I applaud your efforts to keep the planet green. However: Do you eat foods and/or consume products that require a motor vehicle of some sort to bring them to your neighborhood stores? Do you use electricity for light, refrigeration, air conditioning, home appliances, etc., including the computer you are writing from, and not only at home, but at your workplace and in all the other homes, stores, etc. that you visit?? How about air travel??? All of these use energy, which is in large part (here in the U.S. at least) generated by hydrocarbon fossil fuels, the burning of which emits hydrocarbon pollution into the atmosphere. So unless you live on a desert island, or a third-world country (last I checked, Yuma doesn't fit either of these critieria), then yes, you do personally contribute to hydrocarbon emission and pollution, albeit fractionally less than those of us who drive cars. My point is not how much pollution by weight or volume smoking puts out, but rather what kind of pollution and where it is put out. First of all, I've never heard any concerns about smoking contributing to greenhouse gases. That's just absurd to do that sort of comparison! Second, smoking puts out a large (by comparison) amount of radioactive material. Smoking one-pack of cigarettes a day gives a annual radiation dose twice that of the recommended maximum dose, and three times the average dose. Second-hand smoke, while not as concentrated as first-hand, typically has a higher percentage of the tar which binds these radioactive isotopes. So if someone is constantly in proximity of smokers, they will certainly get a substantial dose of radiation as well. There are of course many other toxic materials in cigarette that I will not go into (you can look that up on the net). My other point here is not that people should not be allowed to smoke, but rather that they should smoke in areas where they will not expose unwilling non-smokers to such toxins. The other issue is the contribution to society by cars, or for that matter energy consumption in general, versus that of cigarettes (another ridiculous comparison, that I won't spell out--if people can't recognize the difference here, than there's no help for them). Note, I'm not discounting the adverse effects to the environment by cars and other hydrocarbon emission. Rather, at this point in time, there are no viable alternatives to such to maintain our level of civilization. We could, of course, mandate that all such energy use be banned and essentially return to the 19th century (or earlier). As to the problem of air pollution, there is no hypocrisy in my way of thinking. The modern age has created this problem, but there are no easy solutions (as some would try to make us believe) because all currently available solutions involve making sacrifices that very few are willing to make. P.S. Last time I was in Prague, I remember how littered the streets were with cigarette butts. Given that, it seems most cigarette smokers aren't as concerned with the environment as you are.