Are anti-smoking laws too persnickety?

Question

If anti-smoking groups advocate curbing the act of smoking tobacco in public places, why don't they also pursue other acts that pollute the atmosphere-- like driving a car?

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/21/Worldandnation/Antismoking_groups_ha.shtml

Answer 1

I'am a heavy smoker and have been for 57 years.I have always respected others.If you were to get in my car and you are a non smoker I would not light up.I'am addicted to it and it is a nasty nasty habit.I'am all to aware of the health problems it can cause.damnit I'am 69 years old.I wish I could quit but I do not have the will power.I have tried patches,pills &gum.I belong to the VFW.a privet club and I don't know how they can ban smokeing there or in my car.Like I said I respect the rights of others, but damnit I should have some rights.What are they going to ban next? watching TV in the nude?I think they are steping over the line.I know I will catch all kind of hell from the readers but this is the way I and many others feel Thank you for letting me get my say in.

Answer 2

They see smoking as the number one cause for diseases such as asthma or cancer when there's other factors involved. The anti-smoking laws are too damn persnickety if you ask me, the advocacy groups pretty much manipulate the statistics of deaths and whatnot related to smoking so that it's in their favor. There are some pro-smoking sites on the internet, along with some sites that are against anti smoking laws. The only thing the government is supposed to do when it comes to smoking is to maybe inform the public of local places and online sites for support if the smoker chooses to quit ONLY. They've gone too far with these nonsense anti-smoking laws.

Answer 3

I don't think the anti-smoking laws are really for polution.... it's more because it's directly related to cancer and many illnesses caused by something you choose to do to yourself - and also force on other people in closed areas - which affect their lives as well.

There is nothing good about cigarette smoking..... at all.... it is 100% detrimental to the human body.

Change is slow when you deal with millions of people - many can only afford old cars. Things are being developed very slowly that should curb pollution even more. Cars run a lot better with regarding to pollution than they did 10 years ago - and they're still improving......they just have to be for accessible to people.

Answer 4

It is now not about protecting a smoker's health. You are right, they will have to have the proper to do as they please, as long as their movements do not infringe upon the wellbeing and defense of those round them. The concept of "non-smoking" and "smoking" part of a public field is beautiful foolish. It is all of the identical air circulating in the course of any open house. I used to work in a restaurant with separate areas, and the smoking subject had a distinct ventilation approach above it to supposedly draw out the smoke. Well, it didn't work too well. Each time I washed the partitions and window of the non-smokig section, it had the telltale yellowish dirt that outcome from cigarette smoke. Plus, as a individual with asthma, I cannot tell you how generally i have been seated within the non-smoking field and needed to transfer or leave b/c the smoke was visibly wafting from the smoking section to my subject. And it's no longer just worrying, it may be deadly to anyone with bronchial asthma. Definite, there are more damaging matters to worry about, but there is the health and protection of the bulk non-smoking public to be regarded. And it is not like that is some thing so intricate to change. They simply stop placing out the ashtray...That's it. Little time, effort, and cash are required to support this initiative. So please do not confuse the right to smoke with the proper to discipline others to your smoke. Men and women can nonetheless smoke of their properties, of their cars, in specific smoking areas, open air in most locations. They just have got to be more liable about ligthing up round others who do not choose to smoke. And i'm curious as to why you may name the anti-smoking laws ineffective. If the goal is to preserve furnish clean, smoke-free public position to the population, how will these laws no longer be effective? As far as i've obvious to this point, it is extremely amazing. I am no longer hacking up a lung when some clueless man or woman lights up ten ft away from me.

Answer 5

What a great word....persnickety!

I agree. When the government cracks open a door, they don't seem to be satisfied until it is broken off its hinges.

I truly believe that they have bigger fish to fry then trying to ban smoking in places that have little or no effect on non smokers.

Answer 6

hypocrisy. it is a money making scheme backed mostly by repubs/cons. it presents a danger of more bans passing. Americans need to stand up and put a stop to the bans.

edit. i forgot to adress real pollution. the government will not disobey/defy those that donate to and control them. lobbyists andcorporations.

Answer 7

The anti-smoking laws are not too strict but you make a good point that other pollution is not controlled enough. Our basic need to breathe is not very well respected.

Answer 8

Yeah and stop those child molesters from getting out of jail

Answer 9

Because they are hipperkits.

Answer 10

If you're trying to equate the two.. instead of making us breath your 2nd hand smoke, go to the parking lot and suck on your tailpipe.