Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No because you can still breathe in the smoke even when you are outside.
Laws are not meant to protect the citizens against mere nuisance or annoyances. There may be appropriate laws regarding the disposal of unused portions of the cigar or cigarette in public places so that it doesn't start a fire, but otherwise, these are useless laws.
Second hand smoke causes serious health issues similar to that of actually smoking so how is that merely a nuisance?
I'd also like to see how you think these could be enforced.
Basically my objection is not to the idea in principle that smoking is bad. It is the use of force of law rather than our new-found customary frowning upon this practice in public spaces to dissuade people from doing it that bothers me.
Outdoor smoking bans are utterly ridiculous.
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
While there are a few studies which indicate that sustained secondhand smoke is actually somewhat harmful (though these are somewhat muddled themselves) there are no good studies indicating that second hand smoke of the variety that you merely have to pass through once in a while, whilst passing someone on the street for example in the open air, is anything other than a nuisance for most people.
There are plenty of things in the actual atmosphere as background that we inhale on a daily basis, more frequently, that are thus more hazardous, just less visible and annoying and generally harder to regulate.
I think it should be banned in areas where the smoke is under a structure that doesn't allow it to go up to the atmosphere. I see this at my school. The students aren't allowed to smoke underneath the part of the front of the building that protects the students from the rain and all.
I disagree with any smoking ban, outside or in. It infringes on property rights. Particular establishments should not be required to conform to people's decisions, in this case, not smoking. While proponents tend to raise the argument that if smoking was allowed, discrimination would be next, but that is not a matter of choice. If someone likes an establishment's product but dislikes the atmosphere, then they should choose to either go or not. If enough people decide to cease going, the economic ramifications would be enough to cause any owner to bow to pressure… instead of smoking bans, just increase the sin tax…
I think they're pointless, mainly because they're impossible to enforce. Also, they infringe upon individual liberties- if someone wants to smoke, well, there isn't much anyone else can do about it except make it very clear they don't like it, and hope 'peer pressure' can break them of it- but don't hold your breath.