Smoking should be restricted

Smoking is an activity that all should be free to participate in if they so choose. The market has determined sufficient amounts of individuals are willing to assume this habit to sustain it.

Am I one of those people? Not a chance. Considering I wouldn’t want to withdraw the right of anyone choosing to purchase and use-err, consume these cigarettes, what’s a non-smoker to do?

I mean, what does not smoking do to infringe on the health of others, specifically smokers, as a group? Does our not smoking lead to cancer, or systematically increase the rates of chronic respiratory problems, heart disease or the like? Can anyone tell me what health problems the non-smoking group causes smokers?

I’d be surprised to hear of anything.

So here’s a plea to you smokers: Why not accept that your activity is not one that should be forced upon those that don’t smoke and gather in an area designated for you? We designate areas for all sorts of activities, don’t we? We aren’t allowed to urinate in public (though some of us certainly do occasionally).

We aren’t legally allowed to choose which side of the road we drive on, or that we drive on a road at all instead of careening through yards, over sidewalks and through playgrounds. That would be dangerous, right?

So instead we have designated areas where we know those activities take place. So most rational people accept that their activity is confined to certain areas, and should be for the safety of all.

Why should smoking be different? Why should I be “safe” from being struck by a car or urinated on in front of NKU’s buildings, but not from inhaling toxic smoke?

I’m just curious why this perfectly viable, and ever so used, tactic has yet to be implemented?

Wes Crout