Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeffsquire
_________________________
Following this argument to its logical extension then. . . .
IMHO the antismoking drive has nothing to do with health only control and regulation.
Light em up.
|
As a lawyer, you must've heard of a "straw man" argument, I'm sure. Here's where the straw man leads you: Preventing people from randomly shooting others point blank must only be about control and regulation.
On the contrary, antismoking has nothing to do with control and regulation and everything to do with: Your freedom is only restricted by the freedom you take away from others.
My freedom NOT to be exposed to someone's exhaled smoke (which btw has been proven to be dangerous to my health and wellbeing) should prevail over his freedom to smoke wherever he likes. As I said previously, we don't even need to prove that the smoker's disregard for his own health affects me through the increased health care costs. He
directly affects me with the smoke that he blows into my lungs, and that's enough. Just as shooting randomly on the street is "controled and regulated", so should be smoking. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they didn't ban smoking but they regulated obligatory glass jars on top of smokers heads. That way they get to "enjoy" the full product of their cigs (no waste), and the public doesn't get affected. Win - win for all.
Z.