Blue said:In most Western countries, excise taxes actually bring in some serious cash—but not really here in the States, since everyone just grabs their smokes from some guy at an unlicensed flea market instead.
Whereabouts in America are you from? I don't know a single soul in my town who buys cigarettes from a smuggler!
Check out these poll results: Should smoking be banned in all indoor public spaces? Yes 37 68.52% No 14 25.93% Something else - check the thread 3 5.56% Total votes: 54. You have already voted in this poll
So far, nobody on this thread has managed to defend that totally hypocritical part of the reform, and honestly? I doubt anyone ever will.
Nothing about this is hypocritical!
I’d be all in on this reform if they actually stuck to their guns. But how can I back something that's so hypocritically handled?
Why all the hypocrisy? Is it because there isn't a total ban on these products, just a partial one? Give me a break. Are we really acting like kids here? Like, if I'm not allowed to walk into a convenience store with an ice cream cone, or if I can't use my phone during class, why do they even bother making and selling them in the first place?
Maybe that works for your moral compass, but I honestly can't stand it. I mean, we can all agree non-smokers deserve protection, right? But if you ask me... Not more, just stronger? From a smoker.
Smokers have always had some level of protection in public spaces—think buses, trains, schools, movie theaters, or hospitals... Is that just being hypocritical? Just because smokers can't light up in certain spots doesn't mean we're all in danger, right?
Honestly, I haven't met a single smoker asking for smoking bans, nor have I seen anyone campaigning against smoke-free zones. Who would even want that?
Come on, give me a break. There's just no comparison here. You can try to draw those parallels if you want, but the conclusion...?
Smoking bans are just like banning drugs, cell phones, or drinking, right? What even is that?
Then again, isn't it true that most non-smokers tend to act way more aggressive? You can definitely see it happening right here in this thread.
Non-smokers are the ones at risk here, not the smokers. Right? Smokers can do whatever they want, old school or new school. Right? Non-smokers just can't escape the secondhand smoke in coffee shops these days. Isn't that something?
Instead of finding some middle ground, they’re just out here demanding everything?
Is a compromise even an option here? Maybe letting smokers hit their habit on the sidewalk or in private spots is the way to go. If we weren't looking for some middle-ground compromise, wouldn't smoking just be banned entirely?
total? prohibition
The ban isn't absolute. It’s only total in certain spots, which means it’s not actually total, right?
It honestly gets ridiculous when you realize that the "guys with beards" end up looking like the most tolerant ones in the room. Isn't that just wild?
Ever wonder why some smokers actually have some respect? If they’ve got even an ounce of tolerance for non-smokers, they aren't lighting up right in front of them. Wouldn't that be the dream? Non-smokers can't really be "tolerant" or "intolerant" toward smokers, right? Since they don't smoke, they aren't putting anyone at risk, so there’s nothing to even be upset about. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Who's really voting? Is it anyone other than those fighting to make sure someone else's life choices don't mess with their own?
Nah, they aren't a threat. Not smoking doesn't hurt a smoker, right? And banning it isn't an issue either—people can still smoke as much as they want.
I think we really need to keep in mind what we're actually dealing with here. Total?And not just some half-baked ban on being partial?
It’s a bit biased, isn't it? You can't do it in public spaces, but once you're on a private street, it's fair game—unlike other things that are just totally banned everywhere.
It’s pretty obvious they're playing favorites here, right? They're totally boosting one group while basically labeling everyone else as the bad guys.
Nah. This rule is actually the perfect middle ground. Nobody is out here threatening anyone else. Right now, smokers are bothering non-smokers, but non-smokers aren't doing anything to threaten smokers (nor can they).
Honestly, I think splitting the space into smoking and non-smoking zones is the absolute best compromise between both sides. Shouldn't we have just pushed harder for that solution and focused on making sure it actually worked?
Look, I really think a move like that would totally screw over small local bars or those tight-knit clubs where everything is one unit. It’d be super unfair to anyone running a tiny spot where you can't even physically separate the spaces, right? Such a split would just... Put her job at risk? Seriously?
P.S. Swinging a saw in the self-checkout lane is definitely against the law. But honestly, isn't that the real issue with this whole reform? They're still letting cigarettes stay legal.
Tinc said:bbsan, secondhand smoke isn't nearly as lethal as swinging a chainsaw around a Walmart aisle😁 Besides, more people are gonna kick the bucket from big city stress than from breathing in some smoke.🙄
I don't mind being a secondhand smoker myself. It smells a bit, sure, but you get used to it (trust me, I've been around the block with this stuff for years)😁 Plus, I don't hit the bars as much anymore👍 either way, I'm stoked about my improved quality of life (not to mention all the cash I'm saving), and honestly, I don't care what everyone else does—do your thing.🙂
First off, I'm not so sure that waving a chainsaw in a grocery store would actually cause more deaths than smoking in public spaces. Sure, a chainsaw incident at a supermarket is way more sensational and obvious, and it happens in one sudden moment, but globally, millions die from smoking every year, and hundreds of thousands from secondhand smoke... A death caused by a chainsaw in a grocery store would make the headlines and be all over the news, whereas secondhand smoke deaths usually stay within the family circle. The real question is whether the family even knows that secondhand smoke was the culprit. Since it's an indirect cause, the immediate causes look like "normal" illnesses: heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, stomach cancer, or throat cancer. Kind of like a "natural" death. (Hint: can you actually name someone who died specifically from secondhand smoke?)
And as for stress, I'm not sure which kills more: big city stress or (secondhand) smoking. Probably the smoking. But hey, regardless, urban stress is a massive issue, though unlike smoking, it's a much more complex and messy situation. You can't just fix it with a single law (like a law banning stress in major cities😁, where city stress causes death😬)
atena said:Look, I’m all for those anti-smoking campaigns. Call it chauvinism if you want, but I don't smoke and I hate the smell of smoke stuck in my hair. It sucks when I walk into certain offices and can barely breathe or even see people through the haze. People call it fascism just because you speak up against smokers, which feels totally fake to me—not to mention the health stuff. It's wild how people force smoking on everyone; seeing them use vapes is almost a joke, honestly. I wish they were more effective at actually stopping it. PS////Why are we even talking about bombs right now? We're discussing cigarettes here. If we're going to go that wide with the logic, we might as well talk about how the moon affects dreams or something. Let's stick to the topic, folks; cigarettes and bombs are two different things. They aren't really connected. If "defending" ourselves means justifying bombs just because someone's throwing cigarettes around, then we've really lost the plot... Let's just be glad we don't live on Mars..... PSS And hey, I'm not saying anyone should quit if they don't want to. If they want to smoke, fine, but just don't force me to breathe that air, period.....
Man, they really are hilarious.... First off, why don't we just equate banning smoking in public buildings with banning bombs and nukes? Like, let's ban the weapons first, then worry about the smoking. They call banning smoking in government buildings "fascism," so would they call banning nuclear weapons fascism too? Hmm, probably.
John Perez85 said:Nice one, Scott Smith. These restriction trends aren't even funny anymore (they were at first, at least for me). I don't even smoke, but this is straight-up anti-smoking fascism and there's no way I can get behind it! Plus, it's totally hypocritical since they selectively pick what bothers them and what doesn't. Tons of stuff we use daily just for luxury comes from factories that pollute our environment way more drastically than smokers do, yet I don't see any movement fighting to limit pollution or cutting back on unnecessary luxuries! Honestly, I think it's more about politics, money, and being trendy than actual concern for our health. Suddenly tobacco is Peter for all the ailments of modern life. Think about it. Meanwhile, our air, water, and food are absolute garbage.
BTW, those same Western governments acting all righteous and moralistic won't even open their mouths while their militaries are out there dropping depleted uranium bombs (hint: Gulf War). Or when their massive corporations dump ultra-hazardous waste in poor countries that lack the protection or knowledge to store it safely.
It IS hypocritical, totally! But take it easy... nothing changes overnight. Let's not toss out something that benefits us just because it isn't perfect in every single way. At the very least, we'll have one more argument to pressure them regarding the issues you mentioned. If nothing else, let this be a precedent. Just remember how much time and how many phases it took from the end of slavery for Black Americans to reach full equality—which still hasn't fully happened...
Carol Moore63 said:I’ve been there, seen it, and I’m telling you 😉 👍
In one of those countries that passed that indoor smoking ban law, I hit up a few bars. They were packed, the vibes were killer, the music was top-tier, and the crowd wasn't just avoiding cigarettes—I didn't see a single smartphone on any of the tables 😁
Pure bliss.
Which tribe did you visit? 😉 They clearly can't afford smokes OR smartphones...
slycrane94 said:Just switching from small to large and stuff like that. I can't even imagine trying to fulfill every single wish—I'd break my keyboard 😁.
Oh, come on! If a total bombshell walked in, don't tell me you wouldn't grant her every wish...
A total ban on using a legal product in shared spaces can't be called a fight for freedom by any definition. On the flip side, limiting smoking—by providing separate areas for smokers and non-smokers—actually *is* a fight for freedom because it doesn't discriminate. Of course, the real question is why we don't see more of that. It's all about what the market wants. If non-smokers actually wanted smoke-free spaces as much as they claim, smoke-free cafes and clubs would be booming right now. But clearly, they aren't.
First off, smoke-free cafes could absolutely thrive. But not overnight, like I already said. Second, Guns are a legal product too (though in my book, they shouldn't be), yet you can't just use them anywhere or anytime. Music is a legal product, but you can't blast it whenever you want; there are decibel limits. Don't even get me started on cars. Any restriction is a form of legal discrimination, so why should this be any different? Is it justified or functional? Sure, we can argue that. But is it discriminatory? Yes, just like almost every other law.
A total ban on smoking in public places denies those who chose to use a legal product their rights, so you really can't call it a fight for freedom.
It totally can. Just look at hundreds of other examples. Like drunk driving laws, traffic regulations, and stuff like that. And those actually *enable* freedom. Freedom of movement, road safety, things like that...
It's obvious from the fact that no government in countries that passed these bans was crazy enough to call it a "fight for freedom." They focused on the health aspect instead—both active and passive smoking.
Well, isn't ensuring someone's freedom to protect their own health also a way of securing freedom? Isn't it?
Also, keep in mind that banning smoking in public spaces denies a private owner of a public space (like a cafe or a club) the freedom to manage their business as they see fit.
Oh, please. How terrible! What about all those laws that tell an owner exactly what they can and can't have in their shop? Laws regarding operating hours, minimum wage, specific accounting procedures, employee rights, payroll, taxes... And the laws dictating which payment methods a cafe has to accept... Doesn't all that fall under the category of "denying a private owner the freedom to run their business"?
to meet market demands and attract the specific type of customer they want.
They still have the freedom to target whatever clientele they want. If they want smokers, fine. It's just up to them to figure out how to attract them without breaking the law. If they want, they can even try to attract drug addicts. But they can't let people use drugs on the premises.
That definitely isn't freedom. The current system doesn't stop an owner from opening a totally smoke-free cafe, whereas this system prevents an owner from opening a fully or partially smoking cafe.
But current laws prevent an owner from opening a drug den. That’s also a restriction on the owner's freedom, right?
It's clear that using the "fight for freedom" platform here is completely misplaced.
Actually, it's the opposite!
That kind of paternalistic attitude doesn't help a campaign like this at all. It just shows a lack of respect for a huge group of people based solely on their lifestyle choices.
And how would you describe the laws that ban drugs or restrict "free" behavior on the road?
Scott Smith In my book, banning smoking in public only makes sense if we make tobacco illegal too. Anything else is just pure hypocrisy and inconsistent. Why target smokers and treat them like criminals while simultaneously lining the government's pockets with tax money? Trying to "protect" people from a product that’s perfectly legal is just nonsense.
I totally disagree. This isn't about criminalizing smokers or making tobacco illegal. It doesn't stop an adult from choosing to smoke and ruin their health if they want to. It just says you can't do it where you're bothering everyone else. The treasury gets funded by everything that's legal. Since smoking and buying tobacco is legal, it’s only logical that the government takes a cut. It's like driving. You can't drive on the sidewalk, drive drunk, or drive on the left side of the road, but buying your car and gas still pays into the system.
Look, you have to see these bans in a bigger picture than just a black-and-white debate over smoking. We're seeing a growing trend of restrictions on things that are slightly risky—like zero-tolerance BAC laws—or, more often, things that just cater to the feelings of the moralizing elite who showed up in this thread. The government is increasingly dictating how individuals live their daily lives and what legal stuff they can consume and where.
Sure, better order creates more freedom for everyone, right? Smokers get to be left alone, and non-smokers don't get suffocated.
Even if you think a smoking ban is a good move, the overall trend it represents is definitely negative.
People backing these bans need to realize they're essentially supporting a nanny state that thinks it gets the final say on what's "good" or "bad" for responsible, consenting adults.
The government has always acted like a nanny to adults. That’s basically the whole point of the state and its laws. If you accept those rules as a citizen, you're trading away a slice of your freedom—the freedom to do forbidden things and face consequences—in exchange for the protection those same laws provide. It's stuff I could never achieve on my own without the state.
bbsan said:If we want to actually get rid of cigarettes, we have to convince smokers that it's a bad idea first. Bans just make us non-smokers feel safer, but the real move would be convincing people smoking sucks. You can only do that through solid education starting young, but that's such a massive undertaking it’s almost impossible right now. Back in middle school, the vibe was great regarding this stuff, and looking back 12 or 13 years later, hardly anyone from my old class smokes. Same thing in high school, though we were at an elite prep school where most kids weren't really into it anyway.
Well, I went to a standard public high school. When we started, there were "only" three smokers among us. Now, five years after graduation, about two-thirds of us smoke (just one example of a former smoker compared to the average)!
Taun_We said:There’s a massive difference between drinking and smoking. Sure, they both suck for you. But nobody talks about "passive alcoholics." 🙂 When it comes to booze, it's all on you, right? But dodging someone else's cigarette smoke? That's way harder to dodge.
YEAH, plus they aren't banning smoking either. You can smoke as much as you want. Just like you can drink!
Jessica Davis12 said:Man, this anti-smoking campaign is really getting under my skin. Is it just me? Man, that’s seriously the worst thing that can happen to anyone. Seriously. Meanwhile, alcohol ads are still everywhere, right? They’re constantly pushing beer and acting like having a drink before bed or even while you sleep is totally normal. 🤮 When it comes to health consequences, you’re stuck with whatever you pick (drinking or smoking), but honestly, drinking takes the cake.
It’s all just part of some massive conspiracy against the big corporations, isn't it? But you know what the best part is? Over the last few years, the number of smokers worldwide has actually gone up. Isn't that wild?
Out in the West, both sides are fighting a real battle. Isn't that just how it goes? Those fighting against smoking versus those fighting for that "lifestyle." Who's actually winning? Everywhere else, people are just sitting ducks for those massive Big Tobacco corporations. Isn't that wild?
And honestly, even the struggling states can't hold their own against those massive corporations (though the ones out West have a bit more muscle).
Why should smokers see anti-smoking campaigners as the enemy? Shouldn't they actually view them as allies fighting against those massive corporations instead?
Spending cash on cigarettes feels like freedom at first, right? But pretty soon, that choice starts slipping away... Honestly, almost any smoker trying to quit knows exactly what I mean. But that’s totally confusing for beginners, right?
Honestly, most people hanging out at bars aren't gonna change. You'll just have stubborn smokers heading outside while the non-smokers who can't stand the smoke head inside. Let those stubborn folks stay stubborn if it makes them happy; we aren't exactly going to cry about them being gone from the bar.
A law like that would actually be a win-win for everyone. It gives smokers a reason to quit and finally gives non-smokers some clean air to breathe!
Let me break this down. In the first round, you're definitely going to see some smokers "clear out" of the local bars.
NO, 1. A pretty sizable chunk of them will actually "flip" to being non-smokers. This is basically just another massive nudge for them to quit (I mean, let's face it, most smokers want to quit and have tried plenty of times already).
2. A whole "new" crowd of non-smokers will start "moving into" the bars. These are the social butterflies who love a good coffee or a drink but used to avoid hanging out because the smoke bothered them too much. They’ll definitely be showing up more often.
3) Then there's the younger crowd—teens, college students, etc.—who are the newcomers to the bar scene. Fewer of them are going to get sucked into smoking than before. Think about it, right? So many of us started smoking specifically because we were hanging out in bars. Usually right alongside a coffee or a beer.
Sure, business might dip at first, yeah. But after a while, I actually expect foot traffic and sales to go up. It’s just that the ratio of smokers to non-smokers in those bars is going to look totally different.
Just grabbed a cigarette, so let me get this off my chest. The whole fear from bar owners about losing customers is just plain ridiculous. Like they actually think smokers are gonna ditch their local spots? Honestly, it’ll probably be the exact opposite—those bars are gonna be even more packed. Sure, it won't happen overnight, but long-term? Definitely.
It’s the same nonsense you hear from restaurant owners whining about the zero-alcohol laws hitting their sales. Look, if someone’s got enough cash for a nice dinner and a bottle of wine, they’ve definitely got enough for a cab ride home.
So, I just had a cigarette, and honestly, I’ve got some thoughts on the whole thing...
Look, I'm all about diversity, different lifestyles, and personal freedom. That includes the freedom to smoke and even the freedom to mess with your own health. I don't think anyone should be stripping people of their right to smoke. But hey, this law isn't really about limiting smokers, is it? It’s more about making sure non-smokers have the right to stay healthy and aren't breathing in carcinogenic smoke. Nobody's forcing anyone to light up. But if you're sharing space with non-smokers, you shouldn't be doing it there. You can always step out of a public area to grab a smoke. You can puff on as much tobacco as you want, whenever you want.