Sure it sucks for those smokers(especially in the rain and cold), but secondhand smoke does kill and make others ill.

[Blackhawk0216]

I seriously don't think smoking should be allowed at any public places. I live in indiana where people smoke like none other and it's just gross. And smoking sections in restaurants!! Don't get me started on those. Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool...

[PunkRockGoddess]

I do have a huge problem with smokers and smoking. If I see someone smoking by me and I can smell it, I'm just going to straight out ask them to put it out. Mostly because it's their body and if they want to kill themselves because of a nasty habit that's fine. But I don't want to have to smell something so disgusting.

I think that they need to put more smoking sections in resturants but they need to put something between smokers and non smokers because the smoke is still going to move over to the other side. I had to leave a resturant just yesterday because someone who was smoking and I couldn't stand it. And I couldn't ask him to put it out because he was smoking in a smoking section and I couldn't say anything so I left. But I just wish that they would outlaw smoking around minors. Especially babies.

[Ana-Magus]

I seriously don't think smoking should be allowed at any public places. I live in indiana where people smoke like none other and it's just gross. And smoking sections in restaurants!! Don't get me started on those. Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool...


That is a great analogy!!!!!!! :rotfl:

[Liselle]

A couple of other European nations (Norway and Swedan) are thinking of imposing a similiar ban to the one in existance here in Ireland already, however their quibble is that it gets quite cold (ok freezing) and that it may indanger peoples health to go outside in such low temperatures to smoke. Personally I think this is a load of pap (this is being brought up here too as an excuse) but in my opinion no one is forcing these people to smoke in the first place.......don't inflict it on the rest of us either please

[DerHalfBlood]

I am a non-smoker. I do not like other people smoking in public places. I hate how they try to just walk outside and do it at the doorways so that non-smokers still have to walk through it. I feel smokers have no argument that they can smoke wherever they want because second hand smoke is so dangerous. I am a cross country and track runner and I get really angry when other people dirty up my clean air.

[Pegasus]

A couple of other European nations (Norway and Swedan) are thinking of imposing a similiar ban to the one in existance here in Ireland already, however their quibble is that it gets quite cold (ok freezing) and that it may indanger peoples health to go outside in such low temperatures to smoke. Personally I think this is a load of pap (this is being brought up here too as an excuse) but in my opinion no one is forcing these people to smoke in the first place.......don't inflict it on the rest of us either please
That's hilarious. Since when have below-freezing temperatures stopped someone from lighting up? We've had the Clean Air Act for years (meaning that, legally, you have to be several feet away from the entrance of a public building to smoke--I think it's 10 feet, but can't remember right now) and I've never heard of anyone dying of hypothermia from going out to smoke--but I have heard of people dying from second-hand smoke inhalation.
The people I feel really sorry for, though, are the innocent children whose health is endangered because their parents insist on smoking regardless of their asthmatic kids. But that's not the topic of this thread...

[Fiddle Faddle]

I love to read the sanctimonious rants of non-smokers! Smoking is an addiction. Admittedly it is regrettable that anyone starts smoking - and the prescription idea put forward above has its merits.
BUT the fact of the matter is that many people who smoke started to do so before anyone had any idea of the dangers involved to themselves.. not to mind to those around them. Would any of you REALLY, in all good conscience ask an 86 year old woman, who started smoking during the London Blitz of WWII to stand outside in the ran and snow during her only night out a week?
The problem with this kind of discussion is that everyone wants the extreme solution.. and it is unwarrented. Banning smoking where there is food, and restricting it to seperate, well-ventilated areas is a much more sensible idea - along with a tolerant attitude from non-smokers, and an accommodating one from smokers.

[Kirsten]

Heroin is addictive too. Should we let addicts shoot up wherever they want? They're not harming anyone else. The dangers of tobacco have been known for years. Cigarettes were known as cancer sticks during the first and second world wars. And even if the 86 yo did start smoking in WWII, she's had 60 years to give up. So yes, she can stand outside. Or sit outside, at least.

[mina]

Just a question...Is the right to smoke more important than the right to breathe?

I just got back from LA, and I must say it was really nice to be in smoke-free restaurants for a change.

[crookshanksmom]

How would smokers feel if there was "smoker's nights" at bars and restaraunts? Like, say, Saturdays smokers can light up right in the restaraunt. Every other day you want to visit, you must go outside to smoke. That way, those of us who don't smoke can avoid the smokers and smokers who want to go out in foul weather at least have one day a week to do so.

[Kirsten]

Or maybe just smokers' bars, restaurants, cinemas etc staffed by only smokers, and no smoking anywhere else.

[crookshanksmom]

Or maybe just smokers' bars, restaurants, cinemas etc staffed by only smokers, and no smoking anywhere else.

That's a thought. Though I do think, especially in states/countries where foul weather is at least part of the year, an encloses smoking section with it's own heating/cooling and ventalation system would be for the best. Unfortunately, running a buisness is very costly and adding more to such buisness would make it even more costly which would ultimately raise the prices of whatever product they provide, which would make the general public unhappy.

[HarryPotter]

I think smoking in public and work places should be absolutely forbidden, and conveniently punished...

[Spirit]

I am a non-smoker, because I have bad asthma and I'd basically kill myself if I did (although I believe that smokers are slowly doing so anyway).

I think smoking in public places is wrong. You have smoking and non smoking sections but it doesn't make a difference because it floats over anyway and people like me get asthma attacks anyway. I can't even go to bowling alleys anymore because the smoking is so bad.

This is what supports my opinion: studies show that secondhand smoke kills twice as fast as the cigarettes kill the smoker. Not to mention asthmatics like myself.

Smoking in public places should be banned, and luckily in some places it is.

I also have asthma, so yes, I am very against people smoking in public places. It doesn't matter if they walk away from you a few feet, it just floats in the air, over to me. If people want to kill themselves smoking, that's fine, but don't kill me too in the process.

[Aquaria]

I definitely prefer people not to smoke in public.
I'm a non-smoker. Why should I be forced to inhale unhealthy second-hand-smoke when I willingly decided not to smoke myself.

Smoking sections are o.k. though. They are usually rather small and in a far away corner, so that's fine with me.
I would prefer smoke-free bars and resaurants. In Germany they're not that far, yet.

I'm really glad that at least most of the planes are smoke-free today.
I remember vividly when I sat in a plane to London, in the non-smoking section, realizing that the smoking section started right in the row behind me. Yuck!
Smoking is so disgusting!

[LuvHP_001]

I am a non-smoker and i absolutely object..i don't care what you say, but i depise ppl who smoke.....they harm themselves, sometime even their babies,family,friends, and even ppl who are strangers to them.....FOR GOD's SAKES! they are harming ppl they don't know!!! ...and they're just adding to the pollution ...GOD Bless all mighty On,Canada...for not allowing it!!!!

[Aquaria]

I think it's totally inexcusable to smoke around kids.
Mainly because of the health problems you cause them, but also because of the role model aspect.
It's proven that a kid is more likely to smoke if both or one of the parents smoke. And it's totally understandable.
Why should a child believe their parents when they tell him that smoking is unhealthy if they smoke themselves?

I appreciate the fact, that there are less and less movies in which the main actors smoke. A hero shouldn't smoke!

[Kimmetje]

I think smoking is bad, really bad. Two years ago I followed a program called DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) at school and I think it really helped. These programs should be teached at every school as it really helps people realise what it can do to you. I saw like lungs from a smoker, all black (gros) and pictures of people who had done something with mariuana and there bodies were all read.

Anyway, I think it's gros when people smoke in public places (even kids outside infront of high schools and middle schools in Holland where I lived) and think that it should be banned.

A guy went outside to smoke during Hurricane Charley and ended dead, because a tree fell on him. Smoking is indeed deadly than.

[Aquaria]

You can tell, smoking is addictive.
Who else would go outside during bitter cold/rain/hail/even a hurricane just to do something that's bad for you.
It's kind of pathetic, when you walk past an office building in winter and you can see a group of people, huddled together, freezing and shivering smoking their cigarettes.

[Sorcha]

I know that I'm horribly allergic, and I have asthma, so smoking really bothers me. When I was in NY, there is a ban there that says you can't smoke in public buildings or something. That was nice, but it also meant when you walked, you walked through clouds of cigarette smoke. I think I speak for all asthmatics when I say that the world would be a better place with full public smoking bans.

[Reverie]

Well I don't mind really if they smoke at their homes.Obeisly they know it's unhealthy and if they don't, well its their fault for not getting better information before they tried something. I understand that they mabe addicted and can't stop, what i don't understand is why they smoke in front or by other people who do want to stay healthy.
For example, last Saturday my mom and I went to the clininc to see the Doctor and we were wating for the clinic ,which is small, to open along with some other people there in line out side by the door. Then here comes this lady, she sits next to me on the pavement and starts talking to this other lady and starts smoking right then and there. I thought that was rude there were so many people their with younger kids than me even a baby was there. The don't smoke sign was there but no she just sat there and smoked making me( along with other people) move somewhere else because of her.I found that extremly annoying.

[grrliz]

I love to read the sanctimonious rants of non-smokers! Smoking is an addiction. Admittedly it is regrettable that anyone starts smoking - and the prescription idea put forward above has its merits.
BUT the fact of the matter is that many people who smoke started to do so before anyone had any idea of the dangers involved to themselves.. not to mind to those around them. Would any of you REALLY, in all good conscience ask an 86 year old woman, who started smoking during the London Blitz of WWII to stand outside in the ran and snow during her only night out a week?
The problem with this kind of discussion is that everyone wants the extreme solution.. and it is unwarrented. Banning smoking where there is food, and restricting it to seperate, well-ventilated areas is a much more sensible idea - along with a tolerant attitude from non-smokers, and an accommodating one from smokers.The fact of the matter is that it's not old ladies standing outside in the rain and sleet trying to light up. It's people who were young enough to know the dangers of smoking before they started. Why should I feel sorry for them and why should I sacrifice my own health for them?

That's the thing though: it's a choice to start smoking. I chose not to be a smoker. I chose not to pollute my body. I chose not to expose myself to harmful toxins. I chose to be able to breathe.

I choose oxygen! :)

[caindo]

Though I am a non-smoker, and personally HATE the addiction, I don't understand the point in having a "non-smoking" section to a restaurant. Smoke rises. Air is all around. The smoke will eventually venture to the other side of the room.
However, I actually agree w/ having completely smoke-free environments. Not only is lung cancer one of the leading causes of deaths in the US, it's not only caused by someone putting the cigarette to their mouth. Secondhand smoke is also one of the leading causes of deaths in younger people, not just those who have smoked most of their lives.
By having smoke-free environments, you can easily begin to cut down on high death tolls relating to lung cancer victims. Though it's not the only case, it's definately one of the main reasons why people are developing this common cancer, and dying at a younger age.

[Fiddle Faddle]

Kirsten.. the dangers of smoking most certainly were NOT well known during WWII - why else do you think there have been so many successful law suits against tobacco companies by people who were judged by a court of law not to have had any clear idea of the dangers when they started..
And.. do you look down your nose at those soldiers who started an addiction to opium whie defending the free world? Do you not think that the extenuating circumstances of Nazi bombs dropping around your head legitimate picking up a nasty habit? I truly hope you do not live your life in the same judgemental manner that would require an old age pensioner to catch pneumonia because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept of compromise.
Yes.. non smokers have an unquestionable right breathe smoke free air.. but what is wrong with designated, indoor, heated and comfortable smoking areas? Are you taking it upon yourself to punish those who suffer an addiction of which you clearly undertand nothing.
You use the example of heroin - which, although a ridiculous comparison, I will look at. Yes heroin is addictive.. there is little doubt that most users who became addicted knew the dangers before they started - do you then think that pproviding addicts with a safe area to shoot up, and uninfected needles to use is a terrible idea? Do youthrow your hands to the heavens and say "Let them catch AIDS.. they deserve it"?
I certainly hope not.

Grrliz.. of course there are old people standing outside to smoke - go to any pub in Ireland and I would stake my life that you would see a minimum of one person over 50 huddled outside catching pneumonia

Mina.. I agree with you that smoking in areas where food is being consumed is not pleasant, and should be banned.. I refer in the main to pubs (where it has been banned in my country, Ireland)

I am not an advocate of smoking in creches, hospitals, or orphanages!!!!! I am merely saying that this is not a black and white situation where those who do not understand what it is to have an addiction should jump straight for the nearest soap box and propose extreme, unnecessary measures.

Crookshanksmom, I think that that is an excellent idea - and it is a perfect example of a compromise solution to the problem.

[grrliz]

Yes.. non smokers have an unquestionable right breathe smoke free air.. but what is wrong with designated, indoor, heated and comfortable smoking areas? Are you taking it upon yourself to punish those who suffer an addiction of which you clearly undertand nothing.My question is: who pays for this? Should tax payers fund fully heated indoor smoking areas so that people can enjoy their unnecessary addiction in a comfortable location? Perhaps standing in the rain will make them think twice about the irreperable damage they're doing to their health. Maybe a little bit of frostbite will make them think "Is this worth it?" :)

Grrliz.. of course there are old people standing outside to smoke - go to any pub in Ireland and I would stake my life that you would see a minimum of one person over 50 huddled outside catching pneumoniaPerhaps that's a cultural difference then. The majority of smokers standing outside in the cold in Canada (we'll say specifically southern Ontario, since that's where I'm from) are not the elderly.

I can excuse (somewhat) those who took up smoking before they knew the health hazards. They didn't know any better. But what I'm talking about are everyday people who have taken up the habit with full knowledge of the health ramifications.

Smoking is not something you need to do to survive. It's a choice one makes.

[Kirsten]

Kirsten.. the dangers of smoking most certainly were NOT well known during WWII - why else do you think there have been so many successful law suits against tobacco companies by people who were judged by a court of law not to have had any clear idea of the dangers when they started..
And.. do you look down your nose at those soldiers who started an addiction to opium whie defending the free world? Do you not think that the extenuating circumstances of Nazi bombs dropping around your head legitimate picking up a nasty habit? I truly hope you do not live your life in the same judgemental manner that would require an old age pensioner to catch pneumonia because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept of compromise.
Yes.. non smokers have an unquestionable right breathe smoke free air.. but what is wrong with designated, indoor, heated and comfortable smoking areas? Are you taking it upon yourself to punish those who suffer an addiction of which you clearly undertand nothing.
You use the example of heroin - which, although a ridiculous comparison, I will look at. Yes heroin is addictive.. there is little doubt that most users who became addicted knew the dangers before they started - do you then think that pproviding addicts with a safe area to shoot up, and uninfected needles to use is a terrible idea? Do youthrow your hands to the heavens and say "Let them catch AIDS.. they deserve it"?
I certainly hope not.
Why are you taking such an aggressive tone with me?

The dangers of smoking were very well known during WWII. Cigarettes were known as cancer sticks. I would say that the law suits have been successful because the courts have found in favour of people who aren't prepared to take responsibility for their own mistakes, rather than common sense.

I don't look down my nose at anyone, and I don't see any reason for you tto suggest I do. Plenty of people cope with very difficult circumstances without becoming addicted to anything. Nobody is forced or compelled to smoke. It's always a choice. People who smoke might need help to stop, but why forget it was their choice? They didn't have to start, and they don't have to continue.

If you'd been paying attention, rather than taking a sanctimonious tone, you might have noticed I suggested smoking only bars, staffed by smoking staff.

Why is heroin a ridiculous comparison? Because it's illegal? Or because it's nowhere near as addictive as tobacco? Why are you suggesting I understand nothing of tobacco addiction? Of course the risks to heroin users should be minimised, but does that mean they should be allowed to shoot up or smoke in public places? Actually, why not? A junkie shooting up heroin in a bar isn't affecting anyone else, while the smoker affects everyone else who breathes that air.

As for the risk of catching pneumonia by standing outside smoking, you're only likely to catch it because smoking impairs your immune system and respiratory system. Being outside won't make you catch it.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/bacterial_viral/pneumonia.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000145.htm#Causes,%20incidence,%20and%20risk%20factors
http://www.reutershealth.com/wellconnected/doc64.html

[Aryana_Weasley]

To me (an asthmatic) smoking in public places makes me so incredibly angry. I shouldn't have to worry about whether I'm going to have an asthma attack when I go out to eat just because someone wants to smoke. (I know there are separate sections for non smokers but believe me, it doesn't always do any good).

And just in general, second hand smoke has proven to be more dangerous than actually smoking. I don't think it's fair to endanger other poeple around you like that. I don't even see a point in debating. To me, smoking should be illegal period.

[Pegasus]

Well, good news for my state--they're trying to extend the Utah Clean Air Act to ALL public places, whereas there are exceptions at the present, and so many feet outside of a public building (right now it's just like that outside of health care facilities). So if this goes through, I won't be bombarded by cigarette smoke as I go into a restaurant. Whoa, what a way to kill an appetite!

[Reverie]

To me (an asthmatic) smoking in public places makes me so incredibly angry. I shouldn't have to worry about whether I'm going to have an asthma attack when I go out to eat just because someone wants to smoke. (I know there are separate sections for non smokers but believe me, it doesn't always do any good).

And just in general, second hand smoke has proven to be more dangerous than actually smoking. I don't think it's fair to endanger other poeple around you like that. I don't even see a point in debating. To me, smoking should be illegal period.Definatly agree with you. Like I posted earlier I was at the Doctors clinic and someone was smoking, Even in places like that can you belive it? that and smoking outside and around people in general makes me get very annoyed. If I ever get sick I wanted to be my own fault not becuse of someone else.

[Pegasus]

I'm sorry you have to deal with that. Hopefully our Clean Air Act will spread?

[Revolution]

Since this year, you have smoke-free working places. So if you work in a office, and you don't smoke, then you don't have to share a cubicle with someone who does. They made a pretty catchy add.

[Tane]

In some work places they still have a smokers table in the staff canteen and I really don't agree with smoking in the work place. I think most workers would prefer to work in a smoke free environment and if the smokers did need to smoke then at least they could go outside.

Me I want to breathe fresh air and not smoke from car exhausts and smokers, I too hope they expand the clean air act in the UK to include all working environments

[Spew Member]

I should start out by saying that I used to smoke, but I quit smoking a year ago (and by the way it was the hardest thing I've ever done.)

I know this isn't going to be a very popular opinion but, when I did smoke in public I would always make sure that I was away from people (especially children) and I would never smoke in places where people had to be (like a line) and never, never around food. But (here I go...) I did get really annoyed with people when I worked at Disneyland because people would always come up to me and say things like "that man in the corner is smoking!" If it was crowded then I would ask the person to put his cigarette out, but most of the time, the person who was offended by this could have easily moved. 95% of the time, the person complaining was just passing by a smoker. I don't think you can get lung cancer by walking past someone who is smoking.

The other thing that would give me rage would be when I would be smoking a cigarette and someone who didn't know me at all would walk up and say, "you know, smoking is bad for you." Thank you Captain Obvious, because I didn't already know that. I don't know a single smoker that is oblivious to the fact that smoking is bad for you. And besides, when you have someone who is close to you ask you to quit, it means more, because you know they really care about you. Some stranger who feels I need to be suddenly enlightened doesn't mean a thing. I'm a vegan, and I don't go around at restuarants to fat people eating steak telling them that steak is bad for you. That would be rude.

Everyone has faults, being a smoker is just a visible one.

K-I feel better now :p

P.S. About the WWII thing, I have an old radio show and in all of the commercials the surgeon general enthusiastically tells everyone that "cigarettes are good for your t-zone, t for taste and t for throat! Camel cigarettes are the cigarettes of the war" just so you all know.

P.P.S. Oh how I wished I lived back in the days when smoking was good for you...

[grrliz]

I should start out by saying that I used to smoke, but I quit smoking a year ago (and by the way it was the hardest thing I've ever done.)Congratulations!

I know this isn't going to be a very popular opinion but, when I did smoke in public I would always make sure that I was away from people (especially children) and I would never smoke in places where people had to be (like a line) and never, never around food. You're my favourite kind of (ex)smoker! Considerate! I have a friend who's a smoker and even if we're just walking down the street, she always asks if it's okay if she lights up. The amount of smoke I inhale is the same regardless of wherther or not she asks, but at least I have the option of saying "Yes, I mind. Please wait until I am out of your presence" or something like that.

The other thing that would give me rage would be when I would be smoking a cigarette and someone who didn't know me at all would walk up and say, "you know, smoking is bad for you." Thank you Captain Obvious, because I didn't already know that. I don't know a single smoker that is oblivious to the fact that smoking is bad for you. But isn't that the point when a stranger tells you that? It's (Captain) Obvious that it's bad for you, so why do it? I agree that it's more "meaningful" to quit when a close friend or family member requests it, but isn't it just as meaningful to quit for your own health as well as the health of others?

Anyway, again, congratulations!

[Spew Member]

Congratulations!

But isn't that the point when a stranger tells you that? It's (Captain) Obvious that it's bad for you, so why do it? I agree that it's more "meaningful" to quit when a close friend or family member requests it, but isn't it just as meaningful to quit for your own health as well as the health of others?

Anyway, again, congratulations!

Thanks Grrliz, and I like your signature :tu:

The thing is, I've never met a smoker who didn't want to quit (except for one lady I met in college who smoked while she had an oxygen tank :huh: ) People start smoking for whatever reasons, and they shouldn't, but they do. It's very hard to quit smoking, it took me three times to actually quit and I still crave cigarettes a year later. You're right about doing it for yourself, even when my family told me I should quit smoking it wasn't until I was ready to quit that I was successfull. I just meant that at least someone you know actually cares about you and isn't just trying to be obnoxious.

Anyone who has quit smoking will tell you that you have to be in the right mindset to quit or it's just not going to work. No one who has smoked for several years will just quit smoking one day because some random person comes up to you and says you should quit smoking. I look really young and I'm blonde, so people probably just thought I was dingy and didn't know any better, but if they knew me they would have known that I had been trying to quit for a very long time and it just annoyed me even more to be bothered about something I was having such a difficult time with by a complete stranger. Anyway, I think younger people don't care about quitting as much because they don't feel themselves getting sick yet. Maybe smoking ads should focus on how much money you waste...all the things I could have bought, but I spent my money smoking... :sad:

[grrliz]

Thanks Grrliz, and I like your signature :tu:

The thing is, I've never met a smoker who didn't want to quit (except for one lady I met in college who smoked while she had an oxygen tank :huh: ) People start smoking for whatever reasons, and they shouldn't, but they do. It's very hard to quit smoking, it took me three times to actually quit and I still crave cigarettes a year later. You're right about doing it for yourself, even when my family told me I should quit smoking it wasn't until I was ready to quit that I was successfull. I just meant that at least someone you know actually cares about you and isn't just trying to be obnoxious.

Anyone who has quit smoking will tell you that you have to be in the right mindset to quit or it's just not going to work. No one who has smoked for several years will just quit smoking one day because some random person comes up to you and says you should quit smoking. I look really young and I'm blonde, so people probably just thought I was dingy and didn't know any better, but if they knew me they would have known that I had been trying to quit for a very long time and it just annoyed me even more to be bothered about something I was having such a difficult time with by a complete stranger. Anyway, I think younger people don't care about quitting as much because they don't feel themselves getting sick yet. Maybe smoking ads should focus on how much money you waste...all the things I could have bought, but I spent my money smoking... :sad:I definitely agree with all this. I've seen lots of people try to quit, only to fail. It's a terribly addictive habit to quit, and it's defintiely not easy. But in order to quit smoking, you've got to have started in the first place. And that's the thing: why start? I've never smoked a cigarette in my entire life. I agree, though, they should focus on how much money you waste smoking: even if I had wanted to start smoking when I was a teenager, I wouldn't have been able to afford it! Heck, I couldn't afford it now either, come to think about it. :)

[Spew Member]

But in order to quit smoking, you've got to have started in the first place. And that's the thing: why start? I've never smoked a cigarette in my entire life. . :)

I agree with you, there aren't any good reasons to start smoking. I can't even remember why I started, none of my close friends have ever been smokers. It remains to this day the dumbest thing I've ever done. At Disneyland almost everyone who works there smokes, because you deal with so many people and you get so stressed out! I didn't quit for real until I had quit working there.

[crookshanksmom]

Perhaps that's a cultural difference then. The majority of smokers standing outside in the cold in Canada (we'll say specifically southern Ontario, since that's where I'm from) are not the elderly.

I can excuse (somewhat) those who took up smoking before they knew the health hazards. They didn't know any better. But what I'm talking about are everyday people who have taken up the habit with full knowledge of the health ramifications.

This is also true in the US. Most smokers are much younger than 50, and new smokers in the form of teens are being made every day, despite programs like D.A.R.E. The thing is, young people see other people smoking yet they don't see them have any immediate health effects, so they figure that they'll just quit before it comes to lung cancer, heart disease, and emphasema-but by then, it's too late, they're addicted. That is why I think it should be illegal to smoke in the presence of a child under the age of 18.

[Spew Member]

The thing is, young people see other people smoking yet they don't see them have any immediate health effects, so they figure that they'll just quit before it comes to lung cancer, heart disease, and emphasema-but by then, it's too late, they're addicted. That is why I think it should be illegal to smoke in the presence of a child under the age of 18.

That's a good point, if I would have fully known how hard it would be to quit I would never have started. It's easy to speculate before you are addicted on how easy it will be to quit later. I also think a lot of people might start out socially and just have a few every once in a while, and then soon you are buying your own, which jumps to a pack or two a day.

[crookshanksmom]

That's a good point, if I would have fully known how hard it would be to quit I would never have started. It's easy to speculate before you are addicted on how easy it will be to quit later. I also think a lot of people might start out socially and just have a few every once in a while, and then soon you are buying your own, which jumps to a pack or two a day.

Young people in their teens and 20s also have a sense of immortality and strength. "Other people couldn't, but I can" is their thinking on being able to quit smoking (or other drugs).

[grrliz]

The thing is, young people see other people smoking yet they don't see them have any immediate health effects, so they figure that they'll just quit before it comes to lung cancer, heart disease, and emphasema-but by then, it's too late, they're addicted. That is why I think it should be illegal to smoke in the presence of a child under the age of 18.I don't know about that. I don't like the assumption that just beause young people can't see the effects of smoking in older people doesn't mean they don't know it could happen. I mean, put it this way. My personal musical hero is Keith Richards (the guitarist for the Rolling Stones whose face looks like it could hold three days worth of rain, he's got so many wrinkles). The man smokes like a chimney. Not just one chimney, mind you, but many chimneys. He has yet to experience any of the extreme health ramifications of smoking (althouh one of his band members now has throat cancer, but I digress). My point is that I've had a fixtaion on Keef since I was fourteen, during which time he's never exhibited any of the effects of smoking. But that didn't make me want to take up smoking. Just because I can't see him suffering from smoking-related diseases doesn't mean I didn't know that they existed and could happen. Maybe I've got a nice strong constitution that means I'm not affected by what other people do when making descisions about my life, who knows. But I wish we'd give young people more credit than to assume they'd blindly start smoking because older people around them do.

[Spew Member]

Young people in their teens and 20s also have a sense of immortality and strength. "Other people couldn't, but I can" is their thinking on being able to quit smoking (or other drugs).

I completely agree with you on that, that's why I think they should talk about the cost of smoking in their quit smoking commercials, it might hit closer to home.

[crookshanksmom]

I don't know about that. I don't like the assumption that just beause young people can't see the effects of smoking in older people doesn't mean they don't know it could happen. I mean, put it this way. My personal musical hero is Keith Richards (the guitarist for the Rolling Stones whose face looks like it could hold three days worth of rain, he's got so many wrinkles). The man smokes like a chimney. Not just one chimney, mind you, but many chimneys. He has yet to experience any of the extreme health ramifications of smoking (althouh one of his band members now has throat cancer, but I digress). My point is that I've had a fixtaion on Keef since I was fourteen, during which time he's never exhibited any of the effects of smoking. But that didn't make me want to take up smoking. Just because I can't see him suffering from smoking-related diseases doesn't mean I didn't know that they existed and could happen. Maybe I've got a nice strong constitution that means I'm not affected by what other people do when making descisions about my life, who knows. But I wish we'd give young people more credit than to assume they'd blindly start smoking because older people around them do.

I think that admiring someone outside of the family who happens to smoke is quite different from seeing close family members smoke daily. As much as you may look up to an actor/musician/athlete, you love and admire your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins more. And seeing those adults in your life smoking may make a child think, even unconciously, that smoking must be OK even though everyone says it's bad for you.

What I don't understand is why people would want to start such an expensive habit. A pack of smokes here in NJ costs nearly $6. Therefore, a pack-a-day habit will cost you $2,184 in just one year.

[grrliz]

I think that admiring someone outside of the family who happens to smoke is quite different from seeing close family members smoke daily. As much as you may look up to an actor/musician/athlete, you love and admire your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins more.Ha ha, you don't know my deep and undying love for Keith Richards. :eyebrows: But I agree, obviously seeing close friends and family members smoking daily would have a greater effect on someone than their favourite celebrity. I think in my entire extended family, both sides, there may be only one or two smokers, maximum. But at the same time, what I remember from most of my teenage years is being typically angsty (*shudders*) and not worrying so much about what my family thought. What kept me from not smoking was not because I was looking up to my non-smoker parents but because a) I didn't want to smoke, b) it was unhealthy, and c) I couldn't afford it! And d) I didn't want to stand outside in the rain. :p

What I don't understand is why people would want to start such an expensive habit. A pack of smokes here in NJ costs nearly $6. Therefore, a pack-a-day habit will cost you $2,184 in just one year.Wow, 2184 was my employee number at work. :huh: Anyway. It's ridiculously expensive. You could go on a nice vacation with that money! And what's better for the body and soul than rest and relaxation? Surely not smoking! :)

[Tane]

Increasing the price of a packet of cigarettes does not really deter an addict from smoking, they just find money from there savings or take more from the food budget to account for them. I think a national rationing of cigarettes is better, say slowly reduce the number of cigarettes a person can smoke in a week. Place cigarettes under prescriptions from the doctor so that people can be helped to quit properly, I think that would be the only way to successfully help smokers.

[grrliz]

Increasing the price of smoking to a level where people won't pay will also just help fund the black market cigarette trade anyway, so it doesn't necessarily help people stop smoking. But at least if it's still an expensive habit people might think twice about doing it.

[PhoenixUK]

I think a national rationing of cigarettes is better, say slowly reduce the number of cigarettes a person can smoke in a week.
That's limiting a person's freedom to choose what they want to do. In the end, people who smoke should be adults (16+) and hence able to make informed choices about their health. Rationing cigarettes would more than obviously create a massive black market.

My personal view? Well, I smoke socially: that is, I'm not addicted, but I enjoy a cigarette with a drink. Yes, there are certain problems with passive smoking, but if you don't want to inhale other people's smoke, don't go to a pub. Smoking isn't allowed in enclosed public spaces and outside the risks are stupidly low of getting lung cancer.

Some people want to smoke. Avoid them if you have a problem with it, if not, get over it and stop trying to apply a nanny-state approach to people's actions.

[grrliz]

My personal view? Well, I smoke socially: that is, I'm not addicted, but I enjoy a cigarette with a drink. Yes, there are certain problems with passive smoking, but if you don't want to inhale other people's smoke, don't go to a pub. Smoking isn't allowed in enclosed public spaces and outside the risks are stupidly low of getting lung cancer.

Some people want to smoke. Avoid them if you have a problem with it, if not, get over it and stop trying to apply a nanny-state approach to people's actions.But, and the question has already been asked earlier in this thread I'm sure, why should someone's desire to smoke override my desire to breathe?

[crookshanksmom]

Increasing the price of a packet of cigarettes does not really deter an addict from smoking, they just find money from there savings or take more from the food budget to account for them. I think a national rationing of cigarettes is better, say slowly reduce the number of cigarettes a person can smoke in a week. Place cigarettes under prescriptions from the doctor so that people can be helped to quit properly, I think that would be the only way to successfully help smokers.

While I like this idea in theory, it's very unlikely to work. It is an individual's right to choose to kill themselves however they want to. Making smoking illegal would be like making overweightedness illegal-ideal, but not fair to the general public. HOWEVER, this does not mean I don't want bars and restaraunts to be smoke-free. While it is another person's right to kill themselves with nicotine, it is also my right to try to keep my body and lungs healthy.

[PhoenixUK]

But, and the question has already been asked earlier in this thread I'm sure, why should someone's desire to smoke override my desire to breathe?
Because you can breath, even if you're surrounded by smokers. The fact is, there are places (pubs/clubs etc) that you know are going to be smoky. The owner decided to let people smoke there, so they have a right to. You have a choice not to go in there, if you don't want the smoke. The "right to breathe" debate is flawed because you can always breath, no smoker comes up to you and suffocates you. It's merely a case of the quality of the air that you're breathing.

You could argue that people don't have a right to drink in public places because I don't particularily want to be punched by a drunk (as has happened). But, you don't because drinking is more socially acceptable, although the health risks are similar.

[Kirsten]

My personal musical hero is Keith Richards (the guitarist for the Rolling Stones whose face looks like it could hold three days worth of rain, he's got so many wrinkles). The man smokes like a chimney. Not just one chimney, mind you, but many chimneys. He has yet to experience any of the extreme health ramifications of smoking (althouh one of his band members now has throat cancer, but I digress). My point is that I've had a fixtaion on Keef since I was fourteen, during which time he's never exhibited any of the effects of smoking.
But according to popular rumour he goes to a Swiss clinic twice a year for a compelte blood transfusion. And I suspect the wrinkles are a result of the smoking. It's very bad for your skin.

That's limiting a person's freedom to choose what they want to do. In the end, people who smoke should be adults (16+) and hence able to make informed choices about their health. Rationing cigarettes would more than obviously create a massive black market...Some people want to smoke. Avoid them if you have a problem with it, if not, get over it and stop trying to apply a nanny-state approach to people's actions.
Shall we make heroin and cocaine and all the other lethal addictive drugs legal then, to give people the right to choose to use them? Shall we let people drive at 80mph through residential areas, if that's what they want to do? Or shall we accept that some things are out and out dangerous and should not be legal? I think making tobacco only available on prescription is an excellent idea - it will stop new people from taking up the habit.


Because you can breath, even if you're surrounded by smokers. ... The "right to breathe" debate is flawed because you can always breath, no smoker comes up to you and suffocates you. ...You could argue that people don't have a right to drink in public places because I don't particularily want to be punched by a drunk (as has happened). But, you don't because drinking is more socially acceptable, although the health risks are similar.
Actually, if you have asthma, as I do, you can't always breathe if you're surrounded by smokers. The smoke triggers my asthma and makes it very difficult for me to breathe. The health risks of smoking and drinking might be comparable for the smokers and drinkers, but not for the people next to them. The guy standing next to me getting drunk is damaging his health, not mine. The guy on the other side smoking is damaging my health too.

[grrliz]

Because you can breath, even if you're surrounded by smokers. The fact is, there are places (pubs/clubs etc) that you know are going to be smoky. The owner decided to let people smoke there, so they have a right to. You have a choice not to go in there, if you don't want the smoke. The "right to breathe" debate is flawed because you can always breath, no smoker comes up to you and suffocates you. It's merely a case of the quality of the air that you're breathing.Whenever people are caught in fires and die, they don't die because of the fire itself, they die because of smoke inhalation. Too much smoke = can't breathe = asphysixiation. While the amount of smoke in a fire is obviously more than the amount of smoke coming from a cigarette or even a room full of smokers, that smoke is still restricting the amount of normal air I can breathe. And if my oxygen supply is being cut off like that and I'm inhaling smoke instead, then yeah, I'd consider that not breathing. Breathing in smoke is not breathing.

You could argue that people don't have a right to drink in public places because I don't particularily want to be punched by a drunk (as has happened). But, you don't because drinking is more socially acceptable, although the health risks are similar.Yes, alcohol can be bad for you. Yes, people get injured if the drinking gets out of hand. But you know what? If we're sitting in a bar together drinking, your alcohol consumption is not having any immediate effect on my health. If you were smoking, my health would be affected. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with the social cache of alcohol vs cigarette consumption. If you want to drink and accept the health ramifications of doing so, that's fine, because it doesn't affect me and you can do what you want with your body. But choosing to smoke around others who choose not to does affect them: when you choose to pollute your own lungs, you're also forcing them to pollute theirs as well.

But according to popular rumour he goes to a Swiss clinic twice a year for a compelte blood transfusion. And I suspect the wrinkles are a result of the smoking. It's very bad for your skin. He he, I always forget about that one, it's my favourite myth! The wrinkles are probably from the smoking, but wrinkles in and of themself are harmless and I'm highly surprised he hasn't managed to contract any of the other, much more harmful diseases associated with smoking. :)

[mina]

I have heard of this being done (though at the moment I cannot remember what country), but why not put photos on the cigarette cartons that show the effects of the various diseases caused by smoking. It is one thing to have a small warning on the side of the package that is generally ignored, but it is entirely another for smokers to see the damage they cause every time they pick up the carton.

[ComicBookWorm]

Does anyone remember the days when smokers were accommodated on aeroplanes? I remember on one particularly horrendous 30-hour trip I was stuck in the row directly behind the smoking section. Suffice to say that I was considerably displeased.

Smoking sections are a complete joke, as far as I'm concerned. Concentrating the cigarette smoke in one section of a club (smoking in restaurants is against the law where I'm from) isn't going to make life any easier for non-smokers.
Rotsie, I had to fly on an airplane while I was nine months pregnant. I never really stopped having morning sickness so flying on a plane was a dicey experience. Some guy next to me started to light up a cigar. Well I asked him to please not do it since it would bother me. He said he didn't really care what I thought. So I asked him if he could be sure to hand me his air-sick so I could be extra prepared. Guess what, he didn't light up. :lol:

I don't smoke. My daughter doesn't smoke. My brother doesn't smoke. My father didn't smoke (and he vehemently hated it). My mother smoked like a chimney--four packs a day.

My daughter has severely damaged lungs. Something attacked and scarred her lungs when she was 11. As a result she has lungs like swiss cheese. At best she has a lot of trouble breathing and coughs and gasps a lot. Cigarette smoke always makes her choke. For years if they had anything, they had smoking areas in restaurants--as if the smoke knew how to stay on one side of the restauant. It was especially bad if they sat us in a section of the non-smoking area that was near the smoking area. We would always ask to reseated and frequently had to wait a long time.

So it was a delight when they started eliminating smoking from public buildings and finally restaurants and bars in LA. Now we can never take advantage of outside seating in restaurants because all the smokers are there. And now when you enter or leave a theater you have to run a gaunlet through a cloud of smoke. Then there are the jerks that smoke cigars in elevators, making it seem that only a fumigation could make the air tolerable again.

BTW Tiberius, I love your swimming pool example.

[crookshanksmom]

Smokers should stop screaming about their "right" to light up whereever, whenever. You know, there are people around you who have very real lung and breathing problems who should not, under any circumstances, inhale cigarette smoke. And saying they should not frequent places where people smoke is stupid. Why should an asthmatic be barred from enjoying a meal in a restaraunt? Why should a CF patient be unable to enjoy a concert by her favorite band, just because smokers think their rudeness should be tolerated? And yes, it's even rude for an 80 year old to not walk her butt (pun intended) outside to light up. Anyone, of any age, wants to harm themselves has a right to do it-away from non smokers.

[Jenn_]

As a smoker i actually think the ban on smoking in public places is a good thing. Mostly because im hoping if im outlawed enough places ill have to quit (no matter what those pesky cravings say.)

The only place im at odds about is the ban on smoking in bars and clubs....mostly because it's a party atmosphere and people are going there to do unhealthy things anyway.

As for smoking in air planes and elevators....thats totally and completely inconsiderate.

[morgiana]

As an asthma sufferer who is allergic to cigarette smoke I really hate when people smoke around me. My son who lives with me smokes and I feel he has a right to. He mostly smokes upstairs which is his part of the house. I know that smoking is bad for you and second hand smoke isn't much better for you. I don't feel that I have the right to force my feelings and opinions on others. There should be smoking sections with their own circulation systems or some way to exhaust the air in that section.

I really don't think the government has the right to stop smoking in public but I also don't think they have the right to make me wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet. I know I'm probably in the minority here but that's okay. I still wear my seat belt and sit as far from the smoking section as possible.

[ComicBookWorm]

All I can say is hooray for California and it's anti-smoking laws. Double hooray for LA, and it's restaurant and bar anti-smoking laws.

As a smoker i actually think the ban on smoking in public places is a good thing. Mostly because im hoping if im outlawed enough places ill have to quit (no matter what those pesky cravings say.)

The only place im at odds about is the ban on smoking in bars and clubs....mostly because it's a party atmosphere and people are going there to do unhealthy things anyway.

As for smoking in air planes and elevators....thats totally and completely inconsiderate.
I'm 56 and my father was almost 40 when he married, so he goes back a ways in time. He always told the story that he quit cigarettes when they went to a dime a pack. Perhaps if we continue to make cigarettes more expensive with sin taxes, and continue to make smoking more and inconvenient, then smokers may finally have the motivation they need to stop.

[Jenn_]

My mother tells me about a time they would have a glass surrounded smoking section in the movie theater. And when they had a smoking section at school. Times really have changed.

[ComicBookWorm]

My mother tells me about a time they would have a glass surrounded smoking section in the movie theater. And when they had a smoking section at school. Times really have changed.
We still have to rat out secret smokers in theaters once in a while.

[Tane]

I wish the same rules would apply in the staff canteen that is implemented in the customer’s canteen section. Smokers at the place where I work are allowed to smoke in the staff canteen but on what is known as the smokers table where as in the customer’s canteen section there is no smoking what so ever. I know the job is stressful and can drive a person to smoking which was one of the comments given by an employee but as a non-smoker I really would prefer they have a smoke outside and am surprised that they can get away with this.

[Liselle]

It makes me glad the smoking ban is in full flight here

[~oSiRiS~]

I have heard of this being done (though at the moment I cannot remember what country), but why not put photos on the cigarette cartons that show the effects of the various diseases caused by smoking. It is one thing to have a small warning on the side of the package that is generally ignored, but it is entirely another for smokers to see the damage they cause every time they pick up the carton.
I am not too sure if this will work.
In my case, everyone I know that smokes knows the risks involved. It hasn't stopped them.

I am all for the smoking bans. I think those are working pretty good.
I am not sure on how much some of the businesses like them. I know of a few resturants having less customers since they banned smoking in them.


I love that the poker room at motor city casino is smoke free.
I didn't realize how bad I would smell and how much smoke I actually inhaled during a 15 hour session, untill I played at the smoke free room.
It was nice. My chest felt better after as well.

[grrliz]

They put absolutely revolting pictures on cigarette packages in Canada: cancerous lungs, pictures of fetuses to remind you of what you're doing to your baby if you smoke while pregnant, etc. I don't smoke myself, so I can't tell if they're having the desire effect, but most people I know who smoke seem to ignore these graphic warnings anyway.

[Kelfa21]

I am not too sure if this will work.
In my case, everyone I know that smokes knows the risks involved. It hasn't stopped them.

Exactly...my best friend is a heavy smoker...and she knows the risks that comes with every puff.

She actually used to joke around with my sister (who used to smoke). Instead of saying "who wants a cigarette?" she'd say, in mock tone, "who wants cancer?!"
She wants to quit and she's tried...but she says its too hard right now.

I'm all for banning cigarettes from all public places. Its a disgusting habit...I hate coming out of bars and clubs reaking of cigarette smoke and struggling for air. It baffles me that people are completly willing to waste their bodies away and waste money on such a horrible habit.
My grandfather died from Lung Cancer because he was a chain smoker for most of his life. My dad has never even taken a drag on a cigarette for that reason alone. It was awful listening to him weeze and fight for air the last couple of years he was alive.

[Tiberius]

They put absolutely revolting pictures on cigarette packages in Canada: cancerous lungs, pictures of fetuses to remind you of what you're doing to your baby if you smoke while pregnant, etc. I don't smoke myself, so I can't tell if they're having the desire effect, but most people I know who smoke seem to ignore these graphic warnings anyway.

They've just started doing the here in Australia.

[dumbleedore]

Smokers should stop screaming about their "right" to light up whereever, whenever. You know, there are people around you who have very real lung and breathing problems who should not, under any circumstances, inhale cigarette smoke. And saying they should not frequent places where people smoke is stupid. Why should an asthmatic be barred from enjoying a meal in a restaraunt? Why should a CF patient be unable to enjoy a concert by her favorite band, just because smokers think their rudeness should be tolerated? And yes, it's even rude for an 80 year old to not walk her butt (pun intended) outside to light up. Anyone, of any age, wants to harm themselves has a right to do it-away from non smokers.
I always consider the people around me before I light up- I was away with two friends the other week, two non-smoking friends, and if I was lighting up, I would always walk away and I made sure I smoked outside and away from the door of the motel room we were staying in.

There is nothing worse than an inconsiderate smoker. Despite the fact that I am a smoker, I think it's a disgusting habit and one that shouldn't be forced on to everyone unnessecarily.

[crookshanksmom]

I always consider the people around me before I light up- I was away with two friends the other week, two non-smoking friends, and if I was lighting up, I would always walk away and I made sure I smoked outside and away from the door of the motel room we were staying in.

There is nothing worse than an inconsiderate smoker. Despite the fact that I am a smoker, I think it's a disgusting habit and one that shouldn't be forced on to everyone unnessecarily.

Perhaps-but do you light up in smoking sections at restaraunts or at clubs and bars? If so, then you are still subjecting your habit to others. The smoke just drifts over to the non-smoking section! I had to rush through a meal and leave quickly this past Friday (the only day I really have time to go out and enjoy myself) because of a chimney-smoker!

[ComicBookWorm]

It makes me glad the smoking ban is in full flight here
A non-smoking friend of ours recently visited Ireland and was thrilled with the smoking ban since the rest of Europe was just the opposite.

[Masterfroggy]

Imagine if you will a bar in the UK that opened up solely for smokers, they placed an advert in the local newspaper for staff to work in the smokers only bar, several people turned up for the interviews for jobs in a smokers only bar, two men and a woman claimed it was an infringement of their equal opportunity employment rights, that as non smokers they could be refused a job, the local courts agreed, and the bar was told they must also employ non smokers, within three months there was a no smoking at the bar rule, I think the bar has now gone out of business.

As an ex smoker I think there should be social places where people who want to smoke can go, and rules that say if you don’t want to be in a smoking place, leave. Simple as that.
I don’t want to go to a place that is full of smoke, nor do I want to work in a smoking area, but other people who want to kill themselves by smoking, they also have rights to betaken in to account. Until the government makes it illegal to smoke, there should be places to smoke; a place that bans non-smokers is the answer. if you don’t like it just don’t go there.

[ComicBookWorm]

Imagine if you will a bar in the UK that opened up solely for smokers, they placed an advert in the local newspaper for staff to work in the smokers only bar, several people turned up for the interviews for jobs in a smokers only bar, two men and a woman claimed it was an infringement of their equal opportunity employment rights, that as non smokers they could be refused a job, the local courts agreed, and the bar was told they must also employ non smokers, within three months there was a no smoking at the bar rule, I think the bar has now gone out of business.

As an ex smoker I think there should be social places where people who want to smoke can go, and rules that say if you don’t want to be in a smoking place, leave. Simple as that.
I don’t want to go to a place that is full of smoke, nor do I want to work in a smoking area, but other people who want to kill themselves by smoking, they also have rights to betaken in to account. Until the government makes it illegal to smoke, there should be places to smoke; a place that bans non-smokers is the answer. if you don’t like it just don’t go there.There is a cigar store in a mall we frequent. We have to pass it to get to several of our favorite restaurants. My daughter always runs past it, even though her damaged lungs really preclude running (she winds up gasping and choking for air), so running is truly counterproductive in this instance. I can't blame her though, the air is really foul in front of that store.

[Masterfroggy]

CBW something like that can be used as a reason to have carefully built specialist places,
with filters and vents that take out all the harmful smoke and makes it safe, it’s no reason to stop the shop selling tobacco products, just make the shop take into account other people

(I used to work in a coffee shop and restaurant that roasted the coffee on site for years the smoke was blown into the street (as a form of advertisement, the smell filling the whole of the city centre and drawing hundreds in to the shop) the law changed and the shop had to use expensive extraction and filtering to prevent the smoke and smell from escaping (we had a double set of doors fitted and even the air between the doors was extracted and vented through the roof ) the shop carried on making money, and people still talk about the enticing smell that used to come form the shop.

It is possible to please everyone it just take thought and money.

[dumbleedore]

Perhaps-but do you light up in smoking sections at restaraunts or at clubs and bars? If so, then you are still subjecting your habit to others. The smoke just drifts over to the non-smoking section! I had to rush through a meal and leave quickly this past Friday (the only day I really have time to go out and enjoy myself) because of a chimney-smoker!
Yes, I do smoke in the public areas in pubs and clubs- however the group of people I'm normally with I know who out of them hate smokers and if they are around, I do walk away. And if I'm with someone I don't know, I ask if they mind- and if they do mind, I walk away or go outside. Most of my friends smoke anyway- there is only one who doesn't smoke normally, however she might if we're out. I don't smoke in restaraunts because, even as a smoker, there is nothing worse than a good meal being ruined by cigarette smoke. If i'm at a restaraunt I go outside or don't smoke until I'm in a pub or club later on.

[ComicBookWorm]

CBW something like that can be used as a reason to have carefully built specialist places,
with filters and vents that take out all the harmful smoke and makes it safe, it’s no reason to stop the shop selling tobacco products, just make the shop take into account other people

(I used to work in a coffee shop and restaurant that roasted the coffee on site for years the smoke was blown into the street (as a form of advertisement, the smell filling the whole of the city centre and drawing hundreds in to the shop) the law changed and the shop had to use expensive extraction and filtering to prevent the smoke and smell from escaping (we had a double set of doors fitted and even the air between the doors was extracted and vented through the roof ) the shop carried on making money, and people still talk about the enticing smell that used to come form the shop.

It is possible to please everyone it just take thought and money.
I don't have a problem with the existence of the shop. I only object to the noxious fumes that it emits. If they had better ventilation, that would be fine.

[crookshanksmom]

But non smokers like to go to bars and clubs too you know. Why should our evenings always be cut short because by 11 the entire place is filled with smoke? That infringes on our rights to go out and have some drinks with friends or see a band that we like. Why should a smoker's right override a non-smoker's right?

[Elder Granger]

There is a pretty big common misconception out there about the addictive nature of cigarette smoking... The PHYSICAL addiction to nicotine last for three days (as in... a smoker stops smoking and after three days there is no longer any physical addiction)... Now, that is not to say that there aren't habits that go along with smoking, and mental and psychological addictions that accompany smoking, but, physically, it is only three days.

As far as smoking in public places goes... I live in New York (as you can tell) and initially the way they were handling smoking versus non-smoking was very smart... Restaurants, if they wanted to have a smoking section, had to have it separated by a wall or glass partition, accompanied by proper ventilation... A few months later, they banned smoking in all restaurants and bars... After all the restaurants in New York City had spent a ton on walls and partitions and ventilation systems, they became entirely pointless... The reasoning behind the ban was so bartenders (and waiters and waitresses and bar backs) didn't have to deal with second hand smoke... I am of the opinion that this was handled terribly... If a bar wants to be a non-smokin bar, go for it... If a bar wants to be a smoking bar, go for it... If a bar wants to be a whiskey bar, go for it... If a bar wants to be a beer pub, go for it... Employees can choose to work where the atmosphere suits their needs, wants and so on... All the bartenders I know (and I know this isn't empirical evidence or a properly distributed survey or anything, but, regardless) smoke, so not being able to smoke in their bar is a huge inconvenience... Saturday night with a bar full of people, they have to leave the bar attended by one bartender and go outside to smoke... It makes their jobs a lot harder... (Which is why a lot of bars allow smoking anyway, but, shhhh, don't tell the Department of Health.) Make smoking sections in restaurants that are properly ventilated and partitioned off... Make smoking bars and non-smoking bars... I think a complete ban is a tad on the extreme side... Geez... I never think I would get to a day when I missed Guiliani, but that was until Bloomberg graced our wonderful city... (Sorry to get political, just venting... For those who don't know... Guiliani was the mayor that put throught the separate sections law, and Bloomberg, the next mayor, put through the complete ban, and he is just a bozo...)

Oh, smoker, by the way.

[ComicBookWorm]

No such thing as smoke that stays on one side of the glass partition even with ventilation. They tried that here and it was not an improvement. There has to be openings and passages that are easy to traverse for the servers. The smoke gets out. Also people come and go, and have to go to the restrooms and the smoke on them clings and lingers. You only have to be a non-smoker to be able to smell the smoke. It always bothered my daughter.

Of all the good and bad habits that people have, smoking is the only one that inflicts itself on innocent bystanders--other than these really low waistlines in pants that reveal the wrong set of cheeks.

[dumbleedore]

No such thing as smoke that stays on one side of the glass partition even with ventilation. They tried that here and it was not an improvement. There has to be openings and passages that are easy to traverse for the servers. The smoke gets out. Also people come and go, and have to go to the restrooms and the smoke on them clings and lingers. You only have to be a non-smoker to be able to smell the smoke. It always bothered my daughter.

Even buildings designated as non-smoking can end up smelling like smoking ones- in my office there are 4 out of the 6 who work in the office who smoke and despite the fact that we smoke outside, away from the building, the smell floats inside still. Also add in the fact that smoke from outside, people walking past drifts in as well.

Of all the good and bad habits that people have, smoking is the only one that inflicts itself on innocent bystanders--other than these really low waistlines in pants that reveal the wrong set of cheeks.

I must be the worst in the world :p I smoke and have a perpetual case of 'plumbers gap' :p

[Chrysalis]

I can understand why they ban smoking in restaurants for the waiters/waitresses consideration. Suppose, through no fault of your own, a café was one of only few places you could work, and because you had X number of bills to pay, and X number of kids to support, this was of vital importance? Suppose you were asthmatic too?(Or had some respiratory condition)

Food for thought, maybe?

[dumbleedore]

I can understand why they ban smoking in restaurants for the waiters/waitresses consideration. Suppose, through no fault of your own, a café was one of only few places you could work, and because you had X number of bills to pay, and X number of kids to support, this was of vital importance? Suppose you were asthmatic too?(Or had some respiratory condition)

Food for thought, maybe?
I believe there was a case here in Australia where a former bar worker sued the bar she worked for because of the second hand smoke she inhaled, because smoking was then allowed when you stood at the bar ordering drinks.

In NSW you now can't be within 2 meters of a bar with a lit cigarette. In Queensland you're still able to sit at the bar and smoke.

[AM Lehr]

I was watching 7th Heaven and the lesson of the episode was that smoking was just pure stupidity. And they are not wrong. But anyway there was this one part when Kevin, his brother, and a girl who smokes were sitting outside at a resturant and a guy at another table asked her to put out the cig. because he was allergic and she said no. And he had to move. I don't see how that is right. There was not one reason why she could not of put out that cig.(if you noticed I don't know how to spell the word so I just put that) I think that if you are going to smoke you should at least use what's left of your heart to not smoke when someone doesn't want you to. I can see how someone would be affended. But if someone asks you to put out the cig and you say no, then you obviously feel that if you have to die from your stupidity then you should make others suffer.

Alot of people are allergic to cig smoke. And I'm one of them. Unfortunatly my parents smoke and it effects me pretty badly. I spend most of my time outside or in my room when it is raining. And they are trying the best they can to quit for me and my brothers. How hard is it to put out your smoke when someone tells you that they are allergic? Or that they don't like the smell? Why should they have to move? Why can't the person who smokes move?

[JediBeldarine]

Alrighty, just for fun, I'm going to throw this bone out there.

Why shouldn't it be up to the business owners? They pay the rent, they own the store -- why shouldn't they decide?

This way it creates freedom of choice for all affected. The business owners could decide whether or not they wanted to allow smoking. The customers could then decide whether or not to frequent the place of business. The workers could also choose whether to work there -- and please do not try and suggest the "what if" scenario where there is only one place left to work in the entire city you live in, and you get sick around smoke, etc.. Don't work there, find somewhere else to work.

This is probably the most fair way of working things out. As a smoker, I wouldn't consider going to a place that didn't allow smoking (unless I really wanted it). If I did go, I wouldn't be able to complain about the lack of smoking opportunities. If I were a non-smoker, I could choose to only visit the places that banned smoking... and if I choose to visit one that DID allow smoking, well that was the choice I made.

Unfortunately, we live in an era of supreme government control (fostered by both donkeys and elephants) which takes the place of personal responsibility and personal choice. I say stop the government intervention, and allow people to choose for themselves.

[kptas]

A little food for thought-

The 1993 EPA (USA) report on 2nd hand smoke is the basis for American Lung Assoc., Cancer society, ect. arguements on banning smoking...

Guess what? A federal judge dismissed the report!! Because the EPA chose to ignore all the information that contridicted their findings!

The TRUTH is that there is no scientific link between 2nd hand smoke and Cancer. In the study, children who lived with smoking parents showed no statistcal difference in the amount who contracted cancer, and adults the difference was under 2%, which for those of you who had statistics in college know means......... Nothing!!! that's right it must be thrown out. Due to the other factors that could cause cancer.

So, and this may suprise you, I'm not a smoker. But I believe in the freedoms of my country. And I see it as a scary thing, when a mindset is pushed with no real scientific evidence to back it up. Whats next? I'm allergic to hairspray, do I have the right to tell the lady next to me at the counter that she must leave? What nasty habit can we ban next, just because I don't like it?

[busy91]

How do you feel about smokers smoking in public places? I mean, it's fine for them to do it at their home if they want to, but in public? Smonking and non-smoking sections, and so forth. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is the smoking section a legitimate way of dealing with the situation, or is it just like a peeing and non peeing section in a pool? And are there other ways to deal with this? And, btw, don't forget to mention if you're a smoker or not, because that will probably influence your views.


I am a non smoker, and I am allergic to the smoke. I usually don't have a problem with people smoking in public places other than the street, but there is nothing I can do about that. My office bldg, does not allow smoking indoors, and most office buildings here in NYC do not allow it. I'm rarely bothered by it.

One day this dude lit up a cig on the subway, and this one lady was like "Could you please put that out?" he said "Why does it bother you?" and she said "As a matter of fact it does."

Now that was rude of him to light up there. Enclosed space, no windows, close quarters. There is a fine line between freedom and obnoxiousness.

[~Tonks~]

The other day I was stepping into an elevator, and someone actually walked in with a lit cigarette just as the doors were closing. We had to go up 11 floors! I was dumbfounded. How thick can you get? In as tiny of a little enclosed space as an elevator. I wasn't the only person in there either, so it was rather cramped. Thank goodness it didn't get stuck.

Whats next? I'm allergic to hairspray, do I have the right to tell the lady next to me at the counter that she must leave? What nasty habit can we ban next, just because I don't like it?

Well for one, I've never seen anyone walking around in a closed in, public area, spraying aerosol hairspray on their head. If they were I'd ask them to stop, because not only is it unnecessary, it's silly. I've had someone walk by me and I've been able to smell it for a split second, but then the smell usually disappears. Besides, I wasn't breathing the hair spray, I could just smell the fragrance. As repulsive as it is, if the smell was the only thing to be worried about, I don't think people would be so offended by second hand smoke and smoking in public places. It's breathing in the toxins and chemicals and smoke itself that people don't like. There are people who are allergic to it and feel sick when they are exposed to it.

The thing most people seem to miss is that nonsmokers have chosen not to use and become addicted to a substance that isn't natural to put into the body in the first place, while those who smoke have made that choice. Clean, fresh air is what is supposed to be taken into the lungs. Smokers and non smokers can both feel comfortable breathing clean air. It's not the case with air that is heavy and stale with smoke - smokers are perfectly comfortable while nonsmokers are anything but. I'm sure all of us in here who are nonsmokers and are made uncomfortable by second hand smoke can think back to at least one situation where we had to be very much around it and it was very awkward, and you probably felt rather gross afterward. Sure, some non smokers don't mind, but in my experiences, I've run into more that do, and the ones that don't mind have been around it their whole lives anyway, so essentially they've been partaking in the habit by being around it second hand. To say that non smokers should just stay out of an establishment or go somewhere else if they don't like it is totally backwards and has never made a shred of sense to me, since they weren't the ones who chose to get addicted in the first place, and a smoke free environment is the more comfortable of the two.

[Erich Theissen]

I for one, don't really feel like inhaling toxins expelled from someone else's lungs.
If they want to give themselves lung disease and cardiovascular problems, couldn't they at least do it someplace where no one else can breathe the smoke?
Cigarette smoke also makes me slightly nauseous.

[DragonBlk17]

I think it's disgusting when people smaoke in public places. Too most of us that don't smoke it's poisonous, also to the people that do smoke. Even if they have non-smoking areas it doesn't help alot. Really, and no offense to the smokers, if you want to smoke why don't you do it at home where others won't be affected by the fumes?

[Windham]

Well, it kind of depends on where the smoker's trying to smoke, doesn't it?

When I go out for food, I'd rather not have to deal with a cloud of smoke assaulting me. Similarly, places of business, schools, most enclosed areas should be strictly off-limits. But if you walk into a bar, don't complain about smoke. And outside? Look, if you're out in the street, smoke isn't likely to affect you much, so don't be rude to someone because they choose to smoke. Most places have an area just outside where smokers congregate, and non-smokers have no cause to complain about this.

A little common sense, that's all.

[AM Lehr]

I think that the number 1 place that smoking should be banned is gas stations. I know it's stupid that people smoke in there, but they do. I walk into Amoco and the cashier is smoking at the counter and someone else is smoking by the gas tanks. That is pure stupidity. I saw that I pulled right back out of that place. I serisously did not want to go up in flames. But also I don't like to sit in a resturant either and someone light up a cigerate right next to me. So I don't think that it should be up to the owners. They need to think of the health of the customers. There is no reason why someone cannot wait a minute to and hour to light up a cigeratte. No reason at all.

[grrliz]

I think that the number 1 place that smoking should be banned is gas stations. I know it's stupid that people smoke in there, but they do. I walk into Amoco and the cashier is smoking at the counter and someone else is smoking by the gas tanks. That is pure stupidity. I saw that I pulled right back out of that place. I serisously did not want to go up in flames. But also I don't like to sit in a resturant either and someone light up a cigerate right next to me. So I don't think that it should be up to the owners. They need to think of the health of the customers. There is no reason why someone cannot wait a minute to and hour to light up a cigeratte. No reason at all. :rotfl: Is anyone else thinking of Zoolander at this point? :)

[LuvHP_001]

:rotfl: Is anyone else thinking of Zoolander at this point? :)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: . I actually agree that it should be banned from gas stations (and EVERYWHERE else),because it is highly dangerous and just as smoking in bed,something can get caught on fire and then explode. Those who smoke there are SOOOOO stupid. :grumble: :grumble: :grumble: :rolleyes:

[Tiberius]

here in Australia, smoking is banned in gas stations. I agree, smoking in a petrol station is just plain stupid. There is a lot of the gas from the petrol, and it is the gas that is so flammable.

[marauderlupin]

:rotfl: Is anyone else thinking of Zoolander at this point? :)

LOL! That movie was the best.


All smokers should stop complaining about being banned from public places and go die from lung cancer forthwith :evil: Sorry but I, as a non-smoker, refuse to go down with you.

[crookshanksmom]

I saw something this morning at IHOP that pleases me and should pacify some smokers as well. The restaraunt is non-smoking from midnight til 3pm, and from 3pm to midnight there is a sizable smoking section. While a slight scent of smoke can remain, if you go for lunch it is usually cleared up by then. Everyone's happy-non-smokers can still enjoy a restaraunt meal and smokers can still kill themselves after eating at a later time if they wish to.

[sharmeen]

thankfully smoking in public places is banned in Ireland. so, I dont have to keep up with that anymore!

[Nakashalynn]

first i just want to say that i quit smoking one month ago:)

now i think anyone should be allowed to smoke pretty much where ever they want to.



to all who do: thank you for supporting someones local economy

[dumbleedore]

here in Australia, smoking is banned in gas stations. I agree, smoking in a petrol station is just plain stupid. There is a lot of the gas from the petrol, and it is the gas that is so flammable.
Even though it's banned, it doesn't stop people. I was filling up today and the guy filling up next to me lit up- I was glad to get out of there, I was terrified he was going to blow us to bits.

[PhoenixUK]

All smokers should stop complaining about being banned from public places and go die from lung cancer forthwith :evil: Sorry but I, as a non-smoker, refuse to go down with you.
That's just negative stigma. Yeah, smoking isn't very good for you, but breathing in pollution is worse: as well as the carbon monoxide (poision) that you get in cigarettes, you also get multiple particulates which irritate the lungs and chemicals that cause cancer and brain damage (like lead in countries that still use leaded petrol). Yet, you probably enjoy driving, and I don't have a chance to get away from that pollution, because it's not only in the air I breathe, but also causes acid rain and global warming, so is screwing the planet up at the same time.

If you want to stop driving, I'll stop smoking ;).

[Rhoryn]

Go Phoenix, it's funny to here all these people complaining about smokers on the streets, how many cars have just blown their exhaust out going past them?
As a smoker I don't smoke when I go out, I don't smoke inside even. I go outside, rain, hail, or snow ( sad isn't it?), just so I don't inflict this on others.
Smoking causing cancer, maybe, someone mentioned a lack of evidence, which I have heard before, but what about the sun, that causes cancer too, haven't seen a thread saying 'Don't walk in the Sun'

[mina]

haven't seen a thread saying 'Don't walk in the Sun'

Probably because someone walking in the sun has no effect on another's health.

[Chrysalis]

That's just negative stigma. Yeah, smoking isn't very good for you, but breathing in pollution is worse: as well as the carbon monoxide (poision) that you get in cigarettes, you also get multiple particulates which irritate the lungs and chemicals that cause cancer and brain damage (like lead in countries that still use leaded petrol). Yet, you probably enjoy driving, and I don't have a chance to get away from that pollution, because it's not only in the air I breathe, but also causes acid rain and global warming, so is screwing the planet up at the same time.

If you want to stop driving, I'll stop smoking ;).
Nope, that's a wrong analogy. Because, I can keep the pollution out of my car by closing the windows. The only people who really suffer from it are those who live next to highways(I'm talking about Western countries here).

You can't seriously compare pollution by cars in Western countries with the damage done by smoking if you haven't been in India.:D

[Fiddle Faddle]

In fact.. the incredible rise in the amount in young people with asthma has been scientifically proven to correlate with rising levels of pollution.. so in fact.. drivers are the ones who started the problems of those with asthma...
I propose that we take the most extreme action we can think of - let's ban driving in public places.. but no.. wait.. exhuast fumes will not stay in our yards as we drive around in circles.. so let's just ban driving altogether! Fabulous idea!
How I love "srtond action" and "decisivness" - it is so much preferable to well thought out solutions and compromise.

[Silk E Smooth]

I just quite smoking this year but I really don't have a problem with other people smoking. I still go to clubs and parties that are really smokey but I do that so infrequently that I don't think it's hurting me anymore than the chemical plant that is near my house.

[Hollis]

Ha, Savoy Truffle, indeed India allows 2-stroke motors which are horribly polluting-- like driving a lawn-mower or these new gas-powered stand-up scooters that are popular in the US.

As the doctor at the end of this quote notes, there is no doubt that 2nd hand smoke is very bad. It's kids stuck in cars with adults who smoke that get the worst of it.

this is from a local paper about a County that just banned smoking in restaurants and some bars and some restaurant owners think they will lose business from the smokers:
"I believe it's a choice issue," said Dale McKenzie, 41, a bartender in Golden Valley. "We should have the power to decide what's best for our business."

But McKenzie was countered by, among others, Dr. Michael Belzer, the chief medical officer at the Hennepin County Medical Center. "There is no credible peer-reviewed research" that shows that businesses operating with a smoking ban lose money, he said.

McKenzie also said research has shown conclusively that secondhand cigarette smoke is dangerous. "That debate is over," he said.

[PhoenixUK]

Nope, that's a wrong analogy. Because, I can keep the pollution out of my car by closing the windows. The only people who really suffer from it are those who live next to highways(I'm talking about Western countries here).
Actually, that's not quite true. Firstly, even if you're in a car, pollution still comes through the air vents, in fact, in busy traffic you get more pollutants sitting in a car than walking by the road. Secondly, there will always be some areas where it's unavoidable to be next to cars, like town centres. Take, for example, my school, which is lucky enough to border the most busy motorway in the UK. I don't choose to breathe that in, but I don't have a choice, although no doubt it's probably worse for me to breathe that for 7 hours a day then passive smoke occasionally.

[Ms Weasley]

There's a difference between smoking in public places and secondhand smoking for the greater aprt of a day.
The main argument used in the smoking in public places discussion that it is the right of non-smokers to sit there smoke-free. But what about the smoker's right. Bottom line is that the rights of non-smokers aren't more important that those of smokers.
By all means, ban smoking in airports, government facilities, schools, universities, train stations, convention venues etc. But when it comes to bars, restaurants, clubs, why not just let the owner decide. If there really is such high demand for non-smoking venues, then when have I never found one (in The Netherlands)? If there really was such a big market for a smoke-free bar then there should've been one smart entrepreneur who had seen this by now, right?

By the way, I'm a recent ex-smoker.

[Chrysalis]

Perhaps it is because all bar and restaurant owners are under the impression that the smokers are more social. So they believe that they will lose money if they convert to non-smoking bars.

I wouldn't be surprised if they themselves smoked too.

EDIT: Kit - however as technology advances we will have the option of producing cars which are less polluting, which is not true for cigarettes.

[PhoenixUK]

Perhaps it is because all bar and restaurant owners are under the impression that the smokers are more social. So they believe that they will lose money if they convert to non-smoking bars.

I wouldn't be surprised if they themselves smoked too.
Yeah, but they're also privately owned premises. It's up to the owner to decide their policy on smoking. So, if they smoke and don't mind other people smoking, deal with it, or start your own non-smoking bar and lose x% of your clientele immediately.

EDIT: Kit - however as technology advances we will have the option of producing cars which are less polluting, which is not true for cigarettes.
Yeah, but for any debate we have to assume the present, because it's the only certainty. In 20 years time we may all be walking around in masks anyway because of the pollution, so smoking wouldn't really matter (or be possible).

[crookshanksmom]

A question to smokers: Why do you think your right to smoke overrides non-smoker's rights? Not just the right to breathe "clean air", but our right to sit down in a restaraunt and enjoy a meal where we do not have to smell gross smoke? To almost all non-smokers, cigarette smoke stinks. Immagine having to eat your meal while sitting next to something that smells really bad to you. Then immagine being told you just have to deal with it because a small portion of people think it's their right to ruin your meal. Sound fair? Well, that's what it's like for us non-smokers. Banning us from restaruants is unfair and cruel. Why should you get all the treats for trying to slowly kill yourselves?

[Pegasus]

Did anyone see the documentary about cigarettes and what has been done--or not done--about America's smoking problem? It was on 60 Minutes or one of those not too long ago. The general summary was that the nicotine products that help people stop smoking are much more controlled than cigarettes, and nicotine is the least harmful ingredient. Nicotine addicts, but arsenic, etc. kill--and no amount of filtration is going to change that. The legislation for regulation got killed.