You're right, drinking in excess DOES cause alot of issues. But those issues are more with dumbasses and not responsible drinkers. Responsible drinkers don't crash cars or cause fights. And responsible smokers should smoke outdoors and not around other people. So forcing people to be responsible smokers, is still giving them their right to smoke, but to just do it in a respectful manner.
Where's the outrage that there isn't a law that mandates non-smokers must be "responsible," and respectful to law abiding smokers? Just as soon as they pass a law that says that non-smokers must be respectful to smokers who are smoking in an area where it is allowed, then I will start being a "responsible" smoker, whatever that means.
Speaking of responsible, doesn't it seem a bit irresponsible that the anti-smoking lobby is skewing the statistics on "smoking deaths," by lumping all diseases related to smoking into said category, regardless of the cause of onset, smoking or otherwise? Heart disease, stroke, COPD, emphysema, heart attack, lung/throat/skin/gall bladder/esophageal/stomach cancer etc. are all diseases/conditions that one could fall subject to without ever smoking, or having been "subjected" to second-hand smoke, yet several groups tend to lump all these cases together to pad their numbers to make "smoking death" statistics seem far more significant. Talk about irresponsible.
And don't even get me started about seeing those "Truth" commercials talking about how deplorable it is that smoking causes cardiovascular disease, strokes and high blood pressure, immediately followed by a Carl's Jr. (Hardee's, to those west of the Mississippi), Denny's or Chili's commercial, immediately thereafter followed by a "lose weight now" pill/drink/surgical procedure commercial. Responsible?
Smoking takes the same exact amount of time off of my life as does being within range of a 600lb. woman chowing down on a Carl's Jr. breakfast burger at 7 in the morning. The deadly toxins and harmful molecules emanating from morbidly obese people's armpits and overly-flatulent assholes are just as, if not more so, dangerous than first, or even second hand smoke. There are several studies that I have personally conducted that prove this assertion without reproach.
Smoking is dangerous to your health, yes. So is not minding your own business and feeling the overwhelming desire to start flapping your gums to a smoker who is doing so in an area in which smoking is permitted. Keep pushing on smokers, and eventually you're going to push the wrong button, on the wrong smoker.
Also, to say that "irresponsible" drinkers are the only people who drive drunk is ridiculous. How many "responsible" drivers turn into "irresponsible" drivers each year after their 1st DUI, or fist DUI accident? In 2007 in California alone, there were more than 123,000 first time DUI convictions. So by your logic, more than 123,000 Californians, in 2007, turned from "responsible" drivers into "irresponsible" drivers in a matter of moments.
either way, it's pretty much the thought of whose side are you on? the cigarette companies or the anti smoking lobbiest?
. That's like quoting Fox News trying to prove that Democrats are inferior to Republicans. Of course those governmental agencies make those claims; those claims serve only to "justify" larger budgets for the agencies involved. They will of course claim that second-hand smoke is bad, and use their "findings" to request more money from the government to "educate" the idiotic masses who can't take care of themselves.
