In my state (New Jersey) it is illegal for businesses (save tobacco marts, cigar bars, casinos, portions of hotels, and businesses which generate at least 15% of their income from tobacco products) to permit smoking inside their buildings.
Now, I don't smoke. I don't like it when people smoke (tobacco). But I don't think it should be up to the government (state or otherwise) to tell people and businesses where people can smoke. In Jersey, diners are very popular. They used to be a common place for smokers to get a coffee, light up a cigarette and relax. Now, that right has been stripped away.
The idea behind this legislation is to help prevent cancer and other smoke-related illnesses from second-hand smoke. However, while there have been tests to show that second-hand smoke causes these illnesses, there have been tests which just as conclusively show that second-hand smoke does not. Some buildings were smoke-free before this legislation by the choice of the business. It should not be up to the government to tell a business how it must conduct business. People aren't that stupid. If people don't want to dine in the midst of second-hand smoke, there is nothing stopping them from not dining at that restaurant. It should be up to the businesses to decide whether they will be able to draw more customers from allowing smoking or banning it outright.
Also, the smoking age has been raised to 19. There is no grandfather clause, so smokers who used to be able to buy cigarettes legally can't anymore. This not only extends to tobacco but also to tobacco related products (such as pipes and waterpipes, as they're called inside the headshops, outside, they're called bowls and bongs).
The idea behind this legislation was to try to get cigarettes out of highschools. But tell me you haven't seen 12-year-olds standing outside of a 7-11 asking, "Hey, could you buy me a pack of cigare--" It shouldn't be up to the government to prevent children from smoking, it should be a parent's duty to instill the negativity of smoking into a child whom they do not want to smoke.
Parents are getting lazy.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree. I smoke but I respect others' right to not want to breathe in the secondhand crap. I even hate the smell of secondhand smoke. What makes me mad is, the government is supposedly trying to make us healthier. Why not attack all the junk food that Americans gorge themselves on and clog their arteries with?
Why aren't people allowed to die?
--Mike
YES!!!!! Is the gov't not slowly limiting our freedom or what???? >:-0 ~<3~Love and be loved!~<3~
When you eat fast food, you are only harming yourself. But when you smoke, you are polluting our shared atmosphere. Therefore, smoking should not be allowed as it harms others.
But I do agree that parents should stop being lazy (not trying to imply that all parents are lazy, because not all of them are lazy, some of them do a good job). They should not rely on V-chip or other censoring technologies or even other people for raising their children. They need to take responsibility of raising their own kids.
So should people with colds or the flu not be allowed to dine out?
--Mike
Colds and the flu can be cured and they are usually minor. Plus, if the flu is that bad, the person would not be going to a public place. In contrast, the effects of second-hand smoke can not be cured. There is no way (that I have heard of) to remove the pollution caused by smoking.
What about the pollution caused by breathing? According to Al Gore, Carbon Dioxide is polluting our earth... Yeah.
Anyway, there are plenty of things that humans do (like say dumping toxic waste into a river and killing a bunch of fish...ahem, Merck) that pollute the environment much more than smoking. Gasses emitted by automobiles are the leading cause of air pollution. These effects cannot be 'cured,' as you put it, so what do you propose we do? Ban cars?
Bans don't work. Remember the 1920s when we tried to ban alcohol? Yeah, alot of good that did.
--Mike
Breathing is necessary for life. Toxic waste dumping should also be banned. Cars are necessary for life. Smoking is not necessary for life. There are many successful people who serve as living proof of this.
The reason banning alcohol did not work was because everyone wanted to get drunk and bootleggers were circumventing the ban. Not everyone smokes in this modern age.
Some bans work and some don't.
Treason is banned in the US. How many people commit treason? So is copyright infringement. But how many people commit that? The Prohibition argument could go both ways. We are not banning cigarettes, we are banning their use in public places. They have homes (or the alley corner) where they can smoke. They don't have to smoke around other people. It is like nudity. It is banned in public places. If you want to walk around nude, do so at your own home, not in public. Just as public nudity offends, so does second-hand smoke.
Cars are necessary for life? I wonder how we managed 120 years ago? Are you one of those Flying Spaghetti Monster Creationists?
You don't think they can 'bootleg' cigarettes? They grow pot in corn fields and closets; don't you think that they're capable of doing the same with tobacco? Not everyone drank back then, either.
Robert Hanssen, Tokyo Rose, most of the confederate south, John Walker Lindh (even though that was a bogus charge), Samuel Dickstein, Thomas Dorr, John Brown all committed treason. I commit copyright infringement everytime I pirate a song, as do millions of other Americans and others around the world.
Putting bans on things is not progress.
--Mike
In today's world, cars are necessary for life because of the way our cities our planned out. I am an evolutionist. I do not see how this has to do with anything discussed in this thread.
We are not talking about a ban on the manufacturing of cigarettes, we are talking about banning them in certain places where they will harm others. No one will ban you from smoking in your own home.
In cities, cars are far from necessary. It's the stupid suburbs that make cars necessary.
You don't think that cigarettes can 'harm others' in your home?
--Mike
Either way, cars are necessary. So they will not be banned.
If it is your home, you can do whatever you want. In my home, smoking is not permitted.
Just as the government has the right to go to restaurants and shut them down if they serve bad (unsanitary) food, the government has the right to enforce at least an environment where nonsmokers are not harmed by other smokers.
Bullshit! If a person doesn't want to be 'harmed' by smokers, they can just as easily go to another restaurant. It isn't as if the restaurant is hiding anything when they allow smoking. When a restaurant serves dangerous food, oftentimes the consumer won't know until they get sick. When a restaurant allows smoking, it's glaringly obvious. A restaurant should have to determine whether they can draw a crowd by having a smoking section or not. That's called business.
--Mike
(since I can't edit posts:) My argument isn't that cigarette use should be allowed wherever; my argument is that the government should have the right to tell businesses whether they can allow their use in their buildings--that should be the business's call.
--Mike
So should people with colds or the flu not be allowed to dine out?
--Mike
A cold is not the same thing at all, though I am personally of the opinion that it would be better for everyone if people who were sick stayed home--trying to go to work or school while sick just perpetuates the illness and infects other people. But anyway. I believe that the government should be able at least to prohibit smoke where there is a chance of children being present. Children are affected much more by secondhand smoke, and they can not make the choice, as their parents can, to dine elsewhere, etc. Since they did not choose to smoke, and can not choose to avoid secondhand smoke, since they are controlled by adults, they should not be subjected to secondhand smoke which is likely to negatively affect their health.
--------------------
I may be sleeping but at least I dream
--------------------
So are we taking parental decisions (i.e., to choose to dine somewhere where smoking is prohibited) out of the hands of parents and giving it to the government?
Before the smoking ban, there were plenty of businesses which prohibited smoking in their restaurants of their own volition. It had nothing to do with government incentives or concern for the wellbeing of children (even though secondhand smoke has yet to be veridically linked to cancer, other diseases I'm not sure about). It all came down to one thing: concern for the business's profit. Businesses know their demographics, and if they see that the demographic that they cater to (families) wants to see a change and that demographic sizeably outweighs the demographic that doesn't really care (smokers), then they are likely to see a change or see a sizeable decrease in profit.
I am not saying that people should be allowed to light up whenever, wherever. What I am saying is that the market will guide businesses in the correct direction. The parents who don't want their children (or themselves) exposed to secondhand smoke will go elsewhere, and depending upon the primary revenue of the business, the business will either survive unaffected or change their policy lest they dwindle to economic nothingness.
If that doesn't satisfy you because you're too wrapped up in keeping people alive, respond and we'll have one of my favorite debates.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news