203
It's simply too much for them (feddit.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/yurop@lemm.ee
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because smoking anything in public is always intruding on everybody else's right to not have an increased risk of lung cancer. And it smells horrible. I'm fine with smoking in areas where everyone has consented to it, but public spaces like outdoor seating in restaurants aren't that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Prohibiting smokers is vastly easier than redesigning cities and and convince people to invest trillions in public transportation ... are you really that dense?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Your freedom ends where mine begins.

    You say those words but I don't think you really understand them. It's a declaration of negative rights, i.e. others aren't allowed to do something to you. Freedom of speech is such a right in the US as it requires the government to not infringe upon it. This is in contrast to positive rights, e.g. the right to healthcare where somebody has to do something in order to provide the right to others. Read up at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

    What it absolutely doesn't mean is: I am allowed to take away your rights by doing whatever I want. We're talking about smoking, but it could just as easily be pandemic prevention measures (if you were antivax or antimask because muh freedoms, let me know and I won't waste any more of my time), or shooting a gun into the air (others don't have the right to not have bullets randomly raining down on them /s). My freedom to not get shot (i.e. life) doesn't end where your freedom to shoot begins. That's called murder (or manslaughter etc). I'm not saying it's the same magnitude as smoking, just using an example to make the situation clearer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What's that supposed to say?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •