After all a single automobile will put out more carcinagines in a day then a smoker will in a life time. I mean if we are going to ban one product for hurting people's lungs we should ban all products that do or the law is discriminatory and not constitutional.
2007-10-11 01:17:30 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Somebody actually said "smoking is a privledge not a right" which very funny because that phrase is typicaly said about driving! LOL
2007-10-11 01:25:26 · update #1
Humans also produce poisonous gas like CO2...lets just all kill oursleves and there will be no pollution.
2007-10-11 01:25:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just because a law is discriminatory does not make it illegal or unconstitutional, especially in this case since smokers are not a protected class. The fact that automobiles serve a useful purpose while smoking does not is one good reason to "discriminate" against it.
2007-10-11 07:13:48 · answer #2 · answered by Brian A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better question would- "Why if nonsmokers have a right to clean air, why don't those people that have SEVERE allergies to colognes, aftershave, and perfumes, also have the same right to clean air?" After all, some people simply CAN'T be around scents. But, America isn't banning them in all public places. This whole issue isn't about health, it's about political power. Smokers lost.
2007-10-11 01:38:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Or we could ban cities--it is certainly worse to just breath in LA than to suck in second hand smoke in the country.
Edit--It is also a hoot that some people think you are seriously promoting banning cars and trucks...wow...
2007-10-11 01:24:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
What useful service does smoking provide? Cars and trucks are vital to civilization, smoking is not. Smoking is simply a health hazard to all those involved, including those standing around someone who is stupid enough to light one up.
2007-10-11 01:32:53 · answer #5 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
The difference is we need our cars for many necessary reasons but we don't need to smoke.
2007-10-11 01:32:40 · answer #6 · answered by pookie 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
And how do you think we are all going to eat if there is no transport, how will the economy run - not very well thought out eh!
2007-10-11 01:22:40 · answer #7 · answered by McQ 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
The answer to your question is NO! NO! NO!
2007-10-11 02:16:38 · answer #8 · answered by Pancakke 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
we can make autos that don't pollute and we're working on it...smoking is privilege, not a right
2007-10-11 01:22:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋