Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould smoking be allowed in public places?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 39% | 2242 votes | Total: 5753 votes | |
| No | 61% | 3511 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesI hate the smell of cigarette smoke. I have ever since I was a child with a mother who smoked frequently in our house. I could shower, put on my cleanest clothes and still people thought I was a smoker because the stench was all over me. I grew up with second hand smoke being a constant reality. Not only my mother smoked but her entire side of the family did as well. I say that so you may know that I would personally benefit and love a world where I never had to smell a cigarette again.
But I refuse to say that smoking should be banned from public places. What was America founded upon? We live in a free country. A country where soldiers have fought and died for my right to life liberty and happiness. They did not die for me to live their way, they died so I had the right to live the FREE way, my way. That means that they fought and died so I had the right to make decisions which go against their personal ideals or values. They died for my right to follow whatever religion I want, to vote for whatever party I want to, to smoke, to drink, to read what I want, to watch on television what I want. As long as it is consistent with the laws of the land, we are free to live our lives as we choose.
This issue isn't about smoking, it's about freedom. If we want our freedoms to last we need to fight for each other even when we don't like it. I will never like second hand smoke. But I will not infringe upon their right to smoke. Just as I would hope they would defend my right to be free in America my own way.
Learn more about this author, Jason Austin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The illegality of smoking in public establishments and institutions is a logical step any unified government takes in regards to regulating the massive societal health concern of lit tobacco use, one which is long overdue. This move is in stark contrast to the society of the United States up until 1971, when cigarette ads were forbidden from television broadcast. Prior to that, virtually anywhere in a public place, anyone who chose to could light up.
Information about the effects of smoking were often misleading and confusing to the average American citizen. It wasn't until the end of the sixties that the serious health concerns of smoking were firmly implanted in the national consciousness. Subsequently, in 1971 Congress passed a bill that prevented tobacco industries from having a televised ad campaign. That was just one of many long overdue steps towards progress. It's taken small measures over many years enact the universal smoking ban in public places.
Studies have reported that second-hand smoke is a factor in causing various cancers in non-smokers. To subject non-smokers to the fumes of lit tobacco has been disparaging for many, for quite some time. Designated smoking sections, while virtually ineffective, provided the basis for progressive legislation in the form of smoking bans. In terms of providing designated smoking areas exteriorly, establishments would have to determine that.
It is generally understood that business owners have fears of diminishing sales and a shrinking clientele because of smoking bans. While these fears are practical, if the ban of smoking in all public places is a universal, obviously the effect on businesses will be temporary; those that smoke will still frequent public places, unless, in the impractical event that they choose to remain recluses because of the law.
Smoking is not a right, it's an addictive habit, which has been proven to cause cancer, which can be fatal. The conjecture that banning smoking somehow jeopardizes or harms civil rights is folly, but does underscore the ignorance of society, the cultural lag time. While astronomically more meaningful and important issues of civil rights are in question everyday- too obvious to mention- the aforementioned argument can be dismissed rather easily.
It only stands to reason that the argument against a universal smoking ban, for the interior of all public places, shouldn't even be an issue. That it is, is evident of the transitional period of adjustment; general acquiescence seems to be just about absolute.
Learn more about this author, Jonn Angst.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should all forms of smoking be illegal?
- Should Washington, DC, become the 51st state?
- Should the UK, France and Brazil force the release of strongly classified United States UFO/ET documents?
- Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?
- Should Congress set limits on the compensation of corporate executives?
- Should the federal government bail out homeowners facing foreclosure?
