too many polititions are raging alcoholics
2007-06-29 03:55:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Teddy 2
·
3⤊
2⤋
The funny thing is both are legal. I don't do either and really don't date anyone that do either, however b/c both are legal, I have no problems with someone do either of them. It's their choice and the fact that you have people forcing others to not do something although it is legal, I have a major problem with that. It's their choice to do whatever they want to their own bodies (and I'm a pro-lifer).
But, while they are banning smoking, they might as well ban alcohol. It will save lives by keeping alcoholics off the road preventing all those unnecessary drunk driving deaths.
Then they can start banning McDonald's hamburgers or any food dishes that have more than 200 calories b/c there are way too many fat people in this country and we should all look like anorexic models
Ban dogs b/c they bite and have been known to kill people
Ban the flow of oxygen in the air b/c although we need it to breathe, it's poisonous to us if we take it in it's pure form
Ban water b/c someone died from drinking too much of it earlier this year
2007-06-29 04:27:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by King H 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. The major UK booze producers have had a cosy relationship with the major political parties for years. Look up the financial contributions of brewers to parties.
Evidently there are 12 separate places in the Houses of Parliament where alcoholic drinks are available. Given the ratio of bars to MPs I can't see them banning drinking any time soon.
2007-06-29 07:13:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No because they already tried that once. It was called prohibition and it led to many more problems. I agree with those who point out that alcohol does kill many people also. The difference is that if I am around you when you are smoking I am inhaling your second hand smoke and can get cancer, emphysema etc. If I sit next to you when you have a beer I am not inhaling toxic fumes.
Have you seen a bottle of alcohol? There are warnings on them. Will they make them more detailed - depends on how much money the producers throw around.
2007-06-29 04:03:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes. They would love too and you are right they are already moving in that direction. Maybe not ban it but make it illegal for a bar to serve you more than 2 drinks.
This is a dangerous path we are on.
DAMM: Some of you people are so stupid. Of course you cant die from other peoples drink fumes. But here are some of the links they will try and make:
Drink Driving.
Alcohol related violence.
Anti social behaver
Domestic violence.
Lost working days.
You see the point. They wont have to look very hard to link it if we let them.
2007-06-29 03:56:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jack 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
i dont think they should ban alcohol bc it is nice for people to come home and have a couple (2-3)of beers and relax after a long, hot day of work, especially for farmers, construction workers and other that work in hot areas, there are warnings on alcohol labels people are just too lazy to read them, people should have use their common sense (if they have any) and not drink and drive, it only takes a couple of people to ruin it for the rest of the people
2007-06-29 17:46:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by j0hncenafan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
most of the politicians drink alcohol!! on top of that the government is half dependent on alcohol sales for funds!!!
if people cant live without these 2 there should be limitations!!!
the alcohol stores these days are running at midnights as well!!!
and people are behaving madly on road.....these days i'm really afraid to go outside!!
2007-06-29 04:17:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by raven 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with the comments that say you cant die from passsive drinking-and its no good trying to link it to drink and drive crimes since these people are in the minority.Most people drink responsibly.Smokers are selfish as they care nothing for the harm they cause their children and their neighbours. Its nothing like alcohol use or abuse nor drug taking in general.
2007-07-02 05:01:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Modbird 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
i don't think they will ban it because people don't realise the extent that drinking can harm you so much as we are aware of the effects of smoking. smoking is seen as a dirty habit while alcohol it just seen as a way to have fun and socialise without harming others.
think about it, how many people do you think don't smoke, in ratio to those who are tee-total. so when it come to banning smoking, there is support from the thousands of non-smokers while an alcohol ban will get much less support.
2007-06-29 04:03:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
No and they haven't banned smoking either... just where you can do it in public and where you can't. This nation (all states) will never totally ban it because it brings governments (fed, local, municipal, etc) way too much revenue. They are already feeling the pinch of public bans... no way it would ever go away completely.
2007-06-29 04:03:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by daven71 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
No; the USA tried this in the 1920s and it was a disaster. The only people who benefitted were gangsters.
2007-06-29 05:31:01
·
answer #11
·
answered by Huh? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋