Poll for "smoking ban" (Isis thread) -- how biased are we?

Hmmm I'm curious to see where we all stand on this one, and BE HONEST!!!

As usual, my poll is totally unbiased in it's wording! (sorry couldn't resist)

lol...I am all for the right of business owners to enact rules within their establishments which disallow smoking, allow smoking or offer a combination of the two.

I am completely against government morons controlling the goings on of private business so long as the business does not create conditions which will have a harmful effect on unknowing citizens (for example I am against business owners who advertise their business as non-smoking who then lock all of the non-smokers in an air tight room and pipe in cigarette smoke untill they all get lung cancer and die).

I am also against self righteous, biased, agenda loving groups who always have some cause for further legislating everyone into benign submission.

Bravo... Very Well Said..

If you know a bar or restaurant allows smoking, don't go.

I'm a non-smoker and I would prefer there was no smoking in public places, but I also think it is up to the establishment to set its own policy on smoking.

For government owned buildings, I think those should be smoke free. Set up a smoking area outside if the employees need it.

Bars, restaurants, that's up to the owner. I prefer smoke-free because I hate smelling like smoke. I do not like having all the clothes (including underwear) smell like smoke. Or my hair on the pillow reeking.

Outside places I don't think should be regulated except to make sure there is a place for people to put their butts when they are finished with them. All over the ground is not attractive.

Im suprised the Government hasn't taken over the Tobacco industry like Liquor, probably because of the backlash they would receive from farmers.

Interesting though, no drinking in public, no smoking in public.

Why is alchohol legal and other drugs aren't?

What is worse Alchohol or Marijauana?

I oppose a ban on smoking in public.

I quit smoking tobacco seven years ago (May 24th, 1999). It was one of the hardest things I have ever done, and would never want to go through that again.

I oppose a ban on smoking in public because the anti-smoking lobby lies just as much as the smoking lobby.

-Ghoti

I support a ban on smoking in certain public places. One of my greatest pet peeves is standing at a bus shelter or terminal, and having some yahoo standing 2 feet away, chain smoking like there ain't no tomorrow. If you're going to smoke, have the courtesy to leave the company of nonsmokers, and try and position yourself so that the smoke doesn't just blow at the other people anyways. I think you're free to do what you want to your own body, but the moment your stupid decisions start affecting others, as when you're smoking a cigarette and exhaling the smoke right next to me, then you deserve a swift punch to the temple. Every time you exhale. Until you stop hurting others.

On a semi-related note, can someone stop those horrible Truth ads? They invoke in me a very great rage, every time I see them. Every ad is along the lines of, "This man made a conscious, informed decision to begin performing a horribly dangerous act. He died. Now those murderers at the tobacco company sold that man's children into slavery and raped his pets. Smoking is bad! Death to tobacco executives!"

I'm about to open a restaurant FOR SMOKERS ONLY.

kk banning or allowing public smoking is the choice of the establishment owner. This is NOT one more thing our goverment has to protect us from. GAWD!!! * hears echos of 1984 and BIG Brother in the background*. I only oppose the smoking ban because i'm tired of government having it's nose in everything. I do agree that government buildings, i.e. post offices and the like should be smoke free. It's a public building that serves everyone. It's just basic human kindness to have an atmosphere that is condusive and respectful of others.

I completely agree. All publicly owned facilities should be smoke free and from what I know (which is very little but ahh well, your stuck with me) they are for the most part smoke free.

Anyhow, well said Zarah

You know, it's funny hearing how up in arms people get over government controlling where people are allowed to smoke, yet they let it go when the government destroys other legislation that is far more important to their future.

Anyhow, I support a smoking ban in bars, clubs, restaurants, casinos, and government property. I believe it is a reasonable expectation for smokers to take their habit outside where it can affect fewer people.

Smoking smells absolutely horrendous and it fills up a place pretty quick when more than half the patrons are lighting up. We're not talking about lighting up one cigarette in a room and seeing how much of that cigarrette is actually affecting a person -- we're talking about walking into a bar and smelling it everywhere, seeing a visible cloud of it, and in the past, not being able to do anything about it but leave.

Currently in Canada, establishments can offer smoking rooms that are properly and seperately ventilated from the rest of the venue.

Either way though, smoking IS a filthy habit. It does affect your health and that of those around you. Certainly you don't see an athlete light up after finishing off the 100m race. It's annoying to see that so many smokers really aren't mindful of their habit and don't care that other people don't like smoke blown in their face.

It's not a whole lot to ask people to smoke outside -- but since it hasn't been happening, and it won't if any bar or restaurant owner has their say, there has to be legislation to protect non-smokers and enforce the peace.

I guess I'm a self-riteous left-wing commie-lovin pro-1984 psycho for thinking so, but I'm not going to try and argue with anyone over it. Call me what ya want, but I'm a non-smoker who thinks smoking is bad for you and bad for everyone around you and that you should just take it outside and not blow smoke in anyone's face.

I mostly agree with Icon.

There IS a good number of nonsmokers saying they oppose a ban, which is interesting. I'm not surprised there isn't many smokers saying they support one.

I'm still not sure "if most of us are biased".

Perhaps I should have offered a "compromise" option where there's an enforced ban in some "main" areas, but optional well designed smoking areas. I think Canada has this one pretty much figured out, it seems...

tim hortons coffee shops have glassed in smoking areas. they are the best compromise.

Make sure there's a bit of a draft pulling air the right way, and I don't see the problem with it!

Ghoti,

<<I oppose a ban on smoking in public because the anti-smoking lobby lies just as much as the smoking lobby.>>

Yes indeed, and how few people realise it!

did i miss something? is the new arguement "smoking in my lungs is good for me?"

You've missed a lot apparently. There is insufficient scientific proof that SHS is dangerous to you. The anti-smoking lobby uses extremely exaggerated claims that are largely unproven bullshit. Smoking bans increase the health of non-smokers about as much as gay marriage bans increase the health of straight people It has a lot more to do with discrimination and moralizing than it has to do with science.

last time i checked, smoking causes cancer. and smokers are a huge liability on the public health system. i don't know how it's related to gay marriage at all. nobody said gay marriage was bad for peoples health.

I suspect the christian right's allegation that we're going to get nuked like sodom by God if we allow gay marriage applies here....

And both obese people and runners are also an enormous drain on the health care system. Why are you singling out smokers?

Jauani,,

<<last time i checked, smoking causes cancer. and smokers are a huge liability on the public health system. i don't know how it's related to gay marriage at all. nobody said gay marriage was bad for peoples health.>>

In this country people say much the same, that smokers are a liability to the National Health Service. But in fact it isn't true. Smokers tend to die younger, and often only after a short period of illness. Old age is much more of a liability, financially speaking.

So far as so-called passive smoking goes, if you do some research into the subject you will quickly discover that it is fertile ground for junk science. In Australia the conclusions of one study into the effects of second-hand smoke and the alleged health risks associated with them were discovered to be blatantly fraudulent. There is a lot of material on the web.

Sweet. I should start smoking again then.

I honestly can't believe some people think that smoking isn't bad for you. Go sit in a burning building then. (Of course, that wouldn't give you the lovely tar and all that crap...)

Where I live, we have a smoking ban in public places. I love it. So much nicer to go out to dinner now.

James, I don't think anyone is saying that smoking in and of itself is necessarily good for the smoker any more that eating yellow dyed processed cheese....but the effects of SHS are up for debate...carry on with your soap box though (it is likely full of stuff that will ill ya).

And I would love to go out to dinner without some idiot at the table next to me smelling like yesterdays pastrami but we can't all get what we want...by the way do most resteraunts have non-smoking areas where you live? Just wondering cause they do around here.

And yes Virginia George Bush does hate America.

but you are a sexy self-righteous commie-lovin pro-1984 psycho and I, for one, still love ya

ohh wait a second time for the iron lung...see ya later

The restaurants here did, before the smoking ban. However, odors have this great property...they're able to spread through the air. They don't know where the smoking area ends and the no-smoking area begins.