Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfraggle
To be honest, I've lost track of what you're arguing. You seem to be trying to poke holes in things I've said, but I'm not sure what your position on the subject is. Maybe you're just looking for clarification on my opinion, in which case I'm not sure how to get more clear than what I've already said.
|
My point is that the anti-smoking side has, for all intents and purposes, won the battle, and won it decisively.
It boils down to this:
Smoking is bad and it kills people and second-hand smoke is unfair to non-smokers and it hurts them, so we have rightly eliminated it (almost) entirely from public spaces.
Burning enormous amounts of unnecessary fossil fuels is bad news and causes health problems and is unfair to people who don't partake in this activity, but we don't do anything about that. We sure as hell don't see the militancy and griping about it that we do about smoking.
If the health of non-smokers is the major issue, there are much bigger fish to fry, but we only fry one fish. And nowadays, it's a minnow.