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

i agree with eating places, but pubs and clubs should be left to owners choice, and display a sign in the window by law, eg; smoking, none smoking. after all this is meant to be a free country,people lost their lives for it,they would be turning in their graves now. exhaust fumes what has happend to cat converters, are they not working now. we are a blot on the landscape, unless usa and china listen whats the point of taxing us. i think we are being robbed by the goverment and we just sit back and allow it, it wouldnt happen in france, the taxing that is.

2007-06-04 10:01:24 · 26 answers · asked by willie 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

26 answers

i dont smoke but damn i got mad about this, it singles out quite a large majority and heavily taxes them, HOW come alcohol kills more people but doesn't get **** done to that?

2007-06-04 10:05:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8 0

I do somewhat agree with you on the taxing part... because there are tons of other problems going on especially with obesity, which is one of the major problems in North America(where fatty foods are cheaper than healthy foods and aren't taxed). I'm from the North, and it also applies here as well.

I actually had done a little bit of research.... and it appears that smokers who are heavily taxed doesn't really change their buying behaviour that much and still spend like crazy on cigarettes. Their choices are mostly affected by TV ads that explains what would happen if you continue to smoke, or simply by learning all types of chemicals within one little cigarette. Perhaps the government should invest more in increasing the awareness through TV or fund some sort of rehab with an increase in tax revenue.. 'cause the thing is, you never know what they REALLY do with it.

This is a very debatable subject, and I believe there is a more efficient way for the government to decrease the smoking. I'm a non-smoker BTW. Second-hand smoke affects other people unlike drinking, so I also believe it shouldn't be allowed in restaurants (unless there is a smoking area). Pubs & Clubs.... yea I think it should also be up to the owners, but still smoking will affect other people's health.... hhhmm seems very hard to say what is right or wrong when you add the word "freedom"... then again people still have a choice to be there or not.

---- Edit ---

I also dislike the smell of cigarettes but I just would like to add that second-hand smoke increases the health risk and it is REAL bad for those who has asthma. What makes this so difficult is determing what is best for the society as whole... of course not everyone will be satisfied since this is a free country after all.

2007-06-04 10:27:52 · answer #2 · answered by Jess3e 3 · 2 1

It is a bad thing and I agree with your arguments completely.Business owners should have the right to make up their own minds if they wish to allow smoking in their establishments or not as long as they have a sign posted on the door. For the people who said that the employees who work at establishments that allow smoking should not be forced to breathe in second hand smoke, you are correct. However they also have the option not to work at an establishment that allows smoking. I personally can not stand screaming children, so I would never work at a daycare or a school because I know that I would be dealing with screaming children. People who work at bars, pubs and nightclubs know that people smoke in such establishments before they even fill out an application to work there. If a non-smoker chooses a job at such place then they have no reason to complain about the cigarette smoke. I respect that not everyone chooses to smoke but we have a right to our choice too. I find it ridiculous that in some cities you can not even sit outside in the patio area and smoke at a restaurant.

2007-06-07 19:20:55 · answer #3 · answered by kittysoma27 6 · 0 0

stable questions, I relatively have been thinking appropriate to the smoking ban a lot. right this is the way I see issues based on the regulation and how i think of issues must be resolved. a million. via no longer showing the "No Smoking" observe the bus station is breaking the regulation. via regulation that's a criminal criminal duty of theirs to reveal such an indication. Even without the sign the smoking ban nevertheless applies - interior a similar way you won't be able to shoot somebody with a gun only because of the fact there is not any longer a "No homicide" sign around. so which you nevertheless won't be able to smoke there yet you are able to take the bus station to courtroom for breaking the regulation. 2. If the smoking ban became into enforced interior the exterior then you particularly ought to in basic terms smoke in hermetically sealed places and as such might asphyxiate. Having a no-smoking section in a pub is a lot comparable to having in basic terms one nook of a swimming pool the place somebody isn't allowed to p*ss. the entire place must be smoking or no-smoking. i think of the smoking situation must be solved via having a definite smoking licence available to precise forms of public homes (places the place nutrition isn't served and young ones are no longer allowed to bypass). this might recommend that if somebody needed to smoke they might bypass to a pub the place smoking became into allowed via regulation, and in the event that they did no longer pick to smoke they might bypass to the different place they pick rather.

2016-11-25 22:39:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't even smoke anymore, and I agree. The people who lose in this all-or-nothing policy is the small business owner. You know the type, the small bar on the corner or sports club down the street where people gather after work to chat with friends, have some drinks, and smoke. They'll lose money by and by as regulars stop frequenting, because they buy their alcohol in a store now so they can enjoy their choices where it's accepted - in their homes.

2007-06-04 10:07:47 · answer #5 · answered by Karma 6 · 5 0

You agree with eating places but don't care about anyone working in a pub or club....nice.

It is meant to be a free country for all - not just for smokers

The smoking ban is already in place in Ireland (2yrs now) and has been a great success - the majority are behind it. I think it will be the same in England.

2007-06-04 12:10:45 · answer #6 · answered by Loislane801 3 · 0 1

Banning anything that is legal to purchase is wrong. When the Govt. starts dictating what is good for you and what is bad for you is when the Govt. has over stepped its boundaries. I am not a smoker, I do enjoy a good cigar every now and then. When is the ban on alcohol,cars,trucks, guns?The people behind the wheel or gun is the issue. Keep our Govt under control by VOTING, you have the right.
If it's legal to purchase DO NOT BAN IT!

2007-06-05 03:35:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

we should have a choice .. not a ban.
if a bar wants to have smoking in it then it should.
then the non smokers have a choice not to go in!!!
it should only employ smokers too , then its a fair choice!!
no eating should take place there and no kids allowed in them..
if a bar has choose non smoking then no one smokes there..
at least we have a choice... its just another one of our rights being thrown away!!!
i notice employers are banning it totaly from the work sites...
only allowing people to go out at lunch time ( unpaid break time) to smoke .
its a total disgrace an infrignement of rights....
this country is well fcuked up!!

2007-06-04 10:29:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

As a smoker i will obviously be biased, but i dislike smoking indoors. i started smoking when i was 14 and i would put money on a lot of people having started before the legal age, because of the biased rubbish that gets jammed into our heads in school. we're told it's bad, and what happens if you do it and that it's illegal, but we're not told that a cigarette is a nice way to relax or calm down or help get through the day. it would be a poor thing to encourage it but at least try and help us why people do it if they know it's bad for them, apart from showing us the mandatory 'look at this cool guy. he thinks it's cool to smoke, but will he be cool when he gets LUNG CANCER AND HEART FAILURE?!?' leaflets.

2007-06-04 11:43:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I find it interesting that politicians will get involved in our lives to make life better, so that they feel good. If they REALLY wanted to make a difference, they would ban the sale of tobacco products. Oh, that's right! They get funded by tobacco industry lobbyists. Why piss off the ones that line their pockets? Instead they piss off the ones that voted them into office.

2007-06-04 10:09:20 · answer #10 · answered by Bobby G 2 · 5 0

Then move to France!

I hate cigarettes as much as anybody, but do not favor the gov't imposing any rules to curb behavior, for it is a behavior issue. People who do not smoke make a consious effort not to be around it.

2007-06-04 10:07:09 · answer #11 · answered by SmartAce 3 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers