Smoking Bans

[CorvusRexus]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Smoking is a health problem for employees. Leave your guns and sigs at home, I do...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

Nonsense.

There's no 'right' to smoke.

 

[OKTexas]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

Nonsense.

There's no 'right' to smoke.

Of course there is, it is a perfectly legal activity. What compelling government interest is there in banning it on private property or outside?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

Nonsense.

There's no 'right' to smoke.

Of course there is, it is a perfectly legal activity. What compelling government interest is there in banning it on private property or outside?

Workplace safety, although if you get outside far enough the only thing to worry about is fire. I was in a huge park in CA a few years ago, and had to chew on cigar instead of smoking it. It was a no-smoking park. Oh well, I smoked at home by the pool, and I survived...

 

[OKTexas]

Nonsense.

There's no 'right' to smoke.

Of course there is, it is a perfectly legal activity. What compelling government interest is there in banning it on private property or outside?

Workplace safety, although if you get outside far enough the only thing to worry about is fire. I was in a huge park in CA a few years ago, and had to chew on cigar instead of smoking it. It was a no-smoking park. Oh well, I smoked at home by the pool, and I survived...

Your car puts out more pollutants and stirs more particulates into the air than your smoking ever will. It's a choice to work in, or go in a smoking establishment. Smoking bans are nothing but another way to deny liberty and exert control.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ecigarettes bans are worse than smoking bans. There is no fire, no smoke and no tobacco. The libs just don't like the way it looks. Los Angeles has banned e-cigs. It isn't working no one pays the slightest attention.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Of course there is, it is a perfectly legal activity. What compelling government interest is there in banning it on private property or outside?

Workplace safety, although if you get outside far enough the only thing to worry about is fire. I was in a huge park in CA a few years ago, and had to chew on cigar instead of smoking it. It was a no-smoking park. Oh well, I smoked at home by the pool, and I survived...

Your car puts out more pollutants and stirs more particulates into the air than your smoking ever will. It's a choice to work in, or go in a smoking establishment. Smoking bans are nothing but another way to deny liberty and exert control.

Jogging on busy roads should be banned as well, based on the health concerns, but we aren't there yet, and we have a lot of restrictions on the workplace, for good reason. When I smoke I do so outside. It's better that way, for everyone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ecigarettes bans are worse than smoking bans. There is no fire, no smoke and no tobacco. The libs just don't like the way it looks. Los Angeles has banned e-cigs. It isn't working no one pays the slightest attention.

I have no issues with e-cigs, but for age and safety. There is one 12 inches from me.

It is however like smoking a pen. The jerking-off in a stall of smoking...

 

[9thIDdoc]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.
I've been smoke free for 3-4yr. now. Hate it.
Smokers are as much a part of the public as anyone and deserve to be accommodated no less than rabid health Nazis. Public places should offer smoking areas by law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.

The damage is done then. Smoke 'em up.

 

[OKTexas]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.
I've been smoke free for 3-4yr. now. Hate it.
Smokers are as much a part of the public as anyone and deserve to be accommodated no less than rabid health Nazis. Public places should offer smoking areas by law.

I think it should be left to the business owners.

 

[shart_attack]

We seriously need a cigarette-smoking emoticon here.

Just sayin'.

 

[Katzndogz]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.
I've been smoke free for 3-4yr. now. Hate it.
Smokers are as much a part of the public as anyone and deserve to be accommodated no less than rabid health Nazis. Public places should offer smoking areas by law.

I quit smoking for six years once. I hated every day of it. Long after the withdrawal was gone I still hated not smoking. I went back for ten more years. Then I had an Ecigarette. I haven't had a cigarette since and never miss it.

 

[AntiParty]

Secondary smoke can cause cancer. Liberties are 2 sided. Not just Nihilism.

 

[AntiParty]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.
I've been smoke free for 3-4yr. now. Hate it.
Smokers are as much a part of the public as anyone and deserve to be accommodated no less than rabid health Nazis. Public places should offer smoking areas by law.

So you are the exact opposite on the Liberty poll. You think Business should be forced to have smoking area's.........

(smokers think that 10 feet of area space can dissipate smoke. I remember when I was young and smoked and thought rolling my moms windows down meant she wouldn't know..........but some people learn)

You can't FORCE a business to contain customers in a place known to cause cancer. You can be free to in some cities, but those days are ending.

 

[auditor0007]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

Apparently you are not aware that second hand smoke can lead to lung cancer. The right of the non-smoker to breath clean air outweighs any right a smoker has to smoke in every single instance except one, and that is the smokers home, if the smoker owns that home and it is free standing and has no other units above, below, or beside it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So we have 5 votes for gay sex is bad & should be banned.

 

[auditor0007]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

Nonsense.

There's no 'right' to smoke.

Of course there is, it is a perfectly legal activity. What compelling government interest is there in banning it on private property or outside?

If you have the right to blow cigarette smoke in my face in open air, then I should certainly have the right to spit in your face.

 

[auditor0007]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.

The damage is done then. Smoke 'em up.

Much of the damage can be reversed, even after such a long time. I smoked for 32 years. I quit three years ago. At 51, I can run a 5k in under 22 minutes. I run about 25 miles per week. My risk for lung cancer will always be slightly greater than that of a lifetime non-smoker, but compared to a smoker, my chances are minuscule.