Smokers Have Been Forced To Smoke Outdoors In Most Locations. A Ban...

» Home » Environment

Smokers Have Been Forced To Smoke Outdoors In Most Locations. A Ban On Outdoor Smoking Is Taking Things Too Far.

Some smokers are obnoxious and I fully agree that they are not pleasant to be around. Still, when one is outside, they have the choice to move away from such a person. As for the rest of us who happen to be addicted to cigarettes, and attempt to be considerate and polite, where are we supposed to go? It's a filthy habit. I couldn't agree more. It is however, an addiction to a legal substance that does not impair our judgment or make us a danger on the road. So, non-smokers, where should we light up?

my2cents2u

24 Oct 2009 14:25

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

I'd just like to see some honest science on it for once.

Cons_Lies

27 Feb 2010 03:33

1 Comment

I would too.

my2cents2u

27 Feb 2010 14:50

Comment

I agree. Honestly, the amount of pollution and exhaust from vehicles we're breathing daily is far worse than breathing second-hand smoke from a stranger passing by you on the street.

I'm all for banning smoking in public buildings, and in enclosed spaces where children are involved (such as a car or your home)... But banning smoking in outdoor public areas is a step too far.

SlyOne

25 Oct 2009 14:46

1 Comment

I agree Sly. Thanks for your response. It's nice to be considerate of others, but smokers have really no options left. If they have others living in their home, then home isn't an option. The same for their car. Outside is the only place that is supposedly acceptable and now there are non-smokers who wish to ban that as well. I only want to know where a smoker is supposed to smoke without offending or harming anyone. My question is not regarding to my personal situation. I personally do go out of my way to step away from others when I want/need a cigarette, but I do not see how society can have so little tolerance for people who have an addiction and are running out of places to smoke. If it were only the nicotine aspect, that would be easy. The problem is that people miss the tactile experience of smoking when left without their cigarettes. On top of that, the FDA wants to ban a product that does not emit second hand smoke.

my2cents2u

25 Oct 2009 16:00

Comment

Mowing your average lawn puts out more pollution than smoking a thousand packs of cigarettes. Wearing Aqua Velva is more offensive from an olfactory point of view. Walking a city block generates more medical risk than sitting in a smoky bar all night. People need to grow a perspective. I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t follow common courtesy but public mythology has generated a huge pile of goofiness over the subject of second hand smoke. Starting of course with the smoke and mirrors, joke called the EPA ‘Super Study’ on the subject. You know where they studied nothing but the findings of 32 other reports on the subject and amazingly turned 32 negative findings into a magical mystery positive finding. But only after the initial negative findings of even that study were rejected by the EPA and the data was reanalyzed yet again.

finsch

24 Oct 2009 18:42

1 Comment

Thank you for your very accurate and really needed contribution. I feel like I'm alone in a lake of sharks here...lol. : )

my2cents2u

25 Oct 2009 04:53

Comment

I meant no offense in asking non-smokers where to light up. I wasn't being flip, I was genuinely asking because I'm finding there are less and less places that I can hide from others to smoke. I am working on quitting, but for those who never plan to kick the habit (might be terrible for them, but it's legal and their right), I want to know where they can go. We have been slowly squeezed out of every indoor location and I'm all for that. I have kids and was happy not to have them breathing in smoke when we were out, but this is leaving smokers with almost no options. Home is not sufficient because most of us are not home most of the time and many people do not want to smoke in their home. So, here we are, smokers stuck with no way to smoke without risking having K9 set them on fire or dump water on them. (Just kidding K9) I would love to hear some suggestions. Cigarettes are legal. We should have some place free from the scorn of non-smokers.

my2cents2u

24 Oct 2009 14:30

6 Comments

Alcohol is also legal but there are limits. You are not allowed to get drunk as a skunk then go drive your car. Public intoxication is also a crime in many places. I guess that is ok because that is not your addiction. Where should those poor alcoholics go? Maybe, they want to socialize as well.
It seems there are less and less places for them to go.

artemis

25 Oct 2009 13:08

Comment

That is true, but there are already many restrictions placed upon smokers.  Not only that, but smoking doesn't lead to an increased chance of a motor vehicle accident, taking innocent lives and/or leaving innocent victims forever impaired as a consequence.  People who are drunk and disorderly are generally starting trouble and, perhaps, fighting.  Also, somewhat of a threat to those around them.  These are immediate threats to others.  I am not suggesting that smokers should be allowed to light up indoors or even outside while there are people around who would prefer if they did not.  I personally, as I have stated repeatedly, do not light up in situations like that.  I do see people standing in a line out doors and they light up.  That bothers me, but I do not believe that the actual danger of the second hand smoke in open air is a public threat.  It is rude and inconsiderate, but I don't believe that it's a real danger to others' lives.  I will, however, take a look at some studies after I grab a few books and publications from my brother in law and see what the medical community has to say about the matter.  I just want to make it clear that my argument is not that I personally want to blow smoke around non-smokers.  You keep making comments suggestive of my desire to smoke around others.  I do make every attempt to stay away from non-smokers, even outside.

Comment

Not all people who quit are tempted by another person's lit cigarette.  This comes down to you.  Excuse the personal reference but, my mother quit and she actually used to say she preferred if we lit up around her rather than not.  Not only that, but she said she didn't mind at all being in the smoking sections indoors.  Another friend of mine found it helpful to his quitting to have others continue to smoke as usual.  I agree that some people who have quit may not have the will power to resist the temptation, but now you are talking about something other than health.  If you do not have the will power to refrain from lighting up, you cannot blame that on smokers.  I have stated my position on this.  I do feel that I should go away from others so as to not make others uncomfortable or tempted, in your case, but not all smokers are considerate.  That does not mean that they should not be permitted to smoke in the outdoors anywhere.  I agree with partial bans....lines at ATM's, parks (with a designated smoking section away from the general public if it is a theme park), sporting events (in the stands), etc.  Your temptation to light up will lessen with time and I am happy for you that you were able to quit.  I mean that sincerely.

JUST DON'T SMOKE!! The reason they are doing that is getting people to STOP SMOKING.

DdAWg

09 Jan 2010 02:32

1 Comment

Yes, they are using extreme tactics to make people so uncomfortable with smoking that it encourages some to just quit rather than deal with all of the increased taxes on tobacco, decreasing places that are acceptable to smoke and putting smokers on a guilt trip. The facts are the facts though and, until there is a real threat to the health to others who simply do not like to see someone smoking several feet away from them, there is no reason for panic. Not one single test has proven that smoking in the outdoors (aside from lighting up right next to someone) is harmful. Look at the studies. The ones that say there is a risk must be challenged. The method of the study and the type of study must be considered before the findings are considered anything close to fact.

my2cents2u

14 Jan 2010 14:28

Comment

I think people that smoke should just quit so they dont have to worry about going outside in the frist places. And why do people smoke anyway what do they gain from it lung cancer maybe?

afocentric

26 Oct 2009 12:57

1 Comment

and why is it even legal to smoke anyway. I care for people who smoke some of my family members smoke and i care very much about. Them and i get afraid that they will get some problems later on life because of smokeing

afocentric

26 Oct 2009 13:04

Comment

Hm, a very good debate. Nice introductions.

I really hate cigarettes. They make me sick literally and figuratively and so on and so forth. I really want to throw up when I'm near a lit up cigarette. A ban on outdoor smoking might be going too far, but, at least, for people like me, it's good. My health is more important than other people smoking.

joylove101

26 Oct 2009 03:30

1 Comment

Hi joylove...Thank you for your comments about the debate.

I don't disagree that smokers should be considerate, but considering that smoking outside allows a smoker to move to a place away from others, thereby eliminating making them breathe in the secondhand smoke, is such a ban necessary? If smokers didn't linger near the doorways, smoke in lines (such as when at an outdoor event where smoking is allowed) and moved away from others, would that be a viable option? If, however, a smoker did walk away from a crowd and smoked alone far from all of the people there, is it right that a non-smoker who can clearly see that someone is smoking should chose to walk out of their way, near the smoker and complain about the smoke in that situation? At a sporting event where no one should light up in the stands, is it appropriate for them to walk to their car and stand next to it in the empty parking lot to smoke or, if there is a lot of open ground near the stadium is it acceptable for the smokers to gather several hundred feet from the stadium? This is what I was talking about in the debate. Not the rude and inconsiderate people who light up while sitting next to someone. I understand how certain odors (even pleasant scents) can make others uncomfortable or sick. Some perfumes trigger migraines for me, but that isn't the same as smoking and no one leaves their home with the knowledge that their perfume may cause others a terrible headache....although there are those who everyone tries to stay away from because they like to bathe in the stuff...lol. My point is, there are really no dangers related to secondhand smoke in an open air environment, but for someone like yourself, it is a physical problem because the smell makes you sick. Because of people who are sensitive to the smell, smokers should exercise consideration, but they should also be afforded the right to smoke a cigarette so that they are not also uncomfortable and feeling rather unwell. Nicotine is highly addictive and smokers have to deal with a lot of discomfort when they are not able to find any suitable place to light up. This is not to say that they should light up anywhere they choose, but in some location away from others rather than ban smoking outdoors altogether. Do you find that to be a fair compromise? I am asking sincerely. Your response is worded nicely and is not an all out attack on smokers. I am truly interested in what you feel about a situation where both smoker and non-smoker can find a way to be comfortable.

my2cents2u

26 Oct 2009 10:46

Comment

Hi joylove...Thank you for your comments about the debate.

I don't disagree that smokers should be considerate, but considering that smoking outside allows a smoker to move to a place away from others, thereby eliminating making them breathe in the secondhand smoke, is such a ban necessary?  If smokers didn't linger near the doorways, smoke in lines (such as when at an outdoor event where smoking is allowed) and moved away from others, would that be a viable option?  If, however, a smoker did walk away from a crowd and smoked alone far from all of the people there, is it right that a non-smoker who can clearly see that someone is smoking should chose to walk out of their way, near the smoker and complain about the smoke in that situation?  At a sporting event where no one should light up in the stands, is it appropriate for them to walk to their car and stand next to it in the empty parking lot to smoke or, if there is a lot of open ground near the stadium is it acceptable for the smokers to gather several hundred feet from the stadium?  This is what I was talking about in the debate.  Not the rude and inconsiderate people who light up while sitting next to someone.  I understand how certain odors (even pleasant scents) can make others uncomfortable or sick.  Some perfumes trigger migraines for me, but that isn't the same as smoking and no one leaves their home with the knowledge that their perfume may cause others a terrible headache....although there are those who everyone tries to stay away from because they like to bathe in the stuff...lol.  My point is, there are really no dangers related to secondhand smoke in an open air environment, but for someone like yourself, it is a physical problem because the smell makes you sick.  Because of people who are sensitive to the smell, smokers should exercise consideration, but they should also be afforded the right to smoke a cigarette so that they are not also uncomfortable and feeling rather unwell.  Nicotine is highly addictive and smokers have to deal with a lot of discomfort when they are not able to find any suitable place to light up.  This is not to say that they should light up anywhere they choose, but in some location away from others rather than ban smoking outdoors altogether.  Do you find that to be a fair compromise?  I am asking sincerely.  Your response is worded nicely and is not an all out attack on smokers.  I am truly interested in what you feel about a situation where both smoker and non-smoker can find a way to be comfortable.

Comment

Hi joylove...Thank you for your comments about the debate.

The only reason why they ban smoking in some areas is so that other people are not harmed for the smoker's smoking. It also encourages the smokers to stop smoking.

DerekWoods

25 Oct 2009 03:18

1 Comment

I have no problem with smoking being banned in certain places, but I do take issue with people wanting smokers to have NO options when they need to have a cigarette. I also do not think that anyone else needs to encourage or try to force me to stop smoking. I'm a big girl and know all of the risks. As adults, we do not need the government telling us what we should and shouldn't do. If we do, I suggest there be a designated person at the market who removes all fattening and junk food from morbidly obese individuals' carts. We need to protect them from themselves, after all. Now that sounds rather stupid. It is the same for smokers. Unless we are going to force everyone to live a healthy life and that includes the chemicals they put on their bodies in addition to what they put in them, why are smokers singled out? The government doesn't want to lose the revenue that smoker's provide. They want to keep the non-smokers happy while also making cigarettes available and highly taxed for for those of us who are addicted. Until I see more fair "protecting" people from themselves, I don't find it fair that smokers are the only target.

my2cents2u

25 Oct 2009 04:13

Comment

I have no problem with smoking being banned in certain places, but I do take issue with people wanting smokers to have NO options when they need to have a cigarette.  I also do not think that anyone else needs to encourage or try to force me to stop smoking.  I'm a big girl and know all of the risks.  As adults, we do not need the government telling us what we should and shouldn't do.  If we do, I suggest there be a designated person at the market who removes all fattening and junk food from morbidly obese individuals' carts.  We need to protect them from themselves, after all.  Now that sounds rather stupid.  It is the same for smokers.  Unless we are going to force everyone to live a healthy life and that includes the chemicals they put on their bodies in addition to what they put in them, why are smokers singled out?  The government doesn't want to lose the revenue that smoker's provide.  They want to keep the non-smokers happy while also making cigarettes available and highly taxed for for those of us who are addicted.  Until I see more fair "protecting" people from themselves, I don't find it fair that smokers are the only target.

Comment

I have no problem with smoking being banned in certain places, but I do take issue with people wanting smokers to have NO options when they need to have a cigarette.  I also do not think that anyone else needs to encourage or try to force me to stop smoking.  I'm a big girl and know all of the risks.  As adults, we do not need the government telling us what we should and shouldn't do.  If we do, I suggest there be a designated person at the market who removes all fattening and junk food from morbidly obese individuals' carts.  We need to protect them from themselves, after all.  Now that sounds rather stupid.  It is the same for smokers.  Unless we are going to force everyone to live a healthy life and that includes the chemicals they put on their bodies in addition to what they put in them, why are smokers singled out?  The government doesn't want to lose the revenue that smoker's provide.  They want to keep the non-smokers happy while also making cigarettes available and highly taxed for for those of us who are addicted.  Until I see more fair "protecting" people from themselves, I don't find it fair that smokers are the only target.

There is no such thing as a considerate smoker. Walking behind a smoker in a public side walk is annoying.

It also gives smokers a free license to throw cigarettes on the ground. It seems to be the only form of littering that is never enforced.

You light up in your house.

moreno

25 Oct 2009 01:47

3 Comments

There may not be many of them, but I do walk away from others to smoke. I also put my cigarettes out and make sure they are fully out before I put them in a trash can if there is no ash receptacle around. I may at times, be less careful or may throw one down before thinking, but I generally am the one who picks up other people's trash. I can't believe the mess that people make when they get a soft drink in a convenience store and then leave it as if the people who work there are their personal servants. My point being, smokers are certainly not the only ones who do not always practice keeping things as tidy as I would hope they would want their homes. You make an absolute statement, but you really should think before doing so. People are all different and some of us are more considerate than others. I personally put myself in other people's position and think of how I would feel if I hated the smell of smoke or if I didn't smoke and didn't want to be around it. Not only that, but non-smokers have every indoor environment (with a very few exceptions) to be free of smokers. There is no reason that smokers should have to stay at home like hermits just because they happen to be addicted to nicotine and it is rather unfair to suggest such a thing. If we go outside and stay out of the path of people walking by, trying to be as considerate as humanly possible, there is no reason that we should be tied to our homes.

my2cents2u

25 Oct 2009 04:07

Comment

There may not be many of them, but I do walk away from others to smoke.  I also put my cigarettes out and make sure they are fully out before I put them in a trash can if there is no ash receptacle around.  I may at times, be less careful or may throw one down before thinking, but I generally am the one who picks up other people's trash.  I can't believe the mess that people make when they get a soft drink in a convenience store and then leave it as if the people who work there are their personal servants.  My point being, smokers are certainly not the only ones who do not always practice keeping things as tidy as I would hope they would want their homes.  You make an absolute statement, but you really should think before doing so.  People are all different and some of us are more considerate than others.  I personally put myself in other people's position and think of how I would feel if I hated the smell of smoke or if I didn't smoke and didn't want to be around it.  Not only that, but non-smokers have every indoor environment (with a very few exceptions) to be free of smokers.  There is no reason that smokers should have to stay at home like hermits just because they happen to be addicted to nicotine and it is rather unfair to suggest such a thing.  If we go outside and stay out of the path of people walking by, trying to be as considerate as humanly possible, there is no reason that we should be tied to our homes.

Comment

There may not be many of them, but I do walk away from others to smoke.  I also put my cigarettes out and make sure they are fully out before I put them in a trash can if there is no ash receptacle around.  I may at times, be less careful or may throw one down before thinking, but I generally am the one who picks up other people's trash.  I can't believe the mess that people make when they get a soft drink in a convenience store and then leave it as if the people who work there are their personal servants.  My point being, smokers are certainly not the only ones who do not always practice keeping things as tidy as I would hope they would want their homes.  You make an absolute statement, but you really should think before doing so.  People are all different and some of us are more considerate than others.  I personally put myself in other people's position and think of how I would feel if I hated the smell of smoke or if I didn't smoke and didn't want to be around it.  Not only that, but non-smokers have every indoor environment (with a very few exceptions) to be free of smokers.  There is no reason that smokers should have to stay at home like hermits just because they happen to be addicted to nicotine and it is rather unfair to suggest such a thing.  If we go outside and stay out of the path of people walking by, trying to be as considerate as humanly possible, there is no reason that we should be tied to our homes.

Comment

I would be making a choice if I just decided to start to smoke now.  I started 20 years ago.  Yes, I do want to break this addiction and know the harm it does to one's body.  I do not, currently, feel that I have a choice because to go without smoking leaves me feeling horrible, unable to focus, unproductive and depressed.  Not all people react to nicotine in the same way, just as not all people who take a pain pill react the same way.  I am very addicted to smoking to the point that it causes great discomfort to stop.  If everyone is concerned about non-smoker's comfort, what about the smokers?  Not just me...I've already said that I am considerate of others.  We cannot follow all smokers around and instruct them on how to be considerate.  One is either considerate and polite or they are not.  I'm fine with going away from others and not causing anyone discomfort, but I am concerned for other smokers who are being left with no acceptable place that they can smoke without being chastised for it.  It seems, as human beings, their comfort and emotional well being should factor in somewhere.

No it is not, smoking outdoors is detrimental, and harmful to reformed smokers who have quit the habit. Don't you think they would absolutely love to spark up and inhale that first drag of a cigarette. If they did, this would cause them direct harm.

The aforementioned is controversial to the Liberty of all non-smokers, as specifically laid down by the great philosopher: 'John Stuart Mill.''

Smoking outdoors should be banned, full stop! If you smokers want to smoke then do it within the confines of your own home. However, you should first take into consideration the health and safety of your immediate family, and children.

There were several smokers puffing away at nearly every bus stop on route to the city today, and they were most annoying to other non-smokers at the bus stops. Although they all finished smoking before they got on the bus, they all absolutely wreaked of stale cigarette smoke, IN FACT THEY ABSOLUTELY STANK! Why should we non-smokers have to suffer the foul smells of their filthy disgusting habit. Smokers are weak willed wimps, who need help to quit their disgusting filthy habit, they are worst than junkies shooting up in back alleys. They get in your face, and up your nose! If you are going to smoke, smoke indoors in the confines of your own stinking home!

LordDaniel

24 Oct 2009 18:04

16 Comments

If we are going to make being offensive illegal much that you say will become a punishable offense.
A shvaygediker nar iz a halber khokhem.

finsch

24 Oct 2009 18:12

Comment

Thank goodness finsch is here to bring a voice of reason.  I believe, from what I've read of finsch's posts, that he does not smoke, yet he is not in a panic about his lungs in open air.  Still, as I've repeated over and over, I do all that I can to avoid subjecting others to my second hand smoke.  I can't speak for all smokers, but I'll say this much, I do feel like non-smokers are so hard on smokers that I don't really blame some smokers for their attitude.  I just don't happen to be someone who wishes to cause someone else discomfort or fear that they are being polluted by my habit, but I do think that some smokers who are angry and have put their foot down regarding smoking in open air are simply fed up with being treated like the lowest possible members of society.  These people are not stupid, uneducated hicks.  Some are highly educated professionals, some even in the health care field (gasp...even some physicians) have become addicted to nicotine and continue to smoke even though they know the dangers and know they should quit.  It's not a weakness to have difficulty quitting.  There are some studies that illustrate that some smokers who are physically and emotionally addicted to nicotine in the form of the tactile habit of smoking a cigarette are truly unable to quit.  Some people can just throw them out and quit.  More power to them.  I wish I were one of them.  If one is able to quit like that, feel blessed.  Don't look down on others who have a more difficult time.  You are one of the lucky ones.  People do not want to slowly kill themselves, for the most part...I guess there could be some.  Most, NO.  So, don't get all high and mighty because you could quit, LD.  I'm happy for you and I mean that sincerely.  I hope that quitting allows you to experience better health and I hope you stay away for good.  I also hope you can try to remember everyone is different and you do not have to judge others who have a more difficult time giving up the addiction than you did.  I do, however, want to say congratulations to you and I am sincerely happy that you kicked the habit.  I really mean that.  I'm watching my mother die from cancer (not lung, but cigarettes cause more than lung cancers) and she was a smoker.  I would not want anyone to go through what she is going through.  Cancer is an evil disease that doesn't care who you are.  I'm glad that you have reduced your risk.  You should focus on being thankful instead of worrying about others making you smell their clothing that wreaks of smoke.  I get migraines from some perfumes, but I don't complain about that.

Comment

I was using personal experience to illustrate a point.  I can make up things if that is more to your liking, artemis.  I'm not trying to push your buttons.  I have been patient and have not attacked you at any level.  You are attacking something which I mentioned only to emphasize that I do know how devastating smoking is and, hopefully, someone reading that who has not picked up a cigarette will have second thoughts.  My intent is not self serving.  If anything I experience can help others, I believe that makes something negative become positive in some regard.  It is called raising awareness.  Are all of the people who have lost family to whatever disease or to violence and talk about it and start charities seeking pity?  Perhaps you are looking at everyone as having selfish motives due to a personal reason of your own.  I don't know.  Either way, I do not want pity.  I do talk about some personal things and it is not to solicit sympathy.  If I want to discuss something of a personal nature on a personal level, I use shoutboxes.  Turning to others for their take on things or to let them know why one is "off" or doesn't seem themselves is not self serving either.  It is a rather common thing to do.  It's good to let things out....not talking about me here.  I mean this in general.  Keeping everything contained and worrying what is the right or wrong thing to write/say is just too limiting.  If you do not like my debate style, I accept that.  Telling me I'm selfish or self absorbed is off base, however.  You are wrong on that account.  My guess is that if you were to ask some of the people who I communicate with on here, they would probably feel you may be jumping to the wrong conclusion.  You can think what you wish.  At the end of the day, my heart is light.

Comment

No, it isn't taking it too far to prevent smokers from polluting the air of non-smokers. Smokers should be make to visit "smoke-easies" the same way drinkers went to "speak-easies" during the prohibition era. They should be banned from any public place where non-smokers object to them being, and arrested if they don't leave.

Parents who smoke around their children and in the home should be fined for child endangerment. And what about the parent's selfishness and waste of money on cigarettes that could be better spent on the child's health and education?

24 Oct 2009 14:46

5 Comments

Amen K-9. I am a smoker and I agree with you. If there was nowhere to smoke and nowhere to get cigarettes we would all have to quit. It's too easy to give in to your addiction when you are legally allowed to do it.

artemis

24 Oct 2009 14:59

Comment

I have already established that I personally do not smoke around non-smokers (with a few exceptions...such as someone who would prefer me to stay and smoke rather than run off to find a place where there is no one around).  That would include my kids.  As far as the money goes, I sacrifice all of the time for my children.  They have all that they need and most of what they want AND with no father in the picture to provide towards a college education, I have made sure that they have the funds to attend college and, my youngest says she wants to go to med school (has said that for years), so I have made sure that there is enough to provide for them.  They are both brilliant and will likely get scholarships, but I knew their father could not be depended upon, so I made certain that they would have the means to go further their education.  I think my spending on cigarettes when I give up most other things so they can have everything I can possibly give them, is a drop in the bucket.  Neither of them has ever even started school without an entire new wardrobe.  They love designer stuff....I think they are actually overindulged.  That's not all me.  My family spoils them, but believe me, I would give up smoking if my kids were in need of something.

There is NO valid reason that smokers should be removed from society.  We want to socialize with others, shop and do all of the things that non-smokers do.  We are addicted to nicotine.  I asked for suggestions, but I meant realistic ones.  Until smoking is actually banned in outdoor public places, where do you think smokers should go or how can smokers and non-smokers coexist?   I told you how I handle it, but not all people are willing to run and hide to have a cigarette.  What is a valid and reasonable suggestion that would apply to real life as we know it now?

Comment

Artemis, where does it stop?  If cigarettes are banned for "our own good", will certain foods be banned?  How about makeup that has toxins that are absorbed through our skin into our bloodstream?  You know it has been found that cancerous masses contain some of the very same toxins that are common in cosmetics, skin care, hair dye, hair care and just about anything you can think of that you use on a daily basis.  Even if you use some of the organic products, unless they are very direct with their labeling and have become full members of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, it is likely that they are hiding something in there somewhere.  Then, we can move on to food.  How many people have a food addiction and literally eat themselves into the grave?  These same people are harming their children by teaching them poor dietary choices while they are young when our fat cells form.  I'm not being smart with you.  I don't believe grown adults who are capable of assessing the risks of their choices should be coerced into what others feel is best for them.  Not all people are as concerned about the risks.  There are many toxic products out there besides cigarettes.  Then, we have to look at people who like to take risks.  Do we assess the risk of bungee jumping and tell people that we are just too uncomfortable to watch them jump and we think that, for their own good, we would be doing them a favor if we banned it?  These are all things one has to think of before targeting one, admittedly nasty habit, and making it nearly impossible for just those who have that particular habit/addiction feel like the scum of the earth and take all rights from them.  We live in an environment full of pollution.  As finsch pointed out, there are really no studies that prove that there is actual harm done to others in an open air environment when someone lights up.  Again, I do agree with you that smokers should be polite and should care about how others feel and, in particular remember that some people do have breathing problems which could be made worse by even a small amount of second hand smoke, but I would hope that most smokers would put someone's obvious discomfort above their desire for a cigarette.

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

4 minutes ago

Sounds like a good idea to me. Here is an idea. Buy a food cart. Set up a stand and sell an assortment of meats on... read more...

43 minutes ago

Funny you should bring it up. I'm just about to launch a nation wide army of side walk vendors who will be selling a wide... read more...

52 minutes ago

No. Lots of things happen and matter with NO RELATION to pink floyd whatsoever. MLK was born before pink floyd, without... read more...

53 minutes ago

I don’t know, I saw rat on a stick one time and it kind of put me off the whole thing. But you can put your meat on a stick... read more...

54 minutes ago

Yeah. There are only so many ideas in the world. Even the best polts/ideas have been taken from another person, who got it... read more...

Related Debates

	We Should Not Cut Down Trees!
	Global Warming Is A Problem
	Hunting Keeps The Animal Population Down.
	We Should Have More Malls.
	Homework Is A Waste Of Paper
	Environment Protection Should Receive Priority Rather Than Economic Growth
	Houses Should Not Be So Compact And Have At Least 40 Acres On Each Of Them!
	We Should Start Recycling!
	Autumn Is A Really Beautiful Season Of The Year
	Cannabis Sativa Is The Greatest Plant To Ever Exist.

New Debates

	Taylor Swifts You Belong With Me Song/video Is Really Good, Happy, Feelgood, Cheesy, Uplifting Song!
	This Really Is A Very Good, Very Interesting, Knowledegable Site.
	We Need More Meats On Sticks
	People Who Do Not Vote For President Should Not Be Able To Critcize Him/ Her
	You Should Stop Beating Your Wife
	The American Love Affair With Guns Is Britain’s Fault.
	People On This Site Seem Too Serious And Don't Seem To Know How To Just Act Assinine. Debate The Rediculous....
	An Hung Parliament Would Be A Disaster For Britain.
	The Wackiest, Krazy, Zany People Are Often The Dullest
	French Cuisine Is The Most Delicious In The World...; )