Why dose everyone want to ban smoking in public places but not drinking?

Question

If you are at a restaurant and you are smoking when you leave there is no risk of hurting or killing anyone as you are driving home because of the cigarette. But someone who has been drinking with their meal has a greater chance of hurting or killing someone on their way home due to the drinks that they consumed. Also they keep adding more and more taxes to cigaretts but not to alcohol, what gives? Before you all start going off on me, I personally do not smoke, I quite four years ago.

Answer 1

I'd like to see both banned.

Answer 2

I've thought about that too but first, drinking IS banned in public places -meaning out on the street or any place which does not hold a liquor license. You can get a ticket for public drunkenness. You can drink at home just like you can smoke in a home you own. Secondhand smoke is the reason for banning smoking in public places. People just don't want to have to inhale your smoke while you are smoking. That's considered 'hurting' someone now. You can't consume alcohol secondhand. Hurting or killing someone on the way home after drinking usually involves driving under the influence which is illegal already. It's not illegal to drive a car after smoking.

I don't necessarily disagree that maybe alcohol should have more taxes but at least it's been proved that a tiny but of alcohol can be good for you (the whole red wine for your heart thing) It's alcohol abuse that is dangerous. There is NOTHING good about smoking and it only causes harm.

*(I still wonder why we can't have 'smoking licenses' for a select few places that allow indoor smoking. Like a smoking lounge where the entire purpose of the place is for smoking. No one would go unless they smoked/didn't care...)

Answer 3

People who are exposed to second-hand smoke run a higher chance of developing lung cancer. Also, as a non-smoker, I hate having my clothes end up smelling like cigarettes simply because I was exposed to other people smoking.

I agree with your drinking points, but the act of smoking just seems to be more invasive as it is being practiced. It's like smokers get you now, but drinkers will get you later.

I'm not a perfect person, but I'm glad I don't do either - and good for you that you stopped smoking four years ago. I know that couldn't have been an easy thing to do.

Answer 4

Good question. The problem with smoking is that it does do damage to all the people in the enclosed space, espcially those that work there for hours each day, day after day. Contrast this with drinking, where the participants may (should not be) the driver, and unless they are consistantly over indugling, causing minor harm to them selves. Given that perspective, it's fairly resaonable to ban smoking in public places and to prohibit driving while under the influence.

Answer 5

My goodness. There are few words. How can you mix the concept of the toxic death from cigarette smoke with the dangers of drunk driving? There is no comparison! A person driving drunk could possibly kill a couple of people but a public place full of cigarette smoke can potentially kill hundreds depending on the amount exposed. Be realistic please. You don't know what a slow death is from the various cancers related to cigarette smoke. I believe smokers should do so in their homes period. It's their choice to commit slow suicide.

Answer 6

Good point. I'm a smoker and hate the ban but I guess I can see where it's coming from. There are so many people with asthma or babies, etc., etc. in public places and I guess the second hand smoke is kind of rude and makes for a nasty environment. +it's not that hard to just step outside

Answer 7

its all the liberals and communists that want to ban smoking in public places and control every aspect of someones life. i think there should be more done to keep people from drinking in public places like parks and the beach because that creates a more significant chance of someone being hurt. besides if you are outdoors, smoking is not a big deal. i don't care for people smoking right in front of me but it's their right as an American. f--the hippies

Answer 8

on the same time as I know the prejudice to human beings who smoke, i'd desire to declare as an asthmatic and a non-smoker that I help the ban in some public places. i'm from the US (do no longer understand in case you're speaking relating to the united kingdom), so right here one can't smoke in eating places, in some bars on the discretion of the owner, and interior of 20ft of a public development. i in my opinion discover it functional. on the same time as I realize it particularly is an habit, i think that the extra barriers positioned on human beings who smoke the extra constructive. it particularly is like letting an alcoholic drink and be rowdy everywhere they are, they're going to needless to say hardship somebody with their habit as they'll effect others around them. Smoking is transforming into extra taboo because of the fact human beings are stricken through it. Frankly it stinks and it particularly is a very unattractive and risky habit. The extra lives we are able to save through banning it the extra constructive. Lung maximum cancers is a foul element to stay by because it oral maximum cancers, emphasema, and persistent bronchitis. i've got watched kinfolk go through during the adverse effects of smoking and it particularly is unneccessary to die till now a while in basic terms for a stupid ciggarette.

Answer 9

we tried that once you know prohibition in the early 1900's, but it didnt work out well