Tegumi wrote...
ShaggyJebus wrote...
I brought up drinking because it can (and does) hurt others, not just the person who drinks. How? Drunk driving. Tons of people are killed or injured by drunk drivers every year. So why not make alcohol illegal? I'm sure more people are killed every year because of drunk driving accidents than by second hand smoke.
Glad you decided to re-iterate your point. I was going to address it earlier, but it would have made my post too long.
People are injured or die from drunk driving only a percentage of the time. Consumption of alcohol doesn't necessarily imply the operation of a motor vehicle afterwards, and even if drinking and driving do occur, there is not an absolute possibility of someone being injured or killed.
Whereas if you smoke and there are people near you, there is a 100% chance of their exposure to your second-hand smoke.
And there's this interesting thing about drunk driving - it
is illegal.
If we compare the two, we have an interesting contrast of risk versus result.
With drunk driving, the risk is rather slim. I almost never think or worry about a drunk driving incident on a daily basis. The result, however, [of a drunk driving incident] is definitely immediately painful or life-ending.
With smoking, the risk [of second-hand smoke] is rather large. If I'm in a public place, such as... say, walking in between classes, I can count on some clod somewhere along the way (or worse, walking directly in front of me) to be smoking. The results seem trivial - unpleasant smell, watering of eyes, drying/running of nose, coughing/sneezing, and general allergy symptoms.
The result of driving while intoxicated is much greater (death) but its risk is not very great (tens of thousands) when compared to people affected by smoking (millions) even though the latter's result seems to be only mild allergic discomfort.
Except that second-hand smoke can cause cancer anyway, so it's like killing them slowly (in the form of higher chance of respiratory disease in later life) anyway.
Now I weigh these two things. Alcohol, which is only dangerous when it involves operating machinery (which by the way, is already illegal); or smoking, which indiscriminately affects everyone around you. From what I see, my placement of concern undeniably rational.
I will say again, as blind-assassin did, second-hand smoking is not anywere close to being as dangerous to the average person as you seem to think it is. It seems that you are just alergic to cigarette smoke, so it affects you worse than most people. Most non-smokers don't particularly like the smell of it, but they don't have algery-esque responses like that. There are hundreds if not thousands of things people are exposed to on a daily basis that are considerably more dangerous then second-hand smoke, barring the extensive exposer a person would get if say...they were glued to someone who chain-smoked all day every day.
And I'm not particularly against banning smoking inside places like resturaunts. If you don't want people smoking in your place, that's your choice. And I don't like smoke around me when I'm eating, and I'm a smoker. But I do like being able to hang out in a smokey diner or bar. Which is why it should be up to the proprieter.
Smoking cigarettes might not be smart, but it's not the worst thing a person can do.