Should smoking in all the public places (indoors and outdoors) be banned?

[Cinitiator]

In your opinion, should smoking in all the public places, including streets, parks and even rivers be banned? In my opinion, it should. Not only have smoking bans been proven to be highly effective in reducing the overall mortality rate and the incidence of various diseases (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/smoking-bans-heart-attacks-strokes/1664193/), but they could also potentially prevent second-hand smoking, which causes close to 50,000 deaths per year (Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/us/new.york.smoking.ban_1_smoking-on-public-beaches-smoking-ban-secondhand-smoke?_s=PM:US ).

Not only do I think that those who smoke should be protected from the negative effects of smoking, but I also think that those who don't smoke and yet are forced to suffer from the consequences of the second-hand smoking should be protected as well. I don't want to suffer an increased risk of various cancers, respiratory disease and heart disease because some people are far too selfish and individualistic.

 

[Alfi]

imo - no
The dilution factor of the smoke in 'fresh' air makes it undetectable.
No source for that other than years of experience with trace ( ppm ) gas detectors.

 

[Dickfore]

My car and BBQ also "smoke". Should grilling in public places as well as driving be forbidden as well?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As someone who does smoke from time to time I have no problem with a smoking ban indoors for the reasons you list. However I don't see why smoking outdoors should be banned, how would not smoking in a park or on the street help anyone to any significant degree?

 

[EricVT]

I would have no issue with smoking being banned in all public places -- indoor and outdoor. Reduce the number of cigarette butts being tossed onto public property and reduce the amount of second-hand smoke nearby people are exposed to (however minute the quantity may already be).

 

[turbo]

I haven't personally had any problem with cigarette smoke, even when putting in 3-4 hours each weekend day in smoky taverns playing music and hosting open-mic jams. It was the perfumes that brought that nice extra job to a screeching halt. Get ~$135 per afternoon hosting open-mic jams? That is fun stuff, and especially nice since it's something that I lived for.

One of the regular propane truck drivers keeps telling my wife that he really appreciated me teaching him how to use barre chords to free him up from the root-chord position. That (barre chords) is an epiphany for a novice guitarist. I could still be pulling down those gigs, if not for the perfumes. Ironically, the heaviest smokers were the most likely to use strong, fruity, or floral perfumes.

A fragrance-ban might have saved my weekend gigs, but tobacco was secondary. When I was in engineering school, I practically lived on caffeine and nicotine. I eventually smartened up and got more pro-active about my health.

Upshot: I think it was a good thing for the state to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces, especially since children can be exposed in restaurants, taverns, and diners. Banning smoking in outdoor public places is more problematic. Who pays for enforcement, and how is the enforcement implemented? Would the taxpayers have to bear the cost of putting swarms of cops on the streets, handing out tickets to anyone who is caught smoking in a park?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would have no issue with smoking being banned in all public places -- indoor and outdoor. Reduce the number of cigarette butts being tossed onto public property and reduce the amount of second-hand smoke nearby people are exposed to (however minute the quantity may already be).

I understand the point about butts but I don't see why that needs a ban more than harsher penalties for littering (and some enforcement) along with more bins with stub plates around. There's more gum all over the street than butts but we don't ban that.

As for second hand smoke as has been pointed out there are far more noxious fumes in public places than smoking. Having a cigarette on the pavement isn't just minute it's negligible. Honestly how much second hand smoke does the average person breathe in when walking outdoors? Nothing that will ever cause harm I'd wager.

I'm all for regulation when a group is doing something that leads to harm to others but when the harm is negligible to non-existent I don't think it's morally right to try and restrict that group's behaviour. Demonstrate to me with evidence that second hand smoke in open air public places is a significant health risk and I'll be willing to change my mind. Otherwise I'm firmly against regulating behaviour for the sake of it.

 

[Pengwuino]

My car and BBQ also "smoke". Should grilling in public places as well as driving be forbidden as well?

On the contrary, BBQing quotas should be in place to force people to BBQ at least once a week outdoors where I can smell it.

 

[EricVT]

I understand the point about butts but I don't see why that needs a ban more than harsher penalties for littering (and some enforcement) along with more bins with stub plates around. There's more gum all over the street than butts but we don't ban that.

As for second hand smoke as has been pointed out there are far more noxious fumes in public places than smoking. Having a cigarette on the pavement isn't just minute it's negligible. Honestly how much second hand smoke does the average person breathe in when walking outdoors? Nothing that will ever cause harm I'd wager.

I'm all for regulation when a group is doing something that leads to harm to others but when the harm is negligible to non-existent I don't think it's morally right to try and restrict that group's behaviour. Demonstrate to me with evidence that second hand smoke in open air public places is a significant health risk and I'll be willing to change my mind. Otherwise I'm firmly against regulating behaviour for the sake of it.

You can take my opinion with a grain of salt as I tend to favor anything that might deter people from smoking or reduce the visibility of the act of smoking in society. I'm not saying a public-space smoking ban is the best solution to any particular problem or that second-hand smoke in open outdoor areas is measurably harmful, I'm just saying I wouldn't oppose such a ban.

Personally, I feel that the toll that smoking takes on your health, the additional healthcare costs (that we all bear) for treating smoking-related illnesses, the toll on the families of smokers who see their loved ones develop those diseases, and the perpetuation of the habit onto future generations are all unconscionable.

 

[Alfi]

Reduce the number of cigarette butts being tossed onto public property

I hear you ... that disgusting.

compare to water bottles.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...the-8th-continent-pacific-ocean-garbage-patch



That's MORE disgusting.


Stop ( BAN ) plastic water bottles.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You can take my opinion with a grain of salt as I tend to favor anything that might deter people from smoking or reduce the visibility of the act of smoking in society. I'm not saying a public-space smoking ban is the best solution to any particular problem or that second-hand smoke in open outdoor areas is measurably harmful, I'm just saying I wouldn't oppose such a ban.

Personally, I feel that the toll that smoking takes on your health, the additional healthcare costs (that we all bare) for treating smoking-related illnesses, the toll on the families of smokers who see their loved ones develop those diseases, and the perpetuation of the habit onto future generations are all unconscionable.

Fair enough. We're mostly in agreement though personally if someone decides that they are willing to take the risk and become a full on smoker I don't think that anything should be done to force them otherwise (aside from tax, I don't mind taxing higher products and services that lead to increased healthcare costs).

 

[Averagesupernova]

I just don't see the point of banning smoking in a park when sitting around a campfire while the moron who is burning plastic in his campfire is allowed to.

 

[Alfi]

I just don't see the point of banning smoking in a park when sitting around a campfire while the moron who is burning plastic in his campfire is allowed to.

I don't think the 'moron' is allowed to. I could be wrong.
If you have a link to prove otherwise, I would be glad to see it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I just don't see the point of banning smoking in a park when sitting around a campfire while the moron who is burning plastic in his campfire is allowed to.

I believe that's illegal (in the UK);
http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/neighbourhood-nuisance/garden-bonfires/#wa790

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) it is an offence for people to dispose of their domestic waste in a way likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. In practice you should not burn waste that is likely to create excessive smoke or noxious fumes. If only dry garden waste is burnt, your bonfire should not cause a problem.

Most bonfire problems are addressed under nuisance legislation. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a statutory nuisance includes "smoke, fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance." In practice a fire would have to be a recurrent persistent problem, interfering substantially with neighbours' well-being, comfort or enjoyment of their property.

[...]

Never burn household rubbish, rubber tyres or anything containing plastic, foam or paint

 

[Cinitiator]

My car and BBQ also "smoke". Should grilling in public places as well as driving be forbidden as well?

There's a big difference between tobacco smoke and car or BBQ smoke.
And usually cars and BBQs don't go to various public gatherings, etc., and stand just in front of them, to the extent that leaving high levels of smoke without leaving the outdoor public place is very problematic.

Also, let's not forget that second hand smoking isn't the only harm of smoking. First hand smoking is the most harmful one. And bans have been proven to be highly effective in reducing the effects of both first hand and second hand smoking.

 

[D H]

Personally, I feel that the toll that smoking takes on your health, the additional healthcare costs (that we all bear) for treating smoking-related illnesses, the toll on the families of smokers who see their loved ones develop those diseases, and the perpetuation of the habit onto future generations are all unconscionable.

What are those costs that we all bear?

Compare to alcoholics. Alcoholics cost society while they are of working age because alcoholics are much more likely to be unemployed than the typical member of society. Alcoholics who don't smoke cost society well past retirement age because their addiction is not quite as deadly as smoking. They collect old age benefits for quite some time before they die.

Compare to clean living. Those who don't indulge in alcohol or tobacco tend to live well past retirement age. Throughout this retirement period, they collect social security benefits and get insurance through Medicare. Their grip on life is strong, even while they are slowly dying of old age. The last few years of their life is a very expensive proposition.

Smokers pay insurance, social security taxes, income taxes, and cigarette taxes throughout their working age and then they die, right about at retirement age. They are not a big burden on social security and Medicare. Smokers are the optimal aged citizen from the perspective of the government. Social security and Medicare wouldn't be in near the bind they are in if everyone died at 65 the way smokers tend to do.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What are those costs that we all bear?

Compare to alcoholics...

Just to chime in on this one, in the UK our binge drinking culture costs billions of pounds per year. That's not just in NHS costs in repairing people who have accidents and get in fights but also the cost of extra policing, damage to property etc. IMO this is a far bigger issue that needs tackling than smoking (not that I'm saying alcohol needs to be banned but a way to discourage binging would be good).

 

[Pythagorean]

I smoked for ten years before quitting. Smoke and ash get into everything, it's horibly destructive indoors. Seedy bars probably don't care though; it's good for atmosphere. Heh.

 

[EricVT]

What are those costs that we all bear?

Compare to alcoholics. Alcoholics cost society while they are of working age because alcoholics are much more likely to be unemployed than the typical member of society. Alcoholics who don't smoke cost society well past retirement age because their addiction is not quite as deadly as smoking. They collect old age benefits for quite some time before they die.

Compare to clean living. Those who don't indulge in alcohol or tobacco tend to live well past retirement age. Throughout this retirement period, they collect social security benefits and get insurance through Medicare. Their grip on life is strong, even while they are slowly dying of old age. The last few years of their life is a very expensive proposition.

Smokers pay insurance, social security taxes, income taxes, and cigarette taxes throughout their working age and then they die, right about at retirement age. They are not a big burden on social security and Medicare. Smokers are the optimal aged citizen from the perspective of the government. Social security and Medicare wouldn't be in near the bind they are in if everyone died at 65 the way smokers tend to do.

I didn't realize this thread was about alcohol use, nor did I realize that societal problems with alcohol make problems with smoking irrelevant. I have similar opinions about the burden that alcohol abuse has on society but didn't realize this was the place to discuss it.

And I have heard the argument of smokers dying sooner and saving us money many times. It doesn't change my opinion that treating smoking-related illnesses ties up financial resources and productive time that could be spent on extending healthy life instead of trying to salvage someone's ruined health.

 

[George Jones]

[personal rant]
As a non-smoker who takes public transit to and from work every day, I really dislike people who smoke at bus stops. Where I live, the wind can be chillingly cold for six months of the year, so I particularly dislike people who smoke inside shelters at bus stops.
[end personal rant]

How widespread are smoking bans in bars in the U.S? Here in Canada, smoking in bars is banned country-wide

 

[D H]

How widespread are smoking bans in bars in the U.S? Here in Canada, smoking in bars is banned country-wide

It varies state by state, and sometimes, municipality by municipality. Kentucky and Tennessee? Where bars are legal, smoking in them is probably legal, too. Smoking in restaurants is legal in some municipalities in Kentucky and Tennessee.

 

[DavidSnider]

One of our local bars has a sign that says:
"Having a smoking section in a bar is like having a peeing zone in a pool."

 

[skeptic2]

In your opinion, should smoking in all the public places, including streets, parks and even rivers be banned? In my opinion, it should. Not only have smoking bans been proven to be highly effective in reducing the overall mortality rate and the incidence of various diseases (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/smoking-bans-heart-attacks-strokes/1664193/), but they could also potentially prevent second-hand smoking, which causes close to 50,000 deaths per year (Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/us/new.york.smoking.ban_1_smoking-on-public-beaches-smoking-ban-secondhand-smoke?_s=PM:US ).

Not only do I think that those who smoke should be protected from the negative effects of smoking, but I also think that those who don't smoke and yet are forced to suffer from the consequences of the second-hand smoking should be protected as well. I don't want to suffer an increased risk of various cancers, respiratory disease and heart disease because some people are far too selfish and individualistic.

Your point seems to be that smoking should be banned because it is harmful both to the smoker and to nearby people. Do you favor banning everything that is harmful or do you have a reason for singling out smoking?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

[personal rant]
As a non-smoker who takes public transit to and from work every day, I really dislike people who smoke at bus stops. Where I live, the wind can be chillingly cold for six months of the year, so I particularly dislike people who smoke inside shelters at bus stops.
[end personal rant]

How widespread are smoking bans in bars in the U.S? Here in Canada, smoking in bars is banned country-wide

IIRC the UK smoking ban was later modified to include public transport stops (bus and train) amongst other areas where people are forced to congregate like entrances to buildings. That makes sense IMO but a general ban I don't see any good reason for.

 

[Dickfore]

There's a big difference between tobacco smoke and car or BBQ smoke.

Prove it.

And usually cars and BBQs don't go to various public gatherings, etc., and stand just in front of them, to the extent that leaving high levels of smoke without leaving the outdoor public place is very problematic.

That's funny. I've seen a lot of bbq's and cars in miles-long lines near public events, such as sports games, firework displays, etc.

Also, let's not forget that second hand smoking isn't the only harm of smoking. First hand smoking is the most harmful one. And bans have been proven to be highly effective in reducing the effects of both first hand and second hand smoking.

Well, bans do not reduce the effects of anything. They may reduce the exposure, but the supposed effects still remain. In any case, there are far more dangerous substances to one's health that are not banned. What is the minimal concentration and for how long do you have to be exposed to it to feel the effects of smoking?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There's a big difference between tobacco smoke and car or BBQ smoke.
And usually cars and BBQs don't go to various public gatherings, etc., and stand just in front of them, to the extent that leaving high levels of smoke without leaving the outdoor public place is very problematic.

Are you suggesting that pollution from car exhausts (especially in urban and congestion areas) is not a public health concern?

Also, let's not forget that second hand smoking isn't the only harm of smoking. First hand smoking is the most harmful one. And bans have been proven to be highly effective in reducing the effects of both first hand and second hand smoking.

Studies on second hand smoke focus on indoor conditions over time i.e. living with a smoker. Do you have any references to support the claim that irregular second hand smoke in an open-air environment is a significant public health concern?

That's not to suggest that standing near a smoker outside won't expose you to significant amounts of second hand smoke but given the frequency and length of said exposure is (generally) going to be incredibly low is there anything to suggest there is a significant effect to long term health?

 

[Pythagorean]

Third hand smoke too. Even with outside smokers who can eliminate second hand smoke, ash and resin collecting in furniture, walls, your clothes, your hands, your hair gets transferred to babies. NOT THE CHILDREN!
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/third-hand-smoke/AN01985

[STRIKE]If I recall, children of outdoor smokers had four times the nicotine levels of non-smokers.
[/STRIKE]
edit: here it is:

Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.

http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?id=671

 

[uperkurk]

In the UK smoking outside in certain areas is banned. For example places where the public would usually congregate like bus stops, train stations and at ATM machines where people queue. I think it's perfectly justifiable.

 

[Dickfore]

This just proves my theory about the fractal nature of smoking.

 

[Pythagorean]

This just proves my theory about the fractal nature of smoking.

people smoke cigarettes who smoke cigarettes who smoke cigarettes?