What would serve the public best, banning smoking or drinking?

Answer 1

drinking

Answer 2

The question is..

"What would serve the public best, banning smoking or drinking?"


NOT what is the worst in your opinion. Banning drinking would serve the public good the most. The amount of violence - street and domestic, car and home accidents, relationship problems, police funding etc that relates directly to alcohol use is frightening. Also banning alcohol would decrease smoking, people smoke a lot more when they drink.

Smoking is bad yes, but the tax covers the NHS cost of treatment, it's just the government don't put it all to use there.

On balance banning alcohol would serve the public good better, they would't like it but thats not the question.

Answer 3

Drinking was banned at one point in time in the USA, it was called Prohibition. I believe it was the 18th amendment to the Constitution. Banning drinking opened up a huge can of worms and crime in the United States. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th amendment and the government now controls the distribution and sale of alcohol. That is where the bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms came into play.

As for smoking, banning it in places of employment and in bars and resturants makes sense. Scientific studies have shown that tobacco smoke causes cancer, which is the leading cause of death for smokers. I never understood why someone would smoke. Its kind of like playing russian roulette but real slow. But I digress. However trying to ban it completely is not going to work and again it will cause more problems than it is worth.

Answer 4

Having been in a severe lung disease ward of a hospital after a near fatal asthma attack I'd have to say smoking but isn't it peoples right to choose how they treat their bodies?
Also there's the question of lost income for the government(through taxation) and Pubs and Off licences would also be affected by banning drinking(obviously) but banning smoking in public smoking hasn't affected pubs too much yet and some have unilaterally banned it.
Don't forget freedom of choice!!

Answer 5

Ban drinking been there done that didn't work
Banning smoking
from the people that bring you freedom of choice
Only if it is their choice
Anti-smoking Nazi same as a Nazislamic fascist
I do not know why they work to restrict my liberties to use legal products and work to give terrorist their liberties that are not deserved
Why don't the anti-smoking NAZI make it illegal to grow, possess or use tobacco?
Because hey are Lazy good for nothing elites, only interested in regulating every aspect of every-ones life Like ///lets say communist, socialist, Democrats, liberals,

Answer 6

Smoking is not being banned. It´s only banned to smoke in closed places.
You can smoke as much as you want on condition. You can´t harm other people, the majority, the no smokers.
Drinking is a completely different matter.

Answer 7

Whats worse smoke driving or drink driving

someone chain smoking in the street or someone binge drinking in the street

Do you ever see someone have to many cigs & then become aggresive ?

I could go on but theres more chance of me being the next pope than drinking being banned

Answer 8

Banning smoking.

Answer 9

Smoking

Answer 10

Banning both. But I suppose Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than smoking. But I am not sure.
Again I say, both should be banned. Why do we allow people to burden our health care system so much with their addictions?

Answer 11

Neither, when you take peoples right to choose like that away, then all you are doing is creating more law breakers and other who profit more from the broken laws than the ones who are profitting now from them being legal.

History lesson: They outlawed drinking once, and all it did was create more of a problem than a solution. Read about it in your history book. It was called the Temperance & Prohibition movement ......remember