The smoking ban is just another symptom of our nanny state treating us all like naughty children. Discuss.?

Question

And another blow for freedom of choice.

If a non smoker dosn't want to breathe in smoke nobody is forcing him or her to step into bar.

Answer 1

I am a smoker who has tried on several ocassions to give them up, but it is very hard especially when you have a stressful job. Where I work there is a smoking ban, I do have to work 14 hour shifts with no break.So my argument is, when I go for a meal or a night out I want to be able to feel relaxed and throw rules and regulations aside for a few hours.As somebody else has already pointed out, the government would lose far too much tax. It is my choice I will give up when I'm ready, not when I am told to. Whats the next ban going to be I wonder.One thing everyone is forgetting is the fumes from cars, maybe it will be a driving ban. Watch this space.

Answer 2

That' it in a nut shell 'Discuss'. That is all anyone would have done discuss. And nothing further would have been done about it.

At least when someone takes the decision out of our hands, it makes a subjective view become and objective one and something gets done. In this case a smoking ban.

Already here in Scotland, doctors and hospitals are seeing the benefits of the ban in respect of lung related diseases and heart problems.

I do not advocate a Nanny state, however, the realisation that the issue of smoking or not smoking needed to be resolved for the every-ones sake including the smoker. And the decision to impose a smoking ban in public places I think has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the majority.

Answer 3

I'm a smoker but I believe that smoking related diseases are running out of control. It is bad for you - I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that. I know you hear stories of someone's Gran who smoked 60 a day and lived to one hundred and three.

My stepfather smoked 40 a day and died at 42.

If any other substance was causing as much damage it would be banned completely - unfortunately it's too late for this. Tobacco would be forced underground and the criminals would make millions.

By banning smoking in public, it will discourage people from starting (and possibly cause some to stop) and result in fewer people becoming ill and draining our health resources.

Then there's the flip side. By reducing the amount of revenue gained from the sale of tobacco, our other taxes would have to rise. Remember, duty from cigarettes does not go directly to the NHS - if it did the NHS would have so much money it wouldn't know what to do with it.

Nanny society - Yes. As by smoking we are acting like children, disregarding to the consequences of our actions.

Maybe we need looking after?

Answer 4

Have you ever taken a government class? Sure we have the first amendment and freedom of choice, but it also states that you cannot use that freedom to infringe on someone else’s rights. If you could, then people would not be penalized for MURDER! Think about it this way, if you were to murder someone, you are practicing your right to freedom, but at the same time, you are taking away their right to live! I may not be a law major, but I can tell you that we all have freedom, and while it may not be the freedom to do whatever you want, it’s a freedom where you have to be accountable for your actions.
I happen to live with a smoker (my mother) and I have put up with it the best I can. I do believe that it’s okay to have smoking banned in certain areas. In places where there are kids (parks), and families, both with and without children (restaurants), there should be no smoking. They have just recently banned smoking in the public parks by where I live and I believe that they were right. They have their right to smoke, but then at the same time, they are taking away my right to have fresh air. I know that people can argue this anyway that they want and say that I, in wanting fresh air, am taking away their right to smoke, but let’s take a long hard look at the Surgeon General's warning. Then try to choose the lesser of two evils.
If you want to smoke, make it hard to climb stairs, not be able to run, get yellow teeth that would cost thousands over a period of years to whiten, then by all means . . . .HAVE AT IT. Just as long as you don’t violate my rights in the process.
But then, I'm just an American!!!!

Answer 5

I am a non-smoker, but I disagree with anti-smoking laws. If somebody's smoke is bothering me, I simply get out of the path of the smoke, or leave. The government has NO RIGHT to tell people how to live their lives or what to put in their bodies. In my opinion, the anti-smoking laws were passed to see how much government control Americans will permit over their lives. It's the start of a slippery slope. Soon they'll be able to tell us a lot more things we can and cannot do, and if we protest, they can just point back to the smoking laws. I'm an adult, I have legs, and I can leave the room or the bar. Let me be that adult. Kill the smoking laws NOW. -signed, A SYMPATHETIC NON SMOKER

Answer 6

Those are good points but remember that second hand smoke is dangerous to the person inhaling it, who isn't even getting to enjoy the cigarette the way the smoker is. You can smoke, just not within the confines of a space where it would affect persons there who are not smoking.
I am a smoker too, so I am not knocking smokers.

Answer 7

Not really. I think the non-smoker should get the benefit of the doubt on this issue. Dont they have a choice not to be breathing in somebody elses smoke? Its just basic manners and i say that as a smoker myself. Here in Ireland the smoking ban has proved to be very popular. Its not as bad as it sounds, believe me.

Answer 8

I think its a good idea. Smokers still have the option of nipping outside to smoke. Those of us who don't smoke have never had the option of not breathing, so if we're out we ebd up inhaling other people's smoke.

It means we can now go out and enjoy ourselves the way smokers always used to.

That's true freedom of choice.

Answer 9

I firmly believe that if there are places smokers cannot smoke, there should be places that non-smokers HAVE to.

Seriously, I think that smoking should be a personal choice. If someone does not blow his smoke into my face, he has the right to have the smoke. I only object if they're 'puffing' it at me deliberately, and in 30 years of dining out, I've never had ONE single person in a restaurant deliberately blow smoke at me.

Answer 10

Even non-smokers need to be against the smoking ban. I'm not in too much favor of "slippery slope" theories, but I think it works here. What's next? Pulic use of cell phones? chewing gum? Walking barefoot? These are all publc nuisances. Some are potentially dangerous to a person.