I think as long as smokers are voting, taxpaying citizens that they have civil rights too. I also think if they are going to enforce the "no smoking" policy, then they should enforce a "no perfume" policy as well. They are already telling us that we cannot smoke, and now they are trying to tell us how many TRANSFATS we can ingest. All who are cheering for this kind of "control" now, need to be sure and remember it in a few years when they are controlling every aspect of our lives. This might seem like a great idea to you now, but it is heading in a direction that will infringe upon everyone's civil liberties in the future. Just wait until enforced diets are put into place....Non smokers are entitled to having smoke free air to breathe, however smokers are entitled to their rights as well.
2006-12-09 11:47:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by cynical1963 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I try to look at it on both sides. I am not a smoker and never have. So I can't say I quite understand the addiction. It's nice not to have to smell second hand smoke, while I'm out with my kids. If you choose to smoke, fine! But you should have some consideration for those who do bring their children to a public place to eat. I also understand that people get that craving, and that they must satisfy it. But it is a bad habit. Seems like all the chemicals they use to make them, people would not want to inhale that crap. Not trying to offend any smokers.
2006-12-09 18:56:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by kayjay 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
You just hit my hot button. I have researched Second Hand Smoke since 1998. It is a myth that it causes Cancer or Heart Disease. In fact the World Health Org. even said it may help a child's immune system to develop.
The EPA used other junk studies to declare SHS a carcinogen. Every large Study that has been published( those over 5 yrs and with more that 5,000 participants) found no connection. It's all a lie to make Billions for Big-Pharmacy by selling their pills and patches. I have over 200 reports and studies that verify the myth. If only one tenth of what is said about SHS were true we would all be dead. OSHA tried to put it into perspective. They said it is almost a toxic as chlorinated drinking water.
2006-12-09 19:05:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Klunk 2
·
4⤊
2⤋
smoking in public doesn't bother me at all but i know some people that are bothered by it. Since the majority of americans don't smoke and the majority of americans would be more happy with these laws i think that they are for the good of our country
2006-12-09 18:54:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by THEBurgerKing 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think the ban should be rewritten as follows: "Smoking is prohibited within fifty feet of any living thing". There will always be those who cry that they have the right to smoke. That is absolutely true. They do have the right to smoke, BUT they don't have the right to polute the air that others breath. I remember at one of the airports, there was a smoking room. It was about 20'x30' and was glassed in. It was a laugh to see ten people in there smoking and choking on each others fumes. If people won't take the responsibility, government has to do it for them.
I've heard all the arguments for smoking rights a thousand times over. It all boils down to you are an addict who can't control your habit and are too selfish to change for the betterment of others.
Don't forget, we really don't care what happens to you. We are only concerned with what happens to us non-smokers.
2006-12-09 19:14:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
I think it's a very appropriate law. It's been proven that secondhand smoke poses health hazards. It also can cause immediate problems for asthmatics or people with allergies. There is no reason that I should have to breathe someone else's smoke when I am in a public place. They can go to their own home or their car to smoke.
2006-12-09 18:55:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by redhairedgirl 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
I don't smoke so how could I not like it
if I smoked I would feel frustrated I'm guessing
2006-12-09 18:58:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by anonacoup 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I say it's great. If you want and need to smoke you can go outside in the street but when you finish your cigarette, cigar or whatever else you're smoking please don't throw the butt on the street. In other words, put it out and throw it in the trash receptacle.
2006-12-09 20:30:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by sauceyrose2001 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
t is not the place of government to tell me what i can and cannot do when it comes to legal activity. It is legal to purchase tobacco. Therefore you cannot restrict the usage of it as a whole.
Compare to meth. It is illegal to make, sell, distribute, and conbsume. Across the board. That puts meth in a different class of social category.
Ergo, you cannot legislate morality.
2006-12-09 20:07:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by JBC 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
You shouldn't be allowed to smoke in a public building if it is polluting the air for other people.
You shouldn't be allowed to smoke in the privacy of your home if you have children,
why should they suffer for your selfish habits?
2006-12-09 18:51:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋