3 ms·
Most 'Smoke-free' policies are superficial and often make the problems worse e.g. Smoke-free sites mean people smoke near entrances, causing more annoyance for
by velox_io 7y ago
Most 'Smoke-free' policies are superficial and often make the problems worse e.g. Smoke-free sites mean people smoke near entrances, causing more annoyance for non-smokers. I've noticed most building sites around London are smoke-free as they have a line of builders smoking on the pavement. Their smoke becomes unavoidable to anyone/ everyone walking past.
I absolutely detest smoking, especially when they're exposing others to their cancer. When my dad died [of lung cancer] we weren't on good terms as I wasn't sympathetic to him. It was no surprise he got lung cancer as he smoked like a chimney and had a chronic cough for over a decade. The reason I have zero sympathy is because they made my sister and I breathe that crap in as kids (my sister is also very anti-smoking).
However, I don't have a problem with vaping. It is many orders of magnitude safer than smoking yet it is tarred (excuse the pun) with the same brush. In The States along smoking kills 500,000 people per year. Lives would be saved if people were encouraged to vape (it's by far the lesser of two evils).
The media is even more anti-vaping. Like the scare stories about that mystery lung disease killing vapers. As I vape CBD myself (I have a condition that causes muscle spasms, vaping is by far the most effective way to reduce them) I followed the story very closely. It was apparent that it was THC vape products in/ around New York from the get-go, yet a totally different message was coming from the media. Even if they did attribute those deaths to vaping, 14 [in total] is better than the 1,400 per day from smoking!
- beatgammit 7y agoAbsolutely. I hate everything to do with smoking/vaping and drugs in general, but when it comes to policy, I go based on harm to others. Smoking has real harm to others, but vaping is pretty much harmless.