If we're going to have little Daves running around, might as well make sure they're well looked after and healthy little buggers!
One major difference between vehicle toxins and second hand smoke is that, for one thing, smoking occurs during enclosed (or more hopefully) open public spaces where people dwell, such as a home, in a restaurant, at a college/university, etc. You don't have cars idling in the middle of a pub, or down at the bleachers when watching a Packers game.
Furthermore, the choice of smoking is voluntary and entirely predicated on the desire to smoke. The purpose, for the vast majority of vehicle owners is as a method of transportation; people don't own cars so they can smell fumes. Thus the act of smoking in a public place constitutes a voluntary engagement, disregarding the effects caused unto others, by smoking. This is especially sad when parents smoke in front of children. Not only does it set a bad example but it also materially affects their health. I hope nobody here subjects their children to their own smoking. It is unfortunate that carbon monoxide is so noxious and toxic, but the auto industry is close to developing green cars which produce far less pollutants. While there may be tobacco manufactures interested in going green, it is far less evident to me. What I see from them is the continual pursuit of money at the expense of its customer's health. Its employees are still extensions of the firm; people work at their job because their desire to earn money overrides the ramifications of the product to which they aide in manufacturing. I can appreciate that many have no choice but to work there given their financial situation, so I hope it does at least enter their conscious at some point in their lives how their contribution to a tobacco firm has benefited humanity.
As an interesting aside, I first "smoked" when I was 3 years old. My father apparently gave me a puff which (naturally) I coughed up. Haven't ever picked up a cigarette. The smell puts me off.
"TheEngineer" wrote: