Please answer this question with detail.?

Question

Some people claim that it is not fair for smokers if

the government forbids them to smoke in public areas.

Instead, the Government should give right to the

smokers. However, others believe that the non-smokers

health is more important.

According to you, what kind of regulations or rules

should the government set up for the health of the

people?

Answer 1

it's a health issue, right?

so health is the priority here, right?

and prolonging life ... not just a mere existence, but a life of quality, right?

then smoking must be banned. period.

it doesn't do any good to anyone's health - not now, not ever!

people who smoke in public must be fined.

if they wanna kill themselves, they must die alone and not bring others with them coz second-hand smoke is just as deadly...

Answer 2

First in first served

The governments way back didn't think to tell us how much poison we were taking in all they cared about was what taxes they could get out of smokers.

Now the whole world has gone anti smoking,it makes one feel like some alien, I was really adamant I wasn't going to stop as I have kept my health insurance that I have has for 45 years.

But last year I found out I had emphysema so had to stop cept for 2 sneaky ones late at night.

Last chest Infection almost did me in so I stopped smoking for my families sake.

NO!!! government should not be allowed to pick and choose who has treatment that's very biased.

Most older people began smoking as there was nothing bad about it back then but since the tobacco company's have changes their formula well heaps of people are getting sick

Answer 3

The government has completely overstepped its bounds when it starts trying to decide for an individual what is good or bad for that person's health. There must be laws that protect the general citizenry from others that would do harm to them. However, when the government and its officials think that they know better for you than you do then that is out of line. I feel quite certain that smoking damages one's health but it is not for me to decide for another adult whether to destroy their own health. The government doesn't have that right either.

Answer 4

As a smoker myself i have true concern for the non smokers.It is ok for me if the government impose prohibition smoking in all public places especially the most congested one or where close proximity between the two subjects are unavoidable.but on these so called public places,,the govt. should erect or put up a designated smoking areas where smokers can do their thing,,also that way,,smokers cannot be blame if the cons come near to such smokers havens...Actually better still,let the govt. impose TOTAL BAN on TOBACCO smoking and growing as well so smokers like me will be forced to quit this addictive bad habit and save money that goes up in thin air due to smoking...

Answer 5

I strongly believe the Government should not be a factor in this heated argument.  The Government is not there to run individual's life from cradle to grave, period.

Answer 6

One might argue that smoker's rights are being infringed.

This is a difficult area in which to compromise, either a building is smoke free or it is not at all, one of the groups has to prevail and the other not.

Smoking is an unhealthy habit.  In settling this dispute the government has weighed in on the healthier side of the debate.

One test of a law is whether or not it protects the same people that it restrains.  In this case a ban on smoking in buildings does that by providing a cleaner environment for everybody, smoker and non-smoker.

Health, safety, and sanitation rules should be enforced.   The problem with a hands-off approach is that this problem can't easily be resolved through free markets.  Biological agents and pollution affect large numbers of people who have little choice as to whether or not they are exposed to them.

On the other hand the government should not weigh in on personal habits.  While eating healthy, not smoking, and regular exercise benefits the individual, individual bad habits do not have the far reaching consequence of public bad habits.