SMOKING ??????????????

well the ban is still not taken in the right sense by the people .... the ban is just at some places where the government feels that the general public would be affected .....
 
you can still smoke out in some zones .... as well as in your private vehicle as well .... and your place too .... so i feel the government still cares about the smokers
 
welll in some countries smoking is strictly prohibitted and people have to abide by the rules ... because the severity of the punishment out there is very harsh ....
 
To make ppl aide by the rules the rule makers should be good & also they themselves should follow it .......... Just banning it will do no good .....
 
It must not be banned but smokers should get used to live with non-smokers, that is to say, be aware of the negative effects on your "neighbours".
 
whether public place or private place, smoking should be avoided. Smoking makes nicotine, a very harmful content settles in lung and causes lung cancer.

Being passive smoker, the non-smokers gets affected by such disease.
 
good effects of a cigrette

well all our non smoker brothers/sisters, who think smoking should be banned, think about this:-
1) have u ever seen ur mom worshipping god, and lighting agarbattis, dhup battis etc which release frangrant smoke, which is thought to purify the home and is an essential component of worshipping. same way we smokers take in cigrette smoke for the internal purification of our mind and soul.
2) smoking cigrette gives a relief to somkers and a sense of peace of mind which helps them concentrate better in work.
3) just like a coin all things in life have 2 sides. i mean some pros and some cons. if smoking have some ill effcts, then it urely do have some positive effects also.
4) try this out. if ur stomach is full. u overate, and now feeling ur tummy is very heavy. just have 2-3 long puffs of cigrette. and see tha magic.
 
Smoking or Non-Smoking...Should There Be A Choice? Imagine sitting in a restaurant unable to enjoy a meal due to the cloud of smoke coming from a neighbor's table. The fact that there was not a designated area for smokers has put the smoker and the non-smoker in an uncomfortable situation. Smoking should be banned in public places because non-smokers have a right to clean air, and because second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking a cigarette. However, smoking should not be banned in public places because it is the smoker's choice to smoke just as it is the non-smokers choice not to smoke. President Clinton is quoted saying that "We've got to do more to protect people in public places and clean up the air that all of us share" (Rovner 571). For non-smokers, inhaling someone else's cigarette smoke can be very aggravating. It is bad enough that automobiles, processing plants, and other types of industries pollute our environment, but for a smoker to choose to smoke around a non-smoker is a violation of th


, reports that, "exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) raises a non-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer by at least 50 percent" (Health Article Magazine 65). If the nation would ban together as a whole, society could eliminate public smoking completely. Is that fair in a free nation? If public places would compromise and designate certain areas for smoking and non-smoking then maybe everyone could be in a public area and be comfortable or satisfied. In response to it being a smoker's choice to smoke, and the non-smoker's choice not to smoke shows that everyone is affected by smoking being banned in public places. The only effective way to avoid the negative effects of second hand smoke is to insist on a smoke-free environment whenever possible. Only the non-smoker can be completely satisfied. Non-smokers choose not to smoke and are left alone, while people who choose to smoke are told when and where they can smoke. Because there are now designated areas for smokers and non-smokers someone could enjoy a meal without being uncomfortable. California law now requires that all restaurants be smoke-free and that all bars become smoke-free on January 1, 1998". Second hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease and heart attacks by increasing a person's risk of developing blood clots. Non-smokers can encourage smokers to walk outside to smoke and open windows to keep the room ventilated to minimize the consumption of second hand smoke. American females have the choice to end a baby's life by receiving an abortion, therefore, smokers should not be inhibited from making a choice to smoke where they choose to do so. So, an effort has already become in some places to purify the air for those who do not smoke. As citizens of a freedom-based nation, the constitution encourages the right to freedom of press, freedom of religion, and, most importantly, freedom of speech.
 
the one who smokes wnot like to choose the alternate nicotine sources as we still eat dont go for concentrated capsules etc.. where ever u smoke pollution will be caused.. only point i liked is dat no one has right to disturb others by smoking in public as it may irritate the non-smokers..
ankitgokani said:
:SugarwareZ-261:

In my opinion, smoking in public places should be prohibited. There are many reasons that support this point of view, but today I want to concentrate on three reasons.
One reason is that is harmful for non-smokers, another reason is that smoking is a cause of pollution, and a reason is that smokers have other ways to receive nicotine.
Firstly, smoking is harmful for non-smokers. Smokers should have the right to smoke, but it's not reasonable if that right is harmful to others. Obviously, if people smoke in public places, non-smokers have no choice but to become secondhand smokers. Don't non-smokers have the right to choose not to be secondhand smokers?
Secondly, smoking is a cause of pollution. There is a lot of research that shows that many kinds of gases that are released by smoking and are harmful for the environment, such as tar and carbon dioxide. Everyone knows that now the environment is getting worse and worse. Do you want smoking to be another source of the problem? :SugarwareZ-035:
Lastly, smokers have other ways to receive nicotine. Nowadays, we have many ways to receive nicotine, such as nicotine gum and nicotine patches. Smokers can use these products instead of smoking. Do you really want people to smoke in public places instead of using these new products?
In conclusion, I want to say that there are no reasons left to permit smoking in public places, and I also think that maybe this is the time for people to quit smoking. Banning smoking is not just for us, but for this world and for everyone who has to live in this world after us.:nonono:



WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS??????????????
Click to expand...
 
I feel passive smoking is more harmful than the actual smoking, so i wish smokers be a bit more responsible & not smoke in public. I wouldn't want a ban on smoking, but a ban on smoking in public places should be strictly enforced
 
smoking, a bad habit that every smoker knows. The main thing is the kind of employment this industry creates.

Due to thins habit close to 5 lakh individuals are employeed. Also the goverment is making huge money out of it from taxes.

So I dont think it shld be banned, as the people are themselves aware abt it.:lol:
 
In my opnion, there should not be any prohibition on smoking on public places, instead it should come from within that one should not smoke in such places. It is the value system that lacks. Punishing is a reinforcement technique and these techniques are useless beacuse there are people who love to break rules.

Motivation is never second hand. It should be your innerself rather than someone imposing you to stop. :bounce::bounce:
 
I think it's a personal issue !! It mst be left to people to decide what they want to do, govt shud not interferein all these things and instead concentrate on more important things around.
 
cigrettes is mlign to health ....so it should be banned ,even smokers know about ill effects of it still continue to smoke ...some of them trying to quit smoking but aren't successful because of social network they possess ,government shoud come up with strict rules n regulation so that people start thinking it shud be prohibited
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top