Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Government & Policies
Should smoking be allowed in public places?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 40% | 3324 votes | Total: 8332 votes | |
| No | 60% | 5008 votes |
Yes
by Gary Maclean
Created on: February 25, 2008 Last Updated: February 11, 2012
There is one very interesting complication to the question of whether smoking should be allowed in public places or not; what is a public place? When defining public place we must include those places where people congregate for whatever reason. Your home, of course, is not a public place, but the local supermarket is. Your car is not a public place, but the vehicles used by the local transit system are. Your friend's cabin up north is not a public place, but the little bar on the corner is. So public place is anywhere the general public may want to congregate for whatever reason.
The very interesting complication is that we include bar in that definition of public places. When we ask the question should smoking be allowed in public places we are asking, in part, should smoking be allowed in bars and taverns? What is so interesting about this is that we are trying to control one habit that is currently being judged as negative even when it is partaken of in a place where one of the most negative habits is regularly satisfied. In fact that other negative habit went through the same prejudice as smoking is right now. Back in the 30s there was a little something called prohibition. We saw where that public outcry got us; gangsters, illegal activity, bootlegging and on and on.
What we are saying is it is OK to drink and get drunk on your butt, but do not take a puff off a cigarette while you are doing it. The whole ituation seems very ironic to me so I first had to ask myself that question. Why are we using abstention to try to control a habit that is clearly dangerous to those who involve themselves, but then don't try to control the other habit that is historically damaging, dangerous, threatening and very abusive to ourselves and those around us? Why do we try to control smoking in a drinking establishment?
That one question which I personally have no answer for, is what convinces me there is a very simple answer to the entire controversy. Yes! That's it, no more and no less. Yes, smoking should be allowed in public places. A vice is a vice is a vice. How can we justify strict control of one of those vices yet allow so many others and simply create laws and rules to control them?
Even beyond the tavern vs smoking scenario we permit the making of cigarettes. We first allow farmers to grow tobacco, corporations to process tobacco, retail establishments to sell tobacco products, and adults to purchase those products. Do we really have any right to now try to regulate where and how this perfectly legal product can be used? We make legal every aspect of the cigarette other than where someone can smoke one.
Of course, individual business owners should be able to control cigarette smoking in their establishments every bit as much as I should be able to control cigarette smoking in my own home. That should be the only legal restrictions; does the owner of the establishment where someone wants to smoke allow it or not.
It is really no business of anyone else other than the owner of the establishment. Government has no position in the controversy. They tried that once, remember prohibition? It is really a one by one location decision.
Simply because some one does not like the smell of cigarette smoke is not reason enough to tell the smoker to quit doing it. I don't like the smell of fingernail polish remover, but ladies do it in public places and I see no efforts on anyone's part to regulate it. I don't like the smell of body order, but I can always find someone who smells of it - in a public place - and no one is ticketing them or punishing them. I don't like the smell of bubble gum either but people chew it wherever they want to without fear of retribution.
To broad scale prohibit smoking in all public places is prejudice against smokers. Why not address other similar practices like blowing your nose in public places - I can't stand that, please abolish it. Then there is coughing without covering your mouth - that's hideous, let's legislate it! One of my strongest dislikes of things done in public places is that of chewing food at a restaurant with your mouth open. Shut it already would you? You are disgusting! You are an adult! Practice a little public decorum, or maybe we should say that eating food in a restaurant is not allowed!
These practices continue and will for some time yet. I complain, but I would never even think of complaining to the point that I would ask government to help me outlaw chewing with your mouth open. That's ridiculous. We are all in this whole "live in the world thing" together, let's abide each other's shortcomings or questionable habits. Why must there be a law for everything?
Simple dislike of something by a select group of people should have nothing to do with whether we allow that practice to continue or not. I don't like the smell of smoking, but it is a legal endeavor, more power to them, if that is what they want. I will just make it a priority not to sit near them or at least not to sit down wind of them.
Learn more about this author, Gary Maclean.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Ted Lee
Created on: July 20, 2007
In 2001, the United States alone reported approximately 440,000 deaths a year from diseases and conditions related to tobacco usage, or about 1,205 people a day, according to Centers for Disease Control. This is roughly the equivalent of four Boeing 777 jet planes crashing at full capacity every day. Had such widespread catastrophe of similar proportions plagued the airline industry, the government and public body would certainly put a stop to the madness, order an investigation into what happened and find those responsible. Yet, with smoking, many people hardly bat an eye.
It is the right and necessary prerogative for governments and ruling bodies to legislate when necessary for the protection of the public. For this reason, many governments regulate vehicular driving, chemical substances that alter the body or cause harm such as alcohol and tobacco, and firearms. Though such legislative measures infringe upon what people claim to be "rights," the right to a healthy and happy life certainly supersedes the right to smoke.
For those who find smoking enjoyable, or even necessary, many governments certainly allow the indulgence of smoking within private property. This is the citizen's right. However, in public property, secondhand smoke from smoking can cause health issues and endanger those around smokers, especially children, who still have developing bodies. Secondhand smoke can especially impede normal physical development at an early age. At this point, governments have the right to and should exercise that right in banning smoking from public areas to ensure public safety.
Certainly any rational citizen would frown upon another fellow citizen walking into a cafe, holding a vial of radioactive substances and exposing it without protection to those around him. Such is the case here. Many medical studies have proven the detrimental health effects from the exposure of secondhand smoke, and governments should act on this information to keep citizens safe.
After all, constituents expect governmental institutions to protect them when necessary from avoidable harm, and protection from secondhand smoke in public areas, though inconvenient, help to perform this essential task. A country's people would expect the government to finance and direct an army to repel ruthless invaders, to warn their citizens of the effects of certain chemicals and substances, or to put down a dangerous gunman threatening the safety of a neighborhood through police force action. If the government failed to do so, people would naturally inquire why the political institution could not live up to its mission and purpose. Smoking naturally falls under this area, since the effects of secondhand smoke are extremely dangerous to those who breathe it in.
Had smoking only affected those that use it, the right to smoke in a public area would certainly be legitimate. But when someone's activities put another person in danger, that activity must be regulated and watched carefully, so as to not rob another person of their individual health and happiness because of the inconsiderate actions of those around him.
Learn more about this author, Ted Lee.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley