In terms of the smoking ban the term ban functions in the same way as the term prohibited, excluding what is referenced from occurring, but the two words mean approximately but not exactly the same. The difference lies in what the subject to the verb is rather than the meaning of the verb itself. The difference that justifies the use of the term of banning something in this context is to ban a self-sufficient action that stands alone from the person doing it as opposed to prohibiting offensive actions that rely on the presence of someone else to occur, like all crimes are dependant on somebody else being present, but lighting up a cigarette does not depend on somebody else being present, so they say that they have banned it, while this is the reason in question that it should not have been banned, and that the law that is punishable does not exist for that purpose, certainly not for ‘banning crime‘, which is what the smoking ban quite poorly proposes to be the case within the context of the law.
They have not yet told us if the smoking ban is part of civil litigation or criminal justice since the law that prevents crime should not be confused with the smoking ban, so how should we know?
The law exists to tell you what not to do, not what to do like smoking is allowed only outside instead of inside, because to smoke you then have to go outside yourself, and that is instructing you what to do, and the law should not instruct you what to do instead of only what not to do so that you are left free to try everything else.
Who is going to pay for the energy we consume to go out to smoke when we spend it, the law or the smoker, or nobody? That is called robbing us of our energy.
Moving and walking is a separate initiative than deciding to smoke, and somebody should not acquire both those initiatives for the same reason. Moving about and walking is called circulating and our circulation should be free and not compensated depending on our human right to free motion.
The constitution is to decide whether everyone is free or not, not the law that is punishable that will definitely punish and restrict freedom instead of respect it for those who deserve it. Smoking inside is innocent and not guilty to do depending on the justice that belongs to the neighbouring person in equilibrium with the justice that belongs to the person who smokes. And the same person who smokes is the neighbouring person for his counterparts in the same room and not only them being the smoker’s neighbour.
Smoking inside should not happen depending on practical localised rules that depend on the presence of danger or other needs, that then becomes confused with the law, but the law and rules are different and should not be confused with each other, because when rules get punished by the law those who get punished are not responsible for what they did, while the rest of the law is not a rule either. This must be known to lawyers who become politicians (lawyers who go into politics like economists do) and control the existence of smoking bans. Those are the characteristics of so-called bans or smoking bans as opposed to the law that has to be observed by the citizens which is a very serious institution and not as ridiculous and dependant on each person’s opinion as the smoking ban.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 