Culturally: Do you think it is right to passively accept a smoking ban in the UK?
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.
225694
I think we are drowning in our political correctness in the U.S. It is not only unfair the way smokers are treated, it is unethical and unpatriotic.  Even if we disagree with it, people have the right to be stupid in this country...it's a constitutional right as a matter of fact. I also believe that it interferes with the free-market system we are supposed to have when business owners cannot decide whether or not they want their establishment to be smoking or non....if only  people would remember that you have the choice not to patronize that same establishment...and if it hurts business, then the free-market system will take effect and that business owner will change his policy.  BUT THAT IS THEIR RIGHT AND THEIR POLICY TO CHANGE...not the government.  I do believe that some smokers are inconsiderate but that doesnt mean it should be legislated.  \n\nThis whole business is just a slippery slope that is leading us closer to George Orwell's novel "1984".  Why stop at smoking. Why not tell all fat people that it is against the law to overeat, because it's for their own good and their obese bodies are offensive to skinny people who want to enjoy life without looking at your grotesque figure. Or why don't we tell people who do extreme sports that they can't do that, because it's too dangerous.  \n\nI think it is deplorable that we are allowing the government to rule or personal lives.  Terrorism is not the biggest enemy of the U.S.....COMPLACENCY IS!
984372
I think smoking is a personal choice.  I used to smoke and I quit, but I still believe this is a free country and what people do in their homes/cars etc. is their business as long as it's not hurting anyone else.  Second hand smoke is annoying, however, if I don't want to experience it, I don't go into places where there is a lot of smokers or bad ventilation.  I don't think it's fair to try and regulate everything because this is still the United States.  Not to mention, what do you think they will move to next?
798613
I'm still not sure why smoking was banned in public places like restaurants and bars. Non smoker have had their non smoking areas with fans, wasn't that enough? I guess not. People just want to dictate what others do so they can get their way. If non a smokers right were seemingly violated they would and do get their way. How about smoker's rights?
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.
127193
This is a question I love to answer....\nNo, but I do think they should have thier own area to smoke.\n\nYou have the right to not go into a restraunt that allows smoking too, sooooo.. DON'T...\n\nNow, why I love this question.  Those darn liberal's keep coming back up.  They can not draw a line on what is freedom of a person's body and what is not.\nAbortion to me should be illegal except in extreme cases. (They say that it is a right for a woman to chose what happens to her body)\nSmoking is already legal. (They don't think you should smoke, because it creates cancer and they have to pay for it) (They do not think you should have a choice about smoking)\nThey think that the country is taking away too many of it's freedoms with spying and Patriot act, yet, they do not want you to have the choice to smoke.  ILLOGICAL!\n\nBasically, I think everyone has the right to do what they want and enjoy as long as it does not encrouch the rights of others.  Smokers in a smoking area with a smoke eater system allows just that.\n\nOh, and for the Singapore comment..  If you love it so much, MOVE there!  It is communistic already!
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.
396405
At this point anyone who chooses to smoke is aware of what the results are, since the warnings are on the boxes. Is it their fault that people choose to smoke anyways? (Not my argument, theirs.)
551987
i;m form Scotland and we have the smoking ban too and i think its great!  what a difference to be able to eat in a cafe without smoke everywhere.
597731
I am an on again off again smoker....I smoke when I have problems...I always smoke outside....I do not like unconciderate smokers...people shouldn't smoke around non-smokers..point blank....and it should be illegal to smoke around children...if you are totally against smokers, you shouldn't date one...but if you do, you need to just deal with it..Good Luck!!
770192
First of all I am a smoker....Doing things like that will only make things worse....I think that every privatily owned buisness should have the right to decide wether smoking should be allowed.  Publicly owned places like schools, libraries, and such you could ban smoking, but privately owned bars and resteraunts should be allowed to make that decision for themselves.....would want someone coming into you place and telling you how to run it and make rules for you......I don't think so....then it will be each persons decision to choose wether or not they want to be around smoke....if you are a smoker and a resteraunt does not allow smoking, either don't smoke or go somewhere else....if you don't smoke and the place you want to eat allows smoking either deal with it or go somewhere that does not allow smoking....each group will have to decide that for themselves....I don't feel that a private buisness should be told the can't allow something that is legal like smoking.....
410377
I don't smoke, but always did say I'd never forbid others to do so, and you're right, it's fascist, BUT my attitude changed because some other substances, much less harmful than nicotine, are also forbidden. So, now they only have to ban alcohol (well, for you Americans, it's AGAIN :)), meat (killing animals), expressing your opinion, and other liberties, and we'll have ourselves a nice little clean world where you play like a good sheep or get incinerated. Long live utopia, where all the people are happy ('cause if they're not happy, they're dead).
135168
No. Instead can provide some area of them as smoking prohibited and those who wish to move that area can go.
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.
772598
Like I always say you should be allowed to kill yourself whenever and however you want.  I think this not smoking around kids thing is nonsense.  However if second hand smoke is proven to cause health problems then I wll be all for it.  You can kill yourself but if you bring others into it then thats a problem.
743346
Well... I think the smoking ban came about *because* of social change, which doesn't exactly answer your question. In other words, smoking went from being perceived as very prestigious (back in the day, many believed it was good for the health) to more recently becoming a political affair and a habit that is seen as unsociable and unhealthy. (I speak, as ever, of the UK only, however.)
141942
I was in Ireland last year and I loved the smoking ban. I realize that many like to smoke, but the smoke effects all. The pub life was much more enjoyable than previous visits. The smokers that complain the loudest are just not being reasonable towards others. They can go outside and smoke if it is that important to them.