Smoking

[Danoff]

Second hand smoke does MORE damage because the cigarette user has a filter. The person breathing in the second hand smoke does not.

The second hand smoke just came out of the smoker's lungs.

You're exposed to a infinitesimal amount of smoke at a restaurant compared to a smoker, and for a tiny fraction of the time. The concentration is lower and the time period is lower.

Like I said, if you can prove that second hand smoke harmed you, you'd have a case.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The second hand smoke just came out of the smoker's lungs.

You're exposed to a infinitesimal amount of smoke at a restaurant compared to a smoker, and for a tiny fraction of the time. The concentration is lower and the time period is lower.

Like I said, if you can prove that second hand smoke harmed you, you'd have a case.

Like I said before, why wait until second hand smoke has harmed me? Is that really what it has to come down to before anything can be done?

 

[Duke]

Like I said before, why wait until second hand smoke has harmed me? Is that really what it has to come down to before anything can be done?

I'm all for avoiding second-hand smoke just on general principal. So I didn't patronize restaurants that allowed smoking inside unless they had a separate, enclosed smoking area.

That's how I avoided it, not by voting for a ban on smoking in all public buildings.

Mind you, smoking is still legal out doors in our public parks and stadiums, etc. To me these publicly-funded facilities should all be designated 100% smoke-free since they are not duplicable in terms of experience. But all privately owned restaurants and clubs should be allowed to make their own choices on the issue, because I as a patron can always choose to patronize somewhere smoke-free if it worries me to go to a business that allows smoking.

 

[Danoff]

Like I said before, why wait until second hand smoke has harmed me? Is that really what it has to come down to before anything can be done?

Because otherwise you're infringing on other people's rights.... and I don't think you can prove that second hand smoke has done you any harm.

My accusation is this. Second hand smoke has done you (personally) zero harm, and you want to legislate away people's freedom to serve customers who smoke simply because you find it inconvenient - you don't like the smell - but not enough to go somewhere else.

My argument is that people's rights are worth so little to you that you'll try to remove them so that you don't have to find another restaurant or put up with a stench.

 

[Duke]

Because otherwise you're infringing on other people's rights.... and I don't think you can prove that second hand smoke has done you any harm.

My accusation is this. Second hand smoke has done you (personally) zero harm, and you want to legislate away people's freedom to serve customers who smoke simply because you find it inconvenient - you don't like the smell - but not enough to go somewhere else.

I don't think he has to prove that second-hand smoke has caused him harm at all. I just think he has to recognize that he has no right to force others to accomodate him if he has choices available to him where he can voluntarily limit his OWN exposure to it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm all for avoiding second-hand smoke just on general principal.

That begs the questions, though: Is that really enough?

Mind you, smoking is still legal out doors in our public parks and stadiums, etc. To me these publicly-funded facilities should all be designated 100% smoke-free since they are not duplicable in terms of experience.

​

But all privately owned restaurants and clubs should be allowed to make their own choices on the issue, because I as a patron can always choose to patronize somewhere smoke-free if it worries me to go to a business that allows smoking.

​

What if you happen to like a particular privately owned restaurant. You're going to change your personal preferences if smoking is suddenly allowed in that particular restaurant?

 

[Danoff]

What if you happen to like a particular privately owned restaurant. You're going to change your personal preferences if smoking is suddenly allowed in that particular restaurant?

If you don't, then you obviously don't care enough about second-hand smoke to be advocating legislation. We're talking about restricting the rights of business owners here, not which movie to pick on a saturday night. This is serious and if you don't take it seriously enough to move on to a different restaurant, how can you expect anyone else to take you seriously.

(btw: if you do take it serious enough to move to another restaurant, you've already made your vote and no new legislation is needed)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If you don't, then you obviously don't care enough about second-hand smoke to be advocating legislation. We're talking about restricting the rights of business owners here, not which movie to pick on a saturday night. This is serious and if you don't take it seriously enough to move on to a different restaurant, how can you expect anyone else to take you seriously.

(btw: if you do take it serious enough to move to another restaurant, you've already made your vote and no new legislation is needed)

So you see... in the end... it is inevitable that someone's rights, either real or perceived (according to your definition) are violated. Only in this case, everybody loses, because I am forced to go someplace else, and the smokers lose because their health, along with the health of others are deteriorating.

(btw:i would take it serious enough to move to another restaurant)

 

[Danoff]

Only in this case, everybody loses, because I am forced to go someplace else, and the smokers lose because their health, along with the health of others are deteriorating.

No, in this case nobody loses. You get to go to your smoke free restaurant. The smokers get to smoke (that is what they want to do afterall). Nobody's health but the smokers (which is their choice) is deteriorating because they all take it seriously enough to stay away from second hand smoke, and the business owners don't get forced to do anything against their will.

Everyone wins.

 

[emad]

So you see... in the end... it is inevitable that someone's rights, either real or perceived (according to your definition) are violated. Only in this case, everybody loses, because I am forced to go someplace else, and the smokers lose because their health, along with the health of others are deteriorating.

(btw:i would take it serious enough to move to another restaurant)

In the end it is your choice where you eat. Just like how it should be the restaurant owner's choice whether or not they will allow smoking inside. When they did allow smoking in restaurants here, it was always in a completely separate area. The current legislation in my city is that it's allowed in restaurants as long as it's in a closed off room with good ventilation.

That said, I don't think they should allow smoking near large public areas like in front of the big buildings in downtown. To walk to school, I have to walk past several buildings. In front of each of them are about 10-20 or sometimes even more smokers all gathered together and taking puffs. It's damn annoying and irritating having to go through that. At my university, they started placing fines on people who smoke in front of the buildings but nobody seems to care. I still end up being forced to hold my breath on the way into the buildings. My brother smokes quite a bit, but he also goes out of his way to make sure he doesn't do it in any place where people would be forced to inhale the smoke.

 

[Duke]

That begs the questions, though: Is that really enough?

Is anything enough? I'm going to die of something. I can't avoid life altogether on the off-chance it might be dangerous. Life is terminal.

What if you happen to like a particular privately owned restaurant. You're going to change your personal preferences if smoking is suddenly allowed in that particular restaurant?

Of course. What right do I have to force them to make it the way I like it? Should I be able to dictate the menu? The decor?

If I don't like the resaurant's policy, I don't go there. If enough people feel that way, the owner has a choice to adapt or lose a substantial amount of business.

That's so simple... why do I need the force of law behind me? I may be disappointed at not being able to have a particular dish... but that doesn't give me any right to dictate a private company's policy, or more accurately, to make the government dictate a private company's policy.

Remember, we're not talking about strip mining Yellowstone Park, here. We're talking about a restaurant that I can easily choose to patronize or not by weighing my own priorities.

[edit]

So you see... in the end... it is inevitable that someone's rights, either real or perceived (according to your definition) are violated. Only in this case, everybody loses, because I am forced to go someplace else, and the smokers lose because their health, along with the health of others are deteriorating.

I think you, and possibly Swift, need to reinvestigate the concept of 'rights'.

You don't have the right to have the world fit all of your particular preferences.

No ones' rights are being violated at all in this instance. You are only forced to go to a different restaurant if you feel exposure to second-hand smoke is too much to pay for eating at your preferred place.

The restaurant owner is under no obligation to provide you with the environment you wish, or even to have a restaurant at all. He does so for his own benefit. He is entitled to make his own decision about how to maximize his own benefit by choosing what clientele to pursue. His rights aren't violated by having someone order him to make his restaurant a certain way.

Smokers get to smoke in restaurants that accept them. They've chosen to smoke and so they (consciously or not) accept the responsibility of their actions. Their rights have not been violated. They may be hurting themselves, but ONLY themselves, beause you can choose to go where they are not.

 

[Swift]

So get another insurance company - one that doesn't charge you more because some of its clients are smokers. Hell, don't have an insurance company at all... nobody put a gun to your head to pick your insurance company. Not like the gun you're advocating be put to the head of business owners insisting that they not serve clients who smoke.

, and where exactly did I talk about smoking in resturaunts? BTW, unless you very wealthy, healthcare is quite unaffordable. So your statement of having "no insurance" is just plain ignorant.

BTW, ALL insurance companies charge their clients more because of smoking because they have to pay out more. So, they charge everyone more to make up for it.

Is anything enough? I'm going to die of something. I can't avoid life altogether on the off-chance it might be dangerous. Life is terminal.
*snip!*

Again, I'm not talking about restaurants. I'm talking about smoking in general. your earlier statement about not being able to smoke at stadiums and other publicly funded places makes good sense to me.

And the statement that smoking only effects the smoker is like saying drugs only effect the addict. Smoking IS a detroment to human health, period. So, how is that fair to the smokers family and loved ones? Smoking is just plain stupid. I'm trying to understand how we can allow people to do this.

 

[Duke]

Because I think going to church is stupid, and I don't think we should allow it. It's clearly unhealthy for the mental wellbeing of many people. I don't see how we can allow people to do this.

Your true colors are making their appearance, I see. You're starting to explicitly state that you know better about how people should live their lives than they do.

The fatal hubris. The fatal trap. Once you're started down that road, you've laid yourself bare to someone thinking they know better about your life than you do.

 

[Swift]

Because I think going to church is stupid, and I don't think we should allow it. It's clearly unhealthy for the mental wellbeing of many people. I don't see how we can allow people to do this.

Your true colors are making their appearance, I see. You're starting to explicitly state that you know better about how people should live their lives than they do.

The fatal hubris. The fatal trap. Once you're started down that road, you've laid yourself bare to someone thinking they know better about your life than you do.

Well, hmm....Smoking causes cancer. So, how is that good again? Alchohol Kills brain cells, the liver, Kidneys and of course ends up hurting people on the road. Narcotics, quite obvious...

I've never heard of someone going to a church and dying from an overdose. Or a person that was so spiritual they lost control of the car and crashed into someone.

You don't believe in God because you don't want to be held accountable to anyone but yourself. That's fine, but everything I've said in the thread is true.

Also, how is it right to let people knowing hurt themselves? I'm not talking eating too much fat or sugar or things that can take forever to take hold. I'm talking about something that is known to cause cancer, emphasima, heart disease and other chronic illeness. But hey, I dont' want to infringe on your right to "kill" yourself.

Sounds rather extreme to me.

Duke, you really need to take it down a notch. We're not writing new world policy here or creating a new government. We friends having a discussion and I'd hate to think that you're not a friend or at least an aquintance. Especially after the warm welcome after I became a mod.

 

[Duke]

Oh, we're definitely friends discussing something. But Brian has a distinct inability to see the bigger picture - he seems to focus exclusively on what he feels (which is fine in and of itself, if limiting), and assume that's universal (which is not fine at all).

The whole point that I'm so vehement about is that being permissive lets people choose not to do something if they don't like it. But being prohibitive by definition removes freedoms from everybody.

It's right to let people hurt themselves knowingly because no human being owns any other. It may be sad, it may disappoint you, it may require you to make changes in your life, but that's as far as it goes. I can ask my wife to do something, I can make a deal with her to do something, I can tell her I'm leaving her if she doesn't do it... but I cannot force her to do anything she does not want to do. When it comes right down to it, she is her own person and I am mine. We made a marriage contract to cooperate, and if one of us violates that contract it may be nullified, but neither of us owns the other one or has any right to force that person into anything.

Consider the example of a band I like. The lead singer and cowriter was addicted to heroin. He wrote many powerful songs about his addiction, and many powerful songs about other subjects. He clearly defined his own addiction as his choice and his pain as self-chosen (in so many words). He was about a year or two younger than I. In his mid 30s, he died of a heroin overdose after a year or more of being so unstable as to render him useless to the band.

Was this sad? Yes. Was this a waste? Probably. Was this preventable? Yes... BUT. The man was under no obligation to provide me with more great songs. I have no ownership of his life and therefore no right to feel cheated by his untimely (if highly probable) death. He probably violated his contract with his bandmates before his death, but he may well have bought out of the legal part of that. He chose to step away from the community of his band and disappointing as that may be, they also had no right to force him to associate with them even though the potential greatness was there. You may say he was violating those people's rights - and mine, as a fan - but that's simply not true.

No person is under any obligation to live up to any standards but their own, and they are under no obligation to associate with anyone they don't wish to, with the possible exception of their children.

've never heard of someone going to a church and dying from an overdose. Or a person that was so spiritual they lost control of the car and crashed into someone.

I've heard of people going to church and getting so spiritually overdosed that they're willing to walk into a crowded street market and blow themselves up with dynamite... sounds dangerous to both public and personal health to me.

Note that I'm not picking on religious people - I fully support everybody's Constitutional right to worship as they choose.

But protecting people from themselves is A) not necessary, B) extremely difficult to do without violating their rights, if it's even possible, and C) definitely impossible to do in a way that is fair at all.

 

[Swift]

Oh, we're definitely friends discussing something. But Brian has a distinct inability to see the bigger picture - he seems to focus exclusively on what he feels (which is fine in and of itself, if limiting), and assume that's universal (which is not fine at all). *snip!*
[Sage]: Swift, cut down your quotes!

Wow, interesting. That's a very, well, dismal way to look at things. Oh well.

 

[Duke]

Wow, interesting. That's a very, well, dismal way to look at things. Oh well.

Reduced to its lowest cmmon denominator like that, yes it's dismal. Fortunately, there is also the possibility for great joy within the system. Contrary to Brian's apparent belief, most people will not follow the path of self-destruction and violence.

And when people come together of their own free will, to make trades of value, mutually beneficial business dealings, friendship, and love with people who are of a similar mind and similar free will, it's quite an extraordinary thing.

Truthfully, despite potential for ugliness, the beautiful liberty of good choices well made by each individual far outweighs the drab sameness of safe but forced conformity.

 

[K_Speed]

There is only one thing that tobacco companies owe their customers, and that is to warn them that their product is physically addictive. Consumers cannot make a choice if they use products that are addicitive and didn't have that knowledge prior to using the product. They have to know what they're getting themselves into and so I think it is fair to make the company warn them that it is addictive.

We have those Warnings on cigarette packages here in Germany, stating that in can cause injury to the baby when in pregnancy etc.


I think its good, but it doesnt help at all. The people here dont care about it, dont know much about the rest of europe.

So next time you're in a smokey restaurant and you're thinking, man these people are infringing on my right to go wherever the hell I want and not be bothered by anyone, remind yourself that you have feet and are choosing to endure the second-hand smoke

Yeah, of course, and I do that. Sometimes only to the other side of the restaurant, but that should be enough for me. I mean, when I meet up with my friends in a bar, I know theyre all going to smoke I cant stop that.

I dont think anyone in here walks away from their friends and finds a restaurant for themselves to sit in, without any second hand smoke.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, of course, and I do that. Sometimes only to the other side of the restaurant, but that should be enough for me. I mean, when I meet up with my friends in a bar, I know theyre all going to smoke I cant stop that.

I dont think anyone in here walks away from their friends and finds a restaurant for themselves to sit in, without any second hand smoke.

If they don't, then they don't care enough about the issue to even start to think about considering advocating taking someone else's freedom.

and where exactly did I talk about smoking in resturaunts? BTW, unless you very wealthy, healthcare is quite unaffordable. So your statement of having "no insurance" is just plain ignorant.

[rant]

No, my statement about not having health in surance was not ignorant. At one point I didn't have it - didn't want to spend the money. No I do spend the money on it but the insurance company makes a killing off of me because I don't use it. I still pay because I want the security, but the security in not a must here.

Health insurance is not a right. Health care is not a right.

Why is it not a right? Because in order for it to be so, I would have to violate someone else's rights - or institutionalize it, which would result in a very very poor inequitable system for all.

Allow me to give you an example.

Let's say I am a smoker. Tomorrow I find out that I have cancer and that it is very rare. It will cost 1.2 million dollars to treat.

I don't have that much money... I should die.

Don't think so? What if it cost 10 million, 50 million? how about a billion? How about a trillion?

You can spend an infinite amount of money on health care. I could fly doctors in from around the world, move their families here. Pay them all full time huge wages to hold conferences and collaborative meetings to design and test new medicine theories to try to treat my rare disease. I could puchase supercomputers. I could launch monkeys into space to test the effects of zero gravity on the disease.

I could spend an infinite amount of money on my health care. Who determines how much I should spend? You? The majority? How about me?

I determine whether I can pay for my health care by how much money I make for myself, and how healthy I live my life. There is risk in everything. Smokers take a risk and if it doesn't pay off, they can and should die.

Bottom line. Health insurance is not a requirement of life. I can (and have) lived without it. So could you. I could pay out of pocket for my health coverage today and would pay less than I currently do for my insurance but that is my choice.
[/rant]

 

[Swift]

If they don't, then they don't care enough about the issue to even start to think about considering advocating taking someone else's freedom.




[rant]

No, my statement about not having health in surance was not ignorant. At one point I didn't have it - didn't want to spend the money. No I do spend the money on it but the insurance company makes a killing off of me because I don't use it. I still pay because I want the security, but the security in not a must here.

Health insurance is not a right. Health care is not a right.

Why is it not a right? Because in order for it to be so, I would have to violate someone else's rights - or institutionalize it, which would result in a very very poor inequitable system for all.

ROFL! I'm rolling on the floor over here. That entire rant goes directly against one of your prized phrases. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happines"

So, you're saying that if a person was shot in a drive by shooting, has no insurance, gets to the hospital. Should he be denied care?

If a smoker, has lung cancer, has an OPERABLE tumor that if removed would give the patient a much high chance of survival. But he can't afford the surgery. Yeah, let's just let them die. Not a very moral attitude coming from a person that claims to be very moral.

BTW, you're not paying to much right now because obviously, nothing major is wrong. What if you discover you have some blockages in the arterys around your heart and need an angioplasty(sp). That's easily a few grand and that's just for the operation. You can say it's a choice. But with this current system that we have, it is truly quite mandatory unless you're wealthy.

 

[Danoff]

So, you're saying that if a person was shot in a drive by shooting, has no insurance, gets to the hospital. Should he be denied care?

No, but that's complicated.

If a smoker, has lung cancer, has an OPERABLE tumor that if removed would give the patient a much high chance of survival. But he can't afford the surgery. Yeah, let's just let them die. Not a very moral attitude coming from a person that claims to be very moral.

BTW, you're not paying to much right now because obviously, nothing major is wrong. What if you discover you have some blockages in the arterys around your heart and need an angioplasty(sp). That's easily a few grand and that's just for the operation. You can say it's a choice. But with this current system that we have, it is truly quite mandatory unless you're wealthy.

Did you even read what I wrote? That whole thing about spending on health care being an arbitrary cuttoff that nobody but me has the right to decide? Do you understand that what you propose either make doctors slaves or results in an extremely inequitable system?

Go back and re-read my post. Maybe you can get a little more out of it this time.

 

[Swift]

No, but that's complicated.



Did you even read what I wrote? That whole thing about spending on health care being an arbitrary cuttoff that nobody but me has the right to decide? Do you understand that what you propose either make doctors slaves or results in an extremely inequitable system?

Go back and re-read my post. Maybe you can get a little more out of it this time.

See, that's what I'm saying. It's a double standard. What makes the person's life that got shot worth any more the the person that smoked? I'm talking life here. That falls right into that phrase again(that I totally believe in BTW) of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

I did read your original post. But that's such an incredibly unique situation that it's almost not even feasible to use it for example. The ones I gave are much more realistic and happen right now.

 

[Duke]

Because the person who gets hit in a drive-by is an innocent bystander with no way to predict the potential for the accident.

The person who smokes made a conscious decision to do so after reading or ignoring the health warnings on the side of the pack and the thousands of messages seen everyday about the dangers of smoking.

 

[Danoff]

See, that's what I'm saying. It's a double standard. What makes the person's life that got shot worth any more the the person that smoked? I'm talking life here.

I told you that it was complicated. It's a different scenario, Duke is only even mentioning part of the difference - urget care has all kinds of other differences.

I'm talking like here too, and what I'm saying is that I'm not entitled to have other people provide me with my life - because other people have a right not to have to provide me with my life.

 

[Swift]

Because the person who gets hit in a drive-by is an innocent bystander with no way to predict the potential for the accident.

The person who smokes made a conscious decision to do so after reading or ignoring the health warnings on the side of the pack and the thousands of messages seen everyday about the dangers of smoking.

Agreed, they are quite stupid(if you're a smoker, I think you're doing a very stupid thing). But how does that make their life worth less then anyone elses?

I told you that it was complicated. It's a different scenario, Duke is only even mentioning part of the difference - urget care has all kinds of other differences.

I'm talking like here too, and what I'm saying is that I'm not entitled to have other people provide me with my life - because other people have a right not to have to provide me with my life.

So, you're saying that I should just let you die? Well, that my friend, sounds like the polar opposite of morality. I'm trying to save you, not worry about your political or social beliefs(figuratively speaking of course).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm trying to save you, not worry about your political or social beliefs(figuratively speaking of course).

Why can't they understand that? If someone tells you they don't want you to smoke, why should have to be about politics?

[rant]I spent a few hours last night on a post for the Libertarian thread that includes similar philisophical questions etc. only to have the 🤬 browser lock up on me! Consequently, I lost everything so I have to re-type it (albeit in a word processor) before I post it. So, as I said before, I'll be back later. [/rant]

 

[Duke]

I'm telling you: I don't want to be saved from myself. I'm a big boy. I think my decisions through, and I live with the consequences.

I expect the same from others, and in 40 years I've been never been shown a compelling reason why I shouldn't expect that.

[edit] ... from 99% of the people in the world. [/edit]

 

[Danoff]

So, you're saying that I should just let you die? Well, that my friend, sounds like the polar opposite of morality.

No, that's fair. Putting a gun to a doctor's head and saying "Fix him for free or we'll put you in jail" is immoral.

Before you start saying "I never said put a gun to a doctor's head" consider what happens when you tell a doctor that he must - by law - help a patient who has no money. That is force, and it is immoral. Again, urget care is different, it's more like the military, it can't work any other way.

But unless you're unconcious or literally going to die, you should take care of funding your own medical expenses. That's not immoral, that's responsibility. That's the only way it can work because only you can put a price on your health.

 

[Swift]

No, that's fair. Putting a gun to a doctor's head and saying "Fix him for free or we'll put you in jail" is immoral.

Before you start saying "I never said put a gun to a doctor's head" consider what happens when you tell a doctor that he must - by law - help a patient who has no money. That is force, and it is immoral. Again, urget care is different, it's more like the military, it can't work any other way.

But unless you're unconcious or literally going to die, you should take care of funding your own medical expenses. That's not immoral, that's responsibility. That's the only way it can work because only you can put a price on your health.

I disagree, there can be no price put on health for the sheer fact that we aren't able to cure and fix everything. Therefore, health is a priceless asset.

I'm telling you: I don't want to be saved from myself. I'm a big boy. I think my decisions through, and I live with the consequences.

I expect the same from others, and in 40 years I've been never been shown a compelling reason why I shouldn't expect that.

Here's the challenge with that line of thought. A lot of people DON'T think things through before doing them. Like smoking, drinking, drugs, bad eating habits and so on. Not to mention the amount of uniformed people out there.

I can understand your thought. But it seems to let people just fall off or fall through the cracks. Not a very moral society.

BTW, since when was morality ever fair?

 

[slowman]

Do you think smoking should be banned in public places?
I think instead of banning smoking, smokers should have the common sense and manners to know when and where not to smoke.

Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?
Absolutely not. They bring the problems upon themselves by smoking in the first place. I smoke, as does my girlfriend. We are working together to slow down smoking and eventually quit. In the last 3 months I've gone from more than a pack a day down to maybe 5 cigarettes a day. My girlfriend and I split a pack every two days. We hope to be nicotine free sometime in May.

Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?***
To answer the question yes. To expand upon the "other drugs" aspect of this, it will require a very long reply. I'll keep it short.

As an occasional pot smoker, I think that the American laws on pot smoking are extremely harsh. I don't smoke that often, maybe 2-3 times a month. I do think it is also a matter of maturity. There are people that I know that are extremely immature with it. They'll speed around in their cars smoking up, throwing beer cans out of their windows, and eventually crashing. This is one of the mains reasons that pot is illegal in the United States. People are far too immature to do it.

Me (and my girlfriend) on the other hand are responsible with it. We'll go home tonight from work (we work together), turn on cartoon network, take a couple tokes, and go to bed. Why is that illegal? I don't smoke and drive either; that's entirely irresponsible. If I can walk to where I need to go, I do.

I think it should be legalized. There should also be a system created for the use of the police though too. If you have been caught driving, or doing anything irrisponsible while under the influence of marijuana, then I think the police should put that under your police file. Another offense, and pot is now illegal for you. After that, any possesion or anything should become a punishable offense.

That system will effectively nail the people that go on a roadsmoke (jam as many people in a car as possible and drive as fast as possible for as long as possible), while keeping people like me completely out of trouble.