Smoking ban in public places

Post Reply New Topic

I think its brilliant that in New York a smoking ban in public places such as parks, beaches and promenades has been brought through. Usually when America does something like this the UK follows suit then hopefully Europe. This is a step in the right direction to an outright ban one day. It is discusting when you are walking down the street and someones second hand smoke is coming in your face. There are some more considerate smokers who go of somewhere out of the way so they don't upset anyone and those ignorant unconsiderate ones who enjoy smoking in front of non smokers and are ready for an augument.

I have to strongly disagree. And this is as from a non-smoker.

If the sort of language you used in your post to describe smokers who smoke in public places (they've already been banned from inside bars, their traditional habitat, and government buildings, shops, banks, and all indoor public places) was applied to autistics, how would you feel?

Smoking in pubs is illegal in the UK. They can smoke outdoors only in a spot that is less than 50% sheltered. Which makes it useless as a shelter. The rate of pub closures has increased dramatically since the ban.

Smokers I believe have quite a good case for feeling discriminated against.

I disagree wholeheartedly - as a non-smoker, an ex-smoker.

Smoking bans encourage an anti-smoking culture that demonises smokers so that they're stripped of their rights and looked down upon, it's also a culture that results not only in smokers increasing the amount they smoke but less public support to help smokers to quit. Smoking bans are selfish and prejudice, it helps non-smokers but not smokers.

You don't like second-hand smoke, but take a second to consider what it's like for smokers inhaling first-hand smoke every day.
Smoking is NOT enjoyable; having to pay a fortune for daily stress/anxiety, poor health, feeling and looking terrible, abuse from non-smokers, standing out in bad weather or going long periods of time without something you desperately need due to smoking bans, being denied vital health care or even denied a life if you require organ transplant, seeing how your addiction effects those around you, people saying idiotic things such as 'smoking is bad for you', or your eventual slow painful death - nothing more enjoyable than cancer!

Smokers are unable to care for their own health, it's the nature of their addiction, so you can't expect them to care for the health of non-smokers. I'm not saying it's okay for people to have to inhale smoke, but that non-smokers don't give a toss about smokers health so it's a bit rich to then punish smokers for not acknowledging the health of non-smokers.

There would be no need for bans if no one smoked, if smokers were given adequate support to quit and if government made an effort to prevent smoking to begin with. Besides, government subvertly encourage smoking, with so much money being made from cigarette sales and saved from early deaths (particularly of working-class people), I doubt an outright ban would ever happen.

Last edited by Bloodheart on 26 May 2011, 4:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Have you read the pro-smoking blogs? There are a lot of very intelligent people contributing to them; they feel marginalised and demonised for their preferences.

Personally, if people want to smoke, that's up to them. They know it's "bad" for them: they've been constantly told this for decades. No regular smoker in Britain could possibly not know that it's bad for them. But they choose to take that risk.

People that want to quit will do so. But it's not about health any more; it's about demonisation of individual choice.

I'm unsure of my take on this. Getting rid of cigarettes altogether, and changing modes like using the nicotine inhaler instead of cigarettes might be preferable as a way to limit physical damage to the smokers themselves without taking away the nicotine that they enjoy. Maybe it doesn't look as cool, maybe it costs $100 for the device, but your lungs are worth more than $100, right? Hitler was against smoking, but that doesn't make smoking good. There's an entire class of logic errors that are based on making comparisons to Hitler, and their inverse goes along the lines of "..well if Hitler was against it, then it must be good..." which is obviously absurd in this case. Seeking to limit smoking for the protection of others is not an inevitable slide into some sort of totalitarian tyranny.

I grew up with smokers and I had problems because of asthma and had trouble fitting in because I smelled bad and coughed a lot because of it, so smokers can't expect much sympathy from me for something they're doing not just to themselves, but also to others who don't want to be around it. But now that I'm an adult, I don't spend most of my time breathing the smoke, and when I do, I'm getting a small fraction of what they're getting, and they're getting it every day. Maybe consideration for guys like me enters into their minds, maybe concern for their own health enters also, I don't know, but if they're going to quit, they shouldn't do it for me, they should do it for themselves.

Don't do it for me.
Don't do it for me
Do it, FOR YOURSELF!! ---Stimpy

Last edited by sgrannel on 26 May 2011, 4:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

eww yuck I hate smoking I've never tried nor will I ever.smoking seems to be a disrupt part of myself to being sensible to that smell.I would like to get you the advice that sadly people while they lit one up,don't seem to realize the different types of pain their body is going through inside.So I do believe that smoking is a big no ban in public places,I just can't seem to stand it and yes they'll always be people who try it.

I've not read many pro-smoking blogs, I'm middle-ground so have issues with both the pro-smoking side like Forest and the anti-smoking side like Ash, so reading either side has potential to get me fuming. I believe with many pro-smokers it's the addiction talking not them, I think that gets in the way of their arguments at times, and some pro-smokers seem to be anti-quitting.

It isn't about health any more. Do you remember start of this year smoking quit kits were available on the NHS and the general public kicked-off that money was being spent on helping smokers quit? To me that's a message that not only is health not a reason for smokers to quit, but it's not a reason for non-smokers to want smokers to quit either.

Well I can understand banning it in inside public places and for a certain distantance around the entrances...but I think a complete ban in all public places even outside ones is a bit ridiculous. I mean where are people who smoke going to do so if its banned even outside.

and I also might add even when I am outside in public....if there are a lot of people close by or someone with small children close by I avoid them I don't stand next to them and blow it in their face. But I would settle for bans inside public places, maybe a ban for throwing ciggerettes on the ground when your done because it is a bit gross when there are ciggerette butts laying around everywhere.

Totalitarian. Smokers enjoy smoking. They may say that it's an addiction, but that's really only to stop people persecuting them.

Maybe it doesn't look as cool, maybe it costs $100 for the device, but your lungs are worth more than $100, right?[/quote]

What, you mean like smokeless tobacco, or e-cigarettes? Widely banned, and those devices that aren't will probably be banned too soon. The pharmaceutical lobby has a huge amount of weight with government, whilst tobacco firms are just shut out of all the proceedings.



It's a personal choice. Either you believe in freedom or you don't. Smokers harm no-one but themselves.



You're misrepresenting the argument: the argument I've heard is that smoking bans are generally the first step towards totalitarianism. After that, it will be other undesired groups. And make no mistake, autistics will not be far behind once they've done with the drinkers and "deviants".



Who does it protect? Point taken on asthma sufferers, though I gathered that smoking exaggerates something that's already there, it doesn't "cause" anything per se.

After that they'll look at restricting smoking in people's own homes. Actually, no, scratch that. It's already started. I'll dig up a link if you like?

They seem to be anti-quitting because there is so much pressure on them to quit, plus they like being different and saying "no", and if necessary ridiculing those with obsessive anti-smoking views. Contrarianism is a noble trait.

That's life in the big city. Cities are known for restrictions on things that people out in the sticks or small towns take for granted, with parking as a familiar example. If you're out in the middle of a corn field on a tractor and you light up, nobody is around to be bothered. But on the sidewalk, those of us who have noses that work can smell it 100 feet away or more. Don't like it? Don't live there. I don't like it and I don't live there.

Then again maybe the question one should ask is not "Where am I going to smoke?", but rather "Why in the hell am I doing this to myself?".

Last edited by sgrannel on 26 May 2011, 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why the hell do I drink? Because I like doing it. I can only imagine it's the same for them.

Drinking and lots of other things are next on the list.

If you couldn't see the person smoking 100ft away, I bet you wouldn't be able to smell it.

Yes I can, and when I walk past I can also smell the benches and ashcans where they smoke even when nobody is there. I can also tell when people smell like smoke even if they're not holding a lit cigarette.

Also, other students could smell the smoke on me from being around smokers, even though I don't smoke, and during those times I was more than 1 mile away from the original source.

Last edited by sgrannel on 26 May 2011, 5:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

But I didn't have any clinically significant health problems and social problems which were made worse by my stepdad's drinking. Smokers need an "out", that is, a way to enjoy their drug that is less harmful to themselves and others. Banning smoking without providing an "out" is probably unfair, and I would consider unrestricted use of e-cigs or gum or patches a fair compromise. I don't want to be in the business of telling people they can't enjoy nicotine, but I don't want to be around the smoke either and it bothers me to see them damaging themselves so badly.