English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know smokers hav a right to smoke, but non- smokers also hav a right not to breathe their smoke.

2006-06-30 08:37:53 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

39 answers

yes - and i smoke

2006-06-30 08:40:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

This answer could go either way really. As I understand the nonsmokers not wanting to be around it. Although think for a second here everyone knows someone who smokes or is around it every day somewhere. To take the smoking out of pubic areas dont really change the fact that non smokers are not around it at all. Although I also think that its a good idea to try to calm it down a bit. Although come on to tell smokers that they cant smoke within a certain distance doesnt do much anyways. As the smell and such is still with them and you are still breathing it in. For the smokers I think that the society is taking our rights away slowely as we as Americans have rights and the right to do certain things. As to take the right away to not smoke in public is wrong. Why not take away the right to drink in public as there is more drunk drivers out there that can actually kill someone rather than a smoker that at that moment does nothing hazerdous to anyone. So I think that to begin with maybe they should have stopped the drinking.

2006-06-30 08:49:34 · answer #2 · answered by spokany_girl 2 · 0 0

First, have you ever seen a death certificate that said the cause of death was "Second Hand Smoke?" The answer is NO! While smoking is not in vogue and is extreamly unpopular at this time, what will come next, you cannot fart in public? You cannot have a campfire or bonfire at the beach, park or other area? Gonna go after the fast food restaurants because the food they sell is too high in fat and colestoral and burdens our medical resources?

You people need to get a life and look at what is happening behind the curtain as opposed to what you are being told. In general the vast majority to the population are ignorant and unable to think for themselves. Your vehicle emits more harmful toxins into the air than a cigarette. The brake lining, exhaust and residue left by your tires is more harmful to me than second hand smoke. Your walking the street with a cold or flu or a virus is more harmful to the public, should that be a crime too? How about you filthy people who go to a public restroom do your thing and leave without washing your hands exit and touch the door handle, wipe your snotty nose and then grab a rail or push a button to the elevator.

I take exception to any government involvement period. The power to tax is the power to destroy and eliminate. Hey ever wonder how much benefit your state gets from all the taxes smokers pay? Are you willing to have your pay taxed higher or other taxes imposed when they do away with tobacco altogether? I hope so, you ignorant jerks who say yes. You are just too stupid to see the larger picture and a further diminuation of our freedoms. It is people like you that will cost this country to fail.

2006-06-30 08:54:47 · answer #3 · answered by ]-[ustler 3 · 0 1

No the Government should not ban it

it should be the marketplace that takes away smoking not the government.....

As in this scenario:

If there are two restaurants on Main St..

They both had Smoking and Non-Smoking sections and they both did the same amount of business..

Then restaurant A says you know what I am going to go to an entire non-smoking restaurant....

So now the people of the town can choose which one they want to eat at.....If the majority of people don't like the smoke.. then they will go to Restaurant A...

So now Restaurant gets more business and the better employees. ( they can pay higher wages and the waiters get more in tips because its a busier restaurant)

What happens to Restaurant B.. well they can keep themselves open with a smoking section and just get that business,, , or they can turn their restaurant into a smoke free place.,.. and go back to the old days of splitting the business,,,,,

2006-06-30 08:48:27 · answer #4 · answered by alexg114 3 · 0 0

Yes.... I shouldn't have to breath in somebody elses cigarette smoke. Smokers have made the choice to smoke. Breath clean air is natural.. breathing in smoke is not. When smokers smoke, they take away our natural clean air choice.

If smokers want to smoke, they should either do it somewhere that is specifically for them... or in their own homes. In many parts of Canada now, smoking is banned in most public places. You can't smoke in bars, restaurants, donut stores, office buildings and, in fact, I think you have to be about 20 feet from any entrance in order to legally smoke so that people entering and leaving the building don't have to breath in your smoke.

Yes, smokers have rights but... when they smoke, they take non-smokers rights away from them. Governments that have or are banning smoking have taken a step in the right direction.

2006-06-30 08:46:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes i think it should be banned in all public places but i also think that it should be taken off the market because their is nothing good about smoking. Smoking is the cause of many deaths and has taken away many lives smoking is effecting everybody and everything it causes pollution in the air we breathe. To me smoking is just a way to kill yourself and i dont agree with it at all

2006-06-30 08:44:13 · answer #6 · answered by Brown skin 4 · 0 0

Smoking should be made illegal. What other addictive substance is legal to sell? And yes I was a smoker for about 30 yrs. Put the damn tobacco company out of business!

2006-06-30 08:41:27 · answer #7 · answered by wishiwereatthebeach 3 · 0 0

Most smokers couldn't care less about polluting other people's air - that is the problem. It comes down to just plain common courtesy.

The next time someone lights up right in front of you, back up to them and rip a flappy, stinky fart right in their face. Then politely tell them that if they want to pollute your air, you can pollute theirs.

Should the government be in charge of this issue? Probably not. But if smokers cared at all about non-smokers, it wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

2006-06-30 09:11:06 · answer #8 · answered by smrozek 1 · 1 0

That would depend on how you define "public".
If your definition is:
inside governmental owned buildings ... YES
out doors on public property ... NO
inside a privately own business that is open to the public ... NO

If you are a non-smoker and you don't want to breath smoke in a bar or restaurant, go to a bar or restaurant that has owners that choose to have it as a non-smoking establishment.

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PATRONIZE PRIVATE BUSINESSES THAT ALLOW SMOKING IN THEM, SO SHUT UP ALREADY.

2006-06-30 08:53:35 · answer #9 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0 0

Yes--I think the right for everyone to breath clean air trumps the right of smokers to smoke anywhere they like. Your right to smoke ends where your neighbor's air supply begins.

2006-06-30 08:40:40 · answer #10 · answered by mikayla_starstuff 5 · 0 0

No, I don't.

Indoors, I understand but not outdoors. Designated places for smokers is a better idea.

The Disney World parks have designated areas for smokers and that works weel.

2006-06-30 08:45:01 · answer #11 · answered by ckm 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers