Do you really think not being able to smoke in public will affect the demand for cigarettes?  This is something people do even though they know it can cause them to die horribly.  It's expensive but the increase in cost of cigs doesn't decrease how much people smoke.  They just use more of the money that should be going elsewhere (like nutritious food for their kids).

People who are on oxygen and are fully aware they could blow themselves and everyone they love up by smoking still smoke.  There is a saying, even if a smoker quit 30 yrs ago, if they found out the world was going to end tomorrow, the first thing they want is a cigarette.  That's called strong addiction.

I know people that have more willpower than I have ever seen who can't seem to kick it.  Do you really think that telling them they have to smoke outside is going to make them stop?  Young kids start smoking all the time even though they are fully aware of the risks.  If the government really cared about the health issue, and the majority of Americans really wanted it stopped, we would make it illegal.

Jill, your post started out intelligently and then went and did 180 degree turn into stupid. You just explained how people smoke no matter how, then you suddenly go and suggest that making it illigal would magically stop smoking, despite presenting all your anectodal evidence to the contrary.

Yes, it would be illogical to think it wouldn't. People do manage to quit smoking - this would provide one more reason for them to try. Meanwhile, people also choose whether to take up smoking - this would provide one more reason not to. Furthermore you're more likely to smoke if you've grown up in a 'smokey' environment - this reduces the number of such environments which would probably have some impact. Don't take my word for it though - just look at surveys, polls, interviews etc. done in countries considering such a ban - you've had many smokers in favour of the ban in part because they think it may help them to quit.

Similarly if the price of cigarettes doubled, I wouldn't expect the amount people spent on cigarettes to double.

If you want to argue that it's ridiculous for just 1 single person more out of millions to not smoke as much instead of smoking more due to the ban on smoking in public though, go ahead.

Edit: And if you still are sceptical, here are a few quick links courtesy of google for a country that introduced a smoking ban in public places fairly recently:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article2769617.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7023841.stm

My anecdotal experience is the opposite.  Lots of examples of alternate-generation smokers.  Don't know what studies have shown in terms of actual data, though.

I never said making it illegal would stop people.  Pot is illegal, people still smoke it.  All sorts of drugs are illegal, people still use them.  I'm just pointing out that the government needs to be consistent.  Either make it illegal or stay the hell out of the privately owned businesses.

I would be upset at all if they made smoking illegal.  It is bad for all involved other than those making money off from it.  I just think it is a horrible idea to give the government power to go in and tell privately owned businesses they can't allow legal activities.

I still think the example of loud music is a good one.  It damages your hearing.  It's legal.  Should the gov be able to ban it for our own good?  What's the difference?

Actually tobacco sales do tend to decrease somewhat in places that have bans that cover large areas (like a state) which is of course why J&J is in large part funding the anti-tobacco campaigns as they want to boost their sales of smoking cessation products. For them it's nothing more than a covert marketing campaign.

Of course it doesn't force the long term smokers to quit and probably never will, just the light smokers tend to quit for the most part. There are a good many people who only smoke when they go out for drinks and no other time. I know a number of such people myself.

As I now use e-cigs the bans don't affect me personally, but I still do not agree with these sorts of laws and never will. I don't care if it's smoking, certain dog breeds, or red rubber baby bumpers, they're nothing more than the revocation of yet another liberty and always remind me "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

Actually it is illigal to play music above certain volumes near residental areas. The police will come, and fine you. And if it is after 9pm then much lighter noise will get them on your case (then it is public disturbance).

There are several completely different issues that we keep on jumping between:

1. Should you be allowed to harm others when engaging in self destructive behaviour (drunk driving, playing music at extreme volumes that damages your neighbors hearing, smoking near children, etc).

2. Should you be allowed to harm yourself and ONLY yourself? (drinking at home, smoking alone/with other smokers/playing loud music in a sound insulated environment (aka, inside home)/headphones).

2a. Should you be allowed to do so if the government pays for your treatments later.

3. Should the government pay for treatments for self inflicted (knowingly) harm?

4. Should addictive substances be regulated by the government. 

5. Will banning a narcotic eliminate its use?

5a. Will banning a narcotic create crime. (smuggling, loss of respect to the law, etc)

My answers:

No.

Yes.

Yes. (I think it complicates matters if we try to take into account the health care issues.)

I don't see how we can let people die otherwise.

I don't even know how we could realistically force people to stop smoking when in government-paid treatment for cancer.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

As opposed to the Canadians, the Irish, and the Germans?

And I resent any adults that behave like children. Personal responsibility does not end when it can only be enforced by governments, and arguments against government intervention do not convince me when the government only intervened because individuals keep refusing to act like responsible human beings.

That doesn't make sense.

Government either wants fewer people to smoke XOR make more money from people smoking.

A campaign to persuade people not to smoke is certainly not a part of a grand plan to make more money from smokers.

I think that some people just think until they arrive at the first scenario where government is the bad guy and then they call that the answer and feel proud that they looked through the matter while others are still ignorant.

I have grown up in a country with socialised medicine and don't remember that particular problem.

If we let the "market" set the rules for harmful actions you will quickly notice that people will murder each other because the market fails to come up with an incentive for violent people not to murder.

That has nothing to do with damaging the neighbors' hearing.  The noise laws in existence are there because of 'annoyance' issues, not health issues, with the exception of occupational noise exposure regulations.

People voluntarily go to concerts where the volume is ridiculously high, though.  And use mp3 players at high volume.  And do a variety of other things without ear protection.  Should the feds step in and set federally mandated decibel limits for concerts & mp3 players, and create yet another federal department to enforce them?  We're getting close to the point where there will be more regulators than regulated as it is.

I am sure that smoking in public is the same as murder in most people's minds. Just like comparing smoking around children to shooting them or running them over with your car.  Man, talk about comparing apples to oranges.

America USED to be a democracy.  However, we seem to be taking the lead from Socialist nations.  Creating more bans and social regulations just pushes us further into socialism.  Where does it end?  EVERY regulation of this type is harmful in a free economy.  The more you regulate business in any way, the more harm is done.