>"smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'" >No - this is false. >It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's gen

>"smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'" >No - this is false. >It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot. And it was less harmful or a nuisance before it became illegal? And it smelled less too? Please. Smoking indoors was banned because of the effort to make it less socially acceptable. If it were otherwise, those bans would have been in place 40 years ago. We knew it was harmful in the 1960s (actually, even before that, but various societies didn't start trying to make it less socially acceptable until the 1970s). It wasn't until the 1990s/2000s when such bans went into effect. Why? Because smoking had become less socially acceptable -- through conscious efforts[0][1] over decades to make it so. >Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office. So what? I was (and explicitly said so) talking about smoking, not chew. You are apparently ignorant of history. Which makes it hard to have a conversation that, for obvious reasons, needs to take that history into account. So let's not. [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketi...