Should smoking be banned for health or moral reasons?

Answer 1

neither.
people should be able to do as the please.
i don't smoke but i think that everyone should have freedom

Answer 2

Ok, I know that smoking is a health risk and all, but there are sooooo many other things that are too. What about alcohol? People die from that everyday, but its still legal, and lets flash back, remember what happened in the 20s when they banned alcohol? No? Well, it became a bootlegers market and took the governments taxes they were making on it away. What then? Oh, well eveyone still drank, alcohol prices actually dropped and made it more attainable, and the government got the stick because they were loosing money on the taxes they were making from it.

Why would cigarettes be any different. Tobacco is one of the resourses that MADE America a thriving country. The revenue it brings in every year in taxes helps fund all of our schools, roads, prisons, wic and the list of programs could go on and on. Not to mention banning them would take jobs away from thousands of employees and then what will happen to us? Even higher taxes to support the people on welfare and the people in prison? But of course, and then who will be mad? The taxpayers that voted it to be banned.

So, until they decide to ban Big Mac's and alcohol, and to ensure that the workers get new jobs to keep them off welfare when they shut down their businesses, then I don't see why in the world we should ban cigarettes.

Not to mention this is a free country and its our choice! Lets take away all your harmful habits and see how you like it.

Answer 3

No I don't think smoking should be banned completely. I'm a smoker but I think the bans for smoking in public buildings is good. I have no problem smoking outside, away from others, in my car or at home (which my husband and I do outside). I will quit smoking when I'm ready, not because someone tells me to.

Answer 4

No.

There are no moral grounds on which to ban smoking.

Health concerns are up to the individual. If you're going to ban smoking as a health concern, you also will need to ban alcohol, fast food, skydiving, driving, grilling (known carcinogens), EVEN SEX has health risks!!! EVERYONE knows the health effects of smoking. It is not up to you or I to tell people how to live their lives.

Quite simply, butt out of my life.

Answer 5

I think only from enclosed public places. Or places like beergardens where people are in close contact with one another. The only moral that should be involved is the fact that it is immoral to expose nearby people to second-hand smoke, not just because "smoking is bad". You can't tell people how to treat their own bodies. You can, though, for illicit drug use because those chemicals effect human behavior which can harm other people. Smoking doesn't effect driving capability or cause halucinations that would make someone flip out and go on a violent rampage. I guess my point is that in situations where one person's smoking can effect the health of others, it shouldn't be allowed.

Answer 6

Technically, but if you banned smoking, you'd have to ban the likes of McDonalds cos of fatty food and the obesity problem, and pubs for alcohol etc.

It would be a nanny state gone mad.

I'm a smoker and I believe it's up to me if I want to smoke or not. People who say it puts a drain on the NHS are wrong - that's like saying people shouldn't play sports because their injuries put a strain on the NHS, or people shouldn't have babies etc...

But I do believe we shouldn't make other people who don't smoke be subjected to our health risks. That's why I support the pub/restaurant smoking ban. Hopefully, it'll help me cut down too. One of the reasons I keep failing when I try to give up is because my friends around me are smoking in the pub, so fingers crossed for July!!

Answer 7

Smoking should not be banned, I do not smoke myself but would hate to be told I am not allowed to !
I can see health reasons for not smoking but no moral reasons

Answer 8

Health

Answer 9

Enough legislating already! Smoking is dumb, but having a nanny-state to wipe our noses for us is even dumber. If you wanted to ban all potential health hazards, you would have to ban everything. Some people can get themselves killed with a wet sponge, but that does not mean we should ban bathing. If we did, it would smell like France around here.

Answer 10

Banning things is never a good answer...all that would do is make criminals out of ordinary citizens (look at how the current drug laws are so effective at keeping people off drugs)...the only solution is to hold people accountable for their actions...when they get cancer or any other ailment linked with smoking...make them pay for the treatment out of thier own pockets....don't let them sue the company for "providing" them with the means to kill themselves..ultimately smoking is a choice with consequences..those consequences are well known...only an idiot would smoke these days (and yes there are more than enough idiots to make tobacco a multi million dollar business)

Answer 11

Banning smoking will only succeed in causing a great unemployment surge. Cigarettes would then become a pushers paradise and the income "Stolen" by the government from the taxes would be lost, so those people not working in the tobacco industry would have to pay much more in taxes to keep the Government in business. Education is the only way to phase out smoking. And give the government time to find a way to tax everybody more a little bit at a time to replace the income lost by losing the Tobacco industries. Oh, and while we are at it,,, we can get the auto industries closed too,,,, Cars cause so many deaths on the highways,,, Oh, and the airline industries,,, and the steal industries,,,, then we can go after the chemical industries,,,, GROW UP PEOPLE!!!!!!