Comments on: Pros and Cons of Public Smoking Bans

By: Q-tee

Q-tee — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:36:01 +0000

Pretty sure the government should not step in to any of my business, i dont see why cigarettes are legal, but cannabis isnt

By: Sammy-Jo

Sammy-Jo — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:54:05 +0000

Shirley Temple is right; second hand smoke is just there, it’s not like the smoker deliberately blows right in someone’s face(unless they are a total asshole). The damage drunkenness has on a non-drinker are far more direct as it’s more a deliberate attack and in the case of drunk driving can deliver instant kill. It can not be prevented simply by keeping drinkers away from non-drinkers as once one is drunk they have no choice but to bring that with them where ever they go next; whereas a smoker can easily just put out their cigarette before leaving the area they’re in. Thus removing the ability to drink period is more of a robbery of freedom than simply re-locating smokers to designated facilities(such as their own homes or designated areas in a work place). To protect non-drinkers from drunks you would pretty much have to remove drinking from existence completely.

By: John

John — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:35:47 +0000

DB, isn’t there a law against drunk driving though. Like Shirly said we can’t tell people not to poison their bodies with drugs or alcohol. we can, however, take steps to make sure that their reckless decisions don’t effect anyone else.

By: DB

DB — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:49:07 +0000

until that drunk driver kills you, then it affects a second hand drinker

By: Shirly Temple

Shirly Temple — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:01:00 +0000

just to respond to your comment Elle Zorra.. public health is a concern but the government does not have the right to tell people they cant harm their own bodies with smoke/alcohol. There IS second hand smoke that harms the people around the smoker… there ISNT second hand drinking. Therefor your “banning alcohol” statement is incorrect.

By: Elle Zorra

Elle Zorra — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:49:47 +0000

The smoking-ban legislation is nothing more than the counter-strategy/a successful checkmate of the corrupt political-powers that be against the tobacco industries (still one of our biggest exports since colonial days) in response to the industries’ powerful/ successful lobbying to prevent increases in their taxation willingly; they would not ‘cough-up’ more cash… it has nothing to do with ‘the public health’ or anything else… if public health was truely a concern, Lord knows we’d have banned sale & public-consumption of alcohol). What should be the focus and of great importance to the citizenry is the fact that our government could’ve cared less about taking away an individual’s right to continue their feeding frenzy on of almighty dollars.