Smoking ban in all public spaces

Jose Chase2 said:Let's just say we aren't banning smoking here.🙏🙏🙏

🙂 🙂

Jose Chase2 said:Let's just say smoking isn't being banned...🙏🙏🙏

Honestly, who’s actually banning anyone from smoking? It’s more like the new laws shouldn't allow it in public spaces at all, maybe with some separate rooms that have decent ventilation. You don't really have a moral right to smoke right next to non-smokers—so how can anyone claim they're "banning" you? They can certainly deny you the space, but it's not a ban if you shouldn't have been doing it there in the first place...😉

I mean, look at airports—like in New York City or wherever else you go—where smoking is only allowed around these specific circular pillars. They're almost like little round bar counters, but they have built-in ventilation on top that sucks all the smoke straight out of the room so it doesn't drift everywhere...

dustycanyon6 said:The new legislation shouldn't just ban smoking in public spaces; it should probably allow for designated smoking rooms, provided they are properly ventilated.

The laws currently sweeping through Western nations—with Scotland being one of the freshest examples—which will inevitably make their way over here eventually, do not even entertain the idea of designated smoking areas; instead, they mandate an absolute, uncompromising ban on smoking in all public venues. No exceptions. No separate rooms. No middle ground. Period.

This entire thread and the accompanying poll are centered specifically on that kind of total prohibition.

Even if they actually bring it back, it won't even happen.
And what happens then? I guess some "underground" bars will just pop up where smoking is allowed, and everyone will cram themselves inside anyway.

Scott Smith said:This whole thread and the poll attached are all about this specific type of ban.

And this kind of revoking a privilege—specifically smoking—to ensure everyone has the right to breathe air that isn't thick with cigarette smoke is—well, more than okay. 😉 Rights always come before privileges...

dustycanyon6 said:5. Cigarettes aren't a necessity—they're used strictly for the user's own pleasure...

Pleasure is a huge part of being alive. We'd all live much longer if we gave up everything we enjoy, but...

dustycanyon6 said:Would it be okay if we met up at a bar three or four times a week, you smoke a cigarette, and I drop a little bit of Ariella or Charlie into your beer for you to drink? How about that? To me, cigarette smoke is just as annoying as you'd find Ariella in your beer—probably more (besides, it makes my nose bleed).

First off, I don't smoke and the smoke bothers me. Second, you won't get anywhere by trivializing this discussion.

dustycanyon6 said:...demanding the right to breathe air that isn't thick with cigarette smoke is more than fair. 😉 Rights always trump privileges.

I wish I could explain this to our local leadership and force them to shut down the plant whose stench I breathe in every single day, all for the greater good of everyone in America! But I doubt this government would be nearly as protective or concerned about public health.

dustycanyon6 said:1. Cancer is one of the leading killers in many countries.
2. Cigarettes cause cancer.
3. Because of point #2, plus a whole host of other physical and psychological factors, cigarettes harm both active smokers and those breathing in the secondhand smoke.
4. Cigarette smoke stinks—it makes rooms smell, it clings to clothes, and it sticks to your body, skin, and hair.
5. There’s no practical need for cigarettes—they exist solely for the personal pleasure of the user, at the expense of everyone else in their vicinity.

When you weigh all that up... is it really fair for a smoker to poison people around them, wrecking their health and leaving everyone—and every room they enter—smelling like an ash tray? Tell me, is that okay? Would it be alright if we met up for a beer three or four times a week, and while you were smoking, I just slipped a little bit of Ariella or Charlie into your drink and you happily downed it? Should we do that? To me, cigarette smoke is just as intrusive as if someone spiked my beer with Ariella... probably even worse—my nasal passages tend to bleed when it gets to that level.

1. Cancer is one of the leading killers in many countries.
2. Exhaust fumes cause cancer.
3. Due to point #2, along with various other physical and mental impacts, exhaust fumes hurt both drivers and those around them.
4. Exhaust fumes stink; they make the streets and indoor spaces smell, and they cling to clothing, skin, and hair.
5. Exhaust fumes aren't a necessity—they are used strictly for the individual driver's enjoyment, to the detriment of everyone else sharing the space.

If you look at the big picture, is it right for drivers to ruin our health and poison us while we're out riding bikes or taking the subway?

🙂

Hey Gerald Rivera17, look, I’m not out here defending smoking—I know it’s bad for you—but those facts just aren't hitting the mark. Nowadays, more people globally are dying from infectious diseases caused by poverty, lack of sanitation, and the general misery people endure (like TB and stuff like that). Check out www.newscientist.com (you can find that article somewhere in the archives) ☕

Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning smoking in public indoor spaces, but I'm totally against banning it in bars, clubs, dance halls, and other nightlife spots 😬
The funniest thing I ever saw was back when I was in Italy in 1996. I was in this gorgeous little cultural town where these stunning, classy, well-dressed women were smoking like Turks while walking down the street because they weren't allowed to light up anywhere indoors... 😂it was hilarious

Maybe I’d see things differently if I were an addict, but I'm not, so I only smoke for the fun of it 🧐

Has anyone already pointed out that it’s been proven that smoking shortens your life?
🤔

😁

dustycanyon6 said:I honestly think this revoking of the privilege of smoking and ensuring everyone has the right to breathe air that isn't thick with cigarette smoke is—well, more than okay. 😉 And let's be clear: a fundamental right always takes precedence over a mere privilege.

It is abundantly clear that you don't quite grasp the concept of a "privilege."

A privilege is something granted to specific individuals, whereas a right is inherent to everyone. Given that anyone can smoke if they choose to without needing some special "granting" of permission, we aren't talking about a privilege here; we are discussing a right that has been (up until now) compromised because it collided with another person's rights.

Just for the sake of academic debate—even if we were actually discussing a privilege—your assertion that a right always trumps a privilege is simply incorrect. Take attorney-client privilege, for instance; its legal weight effectively overrides the judicial imperative to uncover the truth, as an attorney is under no obligation to reveal what a client has shared in confidence.

While I don't necessarily agree that an absolute ban is the solution, I have no intention of rehashing that point, as I have already laid out my position with exhaustive detail and logic on previous pages.

John Perez85 said:Pleasure is such an essential part of being alive. We’d all probably live much longer if we just gave up everything we enjoy, but...

Look, I'm not out here suggesting smokers should just ditch their little comforts. I'm saying everyone else needs to stop wasting their lives on their own vices, too. For me, having a Pepsi is a total blast—am I poisoning anyone or making life miserable for someone else just by drinking a Pepsi!? 😕

John Perez85 said:I wish I could just sit down with our leadership here in D.C. and convince them to shut down the very plant producing the stuff I breathe in every single day... all for the sake of the public good in America! But honestly, I'm worried this country won't be quite so protective or concerned about everyone's health when it comes to that...

You have to admit, though, cigarettes are something people use strictly for the rush—there's really no other upside to them. And they hurt everyone involved, whether you're lighting up or just breathing it in. You can't really put those two things on the same level...

dustycanyon6 said:I'm not suggesting smokers should give up their little pleasures. I'm saying everyone else needs to stop poisoning themselves with theirs. For me, drinking a Pepsi is a joy—does that mean I'm toxic or bothering anyone just by having one?😕

We aren't debating you or what you want to do.🙂 We're talking about laws that are way too restrictive and don't even allow for separate smoking areas in public indoor spaces—they just go straight to a total ban.

Gerald Rivera17 said:1. Cancer is a leading killer in many countries.
2. Exhaust fumes cause cancer.
3. Because of point 2, plus a whole bunch of other physical and mental reasons, exhaust fumes harm both active and passive drivers.
4. Exhaust fumes stink. They make streets and rooms smell, they get on your clothes, your skin, even your hair.
5. Exhaust fumes shouldn't be used—they're used purely for the driver's own pleasure at the expense of everyone else around them.

When you add it all up, is it really okay for drivers to wreck our health and poison those of us riding bikes or taking the subway?

🙂

Personally, I think Washington, D.C. would run a lot smoother if we just cleared cars out of the downtown core and fixed the subway system. So... look, I'm not some huge car advocate—I ride my bike way too much anyway, and I can't stand how polluted D.C. gets. Honestly, Chicago is the gold standard compared to D.C.! You wouldn't believe the difference in air quality...

Regarding your list—traffic produces way less stench than cigarettes do, and you aren't constantly in direct contact with it like you are with smoke. And point 5 isn't quite right...

But here's the real kicker—do we really have to poison ourselves with everything we come into contact with? I feel like there should be a general trend toward minimizing how much we pollute. If we can reach that goal by banning smoking permits (since smoking IS strictly for the user's own enjoyment and serves no other purpose), then I'm all for it.

dustycanyon6 said:You have to admit cigarettes are used purely for pleasure—there’s zero other benefit to them. And they harm everyone, both smokers and bystanders. You can't really compare the two directly.

Fair point, those are two qualitatively different issues. But I hate how our "philanthropic" government plays dirty here. By the way, anyone living in a major metro area knows exactly what I mean; we've been fighting to move toxic polluters out of the city center for decades. The government, obsessed with public health, has a simple answer: it’s too expensive (unless it's right before an election, then suddenly they're willing to move mountains just to grab a few more votes).

Why on earth is the fact that other harmful things exist being used as an argument against addressing cigarettes? I mean, of course there are other hazards out there, but they aren't what we're discussing right now, and they certainly don't change the reality that smoking is bad for you... if I'm following your logic correctly, are you suggesting it's hypocritical to take action regarding the health risks of smoking for non-smokers just because car exhaust is also toxic? 🤣
Look, sure, vehicle exhaust is harmful, but at the same time, everyone is working toward minimizing that impact (or at least, they really should be!), and we need to approach the conversation about cigarettes in that exact same way! Plus, you seem to be overlooking the simple fact that smoking isn't being outright banned—it's just being restricted in public spaces. At the end of the day, I can look at a single car and see a million different ways it benefits us all, which is a far cry from what a cigarette offers.

Scott Smith said:It seems like you don't really get what I mean when I talk about "privilege"...

Privilege is a funny thing... turns out it’s not always what you think it is. assigning... Some people see it one way, but others... they know the truth. It’s just... inherent. Hey everyone. Look, if anyone can light up whenever they feel like it without needing some special "permit," then we aren't really talking about a privilege here. It’s more about a right... one that’s been limited up until now because it keeps bumping heads with other rights...

Everyone has the right to smoke. But having the moral right to smoke around other people—especially non-smokers—is something absolutely nobody has. If the law says you can do it, fine, maybe you could call that a "right," but let's be real... it's just a privilege. A certain group gets the privilege to pollute the air and bother everyone else...

Scott Smith said:Discussions like this actually work... even when we're talking about privilege. It’s true that rights always take precedence over privilege, though. Take attorney-client privilege, for example. That bond carries more weight than the legal obligation to uncover the truth. An attorney isn't required to spill what a client shared in confidence...

Alright, true enough. If that's how it is, we're looking at some seriously heavy moral dilemmas... But when you talk about secondhand smoke affecting non-smokers? There aren't really any dilemmas there. A smoker just... well, they know what they're doing. Nothing... Just basic morality... or whatever you want to call it.

Scott Smith John Perez85 said:I don't necessarily agree that an outright ban is the right way to go... but I'm not going to get back into that debate again. I already laid out my full argument and everything on the previous pages... so there.

Nobody is actually stopping anyone...

brighteagle38 said:exhaust fumes are harmful, but at the same time, everything is being done to minimize that harm

So you think you know more than the rest of us?

brighteagle38 said:at the end of the day, I see a million different benefits in a car for everyone, unlike a cigarette.

The real question is fundamental: how much control should the government have over our lives, and what principles guide that control? If the principle is protecting people from potentially dangerous substances, then they should act across all sectors. If they only selectively target one thing, it's not a principle anymore. And if you try to justify those selective actions using general principles, then it's just hypocrisy.

As a non-smoker, I find smoke extremely bothersome, so my stance on tobacco is quite straightforward. 😉 That said, I have no issue with providing designated smoking areas so that non-smokers can enjoy peace without being subjected to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.