Some laws are created for the wellbeing of the general populace within a community. I'm sure not all of you have taken philosophy of political ethics, but when I look at this from a philosophical perspective, it makes complete sense.
Call it legal paternalism, this smoking law is created under the general fact that smoking is hazardous to your health. Despite the fact that its end is benevolent, its means are also coercive, which is why some of you are totally ****ing fire. You think that as long there is a designated area where non-smokers don't step into, that you you're fine. Or maybe you think that being on personal property is enough of a reason to do whatever you want.
There's no need for a public survey, because any reasonable person would understand that there are more benefits to non-smoking laws. I assure you that there are many counterarguments to this point, such as the personal pursuit of what makes you happy; legal paternalism makes choices for people, as if their safety is more important than wellbeing.
How is smoking equivalent to industrial and vehicular smog? Don't bullsh1t yourselves: vehicles create smog because we need them to get ourselves places. Power plants create smog so you can power your stoves and housing necessities.
After all that's been said: some, SOME, smokers are just too goddamn selfish and you try to justify your entitlement of smokes by attempting to put it on par with materials that clearly create social benefits.
|