Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should Tasers be used by Police?
Answer:
If you have heart problems then you probably wont survive the gunshot anymore than you would the taser.
Around here the guidelines for using the taser are almost as strict as using a gun-as long as that stays the case Im pro taser.
When a somewhat small cop around here got punched in the face by a middle school student who was over 6ft tall and 200lbs he tasered him-I say good job. There is no way he could have taken him down without either his gun, his taser, or his club--the taser does the least damage in most cases.
yes,
some people are like animals these days
Better than a gun.
Yes.
If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
I think its better than guns, and can be more widely used...
I think they should use phasers.
i take it u watch gm.tv 2 lol..........and no i think they shouldnt
Only if they have to fill in a shed load of paperwork when they deploy a taser which may put them off.
Sure. It's a lot more entertaining than the old nightstick.
I think so. I would love one wouldnt you? Taser those damn hoodies!!!
sure...something else to assure the safety of criminals !
Yes... without a doubt.
Give the police more power to sort out the chavs and idiots who do what they like because the system wont sort them out.
In cases where non-lethal force is applicable, yes. Otherwise, the use of either hands on, impact weapons, or firearms would be authorized.
Yes - They're better than guns.
No - What if the person they're using the taser on has heart problems? They'd have to ask, otherwise they could be done for murder.
Police should have anything they need to do their jobs safely.
They also should use only in the correct way and for the right reasons.
Just my opinion!
They certainly should.....
with a large out-of-control high on drugs criminal, YES, why not?
it's not like harsh language's gonna work, is it?
yes the police should have a viable form of protecting themselves %26 the general public.
as it's still a lot kinder than a GUN!
we already have armed police in Nottinghamshire,i see them regularly, due to a growing gang culture,
that's policemen with semi-automatic machine guns.
when they found the taser useless, when trying to apprehend a drug-crazed individual with a gun.
where the taser is useful, they should stay.
Agree with Joe Kool,in England there are a lot of officers with a gunge ho attitude who would use Tasers when it was unnecessary.
I think all police officers should have to be trained by the Scottish police who are more professional than their English counterparts when carrying out their public duty..
Yes, the alternative is using their normal guns. So would you want a small chance of death/injury or a 100% chance of death/injury?
only when they have to as it is really painful for th victim, police need to protect themselves, rather a taser than a gun, all the best
Interesting views expressed above. One thing bothers me - has anyone considered the effect on cardiac pacemakers?
Everyone is saying yes, mmm. What happens if it is used on a person that has a bad heart? I can`t see 50,000 volts doing this person`s heart any good!!!
If someone is completely out of control through the use of drugs then maybe yes, use it. But it needs to be controlled under very strict guidelines, the last thing we need is some andrenalin pumped up copper seeing red and using it.
I know there are some very neanderthal brain-dead thugs out there - especially after the nightclubs throw out the drunken cavemen and cavewomen. But in some cases high spirits does not mean drunk and offensive.
Strict guidelines need to be brought in first %26 training, before this is allowed to be used by some gung-ho type coppers.
No, just look at their record with guns,you would wind up getting "tazed" if you looked at one of them the wrong way.
Should students be sent emails threatening lawsuits of they don't settle out of court?
I know they did wrong, but this seems a bit rediculous to me. What do you think?
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/4361015...
Answer:
This is a common approach to getting there money. Students should be more aware of what can happen when you steal. I read the article and the girl admitted she know it was illegal.
I agree they should do whatever it takes to stop people from stealing.
Sorry, I disagree with you.
They shoud be very grateful for the settlement offer. If they were sued, they could owe $100,000+. Taking a menial sum of $3,000 is a gift from the RIAA.
To truely combat piracy, the RIAA needs to get more tough. This will discourage file sharing.
No.
/sarcasm
They should be rousted from their dorm rooms in the middle of the night and taken to the pokey; tied to an oxcart and flogged to the city gates and there held in stocks for their mortification and the amusement of their elders.
sarcasm%26#92;
Look, the kids knew what they were doing was illegal. Maybe they did not realize that they were looking at penalties far beyond their ability to absorb. But that does not change the situation.
Piracy is costing the American software and entertainment industry billions of dollars every year...money that could help pay other peoples' college tuitions....pay taxes and bring down everyone's tax bills...and continue to funnel value to the artists and industrialists who make the music and movies and software available to those who use and appreciate them.
Enforcing the intellectual property rights of those who create the art is important to restore America to its former position of importance in the world. So it's not ridiculous.
Hey, at some colleges, if they find you downloading music without a proper license, they court-martial you...induct you into the service as an E-1 peon...and probably stick you with a less-than-honorable discharge.
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/4361015...
Answer:
This is a common approach to getting there money. Students should be more aware of what can happen when you steal. I read the article and the girl admitted she know it was illegal.
I agree they should do whatever it takes to stop people from stealing.
Sorry, I disagree with you.
They shoud be very grateful for the settlement offer. If they were sued, they could owe $100,000+. Taking a menial sum of $3,000 is a gift from the RIAA.
To truely combat piracy, the RIAA needs to get more tough. This will discourage file sharing.
No.
/sarcasm
They should be rousted from their dorm rooms in the middle of the night and taken to the pokey; tied to an oxcart and flogged to the city gates and there held in stocks for their mortification and the amusement of their elders.
sarcasm%26#92;
Look, the kids knew what they were doing was illegal. Maybe they did not realize that they were looking at penalties far beyond their ability to absorb. But that does not change the situation.
Piracy is costing the American software and entertainment industry billions of dollars every year...money that could help pay other peoples' college tuitions....pay taxes and bring down everyone's tax bills...and continue to funnel value to the artists and industrialists who make the music and movies and software available to those who use and appreciate them.
Enforcing the intellectual property rights of those who create the art is important to restore America to its former position of importance in the world. So it's not ridiculous.
Hey, at some colleges, if they find you downloading music without a proper license, they court-martial you...induct you into the service as an E-1 peon...and probably stick you with a less-than-honorable discharge.
Should Stem Cell research be allowed? Should it be funded by the government? Why or Why not?
Think of the people that we could potentially help with this new technology. Very similar to abortion in the sense that the woman that is giving up her eggs has the choice (individual choice rather than nationally mandated). Are the only stem cells from the embillical cord or adult stem cells the ones that the populace can ethically use?
Answer:
Stem cell research IS allowed.
No, it should not be governmentally funded, but neither should so many other projects our government funds. The private sector will reap the benefits.
It is allowed but I dont think it should be funded by the government.
Of course it should be allowed, but it should not be funded by the government. If there is promise in the research let private enterprise do their research.
Adult stem cell research is great! It is also the only research that has provided any results. Embryonic stem cell research is not great and should not be funded by the government.
Here are the facts
Adult stem cell research has produced actual cures. Adult stem cells can be harvested from your own body, screened, re-grown, and replaced.
Embryonic stem cell research has not prouced any cures. By the time you are in need of a stem cell therapy, there are no more pluripotent stem cells in your body. The only way to get new, genetically identical, embryonic stem cells for a person, would be to clone that person.
Where do I want my money spent? Adult stem cell research. Not because of ethics, but because of facts and reality.
You need to check your facts.
It IS allowed.
It IS also being federally funded.
However, there are certain situations where the federal funding is not allowed.
Typical leftest crap, regurgitating the liberal bias they hear and see in the media, then refusing to do their own research.
They are unused eggs. Who cares what people do with them.
As far as cloning goes. I'll take a couple Halle Berry's myself.
Yes I am a conservative and stem cell, even embryotic stem cell research should be given 100% funding and should get federal funding as well. This could be the cure we were looking for, already it has been outrageousely effective in clinical treatments of things like diabetes and its only in its infant stages. Soon we wont have to use embryos and then no one can complain.
Answer:
Stem cell research IS allowed.
No, it should not be governmentally funded, but neither should so many other projects our government funds. The private sector will reap the benefits.
It is allowed but I dont think it should be funded by the government.
Of course it should be allowed, but it should not be funded by the government. If there is promise in the research let private enterprise do their research.
Adult stem cell research is great! It is also the only research that has provided any results. Embryonic stem cell research is not great and should not be funded by the government.
Here are the facts
Adult stem cell research has produced actual cures. Adult stem cells can be harvested from your own body, screened, re-grown, and replaced.
Embryonic stem cell research has not prouced any cures. By the time you are in need of a stem cell therapy, there are no more pluripotent stem cells in your body. The only way to get new, genetically identical, embryonic stem cells for a person, would be to clone that person.
Where do I want my money spent? Adult stem cell research. Not because of ethics, but because of facts and reality.
You need to check your facts.
It IS allowed.
It IS also being federally funded.
However, there are certain situations where the federal funding is not allowed.
Typical leftest crap, regurgitating the liberal bias they hear and see in the media, then refusing to do their own research.
They are unused eggs. Who cares what people do with them.
As far as cloning goes. I'll take a couple Halle Berry's myself.
Yes I am a conservative and stem cell, even embryotic stem cell research should be given 100% funding and should get federal funding as well. This could be the cure we were looking for, already it has been outrageousely effective in clinical treatments of things like diabetes and its only in its infant stages. Soon we wont have to use embryos and then no one can complain.
Should smoking be illegal?
The goverment bans drugs such as cocaine and marajuana, but not cigarettes!
I personally think cigarettes are far worse, knowing that they contain Rat poison and Tar!
What do you think of this matter?
Answer:
The government will never ban tobacco because they profit off of it. Plain and simple.
No, but I think that ALL drugs should eventually be legalized.
Smoking should remain legal, but all smoking near kids or in public places should be illegal. Why should you be allowed to poison me or innocent children?
i think that weed should b legal an cigs. illegal
YES! i totally agree, smoking should be illegal! There are so many reasons for that but I'm too lazy to list them.
If smoking becomes illegal the u.s will fall apart like right now because of the amount of money the government pulls in in taxes on ciggarettes and how many people are employed by the industry and how many people would go nuts if they couldnt smoke it would pretty well destroy us so its best to leave it alone
I agree! smoking should be made illegal - is has so many diseases and illness associated with it - and it is highly anti-social.. it makes everything smell, and can harm unborn babies. nuff said!
I Love to wake up to the smell, of rat poison, and tar, in the Morning.
only to a certain extent. should be illegal within 100yds. of a public/community places.
I think we should go the other way - make it all legal. If someone wants to get jacked up on cocaine, smoke some pot and listen to Bob Marley, or fill their lungs with cancer causing carcinogens - that is THEIR prerogative. The Feds. have no right to tell people what they can and can not do to themselves.
As a smoker........I think that it should be legal to do, but not in public places. Many of my friends and I would quit in a heartbeat if they made it illegal to do in all public places. It is very hard to go to a bar and not smoke. We won't stop going to bars, but we would stop smoking.
To all of the people who want to make all drus legal...........You are stupid! Do you know that drugs make you not able to function properly. If someone killed your brother in an accident because he was hi on something.....you would want him in jail. Legalizing it, makes that hard to do!!! Can you even immagine going to work and getting paid to do your job and having some schmuk laying on the ground next to you because he is tripping............he would still be getting paid, and they wouldn't be able to fire him because that would be "discrimination"
Just think about it!
all drugs should be legalized it would solve many problems
now as for white flour products, yes, that should be made illegal
people should not smoke around others
I believe that cigarettes will never be illegal and the reason is a big one; billions and billions of tax dollars. Texas alone collects over 1 billion dollars a year in cigarette tax.
In order to replace those tax dollars, they would have to heavily tax other items...milk? Bread? Candy bars? Alcohol? - I don't think so.
Besides, the tobacco lobby in Washington is too powerful, lines the pockets of too many legislators. Those money-grubbers would never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I actually have thought about this a lot and I do think that it should be illegal if marjuana were to be illegal. I think it all has to do with how our economy depended on the tobacco plant and though tradition it has not been brought up as a serious matter but I actually think all drugs should be treated equally so if legislators say that marijuana is illegal, then cigarettes should be illegal too.
Cindy, puff on this....you obviously don't understand what smokers go thru.
YES! I have smoked for 30 yrs. If it were illegal I would have to quit or deal with "the man". No kidding! If it were,I would quit.
you don't eat cigerettes, so the whole rat poision things doesn't make sense. no it shouldn't its my right to smoke, and I don't do it around kids, I don't do it in public, and I would rather the government worry about other things like the war we are in and global warming rather than trying to ruin one of out nations oldest buisnesses.
No, in fact too much **** is illegal now. This is supposed to be the land of the free. Pretty soon we won't be able to take a crap with out a freaking' permit!
The stupid bleeding hearts are all like, "Oh cigarettes kill people!" Yeah and God bless them too!
This country is getting overpopulated as it is, and besides that if your stupid enough to smoke in the first place I figure you must want a little cancer or something. Either that or you want some whining sissy to sue the Cigarette company for a million bucks because everybody knows that they just held a gun to your head and made you smoke every drag.
There's no such thing as common sense in this ******* country anymore! Oh yeah and while I'm on this little rant, if I see one more ******* GEL commercial I think I'm gonna hurl! Listen people, everyone has heard the news that cigarettes kill you. I say those who choose to ignore the Surgeon General and keep smoking and die and just modern representations of natural selection. You know? Its like he who smokes too many cigarettes as a kid doesn't grow up to have any kids of his own. It's natures way of eliminating the simpletons.
Yes i think smoking should be banned completely, It is a poison, And so it should be treated
The major political leaders of the world are cruel to allow it to be sold knowing that it ruins lives and greatly increases the risk of various types of cancer.
We should all start a campaign against smoking!
No, and I don't think marijuana should be illegal either.
It's true that smoking is dangerous to your health, but I don't think we need laws about every little thing in our lives.
Adult human beings are capable of making those decisions for themselves. If they decide to do something that's bad for their health, they will suffer the natural consequences.
I do believe that smoking should be restricted to smoking areas. In this, I'm more lenient than the people who would, for example, ban all smoking in restaurants. I liked the idea of separate smoking and non-smoking sections. I also think that buildings where people have to go outside to smoke, should have just one room indoors where smoking is permitted. I don't think the smokers should be forced to go outside in bad weather.
There is a huge tax on cigarettes. To out law it would only subtract these fiscal finances.
Also, many people smoke regularly and very addicted to it. Just like people are able to get street drugs, people would start growing and rolling their own cigarettes, and they would only do more damage. At least Camel, Winston, etc. roll them professionally and air tight.
America is far too deep in the tobacco rut to simply out law smoking. But don't take my agreement as me supporting smoking, I'd never do it. I believe it is very unhealthy and my grandmother died of lung cancer when I was 14, or two years ago, caused by smoking her entire adult life. But nonetheless, many people would do whatever they would have to in order to get them.
The problem won't be fixed by simply making smoking illegal.
I disagree 100%. I believe that marijuana first off should be legal. It has so many medical benefits and is natural. All these pills floating about to do the same things weed could have so many bad side effects. Other drugs also have many benefits when used correctly. Making drugs illegal doesn't stop them AT ALL! All it does is stop suffering people from being able to get them prescribed at hospitals for medical reasons. Personally, I think in about 5 to 10 years tobacco will be on it's way out and marijuana will be what's being sold instead. The war on drugs is the same exact thing as the war on alcohol or prohibition. It's a bunch of ****!
People should be able to do whatever they want.
I dont think the government should ban ciggs but i think that they should legalize marajuiana
There are lots of places in California where smoking is illegal .
I like that , much easier to eat in a restaurant there.
The more backwards places , you gag while trying to eat .
Did you know that congress is still using your tax dollars to subsidize the tobaccos farmers? Yep, the government pays tobaccos subsidies. That would probably be a good place to start.
If some other country killed as many Americans as tobacco does, we'd be at war. Yes, it ought to be illegal, but prohibition seldom makes things go away. It just creates a black market for the product. Probably it would help to only sell cigarettes in liquor stores so they're not conveniently available. The other thing is to keep putting out the message that it's not cool or glamorous. Most smokers being as teenagers who think it makes them look older or cool, or what ever.... Try to make it uncool.
Considering that it is the only product on the market guaranteed to kill you if you follow manufacturers directions and contains hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide as well as nicotine , tar and a lot of other carcinogens and industrial waste and radioactive sludge is a fertilizer in others you tell me !!!!
Yes, I believe it should be illegal for several reasons.
Cigarettes share their disease with nonsmokers. Blowing their smoke in the air is more dangerous to others in the room than to them. That means children are getting lung disease, pneumonia, asthma %26 etc from adults who smoke.
It raises everyones insurance rates from cost of care of smokers %26 those around smokers.
It makes everyones hair %26 clothes smell like an old ashtray. I really hate this too.
It causes some businesses to have to by filtration systems.
The cost of cigarettes is a waste of money by many people who recieve public aid programs. i do not smoke %26 I do not want to supplement anyone else's cigarettes.
It is not a bad habit for the smokers only but for everyone.
no
a smoker loses a liberty today, a non-smoker loses one tomorrow
See who squacks the loudest!
what a question.....the gov has SO MUCH POWER.........they can tell us what to do. cigarettes are so bad, but the gov lets people buy them. smokes are WORSE than pot. in my opinoion. here is the real question...where does it stop? they tell us we can't smoke in public..they tell us we can't smoke at home...they tell us we can't eat red meat...they tell us we can't watch r-rated movies... they tell us we have to buy water bottled by their approved(and privately owned)companies........they tell us gay people are bad. ......do you get what i'm saying...... make an iformed decision for yourself. if the gov could make money on pot and coke they would...they already figured out a way to do it with tobacco....
Well, let's take it a little further shall we? What about banning alcoholic beverages they kill the brain cells and poison the body as well. I believe that everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves. Banning something like cigarettes is just going to open the door to special interest groups lining up to ban just about everything that offends them. Freedom of choice people. We gotta draw the line somewhere.
I think smoking should be legal, dope, cocaine and so on should be legal and Fat people should be illegal.
I personally think cigarettes are far worse, knowing that they contain Rat poison and Tar!
What do you think of this matter?
Answer:
The government will never ban tobacco because they profit off of it. Plain and simple.
No, but I think that ALL drugs should eventually be legalized.
Smoking should remain legal, but all smoking near kids or in public places should be illegal. Why should you be allowed to poison me or innocent children?
i think that weed should b legal an cigs. illegal
YES! i totally agree, smoking should be illegal! There are so many reasons for that but I'm too lazy to list them.
If smoking becomes illegal the u.s will fall apart like right now because of the amount of money the government pulls in in taxes on ciggarettes and how many people are employed by the industry and how many people would go nuts if they couldnt smoke it would pretty well destroy us so its best to leave it alone
I agree! smoking should be made illegal - is has so many diseases and illness associated with it - and it is highly anti-social.. it makes everything smell, and can harm unborn babies. nuff said!
I Love to wake up to the smell, of rat poison, and tar, in the Morning.
only to a certain extent. should be illegal within 100yds. of a public/community places.
I think we should go the other way - make it all legal. If someone wants to get jacked up on cocaine, smoke some pot and listen to Bob Marley, or fill their lungs with cancer causing carcinogens - that is THEIR prerogative. The Feds. have no right to tell people what they can and can not do to themselves.
As a smoker........I think that it should be legal to do, but not in public places. Many of my friends and I would quit in a heartbeat if they made it illegal to do in all public places. It is very hard to go to a bar and not smoke. We won't stop going to bars, but we would stop smoking.
To all of the people who want to make all drus legal...........You are stupid! Do you know that drugs make you not able to function properly. If someone killed your brother in an accident because he was hi on something.....you would want him in jail. Legalizing it, makes that hard to do!!! Can you even immagine going to work and getting paid to do your job and having some schmuk laying on the ground next to you because he is tripping............he would still be getting paid, and they wouldn't be able to fire him because that would be "discrimination"
Just think about it!
all drugs should be legalized it would solve many problems
now as for white flour products, yes, that should be made illegal
people should not smoke around others
I believe that cigarettes will never be illegal and the reason is a big one; billions and billions of tax dollars. Texas alone collects over 1 billion dollars a year in cigarette tax.
In order to replace those tax dollars, they would have to heavily tax other items...milk? Bread? Candy bars? Alcohol? - I don't think so.
Besides, the tobacco lobby in Washington is too powerful, lines the pockets of too many legislators. Those money-grubbers would never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I actually have thought about this a lot and I do think that it should be illegal if marjuana were to be illegal. I think it all has to do with how our economy depended on the tobacco plant and though tradition it has not been brought up as a serious matter but I actually think all drugs should be treated equally so if legislators say that marijuana is illegal, then cigarettes should be illegal too.
Cindy, puff on this....you obviously don't understand what smokers go thru.
YES! I have smoked for 30 yrs. If it were illegal I would have to quit or deal with "the man". No kidding! If it were,I would quit.
you don't eat cigerettes, so the whole rat poision things doesn't make sense. no it shouldn't its my right to smoke, and I don't do it around kids, I don't do it in public, and I would rather the government worry about other things like the war we are in and global warming rather than trying to ruin one of out nations oldest buisnesses.
No, in fact too much **** is illegal now. This is supposed to be the land of the free. Pretty soon we won't be able to take a crap with out a freaking' permit!
The stupid bleeding hearts are all like, "Oh cigarettes kill people!" Yeah and God bless them too!
This country is getting overpopulated as it is, and besides that if your stupid enough to smoke in the first place I figure you must want a little cancer or something. Either that or you want some whining sissy to sue the Cigarette company for a million bucks because everybody knows that they just held a gun to your head and made you smoke every drag.
There's no such thing as common sense in this ******* country anymore! Oh yeah and while I'm on this little rant, if I see one more ******* GEL commercial I think I'm gonna hurl! Listen people, everyone has heard the news that cigarettes kill you. I say those who choose to ignore the Surgeon General and keep smoking and die and just modern representations of natural selection. You know? Its like he who smokes too many cigarettes as a kid doesn't grow up to have any kids of his own. It's natures way of eliminating the simpletons.
Yes i think smoking should be banned completely, It is a poison, And so it should be treated
The major political leaders of the world are cruel to allow it to be sold knowing that it ruins lives and greatly increases the risk of various types of cancer.
We should all start a campaign against smoking!
No, and I don't think marijuana should be illegal either.
It's true that smoking is dangerous to your health, but I don't think we need laws about every little thing in our lives.
Adult human beings are capable of making those decisions for themselves. If they decide to do something that's bad for their health, they will suffer the natural consequences.
I do believe that smoking should be restricted to smoking areas. In this, I'm more lenient than the people who would, for example, ban all smoking in restaurants. I liked the idea of separate smoking and non-smoking sections. I also think that buildings where people have to go outside to smoke, should have just one room indoors where smoking is permitted. I don't think the smokers should be forced to go outside in bad weather.
There is a huge tax on cigarettes. To out law it would only subtract these fiscal finances.
Also, many people smoke regularly and very addicted to it. Just like people are able to get street drugs, people would start growing and rolling their own cigarettes, and they would only do more damage. At least Camel, Winston, etc. roll them professionally and air tight.
America is far too deep in the tobacco rut to simply out law smoking. But don't take my agreement as me supporting smoking, I'd never do it. I believe it is very unhealthy and my grandmother died of lung cancer when I was 14, or two years ago, caused by smoking her entire adult life. But nonetheless, many people would do whatever they would have to in order to get them.
The problem won't be fixed by simply making smoking illegal.
I disagree 100%. I believe that marijuana first off should be legal. It has so many medical benefits and is natural. All these pills floating about to do the same things weed could have so many bad side effects. Other drugs also have many benefits when used correctly. Making drugs illegal doesn't stop them AT ALL! All it does is stop suffering people from being able to get them prescribed at hospitals for medical reasons. Personally, I think in about 5 to 10 years tobacco will be on it's way out and marijuana will be what's being sold instead. The war on drugs is the same exact thing as the war on alcohol or prohibition. It's a bunch of ****!
People should be able to do whatever they want.
I dont think the government should ban ciggs but i think that they should legalize marajuiana
There are lots of places in California where smoking is illegal .
I like that , much easier to eat in a restaurant there.
The more backwards places , you gag while trying to eat .
Did you know that congress is still using your tax dollars to subsidize the tobaccos farmers? Yep, the government pays tobaccos subsidies. That would probably be a good place to start.
If some other country killed as many Americans as tobacco does, we'd be at war. Yes, it ought to be illegal, but prohibition seldom makes things go away. It just creates a black market for the product. Probably it would help to only sell cigarettes in liquor stores so they're not conveniently available. The other thing is to keep putting out the message that it's not cool or glamorous. Most smokers being as teenagers who think it makes them look older or cool, or what ever.... Try to make it uncool.
Considering that it is the only product on the market guaranteed to kill you if you follow manufacturers directions and contains hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide as well as nicotine , tar and a lot of other carcinogens and industrial waste and radioactive sludge is a fertilizer in others you tell me !!!!
Yes, I believe it should be illegal for several reasons.
Cigarettes share their disease with nonsmokers. Blowing their smoke in the air is more dangerous to others in the room than to them. That means children are getting lung disease, pneumonia, asthma %26 etc from adults who smoke.
It raises everyones insurance rates from cost of care of smokers %26 those around smokers.
It makes everyones hair %26 clothes smell like an old ashtray. I really hate this too.
It causes some businesses to have to by filtration systems.
The cost of cigarettes is a waste of money by many people who recieve public aid programs. i do not smoke %26 I do not want to supplement anyone else's cigarettes.
It is not a bad habit for the smokers only but for everyone.
no
a smoker loses a liberty today, a non-smoker loses one tomorrow
See who squacks the loudest!
what a question.....the gov has SO MUCH POWER.........they can tell us what to do. cigarettes are so bad, but the gov lets people buy them. smokes are WORSE than pot. in my opinoion. here is the real question...where does it stop? they tell us we can't smoke in public..they tell us we can't smoke at home...they tell us we can't eat red meat...they tell us we can't watch r-rated movies... they tell us we have to buy water bottled by their approved(and privately owned)companies........they tell us gay people are bad. ......do you get what i'm saying...... make an iformed decision for yourself. if the gov could make money on pot and coke they would...they already figured out a way to do it with tobacco....
Well, let's take it a little further shall we? What about banning alcoholic beverages they kill the brain cells and poison the body as well. I believe that everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves. Banning something like cigarettes is just going to open the door to special interest groups lining up to ban just about everything that offends them. Freedom of choice people. We gotta draw the line somewhere.
I think smoking should be legal, dope, cocaine and so on should be legal and Fat people should be illegal.
Should smoking be banned in restaurants and bars?
Why or why not?
We are currently debating this issue in Pittsburgh.
Answer:
If a business-owner decides to have a smoke-free work place, that is his right.
If his customers or employees petition for a smoke-free workplace and the business owner acquiesces, then that is ok, too.
But when do-gooders and politicians use the power of government to intrude into the operation of a private business and dictate whether smoking can occur there - that is tyranny. It is the antithesis of the liberty and freedom that are supposed to be our birthright.
No I don't think so.
Bars and restaurants could declare themselves Smoking or No Smoking and let the customers and employees decide where they want to go.
yes, definately
not fare that the damn smokers get to stink out an entire restaurant or bar, not to mention how it effects the health of the people who work in those places
Any time a government passes laws "for the good of the people" we lose a little liberty.
No. If the individual owner of a bar or restaurant wants to ban smoking that's a decision that he or she makes on their own. I do not smoke and I like to go to bars. I just find ones that don't allow smoking and go there.
Yes. They past a law in Colorado last year. I enjoy going into a restaurants, and bars and not have my family or I have to breathe in someone elses smoke.
Nope! I think the owner of each place should have the choice of non-smoking or smoking. Then any individual could decide for themselves if they want to go there!
Well, restaurants I can see how that would be bothersome to alot of people - I have no problem with banning smoking in restaurants
BUT
in bars, give me a break, bars are one of the few places left that we can smoke. Houston's bar smoking ban goes into effect September 1st of this year. Why cant we leave the decision of whether or not to allow smoking up to the bar owners, then they will be decided which clientel they will be going after. Right now there are already some bar owner who choose to ban smoking without a governmenr mandated ban. So there are plenty of places already for non-smokers to go if they choose.
I would also like to add that there are many non-smokers who are not bothered by people smoking around them.
There are also smokers, likie myself, who always ask when sitting next to strangers if they will be bothered if I smoke.
We all have to learn to live together.
no.
i think they should keep it the way it has been.
where they have different sections for smokers and non smokers.
I don't think there should be an all out ban. There should be a smoking and non-smoking section. Some of us can't even smoke in our own houses now, what's next? Smoking bans continue an assault on freedom.
The following paragraph wasn't written by me - so it may be a little faulty on text and punctuation.
"i will agree non smokers have had a rough deal but to ban smoking out right in pubs and clubs in totally unfair, every town, city etc should have both non smoking and smoking bars and clubs that is a fair way to go then there is a clear choice wether to go or not and wether to work there or not, why should non smokers dictate the leasure of all, people who dont drive dont get given a choice wether to inhale car fumes or not, its acceptable for a non smoking car driver to make non drivers inhale there waste from cars, try being a child in a buggy with pollution from cars while they are taking to shops etc, its okay for that but all manners of ban is being brought in for smokers, also who is going to make up the shortfall in tax loss to the government, no one wants to discuss that, one in four people smoke in this country and pay high taxes to do it, and most smoke more when out for a night so the tax loss will be great and dont be fooled into thinking the NHS will make a saving as that wont be the case the cost will stay the same and the revenure to pay towards it will be cut, so as i dont own a car i think the tax loss should be made up on cars, that would be fair, by putting petrol up by a pound a gallon and car tax up by 33% the government should be able to claw back the tax lost on cig sales, as somthing has to be taxed to make up the shortfall and since theres three times as many non smoking car drivers as smoking drivers i think thats a fair way to go, they wished the ban on the country they should foot the tax loss to the country. oh did the likes of ASH and the Government fail to mention the tax loss and the poor non smoker not think of it. As non smokers pollut as well, and lets face it you will be able to save if you reduce your car size and that stops people choking our streets with car pollution where our children play and walk down each day. and encourage more to use public transport." (link)
Smoking should be banned in bars. Regardless if there is a Non smoking section and a smoking section, this fake half a wall barrier does nothing. The smoke still diffuses through out the restaurant. Some people are super sensitive to cigarette smoke. My dad and I happen to be allergic to it. Here in missouri they banned smoking in public buildings which was a relief because now we can go out and eat dinner without being bothered or having to get up and leave, because of the smoke. Also smoking just doesn't cause damage to others peoples health but it is smelly....People who are non smokers do not want to smell like smoke. Sometimes I have to wash my clothes twice because of cigarette smoke from smokers.
Yes it should be banned. Not smoking does not ruin peoples health.
No, I do not smoke but I believe if a bar or restaurant can stay open with smoke in the air they deserve to be in buisness and obviously it is what their customers want or will tolerate. The wait staff should not be working in a bar or restaurant if they do not like smoke. There is constant need for waitstaff nationwide and many non smoking restaurants to work at. People at bars are obviously not overly concerned about their health.
I think it should be up to the owner of the restaurant/bar.
Yes, it should be banned.
My friend has asthma and even if a whiff goes by, she has an attack and can't breathe and has to go to emergency which is so severe and you want to know the bill to breathe?????
$$1000.00 dollars just breathe and get and chest x-ray
while the bastard who puffed gets off scott free.
These smokers don't give a crap if they affect someone elses health, and I believe they should be SUED big time because someone caused their health problem to exacerbate.
If a smoker was sued 2 or 3 times the dork would stop smoking and invest in his own health.
I think smokers should be allowed to smoke wherever they want, provided it is outside and away from non-smokers.
Nobody has the right to inflict health problems on anybody else.
I don't believe it should be banned by the government. I believe each restaurant/bar owner should be free to make that decision. Business owners know their customers.
I've actually recently quit smoking -- but there are restaurants that I have stopped patronizing in my area because they went smoke free. That's my decision -- as it is non-smokers decisions to not patronize smoking establishments.
The smoke in restaurants truly isn't that detrimental to the health of non-smoking patrons. A study was done in my area that showed at the worst sitting in a smoky restaurant (in the smoking section) for 3 hours was the equivalent of smoking 1 cigarette. That doesn't seem bad to me -- if you chronically dine out, stop sitting in the smoking section.
A big argument here has been everyone is entitled to a smoke-free workplace. If smoke bothers you -- choose to work in a non-smoking environment -- that seems obvious.
Yes, Smoking should be banned from Restaurants, Given the potential lethal consequences of prolonged use of any dangerous substance, second hand smoke is just as bad, especially when children are involved.
No, smoking should not be banned from Bars, alcohol is bad for ones Liver, why not kill ones lung in the process?
If this is not a law yet in your State I`m very sorry to say this will be one soon as it already is in Ohio and Fla. and a lot of other states also
I currently live in Fla and its been a law here for sometime
Sure.
Just to be on the safe side, ban eating and drinking too. People have to be protected from getting heart attacks and alcoholism.
%26lt;sigh%26gt;
The libertarian response is to leave it up to the restaurant owners. But we do not let restaurant owners refuse service to someone because he or she is Black, nor should we. Similarly, we should not allow restaurants to allow smoking in-doors. Just like racial discrimination, it is harmful and the government is permitted to regulate to prevent a harm from being done on its citizens. The "rights" argument gets you nowhere. Saying you have a right to smoke begs the question: why don't I have a right to clean air? We need policy analysis, and as I said, I think intervention in the market is warranted here because the government is acting to protect its citizens from a harm. Indeed, lung conditions-- asthma, cancer and many others-- are exacerbated by smoky bars and eateries. Not to mention the children, whose young lungs should not be exposed to such harmful substances. One might say, well, you don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. If you don't like it don't go. But why should my actions or restaurant choices be limited by people who choose to smoke? In addition, no one seems to make this argument when it comes to health code violations, although one could. One could easily say that the government should not have health codes at restaurants because, if you want clean and safe food, just don't go to the restaurants that are not clean and whose food is not safe. But that doesn't seem right; we approve of health codes for restaurants because we think it is proper that the government prevent the harm that results from having dirty/unsafe restaurants. Why not allow the government to regulate so as to avoid the harm that results from in-door smoke? Finally, as it was pointed out, yes, every time the government regulates something, we do lose a little "liberty." But liberty to do what? In the health code scenario, it is the "liberty" to have a dirty restaurant. In the smoking context, it is the "freedom" to have a known carcinogen and asthma- exacerbator in the air. Are these really the kinds of "freedoms" we need to protect? I think not. Clearly, the benefits prevail.
Being a smoker for 13+ years, I DO believe smoking should be banned in all public places where there are children. It's one thing for bars to allow smoking, it's another to allow restaruants. I would not smoke in front of my children, nor would I take them into a place where others were smoking. Nothing ticks me off more then parents who show up at kids activites (ie baseball/football games and smoke).
Yes. A non-smoking person should be able to sit down in a restaurant and not inhale unhealthful smoke while they eat. My wife grew up in a house of smokers and now she has Bronchitis. This same principal applies here. If I go to a resturaunt for along period of time with smokers in the vicinty, I will get Bronchial %26 Lung problems. This is FACT!!. Is this right? F**K NO !!! If they want to smoke they can go outside or if the resuraunt is smart enough they would create a whole new room seperate from NON smokers. I live in Las Vegas and this is a huge problem out here right now. They just passed A Smoking ban in all Resturaunts. Overwelming in the polls. We have Gamming Bars out here that serve food These Gamming bars now have to get rid of the FOOD to keep smokers or get rid of smokers to sell food. Nevada has one of the largest amount of smokers in the U.S.. Guess what? The majority of these Gamming Bars are keeping the Food and kicking out the smokers and none of these establisments are hurting. In fact more people are now coming to these places (more than before). Most of the smokers I have talked too actually don't like smoking when they are eating. This says a million words right there.
We are currently debating this issue in Pittsburgh.
Answer:
If a business-owner decides to have a smoke-free work place, that is his right.
If his customers or employees petition for a smoke-free workplace and the business owner acquiesces, then that is ok, too.
But when do-gooders and politicians use the power of government to intrude into the operation of a private business and dictate whether smoking can occur there - that is tyranny. It is the antithesis of the liberty and freedom that are supposed to be our birthright.
No I don't think so.
Bars and restaurants could declare themselves Smoking or No Smoking and let the customers and employees decide where they want to go.
yes, definately
not fare that the damn smokers get to stink out an entire restaurant or bar, not to mention how it effects the health of the people who work in those places
Any time a government passes laws "for the good of the people" we lose a little liberty.
No. If the individual owner of a bar or restaurant wants to ban smoking that's a decision that he or she makes on their own. I do not smoke and I like to go to bars. I just find ones that don't allow smoking and go there.
Yes. They past a law in Colorado last year. I enjoy going into a restaurants, and bars and not have my family or I have to breathe in someone elses smoke.
Nope! I think the owner of each place should have the choice of non-smoking or smoking. Then any individual could decide for themselves if they want to go there!
Well, restaurants I can see how that would be bothersome to alot of people - I have no problem with banning smoking in restaurants
BUT
in bars, give me a break, bars are one of the few places left that we can smoke. Houston's bar smoking ban goes into effect September 1st of this year. Why cant we leave the decision of whether or not to allow smoking up to the bar owners, then they will be decided which clientel they will be going after. Right now there are already some bar owner who choose to ban smoking without a governmenr mandated ban. So there are plenty of places already for non-smokers to go if they choose.
I would also like to add that there are many non-smokers who are not bothered by people smoking around them.
There are also smokers, likie myself, who always ask when sitting next to strangers if they will be bothered if I smoke.
We all have to learn to live together.
no.
i think they should keep it the way it has been.
where they have different sections for smokers and non smokers.
I don't think there should be an all out ban. There should be a smoking and non-smoking section. Some of us can't even smoke in our own houses now, what's next? Smoking bans continue an assault on freedom.
The following paragraph wasn't written by me - so it may be a little faulty on text and punctuation.
"i will agree non smokers have had a rough deal but to ban smoking out right in pubs and clubs in totally unfair, every town, city etc should have both non smoking and smoking bars and clubs that is a fair way to go then there is a clear choice wether to go or not and wether to work there or not, why should non smokers dictate the leasure of all, people who dont drive dont get given a choice wether to inhale car fumes or not, its acceptable for a non smoking car driver to make non drivers inhale there waste from cars, try being a child in a buggy with pollution from cars while they are taking to shops etc, its okay for that but all manners of ban is being brought in for smokers, also who is going to make up the shortfall in tax loss to the government, no one wants to discuss that, one in four people smoke in this country and pay high taxes to do it, and most smoke more when out for a night so the tax loss will be great and dont be fooled into thinking the NHS will make a saving as that wont be the case the cost will stay the same and the revenure to pay towards it will be cut, so as i dont own a car i think the tax loss should be made up on cars, that would be fair, by putting petrol up by a pound a gallon and car tax up by 33% the government should be able to claw back the tax lost on cig sales, as somthing has to be taxed to make up the shortfall and since theres three times as many non smoking car drivers as smoking drivers i think thats a fair way to go, they wished the ban on the country they should foot the tax loss to the country. oh did the likes of ASH and the Government fail to mention the tax loss and the poor non smoker not think of it. As non smokers pollut as well, and lets face it you will be able to save if you reduce your car size and that stops people choking our streets with car pollution where our children play and walk down each day. and encourage more to use public transport." (link)
Smoking should be banned in bars. Regardless if there is a Non smoking section and a smoking section, this fake half a wall barrier does nothing. The smoke still diffuses through out the restaurant. Some people are super sensitive to cigarette smoke. My dad and I happen to be allergic to it. Here in missouri they banned smoking in public buildings which was a relief because now we can go out and eat dinner without being bothered or having to get up and leave, because of the smoke. Also smoking just doesn't cause damage to others peoples health but it is smelly....People who are non smokers do not want to smell like smoke. Sometimes I have to wash my clothes twice because of cigarette smoke from smokers.
Yes it should be banned. Not smoking does not ruin peoples health.
No, I do not smoke but I believe if a bar or restaurant can stay open with smoke in the air they deserve to be in buisness and obviously it is what their customers want or will tolerate. The wait staff should not be working in a bar or restaurant if they do not like smoke. There is constant need for waitstaff nationwide and many non smoking restaurants to work at. People at bars are obviously not overly concerned about their health.
I think it should be up to the owner of the restaurant/bar.
Yes, it should be banned.
My friend has asthma and even if a whiff goes by, she has an attack and can't breathe and has to go to emergency which is so severe and you want to know the bill to breathe?????
$$1000.00 dollars just breathe and get and chest x-ray
while the bastard who puffed gets off scott free.
These smokers don't give a crap if they affect someone elses health, and I believe they should be SUED big time because someone caused their health problem to exacerbate.
If a smoker was sued 2 or 3 times the dork would stop smoking and invest in his own health.
I think smokers should be allowed to smoke wherever they want, provided it is outside and away from non-smokers.
Nobody has the right to inflict health problems on anybody else.
I don't believe it should be banned by the government. I believe each restaurant/bar owner should be free to make that decision. Business owners know their customers.
I've actually recently quit smoking -- but there are restaurants that I have stopped patronizing in my area because they went smoke free. That's my decision -- as it is non-smokers decisions to not patronize smoking establishments.
The smoke in restaurants truly isn't that detrimental to the health of non-smoking patrons. A study was done in my area that showed at the worst sitting in a smoky restaurant (in the smoking section) for 3 hours was the equivalent of smoking 1 cigarette. That doesn't seem bad to me -- if you chronically dine out, stop sitting in the smoking section.
A big argument here has been everyone is entitled to a smoke-free workplace. If smoke bothers you -- choose to work in a non-smoking environment -- that seems obvious.
Yes, Smoking should be banned from Restaurants, Given the potential lethal consequences of prolonged use of any dangerous substance, second hand smoke is just as bad, especially when children are involved.
No, smoking should not be banned from Bars, alcohol is bad for ones Liver, why not kill ones lung in the process?
If this is not a law yet in your State I`m very sorry to say this will be one soon as it already is in Ohio and Fla. and a lot of other states also
I currently live in Fla and its been a law here for sometime
Sure.
Just to be on the safe side, ban eating and drinking too. People have to be protected from getting heart attacks and alcoholism.
%26lt;sigh%26gt;
The libertarian response is to leave it up to the restaurant owners. But we do not let restaurant owners refuse service to someone because he or she is Black, nor should we. Similarly, we should not allow restaurants to allow smoking in-doors. Just like racial discrimination, it is harmful and the government is permitted to regulate to prevent a harm from being done on its citizens. The "rights" argument gets you nowhere. Saying you have a right to smoke begs the question: why don't I have a right to clean air? We need policy analysis, and as I said, I think intervention in the market is warranted here because the government is acting to protect its citizens from a harm. Indeed, lung conditions-- asthma, cancer and many others-- are exacerbated by smoky bars and eateries. Not to mention the children, whose young lungs should not be exposed to such harmful substances. One might say, well, you don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. If you don't like it don't go. But why should my actions or restaurant choices be limited by people who choose to smoke? In addition, no one seems to make this argument when it comes to health code violations, although one could. One could easily say that the government should not have health codes at restaurants because, if you want clean and safe food, just don't go to the restaurants that are not clean and whose food is not safe. But that doesn't seem right; we approve of health codes for restaurants because we think it is proper that the government prevent the harm that results from having dirty/unsafe restaurants. Why not allow the government to regulate so as to avoid the harm that results from in-door smoke? Finally, as it was pointed out, yes, every time the government regulates something, we do lose a little "liberty." But liberty to do what? In the health code scenario, it is the "liberty" to have a dirty restaurant. In the smoking context, it is the "freedom" to have a known carcinogen and asthma- exacerbator in the air. Are these really the kinds of "freedoms" we need to protect? I think not. Clearly, the benefits prevail.
Being a smoker for 13+ years, I DO believe smoking should be banned in all public places where there are children. It's one thing for bars to allow smoking, it's another to allow restaruants. I would not smoke in front of my children, nor would I take them into a place where others were smoking. Nothing ticks me off more then parents who show up at kids activites (ie baseball/football games and smoke).
Yes. A non-smoking person should be able to sit down in a restaurant and not inhale unhealthful smoke while they eat. My wife grew up in a house of smokers and now she has Bronchitis. This same principal applies here. If I go to a resturaunt for along period of time with smokers in the vicinty, I will get Bronchial %26 Lung problems. This is FACT!!. Is this right? F**K NO !!! If they want to smoke they can go outside or if the resuraunt is smart enough they would create a whole new room seperate from NON smokers. I live in Las Vegas and this is a huge problem out here right now. They just passed A Smoking ban in all Resturaunts. Overwelming in the polls. We have Gamming Bars out here that serve food These Gamming bars now have to get rid of the FOOD to keep smokers or get rid of smokers to sell food. Nevada has one of the largest amount of smokers in the U.S.. Guess what? The majority of these Gamming Bars are keeping the Food and kicking out the smokers and none of these establisments are hurting. In fact more people are now coming to these places (more than before). Most of the smokers I have talked too actually don't like smoking when they are eating. This says a million words right there.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Should smoking be banned from public parks?
Answer:
No. I won't smoke around your kids though. However, with the increase in price, I am paying more taxes so I should be able to smoke anywhere I want. And I smoke a lot.
yes, it ruins the trees.
Allow smoking in places that weed is allowed.
Should loud rap music? Should people with too much perfume? Should ugly people? Should loud, stupid people?
yes i do and i am a smoking
That's a dangerous slope you're treading....
Should smokers file a class-action lawsuit against state & federal government?
The government has made billions in tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes. Now many of us are addicted and have tried repeatedly to quit. They continue to tax cigarettes like crazy and ban smoking in many places.
In Iowa, the cigarette tax just went up $1.00 and it costs $4.85 for a pack of Marlboros.
Should we sue the government from profiting from our deadly addiction for so many years and then making it almost impossible to continue smoking? If so, on what grounds could we sue?
Answer:
Yeah. I'm with you part of the way. I smoke and I wouldn't sue because I can just quit. But there are lots of choices folks make daily that are unhealthy for them, it ticks me off to have some obese, alcoholic senator make the decision for me by ratcheting up the price to make himself look good participating in the latest witchhunt. Just wait 'til it is alcohol's turn. Makes me so mad I just gotta go grab a smoke to calm down.
No, we should ALL stop sueing everybody and take responsibility for ourselves and our health!
This is worse than the people that sue the cigarette companies because they smoke...
No one ever forced anyone to smoke. Furthermore, it says that smoking is bad for you right on the box.
I used to smoke, but quit. No one ever forced me to smoke.
Stop making Iowans sound stupid.
It's not the government's job to protect you from yourself.
Smoking is bad for you so you should quit. Your lack of will power isn't the government's fault.
The taxes are meant to discourage you from smoking, and most of the additional taxes where lobbied by people such as yourself.
You said yourself that they have made it "almost impossible to continue smoking". So don't you realize how insane your question is?
LOL. great question,I think hypocrisy is appropiate here.....I can see those senators now critizing the tobacco heads,asking them if cigarette smoking is addictive after raking in those billions of dollars................THEY COULD CARE LESS..........at least until that money is taken away from them...............
sue them ? my opion?
"negative discrimination". Automobiles have killed and maimed more people than all of the drugs: from cigarettes, pot, cocaine, heroin and so on... many, many more people killed and maimed by cars and they don't persecute the auto industry or those that support them like insurance companies, road building companies and so on. I really think the whole cigarette industry persecution happen because some one slept with some one wife too many times, ya know, or some old fart politician got some one's daughter pregnant.
No they shouldn't. They should quit smoking and stop imposing the ill effects of smoke on non smokers. I was a smoker for 24 years and have quit for 5 years now. I haven't felt better in my life.
How about a lawsuit for not banning sugar? So many of us have bad teeth because of sweets...
The non smokers outweight the smokers. That is why I quit. I felt defeated and just went cold turkey.
Forget it, you will loooooooose big
smoking is a luxury of life. for most smokers a stress reliever. you cant sue the federal government because you fell down a cliff while hiking. you paid taxes to use those hiking trails but you got hurt while doing it. you cant sue because you make a mistake. smoking is a decision and if you have health threats from smoking and are going to let "addiction of cigarettes" control your fate, you do not have the will to live and nothing can change that. i am a smoker. i know that i will pay for it later in life but really, what choice has generations of freeloaders and irresponsible people left me to live with? a global warmed and dying planet where gas costs 2.75 a gallon and my smokes cost double that and it is getting worse and worse by the business day. i need my killer cigs to live man. if weed is legallized i will seriously be on a truth commercial myself.
In Iowa, the cigarette tax just went up $1.00 and it costs $4.85 for a pack of Marlboros.
Should we sue the government from profiting from our deadly addiction for so many years and then making it almost impossible to continue smoking? If so, on what grounds could we sue?
Answer:
Yeah. I'm with you part of the way. I smoke and I wouldn't sue because I can just quit. But there are lots of choices folks make daily that are unhealthy for them, it ticks me off to have some obese, alcoholic senator make the decision for me by ratcheting up the price to make himself look good participating in the latest witchhunt. Just wait 'til it is alcohol's turn. Makes me so mad I just gotta go grab a smoke to calm down.
No, we should ALL stop sueing everybody and take responsibility for ourselves and our health!
This is worse than the people that sue the cigarette companies because they smoke...
No one ever forced anyone to smoke. Furthermore, it says that smoking is bad for you right on the box.
I used to smoke, but quit. No one ever forced me to smoke.
Stop making Iowans sound stupid.
It's not the government's job to protect you from yourself.
Smoking is bad for you so you should quit. Your lack of will power isn't the government's fault.
The taxes are meant to discourage you from smoking, and most of the additional taxes where lobbied by people such as yourself.
You said yourself that they have made it "almost impossible to continue smoking". So don't you realize how insane your question is?
LOL. great question,I think hypocrisy is appropiate here.....I can see those senators now critizing the tobacco heads,asking them if cigarette smoking is addictive after raking in those billions of dollars................THEY COULD CARE LESS..........at least until that money is taken away from them...............
sue them ? my opion?
"negative discrimination". Automobiles have killed and maimed more people than all of the drugs: from cigarettes, pot, cocaine, heroin and so on... many, many more people killed and maimed by cars and they don't persecute the auto industry or those that support them like insurance companies, road building companies and so on. I really think the whole cigarette industry persecution happen because some one slept with some one wife too many times, ya know, or some old fart politician got some one's daughter pregnant.
No they shouldn't. They should quit smoking and stop imposing the ill effects of smoke on non smokers. I was a smoker for 24 years and have quit for 5 years now. I haven't felt better in my life.
How about a lawsuit for not banning sugar? So many of us have bad teeth because of sweets...
The non smokers outweight the smokers. That is why I quit. I felt defeated and just went cold turkey.
Forget it, you will loooooooose big
smoking is a luxury of life. for most smokers a stress reliever. you cant sue the federal government because you fell down a cliff while hiking. you paid taxes to use those hiking trails but you got hurt while doing it. you cant sue because you make a mistake. smoking is a decision and if you have health threats from smoking and are going to let "addiction of cigarettes" control your fate, you do not have the will to live and nothing can change that. i am a smoker. i know that i will pay for it later in life but really, what choice has generations of freeloaders and irresponsible people left me to live with? a global warmed and dying planet where gas costs 2.75 a gallon and my smokes cost double that and it is getting worse and worse by the business day. i need my killer cigs to live man. if weed is legallized i will seriously be on a truth commercial myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)