should smoking be allowed in public
Side Score: 30
Side Score: 30
Yes, at least until people stop their dogs from farting in public, babies stop crying at the movies and rappers pull their pants up. It's not a matter for the "public" to decide for the individual. If somebody wants me to move my smelly cigar away from them I'll ask them to move their smelly butt away from me. Simple as that.
Crying kids, smelly dogs and exposed underwear "in public" causes stress, and that can lead to a host of other problems, like headaches and heart attacks. I know it's a stretch but, it is a fact.
I will concede that smoking stinks, and those of us that enjoy the stench should not force others to participate. However, the question is not specific enough to agree with. In the company of others I will ask permission, when not, I do as I please and I am still "in public". Frankly, the exhaust from cars on city streets is more harmful, and more abundant, than tobacco smoke so, fix that little problem first and then you can jump on the smokers. K
Everyone is free, people don't "own" the air, it's everyone's.
So I believe that if someone chooses to smoke in public he/she has the right to.
If other people don't like it..then leave! No one is stopping you from leaving! They're the person who chooses to bitch and moan about it.
Note: I am not a smoker myself.
Yes, this is absolutely correct, however the government needs to impose some laws. If the public were so free, then wouldn't we be seeing protests everywhere and graffiti going out of control? The government is there to help the citizens and to do what will have the most benefit. I'm sure that if you look at MOST cities around the world, smokers are the minority. And so, it would only be fair that the government does something so that the MAJORITY does not get affected by the smoke.
And about your point on leaving - imagine this scenario.
You're in a park with your family and two children, and you're taking your Sunday walk. Then, suddenly a smoker walks behind you and you can literally feel the smoke behind your back. He's walking the same trail as you. You're not going to be able to leave or anything, unless you're going to let a smoker destroy your Sunday.
It's as simple as that. The government needs to create areas for smokers. It's not just about freedom in the public.
One of your examples, Graffiti? That is way way different, graffiti is vandalizm. Your comparing apples and oranges.
Your scenaio, smokers are suppose to be and the ones I know are "polite" when they're smoking, like, they don't blow the smoke into your/somones face.
Your arugement is full of flaws.
The government is there to help the citizens and to do what will have the most benefit.
The government is there to help the citizens? HA HA
The governemnet listens to the people and does what the hell the people want, not the other way around.
Not enough to be considered an argument:
------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”
“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA
*The ruling shows by scientific definition that ETS is not a Class A carcinogen
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)
-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
“OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”
CDC Study shows cigarette smoke is 25,000 times safer than OSHA air regulations
US Senate discusses health official’s inability to represent any REAL science
Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”
“Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.”
Quote from Wikipedia:
A 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated. Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings." This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the harms of passive smoking were unproven. The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication. Notably, the study had failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.
Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking." In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research, a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented." Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it."
There has been no definite proof that second hand smoke causes health defects for bystanders. If you live in a household with someone who smokes 1 to 2 packs a day in a year you will have consumed the equivalent of 1 cigarette. There should be smoking and non smoking sections to places because of the smell and the fact that people may not want to be in a smokey atmosphere but to say someone cant walk down the street and smoke a cigarette is complete bull shit.
Side: SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY
Smoking should definitely not be allowed in public, simply because it affects other people and that is a form of infringing on their rights. These bystanders that encounter smokers are unfortunate enough to be a victim of passive smoking, the thing that worries everyone the most when they are near a smoker. Sure, those smokers can feel free to smoke at home, because it is their property, but in the public, they should be considerate and not take out their cigarettes, because the smoke is not only effecting them, it's also effecting the people who walk pass the smokers.
If a pregnant woman were waiting outside for a taxi beside someone smoking, that's just setting up the stage for problems. Now, if this occured everywhere, more people with asthma would have be worried about just taking a stroll through a park. And some don't have the option of just walking away. Smoking is a personal choice so it shouldn't be allowed in public just as nudism isn't allowed in public. Being naked isn't as harmful as the effects of nicotine and cigarette smoke.