How do you feel about the SMOKING BANS that are being implemented by our GOVERNMENT agencies across the USA.?
534724
I beleive it should be up to the business owner and not the government. This is simply another was of another freedom among the many, being taken away from us. There are many many more other than smoking . I beleive soon we will be living as the Russians did and still do somewhat. It feels like it's coming.
192057
Historically, tobaco taxes paid for additional public places <stadiums and govt. buildings>.\n\nNow smokers pay for stuff that they cannot use.  This is insain!!!  I feel so guilty for taking blood money that is killing millions of tobacco users.  Do you feel the guilt too?
363948
Same like other governments...\nIncrease the taxes for cigarettes and tobacco products...\nevery year...\n\nif that's not enough...ban shops/stores from selling packs less than 10 cigarettes..
600227
No, because I think it's more governmental fan-dance posturing. If we're going to 'put out' tobacco, the quick and easy way to do it is to slap about a 5 dollar-a-pack tax on tobacco. Put the money into smoking cessation like the nico-pops that guy made and got kicked down by the FDA for making. People smoke to get the nicotine. If you smoke, and you don't call yourself an addict, you're not being honest with yourself. I think nicotine should be available to smokers, and not that nasty gum, either. People chew tobacco, too, for the same effect. Chewing tobacco is nasty, makes your teeth fall out, gives you mouth cancer, that kind of stuff. But, people want that nicotine. So,\nisolate the nicotine and put it in a cookie or something. \nThey also have an anti-smoking pill they're working on,\nwe've seen those before too.\n\nThe problem with smoking is that people die of it, it stinks, fire hazard, the whole show. Some people think that you should be able to smoke anywhere, other people think smoking should be banned. I think a smoking ban just kind of lets businesses have something to enforce if they want the smoke to go away. I don't think it fixes the problem of the government being addicted to the tax revenue they get from it. As long as the government gets its' share of that tobacco money, tobacco will continue to be taxed, sold, and consumed.
613111
No, they have no right under the constitution, but that does not matter.  Governments do what they want and there is not much you can do about it unless everyone is willing to fight it together.  That will never happen since there are more non smokers than there are smokers
619913
If it were treated like alcohol in terms of age restrictions and enforcement, and banned in public so the rest of us don't get your second hand smoke (including in 'just outside the building' corridors of smoke), I don't really care.  I don't think it is worse than alcohol, and it may be better for you. I'd let science decide on that point.
849457
The problem with allowing smokers to smoke in private businesses is largely an issue of interstate commerce and healthcare.  Both of those are issues that the Federal Government can legislate and therefore regulate.  So legally speaking, while the government is allowed to regulate.\n\nLet's not dismiss the potential benefits for this regulation:  there could be a decline in health problems that result from second-hand smoke.  Smoking not only affects the patrons of the establishment but also the employeers/employer.  A poor college student who can only find decent wages at a bar, but doesn't smoke, shouldn't be subjected to inhaling the smoke from patrons.\n\nThere is a correlation (note, not established causation) between second-hand smoke and the decline in one's health.  The costs of health care premiums are absorbed by US . . .  not by a stranger in middle management and not by your annoying co-worker.  \n\nHOWEVER, opening up this door and allowing the government to go about regulating and prosecuting violations of these smoking bans is also costly.  Patrons decide to buy alcohol and stay home because they can smoke at home -- or they smoke at a friend's.  They spend less time at those places of business because smoking is a daily habit and if they're forced to go outside everytime they want to smoke . . .  they're probably not going to spend as much time at that place of business as they previously did.\n\nUnless the government also provides financial compensation for those businesses, they lose money.  They then have to cut jobs.  That hikes up the unemployment rate.  THAT hikes up the unemployment checks (that are, once again, paid by us).  And this sounds like awfully bad decision-making for the economy which is already struggling.\n\nThe decrease in jobs means the decrease in spending which means money isn't being put back into the marketplace which means prices go up which then causes purchasing to go down.  And that sucks for everyone.\n\nThe Government should be more concerned with how we're going to handle this war in Iraq and less concerned with smoking bans.  Perhaps they can enforce regulations like smoking only allowed in certain establishments or "rooms" or at certain times.
327329
As a smoker, I am for the ban.  I wish that they would hurry up with that new vaccine...it blocks the effects of nicotine on the brain.\n\nTobacco companies are adding more nicotine in their cigarettes to keep us hooked.  The Surgeon General stated that kicking the nicotine habit is harder than kicking heroin.
848313
issue 4 failed and 5 passed, which is what i think it should be.  if you go to the link below, scroll down just passed half way and you'll see the results.\n\nyeah sarah, and if you meet someone who thinks it's unconstitutional, you can think of it as a health code violation.  i mean, restaurants need to follow the cleanliness of floors, bathrooms, freshness of ingredients, etc.  now most pro-smoke people won't buy into the argument that smoke is invading their personal space and second hand smoke does kill, so apply it this way, how would people feel if someone coughed some contagious disease in their face, or on their food, or even on their kids?  same with smoke.
930457
I believe the ban is an extreme. Upon the face of it, it may sound healthy by those that oppose smoking, but in reality this sets the precident, and validates the ideation that citizens are incompetant to handle their personal freedoms and respect for their community. It opens pandora's box. Becareful what you wish for, you just might get it. \n\nI wonder if this type of "ban" and social acceptance is how Saddam got his start in Iraq with the peoples blessing?
203771
It is no difference than like the war on drugs, big money. The government can and trying to stop the flow of drugs in this country but do they want it to stop, no. If did they would lose 3/4 of their police force. Within the borders of this great nation they wouldn't be able to seize land and vehicles, hire more personnel, court systems have to layoff 1/2 of their judges, layoff prison guards, quit building more prisons and lawyers will become homeless. It is always about money. Back to the question, for the last 10 years the courts have managed to get lawsuits pass on major cigarette companies for persons dying from cancer. They can no longer sponsor a race car or advertise on TV. But does this really hurt the tobacco industry, no. The government doesn't want to outlaw tobacco, they will no longer collect taxes for them. "Money". I did read somewhere last year of a national report that the young American people now days are less likely to start smoking than like 20 years ago. So if there become less smokers in this country don't worry, taxes always get higher and the sale overseas is still increasing every year.
337784
Less....\nIn our city.....they're starting a new 'prohibition' on smoking.\n\nIt's causing small privately owned businesses [bars, small restaurants] that would allow smoking [most of their clientele were smokers] to go out of business....some that have had them for 30 years!!\n\nI'm a non-smoker and feel it is not right to have this prohibition on smoking.  \nIf I don't want to go in a bar/restaurant with smokers...I don't go.  \nWhy cause the businesses to go out of business??\n\nIn addition...the stupid politicians don't realize that all the smokers are going to the bars/restaurants in the suburbs that allow smoking.  Also, the city raised the taxes outrageously on cigarettes....so...everyone is going out of the city/state to buy their cigarettes.  This guy on my block takes cigarette orders from everyone on the block and goes to Indiana to buy them. They chip in for his gas and they still end up paying less for the cigarettes than in our city.  The only ones the politicians are burning with the high taxes are the low income people who don't have a car, but smoke.\n\nSo...by the politicians having the new prohibition they will be losing revenue...which will then cause them to raise other taxes such as real estate taxes.\n\nAND....MARIJUANA is now cheaper to buy in our city than cigarettes!!  So that will be great for our young'uns!!\n\nGood going politicians!!!\nThey never think things through!!
1086348
YES I love how you stated that!! Smokers don't realize the harm they're contributing to ALL of society!
900595
The whole anti-smoking lobby is over run with dicks. I should think your country should be giving an education to every single child who wants one, regardless of how they got there. If the nation flaunts its system and brags about how it is the elsupremo place to be - naturally less fortunates are going to want to be there.
762028
Is that the Smoking Ban?\nI'm voting Yes on 4 No on 5\n=]
473374
i think smoking should be banned completely. and im a smoker myself. it would just make it so much harder for ppl to do it in the first place because once you start its so hard to give it up.
374007
I hope all countries will recognize that ALL OUTDOORS is public, and ban smoking outdoors.   They could have smoking areas in sealed vaults somewhere,  and I would not object to that as long as they never have the doors open very long.