Smoking bans in bars EXACTLY like banning campfires at scout camp?

While i don't buy the second hand smoke being very bad for anyone (they used to claim nicotine was a poison with science to back it. Now they reversed nicotine as a poison and you can buy it in gum), I don't like smoking in bars. That's my personal preference. I don't think there should be a law preventing owners from allowing smoking in their own establishment. That should be the choice of the person who owns it. If they don't ban smoking, then leave it up to the public where they want to smoke or whether to allow smoking on their property.

Tobacco abusers can be identified by the mid-air stench between people-vacant aisles.

This is common in any public library. I've never inhaled campfire smoke at my library.

Staff won't let reader to start one using books that document tobacco use health risk.

My community prevents smokers from being any closer than 25 feet from a public-use

entry. Yes, I carry a tape measure and evict scofflaws. Some doors are being adjusted

so if they step out for a quick hit a return entry at same door will be denied. The next

entry is more likely to have consequences. Its those pesky monitors that tape illicit

behavior and copies made for property management attention. I've made those copies.

I smoked 30 years and quit cold turkey because I had the will power. I'm not weak.

I do not smoke and do not advocate smoking.

You are right. The campaign against smoking has nothing to do with 2nd hand smoke and protecting the children. The one commercial that shows the guy smoking on his balcony and the smoke drifts over, in the window, across the living room, down the hall, and into the infants room making it cough, absurd!

What it has to do with is money. The cost of health care for the smokers who make themselves ill prematurely by choice is what has motivated the 30 year propaganda and the social modification program. The same thing needs to be done with obesity. It's a choice that creates a lot of unnecessary medical expenses also.

Anyway, to compare cigarette smoke to campfire smoke is a ridiculous comparison. Much more likely the campfire ban is related to the high fire danger and not a concern about smoke inhalation.

What are you thinking, trying to bring logic, reason and common sense to yahoo answers?

Telling the truth on here just causes trouble.

I suggest next time you go camping, go to a zoo and procure some elephant dung. Make it smoulder on the edge of the campfire so it will repel mosquitoes.

Should we have a ban on garlic? That repels mosquitoes AND vampires.

If people don't like the smell, too damned bad.

2nd hand smoke doesn't hurt anyone, it is just hysterical irrational Liberal control freak madness.

Not really the best analogy, campfires are in an open area where the smoke won't be trapped in with all the guests. Smoking has way more chemicals in it than plain old campfire smoke. Also 2nd hand smoke is just as bad as first hand smoke and those who wish to remain healthier don't want to be around smokers

The people claiming that second hand smoke "does no harm" are the smugly delusional ones. I had the misfortune of working in a small office for two years with 3 chain smokers (I have never smoked). Within a few weeks it was clear I could no longer wear contact lenses to work -- they absorbed the smoke and irritated my corneas so badly I had to use prescription eye drops. While working there I had constant sinus trouble and had so many bouts of bronchitis that my doctors recommended i find another job. Normally I am extremely healthy and had no such problems before or since that job. I did quit that place and found that when I started a new job in a smoke free office I went through 3 weeks of nicotine withdrawal -- the doc said I probably inhaled the equivalent of at least a half pack a day or more in that old job. I had horrible insomnia, irritability and headaches while de-toxing.

It has been demonstrated the ALL of the "independent studies" that claimed there was "no harm" in second hand smoking residue were not at all independent, but that they were financed by Tobacco Companies either directly or indirectly. It is one of the great hypocrisies of modern culture and commerce that companies are allowed to freely market a copyright protected dog's lunch of chemicals, additives and highly addictive plant alkaloids that create immense public health issues, while other far less damaging and habituating substances like cannabis are criminalized or heavily restricted and regulated.

I'll reiterate that campfire smoke has far less effect on anyone than secondhand tobacco smoke. For one thing, it is outdoors so it is not as concentrated and you are rarely exposed to it for more than an hour or two at camp. Yes, wood smoke also contains irritants and many people in the underdeveloped world who still use wood fires for cooking and heat suffer from eye and respiratory problems. But they live with wood smoke 365 days a year for hours at a time their entire lives. The same is true of children in households with adults who smoke. But it is not true with occassional recreational camp fires.

Besides, campfire bans are not about smoke inhalation, they are about forest fire danger levels, risks of spreading tree parasites and diseases in collecting firewood and safety concerns about children and fire.

And while we're on the subject, why don't you self righteous smokers explain to me why the one in 20 people in my office who are cigarette users are allowed to spend 10 minutes per hour loafing outdoors in the "smoker's cabana" while the rest of us are inside working? In fact, the company has looked at this loss of productivity and is changing the policy. No more smoking breaks and no more cigarettes anywhere on company property. It's about time.

I imagine many people on here are too young to have known what life was like in public until smoking bans started in the 70's. People used to smoke EVERYWHERE including in hospital rooms, on airplanes and public buses, even in movie theaters. I remember how you could see the dozens of glowing tips from the butts in the dark during film showings and how by halfway through the movie you could barely see the top of the screen through the haze of accumulated smoke. I was burned on the arms and face and my clothing several times as a child when smokers holding their cigarettes at waist level or lower jostled me in crowded buildings and I remember seeing cigarette butts all over the floors of grocery stores. Everywhere you went was that rank stale smell of tobacco smoke. The restrictions on smoking have immeasurably improved the quality of life for most citizens.

When the smokers die of lung cancer at 45 years old then you'll realize how bad it is. Plus campfire and cigarette smoke are two totally different things. Cigarette is filled with nicotine and toxins while campfire is just normal, natural, smoke. No health risks with campfire smoke.

It really is this simple, People choose to be around campfires or not. People can choose to smoke or not, but people cannot choose to be always be able to be away from smoke so they have made anti smoking laws to protect the rights of people who cannot escape from those that do choose to smoke. it' s a personal rights issue not a freedom to smoke issue, your right to smoke cannot trump my right to fresh air.

Passive smoking kills people.

Probably if someone stuck their head into a smokey fire and inhaled then they would also probably damage their lungs too.

I've never understood why we don't call smokers addicts just like other drugs.

The drugs in cigarettes are specifically designed to make people addicted.

They also turn seemingly normal nice people into selfish arseholes who don't mind endangering the lives of those around them.

Hey addict. stop polluting my air.

Cigarette smoke is full of cancer causing toxins. Campfire smoke may irritate your lungs but unless you're burning something toxic then you're not likely to cause any long lasting harm. Smoke is not just smoke.