• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Smoking Ban Good or Bad?

What of the New Ban.

  • Good

    Votes: 19 27.1%
  • Too far

    Votes: 49 70.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Total voters
    70
I'm curious. Why does a smoker's right to smoke trump the right of a non-smoker to not smoke? A person should, ideally, have the right to breathe in whatever chemicals they want. But anyone who has ever spent time near a smoker knows that the excretions from cigarettes get out into the air, that said non-smoker must then breathe. You can argue about how much or how little smoke is in the air, or about how quickly it dissipates, but there is still some there. Doesn't every bystander have the right to NOT breathe these chemicals, just as a smoker has the right to breathe them?

As a lifelong inhaler of other people's smoke, both from family and friends, I really do hate it. I would love if every cigarette was smoked far far away from me. However, I know that my preferences are not universal, and that life cannot always be comfortable. But I do support this ban. Public spaces should be held to a higher standard. Just as littering the ground is against the law, so too should littering the air. On the flip side, New York bans smoking in privately owned businesses, like restaurants and bars. And that is a completely different beast. Those businesses should have the ability to choose for themselves how they want to operate.

In summation, this ban is good. The already existing one is not.

Very well put. It is simple as that.
 
I'm curious. Why does a smoker's right to smoke trump the right of a non-smoker to not smoke? A person should, ideally, have the right to breathe in whatever chemicals they want. But anyone who has ever spent time near a smoker knows that the excretions from cigarettes get out into the air, that said non-smoker must then breathe. You can argue about how much or how little smoke is in the air, or about how quickly it dissipates, but there is still some there. Doesn't every bystander have the right to NOT breathe these chemicals, just as a smoker has the right to breathe them?

If a person had a right to pick and choose what they breath in then where would it stop? What if I said that I don't want to breath in the smell of a cattle truck that drives by? The fumes from that truck? Does that give me the right to tell that trucker that he can no longer carry cattle? Drive that truck? Or drive that truck only in specific areas? No it doesn't. However I do have a right to either stay there and continue breathing it or I have the right to move away.

As a lifelong inhaler of other people's smoke, both from family and friends, I really do hate it. I would love if every cigarette was smoked far far away from me. However, I know that my preferences are not universal, and that life cannot always be comfortable. But I do support this ban. Public spaces should be held to a higher standard. Just as littering the ground is against the law, so too should littering the air. On the flip side, New York bans smoking in privately owned businesses, like restaurants and bars. And that is a completely different beast. Those businesses should have the ability to choose for themselves how they want to operate.

There are lots of things that I would love to have happen. However most of them I have no right to assert control over. So I just bear em.
 
Or drive that truck only in specific areas? No it doesn't.

Your community doesn't have restrictions where a truck can drive? You have never seen a restriction on trucks with air brakes in residental areas?

Find that a little hard, maybe you are just grasping straws now.
 
I'm curious. Why does a smoker's right to smoke trump the right of a non-smoker to not smoke? A person should, ideally, have the right to breathe in whatever chemicals they want. But anyone who has ever spent time near a smoker knows that the excretions from cigarettes get out into the air, that said non-smoker must then breathe. You can argue about how much or how little smoke is in the air, or about how quickly it dissipates, but there is still some there. Doesn't every bystander have the right to NOT breathe these chemicals, just as a smoker has the right to breathe them?

As a lifelong inhaler of other people's smoke, both from family and friends, I really do hate it. I would love if every cigarette was smoked far far away from me. However, I know that my preferences are not universal, and that life cannot always be comfortable. But I do support this ban. Public spaces should be held to a higher standard. Just as littering the ground is against the law, so too should littering the air. On the flip side, New York bans smoking in privately owned businesses, like restaurants and bars. And that is a completely different beast. Those businesses should have the ability to choose for themselves how they want to operate.

In summation, this ban is good. The already existing one is not.

Well everyone breathes a lot of things they wouldn't like, it's part of interaction with society. There are people doing things you don't like, you can't always stop them. I hate those damned huge ass trucks which belch black smoke. Annoying as ****, the exhaust smells like ****, and inevitably every summer I'll be on my motorcycle and breifly around a few of them. It's horrible, but what can I do about it? Those cars are legal, just like smoking is. The people have the right to use those vehicles. I don't like it, so I have to find a solution to the problem. I have to move my bike from behind the damned piece of **** and either try to pass, slow down to create enough room, or turn onto a different route to avoid it. And that's the adult solution. Not pissing and moaning and running to government for another god damned law.
 
I'd rather breathe second hand smoke than the fetid breath of some douchebag that hasn't brushed his/her tooth in a month. but you don't hear me screaming for a law that makes it illegal to have bad breath.
 
Dog feces will deteriorate faster than cigarette butts too but I don't care to sit on a beach filled with it.

One can debate about the health risks of smoking, 2nd hand smoking, and someone'a uncle who lived to 96 smoking Marlboro but for me I simply don't care.

I just hate the smell of cig smoke. And someone will bring up about people wearing perfume and yes that is annoying but perfume does not permeate the size of an area as a cig will.

For decades the non-smokers had to deal with smokers everywhere. Now the table has turned. Deal with it.

I don't think smoke on the outside sticks around as long as perfume for that matter..

If you hate the smell of cigarette smoke you don't have to be around it.
I hate the smell of green chili and jalepeno's. so I don't go around them.

For decades? there was a lot of places that were strickly for nonsmokers If my memory serves me correctly.

I'm not complaining about the nonsmokers having their own resturants or any other places.
I'm complaining about rights.
As of today in many states you can not open a resturant or bar or hotel designed for smokers only, nonsmokers not allowed in these places.
Now, nonsmokers have places for nonsmokers only and smokers not allowed, why can't smokers have the same rights??:cool:
 
Last edited:
I'd rather breathe second hand smoke than the fetid breath of some douchebag that hasn't brushed his/her tooth in a month. but you don't hear me screaming for a law that makes it illegal to have bad breath.

Nor complaining about some sweaty fat slob that hasn't taken a bath in a week.
 
Your community doesn't have restrictions where a truck can drive? You have never seen a restriction on trucks with air brakes in residental areas?

Find that a little hard, maybe you are just grasping straws now.

The restrictions are based off of the types of roads they can be on. Not based on their smell.
 
I'd rather breathe second hand smoke than the fetid breath of some douchebag that hasn't brushed his/her tooth in a month. .

You shouldn't talk about your wife like that. Now go give her a big wet one.
 
The restrictions are based off of the types of roads they can be on. Not based on their smell.

So smokers not allowed in bars are based on what?
 
The bolded part is sadly true.

The second part of your post is true but keep in mind if you allow them to keep stripping away the folks rights you may end up with none.

Of course you support them taking away smokers rights as you have no compassion nor do you care for smokers. You are very hateful when it comes to smokers.

The good part? Based on this poll and others? Majority of people do think smokers should still have some rights left. Thank goodness the masses do not think like you and other smoking nazis:)

Actually Nazi Germany was in the vanguard of anti-smoking laws. Hitler hated smoking and banned it in almost all public administration buildings. He also publicly funded anti-smoking campaigns and heavily regulated tobacco imports as well as tobacco cultivation. In an aside, he was also a vegetarian and adamantly promoted that lifestyle as well.
 
Actually Nazi Germany was in the vanguard of anti-smoking laws. Hitler hated smoking and banned it in almost all public administration buildings. He also publicly funded anti-smoking campaigns and heavily regulated tobacco imports as well as tobacco cultivation. In an aside, he was also a vegetarian and adamantly promoted that lifestyle as well.

Wow...didn't know this...so when the term "smoking nazi's" is used it can actually be the truth? Interesting. lol
 
Actually Nazi Germany was in the vanguard of anti-smoking laws. Hitler hated smoking and banned it in almost all public administration buildings. He also publicly funded anti-smoking campaigns and heavily regulated tobacco imports as well as tobacco cultivation. In an aside, he was also a vegetarian and adamantly promoted that lifestyle as well.

Do you know why Hitler hated smoking so much?
 
Increased levels of toxins and carcinogens in the air.

You can get that in your basement too. But that aside, are you essentially saying that you are not in control of your body? If there is a bar, you have to go into it even if there is smoking and you don't like to be around smoke? You're forced to go in, huh? No decision on your part.

Smoking and tobacco are legal activities; this is what you need to attack to get your way. Otherwise, you're just making broad laws which infringe upon property rights or engaging in legal activities in public.
 
You can get that in your basement too. But that aside, are you essentially saying that you are not in control of your body? If there is a bar, you have to go into it even if there is smoking and you don't like to be around smoke? You're forced to go in, huh? No decision on your part.

Smoking and tobacco are legal activities; this is what you need to attack to get your way. Otherwise, you're just making broad laws which infringe upon property rights or engaging in legal activities in public.
You can do anything you want as long as it doesn't harm others.
 
Do you know why Hitler hated smoking so much?

He was a former smoker. That might have had something to do with it. Otherwise I would venture a guess that he was espousing a more health-conscious lifestyle for the master race. I'm sure there was some medical evidence discovered in the research by Mengele and others. It makes little sense to genetically modify a population and then allow them to damage themselves chemically. You have to remember while you may not agree with these guys, the Germans were years ahead of everyone else, practically, in many fields including medicine.
 
You can do anything you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

Depends on how you want to define harm. Walking by someone outside who is smoking doesn't do much to your overall probabilities of life and death. So there's really no harm there. If you spend considerable time inside a smoky building, then perhaps. But that is private property, and the property owner can set the rules. As it stands, smoking is a legal activity and there is nothing wrong with a property owner allowing legal activities to take place on their property. If you don't like the sort of legal activities which go on in some establishment, you are more than free to not go into said establishment. Hence you are not harm. Harm only comes when YOU make the conscientious decision to frequent the place. And in which case, that was your choice and your consequences.
 
Depends on how you want to define harm. Walking by someone outside who is smoking doesn't do much to your overall probabilities of life and death. So there's really no harm there. If you spend considerable time inside a smoky building, then perhaps. But that is private property, and the property owner can set the rules. As it stands, smoking is a legal activity and there is nothing wrong with a property owner allowing legal activities to take place on their property. If you don't like the sort of legal activities which go on in some establishment, you are more than free to not go into said establishment. Hence you are not harm. Harm only comes when YOU make the conscientious decision to frequent the place. And in which case, that was your choice and your consequences.

Its a shame the majority won out and banned smoking in public places, bars and restaraunts.
 
Its a shame the majority won out and banned smoking in public places, bars and restaraunts.

It's a shame that holier-than-thou people think it's their rightful ability to tread on the rights and liberties of others to get their way.
 
He was a former smoker. That might have had something to do with it. Otherwise I would venture a guess that he was espousing a more health-conscious lifestyle for the master race. I'm sure there was some medical evidence discovered in the research by Mengele and others. It makes little sense to genetically modify a population and then allow them to damage themselves chemically. You have to remember while you may not agree with these guys, the Germans were years ahead of everyone else, practically, in many fields including medicine.

This was interesting.....Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After World War II

After the collapse of Nazi Germany at the end of World War II, American cigarette manufacturers quickly entered the German black market. Illegal smuggling of tobacco became prevalent,[50] and many leaders of the Nazi anti-smoking campaign were executed.[8] In 1949, approximately 400 million cigarettes manufactured in the United States entered Germany illegally every month. In 1954, nearly two billion Swiss cigarettes were smuggled into Germany and Italy. As part of the Marshall Plan, the United States sent free tobacco to Germany; the amount of tobacco shipped into Germany in 1948 was 24,000 tons and was as high as 69,000 tons in 1949. The Federal government of the United States spent $70 million on this scheme, to the delight of cigarette manufacturing companies in the United States, who profited hugely.[50] Per capita yearly cigarette consumption in post-war Germany steadily rose from 460 in 1950 to 1,523 in 1963. At the end of the 20th century, the anti-tobacco campaign in Germany was unable to exceed the seriousness of the Nazi-era climax in the years 1939–41 and German tobacco health research was described by Robert N. Proctor as "muted"
 
Back
Top Bottom