PDA

View Full Version : Ban Smoking in Public?



Sigurd
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 02:11 PM
Well, pretty straightforward. Scotland, England, Ireland and Norway have banned smoking in all public places, some other countries like Germany, Italy and Austria have limited the public places in which one can smoke, and we have just heard of Schiphol Airport going smoke-free.

Either way - do you support the idea of banning smoking in public? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Gefjon
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 02:38 PM
No, smoking should be allowed without, or with few obvious restrictions
Why? Well, cause I'm a smoker and I want to be able to smoke wherever I go. I know it's not an objective answer, but it's a honest one. :D

The Lawspeaker
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Yes, smoking should be banned in all public places.

Yes, by all means. Either smoke out in the etreets (that includes a pub terrace) or in the comfort of your own home.

I used to smoke myself (pipe and cigars) but I start to feel sick now when I am in the pub and too many people around me are lighting whatever they smoke.
If one wants do endanger it's own health, that's fine with me, but don't bring it to bystanders who have nothing to do with it.

No, I'd say, for the sake of public health and a healthy Germanic society: ban it from our public spaces.



Met vriendelijke groet,
Lögsögumaður

mischak
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 03:15 PM
I chose: Yes, smoking should be banned in all public places.

I cannot stand to be around people who smoke, if you want to endanger your own health that's your choice, but don't bring it around me. I also think smoking shouldn't be allowed inside houses or cars where there are children. Even if didn't pose serious health risks I still wouldn't want to be around it seeing as it makes one smell like ass.

Hermelin
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 03:27 PM
I've chosen not to smoke, and I really don't like it when my choice of not poisoning my body is ignored by smokers who indulge in their addiction in my presence. Besides, as mischak put it, smoke stinks like ass, and it makes your hair and clothes stink until you wash them :mad:!

Freydis
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 03:28 PM
I don't like having smoke around me, but in Canada at least, it is too damned cold to expect people to stand 9 metres from the entrance of a building in -40 celsius weather to have a smoke (by law). There used to be a law that had "smoking rooms" that were ventilated (then after some building owners put them in at great cost, the law was made so no smoking inside at all). I think designated smoking areas (at least, and possibly rooms) are fine. Many of my relatives smoke and I have no problem with them lighting up. It's their choice. I don't want to be stupid about it and say that "it's my right to clean air"... it's also their right to dirty air. ^^

Aeternitas
Monday, November 12th, 2007, 03:29 PM
I too despise tobacco smoke and I don't see why I, as a non-smoker, should be forced to put up with the disgusting smell anywhere I go. But I think there should be places where smokers should be able to go and smoke their cigarettes too. So, I think it should be up to the owner of the building/bar/restaurant etc. That way the state wouldn't push either a pro-smoking or an anti-smoking stance on people and they would have options to choose from.

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Yes, I believe smoking should be banned in all public places. It's not my concern if people smoke in private but in public I cannot stand the awful smell and smoke. It's poison.

sophia
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 08:05 PM
On most counts I would say no, but I am concerned about staff who work in smokey environments. Perhaps a rule saying that face masks that filter a certain degree of particulate material must be provided to staff and staff must be allowed to wear them (not required but allowed) in buildings that allow smoking inside them.

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 08:08 PM
I think smoking should not be allowed in buildings ran by the public administration, or in schools, hospitals, etc.

However banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and nightclubs in going too far. No-one has to go to such places. I think in such cases it should be up to the owner of the establishment to decide: I am sure that a totally smoke-free environment would attract some customers, while allowing smoking will attract a different crowd.

I myself don't smoke cigarettes, but like to have a nice cigar or bowl of pipe tobacco now and then, so, as you can imagine, popping out of the pub for a quick smoke to be "enjoyed" on your feet in the cold/rain/snow/sleet isn't really an option.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Yes, by all means, ban it everywhere public!!

I had been a smoker for 13 years (and I always used to ask before lighting one up) and now I realize how much the non-smokers suffer. Living in Greece, not only you are subjected to other people's smoke, but you get intimidated by smokers if you dare ask them put out their cigarette, or even to smoke it outside! :mad:
They act as if it's their "god given right" to smoke and you're the weirdo who should f**k off.

ladybright
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 11:38 PM
I really hate cigarette smoke and do not like cigar or pipe tobacco. However I object to the government telling people what they are allowed to do in private businesses. Any total bans that are larger than citywide really bug me. Citywide it is a local matter and hopefully democracy will work.

I am in favor of smoking not being allowed in hospitals, schools and government buildings. If people want to use private monies to have well ventalated smoking rooms in these facilities I am fine with that. In private businesses it is the owners option.

I dont go smoky places if I can avoid it and have a firm no smoking policy in my house. I will step out to the back porch with a guest any time of year to try to be hospitibile.

Talan
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 12:59 AM
In Tony Harrison's modern interpretation of the Prometheus legend, the heat and light that the smoker conjures into being serves as a token of the human impulse to invention and ingenuity.
Source (http://www.newstatesman.com/200003130025)


[...] Agents choose 'public preferences' which are contrary to their 'private preferences' in order to attain 'reputational utility.' Such 'preference falsification' pushes, in turn, ideas away from private consciousness, originating 'knowledge falsification' (i.e., indoctrination).
Source (http://www.amazon.com/Private-Truths-Public-Lies-Falsification/dp/0674707583)


To be intellectual was to defy the body in favour of the mind, and smoking was merely an outward sign of that choice. [...] [we] smoke to bury [our] memories, then confront them; to demonstrate moral neutrality and then shift to radical hero ennobled by love.
Source (http://newhumanist.org.uk/1422)

Jean-Paul Sartre smoked in public. The dominant framework for understanding mind in contemporary cognitive science evolved from existentialism. Ipso facto, this is reason for leaving the decision to the owner/operator of the building.

Reid
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Controlling the odours that fill our streets is a matter of public interest. We can make an objective olfactory assessment that cigarette smoke is unpleasant, and therefore, without any social benefits to weigh against this, it should be banned. A simple matter with much legal precedent.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Yes, I believe smoking should be banned in all public places. It's not my concern if people smke in private but in public I cannot stand the awful smell and smoke. It's poison.


Controlling the odours that fill our streets is a matter of public interest. We can make an objective olfactory assessment that cigarette smoke is unpleasant, and therefore, without any social benefits to weigh against this, it should be banned. A simple matter with much legal precedent.

So should we just arrest anyone who neglects to wear deodorant or brush their teeth? How bad can it possibly be if someone smokes out in the open? I don't think anyone has the right to walk around in public and expect to be enclosed in a virtual sphere into which nothing that offends them may be smelled, heard, or seen.

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 03:55 AM
If it was an ideal world than smoking, at all, would be banned. Smoking does nothing good for people and society, so why have it? Just because some people think it's cool or they're just addicted is even more of a reason to ban it.

But since it's not, I could settle with ban of smoking in heavily concentrated public areas.

Sigurd
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 04:15 AM
It is kind of interesting how ex-smokers are often the most militant anti-smokers, worse than those non-smokers who have no smoking friends.

Anyway, here goes my own opinion. Now, now, I may be a smoker at present and it will sound a little like the stereotypical smoker's rant to some, but I even held exactly the same views on this during my 6-monthly intermezzo as a non-smoker.

I believe that it should be banned in government buildings and the likes, with a smoking area maybe provided outside and at the back, as well as maybe a secluded one inside for the Staff. If you go to a courtroom or a parliament session, you expect to be in a formal, cleanly and proper atmosphere.

Local public transport should be non-smoking, usually ventilation is bad, and surely no one can be so addicted as to not be able to withhold the urge to smoke for half an hour. Long-distance public transport should however cater for smokers: Trains should have two smoking compartments, one at either end, and as regards planes the air was actually healthier when smoking was still allowed, because paradoxically clean air would be pumped into the cabin more frequently, as the rate of ventilation obviously needs to be higher to deal with the smoke.

For other public places I propose a compromise: Pubs, restaurants and other venues who have only a single room, or an area of less than 75 square metres should be able to choose whether they want their entire premises to be either smoking or non-smoking.

Those places that have multiple rooms, or an area of more than 75 square metres, should be obliged to install one smoking and one non-smoking area... many cafes, pubs and restaurants have multiple rooms/lounges separated by staircases, hallways or other passageways that prevent the smoke from evading, especially here in the UK.

The final concern will surely be that of the Staff that work at the place, and their health. Now I see where one would be coming from in a country like Germany, or Austria, where your drinks are brought to your table more often than not, but I cannot see the issue in the UK, where you are expected to collect your drinks from the bar: If you have a bar room and a lounge room - why not have people collect their drinks, and maybe even food, from the bar room (which would sensibly be non-smoking) and then move on into the lounge room if they wish to smoke.

Either way, with about 35% of all adults smoking, I find it important that a compromise should be met, as there are obviously the smokers, the non-smokers who aren't bothered, and the non-smokers who are bothered...and all groups being relatively equal in numbers.

I have also heard the argument by the way that it will improve the atmosphere in a pub, and maybe even get people to stop smoking, and it will finally make everything cleaner? Oh, really? Ever since smoking was banned in enclosed public places here in Scotland:
You are now able to smell the sweat and farts in a pub...surely not a pleasant smell either?
It has made smoking social again. Friendships are made whilst smoking outside because you meet random people you would have never talked to otherwise. Also, if you are the only non-smoker out with a group of smokers, you are more or less bound to head outside with them or be left alone at a table. Many people start that way...and are still passive smoking either way, if they don't.
Made everything cleaner? With the City Councils not seeing themselves responsible to clean sidewalks, a semi-blind person could tell where the entrances to pubs are: Cigarette buds all over the place that would otherwise have been deposed of in a


PS: And on a side note: If I walk down a busy road during rush hour for ten minutes I suppose I inhale more toxic smoke than by sitting in the smoking compartment of a train for an hour. So instead of bitching about how smoking inside adversely influences our health, people should rather look at the damage they are doing themselves by often driving cars that are anything but environmentally friendly. ;)

Beornulf
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 04:17 AM
I originally thought this thread was implying that smokers should only smoke on their own property, like it was some horrible drug or something.

Indoors it shouldn't be smoked. Children and such shouldn't inhale second hand smoke if they don't want to (;)) designated zones are fine though.

I'm a smoker by the way, for now.

Reid
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 10:27 PM
So should we just arrest anyone who neglects to wear deodorant or brush their teeth? How bad can it possibly be if someone smokes out in the open? I don't think anyone has the right to walk around in public and expect to be enclosed in a virtual sphere into which nothing that offends them may be smelled, heard, or seen.
Those are more complicated examples - some people have health-related problems in that regard, and it's hard to stop yourself from stinking after running, playing sports, etc. When it comes to cigarette smoke however, there's no such excuse. Smokers can chew nicontine gum in public if they really have to.

We might only want to ban it in denser parts of cities, as Elysium suggested. It's a bit of a ridiculous image to have someone sitting down on a hill in the countryside and not being able to light up. But again, part of the aim of such a law would be to get people to stop smoking in the first place.

Galloglaich
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 10:49 PM
I voted to leave it up to the discretion of the property owner. We see more and more property rights whittled away as society "progressively" takes the plunge into nannyism. It's absurd. As far as actual public property (courtrooms, etc.) is concerned, I don't have a problem with prohibiting people from smoking indoors, as smokers are not theoretically the only people constituting the ownership of said property. Governmental micromanagement and loss of freedom will ruin our society long before second hand smoke ever will.

I'm not a smoker, BTW.

Loyalist
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 11:14 PM
Tobacco products should be proscribed entirely; they carry no benefit, beyond government tax revenue collected at the cost of lives. Banning the aforementioned in public areas is the very least that can be done.

Freydis
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 11:19 PM
Usually if one is in an area without people (such as the aforementioned hill) it wouldn't really matter. I don't see exactly how a ban can be enforced sometimes.

Sissi
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Austria has a hysterical attitude towards smoking. You see non-smoking signs everywhere! I understand that ex-smokers and non-smokers don't like the smell and everything, they don't want to be forced to inhale it. But we smokers don't want to be forced either. Banning smoking is forcing us to let go of our habit. I only smoke occasionally anyway, but I don't like the state nannying my life. No, I don't think smoking should be banned in most places. It shouldn't be allowed in hospitals, I certainly agree with that. Other buildings like governmental facilities, schools & universities, malls, restaurants, pubs, should have smoking and non-smoking areas designated. The same with public transport like trains, subway, trams, etc. Taxies should allow smoking since they transport a client at a time. Not allowing smoking in taxies because it bothers the driver is as justified as not allowing dogs, alcohol or other things which offend Muslims. The taxi driver is a caterer, so if he wants to make money he should put up with the habits of his clients.

Pino
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 09:59 PM
yes ban it everywhere! Infact outlaw smoking!

It amazes me why people continue to pay completely over inflated prices to kill themselfs!

Well if they want to do this then it must not effect other people! I should not have to choose another restraunt to eat at because of fear of dieing if I go into a smoking restraunt! Thats not freedom of choice thats ludacris.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 10:06 PM
yes ban it everywhere! Infact outlaw smoking!

It amazes me why people continue to pay completely over inflated prices to kill themselfs!

Well if they want to do this then it must not effect other people! I should not have to choose another restraunt to eat at because of fear of dieing if I go into a smoking restraunt! Thats not freedom of choice thats ludacris.
Outlaw colestrol, alcohol, guns, cars, fire, etc. They kill, you know. :oanieyes

Life is like that, sometimes you have to put up with stuff you don't like and you can't ban it all. I should not have to put up with idiocy, but sometimes, that's inevitable. http://forums.skadi.net/images/smilies/pantheon_europa/crying21.gif

I guess you can figure out what my position is already. ;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 10:16 PM
yes ban it everywhere! Infact outlaw smoking!

It amazes me why people continue to pay completely over inflated prices to kill themselfs!

Well if they want to do this then it must not effect other people! I should not have to choose another restraunt to eat at because of fear of dieing if I go into a smoking restraunt! Thats not freedom of choice thatshttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:S-NQDxxuslO00M:http://www.tradebit.com/usr/djmixtapez/pub/9002/Ludacris-The-Def.A.Nition.jpg.

Nobody is requiring you to go into a smoking restaurant, whereas you are proposing that every smoker should be forced to always enter non-smoking areas. The rule least burdensome to the populace in general is to allow both smoking and non-smoking locations and let people enter the one of their choosing.

Pørdy Mountain
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 10:51 PM
Well.. I'm not sure what I feel. As a smoker I guess I'd like to light up my cigarette after eating dinner at a restaurant, but as we've had this ban for a while I've gotten used to going outside and I have no problems doing that (other than during winter time.. freezing cold, snow or rain and no form of shelter provided).

I don't like that smoking is banned from airports though. Seeing as I work at one I have to tell a billion people every day that, yes - this is a non-smoking airport and no, there is no doors I can secretly open so that they can have 5 mins outside with their cigarette. Now, that is usually on quiet days. When there are 3, 4, 5 or 6 hours delay on flights I really feel bad for the smokers, and I wonder why they can't provide for a designated area, capsule it in if you'd like, no one else needs to smell a thing, but for my safety, let them have a cigarette before they turn to alcohol and starts getting really nasty.

There was a discussion about banning all smoking downtown where I live, they didn't even mention having designated smoking areas, but luckily it got voted down. There's where I draw the line. The air is for everyone.. and If I choose to pollute my share of it with either my car or my cigarette it's my choice. (And I do both :P)

Patrioten
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 01:06 AM
I support heavy taxation on cigarettes, but on the issue of smoking bans I'm split. I enjoy not having to be in a smoke filled environment if I am at a restaurant or in a nightclub, which would be unthinkable if there wasn't a ban since all it takes is a few smokers to ensure a constant smell of tobacco, but at the same time I don't think it is up to the government to ban legal products from being used on private property which is what bars, restaurants and nightclubs constitutes in the end, if you want to ban it from being used on private property you should ban the product itself first (I would prefer to see a continued raising of the tax on cigarettes instead in an attempt to channel tobacco users over to snus, a product which should instead see a tax cut).

Sigurd
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 08:49 AM
All those who are annoyed about smoking being banned to higher and higher extents in all convenient smokers' places should consider, investing in a so-called "electrical cigarette".

http://www.esmoker.de/

Happy customer who can now "smoke" in the airport, the bakery and those pubs that forbid it reporting here. The only issue is that the company produces them outwith Germany to be cost-effective ... but the idea is great. ;)


Austria has a hysterical attitude towards smoking. You see non-smoking signs everywhere!

Yes, alas, in order to be in line with the rest of the EU, the best regulation regarding smoking/non-smoking was ditched the other day. Quite a shame. :(

Rozenstorm
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 10:55 AM
Although I'm not a capitalist, the market clears this problem perfectly. If the owner wants to permit smoking he will be rewarded or punished by the accordingly to demand to his establishment. So, just like I decide if there can be smoking in my house, the owner can decide if there's smoking allowed in his pub or establishment. It's another case in real public places of course (i.e common property), that then up to the public.

Vindefense
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I voted no. Leave it up to the establishment and Todesengel said it perfectly:


Life is like that, sometimes you have to put up with stuff you don't like and you can't ban it all. I should not have to put up with idiocy, but sometimes, that's inevitable.


If you believe in freedom, that is.

I smoke pipe tobacco and cigars, but before they issued a pulic ban in my State, I hardly ever smoked in public. But I liked having the choice if I wanted too. Now they fine the establishment, and we now have another needless law that serves no purpose other than to extract money from business owners. Now they are going after the tobacco retailers, as well. http://www.heartland.org/article/24637/Cigarette_Tax_Would_Triple_Under_35_Bill ion_SCHIP_Plan.html

The question no one wants to answer is, when tobacco retailers go bottom up, and tobacco sales are reduced 75%, how will the state get along without the huge tax revenues, it has been accustomed to. Funding which substantiates a large percentage of State budgets. What then?

Bärin
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009, 10:00 PM
Yes and not only. Tobacco should be illegal like other drugs. People don't need tobacco, it's a vice. I'm not a supporter of freedom for all with the price of letting people kill themselves and others around them. I know many parents smoke in the presence of their children. That's irresponsible and disgusting. Tobacco should be confiscated and so should the money earned for it. The money spent on tobacco could be used for pro-German reasons.

Sigurd
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 12:08 AM
I assume you feel the same then about alcohol, and possibly coffee? :)

Ragnar Lodbrok
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 09:21 PM
I assume you feel the same then about alcohol, and possibly coffee? :)

I know I don't feel the same way about coffee, alcohol or similiarly candy or soda.(I feel that alcohol has more in common with these then actual drugs. I tend to think of it as just an undietary snack.):thumbup

But I really don't think that smoking is appropriate in public places, don't go giving everyone your second hand smoke or your ash tray smell, do that stuff at home.:thumbup

Bärin
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 10:48 PM
I assume you feel the same then about alcohol, and possibly coffee? :)
Yes. :)

Sigurd
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 10:54 PM
But I really don't think that smoking is appropriate in public places, don't go giving everyone your second hand smoke or your ash tray smell, do that stuff at home.

The thing is - I always actually find it offensive if people assume outright that we smokers are absolutely uncaring, selfish people who make people inhale our smoke because we couldn't care less.

Growing up with young siblings, I have pretty much since Day 1 gone outside to smoke. In boarding school, this was obviously also a must: We had our own smoking area - whoever did not smoke and came along with us did so of their free mind.

In Scotland, you already have the Smoking Ban enforced anyway - and I quite like it for the reason that smoking has become social again: You convene outside the pub and start chattering away, meeting people you'd never have met before. This is actually how I got two flats - meeting the landlord (in one case) or the other tenants (in the other case) outside a pub for a cigarette. ;)

Back home in Austria - if I head for a pint in my standard pub, well ... I know who I am seated with, so I know that they do not mind. All others know that it's a smoking pub and if they don't like it, then they have every choice not to enter it.

Yet if at home I'm just sitting in a cafe, I always ask first whether anyone at the table minds if I smoke --- to this day, I even ask my parents if they mind, even though I know that they don't.

If I stand at a bus stop, I always make sure to blow it away from little children, always stand beside the bus shelter (may it rain as much as it may well do), and I always blow into the opposite direction of where others waiting for the bus stand.

I have been brought up well and have always considered it common decency to ask people if they minded whether I lighted up. If in doubt, I always went outside (One is even a smoker, but prefers to not have smoking going on inside his flat --- so we just all head onto his balcony, easy as that!). As such, I generally do find it a little arrogant if people assume that we're all selfish and don't care a little bit for the health of others.

I know that there are many people who are less considerate - but that could be anything: If a few people who are inconsiderate are to ruin it for all, let's ban listening to music because a few party till stupid o'clock, let's ban drinking because a few neds/chavs do it in the roads and let's generally ban computer games because a few take them as an incitement to violence. :|


Yes.

Well, if you're all for Straight Edge, then all my respect for you. It's not a way for me, but I appreciate and respect all that do that. Just testing you for possible hypocrisy there (as it is oft experienced in this subject area), but at least glad to see that you're consistent, even though I disagree with your opinion on the subject. :thumbup

Bärin
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 11:14 PM
Well, if you're all for Straight Edge, then all my respect for you. It's not a way for me, but I appreciate and respect all that do that. Just testing you for possible hypocrisy there (as it is oft experienced in this subject area), but at least glad to see that you're consistent, even though I disagree with your opinion on the subject. :thumbup
Alcohol is one of the worst drugs. It's worse than some illegal drugs. And yes, I'm all for straight edge. I wasn't a junkie. And I wasn't allowed to smoke and drink for the time I was pregnant and I didn't after either because I don't want the milk my baby gets contaminated. But even if it was allowed I still wouldn't have the interest. I won't ever. It's poison. Many babies come out malformed because the mothers smoke and drink. And coffee gives me stomach problems so I won't drink that either. If I can live without it, so can anyone else. Take smoking and drinking out of a person's life and you save a lot of money and health. We need a healthy German nation, by force if necessary. I couldn't care less for the vices of weaklings.

Blood_Axis
Friday, February 20th, 2009, 02:57 PM
Take smoking and drinking out of a person's life and you save a lot of money and health.

That's unfortunately very true...and to think that they are central features of western societies.

By the way, I recently calculated how much money my boyfriend would save if he quit smoking. It's about...200 euros / month :-O

*consider also that average wages in Greece are about 700-800 euros monthly, literally 1/4 of smokers' paychecks goes to cigarettes. :| ...Idiots! :D

Thusnelda
Friday, February 20th, 2009, 04:27 PM
I think banning smoking in all public places is okay. But it shouldn´t lead to the consequence that smokers are being treat (or seen) as lepers. I don´t smoke but I´m not one of these hysterical and radical anti-smokers who nag the whole day if someones smokes a cigarette nearby. Some of my friends smoke and I´ve no problem if they smoke one or two cigarettes in a "smoking bar" or in my room - I open the window and that´s it. :)

Vindefense
Friday, February 20th, 2009, 06:06 PM
As posted by Barin:


We need a healthy German nation, by force if necessary. I couldn't care less for the vices of weaklings.

You would use tyranny to fight tyranny? You will not succeed. You compel me to respond to such none sense::thumbdown

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem

When government reaches the stage that it must compel the people to do right, It must depend upon force or coercion. Likewise, such force is naturally opposed, in the way of resistance. There are some through out the epoch of time who have brought down this force upon the individual, and likewise they have been thrown off by the masses. Government by definition, is a collected group of individuals, formed to ensure that life and property are preserved.

What then when government no longer meets these requirements, and instead uses it's force against the people? Then, I say it is no longer government, instead it is tyranny. And it can be said that every day it is allowed to exist injustice reigns. Communism in turn, is the ultimate form of injustice against the people and it is the primary enemy of the Germanic spirit. A spirit, which has always fostered the ideal of liberty. Everywhere Germanic cultures have flourished this is the case. This disease called Communism is the final stage of oppressive government. It is the stage where injustice is most evident and the people are the most hopelessly oppressed. A utopia dream that only works by destroying the human spirit. No, I can find no redeeming aspects of Communism for Germanics. The writings of Marx and Engels are poison to the Germanic heritage, and as such should be rooted out before they infest and infect the glorious ideal of freedom.

Morality, and health is not something government can dictate, but what every individual must learn by using their extended faculties. This starts with education, upbringing, and awareness. When governments use force the people are right to use force back. Natural Law, and why tyranny does not sit well with the Germanic spirit, hence most oppressive nations are non-Germanic. I not only disagree with the smoking ban, but with any other victimless law which takes away the choice of the individual and instead uses force and coercion.

There is evil in the world yes, but you would eradicate it only to wield a new evil? One more sinister and oppressive. To what end?

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, February 21st, 2009, 10:45 AM
In my view it smoking should be banned except in areas especially designated for it. If someone wants he could open a "smokers bar".


You are now able to smell the sweat and farts in a pub...surely not a pleasant smell either?
It's not pleasant at all but honestly cigarette smoke is just as bad. What's better, to eliminate one source of bad smell, or to add one extra? The answer is only one and very clear to me. I'd like to avoid as many bad smells as possible and if I had the chance I'd support mandatory hygiene too.


PS: And on a side note: If I walk down a busy road during rush hour for ten minutes I suppose I inhale more toxic smoke than by sitting in the smoking compartment of a train for an hour. So instead of bitching about how smoking inside adversely influences our health, people should rather look at the damage they are doing themselves by often driving cars that are anything but environmentally friendly. ;)
Yes it's true but cars serve a constructive purpose too. Peoples need cars to get to work, university, hospital. It's not comparable in my view with cigarette smoke. Tobacco is a pleasure, it's hedonism. I've nothing against some hedonism but not at the cost of ruining the healths of bystanders. In my view the priorities for a healthier life and healthier environment should be first to eliminate the damage done by unnecessary items. The fuels of the cars are starting to be replaced and it's being worked on making less damaging to the environment solutions.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, February 21st, 2009, 02:37 PM
If someone wants he could open a "smokers bar"

Unfortunately, the anti-smoking laws being passed in western states do not allow for a "smokers bar", and in fact expressly prohibit them.



By the way, I recently calculated how much money my boyfriend would save if he quit smoking. It's about...200 euros / month :-O

*consider also that average wages in Greece are about 700-800 euros monthly, literally 1/4 of smokers' paychecks goes to cigarettes. :| ...Idiots! :D

They are dirt cheap in Romania (at least they were a few years ago, before they joined the EU). Now you can tell him to take you on a trip to see Dracula's tomb and it will pay for itself :thumbup

I've also seen some Russian websites selling cigs. Unfortunately, shipping to the US makes them cost prohibitive, but they might work for you.

Bärin
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 04:25 PM
When government reaches the stage that it must compel the people to do right, It must depend upon force or coercion.
If that's the price it has to pay for people living proper lives then so be it.


Likewise, such force is naturally opposed, in the way of resistance. There are some through out the epoch of time who have brought down this force upon the individual, and likewise they have been thrown off by the masses.
You are saying masses of people will revolt because of a smoking ban? Keep dreaming. The threat of revolt shouldn't stand in the way of doing what's right anyway. You would advocate race mixing if a majority of people supported it? :thumbdown


Government by definition, is a collected group of individuals, formed to ensure that life and property are preserved.
Life is not preserved when you put harmful substances into your body. Shooting up heroin is illegal, snorting cocaine is illegal, smoking weed is illegal, so should smoking tobacco. It's a drug, and it's poison to the body.


Communism in turn, is the ultimate form of injustice against the people and it is the primary enemy of the Germanic spirit. A spirit, which has always fostered the ideal of liberty.

blah blah blah
On the contrary liberal and libertarian notions are new to the "Germanic spirit". You liberals love to shout these slogans but I haven't seen any proof that Germanics are inherently liberal.


There is evil in the world yes, but you would eradicate it only to wield a new evil? One more sinister and oppressive. To what end?
There is nothing evil about preserving healthy lives. It's the drugs which are evil. Drug users and supporters of drug use are not really preservationists, they advocate irresponsibility and gambling with lives.

Sigurd
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 06:15 PM
Life is not preserved when you put harmful substances into your body. Shooting up heroin is illegal, snorting cocaine is illegal, smoking weed is illegal, so should smoking tobacco. It's a drug, and it's poison to the body.

Not to forget coffee, not to forget most prescription medication. Ban those as well, seeing that it's a drug and poison to the body in sufficient amounts? :)

Unity Mitford
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 06:52 PM
I think it should be allowed in pubs, clubs and bars but not offices or restaurants or anywhere frequented by children.

Þoreiðar
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 06:56 PM
Drug users and supporters of drug use are not really preservationists, they advocate irresponsibility and gambling with lives.No, we advocate the very opposite - that every individual take responsibility for their life, instead of relying on the state to do it for them. By removing the aspect of self-responsability in society, you're only creating more weak-willed people, dependent on extrinsic forces to lead their lives.

Erlkönig
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 10:51 PM
It's a drug, and it's poison to the body.

Alle Ding' sind Gift und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis macht, das ein Ding' kein Gift ist.

- Paracelsus

Neophyte
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 11:02 PM
Not to forget coffee, not to forget most prescription medication. Ban those as well, seeing that it's a drug and poison to the body in sufficient amounts? :)

No you have to carefully analyse the consequences before you make any such decision. I have no need for tobacco -- even though I occasionally enjoy it -- but I estimate that without coffee my productivity would drop by 23.234%. :P

Van Wellenkamp
Thursday, January 19th, 2012, 12:38 AM
I dont smoke but I don't see were it is the Governments buisness to tell us anything. If I go to a public place that is smokey and it bothers me, I have the ability to leave. I do prefer smoke free establishments though.

Neophyte
Thursday, January 19th, 2012, 02:22 AM
I dont smoke but I don't see were it is the Governments buisness to tell us anything. If I go to a public place that is smokey and it bothers me, I have the ability to leave. I do prefer smoke free establishments though.

I don't know what a public place exactly is where you live, but over here it is basically any place that is either not someone's home or in the middle of the woods. So I think that it is very well within the government's purview to e.g. ban smoking in the public transport system. Regarding pubs, clubs and restaurants I would not be that categorical, even though I personally appreciate and enjoy the public smoke ban over here.

I also believe, which is important, that a society, on the collective level, has a right to self-regulation.

Thorolf
Thursday, January 19th, 2012, 02:32 AM
I think it should be our choice where we smoke. Say I own a bar, why should it be the governments business if i let people smoke in my bar. It isn't the governments bar its mine, so it should be my choice.

Van Wellenkamp
Thursday, January 19th, 2012, 11:09 AM
I don't know what a public place exactly is where you live, but over here it is basically any place that is either not someone's home or in the middle of the woods. So I think that it is very well within the government's purview to e.g. ban smoking in the public transport system. Regarding pubs, clubs and restaurants I would not be that categorical, even though I personally appreciate and enjoy the public smoke ban over here.

I also believe, which is important, that a society, on the collective level, has a right to self-regulation.

I can see your point. Public transportation and such that the Government controls ok. But my own Bar or on the street, I cant give them that authority, they will just abuse it eventually as they always do. It is not their place.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, January 19th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Life is not preserved when you put harmful substances into your body. Shooting up heroin is illegal, snorting cocaine is illegal, smoking weed is illegal, so should smoking tobacco. It's a drug, and it's poison to the body.

The only reasonable argument against smoking in public is its passive effect on others. Smokers make a choice not only about their own health, but also the health of those around them. As such, you could make the argument that public smoking is much worse than snorting cocaine or drinking diesel oil.

But from any angle, it's a business owner's decision what he permits on his premises, and certainly not the government's. There's absolutely no good reason why it should be illegal to open a 'smokers' pub' even in a town that already has several easily accessible non-smoking pubs. And if indoor smoking were again legalised everywhere, I'd say that now people have had a sample of fresh-air drinking, there would be a huge demand for most establishments to remain that way, at best opening a well-ventilated smoking room for the minority of customers that want to light up. Maybe my perception's skewed, since I stick to fairly up-market pubs, but I think it'd hurt most business owners not to heed the interests of their healthy customers.

But if clean pubs did die out, it'd be because there was no demand, and if there's no demand, it's because nobody cares, meaning it's the will of the people and not something for the law to mandate against.

Ward
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 03:34 AM
You are saying masses of people will revolt because of a smoking ban? Keep dreaming. The threat of revolt shouldn't stand in the way of doing what's right anyway. You would advocate race mixing if a majority of people supported it? :thumbdown

Well, I live in a city where smoking was banned in public establishments a few years ago. I remember when the ban was first announced, local smokers were coughing and wheezing in outrage over their loss of "freedom." Interestingly enough, however, soon afterwards, as their addictions adjusted to the decreased opportunities to satisfy them, many of them came to actually embrace the new law. By having some restrictions placed on the amount of carcinogenic crap they could inhale, they started feeling more healthy and energetic, and thus better about themselves in general.

I guess the moral of this story is that some people did indeed know what was better for the smokers than the smokers did themselves, and the smokers were in fact liberated from their own self-destructive compulsion. :)

Erlkönig
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 06:00 PM
I guess the moral of this story is that some people did indeed know what was better for the smokers than the smokers did themselves, and the smokers were in fact liberated from their own self-destructive compulsion. :)

I would prefer to partake in a potentially lethal activity over becoming a coward obsessed with his own mortality, who only to grows into a decrepit old sponge on their family and the economy.

Ælfrun
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 06:35 PM
Smoking is absolutely disgusting! It smells horrible, and leaves smokers constantly coughing and hacking. I think that banning smoking in public is silly but smokers should be considerate and not bring their dusgusibg habits around non smokers. Not all of us want to smell that nastiness or breathe in that filth!

KingOvGermania
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 06:58 PM
Smoking is absolutely disgusting! It smells horrible, and leaves smokers constantly coughing and hacking. I think that banning smoking in public is silly but smokers should be considerate and not bring their dusgusibg habits around non smokers. Not all of us want to smell that nastiness or breathe in that filth!

I would have to agree with you... I don't smoke myself, nor would I even consider doing it. Some of my friends smoke, and they seem to regret it. But banning it in public wouldn't work, people would do it in private, and I doubt the smoking rates would change too drastically. If you would wanna be logical, you'd ban smoking period, and that would work even less, because that would create a HUUUUUUGE black market for tobacco, like with marijuana, heroin, coke, etc.
To sum it up: No, I don't believe it should be banned, but I don't advocate it at all personally.
Don't even get me started on inconsiderate smokers.... ugh, I put up with them all the time, but it's inevitable, sadly. :/

Frostbite
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 10:21 PM
Here they want to ban smoking in your car if your kids are in it.

I'm conflicted about it, on one hand kids shouldn't be exposed to smoke because they can't get away. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of the state telling me what I can do in my car.

Neophyte
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 11:06 PM
...and on yet another hand, since kids usually do not have much of a choice about whether to be in the car or not it might be a good idea to protect them.

Juthunge
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 11:20 PM
It should be common sense not to smoke when you have children around you, especially in a space as small as a car. If something as obvious as this has to be enforced by law it's a sad state of affairs.

In my opinion smoking should be banned in all closed public places.
Yet the hosts of inns and pubs and thelike should be free to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not, after all no one's forcing non-smokers to visit these places.

Ekonhammer
Friday, February 17th, 2012, 08:26 PM
There is no deadlier poison than tobaco and its lethal nicotine. One of the greatest, and most digusting punishments Germany has had to endure is the re-popularization of this foul weed following the end of the last war. The children of Central Europe hold the world record for consuming this poison.

I spent a month in Budapest last year. I could not breathe the whole time I was there. Every damn Hungarian has a cigarette hanging from his mouth. In restaurants, they don't eat; they just smoke. There is no refuge from the gray clouds. Even when I ran to the banks of the Danube for air, I found the promenade on the river lined with miserable tobaco addicts. Even at the park at the top of Mount Buda, they were puffing madly away!

It is the scourage of Europe, and any self respecting parent would never allow their offspring to fall victim to this ugliest form of self-disrespect! We are Europeans, we should be able to rise above such utter stupidity!

Give the stuff back to the Turks and let them eat it!

TexMum
Friday, March 9th, 2012, 01:05 AM
There are lovely propaganda posters from the 1930's which warned of the danger of smoking. Second hand smoke has killed loved ones. A healthy society, particularly one with socialist or group healthcare cannot afford to permit people to shift the costs and responsibilities to others. Accidents are one thing. Denying damage to one's body while allowing profit is another. This year our Blue Cross requires you to certify you do not smoke. Since they are motivated by costs and profits, this certainly means other corps will follow.

hyidi
Friday, March 9th, 2012, 02:21 AM
Smokers say they have the right to smoke anywhere' they had CHOSEN to smoke,this does not mean they have the right in smoking everywhere.
NON-smokers have the right to complain' after all' it is our health is being destroyed by the smokers! If a smoker wants too kill himself than so be it' but why should non-smokers endure 2nd hand smoke installation IN OUR LUNGS? We never smoked it.

For Germanic's sake it should be banned IN our countries' it's bad for health and aging and fertilization. Unfortunately' making money is more important too our governments than our healths.

Yes I am a NON-SMOKER, So sue me' Don't care! Smoking should be banned! Can't stand the smell of this crap!

That is my honest answer!