7 ms·

I never want to breathe in cigarette smoke on the sidewalk because of the damage to my health. Why does the individual freedom to do whatever you want overrule

by vdnkh 4y ago

I never want to breathe in cigarette smoke on the sidewalk because of the damage to my health. Why does the individual freedom to do whatever you want overrule my individual freedom not to be affected by the externalities of your choices? The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you focus almost exclusively on individual right to the detriment of public good.

vehemenz 4y ago
I don't disagree, but this position commits you to removing all petrol cars from cities, too.
- eneumann 4y ago
  Eliminating petrol cars from cities would be an objectively good thing for the air quality.
  - winternett 4y ago
    No offense personally, but the alternative to fuel burning cars is only cars with more toxic batteries that will pollute drinking water. There are no honestly viable solutions currently on the market to our environmental crisis in place, it's just marketing to shift profit to another harmful money making industry. Hauling a family of four on a bicycle to the hospital in a crisis in 2 feet of snow (for example) only goes further to highlight the small-mindedness our future is up against.
    - azth 4y ago
      What do you think about hydrogen cars?
      - winternett 4y ago
        Don't smoke a cigarette anywhere near them... :/ They have a huge problem with unexpected detonations. One of the best things about vaping has been that I'm pretty sure that there are less unintentional home fires than in past decades, because when they are dropped on a mattress, they usually do not burn... Another aspect that no one really considers.
        0des 4y ago
        Hydride cells can be punctured, smoked near, smoked on, it's fine, it's also old technology. Just about any vehicle can be retrofitted for this, and can sequester the hydrogen overnight from the air.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lariscus 4y ago
      Let me introduce you to the magical concept of public transport.
      - winternett 4y ago
        Public transport was crippled during the pandemic for obvious reasons... Let's not forget that. Also during an earthquake/power outage scenario would likely do the same, and cause far more dramatic loss of life if it was the only option. It's a hard sell to people who want to be free and independent, and in control of their safety and time. Getting rid of cars also means eliminating a huge volume of revenue from federal, state, and local government from related taxes... This means funding for bike lanes, roads, and even public transport, would evaporate. Most of the busses in many major cities were also once electric (at a very high cost to cities), but now (somehow) have mostly gone back to diesel... No one is asking Why... We still have major factories, ships, planes, and many other big business hallmarks that create the majority of pollution in the world (while the same companies try to portray that they are "green"). Conservation efforts are futile unless we start talking about the real issues, and create accountability, not if we leave rules up to profit seeking individuals and companies. It's beyond a hard sell at this point for many people, and contradictory to the concept of a free society. Back when we had mostly horses providing transit, they consumed more energy than cars on an individual basis too, and created health problems with their waste... It's all just shifting the buck somewhere else, and not solving real underlying problems.
        chickenpotpie 4y ago
        > Public transport was crippled during the pandemic for obvious reasons... Let's not forget that. A once a century event shouldn't define the other 98 years. > Getting rid of cars also means eliminating a huge volume of revenue from federal, state, and local government from related taxes... This means funding for bike lanes, roads, and even public transport, would evaporate. This is not an issue. If people aren't buying cars, they'll have more money that they'll spend on other things or we can just raise taxes because people have more money. > We still have major factories, ships, planes, and many other big business hallmarks that create the majority of pollution in the world (while the same companies try to portray that they are "green"). Conservation efforts are futile unless we start talking about the real issues, and create accountability, not if we leave rules up to profit seeking individuals and companies. We're never gonna solve climate change if we only focus on the biggest issues. It's multifaceted problem.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- lawn 4y ago
  Yes? That's already a thing in some city centers (at least in Europe), and we're moving towards banning the sale of new petrol cars. It's not an instantaneous process as society would pretty much collapse of we did so, but we are moving in that direction.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  The difference is that gasoline powered engines add value to the world in exchange for the destruction they cause, while cigarettes are purely destructive. But yes, we should eliminate gasoline powered vehicles as soon as feasible. This is something that's already going on.
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    Most people driving cars don't need to be, just as most people smoking don't need to be. The main point is that it's easy to be personally offended by a cigarette, but the real damage is caused elsewhere. Sometimes we need to step outside of our selfish, interpersonal bubbles to see that.
winternett 4y ago
Smoking has been banned successfully in most public places. You rights to clean air are reasonable to an extent, but outdoors it's a different story. Can you tell people driving gas burning cars and diesel vehicles to stay far away from humans? There has to be better reasonability in discussion of the issue.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Because breathing some second hand smoke outside in a city is objectively such a tiny problem that the benefits in personal freedom to the smoker outweigh the 10 seconds of your lifespan taken away.
winternett 4y ago
Not as many people die from second hand smoke as is often presented. Even the campaigns that run ads to encourage quitting pay out salaries and generate funding to stay alive, so they've got to keep developing slogans and make charts to fund their existence. If that was the case, the smokers, who had "first hand" smoke, would be dying a lot more frequently. Many of the people that died of lung cancer historically were exposed to asbestos products, which greatly skewed diagnoses for many many years... Many people who also never smoked in their lives died of lung cancer because of the prevalence of asbestos products in building materials as well. Most people don't know this because it would have resulted in many well embedded companies going bankrupt. You'd also be surprised to know how smoking actually curbs incidents of rage, violence, suicide, and anger in people too, but there are no proper scientific studies because of the blinding bias promoted by companies that also seek to make a profit. There is a deeper discussion involved in quality of life versus quantity of life too, that is often overlooked, and no matter what regulation comes into play, nothing is going to stop a person from growing tobacco and smoking it even with prohibition, we know this from all the people that were murdered and made rich over bootlegging alcohol. This moral legislation is a waste of time, it's harmful to progress, and it's destructive to American freedoms that characterize the country. Also ask yourself, why nicotine gum and patches (made to help people quit smoking) are always priced so high... This will further demonstrate the financial drive behind all aspects of tobacco. Tobacco was also a main driver of slave trade historically, meaning there are several companies that sold it and now are tied to investments and profit within the industry, including health care companies. CVS sold cigarettes for years, and that's likely a huge part of why they are still in business to this day. I'm thoroughly convinced that moves like this have little to do with concern for the health of individuals. Smoking is a bad habit, but why is it always more polarizing than stock market manipulation, work wage theft, regulation of insurance industries, and so many other things that would improve the lives of citizens if not to shift profit elsewhere... Government operates to protect companies and the wealthy now, not an individual making minimum wage with a smoking problem.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >You'd also be surprised to know how smoking actually curbs incidents of rage, violence, suicide, and anger in people too... A lot of the claims you're making in these posts are going to need citations. This specific sentence (with the obvious exception of suicide) sounds as though you're describing a "nic fit", otherwise known as nicotine withdrawal. So of course getting more nicotine in your system is going to fix that. Without cited sources, your claim is suspect because I can't confirm whether or not nicotine withdrawals were taken into account.
scoofy 4y ago
If this is your argument, then we should ban most automobiles and gas stoves. Both are spewing out second-hand carcinogens effectively nonstop.
- Lariscus 4y ago
  Yes, that actually sounds reasonable. Especially if you also account for the deaths caused by reckless driving.
  - rank0 4y ago
    You must be joking. How will anyone get their food? No automobiles = no supply chain.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  Loads of American cities already have banned gas hookups in new buildings, including LA last month: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-05-27/get-ready-for-electric-stoves-los-angeles-bans-natual-gas-in-most-new-homes https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-05-27/get-ready-...
  - scoofy 4y ago
    >in new homes If we really cared about this, we'd start forced removals, because kids are the one's getting the most damage from that many particulates over their lifetimes.
humbleMouse 4y ago
s__s 4y ago
> I never want to breathe in cigarette smoke on the sidewalk because of the damage to my health. I’m always a little shocked when I hear otherwise very intelligent people make these sorts of statements about second hand smoke. The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. Any affect, if any, to your health would be completely insignificant and unmeasurable. Second hand smoke is harmful when exposed to heavy amounts of it in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time. Think decades not seconds. In fact that was the original justification for indoor bans. It was in defence of staff who may encounter health issues after being exposed to indoor second hand smoke for 8 hours a day over decades. (Think single mom working at a bar) They weren’t put in place to preserve the health of customers, since any affect would be extremely minimal and voluntary. I should try to dig this up some time but I recall reading once about one of the lead promoters of the first indoor smoking bans in NYC. He later had to step down out of principal, when things pivoted to outdoor bans. In his mind it would be completely irrational and unscientific. Air pollution is definitely a significant problem but cigarette smoke is nothing more than a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Look in to brake pad dust.
- taurath 4y ago
  > The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. Any affect, if any, to your health would be completely insignificant and unmeasurable. This sounds correct to me but keep in mind marketing the dangers of second hand smoke was an effective way to get people who thought of it as a solitary activity to thing of the secondary impacts. Most smokers don’t care about their long term health enough, but they may care about the health of those around them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- vdnkh 4y ago
  > The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. A Fine, I don't want to smell it because I find the smell gross. Same concept.
rank0 4y ago
Personal liberty isn't some absolute line. You have to understand that its impossible to grant everyone freedoms without creating some consequence. > Why does the individual freedom to do whatever you want overrule my individual freedom not to be affected by the externalities of your choices? The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you focus almost exclusively on individual right to the detriment of public good. This is insanity. The same argument can be applied to any personal liberty. Should washing hands be mandated by the government? After all, your freedom to not wash your hands increases my chances of catching disease. Let's ban bugspray too since exposure to second hand insecticides infringes upon your right to never be affected by another individual's choices!
8bitsrule 4y ago
The health dangers of breathing gasoline/diesel vehicle exhaust fumes are certainly as well known, and at least as risky. Yet the 'right' to drive a car or a semi seems to be invincible against this fact. When I was approached by people gathering signatures for anti-smoking measures, I always asked how they arrived at the location. Invariably they did not walk or bicycle to it. Always shrugged off, because not their problem.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you focus almost exclusively on individual right to the detriment of public good. Who defines what "the public good" is? The same people who argue that rights must be eliminated for "the public good" are the ones who want to pass laws telling grown adults what they are allowed to do behind closed doors. From what plants they want to make illegal for you to grow, to what substances you want to ingest, to preventing you from playing poker with other consenting adults, to what language you must refer to people by - it is fundamentally anti-freedom. >Why does the individual freedom to do whatever you want overrule my individual freedom not to be affected by the externalities of your choices? This is the proper argument to make, and why I'm fine with banning smoking in certain public places, just like I'm fine with restricting a wide variety of other behaviors on public property that adults should otherwise be able to engage in behind closed doors. This is not what the federal government is doing in regard to Juul (or many other cases). They aren't addressing public behavior, they are passing laws and regulations to prevent you from behaving how you wish, on your own property, for your own good. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling consenting adults, at the point of a gun, what behaviors they aren't allowed to engage in behind closed doors.

by vdnkh 4y ago

vehemenz 4y ago

I don't disagree, but this position commits you to removing all petrol cars from cities, too.

eneumann 4y ago
Eliminating petrol cars from cities would be an objectively good thing for the air quality.
- winternett 4y ago
  No offense personally, but the alternative to fuel burning cars is only cars with more toxic batteries that will pollute drinking water. There are no honestly viable solutions currently on the market to our environmental crisis in place, it's just marketing to shift profit to another harmful money making industry. Hauling a family of four on a bicycle to the hospital in a crisis in 2 feet of snow (for example) only goes further to highlight the small-mindedness our future is up against.
  - azth 4y ago
    What do you think about hydrogen cars?
    - winternett 4y ago
      Don't smoke a cigarette anywhere near them... :/ They have a huge problem with unexpected detonations. One of the best things about vaping has been that I'm pretty sure that there are less unintentional home fires than in past decades, because when they are dropped on a mattress, they usually do not burn... Another aspect that no one really considers.
      - 0des 4y ago
        Hydride cells can be punctured, smoked near, smoked on, it's fine, it's also old technology. Just about any vehicle can be retrofitted for this, and can sequester the hydrogen overnight from the air.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lariscus 4y ago
    Let me introduce you to the magical concept of public transport.
    - winternett 4y ago
      Public transport was crippled during the pandemic for obvious reasons... Let's not forget that. Also during an earthquake/power outage scenario would likely do the same, and cause far more dramatic loss of life if it was the only option. It's a hard sell to people who want to be free and independent, and in control of their safety and time. Getting rid of cars also means eliminating a huge volume of revenue from federal, state, and local government from related taxes... This means funding for bike lanes, roads, and even public transport, would evaporate. Most of the busses in many major cities were also once electric (at a very high cost to cities), but now (somehow) have mostly gone back to diesel... No one is asking Why... We still have major factories, ships, planes, and many other big business hallmarks that create the majority of pollution in the world (while the same companies try to portray that they are "green"). Conservation efforts are futile unless we start talking about the real issues, and create accountability, not if we leave rules up to profit seeking individuals and companies. It's beyond a hard sell at this point for many people, and contradictory to the concept of a free society. Back when we had mostly horses providing transit, they consumed more energy than cars on an individual basis too, and created health problems with their waste... It's all just shifting the buck somewhere else, and not solving real underlying problems.
      - chickenpotpie 4y ago
        > Public transport was crippled during the pandemic for obvious reasons... Let's not forget that. A once a century event shouldn't define the other 98 years. > Getting rid of cars also means eliminating a huge volume of revenue from federal, state, and local government from related taxes... This means funding for bike lanes, roads, and even public transport, would evaporate. This is not an issue. If people aren't buying cars, they'll have more money that they'll spend on other things or we can just raise taxes because people have more money. > We still have major factories, ships, planes, and many other big business hallmarks that create the majority of pollution in the world (while the same companies try to portray that they are "green"). Conservation efforts are futile unless we start talking about the real issues, and create accountability, not if we leave rules up to profit seeking individuals and companies. We're never gonna solve climate change if we only focus on the biggest issues. It's multifaceted problem.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
lawn 4y ago
Yes? That's already a thing in some city centers (at least in Europe), and we're moving towards banning the sale of new petrol cars. It's not an instantaneous process as society would pretty much collapse of we did so, but we are moving in that direction.
mywittyname 4y ago
The difference is that gasoline powered engines add value to the world in exchange for the destruction they cause, while cigarettes are purely destructive. But yes, we should eliminate gasoline powered vehicles as soon as feasible. This is something that's already going on.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Most people driving cars don't need to be, just as most people smoking don't need to be. The main point is that it's easy to be personally offended by a cigarette, but the real damage is caused elsewhere. Sometimes we need to step outside of our selfish, interpersonal bubbles to see that.

winternett 4y ago

Smoking has been banned successfully in most public places. You rights to clean air are reasonable to an extent, but outdoors it's a different story. Can you tell people driving gas burning cars and diesel vehicles to stay far away from humans? There has to be better reasonability in discussion of the issue.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

Because breathing some second hand smoke outside in a city is objectively such a tiny problem that the benefits in personal freedom to the smoker outweigh the 10 seconds of your lifespan taken away.

winternett 4y ago

Not as many people die from second hand smoke as is often presented. Even the campaigns that run ads to encourage quitting pay out salaries and generate funding to stay alive, so they've got to keep developing slogans and make charts to fund their existence. If that was the case, the smokers, who had "first hand" smoke, would be dying a lot more frequently. Many of the people that died of lung cancer historically were exposed to asbestos products, which greatly skewed diagnoses for many many years... Many people who also never smoked in their lives died of lung cancer because of the prevalence of asbestos products in building materials as well. Most people don't know this because it would have resulted in many well embedded companies going bankrupt. You'd also be surprised to know how smoking actually curbs incidents of rage, violence, suicide, and anger in people too, but there are no proper scientific studies because of the blinding bias promoted by companies that also seek to make a profit. There is a deeper discussion involved in quality of life versus quantity of life too, that is often overlooked, and no matter what regulation comes into play, nothing is going to stop a person from growing tobacco and smoking it even with prohibition, we know this from all the people that were murdered and made rich over bootlegging alcohol. This moral legislation is a waste of time, it's harmful to progress, and it's destructive to American freedoms that characterize the country. Also ask yourself, why nicotine gum and patches (made to help people quit smoking) are always priced so high... This will further demonstrate the financial drive behind all aspects of tobacco. Tobacco was also a main driver of slave trade historically, meaning there are several companies that sold it and now are tied to investments and profit within the industry, including health care companies. CVS sold cigarettes for years, and that's likely a huge part of why they are still in business to this day. I'm thoroughly convinced that moves like this have little to do with concern for the health of individuals. Smoking is a bad habit, but why is it always more polarizing than stock market manipulation, work wage theft, regulation of insurance industries, and so many other things that would improve the lives of citizens if not to shift profit elsewhere... Government operates to protect companies and the wealthy now, not an individual making minimum wage with a smoking problem.

jjulius 4y ago
>You'd also be surprised to know how smoking actually curbs incidents of rage, violence, suicide, and anger in people too... A lot of the claims you're making in these posts are going to need citations. This specific sentence (with the obvious exception of suicide) sounds as though you're describing a "nic fit", otherwise known as nicotine withdrawal. So of course getting more nicotine in your system is going to fix that. Without cited sources, your claim is suspect because I can't confirm whether or not nicotine withdrawals were taken into account.

scoofy 4y ago

If this is your argument, then we should ban most automobiles and gas stoves. Both are spewing out second-hand carcinogens effectively nonstop.

Lariscus 4y ago
Yes, that actually sounds reasonable. Especially if you also account for the deaths caused by reckless driving.
- rank0 4y ago
  You must be joking. How will anyone get their food? No automobiles = no supply chain.
lelandfe 4y ago
Loads of American cities already have banned gas hookups in new buildings, including LA last month: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-05-27/get-ready-for-electric-stoves-los-angeles-bans-natual-gas-in-most-new-homes https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-05-27/get-ready-...
- scoofy 4y ago
  >in new homes If we really cared about this, we'd start forced removals, because kids are the one's getting the most damage from that many particulates over their lifetimes.

humbleMouse 4y ago

s__s 4y ago

> I never want to breathe in cigarette smoke on the sidewalk because of the damage to my health. I’m always a little shocked when I hear otherwise very intelligent people make these sorts of statements about second hand smoke. The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. Any affect, if any, to your health would be completely insignificant and unmeasurable. Second hand smoke is harmful when exposed to heavy amounts of it in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time. Think decades not seconds. In fact that was the original justification for indoor bans. It was in defence of staff who may encounter health issues after being exposed to indoor second hand smoke for 8 hours a day over decades. (Think single mom working at a bar) They weren’t put in place to preserve the health of customers, since any affect would be extremely minimal and voluntary. I should try to dig this up some time but I recall reading once about one of the lead promoters of the first indoor smoking bans in NYC. He later had to step down out of principal, when things pivoted to outdoor bans. In his mind it would be completely irrational and unscientific. Air pollution is definitely a significant problem but cigarette smoke is nothing more than a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Look in to brake pad dust.

taurath 4y ago
> The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. Any affect, if any, to your health would be completely insignificant and unmeasurable. This sounds correct to me but keep in mind marketing the dangers of second hand smoke was an effective way to get people who thought of it as a solitary activity to thing of the secondary impacts. Most smokers don’t care about their long term health enough, but they may care about the health of those around them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
vdnkh 4y ago
> The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. A Fine, I don't want to smell it because I find the smell gross. Same concept.

rank0 4y ago

Personal liberty isn't some absolute line. You have to understand that its impossible to grant everyone freedoms without creating some consequence. > Why does the individual freedom to do whatever you want overrule my individual freedom not to be affected by the externalities of your choices? The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you focus almost exclusively on individual right to the detriment of public good. This is insanity. The same argument can be applied to any personal liberty. Should washing hands be mandated by the government? After all, your freedom to not wash your hands increases my chances of catching disease. Let's ban bugspray too since exposure to second hand insecticides infringes upon your right to never be affected by another individual's choices!

8bitsrule 4y ago

The health dangers of breathing gasoline/diesel vehicle exhaust fumes are certainly as well known, and at least as risky. Yet the 'right' to drive a car or a semi seems to be invincible against this fact. When I was approached by people gathering signatures for anti-smoking measures, I always asked how they arrived at the location. Invariably they did not walk or bicycle to it. Always shrugged off, because not their problem.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you focus almost exclusively on individual right to the detriment of public good. Who defines what "the public good" is? The same people who argue that rights must be eliminated for "the public good" are the ones who want to pass laws telling grown adults what they are allowed to do behind closed doors. From what plants they want to make illegal for you to grow, to what substances you want to ingest, to preventing you from playing poker with other consenting adults, to what language you must refer to people by - it is fundamentally anti-freedom. >Why does the individual freedom to do whatever you want overrule my individual freedom not to be affected by the externalities of your choices? This is the proper argument to make, and why I'm fine with banning smoking in certain public places, just like I'm fine with restricting a wide variety of other behaviors on public property that adults should otherwise be able to engage in behind closed doors. This is not what the federal government is doing in regard to Juul (or many other cases). They aren't addressing public behavior, they are passing laws and regulations to prevent you from behaving how you wish, on your own property, for your own good. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling consenting adults, at the point of a gun, what behaviors they aren't allowed to engage in behind closed doors.