Why ban smoking?

Answer 1

Opinion

Yes, I think it should be banned because it causes higher rists of diseaeses like lung and other cancers, heart failure, stroke, and second hand smoke is just as bad as smoking the actual thing. So yes, smoking should be banned in public places.

Opinion

No. In isolated areas yes; restaurants, areas with children present. But banned in all public places like parks, walking down the street- no. In my opinion if you don't want to breathe smoke don't smoke, but don't restrict others based on your concerns related to health.

Opinion

I think that smoking should be banned completely. it is nasty smelly and nasty. Even second-hand smoke kills people.

Opinion

I think smoking should be banned in public places. It smells, looks nasty and contains poisonous chemicals many of which are still unidentified. There is even whiteout in a cigarette. Also it should be banned because of one thing- DIFFUSION! The smoke that you exhale after smoking each time goes into the air that surrounds all of us. And, us kids don't want to breath in that smoke. It causes Lung Cancer, Lung Disaese, Bronchitis and some other major things. If you smoke and smoke you are at a high risk OS disease. The diffusion makes chemicals spread out until they are throughout a building. So, if you are smoking in a bathroom at school and some smoke gets out of the bathroom and spreads throughout every space. Do want little kids breathing in that smoke? That's the question you neeed to ask yourself.

Opinion

Yes. Smoking should be banned in all public places.

Opinion

Yes. The smoke from a single cigarette will stink up a whole building, stink up a non-smoker's hair and clothing and stay trapped inside for days. If smokers want to pollute their own lungs they have that right (for now) but they should never be able to force their tobacco smoke in any air a non-smoker shares with them. Smoking is an addiction. We do not cater to any other addictions the way smokers expect to be catered to. It is an unhealthy, dirty habit and it makes other people sick. No one should be asked to stay home so a smoker can pollute the public air.

If you pay to attend an outdoor concert your enjoyment shouldn't be ruined by stinky tobacco smoke wafting over from the blanket next to you. Ditto for a picnic, day at the beach, walk in the park or any other outside, public activity. People who want to smoke should do it on their own property and stink up their own space- not ours. No one should be required to leave any public space to avoid another person's cigarette smoke. The very idea that any person could think that is an option is absurd.

Opinion

Yes. As of January 2011, 27 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The UK and Ireland have banned smoking in the workplace and public places. It makes a great difference.

Opinion

Yes, smoking should be banned from public places because it is easy for someone to inhale second hand smoke and there are too many deaths from second hand smoke already. Second hand smoke is very harmful, and when you smoke in public places you are exposing people to second hand smoke without their consent.

Opinion

Absolutley not! It is a nasty habit and yes it does cause second hand smoke but it's their choice to smoke so it is your choice to walk far enough to not be bothered by it.

Answer 2

Answer: Smoking is the leading causes of lung cancer.

Answer: If you have a desire to smoke and people around you don't, why should you be permitted to expose them to the risks of passive smoking?

Answer: You (or they) shouldn't; to many, there's not enough to ban it anymore than any vice a person has.

Answer 3

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2=

that is a matter of opinion. in my opinion, i think that it should be. It could cut down on sickness and cancer, but 2nd and 3rd hand smoke is worse for people than 1st hand smoke. it could only help the world.

First, The problem with banning smoking everywhere is that those who do not smoke don't have any sympathy about the idea that smoking is an addiction. They shouldn't have much to say about it because they have never been in those shoes. First off, smoking may or may not cause someone to die. People who smoke are not guaranteed to die from it nor guaranteed to have major health problems from it, it's just more probable that they will. Not even half of those who smoke will die from it. Try to stay in touch with that.

Second, there are benefits to smoking. It helps round the edges in life, just like any other drug that modifies chemicals in our bodies. It's helps those with ADHD, Alzheimer disease, and Parkinson disease. Although there are more detriments than benefits, anyone one who tells you there is no benefits from smoking is closed minded and doesn't do their research on the subject.

Third, in a society where individual choices are respected, governments should never interfere with personal decisions. This is a dangerous place to be playing with governing policies because it squeezes freedom that allows people to express them selves as they desire to. In the same essence, a government could force everyone to cater to smokers. How would people like to own their own business and be forced by law to allow smokers to come in and smoke up their business? It goes both ways! A business should not be forced to cater one way or the other, but should be able to decide for themselves who they wish to cater to.

Fourth, the only exception to the fore mentioned ideas is an extreme crisis situation. A lot of health organizations are trying to make smoke exposure a crisis, but the science just doesn't support it. It's a shame to see these respected firms advertise such far fetched ideas. Honestly I didn't really know how many lies could be published, until I looked into this particular debate. It's kinda funny, deep down inside ourselves we all know from life experience and seeing others who smoke, that not everyone dies from it, and those exposed are not dying from it either. Why do we listen to others who contradict what we see with our own eyes everyday? We should know better.

Here's the science cases on second hand smoke exposure that you will never see publicly published. Most of these organizations who do science studies on the effects find a limited to absolutely no connection between exposure and health concerns but then turn around and do a press release saying that there is no doubt that it does.

The 1993 Environmental Protection Agencies linking health concerns to second hand smoke was thrown out by a district judge for cherry-picking their information, even with the bias they could only conclude:

"The studies showed that for any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1000 ordinarily, and 6 to 7 in 1000 if he or she has been living with a smoking spouse."

http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artc…

That's 100% exposure indoors over a lifetime.

BMJ did the longest most in depth study and concluded:

"Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary Heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/…

The smoke campaigns also like to bring up the idea that it's for the safety of the workers, This shows waitresses in smoke filled bars are exposed to only a 5th of what the EPA considers hazardous:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/…

The EPA also states the following:

"Studies that support a CASUAL association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer."

"the chance of declaring these increases statistically significant was small."

"EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk."

"The lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking"

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs…

So as you can see the science behind the health concerns of others over second hand smoke are practically impossible to even been seen in case studies, let along be justification enough to pass any bans. This information needs to be shared with the world, so the lies from the campaigns don't influence people to be vote stupidly. Like the quotes goes, "If you hear a lie long enough, eventually it becomes the truth." Also at Forces international they publicly display all the scientific cases done on the matter at:

Other Source(s):http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look…

http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/smoki…

"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation

of exposure.[JNatlCancerInst1998;90:1440-50]"

http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artc…

http://skepticdoc.com/?p=9

http://www.usnews.com/health/family-heal…

Answer 4

Philosophically, this is an age old question of individual rights and government control. Economically, the tobacco industry is well entrenched and provides income/jobs. Currently the mainstream thought seems to be to allow the individual right to use/ produce tobacco, but to legislate where it can be used in an attempt to protect the public from second hand smoke.

Answer 5

yes, smoking has no benefits whatsoever and the consequences to a person's health from smoking are numerous. It contributes to the leading causes of death in the United States and increases a person's risk from cancer among other diseases. but it is a personal choice and that is why it will never happen.

Answer 6

There are arguments on both sides of the argument; opponents to the ban point out that it should be a free choice for adults to smoke or not. Proponents will retort that most smokers start smoking when they are children and that nicotine is extremely addictive so the choice of the smoking adult is restricted by the power of the addiction.

Answer 7

No the market is already big enough to keep illegal drug dealers happy already without expanding it further.

Answer 8

no, its our right to do what we want