Smoking ban in all public spaces

It’s a pretty straightforward setup: you have two camps—smokers and non-smokers. Both groups share the same public spaces, whether it’s a local diner, a trendy bar, or an airport terminal. Their interests are fundamentally at odds. Smokers want to light up, while non-smokers just want to breathe without inhaling someone else's secondhand smoke. It’s a zero-sum game where only one side can win. For a long time, smokers held the upper hand, but the tide is finally turning.

The whole "we pay more in taxes" argument doesn't hold much water. Even if smokers contribute more through excise taxes, they end up draining more from the healthcare system because of the illnesses linked to smoking. And let's be honest, those cigarette tax dollars don't just go toward healthcare—where they actually belong—they vanish into the federal budget to fund whatever the government needs, maybe even some shiny new black Ford SUVs for high-ranking officials in D.C.

Here is my actual take on the matter: if a smoker is allowed to light a cigarette inside a restaurant, then by that same logic, a non-smoker should be allowed to set fire to a block of Styrofoam or spill some foul-smelling chemical on the floor. It pollutes the air for everyone else and puts their health at risk. It’s functionally the exact same thing as cigarette smoke.

John Perez85 said:I’m sticking to my guns here: these government anti-smoking policies are total hypocrites. They turn a blind eye to—and even encourage—stuff that's way worse for you than a cigarette just to score easy political points with bans.

You’re missing a huge distinction here.
Spending on yourself versus spending on others.
Sure, we should discourage people from poisoning themselves,
but why on earth would we ban them from poisoning everyone else?

Check out the poll results: Should smoking be banned in indoor public spaces?
Yes 43 69.35%
No 16 25.81%
Something else - check the thread 3 4.84%
Total votes: 62. You have already voted in this poll

Justin Fox said:Here’s my take: if a smoker gets a free pass to light up in a restaurant, then why can't a non-smoker just set fire to a block of Styrofoam or spill some nasty chemical in there? It pollutes the air for everyone else and puts their health at risk, just like cigarette smoke does.

By that logic, a non-smoker could basically torch the whole damn building.😁

crimsonpuma48, 👍

Justin Fox said:My main point is this: if a smoker is allowed to light up in a restaurant, then a non-smoker should be just as entitled to light a piece of Styrofoam on fire or spill some foul-smelling liquid. It pollutes the air for everyone else and puts their health at risk, just like cigarette smoke does.

Nobody is asking for smokers to be allowed to light up next to non-smokers. Read what’s already been said.

Anthony Kim18 said:If people want to poison themselves, we should discourage it,
not go as far as banning them from poisoning others!

I agree. I don't think that contradicts anything I've said. I just find your use of the word "discourage" to be a bit soft.

-

I say we pin this thread to the top!

A timely intervention to refresh this discussion:

Legislation is currently being drafted to prohibit smoking in all public spaces, including restaurants and bars throughout the beautiful US. Before the total ban takes full effect, there will be a one-year grace period.
Link

It will be quite fascinating to observe how America tackles this issue, not necessarily regarding the actual regulation itself, but rather the logistical nightmare of actually enforcing it.

It is remarkably simple to pass such a law in Scotland, where people are essentially raised from birth to respect established rules.

But how does one compel an unruly group of people who have been conditioned since childhood to believe that if you can find a loophole in the law, you absolutely should?

Honestly ☕, I’m done wasting my breath in this coffee shop. 😬

I agree, but the real question is how they plan on actually enforcing that law.
I mean, we already have laws against selling booze and cigarettes to anyone under 21, and yet... ☕

So, I’m scrolling through the news today and reading this piece on CNN, claiming there’s "no ban" in place. Turns out, the reporters completely butchered what the Deputy Secretary actually said. 😬 🤣

"Estimates suggest there are about 1.2 million smokers in America, meaning nearly one in three adults smokes. It's also believed that 60 to 70 percent of children are exposed to secondhand smoke from an early age because of parents or other household members.

Burning just one cigarette produces about two liters of smoke, and scientists have identified over 4,000 chemical compounds in that smoke, at least 60 of which are known carcinogens." (CNN, 05/31/2006)
Yet, America still hasn't passed legislation banning smoking in public
spaces. Given those facts, it should happen—as soon as possible.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has essentially concluded that banning smoking in public spaces cannot be justified solely by the risks posed to passive smokers.

Even though the government’s own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health reviewed the scientific data twice and agreed that secondhand smoke causes cancer and heart disease, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee determined that prohibitionist policies represent a disproportionate response to the issue..

Lord Wakeham notes:
We are also concerned that the administration isn't paying enough attention to the cumulative effect this legislation will have on individual freedom of choice.

It is quite telling that the traditionally more conservative upper house of the U.S. legislature is criticizing a move from the lower house that actually enjoyed widespread support.

Given that this thread was sparked by the bans in Scotland—which were subsequently followed by England and Wales in 2007—I find the stance of these legislators highly relevant to our discussion, particularly regarding the argument that an absolute ban on smoking in public places is an excessive reaction to a health concern.

Megan Reed said:whatever ☕, I'm officially switching over to coffee shops. 😬

Yeah, me too. I think I'll start hitting the coffee shops myself... 😉

I honestly don't think that would ever fly here in the States; even with designated non-smoking areas already in place, people just ignore the rules and smoke wherever they please anyway!

Masha1 said:I don't think that would ever work here... I mean, we still have designated non-smoking areas in places, yet everyone still smokes right next to them anyway!

And if you actually could pull it off? Well, we all claim we want to be this sophisticated, world-class nation, but deep down, we’re just your typical, everyday Americans... stuck in our ways...