What is your opinion on smoking bans?

I'm in favor. I have asthma, which can be triggered by smoke. I was at a bus stop a month or so ago and someone started smoking. I started to hack so badly that I had to run to a nearby store and get a bottle of water and spend 5-10 minutes breathing the fresh air before I could go back out. I missed my bus and had to wait an additional 30 minutes. I have a nephew who has more serious asthma. He cannot go into places where there are smokers, period. The last time he did was several years ago and he had to spend the night in the hospital as a result.

I live in PA, and we have smoking bans. My poor nephew is in Kentucky, which doesn't. At least not in his county.

I can't agree with you where people's health is concerned. there are, IMHO, enough studies that suggest that second hand smoke causes various problems for people, so this only makes sense, just as workplace safety and other government mandated programs make sense. I know that it smacks of totalitarianism, but for a society to run smoothly, we do need some rules. I find myself in an odd position since I am a smoker, and this is not the first time I've had this dabate with a non-smoker, where we essentially took the counterintuitive sides of the argument. But I have to admit it's so much more pleasant to go to a restaurant and eat a meal without the smoke. I'm willing to go without a smoke for the duration of a meal, and it makes the surroundings so much nicer for myself, and everyone else. It is interesting you should mention french fries since they bring up the issue of trans fat. While some locales are enacting rules about trans fat content, some banning them all together, the market wil ultimately be the judge, and if the grocery shelves are any indication, that judgement is in, and it boldly states on the label "0% trans fat". And I actually saw a mayonnaise bottle the other day that said "A great source of Omega -3". Mayonnaise as health food, I must be getting old. Maybe they'll declare jameson's Irish whiskey as health food, "then" I'll be a happy camper ;-) Unfortunately, no market will come to bear on tobacco, since it is well represented by lobbyists and it's addictive, so the local governments have taken it upon themselves to regulate tobacco useage. As for being hypocritical in supporting bans on the death penalty and abortion, if that is what you feel in your heart then no, you aren't.

Yes, they've banned smoking in public buildings where I stay. It's a great idea to ban it in restaurants - because smoke travels and it forces the other customers to taste and smell the smoke, when they'd rather be tasting their food. It's also good to ban it for health reasons. Passive smoking is a real problem.

Staff being forced to breathe smoke all day long is certainly going to have some kind of effect on their health after a while. Also because of my own sensitivity to smoke, I could never join my friends in bars before the smoking ban, but now we can all hang out together in an enjoyable space. If somebody wishes to take a smoke break they simply step outside for a few minutes. Some bars even have special seating areas for smokers with outside heaters for that purpose. :-)

The "government" certainly has the power to restrict dangerous or disgusting behavior on public or private property for the "health, safety and general welfare" of the public.

I sometimes wish they would also ban smoking within 1000 feet of any public way, or some such, punishable by $500 fine, due to the number of smokers who feel the world is their personal ashtray and simply flick their buttts on the ground while walking or out the window of a moving vehicle (which is also littering).

I was thrilled when the bans for restaurants and bars came into force. Finally I can go out and not come home smelling like cigarette smoke! Also, I find it disgusting to try to eat while somebody is smoking. Ew.

I believe that it is unfair to say NO establishment that serves the public can allow smoking. Instead I feel as long as there is a sign clearly posted and that it states in any and all advertisement that "This IS a Smoking establishment" that those should be allowed.

Especially since there is more and more evidence that it is the air born pollutants that actually cause deaths NOT second hand smoke. But of course the businesses that own the puppets in the oval office and world wide for that matter wait to wait till the "dollar, Euro" and etc, etc are worth nothing and they have enslaved us, and even then probably would not admit that it was just another pea under one of the three walnut shells they danced before us and we picked the wrong shell smoking and there is nothing there, but they had us gong for a while...oh yea your still fooled

Discover How To Quit Smoking : http://go.quitsmokingmagics.com/

We have a ban where I live

Even though I am a Non-Smoker and enjoy a smoke free atmosphere, I believe that the government, though with the best of intentions, is overstepping its boundaries. I much rather eat in a smoke filled restaurant then eat it one filled with obstructive government regulations.

Smoking is absolutely disgusting. Smokers should have their own little country.. That we could nuke.

Smoking bans are enacted by people who are all about ME, ME, ME. They don't care how it affects others in a negative way as long as ME doesn't have to see, smell or hear it no matter where ME goes. Even if ME walks into a public area full of many other individuals, it's still all about ME and what ME wants. My opinion is that if ME doesn't like their surroundings of legal activities then ME can easily find a place for ME to fit-in without having to diminish other who don't share ME's sefish wants.

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC216493...

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_docum...

“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790

“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”

http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/smoking%201440....

“Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.”

Showtime television, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGApkbcaZK4

Then the US Surgeon General went over all the studies to date in 2006 again and even though he went on public TV and announced "No safe level", the report itself showed exactly the opposite.

---The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke. (p. 13)

---The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.(p. 13)

---The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.(p. 11)

*** Notice how the wording is "suggestive but NOT SUFFICIENT". "Suggestive" is completely a hypocritical word for "I'd like to think". Yet none of the studies can even make a "CASUAL" relationship which isn't even close to a SIGNIFICANT relationship!!!

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsm...