There are no shoulds or should nots in this world, there is only opinion, and the world has a growing opinion that smoking is bad, from both scientific and spiritual perspectives. Smoking is generally agreed to be bad for health and well being, with limited observable counter benefits, so it is judged to be worthwhile banning, but that doesn't make banning it right (or wrong). It's not absolute fact that smoking is bad, but there is excessive evidence to support such an opinion, just as there is for walking infront of busses or competing in long distance running. How does anyone know absolute right from wrong, given that the only scientifically observable constant in the world is change (nothing is unchanged)? Where can a person go to find reliabe answers? The answer scientific, spiritual and religious people agree on is God, only we disagree on what God is.
2006-06-20 22:01:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bawn Nyntyn Aytetu 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
No, not banned altogether. But I must admit living in California, where you can't smoke anywhere inside, was a heaven for me.
Then I happened to come back here just when our parliament was trying to put an innovation of an "anti-smoking" law together. The way it turned out was quite entertaining as most of the members of Czech parliament are apparently smokers; before: smoking was forbidden in restaurants during lunch hours (11am-2pm I think), after: you can smoke in the restaurants all day long but you can't smoke at the bus stops. ?? I repeat ANTI-smoking..
I really hate the cigarette smoke. I wouldn't ban it altogether but I am for some restrictions. Since the Czech Republic seems to be a smoker's paradise, I don't expect them to happen any time soon, though.
2006-06-21 05:18:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wandering Cat 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Although I'm a commited anti-smoker, I would say No. People should have the freedom of choice. However, it should be banned in all public places and places where there are children, including your own home. Smokers are generally extremely inconsiderate, and that is part of the reason they get such a bad press. They should also have to pay for all medical treatment they receive. Making smoking socially unacceptable will be more effective than banning it.
2006-06-21 04:54:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Damn I hate this. I smoke. If I want to smoke outside I should be able to. If I want to smoke on my own personal property I should be able too. I'm not dropping the nasty butts all over, or blowing it in peoples' faces. I shouldn't have to spend $7 bucks on a pack of cigarettes so the taxes can support the entire state, and then get dirty looks and boos from all the non-smoers who complain we spend all their money. I have no problem not smoking in indoor public places, but banning cigarettes? I would move to Canada because America is apparently not a free country anymore.
2006-06-21 05:40:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Del 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
History of utterly banning things is not so successful, so I wouldn't advocate that as a way of getting rid of smoking. But in Scotland they recently banned smoking in enclosed public places and it's PARADISE!!!!!! and no, the pub trade is not in crisis.
Good question, deserves to keep being asked every once in a while if only to remind people of how stupid the whole smoking thing really is. Yeugh.
2006-06-21 04:50:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by wild_eep 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have never once tried smoking and at 24 I never will. It makes me really mad that as I choose not to smoke people smoke all around me. it wouldn't make any difference if there was a total ban anyway, drugs are illegal but people still take them.
2006-06-22 06:31:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by babyjayney 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Drugs are illegal and the amount of people on them is growing every day. There are a lot more life threatening things going on that need to be addressed first for the good of mankind. Smoking will die out on it's own. Let worry about them first. What about the fumes burning fuel do to this planet.
2006-06-21 04:55:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by thecharleslloyd 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i dont know about total ban.If someone chooses to smoke inspite of the hazards let them do it.They are killing themselves.But public smoking should be dealt because the passers by dont prefer to be walking around with cancer. Passive smoking is supposed to be more harmful than active smoking.So the people should be banned from smoking in public places.
2006-06-21 04:52:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by sana 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Give Del best answer. I understand keeping it out of public places, but if I want to light up out side or in my front yard thats my business and I don't need to get preached at about what it can do to my health, I know the risks and it's my choice.
2006-06-23 10:45:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by ♪♫♪Ginny♪♫♪ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it should be banned. And the guys behind the industry should be prosecuted. Making cigarettes is a crime against humanity, a genocide
2006-06-21 07:45:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Chevalier 5
·
0⤊
0⤋