2007-06-29 06:34:45 · 18 answers · asked by pH7 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In Singapore? I want the reasons
2007-06-29 15:41:56 · update #1
Yes. But accommodations that do not affect non-smokers should be made for smokers. I am a smoker but others smoke does bother me indoors and I am always considerate of non-smokers and do not impose my habit on them. Indoors is out of the question but outside is fair game.
2007-06-29 06:39:02 · answer #1 · answered by cwomo 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Absolutely not.
If it becomes illegal to smoke in public for supposed "health" reasons (none of which have ever been proven), then we should also make it illegal for children to be out in public too.
It is a FACT that more disease and illness is spread through contact with children, and it can even be fatal in the case of the flu and other viruses. A child with the early stages of chicken pox can infect hundreds of people in public, and some of those people can DIE within a week. Equally so with the flu, which is easily spread by children and can lead to DEATH in elderly people WITHIN A WEEK!!!
Second hand smoke has NEVER been shown, and there have been dozens of studies done, to definitively cause any health problems in any manner more than normal population distribution for those same problems. None.
Second-hand smoke is a nuisance, yes, but so are bratty kids getting their disease spreading germs all over every surface we touch. And the consequences of that nuisance are immediately serious and can be deadly in many cases.
So, unless you are prepared to ban children in public, you cannot have it both ways and complain about the non-existent health issues caused by second hand smoke.
This was supposed to be a free country. People should have the right to use or abuse their body in any manner they choose, as long as they accept personal responsibility for the consequences thereof.
2007-06-29 13:49:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
It should be made illegal like marijuana and prosecuted the same. That way have can a huge underground market like during prohibition, wealth “tobacco gangs” with turf wars, and people imprisoned for life for taking a puff. After all it is addictive and harmful product that will kill you. Then we can go after bacon and other pork products, since they make you fat, kill you from obesity and clogged arteries, and are too tasty/addictive. And ice cream and chocolate, you are on notice to, we come for you next!
Or we could make them legal, get off the tobacco companies backs, and let individual businesses and localities determine if they want to offer a smoke free environment or not.
2007-06-29 14:22:42 · answer #3 · answered by sparky_coffee 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most places, sure. But bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, casinos, hotels and restaurants with a separate room or outdoor patio shouldn't be under the ban. (Yes, I know some restaurants say you can still smoke on their patios but I've seen more that won't let you.)
Most smokers I know are extremely considerate of non-smokers and willingly walk away from other people before lighting up. True, there's some jerks out there that feel it is their right to smoke whenever they want near whomever they choose, but they really are few and far between.
2007-06-29 13:49:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. Smoking should not be banned in public places.
Don't buy into the hype that second-hand smoke kills. Emissions from cars are much much worse for you to breathe in than a little smoke.
http://smintair.com/THOUGHTS/thoughts.html
http://www.smokingpermitted.com/secondhand.html
2007-06-29 13:56:44 · answer #5 · answered by nellbelle7 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not if it's outside, and then other indoor places like restaurants and bars should have a sign saying smoking is permitted so that non-smokers know not to go there if they choose. I am an ex-smoker, who still thinks smokers have rights and there can be compromises. There's too much other BAD STUFF out there polluting our air that should be dealt with!
2007-06-29 13:48:11 · answer #6 · answered by michael c 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Global warming,
is not caused by Smoking in public places.
No it should not be banned in public places.
2007-06-29 13:53:23 · answer #7 · answered by azrim h 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about baning blacks from public places? Would that be OK for you? What you are talking about is the same thing! you pick out a minority that offends you for some reason , justify persecution and proceed to kick them out of "your" society. This is tyranny! This is exactly the same thing Hitler did. You better get your head out of your butt or you will be the next minority to go down!
2007-06-29 13:50:22 · answer #8 · answered by sx881663 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Only in places without proper ventilation....I don't want to be exposed to smoke while I eat....but banning smoking at stadiums....parks....any place outside, infringes on smokes rights...and contrary to many politically correct people....smokes are covered under our bill of rights just as non-smokers......if there is no health issue, non smokers (and the politicians who cater to them)...should lighten up!
2007-06-29 13:46:24 · answer #9 · answered by Lilliput1212 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is banned almost everywhere.
Where's the freedom here?
How is smoking outside bothering people?
They should care about how much emissions the cars are emitting everyday ....Or other more relevant issues like aids or our economy....
2007-06-29 13:38:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋