smoker v non smokers?

Question

there always seems to be a debate going on about non smokers hating secondhand smoke and banning smoking in pubic places, and smokers generally saying they should be able to smoke anywhere and so on.

but how many smokers and non smokers drive and we all inhale the toxins from cars, lorries, taxi's, buses and alike but you don't seem to see many people complaining about that( that i have seen)

what is your veiw on it

Answer 1

I was a smoker until March 5th this year. secondhand smoke isnt very nice at all. I think banning smokers from smoking on the underground, buses etc is right for safety and the banning of smokers in places that sell food or where there might be lots of kids can be understandable even by smokers but to ban smoking in all public places I think is daft!
It's a good point about the toxins from transport thats doesnt really bother me as your not in one place for more than a few minutes at a time and you have the fresh air around you (well as fresh as you can get) I think this is a very good question. Well done.

Answer 2

Hmmm, out of all the technological advances that have been, the car will be up there in probably the top 20.

The cigarrette on the otherhand is pointless.

Sounds like the sort of argument a smoker would use, the smoker that drives a car just as everyone else does, so also the argument is pointless.

Answer 3

The difference is this - as a non-driver, or someone who doesn't want to inhale car fumes, I have a choice and while there are cars everywhere, I can go into a public place and enjoy myself without having to breath in exhaust fumes.

As a non-smoker, until the ban in Scotland, if I wanted to go into a pub or restaurant, I wasn't given any choice whether or not I had to breath in second-hand smoke. People don't take their cars EVERYWHERE, it is possible to go places where there are no exhaust fumes. That wasn't really the case with smoke.

Answer 4

I am a smoker and banning smoking in certain areas is cool with me. Cars are the number one polluter and yet that issue seems to slip by. My biggest problem is these people who see that I am in a designated smoking area and still sit down next me and then get offended becuz I am smoking Hello Why should I move.

Answer 5

I think most people see a vehicle as a necessity (so no one is really going to complain) whereas smoking as something that doesn't have to be done. We do breathe in toxins from other sources but I (as a non smoker) find the smell of cig. smoke awful and irritating. Smoking tends to be more annoying to me because it occurs in places (work, food places, homes, cars) where I am confided...I can't just leave so I have to endure the smell.

Answer 6

Good points, as toxins are prevalent in all our cities through cars, taxis and especially from buses and lorries, whose carbon monoxide production until recently was a major source of breathing difficulties. Then throw into the mix the vast quantity of household 'air fresheners' and other man made chemicals we dump into the air around our homes and the picture becomes even more confused. However, one thought did occur to me reading the question: 100% of non-smokers die.

Answer 7

the worst of the non smokers is the ex smokers
jumping on a new band wagon
i am a smoker but a very considerate one i do not smoke where there are non smokers unless i ask them if they mind first

in our state they are fixing to make most of the places i go to non smoking so there for i will not go there anymore

i think where ever you go you should have a choice

Answer 8

Well i'm a smoker and I'm from Ireland we banned smoking in public places a few years back so you cant smoke in pubs, bars, restaurants, shops anywhere like that and I think its the best thing to ever happen even though I smoke

Answer 9

What the f*ck has transport-related pollution got to do with smoking? Smoking is an unpleasant habit inflicted by selfish low class people on innocent bystanders and has no redeeming features whatsoever. As for driving, we need to get places, and I've been knocked off my bike more than once so don't tell me we should not use hydrocarbon-consuming transport such as buses, cars, trains and planes. Try getting to another country without flying or using the channel tunnel when you are not a yacht owner or David Walliams.

Answer 10

There are two main differences:

(1) Cars have a much greater utility. Even if they were giving us cancer, we would still need them because we have to get around. We get a lot of use out of cars. Cigarettes have no use. They are only a benefit to people who are already addicted to them, and we want those people to stop anyway.

(2) I haven't seen any studies saying that car exhaust gives cancer. It smells gross but as far as I know the amount we encounter in daily lives doesn't make us sick. Maybe this is because it just doesn't have the carcinogens like cigarettes, or maybe it's because you're usually a lot closer to a person's cigarette than you are to the exhaust pipe of a car. For whatever reason, I don't think we have any good reason to think that cars are making people die (except from collisions of course).