Why we shouldn't ban smoking

[Fuschia]

No they won't. People are sheep and will put up with nicotine in the air if they have to.

If they care enough they will not and, since the government is supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people, allowing the government to step in and ban smoking when these people do not care enough to steer clear of smoke is a clear over-stepping of their boundaries.

I am usually against nanny-state type things, but this is you putting your addiction in my face, and I will not have it. Go smoke somewhere where other people aren't affected.

Like I said before, I am all for banning smoking in public places where people find it difficult not to pass through a cloud of smoke. However, to place something I own in the category of public places is nothing more than a government infringement upon my ownership.

 

[useless]

If they care enough they will not and, since the government is supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people, allowing the government to step in and ban smoking when these people do not care enough to steer clear of smoke is a clear over-stepping of their boundaries.



Like I said before, I am all for banning smoking in public places where people find it difficult not to pass through a cloud of smoke. However, to place something I own in the category of public places is nothing more than a government infringement upon my ownership.

yeah because it's so easy to avoid a a smoker in a tight area full of non smokers. yep definately not the smoker's problem.

 

[Fuschia]

yeah because it's so easy to avoid a a smoker in a tight area full of non smokers. yep definately not the smoker's problem.

Yes, it is easy to avoid him. However, if it is not and the area is publicly owned, then I would most likely support banning smoking in that area. But putting a blanket ban on smoking in public areas is, frankly, absurd.

 

[useless]

yes because it's more acceptable to let people get cancer then to actually tell smokers " hey go and do your dirty habit somewhere else".

 

[useless]

its more absurd letting people suffer then just simply not smoking in the first place.

 

[Jawz II]

Why not outlaw sex drugs and rock 'n roll too?

While youre at it, also outlaw liquor. Then, stop at my place and shoot me in the head.

 

[Mise]

I hate it when people park in the spot I normally park in. It means I'm forced to find somewhere else to park, even though I park in the same spot EVERY DAY. It's such an inconvenience. They should make it illegal to do that.

 

[Bill3000]

The limit of liberty ends where one harms another person. This includes pollution.

We regulate pollution, we certainly can ban pollution indoors over certain unsafe levels - same with secondhand smoking with cigarettes.

 

[mdwh]

We regulate pollution, we certainly can ban pollution indoors over certain unsafe levels - same with secondhand smoking with cigarettes.

Doesn't that argument apply to people's homes here?

We have to be careful - I'm fine with banning smoking in pubs, but a lot of arguments people are putting forward about "it's okay to ban things which harm others even if they choose to enter the property" etc would apply to say someone having a private house party.

 

[Fuschia]

The limit of liberty ends where one harms another person. This includes pollution.

Smoking is not pollution. It harms other people in your immediate vicinity but, as the Supreme Court has ruled on other cases dealing with individual freedom, there is a reasonable alternative: you can simply leave. Only in places where it is necessary for you to walk past a smoker, should there happen to be one there at the time, should smoking be banned.

 

[Sofista]

There's a middle way between banning totally and allowing anywhere.

Where I live smoking in bars is only allowed in equipped room(s) of the establishments - air sucking devices and all. And, such areas can't take more than 50% of the bar's area.

 

[Bill3000]

Smoking is not pollution. It harms other people in your immediate vicinity but, as the Supreme Court has ruled on other cases dealing with individual freedom, there is a reasonable alternative: you can simply leave. Only in places where it is necessary for you to walk past a smoker, should there happen to be one there at the time, should smoking be banned.

Political policies are not based on vague ideals such as "individual freedom." That's false and irrelevent, anyway, because the supreme court also said that bans on products like these are not unconstitutional.

And no, smoking is freaking pollution. Probably by definition. It's creates a ton of freaking carcinogenic pollutants in the air.

Hell, the idea that one can harm oneself isn't even allowed under classical liberalism; that's a libertarian addition, and is perfectly "constitutional". Drug bans are entirely allowed in America.

Besides, the most important reason why smoking ought to be allowed is the revenue it generates, which everyone seemed to forget. Smoking funds education and the like - banning it wholesale would be stupid.

 

[Cannae]

And no, smoking is freaking pollution. Probably by definition. It's creates a ton of freaking carcinogenic pollutants in the air.

Not only that but, it can quite literally, be said to be radioactive sewage waste.

Besides, the most important reason why smoking ought to be allowed is the revenue it generates, which everyone seemed to forget. Smoking funds education and the like - banning it wholesale would be stupid.

I wouldn't want a overnight ban, as I see that will only worsen things. But, ultimately I want to kill this so that we can take on the beastliest of the beasts... Alcohol.

 

[Mise]

Raising the age at which people can buy cigarettes by 1 year every year would, eventually, result in a ban. I.e. raise it from 18 to 19 this year, 20 next year, 21 the year after, and so on.

 

[warpus]

Like I said before, I am all for banning smoking in public places where people find it difficult not to pass through a cloud of smoke. However, to place something I own in the category of public places is nothing more than a government infringement upon my ownership.

The government regulates many aspects of your business, for good reason.

 

[Cannae]

Raising the age at which people can buy cigarettes by 1 year every year would, eventually, result in a ban. I.e. raise it from 18 to 19 this year, 20 next year, 21 the year after, and so on.

It sadly couldn't be that direct as people would catch on to what's going on.

 

[Fuschia]

The government regulates many aspects of your business, for good reason.

That is debatable.

And no, smoking is freaking pollution. Probably by definition. It's creates a ton of freaking carcinogenic pollutants in the air.

The definition of pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that cause harm to human health, other living organisms, and the environment. As such, smoking is pollution. However, so are a number of other things that are not banned, such as: most cars, many methods of electrical production, many cleaning chemicals, and going to the bathroom. I will rest my case at going to the bathroom...

 

[Incanam]

Smoking would be pushed underground, and it may actually decrease since it would be less accessible. However, organized crime would take it over, and they'd wage turf wars, smuggle drugs, and manufacture cigarettes that are even less safe than the ones you buy in stores.

Yeah, we shouldn't make something illeagal because people will do it anyway. In fact, lets make killing legal because it is illegal now and people still do it anyway.

 

[Bill3000]

That is debatable.

Is != Ought. I know you're a libertarian, but that's the way our society works; the idea that the government regulates harmful behavior is a mainstream one, and fully accepted in classical liberalism before John Stuart Mills.

The definition of pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that cause harm to human health, other living organisms, and the environment. As such, smoking is pollution. However, so are a number of other things that are not banned, such as: most cars, many methods of electrical production, many cleaning chemicals, and going to the bathroom. I will rest my case at going to the bathroom...

We allow car fumes inside buildings?

Dude, we regulate all of the stuff that you mentioned. You'll break the law if buildings don't have proper protections against the pollution you mentioned.

 

[raen]

Smoking is not pollution. It harms other people in your immediate vicinity but, as the Supreme Court has ruled on other cases dealing with individual freedom, there is a reasonable alternative: you can simply leave. Only in places where it is necessary for you to walk past a smoker, should there happen to be one there at the time, should smoking be banned.

I agree with you, but thats not what happens, I have no problem to leave, but if it is not possible, the smokers do not fullfill their part of the bargain*.

The other day I was in a bus stop and a kid was in front of me, leaving a big gap beetween him and a woman, I understood later that she was smoking. Should be banned in public places, but inluding access to transportation for instance, where many people gather and have to stay in line or loose their spot.

In Portugal they just banned in all bars and in work place, finally. Im for places where smokers can smoke, but has to be Real, I find ridiculous restaurants having smoking and non soking areas divided by an invisible line.

* I call it bargain because the ones who are doing harm to others should be the ones to leave.