You are not owed clean air in public spaces. You are not owed air free of unpleasant smells. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
If you really care about unhealthy things you inhale, why aren’t you spending your time ranting against car ownership? Emissions and tire wear produces magnitudes more harmful particles you inhale every day than being in the general vicinity of someone who smokes.
Naturally you could also ask a smoker to stand downwind from you at the bus stop, or even to not light up in the first place. But the smoker has just as much rights to the public space as you do.
If we try to regulate what smells you might encounter outside there are so. many. things I’d want gone as well because they make me feel sick to my stomach. Perfumes, foods, sweaty asses. Burps and farts.
I understand how annoying public smoking can be, I live essentially next to three bars. Not a weekend evening goes by without some fuckers smoking under my window, forcing me to close it.
But I still support their right to do so (see first paragraph).
What gave you the idea that I support our current car-centric infrastructure? I don’t, for multiple reasons clean air being one of them. But that’s not an issue that can be addressed with one law, smoking in public is.
Your freedom ends where mine begins.
Exactly. And if your freedom to enjoy a public space requires you to impact the enjoyment and health of others that’s where your freedom ends.
I suppose we generally agree but have different priorities regarding what is “impacting other people’s enjoyment and health”.
E: if we agree on no emissions period in public spaces I’m game. I would still tackle cars first and foremost before I’d go after the last public smokers in the country.
Prohibiting smokers is vastly easier than redesigning cities and and convince people to invest trillions in public transportation … are you really that dense?
Fair, ignoring the reality though. Way too many people have no access to clean water, or air, or food, or housing, or safety.
Bitching about the occasional second hand smoke whiff when moving about outside - while there are an insane amount of cars emitting exhaust fumes, rubber particles; factories churning out pollution, and so forth doing far worse to your health every day - is a little like being mad about too much sodium in your industrial runoff tainted drinking water.
The point being, there are much more imminent and important battles to fight for clean air (and water, and all the other things any human should have) than to impede on the unhealthy habit of your fellow peasants in my opinion.
You are not owed clean air in public spaces. You are not owed air free of unpleasant smells. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
If you really care about unhealthy things you inhale, why aren’t you spending your time ranting against car ownership? Emissions and tire wear produces magnitudes more harmful particles you inhale every day than being in the general vicinity of someone who smokes.
Naturally you could also ask a smoker to stand downwind from you at the bus stop, or even to not light up in the first place. But the smoker has just as much rights to the public space as you do.
If we try to regulate what smells you might encounter outside there are so. many. things I’d want gone as well because they make me feel sick to my stomach. Perfumes, foods, sweaty asses. Burps and farts.
I understand how annoying public smoking can be, I live essentially next to three bars. Not a weekend evening goes by without some fuckers smoking under my window, forcing me to close it.
But I still support their right to do so (see first paragraph).
deleted by creator
What gave you the idea that I support our current car-centric infrastructure? I don’t, for multiple reasons clean air being one of them. But that’s not an issue that can be addressed with one law, smoking in public is.
Exactly. And if your freedom to enjoy a public space requires you to impact the enjoyment and health of others that’s where your freedom ends.
I suppose we generally agree but have different priorities regarding what is “impacting other people’s enjoyment and health”.
E: if we agree on no emissions period in public spaces I’m game. I would still tackle cars first and foremost before I’d go after the last public smokers in the country.
Prohibiting smokers is vastly easier than redesigning cities and and convince people to invest trillions in public transportation … are you really that dense?
… Do you think smoking does the same damage as cars
No. But its a problem we could fix while tackling a bigger problem.
🤓
What’s that supposed to say?
He’s mocking you, probably because you sound like Nestle saying access to clean water isn’t a human right.
Fair, ignoring the reality though. Way too many people have no access to clean water, or air, or food, or housing, or safety.
Bitching about the occasional second hand smoke whiff when moving about outside - while there are an insane amount of cars emitting exhaust fumes, rubber particles; factories churning out pollution, and so forth doing far worse to your health every day - is a little like being mad about too much sodium in your industrial runoff tainted drinking water.
The point being, there are much more imminent and important battles to fight for clean air (and water, and all the other things any human should have) than to impede on the unhealthy habit of your fellow peasants in my opinion.
You argument here is just whataboutism.
Yes other sources of air pollution exist and they have little to no bearing on the acceptability of smoking and second hand smoke.