Public smoking ban?

Question

My town is currently considering a public smoking ban annd it is creating a great deal of controversy. I think it would be wonderful, but many people feel that it is there right to smoke. Of course they do have a right to smoke, but what they don't have a right to do is put another individuals health at risk in the process. Another argument I've heard is that non smokers can choose to go to a non smoking restaurant; no one is forcing them to eat at a smoking establishment. But why should I be inconvenienced? As far as I know there are maybe one or two restaurants in my town that are completely non smoking. When the majority of people are non smokers, that argument just doesn't make sense. My biggest pet peeve in the entire ordeal is children. Children do not choose to go to a smoking establishment, they do not ask to have smoke blown in their face. Don't you think that in this case, individual rights is just not a good enough reason not to allow this ban?

Answer 1

TURTLE: He said the majority are NON smokers. And this is true.


No one has the right to infringe on the health and well being of other people. I choose not to be a smoker-I shouldn't be forced into it against my will via second hand smoke. Neither should my daughter.

People have the right to as they please on their own property. In their own home, they can smoke until the cows come home. But a sex addict isn't allowed to fornicate on a park bench because they have a craving.

I do, however, think that there are exceptions. I do not think bars should be made smoke free. They would be badly damaged in their business. And it is a child free zone, anyway. But restaurants? Absolutely. Applebees has done it and they are doing just fine.

Answer 2

Our constitution is based on individual rights not the majority. Benjamin Franklin was concerned with keeping individual rights in a democratic government. He warned of the " tyranny of the majority". We can see how dividing this can be in a supposedly democratic country. Our constitution starts with "We the people....." and was not written by the- If you don't like it- ban it type of person.
So to answer your question, I think individual rights is a very good reason to allow businesses to decide which is more profitable for them. In your town, you say the majority of people are non smokers. Then I would assume that most businesses would choose to be non smoking on their own. There would probably be a few that would allow smoking and if it wasn't profitable they too would become non smoking. So what's your problem with that?

Answer 3

So far as public smoking....let people smoke. Outside, in their own backyards or in their cars. Keep a distance from buildings, and out of high traffic areas.
I've heard that in Marin California, they've banned public smoking outright...even issuing citations for people smoking in their car!

So far as resteraunts though...ban smoking in all resteraunts. People will always be able to go outside if they need a smoke that bad. Having a smoking section inside a resteraunt is ridiculous anyway. It's like having a peeing section in a swimming pool...

Answer 4

A public smoking ban is just media attention to take people's focus OFF the real problems for a while. You said it yourself, that the majority are smokers. Whatever happened to majority rules?? Should we change the laws to accomodate the minority?

I think NOT.

PS even if you ban the smoke itself, the dust and particles are still all over the smokers' clothing, so you will STILL be breathing in the bad suff, like it or not. You could make smoking illegal anywhere, but I think the cops need to focus more on the crack dealers and child molesters rather than whether someone has a crutch.

Answer 5

I think that there should be a smoking ban, or at least more separation for people who are smoking not just a invisiable line across the room and this half is smoking and the isnt. Yes people who smoke should have the right to smoke but not at the inconviance to everyone else. And yes then theres the second hand smoke thing, yes some people may say thats trash talk but it is true that second hand smoke is actually worse for you why should we suffer for there enjoyment. Its a touch issue because no matter what you are putting one over the other but what law dosent.

Answer 6

People are allowed to go to work inpublic places with the flu and other infectuous diseases. I would much rather be subjected to second hand smoke in a restaurant than to food handled by someone with the flu.
The question is how far government intrusion into peoples lives can they go.
And bars?? Come on. Give me a break. 90 per cent of those who go to bars regularly smoke. Walk in any bar and look around.
Government intrusion in this matter needs to be limited to enforcing building codes for ventilation in smoking areas and setting aside non smoking sections. If non smoking areas are properly ventilated from smoking areas there will be no problem with second hand smoke.
As a business owner, I detest the idea that someone who is not financially vested in my business can have such a large influence on my ability to run a successful business.

Answer 7

Having government mandates to cover every aspect of life is hardly my idea of freedom. The best way to do this would be to give businesses incentives if they go smoke free. But the Libs insist on restricting our freedom to protect us whether we want it or not.

Answer 8

I'm for a public smoking ban.
Second hand smoke is a good enough reason to ban smoking completely as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 9

I think that the decision whether or not to allow smoking at an establishment should be left up to that establishment's owner.

Answer 10

It's not a matter simply of individual rights.

If someone wants to swallow tobacco juice (or any other drug), that only affects them directly.

Smoking affects everyone in the area directly, because the smoke spreads. So, it's more comparable to spraying botulism into the air than taking drugs internally.