Does a state wide smoking ban do any good?

Question

I'd like to hear mainly from somkers/ex-smokers that live in a non-smoking state.

Answer 1

No.

No one is forcing the non-smokers to patronize or work for a privately owned business that allows smoking. If you don't want to get second hand smoke go to a bar or restaurant that has an owner that chooses to make his place of business a non-smoking one.

Court houses and other governmental owned public buildings should have smoking banned due to the fact that everyone needs to use these buildings.

There is a town near where I live that enacted a smoking ban, almost every bar was forced to shut down because the smokers go out of town to the bars that allow smoking.

Answer 2

It's good only for what it does- which is keep people from smoking in public places. That's generally a good thing for restaraunts, who can turn tables around faster and don't have to worry about seperate sections and ventillation. It's a mixed bag for bars- some of them do fine, some of them dont. I'm personally not in favor of them because I dont think it's an appropriate area of governmental regulation, but when the DC smoking ban goes into effect there are bars that I will be much more likely to patronize that I simply can't stand to be in now.

Answer 3

consider this....if thousands of people can't smoke in restaurants and buildings....then that smoke is no longer circulating and contaminating the air of the building everyone is in and everyone has to breathe. if you think about it, both groups should benefit....the non smoking group no longer has to breathe the foul air.....and the smokers may (possibly) smoke less since now they have to go outside to do it.

If everyone is experiencing a lower exposure to contaminents, overall, the risk of them getting sicknesses and diseases, such as athsma, bronchitis and lung cancer should be reduced.

So people (in general) would benefit healthwise, but health insurance should be cheaper because risk was reduced. So, for example, if a state like Delaware put a smoking ban in effect, there's a pretty good chance that over time, reported cancer rates due to smoking would decrease. If the state insurance commission didn't put pressure on the local insurance brokers and companies to reduce their rates, that would just be plain wrong. To me, that would mean money is changing hands somewhere to continue to rip people off.

Answer 4

People are going to smoke anyway, there is no stopping an addict, I Love smoking and to the people that don't want to smell it, Quit Breathing do us all a favor, You people would bittch about anything, I don't see them putting a ban on cars, The exhaust from vehicles are far more toxic then someone's second hand smoke, Get a Grip People, Priority's First

Answer 5

Sure-- it makes it more difficult for people to knowingly harm themselves by smoking, and it protects non-smokers from harmful second hand smoke.

I couldn't give a $h!t about someone's freedom to smoke. What's a liberty worth if we just use it to hurt ourselves? Some find beauty in it, others recognize it as God's Sick Joke. I'm just over it. F--k smoking.

Answer 6

I think it is a good idea to ban smoking in public places. People who smoke always say they have the right to smoke, and I agree. But I, as a non-smoker have the right not to smell it. I don't have a problem with you smoking, but I don't think I should have to give up my right to not have to smell smoke in public places. If they want to kill themself, that's fine, but don't try to kill me in the process!!!

Answer 7

Yes. The ban in washngton has made bars a lot easier to handle.

Answer 8

yes. if people don't smoke in public, that reduces the risk of second-hand smoking

Answer 9

well, they tried to ban alcohol one time.