To me, you have the right to throw a punch. That right ends, however, at the tip of my nose.
I have no issue with smokers. I have a massive issue with the huge clouds of noxious smoke they produce. They also seem to be extremely oblivious to the effects they have on those around them.
It's akin to a drunk getting their cock out and pissing in the faces of people walking down the street.
I have no issue with nicotine use (so long as the additional health costs are covered by the taxes on it). I do have an issue with smokers, and their ability to ruin the day of those around them.
I assume you would prefer to see stricter legislation/enforcement about smoking in public versus outright sales bans, correct? I can totally get on board with that.
100%
I would, however, such a ban would be harder to implement and enforce. Also, most setups where the smoke would not affect the public also risk a massive increase in exposure for those close to the smoker. (E.g. if you can't let smoke outside, then some people will effectively hotbox their house and children). We apparently cant currently enforce the 5m rule around entrances to buildings a more complex set of rules could easily become toothless.
I'll admit I have a personal bias. Incidental exposure to the smoke from someone 20-40+ meters away is enough to mess up my lungs and set me coughing for around a day.
I'd maybe even add a ban for in-home use around children under a child abuse clause. Very hard to enforce of course but I can think of some meaningful ways to make it not worth the risk for most people.
I'm also quite biased in the opposite direction. I just quit (4 months) vaping and have had some strong opinions that my own stupid choices should be mine alone. I draw a hard line when my choices become your consequences.
But frankly, us both being biased in opposite directions and still agreeing on potentially meaningful bans just tells me that it should be easier to get done in a way that might actually be effective.
One thing that concerns me is how a ban might impact the homeless population. It's already basically illegal to be homeless in many places and the rates of smokers among the homeless is probably significantly higher. It could end up being yet another thing enforcement uses to harass people.
Would you be comfortable banning perfumes, cologne, scented beauty products and air fresheners. I'm allergic to all of those things.
Hell yeah, sounds like a great idea.
If they are producing problematic exposure to a large number of people, for the benefit of only a few, yes I would.
It gets a lot more difficult however to figure out where to draw the line. In terms of noise, smoking is like someone letting off flashbangs. It's obviously antisocial and problematic, particularly in a close environment. However , how should we handle loud music? Obviously playing music loud enough to vibrate windows at 3am is a problem, but below that is a murky zone where it's difficult to agree on what's problematic or not.
The equivalent to this, in smoking terms is vaping etc. It still produces something with a negative effect, but with a far lower problem potential. While I would personally prefer not to be exposed to vaping smells either, the balance is a lot less obvious. I accept that it would do more harm (to our personal freedoms etc) than good adding vapes to a ban.
There should be some rules on smell production, but it's the sort of thing that is difficult to write into regulations. It's currently impossible to write a quantitative test into law. All would be subjective, and so prone to problems.
Fuck yes. I hate walking into a room to be slapped with someone's 36 spray morning routine. Thanks, I love having a headache all day.
Yes actually, those also ruin the air quality. I'm by no means allergic to them but oh man do i power walk away from those smelly areas in the mall
An allergy reaction just isn't the same as cell damage done by the incomplete charred remains from cigarette smoke.
One of them is a water gun and the other is a uranium cell up your arse
... perfume doesn't cause cancer when you inhale it
Sitting behind someone in a theatre that's drenched in perfume will fuck me up more than a cigarette will.
Oh man "maybe some contain some things that might cause cancer maybe possibly in laboratory testing on mice, and even only if you absolutely fucking drown yourself in it" against "smoking is always known to and will absolutely cause cancer, including to people around you." Yeah definitely the same thing.
To me, you have the right to throw a punch. That right ends, however, at the tip of my nose.
I have no issue with smokers. I have a massive issue with the huge clouds of noxious smoke they produce. They also seem to be extremely oblivious to the effects they have on those around them.
It's akin to a drunk getting their cock out and pissing in the faces of people walking down the street.
I have no issue with nicotine use (so long as the additional health costs are covered by the taxes on it). I do have an issue with smokers, and their ability to ruin the day of those around them.
I assume you would prefer to see stricter legislation/enforcement about smoking in public versus outright sales bans, correct? I can totally get on board with that.
100%
I would, however, such a ban would be harder to implement and enforce. Also, most setups where the smoke would not affect the public also risk a massive increase in exposure for those close to the smoker. (E.g. if you can't let smoke outside, then some people will effectively hotbox their house and children). We apparently cant currently enforce the 5m rule around entrances to buildings a more complex set of rules could easily become toothless.
I'll admit I have a personal bias. Incidental exposure to the smoke from someone 20-40+ meters away is enough to mess up my lungs and set me coughing for around a day.
I'd maybe even add a ban for in-home use around children under a child abuse clause. Very hard to enforce of course but I can think of some meaningful ways to make it not worth the risk for most people.
I'm also quite biased in the opposite direction. I just quit (4 months) vaping and have had some strong opinions that my own stupid choices should be mine alone. I draw a hard line when my choices become your consequences.
But frankly, us both being biased in opposite directions and still agreeing on potentially meaningful bans just tells me that it should be easier to get done in a way that might actually be effective.
One thing that concerns me is how a ban might impact the homeless population. It's already basically illegal to be homeless in many places and the rates of smokers among the homeless is probably significantly higher. It could end up being yet another thing enforcement uses to harass people.
Would you be comfortable banning perfumes, cologne, scented beauty products and air fresheners. I'm allergic to all of those things.
Hell yeah, sounds like a great idea.
If they are producing problematic exposure to a large number of people, for the benefit of only a few, yes I would.
It gets a lot more difficult however to figure out where to draw the line. In terms of noise, smoking is like someone letting off flashbangs. It's obviously antisocial and problematic, particularly in a close environment. However , how should we handle loud music? Obviously playing music loud enough to vibrate windows at 3am is a problem, but below that is a murky zone where it's difficult to agree on what's problematic or not.
The equivalent to this, in smoking terms is vaping etc. It still produces something with a negative effect, but with a far lower problem potential. While I would personally prefer not to be exposed to vaping smells either, the balance is a lot less obvious. I accept that it would do more harm (to our personal freedoms etc) than good adding vapes to a ban.
There should be some rules on smell production, but it's the sort of thing that is difficult to write into regulations. It's currently impossible to write a quantitative test into law. All would be subjective, and so prone to problems.
Fuck yes. I hate walking into a room to be slapped with someone's 36 spray morning routine. Thanks, I love having a headache all day.
Yes actually, those also ruin the air quality. I'm by no means allergic to them but oh man do i power walk away from those smelly areas in the mall
An allergy reaction just isn't the same as cell damage done by the incomplete charred remains from cigarette smoke.
One of them is a water gun and the other is a uranium cell up your arse
... perfume doesn't cause cancer when you inhale it
Sitting behind someone in a theatre that's drenched in perfume will fuck me up more than a cigarette will.
Hurr durr oops I dropped this
https://www.bcpp.org/resource/fragrance/
Oh man "maybe some contain some things that might cause cancer maybe possibly in laboratory testing on mice, and even only if you absolutely fucking drown yourself in it" against "smoking is always known to and will absolutely cause cancer, including to people around you." Yeah definitely the same thing.