The more governments ignore public smokers, the more innocent bystanders will suffer.

[hardyweineberg]

The more governments ignore public smokers, the more innocent bystanders will suffer.


Is this sentence grammatical?

 

[emsr2d2]

Grammatical? Yes.
Natural? No.

What's a "public smoker"?

 

[hardyweineberg]

Grammatical? Yes.
Natural? No.

What's a "public smoker"?

Someone who smokes in public

 

[emsr2d2]

Someone who smokes in public.

Is that illegal in Nigeria?

 

[hardyweineberg]

Is that illegal in Nigeria?

No.

Is it just that term (public smokers) that makes my sentence unnatural?

 

[emsr2d2]

I'd say "people who smoke in public places where it's forbidden". You can't blame governments for ignoring people who smoke in public in places where they are legally permitted to do so.

I think you're trying to say something like "As long as governments allow people to smoke in [some] public places, the health of innocent bystanders will continue to suffer."

 

[jutfrank]

I think smoking in public works better in this context. You could use a 'the more ... the more ...' type of correlative sentence to express what you mean. For example, like this:

The longer the government ignores smoking in public, the more innocent people will suffer the passive effects.

 

[emsr2d2]

I still prefer "allows" to "ignores". There's no [legal] reason for them not to ignore it.

 

[Ostap]

Or, ignores the problem of smoking in public.