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.
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.
If we really want to split some hairs, some waste products don't even need to be radioactive to be weaponized. Depleted uranium ammunition makes for excellent armor penetrating rounds and comes (primarily) from the enrichment process of uranium for use in reactors.
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.
Network mapped volumes, I assume
This is the most wise thing I've read today. We all know it, but it needs to be said more.