In Kentucky after a cigarett induced fire, advocates want to make fire-safe cigaretts, but why not just ban smoking or try to get more people to quit, does anyone agree?
2007-02-22 12:00:11 · 7 answers · asked by kjbouche 2 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
I think that it's a waste of money to try and manipulate something that's already being banned in some places to make it "better"
2007-02-22 12:12:19 · update #1
Cigarettes are inhaled by BURNING tobacco? How is burning ever fire-safe?
Yes, ban cigarettes because the government deems them to be bad for us. Next is alcohol. Then pornography. Next thing you know, every house has cameras in it and wiretaps on the phones so Big Brother can keep you in check.
2007-02-22 12:05:55 · answer #1 · answered by K9 Guy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ban smoking is not the right way to do it. it's like saying if someone gets into a car accident, we should ban people from driving? it's not that simple. i don't have any good idea but fire-safe cigarettes might work. or make smoker carry some sort of cigarette snuffer and make sure they put out the flame properly.
2007-02-22 12:09:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither you--nor anyone else--has any right to "ban cigarettes" or otherwise try to run other people's lives. Cigarettes are a health risk, sure. But what other people choose to do is none of your business.
2007-02-22 13:03:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
fire safe cigarettes?? definelty one of the stupidest ideas i have ever heard! i have seen no good come out of cigarettes so far so why not just ban them all together??
2007-02-22 12:08:32 · answer #4 · answered by Audrey D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yep, get rid of all cigarettes, all tobacco products
2007-02-22 12:03:48 · answer #5 · answered by LatterDaySaint and loving it 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I smoke underwater.
2007-02-22 12:03:33 · answer #6 · answered by tengu312003 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
2007-02-22 12:23:30 · answer #7 · answered by thefinalresult 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋