No Smoking Allowed!

[Randy]

http://www.debate.org/tobacco-rights/

A smoking ban is a public policy that includes criminal laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in certain public places and workspaces. There are varying definitions of smoking employed in this legislation. The strictest definitions define smoking as being the inhalation of any tobacco substance while the loosest define smoking as possessing any lit tobacco product.

There are many reasons why smoking bans originated, but most of these have medical origins. Research has shown secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are common. Those who live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.

Smoking bans are also imposed because they improve air quality in restaurants and other establishments. In New York, it is now illegal to smoke in all hospitality venues. Studies by the Center for Disease Control have shown the air quality in New York establishments to be nine times higher than those in New Jersey where smoking remains legal. Studies have also shown employees are exposed to far fewer toxins in areas where smoking is banned in the workplace. In Norway, tests showed a decrease in the nicotine levels of both smokers and nonsmokers when smoking bans were enacted in the workplace.



Critics of Smoking Bans

Despite the positive effects on health and air quality, many people are still opposed to smoking bans in the United States. Critics in the smoking ban debate include the well-known musician Nebulous Jackson as well as Christopher Hitchens, a political critic. Usually, people who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an example of the government interfering in people's lives. They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-smokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke. Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner and draw distinctions between public places, such as government buildings, and privately owned businesses, such as stores and restaurants.

Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and exposing a new set of people to their secondhand smoke. Some have even argued that local bans on smoking will increase DUI fatalities. Those who wish to smoke will be forced to drive further away to do so, althoughno evidence has been found to support this theory.

Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more common in the United States. Whether the rights of the non-smoker to breathe in fresh air outweigh those of the smoker to smoke freely is a matter of opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban debate.

What are your thoughts on smoking bans? Where should people be able to smoke? Where shouldn't they? Is it fair or unfair to have these bans?

 

[Crusader]

Totally fair to have these bans. I've made the decision to not smoke why should I have to breathe in the harmful toxins of other people's?

 

[.Xstinct]

I still occasionally smoke,but I do respect the people who don't smoke.
So I have no problem with smoking bans at all.

 

[Jazzy]

What are your thoughts on smoking bans? I don't smoke and I'm in favor of smoking bans.

Where should people be able to smoke? In their own homes or vehicles.

Where shouldn't they? Anywhere in public where others can breathe in their second hand smoke.

Is it fair or unfair to have these bans? Absolutely fair.

 

[Raven]

What about E-Cigs?

They are a common debate in our office area.

As for the ban, I think it's fair. If I am around non smokers, I respect they're oppinions and don't smoke at all. Unless I am out for a gig, but then I go outside.

 

[Crusader]

A friend of mine who funnily enough is a non-smoker says "why don't you just away from it". Which is is up there among the most stupid statements I've heard in my life. It is not always possible. For example, if I am walking in town and get stuck behind someone who is smoking and can't get past them, I can't simply "move away".

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

As a non smoker and someone who grew up breathing in my mother's 2nd hand smoke throughout my whole childhood, I am against public smoking. Now that I am an adult I have the right to avoid breathing in other peoples disgusting habits. Even when you are outside and the smoker is far away, the smell still hits you sometimes.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

I want a engine ban in public too since I don't want to smell your emissions that come out of your exhaust pipes...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

So you want everyone to drive Hybrids?
We can start with me.. Buy me one!

 

[DrLeftover]

SAN RAFAEL, Calif., Nov. 22 (UPI) --
A California ordinance that prohibits smoking in residences with shared walls may be the strictest anti-smoking law in the United States, city officials say.

The ban, passed by the city of San Rafael, applies to both owners and renters, ABC News reported Thursday.

It covers any multi-family residence with three or more units, including condominiums, co-ops and apartments. The ban took effect Nov. 14.

"I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger," said Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst in the San Rafael's city manager's office who helped write the ordinance.

She cited studies that found secondhand smoke seeps through walls, ventilation ducts and even cracks as justification for the ordinance.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/22/California-smoking-ban-said-to-be-most-stringent-in-US

 

[Sinon]

As a non smoker and someone who grew up breathing in my mother's 2nd hand smoke throughout my whole childhood, I am against public smoking. Now that I am an adult I have the right to avoid breathing in other peoples disgusting habits. Even when you are outside and the smoker is far away, the smell still hits you sometimes.

I agree. My entire household (apart from me) smoke. I hate it.

I want a engine ban in public too since I don't want to smell your emissions that come out of your exhaust pipes...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

Smoking is not necessary, ever. Cars are.

 

[Sinon]

I'm a motorcyclist, if you think I like cars you're sorely mistaken lol

 

[Sinon]

I hope you plan on banning trade/freight ships, trains, and other forms of transcontinental transport that deliver the items you use to post these things on.

 

[Sinon]

You seem to be under the impression I was against it.

 

[Sinon]

Provide me with an equal or better model that doesn't pollute the world and we'll work on it.

 

[Sinon]

Well, I doubt it's plausible for me to walk the 34 miles I have to travel to class...

 

[DrLeftover]

Smoking is not necessary, ever. Cars are.

I love this argument for a total ban.

"because it is not necessary, it does more harm than good, it is bad for you in the long run...."

So, in that case, you should prepare for a total ban on cheesecake, entertainment shows on TV, and high heeled shoes.

 

[Sinon]

Smoking is not necessary, ever. Cars are.

I love this argument for a total ban.

"because it is not necessary, it does more harm than good, it is bad for you in the long run...."

So, in that case, you should prepare for a total ban on cheesecake, entertainment shows on TV, and high heeled shoes.

I'm not for a total ban. I just dislike being exposed to something that is proven to have no redeeming factors, and is a 100% health risk. The argument comparing it to cars is retarded, and I was responding in kind.

 

[DrLeftover]

Understood.

However, you start reading websites like this:

http://www.anti-smoking.org/

and their "teen" site: http://notobacco.org/

That is Exactly their mission, and their reasoning behind it.

TOBACCO WARS!
The Battle for a Smokefree Society​

"Life brings all of us difficult moments and obstacles, and when these moments come, don't escape by using tobacco, drugs, alcohol, food, sex, or even music. Instead, stay with the problem, and talk to someone about it. Take a step to solve it. Life gets tough at times, but you can do it!" says motivational speaker Patrick Reynolds in his university lecture program and keynotes.

http://www.anti-smoking.org/univ.htm

 

[DrLeftover]

I wonder if these laws will apply to second hand Marijuana smoke?