|
People aren't always alone in their homes, though, there may be kids and pets who aren't capable of protecting their own health or well-being(Spouses, too, but I think we can assume most adult humans can move out if conditions are damaging to them.).
Of course, the debate over just how bad second-hand smoke is isn't one that, as far as I know, has been ultimately settled yet, but even if it's only mildly damaging, consider that a child who lives with smoker parents from age zero to eighteen is exposed to that mild damage for a long time. Many creeks make a river, as we say in Denmark.
I'd still say it would be fair to require that people with pets or kids not smoke inside their homes, couldn't be too hard to go out on the porch. Some pets are actually surprisingly endangered by smoke, cats for example, they get a double dose of carcinogens because first they inhale the smoke, then some of it sticks in their fur, which they lick.
Just because you're in your own home doesn't mean you're the only person you have to consider. Of course, if you ARE living entirely on your own and aren't smoking enough to contaminate the entire block, you should be free to EAT your damn cigarettes if that's what rocks your boat.
On the other hand, I can completely agree with having smoking/non-smoking sections in restaurants rather than banning smoking. Even more so for bars, pubs, clubs, etc. Just about anyone who goes there(Barring kids who get dragged along by their parents, and that should only be the restaurants. But the exposure in that case should be so short and, usually, so diluted by being in a relatively large room, that the damage would be next to nothing.) has the option of going elsewhere if the smoke is too much for them, or just going home and making their own food/listening to their own music/buying a sixpack and chugging it at home.
Smoking outside? Of course it should be permitted. No one smokes enough that it can be an issue in that case unless they intentionally blow it in other people's faces, which is a public nuisance, rather than a health hazard. And before anyone got started on tackling that, anyway, they should take care of cars, which hurt urban air quality far more. But that's a totally different issue.
Public transport? Not everyone can afford a private alternative, and in some cases it's the only efficient alternative. Smoking should definitely be banned to hell and back again there.
Still, I think people on both sides are exaggerating the issue. Smokers? It's only a damn drug. It doesn't even have the beneficial effects of caffeine, and withdrawal is mild compared to so many other addictions. Stop acting like the government is putting on their lederhosen and marching all the smokers off to work camps. Anti-smokers? A total ban is a complete overreaction, there are plenty of cases, as I pointed out, where it's people's own choice whether to be exposed or where exposure is short enough that it can't really hurt anyone.
Mind you, what would really get support from me would be if the government banned a lot of cigarette additives. Just some paper sticks with a filter and some PURE tobacco. No nicotine-enriched(Seriously, most cigarettes have more easily-absorbed nicotine added so you get a better "high" and get more addicted.) crap soaked in 4000 different additives. You cannot get me to believe that there's lead or arsenic in most tobacco plants from nature's side, or that they're necessary for people to get their nicotine high. That'd protect a lot of people, smokers and non both.
|