whoever invented smoking sucks. So do you smokers!
. . .
How public is the place supposed to be? Being at a fair, or somewhere like that outside is also a public place. Sure, no smoking at a restuarant that is just rude, but at work and even outside?! Sigh... People end up being allegic anyway, if not smoke, then perfume, or, well, potatoes.
Well, outside and in their homes are pretty much the only places they are allowed to smoke, so chill, huh? Here, nurses have to go acroos the road to smoke, and somewhere they are not even allowed to smoke when closer than 1,5 kilometer from the hospital.
well that's good, I still think there should be more of those "smoking area's" i've seen some but not much
p.s. smoker's have decayed teeth and incredibly stinky breath FYI
I think it's not that bad, but based off of the wrong decisions.
You see, here (in the Netherlands) you're no longer allowed to smoke in public places - bars, hospitals (lol), pretty much everywhere. While this has many advantages and makes sure non-smokers aren't affected by the smoke, the general idea behind the ban was that 'bar employees should have a smoke-free environment'... even though the employees smoke the most.
i'm italian, and i smoke about 15 cigarettes a day, and i agree with this. there are lots of people who don't like/are irritated from smoke, and i think smokers should not smoke in public places, for respect of them.
I object when laws are passed that force private businesses to comply with such a ban. In Vegas, bars with restaraunts are now expected to ban smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what goes on inside his/her business. Bars with more than 15 gambling machines are immune (considered casinos).
This law hurts the small local operators, who make the lion's share of their income from gamblers who smoke, and put their money into their machines. So these smaller local bars have chosen to either wall off their kitchens, or shut them down completely, putting people out of work. Many other local operators just ignore the law because neither they, nor the State of Nevada, can afford to enforce it.
Well, I'd prefer it if smoking was barred forever, but that won't happen in another 100 years or so. Many places now have designated smoking areas that are remotely away from places where everyone else is, so no one else is affected by the exhalants. I'm so glad they have those now, instead of public smoking, it's so much cleaner. I say its a good thing, but its not a great thing until smoking is swept clean.
I don't think it will ever be completely banned, cigarette companies are way too powerful.
I think it's a good think to have smoking banned in places such as restaurants, etc. In California smoking isn't allowed indoors, even within a certain distance from buildings. But smoking outside, in public areas is generally allowed.
So the only places you can smoke are at home, private property, or outside.
I think it's good because you shouldn't have to force people to inhale toxins. I say do whatever you like, but as long as it's not harming others. And smoking indoors where other people are free to come and go does affect them negatively.
I don't think it will ever be completely banned, cigarette companies are way too powerful.
(I am speaking for the UK i dont know about the US) Cigarrettes are inferior goods, meaning that the poorer you are the more likely you are to smoke. Therefore the government directly intervenes by increasing tax therefore minimising the amount of cigarrettes people can smoke especially if they are from poorer backgrounds. However this tax money is used to fund things like the NHS(national health service) not only to help fellow smokers but goes to all departments helping others too. From an extremely cynical and cold hearted point of view people who smoke die earlier and thererfore do not use up state pensions and benefits in their old age due to smoking so from a governmental perspective the cigarrette industry can be a good thing, which is why it would probably never be banned not just because the cigarrette companies have to much power.
.But other than that pollution is already smoke so what would be the deal, you know?
Even though pollution can have detrimental effects on health it is not comparable to smkoking which increases your chances of getting lung cancer hugely not to mention blood pressure, stunting of growth, loss of apetite, cholesterol and erectile dysfunction (no joke). The worst you would get from pollution in somewhere like the US a country using unleaded fuels is asthma, still serious but when you compare ot what i just mentioned it is small fry.
