Should the government tighten smoking laws?
In India, they recently passed a law against public smoking. By doing so, they not only restricted the nuisance from the smokers, but also created an awareness of the dangers of smoking. From this example we can understand that government can do something against this problem!
I support the government tightening smoking laws. People who chose to not smoke should not be forced to inhale second hand smoke. Even when a restaurant or other establishment is divided into a smoking and non-moking area, unless there is wall dividing them, it is impossible to actually get away from the smoke. It is much easier for everyone if the smokers are forced to go outside, or into some other enclosed space that is dedicated to smoking.
Smoking by an individual in a public place not only affects that individual, but also everyone around him or her. At that point, his or her choice to smoke infringes upon the rights of others to NOT subject themselves to smoke. For example, my niece has had a spot on her lung since she was in preschool. Second-hand smoke could exacerbate that issue, creating a serious health concern for her at no fault of her own. Should individuals responsible for reckless use of something that could be so potentially damaging not be held responsible?
It is a proven fact that smoking causes a lot more than cancer; even second hand smoke can be very dangerous. The government spends millions of dollars each year in providing for the research of scientific methods of treatment for cancer, TB and other tumors. Smoking only has harmful effects and manufacturing of tobacco is like legalizing drugs like marijuana and there is no difference between inhaling either!
It is very simple. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals, at least 50 are known to be carcinogens (cause cancer in humans) and many are poisonous. Cigarettes are one of few products which can be sold legally which can harm and even kill you over time if used as intended. So let me put it this way. What would happen if some guy decides to put these chemicals in a canister, deploy them around the city, and activate them so that the chemicals spray out into the air so people become exposed to it against their will? Wouldn't that person be labeled a terrorist. So why should a smoker and/or cigarette company walk around free to kill, murder, millions of people everyday! HOW IS THAT OKAY? or even logical... we are letting bunch of lowlife mindless idiots kill people... it is time to fight back...
I believe that tighter smoking laws would be beneficial to the overall health of society. I also believe that if the government were to impose those stricter laws, they should also be held responsible for providing free services and tools that would help smokers be able to quit. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to provide the necessary means to overcome addition if they want to outlaw it.
The more government can do to discourage smoking, the better. Cigarettes are designed to be addictive and the practice will kill not only those that smoke, but those that are in extended exposure to second-hand smoke. This is one area where the government should regulate more, in order to save lives.
I fully support the government tightening smoking laws due to the serious health risks smoking poses, not only for the smokers themselves, but for everyone around them as well. Smoking has been directly linked to numerous types of cancer and other potentially life-threatening conditions; so when smokers light up, they are not only endangering themselves, but they are endangering everyone around them who is capable of breathing in their secondhand smoke. Cigarettes themselves contain a variety of very dangerous chemicals that should not be allowed on our streets; most of those chemicals are deadly by themselves, but when you combine them to make a cigarette, you are ensuring the user of that cigarette, and everyone around them, will be exposed to deadly chemicals.
It's been clinically proven that smoking affects lungs and other respiratory passages and creates irreversible damage. In case of women who are breast-feeding, smoking affects the child. Smoking also contributes towards global warming by carbon dioxide emissions. In public places one smoker can create a lot of disturbances for other non smokers. Therefore government should introduce new restrictions in smoking laws thereby protecting non smokers and the environment.
There's nothing I hate more than having a puff of smoke hit me in the face when I'm taking a walk outside. Most cigarettes have toxic chemicals that are not only dangerous to the smoker, but also to the people around them. It's not very fair, considering it's against the law to poison someone's food, so why isn't it against the law to poison someone's air?
Smoking is a terrible thing that feeds bad habits, addictions, and health problems. We would be a much healthier society if smoking were completely banned. The government must enact policies that promote a healthier lifestyle. However, this is extremely difficult, due to the fact that many people are highly addicted to cigarettes. Tobacco companies have a lot of power and influence, as well as a massive amount of money and jobs at stake. Legislation that bans smoking would merely create a non-taxable black market. Even with these challenges, smoking is a societal ill that must be cured.
Although smoking does not contribute to pollution as much as industry and vehicles, it still pollutes the air, and any small changes will make a difference. Lowering pollution levels means less spending on medical care due to respiratory problems caused by breathing in dirty air. Additionally, the current laws should be enforced more heavily because there are still people who get away with smoking in places illegally when it's not treated as a serious offense.
There should be no debate about this. Hands down the smoking law should still remain because we don't want our loved ones in the hospital because he/she has lung cancer. Buying it is already throwing your money down the drain. You are smoking your life away.
Why should the government tighten smoking laws when they don't seem to care if another person drinks! If a person wants to smoke they should have the right to do so. This is a free country and I can't think of anyone who doesn't do something they enjoy. Yes, smoking is hazardous to your health but so is race car driving, sky diving, and excessive drinking as I stated before. The government should not have the right to tell people what to do in their personal life.
Government agencies should not be allowed to regulate what people chose to do to their own bodies. People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their own bodies, because the next step would be regulating tattoos and body piercings.
A smoker already has to smoke outside, as much as 20 feet away from any door, window, or public location, like a bus stop. Smokers are being treated like lepers and while the idea of protecting others from second hand smoke is a nice ideal, the process of which the government is doing so is trampling on the rights of the smoking public. There are bigger issues to deal with. Second-hand smoke may kill someone in a few decades, but drunk driving can kill several people instantly. The government should work harder on cracking down on alcohol abuse, instead of second-hand smoke.
Smokers get enough crap from everyone as it is, and it makes me pretty angry that 59% of this debate is pro giving us even MORE crap. This country isn't about control, it's about freedom. Don't like it? Move to Saudi Arabia.
If you put a law on cigarettes, what is that going to do? People like breaking laws, they like getting the government mad. If you put the law in place there will be more criminals, rather than less people smoking. I say you educate the kids in school and parents need to learn that if they don't inform their kids about the bad things about smoking, their kid might be a victim.
The entire anti-smoking campaign is based on not only the harmful effects of smoking but a moral issue that deems smoking "bad". If we are really concerned about our health, then lets look at lawn chemicals, chemicals in cosmetics and yes, the chemicals in cigarettes. It has been hypothesized that it is chemical fertilizer that causes the alpha-particle emission in cigarette smoke, thus causing cancers.
People who smoke cigarettes have an addiction, and like any addiction, laws do not help to lessen it. It will only turn those who are addicted into criminals. If this country wants to have a populous that smokes less then we need to focus more on better ways of curing the addiction, not making it illegal. Smokers are fully aware of how unhealthy their habit is which just further proves how strong of an addiction it is.
I think smoking legislation is best left to municipalities or state legislatures. The Federal government has more important issues to deal with. Also, there are tobacco-growing states where tightening the noose on cigarette smokers would not be politically savvy. Just leave such laws to more local entities.
Smoking is a bad habit and is nasty for the health of the people within the state. Therefore tightening smoking laws would mean reduced smoking and better health of the community. Smoking may be a choice, but because it not only affects you but others too(secondhand smoke) and so the government should protect those who do not want that and to protect their children from the possible influence of smokers.
Allowing government to regulate and control one group of people, gives equal access to a change of power to regulate you just as equally. Is smoking dangerous? Yes, so is driving, drinking, swimming, shady neighborhoods, drugs. Freedom should never be trumped for one group to protect another or both will end up loosing all freedom.
Smoking is dangerous. Second hand smoking is dangerous. It's a vile monopoly that makes money on the cancer and death of people they managed to addict. Don't rule with an iron fist and make smoking illegal or price it out of range. That hurts people more than it heals. Making smoking illegal would just encourage a black market of tobacco, and you see what's happening with the marijuana black market. Too many people dying and too much government spending to prevent it, where it takes 200,000 bucks to keep a guy in jail for a year because of a 200 dollar drug transaction. In any situation of substance abuse, you just have to educate people to avoid them.
There is no evidence that 2nd hand smoke actually causes any increase of cancer unless you are constantly exposed to it. Most of the harmful chemicals inside of the smoke die off and get diluted so much that by the time someone else inhales it doesn't really do any big amount of harm. People have been smoking for 100's of years and mankind survived. Smoking is a huge epidemic suddenly? This is only so people can feel better about themselves by "helping" others.
Even though these laws have a good intent, they are doing more harm than good. If a smoker really wants to stop smoking, he doesn't just wake up some random day and say, "Oh I think I'm going to quit smoking today" and just stop and never smoke again. Like EducatedAlfonso stated, we need some kind of program to help smokers ease away from the addiction. Quitting takes time, effort and patience, and if a smoker who is trying to quit gets arrested for being seen smoking, then you're just punishing him for his efforts to quit in the first place. And to whoever said anti smoking laws prevent terrorism, this isn't Spider man, the Lizard isn't going to deploy DNA canisters all over the city and we're not turning into mutant reptiles.
For smokers, really the only place left to smoke is outside buildings from a distance, in the privacy of their homes or in their cars. I think America makes quite a bit of money off of the tobacco industry, and putting more restrictions on it would be counterproductive. I do not agree with marketing towards children, yet if an adult chooses to smoke it is one of the last things a person can legally do to take the edge off. Let them do it in peace.