Ah. That's not what you said. You said that making something annoying was "better than" banning it, which implies that you see at least some merit in the banning option. I misunderstood you.
It is better than banning it. Just like walking across the street safely is better than being hit by a car. I'm being pedantic here.
So you are coming from the angle that no-one should smoke anywhere because you don't like it? Even if it's their choice, no, make it really difficult for them to make them stop altogether because you think cigarettes are nasty, dirty, horrible, smelly things.
If you can eliminate a health risk safely, then it should be done. If we could make a virus that would kill all opium plants, I'd be for it too, assuming it could be safely done. I grant I dislike smoke, but that's not why I am saying this. It is for health concerns.
I personally dislike hate speech, clubbing, one night stands, trashy romance novels, etc, etc. That doesn't mean I think there should be laws against those things. Please note I am not saying those things are equivalent to each other in any way.
That addiction and how it works isn't fully explained.
Granted, but we know it affects some people more strongly than others.
No, good company is most of the human population, that bit that likes to get together and have a pint and a chin-wag.
I just don't know why you kept bringing animals into it.
Appeal to popularity.
I wasn't saying they made me right. You just said I was in the minority. I do not believe I am. Even if I was, I would still advocate the same thing. I'm certainly in the minority when it comes to alcohol.
Oh, and although I don't think there's been any surveys done on numbers, there are plenty of people in the UK that support an amendment to the current blanket ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces.
I know in Ohio, where I am, we have a smoking ban and it was popular for whatever that is worth.
No, you really don't know what it's like over here on Friday and Saturday nights.
Granted. People dying is worse though.
Most people who drink don't a) batter their nearest and dearest; or b) die of alcohol poisoning.
Granted, but drinking makes those things more likely. It can also damage the brain, which is more common (though it is to a relatively small degree, I admit).
So why blame the alcohol? "It wasn't me, the Stella made me do it, Officer"
Alcohol, by lowering inhibitions, can make domestic abuse worse. That's a reasonable concern, I think.
Well, possibly, but not proven, but we'll get onto that. And if the smokers are outside, away from you sensitive non-smokers, or happily enscounced in their seedy private smoking clubs? Are we inflicting our SHS on you then?
It is proven. The articles that were cited above showed that.
Ideally, I'd prefer smokers didn't die from smoking either. It's a health risk for them.
At least we agree on something then.
Liberty matters. No, I don't support fighting to the death either, and definitely not as a public spectacle (I didn't mention anything about our two Fightclub members being in public) but it's a question of how much we think the State has a right to intervere in the private realm, aka what we do with our bodies and our lives as consenting adults. Not innocent by-standers, us.
I think it is reasonable for the State/People to prevent stupid, destructive behavior that results in death, even if it is entirely self-inflicted. Because it's ok to care about other people. I don't think it is different from seat belt laws, air bags, and other safety laws.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
One of the most useful analgesics known to man? You amaze me.