Cute.

I have a cute video for you, that is shown in kindergartens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXC9FI1nAqs&hd=1

No they don't.

A video. Wow.

What's next? A wikipedia article? The top five results on google?

Oh my fucking god. I never thought an experienced lawyer can be THIS MUCH uneducated as you are.

Go back to your red books, dude.

I never thought that a basic 2+2 logic is too much for you, hands down Arschloch of the year. Even a simple video is too much for you to handle. Isn't it time to die?

EOT.

Smoking is not a fineable offence because it's not yet banned. To ban smoking, an anti-smoking campaign is necessary. I do not know how high the cost of such a campaign would be. Perhaps it is unacceptable and the government correctly deduced that. Perhaps it is acceptable, but the government wrongly deduced that it isn't. Perhaps (whatever), but the particular officials responsible for the decision are in the pocket of the tobacco industry. I do not know. What I do know is that you shouldn't derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement.

What is your argument?
- that we should direct more resources toward banning smoking than toward regulating seatbelt use? Then the efficiency of an anti-smoking campaign is absolutely relevant.
- that if smoking isn't banned, we shouldn't try to restrict bad things? O.o
- that smoking isn't banned, therefore zomgpurplz?

Being obese should be banned, because it strains on socialized health care.

By the way, smokers pay excise duty every time they buy cigarettes, so I bet they pay much more to medical care than you do.

Oh, the circular logic of it all. :P

Since when to have a vehicle secured means having the windows rolled up?! Btw, secured against what?
It may be secured by other means like: alarm, electronic ignition lock, video surveillance, not leaving valuables inside...

Windows do not deter someone to enter you vehicle by any means. Every person determined to enter you vehicle will just brake the window or open the door lock by specific methods.

I think this was just the action of an over-zealous policeman with too much time to spare (read bored).

In the arguments of making things that can bring harm to you, in one form or another, illegal or legal (depending on the direction you lean), there's always going to be a breaking point where it just becomes ridiculous.

Where are the lines drawn?
"Dangerous things should be illegal"
Driving, fatty foods, alcohol, tobacco, power tools, firearms, crossbows, kitchen knives....

"We shouldn't make regulations on the risks people choose to take."
Meth, speed limits, home made fireworks, acid (and other hallucinogens), skydiving off buildings, setting off firearms inside city limits, explosives....

We can find arguments for any one of these entries to have it's legal status changed, for example-

We should ban cars because automobiles account for more deaths annually than firearms.

C4 and other military grade explosives should be legally available to civilians because there are legitimate uses for them, and if a person knows what they are doing and how to handle it, it's no more dangerous than consumer fireworks.

Both arguments are perfectly reasonable to the right groups of people, and both are also ones that really shouldn't be made. I mean, I am all for being able to legally obtain C4, but I know darn well that there are too many people who should not be able to have it- though to be fair there are plenty of people who should also not be allowed to have an automobile!

However, whenever you have a governing body begin stepping in and making rules and regulations which are intended to protect people, there will always be those who side with the government (for any number of reasons) and want to see regulations put in place to further protect people from themselves, and those who disagree with the government and don't want to see any such regulations put in place (also for any number of reasons).

.. then, of course, there are those who want to see the government put regulations on things.. right up until it hits their vice!

If it is an order of magnitude, it could be because it is a pretty unfair comparison. One side is extremely narrow (incidents involving a child pedestrian) vs. all car accidents. To make it more fair, it should be severity of injuries in accidents below 30mph vs. those above 30mph.

As I mentioned, I gave that advert as the reason I chose 30mph for the "speed cap". I don't know at which speed, if any, a significant jump in fatalities/injury severity for the vehicle passengers occurs.

Don't people have rright to comit suicide?

If I am a driver of my car, I would require buckling up, because it's MY CAR and I won't drive anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. And you as a passanger may choose not to take a ride with people who don't wear seatbelts.

But if somebody has a deathwish, why not? It's not like people flying over a window are that dangerous to anybody. Well, sorta :P The chances of being hit by a flying person is relatively small :P

Same thing with smoking - if I'm a private owner of my bar, I decide if you can smoke here or not. If it's a public space - the majority of people should decide.

But I asume none of the nanny state lovers will agree with me.

Cigarette smoking is legal here. But they can tell you where you can and can't do it, and you get fined if you go against that. So now we're getting into the whole "It's legal, only it's illegal for you to do it here" thing.

I really don't get the "let's ban it in bars!" thing. That should be one of the last places affected. But then, alcohol is "cool" and driving to a bar, getting drunk, and driving home is apparently less offensive than blowing smoke. :-)

That's the problem with attempting to please all of the people all of the time.

Ahem...

Full circle. And we have discovered your hypothesis is firmly founded on cognitive dissonance along the way. There is likely little value in continuing.