Actually, you're the one who brought up toxins in the air. And to plead your case as if somehow cigarettes are a major culprit was silly. I merely pointed out that all our autos are the real culprit.
The point I was/am making is that it's not up to the gov't to legislate personal liberties.
If I want to sit at the park and smoke a carton of Newports, you and your children are free to not be anywhere near me. Pretty simple.
Just like if you were to sit there and pass gas relentlessly.
We all have the choice to be as far away from you, exercising your personal liberties, as it should be.
And for the record, alcohol is medically every bit as horrible for you as smoking, when done in excess.
You see, that's the thing..you can't legislate things like this because then the precedent is set. And once that Pandora's Box has been opened, there is no going back. Kind of like the Toll Road at GA 400.

Hahahaha!
What's the matter Sean? Not willing to move the fam to Atlantic Station?
The point is and should always be that the government has no business legislating personal liberties to it's citizens. And I don't care how much smoke stinks. I don't want a gov't who can arbitrarily tell any of us what we can and can not do with our own persons!
You can disagree all you want about having to move, I mean, isn't that the exact same thing you told me about your badly behaved kids in the public park?
If I didn't like it, I could just leave? You can't have it both ways. This is not your city, or your world. We ALL live here. And some of us still believe in Personal Freedoms and the government doing what it was created to do.
And telling me to leave the Pall Malls at home isn't it!

Again, you can't have it both ways. You claim that being in the park with someone smoking a cigarette, even if they're 500 yards away is "detrimental to your health."
Where is your proof that at that distance you're affected?

And I'll go right back to the whole "kids" arguement to prove a point.
Screaming, yelling, badly behaved children can be detrimental to someone's mental health. Let's say they are Autistic..even just slightly. Those kids could cause that person undue stress, anxiety, produce a fit of sorts. I've actually seen these things happen and it isn't pretty. So using your logic, children should be banned from the public because there is a potential for producing ill effects on another person.
Children aren't personal liberties either.
Imagine this: "They're not asking for the ban because they're worried about the Autistics well being. They want it because non-parents are fed up with having their personal right to peace and quiet infringed on by children and parents.
This is not a question on a total children ban, its a question on banning children in public parks and similar places."
See how that works? At some point, we must leave it up to the individuals to choose. Not create more government backwash that in the end does no good.

Oscar, I appreciate your view that Government doesn't know better, but your argument that exhaust from automobiles is worse than smoke from cigarettes is not based in fact. The fact is cigarettes produce 10X the amount of toxins as a car. Yes, it is true that cars produce more air pollution, but that doesn't make it worse for your health. The amount of toxins released in the air is what effects your health. It would be a valid argument for cars without catalytic converters, but they are required in Georgia. So, until cars start going to the parks, taking off their catalytic converts and revving their engines, this argument doesn't work.

I agree, it is someones choice if they want to buy cigarettes and breath them in, but shouldn't it be my choice if I don't want to breath them in? With the amount of people still smoking it is nearly impossible for me get through the day without have to breath in these toxins.

It is true that prohibitions don't work! We have two good examples in the United States alone. Alcohol in the 20's and the current drug war. However, no one is suggesting banning the sale of cigarettes or nicotine.

Furthermore, if someone is truly addicted to cigarettes and can't deal with going an hour without them while at the park, there are good alternatives. The patch, the gum, and electronic cigarettes. These all provide you with the nicotine without forcing me to breath in the toxins from your cigarette!

E.G. Gnome. You really need to do some research before 'speaking' as much as you do. The majority of the time something is changed is simply because someone would not stop complaining about it as you are doing here. Smoking was banned in places because someone didn't like it. Those toxins you talk about breathing in that are so bad for you are inhaled more but smokers. And before you start quoting ads against smoking and just how bad it is for you, understand this, the percent of deaths per year caused by cigarettes is LESS than 1%. Less than one. Airbags, Seatbelts, cars, alcohol, yellow jackets, prescription and over the counter medications kill far more than that. So remember, before speaking or typing, do at least a little research from sources other that television commercials.

All reliable sources:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/secondhand-smoke.html

1% is too many as far as I am concerned, especially when this type of death is not caused by a natural occurrence.....last time I checked...smoking is a choice.

Stepfather - dead. Emphazema.
Grandfather - dead. Lung Cancer.
Both smoking related. And you know what? As tragic as that is, it's also NOT THE POINT.
The point is that the government does not have the right to legislate personal liberties. How hard is that to understand?
I don't smoke. It's gross. And I personally avoid places that allow smoking whenever possible. Because that's what reasonable people do.
No more government inteference with our personal lives.
They have plenty to do without wondering if you've lit a dang cigarette in the park!

Perhaps you should reread you own post Sean.

"the liberty of an individual to do his or her will freely except for those restraints imposed by law to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic welfare of others."

This clearly states that the restraints are imposed by law to safeguard.
But that's exactly where the law ends. Science is what determines what physical damage occurs from events. And you're never going to find a scientist who claims that second hand smoke from even 100 ft away is going to kill you.

But don't just take my word for it.
Here..someone who deals with sick people for a living. Someone we like to call a Doctor of Medicine.

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

I've said all I'm going to on this subject. The gov't needs to stay out of our personal lives and that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.

The end.

Wish it was that simple...however, I personally don't congregate around them (see example in previous thread) and try to avoid them at every opportunity, but unfortunately they still light up and at times or even in places that are not always convenient for me to exit...of course...why should I exit?!?! I'm not the one engaging in an act that is proven to cause harm or be offensive. As for policing and writing citations, I don't think that needs to be the immediate response...hopefully smoking bans in designated areas should be enough, but in the event it is not, a friendly verbal reminder to the offender should be sufficient...if you are dealing with law abiding and respectful citizens....but that is a "what if". As for making it this far without public smoking bans...not exactly the case, there are plenty that have been instituted. However, the need or desire for more appears to be increasing. Which is why we are having the discussion in the first place. You are absolutely correct, there are more important matters, like the car break-ins in my neighborhood, but if smokers were more conscious of their actions nonsmokers probably would probably not be in the position of having to exercise their rights in requesting laws be created to ban smoking in public areas.
Thank for all your hard work. :)