Smoking bans enacted from most countries it is evident post preventative no-smoking signs in the general environment or the built urban environment under legislative support regardless of the opinions and preference of those they are addressing who have not been adequately involved in the process or not been consulted.
A preventative no-smoking sign has become law wherever this would be expected to occur as a localised rule. Yet there is a fundamental and more basic difference between rules and laws and rules should not be punished by the law just like the law is not just a rule.
Generalising a localised rule as a law and punishing it comprehensively has the effect of punishing those who are not at fault. This is the limit faced by lawmakers not for the rest to consider their laws as being rules and the law hence is not just a set of rules that apply to one place but not to another.
When we visit a petrol station smoking is forbidden there and in the surrounding area because the petrol tanks and vessels and the cars might explode. This is the first event when smoking is not allowed and is prohibited. Hence the condition named after no-smoking is a localised rule of this place and is not expected to become the law of every other one. Meaning that no-smoking is an essential rule that is not suited to become a law because of the reason of necessity. If no-smoking was not a rule but the law then an explosion would occur because of it and we have seen why rules are not laws just as the law is not a rule.
Given the exclusion of rules being the law and vice versa, of the law being a set of rules, no-smoking should either be a law of a smoking ban or it should be a localised rule applied to a petrol station where it is essential for its operation and the safety of the people and the place which is involved. Hence rules must never be punished by the law and extended to apply everywhere.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 