smoking bans, do we need em?

Answer 1

The answer is NO, even though the Govt keep on about the amount of money smokers cost the NHS and all the other related money smokers cost the people of Britain. You might be surprised to know, if the Govt banned smoking, they would become bankrupt. the amount of revenue from tobacco broduct is fanominal. I prove this point ..... I smoke rolling tobacco 50g bought in this country cost £10.50 ish the same pack bought in Spain is £2.49 They would loose £8 for every pack sold if there are 4 million smokers in the uk (i know there are more) and they smoke 1 pack per week the Govt would loose £1664m a year, so do the Govy realy want to ban smoking ? and if they do they will have to add tax to something else to get that money back somehow.

Answer 2

Yes, we do need them.
Drinking is something not everybody agrees with, but if someone is drinking around you, it's not going to affect your own health.
Someone smoking around you is actually affecting your health, so they shouldn't have a right to do that.
Letting people exhale smoke around everybody else, it's just like letting them blow some other substances up somebody else's noses, which surely would be ilegal.
I think designated areas are ok, let's keep those for those who smoke, cos at the end of the day, smoking is an addiction, and when you smoke, you do need your fags regularly.
Maybe the government should build smoking cabins on the streets, like telephone boxes, for people to get into whenever they want a *** out in the open. I'm sure people would end up giving up at a much faster pace than they're doing with nicotine patches.

Answer 3

Let me qualify this a bit. I smoked but I quit 10 years ago. My wife is still smoking so I'm exposed to it every day. I'm not a fanatic about it but I can tell you that, on a lot of occasions, I'll walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke, or one will blow by, and my sinuses slam shut. It's unpleasant and I don't like it. I think that banning smoking in a lot of places is just creating a lot of resentment but smokers could do more to stop this movement.

First, they should be more thoughtful about how they dispose of the butts. I am constantly seeing people in traffic flicking the butts into the street. That's just unacceptable. We go to the beach a lot and I'm constantly clearing away butts when we find a place to sit. My wife carries an ashtray and disposed of them properly.

Second, smokers need to be more cognizant of people around them. Even outside, cigarette smoke blowing into your face can be uncomfortable and annoying.

Third, if someone tells a smoker, politely, that the smoke is annoying them, the smoker needent cop an attitude about it. The same smoker who gets annoyed if told that their smoke is annoying will react the same way if someone else passes gas or something equally annoying so don't be thin skinned.

Answer 4

NO, If you don't want to smoke DON'T
if you don't like 2nd hand smoke don't go or work there.
There should be well ventilated sections, but to ban smoking in certain areas based on health concerns is hypocritical.

If smoking so bad for everyone and so dangerous to the public why isn't Tobacco Illegal in all smoke-able forms. Whether it is limited to back allies or permissible in every square foot of the US it doesn't change the dangers, but they are known dangers and people can avoid them if they so choose. Gov't and State run facilities like the DMV or a court house which people need to go for various reasons should be because a person presence at those locations are unavoidable, but to mandate that Private businesses must be smoke free is ridiculous as patronage of private businesses is voluntary.

Answer 5

I am against them, I am not a smoker, but we have smoked since the 1800's, and 2nd hand smoke will not hurt you unless you are ALWAYS near smokers, in which case you leave or ask them to leave.

Here in Ohio, the smoke-free ohio law prohibits smoking in ALL public places except for bowling alleys, bars, and nursing homes. Smoking bans are Unconstitutional, but it was voted by the people, so it is law I guess. Still dumb tho

Answer 6

Absolutely not! Don't you see what is going on here? its just another rule, regulation control by the government.
Smokers are not evil. What is evil is the idea is we think we can 'get rid of' people we don't like.
The next thing on the pc agenda is to rid the world of fat people. Even those slightly overweight are being eyed.

The door opened just a crack with smokers ban, on the pretext its bad for health. Dying is part of living.. you think that if cigarettes were gone from the world there wouldn't be something else to take its place?
There is a small minority with the money, that just emotionally works up the populace to ban this and that.. What happened to freedom being a precious thing? You say get rid of the smokers now but wait until they hit on your favorite thing.. then you will be yelling and it will be too late to do anything about it.
ps. I have never smoked in my life!

Answer 7

It depends what the goal is. Is it to make activities, like dining out, more pleasant for nonsmokers? Is it to reduce the risks from second hand smoke? Is it to get smokers to quit smoking? Or is it just to punish them for what a growing number of people consider disgusting and rude behavior?

I smoked for several years, and quit 6 or 7 years ago.

Both as a smoker and as a non-smoker I'm usually comfortable with designated smoke areas, but it depends in part on the size of the establishment whether that's successful.

When NYC's smoking bad was introduced, I couldn't believe it. At that time, I remember there were a number of establishments that started to charge a nominal entrance fee so they could be considered a "private" club and, therefore, permit smoking. I think it's great to be able to go into a restaurant or other venue and know that it will be smoke free. On the other hand, I believe that a restaurant/bar/etc. should be able to choose -- provided, for example, that a restaurant with a bar meets certain established criteria in terms of square footage, seating, etc. and is willing to pay a set fee for the "privilege," it should be able to get a permit allowing it to allow smoking. Nonsmokers who aren't contented with designated smoking areas don't have to give the establishment their business, the establishment can decide whether it makes more financial sense for them (if you're a smoker, it really is true that you don't hang around as long and drink as much if you can't smoke....and therefore don't wrack up the tab), and smokers will, in fact, have a place to go. I don't care if there's a limit on the number of such permits within a certain geographical reach, either. I just don't know that I think it's necessary to ban smoking completely in restaurants/bars/etc. -- unless we're willing to admit that the goal, or one of the goals, of a smoking ban is to be vindictive, pure and simple.

So....I started out by thinking "Yes, we do need bans" and have talked myself out of it. That is, I think we do need some degree of smoking ban -- because it IS unpleasant for nonsmokers, and it IS unhealthy for them, and it IS rude for smokers to light up in a crowded place without consideration for others. But bans are not going to stop the incidence of smoking. And unless and until we take the next step and actually make the manufacture, distribution, possession, buying, and selling of cigarettes illegal, I don't know that it makes sense to outlaw the act virtually everywhere. Not that making all the above things unlawful will cause everyone to stop smoking, but I do think we would see a reduction. (Besides, unlike, say, snorting coke, lighting up a cigarette does leave the telltale sign in the form of, well, stink...you can't hide it).

If we want to protect nonsmokers, we can do that without all-out bans -- we don't have to take away every single place where a person can smoke. And if we want to protect smokers, incidentally, could we please also ban cigars and pipes? The stench from the latter is generally far, far more disgusting than that from a cigarette.

If we want to punish smokers, we can limit the number of places where they can smoke and continue to do such things as hit them in the pocketbook with higher taxes on cigarettes.

If we want to force people to quit...we're going to have to come up with a better strategy. All else being equal, look how successful America's all-out drug war is.

Answer 8

Funny how statistics change so quick isn't it?...The anti-smoking laws came into effect by two entities...(our own governments who say they were paying out too much money in health issues with smokers....and the minority in the public arena who threw a tantrum to get their own way - , making all venues and fun things to do in public, their own by outcasting smokers)....
Here's the twist !!..LAST WEEK..it was announced internationally that .. obesity.. due mostly to fast food eating...far outweighed the costs and future costs to the health system than smokers ever did or will !!...
What angers me most tho..is seeing the millions of cigarette butts that now pollute our waterways because of these laws...What butts that used to go in ashtrays are floating in our canals and down our storm drain systems, so now we are not only suffering escalating pollution problems, our wildlife is also...
Besides that...No deaths on the roads to my knowledge with a direct link to normal cigarette smoking...can't say the same for Marijuana or Alcochol can we ??...
Long winded I know, but I have much to say about this subject..perhaps another time.....Top question.....

Answer 9

Ok let's get down to the nitty gritty here...yes smoking is bad for one's health but face it folks...no one knew of this 40 yrs ago and longer when alot of us took up this bad habit. Smoking has been around for eons. Now what really ticks me off is that now alot of you good people condemn us smokers. Now each state has their banning regulations...ok I can see this if it pertains to Hospitals, restuarants,public transit, planes where there is confined people. But when I hear of a state that wants to ban smokers on their own property that want to smoke (outside) of their home such as in their yard or on their porch..well I'm sorry but that's going alittle bit too far in my opinion.You don't hear about banning alcohol which I feel is just as hazardess when so many people get killed each year by drunk drivers but you don't hear anyone complaining about banning this drug...hmmm? But yet us smokers get critisize by anyone and everyone!If we wish to smoke on our own property inside or outside that should be our priviledge without being tormented. If you are going to place a ban on one drug then you need to ban others as well. But to me this fits under the constitution. Our rights are being violated as well by raising up the cigarette taxes and banning. Why not do the same thing to the drinkers? Alcohol kills also..liver disease and drunk drivers that kill are two big examples.

Answer 10

YES

I am a non smoker living with a smoker. I have had to adjust to be able to live with cigarettes. In the beginning I used to sneeze constantly and my sinuses were always messed up. I couldn't sit in a smoking section of a restaurant. I couldn't go to some activities that allowed smoking without coming out miserable.

Sadly after living with my husband for 11 years, my body has gotten used to cigarette smoke and I no longer sneeze. I also can go into activites or restaurants that allow smoking.

Isn't it sad that today people have to learn to live with something that is honestly dangerous to their health?

I think the non smokers rights should be priority on protecting. Non smokers do not pose the same health risks for smokers that smokers do to non-smokers.

just my 2 cents worth