Why has the government taken action on smoking in public places?

Answer 1

A few years ago, the attorney general of the state of Mississippi sued the tobacco companies for medical costs the state had incurred due to health issues related to smoking. He won. Now it has become the mission of a few zealous people to infringe upon the rights of smokers by passing these laws. To my knowledge (and I am willing to be proven wrong) none of these laws banning smoking have been a referendum voted on by the public (at least in Mississippi), but rather have been passed by a city council comprised of 9 or 11 members, depending on the municipality. One of the city council members in the city of Tupelo cited a petition signed by 3000 citizens, thus "the majority of the citizens were in favor". Tupelo has a population of approximately 36,000. When I went to school, 3,000 was no where near 51% of 36,000, which would constitute a majority.

When the government takes action against smoking in public, it takes away from the important issues that government should be concerned with - homelessness, welfare abuse, education, etc.

What these government entities (be they city, county, or state) fail to remember is that tobacco is a legal substance. And that smokers pay taxes and vote.

The only true way to determine if the smoking bans are wanted by the populace is put it to a vote. But the proponents of these bans will not do this, because they know what will happen. They will not pass.

In short, government has taken these actions because they have been successful to this point in doing so. When state revenues fall due to diminishing tobacco sales, closure of businesses, and diminishing tax revenue from these issues, what will they tax to replace this revenue? Which group of citizens will be unfairly targeted next?

Answer 2

The reason is health issuses regrading it, and personally the goverment should not regulate smoking in bars. Workplaces of 10 or more employees should be exempt from Smoking Bans. I have worked in small shops where the onwer smokes in his shop he paid the property taxes for the place, and it does not serve the general public like a restuarant or a retail place does? The balance pesonal responbility, and health should be stressed when ever a smoking ban is proposed. In the 1950s half the population smoked the average person lived to 70 years old, and in 2006 people live to 80 we spend 20 times more on healthcare because smoking is replaced by sedantary activites, and bad eating habits. Its diminishing return idea, but smoking bans in most places apporitate and wise. Yet, Nannie state makes life harder and drives up other costs overtime.

Answer 3

I somewhat agree with you to a small extent. I know what you are getting at, but your logic doesn't follow. We have the same issue here in America. In the early 1900's they banned alcohol and demonized all who drank until so many people were doing it anyway, it bred contempt for the law. Now, if you want to drink to excess and abuse your system to cut your life short, then it is on you. Cigarrettes and alcohol kill millions every year here, by different means, and marijuana does not. It is illegal here because most of it comes from Mexico, and there wouldn't be an effective taxable measure to benefit the economy here. God forbid Mexico should make any money off the U.S. Just because you are a drinker that doesn't make you a drunk driver, or a wife abuser. What about drunk abusive wives? People need to be responsible for themselves and the government shouldn't be concerned with saving lives all the time for everything. That sound contrary to popular belief but there is technology other that can by satellite track every single person in a country and solve all murder, theft, rape, etc... but do we really want the government to see what we are doing everywhere all the time just to save some lives. How could we trust mankind with that power? That would make life not worth living and I would rather have some die by the way things are, then live that way. It may seem a little overboard with just a small law, but if enough tiny laws are passed, everyone becomes a criminal and they can pick on you anytime they want.

Answer 4

It's a wonderful avenue to gain votes from all the 'victims' in the voting districts! C'mon - it is a huge issue...... the government urged people to smoke starting in WWI, then they taxed the bejesus out of the smokers, then all of a sudden because a moratorium of individuals decided that cigarette smoke is the nastiest element known to mankind (and convinced a majority of people of this) votes are a 'SURE THING' when the government takes action on smoking in public places. If anyone took the time to do the research, there is a multitude of daily carcinogenic dangers we are all exposed to that are far worse than cigarette smoke out there.

Answer 5

the government gained leverage to do this after the supreme court lent its ear to a bunch of idiots(lifelong smokers themselves) who entered into a class action lawsuit against the tobacco industry and made them pay out large penalties for their production of a self distructive and addictive drug in order to induce a perpetual profit from their consumers. This also served as an inherent admission of guilt which further gave way to these right wing liberals to claim that smoking in public places should not be allowed. And of course, in order to be pollitically correct, politicians have tried to put one more nail in the coffin by passing this legislation. They are the same ones of which a majority of them can be found in the outside designated smoking areas of our nation's government buildings. The government also feels a little guilty for proliferating the smoking habit by making the smoking of cigarettes more enticing to our soldiers who fought in both world wars and vietnam.

Answer 6

"Rationale:

Laws implementing bans on smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing health statistics that show tobacco smoking is often harmful to or fatal for the smokers themselves and for those subjected to passive smoking (also known as secondhand smoke or ETS, environmental tobacco smoke). Additional bases for smoking bans are reduced risk of fire and reduced quantities of litter.

Those supporting bans cite the reduction in the incidence of lung cancer and other diseases caused by smoking, and avoiding being forced to inhale smoke.

Some owners and managers of businesses endorse smoking bans as a means to eliminate tobacco smoking in indoor work areas, and to reduce the health risks associated with exposure to secondhand smoke. Proponents of bans support the enactment of "smokefree workplace laws" because such policies reduce preventable health care costs, thereby reducing the overall cost of labor in a community and making a community more attractive for bringing new jobs into the area and keeping current jobs and employers in an area. In Indiana for example, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth that it encourages cities and towns to adopt local smokefree workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities."

(I don't at all agree, but this is in answer to your question.)

Answer 7

I believe this was the most important law put into effect.
I can now go to restaurants, clubs, bars and not have to deal with second hand smoke.

Answer 8

Because the health of the masses should be more important that the addictions of the few.

Answer 9

Because it protects the people & that IS the job of government...to protect the people!

Answer 10

cuz smoking was harming ppl and the buisness!!