Talk:Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?

Comments

The current legal measures to curtail smokers from using their "drug of choice" in public settings stems from the "second-hand smoke" issue, (which is far from "settled science"). That smoking directly effects smokers is not disputed and there is good reason to restrict smoking based solely on such direct effects: the question then becomes, whether the power of the state should be brought to bear on people who, well aware of the dangers and effects of smoking, choose to smoke regardless.
If the science of second hand smoke is shaky then any laws passed upon such science is equally suspect as the government which passes such laws should only try to maintain the law(s) if the original intent was to save lives from the effects of second-hand smoke. Should the "science" dissipate like...smoke...then the laws "protect" no-one save the power of the state over the individual, which is anathema to Conservatives. Marge 14:25, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

That's a fair point, Margery, but I didn't want to restrict the debate to being only about second-hand smoke, but about any and all aspects of smoking. This offers the broadest range of input, your comments included.

As for second-hand smoke, there seems to be some debate about the degree to which it's harmful, but I'm surprised that there's debate as to whether it is harmful. If I go to home with smokers, my clothes smell like an ashtray after a few hours, so there's no doubt that those particles are getting into my lungs as well. When someone smokes nearby, even outdoors at a cookout, my eyes water and it triggers a cough if the smoke blows my way. What smokers do privately is their business, but I shouldn't have to be impacted by it, and it's the very nature of smoke to travel and affect an area, not an individual.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness works both ways, so just as we accept restrictions on playing music annoyingly loud in open, public spaces, there's nothing un-American about restrictions on a practice like smoking that can be equally annoying in open, public spaces. --DinsdaleP 14:57, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

...but the restrictions have gone considerably beyond that, Dinsdale. While I'm not a smoker, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that to their lungs, I object to policies that dictate to property owners what they can and can't do with their property. If the owner of a restaurant, bar, or similar facility wishes to allow smoking, they should have that right; customers who object to second-hand smoke will vote with their wallets. --Benp 15:12, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

That has not proven to be the European experience. Practically all owners of restaurants, bars, etc., have been so afraid to lose customers if they had unilaterally banned smoking that practially none have done so.Dealing with the problem of second-hand smoke effectively has taken legislation to make sure that all restaurateurs are put on an equal footing, so to say. Also, some restrictions and requirements concerning what owners of publicly-accessible properties can do are obviously necessary. Can't have a restaurant without fire exits, either, however much it may annoy the owner to have to install them. --AKjeldsen 15:19, 22 July 2008 (EDT)