Forum FAQ

Preferences

Watched Topics

Watched Forums

Smoking ban in Shanghai soon?

Tags : property, business, travel, technology, nightlife, events, food, food, expat_services
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Shanghai Expat Forum Index » Hot Topics Forums » Family Life and Kids

Author

Message

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 07, 2009 - 11:46 PM

clayrview wrote:

I just don't enjoy my hair and clothes smelling nasty like a smoker, or that dingy feeling on my skin.

Actually neither do we, that's why good ventilation is important for both smokers and non-smokers. That said, I think even smokers should avoid the bkk airport smoking room...

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 08, 2009 - 05:54 PM

Come winter, many establishments here won't bother to turn on the ventilation to save electricity. Could be a problem for non-smokers..

CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity

Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17952

Posted: Nov 08, 2009 - 08:52 PM

clayrview wrote:

I find this 'smoking doesn't cause cancer' nonsense amusing, blaming it on other factors like industrialization and pollution from cars. I've lived in northern Canada, where the air quality is absolutely perfect, and there is a massive population of smokers, and lo and behold, smokers-higher rates of cancer.

Funny that even in the native populations, where they don't even drive cars, do smoke, in a pristine environment, and the cancer levels among smokers are still significantly and obviously higher.

What we've been doing is posting links that contain supporting data to what ever side of the discussion is being presented. Please do so too. Your opening comments support the idea that the industrialization level in the USA is responsible for higher cancer rates. For example:
Canadian non-smoker in a pristine environment: 1 out of 100 people get lung cancer
USA blue collar worker, non-smoker: 4 out of 100
USA white collar worker, smoker: 2 out of 100
USA white collar worker, non-smoker: ??
USA pristine environment living: data not available (hah!)

We try not to use words like "significantly" and "obviously". There was a speech by the Mayor of Cincinatti that started out with something similar to 'We all know smoking will kill you' (the crowd roars in approval). Well, at one point I "knew" a 300 pound man in a red suit was gong to slide down an 18" wide chimney and bring me presents on Christmas day. But, one day I looked at the data a little bit closer.

clayrview

Lurker

Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 31

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 10, 2009 - 11:07 AM

My argument actually had nothing to do with the USA.

It had to do with the fact that in order to actually make a scientific conclusion, you need to isolate the effects of smoking on a person. When you consider an environment that is has cigarette smoke mixed in with air pollution which OF COURSE causes cancer as well, it's hard to find a culprit.

My argument was that if you were to study the rates of cancer in an area where there was little or no industrialization and air pollution (the northern territories of Canada) where people are heavy smokers, you would be able to isolate that variable, are see if it actually does cause cancer, or if it was just all those other factors combined.
___________________________________________________________________
"Nunavut’s smoking rate is more than double the national average (22 per cent) and is considerably higher than those in the Northwest Territories (36 per cent) and Yukon (30 per cent).

"Among Nunavut’s (a territory in Canada) Inuit, 85 per cent of the territory’s population, the rates are even worse.

The 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Survey found that 64 per cent of the territory’s Inuit over the age of 15 light up daily; another eight per cent called themselves occasional smokers.

Infant mortality in the territory is three times the Canadian average. The rates of prematurity and low birth weight are also high. (Low birth weight - less than 5.5 pounds - is an important indicator of a newborn’s overall health.)

Nunavut’s infants also suffer from the world’s highest reported rate of hospital admission for serious respiratory infections, according to a landmark study by University of Toronto researcher Dr. Anna Banerji.

Exposure to cigarette smoke is a major problem. Banerji’s latest study, published in the August 2009 edition of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, concluded that infants whose mothers smoked were at least four times more likely to be hospitalized for a serious lung infection during the first two years than infants whose mothers did not smoke.

Lung cancer rates among Canada’s Inuit are the highest in the world"

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
It IS hard to isolate the effects of smoking due to all the other carcinogens in the air.

Now... Nunavut has extremely low rates pollution, and hardly any industrialization. They use few resources, drive on snow mobiles, and have a limited impact on the environment.

So cigarettes are not causing the high rates of cancer and respiratory illness? What in the world is then, in the logic of a smoker?

And even if there is some giant government conspiracy to falsify reports and spew propaganda and cigarettes are truly not a major contributing factor to cancer risks....

still.. why take the gamble, and in the meanwhile end up wrinkled, yellowed and really stinky?

clayrview

Lurker

Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 31

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 10, 2009 - 11:08 AM

http://www.colorectal-cancer.ca/en/news-and-resources/doctors-call-cri sis/

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 10, 2009 - 02:23 PM

Even an unhealhty dose of sunlight causes cancer. Why risk it?

CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity

Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17952

Posted: Nov 10, 2009 - 08:35 PM

Quote:

When you consider an environment that is has cigarette smoke mixed in with air pollution which OF COURSE causes cancer as well, it's hard to find a culprit.

No one is allowed to use "of course" as an argument.
"air pollution" is what? Actually air causes cancer because it contains C02.

Quote:

where people are heavy smokers, you would be able to isolate that variable, are see if it actually does cause cancer, or if it was just all those other factors combined.

To isolate something means to take away everything else. Having cleaner air removes some of the variables found in the air. Do they smoke pot? Being so far north do they spend a lot of time indoors with propane stoves, fireplaces, emissions from wood/basements/earth?

Quote:

"Nunavut’s smoking rate is more than double the national average (22 per cent) and is considerably higher than those in the Northwest Territories (36 per cent) and Yukon (30 per cent)."

OK, so it's similar to China, Greece, and Italy. How do lung cancer rates compare? China has half the lung cancer rate of the USA according to the American Lung Association.

Quote:

"Among Nunavut’s (a territory in Canada) Inuit, 85 per cent of the territory’s population, the rates are even worse. The 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Survey found that 64 per cent of the territory’s Inuit over the age of 15 light up daily; another eight per cent called themselves occasional smokers."

All this talk about smoking rates and no mention of cancer rates....hmmmm.

Quote:

Infant mortality in the territory is three times the Canadian average. The rates of prematurity and low birth weight are also high.

These are high in any population with low education, poor diets, low exercise, bad weather, etc. No causal link to smoking based on these statements.

Quote:

Nunavut’s infants also suffer from the world’s highest reported rate of hospital admission for serious respiratory infections

This feeds an intuitive idea relating smoking and lung infections, but again, the effect of cigarette smoke is far from isolated especially given the damp conditions, and many forms of home heating. I smoked for 25 years before moving to China and never had a lung infection. But in my first 3 years in China I had bronchiatis 3 times, the first one was after only 6 months here.

Quote:

published in the August 2009 edition of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, concluded that infants whose mothers smoked were at least four times more likely to be hospitalized for a serious lung infection during the first two years than infants whose mothers did not smoke.

Again, an intuituve link, an emotional link, to smoking and health, but it points as much to the mothers themselves, their living conditions, etc.. With the world smoking so much for 3000 years, and heavily for the last 500 years, why would such an 'obvious' link only be known now?

Quote:

"Lung cancer rates among Canada’s Inuit are the highest in the world"

data please?

Quote:

Nunavut has extremely low rates pollution, and hardly any industrialization. They use few resources, drive on snow mobiles, and have a limited impact on the environment.

Snow mobiles are one of the most inefficient burners of gasoline in the world, their pollution levels, along with coal bar-b-ques emit more pollution that cars.

Quote:

why take the gamble, and in the meanwhile end up wrinkled, yellowed and really stinky?

The gamble? A 1% greater chance of lung cancer after the age of 75, a 0% greater chance of emphasema (because I am an overall healthy and active person) while all my 300 pound friends will die of heart attacks and strokes and liver failure 10 to 15 years before I die of potential smoking related illnesses? pfffft. I am more likely to get hit by a drunk driver than die of any potential smoking related illness.

Keep digging, and keep an open mind.

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 12, 2009 - 06:10 PM

The pollution smokers need to put up with these days...

donkeykong

Reacher

Joined: Dec 18, 2008
Posts: 219
Location: XJH
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 03:20 PM

I think there should be a ban on smoking indoors in Shanghai. Smokey air is irritating to the nose and eyes (especially to non-smokers). Clean air is not irritating to anyone. (And if you want to argue there is no such thing as clean air in Shanghai, then I'll settle for cleaner air.)

I, along with science journals and researchers, believe cigarette smoke has carcinogens that can mess with human DNA, and is thus linked to cancer. Anyone with a background in biology knows this. If you need evidence, just google "smoking link cancer". If you don't believe the internet, go find a reputable medical journal. If you don't believe that, well, only you can determine what is truth in the end.

I know a lot of things can possibly cause cancer. Cigarette smoke is one of them, and nothing unhealthy can result from banning it indoors.

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 04:42 PM

I think there should be a ban on pollution. According to various studies;

Adverse air quality can kill many organisms including humans. Ozone pollution can cause respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, throat inflammation, chest pain, and congestion. Water pollution causes approximately 14,000 deaths per day, mostly due to contamination of drinking water by untreated sewage in developing countries. An estimated 700 million Indians have no access to a proper toilet, and 1,000 Indian children die of diarrhoeal sickness every day. Nearly 500 million Chinese lack access to safe drinking water. 656,000 people die prematurely each year in China because of air pollution. In India, air pollution is believed to cause 527,700 fatalities a year. Studies have estimated that the number of people killed annually in the US could be over 50,000.

Oil spills can cause skin irritations and rashes. Noise pollution induces hearing loss, high blood pressure, stress, and sleep disturbance. Mercury has been linked to developmental deficits in children and neurologic symptoms. Older people are majorly exposed to diseases induced by air pollution. Those with heart or lung disorders are under additional risk. Children and infants are also at serious risk. Lead and other heavy metals have been shown to cause neurological problems. Chemical and radioactive substances can cause cancer and as well as birth defects.

Pollution has been found to be present widely in the environment. There are a number of effects of this:

Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides can cause acid rain which lowers the pH value of soil.
Nitrogen oxides are removed from the air by rain and fertilise land which can change the species composition of ecosystems.
Soil can become infertile and unsuitable for plants. This will affect other organisms in the food web.
Smog and haze can reduce the amount of sunlight received by plants to carry out photosynthesis and leads to the production of tropospheric ozone which damages plants.
Invasive species can out compete native species and reduce biodiversity. Invasive plants can contribute debris and biomolecules (allelopathy) that can alter soil and chemical compositions of an environment, often reducing native species competitiveness.
Biomagnification describes situations where toxins (such as heavy metals) may pass through trophic levels, becoming exponentially more concentrated in the process.
Carbon dioxide emissions cause ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans as CO2 becomes dissolved.
The emission of greenhouse gases leads to global warming which affects ecosystems in many ways.

Should you really be worring about smokes...?

donkeykong

Reacher

Joined: Dec 18, 2008
Posts: 219
Location: XJH
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 06:35 PM

Ah Beng wrote:

Should you really be worring about smokes...?

The world obviously has a lot of problems. Let's attack them one issue at a time (so to speak). I say start with cigarettes. But to each his own.

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 11:46 PM

Exactly, the world has a lot of problems. Like someone here once posted, you're more likely to be run over by a reckless or drunk driver than smokes.

The question really is shouldn't you be focusing on what will actually kill you...?

Btw, non smokers are not stuck in hell hole where there's lack of air...like crappy smoking conditions in bkk int airport and most other airports that smokers need to put up with.

So I was smoking at an outdoor smoking area, then a family with very young kids came along and sat near my table which is a non-smoking table. The mom and family gazed at me with dirty looks.

WTH! There are only so many places a smoker can smoke, and of all the 95% of places, the family had to sit next to me when there are plenty of other tables to choose from. Its just getting to point where it becomes ridiculous and silly...

Just exercising some common sense will help.

jay_dee

Reacher

Joined: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 330

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 18, 2009 - 06:13 AM

So, in summation:

Non smokers will not be satisfied until tobacco smoking is banned around the world.
However, smoke from open fires, industry, restaurants and all vehicles is acceptable.

Non drinkers will only be sated when alcohol is prohibited worldwide.

Smokers will only be happy when they are given an area to indulge their habit, without being harassed and have the non smokers buy them a few beers.

_________________
US Expat in Shanghai

ProcrastiNation

Talker

Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 103

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 18, 2009 - 10:17 AM

If you're smoking in a designated smoking area then all is good. The smoking areas however will become less and less, which is a good thing. I've already explained to you why the "there are some many other things that can kill you" argument is retarded.

If you don't think smoking is detrimental to your health have a look at the link below.

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content-nw/full/25/5/472/T2

If you still don't want to believe it, then just go to your nearest cancer ward and take a survey.

Happy Puffing.

bhbernstein

Reacher

Joined: July 28, 2009
Posts: 344

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 18, 2009 - 01:39 PM

ProcrastiNation wrote:

If you're smoking in a designated smoking area then all is good. The smoking areas however will become less and less, which is a good thing.

Why is have less smoking areas a good thing? If it is a "smoking area" then you don't have to go in.... If people want to smoke in a designated place, why not let them. The argument on smoking areas started because of the problems with 2nd hand smoke. If you do not want the 2nd hand smoke, do not go into those areas...

Why do people continue to "know" what is best for everyone, especially if you are hurting no one but yourself... Drinking alcohol is bad for you, kills brain cells and hurts your liver. Should this be banned?

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 18, 2009 - 04:38 PM

ProcrastiNation wrote:

The smoking areas however will become less and less, which is a good thing.

It's not. If you restrict the number of smoking places, what happens is ppl are just gonna smoke all over the place. You'll be walking along the streets and someone will always be puffing near you, or while you're waiting for the traffic lights, smokes everywhere...This is happening in countries where smokers are marginalize and smoking is curbed rigeriously. The smokes just transfer from one place to another. Yeah, you can't smoke in the restaurants, malls, bars, airport and planes, so we'll just pollute the entrance or just about everywhere, so long you don't mind. Even if you do, bite me!!

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 02:54 AM

small city in singapore,

MORE than 900 smokers were caught puffing in out-of-bound areas, a month after the nationwide smoking ban was widened to cover more public places.
About half of them were picked up by plainclothes enforcement officers from the National Environment Agency (NEA) in the first week after the ban took effect on Jan 1, an average of 69 per day.

Most of those caught were smoking in newly banned places, which now include areas such as non-air-conditioned offices, hotel lobbies, multi-storey carparks and places within 5m of the entrances and exits of buildings.

Their excuse: they forgot that the new rules had kicked in.

After the first week, the number of smokers caught lighting up where they should not dwindled to about 20 a day.

The end result, hefty fines for those caught flaunting the anti-smoking laws.

Is this how you non-smokers like it to be?

ProcrastiNation

Talker

Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 103

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 09:58 AM

bhbernstein wrote:

ProcrastiNation wrote:

If you're smoking in a designated smoking area then all is good. The smoking areas however will become less and less, which is a good thing.

Firstly you're an idiot.

Secondly what the hell are you talking about? What? Did God on the 7th day (when he was meant to be resting) go ahead and designate smoking areas for future generations? "Thou shall smoke in any place thou chooses" was there an 11th commandment we missed?

Previously you were allowed to smoke everywhere but since this crazy thing called "science" came along and conclusively proved that cigarette smoke is harmful not only to the smoker BUT TO THOSE PEOPLE AROUND THE SMOKER, the governments have decided to restrict the number of places where smokers can hurt other people. THAT IS A GOOD THING and will continue to happen. Better get used to it.

The alcohol argument is dumb and already been proven so. Yes drinking alcohol is bad for MY liver not the liver of the guy sitting next to me sipping on an Earl Grey.

Last edited by ProcrastiNation on Nov 19, 2009 - 01:08 PM; edited 1 time in total

ProcrastiNation

Talker

Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 103

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 10:00 AM

Ah Beng wrote:

Yes

CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity

Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17952

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 01:20 PM

Quote:

and conclusively proved that cigarette smoke is harmful not only to the smoker BUT TO THOSE PEOPLE AROUND THE SMOKER

The problem is statements like this are just about repeating media headlines. Think about what the words mean, and more importantly, what is not stated (facts, data, numbers).

EVERYTHING is harmful to your health, you can kill yourself by drinking too much water. Humans easily accept, albeit superficially, anything that relates to a pre-existing notion or an intuitive or emotional idea. This is one of the key foundations of marketing and advertising.

Do your brain a favor, step out of your matrix and into the real world, and 'lightly' investiage this subject (smoking = danger). Don't give in to just finding articles or data that supports your point of view, look at the other side too. This is an excellent example to see how the world works around you. With this small step, you will be able to Hitler coming before he throws you into an oven. Your time is coming, if you wait to react before they start passing laws against you, you won't have too many options. Be proactive.

ProcrastiNation

Talker

Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 103

Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 01:42 PM

CoffeeHawk_0 wrote:

Quote:

and conclusively proved that cigarette smoke is harmful not only to the smoker BUT TO THOSE PEOPLE AROUND THE SMOKER

Man you have one serious case of denial. Though I admire your unrepentant dedication to your misguided belief, especially as it stands opposed to insurmountable data to the contrary.

I can only assume one of two things.

1. That you are intellectually inept, in which case I'm sorry about confusing you with 'facts' and 'credible information' i.e data from numerous internationally recognised medical institutions that doesn' pre-date the invention of the wheel.

2. That you're just trying to wind me up. In which case, well played sir.

donkeykong

Reacher

Joined: Dec 18, 2008
Posts: 219
Location: XJH
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 05:27 PM

Ah Beng wrote:

Here, you admit smoking is harmful, but argue it is not as deadly. It's not impossible to focus on more than one thing at a time. Governments can curb smoking AND drunk driving at the same time. It's definitely doable.

Ah Beng wrote:

Btw, non smokers are not stuck in hell hole where there's lack of air...like crappy smoking conditions in bkk int airport and most other airports that smokers need to put up with.

So I was smoking at an outdoor smoking area, then a family with very young kids came along and sat near my table which is a non-smoking table. The mom and family gazed at me with dirty looks.

WTH! There are only so many places a smoker can smoke, and of all the 95% of places, the family had to sit next to me when there are plenty of other tables to choose from. Its just getting to point where it becomes ridiculous and silly...

I sympathize with you. BKK airport and the establishment you mentioned were in the wrong. BKK airport should have ventilated the room better, that establishment should have sectioned off the smoking area better.

ProcrastiNation wrote:

If you're smoking in a designated smoking area then all is good. The smoking areas however will become less and less, which is a good thing.

Fewer and fewer smoking areas is not necessarily a good thing, depending on the percentage of smokers in the city. The number of smoking areas should be adequate to meet the demand of smokers. But if the number of smoking areas accurately represents the number of smokers, then yes, it is a good thing because public heath is improving overall. Bad for tobacco companies I suppose....

Last edited by donkeykong on Nov 19, 2009 - 05:41 PM; edited 1 time in total

donkeykong

Reacher

Joined: Dec 18, 2008
Posts: 219
Location: XJH
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 19, 2009 - 05:33 PM

Ah Beng wrote:

small city in singapore,
...

The end result, hefty fines for those caught flaunting the anti-smoking laws.

Is this how you non-smokers like it to be?

CoffeeHawk_0 wrote:

The problem is statements like this are just about repeating media headlines. Think about what the words mean, and more importantly, what is not stated (facts, data, numbers).

The following have concluded that smoking is directly detrimental to your physical health (cancer, emphysema, lung disease, etc):

The American Cancer Society (non-profit org)
The Canadian Cancer Society (non-profit org)
Cancer Research UK (non-profit org)
World Health Organization (UN agency)
National Health Service (UK gov)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US gov)
National Institutes of Health (US Gov)

Their research can be found on their websites. If it's raw data that you're after, you can work in any laboratory that deals with this issue, but I doubt you will.

CoffeeHawk_0 wrote:

Humans easily accept, albeit superficially, anything that relates to a pre-existing notion or an intuitive or emotional idea. This is one of the key foundations of marketing and advertising.

No advertising, just quantitative and qualitative data. They're not trying to get the public to buy something or take down tobacco companies for the sake of competition. They're not pushing for any type of anti-smoking product. Believe it or not, they're simply trying improve public health; doing so results in a healthier workforce and fewer smoking-induced hospital visits.

Again, if you refuse to accept these conclusions by these organizations, that's up to you. After all, despite all the data and conclusions, some people still think that global warming isn't happening, too.

CoffeeHawk_0 wrote:

EVERYTHING is harmful to your health, you can kill yourself by drinking too much water.

Medical experts say you should drink plenty of water, as it is essential for life, but do not drink too much, as it can disrupt the electrolyte balance in the extreme. And unlike water, cigarette smoke is chemically harmful to human cells, even in the smallest of doses.

The "everything can harm you" argument is senseless, as it brings nothing to the table.

CoffeeHawk_0 wrote:

Do your brain a favor, step out of your matrix and into the real world, and 'lightly' investiage this subject (smoking = danger). Don't give in to just finding articles or data that supports your point of view, look at the other side too.

Science is not about sides, it's about what literally happens. The chemicals in cigarette smoke is harmful to human cells. You isolate and expose a human cell to the free radicals found in cigarette smoke, and it gets affected negatively. The cell fails to function properly. In many cases, the DNA gets altered. On a larger scale, smoking shortens the lives of many, but does almost nothing for few.

Smoke-free laws were designed to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke, after such smoke was conclusively linked to diseases.

The issue at hand is weighing someone's right to cleaner air against someone's right to light up. This, not whether smoking is harmful to human health, is the issue that has two sides.

As I mentioned before, I believe smoking indoors should be banned to ensure significantly cleaner air for everyone, smoker or not. I do not believe smoking should be banned altogether, as the huge demand for cigarettes may result in increased crime. It should stay taxed and regulated.

Ah Beng

Rocker

Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 763
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline

Posted: Nov 20, 2009 - 07:18 PM

donkeykong wrote:

Ah Beng wrote:

small city in singapore,
...

The end result, hefty fines for those caught flaunting the anti-smoking laws.

Is this how you non-smokers like it to be?

No, but nice try to generate sympathy for those poor unfairly targeted smokers. The Singaporean government enforces its laws however it sees fit, regardless of what non-smokers think (and not all non-smokers think this way). An effective ban on smoking does not have to be enforced this way, and your story thus adds nothing to the issue at hand.

As I mentioned before, I believe smoking indoors should be banned to ensure significantly cleaner air for everyone, smoker or not. I do not believe smoking should be banned altogether, as the huge demand for cigarettes may result in increased crime. It should stay taxed and regulated.

You missed the point. You want regulation? You'll get regulation!
But at what price?

Soon anything & everything will be regulated in the interest of public safety.

Make smoking illegal in public, why not?

Tomorrow, your children will be subjected by law to inplant a mircrochip so that we can regulate their movements.

Public safety, you'll understand...