How do you feel about bans?

I think that I’d depends on what is being banned. If its no potential danger to anyone it should not be banned, like radio speak. But stuf that is harmful to at least one other person makes sense, like secondhand smoke

Wouldn’t it be just as harmful to someone inside as outside? They wouldn’t be in such close contact with it, but they still are affected by it even when they’re walking down the street. Parent’s always will complain about things being said infront of their children that isn’t appropriate, when sometime in their life they will hear it, so there really is no point in it. They think they’re doing better by banning people from being able to smoke in places, saying that they will stop smoking if they can’t so often, but aren’t you just forcing your opinion on someone and trying to control their actions?

yea you got a point there. but thats just the world we live in. someone’ll always be making the rules and we’re just gonna follow ‘em till we think up a better government

@biotechwarrior: hehe thats cute—until we think up a better government. I thought, we the people, are the government. Or at least we were, at some point. Not so sure anymore. :)

In my opinion, regarding “smoking bans,” it’s clearly Un-American. Here in NYC, our mayor placed a ban on smoking in every bar/restaurant in the city, which is outrageous. I thought private business owners had the choice to allow smoking or not? Smoking cigarettes isn’t illegal, so I think this is government going too far.

@rawpixels
its not outrageous if other innocent peoplecan catch the disease and die from second hand smoke that can waft from room to room

Again, tobacco is a legal substance. Private business owners should have the right to allow or disallow smoking in their restaurants/bars. If customers are offended by smoking, they are free not go to a particular bar/restaurant that allows smoking. Let the market decide, not government.

rawpixels, the problem with just “letting the market decide” is that smoking is a classic example of a market with negative externalities. That’s economic jargon for real costs that result from the market but which are not borne by the consumer in the base price of the good.

In english: you buy a pack of cigarettes for, say, around $5.00. Well that price does not take into account the health costs to both yourself and to society associated with smoking. Nor does it take account of the fact that when you smoke around other people, they too incur health costs that are not reflected in the price of the pack of cigarettes. Now, the government has made some attempts to correct this market failure by taxing cigarettes to increase their price closer to their true social costs, but because demand for cigarettes is relatively inelastic (meaning people still buy cigarettes regardless of the price), these price hikes have still not addressed the underlying externality.

Now, my preference would be to continue increasing cigarette taxes rather than banning cigarette smoking outright. Nevertheless, I think it is well within a local government’s jurisdiction to determine that the social costs of smoking in public places like bars and restaurants, far outweighs the very limited “rights” of smokers (there is no legal or constitutional right to use cigarettes).

i think cars shouldn’t drive down the road because someone might be walking down the sidewalk and they could breath in some carbon monoxide or particulates.

hey michael what about the pursuit of happiness?

what about it?

when it comes to smoking , its proven how deadly all the carcinogens in smoking are and as a former smoker , i dont think (and never did) that smokers have the right to endanger others based on their own stupid decision….