Maybe it's late and I'm tired, but this story didn't make any sense to me at all, and seemed more like a random mish mosh of words that didn't form any coherent sentences.

Glad it wasn't just me

damn, fail

As someone who was a regular smoker. (I quit less then a month ago) I think I can offer some perspective on this issue. I liked smoking a lot, I would smoke half a pack a day but I never ever smoked indoors except at a bar. Smoking indoors is much more disgusting than smoking in general. It is quite frankly rude to anyone around you who doesn't also smoke and can make many people very uncomfortable. This is one of the reasons I quit.

I think it is perfectly acceptable for a government that is responsible for the well being of it's citizens to enforce restrictions on an act which is proven to have a harmful effect on the people who smoke and those around them.

These restrictions should naturally be for those establishments that are public in nature and enclosed areas where there is not constant fresh air flow. Places like airplanes, restaurants, schools, etc, etc. Personally, I love Florida's law which restricts smoking from restaurants but allows it in bars. Bars are a good exception because alcohol is involved.

Any restrictions that go beyond enclosed structures or into the homes goes beyond common sense. If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to do so. Just not in areas that would highly inconvenience a large amount of other people.

Make that three...

I can't make it out, but I sense the anger of having someone tell him what to do.

holy ****....link to conservative 8% APY fund? **** t-bills!

+1

Well said.

again fail, well i wanted somehow to point out that a smoking ban can be seen as ridiculous as as a law that would permit the public to smoke in any public and private space, even against the will of the owner.

First i just thought that my english sucks, but i guess i have 0 skills for story telling, well lol.

See, this is the part that makes no sense to me. Both restaurants and houses are private establishments. You'd prefer it to be illegal to smoke in a restaurant, and perfectly fine to smoke in a home with your 5 year old and 18 month old.

The people in the bar are getting next to no long term health damage from being around cigarette smoke unless they work there, LIVE there, or are asthmatic/other condition.

I'm against such encroachment in either case, but I can see a MUCH better case for protecting children in a 24/7 smoke-filled environment than I can for protecting adults who want to go drop 50 bucks for steak around a bunch of damn dirty smokers.

It makes zero sense to try and enact a law which will not only piss every smoker off but will be practically impossible to enforce.

I guess the appearance of doing a good thing is more important than actually doing a good thing.

Not that either of these are good things.

This isn't about protecting people at all. It's about busy-bodies who don't like smoke using force to make sure they don't have to put up with it when they go places. They don't normally have the gall to be this blatant, but the "health" canard gives them a chutzpah boost.

You see this a lot. People will often say their intentions are pure, or they have someone's "best interest" at heart or some other stuff like that.

Intentions alone are worth zero. You may honestly intend to help starving kids by burning a house down. That doesn't mean that your actions will actually achieve those ends. Of course, if you point out that burning a house down is unlikely to help any starving kids, you will often get attacked for "hating children."

In this case, though, I think it's more just a matter of "I like X, I have an excuse that makes me not look bad for using for to get my way, let's do it"

Ad Homenim yeah!!!!

I mean do proponents of smoking bans honestly beleive its ok to tell people what to do on private property? If so then ****, what a bunch of worthless tyrants. If not, then thats just a nasty byproduct of the "democratic" system where people don't mind giving up their own freedoms as long as they can also force others to give up theirs. Again, tyranny of the masses FTL.

It's pretty obvious that most people who support smoking bans don't do it out of health concerns but out of annoyance for themselves. Most people think the solution to any problem that they have in their lives is through law, so it's not really surprising that an unpopular activity would have a large amount of support from people wanting to shut it down.

benevolent tyranny is still tyranny imo

NT RLY.

This poast is dripping with the poaster's personal preferences. I could make the exact same post about piped-in musak, or pastel interior design.

is vv rude, imo

Why?

Cuz when you're drunk that cigarette is SO SO GOOD!

Maybe his point is that as long as you're doing something that is already unhealthy, you should be allowed to do other unhealthy things. So if you order greasy food at a restaurant smoking is ok. But not if you order a salad. Unless you slather it with ranch dressing and bacon bits, then smoking might be allowed.

I apologize. I thought you were making a blanket statement that anyone who wanted a smoking ban didn't have altruistic motives. I would disagree with that statement. But if someone wants to ban smoking or the color green because they had a personal preference against such things, ****'em

Why don't we ban alcohol in bars too, there's too much social cost involved with drunk drivers for us to incentivize the behavior, obv.