Starbucks bans smoking within 25 feet of it's stores.

[Spidey-Bat]

Unhealthy food causes illness and death in as much as, if not more people than smoking, but it's not an "ugly" habit, so there are much fewer restrictions with fewer complaints - if the government started restricting junk and fast food as much as they restrict smoking, people would be rioting in the streets. THAT'S the problem I have...this mentality that because person A thinks person B's habit is gross, person B's rights should be stripped away, but you better not touch person A's bad habits!

You can use this argument when my eating junk food directly affects another person's health.

 

[bullets]

I think smoking is absolutely disgusting and I don't want to be anywhere near it. However I don't a problem with people smoking in designated areas. The problem here is that starbucks has outside eating areas. I can see where smoking becomes an issue. They just need to be tactful and not blowing smoke at customers. It's sad that Starbucks has to create some type of law. I see smokers outside Chili's on a regular basis who stand a few feet to the side of the entrance and it doesn't affect anybody.

 

[Destructus86]

I think smoking is disgusting. Like others have said as long as they smoke somewhere far away from entrances I am totally fine with it. Preferably in the back of the building where no one can smell them.

 

[THUNDERSTRIKE]

GOOD... I used to smoke and smoking is just a filthy s**t habit... anything to inconvenience a smoker and make it more difficult for them to light up works for me, regardless of where any ban may be... I just find some smokers to be the most inconsiderate and sometimes arrogant people around thinking it's their right to smoke their s**t wherever they want and if a non-smoker is about, "oh, well"...

I always love it when I walk by any building or establishment in the wintertime and there's always a group that's huddled together and whining about how unfair it is to have to go out into the cold...

too effing bad... I just hate the disgusting habit and whenever anyone asks me for a spare smoke, I always reply with "sorry, I don't smoke, got too much self-respect"... the pissed look on their faces when they realize that they get no smoke and a shot in the process is always priceless and always worth it...

I have no sympathy at all... LIVE with it...

but then again, the way some of them smoke and feel about their smokes, I'd hazard to guess not for long...

 

[Gambit]

Smoking is a bigger issue then booze, for one, we cant avoid the damn smoke that is inhaled by others.

Def. should be a stricter guideline of use on cigarettes.

 

[Spider-Who?]

You can use this argument when my eating junk food directly affects another person's health.

You clearly miss the point.

The less junk people are able to eat, the less unhealthy people there are. The less unhealthy people there are, the less tax money is spent on keeping them alive. The effect it has on others may be not be direct, but overall, its the same concept: bad habits affect every one, yet these habits aren't universally panned nor restricted, based solely on popular opinion. The hypocrisy in limiting people's rights.

Again, I'm for restricting who can do what where (I mentioned my own self-appointed restrictions - I fully agree that smokers as a whole need to be much more aware), but only when it makes sense and doesn't hinder rights; ie: the government could have said "Hey bar owners! If you ban smoking, we'll give you a tax break." This way, something like a tax incentive would produce results, but business owners still retain their Right to chose.

In any case, this always reminds me of a South Park episode.

[YT]gUEjnoWpdao[/YT]

 

[BestGirl]

You clearly miss the point.

The less junk people are able to eat, the less unhealthy people there are. The less unhealthy people there are, the less tax money is spent on keeping them alive. The effect it has on others may be not be direct, but overall, its the same concept: bad habits affect every one, yet these habits aren't universally panned nor restricted, based solely on popular opinion. The hypocrisy in limiting people's rights.

Again, I'm for restricting who can do what where (I mentioned my own self-appointed restrictions - I fully agree that smokers as a whole need to be much more aware), but only when it makes sense and doesn't hinder rights; ie: the government could have said "Hey bar owners! If you ban smoking, we'll give you a tax break." This way, something like a tax incentive would produce results, but business owners still retain their Right to chose.

In any case, this always reminds me of a South Park episode.

[YT]gUEjnoWpdao[/YT]

You're missing his point. There's nothing wrong with regulating where and when people can smoke because it affects the health and well-being of nearby nonsmokers. Eating junk food only physically harms those who eat jink food.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

You clearly miss the point.

The less junk people are able to eat, the less unhealthy people there are. The less unhealthy people there are, the less tax money is spent on keeping them alive. The effect it has on others may be not be direct, but overall, its the same concept: bad habits affect every one, yet these habits aren't universally panned nor restricted, based solely on popular opinion. The hypocrisy in limiting people's rights.

Again, I'm for restricting who can do what where (I mentioned my own self-appointed restrictions - I fully agree that smokers as a whole need to be much more aware), but only when it makes sense and doesn't hinder rights; ie: the government could have said "Hey bar owners! If you ban smoking, we'll give you a tax break." This way, something like a tax incentive would produce results, but business owners still retain their Right to chose.

No, you miss the point. As RachelDawes mentioned, smokers create second-hand smoke which affects the health of people who inhale it. Your whole point in that first paragraph applies to smokers, too. If I eat junk food, I'm only clogging my arteries/adding weight to myself. None of that is being applied to you. Therefore, there is no reason for my consumption of junk food to be restricted.

Quit making yourself out to be a victim. Your unhealthy habit directly affects other people and the environment. You don't have any right to smoke wherever you want other than your own property.

 

[Spider-Who?]

As RachelDawes mentioned, smokers create second-hand smoke which affects the health of people who inhale it.

Which is why I only smoke when and where others cannot get secondhand.

Your whole point in that first paragraph applies to smokers, too.

Yes it does, which is exactly why I wrote it.

If I eat junk food, I'm only clogging my arteries/adding weight to myself. None of that is being applied to you. Therefore, there is no reason for my consumption of junk food to be restricted.

Yay! A missed the point party! Like I mentioned, you eating disgusting, unhealthy food affects others as well. The degree/way in which something directly affects others shouldn't apply when making law - it should be the simple fact that it is unhealthy and affects others period, that should be the reason.

Quit making yourself out to be a victim.

I'm not. I don't drink Starbucks, so their rule doesn't affect me. As mentioned before, I am extremely conscientious of where and when I smoke, so MOST regulations do not effect me. Pointing out an issue is not the same as marking one's self as a victim, but feel free to try and trivialize my perspective another way if you wish.

Your unhealthy habit directly affects other people

I don't smoke anywhere withiin the vicinity of non-smokers, so no, MY habit does not.

and the environment.

I do not toss my butts on the ground; I carry a pocket canister to collect them in, or if I do not have it on me, I toss them only into specified receptacles. Both the butts and the smoke are far less harmful for the environment than 90% of other daily activities, transportation and garbage.

You don't have any right to smoke wherever you want other than your own property.

It's funny you mention that, as the government very much disagrees with the bold. Bans on smoking on your own property, even in your own home and car have been brought up at an increasing rate. (note: if you have kids, you shouldn't smoke, period. I'm 100% for heavily fining parents who smoke with kids in their car).

 

[Cagefighterkip]

Quit making yourself out to be a victim. Your unhealthy habit directly affects other people and the environment. You don't have any right to smoke wherever you want other than your own property.

 

[BestGirl]

I totally got your point about obese people being a strain on the health care system. Look at it this way: like smokers, obese people tend to die younger, so perhaps that offsets their cost to taxpayers.

FWIW, I wouldn't mind out-and-out bans on junk food; it's just not feasible, as you noted. Part of the reason it isn't is because a lot more Americans eat junk food than smoke, the other is that people who eat junk food are nowhere near as annoying to as those who like to blow cigarette smoke in your face. IOW, smoking bans aren't just about people's health, it's also about how obnoxious people are who practice the habit.