Smoking in Cars and driving with a cell phone in use:
Both can't possibly be illegal by an objective view of law. (just as speeding can't) why? Because they are legislating on what you MIGHT do, not what you're in the act of doing or have done. And lets be clear, you can argue that they are in the act of smoking in a car. That isn't the point, that in and of itself does not violate the rule of all law: You can do whatever you want so long as you don't physically harm another (St. Thomas Aquinas). Smoking in a car (alone) doesn't harm anyone else. If you get into an accident, then you've harmed someone else. But just because you're more likely to do something doesn't make it illegal, it just means that you're more likely but depending on your skills, you could overcome that. As soon as laws try and be "preventative" you end up with injustice.
Yes, I can't spell and I was in a rush and anoyed, so I didn't run it through word first
As for the "unamerican":
Children under the age of 18 are forced to live in your house (well they're not, but for the purposes of law, you might as well see it that way because it's pretty close to the truth). Since second hand smoke is absolutely very bad for you (children in households with people smoking in it are 200% more likely to have asthma than those with non-smoking parents). You would call it abuse if you took that same cigarrette and put it out against your child's skin every time you finished one, and yet, that just harms the skin. In the case of secondhand smoke, you're talking about lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart amoung other things including skin being harmed by your actions for which the child is powerless to stop. If burning your child with a cigarette is unthinkable and no one would argue it is abuse, then why would something that is absolutely 100% way worse for them not be? You are taking a weapon and slowly killing your child. At best you're harming them and maiming them by preventing their bodies from breathing correctly. That's abuse.
Just as if a woman drinks or smokes during pregnacy and brings that pregnacy to term and has the child they should be charged with assult, and if the child doesn't live because of fetal alchohol syndrom or the like, they should be charged with 1st degree murder (it's pre-medidated, planned killing)
Assult is assult no matter if you hurt something you can see or if you hurt something you can't (so long as it's physical, mental isn't against the law for obvious reasons) I would say that a nation of laws like the US would absolutely be in favour of banning child abuse... There is no constitutional violation at all by preventing a parent from abusing their child, so that one goes out the window.
As for bars: Bars are NOT public places. I disagree with the concept of making this illegal completely. (and any other private establishment) You have the freedom of association (or the equivalent thereof) and you have the right to administer your premises however you see fit, further non-smokers have the choice to come into a bar or not and be exposed. If they don't want to be, they can leave or not come in at all. If enough people like me get upset about having to breath that stuff, there will be non-smoking bars, it's just a fact of economics. Public places on the other hand is an entirely different story. It isn't someone else's perogative to go there or not, it's their right to be there, and your right to be there does not give you the right to assult anyone else because of a dirty habit.
Alchohol is a different story. So long as you don't harm another, do whatever you wish with it. Me sitting beside you while you drink does not physically harm me in any way (at least so long as you don't pass out and pure your drink on me...in which case I can sue you if I really wanted to). Go nuts.
The first law of the universe is non-contradiction. There is no such thing as a contradiction. if you encounter one, check your premises, because you're wrong.
