Where Should Smoking Be Banned?

I'm all for banning it in restaurants, but bars? And clubs? C'mon!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1087061

should have the choice to offer smoking or not. There seems to be plenty of people on either side who could pick or choose which bars to go to.

It's a nasty habit with no redeeming values--smoke smells like shit and kills to boot.

Second hand smoke causes cancer. Bubble gum just sticks to my shoe.

in the age group 4 through 35 years old.

http://nhtsa.gov/people/Crash/LCOD/RNote-LeadingCausesDeath2001/pages/page2.html

So, by that logic, we should also ban cars, eh?

and I'd be willing to bet a majority of those accidents are caused by people violating those rules (speeding, driving drunk, talking on cells, etc.) All accidents won't be eliminated, but they would be minimized. Same goes for smoking--pass laws to minimize damage to people caused by smoking. In this case, the only damage being done is to the person with the habit.

You want to kill yourself with that shit, by all means do. Just leave me out it.

Actually, I'm just in favor of making a drivers license harder to get and easier to lose.

Why do you have to be near a smoker? Can't you just walk away?

If I'm inside the restaurant and the smoker is outside, why would I care?

Smoking in CA is already banned in all eating establishments, bars, and clubs. It is banned inside office buildings, government buildings, and private establishments that are open to the public.

You cannot smoke within 35 feet of the doorways to buildings, and I was excited to see that at the University that I attended, people may longer smoke on the walkways or in public gathering areas that are outside. (I used to always HATE getting stuck behind a smoker on the sidewalks. There were so many people around you that you cannot find a new place to walk, and the end result would be sucking in all of the smokers second-hand smoke.)

I, for one, get tired of hearing about smoker's rights, when the smoker gets to choose to smoke. The people around the smoker do not.

Something for you to think about. Early one Saturday morning, I was going somewhere in my car, and noticed a bumper sticker on the car in the lane next to me. It said "I smoke, and I vote." As I pulled up to the car, I noticed that a man was sitting in the driver's seat with tubes in his nose for oxygen. Strapped into the passenger's seat was an oxygen tank. Consider the irony.

They don't harm anyone but the user of the product who made the choice to do something unhealthy. Cigarettes do.

Remember, marijuana smoke contains benzopyrene, the same carcinogen found in tobacco.

then we could fill the prisons with undesirable tobacco sellers.

begins. Smokers should have rights same as the girl that wants an abortion. 'Ya just can't dictate to others what is good and bad.

But not in bars and clubs.


But in all honesty, unless they make smoking illegal, I really don't think it should be banned anywhere.

I believe that restaurant owners should be required to have smoking and non smoking sections, totally separated by glass or walls, as well as smoke extractors.

Bars and clubs on the other hand, should be allowed to set their own policy.

To let customers, smoke or not.

If these places are required to have glass/walls, who's going to pay for these repairs? In some places, it may be impossible to erect these structures due to space limitations and things of that nature.




But i do believe business owners should have the choice.

If a restaurant or bar allows smoking, don't go in. You can always find one that has a no smoking policy.

They will follow the market. If it becomes profitable to have nonsmoking bars and clubs, they will have them.

And please don't say they can just work someplace else.

Sorry. :) But they can. Just as people decide whether or not they want to work in hazardous working conditions like cleaning windows on a skyscraper or working in a mine, people can make their own decisions about what kind of working conditions they will tolerate.

...a kind of "Let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps" reply.

Usually people who wok with hazards do so because there are no other jobs. People will tolerate all kinds of conditions if the alternative is starving, losing their homes or not being able to provide for their children. And even in the mines, workers got together and demanded some standards. All workers deserve a safe and healthy working environment.

Usually people who wok with hazards do so because there are no other jobs.

A friend of mine is a tree surgeon. He does it because he loves it, knowing that for him a "bad day at work" might end up with him paralyzed.

I know lots of people who enjoy waitering. They are well within their rights to decide to work in an environment where they know they will be exposed to second-hand smoke, if that's the kind of work they want to do.

All workers deserve a safe and healthy working environment.

I work with an known carcinogen every day. So do you, if you have a printer that uses toner in your office. There is no safe and healthy working environment unless you work in a bubble.

And if you are calling me right-wing, well, I won't post my answer to that. But trust that it's not very nice.

Edited to add: And when I waitressed, every single member of every waitstaff that I ever worked with in any restaurant smoked. Do you think they care about secondhand smoke? They know they'll make more tips from smokers who drink.

...I'm just saying that the people-can-choose-to-work-wherever-they-want argument smacks of right wing sensibility.

And I don't think it's cool that my toner causes cancer. Do you think I'm in a position to quit over it?

EDIT: I was a bartender for 10 years. The smoke bothered me a lot, but I put up with it for as long as I could because I had no other way to replace the income. I know a lot of people in the service industry who are glad about the smoking ban--and A LOT of musicians who are really glad they no longer have to expose themselves to cigarette smoke to make living.

is like a non-pissing area in a swimming pool.

Until they can make them self-contained death sticks that don't affect anyone around them, ban them everywhere.

All the things can be dangerous in excess, to yourself and those around you.

Having a a no-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no-peeing section in a public swimming pool.

Booze, fatty acids and fast cars may have an effect on others, but the effect is mitigated by the fact that it is not instantaneous. When someone lights up next me, I feel immediately nauseous. Immediately, I am breathing in carcinogens and other toxic substances.

Breathing clean air is a right, not a privilege.

I think banning smoking in restaurants and other public places is just common sense. As for clubs and bars, let the owners decide. I can't even enter an establishment where smoking has recently taken place.

My point was that banning smoking simply because it's bad for you and those around you won't hold up.

If that were the case, then indeed we'd pretty much be banning anything.

... "oh, My Lord, those eeeevvvvvuuuuuuuulllll tobacco fiends! Save us from the sinners!"

Whenever I hear that horseshit, I just wanna: :smoke:

I guess I've been mistaken all these years.

I'll go get one tomorrow!

smoking is banned in all public buildings. It sucks! It has hurt the bars and restaurants alot and the wait staff in particular since they don't make minimum anyway. I think if you own your own place it should be your choice, but obviously they didn't think to have a vote before city council passed it. :mad:

sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. I live in California where smoking is banned anywhere indoors. People made the same claim here; if you ban smoking, people won't frequent these establishments. Well, let me tell you that is simply not the case. Take a walk through the Gaslamp anytime Thursday-Saturday and tell that the smoking ban has hurt business. If anything has hurt business, it's this krappy economy.

Folks may decide that they aren't going to visit these places as a protest to the ban, but it gets mighty boring sitting around the house every weekend, I don't care how much booze you have at your disposal. Eventually they decide that they can go to a bar, and sit there without firing up cigarette after cigarette, and still have a good time.

As I've said, and been flamed for before, if you can't go an hour without a cigarette, then maybe that's a problem that should be addressed. It's not that difficult to step outside for 3-5 minutes to get your fix.

For the record, I used to smoke a lot of weed, and even I could go out to a bar or club and spend several hours without jonzin' for a hit. People just need to exercise a little self control.

OK smokers, fire at will!!

Nicotine is more addictive than heroin, cocaine, or alcohol.

http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/addiction/

This website compares its relative addictiveness to that of crack cocaine.

I am presently addicted to nicotine. I have tried several times to quit, all without success. I am going to try again once I get back to the U.S. by going through the Air Force's tobacco cessation program again.

An aggressive public health policy to wean smokers off of tobacco is needed. Taxing cigarettes heavily will cause people who are not addicted to nicotine to quit smoking, but those of us who are addicted will continue. Money is not an issue for us; when we haven't had a cigarette in a while, that nicotine fix is the most important thing in the world. Crack cocaine addicts will steal TVs and mug people to feed their addiction. We don't have to resort to that because our habit is legal, but those antagonizing or belittling those of us who are struggling with addiction as being weak willed or so forth fundamentally don't get it. Alcoholism is treated as a disease, but nicotine addiction is seen as something that can be beaten through will-power by society at large. It's completely ass-backwards and that needs to be addressed.

This "us v. them" mentality of a lot of non-smokers toward smokers is counterproductive, IMO. The continual price increases and banning of public smoking has not deterred people from smoking significantly, and the prevailing attitude seems to be that non-smokers largely don't care about the fact that we simply can't quit, so long as they can't smell it.

I've never bought the health arguments in favor of banning smoking in public places; it's the smell, by and large, and if you want to try to use the health argument in reference to banning smoking in establishments dedicated to serving a drug that causes 105,000 deaths in America every year (alcohol), you are going to continue to be met with laughter. While tobacco causes as many as 400,000 deaths every year, that only reinforces the urgency of public health policies that actually help addicts quit rather than simply marginalizing them.

I'm not opposed to banning smoking in restaurants. I like being able to smoke and drink coffee late at night a truck stop with some friends, but it's a small price for a restaurant that you can breathe in. Banning it in bars is silly, in my opinion, for the reasons stated above.

I am all for mandatory non-smoker zones, but not 100% of a Restaurant/Bar/Club.

When I can't order a cigar at a bar, then something has fundamentally gone wrong.

(reminds me of that stupid "sitzpinkler" article from yesterday - that dimwit of an "journalist" should have tried to include smoking in his argumentation.)

to be smoking or non-smoking. If the establishment is known as a SMOKING establishment, then non-smokers who are worred about this issue would NOT be effected.

Business shouldn't be forced to have both smoking and non-smoking sections. It really doesn't work well anyway. Smoke travels and if the smoking room is closed off, the air isn't filtered. So the smoke just rolls out any way. Gota have fresh air, etc.

Letting it be choice, allows the business to decided what to do. Some places tend to have more smokers then others. If there are 2 restraunts in a town, one goes smokeless.. that restraunt will get that smokeless crowd hands down. But there would still be a place people can go and have an after dinner smoke if they CHOOSE to do so.

Here in Florida you can't even smoke on government property. Inside, OUTSIDE. That incluides College. Long walk for a smoke. Hmmm.... way over board.

I'm a smoker. I don't mind having places that doesn't allow smoking. My problem is that it's the LAW here that EVERYPLACE is non-smoking. Now, our office goes out for "after work drinks" because we can SMOKE in a bar. We use to go to a working dinner and smoke as needed.

Friends who waitress say that their tips have lowered since the law took effect. People dont' come for a cup of joe and a smoke. They don't hang long after dinner. They jump and run. They are tipped, but because they feel they HAVE to go, you can tell it from the tips. And I have to agree. Since I would have a smoke after dinner and the waiters would come by to see if I needed more.. this was extra work and I would reward them for it. Since I don't stay as long, I"m less "work." Non-smokers may set and chat.. but since I've gota go someplace else for a smoke... I'm checked out and gone.

Own a business where you and only your spouse works and no customers come there, it's against the law for you to smoke there.

Not only have smokers been disfrancized.. so have business owners. Having the ablity to choose smoking, non-smoking, or BOTH... that would have been intresting to see how that all worked out. There would be a market for smoking places.

That's basically how it is here at the moment, but the EU might change that; the UK and Ireland want an Americanization.

To get higher level jobs, non-smokers are the ones hired. Most smokers know this and realize they must present a "non-smoker" at an interview. Kids are warned of this as well. Don't start, can't get ahead.

We in America skipped a step in the "back off" from smoking. Before, business had to have a smoking AND a non-smoking section. The point was so the non-smokers could have a place away from smoke. Non-smoking sections use to be small. Now the smoking sections are the small sections.

Having business choose, would have been the best step in the process. Patrons could go to ALL non-smoking places. The "smoking" establishments would have became less and less. Until they were actualy rare.

Instead, smokers are giving bars a new lease on life. No longer just a pick up scene. Since business workers who SMOKE and NOT SMOKE can't gather at a resturant, they are gathering at bars. I know we gather at a local pub now. JUST so the smokers can light up. Our spouses are now use to us "hanging" at bars.

Since these bars can only sell a limited amout of food in order to keep their licenses.. EATTING is rare, but drinking is picking up.

Not seeing a smooth transition here.

But I am seeing a new group that is getting turned on to drinking. Never would have went to a BAR on a regular bases other wise.

do higher level jobs only go to thin people as well? or runners? I never heard "don't start, can't get ahead!"

light up your cigar any place you want.

then the patrons can decide where to go and where not to.

I'm not condoning smoking, it's just bad for you. I'm saying I don't think it's an issue for government to decide on.

The local or state health department is w/i its duty and authority in law to advocate healthy environments as is the legislative bodies of cities, towns, municipalities, and states. No smoking is w/i that obligation. Duh.

BTW, laws are promulgated to force behavior against the will of people. It's no surprise that smokers and those who empathize (??) w/ smokers rant and rave about those "horrific" and "burdensome" restrictions!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.

No one said they didn't have the authority. But sadly they choose not to put restrictions on ALL air pollutants. Instead smoking has be come the "catch all" for cancer. Does smoking cause cancer in some people? Of course it does. But not all. However, it is a business that has all ready been sued, etc. It's called CYA!

Does second hand smoke cause cancer.. It sure does in some people. But in this case it's used to explain WHY a non-smoker has lung cancer EVERY TIME. Those who possibly REALLY responsible get off.

Tobacco companys have all ready paid all they are going to pay. Everyone else who causes cancer will NOT have to go through it.. because they are being covered by "smoking" or "second-hand smoke"...

When a smoker lites up.. a non-smoker can move out of the smoke stream in alot of cases. Cause they smell and see it. A smoker can also move to keep the smoke away from people. Factorys can not move "down stream." Cars can not move "down stream."

I have ran into VERY FEW smokers that complain about being restricted. Most agree with restrictions. What they do complain about is extream restrictions. Which means the smokers are being much more generous then.. aghm... "some" are about the situation. There is a big difference in discussing an issue and whining about it.

tell us more . . . :boring:










.

Nowhere else.

nt

Instead:
Why shouldn't we ban the corporate production of cigarettes and all tobacco related products.

REally. What the hell good does it do to ban smoking? IF it is so detrimental for everyone, even nonsmokers, then why do we allow the production of it?

I do hope that you know that car exhaust is more toxic that cigarette smoke but we aren't banning cars anytime soon.

The only place people can smoke is in some restaurants and bars/clubs. If you go to a bar and bitch about the smoke, then you are dumb. People smoke in bars, if you don't like smoke, don't go.

Smoking shouldn't be allowed in restaurants unless it is a completely separate section with separate ventilation.

Am I a smoker? Nope, not anymore (quit over 2 years ago)- in fact I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke and sometimes the smoke makes me sick. But I love going out to the bar and country dancin so I ain't gonna complain.
As long as the production of cigarettes are legal, then they should be legal to smoke in bars/clubs, outside, and on private property.
Until you do something to ban the production of cigarettes/tobacco products, then there is no room to complain.
At least if cigarettes were banned, my hubby would have to quit.

so I was very pleased when California passed the no-smoking law. I'm sorry, but no one has a right to pollute restaurants with their carcinogenic filth. Before the law was passed, I couldn't even enjoy a simple dinner out.

Awhile back I took a trip to Nevada which doesn't have similar smoking laws and felt nauseous the whole time. I came back with a new appreciation for California's no-smoking laws. It was such a relief to be able to breathe.

Taking a clean breath of air is a right, not a privilege. That's why even mini-polluters need to keep their carcinogens to themselves.

Bars? Fine I won't go in one, then. But general public property...don't smoke near me!

That's a fact. The nose is an intresting thing. LOL!

When I was prego, I could tell what brand a person was smoking. And yes, they made me sick. Certain ones make me sicker then others. But I removed my self or stayed down wind. It is exactly what people who can't stand perfumes have to do. But sadly, they can't get away from the smells in elevators and other "close" areas.

I don't expect there to be a ban on perfume any time soon. For some people... I wish they would.. LOL! Others, I think we should dump a whole bottle on them. Oh well..

It's useless pollution, and, as a fellow suffer of perfume-allergy, it's damned annoying.

No one needs perfume or cologne. Seriously, people. Believe me, you don't need it. If you need it to cover up a stink, then you need to shower or clean your clothes.

Ban all perfumes in "perfume" and cologne and also ban it in hand lotions.

That shit's nasty.

If you ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY MUST wear that earth-polluting unncessary shit, then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE only wear a very, very very small amount.

Otherwise, you really are a walking shithouse of pain and allergy problems for a lot of people.

(and by "you", I don't mean you, Spangle :-) )

Perfume & cologne can be (usually is) pretty painful. Oy.

and it gives me an awful headache and nausea.

There's very little that makes me angrier than some assbitch self-absorbed woman with a four-foot-diameter wall of perfume around her that spreads everywhere. I've had to work with people like this, and I would like to have just killed 'em and thrown 'em out the window.

I actually had to report one of them to a supervisor once when she was subbing in my area for a few days - I felt like crap about halfway through the day (and I was about ten feet from her!) and asked her - very nicely, I must say - if she wouldn't mind wearing less perfume the next day. She said, "My perfume is like a religion to me, I can't reduce the amount." I said, "Oh, okay" and went to the supervisor.

No perfume the next day. :-)

You pointed out the problem and she refused to compromised.

I could "sorta" understand if you went straight to the 100% and did it rudely. I say sorta, because she might be a "freak" about such things. We all have a "freak" point. But you at least allowed a compromise. She had no reason to even COMPLAIN. But since she refused 100%, you had no choice. That person isn't a team player. That is for sure.

I'm a smoker. I've had the flip problem of yours. I'm one of those smokers who can not stand to have people down wind of my smoke. I watch it like a hawk. If it gets "away".. I get pissed. I refuse to smoke in homes or cars if they owners are not smokers. And YES I've been told many times that I could. But I refuse to STINK up the place.

I said all that, because in my case when I'm out side, of course I try to be as down wind as possible. After standing in line for a couple of hours and NOT smoking because of the crowd (a few broke down and lite up) for an out doors event.. I lite up once were were broke free of the line. As usual, I scouted my area. Up-wind of me was a mother and child. Down wind, the nearest person was a smoker and didn't count.. but the next group was pretty far away. The Mother UP WIND of me kept giving me the "evil eye." Finaly she walked over and reamed me out for smoking in "public" and that I was harming her baby. Which because she walked up to me and chose the route were the baby was "sorta" down wind... Her baby was NOW in the line of possible smoke. When I seen her coming and were she was blindly placing the stroller, I automatcily held my cig shoulder high so the wind could catch it.

Some people are just looking for a reason to bitch. If it wasn't for the baby, I can honestly say I would have made it a point to stay upwind from her when I smoked for the rest of the day. But the childs Mother's stupid wasn't the child's fault. So after pointing out what she refused to notice before. And pointed out HOW she treated that "respect" that I showed HER and HER BABY, I advised her to move her child back up wind of the smoke.

True story. Happened when I went to see Gore in 2000 at an outside event. The Mother had to have kept that child in it's stroller, in LINE for a long time if she was one of the "early birds" like I was. And that LINE was next to a street corner with a traffic light. Which means, the child had been breathing exaust from cars all morning long. Much more dangerous then being up-wind from a smoker.

Some times you do all that you can do.

I knew you ment the generic "you". But somepeople don't realize this is a CONVERSATION in action and YOU generaly means the reader of the momment. Tee Hee..

ps.. I rarely wear the stuff. And since running into a few people and hearing them complain about this problem, I keep it in mind when I do 'spice-up.' And I DON'T consider talking about it WHINING. If people didn't bring up what is going "on" with them, how would others know? They wouldn't. Everyone would assume we all react the same way to things. But we don't. Our bodys don't.

...ban the sense of smell altogether! Instead of circumcising infants at birth, let's just cut off their noses! /sarcasm

Get real.

Okay, here I am now, finally getting real. I suppose my IQ will start dropping significantly, but I'm sure it will be worth it. Then I can say clever things like "People are allergic to perfume and their complaining about it? Then let's just ban the sense of smell har har har har har har har."

he refused to attend that dance at the Kyoto Treaty Accords. Nor did he want others to stand in his stead at the dance! So I suppose toxins will continue to pollute our planet. Heh.

P.S. Does the fact that Laura Bush smoke have anything to do w/ this? Or that Jenny Bush smokes too? :crazy:



.

GW only goes where he's not wanted.

Restaurants: OK. Bars and clubs: ridiculous!

Adults should not be allowed to smoke wherever young lungs are. Commit slow suicide if you must but don't take others with you.

(Former smoker)

Banning smoking in bars is ridiculous, and I A. Do not smoke and B. Hate the smell of it, but come on a bar is where alcohol(a poison for christ sakes) is disspensed, the idea that a person has to go outside to smoke at one is absurd.

The rhyme was a happy accident. The message is deliberate. Smoking bans are sugar-coated erosions of liberty. I hate smoking, but if people want to smoke, let them. What do we ban next, Twinkies, alcohol, violent movies, video games?

OK. Hospitals and airplanes, and businesses can set their own rules, but banning them in bars or restaurants is ridiculous.

I think bars and clubs should allow smoking. Drinking, dancing and smoking go together. Proprieters are free to make no smoking clubs as it is, and nobody is forced to go into those places.

Cigarrette smoke bothers me when I'm eating, but if I go to a club and it's too smoky, I'll leave.

don't you?

It's not a kindergarten.

If I was working at such a place, I'd be more worried about the damage to my hearing from the incessant booming music.

There should be places where people are allowed to enjoy a cigarette. Bars and discos seem more appropriate than most other places.

...maybe. But most people aren't in a position to be able to turn down a job, even if they know it could kill them.

... as a kid. Knowing what we know now about cockpit air quality and second-hand smoke, I would not favor going back to how it was, but I did like the smell as a kid. Weird, I guess.

My friend and I were just commenting on how many of our old family pictures feature adults with a baby in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

.

in all establishments. Whats funny is seeing people standing around outside smoking. You go to a bar and everyone is outside.....it just doesn't make sense. In NY City its really Gestapo like when they swoop down and issued tickets cause your smoking outside. I do know bar business outside the city is suffering. What is really stupid is banning smoking in outside sports venues, open air, smoke a cigarette and people scowl, but light up a joint well, its accepted. Where I live the county has only one smoking bar, a cigar bar and its usually packed. Go figure.

Sorry, I am a smoker.

to our air. :hi:

And I don't smoke and can't stand being around it.

As much as I smoke, I would never light up in an oxygen tent.

Any place where the general public can be found. Smokers don't have the right to poison others with 2nd hand smoke, or deny access to public places or places of business because of the 2nd hand smoke they create.

It's a pretty simple thing, imo. The right to choose includes the right to choose to smoke. It does not include the right to impose your smoke on others.

Science is very shakey.

it takes longer to read, cut, and paste than to find:

<snip>

In 1986, the National Research Council (NRC) and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service independently assessed the health effects of exposure to ETS (NRC, 1986;

U.S. DHHS, 1986). Both of the 1986 reports conclude that ETS can cause lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and that children of parents who smoke have increased frequency of respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function.

http://www.nationalguild.com/library/ets_children.html

<snip>

Second-hand smoke is a combination of smoke that comes from a burning cigarette, pipe, or cigar between puffs (sidestream smoke) and the smoke that is exhaled by the smoker. It is a potent combination of harmful gases, liquids, and inhalable particles. Tobacco smoke contains almost 3,700 chemicals, 40 of which are known carcinogens
such as benzene, formaldehyde and hydrazine.

SHORT-TERM HEALTH RISKS
Eyes, nose and throat irritation.
A greater likelihood of respiratory illness, including asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis.
Impaired lung function.
Up to three times the normal risk of heart disease.

LONG-TERM HEALTH RISKS
Higher perinatal mortality in infants where non-smoking pregnant women were exposed
to second-hand smoke.
Impairment of children’s growth and development.
Impairment of small airway function, heart disease.
Cancers of the lung, nasal sinuses, breast, cervix, endocrine glands, Hodgkin’s
disease, other lymphomas, leukemia.

http://www.kaiserfoundation.ca/uploads/ab021017shs.pdf

There was more, including some efforts to debunk research about 2nd hand smoke. Since the opposing "research," and the campaign to "debunk," was funded and/or carried out by big tobacco, I'll stick with the rest.

It's a public health and worker safety issue.

That's the rub in bars and clubs, which you'd think were OK -- traditionally smoke-filled, right? -- places to light up.

But these places all have employees, many of whom do not smoke, and who should not have to subject themselves to toxic fumes to get a job. If you had the same level of toxic smoke in a factory, everyone would be wearing respirators and decontaminating at the end of the shift.

And as far as cars go, cigarettes are still the only legal product (I've heard of) that, when used as directed, kills you.

And that makes them different from cars.

When one drives a car (used as directed), toxins are released into the air that everyone breathes. The driver and everyone else who breathes this air is affected.

How are cigarettes different from cars?

...regarding nicotine addiction has really taken off. No, so much better to discuss business owners' rights v. prejudice against nicotine addicts. </sarcasm>

Several points have been raised regarding personal choice, such as the employees who are subjected to cigarette smoke, the patrons who are subjected to the smoke (I've no sympathy for the patrons, since they can simply leave if they don't like the smoke), and the business owners who either wish to accomodate smokers or do not, but I see little to no discussion regarding the "personal choice" (or lack thereof) of nicotine addicts.

FACT: Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, heroin, or alcohol. Cocaine and heroin addicts and alcoholics all go through extensive rehabilitation programs to beat their addictions. What kind of rehabilitation program is recommended for nicotine addicts? Slap a patch on your arm that feeds you more nicotine to try to wean yourself off of it. Totally inadequate, IMHO, and the statistics back me up: 7% of smokers who try to quit do so successfully. The other 93% of us are more or less doomed to struggle with this addiction for the rest of our lives.

Addiction isn't something that can just be beaten by willpower; it requires a strong support system. Right now, I see the same sort of compassion coming from the anti-smoking crowd for addicts that I see coming from the smoking crowd for non-smokers: "Deal with it; it's your problem, not mine."

To the anti-smoking crowd, I will say this: we will continue to make it your problem until you help us instead of just raising the price of cigarettes and banning smoking in public places. Take a look at how much badgering us has curbed the practice of smoking and ask yourself if there maybe isn't a better way.

A lot of states have campaigns to help people quit. S does the community center where I work. We need more things like this. Any suggestions?

But then again, I suppose some like to destroy their livers in a healthy environment...

It's like McDonald's being non-smoking; yeah, on the one hand I can see it, but really, if you're gorbing down at the golden arses, is health really the first thing on your mind?