Do you think that smoking should be banned in public places?

Question

I taking this poll for speech class so please give reasons why you feel this way.

Answer 1

YES. Banned in all public places .
in the mid 1980's in Automotive emissions testing we were told that the cigarette smoke actually produced more toxic emissions than the automobiles did , but the tobacco industry got an exemption . Now the emissions study group are requiring the trucks to have air filters on the exhaust to capture the ashes or suit when a pack of cigarettes puts out about the same amount (look in any used ash tray).
Then there's those Da** butts that are everywhere stopping up the sewer drains and killing the lawns. ,and just looking nasty.

Go into someones house where there are smokers and wipe the sticky film of the walls and try washing that sh** off.
I have rent houses and cleaning that crap of for the next renters is a major job. two to three coats of primer plus one or two coats of paint . shampoo the carpets two or three times . pot is just as hard to clean. I cannot dennie a potential renter from renting but I do get an extra $100.00 per month rent.

If a business wants to cater to the smokers that is fine as that is a Private Enterprise and their choice. If a business wants to ban smoking in their establishment that is their choice. maybe some lose of business but if good food the cusomers will come back.

Answer 2

even as I understand the prejudice to those who smoke, i must assert as an asthmatic and a non-smoker that I help the ban in some public places. i'm from the U. S. (do not understand once you're talking about the united kingdom), so the following one can't smoke in eating places, in some bars on the discretion of the owner, and interior 20ft of a public construction. i in my opinion discover it lifelike. even as I realize it truly is an habit, i have self belief that the more suitable barriers positioned on those who smoke the more suitable positive. it truly is like letting an alcoholic drink and be rowdy everywhere they are, they are going to of route difficulty someone with their habit as they are going to result others round them. Smoking is growing to be more suitable taboo because human beings are stricken by technique of it. Frankly it stinks and it truly is an fairly unattractive and risky habit. The more suitable lives we are able to keep by technique of banning it the more suitable positive. Lung maximum cancers is a nasty issue to stay through because it oral maximum cancers, emphasema, and protracted bronchitis. i have watched family members wade through through the detrimental consequences of smoking and it truly is unneccessary to die before some time only for a stupid ciggarette.

Answer 3

No. It's a restriction of rights, primarily those of the business owner or individual store, restaurant, bar, etc. owner. They should have the decision on whether or not to allow smoking or a separate smoking section in their establishment.

This sort of legislation passed in the name of the 'public well being' is a waste and further adds to lawbooks that are already overcomplicated.

"Fidelity to the public requires that the laws be as plain and explicit as possible, that the less knowing may understand, and not be ensnared by them, while the artful evade their force."
- Samuel Cooke (1770)

Answer 4

Until cigarettes are considered illegal, they should not be banned in public places. Smokers will sometimes avoid places that advertise that they are non-smoking, so non-smokers should be able to avoid smoking establishments also. I believe it is reverse discrimination when you see businesses that do not allow smoking anywhere on the premises..Until smoking is made illegal, there should always be a designated smoking area.

Answer 5

No because that infringes on our rights. If they don't like smoking then why don't they ban it? Simple, they make too much money of the cigarette tax. That in and of itself should clue you in as to how the government really feels about smoking.

Answer 6

No. Government should not be determining what substances we should or should not inhale. In all things, US citizens should be allowed to pursue life, liberty and happiness so long as it does not harm another.

To prevent harm, a separate smokers area is appropriate, people can choose for themselves to enter or not.

Answer 7

No. The "scientific" studies about second-hand smoke do not show causality. These are not controlled experiments. I have not seen ONE study where rats exposed to levels of smoke equivalent to second-hand exposure cause any increase in medical maladies. Have you? All I've heard are anecdotal compilations of medical cases which MIGHT suggest a connection. Diet, environment, exercise level, genetics...none of these things have been ruled out in any of these stats...

Answer 8

no I don't feel it should be banned in public places, I can accept smoking areas, but not banned

Answer 9

Nope, last time I checked smoking was legal. As long as you are law biding, you can do it in public.

(psst we do allow people to spray noxious chemicals into the air, on a smaller scale we call them cars, on a more industrial level we call them smoke stacks. We also allow people to dump noxious stuff in our water to. In fact we seem to be very lenient about what people put into the environment unless it is cigarette smoke)

Answer 10

No. There should be separate sections for smokers and non-smokers. This bullsh*t that you can't smoke in certain areas is killing business and the cities suffer a decline in tourism. Smoking isn't good, but killing off a city's economy is even worse.