Should smoking be banned?

Answer 1

Yes,because it causes cancer hello.It is also for other people to breath it in ever heard of second hand smoke.You can die from also.It is also to cut back on health insurance in the work places.alot of work places wont hire people who smoke,I think this is great.I also believe that if you really cared about your self you would quit not just for yourself but for your family to.I also want people to take responsible for there actions for smoking.Smokers have so many resources now its the 21st century they do no t have no excuse to quit.

Answer 2

As a smoker, I was very cross to wake up this morning and hear that smoking in my car - which I do frequently - is now banned. No notice, no warning. My car is not a company car, I rarely have passengers (and if I do, I don't smoke) and I don't dispose of my cigarettes out of my window. I have been smoking longer than I have been driving, and I can easily find and light a cigarette without taking my eyes off the road - I find it more distracting trying to change the radio station. And in 15 years of smoking whilst driving, I have never once dropped a cigarette in my lap. After a bit of research, however, I discovered that smoking is not banned, as such - it is simply against advice. If you are driving dangerously, committing a driving offence or involved in an accident whilst smoking, then you are going to face a more serious penalty. However, smoking in your car is considered inadvisable rather than illegal and a contributary factor if you do something wrong. So, I shall still be happily lighting up whilst driving - it's about the only place I can smoke without pissing someone off nowadays.

Answer 3

I agree with ph_yo. It's much easier for the government to collect taxes from it than to try to use tax money to stop it. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to enforce such a law ? The government has starting taxing tobacco so heavily that it has actually became in the government's best interest to keep people smoking. Ironically the justification for the taxes is that smoking causes a health threat. So the government has to necessarily send mix signals.
It would be good for an individual to choose not to smoke for their own best interest, but not for society's. The taxes off tobacco far exceed the amount of money it would need to pay for the health costs of nicotine addiction. The extra money is now used for such things as building roads. So it's gotten to the point where smokers have became far more valuable to society, than if they didn't smoke at all.

Answer 4

No, It is OK for the government to ban it in publicly owned buildings.
This is the United states and businesses should not be mandated to no smoking. It should be up to the business owner. If we don't like that they allow smoking then don't patronize it, if enough people agree the business will go under.
It is completely ridiculous to outlaw smoking in Bars, you have to be 21 to get in so we are not protecting kids, but it has been shown that the negative impact on businesses to smoking bans has been outrageous.

Answer 5

no, but I think a place should have a special lisence posted in the wondow saying they have smoking- so non-smokers can avoid second hand smoke. I think bars, hooka joints, and sports bar should have smoking but I think resturants that consider themselves 'family places' shouldn't have smoking.

Answer 6

Sure! Then the governments could tax candy bars, beer, wine, liquor, cell phones and cable TV to make up the billions and billions of tax dollars that smokers pay.

Answer 7

The gov't doesn't want to ban it. They just want to tax the living daylights out of it.

Answer 8

No I need something to smoke when my joint is gone.

Answer 9

its acceptable to do so in public places because it is a fact that it is a health risk to not only the smoker but also those around him. private localities can do as they please

Answer 10

Only if they legalize weed.