Quote:
“Are there any of the anti-smoking lobby prepared to declare here and now that it is grossly unfair to target the smoker without also targeting the other major polluter – the internal combustion engine?
I doubt if anyone has the courage to do so because it will destroy all their arguments at a stroke and show them to be irrelevant to the debate.”
|
Yes it's grossely unfair, they should do more to reduce pollution, they should put more freight on the railways, so that it's one deisel engine not 50, they should make youu sue public transport so it's one engine not 50. OR even ban the combustion engine altogether.
Right how has that destroyed the argument that you shouldn't smoke in any public place open or closed.
I've still got a right to fresh air in the pub, not come out smelling of smoke.
YOU smoke, your choice, not mine and it doesn't help me at all. A bus taking people to work at the local supermarket does, and the lorry delivering their does, The teacher going to work helps me by educating the future generations of this world.
Your pollution, your comparison not mine, does nothing positive, apart from feed the government with tax.
I fight for the right to breath fresh air in public places, I also fight for less polution from car exhausts, I recycle and try to save energy where it's being wasted, wasted electric causes more pollution from power stations.
I'm not fighting for your rights, I'm fighting for mine in every case, You fight for your own rights, but if your smoking, I doubt you'd bother fighting for the right to an exhaust free town, your just using it to try to justify you smoking in a public place.
It's unrealistic to expect a car free town, and most people think it's unrealistic to expect smoker free public areas, I doubt very much if it will get through.
Most people who see that they have the rights to a smoke free enclosed area, will also see it as you have a human right to smoke in a open public area. People who want an outright ban are very few.