Should smoking of cigarettes be illegalized in the publicity?

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

Cigarettes are not only dangerous for smokers. Many passive smokers suffer from the same health implications like smokers. Headaches, sickness, asthma right up to lung cancer. About 600.000 people died of passive smoking every year. The smell of cigarettes smoke is a huge problem for non smokers especially on parties.

So I would like to ask you, if smoking should only be legalized in special places (at home, in special pubs or sth. else.)?

Edited April 26, 2014 by MisterIceTeaPeach

[Naughx]

Also do like Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging

[MercyWalk]

Also do like Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging

That really doesn't work. When the plain packaging rule went into effect the shock value of the graphic images were minute, in the end all it did was cause certain brands to avoid selling their product in Australia.

Smoking is generally banned in almost all indoor areas within Australia minus private houses, I believe this is a step in the right direction, as for being restricted to public areas, this is a very hard and costly thing to do. A few years ago there was a dispute between the state and a citizen over a fine for smoking in a park, it took over a year to settle it and wasted valuable resources (money and time) for both parties, I do not remember who won but the conclusion was that unless you have very specific and physically outlined rules, there will always be similar cases, wasting the governments time and money.

Smoking should be heavily taxed as it already has been in Australia, driving prices up to around the 20 dollar mark has single handedly caused my dad to reduce his smoking habits.

[tuvarkz]

Yes, I hate walking by the streets and a cloud of smoke getting into my nose from some random smoker.

[Arch]

Fuck it. Live and let live.

[Sasori]

I'm a smoker myself and I like doing it outside, so my answer would be no. I do think people should at least consider their surroundings though. I think its perfectly okay to do so in a wide area, but I would never light one in a crowded area since that's kind of rude.

[tuvarkz]

Fuck it. Live and let live.

Problem is when their smoke gets into other people's respiratory systems. I'd rather not get in a situation varying from mild displeasure to a coughing fit at random while going to college or to the supermarket

[Tryhard]

Smokers get enough shit, and while I do think it's a poor personal decision, I don't think you should restrict them in public areas that aren't crowded.

Though when smokers literally smoke under the no-smoking sign at a bus stop, that pisses me off.

[blyegg]

Yes. I hate going to a supermarket or walking home from school and having to hold my breath.

[Thor Odinson]

Maybe have some designated areas for smokers in public areas that are outdoors but out of the way for other people? I'm against restricting people's personal decisions, but on the other hand, I really don't want to inhale/smell any of that stuff when I'm just trying to get to class and there's a smoker walking in the same exact direction right in front of me at a speed not quite easily passable. I imagine it'd be even worse for people who may have existent respiratory issues, as well.

It'd be nice to just ban it in crowded areas, but it's hard to legally define what's considered crowded and what not.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

Also do like Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging

That really doesn't work. When the plain packaging rule went into effect the shock value of the graphic images were minute, in the end all it did was cause certain brands to avoid selling their product in Australia.

Smoking is generally banned in almost all indoor areas within Australia minus private houses, I believe this is a step in the right direction, as for being restricted to public areas, this is a very hard and costly thing to do. A few years ago there was a dispute between the state and a citizen over a fine for smoking in a park, it took over a year to settle it and wasted valuable resources (money and time) for both parties, I do not remember who won but the conclusion was that unless you have very specific and physically outlined rules, there will always be similar cases, wasting the governments time and money.

Smoking should be heavily taxed as it already has been in Australia, driving prices up to around the 20 dollar mark has single handedly caused my dad to reduce his smoking habits.

Many countries created some measures to protect non smokers.

In Germany there are also hints on the cigarette packages like "smoking can be fatal" or "smoking causes lung cancer". But they are not as radical as in Australia. In restaurants smoking is banned. A few of restaurants have an exception permit. In some (central) stations there are non smoker areas.

Raising the taxes is a good medium to equalize the issues for the information campaign and to daunt smokers.

I'm a smoker myself and I like doing it outside, so my answer would be no. I do think people should at least consider their surroundings though. I think its perfectly okay to do so in a wide area, but I would never light one in a crowded area since that's kind of rude.

Yes if smokers are considerated to non smokers, it is fair enough.

[jiodi]

We always need a bad guy, sigh.

I've always thought establishments should be able to choose whether or not they allow smoking, because it's their property and if a non-smoker doesn't want that crap in their system then there will always be the establishments that don't allow smoking (that's big money when there are other places non-smokers don't want to go).

Smokers should be respectful of their surroundings. Laws existing to ban smoking at the very least started off because disrespectful smokers blowing their nasty crap around people who don't need it or want it and want to live longer.

I always tried to make sure I wasn't smoking around people. I also didn't want kids to see I was smoking. But I totally understand the legislation on it after seeing so many inconsiderate assholes smoking at bus stops and like right in front of doors to public places, etc.

[Cowboy Karimov]

Enforcing such a general law probably wouldn't change much. Smokers would continue to smoke in public, since they probably outnumber the police. The police might not even bother either, that or they wouldn't see them do it. Plus decreasing the number of cigarettes sold would go against Capitalism's goal of getting as much money in the fat man's pocket as possible. I like the smell of cigarette smoke anyway(that, and I associate the smell with my dead grandfather), but I'd never do it myself so I don't compromise mine and others health.

@MisterIceTeaPeach When I went to Germany I saw the packaging there. It's much better of an idea than Australia's packaging, and Capitalism wouldn't mind it very much.

Edited April 25, 2014 by HeavyBrawlsGuy

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

@MisterIceTeaPeach When I went to Germany I saw the packaging there. It's much better of an idea than Australia's packaging, and Capitalism wouldn't mind it very much.

In general I doubt that shocking pictures or risks of health on cigarettes packages make a big impression on the smoker.

The parents have to disabuse their children about the health risks of smoking. The countries spend way too much money for campaigns and "designing" cigarette packages.

Edited April 25, 2014 by MisterIceTeaPeach

[Cowboy Karimov]

In general I doubt that shocking pictures or risks of health on cigarettes packages make a big impression on the smoker.

Sorry if I'm a bit rude, but that's what I was trying to explain.

[Rehab]

Whatever happens, I'd generally hope the aim includes rehabilitation for existing smokers and prevention. Ounce of prevention = pound of cure and all that, but I also think the smokers themselves shouldn't have to take more crap for basically having a disease (which somebody else is making a direct profit off of) than strictly necessary. I don't know the numbers on how well whatever kind of legislative approaches are known to address those problems, but in any case I think they should be thought of on at least the same level as is limiting second-hand smoke exposure.

(background: sister used to smoke, tobacco-related shit got both my grandfathers before I met them, and when they were younger than my parents are now)

[euklyd]

So I would like to ask you, if smoking should only be legalized in special places (at home, in special pubs or sth. else.)?

Not necessarily.

now, if the question was

Should smoking be banned?

then, "yes, definitely."

I shouldn't have to go out of my way to avoid a cluster of smokers (like I do when walking to the bus stop) just so that I don't suddenly start wheezing my lungs out of my torso and onto the pavement.

On a non-personal note, second-hand smoke is a huge issue, and I would definitely support a blanket ban on cigarettes just because of that alone. Not sure why there's a middle ground for "oh we'll just kill bystanders a little bit" - limiting it to homes doesn't actually help enough imo, because you're still shitting into the lungs of anyone you're living with.

I am personally pretty happy with the laws we have here when I compare them to laws in other places, but I'd still rather they go further.

#nobias

(agreed with Rehab wrt rehabilitation though)

[Phoenix Wright]

smoking outlawed? lol

to answer the question, no. it's not something the government needs to concern itself with. i'm fine being asthmatic and needing to hold my breath every now and again if it means people get to make their own choices.

[Magical CC]

Yes! They should ban cigarettes too. My dad smokes at least 30 cigarettes per day, at home, no less. And he cares for no one's health, even his family or himself.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes! They should ban cigarettes too. My dad smokes at least 30 cigarettes per day, at home, no less. And he cares for no one's health, even his family or himself.

b-but banning cigarettes won't do anything. people will use them regardless.

[Parrhesia]

anyone seriously calling for the banning of cigarettes needs to learn about this great historical lesson called 'prohibition' and what it taught us was that it doesn't fucking work

People shouldn't smoke indoors unless they're in their own home. That's all. People go way too far cracking down on it. Plain packaging ... is ludicrous on paper and I don't know anyone affected by it (I know someone who went out of their way to collect all of the images) but when I looked up its effects? Apparently it was effective. And the only reason I looked it up was when I was mocking it to someone else, which made me look a bit of a tit ngl

[Magical CC]

anyone seriously calling for the banning of cigarettes needs to learn about this great historical lesson called 'prohibition' and what it taught us was that it doesn't fucking work

People shouldn't smoke indoors unless they're in their own home. That's all.

People shouldnt smooke in their own home unless there is no one else but them. That's all.

[Nobody]

I don't think people should be forbidden from smoking

I don't think they should be allowed to smoke everywhere either. For me, the ideal situation would be "smoke areas" both outdoors and indoors, where people can smoke as much as they want, and that people who don't want to smell the smoke can stay completely away.

My sister is asthmatic and I see how terrible cigarette smoke is for her. Thankfully not many people smoke here, and smoking is regulated (I spend weeks without seeing anyone smoking, even though I have friends who casually smoke and study in a big university) and she can avoid staying next to smokers. Still, I can only imagine how terrible it must be for an asthmatic who lives in a area with many smokers to have to smell cigarette smoke all the time. Smokers who blow their smoke on people's faces everywhere are just irresponsible.

So, my opinion is that people should be allowed to smoked in some set "smoke areas" (and in their houses), but forbidden everywhere else.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Nobody

[euklyd]

smoking outlawed? lol

to answer the question, no. it's not something the government needs to concern itself with. i'm fine being asthmatic and needing to hold my breath every now and again if it means people get to make their own choices.

I'm all for making your own choices, but that goes both ways. There is very little "choice" in secondhand smoke.

I probably went somewhat too far in saying "outright ban" but saying "don't smoke indoors" isn't cutting it either. Designated areas also don't help enough. Rules alone would probably be less effective than higher prices and/or other forms of discouragement as well, though.

[Moira]

Living in a household of 4 people with 3 smokers (and I don't smoke), second hand smoke really is awful. It's a constant awful smell that gives me headache and never goes away. It clings to my clothing and other people can smell it. I'm constantly mistaken for a smoker, and I might as well be one from all the second hand smoke I can't avoid (though I do my best). Oh yeah, I'm also "destined to become a smoker since everyone around me does." I don't really have a point besides the fact that I really dislike smoking and I think it's ridiculous that people are so arrogant as to think they have the right to smoke around people who want nothing to do with it (not saying every smoker is like this). Anything that makes me deal less with cigarettes would be great, because i wouldn't cry myself to sleep for people who couldn't smoke any more. The problem is that it wouldn't really work if there was a widespread ban. but small changes and certain off limits areas might make a noticeable difference.

Also, though it may be a personal choice, there are still probably people who will be affected if you end up developing a disease and dying early or suffering from it. It's still your choice, but don't forget about that.

The irony: my profile pic character is an extremely heavy smoker.