Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould smoking be allowed in public places?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 39% | 2241 votes | Total: 5746 votes | |
| No | 61% | 3505 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIt is rather easy to jump on the bandwagon, and persecute smokers. It is rather safe to stay in the middle of the crowd, with all those other people around oneself, decrying a legal choice. Anti-smoking has become a modern day witch hunt. Having a black cat and knowing herb lore carries less stigma these days, however.
All the hysterical fanaticism covers many questions that rarely get answered, or even noticed. First of all, why is it that smoking is an unhealthy choice that is so acceptable to outlaw? Certainly not because it is an immediately mortal habit. There are many cases of smokers who lived long lives without the serious complications attributed to smoking. Same with second hand smoke. In my own family, neither set of my grandparents developed lung cancer, or emphysema, or needed tracheotomies, and yet both of my grandmothers smoked for decades. An increased risk clearly does not mean a definite occurrence.
If smoking is to be banned because of its health risks, where is the line drawn? At what point do we as citizens allow someone else to make our choices for us? Trans fat has already been banned in New York. Shall cholesterol and sugar and other fats be banned as well? Shall it be made illegal for children to consume candy? Will it become mandatory for Americans to all be vegans?
Using the logic of the health risks presented by smoking, why shouldn't we all become vegans? We'd all lower our risk for colon cancer, because we wouldn't have meat rotting in our intestines. We'd lower green house gases, because we wouldn't need as many cattle, who produce more methane than cars produce carbon monoxide. We'd, if anything, be helping the environment, because all the crops we'd need to support ourselves would produce more oxygen and help clean the air. There would be less cases of food poisoning if we all ate fresh fruit and vegetables.
But that's slightly ludicrous. Why should someone else dictate what we can and cannot eat? Why are we not allowed to make our own choices? If someone wants to eat nothing but junk food, that is their right as a citizen of a free country. We do not need a parental government making sure we wash behind our ears, and clean our plates, and keeping us from smoking.
I want it known that I do not think smoking should be outlawed. That doesn't mean I think every establishment or locale should include smokers. If a proprietor wants a non-smoking store, that is their prerogative. If a bar wants to cater specifically to smokers, that is also their decision. In the wide open, common courtesy would dictate behaviors. If someone's smoking is bothersome, move away from them or politely ask them to stop. No one would hide behind legal actions to stop a fellow citizen from blaring their music; they would ask them to be quiet.
I cannot advocate any action being outlawed that is our own choice. Alcohol was already prohibited once, and I'm sure we know how well that went. We can certainly police our own vices, and need no one riding herd over us to keep us in check.
Learn more about this author, Morrigana Shalafae.
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 former government employees be allowed to work for companies they used to regulate?
- Should employees of government contractors have the same whistleblower protections as federal employees?
- Should Congressional Research reports be available to the public for free?
- Is the Constitution always right?
- Should photography, live video and audio coverage be allowed in the Supreme Court and in federal district and appellate courtrooms?
- Does the resale of Coast Guard Marine cutters by faith-based groups signal a problem for faith-based initiatives?
