Smoking Should Be Illegal

reckless endangerment: Wikipedia definition: "a person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. "reckless" conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of forseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. the accused need not intentionally cause the resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantionally certain to cause that result. the ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused's conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others." sounds like a perfect fit to me. smoking causes cancer and other illnesses to the smoker and everyone else who comes into contact with the pollution. the smoker knows this and does it anyway "reckless". tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen. it does cause cancer "endangerment". now as for "smokers RIGHTS". no they do NOT have the RIGHT to smoke. do you have the RIGHT to throw a hand grenade into a crowded theatre? if i sprayed asbestos dust into the air, i would be arrested, because asbestos is a known carcinogen (as is tobacco smoke), but don't i have the RIGHT? if smokers have the RIGHT to share their pollution with me, then if i dip snuff tobacco, i have the RIGHT to spit my tobacco into their faces too. RIGHT? as for the rest, i agree. banning can get out of control. but i don't think the fear of overbanning applies here. we are talking about outlawing a practice that KILLS PEOPLE, there is no maybe, smoking kills, and not just the smokers.

Driver

07 May 2008 22:40

Comment

reckless endangerment: Wikipedia definition: "a person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. "reckless" conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of forseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. the accused need not intentionally cause the resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantionally certain to cause that result. the ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused's conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others."  sounds like a perfect fit to me. smoking causes cancer and other illnesses to the smoker and everyone else who comes into contact with the pollution. the smoker knows this and does it anyway "reckless". tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen. it does cause cancer "endangerment". now as for "smokers RIGHTS". no they do NOT have the RIGHT to smoke. do you have the RIGHT to throw a hand grenade into a crowded theatre? if i sprayed asbestos dust into the air, i would be arrested, because asbestos is a known carcinogen (as is tobacco smoke), but don't i have the RIGHT? if smokers have the RIGHT to share their pollution with me, then if i dip snuff tobacco, i have the RIGHT to spit my tobacco into their faces too. RIGHT? as for the rest, i agree. banning can get out of control. but i don't think the fear of overbanning applies here. we are talking about outlawing a practice that KILLS PEOPLE, there is no maybe, smoking kills, and not just the smokers.

Comment

reckless endangerment: Wikipedia definition: "a person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. "reckless" conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of forseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. the accused need not intentionally cause the resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantionally certain to cause that result. the ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused's conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others."  sounds like a perfect fit to me. smoking causes cancer and other illnesses to the smoker and everyone else who comes into contact with the pollution. the smoker knows this and does it anyway "reckless". tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen. it does cause cancer "endangerment". now as for "smokers RIGHTS". no they do NOT have the RIGHT to smoke. do you have the RIGHT to throw a hand grenade into a crowded theatre? if i sprayed asbestos dust into the air, i would be arrested, because asbestos is a known carcinogen (as is tobacco smoke), but don't i have the RIGHT? if smokers have the RIGHT to share their pollution with me, then if i dip snuff tobacco, i have the RIGHT to spit my tobacco into their faces too. RIGHT? as for the rest, i agree. banning can get out of control. but i don't think the fear of overbanning applies here. we are talking about outlawing a practice that KILLS PEOPLE, there is no maybe, smoking kills, and not just the smokers.