Don't you think smoking should be illigal? It effects the ones who do not smoke more then those who smoke!!!

Answer 1

Smoking should be banned in public areas, as it truly IS harmful to non smokers. Especially in restaurants, where it gets into food we are eating. And in my nostrils, and my lungs. I have seen people get emphysema and cancer from second hand smoke. Even smog is not that bad. Smoking should be banned everywhere except a person's home, and even then, should be banned in the home if children live there. If smokers smoke where children live, then they cannot truly love their children.
But, illegal? I think in time, it should be made illegal. Maybe in a few generations. If made illegal, tho, it will become like marijuana, and smoked in private places. but, then, that would not bother me.

Answer 2

The danger behind banning smoking will be the rise in illegal operations to supply those who will smoke regardless of regulations ... does Prohibition sound familiar?

And before I hear anyone talk about smoking harming smokers and non-smokers, drinkers and non-drinkers both can be affected by alcohol (behavioral misconduct, drunk driving, etc.); bad drivers can hurt other bad drivers and good drivers because the car ends up becoming a weapon in the wrong hands.

There are people who enjoy smoking. I am not a smoker, nor do I partake in the occasional drag. However, let people smoke. To many, it is a stress reliever and helpful in calming other people down.

By the way, there have been recent reports showing that second hand smoke (passive smoke) is not as dangerous as first thought.

Answer 3

Ethically, you have to weigh the right of the individual to the right of the whole. If you were to base it upon a utilitarian ethics approach, you would say that smoking should be illegal because banning smoking improves the common good more than it helps the individual. If you were to consider a 'moral rights', where certain laws should not be passed that inflict damage on a specific individual, you would make laws that prohibit smoking in certain areas to protect everyone, including the rights of smokers to smoke if they're not affecting non-smokers. Lastly, the individual rights approach states that an individual will do what is best over the long term. Therefor, if smoking was bad for an individual, they would eventually quit smoking. Decide which one works best for you. Obviously, there are a lot of issues to consider.

Answer 4

It should be illigal. Even worse the ones who are alergic to the smoke.

Answer 5

I always thought it should be illigal when founded out it also affects people who dont smoke. Its not fair!

Answer 6

Prove it. I have not seen one single shred of evidence that smoking is harmful even to the smoker themself. I smoke thirty a day and I'm absolutely fine.

I hate the fact that smokers get picked on so much. War and poverty hurt other people too. Make war and poverty illegal, then I might start to think about quitting. Bigotry is harmful to other people, make that illegal.

Screw you, I love to smoke. I'm addicted to smoking. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do? I think preaching without research should be illegal. You can't even spell illegal, do your friggin' home work before you tell me how to live my life.

Answer 7

People should be allowed to smoke if the want, I just wish it was banned in all public places, including bars and restaurants.

Answer 8

I dont like smoking and I never smoke in my life. But I think that if we make it illegal, it would be just another marijuana. Hundreds of people will still do it.

Answer 9

The only time a smoker knows smokeing is bad is when they are on a oxygen tank, or waiting fora lung transplant.

Answer 10

O.K. Let's make smoking illegal... And then outlaw beer, wine, etc. After all, Drunks kill more people than smoking.....Then, let's outlaw automobiles, Guns, firecrackers, dogs ( they bite 4.7 million Americans a year). And while we are at it... outlaw good sense... It appears in short supply here, anyway.