Some communities in America have banned smoking outdoors...?

Question

...because of imagined health concerns. Should driving restrictions and a ban on inefficient gas guzzlers follow? After all, we know for a fact 2nd hand exhaust kills.

http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/103291/The-Most-Unhealthy-Commutes-in-America

I don't smoke and can't stand the smell, but if folks want to smoke outdoors I'm not going to fool myself into believing they're jeopardizing my health just so I can act indignant (as so many do).

The real problem is auto and industrial emissions. So why are we focusing on asinine, token legislation such as banning outdoor smoking instead of addressing the real issues?

Is it because most Americans are flagrant consumers of fossil fuel and most Americans don't smoke? Throwers of stones in glass homes...

Sorry to pick on Sam, but it's much more dangerous for asthmatics (or anyone else) to breath polluted city air than 2nd hand smoke.

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8907
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6685

As for emissions standards, they haven't remedied the problem. Tighter controls are needed.

Regarding you last point, of course I didn't say we should ban cars (you're changing my position to support your own- not coherent argument). I'm simply talking about restrictions on driving and getting rid of frivolous, gas hogging vehicles.

Answer 1

I would say that most non-smokers think that smoking is an elective choice/sin and that driving big suv's is a necessity because they're "safer" or whatever other subjective reason they give. I don't think they take into consideration the impact on the environment and are only concerned with the impact on their wallet when gas prices shoot up. If they were truely concerned about their health and the health of others, they would look for more fuel efficient vehicles. As far as industry is concerned, they could care less about emissions if the government wasn't breathing down their necks. I guess you could call it tunnel vision.

Answer 2

n Gas guzzlers you say, that's been hashed over and over. As long as people think they need a tank to get to the store, they'll buy one. One lady near us, her and her husband own a large restaurant, she drives a hummer to tow for groceries. A hummer.
There are the Ford Expeditions that look like a boxcar on wheels coming down the road. Some of these cars were meant to be used in the great outdoors not in city traffic. Gas guzzlers all. To name a few, the huge Mercuries and the Caddies, as long as people buy these huge automobiles, they'll make them, and poison us with there emissions. Whether they're not suppose to be dangerous anymore or not, they still stink the air up I breathe.

Answer 3

They are things that can only be discovered after hundreds and hundreds of trials. And of course, strict restriction needs to be in place. However, because the basis of science is always changing due to new discoveries, we need to also have sympathy to the drug company as well. They are not miracle makers, they only try to make profits by selling something that they "think" might help other people. Imagine the world without antibiotics and other medication, how many people would have to die? If we agree that science can be changed, the drug company might not have an excuse of increasing medication prices because of law suit.Also if we look at any other area that has used the socialist system it has bogged down and failed to live up to its Utopian promise. No system is perfect but open and free market is the best out there.

Answer 4

I only smoke during sex, and I drive my SUV on short trips around the hood, mostly just to go cruising for "action" if you know what I mean. So for me the two activities are intertwined (har). As for regulation, I say smoke wherever you like and drive whatever you want, but tax both like crazy. That way, the $10 I pay for smokes can help pay for my hospital bill, since the massive amount of tax on gas for the vehicle will make it impossible for me to pay the bill myself or pay for health insurance. Meanwhile though, The Man isn't stopping me from cruising around and having a smoke while getting my groove on, which would be as unamerican as shaving my back.

Answer 5

It may not be imagined, but I do believe there's a mix-up in priorities. It just seems that anti-smoking legislation is more popular and many supporters own gas guzzlers themselves. I think your final statement sums it up quite nicely.

Answer 6

Wow, I didn't know towns are starting to do that. I thought they only banned it in certain outdoor places like parks and such. I'm not a smoker, but this sounds ridiculous and bordering on extremism.

Answer 7

Once smoking becomes completely illegal, I hope these people won't complain too much about the extra taxes they'll have to pay then, too. They can thank us smokers for keeping your taxes down. Over half the cost of a pack of cigarettes is state tax.

Answer 8

(1) If you have Asama being near some one who is smoking can kill you.
(2) breathing 2hand smoke is more dangerous for the then breathing strait cigarette smoke.
(3) car makers do have a combined exmisions standard car,
all car made after the 1970's have had Cadillac converters to reduce exmisions
(4) for the vast majority of Americans driving is the cheapest way to get around and if there were a cheaper way they would take it. banning all cars would create an undue Bordon on the poor.

Answer 9

Nope the next big brother action will be to get fat people off the streets. Raise the tax on junk food i.e. chips soda, cakes, candy then harass the people till they move. Kids will bash kids because thier mom and dad said it was OK cause their fat and un-healthy

Answer 10

Yeah the first city do it is a few miles from me...its called Calabasas and its a very ritzy upper class city...basically they are arrogant yuppies...