As a way of bookending this thread, I'd just like to add that having followed it's development and read several different strands of argument, and many more strands of idiocy (on both sides), that I do not see any rational argument for banning smoking that could not also be applied to the eating of meat.
- We eat far too much of it and this adversely affects our health, costing everyone in both human loss and as an economic drain (though of course the combined value of industry and tax is greater than this economic cost. Incidentally, either is enough for tobacco)
- Methane produced by farming so much livestock contributes more towards climate change than all the world's cars and trucks, several times over, contributing far more dangerously to our environment than cigarette fumes.
- To those that never eat it, the sight or smell of meat can be physically repulsive.
- It is a very difficult habit to break, particularly given that the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters are forced to eat it by their parents from a very early age, long before they've had the opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of eating it.
That's all without considering if there are ethical issues with killing other animals to eat them because they taste good. As you may have guessed, I really like eating meat, but then I also enjoy smoking, drinking, gambling, skiing, and driving. Each of these things has associated dangers, and some of them carry inevitable risks for people other than myself. That is an inevitability in a world in which we must co-exist - there's always a danger as soon as we step into a shared space that one of us will go insane and attack the other, that one of us will lose control of his vehicle and hit another. Second-hand smoke is bad for people, there are no two ways about it. But shouldn't people have the choice to expose themselves to it? There's no evidence of outdoor second hand smoke ever damaging anyone, so it can't be an argument for a total ban. The British ban on all smoking in indoor business premises on grounds of protecting the health of employees (let's talk just about pubs for now - it's easier) is untenable, unless we are also going to stop all mining operations in the UK based on quality of air concerns. By all means stop people smoking in places like hospitals and schools where ordinary members of the public HAVE to go, but place where they choose to go? I don't understand why it is perfectly acceptable for a person to be exposed to the danger of being beaten by a drunken lout on a Friday night in a pub, but not exposed to the tiny chance that the little smoke they consume in that time (assuming they don't otherwise smoke, in which case they could hardly complain about second hand smoke) may have some effect on their body.
I realise this turned into something of a polemic, so anyone responding please don't feel like you have to respond to all of my points, but if you do respond to any, please label them clearly and try to explain why the present situation, or a total ban on smoking, is justified, given the totality of our society.
