Vietnam Bans Smoking in Public: Great Idea or Too Extreme?

Tabitha, can't you see that when YOU think something is a "nasty habit" in your opinion, thus all for banning it...that you're traveling down a slippery slope of WHAT'S NEXT to ban because someone finds your "nasty habits" offensive to THEM? I find people who bite their fingernails, who eat with their mouths open and those who wear too tight clothing for their body type disgusting..should we call for banning those things? Before you retort with.."those habits don't hurt the public like your smoking does"...The truth is, either does smoking towards those who DON'T smoke, you've just been brainwashed to believe that 2nd hand smoke will kill you. If 2nd hand smoke is such a killer to so many Americans, why hasn't the government banned smoking all together? Oh right, because the government likes the EVEN HIGHER tax revenues they get now AFTER convincing you people that 2nd hand smoke kills? How many people DO YOU know that have died from 2nd hand smoke since the government declared 2nd hand smoke to be dangerous to the public? How much TAX revenue has been raised for the GOVERNMENT since they deemed 2nd hand smoke dangerous to the public..thus getting the public to agree to higher taxes on tobacco?? Can you not see how you're being played? They can't keep raising tobacco taxes..so NEXT is putting taxes on anything the "deem" unhealthy to our health..ALL under the guise of "caring" about our health, but in reality it's just to raise more taxes to keep funding ridiculous GOVERNMENT pensions and FUNDING!

The Fed tax goes to SCHIP program so that's only very tangentially helping union pension funds. (I suppose some workers are unionized and of course part of their pay goes to pension). States spend their tax shares different ways but none that I know of fund pension funds directly. Governments KNOW both alcohol and tobacco have huge impacts on both personal and government budgets both in terms of revenue generated and in costs incurred. (I'll not bother to provide studies but there are overwhelming numbers of supporting studies that cannot be ignored. Even the tobacco companies' own studies reveal this but tend to come to lower calculations.) There are many economists who take stabs at calculating the revenue vs. cost but it's far too convoluted and too open to extraneous impacts and cross cause variables to feel really confident about any of the studies. It's clear that health costs (both direct to the government and societal) of tobacco, alcohol abuse, obesity and vices are high but it's also clear that each of these are expressions of freedom. The challenge is not to 'outlaw' anything (see how well that's worked for marijuana and prohibition) but rather to make reasonable policies to mitigate the impact. You may well believe that this is reaching too far while I don't. Principally I'm NOT concerned with your health nor even concerned with my health. Principally I'm offended by a habit that leads to noxious public air. Not too different than if you pooped in the street except that of course, everybody needs to poop but we expect them to go to a sealed room with a fan to do it.