5 ms·

> Smoking bans are good. Sorry not sorry. Happy to not be paying for people's lung cancer treatment or dealing with secondhand in bars when I want to listen to

> Smoking bans are good. Sorry not sorry. Happy to not be paying for people's lung cancer treatment or dealing with secondhand in bars when I want to listen to live music. The vape bans are pretty preposterous though. > drilling = evil If it's in the ground it's not in the air.

newswriter99 10y ago
Making it to where people don't have the right to put certain things into their body, healthy or unhealthy, is a stepping stone to a more fascist world. And a bit hypocritical if you're pushing for assisted suicide. Second-hand smoke bans, that's great. But I'd tell someone who vapes to quit peacocking in a bar before I'd tell a cigarette smoker that they're destroying their body in the privacy of their own home.
- hx87 10y ago
  AFAIK, there are no smoking bans on people in their own homes, and even in that case it might be reasonable in apartments without airtight party walls.
entropyneur 10y ago
That's an argument against tax-subsidized healthcare rather than for a smoking ban. Because otherwise you've just nationalized people's bodies. Why stop at smoking after all? Anyone not doing an hour of cardio daily is being irresponsible with the body entrusted to them by society and is in need of a visit to a reformation camp.
- nodamage 10y ago
  The linked article is about improved health outcomes due to secondhand smoke bans in public areas: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub3/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005992... You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home.
  - newswriter99 10y ago
    *For now.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home. Not where I live, was banned years ago.
    - belorn 10y ago
      Where is that, and is that in your own house or is it a apartment that is owned by a landlord/collection of tenants?
      - mistermann 10y ago
        Apartment.

newswriter99 10y ago

Making it to where people don't have the right to put certain things into their body, healthy or unhealthy, is a stepping stone to a more fascist world. And a bit hypocritical if you're pushing for assisted suicide. Second-hand smoke bans, that's great. But I'd tell someone who vapes to quit peacocking in a bar before I'd tell a cigarette smoker that they're destroying their body in the privacy of their own home.

hx87 10y ago
AFAIK, there are no smoking bans on people in their own homes, and even in that case it might be reasonable in apartments without airtight party walls.

entropyneur 10y ago

That's an argument against tax-subsidized healthcare rather than for a smoking ban. Because otherwise you've just nationalized people's bodies. Why stop at smoking after all? Anyone not doing an hour of cardio daily is being irresponsible with the body entrusted to them by society and is in need of a visit to a reformation camp.

nodamage 10y ago
The linked article is about improved health outcomes due to secondhand smoke bans in public areas: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub3/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005992... You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home.
- newswriter99 10y ago
  *For now.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home. Not where I live, was banned years ago.
  - belorn 10y ago
    Where is that, and is that in your own house or is it a apartment that is owned by a landlord/collection of tenants?
    - mistermann 10y ago
      Apartment.