4 ms·

I see smoking as a separate category owing to the existence of second hand smoke. Smoking in a room with other people adversely affects those people. I think go

by afavour 6mo ago

I see smoking as a separate category owing to the existence of second hand smoke. Smoking in a room with other people adversely affects those people. I think government is the correct body to be intervening in that scenario.

mytailorisrich 6mo ago
That's not a separate category, that's the general principle in a free society: There is a limit to "doing what you want" when it impacts others/imposes on them. That's why smoking is already heavily regulated in order to limit and minimise the impact that your choice has on others.
- LtWorf 6mo ago
  In sweden it's forbidden to smoke at public transport stops. Nobody cares though so you often have to choose between cancer or getting soaked.
  - jpfromlondon 6mo ago
    in the UK you cannot smoke on public transport or inside buildings, and this is strictly adhered to.
    - tialaramex 6mo ago
      In fact one of the most important fire disasters in England, the Kings Cross fire started because nicotine addicts used to light up on their way out of the tube (which had already prohibited smoking, it's kinda crazy to imagine people in the 1970s used to smoke on the fucking underground railway, deep under the ground where you are unavoidably breathing the same air as everybody else) Somebody probably drops a spent match, it's still smouldering and it drops inside the escalator where it finds plenty of fuel and begins a fire. From there you mostly just need bad luck - yes the staff could be better trained, but even when they do summon professionals the firefighters don't arrive in time to tackle it while it's still small, the then-unknown trench effect allows the hot gases to pool and initiate flash over suddenly, a bunch of people die.
  - tmnvix 6mo ago
    I agree that having other people smoking nearby can be unpleasant, but you might find some comfort in Sir Richard Doll's opinion on second hand smoke - that the risks were politically and publicly exaggerated beyond what the epidemiological evidence clearly supported. Personally - aside from the smell - I have no concerns about people smoking near me outdoors or even in very well ventilated areas. I understand though that for some people (such as asthmatics) it can be a real problem that goes beyond simply being unpleasant.
- balderdash 6mo ago
  I think you could make the same argument about alcohol and drugs (road fatalities + some absurd number of convicted criminals were high/drunk when perpetrating the crime) - I’m not taking a side either way but I don’t think smoking is unique in terms of harm to society there besides the user.
  - mytailorisrich 6mo ago
    The same argument is made and accepted about alcohol: You can drink as much as you want but you cannot put others in danger by drink driving. You can smoke as much as you want but smoking in public places, especially indoor, is banned not to impose your health choices on others. This is how liberty works in a free society as mentioned in my previous comment. Banning smoking altogether, on the other hand, is deciding for you and exactly what the "nanny state" refers to.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 6mo ago
  On reddit, not so long ago, they were inventing interesting theories about how seat belt laws were justified because without seat belts people would be ejected from cars and kill by standards when their flying carcasses cannonballed through them. The claim that "it impacts others" is, at very minimum, exaggerated, but just as often completely fabricated out of pseudoscience and absurd movie plots. Smoking is heavily regulated because there was a resurgence of teetotaling in the late 20th century.
  - BenjiWiebe 6mo ago
    It impacts first responders. Not only is it bad to respond to an accident with a fatality, it's worse if you can see the would've likely been fine had they worn a seat belt.
  - pigeons 6mo ago
    Remember when seat belt laws came out in the United States, they (at least in the states I was in) vehemently promised up and down that it would always be a secondary offense and never would be allowed to become a reason to pull you over?
lokar 6mo ago
I think health costs are the bigger issue
- themaninthedark 6mo ago
  Yes, this is one of the reasons there is resistance to socialized health care. People view it as opening the door to the government controlling what they due due to health care costs. Sure, I dislike smoking, I really don't drink that much either. But then it leads to questions such as; What about birth defects? What about extreme sports(risk of permanent injury)? There was a scandal in Canada recently about veterans asking for medical care and being push to assisted suicide: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investig... >MacAulay walked the committee through what his department knew, thus far, saying the first case that came to light occurred last summer where the caseworker repeatedly pushed the notion of MAID to an unnamed veteran who had called seeking help with post-traumatic stress.
  - lokar 6mo ago
    IMO they should just charge a premium for smoking that about covers the expense overall
    - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
      Solving it with money doesn't really solve it unless there's "real" competition. Look at automotive insurance points systems. People have to buy it so the sellers lean on the legislatures and before you know it a ticket costs the same points and screws you out of just as much money as an actual accident.
      - lokar 6mo ago
        That seems appropriate. A small fraction of people cause most of the losses, they should pay more.
rcxdude 6mo ago
Smoking is already banned in public spaces and workplaces. It's pretty rare to be in a room with someone smoking unless they're friends or family.
- iggldiggl 6mo ago
  No indoor smoking makes a major difference, but there still are enough semi-stationary semi-close-up situations where smokers can be still rather annoying, e.g. outdoor seating in cafes and restaurants, popular lunch break spots in parks and plazas, public transport stops, next-door neighbours… And even if you manage to position yourself upwind of all pre-existing smokers, there's no guarantee that a few minutes later somebody upwind of you suddenly won't light up…
- Mawr 6mo ago
  > Smoking is already banned in public spaces In what countries? Certainly none I've heard of. Smokers are incredibly obnoxious. Smoking at a bus stop? Why not? Under open windows? Sure. On sidewalks, so that I have to breathe that stuff in when behind them? Sure. What's that? Smoking at bus stops is banned? No problem — just move 5m away and smoke all you want, the wind carrying the smoke towards the bus stop all the same :) And such laws are not realistically enforceable anyway.
thrownthatway 6mo ago
Drinking in a room adversely affects those people.
- Mawr 6mo ago
  Not directly. I can sit in a room full of drunk people and my health will be unaffected, but a single smoker will cause me active harm.
gloosx 6mo ago
[dead]

by afavour 6mo ago

mytailorisrich 6mo ago

That's not a separate category, that's the general principle in a free society: There is a limit to "doing what you want" when it impacts others/imposes on them. That's why smoking is already heavily regulated in order to limit and minimise the impact that your choice has on others.

LtWorf 6mo ago
In sweden it's forbidden to smoke at public transport stops. Nobody cares though so you often have to choose between cancer or getting soaked.
- jpfromlondon 6mo ago
  in the UK you cannot smoke on public transport or inside buildings, and this is strictly adhered to.
  - tialaramex 6mo ago
    In fact one of the most important fire disasters in England, the Kings Cross fire started because nicotine addicts used to light up on their way out of the tube (which had already prohibited smoking, it's kinda crazy to imagine people in the 1970s used to smoke on the fucking underground railway, deep under the ground where you are unavoidably breathing the same air as everybody else) Somebody probably drops a spent match, it's still smouldering and it drops inside the escalator where it finds plenty of fuel and begins a fire. From there you mostly just need bad luck - yes the staff could be better trained, but even when they do summon professionals the firefighters don't arrive in time to tackle it while it's still small, the then-unknown trench effect allows the hot gases to pool and initiate flash over suddenly, a bunch of people die.
- tmnvix 6mo ago
  I agree that having other people smoking nearby can be unpleasant, but you might find some comfort in Sir Richard Doll's opinion on second hand smoke - that the risks were politically and publicly exaggerated beyond what the epidemiological evidence clearly supported. Personally - aside from the smell - I have no concerns about people smoking near me outdoors or even in very well ventilated areas. I understand though that for some people (such as asthmatics) it can be a real problem that goes beyond simply being unpleasant.
balderdash 6mo ago
I think you could make the same argument about alcohol and drugs (road fatalities + some absurd number of convicted criminals were high/drunk when perpetrating the crime) - I’m not taking a side either way but I don’t think smoking is unique in terms of harm to society there besides the user.
- mytailorisrich 6mo ago
  The same argument is made and accepted about alcohol: You can drink as much as you want but you cannot put others in danger by drink driving. You can smoke as much as you want but smoking in public places, especially indoor, is banned not to impose your health choices on others. This is how liberty works in a free society as mentioned in my previous comment. Banning smoking altogether, on the other hand, is deciding for you and exactly what the "nanny state" refers to.
NoMoreNicksLeft 6mo ago
On reddit, not so long ago, they were inventing interesting theories about how seat belt laws were justified because without seat belts people would be ejected from cars and kill by standards when their flying carcasses cannonballed through them. The claim that "it impacts others" is, at very minimum, exaggerated, but just as often completely fabricated out of pseudoscience and absurd movie plots. Smoking is heavily regulated because there was a resurgence of teetotaling in the late 20th century.
- BenjiWiebe 6mo ago
  It impacts first responders. Not only is it bad to respond to an accident with a fatality, it's worse if you can see the would've likely been fine had they worn a seat belt.
- pigeons 6mo ago
  Remember when seat belt laws came out in the United States, they (at least in the states I was in) vehemently promised up and down that it would always be a secondary offense and never would be allowed to become a reason to pull you over?

lokar 6mo ago

I think health costs are the bigger issue

themaninthedark 6mo ago
Yes, this is one of the reasons there is resistance to socialized health care. People view it as opening the door to the government controlling what they due due to health care costs. Sure, I dislike smoking, I really don't drink that much either. But then it leads to questions such as; What about birth defects? What about extreme sports(risk of permanent injury)? There was a scandal in Canada recently about veterans asking for medical care and being push to assisted suicide: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investig... >MacAulay walked the committee through what his department knew, thus far, saying the first case that came to light occurred last summer where the caseworker repeatedly pushed the notion of MAID to an unnamed veteran who had called seeking help with post-traumatic stress.
- lokar 6mo ago
  IMO they should just charge a premium for smoking that about covers the expense overall
  - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
    Solving it with money doesn't really solve it unless there's "real" competition. Look at automotive insurance points systems. People have to buy it so the sellers lean on the legislatures and before you know it a ticket costs the same points and screws you out of just as much money as an actual accident.
    - lokar 6mo ago
      That seems appropriate. A small fraction of people cause most of the losses, they should pay more.

rcxdude 6mo ago

Smoking is already banned in public spaces and workplaces. It's pretty rare to be in a room with someone smoking unless they're friends or family.

iggldiggl 6mo ago
No indoor smoking makes a major difference, but there still are enough semi-stationary semi-close-up situations where smokers can be still rather annoying, e.g. outdoor seating in cafes and restaurants, popular lunch break spots in parks and plazas, public transport stops, next-door neighbours… And even if you manage to position yourself upwind of all pre-existing smokers, there's no guarantee that a few minutes later somebody upwind of you suddenly won't light up…
Mawr 6mo ago
> Smoking is already banned in public spaces In what countries? Certainly none I've heard of. Smokers are incredibly obnoxious. Smoking at a bus stop? Why not? Under open windows? Sure. On sidewalks, so that I have to breathe that stuff in when behind them? Sure. What's that? Smoking at bus stops is banned? No problem — just move 5m away and smoke all you want, the wind carrying the smoke towards the bus stop all the same :) And such laws are not realistically enforceable anyway.

thrownthatway 6mo ago

Drinking in a room adversely affects those people.

Mawr 6mo ago
Not directly. I can sit in a room full of drunk people and my health will be unaffected, but a single smoker will cause me active harm.

gloosx 6mo ago

[dead]