CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Lifestyle › Health › Smoking ban in all public spaces

Smoking ban in all public spaces

Started by Olivia Martinez20 · · 👁 9 views · 217 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Olivia Martinez20Sean Hernandez5velvetgull9Jack Roberts83fadedtrucker19James Gonzalez49casualfox9Chris Mitchell11dustycanyon6Laura Hernandez8wanderingowl7Jessica Kelly4Alexander Collins4Anthony Booth42restlessmarlin6Gerald Kern77Casey Palmer5blueranger12Andrew Anderson6brisknomad6nimblestag31rustymoose54Jeremy Flores10Gerald Rivera17 …
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#41 ·
Man, imagine when coffee shops start shutting down because smokers just stop showing up... Once the tax revenue from all those drinks dries up and those local spots start failing, you'll see people losing jobs too. It’s honestly not going to be worth it for the government to push smokers out of public spaces like this. Remember how much restaurant owners were complaining about >, well, this is going to be a way bigger blow. Either they'll have to rely on outdoor patios even in the dead of winter 😁.

If smoke-free cafes were actually profitable, we'd see them everywhere in Washington, D.C., instead of just a couple here and there
.
So, what's really going to happen? People will just host private parties at home. Everyone will hang out in houses and apartments instead... at least we'll save some money on booze 😁
velvetgull9 velvetgull9 Active Member
113 messages
joined Dec 2005
#42 ·
Casey Palmer5 said:Man, imagine when coffee shops start shutting down because smokers just stop coming in...

That's just silly. 😁 Just head over to Italy, where they've had smoking bans in cafes for ages, and ask if any of them went out of business. Or, I guess I can save you the trip: they didn't. 😁
restlessmarlin6 restlessmarlin6 Active Member
219 messages
joined Oct 2003
#43 ·
Of course they aren't. For an Italian, grabbing a coffee actually means—well, grabbing a coffee 😁
. You just knock it back and head out.

Around here, meeting up for coffee basically means settling in for a multi-hour venting session. I mean, we’re way more intense than any Italian 😁
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#44 ·
I can't even remember the last time I was there—it was probably a few years ago—but back then, smoking wasn't even banned. Honestly, though, we just have a different mindset over here in the States. And let's be real, we have way more dive bars... though you don't exactly find one on every single corner like you might elsewhere.

Based on what I've heard from plenty of people I know—the type who feel like coffee or a beer just isn't complete without a cigarette—a lot of local spots are probably going to end up closing their doors...

Personally, I don't really care either way. I'm not much of a cafe person anyway, whether the air is fresh or filled with smoke.
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#45 ·
restlessmarlin6 Scott Smith said:Of course they aren't. For Italians, grabbing a coffee actually means... grabbing a coffee. 😁
Grab a coffee and let's get moving...

Around here, grabbing a coffee really just means settling in for a marathon smoking session. Honestly, we’re more like the Turks than the Italians when it comes to that... 😁

Exactly! They just take one quick sip and they're already heading for the exit. And when it comes to drinks... they'll have one, maybe two, and call it a day. We'll still be working our way through half a crate of beer while they're long gone...
velvetgull9 velvetgull9 Active Member
113 messages
joined Dec 2005
#46 ·
Casey Palmer5 said:Exactly! They just gulp it down and they're already halfway out the door. And as for drinks... they grab one, maybe two... and that's it, let's move on. While we're over here trying to finish half a case of beer.

Following those points, I can't help but think that passing this decision will make our—okay, your 😁 American people way healthier across the board. Which means productivity goes up and boom, prosperity follows. 👍

I mean, guys, let's be real here. Spray paint is totally legal, but if someone walks into a Starbucks or a subway and sprays you on your clothes or, heaven forbid, your face, the cops would have a field day. But if someone's choking you out with smoke, I guess you're just supposed to stay quiet and enjoy it?
blueranger12 blueranger12 Active Member
100 messages
joined Dec 2005
#47 ·
Scott Smith, would you even dare show up at a local pub one night with a drum and just play your heart out? No, you wouldn't. Because you’d be bothering everyone else. But a drum is a perfectly legal product. So why the infringement on rights? 🙄

As for the rights of business owners, over in Italy, they have it figured out. If a bar owner wants to allow smoking, they just need a properly installed ventilation system that actually vents the smoke outside. And I’m not talking about some tiny little fan.

Also, that point you made about empty bars where smoking is banned—that's a weak argument. It's obvious that without these laws, any bar that actually cares about its customers would allow smoking.
dustycanyon6 dustycanyon6 Active Member
82 messages
joined Dec 2005
#48 ·
Casey Palmer5 said:Man, just wait until the local pubs start shutting down because smokers stop showing up...

That’s like saying people stopped driving cars just because they can't handle one beer. 😉

Casey Palmer5 said:Remember how much restaurant owners complained about zero-tolerance laws? This is going to hit them way harder. Or they'll just end up having outdoor patios even in the middle of winter 😁.

Nice use of the past tense there! Who even talks about zero-tolerance anymore?

Casey Palmer5 said:If smoke-free cafes actually made money, you'd see them all over Washington, D.C., instead of just two or three.

Not really. Your post makes it sound like if smoking gets banned entirely, everyone will just stay home and smoke in their living rooms instead of going out. A small group might act like that, sure, but most people won't.

Also, smoke-free spots don't work because one smoker ends up dragging the whole non-smoking crowd to a place where it *is* allowed. It's frustrating. Even when we go to a cafe just for dessert, if there's one smoker and three of us non-smokers, we always end up migrating to the smoking section.

By the way, which two or three are you talking about? And where are they? If only there were more...
Jessica Kelly4 Jessica Kelly4 Active Member
141 messages
joined Jun 2016
#49 ·
dustycanyon6 said:Nice touch using the past perfect tense there! Who even uses zero percent anymore?

People talk about it all the time. I could name at least ten people right now—myself included—for whom that question will be a deciding factor in the next election.
Jessica Kelly4 Jessica Kelly4 Active Member
141 messages
joined Jun 2016
#50 ·
Sarah Miller26 said:PS////Look, if we're going to pivot from discussing cigarettes to talking about bombs, then why stop there? Let's talk about how the moon affects our dreams or whatever. Stick to the topic: cigarettes. Bombs are a completely different issue, and claiming they're linked just to defend smoking is a massive stretch... Let's face it, we aren't living on Mars.....
PSS And no, I'm not saying anyone should quit if they don't want to. If they want to smoke, fine, but they shouldn't force me to breathe that air, period.....

I'm doubling down: these government anti-smoking policies are pure hypocrisy. They greenlight—and often encourage—activities that are way more lethal than cigarette smoke, yet they play politics by banning something else to score easy points.
Jessica Kelly4 Jessica Kelly4 Active Member
141 messages
joined Jun 2016
#51 ·
fadedtrucker19 said:To me, you guys aren't any different from heroin addicts.

Cut the crap. I get that you hate smoke and you're on some crusade against Pusac, but making claims like that just makes you look unreliable.
Laura Hernandez8 Laura Hernandez8 Member
11 messages
joined Jul 2004
#52 ·
John Perez85 said:I’m just doubling down on my point here—these government decisions against smokers are incredibly hypocritical. On one hand, they actually permit (and sometimes even encourage!) all sorts of activities that are way more devastating to human health than cigarette smoke, yet they still try to score cheap political points by pushing bans.

But then again... I suppose those "other harmful activities" are mostly things people do to themselves, right? They aren't necessarily bothering everyone else around them—at least not directly. Smoking gets targeted first simply because it's so obvious how much it irritates the large number of people who don't smoke themselves. So, putting smoker health aside for a moment, the bigger issue seems to be how it affects the health of everyone else nearby.
Andrew Anderson6 Andrew Anderson6 Active Member
90 messages
joined Dec 2002
#53 ·
Sarah Miller26 said:The point is, smokers smoke wherever you work—you can’t escape it. It happens in waiting rooms, doctor's offices, all that stuff. So saying "avoid places where people smoke" is total nonsense, kind of like living in San Francisco.

Oh please, where exactly is that happening? Seriously??? 🙄 I smoke, and I have NEVER lit up in an office or a waiting room... plus, I’ve honestly never even seen anyone doing that in those kinds of places.

Sarah Miller26 said:A few years back, I actually dealt with nicotine poisoning just from secondhand smoke.

Okay, now we're in San Francisco territory—I haven't heard that one before, and I'd bet my life it's impossible.

Like this:

- Look, I'm a smoker, and I have NEVER lit a cigarette in an office, a waiting room, or anywhere else it's prohibited.

- As for being harassed:

- How are we going to regulate the stinky people (Class A—general stinkers, Class B—bad breath squad 🤮)?

- And how do we deal with the loudmouths who constantly screech on their cell phones in those same spaces and mess with my peace of mind? 😛

- What about the drinkers who are actually socially acceptable? When the zero-tolerance laws hit, it was basically a civil war out there—and don't give me that "passive alcoholism isn't a thing" crap; go check the local news reports if you don't believe me. 😁

So:

1) As a smoker, I'm totally fine with punishing people for smoking in non-smoking zones, even if it takes $33333

2) On the flip side, non-smokers harass smokers too. Yeah, they really do. They love to poke their heads into the smoking area just to yell, "Ugh, it smells so bad here!"—like, why are you even in the designated area (I mean things like a company smoking lounge) then??? For that, I'd punish non-smokers (for psychological harassment) with $33333

One more thing—when I visit non-smokers, it never crosses my mind to light up. But I know plenty of non-smokers who thought it was a good idea to light up when they came over to my place, acting like I shouldn't be smoking IN MY OWN HOUSE just because they were there (and no, I'm not talking about pregnant women or kids—in that case, I'm the one who wouldn't smoke). Honestly...

Bottom line: Smokers—follow the rules. Non-smokers—stay away from the smoking areas. Peace.
Jessica Kelly4 Jessica Kelly4 Active Member
141 messages
joined Jun 2016
#54 ·
Ronald Jones26 said:On the flip side, those other "harmful activities" are things people do to themselves without bothering everyone else—at least not directly. Smoking is the first target because it clearly annoys the huge number of people who don't do it. Forget smoking health for a second; the bigger issue is how they attack the health of EVERYONE around them.

Ronald Jones26, I’m talking about the hypocrisy of the ruling class chasing whatever trendy moral crusade is in style this week. Those "other harmful activities" aren't just individual choices; they're actively killing everyone on this planet. I can't tell if you're messing with me or if you genuinely can't see the forest for the trees. For example, it’s pure hypocrisy to pass laws trying to demonize smokers while turning a blind eye to industrial waste being shipped off to developing nations that lack the tech to handle it. You are directly killing people who don't even live near you just so you can enjoy the luxury of a "clean" country. If that isn't blatant hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Chris Mitchell11 Chris Mitchell11 Member
18 messages
joined Aug 2008
#55 ·
Elizabeth Alvarez13 Scott Smith said:So, I’ve been sitting here thinking... how on earth are we actually going to handle the regulation of these absolute stenches? It’s a mess. I mean, really think about it. We need some kind of framework to deal with the different tiers of odor pollution. I'm talking about Class A—you know, those massive, sweeping environmental stenches that hit you like a freight train when you walk out your front door. Then there's the whole other issue, Class B—the more personal, localized breath odors that make you want to back away slowly during a handshake. How do we even begin to legislate something so... visceral? It feels like we need a standard, maybe something akin to how the EPA handles air quality, but applied to the much more awkward reality of human presence. Just a thought. I'm probably overthinking this, but it's bothering me. 🤮) ?

How on earth are we supposed to regulate those loudmouths who just won't stop shrieking into their cell phones in public spaces? Honestly, it’s getting out of hand. I was sitting in a quiet little cafe in downtown Chicago the other day—just trying to enjoy my coffee and get some reading done—and this guy next to me starts yelling into his phone like he’s shouting orders at a football coach during the Super Bowl. It’s constant. Just... constant. It’s more than just a nuisance; it’s actually starting to mess with my mental peace. My focus just evaporates. How do we even address this? Should there be actual rules in place for shared spaces? I feel like we need some kind of social etiquette standard, or maybe even local ordinances, because the sheer lack of consideration for others' headspace is becoming unbearable. Does anyone else feel like they're losing their mind? 😛

Honestly, the sheer irritability you see from non-smokers... it all stems from this massive misunderstanding of what smokers are actually facing. If we’re looking at the long game, there's always that looming possibility of dying from a smoking-related illness, and let's be real—smokers tend to underestimate just how heavy that weight is. I know people—I’m talking about my friends' parents and folks in my circle—who passed away directly because of smoking. And look, I’ll be the first to admit, they weren't even passive smokers. They were active users. So, personally? I’m not losing sleep over the idea of dying because someone near me lights up. There are way more ways to kick the bucket in my daily life. I face much higher risks when I'm tearing down a mountain on skis, racing around on my bike, or driving my car too fast. Even just bickering with someone, rappelling down a rope, or honestly, even while I'm standing in the shower... those moments feel far more precarious to me. 😁 The thing that really gets to me... it’s those short-term effects from being stuck in a smoky environment. I mean, it’s more than just an annoyance. Because I deal with respiratory issues myself, being around all that smoke just hits me differently. It’s tough. Honestly, having a nose so dry and stuffed up that I’m forced to breathe through my mouth—especially when you're stuck in some stinky room—is a massive issue. It is a much bigger deal than someone’s phone ringing incessantly. Seriously.
Andrew Anderson6 Andrew Anderson6 Active Member
90 messages
joined Dec 2002
#56 ·
Chris Mitchell11 said:What really gets to me is the immediate fallout from being in a smoky room—my respiratory issues make it brutal. Having a dry, stuffed-up nose that forces me to breathe through my mouth (in a room that reeks) is way more annoying than someone’s phone ringing.

Look, what I'm trying to get across is that non-smokers aren't *forced* to hang out in smoke-filled areas—get it? If a sign says "smoking section," why would a non-smoker even walk in there?

And if you're stuck on a subway next to someone who smells terrible, you'll probably start breathing through your mouth too, right? Or am I crazy?

The demonization of smokers is what bugs me.

As a smoker myself, yeah, a smoky room stinks—that's why I always keep my windows cracked—but let's be real: there are smells ten times worse than cigarettes, along with other toxins (like alcohol, etc.) that are just as bad, if not worse, than secondhand smoke.

And no, I'm definitely not claiming smoking improves your health...

AD2) I wasn't talking about a ringtone—I meant those loud voices rambling on speakerphone for half an hour.
casualfox9 casualfox9 Member
14 messages
joined Feb 2005
#57 ·
restlessmarlin6 said:It’s true—personally, I actually took up smoking as a form of rebellion, but I certainly don't believe that doing so means you've stopped thinking straight, especially during those years when everything feels completely upside down.😁
And honestly, I’ll probably start getting worried once I actually settle down and get serious.😳 😁

I mostly used the term "anger" in a joking way (of course I don't think you are literally furious,😉) but looking back, I could ask you again why you reacted so strongly to it.😁 🙂
Regardless, it's fine. I respect your perspective; I know there are some things a person just can't stomach, plain and simple. That said, most people I encounter tend to project their own traumas or personal struggles onto everyone around them, so perhaps I jumped to conclusions by assuming you had some deep-seated personal reasons for being so against it (much like a few others in this thread).
Besides, I am personally quite indifferent toward the whole thing, which is probably why I was being so flippant about it.🙂

Though, I still don't think secondhand smoke is *that* harmful.🙂

casualfox9, I'm sorry, but I am deleting this post. This is a lovely, well-argued debate between two sides that disagree, and I truly see no reason for such a senseless insult. If you have something substantive to contribute to the topic, please go ahead, but that one sentence has to go...
Laura Hernandez8 Laura Hernandez8 Member
11 messages
joined Jul 2004
#58 ·
John Perez85 Scott Smith said:Ronald Jones26, I’m talking about the blatant hypocrisy of those in power who just jump on whatever trendy social cause is currently in vogue. These "other harmful activities" we discuss... they aren't just individual lapses in judgment. They are systemic issues that, quite frankly, are killing everyone on this planet. I honestly can't tell if you're messing with me on purpose or if you truly can't see the forest for the trees here. Take, for example, how hypocritical it is to push through legislation aimed at demonizing smokers—it's all very performative—while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the fact that industrial waste is being shipped off to developing nations that lack the technology to handle it safely. It's devastating. You're essentially causing deaths far away from your own doorstep just so you can enjoy the luxury of a "clean" environment in your own backyard. If that isn't a textbook case of hypocrisy, then I really don't know what is.

So, would you really want to tackle every single global crisis all at once? Or maybe you’re thinking about linking a smoking ban to solving every other piece of garbage cluttering up our planet? In the actual world—you know, the real one—things happen one step at a time. Right now, we're looking at smoking bans. And then you come along with this counterargument that we shouldn't restrict smoking in public spaces until, say, we finally stop the deforestation of the Amazon. But who is actually stalling the process there? Honestly. A ban on smoking isn't just some passing fad; it’s genuine social and civilizational progress. Even if you think it's just another trend being pushed by our government, I have to say, it's a pretty lovely change to see them actually following positive trends for once, instead of only chasing the negative ones.

Elizabeth Alvarez13 Scott Smith said:What I’m really trying to get across here—and bear with me, I know I can ramble—is that a non-smoker isn't actually being forced to sit in a cloud of smoke. You know what I mean? If you walk up to a door and there's a sign clearly stating "Smoking Area," why on earth would a non-smoker even step inside? It's a bit of a silly question, really, if you think about it.

The real issue here—and I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately—is how smokers constantly drift into non-smoking areas at local pubs or restaurants. Take a place like that old diner down by the river, for example; you see it all the time. The "non-smoking section" is usually just some imaginary line drawn in the air, which honestly makes it pretty much useless. It lacks any real substance. Then you have these social hubs, like those hiking clubs or community centers... goodness, you should see the battles being fought there! People are practically at war because smokers simply refuse to stop lighting up indoors. That’s the heart of the matter. The second a cigarette is lit in one of these spaces, every single non-smoker who can't stand the smoke is forced to head outside. Their only other option is to just sit there, suffer through it, and swallow the discomfort—which, let's be honest, isn't really a choice at all.
Jessica Kelly4 Jessica Kelly4 Active Member
141 messages
joined Jun 2016
#59 ·
Chris Mitchell11 said:The thing that bothers me is the immediate impact of being in a smoky room, since I have respiratory issues.

That’s a fair point. Cigarette smoke irritates me too, so I stick to non-smoking areas and never allow smoking in my apartment or car.

Smoking is a massive social phenomenon; you can't just shut it down overnight. Especially not through some hypocritical regulations from a "concerned" government. We need systematic education spanning generations, not just a few years, to gradually reduce the number of smokers. For decades, Big Tobacco has been a massive cash cow for the federal budget. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you; that's not news. It's wrong to flip the script instantly. Life should be organized so both smokers and non-smokers have their own spaces whenever possible. No need for the drama—trends are already moving toward non-smoking. This is just a transition period.
Jessica Kelly4 Jessica Kelly4 Active Member
141 messages
joined Jun 2016
#60 ·
John Perez85 said:So now you want to fix every global crisis all at once? Or are you going to tie smoking bans to solving every other mess on Earth? In the real world, things happen one step at a time. Right now, we're talking about smoking. You’re trying to argue that we can't ban it in public spaces until we stop the deforestation of the Amazon. Who’s actually stalling here? Banning smoking isn't just some passing fad; it's social and civilizational progress. Even if our government is just following trends, it's a good thing they're picking up on positive ones instead of just the negative ones.

Oh, so you think life works in a neat little sequence? That’s not how the real world operates. 😁
I already covered this in my last post, so consider it an answer to you too. My point about overlapping issues is simple: I'm arguing that governments—the political and economic elite—don't give a damn about the health of the general public.

Let me wrap this up: If there were a referendum asking whether smoking should be unconditionally banned in every single public space, I'd vote no. However, if the question was whether we should ban smoking in public while still providing designated areas for smokers (with rare legal exceptions), and letting businesses decide based on market needs whether they want to be smoking, non-smoking, or mixed venues, then I’d support that. Of course, that would have to include mandatory education from a young age about the dangers of smoking.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads