Riding skateboards has been illegal in parks my entire life. As well as sidewalks.

This post was edited by TeH SaNdMaN on Feb 3 2011 01:42pm

I never had those restrictions. What you got is bullshit.

Things have changed in a 10 year generation gap. People got dumb or should I say dumber?

This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Feb 3 2011 01:51pm

It's about causing cancer in people who do not smoke.

The reason smoking isn't banned is because you're allowed to harm yourself.

Unfortunately, when you smoke in a public place around other people, it causes them harm...which is wrong.

Smokers infringe on other people's civil right to enjoy a public space without being harmed by someone else.

It's not about moving smoker's to the back of the bus, it's about not allowing people to smoke on the bus...smoker's aren't discriminated because of their smell, they're discriminated against because of the harm they cause to other people while they smoke around other people...you cannot equate banning smoker's from public places to racism.

Risks associated with outdoor smoking are virtually non-existent. No harm is being caused by outdoor smoking, and smokers aren't infringing on any right possessed.

The bus is analogous of all of "public" and the front of the bus are the places in public people want to go. To smoke however, they must go to the back of the bus (like alleys, corners, and rooftops).

omfg everyone of these douchebags concerned with smoking outside better quit driving/riding in vehicles and stay far away from any roads.

If I'm sitting in a park, then a group of smokers sits at another table upwind from me and begins chain smoking, and I begin inhaling second hand smoke...that does not cause me harm?

I know it's a very specific example...but the point remains. Harm is still caused.

If you suggest that I should move...why should I have to move, I was there first and I have as much right to be there as anyone else. The smoker's have an equal right to be there as well...they do not, however, have the right to smoke and cause others harm.

If they must go to an alley to smoke, then so be it. They made the choice to be a smoker and to smoke...I respect that, but they also must respect the fact that when they do it in a public place, they cause others harm.



Many others have already argued why the driving analogy isn't applicable in this situataion.

Smelling cigarette smoke outdoors does not constitute harm, no matter how many times you say it. It stinks to you, sure, but you get more harm from walking on a sidewalk. Besides, in wind, cigarette smoke rapidly dissapates, and any trace element that reach you are just that: trace elements.

If you're going to complain about "harm" caused to you, the motorist analogy is completely applicable, because you're asserting that your perceived freedom from harm while being in public outweighs personal responsibility for inherent risks of being in public. If you want to live in a bubble, stay home, you don't force someone else to stay home.

This post was edited by Santara on Feb 3 2011 04:24pm

Smokers aren't being discriminated against. People who smoke are allowed everywhere.
They are just not allowed to smoke in public.
There is a huge difference.

Smoking isn't something that defines you. You are able to choose whether or not you want to smoke and you can choose where and when to smoke.
Plenty of other activities are banned as well in the park. This has nothing to do with discrimination. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing that up.


Also, the ban is more about it being a nuisance than causing harm, much like many other activities that are also banned in the park (drinking, littering, nudity, taking a shit, ...)

This post was edited by someone3 on Feb 3 2011 05:54pm

You should move because you're the one who suffers from a minor inconvenience that causes no harm. The alternative is to politely ask them to move.

I believe what many here are getting at, is the idea that there are civil ways of handling such a benign situation instead of imposing rules via the government. Second hand smoke is bad for you over a period of time. The few seconds it takes to realize that someone is annoying you with a puff of smoke causes no harm, and the solution to the situation takes no effort.

Unless smoking becomes so prevalent that it cannot be avoided, your argument is invalid.

This is just another unnecessary law that appeals to base emotion and distaste for smoking instead of rational thought.