Should the state (or county and city government) be allowed to ban smoking?

Yes. In any public area that the state licenses, controls and/or operates, they have the right to say what can and cannot take place there. Same as you can say to your guests at home “No Smoking” or “No Shoes in the house”.

Fair enough. But most smoking bans prohibit smoking in restaurants, workplaces, and a whole plethora of private businesses. agree with that?

Those businesses hold licenses from the state/city to operate, and the bans have been put in place in public facilities where the general population can go. As the one permitting those places to operate, they have some say in what can and cannot go on there.

It protects the rights of others in the community, since most agree that smoking is harmful, as is second hand smoke.

While it may be ridding the air of what some people find annoying, it’s ridding the public of the opportunity of self government. And just because they are certified to open a business, doesn’t mean the government has the right to tell them HOW to run it. Not letting businesses decide whats best for their store is removing an entire demographic from their potential business. If you allow businesses to choose what’s best for their interests, a customer will frequent stores that fit his preference. Not only does this solve the problem of those finding secondhand smoke annoying, but it lets smokers light up in a business that wants them there, with fellow customers that don’t mind them there.

If the county or state allows the voters to decide if smoking should be banned in public venues and it is approved, then a proper and accepted process has been used for the public to speak out in opposition to smoking in these places. So, in essence, if this procedure is folowed, then yes, state and county government should be allowed to ban smoking.

YES!

@Bluefreedom
James Madison once said, “In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.” Just because something is put to a public vote, doesn’t mean the decision is correct. Just ask all the pro gay-marriage advocates in California. Some things shouldn’t be put to a vote.

@redsfan1324. And just because my wife and I want to go out and enjoy ourselves in a public venue, that shouldn’t mean I have to work twice as hard at breathing normally because there is second hand smoke in the air.

The voting process isn’t perfect but I’ve seen it work more positively than negatively on most occasions that I can remember. We had a vote here in Arizona within the past few years on banning smoking in restaurants and bars and it passed with a very large margin. That speaks volumes.

@Bluefreedom Don’t go to a restaurant that allows smoking. Problem solved. If we applied this same logic across the board, things might be a wee bit odd. The general reason smoking bans come about, is that secondhand smoke hurts non-smokers. Well, over 40 thousand people die a year from car crashes, and i’ll guarantee you, many of those are innocent drivers. Which means, driving hurts the innocent. Should we ban it to? How about Obesity? it’s been proven that children are more likely to be fat if their parents are fatty’s. Should they be put on a government mandated diet then? Smoking bans allow the government to get a foot hold on all other social decisions that should be PRIVATE, not public.

@redsfan1324. You can compare apples and oranges all day long but it isn’t going to settle the debate or make it any more sensical to everyone involved. Thanks for the give and take though. This will always be a contentious issue no matter how much it is analyzed. I stand behind my thoughts and opinions and I certainly respect you for yours also.

@redsfan1324 The idea is that you have to provide a healthy and safe place to work. Once it has been decided that second hand smoke constitutes a health risk, the govt can ban it from the workplace. Both offices and bars/restaurants are workplaces.

YES!!!

I live in a state that does not allow smoking except outdoors (and even out doors there are restrictions).
The voters wanted this the process was followed. Heard the tired old rebuttal of businesses that would suffer. I didn’t see any business, restaurant,or bar go out of business because of the smoking ban. In fact, at the time husband and I owned a deli. And our business was not negatively impacted.

@galileogirl Again, a free market solves the problem. No one is forcing employee’s to work somewhere that has smoking. they are the ones who chose the restaurant/office.

Smoking does carry the danger and annoyance of second-hand smoke. Smoking in public places should be banned, in theory, if a democratic system decides to ban it, but it should never go so far as to severely limit the rights of any group.

Someone’s rights are going to get trampled upon no matter what—either the smoker’s right to smoke, or the non-smoker’s right to breath freely. No policy will settle this completely. But I do think it infringes too far on the rights on smokers to ban all smoking in all public places. Ban smoking in parks, but not on sidewalks, for example. There has to be some compromise, if everyone’s rights are to remain protected.

I agree with @redsfan1324 that businesses, though open to the public, should be able to decide whether to allow or disallow smoking. If you don’t like the business’s policy, you don’t have to patronize them, or work for them.

@basp Then your state is the exception. Ohio, Colorado, and New York (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/smokeban.pdf wouldn’t it be nice to have all that extra money in the state with the economic downturn of late?) just to name a few. A majority of the 35 states with complete bans have reported serious income tax and GSP losses within 6 months to a year of smoking bans passing. We’re degrading smokers for something they enjoy. Near my home town, a steak house closed down 3 months after the smoking ban was passed. It had been open 27 years prior to that. By banning smoking, you’re placing one groups preferences over another. Sure, smoking’s harmful. But it’s not the duty of the government to decide IF, when, and where you do it. Leave it up to the private sector.

The logic I see applied here is this: Drunk driving is proven to kill people, both drunk person and/or others on the road. But there shouldn’t be a law against drunk driving, because it infringes on a person’s right to drink and drive. If people don’t like that some drive drunk, then they shouldn’t drive on the roads, because they know that drunks might be driving.

yeah, that makes sense.

@redsfan1324 The govt IS REQUIRED by law to insure safe working conditions. What you are saying is like saying that a window washing company does’t have to provide safety equipment because nobody is forcing window washers to do that job. Check out OSHA.

First off to digress a little but I have to address whomever spouted the “free market will fix everything” myth, please review the last 6 months of USA economics. That myth had free-reign for 20 years and has been decidedly been beaten to death, and then shot, and then thrown in a trash compactor. The “free market” ideaology is dead. Repeating the mantra at this point just makes you look stupid.

What we have learned is that people will not act in the best interests of others if there is some personal benefit to be gained by doing otherwise. Considering that we are all trying to live in a civilized society, it is government’s role to provide either incentives where it can, or punishments where it must, to encourage people to act in a manner that benefits all of us. In situations of public health, I think that not only should they do so, it’s their duty to do so.

Redsfan
I would venture a guess that there were many reasons the steakhouse went out of buisness, the smoking ban just the scapegoat. I say this because I know the resturant business well.
Our state passed a cig tax that has generated income. And, the current economic crisis has nothing to do with smoking bans and any lost revenue from smoking bans in the current economic climate is a drop in an ocean of crisis.
The fact is, the smoking ban has worked very well in my state. It is what the voters wanted and there really hasn’t been any real problems with, I suppose, the typical isolated incidences that seem to grab the attention if opponents if the ban.

By the way, redsfan…. You state that it is not up to the government to decide if, when, and where one smokes…. I don’t think it is up to the person who lights up in the same enclosed environment as I am in to decide if, when, and where I smoke.

@eponymoushipster We must be reading different posts. Where did i say anything about DRUNK driving? Since it seems it didn’t make clear sense, i’ll try to explain my analogy again. If everyone drives (aka, breaths in this case) then, of course, it can be considered a common thing. So, when someone drives recklessly, they are usually punished with fines, license suspension, jail time etc. Each case is treated separately. On the other hand, instead of upholding the right of smokers, the government, (and a majority of fellow citizens) have slapped a general ban on all smoking everywhere. My point is, we should either take each case of secondhand smoke separately, and deal with them in a fair way, or place regulations on EVERYTHING besides smoking that may harm someone.
@Maverick I never claimed a free market fixes everything. Just in this case.
@basp Agreed, it’s hard to determine what statistical evidence can really be directly related to smoking bans. BUT, just because in certain circumstances there are no negative effects, you’re willing to give up a right? And not just the right of smokers. Removing smoking, is telling ALL citizens that the government knows whats best for your life. not you. And yes, you’re right. Neither one of you should determine whether he lights up or not. The business owner should.

@redsfan1324 listen, it’s obvious you don’t want to see anything except what you want to see on this. if you wish to kill yourself and other people, go right ahead. but don’t light up near me with your cancer stick. thanks.

There are common laws on the books regarding driving – it’s not a pick and choose system. You can’t drive drunk on some roads and not others. And why? Because people with common sense realized that this is an unsafe activity for EVERYONE who is around that person, and that EVERYONE has the right to be there; you don’t give people who don’t care about others and their welfare free reign.

And that’s why almost every country has a law against it. Check it out.

Now look at the article regarding smoking bans. What’s that? Most major countries, and the list is growing (including countries where smoking is/was considered a part of the culture – i.e. pubs in Ireland). Why? Because people realize that smoking is unsafe, can cause injury and death and imposes on the rights of others, in public and at the workplace, which for most people is an obligation, especially in this economic atmosphere.

Similiar? Why, yes!

Being reckless in your personal life in your personal space is your business, but once you overstep that and inflict your personal stupidities on others – then it’s everyone’s business. If you’re stereo noise is coming through my wall at 2am, I have every right to call the cops and they have every right to come to you and tell you to turn it down.

@eponymoushipster
“Most major countries” 6 countries. excluding from that list, China, Russia, and India. Not what i call “Most”. Sure some have, but it’s not the general rule.

Lol, I never said, “Drunk driving is awesome! Let’s legalize it!!! Yay!” You don’t have to be drunk to be a reckless driver. Some people just suck at driving :D And the current system deals with them in an effective way. Smoking bans on the other hand, don’t even allow fellow smokers to light up in designated areas or businesses. In my home state of Ohio, you can’t open up a smoking parlor.

“you don’t give people who don’t care about others and their welfare free reign.”

Exactly. That’s why you should be compromising for smokers, not just completely getting rid of them. Allow smoking rooms. Let businesses cater to the demographic they choose. If someone wants to open up a bar that lets guys smoke cigars and drink scotch, how is this a problem? If you don’t like cigar smoke, don’t go.

I don’t disagree with you for one minute that smoking is harmful. But where we do disagree, is that there can be no middle. It doesn’t have to be free reign for smokers, nor does the policy have to give all control to non-tobacco users. They can co-exist, and everyone can be happy. Kinda American, ain’t it?

Also, by no means am i trying to come off as a douche bag. I just like discussion :D

@redsfan1324 there is a smoking room: your house. go there and kill yourself. and what’s the life expectancy in Russia for a man? 54. and have you been on a bus or in a taxi in Russia? I have and it’s horrible. oh and by the way, they have laws against smoking on public transportation there, which people routinely ignore.

from the article: In 2007, Chandigarh became the first city in India to become ‘smoke-free’. so India is taking it up, slowly. And, from what I can tell, China’s air quality is as bad as smoking, it seems.

if you want to change this law, start a petition and get enough support to overturn it.

I like to smoke. Tennessee banned smoking in all bars and restaurants unless they are 21 and up last year. I think its bullshit. Smokers should have places where they are welcomed. Since the ban if I feel like drinking a beer, watching football, eating wings, and smoking a cigarette I just hop over the state line to Alabama where I can still smoke.
If you don’t like a smokey place go somewhere else. There already was plenty of smokefree places before any bans were around.

@buster i think they have a ban on that in Russia too, actually.

lol, @eponymoushipster If you expect me (NOT a smoker btw) to go home, how is it too much for smokers to expect you to just not come to a bar that allows smoking, and not complain about it. It comes down to, you, and the government, are telling businesses, smokers, and people like me (who may want to smoke the occasional cigar at a bar) that we aren’t welcome anywhere. If you cough too much in public, you sure as hell better leave, because you’re spreading germs, and being loud. I guess we should start quarantining everyone to their houses when they get a cold. And besides, like buster said, deodorant causes breast cancer. Lung cancer > breast cancer :D

@redsfan1324 because you’re engaging in the activity that is harmful to public health.

is there more proof of cell phones and deodorant being cancer-causing than cigarettes or lead paint, or leaded gasoline?

Annnnnnnnnd, we’re back to where we started. driving in general is harmful to the public. yet it’s still allowed, but regulated. Banning smoking is like banning rock music with cursing. To some people, it’s actually harmful mentally (christians?) to hear certain words. And yet we still allow for people to scream w/e the hell they want. AND a thing called Christian rock has come into existence.

There is a medium for smoking bans. Non-smokers just refuse (for some reason) to acknowledge it.

Look, if smokers want to take care of their own health care bills, and go some place where they won’t force their choices on anyone else (the argument that employees can go somewhere else, while true in theory, is not true in practice), I’m happy to let them smoke. We should tax them 10 bucks a pack.

If the tax collection goes down, I am going to be leaping for joy. Sin taxes should be used to discourage behavior, not to raise revenue.

The fact is that I have to pay for the health care of countless smokers. Now where’s your libertarian ideals? Huh? WHy don’t we get rid of health insurance entirely? Yup, people shouldn’t band together for their mutual protection and benefit. We should all be lone wolves doing whatever the hell we want to, unconcerned with the impact of our behavior on anyone else. You know this is utter bullshit, don’t you? Or did you leave school in the third grade? You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him play tiddlywinks.

You act like smokers don’t pay higher premiums, or that their health care plans aren’t more expensive. The fact is, the government is already collecting a ton of money to offset those who smoke and drink.

“The fact is that I have to pay for the health care of countless smokers. Now where’s your libertarian ideals? Huh? WHy don’t we get rid of health insurance entirely? Yup, people shouldn’t band together for their mutual protection and benefit.”

Haha, enacting a smoking ban is destroying the very idea you wish to uphold. Enacting a COMPLETE smoking ban is telling all citizens that they are incapable of making their own choices. If you’re comfortable with the government making decisions for you, thats fine. Move to fucking China.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?”

If you feel like you’re incapable of avoiding a bar because it has smoking, i guess people like you are the reason for all sorts of social legislature. I feel sorry for you.

Like I’ve already said. A compromise is possible. The current system is extreme.

If you say it is wrong for the government to represent the majority of the voting public and infringe on peoples rights by eliminating the right to smoke in public places, how do you justify putting that power in the hands of the few. That is what your doing buy giving it to the individuals.

As for the “just don’t go to those places that allow smoking”. Isn’t that flippant response the same attitude you object to when people say “just stay home and smoke”?

The problem here is smoking kills. Anything else is just a by product. Great people love doing it, it calms them down, gives them something to do with their hands, makes them feel social. Those are all by products brought about by side effects of the cigarette. It is an activity that, when looked at objectively has no redeeming medical value. It makes as much sense as enjoying giving yourself a rash and maintaining it by scratching it. To compare it to cars killing, or obesity is ridiculous.

I’m a smoker (as many of you know), so I thought I’d weigh in here. While I would prefer the business owner to be able to make his or her own choice about whether to allow smoking, I understand why it isn’t so. As Daloon pointed out, employees are not always able to choose where they work, especially in an economic climate like the current one.

I would love to be able to go to a smoky bar and enjoy my evening uninterrupted by trips out in the cold to smoke. What I’d like to see happen is a new class of business developing: The smoking lounge. The entire purpose of such a place would be to enjoy the company of other smokers (and non-smokers who don’t mind). The way I see it, it would be no different for prospective employees than going to work in any other dangerous field (think coal mining, crab fishing, or police officer). They would be fully apprised of the risks, and make an informed choice. They’d also likely make more money for working in a dangerous environment. Among smokers, the jobs would be highly coveted.

Anybody have any money they want to invest in this idea? ;)

augustian
one way that businesses, particularly bars, get around the smoking ban is to declare the business as private and charge a fee to “join” their “club” or “organization”. So, a bar might charge fifty cents to “join” and then you are a “member” and can enjoy your evening with as much smoking as you want.
Not sure how legal this is in all states, but, I have seen this done in at least one state.

In Vancouver we passed laws banning smoking in public places, workplaces, restaurants, pubs, clubs, etc several years ago. At the time there was an uproar by smokers in a manner and discourse pretty similar to this thread. “Your taking away my freedom” and “business will suffer” were among the popular refrains. In the end, it went ahead anyway and – guess what – there was hardly a peep about it afterward. Business at restaurants, bars and clubs actually went up after the laws were passed – turns out a lot if people were avoiding those placed because of the smoke. So, then they did a survey to see how many people were smokers and – get this – it was a whopping 15% of people were actually smokers! By all the bellyaching, you would have thought it was 98%! Needless to say, it hasn’t been much of an issue since. The ban has even been expanded to bus stops and doorways and a specified distance from any windows or building air intakes. I will say this too, the ban has worked. A couple friends of mine stopped smoking simply because it became too difficult. They can thank their longer life and extra spending cash on those simple regulations.

maverick,
as I said earlier….....that is much the way it went where I live. Turns out, people actually like the ban (who’d a thunk it!)

aside from the health risks, i can’t stand the stench of smoking. in my state most restaurants/bars are smoke free, as well as all other public buildings. but what drives me crazy is that smokers go outside to smoke – RIGHT in front of the entrance. they don’t have the courtesy to move away to an area where they can keep their smoke to themselves. so to get inside i have to walk through their smoke – and just one minute in cigarette smoke means my hair and clothing are going to soak it up – and i have to smell like that rank stench for the rest of the day. truly disgusting! and VERY rude.

NO-smoking is a personal choice. Its not going to affect or harm other people like drinking would, but are they goin to ban drinking, not likely.

but by smoking and saying “if you don’t like it go somewhere else” your giving every individual the power to make that choice for the rest of us who don’t want to die from second hand smoke. A ban on smoking is the by product of a vote of the masses.

@Bri_L Not at all. we’re just giving the power to the business owner, letting them decide what sort of demographic they want to cater to. If there are more non-smokers than smokers, there will be more businesses that ban smoking. BUT, there will still be places smokers can go to enjoy themselves.

@redsfan1324 Nuh-uh O-S-H-A, got it, O-S-H-A

Quite honestly, I wish we did live in a world in which seemingly obvious things – such as not smoking when you are around others – doesn’t need to be legislated. But, the vast majority of people are self-centered idiots. Thus the legislation. It sucks but that’s the crux of it right there. Never once – not one time – out of the countless occassions every single day that it occurs has a smoker asked me if it was ok before he/she lit up. In response to this, I think they’ve still got it pretty easy.