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.

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago

That's why driving cars is unconscionable. Especially near schools. Giving lung cancer to children so you can go zoomies is selfish and evil.

[+] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip -34 points 2 days 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).

[–] ahornsirup@feddit.org 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Clean air should be a human right. That should include pollutants from smoking, pollutants from automobiles, and pollutants from industry and commerce. It's not a question of one or another.

Lack of clean air is one of the biggest markers of social inequality, and it demonstrably leads to higher rates of respiratory illnesses and earlier deaths for lower-income people who are often forced to live and work in polluted environments with unclean air. It takes a toll on the body over time.

Even just seeing statistics like how asthma rates among children have decreased in places that have banned the sale of gas stoves...like, it shouldn't be a debate. Whatever people want to do to their own lungs, fine, but given that air is shared by everyone, it should be permitted only in private, where no one else is sharing the same air. It's not about whether one has a right to smoke or drive wherever they want, but whether one has the right to infringe upon the right of others. The right to health.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 10 points 2 days 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.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You are not owed clean air in public spaces. You are not owed air free of unpleasant smells.

🤓

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What's that supposed to say?

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He’s mocking you, probably because you sound like Nestle saying access to clean water isn’t a human right.