The legislative banning of indoor smoking has taken foregone and dramatic dimensions of undemocratic forces promoting anti-popular policies and restrictions on the freedom of citizens. Those forces in question have demonstrated that they are determined not to stop at restricting the freedom of citizens with the influence they can exert on the state and its adopted opinion according to its role. 

Exercising one's inalienable right to smoke is unjustly punished by the law without the same practice being guilty instead of innocent to do as everyone around the same person who is a smoker would agree. Since the practice of smoking has no victim it is therefore innocent and not guilty according to the unanimous social consensus, so why has it been punishable by law and why was that legislation defined in the absence of society and social influence?

However democratically as it may appear that this decision has been made it is still based on binary logic to determine the outcome it has and binary logic should not be incorporated in democratic parliamentary processes nor does it have a place in those activities and the level of their seriousness.

The foreseeable way of consuming a product that has been acquired with money does not depend on the place and time of its use. Smoking and its practice is a right that every adult has and its exercise should not depend on where a person is situated. In addition the right to free motion is violated when citizens are instructed on their position strictly according to their actions.

Democratic decisions do not rely on the sacrifice of inalienable rights taken away from citizens. Equal rights versus equal obligations exist for all citizens. Everyone's rights must prevail contrary to all laws by which they must be guaranteed and protected instead of legislatively defined within themselves and smoking constituted into a right under no justification is defined as a punishable event under a democratic rule and constitution. Quite the opposite, smoking bears no consequences to the surrounding social and material environment and should therefore be completely free to do instead of being punished as if its practice was guilty and not innocent. In addition its punishment is unconstitutional according to the reason that delimits the existence of the national state constitution.

Mr. President, the Land of the Free invented the smoking that they are talking about! Practising smoking bears no consequences to the social and material surroundings and is therefore innocent to do instead of guilty, and the punishment of the law should only be directed against guilt and never be applied to innocence.

Obviously smoking is expected to be abandoned where there is an immediate reason or other direct need involved or concerned and not wherever possible under the law and the right to smoke can be reasonably restricted by certain rules and be respected by all other laws.

Under a similar perspective we propose and recommend to President Donald Trump as a political ally and close companion to leader and campaigner Nigel Farage who supports the same for his country to bring back smoking freedom to the United States at a reasonable extent for everyone so that owners of spaces of public gathering such as restaurants and bars and cafés can be capable of deciding on or declining adaptable house rules that apply to their property without defining smoking as a punishable event.