no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no................................................................
2006-06-29 07:07:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by jcarrao 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's already been done here in Scotland and it's great. I smoke but it's great to be able to sit in a bar, restaurant, shopping centre or wherever and not have your meal ruined by others smoking.
The atmosphere in a pub is so much better! You can actually see and your clothes don't smell anymore. As a smoker it's OK to go outside, and there even seems to be a bit of a cameradery out there!
The down side is BO! In a club it can get pretty hot and sweaty, smoke must've covered this up before.
Good luck with the essay.
2006-06-29 07:10:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Malc M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I won't try to dissuade you by reminding you that people should take responsibility for themselves and simply not patronize businesses that allow smoking if it bothers them so much... but getting together a list of states that already ban smoking in public places and which public places the laws cover might be a good start. Also, you may point out that even Disney World has designated smoking areas in its parks, which is pretty inappropriate if you think about it.
2006-06-29 07:14:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nobody 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
More people die from alcohol related illness' and drug overdoses than from smoke related illness'. There are more drunks on the streets than i ever see a person smoking.
Most restaurants, pubs, cafes do not allow smoking. Where else do you propose to ban people from smoking. Theyre also not allowed to smoke in shopping precincts/malls, car parks etc.
Personally i'd ban people from spitting in the street and throwing their chewing gum on the path to gum up our shoes. Then there's the dog **** issue. I could go on, i wonder why smokers have been victimised.....easy target. Now their on the backs of people who are overweight. Yet anorexia and bulimia waste more nhs money than obesity. Next they'll be banning people for wearing perfume and deodorant in public. Blair's britain.
2006-07-05 06:19:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I live in a city where smoking is banned at ALL public places. Restaurants, parks, clubs, everything! I think it's an ok move because not everybody smokes, so it gives those a say too.
2006-06-29 07:16:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Rosario 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are two separate aspects to this essay:-
1. What are the consequences of banning smoking in public, and are these desirable (of course they are!)? To answer this bit you need to dig out scientific and statistical data (there is more than enough on the Internet!) about things like second-hand smoke and whether the introduction of laws in countries like Ireland has reduced the number of people smoking, increased babies' birth weights etc etc.
2. Is it MORALLY right to ban smoking in public? A person arguing that smoking should NOT be banned in public may well argue that, even if the consequences of banning smoking in public are good according to scientific criteria, as individuals people should have the right to make their own moral choices. It follows that if you are aruging for public smoking to be banned you must be able to answer this claim.
Try looking at a introductory book on ethics. You will find it very general, but you should be able to think out how the different ethical theories you will find apply to smoking. Two very famous moral philosophers who have written introductory books on ethics are Peter Singer (e.g. "Practical Ethics") and Simon Blackburn ("Being Good" and "A very short introduction to ethics").
Remember that essay markers look not just for the facts - there are far more than you can include in one essay, so you need to pick out the most important ones - but your ability to use them to put together a convincing argument.
2006-06-29 07:34:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Philosophical Fred 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was never sure on this, but having experienced such a smoking ban in Scotland (implemented recently), despite being a smoker, the answer is definitely yes.
You should try to find out as much as possible from such a place to contribute towards your essay.
2006-07-05 14:33:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
if smoking is banned in public, smokers will not stop smoking. so where will they be smoking? in their houses with their kids. this is the very worst place for smoke, because children are harmed the most by second-hand smoke, and they can't avoid it if their parents smoke inside. if smoking is banned anywhere, it should be banned around children. (in homes with children, at zoos, playgrounds, schools, libraries.)
if adults want to go to a private club or bar and smoke or be around smokers, that is their right. if they want to go to a club but not be around smoke, they should go to a non-smoking club. adults have the right to harm their own bodies and as long as nobody is forced to be around it, they should maintain that right.
as for the outdoors, smoke disperses quickly in open air, and the air is full of pollutants anyway from car exhaust and factory fumes. if we're concerned about cleaning the outdoor air, we should put stricter standards on emissions for cars and factories first, since they dump out poisoned air at a much higher rate than a hundred smokers.
second-hand smoke is dangerous, but most second-hand smoke comes from being indoors with smokers for prolonged periods of time. (living with a smoker, for example, which won't be helped by banning smoking in public.) in bars, nobody is forced to work there or to go there. it is a choice.
2006-06-29 07:19:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by krys 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
How about the other fumes that go into our skies. Smoking will die out on it's own. If we don't worry about global warming we will all cook. The smoking debate is wasting goverment time. well done for worrying about it, you have a point, but the planet is a greater worry
2006-06-29 07:41:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by thecharleslloyd 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
One can choose to smoke or not to smoke, but people cannot choose whether or not to breathe. Smokers can go outside to smoke (though that can cause a problem) but non-smokers can't choose to comfortably eat their meal, or have their drink, or listen to the music outside. The law regulates other harmful substances it needs to regulate this for all those who are forced to breathe it. (Asthma, ear infections in children are also aggravated or thought be be caused by second-hand smoke.)
2006-06-29 07:29:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here's an argument:
Your tipple is smoking. When you inhale cigarette smoke the wast product is the exhale of smoke. This goes on my clothes and makes them stink for days.
My tipple is lager. When I drink it, it goes in my body and the waste product is pi$$. How would you like it if I pi$$ed all over your clothes and made them smell for days.
2006-07-02 12:11:21
·
answer #11
·
answered by SurfCop 3
·
0⤊
0⤋