Smoking - Prohabition?

Question

Should there be a 'TOTAL' ban on smokin?

Do you agree with the new ban on smoking in workplaces and in public.

What are 'YOUR VIEWS' on this subject?


BEST ANSWER gets ten (10) points.

Answer 1

I don't think so. Smoking is bad for you. I take care of a lot of sick people every day in the hospital. I see alot of people die prematurely because of smoking. However, we all know smoking is bad. No one forces anyone to smoke. We should pass laws as to where people can smoke, to protect those who choose not to. But I don't think we should try to legislate intelligent desicion making any more than we should legislate morality.

Answer 2

I actually think that if they banned smoking in restaurants then the restaurants would make more money because people that smoke usually sit and smoke 10 to 20 minutes after they get done eating. This would free up more tables, more profit and more tips. I think banning smoking in your car though is crossing the line, that is your own personal space, i can see banning it in public places because the second hand smoke can give people that work there cancer that don't even smoke. Your car is really where you should have the digression on whether you smoke or not. Anyway what the problem if they do ban it cigarettes cost like 3.50 a pack anyway(just a thought). If more people stop smoking though than the government will lose valuable tax dollars so i guess it is a vicious cycle.

Answer 3

I have no trouble with a ban on smoking in the workplace (been banned here for a long while), although a company that has a lot of smokers should provide an area for them to take a break; away from non-smokers.

Public spaces - Understand building entrance/exit. Non-Smokers have to go in and out. Most clubs, restaurants, etc. have had bans in place for some time (it went on a county by county basis).

Total ban - no.

As long as I have to sit in traffic and suck the exhaust fumes from a thousand cars, it's just silly. If there is to be a complete ban on smoking - there should be one for cars (and move all residential areas at least a mile from the highway), perfumes (how long can you hold your breath on an elevator?), people with severe intestinal disorders or halitosis and hair spray. I loathe public restrooms where women spray hair spray.

You cannot legislate EVERYTHING.

Answer 4

I live in a state that they're trying to pass a "total" ban on smoking in public places. Even trying to ban you from smoking in your car. However, this is not an issue about smoking. Or even an issue about public health. This is about what kind of sanctions we're going to allow the government to impose on it's citizens. Smoking, as long as it is done when the person is of legal age and it's their choice, than that is exactly what it is. I do think that the legal smoking age should be raised to match the legal drinking age. I don't necessarily think that will cut down on the amount of underage smokers we have in this country, but it might help. Remember that every "little" freedom we relinquish to the government is a freedom that is gone forever. We will never get it back. As long as they're depicted as "little" and "for the greater good" we'll continue to blindly hand them over. Before you know it, we'll be living in a society like the one in V for Vendetta, or countless other scenarios where government was given a little bit at a time until there was nothing left to give. Do I think it's unhealthy to smoke? Definitely. Do I think the government has the right to tell me where I can and can't smoke? HELL NO. If there is going to be any regulatory action taken, it should be taken by the business or owner of the establishment as to whether or not to allow smoking. Such as restaurants, bars, zoos, and privately owned parks like Disneyland. But I don't think it's the government's place to make such concessions.

Answer 5

It seems to me that unless smoking is made an illegal act, then it's up to an individual whether he/she smokes. Since this will never be an illegal act, provision should be made for smokers. However, the case for passive smoking is pretty well founded on good research so there should be a ban in public places because of the inherent risk to a non-smoker. The same applies in the workplace. Nonetheless, since it's not illegal, there should be suitable places made available for smokers - and not just on the street outside the office or wherever. Surely, we're too civilised to start castigating people on moral grounds for smoking? Or are we?

Answer 6

No, it is called having an opinion, we are all intitled to one, and also we have the right of free will, that has been taken away from us too, yes i am a smoker, and i know its an addiction, but have the gov banned drinkers? no, they even give heroin addicts methadone on the n.h.s. so why ban smoking? do you know that if i went to my doctors and said "i am a alcoholic," i would be given £60 a week off the social services? this is all wrong, it is my right to smoke if i want to in public, in a smoking area in a pub, or wherever i want, i am not a heroin addict, nor a drunkard, just a hardworker who like to go out once a while to a resaurant ans have a ciggie after a meal.

Answer 7

as a smoker i would find it more acceptable if they did just have an outright ban i mean if they really cared about the effects of smoking on people why not just ban it all together unless the government is worried about a little thing called the economy i mean why can't they have leave it up to the licencee of a premises to decide if it's smoking are non smoking that way i will stay away from non smoking premises and non smokers can stay away from smoking premises but instead we are subjected to been treated like second class citizens so yeah why not ban it and all the non smokers can pay extra tax to live in a smoke free environment and us smokers will smuggle our cigarette's in from Europe an a quarter of the price and happily puff away in our own homes so every body's happy

Answer 8

people are no longer alowed to smoke in a public work place or in some public areas, however this ban if followed to its logical an extreme conclusion should extend to all public places as roadsweepers, refuguse collecters (bin men to you and me), police men ect have to work outside of the office and should not be subjected to the smoke from people smoking as stated in the ban soon to come into affect. I dont however have a problem with people smoking in private aas it is their choice if the want to see the inside of a coffin sooner rather than later.

Answer 9

I believe there are over two thousand poisons in a cigarette,,i asked my friend if i gave him a tablet with all the poison and it gave him the same feeling as a cigarette but without the foul breath and making him stink, not counting the fact he was killing his freinds and family, would he take it ? what do you think his answer was ?, if smokers don't care about the people around them, then something has to be done, having said that i have met a considerable amount of smokers who are caring about lighting up, but they are definatly in the minority, SMOKING WILL KILL YOU, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN,, as my friend said you have to die sometime, but i pointed out there are better ways to die than in the agony of CANCER, having maybe already lost both your legs, VERY VERY COMMON IN SMOKERS, or drowning in your own fluids while tryiny to get your last breath because your lungs are full of tar, holding your mother in your arms with a cig in one hand and an oxygen mask in the other watching her die, will make anyone hate smoking, if this makes just one person think. and maybe stop, then i will be a very happy man. my sincere good wishes to all those who try to stop. LIFE REALLY IS TO SHORT ,

Answer 10

No, I don't beleive there should be a total ban, people should be able to make informed choices about taking substances damaging to their body. But where the method of drug ingestion does real and tangible harm to others, then that is not okay, so smoking should be banned in all public places. I can't understand any arguments against the ban. A smoker does not have the 'right' to send carcenogenic smoke into my lungs because he wants to indulge his craving, full stop! Let them smoke at home, or away from other people!

Answer 11

After they finish with us smokers they will need some one else to bully.I am not bothered about the ban has I do not go to pubs or eat out.The pubs will suffer I feel sorry for them has it will be a matter of time before they start laying staff off unless non smokers start drinking more.They will not bring in an outright ban has they get too much Revenue from smokers.