seems like little by little our rights are being taken away. What next,
you get weight before going to McDonalds?
A solution to the smoking would been to force businesses to have
separate smoking rooms. Smokers pays taxes, guess who will
now when smokers are forced to quit?
2006-12-09 17:02:02 · 5 answers · asked by Jbuckeye 5 in Health ➔ Other - Health
Then when are they going to outlaw cars. Cars emit carcinogens that have been proven to cause cancer, yet we still are allowed to drive. Today. Maybe not tomorrow.
I, for one, am sick of this all inclusive mommy & daddy government. I guess us smokers have to form clubs with private memberships. The waitresses would also have to be members (smokers).
Of course, we all think we all gotta quit, so it probably wouldn't work.
2006-12-09 17:14:12 · answer #1 · answered by Gem 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The majority of us agree with it; otherwise, it wouldn't have passed.
Look, it all comes down to this: one group has a right to put dangerous, addictive substances with no benefit into their systems and immediate surroundings, and the other group has a right to avoid dangerous, addictive substances. When forced to coexist, who should have the preferential treatment?
You also have the right to own and use a gun, but should the government let you have target practice in the lobby of Denny's? Naturally not. It's offensive to the environment, and it isn't safe.
Why should the government mandate that businesses cater to a minority's habits? Come on, seriously. Think of any other marginally popular yet illegal-in-public activity. Public drunkenness, public nudity, etc. Why shouldn't businesses have to redesign themselves to embrace alcoholics and nudists as well? What makes smokers more desirable?
2006-12-10 01:20:23 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I quit smoking four years ago / I live in Ohio / I voted against the law because I think they should let it up to the marketplace. If you want to have a smoking tavern that is ok and the nonsmokers can go to a nonsmoking tavern. This will be a slippery slope for government telling us what we can and can't do. They will look at me and not let me in MacDonalds.
2006-12-10 01:14:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ohio is smart! no-smoking its much better for the people for you and the people around you!
2006-12-10 01:19:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i agree with no smoking.. it's outlawing a carcinogenic substance.. for the safety of its people.. plenty of toxic things are outlawed for the safety of everyone..
2006-12-10 01:06:45 · answer #5 · answered by meg 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋