English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-27 22:44:51 · 37 answers · asked by I'm Sparticus 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

joshuaka: Thanks for the interesting link. I fail to see why you got thumbs down, but it shows how conditioned , controlled and easily farmed some people are. Democacy? Where?

2007-03-27 23:49:46 · update #1

37 answers

totally agree the fumes given out from cars is far more harmful ...

2007-03-27 22:48:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Not really. If we extrapolate this to the ultimate, the government would ban anything which they deemed to be unhealthy. To my mind, it's always a question of money. With 19000 deaths related to cigarette smoking, you can imagine the cost to the NHS when looking after the many more thousands who have respiratory diseases and worse. If we were to ban cars, do we ban alcohol, do we ban sexual activity, do we ban any type of sport, do we ban eating junk food - indeed, do we ban eating, anyway? What about tap water- there is the risk of contamination? Do we ban all fuel providers. It's time to keep a perspective on these things. Simply banning things is not the answer. Education, though, is.

2007-04-01 06:44:10 · answer #2 · answered by michael w 3 · 0 0

I really hope that these same people who think that this smoking ban is great and see it as a victory remember that when one of their freedoms is the next to be banned. This whole smoking issue could be resolved without banning it altogether, but too many do not want any compromise at ALL. Smoking is LEGAL. You are right, then ban all cars, transportation, industry etc. I am an ex smoker, but I see this as just another freedom that we are losing and nothing to cheer about..

2007-03-27 23:33:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 3 0

The tax paid on cigarettes is higher than anything else, If everyone stopped smoking at the same time. The NHS would crash!
If cars were banned we'd have to rely on public transport, resulting in nothing getting done and no one going anywhere when the trees shed their leaves!!

2007-04-02 11:03:20 · answer #4 · answered by pals 1 · 0 0

They are banning smoking more for health reasons really. But I think its should be up to the individual if they smoke or not but is nicer if they ask none smokers if its ok the light up.But I think there needs to be more enviromentally friendly cars built as if I didnt have my car I couldnt get to work as there is no public transport to were I work.

2007-03-27 22:54:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

First things first.

Cars should be regulated enough and more effort into converting them into a sustanable source fuel which is non pollouting. Smoking is an addiction and gives off higher levels of toxins and carcogens then any car fuel exhaust now and some how I doubt if there is any way to make them non toxic.

2007-03-27 22:54:00 · answer #6 · answered by Kevan M 6 · 2 0

I'm for breathing air free of stink.
I can't do anything about the millions of cars.
I'm better at one on one.

I don't like the stink smokers have on their clothing, the stinky trail that lingers in an empty hallway, their stinking breath as they rasp and cough up gobs of tar, but most of all their idea
I'm wrong to ask for air unpolluted by their poison. I first tell them face to face to take their smoke elsewhere. For those who bluster, get rude, or ignore me I've another response. I've had them put off public transportation for smoking. I've had them asked to leave restaurants and taverns for their smoking. I've had Airport, train station, and ferry terminal security guards escourt them to the taxi stand for smoking. I've had city police cite smokers for misdemeanour tresspass for refusal to depart when requested and I've gone to court to testify in misdemeanour cases; I've heard judges
denounce smokers as scofflaw's and fine them for smoking.

There is no point to a ban unless citizens step up and insist upon enforcement. I do my share. If I smell your stinking habit in posted 'no smoking' public place or on my property
I'll start the legal proceedings. All non-smokers should.

2007-04-03 15:08:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It must be wonderful to live in a box , open the door at 0900 am look toward London say hail the PM, wait for your food parcel of the daily ration

2007-03-27 23:04:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes they should ban cars/ waggons/buses/and planes. after all they are knacking the ozone up. and eventually it will kill billions. a lot more damaging than my fags.the government will not ban them they are making billions out of it. and other country's don't give a toss.

2007-03-28 08:23:11 · answer #9 · answered by mally 2 · 0 0

we all have to see that we can,t just keep using our cars like we have been indefinitly.....we all should be limited to the amount of milage we do per year,this would cut out small trips to the school with 4x4s or to the shop at the corner,all un necessarry trips ,we would save up our miles for an holiday trip and get a whole lot healthier........ok i am in cookoo land i know

2007-03-27 22:54:57 · answer #10 · answered by foxy 5 · 1 1

Erm. lets ban cows as well then they pollute more than a V6 Range Rover.

2007-03-27 22:47:51 · answer #11 · answered by Whatever. 3 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers