Smoking ban in all public spaces

John Perez85 said:Sure, absolutely, but we really need laws that guarantee smokers have their own designated space where they can actually light up.

Why on earth would we do that?

Look, being addicted to cigarettes is a private matter.
Why should a corporation be forced to provide specialized smoking lounges just to accommodate them?

And honestly, here’s another thing that gets under my skin: when a non-smoker takes a five-minute breather, they’re suddenly "slacking off." Meanwhile, the smoker uses that exact same window to finish a cigarette, and somehow that’s perfectly acceptable.

Gross.

fadedtrucker19 said:And here’s another thing that’s incredibly annoying: when a non-smoker takes a five-minute break, they’re just "slacking off." Meanwhile, a smoker is using that time to have a cigarette, so that counts as work.

Gross.

Yeah, I don't get it either. It really gets under my skin... even though I'm a smoker myself. 😬

fadedtrucker19 said:Why?

Being addicted to cigarettes is a personal matter.
Why should a company be forced to provide smoking areas for smokers?

And here’s another thing that gets annoying: when a non-smoker takes a five-minute break, they’re "slacking off." A smoker uses that time to smoke, so it’s fine.

Gross.

Because there are tons of smokers out there, making up a huge chunk of the population. It's just basic math. Plus, I keep hearing people on this forum preach about minority rights being the foundation of democracy. Well, smokers are a minority too—or maybe they aren't if you count the occasional smoker, making them the majority 😁.

As for those cigarette breaks, I'm with you. Either everyone gets a five-minute break, or nobody does.

John Perez85 said:It's quite simple: there are a massive number of smokers out there, making them a statistically significant portion of the population. It’s just basic math—the law of large numbers at work. Plus, I constantly hear people on this forum lecturing me about how protecting minorities is the bedrock of democracy. Well, fine then, let's call smokers a minority (are they? maybe they are, if you count the occasional smoker alongside the actual majority 😁).

The problem is that this particular "minority" acts in a way that actively harms everyone else. End of story.

Your personal freedom ends exactly where someone else's begins.
Just look at the smokers in this thread who argue, "If the smoke bothers you so much, why the hell did you even come to the pub?"
Do those same smokers respect the rights of a minority when there are five of them and just one non-smoker who can't stand the fumes? When they're all sitting in a bar?

Of course they don't.
So, sorry, but it's just not happening.

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.

Anthony Kim18 said:I just finished a cigarette, so I figured I'd write this.
The fear bar owners have about losing customers is total nonsense.
Smokers will eventually ditch the coffee shops and places like that.
Actually, it’s quite the opposite—coffee shops are just going to get even more crowded.
It won't happen instantly or overnight, but in the long run, it definitely will.

Get real. Won't the number of people hanging out in coffee shops stay exactly the same?

Anthony Kim18 said:It’s just like those restaurant owners whining about losing business because of a zero-tolerance law. Total nonsense.
If you can afford dinner and wine at a restaurant, you can definitely afford a taxi.

We've seen a dip for now. Maybe things will level out eventually, but despite all the effort, the government still hasn't provided any solid proof that this law actually makes sense.

fadedtrucker19 said:This minority is acting to the detriment of everyone else. Period.

Personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.

fadedtrucker19, you're slippery. I gave you plenty of examples where a minority acts against the majority, and you didn't counter them—you just hid behind empty slogans about liberty. It seems like you actually think banning smokers is going to make honey and milk flow through the streets of America! 😁

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that "freedom ends where others begin" line isn't reality. In practice, we cross that line all the time because it’s impossible to force everyone to agree on what life, freedom, or morality even means. To maintain some semblance of order, and driven by whoever has the most lobby power in a modern democracy, almost every law we pass encroaches on someone's "freedom." Maybe it's hard for you to grasp, but people see the world in ways that are fundamentally opposed to one another. While you see smoking as pure evil, someone else sees it as a lifestyle choice. By pushing your views, you're effectively stripping away their freedom (and your medical arguments don't change that fact here). The only real move is to find like-minded people, build enough political clout, and flip the laws in your favor. As for the whining about liberty... leave that to the elementary schoolers.

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.

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!

John Perez85 said:That kind of law would help both smokers and non-smokers. It gives smokers a reason to quit, and gives non-smokers actual clean air to breathe!

Here comes another early bird. 👍

Maybe you're right. We'll see. Time will tell. Either way, reducing the number of smokers is better, assuming this law doesn't backfire. What are the trends looking like in countries that already passed this stuff?

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?

nimblestag31 said:man...
that comparison doesn't really hold water
🙂

Sure, but look—the whole point is that over the last few decades of the 21st century, everyone just went nuts with smoking, and nobody gives a damn about exhaust fumes... meanwhile, the greenhouse effect—you know, the Kyoto stuff—and the disappearing plankton—I think I saw a segment on it on some news channel once—that's only talked about sporadically, and honestly, that’s way more serious than smoking. In the long run, anyway... 🙂

fadedtrucker19 said:Again, driving usually serves a practical purpose. Smoking doesn't.

And both of them pad the government's pockets, too... 😉

John Perez85 said:Look, I don't want to let you down, but it’s just not true that freedom extends to the point where everyone can do whatever they want. For the sake of common sense, we have to draw lines. It's impossible to get everyone to live together in peace when everyone has such wildly different ideas about life, liberty, and all that. In the interest of keeping things civil—and fueled by the lobbying power present in any modern democracy—almost every single law or rule forces you to give up a little bit of your freedom. Maybe it’s hard for you to wrap your head around, but people truly perceive the world in ways that are completely, diametrically opposed. While you see smoking as nothing but a vice, someone else sees it as a positive lifestyle choice. By pushing your views, you're essentially infringing on their freedom (and honestly, your medical arguments don't really carry weight here). So, the only real way forward is to find people who think like you and build enough political clout to flip the trends and laws in your favor. As for all that whining about "freedom"... leave that to the elementary schoolers.

Smoking is an action; it's harmful. Not smoking is a state of being; it's harmless. When you smoke alone, you're exercising your own freedom. But when you smoke around others, you're stepping on their freedom because you're poisoning them and making their lives miserable. When you don't smoke, you aren't doing anything to anyone else, so nobody's freedom is being violated (there's no "action" taking place). It's pretty straightforward. Honestly, you might want to pick up an ethics textbook before trying to lecture anyone on what freedom means. 😉 If you're a religious person, you probably don't need much more than the Bible—it says something along the lines of: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you want people poisoning you and harassing you? No? Then there's your answer.

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!

dustycanyon6 said:If someone smokes alone without anyone else around, they're just exercising their own freedom.

Then why are you against passing laws that protect those conditions so that person can actually keep exercising that freedom? If you're so convinced that liberty shouldn't be infringed upon, this feels like we're just running in circles.

John Perez85 said:So why are you against passing laws that guarantee conditions where that person can still exercise their freedom, if you already believe that such freedom shouldn't be taken away? I'm worried we're just going in circles here...

In principle, I'm against it. But if they actually managed to set up the right conditions—I wouldn't make a huge fuss. Though, honestly, setting those conditions seems almost impossible without massive spending and some pretty nasty side effects for everyone else...

Pros:
- Smokers would still have somewhere indoors to light up—I know that matters a lot to them, though I really don't get why...

Cons:
- It’s nearly impossible to pull off the logistics (separate building entrances, making sure people can't walk from one section to another, totally separate ventilation systems, etc.)—for instance, trying that on an Amtrak train would be a total nightmare...
- It divides society. Plus, since smokers HAVE to light up eventually, they'll end up dragging non-smokers into the smoking area anyway...
- Employees working in those designated areas are basically poisoning themselves, which probably isn't what they signed up for...
- Smokers can always just go outside. Nobody is banning smoking entirely, so there isn't even a real violation of their freedom...

When you look at the whole picture, there really isn't a compelling reason to force indoor smoking accommodations. Is there? If so, then let them deal with the exposure...

dustycanyon6 said:- social polarization, plus the fact that smokers HAVE to light up, which will just pull non-smokers toward the smoking side

I don't get this at all. Are smokers supposed to be some kind of ultra-charismatic icons that make it impossible to even take a break around them? You're exaggerating...

dustycanyon6 said:- employees working in smoking sections are getting poisoned, and maybe they wouldn't want that happen

What kind of work in a smoking section are we talking about here? We're discussing designated ventilated areas where smokers can do their thing. If you mean bars or restaurants labeling themselves as smoking lounges, then yeah, you'd need staff who can actually handle the smoke or don't mind being around it.🙂

dustycanyon6 said:When you look at the big picture, there isn't really a specific reason to protect indoor smoking conditions. Is there? Then just expose them.

What have we even been arguing about for the last hundred posts? You've got a whole crowd of people trying to enjoy a habit that the government has been heavily exploiting for tax revenue. It’s fine to ask that they don't jeopardize others, but labeling them as total villains all at once is overkill. Habits—most of which aren't healthy—are a massive part of life. Smokers contribute to the economy just as much as non-smokers, and they have every right to demand what they consider essential. Besides, it's not your job to decide if something is too expensive or if it makes sense to spend money on a habit you don't get (honestly, I don't either, but I accept that everyone is different). Whether this actually passes or if people have the backbone to fight for it is another story entirely.

Honestly, I doubt you actually want to understand or accept that while you're on this angry crusade of yours. Just try not to let the exhaust fumes make you cry; otherwise, nobody would dare drive through Washington, D.C. anymore. 😁

John Perez85 said:I don't get it. It’s like you're saying smokers are just so incredibly charismatic that you can't even take a break without them hovering over you? You're exaggerating a bit...

Look, I don't know what your specific social circle is like, but let me tell you... when you're in your twenties, it's almost a rule. If there are four non-smokers and just one smoker in the group, that one person is going to pull everyone toward the smoking area. Every single time. One person eventually gives in, another doesn't want to be the "party pooper," and before you know it, everyone's out there too. It happens all the time...