Why do some think smoking bans are so great?
915447
Really, this is a capitalist country. Competition and the free market are supposed to take care of everything. The point is, if people don't want to deal with smoke at a restaurant or bar, they'll go to a nonsmoking establishment. If the smoking establishment loses business they might consider banning smoking. That's how America works! You're totally right that it should be up to the individual owner. It's his own paycheck he's screwing with so he will make the right decision based on what kind of people patronize his place. It really pisses me off too that towns and states ban smoking.
425623
I agree, no wants to smell smoke when they eat.... however.... I strongly disagree on banning it from bars, cigs and beer go hand and hand for most people, infact people who dont smoke, will often ONLY light up while drinking.
976461
I think it was a trick question to older people ...for instant one women voted no to both opinion, thinking that she was voting for people to have the right to smoke in certain areas.The wording in the question throwed them off. So yes , I think if they got a petition people would sign it. And yes some would sign it that don't smoke, 2 people I know told me that they didn't want anymore Rights taken away from them.
671705
Why would it make people quit smoking? They can always keep doing it in their houses or in privately-owned bars where smoking is permitted. I think it would lead to less people going to the movies rather than encourage people to quit.
239388
good.  this way you won't smoke.  it's a very unhealthy and expensive habit.  you can get lung cancer and give it to others too from second-hand smoke.  there is nothing good about it so please, do yourself and others a favor by not smoking.  \nthank you.
923613
Because the government makes a lot of money from them. Alchohol actually has some health benefits in moderation. Tobacco is just a big money maker
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.)
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. :-)
903970
Yes and no!! Yes because we know they are not REALLY concerned for our health!  No because,as smokers,we KNOW the tax we have to pay,but we CHOOSE to pay it!! So ask yourself,who are the real mugs?? I know I am! The budget is due shortly,yet another increase....................\nmoan......moan........moan!!!!!!\n      *********Just a note************\n As Alchohol levels reach record high, misuse among all age groups is estimated to cost the NHS pounds 1.7bn a year. !!!!\nSo smokers are NOT the only ones!!!!!! How many of you on here, condeming smokers, drink?????????? Hypocritical???????
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.
594055
I wouldn't group the "Ten Commandments" phenomenon with the ban on smoking.\n\nThe reality is that those Americans who are hyper Christian and believe that the Ten Commandments should be posted all over government buildings live in states where smoking is permitted every where.\n\nAnd states that are baning smoking are often the most progressive states, and are the states that are more secular.  For example, California is the first state to ban smoking in restaurants; California is also super progressive, left wing, environmentally minded, educated, wealthy, etc.\n\nSo as an American, yes I think all this Ten Commandment crap is stupid and ridiculous.  Yes the Ten Commandments are the basis of law in the Judao/Christian world, but aren't we supposed to have separation between church and state?\n\nBut as far as the smoking ban; I think it is the greatest thing ever.  Don't get me wrong, I like to smoke every once in a while, but when I smoke I do it where it won't bother other people.  The reality is that a minority of any population smokes (even in France only 30% of the population smokes), but yet we all breath in the smoke if we are in a public space where others are smoking.  \n\nPeople who smoke and don't understand how it bothers others are like these guys who drive in their car with loud music,  so every body else can hear.  Great you appreciate loud music, but that doesn't mean I want to listen.  \n\nOK smoke your cigarette but please don't do it around my family.  Well, now there is a law that protects the health and enjoyment of the majority.\n\nHaving to breath an others cigarette in a restaurant is the equivalent of somebody pissing in my glass of water.  I can't live without air, I can't chose not to breath, so if you smoke around me we are both smoking.
683223
Smoking is not so great.  But, I'm addicted to cigarettes and smoke them for that reason.  \n\nSmokers don't want to smell like cigarettes and be looking through a haze.  So, you smoke in such a way as to minimize it.\n\nMost smokers don't walk around with giant signs saying 'smoking rules!' and stuff like that.  Most are aware that it's a smelly and unhealthy habit and desire to quit.  \n\nIt's just pretty difficult to do, and takes some time to build up the courage.
723820
Maybe they're jumping on the "No Smoking" bandwagon.
198404
No, maybe just people don't want to breathe in 2nd hand smoke. Smokers can go harm their own lungs no problem.
1055736
I think people are just of the mentality of "it won't happen to me".  That, or the addiction overrules the risks.  I personally smoke, and there's times where I'll think about the damage I'm doing, and think that I'm going to quit, but I won't.\n\nI don't deny the health risks etc however.  I'm open and able to admit that I am stupid :)
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.
665568
Pretty imaterial\n\nConsumers have had the choice of non-smoking restaurants and bars for sometime; whilst non-smoking in restaurants has steadily increased, there has been gradual change in pubs and bars with the use of set aside areas. Left to itself, the drift to non-smoking would have happened naturally over 5-8 years.\n\nThere are more important areas where the government should be taking action (pension reform, power supplies, transport infrastructure, reform of lords, withdrawl from Iraq, etc) that confer much more important long term benefits to the community\n\nSo instead the government has chosen smoking reform as this years 'fox hunting bill' to display some sort of progress whilst it dithers and delays on the really important stuff.\n\nTo be fair, it has been caught slightly on the hop by the Welsh and Scots regional assemblies, who in turn don't have that much power and have chosen smoking in public places as a way of demonstrating their relevance to their electrorates.\n\nWhilst smoking is an undeniable public health issue, it is an issue for smokers themselves; passive smoking in public places is a trivial risk compared to other environmental risk factors (eg traffic accidents). Studies are contradictory and point to passive smoke at home as the only significant issue\n\nThe ban just adds to yet more rules and regulations and will probably make smoking cool to a younger generation as a way to be distinctive from their elders