Nobody forces anyone to not smoke just as no one forces anyone not to drink. If I have a beer, that's my business. If I have ten beers and then get in my car and drive, now it's someone else's business. Similarly if I have a cigarette out of doors, in my own car, or in my home, that's my business. But if I smoke around another person who has chosen not to do so, I'm forcing that person to smoke, compromising their choice not to smoke, or forcing them to leave.
Public places are public because everyone can assemble there. If everyone cannot assemble there, they're not public anymore. The rights to freedom of movement and assembly are generally protected in western society. There's a difference between taking away someone's choice to smoke and taking away options of where that behavior can occur. Just like there's a difference between individual sexual freedom and regulations banning public sex.
Something to think about: Do you light a cigarette because you -need- to smoke, or because you -want- to smoke? I think many people would answer that the former is true because nicotine is physically addictive. Now, do people have to accomodate other individuals whose needs arose from a personal choice? I'd say no. Person A is in no way obligated to suffer because person B inflicted suffering on him or herself that doesn't affect person A.
I think it's pretty obvious that smokers are willing to pay ridiculous prices for tobacco. Who does that actually benefit though? Will taking more income from low-income smokers by heavily taxing them really improve the situation? I'm not suggesting a solution, but just pointing out that that additional tax revenue has to be spent in a way that benefits everyone more than smokers quitting smoking for it to make sense. Wouldn't it make more sense if everyone just smoked less? Smokers always complain about the price of cigarettes, but that rarely seems to change their consumption of tobacco. If cigarettes were US$10 a pack, I'm sure many people would still buy them. Perhaps they would buy fewer, but it would not make people quit and we're still stuck with the same problem.
There's another problem though. Expensive cars or jewelry are psychological addictions. Nicotine is a physical addiction: one that some people cannot control. Raise the price of expensive cars and jewelry and people will stop buying them. Raising the price of tobacco through taxes will only reduce consumption to some minimum level. If you raise the price too high, now you have a black market. Now the government has to spend all its extra revenue to stomp out the black market. (I'm against legalization of other drugs by the way, and for what I think are good reasons...if we need to talk about that, start a new thread
![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
).