Dong20, I'm not going to quote your entire post, but I'll just say it's about the most intelligent and well-thought out discourse I've read on the subject so far, and expresses my feelings exactly.
I am an ex-smoker, and when I smoked, I used to feel the way some of the smokers here do. But having been a non-smoker for over 11 years now, my feelings and opinions have changed drastically.
Thanks Holly. :biggrin1:
As a rule I oppose any and all Government interference in individual's behaviour but this is a rare exception simply because it's one that it's almost impossible to avoid the effects of without compromising
too much - it's not just a behaviour partaken of in private where it affects no-one.
In espousing that view I concede selfishness but I see it as no more than the selfishness of (
some) smokers who are willing to impose their habit on me, my family and my friends in the name of protecting
their rights as smokers. No one here has expressed such views but plenty IRL do so.
They have a point of course and cite a variety of parallel arguments to back up their argument. Many of these are weak but the non-driver/traffic pollution argument (cited by SP) is more credible than most it's so only in a limited way for reasons outlined already. Walkman overflow and garlic breath (cited my me) may irriate but I doubt they're potentially fatal so most just grin and bear it.
In the end it comes down to consideration and to a degree, personal responsibilty; is a requirement to have
some consideration for the health and wellbeing of those
you're interacting with (when it's within one's ability to do so) reasonable? I think it is and while enforcing personal responsibility and consideration by means of legislation should
not be necessary it seems, sadly, it is.