should smoking be banned in public buildingd?
140254
Yes, Just because someone else chooses to risk there life doesn't mean i should have to. And many people have allergies and asthma so why should they get sick when someone could easily just go out side.
929325
I will assume you mean a government-enforced ban on smoking in your question.\n\nTo whom are such government decrees fair?\n\nAre they fair to the smokers: definitely not.\nAre they fair to the non-smokers: definitely not.\nAre they fair to the bar owners: definitely not.\n\nSuch bans are not fair to the smokers because they should have the right to smoke in any place where the owner allows them to smoke.\n\nThey are not fair to the non-smokers because the ban removes the choice to go to a smoke-filled bar or a smokeless bar.  These environments may have very real differences in price and quality, both of which are lost in forced homogenization.\n\nFinally, such bans are most unfair to the bar owners, who have their private property (and thus their freedom) infringed upon by bureaucrats who have no financial stake in their business.  Just as your home is your property if you own it, so would your bar be private property. The government has no more right to control your business than it does your home so long as you are not violating anyone else's rights.
1107782
In CT it's against the law to smoke in public restaurants, bars, and other eateries where the smoke can and most likely will be considered offensive. But unfortunately not too many states have laws like this so if this is not the case for you you may want to send your local representative a letter or somehow communicate with him/her about something like this. I think it's a great law and can greatly help with people's health in general. Otherwise you'll unfortunately have to find another place to do whatever it is that you do since some areas (especially outside) you're allowed to smoke in. But some places like amusement parks and other places that young children may frequently visited are generally smoke-free as deemed by the company that owns the place and/or property. It all depends on the situation; well really that is where you are.
804367
It's a great idea... it's already happened in Scotland, and I found it incredibly liberating to enter bars and restaurants there and not have to walk through clouds of smelly smoke for once. It's so nice to be able to go along and spend time with my smoker friends and actually enjoy my time with them - to feel like part of the group again. And I no longer have to keep going outside on my own for some fresh air in the freezing cold. It's actually a very nice feeling. \n\nSmoking is a right, yes I agree.. but I feel it's more of a right not to be forced to breathe in others second-hand smoke. It's just nasty full stop. If people want to enjoy a smoke, I'm very happy for them to do it in the privacy of their own homes. :-)
665734
I am all for the smoking ban. I used to smoke, and even then, when I smoked, I was right behind the ban. It is not fair that non smokers should have to inhale smoke, and I think the arguement of 'well, just don't go into a pub then' is horrible. It is penalising the non smokers, not the smokers! \n\nBut by all means, puff away in your own home. Freedom to do what you want I say, unless it hurts others.
619913
If it were treated like alcohol in terms of age restrictions and enforcement, and banned in public so the rest of us don't get your second hand smoke (including in 'just outside the building' corridors of smoke), I don't really care.  I don't think it is worse than alcohol, and it may be better for you. I'd let science decide on that point.
339029
have a no smoking rule!
295924
My motto tends to be "live and let live". In this case, I oppose public smoking. Second-hand smoke has been shown in numerous studies to be harmful, and quite frankly, I hate breathing the filth myself :(\n\nOn the other hand, I see no reason for a total ban on smoking. If you want to smoke in the privacy of your own home, or somewhere else where you're alone, well, it's your choice to harm yourself, but atleast you're not harming anyone else.
376403
yes, this is a good idea because peoples health will be better and those who dont smoke will not suffer from second hand smoking. my mother smokes and it bothers me a lot because of the diseases and other problems she can get just from smoking. Also because since all the other drugs such as pot is illegal smoking is also a drug therefore it too should be illegal.
261298
I guess it is difficult for smokers to appreciate the impact on others as they are addicted and have to satisfy their addiction. It is for this reason that smoke-free workplaces have become mandatory and Governments are putting laws in place to ban smoking from pubs and clubs. On February 28, 2005, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took effect. The FCTC is the world's first public health treaty. Countries that sign on as parties agree to a set of common goals, minimum standards for tobacco control policy, and to cooperate in dealing with cross-border challenges such as cigarette smuggling. Currently the WHO declares that 4 billion people will be covered by the treaty, which includes 92 signatories. Amongst other steps, signatories are to put together legislation that will eliminate second-hand smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.\n\nIt is not often appreciated that bars and restaurants are workplaces and people have to be exposed to tobacco smoke to earn a living. For that reason, I think that it would be better to patronise bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking rather than smoking so that you can breathe.
852417
Well lets face it the government is always out to make a buck. What should be done is if you want smoking in your establishment you have to have a smoking license. The way bar and restuarant have liquor license. Have signs posted Saying smoking establishment. The govenment will reap the rewards be getting extra money. Smoker will still have a place to smoke. Limit the liscense like they do the liqour license. \nBut just an idea.\nYou know what's even scarier then the fact that a smoking ban passed is what's next? The majority has spoken. What will the majority ban next?
191109
I think Del Mar already banned smoking, including sidewalks, beaches, and other outdoor public places.  Definitely other cities will follow suit, especially after the state of CA already classified 2nd hand smoke as a toxic substance.
108205
Definately. It is nearly completely banned in Australia. Soon the only place you will be able to smoke down here, will be in your own home with no children and non-smokers present and only if you have a purifier to clean the air before it escapes outside.
600227
No, because I think it's more governmental fan-dance posturing. If we're going to 'put out' tobacco, the quick and easy way to do it is to slap about a 5 dollar-a-pack tax on tobacco. Put the money into smoking cessation like the nico-pops that guy made and got kicked down by the FDA for making. People smoke to get the nicotine. If you smoke, and you don't call yourself an addict, you're not being honest with yourself. I think nicotine should be available to smokers, and not that nasty gum, either. People chew tobacco, too, for the same effect. Chewing tobacco is nasty, makes your teeth fall out, gives you mouth cancer, that kind of stuff. But, people want that nicotine. So,\nisolate the nicotine and put it in a cookie or something. \nThey also have an anti-smoking pill they're working on,\nwe've seen those before too.\n\nThe problem with smoking is that people die of it, it stinks, fire hazard, the whole show. Some people think that you should be able to smoke anywhere, other people think smoking should be banned. I think a smoking ban just kind of lets businesses have something to enforce if they want the smoke to go away. I don't think it fixes the problem of the government being addicted to the tax revenue they get from it. As long as the government gets its' share of that tobacco money, tobacco will continue to be taxed, sold, and consumed.
119026
smoking should be banned everywhere, all across america, in every street, near every building, etc
846545
As a former smoker, nurse, and former restaurant owner, NO.  That should be the right of the business owner.  \n\nOur county has a county-wide ban on smoking in restaurants (not bars) and of course in public places.  \n\nI like going into a restaurant and not smelling like smoke or having to breath second hand smoke.  But I had that choice before the ban too by eating at restaurants which were non-smoking.  Smokers can't smoke inside buildings, but they huddle together at the door and I have to walk through the cloud of smoke to get inside which I wouldn't have been exposed to before the county-wide smoking ban.\n\nSo NO.  That choice should be the business owner's choice and  the consumer's choice to vote with their feet.
80007
A business banning smoking has nothing to do with a law. Some states have made laws outlawing smoking in businesses across the board, but otherwise, The business has a right to set its own standards on its property.  Now, laws banning smoking in government (federal and state) buildings are another matter.