Smoking ban in all public spaces

I am convinced this exact topic has been cycled through at least five hundred times already, yet here we are with version five hundred and one. 🙄

The state of New York has officially joined the ranks of jurisdictions that have implemented a total ban on smoking in indoor public spaces. This mandate covers restaurants, bars, and various other enclosed public venues—though, naturally, private residences remain exempt.

Smoking indoors will now trigger a fine of $167, while any business owner who permits it or fails to prominently display the prohibition signage will be slapped with a penalty of $667. These signs are required to list the specific contact information for filing complaints, and a dedicated hotline has even been established for this purpose.

Proponents of the ban argue that this move will significantly bolster public health outcomes, suggesting it provides the necessary nudge for the majority of smokers who actually want to quit, while simultaneously liberating non-smokers from the indignity of secondhand smoke. They frame this as a vital stride toward a longer-lived nation. Furthermore, they claim it will actually drive foot traffic to dining and nightlife establishments, citing data where 37% of non-smokers indicated they would be more inclined to frequent such places once the air is clear. Ultimately, they contend that the right to breathe clean air carries far more weight than the right to pollute shared environments.

On the flip side, opponents argue that this isn't about health at all, but rather providing a platform for moralizing busybodies to lecture others on how to live their lives. They maintain that the ban serves primarily to further stigmatize and victimize smokers, forcing them to feel shame over their personal choices and lifestyle habits. Critics also anticipate a wave of pub closures and the subsequent loss of roughly 2,500 jobs, pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of a government that continues to aggressively collect cigarette taxes while publicly condemning the habit. A truly consistent approach, they argue, would involve going all the way and banning tobacco entirely—or perhaps even targeting cars, given that exhaust fumes are just as detrimental to both human health and the atmosphere. As it stands, critics point out that smokers will continue to fund the state through massive tax hikes, only to receive social ostracization in return.

Discuss.

I’ve had enough of this anti-smoking campaign.
Honestly, it’s about as infuriating as anything else you can deal with.
Meanwhile, alcohol advertising remains totally fine—you see beer ads everywhere, and they even promote it as a lifestyle choice, like having a drink before bed or during your downtime.🤮>
When it comes to health impacts, I guess smoking and heavy drinking are both issues, but maybe excessive drinking is actually worse.
>
It all feels like part of some massive conspiracy targeting major corporations.
And the funniest part? Despite all this, the number of smokers globally has actually gone up over the last few years.

I am totally, 100% behind banning smoking in all public spaces everywhere. I mean, seriously! 👍

Man, I wish I could see this happen here in the States... If smokers want to poison everyone and pollute the air in public or indoor spaces, they should just stay in their own damn holes. 👍Future Law
is coming, baby...

Jessica Davis12 said:...when it comes to health issues, you've got drinking and smoking, though drinking is actually worse.

Comparing smoking to drinking is straight-up idiotic. You think my liver is taking damage just because someone else is getting hammered?!

I’m all for banning smoking in every single public space, but honestly, I think we should just stop selling tobacco altogether.

I mean, if we’ve collectively decided this stuff is a lethal poison that shouldn't be inhaled in public, then why not just make it illegal and call it a day?

Maybe then our police departments could actually spend their time chasing down cigarette dealers instead of essentially acting as their customers.

Carol Moore63 said:Comparing smoking to drinking is just idiotic. Do you think my liver takes a hit just because someone else is getting hammered?!

If you actually get cancer from secondhand smoke, I’ll personally hand over my own lungs to you. Maybe then you wouldn't have a problem.
btw, I was talking about the health consequences for the actual consumers.

There’s a massive difference between drinking and smoking. Sure, they both suck for you. But nobody talks about "passive alcoholism." 🙂
When it comes to booze, it's all on you. With secondhand smoke? That's someone else's choice forcing itself on you.

It’s common sense that this should be banned—not just in indoor venues, but across all public outdoor spaces as well.

The legislation is already drafted and sitting there ready to go, but frankly, they just don't have the backbone to bring it to the floor for a vote.😢

If we actually want to wipe out smoking, we have to convince smokers that it’s a bad idea in the first place. Bans are just a band-aid for us non-smokers to feel less threatened, but the real work would be persuading people that smoking is just... bad. That can only happen through solid education starting from when they're kids, but honestly, that’s such a massive, uphill battle that it feels impossible to pull off right now. I remember back in middle school, the atmosphere regarding this was actually great—really proactive—and even now, looking back 12 or 13 years after finishing middle school, the number of smokers from my old class is tiny. It was the same in high school, though you have to consider that I was in a specialized math academy where most kids weren't really the type to smoke anyway.

Smokers just don't seem to grasp how much the smoke bothers other people. It's easy for them to shrug off if they're used to smelly stuff, but my nose is incredibly sensitive, and being stuck in a smoky room absolutely kills me. I remember one time, I was hanging out with a group where everyone was just completely ignoring my requests to stop smoking, so I ended up grabbing a bottle of insect repellent—not the toxic kind, just that skin spray with an intense scent—and I spent half an hour spraying it around me. Of course, everyone had a total meltdown. 😁 Well, that’s basically how I feel every single time that stench is around me. And yet, heaven forbid you put a smoker near a drafty window or they might catch a cold and die! Meanwhile, they can just poison everyone else in their vicinity. 🙄

Chris Mitchell11 said:I remember being stuck in this smoky crowd where everyone was totally ignoring me when I asked them to stop smoking. So, I grabbed some insect repellent—not the toxic stuff, just the heavy-scented skin spray—and blasted it for half an hour. Naturally, everyone had a total meltdown. 😁🙄

😂 Too much...
At my old job, basically everyone smoked, even the boss. I decided to fight back by lighting incense sticks, picking the most obnoxious scents I could find. You wouldn't believe how fast I cleared the smokers out of my office; they ended up building a separate smoking room just to get away from me...😉 It really just comes down to upbringing, general culture, and basic decency... you shouldn't smoke next to someone without asking if it bothers them first.

Angela Newman said:There’s a massive difference between booze and cigarettes. Yeah, they both suck for you. But nobody talks about "passive alcoholism." 🙂

spot on😉

casualfox9 said:Of course they should ban it—not just indoors, but everywhere out in public too.

The bill is already drafted and sitting there waiting to hit the floor for a vote, but honestly, they just don't have the guts... 😢

Maybe they’re just stalling until the elections. Or maybe they're trying to bury some other mess or scandal. I've got a feeling this zero-tolerance law was cooked up purely for political points, while actual road safety was probably the very last thing on their minds.

I mean, if you really want to talk about lifestyle risks like smoking and drinking, shouldn't cigarettes be the first (or only) thing on the chopping block? Otherwise, we're just looking at a slippery slope where they say, "Well, we banned alcohol, might as well go after cigarettes next..."

If my memory serves me right, even over in Italy, they don't allow smoking at concerts or inside the clubs. I truly wish we could experience that kind of atmosphere here in the States, just so I could finally enjoy a night out without all that smoke.

Ronald Jones26 said:If my information about Italy is correct, they don't even allow smoking at concerts or inside discotheques. I wish I could experience a day like that back home in the States, so I could finally step outside for a breath of fresh air in the evening.

I actually experienced that firsthand while traveling in Italy. I’d walk into a hotel after a night out at a club and instinctively start thinking about how to hang my ventilated jacket on the balcony, only to realize there isn't even a hint of smoke in the air...👍

Angela Newman said:When it comes to alcohol, you’re acting entirely on your own volition, whereas avoiding secondhand smoke from someone else's cigarette is a much harder thing to control.

That point is valid, I suppose. However, the exact same logic applies to car exhaust, yet nobody is demanding mandatory catalytic converters for every single vehicle on the road. This entire stance simply isn't applied consistently—though we could certainly dive into a lengthy debate regarding the actual extent of passive smoking damage, given that scientific research hasn't even provided a definitive consensus on the matter!

In my view, banning smoking in public spaces only makes sense if tobacco itself is simultaneously outlawed. Any other approach is nothing more than extreme hypocrisy, blatant stigmatization, and sheer inconsistency. To target smokers and criminalize their habits while simultaneously lining the government's pockets with tax revenue from those very same products is, quite frankly, absolute bullshit. Attempting to "protect" people from the perceived dangers of a product that remains perfectly legal is a notorious absurdity.

Furthermore, one must view these types of bans within the broader context of what is clearly a growing trend toward restrictions or prohibitions on things that are either marginally risky (take the zero-tolerance drunk driving laws, for example) or, more frequently, things that merely offend the sensibilities of the preaching moral elite—a few representatives of whom have already made themselves known in this thread. The state is increasingly beginning to dictate how individuals live their daily lives and where they may consume legal goods.

Even if one were to accept the smoking ban as a positive step, the overarching trend in which this ban occurs is, without question, negative.

Those who champion such prohibitions must come to terms with the fact that they are effectively endorsing the concept of a nanny state—a government that insists on having the final word on what is good or bad for adults who are, by definition, mature and responsible.

In the USA, we're jumping straight from smoking bans to Freedom for All restrictions🙄
But honestly, this is really about fighting FOR freedom. When people smoke in public spaces, they’re basically forcing everyone else to inhale that toxic smoke. Smoking in those spots actually strips away the freedom of everyone else to exist in those places without being bothered by the smell. And let me tell you, that covers a lot of people—maybe even most of them.
I mean, what would you smokers want? A total ban on tobacco altogether??? That’s just silly. I suppose I wouldn't mind it personally, but then we’d be talking about a real infringement on liberties. Go ahead and do whatever you want on your own time, but don't hijack public spaces with all that smoke.

Anyone backing a ban like this needs to realize they're essentially supporting the whole "nanny state" concept—where the government gets the final say on what's good or bad for adults who are perfectly capable, responsible individuals.

Well, when those "capable, responsible adults" are smiling while they poison everyone around them, naturally, the rest of us caught in the crossfire have to turn to state institutions to sort it out. 🙂

Ronald Jones26 said:Actually, this is about fighting FOR freedom, because by smoking in public spaces, everyone is essentially forced to inhale that toxic smoke; smoking is effectively stripping away the freedom of residence from anyone who finds the smell offensive or bothersome, which includes a significant number of people, if not the majority.

This is nothing more than pure, demagogic, moralistic nonsense.

A total ban on the consumption of a legal product in communal areas cannot, by any logical definition, be characterized as a fight for freedom. On the other hand, simply restricting where one smokes—provided there are clearly demarcated areas for smokers and non-smokers—could actually be framed as a defense of freedom because it avoids discrimination. Of course, the real question is why we don't see more of that implementation; one reason being that the market dictates supply. If non-smoking venues were truly in such high demand as most non-smokers claim, businesses like coffee shops and clubs with absolute non-smoking policies would be absolutely thriving, yet clearly, that isn't what's happening.

A complete ban on smoking in public places deprives those who have chosen to consume a legal product of their choice, which is why it can never be defined as a struggle for liberty; this is evidenced by the fact that no government in the countries that implemented such bans was foolish enough to label it a "fight for freedom," instead choosing to pivot toward the health aspects (both active and passive smoking).

Furthermore, one must consider that banning smoking in public spaces denies a private owner of a public space (such as a cafe or a club) the ability to freely manage their business operations according to market needs and attract their preferred clientele. That is certainly not freedom. The current system does nothing to prevent an owner from opening a strictly non-smoking cafe, whereas this proposed system would actively prevent an owner from opening a fully or even partially smoking establishment. It is quite evident from this that the "freedom fight" platform is entirely misplaced here.

Additionally, your baseless presumption that I am a smoker simply because I recognize the other side of the coin further proves how much a large segment of non-smokers is burdened by prejudice, viewing this as a personal moral victory and an opportunity to further stigmatize smokers.

Such a paternalistic attitude does absolutely nothing to help a campaign like this, and it demonstrates a profound lack of respect for a significant group of people based solely on their lifestyle choices.

Nicely put, Scott Smith. These endless restrictions aren't even funny anymore—they were back in the day, at least to me. I don't smoke, but this whole thing feels like straight-up anti-smoking fascism, and there's no way I can get behind it. It’s pure hypocrisy, too; they selectively pick their battles. So many things we use daily just for luxury are pumped out of factories that pollute the environment way more aggressively than any smoker ever could, yet I don't see a single movement fighting to curb the waste from all those unnecessary luxuries. Honestly, this feels less like genuine health concern and more like politics, money, and following a fad. Suddenly, tobacco is being blamed for every modern ailment. Give me a break. Meanwhile, our air, water, and food quality are tanking.

BTW, those same Western governments acting like moral paragons won't say a word while their militaries are dropping depleted uranium bombs all over the place (hint: the Gulf). Or when their massive corporations dump ultra-hazardous waste in developing nations that lack the oversight or knowledge to handle it safely.

Look, I’m all for these anti-smoking campaigns—call it chauvinism if you want—but as a non-smoker, I can't stand the smell of smoke clinging to my hair. It bothers me when I walk into certain offices, and you can barely breathe or even see people through the haze. Calling it fascism is a stretch, but the moment you speak up against smokers, they get defensive, and frankly, it feels shady. And don't even get me started on the health aspects. It’s ridiculous how people force smoking on others; those bans are a joke, and honestly, I wish they were actually effective.
PS////I don't get why we're talking about bombs right now when the topic is cigarettes. If we're going to go that broad, we might as well start discussing how the moon affects our dreams. Let's stick to the subject, people: cigarettes. They aren't bombs. Unless you're arguing that dropping bombs is a valid defense for smoking, then we've really lost the plot... Let's just be thankful we don't live on Mars.....
PSS Also, I'm not saying anyone should stop smoking if they don't want to. If they want to do it, fine. But don't force me to breathe that air, period.....

Scott Smith said:That’s a fair point. But you could say the exact same thing about car exhaust, yet nobody is demanding mandatory catalytic converters for every single vehicle on the road. It’s simply a matter of inconsistent enforcement—though, if we really wanted to go down that rabbit hole, one could argue over just how much secondhand smoke actually harms people, given that scientific studies haven't exactly provided a definitive, final answer to that question!

Don't change the subject.

In my view, banning smoking in public places only makes sense if tobacco is made illegal at the same time. Any other approach is nothing short of hypocritical, stigmatizing, and wildly inconsistent. To target smokers and criminalize them while simultaneously lining the government's pockets with tax revenue from their habit is truly predatory. Trying to "protect" people from the harmful effects of a product that is perfectly legal is absolute nonsense.

Incorrect.

While I happen to agree that tobacco should be banned entirely, you're missing the mark here.
Let smokers indulge as much as they please—just not where non-smokers are present or might be present (and by that, of course, I am referring to public spaces).

Furthermore, these kinds of bans shouldn't be viewed in isolation as a simple black-and-white debate about smoking. What we are actually seeing is part of a growing trend of restrictions and prohibitions on things that are arguably low-risk (take zero-tolerance drunk driving laws, for instance) or, more frequently, things that merely cater to the sensibilities of a certain preaching moral elite—a few representatives of whom have already popped up in this thread. The state is increasingly attempting to dictate how individuals live their daily lives and how, or where, they consume legal goods.

If smokers were decent enough to avoid smoking where it bothers others, this kind of regulation wouldn't even need to exist.

Even if one accepts the smoking ban as a positive step, the broader context in which this ban is occurring is undeniably negative.

The negative part is that such regulation is necessary in the first place.

Those who support this kind of ban must realize they are also endorsing the concept of a nanny state—one that claims the final word on what is good or bad for adults who are otherwise responsible and free.

🙄

Could you perhaps elaborate on that? Your logic is tripping me up just a little...