Concerning the smoking ban?

Question

Anyone else think the ban is a little harsh? The argument that it's being banned to protect the smokers is a fallacy at the most. Nobody starts smoking for their health; no means to insult smokers, but if they start, they've made the subconscious decision that their health isn't worth a couple of dollars wasted on cancer sticks. I am quite passionate about the issue of smoking, but still, what is a ban gonna do? It should be the smokers choice that their health is more important than the cigarettes, not government.

Answer 1

The driving issue is secondhand smoke. If the smoker was merely killing him/herself, I'd agree with your argument. But there is enough proof out there now that secondhand smoke at least can make you sick and very possibly kill you.

It's kind of like alcohol. You can drink, but you must drink responsibly so as not to injure anyone else when under the influence. You can smoke, but smoke responsibly so as not to injure anyone else.

Answer 2

I don't think banning smoking from public places is harsh. I smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a day. So for me I guess it's not an issue to go without a smoke while I'm out. I know it is for some chain smoking people though. Anyway, it is nice to go out to a pub and not have to wade through thick clouds of cigarette smoke. I also think it's nice to sit down at a bar and not have to put up with full stinky ashtrays. One thing I really don't like is seeing cigarette butts littered on the street or polluting the sea.

Answer 3

There are alot of valid points concerning the ban in these prior post. However, I do not agree with the bans. Prohibition does come to mind here. I do not like another choice taken away from me concerning how I wish to run my business. I cannot smoke in my own "private office". I cannot accomodate smokers who wish to step outside with suitable shelter, well, they can have a roof and two walls or four walls and no roof. {smokers windchill yesterday - 1 degree} This ban will hurt alot of business in the Great State of Ohio, Look at Canada? last I read, 300 casino windsor employees laid off!. I remember visiting the casino Niagra, and they had a non smoking floor in the building.I guess that was not good enough. Moose and VFW Lodges have closed in certain restricted states . Those jobs are lost, people who serivce equiptment for these businesses lose jobs, people who supply these bingo halls and small taverns lose business. It will eventually effect everybody in one way or another. Do you know there are more carcinogens in SECOND HAND EXHAUST that in tobacco smoke? LETS BAN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! only public transportation allowed! Dang,,then the automobile industry will hurt more than it already is, but who cares, its healthier eh? OH yeah and diesel smoke is the worst, if we ban it, no supplies can be trucked in. Smoking was already pretty much banned in public owned businesses and it was pretty much not allowed in shopping centers etc. What they banned were the small private businesses .Thats just not right! Go ahead, start giving me all your thumbs down! I cant wait to get spit on when Im smoking in the snow! Oh yeah, let the layoffs begin, when my tobacco sales go down,,,,,,, one less worker, one less job coming out of my pocket!

Answer 4

The ban is not to protect smokers, but non smokers. We have had a smoking ban for many years, and people do get used to it.

Answer 5

It's always difficult with questions that don't state the location; is this the UK, France, or a state in the US?

In general, bans are appropriate to protect one person from the actions of another. So, I have no objection to adults smoking at home, but I don't want them smoking where I am likely to inhale the toxins they are exhaling or generating.

Answer 6

I do understand a ban from having us smoke in public places potenially causing health risks to others but it is also illegal to open up an establishment exclusively for smokers because that would be segregation and people who didn't smoke wouldn't have a "right" to go there......What's next...Prohibition 2?

Answer 7

I don't know what state you are in...but in Calif. the smoking bans include parks, parking structures, common areas in apartment complexes, 20ft. within any building entrance, any public or private building (except yours).
Some cities even banned smoking in public period (Santa Monica)...also there is no smoking on beaches and piers.

They are working on a no smoking law that would section off apartments into smoking and non smoking and no smoking in vehicles where children under 18 are riding.

It's even illegal to smoke in a cigarette or cigar shop.

All in the name of public safety.

Answer 8

I think its harsh. I'm in Arkansas, and its state law that if you are driving in your car with a child in a car seat and you are smoking in the car.....you are fined $100.

Answer 9

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2164936/?tool=pmcentrez

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”

http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/smoking%201440.pdf
“Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.”

Showtime television, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGApkbcaZK4

US National Cancer Institute researcher explains the frauds involved in secondhand smoke media reports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9gtMKB6X2o

Then the US Surgeon General went over all the studies to date in 2006 again and even though he went on public TV and announced "No safe level", the report itself showed exactly the opposite.
---The evidence is … not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke. (p. 13)
---The evidence is … not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.(p. 13)
---The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.(p. 11)

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf