The freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins. This is the basic principle that governs the content of legislation and imposes the need for its delimitation by the state and society. This does not include smoking, which can be done by a person alone, potentially inhabiting the world alone, without any concern being involved by the person next to him with the act of smoking and lighting up a cigarette. The smoking of one is already stopped where the smoking of the next one is and does not involve them.
The freedom of our fellow man regarding its limitation begins with his own involvement by our actions. Commonplace crime whose existence is foreseen by the law is committed by the reaction of more than one person, such as aggression and theft, but not smoking, which is not a misdemeanour or a crime. The atmosphere that exists where smoke is residual is not part of the interpersonal relationships governing the legislation that has decided that it is sufficient for a single person to dictate the punishment of exercising everyone’s right to smoke, whether inside or outside, if they do so inside.
The denigration of the role of the state and the plight of most states in punishing the exercise of one’s right with a fine by law was dictated and without being progress but a step backwards, it must be abolished immediately and the freedom of citizens and the observance of their rights by law must be restored. The parliament that has been used to vote in favour of non-negotiable mandates because of their dictation is unable to represent the people in this way, while its majority does not identify with the majority of the people. Since smoking is self-reliant, the parliamentarians decided what was decided only about and revolving around themselves. Voting on this issue is tantamount to a poll with a sample of themselves. The anti-smoking campaign that invokes democracy to achieve its goals in the face of the inability of citizens to react to the deprivation of their liberty, a movement governed by the perception of old principles as such is that it opposes smoking.
The state does not exist to abolish the freedom of citizens and trample on their rights, which are considered inalienable both from law and from the lives of those who are around us. But this is what is happening in half of the world and in the third world, where there are other authoritarian regimes such as Islamic republics and communist regimes but also dictatorships in addition to the police state and anti-smoking regime of London and its equivalent of Canberra. Dictatorships are an unacceptable and shameful form of governance and political system based on the act of dictating actions by law instead of exclusively preventing them. The verb dictate, hence the noun dictator is descriptive of the present circumstances according to the wisdom of our language. And this is exactly what the unconstitutional smoking ban and all other counter-smoking legislation is, which erodes man’s freedom and culture and impoverishes his thinking.
The falsely justified fine collected by the state to punish the exercise of one’s right to smoke, if one does so combined with his or her civilized coexistence with others in the urban environment, consisting of the buildings that constitute a city or town, is robbed by it from the work done by citizens to earn it. What has been gained must not be wasted unnecessarily. The collection of a fine without justification or false justification for a reason that does not have consequences is robbed by the state and will be charged if someone passes a red light for example as a driver, risking the lives of all others, which is the corresponding consequence that must be present to justify the fine.
Citizens’ freedom needs to be restored to be returned to them by repealing the unconstitutional and anti-smoking law, and the energy spent by those who smoke to move around despite their right to do so freely should be returned to them at the same value. The only occasion in which one has the real obligation to go out of the door in order to light a cigarette is when others who are present in the same room are suffering from an illness that is not sustainable to second-hand smoke, something that does not always or continuously happen which can be agreed verbally between them and not in writing by the law that has the capacity to be punished. Because the law punishes indoor smoking, the supposed offender is not responsible for the act of which he or she should not be accused. As a result, they are not guilty of smoking either of which they are innocent.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 