I don't believe the government should be banning much of anything in our personal lives. Their role should be to dispense information and give us knowledge. It should be up to our own conscience and our own discernment as to what we want to do or not to do with our bodies. Yes, of course, what we do does affect other people around us, but that's the price we pay for living in a free society. At least we're suppose to be a free society. However, one by one our freedoms are being eroded by more and stricter laws trying to protect us from ourselves. It's a frightening trend, and I wish more people would speak out against it.
2007-07-10 02:37:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by cynthiajean222 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
How would you "feel" is an interesting way to put it.
The Gov't (actually the people) can "ban" anything they want. Where it becomes part of the public interest is when society asks itself how much it wants to spend of its budget solving the problems caused by alcohol. If alcohol problems are 5% of the total health budget, is that too much? And there are other budgets, too, like missed work days (productivity) that can be a burden to society.
You might ask yourself at what point it becomes too much of a burden, and people begin to react.
This is the sort of thing that has happened with smoking - health costs, one person's activitied affecting others (2nd hand smoke), etc.
Ron.
2007-07-10 02:02:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Our rights are slowly being taken from us. I know all non-smokers are happy with the smoking bans, however we must look at the big picture. What is next? No more "Sorpano's" type of tv....too violent. Radio is already being censored. "Howard Strern" for example. Government taxes, license, inspections, telephone tapping without warrants. Do you really think this is what our founding fathers had in mind?
2007-07-10 02:01:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bob R 1
·
3⤊
0⤋
They already did! During Prohibition. And it was a total failure. I don't think there is any relationship between banning smoking, which causes a health hazard to people who don't even smoke (second-hand smoke) and banning alcohol, which is already a controlled substance.
And your point is?
2007-07-10 01:57:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jan N 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think we need both. We need the tax dollars they generate. I'm for anyone who wants to smoke to do so, just find a place where people who don't can avoid that area. As for drinking, I'm for that too. But.....and that a BIG but, if you drink and drive you should lose your license for 1 year, lose the car you were driving forever and be on probation for two more years. If you injure someone, lose your license for 5 years, serve two years in prison and be on three years probation. If you kill someone, BYE!
2007-07-10 02:23:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
They're not banning smoking, they're banning smoking inside buildings and in public areas. You are free to smoke in your own home or in areas where you won't affect other people. They will never totally ban smoking.
Now they might tax it to death, but that's a different issue, and in the Southern USA, liquor taxes are already substantially more oppressive than cigarette taxes.
2007-07-10 02:02:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by thegubmint 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
They tried that once - and it failed miserably. All that happened was that the criminal elements took over the manufacture, distribution and retail sale of alcohol, which made the crooks rich. Prohibition was eventually Constitutionally repealed. -RKO- 07/10/07
2007-07-10 02:00:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I get a large carry out of beers and a packet of cigs and sit on No10's doorstep until Gordon Brown joined me. Im sure we'd have a laugh and then we set up a petition to ban laughter.
2007-07-10 05:24:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by istaffa 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
they already did that and it obviously didn't go over very well because they brought it back.
remember the prohibition????
Second hand smoke is NOT bull. it has been proven to be dangerous to others (i.e. causing serious medical problems) so sorry that we don't want to get cancer just because you need to have a cig.
2007-07-10 01:57:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
the Government is not banning smoking, various states, cities, and businesses have banned smoking in certain areas,
but tobacco is still legal everywhere
2007-07-10 02:20:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋