Smoke Freedom Day
WHP CBS 21 has a story on a quasi-protest of the looming smoking ban. Watch Ryan Shafik go all V for Vendetta on legislators, though his reasoned explanation for opposing the ban got cut.
PolicyBlog has moved!
Thank you for visiting, PolicyBlog has a new address.
Our new location is http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog
Please adjust your bookmarks. Archived posts will remain here for now.
Thanks
2 comments:
Smoking should be banned. It's a health hazard to the user, but most importantly, to those in the vicinity of the user. Why do I need to be at a greater risk of cancer because someone else wants to fulfill their nicotine addiction?
Emily,
You have been misled by the heavily funded nanny statists.
Why the anti-smoking advocate claim thousands of deaths due to secondhand smoke, they cite no study to prove this (or when they do, they use an EPA study that was admitted to be a sham).
In fact, you would have to spend 4,000 hours (24/7 for over 6 months), in a smoke-filled room to get the effect of smoking one cigarette. Certainly that is not to say there is zero risk to you, but you have far greater risk of being hit by a car as a pedestrian. By your logic, driving should therefore be banned by the nanny state.
Finally, it is relatively easy to choose not to be in the vicinty of smokers. As we have also pointed out, nearly 80% of workplaces and restaurant are already smoke free. And that number is declining because people like you demand smoke-free environments. The market is responding to your desires--you don't need the government to enforce a police state against smokers.
Post a Comment