M-13 - Smoking in Public Places

[Tiberius]

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.

[Nick]

It doesn't worry me one way or another. I don't smoke, but I'm not "crusading" "against" smoking so it don't bother me.

[SilverStar]

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.

[PadfootBlack]

I think it should be up to the property owner to decide how to handle the smoking situation. If someone doesn't like it then they can go somewhere where smoking is or isn't allowed (depending on the problem). If it's a truly public place such as standing in line outside for movie tickets, a bus stop, or other places where it is inherently legal to smoke then I hope that a smoker has the courtesy to put it out if it offends somebody. There aren't very many things that I hate more than a selfish smoker that thinks they can do whatever they want whereever they want.

By the way, I'm a non-smoker.

[DsX Phoenix]

Well, I'm a non-smoker, and cigarette smoke really bothers me (however, as Nick put it, I am not a "crusader"). I think it is fairly rude to smoke in public, and smoking areas are jokes. However, I have been to one resturaunt that had a good idea. The smoking section was actually enclosed. Other businesses should take note.

[JofpGallagher]

Hmmm...I remember there was a thread about vices in general, but I couldn't find it. Maybe it was closed or deleted (or I didn't look well).

I believe non-smokers right to not be exposed to smoke has to be enforced. Even on their own house, if a smoker has a visit that do not want to be exposed to smoke, the smoker should respect that person just because it's morally correct (IMO) and I smoke.

Now, a funny thing is that in Japan, there are smoking sections that consist in a very small place encircled with paint on the floor with an ashtray in the middle. If you have a foot inside the circle, you can smoke. I find it like a joke.

[Nick]

I supposer smokers have no rights simply because smoking is out of fashion these days?

[Kaonashi]

I smoke, but I always ask people nearby if they mind if I light up if I'm in a public place. Some people have asthma, others don't want to smell like smoke. I respect that.

[DsX Phoenix]

I supposer smokers have no rights simply because smoking is out of fashion these days?

No, but, as it has always been in this country (or at least, has always supposed to be), you lose certain rights when they interfere with another person's rights. In this case, the right of nonsmokers to keep thier lungs free of cigarette smoke overrides the smoker's right to enjoy filling his/her own lungs full of smoke. This is why people who drink alchohol are not allowed to drive. Sure, it is thier right to drive if they have a driver's license, but the safety of other motorists overrides thier rights.

[mirandam]

Again, a touchy subject. I think that there are many circumstances to this one. I also agree that it should be up to the owner of the establishment if they allow smokers or not. Non-smokers as well as smokers can go someplace else if the situation isn't right for them. I am a smoker who does respect others about smoking in their homes or in a car with them if it bothers them. Both sides have rights. A lot of it falls down to the respect of the others rights. My biggest problem is when someone who is ex-smoker comes to my home and asked me not to smoke. I think you can guess what I told them? Not rudely of course. It did not bother them to have the second hand smoke they produced inhaled by others in my home before why should I respect them now? If they had a medical problem about it, fine.

[OrbitingElle]

I'm a non-smoker with an incredibly sensitive sense of smell, so smoke bothers me more than it might bother most people. If I go to a bar, I feel icky when I get home because I know that smoke-stink is radiating out of me. Smoking sections in restaurants are a ludicrous concept unless the two areas are separated into different rooms. I can not STAND it when you tell the hostess you want non-smoking and she seats you in a booth directly adjacent to the smoking section.

Having said that, I do not think the big tobacco companies should be blamed for the problems they cause. Is there a single person on Earth who doesn't know that smoking causes cancer? Is there a single person on Earth who doesn't know that smoking is highly addictive? No, and no. Every person who makes the choice to smoke knows full well that their health is at stake, and therefore shouldn't put the blame on the big, evil tobacco man.

[OrbitingElle]

And another thing--

I can't stand all the anti-smoking ads that have sprung up lately. Those "truth" commercials make me furious. They try to act as if people have no free will, and that the lure of smoking will overpower the masses to the point where we are a race of cigarette-toting zombies.

They have some gimmick where they put a million mannequins in the street to represent the people who have died from smoking. Then some forlorn looking guy comes on screen and tells you how his dad smoked for 50 years and died of throat cancer. Well you know what, forlorn guy? The person you should be angry with is your dad, who made the choice each and every day to inhale poison. It is not the fault of the cigarette makers--they have kids to feed too. They're just trying to make a living.

This is one of those "I don't agree with what you're saying but I defend your right to say it" type of issues. Alcohol kills people too, but look how well prohibition worked out. Everyone knows obesity is dangerous, but what are we going to do, ban McDonalds? Smoking has consequences. Knowing that, we should all be able to make an educated decision on whether or not we participate. If you dont like the outcome, you should have considered that before it was too late.

[rotsiepots]

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.

Anyway, I don't think smoking in public places is necessarily offensive (ie I'm not going to ask someone walking down the street whilst smoking to extinguish their cigarette), but it's enclosed spaces that really get me. I've never been one for frequenting bars, pubs, or clubs for this very fact (and also for the sheer mindlessness of it all, but that's for a different thread).

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.

[dumbleedore]

Rotsie: I agree with you. However, by doing so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.

I'm a social smoker. I only smoke when I go out- I know, it's bad yada yada yada. I get it from everyone. But that's in an environment where you expect to see people smoking. You know by going into a club or pub that you're going to have smoker there and you're going to smell like smoke. Fact of life. Don't like it, stay in the bistro where you can't smoke.

However, I hate people who just light up without a care. Smoking is banned in the shopping centre here in town, like most, and you go to walk in any of the 3 entries and you just get caught in a cloud of smoke. I find that disgusting- can't they walk 20 metres so they're away from the entry?

I don't find smoking offensive in public- just rude smokers.

I can't stand all the anti-smoking ads that have sprung up lately.

Lately? I can't speak for other country's, but here in Australia we've had them for several years. One cuts up a human lung. In primetime. Now that's offensive TV.

[PadfootBlack]

I supposer smokers have no rights simply because smoking is out of fashion these days?

It's not that smokers have no rights, it's that non-smokers should have more say without facing retribution. If some asthmatic nice little old lady is sitting on a bench waiting for the bus and some huge body builder guy lights up a cigarette and blows smoke all over the place she isn't gonna say anything. Maybe she deserves better???

[Auror Williamson]

My family does not smoke, and I don't plan on smoking when I reach the legal age, either.


For hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Americans who are sensitive, even allergic to tobacco smoke, being in a restaurant full of smokers is an extremely unpleasant experience. My nose starts to run, my eyes water, my skin itches.


I'm all for a ban on smoking in public places. Several communities around Kansas City have banned smoking in public places. Not only does it affect those sensitive to the smoke, but it also creates a bad dining experience.

I don't have a problem with divided sections of restaurants, but the fact is that most times the boundary between the sections consists of a row of tables. I hate being seated at the invisible boundary line, and hundreds of times have asked to be seated farther away.


Here's the bottom line:


Smoke, smoke away and kill your lungs. Do it at home, do it in your car, do it outside, but don't do it when your around me!!

[DsX Phoenix]

Having said that, I do not think the big tobacco companies should be blamed for the problems they cause. Is there a single person on Earth who doesn't know that smoking causes cancer? Is there a single person on Earth who doesn't know that smoking is highly addictive? No, and no. Every person who makes the choice to smoke knows full well that their health is at stake, and therefore shouldn't put the blame on the big, evil tobacco man.

Most people who blame tobacco companies do not blame them for people who begin smoking today (except that their ads target minors), but rather, that the tobacco companies did not inform people 20 or 30 years ago that smoking was bad. True, everyone today should know the dangers of smoking. 20 years ago, no one knew the risks. So, they smoked, because it was the cool thing to do. Then, the government had tobacco companies tell people smoking kills. But by this time, those people were already addicted and having health problems.

[Animagi rock!]

Smoke, smoke away and kill your lungs. Do it at home, do it in your car, do it outside, but don't do it when your around me!!
I absolutely agree with you. As long as the smokers aren't bothering anyone, they should be able to do what they want, but they should respect the fact that others might not want to smell it. I won't mind if people smoke around me when we're outside (just don't be surprised if I move away a few feet) but I hate it when people smoke in restaurants. I want to taste my food, not the smoke.

BTW I'm a non-smoker, as you might have noticed.

[PadfootBlack]

They've known since the 1800s that smoking is hazardous. Saying that they didn't know about the hazards of smoking is a lie.

I despise people who sue tobacco companies. They don't deserve a penny and they deserve to die more than the rest of the smokers that take their diseases like real men and women. Tobacco companies are not at fault in any way, and this is coming from a non-smoker!!

[strwznbrry]

I am of the opinion that it really is up to each individual establishment like PadfootBlack said. I think in most of the newer restaurants that I have been in they do try to make a point of putting the smoking sections in different rooms so that the smoke can't drift as easily. I like smoking sections in restaurants, its easier to get a seat quicker there because noone wants to sit there. I don't smoke but my mom and dad do and I lived with that for years and now I live with my husband who smokes so I guess I am used to it. It really only bothers me when I go to sleep at night if I smell it then I can't sleep. My husband respects that so he only smokes in the living room away from the bedroom so I don't smell it.

[Animagi rock!]

They've known since the 1800s that smoking is hazardous

I don't think they have, actually. For a very long time the tobacco companies pretended that there was no harm to smoking. Even after studies had come to the result that it was dangerous, they refused to admit it. I think they even said it was healthy at one point. The tobacco companies aren't completely innocent in this matter.

I do agree with you that anyone who started smoking after it became publicly known that smoking is dangerous shouldn't get a cent.

[DsX Phoenix]

They've known since the 1800s that smoking is hazardous. Saying that they didn't know about the hazards of smoking is a lie.

I despise people who sue tobacco companies. They don't deserve a penny and they deserve to die more than the rest of the smokers that take their diseases like real men and women. Tobacco companies are not at fault in any way, and this is coming from a non-smoker!!

Who has known? The general public? Or educated people who have done tests on this?

[Tane]

I think it is up to the general public to decide on whether they smoke or not as it is there health at steak. I don't smoke and really as long as people do not blow smoke in my face from their cigarettes then I don't really mind what they do.

On another note cigarette tax has gone up by 8p for 20 in Britain today but I doubt it will stop people smoking.

[Mireille]

[QUOTE=PadfootBlack]They've known since the 1800s that smoking is hazardous. Saying that they didn't know about the hazards of smoking is a lie.
[QUOTE]

Tobacco companies have known for years that smoking is hazardous, but do you think they are going to say that and risk lossing their business? The answer is no. However, a few years ago they had to come out and say that smoking is dangerous to your health. The generation that was told that smoking is good for your health is entitled to some money, but our generation (I'm talking about the generation after the announcment was made) can not sue for side effects to smoking because the tobacco companies have come out and said that it is a health risk.

As a non-smoker, I dislike when people assume I don't care if they smoke around me. If I decide to join them outside when they smoke, then I don't really care. I just make sure that I am on the opposite side of them so that the smoke does not come toward me. I have had many co-worker friends who smoked and I usually joined them to talk, never to smoke, when they smoked. The respected my wish not to be near the second hand smoke and I respected their right to smoke outside.

I don't think that telling people they cannot smoke in certain buildings or areas is wrong. The mall where I am from banned smoking inside the mall a few years ago and not many people made a big fuss about it. Smokers just take their smoke outside for the few minutes that they need and then continue with their shopping. As for restaurants, smoking and non-smoking sections are a joke for the most part. The smoke carries through the entire building, so what really is the point?

[OrbitingElle]

I despise people who sue tobacco companies. They don't deserve a penny and they deserve to die more than the rest of the smokers that take their diseases like real men and women. Tobacco companies are not at fault in any way, and this is coming from a non-smoker!!

I totally agree. People are so deperate to blame, and it's much easier for them to blame the big company than it is for them to blame the one who made the choice to smoke. People should be able to do what they want, but they should also accept responsibility for their own actions.

[PadfootBlack]

Well, I hate to bring religion into this, but I feel like I need to in order to explain my wording above. Back in the 1830s my church gave advice for what substances may be harmful to our bodies. Tobacco, of course, was one of them. I can only assume they gave this counsel because there was some sort of knowledge of possible side effects of tobacco use.

Now a little personal experience, nothing to do with religion. One night at work a coworker asked me if I could give him a ride home. I had no problem with that. When we got off we walked to my car and he had the nerve to light up a cigarette no more than 10 seconds before he was gonna get in MY car!! He basically wasted it because either he could get rid of it or get left behind. I definitely wasn't gonna sit around and wait for him to smoke his stupid little cigarette. Stupid stuff like this is what really gets me mad at people who smoke. That, and those little "smoke breaks" that everybody gets at work that I'm not good enough for.

[rotsiepots]

Well, I hate to bring religion into this, but I feel like I need to in order to explain my wording above. Back in the 1830s my church gave advice for what substances may be harmful to our bodies. Tobacco, of course, was one of them. I can only assume they gave this counsel because there was some sort of knowledge of possible side effects of tobacco use.

LDS? Aren't alcohol, coffee and tea all a part of the Word of Wisdom too? I think those substances were banned based on assumptions they were bad for LDS, rather than empirical evidence.

I'm fairly certain the first empirical evidence for a link between smoking and cancer happened in the 1950s.

[Nick]

It's not that smokers have no rights, it's that non-smokers should have more say without facing retribution. If some asthmatic nice little old lady is sitting on a bench waiting for the bus and some huge body builder guy lights up a cigarette and blows smoke all over the place she isn't gonna say anything. Maybe she deserves better???

Your example is laced with non-smoker bias. I prefer this version.

It's not that smokers have no rights, it's that non-smokers should have more say without facing retribution. If some huge body builder guy is sitting on a bench waiting for the bus and some asthmatic nice little old lady lights up a cigarette and blows smoke all over the place he isn't gonna say anything. Maybe he deserves better???

Even so, I question the, er, objectiveness, of a non-smoker suggesting that non-smokers should have more rights than smokers.

Unless of course you smoke :huh:

[mirandam]

I think you are right about the 1950's. I come from a very religous town (Zion) and they use to not allow any "unclean" foods, doctors, alcohol, tabacco etc. In a lot of religions these things are considered unclean to the human. My town just legalized the selling of alcohol last year.

The one woman that I can recall that did sue the tabacco co. and won because the tabacco companies were lieing about the % of nicotine in the cigarettes, therefore making them far more addicting than they normally are. The tabacco co. did get caught doing that one. As far as now, people are aware of the effects of smoking and they have the right to make the choice to do so or not. This world is too sue happy over everything. Can we sue the car co. for losing a loved one in an accident, or McDonalds for getting fat because we eat it too much, or the gun makers because we were shot by someone with a gun? And the list goes on.

I am a smoker, but I respect the rights of others. As I expect them to repect mine.

[PadfootBlack]

Your example is laced with non-smoker bias. I prefer this version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadfootBlack (***But changed by Nick***)
It's not that smokers have no rights, it's that non-smokers should have more say without facing retribution. If some huge body builder guy is sitting on a bench waiting for the bus and some asthmatic nice little old lady lights up a cigarette and blows smoke all over the place he isn't gonna say anything. Maybe he deserves better???


Even so, I question the, er, objectiveness, of a non-smoker suggesting that non-smokers should have more rights than smokers.

If she's smoking and she has asthma then the old witch deserves to die. I'm sure he has the strength to walk upwind from the old bag. By the way, thanks for changing my QUOTE. (They don't call it a quote for nothing.)

[Kaonashi]

I despise people who sue tobacco companies. They don't deserve a penny and they deserve to die more than the rest of the smokers that take their diseases like real men and women. Tobacco companies are not at fault in any way, and this is coming from a non-smoker!!

Amen to that, and I SMOKE! If I get lung cancer one day because I don't quit, I have no one to blame except myself. It's all about this culture we have nowadays of "blame everyone except yourself."

[Pegasus]

I smoke, but I always ask people nearby if they mind if I light up if I'm in a public place. Some people have asthma, others don't want to smell like smoke. I respect that.
I wish more people were like you.
Here in Utah, where I live, we have the Utah Clean Air Act. I so miss it when I go to other states. It means I can go to restaurants, etc. without having my family exposed to the most vile smell in the world. And it's much worse than just a vile smell--it could actually kill us. I know our Clean Air Act will never spread to other states, but it's too bad.
My husband and I took our family to Disneyland last April. Imagine my surprise when we were trying to find a semi-affordable restaurant and we ran into a wall of cigaratte smoke alongside the Waters of America! Apparently, it's been set apart as a smoking section. Walt would roll over in his grave. enclose or not, that smell makes me sick a mile away (exaggeration, of course, unless there's a wind in the wrong direction), even a few minutes after the smoker has left. If you're going to ruin your lungs, at least don't take ours down with them.

[rotsiepots]

If she's smoking and she has asthma then the old witch deserves to die. I'm sure he has the strength to walk upwind from the old bag. By the way, thanks for changing my QUOTE. (They don't call it a quote for nothing.)

*sigh*

2. The goal of CoS Forums is to make sure everyone has a good time and can make friends. Obviously not everyone will agree with one another and we ask that you respect the opinions of others even if you cannot agree. Attacking other members for holding views different to your own will not be tolerated and you will be warned. If you see this taking place, please report it to a Professor.

Losing your temper or giving in to strong, negative emotions. You must remain respectful at all times and keep your head. All discussions are to remain calm. This is a place for intellectual conversation, not random shouting or putting down of others and their views. Taken from here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=23691).

[Sineed]

Funny how people get so emotional over smoking.

I'm an asthmatic non-smoker who lives in a large city. My husband is a smoker, and he smokes outdoors because I can't handle the smoke.

However, a bigger hazard to my health is the exhaust coming from vehicles, which I believe is a major cause of the surge in the number of cases of asthma over the past twenty years. Last year, I was waiting for a bus when a guy next to me lit up. Instantly, the non-smoking crusaders were all over this guy, reminding him that smoking was not allowed on transit property. Technically, they were right, but it was absurd: there we were, outside, surrounded by buses belching clouds of black diesel smoke, and everybody was picking on the smoker.

For the sake of my being able to eat in restaurants, I'm really glad they've banned smoking from indoor public places where I live, but we need to keep our perspective. As the late, great comedian Bill Hicks pointed out, non-smokers die every day.

[Pegasus]

Yes, non-smokers do die everyday, but I would not want myself/someone I love to die from second-hand smoke. My brother was hit by a car and killed while crossing the street--on a cross walk--over to his high school when he was 17. I have different emotions about that than I would if he died of pneumonia or some other bacteria-induced disease. there is no excuse for knowingly endangering the lives of others--and that's what public smokers are doing. I really do appreciate the smokers who ask if others mind. It shows not only common courtesy, but respect.

[Sineed]

Hello. I am truly sorry about your brother. A close friend of mine lost her brother in the same sort of accident, a bus running through a crosswalk. He was 18.

I agree with you about courtesy. If we are sitting on a patio with other people who are not smoking, my husband always asks before he lights up. But I question the significance of 2nd-hand smoke when you're outside. I am sensitive to cigarette smoke, but if I am outside on the front porch with my husband, and he's smoking, it doesn't bother me.

Smoking is a significant addiction. My husband has been struggling to quit for years. If we ban it from absolutely everywhere, we criminalize a lot of people who basically need help.

[Pegasus]

It's possible that you're used to it. I learned to deal with it when I lived in Las Vegas, Nevada, but when I visited a few years later, it was so much worse than I remembered.

I know smoking is a significant addition. I know a lot of people who have dealt with it. For some people, it's not a big deal--for others, it just seems beyond their abilities. But I do think they should do it in privacy, or away from others, and in that case of Disneyland, you're expected to go outside the gates to eat outside food--and I'm pretty sure that was the case with smoking up until recently, too.

[OrbitingElle]

I question the, er, objectiveness, of a non-smoker suggesting that non-smokers should have more rights than smokers.

Perhaps there is a person who really likes punching other people in the face. If he's not allowed to do that, are you infringing upon his rights? Are you giving MORE rights to the punchee than the puncher? Of course not, because he shouldn't have the right to do that in the first place.

But then again... I'm a non-smoker.

[theseeker]

This has probably already been said, but the idea of smoking sections in restaurants (etc.) is ridiculous. I went into a restaurant a while ago, the waitress asked "smoking or non-smoking" (I chose non-smoking), so she led us to a table. I looked around, trying to figure out where the smoking section was. Then I noticed it was right next to us, with no barriers. I think they have some kind of air-filtering system, but the smoke just wafts over anyway.
I think smoking inside is disgusting. It doesn't matter if it's in another room from you, the smoke wafts under doors, and when people open the doors, the smoke is transferred into another room. The smoke also can be trapped in the furniture, which can be hazardous to other people coming into that room.
Where I live, the law that you can't smoke, in bars, restaurants, etc is being phased in right now (or soon, I think), so that is good. You can't exactly go to a restaurant, and tell each person individually that you can't stand cigarette smoke, and tell them off for smoking, because they would probably tell you no.

[Picko]

I don't like smoking, I never have. Ultimately smoking is one of those things that should be banned from public places altogether as whilst people surely have a right to cause harm to themselves I very much doubt that they have a right to harm other people which is ultimately why smoking is considered such a horrible thing.

[Pegasus]

Where I live, the law that you can't smoke, in bars, restaurants, etc is being phased in right now (or soon, I think), so that is good.
It's nice to see that Utah, USA is not the only place that is enacting safety laws in a new health-awareness era. Hopefully the common sense will spread.

[OrbitingElle]

It's nice to see that Utah, USA is not the only place that is enacting safety laws in a new health-awareness era. Hopefully the common sense will spread.

It's spreading slowly, I wish the big cities would catch on faster. I live on the edge of Dallas, and there are a few of the little suburbs around here that have banned smoking in restaurants. I think the rule is that bars can serve finger foods and allow smoking, but anywhere with a full menu is smoke-free.

[Pegasus]

I should add that I have seen a "smoker-friendly" restaurant/bar in Salt Lake City, near where I live. They had a good deal posted on their sign (lunch special $3.99 or something) and we were looking for a place to eat. We walked in and walked straight out. So it is possible to have a place for the smokers to go and have their own space without the rest of us having to deal with it.

[JofpGallagher]

In this forum there is a thread that discusses the legalization of another "smokable, and harmful" thing called marijuana, and there is a thread about "smoking in public places".
Now the irony:
It's easier to find people against nicotine, that to find people against the legalization of marihuana. You could easily notice in these two threads that the amount of people against cigarettes is kinda similar to the amount of people who wants marijuana to be legal, and I honestly find that very ironic. Sometimes I wish that some people that is against "nicotine" would put the same energy to erradicate other illegal and harmful drugs.

Sometimes I believe that the entire "smoking banning" is overrated. Even though I smoke (legal cigarettes) I will support the banning of cigarettes (and marijuana, etc), and I respect the rights of non-smokers.

[Pegasus]

I didn't know there was a thread about the legalization of marijuana--I click on the New Posts when I come into the COS and read those, and I've been here less than a week--but I tend to stay out of marijuana discussions. Here's why: Legalization of an illegal drug is just outlandish, as far as I'm concerned, especially when I'm on the phase-out-the-legality-of-cigarattes bandwagon. I understand there are many who have been quite addicted for many years, which is why I said "phase out"--but more people become addicted every day. I think if people really knew how harmful cigarettes are--especially the lawmakers--they would have starting cracking down long ago.

[Sineed]

I just got home from work. On my way home today, there was a group of guys smoking a joint on the subway car. Everybody was afraid to approach them and tell them off, though if they were smoking cigarettes, people would have been all over them.

Where I live, smoking is banned in all indoor public places except designated smoking rooms that have to be physically separate, and everywhere on transit property. But here in Canada, there has been a push to liberalize marijuana laws, decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of pot. And they're allowing the medical use of marijuana in some circumstances.

So I looked at these guys smoking a joint on the subway, and had an amusing thought: in this country, pot is becoming more legal than tobacco.

Just thought I'd share ...

[Pegasus]

Wow, I had no idea. We're definitely sheltered here in Utah--and most of us like it that way.

[OrbitingElle]

In this forum there is a thread that discusses the legalization of another "smokable, and harmful" thing called marijuana, and there is a thread about "smoking in public places".
Now the irony:
It's easier to find people against nicotine, that to find people against the legalization of marihuana. You could easily notice in these two threads that the amount of people against cigarettes is kinda similar to the amount of people who wants marijuana to be legal, and I honestly find that very ironic. Sometimes I wish that some people that is against "nicotine" would put the same energy to erradicate other illegal and harmful drugs.

Sometimes I believe that the entire "smoking banning" is overrated. Even though I smoke (legal cigarettes) I will support the banning of cigarettes (and marijuana, etc), and I respect the rights of non-smokers.

I think that marijuana being illegal is why no one is sick of it yet--No one has ever had to walk into a restaurant and say "Boy it sure smells like pot in here." The amount of people who support cigarettes being legal might be comparable to the amount of people wanting to legalize marijuana, its just that one of them is currently more of a neusance than the other.

If it were ever legal to smoke marijuana in public places, I bet there would be a thread just like this one complaining about how it ruined my dining experience last night, or my husband only smokes it outside but he still smells up the sheets when he comes to bed, etc.

[Nick]

Perhaps there is a person who really likes punching other people in the face. If he's not allowed to do that, are you infringing upon his rights? Are you giving MORE rights to the punchee than the puncher? Of course not, because he shouldn't have the right to do that in the first place.


Ah, see, here's where it can get confusing. "Rights" are not real. It is impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion about "rights" with people, particularly when they are of the opinion that their "rights" are somehow more important or of a greater priority than my "rights".

So, I'll put it another way. If somebody went around punching people in the face, I wouldn't do a thing to stop him until he tried to hit me. Similarly, I don't tell off smokers for doing their thing, even if they're breaking the law (we do have smoking laws here, although I'm not entirely sure what they are), unless I suffer in some fashion as a result. But it doesn't actually bother me - not unless they're blowing smoke right in my face, which is asking for trouble anyway - so I don't tell them off for it. Smokers are paying a very heavy price for a few moments of stupidity as teenagers, I see no reason to make it worse for them.

Now, you can translate that into "rights-speek" if you like ..

[Mireille]

I would like to point out that marijuana is being discused here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=23776&highlight=marijuana). Please keep in mind that this thread is about cigarette smoking.

[rotsiepots]

I think that marijuana being illegal is why no one is sick of it yet--No one has ever had to walk into a restaurant and say "Boy it sure smells like pot in here." The amount of people who support cigarettes being legal might be comparable to the amount of people wanting to legalize marijuana, its just that one of them is currently more of a neusance than the other.

If it were ever legal to smoke marijuana in public places, I bet there would be a thread just like this one complaining about how it ruined my dining experience last night, or my husband only smokes it outside but he still smells up the sheets when he comes to bed, etc.

You've obviously never been to the Netherlands. :D

Anyway, legislation is currently being passed where I'm from to ban smoking from all pubs and clubs. At the moment there are designated smoking areas (a lot of good they do), but the government is trying to work towards a total ban. I think this is coming in response to the death of a hospitality worker who had never smoked but died of lung cancer after 15+ years in the business.

It's all about litigation these days.

[Tiberius]

This has probably already been said, but the idea of smoking sections in restaurants (etc.) is ridiculous. I went into a restaurant a while ago, the waitress asked "smoking or non-smoking" (I chose non-smoking), so she led us to a table. I looked around, trying to figure out where the smoking section was. Then I noticed it was right next to us, with no barriers. I think they have some kind of air-filtering system, but the smoke just wafts over anyway.

I agree completely. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The idea of a smoking and non smoking section in a restaurant is about as smart as having a peeing and non-peeing section in a pool.

Here in Australai, we had a bit of a thing a while back when they wanted to ban smoking in RSL clubs. (They're like clubs for older people, with bars, and slot machines and bowling greens.) They tried it for a while, but they noticed that so many of the people who went there smoked, and when it was banned, a lot of the people just stopped coming. As a result, the RSL clubs lost quite a bit of money, and I'm pretty sure that they've allowed smoking in there again. Does anyone else know of any situations like this?

[mina]

I have been advised by my doctor to stay away from smoke as much as possible, but now I see just how impossible it is to avoid smokers. If I were to really avoid smoke I wouldn't ever be able to leave my home! People smoke at bus stops, at concerts, in restaurants, EVERYWHERE! I don't think it is fair that I (and everyone around me) should suffer, just because someone wants a cigarette.

there is no excuse for knowingly endangering the lives of others--and that's what public smokers are doing.
Exactly.

[DrummerboyDT]

I have been advised by my doctor to stay away from smoke as much as possible, but now I see just how impossible it is to avoid smokers. If I were to really avoid smoke I wouldn't ever be able to leave my home! People smoke at bus stops, at concerts, in restaurants, EVERYWHERE! I don't think it is fair that I (and everyone around me) should suffer, just because someone wants a cigarette.

I try to avoid smoke as much as possible. It was kind of hard to do that when I worked at a theme park. Luckily, I worked outside.

Nobody in my family smokes, which is really good for me when I was growing up. My friend Paul had severe asthma attack when he was at our friend, Brandon's house because their parents would smoke.

I don't have a problem with people who smoke, I have a problem with the smoke. I know it's hard for people to quit so telling them to doesn't really help much. A lot of smokers do try to quit anyway since it's not as "cool" to do as it used to be. I don't like it when people smoke in front of me, but I understand that they're under an addiction and that it's hard for them not to light one up.

[OrbitingElle]

I don't have a problem with people who smoke, I have a problem with the smoke. I know it's hard for people to quit so telling them to doesn't really help much. A lot of smokers do try to quit anyway since it's not as "cool" to do as it used to be. I don't like it when people smoke in front of me, but I understand that they're under an addiction and that it's hard for them not to light one up.

Well put. The smoker is fine, the smoke is gross.

My boyfriend was a smoker when we met, but he knew I hated it. The combination of me not liking it and also him getting bronchitis led to him quitting. He says its easier to quit when you don't think of it as "I'm NEVER smoking again." He still allows himself to smoke when we go out to a bar or club (maybe once every two weeks or so) but I don't have to deal with it at home anymore. Of course, it means that every time we go out, I have to sit in the smoking section, but it's better than nothing.

[Wab]

I have no problem with smoking outdoors and in pubs and clubs.

[Elocin4684]

Ok, I'm a nonsmoker.

Now, let me tell you about my experience as a hostess at Applebee's. (If you don't know the restaurant, it's an American chain like Chili's, Cheddar's... a "casual" restaurant.) The way our restaurant was set up, the smoking section consisted of two rows of booths and one row of bar tables on the left had side of the place. The nonsmoking was much larger, taking up about 70% of the building on the right side. Now, the actual booths and tables of each section were away from each other, but the bar was in the middle, and, if you were seated at the bar, you could smoke. This bar was only a few steps away from the bar tables of nonsmoking and a few more steps away from the booths of nonsmoking. People would actually yell at me for smokers being so closed to them when they didn't smoke. Now, let me let you in on a little secret... I had no input on how the restaurant was set up. Matter of fact, I was only in 8th grade when they built it. But that's not the point; people in nonsmoking still had to breath in second hand smoke. Another thing about the smoking section is the servers that have to work that section. Now, some people might be rude and inconsiderate and say that they don't have to be a server, but serving is a good way for poor college students to make good money and is flexible with their school hours. Trust me, I know. So, these poor students that are trying to pay off loans are having to breath in smoke just so they can eat.

Now, let me tell you about the most horrid thing of all. I actually had parents come in there and ask for a high chair and then turn around and say that they would like to sit in smoking. I would just like to thank all those parents out there that are giving their kids an early jump on asthma and leading them to most likely smoke and die of lung cancer.

Now that I got that out of the way, on to my boyfriend. He really likes to play pool, but the only places in town to play are at bars. So, thinks to people that think it's cute to smoke and it "calms their nerves", my boyfriend will probably die of second hand smoking. Now, the inconsiderate people are saying that he doesn't have to play pool, but he does enjoy it. So why should he have to stop?

Another thing about smoking; buildings can go to nonsmoking, forcing the smokers outside, but then they stand right in the doorway and smoke. What's the difference? And then they say that the places should provide a place for them to smoke outside out of the rain and sun, but you are doing a voluntary thing. You don't need it to live; it's not akin to allergy shots.

So please, smoking should only be legal in the privacy of your own home. And, if you have some one under the age of 18 or that is still in high school living with you, it should be illegal for you to smoke inside your home because you are exposing a minor to something he or she does not want to be around. And if you park your little 2 year old in the smoking section, you should be arrested for child abuse. And if you are pregnant and smoking, you should also be arrested for child abuse.

[Liselle]

Smoking is gross dangerous and ignorant. However its an individuals choice to make if they want to smoke themselves...however what gets my goat is the fact that smokers don't seem to give a **** about the fact that their smoking affects other people around them. If you want to smoke fine, just don't do it around me thank you. There are few worse things than going out for a night and them lying in bed being able to smell the smoke off your own hair...I hate it so much

I'm very happy to support the Irish governments smoking ban which comes into place at the end of the month (bans smoking in all workplaces) which means no more smoking in pubs or bars or clubs (yay!)...unless you want to go outside.

Breaking up a restraurant into smoking or non smoking just doesn't work....you can still smell it, it still affects everyone in the nonsmoking side and the staff too. Ban it ban it ban it :tu:

[mina]

Outdoors can be just as hazardous as indoors. Believe me, I have to stand in close proximity with smokers at the bus stop. The outside air does not filter the smoke enough to make it any less hazardous.

On a side note: Almost all of our bus stops have garbage cans sitting in front of them. Now when I wait for the bus there is almost always someone smoking, and I have yet to see any of those smokers actually walk the three footsteps it would take to get to the garbage can to throw out the ciggarette butt. Instead they just throw it on the ground in front of them (I am by no means blaming all smokers, I am just angered at how few I see that will actually throw out their cigarette. Especially when it is made so easy for them). Honestly, if those smokers insist upon threatening the lives of others, then they should at least have the courtesy to not litter.

[JofpGallagher]

I have been advised by my doctor to stay away from smoke as much as possible, but now I see just how impossible it is to avoid smokers. If I were to really avoid smoke I wouldn't ever be able to leave my home! People smoke at bus stops, at concerts, in restaurants, EVERYWHERE! I don't think it is fair that I (and everyone around me) should suffer, just because someone wants a cigarette.

I understand you and support you, but to stay away from smoke as much as possible means you moving to the amazon forest, and I am not talking about for the cigarette's smoke. There are severals other sources of smoke (cars, buses, plants, chimneys, electrical plants, mowers, etc.
Again, I agree with you and people who smoke shouldn't contaminate your environment with their cigarette smoke. However, I have seen people in a bus station, waiting for the bus with incredible amounts of pollution coming from buses and cars, and then someone lit a cigarette and that person goes like "Hey, don't contaminate my air" And in my mind I asked "What air?" It's already highly pollute" :shrug:
Caracas (Venezuela's capital) the air is so pollute, that the last time I went there it took me about 1 week to get used to it. The first day I felt like dying, I couldn't breathe.

[Charmed]

I don't smoke. I hate that people can smoke in enclosed spaces with non-smokers-like in clubs. Whenever I leave all I can smell is dried smoke in my hair. There is a new law coming in to effect in Australia soon where in all states smoking will be banned in pubs and clubs. Personally I can't wait.

[DrummerboyDT]

I usually hold my breath around smokers, sometimes face turns blowing for holding my breath so long, but anything's better than taking in a wiff of tabacco. I'm used to holding my breath having working as a hairpainter, but even those fumes weren't as bad.

[Chrysalis]

I don't care if people smoke outside, but I don't like it when they smoke in closed spaces. After a venture into the foyer of the movie theatre my clothes were smelling of smoke. I am not allergic to smoke, but I am not used to it at all as my dad has asthma. Even at the bowling alley it is impossible to escape smoke. Only recently in the Netherlands has the government started implementing laws against smoking in public buildings. If someone near me starts smoking I just start coughing loudly and then they go away.:)

[Wab]

Outdoors can be just as hazardous as indoors. Believe me, I have to stand in close proximity with smokers at the bus stop. The outside air does not filter the smoke enough to make it any less hazardous.


Of course waiting by the side of the road means you're sucking in far more dangerous fumes than smoke.

[mina]

Of course waiting by the side of the road means you're sucking in far more dangerous fumes than smoke.

No kidding, but that cannot be changed at this present time. Fortunately steps are being taken to help change this (what with electric cars, and such), it will just some time for it to become the norm. Besides the vehicle exaust fumes do not blow directly into my face. I am intelligent enough to stand back away from the road.

I know that cigarette smoke is not the only form of pollution, but can you imagine how much less smoke we would have polluting our air if everyone gave up smoking, or at the very least only smoked in their houses?

[Nick]

I know that cigarette smoke is not the only form of pollution, but can you imagine how much less smoke we would have polluting our air if everyone gave up smoking, or at the very least only smoked in their houses?

Not very much at all, unless you happen to live in Athens.

[Bhodi]

No kidding, but that cannot be changed at this present time.

Sure it can... Individuals have the power to choose where they live (and, thus, whether or not to commute to work [Does the phrase 'urban sprawl' ring a bell? It's a problem caused by the living choices people make], drive around on errands, drive to the various entertaining diversions, etc.), what they buy (and, thus, whether to purchase products that are trucked in from afar, or that rely on electrical power which is normally generated by enormous power plants that spew out massive amounts of air pollution) and to make other decisions that relate to our overwhelming demand for fossil fuels... It simply requires a mass change of behavior -- the same exact thing you are suggesting with the smoking issue...

Besides the vehicle exaust fumes do not blow directly into my face.

No... But I would be willing to bet that they have a heck of a lot more impact on your health and the health of our environment than cigarette smoke does (unless, of course, you happen to live with someone who constantly smokes in your home)...

I know that cigarette smoke is not the only form of pollution, but can you imagine how much less smoke we would have polluting our air if everyone gave up smoking, or at the very least only smoked in their houses?

Again, I would be willing to bet that the impact of cigarette smoke on our environment is very little in comparison to auto emissions, industrial emissions and the like...

[SilverStar]

I don't smoke. I hate that people can smoke in enclosed spaces with non-smokers-like in clubs. Whenever I leave all I can smell is dried smoke in my hair. There is a new law coming in to effect in Australia soon where in all states smoking will be banned in pubs and clubs. Personally I can't wait.

Although I live in the U.S., I have to agree with you.

[Tiberius]

Wow, certainly a lot of people who feel passionately here.

So let me ask you this, a hypothetical. Let's say that the government where you lived introduced a new law that states that all smoking in public is banned, and there are really big fines if you do. So not only no smoking inside, but even outside, even in the middle of nowhere. Would you agree with this, or is that going too far?

Also, the great majority of you guys seem to be against smoking in public. So, if you were put in charge of creating a solution, what would you do? How would you control the smoking in public?

[theseeker]

If someone near me starts smoking I just start coughing loudly and then they go away.:)

LOL My friend and I do that as well. If anyone smokes right next to us in a public place, we start coughing loudly and making stupid, immature comments like "Ahh, my air's being polluted!" or "Owww, my lungs!"
Of course it is an individual person's choice to smoke, and everyone has a right to make their own choices, but I hate it when people don't have the decency to go somewhere else, or even ask if we mind before they start polluting our lungs ;)

[mina]

Again, I would be willing to bet that the impact of cigarette smoke on our environment is very little in comparison to auto emissions, industrial emissions and the like...

It would, at least, be a start, and would make some dent in the pollution.

No... But I would be willing to bet that they have a heck of a lot more impact on your health and the health of our environment than cigarette smoke does (unless, of course, you happen to live with someone who constantly smokes in your home)...

My mother has smoked since before I was born, and when she remarried, my stepfather also smoked, plus we lived in a rather small townhouse, so yeah, the cigarette smoke has had quite an impact on my health.

Sure it can... Individuals have the power to choose where they live (and, thus, whether or not to commute to work [Does the phrase 'urban sprawl' ring a bell? It's a problem caused by the living choices people make], drive around on errands, drive to the various entertaining diversions, etc.),

We do not have complete control over where we live. I have tried to find an apartment in the city in my price range. It is impossible (and I am sure other cities are the same). I have no choice but to commute, and since I don't meet the vision requirements, I cannot drive myself. I have to take public transportation, regardless of where I live.
Then, after I graduate from college I will have to go where the work in my industry is. I really only have a few choices there...

what they buy (and, thus, whether to purchase products that are trucked in from afar, or that rely on electrical power which is normally generated by enormous power plants that spew out massive amounts of air pollution) and to make other decisions that relate to our overwhelming demand for fossil fuels... It simply requires a mass change of behavior -- the same exact thing you are suggesting with the smoking issue...

I do think that everyone needs to be more conscious abot how we are affecting the environment, but I think that it is something that will take far more time to change than people learning to only smoke inside their houses.

I am asking for some courtesy. Everyone by now knows that smoke is hazardous to the people around them.

[Kaonashi]

Banning smoking in buildings and enclosed places I can understand. Banning smoking outside? That's going a bit too far IMO.

[mina]

Banning smoking in buildings and enclosed places I can understand. Banning smoking outside? That's going a bit too far IMO.

I mean in places such as bus stops, and anywhere people must stand in close contact with each other. Otherwise I don't really have a problem, only when I cannot get away from it.

[DrummerboyDT]

I think smoking should only be limited to your home, your car, or away from the general public. I think it should be banned in public places, outside or inside. Maybe there out to be more private smoking lounges like there were in the early 1900's for those who have to smoke. It all comes down to lack of respect and it's rude to blow smoke when somebody else doesn't want to inhale it. I don't know. At least I made a good decision to stay away from smoking.

[OrbitingElle]

Wow, certainly a lot of people who feel passionately here.

So let me ask you this, a hypothetical. Let's say that the government where you lived introduced a new law that states that all smoking in public is banned, and there are really big fines if you do. So not only no smoking inside, but even outside, even in the middle of nowhere. Would you agree with this, or is that going too far?

Also, the great majority of you guys seem to be against smoking in public. So, if you were put in charge of creating a solution, what would you do? How would you control the smoking in public?


I would absolutely LOVE it if smoking were allowed nowhere, since I hate the smell and the concept. But I realize that this would be somewhat like prohibition, and wouldn't work. As happy as it would make me, it would make millions of people irate.

[DsX Phoenix]

Wow, certainly a lot of people who feel passionately here.

So let me ask you this, a hypothetical. Let's say that the government where you lived introduced a new law that states that all smoking in public is banned, and there are really big fines if you do. So not only no smoking inside, but even outside, even in the middle of nowhere. Would you agree with this, or is that going too far?

Also, the great majority of you guys seem to be against smoking in public. So, if you were put in charge of creating a solution, what would you do? How would you control the smoking in public?

I do not think I would ban cigarette smoking in public completely...or really, at all. I think as long as restaurants have legitimate smoking sections (i.e., a completely separate room with proper ventillation), then there is no problem with smoking in a public restaurant. As far as smoking outdoors, I think it should be permitted, with the exception of certain very crowded areas, such as bus stops and such. Also, I do not see a reason at all to ban public smoking outdoors in a large city, since the people will still be inhaling car exhaust.

And, as a sidenote to the whole "smoking outdoors is bad for the environment" arguement...smoke inside a house always finds a way outside, since the house isn't airtight (if it was, we'd all suffocate). So, the tiny bit of environmental (at least tiny comparatively) problems from smoking outside would not be fixed at all, unless we banned cigarette smoking completely, indoors or out.

[Elocin4684]

If it was up to me, cigarettes and cigars would be taxed to the hilt to cut down on how many people could buy them. Also, it would be illegal for tobacco companies to have anything to do with politicians. This would eliminate the corruption seen in DC and smaller systems of government.

To take it a step further, if a woman became pregnant, she and everybody else that lived in that household, would not be allow to buy, smoke, or posses cigarettes. After the child is born, nobody is allowed to smoke around the child. If the child goes to school smelling like smoke, then the parents would be put under investigation for child abuse. If a person is seen sitting with a minor in the smoking section and that minor is their child, then they will be charged with child abuse. If it is not their child, they will be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If a person is seen sitting in the smoking section with a baby or toddler, there would be an automatic fine and possible jail time and required community service dealing with a campaign against tobacco.

Smoking sections would be eliminated over time, allowing for restaurants and so forth to collect the money to take care of it, but it must be done within 5 years. If one is allowed to smoke outside a building, they have to be atleast a 10 m radius away from the door. If colleges insist on letting smokers smoke on campus, then they would have to go into special rooms that are not connected to any other buildings and they can smoke there.

Smoking breaks would be eliminated from the working place becuase nicotine is not neccessary to live.

[Tane]

If it was up to me, cigarettes and cigars would be taxed to the hilt to cut down on how many people could buy them. Also, it would be illegal for tobacco companies to have anything to do with politicians. This would eliminate the corruption seen in DC and smaller systems of government.

To take it a step further, if a woman became pregnant, she and everybody else that lived in that household, would not be allow to buy, smoke, or posses cigarettes. After the child is born, nobody is allowed to smoke around the child. If the child goes to school smelling like smoke, then the parents would be put under investigation for child abuse. If a person is seen sitting with a minor in the smoking section and that minor is their child, then they will be charged with child abuse. If it is not their child, they will be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If a person is seen sitting in the smoking section with a baby or toddler, there would be an automatic fine and possible jail time and required community service dealing with a campaign against tobacco.

Smoking sections would be eliminated over time, allowing for restaurants and so forth to collect the money to take care of it, but it must be done within 5 years. If one is allowed to smoke outside a building, they have to be atleast a 10 m radius away from the door. If colleges insist on letting smokers smoke on campus, then they would have to go into special rooms that are not connected to any other buildings and they can smoke there.

Smoking breaks would be eliminated from the working place becuase nicotine is not neccessary to live.

I agree smoking should be heavily taxed and then that money spent on the health service that have to pick up the pieaces after the smoker realizes it is too late to quite.

In Britain they do tax cigarettes but I still do not think they tax them hard enough. Tax on cigarettes went up by 8 pence for a pack of 20 and to me that needs to be higher. It is bad for peoples health and cost the NHS millions each year that could go to other patients that do not self-inflict such illnesses.

I really think smoking in public places should be banned, there is nothing worse for a non-smoker to have to sit next to someone who does smoke and breath in what they breath out.

[OrbitingElle]

In addition to making smoking sections closed-off areas, wouldn't it be smart if restaurants took it upon themselves to stop allowing minors in the smoking section? Waiting for the law to change might take years, but a restaurant chain could easily make a no-minors policy. If they come with their family, shame on the parents for subjecting their child to a room full of second hand smoke. If they come with friends their own age, it's illegal for them to smoke anyway.

[thinkpink38]

No, I don't really have a problem with people smoking outside. It's really thier choice, if they want to smoke then so be it, I mean, as long as there are non smoking areas in restaurants and on the airplane, i'm fine. Oh, and no I don't smoke, don't intend to either.

"In addition to making smoking sections closed-off areas, wouldn't it be smart if restaurants took it upon themselves to stop allowing minors in the smoking section?"

Yeah, it would be smart, or maybe not, because that may lower the no. of people that go to the restaurant.

[Tiberius]

For the control of the sale of cigarettes, perhaps a sort of "Smoker's License" could be an idea. Anyone who is addicted to smoking gets one, and it has their name and photo on it so it can't be swapped. To buy cigareetes, you have to show the license. No license, no smokes. And to control the distribution of the licenses, they only print them for a few months. After that, no more licenses. Sure, there will be people who ask license holders to buy cigarettes for them, but sooner or later, all the license holders will die, and then there won't be any license holders left to buy cigarettes. This will not only control the number of smokers by making it harder to become addicted, but it will also gradually phase out the sale of cigareets.

Okay, i just thought of that, so it probably sounds a little silly. And there's probably a hole in there big enough to put a troll through. But it's an idea.

[Nick]

^ It's not silly at all, I was thinking along the same lines.

IDs can be faked, of course.

[Sineed]

In addition to making smoking sections closed-off areas, wouldn't it be smart if restaurants took it upon themselves to stop allowing minors in the smoking section? Waiting for the law to change might take years, but a restaurant chain could easily make a no-minors policy. If they come with their family, shame on the parents for subjecting their child to a room full of second hand smoke. If they come with friends their own age, it's illegal for them to smoke anyway.

They've done something like that here in Toronto. A licensed establishment has the option of declaring itself a "bar," with restricted access to persons 19 and over (that's the legal drinking age here). In a bar, unrestricted smoking is allowed; if they're not a bar, they have to have a designated smoking room that is physically separate from the rest of the place. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Basically, people like me, who have a problem with smoke, can eat in most restaurants and not get sick. But my husband and I can no longer take our kids to the best pizza place in the neighbourhood, which has declared itself a bar, even if nobody in the joint is smoking.

I don't know about giving out licenses to smokers, though. Doesn't Big Brother keep enough tabs on us already?

[la_ginny]

So I just popped in this thread and read the last page, so sorry if somebody has already brought this up.

Having a smoking section in a restaurant, even if it's propery ventilated, can be unfair to the wait staff. I used to wait tables, and after a night waiting tables in the smoking section, I could hardly breathe. Granted, cigarette smoke drives me nuts, so that might be why. And yes, waiters and waitresses choose where they work, and they choose if they want to work in a smoke-filled environment. But often they are college kids, struggling to get by and waiting tables because the money is good. I don't think they should be exposed to this unnecessary occupational hazard. That's why lawmakers in my state tried to get smoking banned from restaurants, but it didn't work.

Granted, my friends who still wait tables say they like to work the smoking section. Smokers often drink too, and they tip better. Oh well.

I say no smoking in indoor public places (I went to a city hall the other day, and they mayor smoked like 5 cigarettes in his office while I was there! It was gross -- like leaving a bar when I left his office.) As for outdoor public places, I think it can be restricted within reason. Parks, downtowns and government property -- all these should be smoke-free.

[star22]

I am very much against smoking in public. In their homes, smokers harm only themselves. They cannot legally be stopped from smoking.

However, in public they can be. In public they hurt others. Second hand smoke has been proven to be more dangerous than smoking yourself. Therefore, it is wrong to smoke in public. Doing so hurts others.

I agree that smoking sections are a bad idea, unless they are in a seperate room and the waiters are smokers as well or just don't mind. Otherwise, smoke moves. It will not just stay in the smoking area. Waiters should not have to be subjected to it. Nor should non-smokers.

Personally, I think that smoking is really dumb. It kills people yearly. It has been proven to cause cancer and heart disease. It is addictive and is horrible for you. There are good ways to quit. Use them.

However, as long as people do not subject others to the smoke, there is really nothing that we can do.

I also agree with the idea of smokers being taxed. Also, there insurance should be much more expensive. After all, they are causing heath problems for themselves by their stupid decisions.

[Bhodi]

Second hand smoke has been proven to be more dangerous than smoking yourself.

This is the second time someone has made this statement... Again, I have a very hard time believing that "secondhand smoke" [which immediately begins to dissipate/spread out into an environment upon exhalation] is possibly more lethal than the concentrated amount of smoke that is inhaled by the smoker when he or she takes a drag off a cigarette... I want to see the study/evidence that supports this claim... Let's leave the hyperbole and conjecture at the door and try to just stick with the facts...

[star22]

Sorry, don't have specifics right now. I will find it, though. Every medical book, every article I have read on the subject says the same thing. It has been proven. The exhailed smoke has many more dangerous chemicals in it.

Please don't call someone's comments hyperboly. Maybe you should go look it up before you make judgements about what people say.

[Mireille]

In their homes, smokers harm only themselves.

I have to disagree. What if the smoker that smokes in the house lives with a non-smoking wife or husband and non-smoking children? Wouldn't they be harming those individuals? I would think so.

[star22]

I know. That came out wrong. What I meant was that basically, legally we cannot stop them from smoking in their own homes. I wish that we could make smoking illigal, but we can't. People have choices. Still, we can stop them from doing it in public. It is just about the only thing that we can do, besides trying to knock some sense into them.

[Mireille]

You're right. Legally you can't stop somone from smoking in their own home. But I come from a home where the only person in my family that smokes, rather smoked, was my father and my mother forbade him to smoke in the house. I also had a friend in high school whose parents smoked in the house and after a few visits I just refused to go over and visit her. I even told her why and many of her other friends stopped visiting because of the smoke in the house. She disliked them smoking in the house too, but she couldn't do much but tell them that it was causing her to loose friends.

I think everyone agrees that second hand smoke is as deadly as first hand smoke. It's just a matter of having the best of both worlds that is the problem.

[OrbitingElle]

I also agree with the idea of smokers being taxed. Also, there insurance should be much more expensive. After all, they are causing heath problems for themselves by their stupid decisions.

I agree. Health insurance for a smoker should be sky high, and a lower insurance rate might be one more incentive for them to quit.

[haycheng]

I am a non-smoker. I am against smoking in public place. I dislike the smell of smoking. Moreover, I am worry about my health.

[Bhodi]

Sorry, don't have specifics right now. I will find it, though. Every medical book, every article I have read on the subject says the same thing. It has been proven. The exhailed smoke has many more dangerous chemicals in it.

Please don't call someone's comments hyperboly. Maybe you should go look it up before you make judgements about what people say.

Actually, your comments weren't hyperbole, they were conjecture... But the two are often used together in such a manner to suggest that neither exaggeration nor unsubstantiated claims should be used to advance an argument...

Furthermore, I simply doubted your claim and asked for evidence to support it... Since I didn't make the claim, I'm a bit baffled as to why I should be the one who has to find the evidence that supports or disproves it... However, having done a few searches and read through a number of report summaries, thus far I have yet to find anything that supports your original statement...

[DsX Phoenix]

Sorry, don't have specifics right now. I will find it, though. Every medical book, every article I have read on the subject says the same thing. It has been proven. The exhailed smoke has many more dangerous chemicals in it.

Please don't call someone's comments hyperboly. Maybe you should go look it up before you make judgements about what people say.

It has many more dangerous chemicals in it...but that doesn't make it more dangerous. Simply put, one person doesn't inhale even a fraction of those chemicals, unless of course they are sitting there and have the smoke blown directly into their face. Even inside a building, while more smoke is contained in the room, it is only left in the room for a little while, before it is ventilated out.

[OrbitingElle]

Sorry, don't have specifics right now. I will find it, though. Every medical book, every article I have read on the subject says the same thing. It has been proven. The exhailed smoke has many more dangerous chemicals in it.

It is widely known that this is true, second hand smoke itself is more dangerous than cigarette smoke. But it really only comes into play if a non-smoker lives with someone who smokes inside the home on a regular basis, or a situation similar to that. Smoke from someone outdoors at a bus stop will be diluted to the point where the only negative effect is the unpleasant smell.

One of the commercials they have running now has a woman who worked in a diner. She never smoked, but got cancer from working in a smoky envoronment all her life.

[Liselle]

Maybe you could tax them with their health insurance but it just comes down to the fact that you're not going to stop someone from smoking if they don't want to stop. Its a disgusting habit and no good can come from it but thats just my opinion, I'm sure that there are plenty others around who smoke who think very differently from me

[OrbitingElle]

Maybe you could tax them with their health insurance but it just comes down to the fact that you're not going to stop someone from smoking if they don't want to stop. Its a disgusting habit and no good can come from it but thats just my opinion, I'm sure that there are plenty others around who smoke who think very differently from me

You're exactly right. I think that no matter how much you tax cigarettes, people are going to keep smoking. But the plus side of that would be that the extra money from the taxes could go toward the cost associated with smokers' diseases.

Social security is going bankrupt, doctors are having to pay sky-high medical malpractice insurance because of the frivilous lawsuit craze, and insurance rates in general are going up partly due to the rising cost of having to treat so many smokers later in life. Higher taxes on tobacco make sense, because the money is needed in so many places.

[JofpGallagher]

You're exactly right. I think that no matter how much you tax cigarettes, people are going to keep smoking. But the plus side of that would be that the extra money from the taxes could go toward the cost associated with smokers' diseases.
Cigarettes are in the ineelastic zone of the demand-supply curve, but abruptly increasing taxes will make them very elasic which is something neither the government nor the producers want. Cigarettes makers have a very strong lobby so it's very unlikely that local governments (Specially those with a big tobacco activity like north Carolina and Virginia) will undertake strong measures against tobacco consumption.

[theseeker]

I just wanted to say, it has been proven that secondhand cigarette smoke is more dangerous, because when you smoke an ordinary cigarette, you usually have a filter. Since this filters out some of the dangerous chemicals, then it is logical that those chemicals are going are being released into the air around the smoker. A non-smoking person does not usually have a giant filter attached to their face.

[Bhodi]

I just wanted to say, it has been proven that secondhand cigarette smoke is more dangerous, because when you smoke an ordinary cigarette, you usually have a filter. Since this filters out some of the dangerous chemicals, then it is logical that those chemicals are going are being released into the air around the smoker. A non-smoking person does not usually have a giant filter attached to their face.

I'll tell y'all what... We'll chalk this up to poor wording of the original statement...

Research clearly indicates that the most dangerous type of smoke from a cigarette (purely from a chemical standpoint) is the smoke wafting off the lit end, followed by the exhaled smoke and the inhaled smoke -- I assume we all agree on that...

Of course, to say that "secondhand smoke is more dangerous than smoking yourself" is inaccurate at best, because it is ignoring the fact that the smoker inhales a far greater quantity and higher concentration of the "less dangerous" [from a chemical standpoint] type of smoke than the nonsmoker inhales of the "more dangerous" smoke [which dissipates into the surrounding environment -- the nonsmoker never breathes in a concentrated lungfull of either the sidestream smoke off the lit end or of the exhaled smoke (unless the smoker exhales directly into the nonsmoker's lungs)]...

Research clearly indicates that secondhand smoke is bad for you... Research clearly indicates that smoking is bad for you... Statistics clearly demonstrate, however, that partaking directly in the smoking habit is far more dangerous than casual inhalation of secondhand smoke, as the number of smokers who develop lung cancer greatly outstrips the number of nonsmokers who develop lung cancer through contact with secondhand smoke...

[Dru Malfoy]

I'm a non-smoker. I have never smoked nor will I ever do so.

I really hate it when people smoke. I find the smell really awful. My eyes get irritated and I develop a cough whenever someone is smoking in my presence.

I think you can't ban smoking, neither is it any use telling people that smoking is harmful to their health because they know that already and smoke anyway. I don't really mind them smoking but I would prefer them to smoke in their own houses or flats and not in public places, especially when they are small or when people are eating there.

[Tane]

Research clearly indicates that secondhand smoke is bad for you... Research clearly indicates that smoking is bad for you... Statistics clearly demonstrate, however, that partaking directly in the smoking habit is far more dangerous than casual inhalation of secondhand smoke, as the number of smokers who develop lung cancer greatly outstrips the number of nonsmokers who develop lung cancer through contact with secondhand smoke...

Yes but then that is like saying it does not matter about those who choose not to smoke but die from secondhand smoke simply because the numbers are smaller.

Why should any non-smoker die at the expense of a smoker’s addiction?

Surely the solution is to ban smoking altogether that way the smoker and the non-smoker breathing in secondhand smoke do not have to die at all. It benefits both parties really.

On another note smoking has been banned from the shopping center I go to just this month and a survey recently done showed 73% in favor of banning smoking in a public place and I guess the 27% that disagreed where probably smokers. I will have to hunt around the net to see if I can find those numbers as the survey was done a week ago and on national TV.

[Bhodi]

Yes but then that is like saying it does not matter about those who choose not to smoke but die from secondhand smoke simply because the numbers are smaller.

Huh? I was commenting on the accuracy of someone's statement, not advancing an argument about whether or not smoking should be banned...

Surely the solution is to ban smoking altogether that way the smoker and the non-smoker breathing in secondhand smoke do not have to die at all. It benefits both parties really.

I disagree... There are many habits and behaviors that we engage in that have a negative impact on others around us... If we banned all such behaviors, I'm afraid we'd be left with little to do...

I do agree with folks who argue that smoking should be restricted so as to negate its impact on those who don't wish to be around it... But to suggest that it should be banned altogether is a bit extreme and archaic, IMHO...

[mina]

I don't think it really matters which kind of smoke is more dangerous, because either way smokers are still knowingly causing harm to others.

[OrbitingElle]

Surely the solution is to ban smoking altogether that way the smoker and the non-smoker breathing in secondhand smoke do not have to die at all. It benefits both parties really.

If you are talking about banning smoking in public all together, then I agree with you. Banning smoking itself is unwise, and wouldn't last long even if we could get a law passed. Remember prohibition? Banning alcohol didn't stop anyone from drinking (well, it may have been less available, but everyone still WANTED to drink), it just increased the number of people getting in trouble for doing it. Marijuana is illegal, but it's available in every city, in every state, because the law isn't going to stop people from using it.

I'll bring up my over-population argument again. 440,000 Americans die from smoking every year? (This is a fact, according to theTruth.com.) Where do anti-smoking advocates suggest we put an extra 440,000 people a year? And that's only in the US! If those 440,000 don't die from smoking, they'll die from something else. And then everyone will talk about how whatever other thing that killed them is a tragedy instead. People die for a reason.

The fact of the matter is that public smoking affects non-smokers and is therefore a negative thing. But smoking in private is a choice made by the smoker and it shouldn't be anyone else's job to stop them, other than perhaps those close to them who want them to live a long life.

[Tane]

Yes I think banning smoking in all public places should be implemented but even though it is banned in some places it is not policed well enough to maintain the restricted ban.

Should the NHS pay for the millions of pounds spent on medical remedies for smokers or the companies who provide the cigarettes?

[mina]

I'll bring up my over-population argument again. 440,000 Americans die from smoking every year? (This is a fact, according to theTruth.com.) Where do anti-smoking advocates suggest we put an extra 440,000 people a year? And that's only in the US! If those 440,000 don't die from smoking, they'll die from something else. And then everyone will talk about how whatever other thing that killed them is a tragedy instead. People die for a reason.

I agree with you on the over-population thing (I even brought it up in the abortion thread), but the deaths caused by smoking are not quick deaths. Those people almost always suffer for a long time before they die. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather die from something else than by smoke.

[Tane]

Yes but out of the 440,000 people there are those who did not smoke yet died at the hands of someone that did. Do there lives count?

[OrbitingElle]

Yes but out of the 440,000 people there are those who did not smoke yet died at the hands of someone that did. Do there lives count?

...sighhh...

Okay, according to that same website, 50,000 of those 440,000 people die from second-hand smoke. So I will revise my statement. "Where do anti-smoking advocates suggest we put an extra 390,000 people a year?"

[DrummerboyDT]

It does seem like a lot more people are turned off by smoking, but then a lot more people think drinking is okay. I've lost some realitives to lung cancer due to smoking and to heart disease due to drinking problems. It's all bad.

[star22]

Smoking is worse than drinking because the smoke gets into others lungs as well as your own. Yes, both kill and both hurt others, but I believe that smoking is worse. Also, drinking is only bad in large doses, enough to get drunk. Smoking is bad from the first cigarette you take.

[Wab]

Should the NHS pay for the millions of pounds spent on medical remedies for smokers or the companies who provide the cigarettes?

Well considering the government gets huge amounts of revenue from taxes and excise on tobacco it's highly unlikely that it will ever be banned and, looking at it another way, a great deal of that boon probably goes to the NHS.

You might as well say that brewers and pubs should pay for people with alcohol related conditions and industry in general for diseases caused by pollution.

[Tane]

Well considering the government gets huge amounts of revenue from taxes and excise on tobacco it's highly unlikely that it will ever be banned and, looking at it another way, a great deal of that boon probably goes to the NHS.

It should go to the NHS but look at it this way, it is money not really needed to be raised by taxes in the first place if people did not smoke and get ill. Then there is the fire hazards associated with household smoking. More people including families are killed through smoking accidents per year than any other for of fire hazard around.

Fire hazards caused by not putting out cigarettes properly kill those who do not smoke as well.

[Dru Malfoy]

I disagree... There are many habits and behaviors that we engage in that have a negative impact on others around us... If we banned all such behaviors, I'm afraid we'd be left with little to do...


I'm not aware that I'm doing or have ever done anything that would have a negative impact on others around me (negative impact now meaning a hazard to their health). Maybe you could give a few examples of what kind of things you mean.

If you're thinking of alcohol... Alcohol only harms people who drink it. Nicotine also harms people who don't smoke but have to live in an environment where people smoke. You might say, that drunk people endanger others but then, remember: to do anything where you could endanger anybody while being drunk (e.g. driving) has already been banned.

So what exactly did you think of?

[Pegasus]

Dru Malfoy stated:Alcohol only harms people who drink it. Nicotine also harms people who don't smoke but have to live in an environment where people smoke. You might say, that drunk people endanger others but then, remember: to do anything where you could endanger anybody while being drunk (e.g. driving) has already been banned.
If you're talking about what some people call "social" drinking, I can see your point to an extent. But then there are the other things people sometimes do when they're drunk--vandalize, become sexually irresponsible, hurt their families....

[Wab]

I'm not aware that I'm doing or have ever done anything that would have a negative impact on others around me (negative impact now meaning a hazard to their health). Maybe you could give a few examples of what kind of things you mean.

You have a computer so you obviously use electricity. I grew up in an area where that electricity was generated and had the highest rate of asthma due to the power stations, emissions from the petrol powered vehicles you ride in pollute the atmosphere and also aggravate respiratory conditions.

[Liselle]

smoking ban in public places comes into affect in Ireland tomorrow *yay!* I can go out and no longer pong of other poeple's smoke when I get home!

[Wab]

smoking ban in public places comes into affect in Ireland tomorrow *yay!* I can go out and no longer pong of other poeple's smoke when I get home!

Funny, when I got home from country pubs when I was last in Ireland I smelt of peat smoke.

[Liselle]

What pubs were you in?! You must have been out in the middle of nowhere!! Very few pubs in Ireland have open fires (Except real "old man pubs" in the west of Ireland or any of the gaeltachts)

[Wab]

West of Galway.

[Dru Malfoy]

Dru Malfoy stated:
If you're talking about what some people call "social" drinking, I can see your point to an extent. But then there are the other things people sometimes do when they're drunk--vandalize, become sexually irresponsible, hurt their families....

Okay, be careful there. Being drunk is not the same as to drink! I don't harm anybody by drinking as such. That some people really drink excessively and do all the things you've mentioned is another matter. AND remember, what we were talking about was a counter-argument to what Bhodi said, that if we banned all vices there would be nothing more to enjoy life (or about that, that's why I asked for a clarification of that statement) - and I don't agree at all.

You're totally right with everything you said, UtahMom, I still think it is no valid argument to say: there are worse things so let them go on smoking and ruin other people's health because what drunk people do is really a lot worse.

Let me just give you an example: a friend of mine never smoked. Some time ago she started to have problems breathing, developed a chronic cough... stuff like that. She went to see a doctor and got a lung-x-ray done. The docter told her to stop smoking immediately because her lung was damaged. She said, she has never smoked and he asked her if she worked in a smoking environment. As a matter of fact she works with about 8 other people in an office and all of those people smoke a lot. So she's having her lung damaged because others smoke... I think that's something that could be avoided by banning smoking in public places and at work.

You have a computer so you obviously use electricity. I grew up in an area where that electricity was generated and had the highest rate of asthma due to the power stations, emissions from the petrol powered vehicles you ride in pollute the atmosphere and also aggravate respiratory conditions.

Yes, but I'm not doing this out of choice. You see, I have to work, I have to go to work and I cannot just start going away (because if I don't work I have no money to do that) to live on an island where I just live of fruit and berries and don't use anything electric.

What I'm trying to get at is: there are some things that you just can't avoid unless you are prepared to leave society as such. And there are things you can do that are not necessary at all but ADD UP to the polution around you and to the harm that is done to people's healths.

Smoking falls into the second category. It is something you do out of addiction and pleasure you take from satisfying your addiction. And it is unfair for others who have to suffer from another person's addiction.

And again: just because there are other things that cause health problems does not justify to sanction an addiction through which also people around the addicted person are harmed.

[Wab]

I'm not aware that I'm doing or have ever done anything that would have a negative impact on others around me (negative impact now meaning a hazard to their health). Maybe you could give a few examples of what kind of things you mean.

OKay, how about having an open fire, burning leaves in the backyard, improperly disposing of batteries (especially rechargeable NiCads), playing music late at night.

[Liselle]

West of Galway.

ahh deepest darkest wettest Ireland.....its clear now!

[Dru Malfoy]

OKay, how about having an open fire, burning leaves in the backyard, improperly disposing of batteries (especially rechargeable NiCads), playing music late at night.

Sorry to disappoint you, I don't do any of those things. Open fires are forbidden where I live, I don't have a backyard, I bring my batteries to my pharmacy who dispose of it and if I play music late at night I use my headphones.

Besides... even people who do those kinds of things don't do that for pleasure (except for the playing music bit) or to give in to an addiction.

I still think smoking is different because it's something you CAN avoid quite easily (unless you're addicted, of course. Best thing is to not start smoking in the first place.)

[Pegasus]

You're totally right with everything you said, UtahMom, I still think it is no valid argument to say: there are worse things so let them go on smoking and ruin other people's health because what drunk people do is really a lot worse.
That's what I get for posting late at night and not catching up with the conversation. I don't drink or smoke, and I don't like being around people who have been doing either. Cigarette smoke is the worst smell in the world, and it's not good for you either. I also don't like the way people act when they've been drinking--I don't even like to drink caffeine because it alters my behavior (I bounce off the walls). Really, I'm against both. But since this thread is about smoking in public places, I've already stated that it's rude, unpleasant, and, in some cases, lethal.

[Liselle]

I still think smoking is different because it's something you CAN avoid quite easily (unless you're addicted, of course. Best thing is to not start smoking in the first place.)

I totally agree :agree:, what bothers me the most about smokers is that they feel its ok to impose their disgusting habit on others..not cool people! I have no problem with people smoking just preferably not around me, I choose not to smoke...you choose to smoke, please don't inflict it on me. Its not a huge thing to ask.

[OmarGama]

I'm a non-smoker and I think that I will never like to smoke because I know that the smoke of a cigarette can be dangerous. My uncle smoke and when he goes outside to smoke he spend like 6 or 7 minutes of his life in smoking, and when he returns to home he smells horrible. Weel I also know that the cigarette can cause alot of diseases like lung cancer and other kind of disease like cough very very noise.

[mina]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040404/hl_nm/health_smoking_dc_3

[Aoweil]

I live in New York. Last summer a smoking ban was put in place. You can't smoke in any public place. The only public place you can smoke is the building where the lawmakers who thought up this lban work, but that's another story. My parents own a tavern, and a lot of smokers hang out in bars. This ban has cost my parents a lot of buisness. A lot of the smokers are signing up at the private clubs where they are allowed to smoke because techinally a club where you have to pay a fee to use the facility is not a public place. Anyway, I'm a non-smoker, and I don't actually miss the cigarette smoke, but it's the principle of the matter. Smokers have rights as well as non-smokers. Where do you cross the line? There are some perfumes that other people find offensive. Should there be seperate sections for people wearing perfume and those who are not? Should wearing perfume in public places be banned? Some people find the smell of certain foods to be absolutly disgusting and make them want to gag. Should those foods not be served anymore? Should there be seperate sections for people who order those foods? How long do you actually spend in a restaraunt? How many times do you go out to eat? Is it really enough to inhale so much smoke that you get lung cancer? How much time and how many days out of a year do you spend in a mall? How many people are actually walking around smoking with an ashtray in their hands? It really should be up to the owners of the establishment to decide if they will allow smoking. The government shouldn't dictate how people run their lives. If someone is allergic to or doesn't like cigarette smoke, they have the option of going to a place where smoking is not allowed.

[Liselle]

I see where you're coming from the the scent of perfume or of food while replusive to some is not cancer causing/illness causing and thats what it comes down to. Its fine to say if people don't like smoke can go else where but the simple matter is there will always be smokers and from what I've seen they are in the minority....the minority of people affect the majority of us.

ON a slight aside, since the smoking ban has been introduced people have been complaining of the smells in their pubs/restuarants...the *noxious* gases (i.e. bodily functions, vomit, stale drink etc) can be smelled clearly now as the flames from cigarettes/pipes no longer burn off the gases or mask the smells! :p

[FirefightingMuggle]

Part of being a smoker is learning to be a considerate smoker. If you are riding in a car with a non-smoker, ask before you light up. Don't smoke in Non-smoking sections of restraunts and don't smoke in non-smoking hotel rooms. Learn to smoke in designated smoking areas. Be considerate of people who have chosen not to smoke.
BUT non-smokers need to be considerate too. Don't say "First Available" at restraunts. If you don't want to be around smoke, sit in the non-smoking section. A lot of restraunts in my area are putting up walls around smoking sections or putting smokers in a different room. Give a non-smoking preferance when requesting tables at restraunts and when reserving hotel rooms.
At our firehall we have about 6 smokers out of 30 total members. The smokers are not allowed to smoke during meetings, on trucks, or on the fire ground. But, our firehall has a smoke eater/air purification system. When the meetings are over and the calls are done and people are smoking, this system is turned on and it works. No one complains. We all deal with each other and respect the rules about smoking that have been laid down. Its about being considerate to each other. If you smoke in the building, turn on the smoke-eater. That's the rule, it's just considerate.

This whole issue is about give and take. We all need to learn to deal with each other and be considerate to the needs and rights of the other group of people. I think that sometimes that people get so caught up in their own point of view that they overlook the opinion of the other side. If we could all learn to be just a little more considerate of each other, we could easily solve this problem.

[Liselle]

Its great though, I don't have to worry about this issue when I go out anymore :tu: Michael Martin!!

Its a bone of contention though, but you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time!

[PadfootBlack]

Just a quick question, I know why non-smokers don't smoke. For health benefits, of course. But, why do smokers smoke? What is it about smoking that makes it SO appealing to you? Is it the frequent cigarette breaks while you're at work? (just kidding) But seriously, I've been curious about that for a long time.

[Wab]

ahh deepest darkest wettest Ireland.....its clear now!

It's never clear west of Galway...especially after six Guinnesses and a Harp.

[Wab]

Just a quick question, I know why non-smokers don't smoke. For health benefits, of course. But, why do smokers smoke? What is it about smoking that makes it SO appealing to you? Is it the frequent cigarette breaks while you're at work? (just kidding) But seriously, I've been curious about that for a long time.

I don't smoke. But most long-term smokers I know did it because it's something you try and nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. Moreso than heroin it's believed.

[Liselle]

It's never clear west of Galway...especially after six Guinnesses and a Harp.
True...its just quite wet!

[Tiberius]

Anyway, I'm a non-smoker, and I don't actually miss the cigarette smoke, but it's the principle of the matter. Smokers have rights as well as non-smokers. Where do you cross the line? There are some perfumes that other people find offensive. Should there be seperate sections for people wearing perfume and those who are not? Should wearing perfume in public places be banned? Some people find the smell of certain foods to be absolutly disgusting and make them want to gag. Should those foods not be served anymore? Should there be seperate sections for people who order those foods? How long do you actually spend in a restaraunt? How many times do you go out to eat? Is it really enough to inhale so much smoke that you get lung cancer? How much time and how many days out of a year do you spend in a mall? How many people are actually walking around smoking with an ashtray in their hands?

Cigarette smoke, unlike food smells, does cause significant health problems. An asthmatic person can easily have an attack because of a single person smoking a cigarette.

Also, how many people walk around wearing perfume that is so thick it makes you cough? A tiny number, nowhere near the number of people who walk around smoking.

And the smell of food? Well, let's say you can't stand the smell of McDonald's. So you don't go into a McDonalds restaurant. The smell of food is generally pretty limited to the place where it is cooked and served. The smell of cigarette smoke follows the smokers. Food smells can be easily isolated, cigarette smoke cannot.

Also, if you find a smell offensive, once you leave, it is gone. If you stand next to a sewer, it stinks. If you leave, you no longer smell the offending odour. It has no lasting effects. However, I'm very sure that breathing secondhand smoke is accumulative. While you smell it, it does damage. And that damage doesn't really get repaired. That's why people who quit smoking have worse lungs than people who have never smoked, even if they quit many years ago.

[Wab]

Smoking is legal. If you want rid of the smell lobby your local member for a ban. Guess what? You'll never get it because govt looooooooves the tax dollars it brings. Were smoking banned other taxes would have to be montrously jacked up to fill the hole.

[thinkpink38]

Just a quick question, I know why non-smokers don't smoke. For health benefits, of course. But, why do smokers smoke? What is it about smoking that makes it SO appealing to you? Is it the frequent cigarette breaks while you're at work? (just kidding) But seriously, I've been curious about that for a long time.

I geuss, because they see smoking as a stress reliever, and also like Wab has stated, it's very addictive. Some people, as shallow as this might sound, do it to stay thin.

[FirefightingMuggle]

Smoking is a habit. It's like picking your nose, or biting your nails. It's just something that people do. I'm sure there are like real psychological explanations for why people smoke, I don't know what they are.
I know for some people it is stress relief, but for others, I think it's just a habit. I know people who light a cigarette as soon as they get in their car. It's habit. I know people who light a cigarette as soon as they are done eating. But I also know people who chew their nails every time the nail grows beyond the finger tip. I know people who pick their noses after fires (I think that's just to get all the black icky **** out of there). It's habit for a lot of people. Granted they may be addicted, but aren't nail biters also addicted to their habit? For some people I think it's just about going through the motion of smoking.

[Wab]

Granted they may be addicted, but aren't nail biters also addicted to their habit?

There's a huge difference between habit and addiction. Habit is a psychological tic addiction is a genuine physical craving.

[crookshanksmom]

I recently moved from California to New Jersey, so this is a good discussion for me. In California, there is NO SMOKING in any public building. Restaraunts don't even have smoking sections. If you want to smoke, you go outside. I notice now that I live in a different state where there are smoking sections, that smoke tends to drift even into our non-smoking sections. I have asthma and really should not be exposed to smoke, so it's irritating when I have to smell it when I'm trying to enjoy a relaxing dinner out of our home. I am sure there are other people with this problem too. I think that smoking should be banned in all public buildings world-wide. If you want to smoke, that is your buisness, but don't damage the health of non-smokers while you are at it.

[Kalypso]

I think I agree with the majority when I say that I don't like it when people smoke in public places, especially in confined spaces like pubs and restaurants. And that any kind of separation between smoking and non-smoking areas is pretty much a sham because smoke has a nasty tendency to not pay attention to the notices saying it's in the wrong place. I rarely smoke and I hate it when I can smell other people's stale cigarette smoke. One of the worst parts is that is clings to you, and gets in your clothes and hair, as well as the obvious fact that passive smoking is harmful to your lungs, skin etc.

I don't have a problem with smoking in public outside so much, but it's when you can't get away from it and the smoke has nowhere to escape to that I really get fed up. I seriously consider going up to people and asking them to put it out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to infringe on anyone's right to get cancer, but I would like to be able to go where I want without harming my health. Yes, I am biased as I'm a non-smoker, but in my opinion there are no benefits to smoking, so I'd find it hard to take the side of a smoker. Smoking may make people less stressed etc, but that is because they are addicted and their body is glad of the nicotine rush. Which isn't really a good thing. Anyway, the fact is that non-smokers do not harm smokers by not smoking, so it seems logical that they (non-smokers) shouldn’t have to be harmed by people smoking.

I think that smokers should only be allowed to smoke where it isn’t going to have a negative effect on other people. Why should non smokers have to put up with inhaling poisonous gas? If the government pumped carbon monoxide into the air in restaurants there would be public outcry. Apart from the fact it’s publicly accepted where I live, allowing smoking in confined spaces where other people are forced to inhale it seems to me a similar thing.

[Wab]

You get that carbon monoxide thing eating in sidewalk cafes.

[Kalypso]

True, and I don't like the pollution that the amount of cars on the road brings either. I think that there should be more pedestrian areas, and people should use cars less and walk or use public transport etc more.

An outright ban on smoking couldn't work, because people would smoke anyway. It would be like trying to enforce prohibition. I do however think it's very reasonable to ban it in public places where it can harm others. I used to smoke occaisonally (but VERY rarely) for social reasons, but when I did I made sure it wasn't going to harm other people. I'd like them to show the same consideratiobn to me.

Banning smoking in public places might also encourage people to try to quit. Nearly everyone I know who smokes wishes they could give up.

It's true that a lot of tax money comes from smokers, and the pro-smoking lobby seem to use this as a reason smoking is good. (However, a lot of tax money is spent on treating lung cancer.) Anyway, smokers paying lots of money isn't a good thing for smokers, so you'd think if there was any incentive for them to quit it would be that.

I actually value my health more than money anyway, and the debate isn't about whether smoking should be banned full stop; it's about whether it should be banned in public places. By all means let smokers poison themslves where they're not harming others - just don't bring the death sticks near me.

I also think it should be illegal to smoke near babies or young children, wherever it is, because they don't have the opportunity to move away.

[Wab]

An outright ban on smoking couldn't work, because people would smoke anyway.

Then you might as well legalise heroin and theft. They're illegal but people still do them.

I used to smoke occaisonally (but VERY rarely) for social reasons, but when I did I made sure it wasn't going to harm other people.

So you were a sociable recluse?

[Kalypso]

No, I meant other people who weren't also smoking. But you know I meant that; you're just trying to be obtuse. So do you think smoking should be banned in public places? Could it be enforced? How about you give some of your own views instead of just picking holes in other peoples'?

Smoking is nowhere near as harmful as heroin, and I don't think the two can be compared. Also, the amount of people that use heroin and steal is much smaller than the amount that smoke. If smoking was banned, half the population would be criminals.

I didn't mean that I thought smoking should be legal - I said that an outright ban would be impractical and wouldn't work. I would love it if smoking was successfully banned. Unfortunately I don't think this is ever likely to happen.

[Wab]

No, I meant other people who weren't also smoking. But you know I meant that; you're just trying to be obtuse.

Just pointing that you'd either have to smoke alone or be where everyone was smoking.

So do you think smoking should be banned in public places?

No.

How about you give some of your own views instead of just picking holes in other peoples'?

I've posted my views already. I have no problem with being around smokers except during meals and I don't know any smokers that crass.

Smoking is nowhere near as harmful as heroin, and I don't think the two can be compared.

Actually in it's pure form heroin (diamorphine) is safer than tobacco provided you don't overdose which is one thing that is impossible to do from nicotine delivered by tobacco smoking.

It's effects are similar to most opiates (including morphine) and it has similar dangers with the biggest being addiction. Most of the severe physical dangers (scarring, collapsed veins, HIV, Hep C) are due to the most popular method of administration and impurities.

Also, the amount of people that use heroin and steal is much smaller than the amount that smoke.

That's because it's illegal.

If smoking was banned, half the population would be criminals.

Like all the people addicted to heroin before it was banned.

[Kalypso]

Interesting. I know you didn't say this, but do you feel it would be a good idea to legalise heroin? The government could then regulate what goes into it, etc.

The way I see it, whether impure or not, using heroin is by far more dangerous than smoking. This is because once addicted, using heroin takes over your life. The only thing you can think about it getting your next fix. An addiction to nicotine is very stong, yes, but it doesn't control your life. You also, like you said, cannot overdose from smoking a cigarette, so it can't be immediately fatal, although very dangerous in the long run.

I don't really know whether I think smoking should be banned or not in all public places or not. I can see that it could harm business, and also that people have the option to go somewhere else. Then again, I also don't think it's fair that people who choose not to smoke should have to inhale it anyway.

How effective has the ban been in places where it is already enforced, anyway?

[HollywoodBob]

You know it's funny I recently heard that heroin is cheaper and easier to get ahold of since it became illegal than it was when it was an uncontrolled substance. But that's off topic.

-HollywoodBob

[Wab]

Interesting. I know you didn't say this, but do you feel it would be a good idea to legalise heroin? The government could then regulate what goes into it, etc.

Depending on where you live it is still used as a very effective therapeutic drug:

"Diamorphine resembles morphine, another opiate, in its actions and uses, but produces better pain relief with less severe side effects when given intravenously.

The drug relieves the severe pain that can be caused by injury, surgery, heart attack or chronic diseases such as cancer.

It is also used to relieve distress in acute heart failure and occasionally as a cough suppressant when other remedies have been ineffective.

It can come in tablet or liquid form. For severe pain a dose of 5-10mg intravenously is recommended."

This is because once addicted, using heroin takes over your life. The only thing you can think about it getting your next fix.

But used properly:

"Most patients taking this drug for pain relief over brief periods of time do not become dependent, and are able to stop taking the drug without difficulty.

However, people who use this drug for its euphoric effects are highly likely to become addicted."

But addiction is neither immediate nor the curse of the casual user:

"If the drug is misused for extended periods (my italics), the user is likely to become physically dependent."

And:

"Death from overdose is not common."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/the_shipman_murders/the_shipman_files/610787.stm

That said, I don't endorse the open availability of heroin anymore than I would any other narcotics because they are too tricky to be used without proper supervision.

But it is a useful tool and shouldn't be subject to a universal ban.

[Tane]

Well in the city closet to me they banned drinking alcohol outside, you can only drink this in puds, so I think that sets a presidency for banning smoking in public places too. They both affect people how either drink or smoke and those around them. I don't smoke and rarely drink, when I do drink which is normally on special occasions in pubs or in the privacy of my own home I never drink outside unless it is in the garden at home. I don't want my cloths smelling of smoke from other people who have cigarettes nor do I want to get the cancers from secondary smoke inhalation.

[Kalypso]

Tane, you’re from Lands End? In Cornwall? If not, meh.

Yes, heroin is a very useful medicinal tool. As a point of fact, my Grandad used morphine as a painkiller when he was dying of cancer, after being a heavy smoker. He’d given up years before, but the damage was done. If it wasn't for the fact he'd smoked he might well still be alive. But anyway, as a recreational drug, it’s obvious heroin is seriously dangerous and addictive.

I hate smoking because it’s ruined the lives of a lot of people I know. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking, so why should it be legal to subject others to it? What I don’t like is when people say they have the ‘right to smoke where they want.’ Actually, they don’t. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it does not say ‘Everyone has a right to smoke where they want’. However, it does say that everyone has the right to life and the right to the highest standard of health and healthcare possible.

Also, in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN General Assembly), it says
Article 6
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

As I am 16, I am defined in this act as a child. Therefore by law I should not have to run the risk of harming my respiratory system through passive smoking in public, which could have serious negative implications on my future health. Where I live, smoking is permitted in a lot of public places. This seems in violation of this act. Of course, there are other things that harm people, but this debate isn't about them.

I also feel strongly that parents should face penalties for smoking around young children, even if it’s not in public. This is because the children don’t have a chance to move away from it, or a choice. I don't know how this could be enforced, but in my view something needs to be done.

Oh yeah, does anyone know how effective the smoking ban has been where it's already in place?

EDIT: Also, Article 19, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

(Talking about freedom of speech and freedom of expression etc) - 'The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.' So you have the right to do and say what you like, so long as it doesn't hurt other people.

[PhoenixUK]

As I am 16, I am defined in this act as a child. Therefore by law I should not have to run the risk of harming my respiratory system through passive smoking in public, which could have serious negative implications on my future health. Where I live, smoking is permitted in a lot of public places. This seems in violation of this act. Of course, there are other things that harm people, but this debate isn't about them. But, in reality, the danger of you catching lung cancer from passive smoking is tiny. The great majority of all deaths caused by passive smoking are by people like bar staff, who don't smoke but actively make the choice to be around smokers for a large proportion of their time. In reality, more people die from getting hit by cars, however, we don't ban people from driving cars, or more practically, enforce better pedestrian safety on car manafacturers. Why? Because smokers are an easy target because they're already in the minority, and solving the problem is easier.

Although you have the right to health, it doesn't mean that every single thing that is possibly unhealthy should be removed: or else we'd live in a totally sanitised world, which would be unappealing and unpractical.

I also feel strongly that parents should face penalties for smoking around young children, even if it’s not in public. This is because the children don’t have a chance to move away from it, or a choice. I don't know how this could be enforced, but in my view something needs to be done. Do you not think better education on the dangers of smoking around young children might be better, instead of simply punishing people to try and make them stop? Plus, as you say, it would be impossible to enforce without having some sort of Big Brother state.

[Tiberius]

But, in reality, the danger of you catching lung cancer from passive smoking is tiny. The great majority of all deaths caused by passive smoking are by people like bar staff, who don't smoke but actively make the choice to be around smokers for a large proportion of their time.

This isn't what i've heard. Is there a website that can support this?

Plus, as you say, it would be impossible to enforce without having some sort of Big Brother state.

Would that really be so bad? A Big Brother state? Sure, we'd be tracked wherever we go, but really, how bad is this? So what if the government knows when we get our shopping done? And it can protect us as well, by proving that we weren't at the bank when it was robbed, so we couldn't possibly be the criminal. This is off topic, but there's a thread in this. If there isn't one already, I'll start one if there's any intrest.

[DrummerboyDT]

In one way, I think smoking should be banned because I hate smoke, but I also think that government shouldn't control our lives. I think there should be increased government enforced restriction and regulations on the tabacco companies. Raising the tax on cigarettes isn't really helping. Since nicotine is addictive, smokers will just shell out more money. I think the federal government in the U.S. knew that and that way, the federal government is just trying to make a profit off the sales tax. I do however think that smoking should be considered as disturbing the peace or causing personal injury. I don't know, anything to keep the smoke out of my lungs.

[Kalypso]

But, in reality, the danger of you catching lung cancer from passive smoking is tiny. The great majority of all deaths caused by passive smoking are by people like bar staff, who don't smoke but actively make the choice to be around smokers for a large proportion of their time. In reality, more people die from getting hit by cars, however, we don't ban people from driving cars, or more practically, enforce better pedestrian safety on car manafacturers. Why? Because smokers are an easy target because they're already in the minority, and solving the problem is easier.
There are other things smoking does to you besides cancer. I know for a fact that often when I have gone out where people have been smoking I come home coughing etc. One example was last week when I went to a pub (not to drink) to watch a band. Less than a third of the people in there were smoking, but it may as well have been all of us. I know this was our choice to be there, but I wanted to see the band so I put up with the smoke. This doesn't mean I liked it or thought I should have to.

Every year in the US, passive smoking causes:

*An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers
*About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
*Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
*150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in *7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
*Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children

Like you said, it's easier to enforce a smoking ban than a driving ban. This is because we don't need to smoke. Apart from the money it brings, there are no benefits from it. Cars are dangerous, but they are now a necessity.

Would that really be so bad? A Big Brother state? Sure, we'd be tracked wherever we go, but really, how bad is this?
Well it would go against all democratic values such as freedom or speech and privacy, but if you feel that's a good thing then no doubt Big Brother would be brilliant!

If it comes down to it, unlike many other dangerous things, smoking could realistically be banned in public places. We know smoking is dangerous both to the smoker and people around the smoker. We know smoking is highly addictive. However we also know the government loves smokers, because of the huge amount of tax they get. If the government didn't get tax money, I think smoking would have been banned a long time ago.

So is this fair that the government is selling the health of the public? To me, no. But if smoking were to be banned in confined spaces in public only (which is what I have a problem with), people would still buy cigarettes because they are addicted. They would smoke at home or outside, and the government would still get money. I don't have a problem so much with people who smoke outside because the smoke can escape. I don't like places where you are forced to inhale smoke or leave, because there is nowhere for the smoke to go. Banning smoking wouldn't just be for the benefit of non smokers, I think it would help smokers too, perhaps by encouraging them to quit or cut down.

Banning smoking in confined public areas I think would be a very good thing. The people that say 'I wouldn't go out if I coudn't smoke anymore' to me are very sad, if the only thing they have to go out for is a cigarette.

Do you not think better education on the dangers of smoking around young children might be better, instead of simply punishing people to try and make them stop?
I don't think education is so much of a problem; everyone knows smoking around others is harmful to them, but many do it anyway. To me, smoking around children who have no choice in the matter is no better than abuse. It is harming the child and if the kid is subjected to it for long enough it can contribute to athma, skin conditions, other respiratory problems.. numerous other problems, not just cancer. The parent while smoking around the child is knowingly causing the child harm, and I don't think it's right.

From the US Surgeon's General Report - 'When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures'

Enforcing a ban on parents with young children smoking in their own homes would be a problem. However, if a parent abuses a child in another way in their home, they are not innocent because it is in private. If it could be proven the child is suffering, I don't think there should be any distinction.

[Wab]

Cars are dangerous, but they are now a necessity.


No they aren't. People are just too dull and unimaginative to consider alternatives.

[HollywoodBob]

The great majority of all deaths caused by passive smoking are by people like bar staff, who don't smoke but actively make the choice to be around smokers for a large proportion of their time.Actually the proper term should be "attributed to" not "caused by." The EPA report that anti smoking advocates used to get smoking banned was erroneous. It attributed any deaths of a cardio-pulmonary nature to second hand smoke without looking at any other lifestyle features such as bad diet, lethargy, an more over heredity. It was simply that if they lived or worked around smokers they died because of the smoke. If second hand smoke was as serious a health risk as they claim, every bartender/waitress would die of lung cancer, but they don't, a few do, but the numbers are so miniscule that the probability is higher that they developed the cancer naturally rather then from the exposure to the smoke.

Every year in the US, passive smoking causes:

*An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers
*About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
*Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
*150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in *7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
*Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic childrenSee above for deaths. I don't think anyone is claiming that second hand smoke doesn't cause any lung irritation. As for the ways that children are affected, any parent that smokes around their little kids needs slapped (my sister included). Sometimes I think a few stiffer child endangerment laws and we'd have parents that didn't smoke. But then again we might just end up with more parents not taking their sick kids to the doctor.

-HollywoodBob

[Wab]

As for the ways that children are affected, any parent that smokes around their little kids needs slapped (my sister included).

But then so shoud parents who feed their kids a diet of fast and processed food.

[Kalypso]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalypso
Cars are dangerous, but they are now a necessity.

No they aren't. People are just too dull and unimaginative to consider alternatives.
Like using horse drawn carriages? Learning to fly? When I said car I included buses etc (because the same dangers apply to them), and unless we want to walk or ride our bikes everywhere (which would be an impossibility given that some people are disabled, need to drive miles a day etc) we do need cars. Granted there are trains etc but from where I live I'd need to be driven to the station in the first place, and it's much too far to get there without. I live in a rural area - we don't have a good public transport system and if I want to go anywhere, cars pretty much are a necessity.

See above for deaths. I don't think anyone is claiming that second hand smoke doesn't cause any lung irritation. As for the ways that children are affected, any parent that smokes around their little kids needs slapped (my sister included). Sometimes I think a few stiffer child endangerment laws and we'd have parents that didn't smoke. But then again we might just end up with more parents not taking their sick kids to the doctor.
True. But there are so many parents I know that smoke around their kids, banning it could only make things better.

I think smoking around children could be defined both as abuse and neglect. Abuse because it is wilfully and knowingly inflicting harm upon the child, and neglect because it is failing to prevent the child from being harmed. Both these things are illegal and yet it's still legal to smoke around a child. (If a parent feeds a child a terrible diet that harms their health, that could probably constitute neglect/abuse too.)

Sometimes I think smoking should just be banned full stop. It's an evil business; the tobacco companies make millions by slowly killing other people. They make the cigarettes highly addictive purely to stop their customers from quitting. Then again I know that at least for the moment an outright ban is pretty much impossible.

Also, people have the right to do pretty much what they want, and if that includes poisoning themselves then so be it. HOWEVER, these rights end when they infringe upon another's rights, for instance their right to the best possible health.

[FirefightingMuggle]

Sometimes I think smoking should just be banned full stop. It's an evil business; the tobacco companies make millions by slowly killing other people. They make the cigarettes highly addictive purely to stop their customers from quitting. Then again I know that at least for the moment an outright ban is pretty much impossible.
.

You hit the nail on the head by saying that an outright ban on smoking would be impossible. The two things that make it impossible: 1) Money. What would governments do with out the tax revenue generated by ciagrettes? They'd have to get to somewhere. The question is who would be willing to pay the difference in sales taxes or property taxes? Right now, only smokers pay the taxes on cigarettes, if it was banned all together, everyone would have to make up the difference. 2) Privacy Rights. If I want to smoke in my own home, I should have that right. If you don't want to smoke in your home, you should also have that right. A ban for public places is different than a ban of smoking all together. What is done in the privacy of one's own home, so long as what is done there is legal, should remain private. Someone smoking in their own home is no different than someone drinking in their own home, or someone running around their house in the buff. It doesn't effect anyone else when it is done in private.

Like I said in a previous post, this whole issue is a matter of people learning to be considerate of other people. Smokers and Non-smokers alike need to learn to be more considerate of the rights of the other group. Smokers should not be smoking in places that are designated NON-smoking. Non-smokers should not complain about smoke if they are in a smoking section, or designated smoking area. If you want to smoke, do it away from other people who do not like smoke. If you don't like smoke, avoid smoking areas. Just be considerate in general. A little bit could go a long way.

[HollywoodBob]

What is done in the privacy of one's own home, so long as what is done there is legal, should remain private. Someone smoking in their own home is no different than someone drinking in their own home, or someone running around their house in the buff.But the legality of such things are subject to change. Once it was legal to smoke pot, then it was made illegal. It was once illegal to drink. Laws have a way of intruding on what people do in the privacy of their own home. I suppose it's rational to say that if someone's door is locked and their curtains are drawn then their house becomes a "sovereign nation" but that really can't be done because there is always someone out there telling you that you can't do what you want, even in your own home.

There's probably no answer to the problem of people doing things that they probably shouldn't, or atleast that others think they shouldn't.

-HollywoodBob

[Wab]

Like using horse drawn carriages? Learning to fly? When I said car I included buses etc (because the same dangers apply to them),

Well, an increaing number of buses over here operate on natural gas and per capita generate far less than the single person I see in cars travelling to work.

and unless w want to walk or ride our bikes everywhere (which would be an impossibility given that some people are disabled, need to drive miles a day etc) we do need cars.

I used to live in a town where I was close enough to school and work and the pub to walk. If people put prooximity to work in their buying plans the extra they may have to pay is saved by not having to drive.

Now I am disabled I would gladly get the bus if they were accessible, I hate the expense of driving to work. (And, housing being what it is the only accessible place I could find is miles from work, but that's another issue.)

Of course the greatest leap of imagination to meet whatever demand there is for cars would have been to develop alternative fuels. With the wisdom of hindsight that could have been done for a fraction of the cost the west has spent propping up corrupt regimes in the Mid East in return for a stable supply of oil.

[Kalypso]

Obviously cars are also harmful to people. Traffic is the largest single killer of young people where I live. However, cars have a use and they help us, whether or not they also harm. Smoking has no use and does not help anyone.

I agree that there are alternatives to cars and I would love it if they were more widely available. If I had the choice I would use a car less. Where possible I walk but realistically in everyday life, to get anywhere I am forced to use a car because public transport is so rubbish.

I think that's getting pretty off topic though.

If I asked somebody whether or not they thought it was right for children to be subjected to poisonous fumes, pretty much anyone would say no. But if I said smoking, many would just dismiss it because they say banning it could not be implemented. I think though that a ban would do a lot to help people from smoking who already want to stop. And it might also stop people from starting to smoke in the first place.

I don't know how I feel about a smoking ban, to be honest. I think it is morally wrong to smoke around a young child - in public or in private. I don't think smoking in the street is wrong, or smoking inside if the ventilation system is proven to work exceptionally well. I have a problem with smoking in confined spaces where the smoke cannot escape and peoples' health is at risk.

Although a ban on smoking in confined public places would not be popular with a lot of people, I think it might be a good idea. From there, more steps could be taken to stop smoking around young kids etc. It seems pretty obvious that smoking is bad. Looking purely at smoking on its own - no other factors such as whether a ban would be possible or what else is harmful - is smoking harmful? Yes. So should it be banned? Yes.

Ha, if only the world was as simple as that.

[Elocin4684]

I think Ireland went to no smoking in public fairly recently. Yay for Ireland and their political figures that aren't backed by evil tobacco companies! I wish the US would become like that; there should be a law dealing with campaign donations or something to that effect and that would help no smoking policies.

[des06]

Smoking has no use and does not help anyone.

Actually smoking has a very important use. It is pleasurable. There are a lot of things that are pleasurable that are very bad for you. Caffine for example. Just like nicotine, caffine has been proven to be an addictive drug. No one is suggesting that we ban soda or throw parents who give their children soda in jail. Why? Because the line has to be set somewhere.

Smoking is in many ways similar to alcohol. Both are fairly widespread and both are deadly-alcohol more so than smoking. However, as Prohibition showed, neither is harmful enough for people to agree to ban them.

A ban on smoking in public places isn't a very good solution to the problem in my opinion. There is no point where you would have to be in a smoke filled room. If you want to go see a band and there is smoke in the bar than decide what is more important to you. If there are a lot of people who agree with you then there will eventually be many non-smoking bars.

[mina]

No one is suggesting that we ban soda or throw parents who give their children soda in jail.


Because there is no second-hand smoke coming from a can of soda.

[Nys]

I'm not a smoker, but at some stage both of my parents have; my father still does. Smokers have rights as much as non-smokers, in Australia they have recentally banned smoking on Bondi beach, and they are talking about the Gold Coast beaches being smoke free as well as others.

What I don't understand, is the fact that the government doesn't really want to ban smoking, they make far too much money out of it in taxes.

I think that we should just keep things the way they are, have some non-smoking areas and just leave it at that. Smokers are human too....

[Kalypso]

No one is suggesting that we ban soda or throw parents who give their children soda in jail. Why? Because the line has to be set somewhere.
Actually where I live what parents are allowed to feed their children is an issue that's being quite heavily debated at the moment. There may soon be laws that say food products have to say exactly how bad they are, and if parents have dangerously obese children or children that are ill because they are fed so much junk, the parents may soon be breaking the law.

Actually smoking has a very important use. It is pleasurable. There are a lot of things that are pleasurable that are very bad for you. Caffine for example. Just like nicotine, caffine has been proven to be an addictive drug.

Smoking is not pleasurable until you are addicted. Nobody enjoys the first cigarette they smoke. It is only the fact that the body wants the nicotine rush to stop the withdrawl symptoms that people feel better, which is not a good thing. Shooting up heroin makes people feel better in the short term; it is not a reason why it should be allowed.

Also, drinking coffee is nowhere near as dangerous as smoking. Just because it is addictive does not mean caffeine can kill. Also, like mina said, drinking coffee and soda only harms the person in question whereas passive smoking can be very dangerous to everyone around the smoker.

I do not think that a smoker should have the same rights as a non-smoker regarding smoking. I talked about these rights for.. probably far too long.. a while back, and from what I can see someone should not have the right to harm other people just because they want to harm themselves.

And as for 'if I want to see a band, put up with the smoke', I don't see why I should have to. The fact that I do not smoke is not going to hurt anybody, but somebody smoking can hurt me. Therefore because of this I think non-smokers should be put first and smoking should be banned in confined spaces - or at least effective smoking and non-smoking systems should be put in place.

[PhreneticInc]

Smoking is not pleasurable until you are addicted. Nobody enjoys the first cigarette they smoke. It is only the fact that the body wants the nicotine rush to stop the withdrawl symptoms that people feel better, which is not a good thing. Shooting up heroin makes people feel better in the short term; it is not a reason why it should be allowed.


Well, I enjoyed my first cigarette, I enjoyed smoking until I was addicted, and I still do. And I know I can't be the only one.

[Marie Lexis]

I'm not a smoker but my parents are. And it really bothers me when they smoke anywhere. I am constantly trying to get them to quit. But they just won't. And it even bothers me more when we go to a resturant and there are people smoking just a few seats from you. And smoke does travel. And I hate smoke. It's just gross. And smoking is gross. But anyway. I had a really bad dream that I was going out with a group of my friends and everywhere we went there was nothing but smokers smoking. Stores, cafes...and even McDonalds! And with me hating smoke so much that was a nightmare.

[FirefightingMuggle]

I still don't like the idea of an all out ban, but after reading some of the posts, I've come up with a new idea. Don't ban smoking all together, but ban it in all INDOOR public areas. Restraunts, pubs, government buildings, stores, whatever...if it's inside and it's public, then you can't smoke there. But you could go outdoors to smoke, still smoke in your house or in your car. And also private clubs, like the Eagles, American Legion, Elks, VFWs whatever, could still allow smoking because those places are not open to the public, you have to buy a membership to the club, or be the guest of a member to enter. I think it would be a fine compromise between those who want rid of smoking all together, and those who want the freedom to still smoke. You are not wholly banning cigarettes, but you are limiting the places that people can smoke at. It gives a wider array of smoke free options to non-smokers, yet it still allows for smokers to have somewhere to smoke at as well.
Also, in public places like parks, beaches, or amusement parks, that are outdoors, I think that smoking should be confined to only designated smoking areas. (The do this in Walt Disney World) There are only a few smoking areas in the parks, and most of them are tucked out of the way, so for the most part, people who don't smoke can avoid them all together.

[Chrysalis]

When I was in Berlin we sat outside at tables in a restaurant and later in a café. Since it was the first day we hadn't really formed particular groups yet who hung out all the time so I just went along with the people I knew. Trouble is, all smoked except two of them, me included. If I had the choice I would have sat somewhere else but I didn't(all the tables were occupied). The cigarette smoke really made me sick but I didn't dare utter a word. I think a lot of people are still afraid to ask a smoker in the vicinity to stop because they get offended and start saying that you're overreacting. At least, in my experience. I had a job for a while and my supervisor was a heavy smoker. My desk was opposite hers and she asked me if I minded her smoking. I did, but somehow it's still not okay to say that you just don't like cigarette smoke. I think that people still expect to you state health problems as your reason. Otherwise, you're overreacting. Things have improved, but not too much. I am really glad anyhow that the government is banning smoking in indoor public places.

[crookshanksmom]

... but somehow it's still not okay to say that you just don't like cigarette smoke. I think that people still expect to you state health problems as your reason. Otherwise, you're overreacting. Things have improved, but not too much. I am really glad anyhow that the government is banning smoking in indoor public places.

You should state health reasons if they ask. You don't want to get lung cancer comes to mind. More people are hosptilized due to second-hand smoke inhalation than actual smokers. It makes you feel physically ill (as you stated). Those are all valid reasons if you can't just get up and walk away to get some fresh air. Non smokers have a right to breathe clean air.

[Marie Lexis]

What's so bad about smoking at all is the fact that for some reason alot of parent smokers think that it's ok to smoke when your pregnant and to smoke around infants. And infant can't get up and walk away. My mom told me that the minute I learned to crawl I crawled right away from her. And she understood but she still doesn't understand that she needs to quit smoking around my brothers. But they are trying to quit which is good. But I think that parents need to smoke more outside.

In CA they are trying to ban all from smoking inside a vehicle with a minor. And I think that it would be a good idea everywhere.

[Azimuth]

I'm of the opinion that smoking should be banned. Completely. All cigarettes should be destroyed. But that's never going to happen, so:


More people are hosptilized due to second-hand smoke inhalation than actual smokers.
I seriously doubt this. How can smoking have a greater effect on you when you're taking in a great deal less than the smoker? And more often than not, trying to avoid the smoke at all costs?

[Marie Lexis]

I seriously doubt this. How can smoking have a greater effect on you when you're taking in a great deal less than the smoker? And more often than not, trying to avoid the smoke at all costs?


Actually you take in alot more smoke then an actual smoker. I had to study this for awhile to get my parents to try to quit. It's something about that tube thing or something. I learned that in my Ecology class at school.

[crookshanksmom]

I seriously doubt this. How can smoking have a greater effect on you when you're taking in a great deal less than the smoker? And more often than not, trying to avoid the smoke at all costs?

Second-hand smoke is not filtered. When a smoker inhales on a cigarette, it goes through that little white or tan filter at the end. So inhaling second-hand smoke is more dangerous, as you don't have it filtered. Lots of children of smoking homes are hospitalized due to second-hand smoke-asthma attacks, pnemonia, and they just get sick more often. I think it should be illegal to smoke in a home when a minor is present-parents who want to smoke should do so outside for their children's health.

[mina]

Also, in public places like parks, beaches, or amusement parks, that are outdoors, I think that smoking should be confined to only designated smoking areas. (The do this in Walt Disney World) There are only a few smoking areas in the parks, and most of them are tucked out of the way, so for the most part, people who don't smoke can avoid them all together.

I do think that is a good idea. We realistically cannot ban it altogether, all at once. It will have to be a slow process, but this is a good step in the right direction.

You don't want to get lung cancer comes to mind.

In my experience they will still say that you are overreacting. Though people are aware of the dangers of smoking, they tend to ignore them.

[Nys]

I still don't like the idea of an all out ban, but after reading some of the posts, I've come up with a new idea. Don't ban smoking all together, but ban it in all INDOOR public areas. Restraunts, pubs, government buildings, stores, whatever...if it's inside and it's public, then you can't smoke there. But you could go outdoors to smoke, still smoke in your house or in your car.

I still don't understand the banning of smoking in pubs, I could understand a ban in certain areas, and of within 3 feet of the bar, but too many pubs would go broke if you brought in this ban. In Australia it's already illegal to smoke on Government property, as well as in eating areas.

[des06]

Smoking is not pleasurable until you are addicted. Nobody enjoys the first cigarette they smoke.

No one likes their first coffee either. Its an acquired taste. Doesn't make coffee any less pleasurable.

someone should not have the right to harm other people just because they want to harm themselves.

And as for 'if I want to see a band, put up with the smoke', I don't see why I should have to. The fact that I do not smoke is not going to hurt anybody, but somebody smoking can hurt me. Therefore because of this I think non-smokers should be put first and smoking should be banned in confined spaces - or at least effective smoking and non-smoking systems should be put in place.

Yes but no one is forcing you to be in a smoke-filled room. I don't see why your desire to see a band in a smoke free enviorment is supirior to someone else's desire to smoke while seeing a band. Shouldn't it be the venue manager's decision? Why should his venue be smoke-free if that will hurt his busniess.

Don't ban smoking all together, but ban it in all INDOOR public areas. Restraunts, pubs, government buildings, stores, whatever...if it's inside and it's public, then you can't smoke there. But you could go outdoors to smoke, still smoke in your house or in your car. And also private clubs, like the Eagles, American Legion, Elks, VFWs whatever, could still allow smoking because those places are not open to the public, you have to buy a membership to the club, or be the guest of a member to enter.

Why? You have just as much choice in which bar/store/restaurant to go to as you do in which private club to go to. The only distinction is that you have to pay money in the latter. It seems like a rather superficial distinction to me.

I think a lot of people are still afraid to ask a smoker in the vicinity to stop because they get offended and start saying that you're overreacting.

It seems like the problem there is rude smokers. It is rude of the smoker to ask you for a reason. Most smokers I know will ask before lighting their cigarette and make an effort to smoke away from the group.

Actually you take in alot more smoke then an actual smoker. I had to study this for awhile to get my parents to try to quit. It's something about that tube thing or something. I learned that in my Ecology class at school.

How is this possible when smokers breathe the same air as second-hand smokers. Shouldn't the effect on smokers be worse since they are breathing in the second-hand smoke and first-hand smoke(for lack of a better term)?

[theseeker]

WHAT? So basically, you're saying that it's okay to endanger someone else's health, and you feel that your right to smoke inside overrides their right to not inhale smoke and other harmful chemicals? That your right to pollute your own body and the bodies of others around you overrides their right to be healthy?
Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. Why do you want to force your bad habit on others around you?

[crookshanksmom]

I find it rather rediculous that some smokers think that their rights to smoke whereever, whenever should override non somokers rights to breath clean, healthy air. That's just stupid. How hard is it to step outside to smoke? Don't want to be exposed to the cold? Then quit. I have just as much right as a smoker to eat in a certain restaraunt or pub, just as much right to see my favorite band in concert, and certainly have a right to not harm my health inhaling second-hand smoke!

[Marie Lexis]

How is this possible when smokers breathe the same air as second-hand smokers. Shouldn't the effect on smokers be worse since they are breathing in the second-hand smoke and first-hand smoke(for lack of a better term)?

They don't. Smokers don't breathe in second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is when someone else breathes in the worse part of all of it even when they don't smoke at all. Read Crookshanksmom post here...

Second-hand smoke is not filtered. When a smoker inhales on a cigarette, it goes through that little white or tan filter at the end. So inhaling second-hand smoke is more dangerous, as you don't have it filtered. Lots of children of smoking homes are hospitalized due to second-hand smoke-asthma attacks, pnemonia, and they just get sick more often. I think it should be illegal to smoke in a home when a minor is present-parents who want to smoke should do so outside for their children's health.

[Chrysalis]

Yes but no one is forcing you to be in a smoke-filled room. I don't see why your desire to see a band in a smoke free enviorment is supirior to someone else's desire to smoke while seeing a band. Shouldn't it be the venue manager's decision? Why should his venue be smoke-free if that will hurt his busniess.

Actually...you don't know how bad I wanted to get away from my smoking classmates, but I couldn't. All other tables were occupied. Yes, we were sitting outside, but when it's such a close group it doesn't make a difference.

And no, most people who hate smoke will try to avoid smokers, but sometimes there's no other option, like on my trip.


It seems like the problem there is rude smokers. It is rude of the smoker to ask you for a reason. Most smokers I know will ask before lighting their cigarette and make an effort to smoke away from the group.

Most smokers I've known have been rude. Either they don't ask if they can light a cigarette, or the ask but when you say that you have a problem with it they start questioning that.

The thing is, although I'm not asthmatic, smoke makes my physically sick. Breathing it in feels as though I'm suffocating. I suppose this is the natural consequence of growing up in a completely smoke-free enviroment(both my dad and my sister are asthmatic). But somehow that is not a sufficient enough excuse for most people.

[Wab]

As 90% of lung cancers occur in smokers the chances of contracting it from secondary smoke alone (ie ingnoring other contributing factors such as other environmental factors such as air pollution and genetic predisposition) are relatively small.

I have just as much right as a smoker to eat in a certain restaraunt or pub, just as much right to see my favorite band in concert, and certainly have a right to not harm my health inhaling second-hand smoke!


Don't we all. If you wanty equality why don't you also boycott every shop/venue that has steps which prevent the disbaled access?

[Chrysalis]

Smoking in concerts is not such a big problem, since everyone is relatively far apart form each other(of course it depends on the venue). But non-smokers like to go to pubs just as much as smokers, but they can't, because of the cigarettes.

[ChoChang007]

when im eating smoking bothers me, but thats why they have smoking sections. i dont smoke, and never will, but when i say that i dont like for people to smoke where i need air, its not gonna do me a bit of good.

[Marie Lexis]

As 90% of lung cancers occur in smokers the chances of contracting it from secondary smoke alone (ie ingnoring other contributing factors such as other environmental factors such as air pollution and genetic predisposition) are relatively small.


Actually second hand smoke is the second largest contributing factor to death. Including lung cancer. My doctor told my parents that if they didn't quit that I could end up getting it by the time I'm in college. And if they don't quit smoking soon that my brothers and I would end up in the hospital by the time we are all 20 from other sicknesses.

[pasalita]

Just curious: Where did you get that information, Wab?

[des06]

WHAT? So basically, you're saying that it's okay to endanger someone else's health, and you feel that your right to smoke inside overrides their right to not inhale smoke and other harmful chemicals? That your right to pollute your own body and the bodies of others around you overrides their right to be healthy?

I have just as much right as a smoker to eat in a certain restaraunt or pub, just as much right to see my favorite band in concert, and certainly have a right to not harm my health inhaling second-hand smoke!

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the rights of non-smokers and the rights of smokers are equal. Of course you shouldn't be forced to breathe second-hand smoke which is why I think that smoking in government buildings-which have monopolies on government bussniess and which most people have to patronize-and workplaces should be illegal.

Everywhere else you have a choice of whether to subject yourself to second-hand smoke. If you don't want to breathe second-hand smoke go to another store/restaurant/pub. If enough people start taking away their bussniess location owners will take notice.

Basically smoker's rights and non-smoker's rights are equal and latter should not be forced to be subjected to the former.

Second-hand smoke is not filtered. When a smoker inhales on a cigarette, it goes through that little white or tan filter at the end. So inhaling second-hand smoke is more dangerous, as you don't have it filtered.

But certaintly smokers breathe the air around them?

The thing is, although I'm not asthmatic, smoke makes my physically sick. Breathing it in feels as though I'm suffocating. I suppose this is the natural consequence of growing up in a completely smoke-free enviroment(both my dad and my sister are asthmatic). But somehow that is not a sufficient enough excuse for most people.

That doesn't sound like fun. I sympathize but it really isn't the government's responsibility to compensate for your aquantinces' or anyone else's rudeness.

Are you sure that the doctor that gave that diagnosis is competent Marie Lexis? I have friends who have parents who smoke and none of them have ever been given such a dire prediction.

Also, just for the record I don't smoke and never have.

[crookshanksmom]

What about waitresses and bartenders at restaraunts and pubs? They don't have a choice-well, maybe they do, but alot of people would much rather work than be a lazy bum living coutrosy of the government and tax payers. Why should they have to inhale second-hand smoke for 8 hours and go home smelling like a dirty ash tray just to survive? It seems to me you are saying that non smokers don't have a right to patronize pubs/restaruants/stores that have products/food they enjoy because the rights of smokers override their rights to enjoy what they like. Smokers have rights-eat on the patio, smoke before entering the building, and leaving to indulge in their habit. I just don't think I and other non smokers should have to be subjected to that or be forced to eat/shop at lower-quality places because our rights don't count.

[mina]

Are you sure that the doctor that gave that diagnosis is competent Marie Lexis? I have friends who have parents who smoke and none of them have ever been given such a dire prediction.

Some people are more sensitive to it than others. I have some health problems as well that are likely to have been caused by family members smoking around me.

EDIT: Just found this on Yahoo. The list of diseases caused by smoking has grown.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Health&cat=Smoking

[des06]

What about waitresses and bartenders at restaraunts and pubs? They don't have a choice-well, maybe they do, but alot of people would much rather work than be a lazy bum living coutrosy of the government and tax payers. Why should they have to inhale second-hand smoke for 8 hours and go home smelling like a dirty ash tray just to survive? It seems to me you are saying that non smokers don't have a right to patronize pubs/restaruants/stores that have products/food they enjoy because the rights of smokers override their rights to enjoy what they like. Smokers have rights-eat on the patio, smoke before entering the building, and leaving to indulge in their habit. I just don't think I and other non smokers should have to be subjected to that or be forced to eat/shop at lower-quality places because our rights don't count.

Second-hand smoke is an occupational hazard of being a waitress/bartender. Lots of jobs involve hazardous materials and there are standard procedures for dealing with these materials. Why not do the same for waitstaff/bartenders.

I'm not saying that non-smokers don't have a right to go to bars/restaurants/stores they enjoy. I'm saying they don't have the right to say that people can't smoke in bars/restaurants/stores. It is the management's decision and if mangement decides to allow smoking then either deal with it or go to another bar/restaurant/store.

[Chrysalis]

I heard that banning smoking in pubs and restaurants actually brings more customers, because a lot of non-smokers who previously avoided such places now frequent them.

Personally, I think smokers are just sad people. It's pathetic that you feel the need to light a cigarette every few hours. I'm not the only one of that opinion either. In fact, a lot of people on my school trip thought that smoking was a really sad habit, they hated that fact that every time we stood outside a bunch of people would light cigarettes and choke the rest of us, but no one really dared to say anything.

[Revolution]

I don't really agree with you saying that smokers are sad people. You can't really help it if you're addicted. Some people want to try it once or twice, and before they know it, they're addicted to it. If you've never smoked before, you don't know what it's like to be addicted. For them it's like a life suply is cut short. Mentally and physically they're addicted to it. It takes a lot of will power to stop, and most people don't have the strength for it.

What I do find is stupid, is that if you get to hear so often that smoking is bad for you, that it's engraved in your brain, that you still want to start smoking. And not in like trying it once or twice, but really wanting to get addicted and get hung up with it for the rest of you life.

An ex-friend of mine, once said she wanted to start smoking. When I asked her why she wanted to, because the teachers repeat again and again that you shouldn't start smoking. She gave as excuse that her father and siser smoked, which is a lousy one. I heard later someone saying vaguely something like: "You can die from smoking". And then she said something like: "So what, I'm anyway going to die.". And that has been one of the most saddest answers I've ever heard in my life. People think you'll only get lungcancer when you 65 or something. They don't know that you can get it also when you're 40. Do you really want your life cut back by 30 years? I think that was really stupid of her.

But back to subject. Smoking in public should be forbidden. You can hardly avoid smokers nowadays. They're everywhere. I'm thirteen, and like a quarter of my class smokes. I'm not used to smoke. Though my mum and sister aren't asthmatic, my dad and I are. And none of my family smoke too, so when someone smokes, I really get a headache, and I feel like I'm surrounded by fire, and can't get enough oxygen. There's no point in being a non-smoker, if you're surrounded by people who are. Second-hand smokers have as high a risk as smokers.

[Wab]

Just curious: Where did you get that information, Wab?

"In fact, 90% of lung cancer occurs in people who smoke."

Harvard University

http://www.yourcancerrisk.harvard.edu/hccpquiz.pl?func=show&quiz=lung&page=risk_list

[Marie Lexis]

Are you sure that the doctor that gave that diagnosis is competent Marie Lexis? I have friends who have parents who smoke and none of them have ever been given such a dire prediction.

Well their probably not around them all the time and if they are then they will get sick sometime in their life. My doctor is a hero to our family. He's saved both my parents lives. At different times of course.

And I already have gotten sick from them smoking around me. And my mother has heard the same thing from 4 different doctors by the way.






There is no reason why non-smokers should have to suffer because of someone else's disgusting habit. I hate going into gas stations and resturants to see someone waiting in line or sitting at a table next to me smoking. And in resturants that have smoking sections, the smoke does move over to the other side so it really doesn't help. And I can't even work at any resturants, which is basically the only place a 16 year old can work, because I hate smoke. I can't even go into resturants anymore.

[Chrysalis]

It's hypocritical that for years non-smokers and asthmatics had to put up with cr*p because the majority of the world did smoke, and now smokers are complaining that they don't have equal rights? Even 15 years ago, most people did smoke, and non-smokers just had to put up with that. Now, the majority of the world doesn't smoke, so smokers will just have to put up with it.