4169 Shares

Do you believe that smoking should be illegal?

Do you believe that smoking should be illegal? Topic: Essay on making alcohol illegal
May 22, 2019 / By Adreea
Question: this weird girl in my class is writing her essay on the fact that smoking should be illegal. i think it is B.S. and that Americans should have that right. (im in 11th grade by the way) and no i dont smoke.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Do you believe that smoking should be illegal?

Terence Terence | 6 days ago
Not unless they also criminalize alcohol. And just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't automatically make them "weird".
👍 220 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Do you believe that smoking should be illegal? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Essay on making alcohol illegal


Terence Originally Answered: Do you think smoking should be illegal in parks and beaches in the united states?
Is a legal substance being smoked? If the substance is legal then using it cannot be illegal. Use can be restricted by age, as with alcohol. If a smoker is already there when a cry-baby shows up and cries about it, TOUGH! The cry-baby can go elsewhere. If the non-smoker is there first, the smoker should refrain or go elsewhere. "Problem" solved.

Pierre Pierre
It sounds like you're very opinionated, and generally speaking... people don't usually like that. It wasn't all that long ago, that cigarette smoking was normal - in fact, in many cases it was suggested by doctors. Many health professionals including nurses still smoke! We used to be able to smoke INSIDE restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, workplaces, school playgrounds, hospitals, pubs and clubs, the cinema, on planes, trains and buses. If the only places a person can smoke now is outdoors only - then everyone should be happy with that, right? No... the non smoking lobby have stopped smoking in most areas (fair enough) but that's where it must stop - no more "smoke-free" areas. Smokers don't deserve to be hermits either! Tobacco products have been known to suppress appetite and ask any addicted smoker why they still smoke (despite all the health warnings) and you will probably find that they enjoy smoking and it makes them feel relaxed. Social smokers might smoke because it's an opportunity to get outside the office for 5 minutes and meet some new people (they wouldn't meet unless they were smoking). There are enormous problems that come from making something illegal, most of all... it doesn't slow or stop people doing it at all. I say leave those people who want to smoke alone, and worry about alcohol abuse, domestic violence and drink driving which are usually related which costs the community millions in health and law enforcement. Now obesity and diabetes is a big problem as well, so perhaps they should make McDonald's illegal? While the government is making tax from it, it will never be illegal anyway, no matter how unhealthy it is. The Government shouldn't be making decisions like this for any of us - it's personal choice so those that want to smoke SHOULD, and those that don't want to smoke simply shouldn't do it. Those that don't smoke should never make a decision for those that want to no matter how unhealthy it is.
👍 90 | 👎 0

Mahala Mahala
No it should not be illegal, the way I look at it, if lets say it did happen then the tax payers would have to pay more out of their pockets, there be more crime on the streets, as it is now there are already enough drug crimes...and if they ever did make smoking illegal then next will be the booze in line. But in the end it will happen unfortunately for already smoking has been banned along the waterfront and beaches in San Diego California. It was just pass this year. I just quit smoking a few days ago and I am already going nuts! I quit smoking mostly because I can't afford to smoke anymore.
👍 85 | 👎 -6

Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat
No I don't think it should be illegal. Everyone knows it's not good for you and most places don't allow smoking inside enclosed places without seperate air venting. Goverments are clamping down all over. Some places won't let you smoke on their property, even if the workers go to their car on break - that's still their property! If they want to make cigarettes illegal, they have to make all alcohol illegal. I'm more afraid of the idiot who drinks too much and drives fast and erratically in a 2 ton vehicle. A lot of people are killed or maimed for life by drunk drivers. Those who wish to say cigarettes kill more have the added bonus of pollution from cars and industry which effect lungs and their capacity to work. Those things cause lung cancer too but they can blame it all on the cigarettes. I think when you look at DUI's and fatalities, you can get an accurate picture. Ban one, you have to ban both.
👍 80 | 👎 -12

Ged Ged
I believe that people should be allowed to put whatever they want into their own bodies, as long as it is knowing and voluntary. The problem with smoking isn't people doing it to themselves. The problem is that second-hand smoke affects everyone else around the smoker, and those people did not take it voluntarily. So, no, I don't think smoking should be flat out illegal. But I do think states, cities and communities have every right to forbid people from smoking in public places. The same way they have the right to prevent people from spraying botulism in public places.
👍 75 | 👎 -18

Ged Originally Answered: If there is a sign in our apartment hallway that says it is illegal 2 smoke their as Ohio has a no smoking law
since the law forbids outside patios from being where smoke can drift through doors or window into smoke free areas, it may take a lawsuit to set a precedent. However, you are required under 3794.02(B) to “ensure” tobacco smoke does not enter any area in which smoking is prohibited under this Chapter including entrances, windows, ventilation systems, or other means. From this we can begin to see some distance away from every ingress, egress, doorway, ventilation air intake, etc. will be part of the regulations promulgated by the Health Department so for now we can at least be certain smoking should not occur immediately around doorways, windows or ventilation system air intake areas, how far away smoking must occur from these items is unknown. If windows or doors from any part of the partition between the enclosed area and the outdoor patio, the opening should be closed to prevent the migration of smoke. If windows or doors do not prevent the migration of smoke in an enclosed area then the outdoor patio is considered an extension of the enclosed area and is subject to the smoking ban. Thus, if the rental office wanted to create a “smoking patio” it would have to be set up in such a way that smoke could not migrate through doors or windows back into the office. here above is how that is stated under the ohio revised code . But you may super-cede the Ohio law by complaining/suing the federal fair housing act or Americans with disabilities act .. Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act protects disabled individuals who are eligible to receive service or participate in programs or activities provided by a public accommodation or commercial facility. Under the ADA,an individual is "disabled" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that 1) substantially limits a major life activity,such as breathing,walking or working,2) has a record of such an impairment,or 3) is regarded as having such an impairment. While Title III does not apply strictly to residential facilities,it does cover places of public accommodation within residential facilities if the use of such places is not limited exclusively to owners,residents and their guests. If a portion of a residential facility is open to the public,the protections and legal avenues provided by the ADA apply. Such locations include,for example,rental offices,pool areas or exercise facilities where memberships are sold to the general public and party rooms that may be rented to the public. read this'''• Non-smokers with serious breathing disabilities or smoke allergies have legal protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal Fair Housing Act, and the Maine Human Rights Act. If secondhand smoke seriously affects your ability to breathe, consult a doctor to have your condition documented. If this is hud housing, here is a quote.. THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE PROTECTION OF PERSONS WHO ARE DISABLED BY SECONDHAND SMOKE The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, family status, national origin, or disability. The FHA, among other things, prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, including those with severe breathing problems which are exacerbated by secondhand smoke. The FHA prohibits such discrimination by owners and operators of most housing, including most apartments and Section 8 and other HUD-assisted housing. The FHA is also available to residents in condominiums with more than four (4) units. It is clear from the language of the FHA, its interpretation by HUD General Counsel, and court decisions, that the FHA is available to people with breathing disabilities to seek reasonable accommodations from owners and operators of most housing in the United States in order to address the serious health hazards posed by secondhand smoke which infiltrates their housing. A detailed analysis of this issue by the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was prepared in 1992 and is still in effect; a copy may be accessed from the HUD site by clicking here. For a link to HUD's online complaint form which can be filed directly, click here. For a link to download the HUD complaint form, in pdf format, so that it can be sent to a HUD office, click here. To access an analysis by SFELP of the FHA and how it can be used to protect persons who have breathing disabilities which are caused or exacerbated by secondhand smoke in their housing situations, click here. ANALYSIS OF THE AUTHORITY OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND SECTION 8 MULTIUNIT HOUSING OWNERS TO ADOPT SMOKE-FREE POLICIES IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL UNITS In response to inquiries the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project (SFELP) has received from public housing managers, owners of section 8 housing and tenants across the country about the legality of adopting smoke-free policies in publicly-assisted residential rental units, this analysis has been prepared by SFELP Consulting Attorney Susan Schoenmarklin. "Section 8" housing is a federal program that provides rent subsidies for low-income and elderly tenants. The tenants live in privately-owned housing, rather than in public housing. Public housing developments are managed by local housing authorities, who are under the jurisdiction of regional offices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Based on extensive research of federal and state law and cases nationwide, we conclude unequivocally that a ban on smoking for new tenants who move into public or section 8 housing is permissible in all 50 states. There are no federal or state laws that prohibit property owners from offering smoke-free rentals, and no constitutional protections for smokers. As one state court said, "There is no more a fundamental right to smoke cigarettes than there is to shoot up or snort heroin or run a red light." Additionally, we have received inquiries about the legality of applying a smoke-free policy to all tenants of public or section 8 housing at the time of annual review or renewal of the lease or during the term of the lease, with adequate notice. This smoke-free policy would apply not only to incoming tenants, but to those currently residing in the complex. After careful review of HUD regulations and consultation with HUD officials, SFELP has determined that it is permissible to change to smoke free at the time of lease renewal or during the term of the lease, if legally adequate notice is provided. Either of these approaches is easier to administer and provides greater health protections for tenants than delaying change until tenants move or die. To access this 9-page analysis, click here. HUD LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION: LANDLORDS ARE FREE TO MAKE APARTMENTS TOTALLY SMOKE-FREE At the request of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, the Chief Counsel of the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) field office in Detroit issued an opinion on July 18, 2003 in which she stated that: "Currently, there is no HUD policy, by statute, regulation, handbook or otherwise that restricts landlords from adopting a prohibition of smoking in common areas or in individual units." The opinion goes on to state that there is nothing in federal law, including the federal Fair Housing Act (see SFELP analysis of the FHA above), or in Michigan law (see Michigan AG Opinion below) which prevents a landlord from making some or all of his/her apartment units smoke-free. The opinion states: "Similar to Michigan law, federal law does not prohibit the separation of smoking and non-smoking tenants in privately owned apartment complexes and in fact, does not prohibit a private owner of an apartment complex from refusing to rent to smokers." The only caveats to this policy which the opinion lists are: 1) if the apartment owner wishes to make the policy a condition of the lease, HUD approval is necessary to the extent that the owner is bound to utilize HUD's model lease; and 2) "if owners seek to make their complexes smoke-free they must take caution to grandfather in those smoking residents currently residing at the complex." To access this opinion, click here for page 1 and click here for page 2.

If you have your own answer to the question essay on making alcohol illegal, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.