Why are people so strongly opposed to the smoking ban? It is hopefully going to improve the health of both smokers who may smoke less when they have to go out in the cold and rain for a puff, and for non-smokers who on a night out have to breathe in second hand toxic smoke and chemicals.
Is it an infringement of your right to drive at 80 miles per hour down your street, where children might play just because you always have done and still want to? What about the law protecting you by saying you have to wear a seatbelt?
Is segregation the answer? Smokers and non-smokers having thier own pubs and restaurants? What happens in a group of friends where there is a mixture of both? The non-smokers put up with smoky bars as has just been banned? The smokers go in the non-smoking bars and refrain from puffing, as has just been brought as law?
Answer:
I don't think that segregation is the answer, because smokers are a minority, and there would be less interest in smoking publicly after a while.
It annoys me when smokers talk about the loss of their freedom to choose because of the ban. It gives the majority of people back their choice not to breathe in second-hand poisons just because one person may want to kill themselves slowly. And harming their loved ones while they're at it.
Speaking as a non smoker married to a smoker, I think it should be up to the proprietor if he wants a smoking establishment. Non smokers are not compelled to visit them if they object to second hand smoke.
segregation is not the answer. non-smokers may want to work in the pubs that would be smokers pubs
smokers should either give up or shut up. theyd soon change their tune if one of their kids got lung cancer
Smoking bans can stunt commerce.
From a purely business prospective, smoking is not illegal and it should be up the the proprietor of a business as to whether they allow smoking in their establishment. It is a sad fact that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand. In other places where smoking has been banned in drinking establishments sales have suffered.
i pay 5 pound for a packet of fags i will smoke them were and when i want as i pay more taxes then a none smoker
Why do I oppose the Ban. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FECKIN LIED TO ME!!
This is a ridiculous statement. How can you compare idiots who drive at murderous speeds with people who smoke?
Now that smokers have to stand on the street to puff away are in full view of children who may then believe that it's ok to smoke because they are seeing a lot of people do it.
Not only do the public have to contend with idiots driving their vehicles at horrendous speed, we have to breathe in the fumes from those machines too. How about we ban cars, vans, lorries, buses etc? No, they won't do that will they, far too much tax to be creamed off!!
I'm not saying that there's no harm from passive smoking but at least people have the option to choose whether or not to be around smokers. We don't have the option of not breathing in the filthy fumes from vehicles walking down the street. Just because there has been no official statistics for death caused by the breathing in of vehicle exhaust fumes, doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it.
If government has the right to protect your health whether you like it or not, what else can it do?
Ban fast food? This is bad for your health.
Force you to exercise? Being lazy is bad for your health.
Force you to go to the doctor? May find a problem.
Force you to take medicine? Its good for you.
Ban SUV? This is bad for air quality.
Ban bungee jumping? The rope may break.
Where will it end?
1. People have the right to smoke.
2. Property owners (restaurants, bars, offices) should have the right to make their own rules. Leave the politicians and lawyers out of it.
As for the roads, for now the government owns the roads. As long as they do, they have the right to make their own rules about using them.
Seatbelt laws should also be repealed. You own your car. You own yourself. You should have the right to decide to wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet.
The answer is to get the government out of the way and let pubs and restaurant owners make their own rules.
People have the right to associate and not associate with smokers or non smokers as they see fit.
This really is about freedom of association and is a First amendment issue (in the US). Unfortunately, the courts do not agree.
Smoking bans are an infringement of the property rights of bar owners.
I don't oppose smoking bans insofar as they seek only to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects (if there truly are any) of second-hand smoke.
I do oppose smoking bans insofar as they have been extended at the insistence of nanny-state officious intermeddlers to protect smokers from themselves.
I also oppose smoking bans insofar as they infringe on the rights of smokers to associate only with other smokers and enjoy their pastime and habit in each others' company alone, including the establishment of clubs and restaurants exclusively for smokers.
Yes, I believe segregation is definitely an answer. Each member of a group of friends who enjoy each others' company, but find that the group includes both smokers and non-smokers, would need to look inside himself to determine his own priorities -- i.e., whether a non-smoker values the company of his smoking friends more than he values a smoke-free environment for a few hours, or vice versa, or whether a smoker values the company of his non-smoking friends more than he values the ability to smoke for a few hours, or vice versa. In each case, the choices would be entirely voluntary.
You should remember that in the United States the people have the right to determine through their elected representatives how much of the power that they might have chosen to confer on their government as a constitutional matter they are in fact willing to confer by statute and how much they choose to withhold; and the government may not exercise powers that the people might have granted to it under the constitution but have chosen to withhold by statute.
You also need to keep in mind, as does the government, that the American people do not appreciate having what they regard as their private space being invaded by a coercive government, especially in matters where they regard the governmental interest as being trivial or otherwise insufficient to justify any form of coercive intrusion.
And finally, under the American system electoral majorities are by definition transient; and next year's majority may elect representatives whose agenda prominently includes undoing much, or most, or all of what the representatives elected by last year's majority wrought. That's the way it is, and we wouldn't have it any other way.
There ways around every law and this spurious imposition on freedom of choice will prove no exception.
Idiots smoke and idiots speed !!!
smoke if you must but do-not inflict it on other`s
in both cases people should be prosecuted if they do
It has never been proven that second hand smoke is harmful. Until there is unbiased scientific proof I am against smoking bans. Having said this and knowing that smoking is an annoyance to others, I think people and businesses should have a choice. Since smokers are in the minority, I wonder why so many businesses resist this ban? Choice is the answer not bans based on hysteriical supposition. There are too many laws as it is.
Its simple - Don't go in pubs and they will have to drop the smoking ban!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment