I like the first option. Don't smoke with kids 16 and under in the car, it can't be that hard. I want all countries to take that option lol.
The problem is that you're not just putting something into your body. If you could smoke and make all the harmful chemicals stay there, then fine by me. That would be why I'm okay with other type of drugs (both legal and illegal). Smoking however, is harmful to anyone who happens to be near you. YOU, personally, might be considerate enough to not stand next to a 5-year old while smoking, but for every you, there's ten who won't, who'll just light up a smoke whenever they feel like it.TheXRatedDodo said:And as for an outright ban on smoking, fuck that. We should all have the right to put whatever we want into our bodies, even if it harms us. Because guess what, if I want to full my lungs with tar, that's my goddamn choice.
I think you could find a difference between someone finding something mildly distasteful and someone being fundamentally opposed to having people breathe in poison against their will.Speakercone said:I have a problem with people who want to legislate against everything they find mildly distasteful.
This. Banning smoking outright would be about as successful as banning alcohol was or banning drugs has been. But nobody should be subjecting their child who has no say in the matter to second hand smoke. If they do they are unquestionably an idiot at the very least and I'd say a poor parent as well given that smoking around your kids makes them more likely to take it up and the dangers of second hand smoke are well known at this point.TestECull said:I'm fine with the former, but not the latter. The latter is only going to make the illegal drug trade even stronger.