it depends..if you mean public places like shops/cafe/bus yes
it is banned here in this country already, and it helped my asthma management

I think bans on smoking in public places are a very good thing for multiple reasons.
If it's a public place, people have a right to use the space without having to be at risk for secondhand smoke or even be unable to use the space due to breathing issues. People who smoke do not need to smoke, and so should they wish to it's common sense that they should find a designated area or do so on their own property.
Additionally, smoking creates a fire hazard when certain aspects aren't properly managed. Not everyone causes a fire smoking, but with smokers being a diverse demographic, they also have their share of people who don't think before acting and endanger those around by improper use, such as the example of a trash fire from a still lit cigarette being thrown away. By banning from public places, it eliminates the risk of cigarette-related fires.

Smokers should be given a much more confined space. It's not fine if you just stick the smokers outside, because other people want to sit outside as well. What they need to do is give a proper space cut off from the rest of the outside. Smokers often have some space where smoke still escapes to other people and they hold the goddamn door open to let it in to the restaurant/pub/bar or other non-smoking establishment. The worst thing is they do it near children.

The problem with smoking in public areas is that you are sharing a space with the public. These people have a right to clean air as much as a smoker has a right to have a smoke, but smoking in public areas take away the clean air, whilst smoking can be taken elsewhere.

I have often seen smokers out in public areas... and like water breaking around a rock, people walk around them in avoiding them completely in a wide arc. They don't want to breath in second hand smoke or smell it either. The smell or smoke doesn't always go up, it spreads out, depending on outside wind.
This create a wide area which the smell of ciggarettes is found with-in. So while a smoker may stand on the outside of a crowd to have a smoke, the smell and the smoke still affects others.

With people with various medical conditions out on the street as well, smokers also cause harm to them. Not intentional harm, but harm none the less.

Also, a concern is litter. Ciggerette butts alone cause 32% of the world's total debris. They contain harmful chemicals which pollute water and soil and various animal life sadly consume these butts. These ciggerettes are commonly swept into water or blown from PUBLIC areas. They are even buried into the dirt or sand intentionally.
On California beaches during the 2000 Coastal Cleanup Day, over 230,000 cigarette butts were collected in ONE DAY.
Another example: Over 176,000,000 pounds of discarded cigarette butts in the United States each year.

Smoking in public areas is harmful to others, to the enviroment and to themselves, but that is their choice to smoke...
They have a right to smoke in their homes or away from the public areas. Away from people who want clean air, those who have medical conditions and children.

It's been banned in NJ, and truthfully I don't mind it. I'm not a smoker so it doesn't really affect me.

But at the same time, I kind of feel a smoker has the right to smoke wherever they want. It shouldn't be a law in my opinion, but maybe instead shops can put up their own rules for this situation? My uncle owns a pizzaria and even before the law was put into effect he banned smoking. They never really had a problem because people were okay with the rules.

I dunno, I think it's a bit much to make a law about it the way they did.

From  Cigar_Furs
Words ©  CigarSkunk

What if public smoking were banned?

While individual cities and maybe even some states might pass such a law I think the reality is that we would never see the left go that far in it's war on smoking, not due to a lack of power or too much opposition, but simply due to the fact that such a ban would deprive them of too much in the way of taxes.

Tobacco taxes are a major source of revenue for government with over 15 billion packs of cigarettes being sold each year we're talking close to $50 billion in taxes on the line.

While a public smoking ban wouldn't cause everyone to quit smoking overnight, it would take quite a bite out of that $50 billion in taxes and that's something even the most rabid anti-tobacco liberal isn't willing to give up.

But the question wasn't if it would happen, instead, it was what would happen if it did.

The biggest factor would be determining how to classify "public" - what would that mean for the smoking ban?

The least restrictive definition would be any location which wasn't classified as private property, meaning that I could smoke on my front lawn but not on the sidewalk.

A ban using that definition would have very little impact since it really would only affect people walking down the street and at public beaches and parks - a petty annoyance and the most realistic possibility of happening based off of current smoking bans on the city level.

A more strict version would include private property with public access, such as outdoor cafes, outside of stores, malls, bars and clubs and any other private property which the public is assumed to have general access to during normal business hours.

Increasing the severity to that level would cause some minor economic damage as smokers began engaging in less social functions and would most likely result in some entrepreneurs forming "smoker clubs" where people would have to obtain some form of real or symbolic membership (say a $1 fee to join) which would allow the "club" to declare it's outdoor smoking area to be non-public private property (ie/members only) in order to escape the ban.

If we increase the severity level to the first steps of fascism then the ban would now prevent smoking in any area which was even remotely considered public, meaning that smoking on my front lawn would be illegal since it could be seen from the sidewalk along with smoking in your car since you're car is in a public area.

At this level you would start to see smoking decrease significantly, especially in areas in which the local police decided to cash in by issuing tickets to people who smoke while driving or mowing their front yards.

Smoking bans of this severity could possibly result in a Tobacco Party being formed by smokers, albeit it would require a fairly determined and charismatic individual to get and keep the movement started.

The final and most Stalinist form of a "public" smoking ban would encompass anywhere that wasn't inside your home or a completely fenced in yard. I could sit on my back porch and smoke (and even that's a maybe if my neighbor and the local police are assholes) but stepping out of a door with a lit stick would result in a fine worse then doing 90 while drunk through a school zone that's under construction.

At that level of fascism the fines for violating the law would be extremely high in order to make up for the extreme loss of tax revenues from people being forced to give up smoking and/or having cut back due to an inability to smoke anywhere but inside their own home.

All said I can't see the anti-smoking crowd going further then the first or second, mostly due to the potential loss in tax revenues anything more severe would result in.

Actually, I've just realised how valid the point of tax loss actually is and now that I think about it, if smoking was banned outright then it would just become something to buy on the Black Market like Class A drugs and other illegal substances.

well just to hop in here for a sec, this isnt about banning smoking all together. just about banning smoking in public places.

As a leaning libertarian, I usually lean toward "no" when it comes to prohibitive policies, but I will say that clean air is a right that really shouldn't be compromised, especially in the face of medical conditions such as asthma. Also, secondhand smoke is harmful, as well, especially for children.

Now, I DON'T agree with requiring a non-smoking ordinance for businesses. I think that a business should be able to use a smoker-friendly environment as a perk if they want to, and perhaps a better regulation would be to require smoker-friendly businesses to post a government-issued notice regarding the environment inside.

Basically, I draw the line between smoking wherever and the basic rights of others. It's unfortunate that we need to forcefully instate common courtesy, but it's the reality. People are simply too stupid to work things out amongst themselves in a civilized manner, anymore. They just feel like they need to sue somebody.l

Personally, I do not believe that smoking rights should be taken away from others. Specifically regarding public spaces. On that note, I do not agree one bit with the "No Smoking withing 50 feet of a Business" aspect. I believe that it should be booted, but where I live. It isn't readily enforced by local law enforcement. Due to how many citations would be given out on a daily basis.

I do believe that everyone has their right to clean air, as well as the right to smoke. Nine tenths of the issues that arise from smokers, and non-smokers. Is common sense, which a lot of people lack. One dive I smoke at, has a sectioned off area outside for smokers. Away from the doors, and away from people in general. We have had several snide comments directed towards us previously, due to smoking. My response one time was this: "We are outside, and you are heading inside. You don't have to worry about the smoke once inside". I was just being polite, but obvious. Which may have been mistaken for sarcasm, but who knows. Apologies to anyone who deems this experience irrelevant.

Obviously, this did not go well at all. As the couple thought I was being snide with them, so they lodged a complaint. Nothing bad happened, but others need to realize the obvious factor: They have a smoke free environment. Whereas smokers are told to do it outside, and not in front of storefronts. Even as a smoker, I think it is wrong to sit in front of any business, and smoke right there. It is disrespectful to non-smokers, and could deal a fine to anyone who is caught(once again, 50 foot minimum for my area).

What I believe, is that people that run their businesses should be given an option. It could be instated as a specific tax, or a yearly license they can purchase. Whereas personal businesses would benefit from this, I do not see corporations considering this option. If it were ever permitted. But this is just my humble opinion.

depends on where it is. school grounds YES! home no. streets no. facilities yes. anywhere where youth goes Yes!

I'm two months late, so no one will read this, but here goes.

I support banning smoking in public places by default.
I also support the rights of the individual to smoke.

This is not an either/or situation. This is a failure of politics and compromise. The demonization of The Smoker has been so successful over the past 40 years that, effectively, the rights of a minority have been overridden by the majority. This is a status that must be corrected. Otherwise, enterprising yet less-than-legal businesses will step in and correct the balance. It is quite possible that, in some places in the US, this has already happen. To be more blunt about it, there are probably already places where Organized Crime is running businesses that allow people to smoke inside.

I advocate a solution of licensing, just like we do with alcohol. Yes, I know the Conservative crowd will now crow about more regulation and more taxes and that government should just leave smokers alone. It is too late for that. The People have spoken by passing smoking bans. It is now time to push back. The anti-smoking laws will never be repealed, but a compromise where The Government gets money just might. The system would work something as follows:

Temporary Tobacco Permit: You want to hold an outside party where smoking is allowed? Apply for a temporary permit. If the event is outside in a public place, you'll need to put up signs and barriers, but for an outside event, you will be putting those up anyway. This would work much like setting up a temporary beer garden for Octoberfest. If the event is inside, you'll have to show that you can maintain a certain air quality for the event. You will also need to train your staff on sales of tobacco products.

Permanent Tobacco Permit: This permit is a bit more difficult to get that the Temporary and applies to inside businesses only. You need to meet air quality standards and tobacco sales training.

My entire point here is that No Smoking is the default, and permits to allow smoking are handed over to the locality to hand out. Money is charged for the permits and automatically, only persons of or above the age of majority can enter.

Because of the rabidity of the dogma of the Smoker's Rights groups, it is quite possible that this kind of compromise will not pass in many places. That is too bad. This is a compromise that protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority by carving out what, specifically, is allowed.

: incoming sarcasm : I think we should not just stop at banning smoking in public. I think there should also be mandatory bathing laws. I mean not only is it unpleasing to have to smell other people in public, but think off all the health issues. You could drastically cut down on the speed of disease if we only forced people to take two baths a day and after any physical activity.

so as you walk down the street how dose a smoker take away you right to "clean air" any more then the passing buss or taxi?

at the end of the day the problem is with people and a lack of curtisy on both parts. I wouldn't smoke in a crowed elevator, just like some would should have a fit due to a few brief moments of discomfort cased by a passer by. the answer in not more pointless regulation. 'freedom over security' issue on this one.

Smoking should be banned everywhere but should be allowed to those who want to smoke.

It is important to have freedoms to do what you want and that does not not give people the right to poison others around them. With clean air comes a clean world and long-time vices such as smoking should be protected as it should take a solid push with this ban law to make ways for a better healthier future for your kids and their rights to make their own decisions as adults if by force to protect the freedom they have to smoke and the freedom we have to have clean air in public which smokers may smoke because nobody owns public land and we all share the air and one must not poison others and not force others to be healthy to make others healthy would to be unhealthy.

So yes, I support the banning of smoking in public and will protect the freedom of smoking in public.

I say they should at least stop smoking in front of stores as that's unfair to customers because they cannot avoid the smoke.

People I think should have the right to smoke publicly, but somehow do that in a place where it cannot hurt anyone else. I'm not really sure how we'd achieve that though..

My concern is secondhand smoking.