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

2006-11-25 07:17:19 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

41 answers

ban smoking and life because they both kill you.. now you can't argue with that statement now can you?

2006-11-25 07:20:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I believe smoking is just about banned anywhere other than your own home now anyway..but whether you smoke or not the government does not have the right to tell you you cant.Everybody is aware of the damage it does but this is supposed to be a free country not the nanny state it has become.People should have the right to choose otherwise they will have to ban every harmful substance out there .Going on the amount of binge drinking and alcohol related illness there will be over the next few years it is likely that the next generation will be unable to reproduce anyway (excessive alcohol especially in women causes infertility) so what are they worried about just let us kill ourselves off in our own way..doesnt all the tax they make fund the NHS anyway?

2006-11-25 07:40:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Definitely not. The tax on smoking more than covers the amount the NHS spend on treating smoking related illnesses, by roughly 5 times. Ban cars too if you want to ban cigarettes. After all they are one of the largest polluters and cause many health problems through that and yet no health tax is paid by car owners.

2006-11-26 01:29:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What difference would it make? We ban various so called recreational drugs and people keep taking them. We don't have enough jail space for those who cause crime to fund drug addictions. We don't have enough re-hab centres for those who have 'seen the light'. All we will do is make a new class of minor criminal. Time we dealt with the real criminals instead of bullying Joe and Josephine public because 'nanny state' knows best. I'm sick and tired of the whingers who bellyache about smokers in 'their' space. If there is so much demand for none smoking clubs/pubs restaurants cafes etc etc. Then start up a business of your own. Why do businesses have to be made responsible for deciding on the personal habits of their customers? In the service industry, that is what they are in! Providing a service for their customers. If their customers what a no smoking place then ask for one. If the owner doesn't want to provide one clear off and take your business else where!

I don't smoke, gave up 20 years ago.

2006-11-25 08:57:22 · answer #4 · answered by phil m 1 · 0 0

Yes, by an ex smoker.( only smoke where other people not around like at home,.) I hate to go into a store where an employee is standing out side of the store smoking I live in Florida where smoking is banned from where they serve food, why not at other places?

2006-11-25 07:31:07 · answer #5 · answered by bettys 4 · 1 0

I don't understand why this is such a hot button issue when there are so many other much more important concerns facing this nation.

Smoking is pretty much already banned anywhere it would effect the "rights" of non-smokers - and, like everything else the bureaucracy involves itself in, a lot of places where it wouldn't.

What's going to be the next campaign after we allow smoking to be banned? Alcohol? Cell phones in public places? Freedom to assemble? Political dissent?

We may not agree with the way many people choose to live, but we had better all agree to protect our rights to make these choices.

2006-11-25 07:31:54 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2 1

I'm not a smoker and I really dislike the smell of smoke, still, I think people are responsible for their own health. In Quebec, it is now forbidden to smoke in all public places, including bars and if you want to smoke outside a building, school, or whatever, you have to stand further than 9 meters from the door. That's a start. People who smoke should be able to understand that WE want fresh air and respect these rules. I also think that it's irresponsible to smoke around kids of when you're pregnant.

2006-11-25 07:29:59 · answer #7 · answered by .:: me ~* 3 · 1 0

Yes and no, agreed it's bad for you and people around you, but, if a person want's to smoke and enjoys it, who has the right to take their rights away as a person. I smoke, wish I didn't and wish I never started, tried to stop a million times, been to docs, tried patches, nothing works. I do understand non-smokers wanting it banned but at the end of the day it's every person's choice and it shouldn't be taken away by force!! x

2006-11-25 07:29:23 · answer #8 · answered by RUTH M 3 · 1 0

I remember when I was pregnant often at the bus stop people would smoke not even thinking about the others, not even thinking about pregnant. It is extremely selfish! If they want to inhale this poison then I have right not to. Every adult knows the effect of smoke. There is nothing good in smoking except a short term pleasure, a very short term pleasure.

Therefore, let them poison themselves somewhere at home or at the smokers clubs.

Smokers should be fined if smoked in the public places, in front of the elderly, pregnant and children. Badly fined so they would learn the lesson.

They know they damage their health and the health of the others but smokers are VERY selfish.

2006-11-25 07:41:20 · answer #9 · answered by Vital 1 · 0 1

Yes. in all public places... it's the worst thing in the world for a non smoker and children. The news today stopped a cpl from adopting cos the man of the house was a smoker. Simple stop smoking.

2006-11-25 07:31:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Only if they ban drinking in a public place. Second hand smoke may harm people, but so do the drunks that get into fights then get into their cars and drive. It doesnt make much sense to me.

2006-11-25 07:29:52 · answer #11 · answered by pebbles 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers