3 ms·

> I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. For smoking in public places, I bel

> I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you. > I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them. They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces. Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.

hga 10y ago
but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Me, I'm in a funny place, since I have serious allergies and cigarette smoke (but only that in this area, not e.g. pipe tobacco smoke) is a severe problem for me, the sort of thing that for the last 2 decades can push me over into a sinus infection, when I'm exposed to it I bag my clothing and take a shower and wash my hair, etc. And we can be sure there are many others for whom it is also bad. On the other hand, I can choose not to patronize a restaurant, that's getting to a level I'm uncomfortable with, for we know the extremes of the anti-smoking crusaders: echoing another comment I've made here, was all this worth killing Eric Garner? Because I'm glad I don't have any of his blood on my hands....
- omginternets 10y ago
  >Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Could you elaborate? What did they do?
  - hga 10y ago
    The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.

hga 10y ago

but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Me, I'm in a funny place, since I have serious allergies and cigarette smoke (but only that in this area, not e.g. pipe tobacco smoke) is a severe problem for me, the sort of thing that for the last 2 decades can push me over into a sinus infection, when I'm exposed to it I bag my clothing and take a shower and wash my hair, etc. And we can be sure there are many others for whom it is also bad. On the other hand, I can choose not to patronize a restaurant, that's getting to a level I'm uncomfortable with, for we know the extremes of the anti-smoking crusaders: echoing another comment I've made here, was all this worth killing Eric Garner? Because I'm glad I don't have any of his blood on my hands....

omginternets 10y ago
>Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Could you elaborate? What did they do?
- hga 10y ago
  The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.