I grew up with a heavy-smoking father, and developed asthma. My doctor said it was for sure related, but I remained skeptical. After moving out of that home for the first time, and establishing that no one smokes in my new domicile, I am 100% convinced that second-hand smoke contributed to my condition. previously I had to use double-doses of inhaled steroids to sleep through the night, now all I need is a 1 inhalation of epinephrine a couple times a week.
but this reminds me of the old arabian "camels nose" proverb(ironically): "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."
-If their concern is over second-hand smoke, that is, people being forced to passively smoke within public buildings that we all pay taxes to, then I am on their side.
-If they want to stop parents from smoking in the home with children and causing them to passively smoke, then I am on their side.
-If they want to stop people from passively smoking in privately-owned bars and restaurants, then I don't support them on the grounds that frequenting a business is a personal choice of an individual.
-If they want to stop people from using tobacco altogether, including methods that do not have a second-hand effect, then I don't support them on the grounds that it is not the governments job to protect people from their own choices.
-If they want to stop people from using nicotine altogether, I don't support them and ask what their rationale is at all!
...it is very rarely a good thing to restrict personal freedoms, but if their is a true public health concern(which I'm convinced there is for smoking), then I might agree with it. What is the rationale for any further restriction after the stated problem is fixed?
P.S. I am just as hard on other air-pollutants like factory smog and car exhaust
but this reminds me of the old arabian "camels nose" proverb(ironically): "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."
-If their concern is over second-hand smoke, that is, people being forced to passively smoke within public buildings that we all pay taxes to, then I am on their side.
-If they want to stop parents from smoking in the home with children and causing them to passively smoke, then I am on their side.
-If they want to stop people from passively smoking in privately-owned bars and restaurants, then I don't support them on the grounds that frequenting a business is a personal choice of an individual.
-If they want to stop people from using tobacco altogether, including methods that do not have a second-hand effect, then I don't support them on the grounds that it is not the governments job to protect people from their own choices.
-If they want to stop people from using nicotine altogether, I don't support them and ask what their rationale is at all!
...it is very rarely a good thing to restrict personal freedoms, but if their is a true public health concern(which I'm convinced there is for smoking), then I might agree with it. What is the rationale for any further restriction after the stated problem is fixed?
P.S. I am just as hard on other air-pollutants like factory smog and car exhaust
Comment