|
|
| Do you think smoking should be banned from every public place? |
| yes |
|
60% |
[ 9 ] |
| no |
|
40% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:04 am
what do you think of banning smoking from public?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:14 pm
I disagree with it, to a point. Someone can say people have a right not to breath in smoke....but what happened to the smoker's rights in the process? They are taken, period. I can understand not allowing it in places such as schools and hospitals, but in the general public, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:50 pm
Not EVERY PUBLIC PLACE, but places where non-smokers cannot avoid the smoke if they choose to should not be smoked in. Period.
Planes, elevators, and lunch rooms particularly. Sealed airspace and all that.
To a lesser extent around the doorways of buildings, because people do need to go past anyone smoking there to get in or out.
In, say, a park? No worries. In a parking lot, or down the sidewalk a bit from a building's main doorway? Sure, go for it. Around a minor exit? Go right ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:20 pm
Well, I really like to uphold an individual right for the people because I think they have that right. They work all day to make enough money to smoke so they should be able to do that. It's their right and their entitled to that. Their health should be their problem.
The biggest problem that I have with it is a public good issue. For one, what has smoking really done as a positive affect other than hype up teen smoking and addiction? It hasn't really done anything. Then you have the factor of second hand smoke and people die from it. Why should I have to die because you want to smoke? I don't think it's right. I think you can compare that to indirect murder. Little kids and such shouldn't have to die.
I think it should be banned in most public places especially where families go and where little children or where underage people go.
I'm really all for people smoking though, or I just really don't care that much if they do it. I'll go to those little get togethers with people and everything. I just don't think I or anyone else that doesn't smoke should have to die because you had to light one up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmmonSuperCombo Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:18 pm
if someone wants to commit a slow, very expensive suicide by inhaling harmful toxins several times a day for years on end, fine. all i can say to that is hopefully it won't take long so you can at least put some chlorine into the gene pool on your way out. however, in public buildings others should not be subjected to your destructive self-infliction. in an open place? sure, the smoke will dissipate a great deal before it can coagulate in our lungs. in a restaurant? no, not only does it make the smell worse, but it also has very little if any ventilation. give yourself cancer on your own, leave the innocent out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:12 pm
Although I'm dead-set against non-smokers having to passively breathe in someone else's toxins, my main issue with this would be the difficulty over defining "public" and "private".
I don't smoke and have no intention to start.
But if I did, I could be smoking in my front garden - which is my private land - and still blowing smoke on my neighbour or anyone on the street. Since my smoke would be drifting onto a public right of way or affecting other people's property, would that take away my right to smoke in the open on my own property?
And if it did, would that force me indoors, where my family or others may passively ingest what I'd been trying to keep them away from by going outside?
It's a law I agree with in principle, but I'd hate to have to draft it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:35 pm
I think people should only have the right to smoke in their homes. In any public area, it can be inhaled by someone else. Parks and Parking Lots still are areas people can breathe in the secondhand smoke. The person's right to smoke is upheld. while everyone else's right not to inhale the secondhand is protected as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:15 am
I don't smoke, but I'll staunchly defend other's right to smoke. I don't like the smell any better than you, but it's their choice. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. And sure, second-hand smoke is bad for you, but so is a double cheeseburger, and that sun tan you worked so hard for. Almost everything we do can lower our life-span, so get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:35 am
Nuala Although I'm dead-set against non-smokers having to passively breathe in someone else's toxins, my main issue with this would be the difficulty over defining "public" and "private". I don't smoke and have no intention to start. But if I did, I could be smoking in my front garden - which is my private land - and still blowing smoke on my neighbour or anyone on the street. Since my smoke would be drifting onto a public right of way or affecting other people's property, would that take away my right to smoke in the open on my own property? And if it did, would that force me indoors, where my family or others may passively ingest what I'd been trying to keep them away from by going outside? It's a law I agree with in principle, but I'd hate to have to draft it. btw public property is any goverment owned land or buildings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:37 am
nekogal2 Nuala Although I'm dead-set against non-smokers having to passively breathe in someone else's toxins, my main issue with this would be the difficulty over defining "public" and "private". I don't smoke and have no intention to start. But if I did, I could be smoking in my front garden - which is my private land - and still blowing smoke on my neighbour or anyone on the street. Since my smoke would be drifting onto a public right of way or affecting other people's property, would that take away my right to smoke in the open on my own property? And if it did, would that force me indoors, where my family or others may passively ingest what I'd been trying to keep them away from by going outside? It's a law I agree with in principle, but I'd hate to have to draft it. btw public property is any goverment owned land or buildings I say only bars and homes should be were people smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:04 pm
MonkoftheRealm I think people should only have the right to smoke in their homes. In any public area, it can be inhaled by someone else. Parks and Parking Lots still are areas people can breathe in the secondhand smoke. The person's right to smoke is upheld. while everyone else's right not to inhale the secondhand is protected as well.
You don't get second-hand smoke out of doors, it only has any effect (and even then, debatable) in very enclosed spaces with little or no air-flow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:34 pm
I know 80+ year-old veterans who smoked most of their lives still drink a half glass of whiskey everyday and are healthier than others their age. Far be it for me to limit them on where they smoke. If restaurants have smoking sections, great. Out in the open air, fine. Office buildings, elevators, I can see not wanting to smoke there. But otherwise, it's their freedom. When companies are getting to the point that you can't even smoke in your car with the windows rolled up in the open air parking lot where you work, that's bullshit. Your car gives off more toxic fumes than the cigarettes you smoke. The Knight Terrenus I don't smoke, but I'll staunchly defend other's right to smoke. I don't like the smell any better than you, but it's their choice. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. And sure, second-hand smoke is bad for you, but so is a double cheeseburger, and that sun tan you worked so hard for. Almost everything we do can lower our life-span, so get over it. I have to agree with this. MonkoftheRealm I think people should only have the right to smoke in their homes. In any public area, it can be inhaled by someone else. Parks and Parking Lots still are areas people can breathe in the secondhand smoke. The person's right to smoke is upheld. while everyone else's right not to inhale the secondhand is protected as well. That's ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:39 pm
The Knight Terrenus I don't smoke, but I'll staunchly defend other's right to smoke. I don't like the smell any better than you, but it's their choice. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. And sure, second-hand smoke is bad for you, but so is a double cheeseburger, and that sun tan you worked so hard for. Almost everything we do can lower our life-span, so get over it. The difference? The cheeseburger you had for lunch, or your sweet sun tan won't affect MY lifespan. People should be free to do what they want to, so long as it doesn't impede on other people's rights to live a healthy life. You don't stuff a cheeseburger down my throat every time you eat beside me, so why the hell would I care? But smoking beside me harms MY lungs. I am very fond of my lungs. If you're gonna shoot yourself in the face, make sure there's no one behind you that you'll take down with you, basically. I don't give a crap if you wanna slowly kill yourself, just don't drag me down with you and we have no beef. Since you have to assume both smokers and non-smokers alike will be using public property, it only makes sense to ban smoking. Your rights stretch only as far as other people's begin, and smoking in public impedes on healthy people's lives. So you get over it, and you stay home to do you thing. I choose to be healthy, and have some sort of endurance.. Why should I have to stay inside or go elsewhere because you're addicted to a toxin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:50 pm
LucRicher Since you have to assume both smokers and non-smokers alike will be using public property, it only makes sense to ban smoking. Your rights stretch only as far as other people's begin, and smoking in public impedes on healthy people's lives. So you get over it, and you stay home to do you thing. I choose to be healthy, and have some sort of endurance.. Why should I have to stay inside or go elsewhere because you're addicted to a toxin? Vehicles. Why not ban them? Traffic releases more toxins into the air that are harmful for you than smoking does. Smog anyone? Next you're going to tell people to stop driving because their exhaust is killing you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:28 pm
I think Smoking should only be banned in places where there are more vunerable victims of second hand smoke. Places like day-cares and hospitals should have a no-smoking rule. In bars I think smoking should be allowed. In resturants I think there should be a smoking and non-smoking section, although i think should be left up to the owners of the establishment. As for public places, like side walks and parking lots, you should be able to smoke as much as you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
