smoking is banned in public places

@arjun999 (1004)
India
March 28, 2008 11:51pm CST
This is a relief to all non smokers. But the smokers are not too happy with this law which is now imposed in many countries. What do you think of this law? Please mention whether you are a smoker or not.
4 people like this
13 responses
• United States
3 Apr 08
I am a smoker who is trying to quit, I tend not to smoke around others in a public setting, as I know how it smells when I haven't had a smoke in a few hours. A lot of smokers cry about their rights, but I do not put my "right" to smoke in front of non smokers rights to breath air that does not contain cig smoke.
1 person likes this
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
4 Apr 08
Thats really considerate of you mate. You really care for other people.
@bubblyapple (2655)
• Philippines
2 Apr 08
i think it is a good step towards cleaner air. many may not be aware but smoking contributes to the pollution of our air too! i don't smoke and i do mind if people beside me are smoking. i just can't breathe! now that it is banned on public places then my mind would be at peace with the thought that i don't have to worry whether the person who would be sitting/standing beside in a public place will smoke or not. this may not be a good for one for those who smoke. but even them should know that there are proper places to smoke. that is a place where you don't bother people who are mostly non-smokers.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
3 Apr 08
It is true that our liberties are taken away on pretext of terrorism. Even fundamental rights of people are being taken away. You have mentioned several real issues but smoking is not one of them. I agree with your cause but dont include smoking in it and lower the cause in the minds of the people.
@Perry123 (363)
3 Apr 08
Look. Th Nazis didn't just start by sending Jws to the gas chambr. It was a long process. Their ideas were based on an ideology which held that the Aryan race were superior. o thy started off changing laws. Small law. Thir first law after the Labor laws was to ban th cooking of lobstaers. It was thought that a nlightnd master race would b kind to animals. Foxhunting was alos banned. This was a major thing bcuse or th first time it allowed th state to intrfr with morality. The Stat became the moral guardians of the people. o cours they the also considred that they should guard th health of the mastr race...and as Hitlr was anti smoking, h threw million sof deutschmarks at scinc to prov smoking was bad. They could not. BUT they had to come up with results so they manipulated statistcis. Just like now, they began to change the law and produce dreadful lies as propaganda....making out smokers to be a thrat to the health of the master race. arjun it starts HER don' you get it? It will be TOO LATE later because you will have allowed the State the precednt of interfering with th individual on anything. In the USA you have a Bill of rights but in the UK we DO NOT. It goes on PRECEDENT. It also has implications for th USA though too...a many say it is an infringemnt of human rights. so you HAV to jump on what may sm a small thing to you befor thy start doing worse. the principle NEEDS to be establishd that peoples right are respctd. What may seem unimportant to you SOME of us feel incensed about. "At first they came for the communists but I said nothing because I was not a communist Then they cam for the Jews And I said nothing because I was not a Jew Then thy came for the Trade unioinsts and I said nothing bcause I was not a trade unioist Then they came for the Catholics and I said nothing because I was not a Catholic Then they came for me ...and there was nobody left to speak " Martin Niemoller (on the apathy of grman intllctuals and people to defend the rights of their neighbours) Well they have in the UK come for the smokers and hunters first. If thy get away with that they will go for ethnic minoities and in fact already are. They speak about banning the burka and halal meat for xample. So we fight NOW.
@Perry123 (363)
3 Apr 08
mrs frodota Animals hunt for fun too take a look at a cat with a mouse. All animals are motivated to hunt through adrenalin...and that is what it is about. NOT killing the animal as such but being part of the chase. In foxhunting only the Huntsman will see the animal killed...if indeed it is killed at all. 97% of foxes escape from the hounds....or used to . The object is therefore NOT the killing of the fox. But to DISPERSE the fox away from farmers land and into the woods etc. Only the old sick smelly males are caught as they have the strongest smell. They are also the ones who resort to kiling chickens and lambs because they are easy. So hunting with hounds is also discrimatory: they hunt by smell not sight. So again you are talking and rubbishing something you know NOTHING about and all you do know has been fed into your head with propaganda...and again its a lie. An again you are going to HAVE to fight people to stop it. because there is NO WAY that people in the UK are ever going to stop foxhunting it is an integral part of rural culture. The whole basis of it is that it is considered the fair and correct way to manage other animals who are a nuisance is to give them a fair chance of escape by introducing their natural enemy in nature. So every farm in the uk uses ferrets for too many rabbits Terriers for too many rats cats for mice Hawking for too many pigeons (they defcate in animal feed and cause disease) Now. In the city they use POISON. Whereas it take two seconds for a fox to be killed by a hound by a disabling bite to the back of the neck by the alpha hound; in cities animals are posioned taking up to thr days to die of a burst stomach, taking it back to their young who get the same fate, and then it is eaten by owls and domestic cats and they get poisoned too. SO BEFORE THESE IGNORANT URBAN PEOPLE START TELLING US WHAT TO DO THEY SHOULD PUT THEIR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER FIRST.They are the real one massacring wildlife...millions of rats a day alone. The fox HAS to be controlld in the UK countryside to PROTECT your food. If you want free range chicken you HAVE to control the foxes. Ever seen what a fox can do to half a dozen new born lambs? Shooting and poisoning and snaring them is NOT an option for rural people as it gives the fox no fair chance, and causes suffering. 650 veterinary surgons gave evidence to the Govrnment that fox hunting was NOT cruel. It was ignored. The real reason it was banned (though the law is ignored or got around by using eagles etc or sadly shooting)is out of pure prejudice as it is perceived (wrongly) to be an activity of the rich. People from all walks of life support the Hunt and the biggest ever demonstartion ever in th UK was th countryid alliance march to demonstrate against the ban. Half a million people took part. The government outrageously broke the British Constitution to get it through by reading the PArliament Ac...something only supposed to be used in times of war. The only reason it has not erupted into civil war is that disobedience is working and the next Conservative Government will repeal it anyway. At the moment they are miles ahead in the opinion polls. But there is strong mood for conflict; especially as the governments record on rural affairs is so appalling (foot and mouth etc). Now the reason it has been mentiond at all here is because the Nazis also banned foxhunting. So many many people in the UK now see us as having a fascist govrnment, particularly when they are speaking about eugenics and banning many other liberties and introducing ID cards etc. please read this on the Nazis and animal rights: http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494 Now if you don't want to smoke or go hunting fine.....nobody is forcing you. But when a majority opresses a minority to force their beliefs and ideas on them through the state then it is fascism and it will be fought. So before you think about these things think about the consqunces; and if putting people in prison for smoking and hunting and letting rapists out early because the prisons are full is really worth it. The Police federations are very unhappy about these laws too btw. 2 millon hunters and 13 million smokers have been criminalised in the UK and we simply will not have it. We fought it once before in Europe and will do so again.
@emeraldisle (13145)
• United States
1 Apr 08
I think when it comes to smoking the businesses should have the right to choose for themselves. They know what their customers want and what they want. They should be able to determine if they want to have smoking going on there. Then customers can also choose to frequent a smoking place or a non-smoking facilities. The government shouldn't decide for them. Some studies say smoking causes problems and that second hand smoke does as well. There are also studies that show some benefits. Either way though most of the studies aren't conclusive but even if you say smoking is bad who is to say what else they can limit. What if they decide that something you like is bad for society and will out law it. You let it with smoking why not say cars or cell phones? What will be next for them to limit? Once you let them limit one they can go to another and before you know it your choices are gone.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
1 Apr 08
I think this rule is better applicable to buses, trains etc. Here the people cant affort to miss bcos of some one going. They wont have any option but to breathe the smoke. If people dont want to smoke second hand smoke, its their right as well. They have the right to breathe fresh air free from smoke. Smoke of any form is bad for health. Do you like spending time infront of a bone fire which gives a lot of smoke.
@naseefu (1607)
• India
4 Apr 08
It is good to control smoking in public places.I am not a smoker.But it is very irritating that someone smoke near us.It is good law.HEre in my region also it has.BUt most of the smokers do not take care about it and they continue as they before.There must have a huge fine to this.I think then only they will take it seriously.Thanks arjun
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
8 Apr 08
Thanks for your support Naseefu. I really welcome this law.
@acewings (30)
• United States
2 Apr 08
It's a great law to me because you it greatly reduces your sick of having cancer and heart problems from mainstream and sidestream smoke, I probably mostly like it because I'm a nonsmoker.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
2 Apr 08
I agree with the law too.
• United States
31 Mar 08
I am, or was (for the past 20 days I haven't smoked), a smoker. But I go for the law which restricts places of smokers in respect of those who do not. There was a time when I wasn't smoking and it displeases me when I see persons smoking and blow their smokes to where I am at. So, I guess, when I started to learn how to smoke myself, I kind of was sensitive to the feeling of being irritated at inhaling somebody else's smoke. So I am absolute for a law that restricts, or more properly, locates zones for smokers for them, or us to do our thing.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
1 Apr 08
Thanks for supporting me mate.
@williamjisir (22903)
• China
31 Mar 08
Hello dear arjun. I am very happy for this law to be carried out that smoking is banned in public places. I am non-smoker and hate to see smoking people in public places like bus stations, train stations, restaurants, and on trains and in buses, etc. Smoking is no good at all to our health, especially to those who do not smoke. Passive smoking does worse effect to non-smokers. I think that for the good health of all of us people, it is better not to smoke at all. Thanks for your discussion, arjun.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
1 Apr 08
Thanks Williamhisir, I too feel that we need to breathe fresh air on buses and trains instead of smoke from smokers.
@starr4all (2865)
31 Mar 08
I'm a nonsmoker and I don't agree with this law. Also, second hand smoke is a scape goat. There isn't any actual scientif fact that second hand smoke causes cancer. It's just propoganda. A good research starting point would be to watch Penn and Tellers: Bullsh*t show on showtime. They have experts on it debunking the myth and tell you like it really is.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
1 Apr 08
Ok. I will watch it and get back to you. Thanks for the info.
• Malaysia
29 Mar 08
I'm happy with that law. I'm a non smoker and i hate the smell of smoke. No offence but i don't want to get lung cancer because of passive smoking.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
31 Mar 08
YA mate, nothing is worse than getting diseases due to passive smoking.
• United States
29 Mar 08
I have not heard of this law. I was a smoker a few years back. I had made my daughter cry one time too many. I am smoke free and love it very much. I am glad to hear it as well. But on the other hand I hope they have some where to smoke. I can't imagine them not relieving some stress without a smoke. I think they have all rights to smoke and kill themselves But not to kill others.
@arjun999 (1004)
• India
29 Mar 08
It is a good thing that you have stopped smoking. You have not only saved yourself but your daughter too. These people have no right to kill others by their smoke. I think they should make special lobbies for smokers where they can have a smoke, but in buses and trains it is a strict no.
@tony254 (17)
• United States
15 Apr 08
All I Can Say is Discrimination. Yes I Smoke. Suppose to be A Free Country, But Yet They Restrict Our Lives. This is a Shame. Take A Intersection where no Stop Light Exists, It will Take People Losing Their Lifes, A Lot to Get Them to Put Up Light. It Is A Shame This Has to Be that way, People Use Common Sense In this World, It Would Be Better. Smoking, Like A lot of Places have Separate areas for Smoking. What if They Ban None Smokers From Places will That Be Fair! Desegregation I Don't get it! This Whole Country Has Gone to The Dogs.
@jesbellaine (4157)
• Philippines
12 Apr 08
I am not a smoker so I agree to the law governing that rule. This is to prevent or causing health problem to those who are allergic to "smoke" (like kids or people who has asthma). Sometimes, it bothers me if there is a man smoking around the kids...
• United States
3 Apr 08
I just noticed your discussion as I was posting a link to information which was on the morning's news on TV relating to this subject. Please read: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1460906.aspx