Before exposing my opinion, and for those who do not know me, I want you to know that I am former man.I have not smoked 4 years, and smoked almost 3 daily packets.And I am delighted to have left it, because tobacco is bad and hurt me.
That said, the law seems to me a barbarity.It is a harassment and demolish the smoker, criminalizing it and blaming it for almost all evils.If a smoker has a cancer, the fault is his for having smoked.If a non -smoker is, the fault is who smoked nearby.And if the non -smoker lived alone and nobody smoked close, silence ...
It is a hypocritical law.The administration benefits from penguins from tobacco;fine to smokers who do not comply with the law, and only talk about tobacco health costs (in my case zero costs after 35 years smoking like a cosaca), avoiding the economic benefits provided by smokers, much higher than theCosts
And it is still a hypocritical because they continue to refuse to put in the boxes the list of additives that tobacco carries, simply to make it more addictive, however harmful they may be.They deny the smoker the right to know what smokes.
And it is still a hypocritical, because with one hand they take the pasta and with the other they refuse that the treatments to leave the tobacco cover them social security.
And it is still a hypocritical, in addition to useless, because I felt more protected from tobacco when areas for smokers were enabled and I could choose the non -smokers.Now they have turned the sidewalks, to the exit of bars, work centers, etc., in fumaderos.
And I also think that alcohol is much more dangerous.It is the cause of a very high percentage of accidents.It is the cause of fights, attacks, disorders and aggressions, without counting the damage to the drinker itself (it is always a matter of measure, as in tobacco).The difference is that no one has hit his wife for being smoked (tobacco) and yes for being drunk.No one leaves the road for smoking.No one fights for smoking ...
Of course I want you to protect me from tobacco smoke, although it was quite easy to protect myself.But it seems much more important to protect me from what I cannot avoid: the contamination of cars and heating, and factories, and pesticides, and of food additives, and of so many things ...
But protecting is not prohibiting, but enabling rooms or areas where the smoker can smoke without harming anyone.Areas that have a good smoke extraction and ventilation system.And while the State continues to sell tobacco, these areas should be mandatory in hospitals, work centers, educational, recreation, etc.
Why don't they do so?Simply because they are hypocrites.They want people to blame the smoker, when the fault is from the government itself, which conceals their zero ability to do things well by prohibition, facing non -smokers against smokers, and thus, in passing, we talk about tobacco intime to air the real problems of this country, such as unemployment and lack of solutions to a crisis that is already charging enough victims than tobacco.
I am a smoker in leave.I am delighted not to smoke, but I will never become a conversation of those who go with the whip whipping the smokers while they do not mind contaminating with their heating, their air conditioning, their car or its noise.
Health
No signature configured, update it from user's profile.