To be banned Why not and I would like some answers on just how this is different and should not be put into practice
2007-01-06 12:18:34 · 11 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
girlfriend you can still light up and kill yourself, you just can't take out the strangers nearby...cigarettes aren't banned-doing your impression of a chimmney in public is...fat people won't kill you or any starngers, screaming children while annoying...not life threatening...drinking was at one time banned, that prohibition thing? your point?
2007-01-06 13:37:22 · answer #1 · answered by bikinibabewannabe 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Cigarettes will never be totally banned because the taxes on them are a big money maker for the States and Federal Government. If the "government" wanted them banned they would "prohibit" them like they did with alcohol in the 20's. It's politically correct to discourage cigarettes.
And now for the second part of your question: Obese people are being discriminated against already. When they book flights they must pay for two seats, fast food restaurants are being looked at as potential targets for a "fat tax" and parents of obese children may in the future be "fined" for having obese kids.
The broader picture is that the government in intruding on the private lives of its citizens. The longer we allow the government to be "our parent" the more they will infringe on our personal choices. Remember, smoking is a personal choice, eating fast food is a personal choice. With the many modes of media in the 21st Century, one would have to be an absolute moron to know that eating too many Big Macs may tip the scales a bit.
Our personal freedoms are being infringed upon by big brother. Smoking, however dangerous to your health is legal. IF it's SO BAD how about making it illegal like pot is. They won't... Trust me, the government will just tax the hell out of it to make money.
We as a people need to put a stop to this. We need to tell our representative to STOP the phoney bans and start focusing on REAL issues like social security, Medicare benefits, increased crime and jobs.
2007-01-06 20:44:07 · answer #2 · answered by Susan B 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well, drunk people can cause more problems such as domestic violence, car crashes, murder, assault, rape etc than a someone who lights up and has a smoke.
I mean, the more one smokes, the probability of things like this occurring remains low compared to someone who continues to drink until their drunk.
That's why I firmly believe that alcohol contributes to a bigger problem than cigarettes.
As for hospital costs for smoking and drinking, I would not hesitate to say it would be pretty even all things considered.
Edit: I am definitely for banning screaming kids and fat people. Screaming kids make me want to kill someone and fat people on trains are bloody annoying. What gives them the right to take up two seats?
2007-01-06 20:43:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because second hand smoke affects everyone exposed to it. Fat people are just a threat to themselves.
As for the screaming kids, I'm all for that ban.
2007-01-07 11:40:31 · answer #4 · answered by ramman 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ban drinking, yes. (I don't drink.) As for screaming, nasty little kids, the stores should immediately make the caretakers remove the offender(s) from the premises, they drive me nuts and I hate to shop because it is infuriating. (I obviously have an anger management problem.). But for Fat people... I am Fat, and I would like to ban myself. (Could you transform me into a sexy size.) Well, there's Fat, and then there's FAT!.....
2007-01-06 22:56:21 · answer #5 · answered by intrepid 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question. We as a society seem to be begging for more and more laws that tell us what we can and cannot do. People are too willing to use laws and big government in place of common sense.
They came for the Communists, and I didn't object -
For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object -
For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object -
For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't object -
For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me -
And there was no one left to object.
Pastor Martin Niemoller 1945
2007-01-06 22:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by Jewlgrl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government is slowly taking away our rights and people are letting them. There are dog breed band laws, car window tint laws, cigarette laws, and even how many children you can have laws! It is ridiculous!
2007-01-07 00:19:33 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's really no different at all; I vote that we pick on the screaming kids first!
They are a danger to my health, as all kids are germ bags who do not cover their mouths when they cough, and the screaming and frenetic movements are mentally distressing to me. Also, the ones still young enough to poop their pants smell, and that's upsetting.
Ban screaming brats! Ban 'em!!
2007-01-06 20:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by silvercomet 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Cigarettes have not been banned!
So what is your question really?
2007-01-07 00:46:33 · answer #9 · answered by curious 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and liberals who raise drunks, screaming kids, and undisciplined selfish children. I bet you don't agree now.
2007-01-06 21:18:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋