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

2006-12-03 12:02:28 · 32 answers · asked by ? 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

32 answers

Excellent! as an asthmatic contact lens wearer, I'm all in favour. After all, smokers don't complain about fresh air...

2006-12-03 12:04:26 · answer #1 · answered by Natalie B 4 · 3 5

i think they sell cigarettes that kill more people a year than heroin ,then they tell you that you cant use this product in public,the people are good enough to be taxed on this deadly product yet control the people that buy it ????? why not ban smoking and the selling of cigarettes and then hand the book Allen Carrs Easy Way to Stop Smoking to every smoker in the land .95% of the population would give up the other 5% would have to except it in time .odviously you would have a black market but how long would that last .if you think out the box the government is letting a deadly and very adictive drug be sold main stream ,this kills thousands each year and they make money off it ,is the health of the population not more important than balancing the books when were billions in debt anyway!!!! double think is alive and well and millions are taking part in it.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm

2006-12-03 12:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm probebly going to piss alot of folks off with this answer but this is my opinion:
I think that this land of the free, who has all kind of rights according to the constitution
is becomming more communist every day, we are voting ourselves out of our rights.
I know alot of you all will say : no one has the right to do something to harm another
person and second hand smoke hurt others, OK But what gives you the right to tell
me what I can or can not do, compromise is one thing having designated smoking
areas yes, smoking away from the general entrances OK, having a seprate area in
restaurants sure. But you are going to far with smoking bans in citys, ( remember book
banning) and if I own a business then I should decide if its smoke free, not you. After
all I do own it and pay taxes on it.
Now from what I have said what do you think? Smoker! No non smoker ( never have)
But I feel that every american has the right of choice. If I want to go uot to eat, I will
non-smoking or stay home, if I wan't to go to a club and I know there is alot of smoking
then I can go or stay home. So I am definetly against the ban

2006-12-03 12:34:49 · answer #3 · answered by kathy h 3 · 2 1

It doesn't matter how bad smoking is for your health, I'm a great believer that by banning smoking it actually affects your human rights...... As a non smoker it is nice to go to places where you don't have to breathe other people's smoke, but at the end of the day it is our choice to go to these type of places on the first place! As a smoker... Why should you have the right to tell us what, when and where to do it? What is it going to be next? when, where and who with to have sex???
All these laws about politically correct and what's best for us, it is making people lose their individuality, the right to chose between right and wrong.
How many of us did wrong out of pure curiosity or because we weren't allowed to do so? This will only bring more money to the government by issuing fines etc..
Why can't we have places where smokers are made to feel welcome without taking the right of the non smokers by choosing to go or not to go there?
For all you meat lovers (non smokers), how would you feel if you couldn't eat meat in a restaurant?

2006-12-03 12:29:56 · answer #4 · answered by damari_8 4 · 1 1

ITS SO BLOODY IRONIC. because the first person that wanted a smoking banned was ,yes you guessed it ,ADOLF HITLER. keep going people, That have fought Long and hard to bring this in. Lets hope its not freedom of speech next. Just one question tho when you are driving in your car because you cant be botheeed to walk the half a mile to drop your kids of at school do you feel the same about the other people that WALK ther kids to school who are breathing all the sh;; ,don't tell that's a different issue

2006-12-03 13:59:11 · answer #5 · answered by BD M 2 · 0 0

Alcoholics receive social security for their addiction and are still given driver's licenses to have more wrecks on the streets. If people want to smoke they should be accommodated. Stay out of the smoking sections and live and let live.

Those truly concerned about cancer should get out of those gas guzzling cars, don't take another airplane flight, start getting rid of plastics and petroleum based products, strip their homes and apartments of formaldehyde ridden carpeting, get rid of those synthetics in their clothes and fiber filled coats, get rid of pesticides and all cleaning materials. Whatever you do please do not have anymore nuclear, chemical, biological testing! It has not been 1000 years since the last ones and that is the cause for the increases in cancer, smoking is not the sole causefor cancer and ovarian cancer is caused by a virus.

2006-12-03 13:29:20 · answer #6 · answered by Sassy 3 · 1 0

While I don't agree with efforts to legislate morality, smoking is a dangerous habit, and really difficult to kick. I'm in the process of yet another effort to quit, and I could really go for a smoke about now!

People should be able to smoke if they wish, but if it's interfering with someone else's experience, then a ban in public places is probably a good thing. I say that, as a smoker who realizes that many people generally don't care how their actions impact others.

2006-12-03 12:07:13 · answer #7 · answered by somewherein72 4 · 2 2

The law has over reached sensible and rational boundaries to become abusive, tyrannical, and heavy handed.

I do not smoke. Smokers should have free and equal rights to light up outside of buildings or inside designated areas of buildings.

The Founding Fathers from Virginia would be absolutely appalled to see what the Federalists have done to personal freedoms of those who smoke.

Separate and equal laws protecting both groups (non smokers and smokers) should be the order of the day.

2006-12-03 12:17:17 · answer #8 · answered by angelthe5th 4 · 2 0

To ban smoking is fundementally unjust. Irrespective of what your views might be or how much you might not like smoking, if a man owns a pub and wants to allow smoking in his pub that should be up to him, it is non of the Governments business.

2006-12-03 18:28:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Libertarians,namely the ACLU fights for human rights.I am a conservative and im a smoker.Im suprised that they havent come out with loaded guns and fight this new ban.Smoking today has become politically uncorrect and will be attacked again,again and again.Soon I think people will be hiding in the woods smoking and buying tobacco like marijuana.Laugh....its coming.Its discusting to smoke some would say,BUT I think its more discusting that people arent upset at how much power our government and state has over CHOICES!

2006-12-03 12:12:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I think government control is getting ridiculous. There is a city near here (San Francisco) that has banned smoking everywhere but in a totally detached home. If you own a condo or live in an apartment building, too bad. If you smoke in your own car, too bad. Next they will be telling us what we are and are not allowed to eat, etc.

2006-12-03 12:06:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers