Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection
I think this is a fundamental difference in a lot of people's thinking on a lot of issues. I think that in all things when one person's rights violates another person's that when is there is a problem. I think that as long as smoker's have a place to smoke that will never EVER let the smoke reach the lungs of someone who doesn't want it, they'll be fine and the non-smokers will be fine.
I don't think it's people wanting to dictate how other's live their lives. I'm sure most people couldn't give two craps if a perfect stranger dies from lung cancer. People are rightfully selfish when it comes to their own health and something that is proven to have a harmful effect, those people should be able to go to public places like anyone else and not have that right violated by those who smoke.
|
I can certainly understand the second-hand smoke argument. That said, if the cigarette tax is designed to bring an end to second-hand smoke, it is a relatively blunt and ineffective tool. It is blunt because there are better, more direct ways to eliminate the risk of second-hand smoke causing ill health effects without affecting someone's right to smoke a cigarette without affecting someone else. It is relatively ineffective because it is not going to stop dedicated smokers from smoking cigs in the presence of others.
I still have yet to hear an articulate and persuasive argument as to why cigarettes should be banned or heavily taxed if cigarettes do not create a net increase in tax burdens. If it is because they kill, should we still criminalize attempted suicide? I believe that if someone is dumb enough to intentionally kill themselves by smoking and that form of prolonged suicide does not create a net increase in tax burdens, they should be able to do so.