NationStates Jolt Archive

I am just polling people to see whether NSers believe people have the right to smoke in public. Plus I want to hear middle ground opinions.

I believe that people should be entitled to smoke in public. Places like New York have banned it in places. I was also disgruntled to hear that the University of Cincinnati is looking to designate one smoking spot.

Personally, I think places should stop putting ashtrays right next to the doors, because people typically smoke wherever there is an ashtray.

Since smoking seems to be a health risk, we should put the rights of those who do not wish to smoke above the others.

If people wish to smoke, they can do so in private or in a designated smoking area.

Second-hand smoke is harmful. That is pretty much all I need to know that I don't want it around me, my children, my friends, etc.

I'm reminded of the phrase "The right to swing your fist ends at my nose".

I'm all for civil liberties, right up to the point where they start harming other people. That's where your rights end, to me.

Do you both believe that places such as bars and pubs ban smoking due to government intervention?

Too many variables to consider. Are you inside or outside? What do you mean by a public space? What other activities are taking place? etc,etc,etc.

People have the right to smoke yes but people also have the right to not endanger their lives

I would say when it comes down to it I would lean twards the right to be smoke free

The right to smoke is the right to partake in a pleasure or wish

The right to be smoke free is the right to your health

I give the right to determine your health the upper hand then one for your pleasure

I am just polling people to see whether NSers believe people have the right to smoke in public. Plus I want to hear middle ground opinions.

I believe that people should be entitled to smoke in public. Places like New York have banned it in places. I was also disgruntled to hear that the University of Cincinnati is looking to designate one smoking spot.

Personally, I think places should stop putting ashtrays right next to the doors, because people typically smoke wherever there is an ashtray.

I don't think the government should be involved at all. I think if businesses want to prohibit it, they should be allowed to, but they should also be allowed to permit smoking as well. The business will make its decision based on how the consumers react, and the consumers will be the ones making the decision. I really hate that the government thinks they have to step in on every issue. They really need to just back off and let the people handle it themselves. Just my 2 cents.

I also propose whether or not a person is capable of putting themselves in smoke free conditions without making others stop smoking. Can one not spend the extra two seconds to walk outside the five foot range of someone's cigarette? I can understand not smoking in tight confined spaces, but let's take the example of public parks. If I'm sitting on a bench smoking, there is nothing which can prevent someone from walking around, should I be allowed to smoke?

I'm not looking for these arbitrary answers

Do you both believe that places such as bars and pubs ban smoking due to government intervention?

Do I believe the government does, or should? I suppose the government does. For bars and pubs, I might be willing to make an exception, so long as the smoking is restricted to a particular area, and the ventilation is sufficient so that I'm not breathing in a haze of cigarette smoke.

Do you both believe that places such as bars and pubs ban smoking due to government intervention?
Bars are different they are a specially catering … those that go to bars have to expect smoke to a certain level

I would hope they would be kind enough to make a non smoking section but I don’t think it should be a requirement

I guess it is a grey area that is hard to define

I believe people should have the right to breathe freely, without cancerous chemicals floating in the breeze around them from smokers. I get tired of holding my breath when I walk in a building from all the addicts outside it smoking.

It should be illeagal in indoor working places(including buses, trains, taxis etc.)

Outdoors is allowed and your own home.

I'd prefer it that way that smoking is a privilege, which is revoked when it is not practised considerately.

Which is more important?

1. The right for people to drive cars
2. The right for people not to breathe cancer causing chemicals in the air

You choose.

Which is more important?

1. The right for people to drive cars
2. The right for people not to breathe cancer causing chemicals in the air

You choose.The right for people to drive cars. You can't take the kids to grandma's for vacation with a cigarette, can you?

The right for people to drive cars. You can't take the kids to grandma's for vacation with a cigarette, can you?

I see. So you don't mind inhaling cancer causing chemicals as long as someone is thus able to "take the kids to grandma's for vacation." But you do mind inhaling cancer causing chemicals when you hang out with smokers.

Which is more important?

1. The right for people to drive cars
2. The right for people not to breathe cancer causing chemicals in the air

You choose.
Outside it's fine, but I say we completely ban cars driven inside! :D
same answer to smoking.

I see. So you don't mind inhaling cancer causing chemicals as long as someone is thus able to "take the kids to grandma's for vacation." But you do mind inhaling cancer causing chemicals when you hang out with smokers.I can agree to see why we need cars and why cars don't need to be taken off the street because one person wants it that way. There need to be restrictions, but no real ban. Smoking, however, doesn't serve any beneficial purpose really, so comparing cars to cigarettes, which I think you did, doesn't really work.

I can agree to see why we need cars and why cars don't need to be taken off the street because one person wants it that way. There need to be restrictions, but no real ban. Smoking, however, doesn't serve any beneficial purpose really, so comparing cars to cigarettes, which I think you did, doesn't really work.

Oh no, it works fine. You see most of the objections are "hey I have a RIGHT to breathe free, clean air!" So if people are suddenly, "On the other hand I don't mind breathing polluted air...." then that argument gets thrown out automatically. Not to mention the EPA has shown that automobile pollution is far worse than 'environmental tobacco smoke.'

No one's banning cigarettes because "cigarettes serve no beneficial purpose." I don't think the Republican Party serves a beneficial purpose. Do I get to ban it? Are Cheetos really necessary, do they serve a beneficial purpose? No. Are shows like Big Brother providing a beneficial purpose too? No. No one bans things for being useless, and if they did, then I can think of about ten thousand things to ban on that basis.

Outside it's fine, but I say we completely ban cars driven inside! :D
same answer to smoking.
What about bumper cars they are indoors !

If it's on a private property business, like a restaraunt, the business owner should have the right to decide whether people can smoke or not in his establishment. I see no problem with people smoking while on sidewalks or in parks, just so long as they hit the trash can when they're done. And as far as government buildings go, I guess you can make an arguement either way, for and against.

Oh no, it works fine. You see most of the objections are "hey I have a RIGHT to breathe free, clean air!" So if people are suddenly, "On the other hand I don't mind breathing polluted air...." then that argument gets thrown out automatically. Not to mention the EPA has shown that automobile pollution is far worse than 'environmental tobacco smoke.'

No one's banning cigarettes because "cigarettes serve no beneficial purpose." I don't think the Republican Party serves a beneficial purpose. Do I get to ban it? Are Cheetos really necessary, do they serve a beneficial purpose? No. Are shows like Big Brother providing a beneficial purpose too? No. No one bans things for being useless, and if they did, then I can think of about ten thousand things to ban on that basis.I don't like breathing cigarette smoke because it pollutes the air like car exhausts. I don't like it because it makes me choke, dries me out, and I know it has all sorts of additives that make it more addictive.
I currently live in a very windy place. Smoke outside doesn't bug me as much because it gets blown away very fast. However, I don't have to deal with car fumes in unventilated rooms when I'm at parties or at a friend's that smokes.

However, I don't have to deal with car fumes in unventilated rooms when I'm at parties or at a friend's that smokes.

No, but then a ban on cigarettes won't change that.

Whose rights are more important?

1. The rights of people not to inhale cigarette smoke
2. The rights of people not to turn on a fan and open a window :p

I put 'both'. That si I think that smokers have the right to chose to patronize smoking establishments and therin smoke. And non-smokers have the right not to patronise these establishments. I don't think that smokers have a right to smoke in a non-smoking establishment. Anywy gotta go smoke one.

I don't like breathing cigarette smoke because it pollutes the air like car exhausts. I don't like it because it makes me choke, dries me out, and I know it has all sorts of additives that make it more addictive.
I currently live in a very windy place. Smoke outside doesn't bug me as much because it gets blown away very fast. However, I don't have to deal with car fumes in unventilated rooms when I'm at parties or at a friend's that smokes.So are you argueing that people should not be able to smoke in their own homes when they have guests? If not (and I hope that you aren't), then your example of "unventilated rooms when I'm at parties or at a friend's that smokes" is a very bad one. Incidentally, car fumes are inside. The pollution generated by private cars is so bad that the air quality in our homes is worse than it used to be.

So are you argueing that people should not be able to smoke in their own homes when they have guests? If not (and I hope that you aren't), then your example of "unventilated rooms when I'm at parties or at a friend's that smokes" is a very bad one. Incidentally, car fumes are inside. The pollution generated by private cars is so bad that the air quality in our homes is worse than it used to be.A lot of friends I have have the rule that smoking only happens on the balcony or by the window, if only to prevent the room from stinking. And people smoking when they have guests and they don't ask them before hand whether it is ok if they smoke would be "rude" in my eyes (it would be rude for the guests to say no, in my eyes, as they are guests).
As for the car pollution in our homes, I don't know where you live. The air in some places is extremely different. I currently live in a small city in a very flat area which is awefully windy and therefore not so prone to such pollution. Mexico City, however, had a problem with birds falling dead out of the trees because of the pollution. The two don't compare...

No, but then a ban on cigarettes won't change that.

Whose rights are more important?

1. The rights of people not to inhale cigarette smoke
2. The rights of people not to turn on a fan and open a window :pOption 1.
Sheesh, these are my preferences. If I were dictator, this is how I would run things. Since I'm not, I stick to etiquette and don't rub it under smokers' noses how much their habit irritates me.
Online discussions, however, are a completely different matter ;)

Inside a building other than a house, no. People will tell you there is no evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful, despite the reports. Be that as it may, the truth is most buildings' ventilation systems suck. Even if second-hand smoke is not harmful, I have a right not to go home stinking of it. I have a right not to be a captive audience to something that sickens me and potentially may be harmful to me, and definitely adds its distinctive odor to my hair and clothing.

I also personally found it repulsive to eat while people smoked around me, and was often at odds with family members (not other people) who would start smoking before I had finished eating - knowing that I despised it and that I had no problem with them smoking after the meal was complete.

Now, when you get outdoors, to my mind, it's a whole different story. Someone is smoking in the park? Get over it. You can pick yourself up and walk away upwind of them. Someone smoking on the street? Well, if you live in a city like mine (NYC) there's plenty of exhaust fumes and incinerators to worry about before worrying about someone with a Marlboro passing you by.

Anyone who thinks they ought to ban smoking inside cars and private houses is a fool.

Do you both believe that places such as bars and pubs ban smoking due to government intervention?

They certainly do -- witness the enormous fines being paid in NYC by some places that refuse to enforce the rule.

I also personally found it repulsive to eat while people smoked around me, and was often at odds with family members (not other people) who would start smoking before I had finished eating - knowing that I despised it and that I had no problem with them smoking after the meal was complete.I've read that it is quite offensive in arabic cultures to smoke while others are eating, and that they will often put out their cigarettes as a sign of respect if they notice someone still eating. It was a German article about how rude we Germans really are...:p

Which is more important?

1. The right for people to drive cars
2. The right for people not to breathe cancer causing chemicals in the air

You choose.

Shouldn't there be an option:

3. The right for people to drive ecologically friendly cars. (e.g Electric) ?

With smoking it's a little harder to find a middle ground, unless they develop a cigarette which only allows the ingestion of nicotine, and prevents passive smoking....

I don't think the Republican Party serves a beneficial purpose. Do I get to ban it? Are Cheetos really necessary, do they serve a beneficial purpose? No. Are shows like Big Brother providing a beneficial purpose too? No. No one bans things for being useless, and if they did, then I can think of about ten thousand things to ban on that basis.

You don't think having a two party system serves a useful purpose? I happen to know a lot of people who would disagree with you, and if I had to bet the farm on it, I'd wager the majority would.

Do Cheetos contain carcinogens, smell terrible, irritate the eyes, make it difficult to breathe, and increase blood pressure, all by the virtue of inhaling the air around them -- without ever intentionally wishing to consume them?

As for Big Brother, same as Cheetos above.

Your examples are interesting, but I have yet to see significant detrimental effects to people who are not partaking of the things mentioned, that would be remedied by their removal, and would not be a cure worse than the disease.

You don't think having a two party system serves a useful purpose? I happen to know a lot of people who would disagree with you, and if I had to bet the farm on it, I'd wager the majority would.


Well surely a three or four party system would be better? :D And anyway, who says one of the members of the two-party system HAS to be Republican? :D

Your examples are interesting, but I have yet to see significant detrimental effects to people who are not partaking of the things mentioned, that would be remedied by their removal, and would not be a cure worse than the disease.

They said Republican Party! Doesn't that satisfy your criteria? :D

Well surely a three or four party system would be better? :D And anyway, who says one of the members of the two-party system HAS to be Republican? :D

I would surely think so (regarding the 3 or 4 party system). I don't suppose there should be unlimited parties, as then the votes just get divided too much to mean anything.

I'll concede the point that the 2nd party need not be Republican, though in their absence, what would really replace them?

A lot of friends I have have the rule that smoking only happens on the balcony or by the window, if only to prevent the room from stinking. And people smoking when they have guests and they don't ask them before hand whether it is ok if they smoke would be "rude" in my eyes (it would be rude for the guests to say no, in my eyes, as they are guests).
As for the car pollution in our homes, I don't know where you live. The air in some places is extremely different. I currently live in a small city in a very flat area which is awefully windy and therefore not so prone to such pollution. Mexico City, however, had a problem with birds falling dead out of the trees because of the pollution. The two don't compare...


Um, no.
If you go to a smoker's home, you have no right to assume they will not smoke.
If you prefer a smoke-free environment, invite them to your home, where they will (I am sure) step outside to respect YOUR rules.

I would surely think so (regarding the 3 or 4 party system). I don't suppose there should be unlimited parties, as then the votes just get divided too much to mean anything.

I'll concede the point that the 2nd party need not be Republican, though in their absence, what would really replace them?

We have the "Monster Raving Loony Party" over here in the UK :D (No, really, it exists!) They're an upwardly mobile party, and I think they'd relish the challenge of moving overseas to replace the Republicans :D

Second hand smoke is harmful. I do not like to be around it. At the same time, it is funny to see someone drive around in an SUV and eat at McDonalds, and then complain that the smoke is bad for them. It would seem that smokers are an easier target than the petroleum industry or the chock-full of preservative and mutagenic chemical fast 'food.'

Second hand smoke is harmful. I do not like to be around it. At the same time, it is funny to see someone drive around in an SUV and eat at McDonalds, and then complain that the smoke is bad for them. It would seem that smokers are an easier target than the petroleum industry or the chock-full of preservative and mutagenic chemical fast 'food.'

I think it's simply accumulation of evidence against smoking over the years. Simply loads and loads of studies. Also the fact that the nicotine element to cigarettes lead to addiction qualities are probably also why they're targeted. You can say people can be addicted to their cars or to fast food, but I don't think the addiction is as physiologically strong as the impact nicotine can have.

I've read that it is quite offensive in arabic cultures to smoke while others are eating, and that they will often put out their cigarettes as a sign of respect if they notice someone still eating. It was a German article about how rude we Germans really are...:p

Heh. Well, I suppose my point was folks really should compromise -- as I said, I didn't care if it was after dinner -- the cigarette smell impaired my ability to enjoy my meal. It's worse when someone sitting next to you is doing it, of course, than someone two tables away.

All in all, I'm pleased that it's banned in NY, and that most other states I have been to separate their smoking and non smoking sections pretty widely. I DO find it telling, however, that I often have to wait for seats in the non-smoking section when there are tables free in the smoking section -- go figure....

Second hand smoke is harmful. I do not like to be around it. At the same time, it is funny to see someone drive around in an SUV and eat at McDonalds, and then complain that the smoke is bad for them. It would seem that smokers are an easier target than the petroleum industry or the chock-full of preservative and mutagenic chemical fast 'food.'


;) I have no SUV and have eaten at McDonald's perhaps thrice this year. ;)

Inside a building other than a house, no. People will tell you there is no evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful, despite the reports. Be that as it may, the truth is most buildings' ventilation systems suck. Even if second-hand smoke is not harmful, I have a right not to go home stinking of it. I have a right not to be a captive audience to something that sickens me and potentially may be harmful to me, and definitely adds its distinctive odor to my hair and clothing.

I also personally found it repulsive to eat while people smoked around me, and was often at odds with family members (not other people) who would start smoking before I had finished eating - knowing that I despised it and that I had no problem with them smoking after the meal was complete.
Well and I support your right so much I'm even going to tell you how to enforce that right: Try eating at non-smooking resturaunts for a starter. Even if their ventilation is pathetic you won't have to put up with smoke. As a smoker who happens to like going out I can tell you that if you can't find a non-smoking establishment you should consider a full time nanny to make sure you don't walk into buildings.

I can't be around smokers. The last time I was in a "smoke-filled room" my throat swelled shut, I stopped breathing, and had to be rushed to the hospital. I now choose not to go to bars, etc, where I KNOW people will be smoking. My health, my choice.

My Problem (yes, with a capitol P - it's a big problem) is with the people who smoke right in front of no smoking signs, particularly at the enterance to businesses. Our city has a clean air act, saying you have to be 20 feet from the enterance to a building if you choose to smoke outside. People ignore it. This law does not prevent the cloud of toxic gasses that I have to walk through in order to get into the building. I have to hold my breath, run through the smoke, and immediately find a fountain to wash whatever might have gotten in my throat anyway OUT right away. It sucks.

And no, car exhaust does not affect me the same way, at least not nearly as severely. I cough, but I can still breathe afterwards.

Given my personal choice, I would ban smoking altogether. It would make MY life much easier. But I recognize that tobacco is a big business, and a huge lobby in DC, and would never allow that to happen. Not counting the millions of addicts who would hunt me down for taking away their high. Instead, I keep living my life the way I do, knowing what I have to do to keep myself safe. And scowling at the people who smoke outside buildings, or in their car in traffic, or anywhere else that it's out of my control to get away from them. You wouldn't believe the number of people I have pissed off just by rolling up my window.

For what it's worth... my $.02 (it doesn't buy as much as it used to!)

Yeah I get alergies every year in the same season. My life would be a lot easier if they DDTed all the ragweed into extinction.

Do I believe the government does, or should? I suppose the government does. For bars and pubs, I might be willing to make an exception, so long as the smoking is restricted to a particular area, and the ventilation is sufficient so that I'm not breathing in a haze of cigarette smoke.


Nonsense!

If I own my bar I should be able to decide if smoking is allowed or not.

If you don't like it leave and go to a bar that has banned smoking.

Or open your own.

Well considering that smoking is so dangerous(health wise) not only to smokers but also to non smokers thro passive smoking-smoking in public places should be banned. Why should someone be able to damage my health just because they aredoing so to theirs??

Well considering that smoking is so dangerous(health wise) not only to smokers but also to non smokers thro passive smoking-smoking in public places should be banned. Why should someone be able to damage my health just because they aredoing so to theirs??

In rebuttal, smokers do not hold you in their vicinity against your will.

If smokers want the deadliest known forms of cancer, fine. Just don't give it to me. If it was up to me, cigarrettes would never have existed and cars would run on clean, renewable energies that are also reliable.

In public--gotta go with the "can't affect others without their permission" route. Smokers can't control the wind, so they can't stop the smoke from going to someone else who doesn't want it.

Now, in a private establishment (like a restaurant, bar, or even apartments), it would be up to the OWNER of the establishment to decide if they are smoke free or not.

I can't stand all the governments telling owners of private property if they can or can't allow smoking on their land.

And the bullshit about waitroids "needing" that particular job is just that--bullshit. They can work some place else. I only bring that part up because we have a lot of radio commercials pushing that mind mush, trying to force owners to bow to the special interest groups (IE prohibitionists).

I don't smoke, but my mother has smoked all my life, so I'm used to it.
I don't have a problem with public smoking, as long as it is within reason. Public buildings should be smoke free, with designated areas of smoking in everywhere else.
Bars, resturants, etc. should have smoking sections that are actually separate, if they have there are smoking sections. .
Your right to smoke does not override my right to not get lung cancer.

I don't smoke, but my mother has smoked all my life, so I'm used to it.
I don't have a problem with public smoking, as long as it is within reason. Public buildings should be smoke free, with designated areas of smoking in everywhere else.
Bars, resturants, etc. should have smoking sections that are actually separate, if they have there are smoking sections. .
Your right to smoke does not override my right to not get lung cancer.

I agree with things like government buildings and such that have been paid for by taxes, but private estabilshment owners should be the ones to decide as to whether or not there are smoking sections, all smoking areas, or whatever.

You don't want lung cancer--admirable goal--and a wise one, in my opinion. However, if you want to go into a bar, you don't have the right to tell the owner to build a specific section just for you.

Bars are owned by people. They can choose who to serve, when to serve, and how to go about serving customers. It's their choice. If they make a choice you don't agree with--take your money someplace else--like somewhere they will cater to your needs/wants.

Bars and restaurants aren't owned by the government--and therefore, not owned by the citizenry. Everyone seems to forget that. It's not our place to tell a private owner what they can and cannot do with their property.

Currently the idea in most countries is that you can smoke unless something says otherwise (Hint: No Smoking ;)). Personally, i'd rather it be illegal in public places unless it's a special designated public area with a licence, so that cigar clubs, underground raves or workplaces (as an afterthought)smoke or have smoking areas. Tall buildings should be allowed smoking rooms because a 5 minute fag break in the room next door suddenly becomes 20 minutes in lifts, through security and back again.

I couldn't care two hoots about the owner of the bar/restaurant/bowling alley deciding about if smoking is allowed. The government is a democratically elected body making a decision on behalf of the people about their health. The proprietor is not.

Shouldn't there be an option:

3. The right for people to drive ecologically friendly cars. (e.g Electric) ?

With smoking it's a little harder to find a middle ground, unless they develop a cigarette which only allows the ingestion of nicotine, and prevents passive smoking....

Sure there is a middle ground. Develop big, self-contained bubbles like hamsters have, and let them smoke in those!

People bringing cars into the debate is an interesting thing, and very similar to those who bring knives into debates about gun control. The main difference between cars and cigarettes is their purpose -- cigarettes don't actually have a practical purpose other than to be set on fire and make smoke. Cars DO have a practical purpose, and the pollution they give off is an undesirable side-effect.

And, of course, if you come to the UK or anywhere else in Europe you can see that the government is making every effort to make it as difficult as possible to drive a car -- high fuel prices, high taxes, stealth taxes, more stealth taxes, etc. And on Mainland Europe some of the governments there have actually provided alternatives to driving! And, of course, they fund research into economically friendly cars, and economically friendly power stations, etc. And that's for something with a practical use! So I would expect cigarettes to be banned completely, if not at least in public places.

It's not our place to tell a private owner what they can and cannot do with their property.

Actually, yes it is if people's welfare is put in jeopardy. Which is why it's no more legal to murder someone in a private place than it is a public place. And guess what? Smoking puts people's welfare in jeopardy!

Sure there is a middle ground. Develop big, self-contained bubbles like hamsters have, and let them smoke in those!

Ooh I have a better one! Put the non-smokers in the self-contained bubbles - then they won't even have to worry about the cancers they inhale just by being anywhere near a city!

The main difference between cars and cigarettes is their purpose -- cigarettes don't actually have a practical purpose other than to be set on fire and make smoke.

The difference in purpose would be relevant, if people wished to ban cigarettes based on their purpose. They don't, and if people really have a problem with things that 'have no practical purpose,' as I said before I can think of ten thousand things more to add to the list.

I couldn't care two hoots about the owner of the bar/restaurant/bowling alley deciding about if smoking is allowed. The government is a democratically elected body making a decision on behalf of the people about their health. The proprietor is not.

Oh, so the government owns you? The government has authority over you and your property? Wow.

The government is PARTIALLY elected (at least in the US). Most positions are appointed, actually, in the US.

In any case, the government doesn't own me or my body. I don't smoke, but the government also doesn't own anyone else's body, so they can put into it what they will. They just can't force anyone else to put smoke into their bodies.

If you don't like a bar or restaurant that allows smoking (as is the right of a property owner to decide what happens on their property), go to another bar or restaurant that caters to your wants. That's how freedom works. You are free to leave the area, where the owner has rules in place that you don't like. It's really quite simple.

Prohibition doesn't work--the US proved that in the early 1900s when it tried ot ban alcohol. Same goes for cigarettes or cigars--the market will just go underground, and you will have even more organized crime than ever before.

You don't think having a two party system serves a useful purpose? I happen to know a lot of people who would disagree with you, and if I had to bet the farm on it, I'd wager the majority would.

I said nothing about a two party system, and was referring specifically to a party.

Do Cheetos contain carcinogens, smell terrible, irritate the eyes, make it difficult to breathe, and increase blood pressure, all by the virtue of inhaling the air around them -- without ever intentionally wishing to consume them?

I find it interesting that you list "smell terrible" along with all the other horrible effects. Maybe the government should pass a mandate requiring all citizens use a minimum amount of deoderant, perfume or cologne too? I mean we wouldn't want people to make their own decisions.

Cheetos are USELESS! They are not necessary. That is why they were listed. People say that cigarettes are useless and that that is one reason why they should be banned. If so, then the same applies to cheetos, no matter how they smell. (And frankly yes, cheetos smell nasty and the fact that they contain carcinogens wouldn't surprise anyone I know.)

As for Big Brother, same as Cheetos above.

Yes, it's a useless show that serves no utilitarian purpose!

I am just polling people to see whether NSers believe people have the right to smoke in public. Plus I want to hear middle ground opinions.

I believe that people should be entitled to smoke in public. Places like New York have banned it in places. I was also disgruntled to hear that the University of Cincinnati is looking to designate one smoking spot.

Personally, I think places should stop putting ashtrays right next to the doors, because people typically smoke wherever there is an ashtray.
second hand smoke is dangerous to anyone who breathes it. and just because you cannot see the smoke doesn't mean the chemicals are not there.

I didn't answer your poll for the second choice is too misleading. It can also mean that the non-smokers should leave and find someplace else away from smokers.

as for the ashtray at the door, that's so that people smoking outside can put out their cigs when they enter.

Support the right of the non-smoker.

As a non-smoker, I don't decide to expose myself to the fumes caused by cigarettes, thus increasing my chances of dying a horribly painful and slow death. Smokers know the risks, and they smoke, so they make that decision to experiance that type of death.

Well, not chosing to experiance the death, but they know the consequences and their increasing chances of facing them.

The non-smoker should be protected from these consequences because they don't make a concious decision to face them.

Well and I support your right so much I'm even going to tell you how to enforce that right: Try eating at non-smooking resturaunts for a starter. Even if their ventilation is pathetic you won't have to put up with smoke. As a smoker who happens to like going out I can tell you that if you can't find a non-smoking establishment you should consider a full time nanny to make sure you don't walk into buildings.


Brilliant. Can you make your point without flamebaiting?

What you're saying, basically, is that the non smoking population has no right to a workplace that is free from smoke (which incidentally, a great many places disagree with as smoking in businesses with more than a certain number of workers is illegal).

You're also saying that your privilege of having what is an absolutely non-essential thing which you enjoy trumps people's right to eating (a biological necessity) without smelling your fumes.

I do go to non-smoking establishments, when I can. A better suggestion, since none of the population under the age of 18 can smoke legally where I am, is to create a chain of restaurants just for smokers. There, smokers can puff away to their hearts' content without impregnating non-smokers' hair and clothes with their smell.

I agree with things like government buildings and such that have been paid for by taxes, but private estabilshment owners should be the ones to decide as to whether or not there are smoking sections, all smoking areas, or whatever.

You don't want lung cancer--admirable goal--and a wise one, in my opinion. However, if you want to go into a bar, you don't have the right to tell the owner to build a specific section just for you.

Bars are owned by people. They can choose who to serve, when to serve, and how to go about serving customers. It's their choice. If they make a choice you don't agree with--take your money someplace else--like somewhere they will cater to your needs/wants.

Bars and restaurants aren't owned by the government--and therefore, not owned by the citizenry. Everyone seems to forget that. It's not our place to tell a private owner what they can and cannot do with their property.Unfortunatly, you have the workers. the waiters, cooks, bartenders... and if you have female workers, and their pregnant...
or are you going to say that they should then look for another job, remember that those jobs might be the only ones they could get.

so if you want bars and clubs to allow smoking, then I say they pay 100% for the cancer and other Smoker related health problems the workers will need treatment for.

of course you do realize that then the cost will be passed to the consumer... but they won't mind paying more for a spot to light up right?

so if you want bars and clubs to allow smoking, then I say they pay 100% for the cancer and other Smoker related health problems the workers will need treatment for.

of course you do realize that then the cost will be passed to the consumer... but they won't mind paying more for a spot to light up right?

I think if you want to allow automobiles, every gas station and licensed driver and car owner pays 100% for the cancer and other air pollution related health problems that result!

I said nothing about a two party system, and was referring specifically to a party.

Let's do some math. I have 2 apples on a table. I take away 1 apple. How many apples do I have left on the table?

A two party system requires two parties. Take away one of the parties, and you no long have a two party system.

I find it interesting that you list "smell terrible" along with all the other horrible effects. Maybe the government should pass a mandate requiring all citizens use a minimum amount of deoderant, perfume or cologne too? I mean we wouldn't want people to make their own decisions.

It's a personal reason I am for smoking being banned, not a legal reason for it to be done. I'll be sure to separate them for your convenience next time.

Cheetos are USELESS! They are not necessary. That is why they were listed. People say that cigarettes are useless and that that is one reason why they should be banned. If so, then the same applies to cheetos, no matter how they smell. (And frankly yes, cheetos smell nasty and the fact that they contain carcinogens wouldn't surprise anyone I know.)

Here is a simple equation to decide if something should be allowed:

Benefit - Burden

OK? You with me so far? Pro VS. Con. Easy stuff to understand.

If the burden of allowing something to be legalized is more grave than the benefit which one reaps from having it legalized, it should be illegal.

If the burden of allowing something to be legalized is minute or nonexistant, however small the benefit, it should be legalized.

Cheetos, like Big Brother, are a form of personal amusement and satisfaction to the person partaking of them. They do not harm any individual other than the person partaking of them, unlike cigarettes.

Therefore, with no burden worth mentioning, and a cost only to the individual partaking, there is no reason to outlaw Big Brother or Cheetos.

But you knew that as well as I did.

Yes, it's a useless show that serves no utilitarian purpose!

Too bad North America isn't a utilitarian culture, ne?

I think if you want to allow automobiles, every gas station and licensed driver and car owner pays 100% for the cancer and other air pollution related health problems that result!nice point... except...

1) in this day and age, Automobiles are being changed to be less and less of a pollutant,

2) Automobiles are neccessary for certain jobs and play key roles in saving lives.

3) you need to be licenced to drive, you can only drive in certain areas, and the driver is fined and punnished for breaking the rules/laws.

4) Automobile Manufacturers recall their autos when a dangerous defect is found.

5) you cannot run Automobiles indoors without proper ventilation for eveyone knows that it's dangerous.

6) Automakers acknowledge the poisons their product produces and are constantly working to lower the poisons released by their product.

7) you need to be tested and licenced to drive

8) Owners pay insurance that will pay for damages and health costs to anyone hurt directly by cars.

9) anyone can easily stop driving... can you just as easily stop smoking?

can cigs make the same claims and back up the claims.

and before you ask, I don't drive, I walk to work and back.

I heard the analogy made for those who work in bars (which i have done for a number of years) and resteraunts that complain the smoking is hazardous to their health that it is the sam as race car driving. You know that racing is dangerous and only go into the profession knowing full well what is in store. Same goes for a bartender. There have been a number of smoke-free bars that have opened in prime locations in my area and none of them had stayed open past the one year mark. I realize smoking is not healthy and is bad for me, but do i need the goverment to further force madates down my throat? are they going to attack fast food resteraunts next, putting a limit on how many big macs one can consume because they are bad for you? Let the business decide what is best for themselves. In the end, it is going to end up harming small tavern and resteraunt owners the most. Most people who i know and have talked to would rather stay home and have a few beers than go out to the bar if they cannot enjoy a few smokes with their beer.

I heard the analogy made for those who work in bars (which i have done for a number of years) and resteraunts that complain the smoking is hazardous to their health that it is the sam as race car driving. You know that racing is dangerous and only go into the profession knowing full well what is in store. Same goes for a bartender.except that a Race Car Driver has a saftey harness, helmet, a pit crew as well as emergency services standing by. a Bartender is not given a gas mask when he/she works.

I went to Vegas and the poor dealer was having cigerrate smoke constantly blown into her face, when she politely asked the two players who were doing that to stop blowing the smoke into her face, (other smokers were not btw) they became obnoxious and after a couple of hand, complaind to the pit boss that she "demaned that they stop smoking at a smoking table."

and the pit boss supported them. so the situation is different between bartenders and race car drivers.

There have been a number of smoke-free bars that have opened in prime locations in my area and none of them had stayed open past the one year mark. meanwhile there are alot of Smoke free bars by my area that have passed the one-year mark. funny that... guess it makes a difference what's more important, drinking or smoking.

I realize smoking is not healthy and is bad for me, but do i need the goverment to further force madates down my throat? apprently it's needed. Smoking is banned to minors... we can see how well that's going...

are they going to attack fast food resteraunts next, putting a limit on how many big macs one can consume because they are bad for you? nah, the people suing them because they're fat will do that.
Let the business decide what is best for themselves. In the end, it is going to end up harming small tavern and resteraunt owners the most. Most people who i know and have talked to would rather stay home and have a few beers than go out to the bar if they cannot enjoy a few smokes with their beer.that's the consumers choice. if Smoking is the only thing filling those taverns and Restruants, then their food and drink need much improving.

Unfortunatly, you have the workers. the waiters, cooks, bartenders... and if you have female workers, and their pregnant...
or are you going to say that they should then look for another job, remember that those jobs might be the only ones they could get.


Bullshit. That is NEVER the only job they can get. I see so many help wanted signs it isn't funny--there are always jobs in the classified adds. Now, it may be the best PAYING job they can get at the time--then they have a decision to make--take the smoke, or take the money.

When you take away the rights of the property owner to allow or disallow whatever they want on their property, that's dictatorial government. It's also one step away from banning it in the home you own--both are private property.


so if you want bars and clubs to allow smoking, then I say they pay 100% for the cancer and other Smoker related health problems the workers will need treatment for.


How about holding those who expose themselves to smoke to foot their own damn bill. We all know it's unhealthy already. You make a conscious choice to expose yourself--if you take that chance, you have to deal with the consequences--just like anything else.


of course you do realize that then the cost will be passed to the consumer... but they won't mind paying more for a spot to light up right?

How will the cost be passed on to the consumer? A bar doesn't have to pay for their customers' medical bills. Right now, in Madison, WI, we have a smoking ban in bars and taverns. Compared to last year, this time (before the dictatorial law was put in place), revenues are down 40%. Correspondingly, communities that are just outside Madison have seen a tremendous boost in revenue in their bars and taverns.

Wait staff, cooks, and bartenders are being laid off because there isn't enough business to support their positions any more. They are having to go to those outlying bars and taverns that allow smoking to get jobs, if they choose to stay in that particular field. The business owner won't be the one to suffer from smoking bans on private property--the worker will be the one to shoulder that burden.

Yeah, banning smoking on private property is such a great idea....

Smokers are a HUGE part of the economy. Their buying clout is tremendous--and it's showing.

Since smoking seems to be a health risk, we should put the rights of those who do not wish to smoke above the others.

If people wish to smoke, they can do so in private or in a designated smoking area.

I agree - except that I would put it a bit more strongly. Smoking is a health risk - both to the smoker and to those who have to breathe their second-hand smoke.

While I'm happy to say "We will have a smoke-free public sphere" and go along with fresh air in my lungs, I'm not fond of the idea of smokers deciding to sod going out for a game of soldiers and fill their children's lungs with smoke instead.

Nevertheless, I voted for the rights of non-smokers. Fist-swinging indeed.

It's my right to smoke and it's your right to go downwind...