Should smoking be banned completely?

Answer 1

No way.

It is not the governments place to decide what is good and or bad for me. I don't smoke but that is my decision to make. I know the risks involved and I use my own brain to make decisions for myself, and to support good decisions of my friends and family.

Besides, my tax dollars can go to much better uses than enforcing a national smoking ban. Especially when fumes from busses and trains are much more toxic in crowded city streets.

Answer 2

They tried banning alcohol, and all it did was make mobsters rich! If cigarettes are such a health hazard, why don't politicians 'nip it in the bud' at its source? Why not prohibit the manufacture, distribution and sale of cigarettes? Or, would all the millions of dollars in local, state and federal tax revenues be affected and our prostitutes-turned-politicians wouldn't dare let all that money slip through their greedy little fingers.
I don't smoke, but I respect the right of anyone to "light up" a legal substance. If I don't want to breathe that smoke, I should be able to frequent those establishments that don't allow smoking. It's an issue of freedom of choice, both on the part of smokers and second-hand-smoke inhalers.
The government has no business dictating where or when we can use a substance that is legal, regardless of how it impacts on our health, or our lives.
On June 1, the city of Fort Wayne, Indiana enacted a no smoking ordinance. What's happened? Smokers now flock to bars and restaurants in neighboring New Haven, Indiana while many bars and restaurants in Fort Wayne are going bankrupt or closing because of all the business they've lost. Yet, Fort Wayne's 'city fathers' are building a new monstrosity baseball stadium in downtown which - I'd bet any amount of money - will be exempt from the smoking ban! It's a civil liberties issue, and I don't understand why some Fort Wayne business owners haven't called in the ACLU. -RKO- 08/17/07

Answer 3

Of course not. Why would you want to take jobs away from more people? Obama already does a good job of that. Why would you add to it? Get a clue about things. If second hand smoke was as dangerous as people believe it is, there wouldn't be anyone alive in their 50s and 60s. Alcohol isn't addicting? Damn, you are dense. Ask mothers who lost a child because someone who wasn't addicted got in a car, and killed their child while driving. How are you not educated? you're 15. That's how. You have a lot to learn. Now you need to educate yourself more, instead of listening to the lab rats. Remember these people have no lives, except to create havoc 24/7. They have no kids, family, or life. Just a white coat and a lab, and they're told "give me reasons why smoking is bad." So they lock themselves in their lab, until they think of something that people will buy. Looks like you bought it. Before you go spewing again, make sure you know what you're talking about. 15 year olds should listen first. Then speak.

Answer 4

Smoking is banned in public places by the enactment but it is not implemented. If smoke is banned completely, there are lakhs of people are dependent on the industry, who will be made shelterless. Govt. would have to show them alternative means of employment which will take long time. So instead of banning the smoking completely, the Government should enlighten the public the evil effects on health in sequence of smoking. So it can be banned by stages.

Answer 5

I'm a smoking advocate. Nonsmoker never see the advantages that smokes have and only want to see the disadvantages. I think some of their advertisement had to be stopped. Every time I get sick I find the PH level of nicotine to increase my sense of smell. If I'm not smoking I can use second hand smoke because every sickness has a smell. The smell of lactic aid, I was never able to smell. The first time you quit is the hardest. It becomes easier each time. PH level in tobacco is the same level in six other plants. Two plants names I can't remember,coffee, tea, poppy and cocaine. Buying PH level has different killing abilities and can improve your health in different way and all are poisons. The people that do not smoke never learn because the education they teach has not included the benefits of smoking. Never should be banned. In school education. I do have one question 3 weeks in voting my very first ducky. Press head .

Answer 6

Why? If we ban everything that is bad for people, then we would need to ban a million things people do every day.

It always amazes me how people will live in a polluted city breathing pure crap 24/7 which does more harm than almost any other thing relative to air pollution, but worry about second hand smoke which NO study or research has shown to kill anyone.

Answer 7

It would be good if it could be banned completely but that's being unrealistic. People should themselves be health conscious and realize the harmful effects.....but that's again being unrealistic!
Well, at least for a start smokers should start reducing the comsumption per day and then gradually increase their determination to quit smoking eventually.

Answer 8

I don't think it should be banned. We have a freedom of choice, and i think even the freedom of smoking matters.

Anyways, even if we did ban it, it is so addictive that it wouldn't change to much. People that are addicted will go to extreme lenghts to aquire it, and people that sell it make loads of money. Murder, theivery, etc. is illegal, but it still happens. Almost frequently.

So banning it would be pretty pointless really.

Answer 9

under the present circumstances, banning may not be proper. but if anybody can take such a bold step, there is justification for that. because, smoking affects non-smokers also in which case, a smoker has no right to disturb the other. that may be an extreme argument at this stage. but eventually, what is bad has to go from this world to clean up this plannet. but this process is not started yet. it will start sometime in future!

Answer 10

Only if you want to help drug companies make more money, and damage peoples health with side effects!

I smoke NOW because MY DOCTOR told me it would be cheaper AND LESS DAMAGING TO MY HEALTH than the needed medications, (KNOWN side effects of the medications!)
I also suffer from LOW blood pressure, and 'high metabolic rate' (pulse over 100)
The nicotine in tobacco is a vaso-constrictor, (raises blood pressure) and a central nervous system depressant (slows down pulse).
This eliminates the need for expensive medications WITH their side-effects.

If you want to ban activities that are more dangerous than smoking then ban swimming, driving, contact sports, and sex!! ANY of the above make ill, injure and/or kill more people than smoking!