Smoking practically being made illegal?

Question

Should it be? I believe if people are stupid enough to smoke in this day and age than let them do it. Let them die off so we won't have to deal with the stupid in government or any place of power. Natural selection. But it is a wonder seeing as tobacco basically saved Jamestown which founded this country and now everyone hates it...Hmmmm....

Answer 1

i am a smoker, and i think it should be illegal in public indoor places, and in private places (cars, homes) with children,,, i have never found it hard at all to go outside to smoke,,,,,, or to take breaks while on car trips, and then smoke outside

Answer 2

Smoking should be legal in public places like bars,airports, restaurants, arenas, theater lobbys and outdoor venues, but not inside theaters or hospitals. Let the free market decide these things. If you don't like the smoke, stay away form those places that allow it. If enough people do that, then those places will soon prohibit smoking. Go to places that already prohibit smoking.

Once the government gets involved in taking away our freedoms, they don't know when to stop. Next, they'll whack the fast food joints with super-sized taxes because too many of us are a tub of blubber. The politicians will have lots of fun spending those extra tax dollars,too. I can hardly wait to eat at McSalad and Veggie King.

Yes, Smoking is addictive. I smoked for 50 years. I was finally able to quit 6 years ago because I HATED to pay those taxes to the federal and the state government.

It wasn't the smoking that pushed my blood pressure up out of sight. It's the politicians and their schemes to tax the daylights out of us and take away our freedoms, one-by-one.

Hey! I got an idea. Let's go back to the prohibition of booze. That worked real good back in the 1920's. After all, booze kills, too. Right?? Make smoking illegal at the same time. That ought to be interesting.

Answer 3

As others have said, smoking is a choice and a legal one at that. The hypocrites claiming the evils of smoking are blind to the fact that autos pollute the air with a heaviery amount of toxicins than cigarettes. So does the family charcoal grill. Even candles give off smoke and residue. Where are you going to draw the line, only when it affect you and YOUR choices?

The hype surrounding tobacco is just that. Do some research. Much of the earlier research has been shown to be severely flawed.
If you are in favor or eliminating tobacco because it pollutes, you also must be willing to eliminate fossil fuel burning vehicles, charcoal grills, salt, calcium chloride or even sand on icy streets (by the ton, by the way), coal-fired power plants and most factories. If not, you are a hypocrite and unworthy of the freedoms this country has left.

By the way, I've been smoking heavily for over 40 years and am healthier than most people my age, many who have never smoked or been around smoke to a great extent.. I've never spent one minute in a hospital for any illness and according to my doctor, I'm a superman, healthy as any of his patients.

Hitler said: “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”
For those who think tobacco is as evil as portrayed, you've bought into a lie.
EDIT added*
Automobiles kill many thousands. Directly through accidents and indirectly through pollution. How many are affected by pollution and to what extent is unknown since all breathing disorders and deaths are blamed on tobacco. Smokers nationwide do not pollute to the extent of autos in any one major city yet little to nothing is done about auto pollution or pollution from manufacturing. A home charcoal grill produces toxins and carcinogens.
The official government stance is "smoking causes cancer". This is wrong. 'Smoking MAY cause cancer' is more correct. If the official stance is correct, I should have been diagnosed and died from cancer many years ago as should my 6 older brothers, all of which are still alive and all are over the age of 60 with the oldest at almost 80 since all smoked at one time or another and all were raised around tobacco smoke from our dad, who was a chain smoker (he didn't die of "tobacco related disease").

Your question is ripe with prejudice as well. You've learned well. Too bad you yourself cannot think.

Answer 4

as you so rightly say;
people know, a whole lot more now about
the real damage tobacco can do .

Asbestos was supposed to be a wonderful building and insulating material .... now they have discovered that blue asbestos kills people so it is banned .

Countless people and their governments made a huge amount of money out of the tobacco industry
and that is why they have been ,so slow in banning the stuff .

Sadly people get addicted, to nicotine
and it is not,
at all that easy to just stop smoking ,
once they are hooked

I hope the youngsters of today, are never allowed to start smoking

The Law for once is on the right path .
all tobacco products ,should be banned
and smoking outlawed

>^,,^<

Answer 5

There are two good reasons and methods to regulate smoking.

No. 1 as several people point out, inhaling smoke and particulates is not healthy. Especially for the people who are not smoking. This can be regulated and is being regulated as a public health and nuisance issue.

No. 2 is nicotine. I am unsure why nicotine is not treated as a schedule 1 narcotic. As far as I know it has no medicinal use. The government in its current formulation would be within its rights to criminilize nicotine and tell cigarette maufacturers that they must remove nicotine from their products. I am unsure why this has not been done as the costs seem to far outweight the benefits.

A lot of people would prefer the laissez-faire attitude of allowing people to smoke and deal with the consequences. However, since insurance premiums are raised only slightly for smokers and smoking related illnesses are still subject to coverage, I think that non-smokers continue to pay for smoking related illnesses. If smokers must smoke, and we decide that's okay, I'd rather not bear the costs.

Answer 6

children in bars is a concern?why include bars in bans? it is not like most that go to bars are acting in a healthy manner anyway.
ohio conservatives need to stop acting like the morality police.

edit. those that worry about health costs need to remember the tobacco settlements. that states mis used. make tobacco illegal and we can make up the billions a year in taxes(from tobacco) another way. your pocket

Answer 7

Well if that's what they are trying to do they're going about it in the wrong way. Why the HELL don't they go after and close down the tobacco companies! That would make much more sense than going after the public.

Answer 8

Personally I don't smoke. However, I believe in clear limitations on regulatory power. While it is true that in the case of smoking, secondhand smoke can damage the health of innocent bystanders. On the other hand, in my opinion regulatory authority should stop at the doorstep of private establishments, people's homes, and inside of their automobiles.

Answer 9

I agree. I'm not a smoker but I have a real problem with government stepping in and telling people how to run their businesses, concerning smoking. I think that choice should have been left up to the individual business owner. If some business allows smoking and I don't like it, I'll leave. It should be up to the business who's money it wants to target.

Answer 10

Suicide has been illegal for a long time. Smoking is a slow suicide that costs us all a lot of money through insurance rates and taxes for medicare, etc., not to mention the second hand smoke , especially for children. Smoking costs us all a lot.

Answer 11

i agree with you. too much governmental involvement in our private lives. if we choose to be stupid enough to smoke, submitting to our own weaknesses and needs and addictions, we are going to be our own toughest critics and judges. as it is, they've made the cost of smoking very ridiculous, but they've also done that with drinking. that's another issue though i suppose. yes, people become addicted to one thing or another in their lives if they live average lives, but natural selection should be left to do its thing...if that person can't break that habit or beat that addiction, then maybe they're too weak to survive what life may hold down the road for them without addictions. let them take care of their own destinies, i say. thanks for the soapbox and for the points too. blessee be!