Should cigar and cigarette smoking be banned in public areas?

Question

I am writing a research paper on this subject for school. I would like to get some opinions on how people feel about this subject. Public areas could be shopping malls, restaurants, parks, theme parks and state fairs. Please give as much detail as possible in your answers as to why you are for or against the smoking bans. Thank you!

Answer 1

I am for the smoking bans. I work in a casino in Illinois and I know for a fact that people who work there who do not smoke have lungs of a person who smokes 2 packs a day. I come home smelling disgusting, my colds last longer and I start hacking if i laugh too hard or run. I admit that some of that is my own fault because I smoked for 12 years but i should be feeling better by now I quit almost 9 months ago. the state of Illinois will be going non smoking in January of 2008, but they are still trying to exempt the casinos. I am all for giving people a place to smoke outside but keep it away from me. I should have a choice if I want to die of lung cancer or emphysema.

Answer 2

I think cigars and cigarettes SHOULD be banned from public areas, because people and children could get second-hand smoking. Whenever I go to a restaurant the smoking area is in front. I always cough once I enter the restaurant. I think...NO I know that restaurants should put non-smoking areas in front and smoking areas should be in the back OR restaurants shouldn't have smoking at all! I feel bad that people smoke because they can't stop. My grandma smokes. The only time I saw someone smoke in a mall was at this coffee place. These two men were smoking with pipes. ( if you know what I mean ) I've never seen anybody smoke in theme parks or state fairs.

Answer 3

I quit smoking 9 years ago and have never had the urge to start again.

The thing that bothers me is that when I get around cigarette smoke I have a very hard time breathing. I have two different inhalers I have to use if I do get around smoke. Sometimes it is almost impossible to get away from the smoke.

Convience stores are a real hassle for me. 2 yrs ago I put fuel in the car at a Pronto station, and went in to pay for it. I got 3 steps in the front door and could not breathe it was so smokey, I had to go back outside. I didn't even get to pay for the gas, the Witch who was working said to get get outside and go to the ER. Well duh! I am turning blue grasping for air, almost on my knees, heart is breating so fast ya think it would jump out of my chest and she tells me this ****.(She could have called for help. I could hardly drive. Almost had an accident at the intersection. By time I got to the ER I thought I was going to die ( it was only 4 blocks from Pronto). I have not been to that store since.

Parts stores are a bad place too. So are restraunts, smoking and no smoking sections do not work. You can still smell the smoke and people with breathing problems can not handle that.

And Bars, well a person has to expect smoking to happen there.So I don't have a problem there .

Then the poor kids who are buckled up in their parents vehicles, If the parents smoke those kids have no place to get away from the smoke. I can just see a baby crying its eyes out because it can not breathe for all the smoke inthe vehicle from parents cigarettes. Yeah I realiaze it is the parents vehicles, but take some consideration for your childrens health.

Any inclosed areas, stores, restraunts, Hospitals & clinics grounds etc... there should be no smoking.

So I agree with the smoking bans in some areas.

Answer 4

It depends on the place. Public places that people are obligated to go to (like schools, courthouses, etc) and ones that are property of the city/county/state/federal government, yes in every case.

In public places that are privately owned, it should be the decision of the individual owner. And then the public can choose to eat/drink there. For example, if a restaurant owner wants to make his restaurant completely non-smoking, then smokers can eat elsewhere if they so choose or can go and not smoke. If that owner decides to make his restaurant completely smoking, then non-smokers can choose to not eat there or put up with the smoke. I think it should be up to the individual owners because they know their customer base and which decision will cause their own business to thrive or fail. I have heard of smoke shops that were non-smoking because of the imposed laws--that's ridiculous!

In outdoor areas...I'm not that sure. I guess I'm against a ban on smoking in any outdoor areas like fairs. It really is different standing next to a smoker outside than it is being in an enclosed place. Then again, if it is privately owned, my above opinion applies. In public areas like streets, sidewalks, and parking lots I think there should be no ban on smoking. I think people have some right to smoke if they want to and that is just going too far. It is easy enough to walk away from the smoke if you don't like it--or ask the smoker to move.

Answer 5

Interesting question, and I'm going to give you a slightly different answer.

Instead of all these laws about where you can and can't smoke, why not leave it to the owner of a business to determine what works best for them, and what customers they want to cater to?

If a restaurant feels that they'll do more business by prohibiting smoking, it's their right. They post it on the door that it's a non-smoking establishment. Smokers are certainly welcome to eat there if they're willing to do without smoking for an hour or two. No harm in that.

Or if an owner of a bar or nightclub feels that the vast majority of his customers are smokers, he can post on the door that it's a smoking establishment. Fair warning to anyone who wants to come inside, and those who don't want to be in that environment can go elsewhere as surely there will be some non-smoking bars as well. (Personally I've never understood the ban on smoking in bars - how many people who are that worried about their health spend their time hanging around bars? Or are they just worried about their lungs and not their liver?)

Anyway, it's an alternative that I think would work if we could approach the situation with a little more common sense instead of hysteria.

Answer 6

A slippery slope. Reliance upon a bounty of made laws is good indication of a dimishing in vitality of a collective of any sort, such as is a society.

Hashing out morbidity and mortality rates does not import any understanding to what a sovereign collective must be adept at and clear about with respect to plumbing deeply and seeing far ahead. While cigarette/cigar smoke are obvious annoyances and evident to not the least of many, people do tend to dogmatize and pervert, which nature assures us that events are subject to follow -- by pattern of events and human nature -- that are not so obvious, but which now are acceptable yet later can become just as subject to legislation, using precedent as justification, by a society no more enlightened in the future than now or as demonstrated in the past. Why?-- well, because they will not have been educated and made to look farther and deeper.

To wit: we know cigarette use bodes poorly for sustaining of good physical health. What of mental health though?: what say legislatures decide to ban cosmetics? Vanity is as well a vice -- a multi-billion-dollar vice... And though the difference between nicotine and cosmetics influences is likened to comparing apples and oranges and thus perhaps a stretch and fallacy to put up -- I do ask do we have a society skilled enough that we, collectively, can discern the differences about what should be held apt or not, a corruption of which is sure to result in the tinkering and micro-managing of the freedoms and lives of millions.

By too heavy a use on reliance of laws, we abdicate our own rights of self-responsibity and personal space to the measures of others' merits and relegate our brighter angels to unfitness --nay, to those possessed of even less merit than our own...

One who would follow another should not expect much from him or her.

Answer 7

For the ban. Walking into someone's cigarette smoke causes me to have an asthma attack. There should be no cigarette or cigar smoke where there is the chance children should happen to breathe it.

The reason the government has to try uphold a smoking ban is because of the huge amounts of government spending that is having to be given to support those who are suffering from smoking related diseases. If the government has to support those who feel the need to smoke then become ill from it, then they have the right to pass any bill to oppose the smoking and protect innocent people who do not smoke.

Answer 8

I am going off of personal opinion. I don't like smoking in public places. I don't smoke and never did. My mom smoked and it was disgusting. The car smelled on hot days. Ash trays all over the house. I tell my kids not to smoke and they see others do it. I sit in a restaurant and don't feel my Chicken Scampi tastes better with nicotine...mine or someone elses. It is not healthy. I don't know of any one who would say smoking has promoted their health or has not hurt it. The second hand smoke is bad for me and my family. I understand the freedom issue. Losing smoking rights is a violation of freedom. However, should someone be allowed to shoot a .45 cal. in a mall at will because they have rights? Second hand smoke will kill others the same kind of dead. It just takes longer.

Answer 9

Smoking is banned in most public places here- I think in fact in all indoor areas and most of the large sporting grounds- and I am so glad that it has been done. I am asthmatic and have had such severe reactions to cigarette smoke that I have been hospitalised. I think though, that the bans should go further than they have- smoking is banned on public transport, but not in outdoor stations which I find a really high risk area for me- it may not be enclosed as such but is still somewhere where I cannot get away from the smoke.

At risk of raising the ire of smokers, my attitude is that they should be allowed to smoke only in their own homes; they shouldn't be allowed to pollute public spaces with their filthy habit. I'm far from the only one who cannot tolerate the smoke- why should we have to expose ourselves to a risk that should be avoidable?

Answer 10

First, I'm a smoker - who lives in Washington State. The state has banned all indoor smoking - this includes bars, restaurants, etc. the only indoor smoking allowed is at Tribal Casinos. I can agree with what they (gov'ment) did, but not necessarily the way they went about doing it. (Pierce Co. was first to ban indoor smoking and many bars went out of business here).
I don't smoke in my own house because I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke indoors.

Okay - as for public outdoor areas - Banned -NO.
Indoor areas - YES