As a non-smoker I'm glad smoking is been banned in public places! Why should people who want to smoke force it on non-smokers! If they want lung cancer fine, but why should the people who don't smoke suffer the same fate? Some smokers feel its a breech on their freedom banning it, is it not a breech on non-smokers freedom forcing us into an early grave?
2007-06-29 03:47:29 · 26 answers · asked by RMP 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
They will never be happy about the ban, but I promise you, everyone will get used to it very quickly and then find something else to complain about.
2007-06-29 03:50:49 · answer #1 · answered by nin 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I am a smoker and am not bothered by the ban however I would like to know when there is going to be a ban on alcohol consumption. This also drains the health service, police force, peoples property being damaged. This also impacts on other peoples lives, domestic violence etc etc.... However the government is properly making a lot of tax from this at the moment......Unless we all go abroad or buy on the Internet. As soon as the income drops lets see what happens then OH NO i forgot that is sociably acceptable
2007-07-02 13:57:59 · answer #2 · answered by valf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you're missing the point. I don't smoke either, so it doesn't really effect me. The point, I believe is that it's another example of the government interfering in the personal lives of it's citizens.
The truth is, it's a double edged sword, people argue that the USA Patriot Act violates many personal freedoms and rights, and are against it, yet people support a smoking ban in public places, which can be argued is a violation of personal freedoms as well.
I understand your health concerns, but if you realize how many types of chemicals and other seemingly harmless hazardous material one is exposed to on a daily basis it would surprise you. People can get cancer from power-lines.
Lastly, to a certain extent, one can argue that a smoking ban is a form of discrimination. This is a law that limits the rights of certain people, yet since many people look at smoking with disdain I guess it's okay. One can argue that since smoking/cigarettes are highly addictive, then those who smoke have an addiction, and medically they can't help smoking, because it's so addictive. Think about this, how would you feel if the government banned an activity you enjoyed? Same principle.
2007-06-29 04:07:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I can only guess because I quit 5 yrs ago, but I would think it is because it is inconvenient for smokers and they feel uncomfortable. I know before I quit there were times I felt like a leper. It hasn't been all that long ago when smokers ruled, They smoked everywhere.
2007-06-29 03:54:37 · answer #4 · answered by kattsmeow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a smoker, but I don't think it is right for people to smoke in public places, where there are also non smokers. You're right, if we want lung cancer, fine, but don't share it with ppl who don't. Even if I go somewhere that smoking is allowed, if there are people around I don't smoke...well I go outside.
2007-06-29 03:51:31 · answer #5 · answered by ~~kelly~~ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
During the fifties and sixties the government made millions from smokers and generations became addicted. Now they want to make money from fines. The damage done by alcohol probably exceeds that of smoking, but the revenue is needed. One breath-from a car exhaust is the equivalent of 100 cigarettes! I do not smoke and I do not like eating in smokey areas. However this government would do well to look at who promoted this drug and have more sympathy for those addicted. They will not be thanked for harsh treatment of those addicted who will smoke at home causing further toxic inhalation.
2007-06-29 03:57:55 · answer #6 · answered by Spiny Norman 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
i live in wales where the ban has been in place for 3months.
people complained but when it can to it,all smokers made the effort to follow the rules.
its so nice to go out and not go home with you hair and clothes wreaking of smoke. its a good ban and after a little while it'll just become a part of life's routines.
2007-06-29 03:57:44 · answer #7 · answered by Flo 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I gave up smoking 17 months ago but don't agree that people should be forced into giving up because someone else wants them too, it against their civil rights,what next you cant drink,cant eat this because someone else doesn't like it, cant watch this,cant listen to that wear will it all stop and who will be the one to decide?and when do we ban cars lorries buses etc for the same reason that your quoting against smokers the fumes from them does more damage than one small cigarette
Oh yeah and everybody starts to give up smoking you say goodie will you say the same when the fuel for your car and your tax etc goes sky high, because the tax that smokers have paid for years has got to come from somewhere hasn't it? Think about it a bit more as I'm sure you will be one of the first to scream when it starts to hit your pocket
2007-06-29 04:08:07 · answer #8 · answered by country jenny 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Any time a new law is passed another right is taken away. I think smoking in businesses should be under the control of the owners, not the government.
*I don't smoke and have no friends/relatives who smoke.
2007-06-29 03:54:55 · answer #9 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Karleos : if smokers are outside a pub enjoying a smoke, good. they are having to do that to allow YOU the freedom of the inside of the pub, no one is bending your arm to go outside near them so where is your argument? you "got it your own way" in getting it banned from confined places , outside premises is NOT confined
2007-06-30 14:57:13 · answer #10 · answered by fefe 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because we hate the nanny state.
Why bother protesting the war in Iraq or the hunting ban? People have a right to protest anything they disagree with.
Don't worry about it. Since when did this government ever listen to the people anyway?
2007-06-29 04:10:20 · answer #11 · answered by Jack 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋