2007-01-01 11:38:02 · 31 answers · asked by tj 1 in Health ➔ Other - Health
Yes, then I'll have to quit.
Then no, cause it will become another illegal drug to deal with.
2007-01-01 12:19:28 · answer #1 · answered by Bigdog 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hello =)
Yes, right along with perfume in public places.......and all forms of combustion.....
Just because the health risks of smoking have been thoroughly investigated, does not mean that smoking is the only danger to public health.
Smoke from fossil fuel combustion is likely at least as dangerous, but it would be silly to say "let's ban fossil fuels" on that same premise.
The fact that people don't like smoking is the biggest reason it's public enemy #1.
People will gleefully meet in buildings that have asbestos insulation in them, to discuss the dangers of smoking. It boggles the mind, really.
We have become a society that is far too interested in the affairs of other people. One must examine one's own life first, and then, if it is free of defilement, one can speak of the flaws of others.
Namaste, and Happy New Year,
--Tom
2007-01-01 19:45:01 · answer #2 · answered by glassnegman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
perhaps, but so should alcohol, the burden on insurance rates and hospital costs not to mention the deaths of innocents but its OK to advertise it. SUVs as well, the danger of their rolling over threatens the lives of everyone on the road. How about fast food? Diabetes, obesity, insurance rates general devastation of the population as a whole. Unprotected sex as well, the continued spread of HIV and STDs is a threat to the human race. How about the deadly emissions from internal combustion engines? They should probably be illegal as well. You can make this list as long as you like, in the end the freedom of a population to choose how they live is what makes the free world a great place to live. We have penalties for damaging actions but our execution rate is really pretty low, don't see us amputating the hands of thieves and all that. But I would hope that as we enjoy our freedom we at least try and understand the right of other people to choose. And hopefully we understand the slippery slope of letting the majority decide on issues of personal freedom. Be well.
2007-01-01 19:57:36 · answer #3 · answered by Rod s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it should not be banned. It is a legal choice that you can make to smoke and one person's rights should not infringe on another person's in any way.
2007-01-01 19:43:50 · answer #4 · answered by kmp1182 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutley. They just stoped smoking in supermarkets and gasstation convience stores here in Las Vegas where they had slot machines. A huge victory for smoke haters. Until marijuana is legalezed, all cigarettes should be banned.
2007-01-01 19:42:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt a complete ban on smoking would work, but public smoking should definitely be banned.
People might have a right to poison themselves, but they don't have the right to poison me.
2007-01-01 19:41:23 · answer #6 · answered by Iris 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Smoking is bad, but to band smoking you have to band a lot more things like drinking. They both kills lives in one way or another. Let's not forget pesticide, that kills not only the unwanted bugs, also the bugs that help us to. It also hurts the water supply that flows under our feet. But yes I do agree with you, smoking should be illegal.
2007-01-01 19:54:13 · answer #7 · answered by Lea, 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do think smoking should be banned because it's bad for lots of people and it's addictive we can't blame companies who make it unless when you catch them selling it to kids but we can't blame them because it's not their fault that they they have good buisnesess.But about 1200 people are diing every 30 mins. So it's up to us non smokers to try to stop them.
2007-01-01 19:44:56 · answer #8 · answered by angel_ackon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In public areas, yes. I don't think the government should regulate what people do in their homes. I'm against smoking, but everyone should have the right to blacken their lungs if they so choose.
2007-01-01 19:42:10 · answer #9 · answered by Wannabeadoc06 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, some of us don't want to die from second hand smoke AND some of us are allergic to cigarette smoke. I feel people should be more considerate about other peoples' health. If they must smoke, they should do it in their home, where we don't have to breathe it in.
2007-01-01 19:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by nichellecomicbookgirl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for freedom-but let me point out that smokers cost billions of medicare/medicaid taxpayer dollars for smoking related illnesses every year. So they are not only hurting themselves. You are paying for the damage.
2007-01-01 19:49:58 · answer #11 · answered by barbara 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋