Smoking should be banned?

[sanju123]

Should smoking banned at public places and does this ban bring the desired results?What are your views on this issue?

[smith]

Well, in my opinion, it would be a better idea to ban the product itself rather than banning its use in public places.

[dreamr802]

Well I'm a non smoker...but I don't mind it if people smoke around me...I can see why they banned smoking in restauruants...but I know sooo many people who socially smoke when they drink at bars...but now they can't do that...it's very hard for people to smoke when they are out...I don't think it should be banned from every public place...and if they ban the product, people could roll their own tabacco...i mean look back in the 20's and 30's when alcohol was banned...they had speakeasies... People will always find a way around the law.

[tom]

Passive smoking does have lethal effects, so the evil smoke deserves to be nipped in the bud. And talking of desirable results, the impossible has been made a reality in England.

[Froix]

Banning smoking won't work the way banning alcohol didn't.

Tobacco companies provide employment and cigarettes help control population so sure, go ahead and smoke. Besides, some people need it to look cool.

[abyss]

I don't smoke...which makes co-workers and friends curious. I'm with smokers all the time. I don't mind them doing it. However, I mind that my mom smokes and has smoked as far as I can remember. I don't want her to get sick. So far, she's okay (thank god). But it's the principle, it's intentionally damaging your body. Why do that?
________
Suzuki Katana

[sanju123]

Smoking is the one of the worst addictions, the damage done to our body is beyond our imagination, and smokers imagination doesn't even dare to wander towards that.

[Truthed]

Ya, I am a non smoker, never liked it. A lot of my friends smoke (i think a lot of everyone friends smoke), I sometimes mind the smoke being around me, especially in bars, ect. I am all for smoking being banned in public places, but banning it all together is a bit extreme.

I also definitely agree with abyss, when a loved one smoked it is very discouraging. You don't want them to get sick, yet you know it is so hard to quit.

[born_skeptic]

When a substance or act is proven to be dangerous and serves no other purpose than for leisure, the government should take things into their own hands and ban it. Unfortunately, it is an industry that's highly lucrative and generates millions in taxes, which makes the authorities think twice.
________
FJ1100

[Gelfling Lady]

Originally Posted by born_skeptic

When a substance or act is proven to be dangerous and serves no other purpose than for leisure, the government should take things into their own hands and ban it.

Alcohol would fit that bill, wouldn't it? That didn't work, did it? I'm a smoker (have been for 17 years now). I'm well aware of the risks associated with it and accept them. I'm not one of the morons who thought they should sue the tobacco company when they got sick because I'd known about the Surgeon's General Warning on the side of the pack since the beginning.

I understand that there is a risk from second-hand smoke, which is why I don't smoke while standing near other people. I always smoke in designated smoking areas and rarely ever smoke in public, except at bars...in the designated smoking area. Non-smokers say they have a right to clean air; smokers say they have a right to smoking areas. But who's right is more "right"?

I don't think that banning smoking is a viable alternative. I think that smoking areas should continue to be allowed and designated and that signs be posted near those areas to inform non-smokers that they are approaching a designated smoking area. There are already laws/ordinances in place that ban smoking from parks, bus stops, etc. and I'm fine with that...children can be present and that makes sense. But to ban it in public altogether? Nope. I don't think it will work.