First ban cars and industries There is a tendency for people to jump onto small and insignificant issues, like public smoking, without trying to solve the bigger issues that have bigger impacts on the lives of people. Honestly, compare the amount of smoke that comes from one cigarette puff to petrol emission from a moving vehicle.
First ban cars and industries
There is a tendency for people to jump onto small and insignificant issues, like public smoking, without trying to solve the bigger issues that have bigger impacts on the lives of people. Honestly, compare the amount of smoke that comes from one cigarette puff to petrol emission from a moving vehicle.
Those two are completely immeasurable in terms of the negativity they impact on the human race- one is entirely responsible for environment pollution and global warming, whereas the other does not have any record of causing mass insecurity.
How come no one comes up with the idea of banning "public driving”?
I stand to be corrected, but I have never heard of someone who died from passive smoking. Ardent smokers find themselves living for over twenty years from their first drag before they succumb to lung cancer and the like.
How long can then can passive smokers live before they start getting symptoms of tobacco-related diseases?
It’s not like someone will be subjected to passive smoking in the public for seven days a week.
Today you’re near a smoker in a mall, tomorrow you are not… it’s not an everyday case that someone will always be smoking near you. So the effect can’t be that big.
Personally I have been around family members and friends who smoke, never have I been diagnosed with tobacco illnesses and neither have I had the urge to start smoking.
A ban on public smoking would be a one-sided look at the coin, very prejudiced and judgmental.
We live in a free society where everybody has a right to do anything, as long as it’s not against the law. If somebody has a problem with smokers, then they should agitate for a complete ban on cigarette manufacturers instead of suggesting repressive laws against mere smokers.
However, that won’t happen because the governments make good money from these companies through taxes. This tax is the same used to construct roads and hospitals, which make our lives better. Therefore, as long as the end result is positive, then the ends justify the means.
Besides, I would like to know the definition of "public” in this context. According to what I already know, any place that is not private property is public.
Now imagine if a ban on public smoking was passed. It would imply that, if a smoker was walking on a street and the urge caught him, he has to get a moto and rush back home where he could then smoke without breaking the law.
This is because even the seemingly dark and lonely street corners, where someone can smoke, lay within the definition of a public place.
The idea of a ban on public smoking would only be welcome if the government is ready to designate ‘smoking land’ in every mudugudu, where people can always go and smoke, without affecting the nonsmokers.
Other than that, a ban on public smoking would be an overreaction, or some form of personal vendetta against smokers! Let people make their own choices