Are there any people who disagree that smoking should be banned in public places?

Answer 1

Yes and no. Smoking is bad for your health, others health, and it causes pollution. But, if smoking was illegal many people would lose their jobs all at once and would end up homeless.

BUT if it wasn't for cigarettes millions would still be alive.

Answer

Yes, I think that cigarettes should be illegal because a lot of people die from them and if you smoke you will die earlier than, the people that don't smoke. Cigarettes also damage your lungs and you can get yellow teeth and everyone who doesn't smoke would stay away from you. 5.5 trillion cigarettes are produced each year and they are smoked by 1.1 billion people all over the world. When children breath the cigarette smoke they can get ill and have asthma and ear infections. Smokers may get all kinds of disease such as lung cancer, other smoking related cancers, and Heart disease. Nonsmokers have a higher chance of getting disease before the smokers because they always breathe the cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke contains 4,000 chemical constituents and more than 40 of them are known to cause cancer in humans. People who smoke usually pay $7300 or more yearly. That means that they pay $20.00 or more dollars daily. You can buy anything you would want with that money like: saving up for university or college or going to the movies with your friends.

Answer

I completely disagree with the opinion directly above mine. I don't think they should be illegal. The prohibition didn't work, making drugs illegal and having a "war" against them certainly hasn't worked, and the only thing this would accomplish is delivering a massive blow to the economy, and creating a massive spike of people who break the law, not only in smoking cigarettes, but also in buying them through black market trade. This would effectively fill our already overflowing prisons with people who just want to have a smoke, destroy our economy by putting our own tobacco farmers out of business, meanwhile people illegally importing them would be sending our money to other countries, and let's not forget it would completely deregulate cigarettes, meaning that these black market cigarettes wouldn't have to abide by ANY sort of health standard. The person who posted above seems to be weaving in their beliefs with actual statistical facts which is incredibly misleading. Nonsmokers have virtually no health problems caused by people who do smoke (I say virtually because the number is surprisingly low, not nonexistent, and nonsmokers certainly don't get ill because of smokers before smokers themselves do, if you're to go by their logic the healthy thing to do would smoke because they're saying smokers get the diseases later than nonsmokers. Tell me, does that make ANY sense? The person above seems to have a personal vendetta against cigarettes, because they're trying not only to get rid of an individuals right to smoke, but also judging by their supporting information, how they spend their money, and treat their body in general. If there was a law dictating all of that for us, there wouldn't be a point in living. If that's not what the above poster wants, then none of that information is justification to make cigarettes illegal. Not only have I just explained why making them illegal would be detrimental to our society, I demonstrated that the logic of the people who would make cigarettes illegal to be akin to what you would find in a Dictatorship, "Who needs freedoms, when your life is what we chose to be best for you!" essentially sums that up in a nutshell. First you'd notice cigarettes were illegal, the economy would crumble, crime would spike, then because the people who want cigarettes illegal got that done, they find their next target, my guess is alcohol, that becomes illegal, then fast food, so on, so forth. The only way I see that ending is with a revolution being fought, and for what, so the government can decide what we do with our own bodies? All of that was determined with simple cause and effect, someone else may guess different effects, but the fact remains that the government has no business telling me what to do with my body, and because I hate fascism so much I certainly hope it stays that way. Plus as long as smoking is legal, I can reward myself for writing a well thought out argument supporting my beliefs with a smoke. I'm going to go do that.

Answer 2

I believe it should. The more fundamental right that we all share is to breathe air that is available and that is reasonably uncontaminated. People should have a right to smoke, but this right should not take precedence over the right of everyoneto breathe.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

well i think it should be because 1: it is a really stupid addicting drug and it ruins your whole life 2: it shortens your lifespan 3: it kills people who dont want lung cancer

----------------------------------------------- I personally believe that it shouldn't be (i respect other peoples opinions though), think of how many people work for the tobacco industries... all of that added to unemployment, i just don't believe its safe to make it illegal, maybe stricter laws, but it shouldn't be illegal

Answer 5

I support stopping smoking!There is no good reason to smoke! You stink up everyone including your own life.

Cancer, lung problems, diseases, skin wrinkle speed up, chouging, wheezing, smell, bad breath, tooth decay, horrible role model, makes you look BAD! (just to name a few!)

Answer 6

In my opinion, smokers do not have the right to smoke everywhere because in many places, such as Disneyland, children are present.

I also very strongly disagree to people smoking wherever they want. I oppose EVER smoking! There are people and kids around, and smokers just stand there giving a horrible example, smell, making themselves look stupid, and damaging their health! (All in one package! For only thousands of dollars on cigarettes a year!) Smokers will not survive.

There is no longer the question "should" people have the right to smoke everywhere they want. They don't have that right any longer. Smoke bans have been passed by law everywhere, even in the pubs of Ireland.

We all share this planet. In many instances many people all share the space under one roof such as in apartments, townhouses, office buildings, public buildings, malls and condos. Modern construction does not prevent tobacco smoke from traveling through walls into the air space of non-smokers. Smoke is recirculated in the ventilating systems of buildings and is therefore spread throughout. A non-smoker should never, ever be forced to breathe air that has been polluted by a smoker.

Public places must be protected from smokers. One lit cigarette in a restaurant will pollute the air for everyone else. Often, that was the case before smoke bans were passed on a widespread basis. Smokers had no concern for everyone else and so they have been banned.

Societies around the world are turning away from allowing smokers to pollute the air of everyone else. In the United States, smokers are in the minority and they are suffering from the backlash of their claiming they had the right to smoke and anyone who didn't like it was free to leave. To leave! Now they have been relegated to smoking outside buildings, at least 50 feet away in some states, in huddled groups. Communities are passing more and more wide reaching smoke bans. Some communities have banned smoke from outdoor public places such as parks and playing fields.

Answer 7

if you are underage no, but if you are over the age limit yeah ,you arent allowed to smoke in public places it has to be 4 metres away from the entry.