Elta
我不会把这种
No, it wold end up being just like what happened with prohibition.
Why we shouldn't ban smoking
- Thread starter Sims2789
- Start date
jeps
Arcadefire
i voted yes just because yes and canadian were the same option, and seriously, australia gets an option more often then we do. i didnt even read the topic name until after i voted yes, canadian.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Well smoking barely exists in my country anymore....I dont see it turning into a lawless place.
However my country is full of singaporeans..........
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Keep smoking bans indoors the way they are. No way I want my lungs inhale that toxic smoke no thanks to second hand smoking 
.
.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
I agree. But smoking on the sidewalk is rude, but not criminal.
Keep smoking bans indoors the way they are. No way I want my lungs inhale that toxic smoke no thanks to second hand smoking
Then why did you vote to change the laws?
Not completely. Legalize mj. Ban everything else.
Nobody
Gangster
no, its up to you what you do to yourself. But i do support it being banned in public places,
Shadylookin
master debater
if you ban smoking then you make the cool act of smoking even cooler and all the cool kids will start smoking.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I thought the poll title stated outlawing smoking indoors in public places
.
I love the tax revenue. Although, you know, tobacco is a terribly good example of a good that carries with it negative externalities. The health costs suck.
But I do agree with the right of people to be stupid, so...I voted "no, American". Since I'm from America.
But I do agree with the right of people to be stupid, so...I voted "no, American". Since I'm from America.
CartesianFart
Deity
*ahem* ... *cough*...*cough*.... always smoking with the wind of my smoke going toward your silly face.I love the tax revenue. Although, you know, tobacco is a terribly good example of a good that carries with it negative externalities. The health costs suck.
But I do agree with the right of people to be stupid, so...I voted "no, American". Since I'm from America.
Fuschia
A Little Odd
I don't believe it is the right of anyone to tell someone else what they can do on their private property. Smoking should not be banned when it comes strictly to smoking on or within one's own private property.
As for public places, I would say that most of them should not ban it. A public road is a method of transportation; as such, whether or not people smoke on it or next to it is not a concern. You are more likely to die being run over by a car than accidentally inhaling some cigarette smoke and I don't see people clamoring to ban the driving of cars in public places.
Beyond roads, most places outside are large enough for one to move away from a smoker if you don't want to breathe in smoke. Indoors areas within public places should also, generally, not ban smoking; if you don't want to be next to a smoker, than leave the building! The only places I can support banning smoking are schools, hospitals, and the occasional cramped public building that has a requisite visiting time.
As for public places, I would say that most of them should not ban it. A public road is a method of transportation; as such, whether or not people smoke on it or next to it is not a concern. You are more likely to die being run over by a car than accidentally inhaling some cigarette smoke and I don't see people clamoring to ban the driving of cars in public places.
Beyond roads, most places outside are large enough for one to move away from a smoker if you don't want to breathe in smoke. Indoors areas within public places should also, generally, not ban smoking; if you don't want to be next to a smoker, than leave the building! The only places I can support banning smoking are schools, hospitals, and the occasional cramped public building that has a requisite visiting time.
One question is how to define public vs private property?
Most bars are private property, but open to the public, and obviously it's intended they are covered by the smoking bans.
In the UK at least, even a members only smoking bar would be covered - AFAIK, anywhere that is at least open to the public (even if via membership required), or is a workplace, is covered.
Most bars are private property, but open to the public, and obviously it's intended they are covered by the smoking bans.
In the UK at least, even a members only smoking bar would be covered - AFAIK, anywhere that is at least open to the public (even if via membership required), or is a workplace, is covered.
Merkinball
Deity
We gotta legalize drugs though, we have a prison population crisis.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
As long as they do them in their own house.
Fuschia
A Little Odd
I suppose so, as long as they are well managed.
In my opinion, just because you allow someone else on to your private property does not make it public. That would include restaurants, bars, and workplaces. It is criminal, the way governments continue to infringe on the rights of people to private property. If you don't want to eat at a restaurant where they allow smokers, then eat somewhere else!
rhawn
Emperor
No. That's enough from you anti-smoking nazis. Seriously.
I think it would be more sensible if they defined the law as public places (i.e., things like bus stops, not pubs), and workplaces. This means that the vast majority of pubs still have smoking banned, as it's an issue of employment health - but people are still free to open up a smoking bar which they run self-employed. I think that's where the law goes too far. It's private property, there are no workers, and people choose to enter it (and there'd be plenty of non-smoking pubs for them to go to instead), so I don't see why they should be illegal.
Merkinball
Deity
I think its sensible that if you don't want to work in a smoke filled bar, that you don't.
