5 votes

What has Ron Paul said about outdoor smoking bans?

I'm in a heated debate with another Ron Paul supporter over smoking on public property- parks & campgrounds, city hall or county property. He thinks Dr Paul would support outdoor bans based on pollution/private property. I disagree based on personal responsibility but cannot find any statements from the man. I've supplied many references but my friend is only interested in Dr Paul's opinion. Has he talked or written about this?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Funny, I just had this conversation

I had two conservative Republicans insist that smoking bans in restaurants and bars are good. They did not agree that the bar or restaurant owner had a right to control his own property. They contended that smoking is not victimless because second hand smokes kills people. I made the point that MAYBE daily exposure to second hand smoke would have health effects, but that there is no evidence that sitting in a smoky bar or restaurant once in a while has any negative health effects.

You'd have thought I just denied the Holocaust.
The arguments got to be surprisingly emotional. I was accused of selectively choosing my facts to support my nutty ideas.

Not a happy discussion. Note to self: be sure to end the conversation with a sigh and mutter "everyone's got something against freedom," just in case that will make them think.

should just tell him that his exhaling CO2 is more toxic!


A double-whammy for those of us who know about the Carbon Tax/Credit/Anthroprogenic-'global warming'-con, and piss off a fellow R3VOL 'gently' by accusing him of being a Rockefeller's UN Agenda 21 supporting L-R-stuck 'faux conservationist,' fake-'sustainable' greenie treehuggin'-liberal! All with that single one-liner.

like: 'dude, your second hand exhale is much more toxic, in confined spaces, especially after you chowed down your onion-rich favorite burrito!'


na. tell him, you kid, 'cause you love.o)

to be serious. I mean, if the anti-smokers were truly serious about principled consistency and actual science, they'd have to admit the fact that there has NEVER been any real peer-reviewed scientific study done on health effects of 2nd hand smoking on humans, in a monitored enclosed location, throughout a long duration, by first establishing a baseline health of the two or more + 'control' participants involved.

anecdotally comparing lifestyle of smoker vs, others, even over time, is not really a scientific proof. too many variables, from genetics, health history, climate, geographic/environmental factors, diet/exercise, stress level of their profession, etc.

though, don't get me wrong, one would have to be a buffoon to not know that the chemicals they put into cigarettes are a gazillion times more toxic than mere tobacco burn.

if you were to compare someone who smokes a pack of Marlboro Reds daily with someone who smokes cigar in exact to similar same amount of tobacco, I can guarantee, setting aside any particular genetic predisposition to lung or tongue cancer, the Marl-Red smoker's health will deteriorate far quicker: I've known a few. And I WAS the second hand-non-smoker!


Plus cigars are not 'addictive' per-se.

but more apropos of your own discussion with your buddy, what proof is there, that what particular volume of second hand smoke is harmful, outdoors? Not to say that there may not be one, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a single exhaustive study involving human subjects over a long duration to suggest that 2nd hand smoke out it the open is any more or less harmful than a car or street legal (in some states) 2-stroke dirtbikes/quads.

It's all relative. So to empirically assert that outdoor 2nd handsmoking is harmful, in a broadstroke sense, is an utterly facetious and empty non-scientific assertion/opinion.

Should ask your friend if he knows what exact volume of brand X of cigarettes will release y amount of specific toxins into the atmosphere: what parts/million. then ask if he knows how toxic a typical fuel injected inline 4 with catalytic converted exhaust fumes are at idle. and what effect cross wind have on the level of toxicity, if you were to seriously attempting to measure its toxicity at a given open air space, etc.

until he can establish those minor overlooked inconsistencies and debate premise contradictions, I'd say break open a pack of Marlboros, Dunhills, Zino Davidoffs, or hell Cohibas or its baby cigarillos.o)

come on! who doesn't like the deep scent of a robusto?

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Property ownership rights

Property ownership rights would probably be invoked. For public property, it'd probably be a no--meaning no smoking bans. So far as a private property goes, he'd probably want to leave the decision up to the owner--meaning a restauranteur can freely kick out a patron for smoking on his property.

I don't know if Dr. Paul has addressed this yet..

My guess is that he would not support any anti smoking laws and that if someone was not happy being around someone who was smoking, they could try to make the case in court to claim damages that would be very hard to prove were provoked from inhaling the smoke.

I am a smoker and would have no problem listening to someone complain about the smell and possible negative health outcomes of my actions from someone who does not smoke. I would and do my best not to bother anyone with my smoking habit.

Do smokers who don't own a car have a more negative effect on "public health" than non smokers who do own a car? What moral standing could the government possibly have for banning smoking outdoors when it is one of the major sources of air pollution by burning millions of gallons of fuel to keep the machine running?

BTW.. If you don't smoke cigarets, don't start now because it really is an unhealthy bad habit at least when it comes to the respiratory system. If when all factors are accounted for, like "stress reduction" (this is my personal belief), I don't know if the negative cost to my respiratory system is a fair price to pay for the negative effects that may manifest if I became more stressed (ya this may be the nicotine talking.).



I try to change people every day. Do You?

I know I've heard him..

speak negatively about smoking bans, I just cant recall exactly when/where. Nothing too in-depth, just as aside during an interview or speech

This is the problem with modern society. We dont like something, we dismiss tolerance and demand the government take action. These smoking bans have swept across the country like wildfire- and its a terrible precedent for novel forms of tyranny

Visit https://soundcloud.com/politics-of-freedom for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of

It is disgusting to think

It is disgusting to think that a citizen cannot smoke on or in certain private properties, and for the government to come in and take away property rights.


Does anyone have links to Dr Paul's position on banning smoking outdoors on public property?

I agree with tdd4Ron, but my friend won't hear of it. I need quotes.

I think it boils down to not

I think it boils down to not harming or infringing on another persons liberty. If you are in a public park and you are 200 feet from another then it should be fine. If you are in the same park and set down between two people on a bench lighting up could be a problem. Now if you set on the south end of the bench and the wind was blowing to the south what is the problem? Bottom line your liberty to smoke can't violate another persons liberty to breath smokeless air.

I can't imagine Ron wanting another law on the books.... Liberty has been defined... now enforce it!

From a private property viewpoint,

I could not imagine RP wanting the feds to ban smoking on private property. Individuals who own the property are well equipped to decide for themselves. If a business doesn't like people smoking outside / inside their place of business, they have every right to ban smoking inside and out. If they don't care they also have the right to allow it both inside and out. If people don't like the smoke, they don't have to vote with their dollars to support that particular place of business. If smokers are upset that a place of business bans outside / inside smoking, they too can vote no with their dollars and go elsewhere.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

The question was about public property like parks & campgrounds

Thanks FIA, I realized I didn't say public property. I just edited my question to be more specific.


as in, next to bonfires? people cant have a cigarette next to a campfire?

Visit https://soundcloud.com/politics-of-freedom for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of

even campgrounds

Yes, there is a plan afoot to ban smoking on all public grounds, including campgrounds(next to campfires), at both the state and county level.

On a positive note, our county board has decided not to move ahead with any further restrictions at this time.