Smoking ban in all public spaces

John Perez85 said:What kind of smoking area are we even talking about here? People are mentioning enclosed, ventilated spaces where smokers could just do their thing.
But what's the point? A smoker can always just step outside and light up there. It’s not like we’re living in skyscrapers where you can't exactly get to an open sidewalk...

John Perez85 said:If you mean restaurants that would officially designate themselves as smoking establishments, then they'd have to hire staff who don't mind the smoke or actually enjoy it a bit.🙂

Honestly, you shouldn't even be putting employees through that kind of "selection process"... that's basically just discriminating against potential hires.

John Perez85 said:What are we even talking about here? We've been going in circles for a hundred posts now... Look, you've got plenty of people who just want to enjoy their habits—habits that the government has been happily taxing to death for years. It’s fine if people demand that their habits don't infringe on everyone else, but labeling them as pure villains overnight is a massive stretch. Smoking—even if most of us know it's bad for you—is a huge part of life for many. Smokers contribute to the economy through taxes just like non-smokers do, and they have a right to ask for what matters to them. It isn't really anyone else's job to decide if something is too expensive or if it makes sense to spend money on a habit they don't personally get (honestly, I don't either, but I get that everyone's different). Whether this movement actually succeeds or has enough staying power... well, that's another story entirely.

Look, I honestly don't care whether smokers get their own designated areas or not. My only real concern is being able to exist in a space without even knowing cigarette smoke exists. If a public building can set aside one specific room for smoking that doesn't affect the rest of the facility—then fine by me. But like I said before, that's often hard or even impossible to pull off in practice... so I'd much rather just see smoking banned in public buildings altogether. But hey, if they can make the separate rooms work, I've got nothing against it!

dustycanyon6 said:Look, I don't care whether smokers get their own designated areas or not—my only concern is not having to breathe in smoke. If a public building can set up a smoking room that doesn't impact the rest of the space, fine by me. But honestly, that’s usually impossible to pull off, so I'd rather they just ban smoking in public buildings altogether. If it actually works, though? No complaints from me.

At least we agree on the main point.🙂

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)!

Look, I don't smoke, but this whole smoking ban thing is absolute nonsense.
When you actually look at all the other massive air pollutants out there, cigarettes aren't even a fraction of the problem. People were smoking a hundred years ago, and the air certainly wasn't as filthy as it is now.
If we actually put some pressure on big corporations in America to stop polluting the entire planet, we’d probably see much cleaner air than we do today!

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.

Scott Smith]

Just pure, demagogic moralizing nonsense.

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?

John Perez85 said:fadedtrucker19, you’re being incredibly slippery here. I’ve provided plenty of instances where a minority acts to the detriment of others, and you didn't suddenly start preaching about individual liberties then, did you?

The debate isn't actually about those other examples... though I have already clarified why they don't apply to this specific situation.

It sounds to me like you believe that by banning smokers, we'll somehow trigger some sort of golden age of prosperity across America! 😁

No, it won't, but at least people will be able to breathe easier.

While smoking might just be a vice to you, for someone else, it's a legitimate lifestyle choice. By taking these various stances, you are inevitably infringing upon one another's freedoms (and frankly, your medical arguments carry very little weight in this context).

That is incorrect.

As long as someone else's smoke is directly impacting my health, my argument remains perfectly valid.

Just as it is my right to create a draft, call the health inspectors, spend my time eating garlic and onions, or simply pacing around aimlessly...

So, the only logical path is to gather enough like-minded individuals to build a powerful enough lobby to bend trends and legislation to your own advantage.

It seems to me we have more than enough people for that.

Smokers are going to have to face reality. Very soon.

And all this whining about freedom... leave that to the elementary school kids.

Hey now... I wasn't the one who brought it up.

It is the pathetic smokers whose "rights" are being stripped away.

dustycanyon6 said:Smoking is an action—it’s something you actively do. Not smoking? That’s just a state of being. If you smoke by yourself, you're just exercising your own freedom. But if you smoke around people, you're stepping on their rights 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 getting violated. It's simple math. Maybe pick up an ethics textbook before you try lecturing people about liberty. 😉

🙏

Dusty, looks like you can't make sense of anything without a diagram! 😁

👍

Nicole Wood86 said:I don't even smoke, but these smoking bans are absolute nonsense.
When you look at all the other ways we pollute the air, cigarettes are practically a rounding error; people were smoking a hundred years ago, and somehow the air managed to stay clean enough.
If we actually put some pressure on American corporations to stop polluting the entire planet, maybe the air would actually be cleaner!

In the grand scheme of global pollution, cigarette smoke is likely a negligible factor.
If we decide to drag manufacturing emissions into this conversation, the scale shifts significantly—but let's not derail the thread just yet.

The issue at hand is indoor air quality. We’re talking about a stench that permeates everything and smoke that simply cannot be ventilated out fast enough, not to mention the literal reduction of oxygen in confined spaces.

Smokers really need to face the reality that they are unpleasant and they smell, and frankly, I am certainly not the only person who feels that way.

Anthony Kim18 said:...yeah, smoke-free bars can absolutely crush it.

I've been there, seen it, lived it 😉 👍

hit up some spots in those states that passed that ban on smoking in indoor public spaces. the bars were packed, the vibes were killer, the music was top-tier, and instead of people blowing smoke everywhere, I didn't see a single phone sitting on the tables 😁

total heaven

Carol Moore63 said:she went, saw it firsthand, and was totally convinced 😉 👍

I swung by a few bars in one of those countries that actually passed that indoor smoking ban... they were packed, the vibe was incredible, top-tier music—and instead of people fighting over whether they could smoke, I didn't see a single smartphone sitting on the tables either 😁

pure bliss

Well, why didn't you just stay there? 🙂

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...

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...

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.

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😬)

Carol Moore63 said:I’ve actually been there, seen it, and verified it firsthand 😉 👍 in one of those countries that implemented indoor smoking bans; I visited several bars, and they were packed, the vibes were incredible, the music was top-tier, and the crowd wasn't just staying away from cigarettes—I didn't see a single smartphone sitting on any of the tables. 😁

pure paradise.

At this rate, we might find that banning smoking is some sort of universal panacea—better nightlife, superior music, and a sudden drop in phone usage—a total Eldorado! 😁

Of course, even with a smoking ban in effect, consumers will continue to frequent cafes and clubs.

However, it is utterly absurd to claim that smoke-free spaces possess greater market potential than smoking ones, or that they are inherently more profitable and capable of flourishing. If that were true, the business of smoke-free cafes and clubs would be booming right now, yet the facts scream otherwise. To anyone convinced of their own rhetoric, I invite them to open a smoke-free cafe that I would happily visit, though I remain deeply skeptical regarding its ability to survive in the real market.

Market potential cannot be assessed within a monopoly; it requires actual market competition where you have something tangible to compare it against. 🙄

Scott Smith said:it's just ridiculous to claim that smoke-free zones have better market potential than smoking ones, or that they're actually profitable enough to thrive. if that were true, we'd see smoke-free cafes and clubs popping up everywhere right now, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. to anyone convinced otherwise, I say go ahead—open up a smoke-free cafe. I'd happily drop by, though I've got my doubts about whether it could actually stay afloat in this economy.

You can't really judge market potential when you're looking at a monopoly... you need actual competition to see how things stack up. 🙄

Don't sweat the market trends or the big tobacco companies and cafe owners... just worry about the person. Focus on their health, both physical and mental. 😉

Scott Smith said:but it’s frankly ridiculous to suggest that smoke-free zones possess superior market potential compared to smoking areas, or that they're inherently more profitable or capable of thriving. If that were actually the case, we’d be seeing a massive boom in smoke-free cafes and clubs right now, but the reality on the ground tells a much different story. To anyone convinced otherwise, I say this: go ahead and open a smoke-free cafe—I’d gladly visit, though I remain deeply skeptical about its ability to survive the competition.

You can't really judge market potential in a monopoly; you need actual market competition where there's something tangible to compare it against. 🙄

As long as smoking is permitted, it remains a monopoly. Typically, a single smoker will end up pulling the entire non-smoking crowd along with them, simply because everyone else is being polite and letting the guy have his way.

So, what we have here is a forced shift from one side to the other; by changing the laws, you're just moving the coercion to the opposite camp. It is highly probable that those currently smoking in dive bars won't suddenly stop just because the rules change, given that they frequent those spots for the vibe, not specifically for the smoke. At least, that's my theory.
On the flip side, people like me will likely find themselves frequenting those dive bars a bit more often... mainly because, quite frankly, I can't stand them. Primarily due to the smell of the smokers... and the inevitable scent of stale cigarettes that clings to me after hanging out there for any significant amount of time.

Saharun said:Then why didn't you just stay? 🙂

My vacation's up 🙂 😛