- You shouldn't be able to harm others. False. The science for second hand smoke risks were faked.
- You must be against government or regulation if you oppose smoking laws. False. I'm against using government to encroach on others rights without cause.
- We can ban smoking and help people. Sure, if you ignore the people hurt in the process. Think Eric Garner.
- Everyone that voted for smoking taxes, raised the incentives for Eric and others to sell them illegally. Eventually that will lead to confrontations that end lives. Every tax/law/regulation is the point where you're willing to ruin someone else's life, or have them killed. Then the hypocrites that support the bad laws in the first place, whine about the consequences of enforcing them, and deny responsibility for it. Death seems like a harsh penalty for committing the capital offense of non-compliance with a hate-tax against a minority (smokers). But Democrats will pay it with others lives.
- Smoking is a high risk endeavor. False. It's well down the threat list.
- Do you know what kills more people than smoking? The idea that you should be able to tell others what to do for their own good, or for your personal likes/dislikes, that's lead to almost every war and conflict in human history, and has killed many, many more people.
- It is about caring for the people who don't like smoking. False. It's about those people bullying those they don't agree with.
- It's about addiction. False. Or they would more regulate addicting behaviors: sex/pleasure, pain, eating, caffeine, coffee, alcohol, gambling, working, playing, etc.
- Many people that died smoked, or were married to smokers, so smoking did it. False. They also ate bananas, did bananas cause it too?
- But smoking is annoying? If we should ban annoying then what about Gardening (attracting bugs they might be allergic to), Apiculture, Parties, talking too loud (or not loud enough), home-improvement, working on cars, cooking, canning, candle-making, BBQ/smoking, and so on. Humans annoy other humans. Unless the other person can't easily mitigate it, it's more a recipient problem than the donor.
Picking on one group, because you perceive their vice (smoking) as worse than yours (diet, excercise, hobbies, environment, carreer, lifestyle, travel, etc.) is what I am really looking at. If we are going to start this (helping people by taking their freedoms), then we WILL continue with it... and before you know it we will have a benign version of 1984 where we just tax all activities that either is not politically correct or may be harmful to someone, somewhere. Not my version of utopia, and not a precendent I want to go any further