how do we stand with our human rights on this cig ban?

Answer 1

The politically correct police have won again!!!

Answer 2

Every one breathing has the right to free will and choice. When it comes to human rights and smoking, I think the ban is well placed and much needed, if one is a non smoker they should not be forced to second hand smoke, everyone has the right to life, this is a basic human right and if second hand smoke is more dangerouse than the actual smoking and every cig pack has a warning "Smoking kills", then smoking is murderouse and is well banned

Answer 3

Scotland has had this ban in place since March, and as a smoker I thought it would be pain not being able to smoke whilst having a drink in a pub/club, but it's not that bad. In fact it's quite good, you smoke less and don't stink of smoke after a night out. Restaurants smell nicer and the food tastes better because it's not masked with the smell/taste of smoke. Loads of people have stopped smoking and they said having the ban in place helped them quit. If you do go outside for a cigarette it's quite sociable, you speak to people you wouldn't normally speak to cos you're all outside together. It really isn't that bad, and it's much much better for non smokers. You will get used to it.

Answer 4

I live in the States. Locally they have started to ban public smoking, and I think it is ridiculous!!!!! I smoke. I cannot go to the local bar and have a drink and a cigarette indoors -- I have to go outside. I don't have a problem in places where children may be present, but in a bar??? It makes more sense to do two things, neither of which were done here-- One, put it to a vote. Let the entire populace decide, not just the city council of 7 people. Two, let the business owners decide -- they can post that they run a smoking establishment or not, and then the pansies who whine about my smoke, which is not intended for them in the first place, can patronize those establishments that do not allow smoking, and leave us the **** alone. After all, tobacco is a legal substance, and adult consumption of that substance is a choice we make. They won't make it illegal cause they make too much money off it, so leave it alone - If we all quit what are they going to do to replace the lost revenue???????

Answer 5

Emphasis on Human Rights should be limited to exercise of rights without unduly influencing or affecting the rights of others. Cig. ban falls in that category as smoking does have adverse effects on non-smokers too as has undoubtedly been proved by scientists! In fact in all countries smoking in all public places, including even streets should be banned!

Answer 6

the goverment will never ban smoking completely.when europe announced ( about selling cigs on the internet )that it was only legal for the country they where being sold from to get tax ,our government went into a panic ,and said theloss of revenue would have to me made up by raising income tax ,because it would loose them billions At least half of the price of a packet of cigarettes goes straight to the government

Answer 7

I think Smoking is probably the most stupid thing to do.

lets take some leaves that have been soaked in a flamable substance, and then lets stick them in our mouths and set fire to them.

That's aside from the associated health problems, addictive behaviour, fire risks and affects that passive smoking on other people.

The only upside is the Tax revenue accrued by the government, which doesn't even cover the extra pressure on essential services that the above has caused.

I think it comes right up there with habitual self poisioning, (Alcoholism)...

shame we can't think of anything better to do.

Answer 8

I agree with the ban in restaurants. Even as a smoker, when I eat I don't want anyone smoking around me and I refuse to do it to anyone while they eat. As for theaters, again I agree. But for bigger places like the mall where they used to have smoke eaters, office buildings (where they can have one room for smokers), etc. I don't agree with. If you are a non-smoker, stay away and stop bit*ching. You can see smoke or smell it so why walk by us when smoking or sit and complain? We don't complain that you are a non-smoker, so leave us alone. Besides, if it weren't for the taxes we are paying for the smokes, then governments would go broke.

Answer 9

As usual when something has a detrimental effect on the majority it should be banned, a bit like wearing veils should be banned for the detrimental effect on social inclusion.

Answer 10

I don't know honestly - but in this crazy country it is against the law for teachers to tell parents that their kids have headlice. So I should imagine that smokers could argue their case and win.
As a non-smoker who suffers from asthma, I welcome the ban. I stood in the high street last week, waiting for a bus and a man started smoking about six feet away from me. My chest closed up and I didn't have my inhaler with me. I could have died. Those smokers who think it is their bodies and their bodies alone they harm, should think again.

Answer 11

I have friends and family who are Asthmatic, I dont think I'd feel good about myself if I caused them more problems by smoking near them. I myself dont like people in restaurants smoking while I'm eating or going into very smokey rooms so I sympathise with non-smokers.
I even think it does me good sometimes to go without a ciggy! A couple of hours without wont kill me!
I have the RIGHT to take risks with my own health!!
I dont have the RIGHT to harm others!!