If we are going to ban smoking and we don't go all the way with other things that cause cancer then wont we be hypocrytes?
2006-12-14 22:47:58 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Excellent point. I understand staring at computer monitors is bad for your eyesight. Should we ban computers? We all agree that smoking ins not healthy, but I have yet to see any evidence that second hand smoke has ever harmed anyone that did not voluntarily expose themselves. Here's my ideal smoking regulation: All businesses post a sign at the door. The sign reads "Smoking Allowed" or "Smoking Prohibited". We all vote with our feet and our wallets.
2006-12-15 01:06:15 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Life's not fair. But even if you do not own a vehicle, you still use them all the time. Products you buy from the store were more than likely brought in a truck. Same with your mail.
NO it is not being a hypocryte to ban one and not the other. People who drive cars do not have lung cancer at the same rate as people who smoke.
2006-12-15 06:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by Rachel F 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well it's true people might get cancer from cigarettes. Just like people might get hit by a drunk driver. There for drinking in public use be banned too. The drinkers most like will get behind the wheel of a car. Drinking is to be done in ones own home.
2006-12-15 07:10:15 · answer #3 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know you aren't being literal, but I cannot resist the observation I have made many times at schools, where children sit on the sidewalk next to the car lines, waiting to be picked up. I chose to put my son on the bus because of this. He was getting daily headaches from sitting next to the car line.
We need to get out of the banning business, and get into the common sense business. Business owners should make this policy, and if non-smokers do not like smoking businesses, they should give their money elsewhere.
2006-12-15 08:05:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We shouldn't have to breathe car exhaust, we shouldn't have to breathe toxic emissions spewing from factories, landfill sites are overflowing and chemicals are being poured into our waterways.
But of course all those things are in the name of progress so it's much easier to point the finger at smokers. I respect people's rights not to breathe my smoke but I think it's getting out of hand.
2006-12-15 07:32:22 · answer #5 · answered by Faux News 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have had the same argument since they banned smoking on airplanes, about 20 years ago. (Perhaps for a different reason, I smoke)
But the list is endless. We are humans, LIFE itself is hazardous.
Peace.
2006-12-15 07:18:04 · answer #6 · answered by -Tequila17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People with no cars should be free of smoke from cars. They were deprived of using cars but most not be deprived of the right to life.
2006-12-15 06:51:29 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get a petition to ban all cars and let me know how many signatures you get. Personally, I would rather ride a horse but I have no where for one to live.
2006-12-15 06:52:05 · answer #8 · answered by MsFancy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't get car exhaust fumes blown in my face 24-7 like I do cigarettes.....
How many people have gotten cancer from 2nd hand car exhaust fumes?....
2006-12-15 06:50:23 · answer #9 · answered by delgados12 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
well, we should definately get away fromthe current mode of internal combustion engines...
2006-12-15 06:54:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋