I'm writing a media analysis on public smoking and bans to public smoking. Here in B.C. public smoking has been banned in just about every indoor place in the province. What do you people think of public smoking? What is the situation in your area? I'd like to hear some thoughts...
-Dagolar
ID:190059
 Mar 25 2003, 2:58 pm
|
|
Dagolar wrote:
I'm writing a media analysis on public smoking and bans to public smoking. Here in B.C. public smoking has been banned in just about every indoor place in the province. What do you people think of public smoking? What is the situation in your area? I'd like to hear some thoughts... I have no problem with bans on smoking indoors. I do have problems with bans on outdoor smoking and on smoking in private residences. All morality aside, the world is a much nicer place to live in when all rooms aren't smoke-filled. Or worse, theaters and restaurants. | |
So you don't think privately owned outlets like restaurants, stores, etc., should have a smoking ban?
Dagolar p.s.- I'm not asking these questions on any basis of personal opinion. I just want to get some input from people. The more the better. | |
Okay, so you would say that any indoor place outside of the home should be banned from smoking?
-Dagolar | |
<sarcasm>
YEA! How dare they burden the progressive potential murders of others by people that wish to ruin their own health! It is just un-American to do so! </sarcasm> I seriously like this law. Me being a healthy non-smoker and a person that dislikes the smell, presence, or general idea of cigarettes of course. A question to all smokers is "WHY!?", if you really want to do something stupid and harmful, why don't you just jump off of a high building or walk into a KKK meeting dressed up like richard simmons singing "It's raining men". This way is better for the general public, and it would provide a good chuckle instead of a nasty cough. -=Ken=- | |
Dagolar wrote:
I'm writing a media analysis on public smoking and bans to public smoking. Here in B.C. public smoking has been banned in just about every indoor place in the province. What do you people think of public smoking? What is the situation in your area? I'd like to hear some thoughts... Well it's quite simple for me. Ciggerette smoke is unhealthy and nasty so I don't mind where they ban it. The less places I have to endure it the better. If people want to trash thier own health I don't care as long as I'm not drug down with them. | |
I have no problem with banning it in places like theaters, resturants, and other places of the such. But I don't agree with banning it in homes and outdoors, it would be easier to make smoking illegal.
| |
Nadrew wrote:
I have no problem with banning it in places like theaters, resturants, and other places of the such. But I don't agree with banning it in homes and outdoors, it would be easier to make smoking illegal. Well they at least need a minimum distance from building entrances sorta like they do for schools in California. Since there always seems to be a crowd of smokers around the entrance of Digipen polluting the general vicinity :P. | |
Okay Theodis and Nadrew. Taking what you said, WHY should there be these kinds of bans? For what purpose? Why bother?
-Dagolar | |
If the government has an interest in regulating the use of other environmental hazards such as lead-based paint in privately-owned businesses, and even in private residence, how can it not have an interest in regulating smoking? I've got no problem with a government directive that says "If you establish a business that depends upon bringing people together in a confined space, you cannotallowing people to blatantly pollute that space with toxins." I think that's well within the government's interests as protector of the people.
That having been said, I don't see such a law as absolutely necessary... ideally, the owners of an establishment would take it upon themselves to make it clear what kind of environment they support inside their establishment and people would make educated and informed decisions about what sort of establishment they patronize. I don't see the appeal of smoking, but I don't take issue with it, either. It would be hyopcritical of me to oppose smoking as a health issue when I support the rights of you whacky heterosexuals to engage in activity that's significantly more likely to spread disease than anything I might do. :P I certainly understand the concept of a trade-off... for instance, I choose to eat unhealthy foods because I enjoy them. I don't like people suing my fast food restaurants for "making them fat", because doing so hurts a business that I patronize and makes me have to pay more for my pleasure. To sum up, I think the government's within its rights, but I don't see it is strictly necessary for them to do so. Where I think it is most appropriate for a government to exercise its power in this fashion is where and when significant non-smoking alternatives don't exist. | |
Here in Florida, "public" smoking goes as far as to include *privately owned* buisnesses, including restaurants (but not bars yet, thank the gods). I think that is going too far. Before this idiot law, you were NOT required by law to have a smoking section. Now you are not allowed to have one because the government doesn't seem to think private business owners can make that decision themselves That about sums up my own position. One can make at least a plausible case for some limitations on the use of private businesses (for example, forbidding exclusion of customers based on race), but banning smoking seems pretty arbitrary -- especially in the case of bars. I'd have little objection to a city ordinance that required establishments that permit smoking to display a prominent notice on their signage or on the entrance door; there are enough people concerned, however illogically, about second-hand smoke that it would only be fair to give them advance warning. But unconditionally forbidding smoking in all places of business is an unnecessary violation of the business owner's right to determine what environment will best suit his (or her) clientele. It's kind of like the jurisdictions that regulate whether restaurants can serve rare-cooked (i.e., almost uncooked) meat, or sunny-side-up eggs -- sure, it's fair to warn people of the risks, but it's another thing to forbid them any choice in the matter. | |
NeoHaxor wrote:
<sarcasm> As a smoker, in response to your question "WHY?!" I submit this answer. Because I enjoy it. I also enjoy drinking and riding motorcycles (not at the same time, naturally). A long and peaceful life is obviously not in my cards so I'm not going to deny myself because I *might* get cancer. The government was out of line with this law. YOU like it because it doesn't effect you. plenty of smokers don't like it because some of us LIKED to take a buddy to dinner to pay back a hard day working on a stupid 14 year old truck with a bad starter (grr) and being able to eat our meal and sit around with a cigarette afterwards just shootin the breeze. It should be a call for business owners, not government drones. If the business itself wants to exclude smokers from its clientele, that's thier call. If they don't, then the whiney non-smokers can NOT patronize that business. The business with the higher demographic wins, the one that chooses wrong either folds up or changes its policy. | |
Dagolar wrote:
So you don't think privately owned outlets like restaurants, stores, etc., should have a smoking ban? No, I think privately owned outlets like restaurants,etc.. should have the OPTION to ban or allow it as they see fit. I do NOT think a law-mandated smoking ban is appropriate in these places. | |
It's also an annoyance, have you ever been at a restaurant and from the other side in the smoking area, the smell drifts over to you and you cant think of anything but that discussing smell? Or been in a wal-mart, target, or your shopping center of choice and some one around you starts smoking? That is most unpleasant. My mother smokes, but she never does it anywhere but her room and out side. Also when I'm not around she smokes inside the house. I cannot say smoking should be illegal, but i will say that making it illegal to smoke outside of your home and open outside places is a good idea for both the health and general enjoyment of being out and about.
| |
But, if a business decides to ban smoking and another doesn't, than the other will most likely do better. Thus businesses don't want to ban smoking because its bad for business. See the problem. Now if all businesses had to ban smoking, it would help the whole world. Not only would people smoke less, less people would get second hand smoke. Also smoking decays the atmosphere, not very fast, but it's just one more thing.
| |
Hedgemistress wrote:
...you whacky heterosexuals to engage in activity that's Playing Ultimate Frisbee? I think not - it's a non-contact sport... | |
I would just like to note that homosexual men are the number one spreader of aids, so anyway you look at it the diseases are being spread. But i still get your point.
| |
Not to start another mega-thread, but unless you're talking about within a specific geographic region, that's a myth... world-wide, the worst of the AIDS epidemic is in Africa, where it's being spread primarily by straights. In any event, it's hard to spread HIV without a man involved... the first and only confirmed sexual, non-needle related case involving only women just happened within the last year.
| |
Here in Florida, "public" smoking goes as far as to include *privately owned* buisnesses, including restaurants (but not bars yet, thank the gods). I think that is going too far. Before this idiot law, you were NOT required by law to have a smoking section. Now you are not allowed to have one because the government doesn't seem to think private business owners can make that decision themselves