There hasnt been ONE well-grounded medical study to prove that second-hand smoke causes any health problems... Even if so, if you go to a bar a couple of times you are NOT likely to get cancer... So why dont just people lay off smokers for a second and put pressure on certain minorities overusing their cheap cologne that gives people allergies or soccer moms dragging their crying babies everywhere that give people headache. Bottom line is smoking is legal and if it is legal then smokers should be given a break.... By the way, I am not a smoker, but I feel sorry for them!
2007-06-06 03:52:09 · 16 answers · asked by Ronnie 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Better yet, abolish anti-smokers altogether ... along with feminism.
So many idiots are willing to believe anything their government says and let it make all their decisions for them that I wonder if a large percentage of the population has any brain cells that work.
Anti-smokers are the biggest hypocrites since feminists and that's saying something.
2007-06-06 06:06:30 · answer #1 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank you for the support, however I am also a smoker. I agree with you about the bar. The bar scene should allow smoking. I mean look at how many years that the bar's have been allowing smoking and now just out of the blue they want to stop it. People should know that people love to smoke when they drink and that is what a bar is for. I have gotten use to the idea of not smoking in a restaurant. I have come to understand that. I also understand what you mean about colognes and cry babies cause I am a terrible migraine suffer. Yes I know I should smoke-they say it can cause headaches but actually one of my triggers is certain smells. I know crying babies are unpredictable, however I understand your point you are trying to get across. Sorry for saying understand so much and thanks again for the support.
2007-06-06 04:06:15 · answer #2 · answered by heavenseyes98 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Second-hand smoking does cause health problems. A friend of mine hangs around smokers and she doesn't smoke, but she got lung cancer. It all depends on the person if their lungs are able to handle the smoke.
The reason why cologne isn't banned is b/c only a small percentage are allergic to it. Plus babies cry, it is natural and it will not kill a person if a baby cries. Smoking kills and I don't want to die when it isn't even my fault.
2007-06-06 04:01:11 · answer #3 · answered by colorfulsunrise514 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I can see that you are a man of science and one who demands rigorous medical proofs by the way you describe "certain minorities overusing their cheap cologne." You are obviously a child of the enlightenment. You also must be a doctor, and so obviously must know more about how well grounded the studies are than the Surgeon General of the United States did in 2006 -- but the rest of us out here that do not possess your medical expertise will just have to trust results like those reported in the Washington Post story linked to below.
2007-06-06 04:02:38 · answer #4 · answered by mattfwood 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. That is stupid. Perfumes and babies dont cause cancer and dont cause a health hazard for the public. Smoking can cause cancer it is proven! And the law is to protect the WORKERS as well as public. Say Ms. X is a nonsmoker and the only job she can get for the summer is working in a bar. SHE should not be exposed night after night to smoking! Cause it CAN cause cancer in her with so many exposures. So stop being a moron and think about all the workers it helps, along with the public.
2007-06-06 04:10:22 · answer #5 · answered by Educated 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sounds like your getting it, but turn on the TV or pick up a News Paper, do you ever see or hear anyone talking about freedom? Every time a new Ban or restriction proposed they cheer for it like it came down from All Mighty God himself. "It's for the children", or, "It's the right thing to do" is the mantra they use. Maybe you say "Vote um out", but who is there to vote for? They are all the same, Its all about power, for them! Maybe an Anti establishment revolt (like in the 1960s) could happen, but that's a big maybe. And remember the people making all these "New Laws" were part of that revolt. Not a very pretty picture is it?
2016-05-18 00:05:46 · answer #6 · answered by kimberley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wake up! Not proven to cause health problems? While cheap cologne and crying babies are a nuisance, they don't destroy the lungs. I do smoke occasionally, but have never believed that my "right" to smoke supercedes a non-smoker's right to breathe clean air.
2007-06-06 04:14:42 · answer #7 · answered by areu4real 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not that I agree with it, but the ban on smoking is not about protecting other customers, it is about protecting the people who work there. And they are exposed to a lot more second hand smoke than the average person.
But even so most of them say they do not have a problem with it. Again I am not saying I agree I am just saying that is the reason.
2007-06-06 04:02:12 · answer #8 · answered by Leonardo 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes. bans are usually accepted as long as it doesn't ban something you enjoy. my problem with the ban is it is taking freedoms away from business owners. they were allowed before to choose whether or not to allow smoking. the conservative christians here supported the ban. why do they care what i'm doing in a bar
edit. to those that saying tobacco will be illegal. who will make up the lost tax money? do you favor paying more taxes? do you understand lobbyists control the politicians?
2007-06-06 04:12:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Check again there is enough evidence to support the fact that submissive smoking can cause cancer.
However no such evidence exsists for perfume, crying babies or dare I say even dumb questions (nuissances) being posted on websites by trolls can cause any ill-effects to ones health.
Smoking will not be legal for much longer.
2007-06-06 04:01:56 · answer #10 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋