Smoking ban: prohibition or social engineering?

Question

Please try to keep your answers as free from vitriolic anti smokers statements as your cars fumes are just as, if not more damaging than the odd cigarette in a pub.

But I am interested in what you think whether you are the most nazi like anti smoker osmoke like an old diesel. Let me know.

Answer 1

I don't think that it should be a Gov't choice...It should be the owner of the property choice....I have yet to be somewhere where smoke bothered me because most places are non smoking...bars here in Ohio aren't most anyway...and that doesn't bother me at all...maybe the next day after smelling my clothes and hair but my breath probably stinks just as bad after a night of drinks. This is just a way of people controlling and getting money...one of the issues on the ballot if you read closely says money for the "clean air fund"...if they band smoking why would you need a clean air fund...and what on earth are you going to do with that money? I prefer my money to go to my child's college fund...but If this passes I won't have a choice will I?

Answer 2

I think the smoking ban is to protect those that don't smoke from the harmfull effect of other peoples smoke.

Car fumes are worse than cigarettes, but you wouldn't dream of running an engine in an enclosed space would you? The atmosphere in a pub on a friday night is far more damaging to your health than walking along a path at the side of a main road. Oh and since the advent of catalytic converters cars are actually much more health friendly anyway, unless of course you believe in global warming.

I agree with banning smoking in places that serve food, although I would have no problem with pubs being allowed a smoking room/bar, as long as the staff that worked there were also smokers.
The only downside is that in a smoke free pub is that you soon realise how often people fart!

Answer 3

It's both. If the government were really serious about not smoking they'd criminalise it. This has been done before - drugs such as opium used to be readily available and freely used but are now illegal.

I am a smoker and appreciate that many people do not like it, but pubs aren't exactly known as the haunts of the health-conscious and beer and fags go together well.

Ban smoking in restaurants by all means, but leave the pubs alone.

Answer 4

Cigarette manufacturing is an industry and continuous smoking by the public was its only guarrantee of corporate survival. Long before government figured out the cost of dealing with its users-example what it knows now regarding health problems resulting from the activity, its manufacturers had free rein to make them as profitable as possible.
Tobacco smoking in its ancient and natural way is not as addictive.
Is a smoking ban prohibitionism? or social reengineering? I'll choose the latter. There are better words to describe this action by government but between those two words?
social engineering is more applicable.

Answer 5

I'm fed up with politicians banging on about smoking. Every year tax on tobacco goes up "in an effort to discourage people from smoking". Bollocks. If the government wanted people to stop smoking it would outlaw the production of cigarettes and make the importation and selling an offence. No government will ever do this because it is making £Billions in duty. All politicians are hypocrites.

Answer 6

There is no benefit to smoking. Banning it altogether would be impossible. The US tried it with alcohol. The US has been trying for years to ban and eliminate illegal drugs. No success.

As a practical approach, the best thing society can do is try to limit the damage caused by smokers.

Answer 7

I used to smoke 2 to 3 packs of cigarettes a day. I really resented anyone who tried to tell me I couldn't smoke where I wanted to or tried to argue with me in any way about smoking.

Then I got throat cancer.

5 years later, I can tell you that when I am around smokers, my throat hurts, my clothing and hair stinks, and I have to wonder why anyone would keep smoking seeing me with a hole in my throat to breath through.

The reason is the same as it is for any other addiction. The addict lives in denial and gets belligerant towards anyone who tries to help them. That's why smokers get up in arms about anyone trying to curtail their smoking. But like all addicts when you are one you can't see what others are trying to show you.

Answer 8

It comes down to this. People aren't smart enough to not smoke in public so the law was adjusted to make them act in a manner that is not detrimental to society. Smoking causes cancer in both the smoker and those who are constantly around smokers but do not smoke themselves.

Answer 9

You know what ? Its great that I dont have to endure smoking on Buses or other public places, it is not a very nice habit to have around people whom dont smoke, so I think that if you want and really need to smoke, thats your liberty to do so, but consider those that dont smoke as well. Most smokers I know are pleasant considerate people whom will ask me " mind if I smoke" near you, to which I usually reply "I am just going so its okay" !

Answer 10

It's a social engineering, Man. We want the societies to be happy and healthy and beautiful and wise and tall and not obese and clear in their minds and not foggy.
We don't want to spend all this money to care for the smokers' dirty lungs and cancerous bodies. We do care about the national treasures. Both human and money.

The Government