Maybe so, but their secondhand smoke outdoors is of very low concentration. It is not the old days where we’re growing up indoors around a bunch of smokers everywhere. The smoke you smell walking by those people can be hurting less than getting elevated blood pressure about it does.
It can help to take some time for perspective on matters like this. That smoker is not hurting anything so much that taking an effort to stop him is at all likely to be an effective use of your energy compared other uses of that same amount of energy. One can spend one’s whole life working to exhaustion and achieve nothing if his efforts are misapplied.
Those are all enclosed spaces that cannot be avoided featuring dramatically higher concentrations. They stopped the restrictions where they did because the goal was achieved. Going further is just prohibition, which has a long history of causing widespread societal ill everywhere it is tried, including black markets and organized crime, with virtually every drug or substance. We already won this public health victory; we can take the win without being ‘sore winners’.
ETA:
I realized the underlying point bears calling out specifically, which is this: in the real world, things are too complicated for simple “perfect” solutions to work. There are almost always unintended secondary effects that make absolute solutions to one problem to get rid of, for example, that last 5-10% of outdoor smokers, we can create a bunch of other problems, some of which are bigger, worse, and harder to deal with than just letting those last few poor addicts smoke out in the freezing rain or whatever the weather may be.
It says a lot about the nature of addiction when people go out of their way to try and reason and rationalize the impact of their substance of choice. I don’t want to breathe in your smoke, OK? Smoke doesn’t give me that option because it permeates. You’re in the wrong if you smoke around anyone. Period.
You seem to be suggesting that I’m going out of the way to reason and rationalize my addiction, but I dont have that addiction. Attacking the people making a point doesn’t do anything to the point they’re making. Consider taking the argument on its merits regardless of who it is coming from, especially if you dont know anything about them.
The actual point here is the last of the smokers, who now have that activity confined to their own homes and cars, as well as many open outdoor spaces away from building entrances, represent a negligible health hazard to anyone but themselves. Prohibiting them further has historically shown to create other far worse problems, which is a big part of the reason why we societally have stopped short of banning it, even though everyone knows it’s horribly unhealthy and addictive.
I believe you are overestimating the health risks of low concentration outdoor secondhand smoke, and therefore willing to take greater measures to stop it than are warranted. Banning it will create a black market as surely as the sun rises in the east, along with all the societal ills that come with that. Letting them smoke outside barely hurts anyone beyond annoying some like yourself, and creates none of those other problems.
Those 2 things aren’t even remotely equal. Smokers are fucking idiots.
Maybe so, but their secondhand smoke outdoors is of very low concentration. It is not the old days where we’re growing up indoors around a bunch of smokers everywhere. The smoke you smell walking by those people can be hurting less than getting elevated blood pressure about it does.
It can help to take some time for perspective on matters like this. That smoker is not hurting anything so much that taking an effort to stop him is at all likely to be an effective use of your energy compared other uses of that same amount of energy. One can spend one’s whole life working to exhaustion and achieve nothing if his efforts are misapplied.
All those “misapplied efforts” got smoking banned on planes, restaurants, schools, busses, … Sometimes giving yourself high blood pressure pays off
Those are all enclosed spaces that cannot be avoided featuring dramatically higher concentrations. They stopped the restrictions where they did because the goal was achieved. Going further is just prohibition, which has a long history of causing widespread societal ill everywhere it is tried, including black markets and organized crime, with virtually every drug or substance. We already won this public health victory; we can take the win without being ‘sore winners’.
ETA:
I realized the underlying point bears calling out specifically, which is this: in the real world, things are too complicated for simple “perfect” solutions to work. There are almost always unintended secondary effects that make absolute solutions to one problem to get rid of, for example, that last 5-10% of outdoor smokers, we can create a bunch of other problems, some of which are bigger, worse, and harder to deal with than just letting those last few poor addicts smoke out in the freezing rain or whatever the weather may be.
It says a lot about the nature of addiction when people go out of their way to try and reason and rationalize the impact of their substance of choice. I don’t want to breathe in your smoke, OK? Smoke doesn’t give me that option because it permeates. You’re in the wrong if you smoke around anyone. Period.
You are making inaccurate assumptions in defense of your argument.
Oh? I was blaming the addiction, but maybe I should blame the smoker and their belief that everyone should just deal with their habit.
You seem to be suggesting that I’m going out of the way to reason and rationalize my addiction, but I dont have that addiction. Attacking the people making a point doesn’t do anything to the point they’re making. Consider taking the argument on its merits regardless of who it is coming from, especially if you dont know anything about them.
The actual point here is the last of the smokers, who now have that activity confined to their own homes and cars, as well as many open outdoor spaces away from building entrances, represent a negligible health hazard to anyone but themselves. Prohibiting them further has historically shown to create other far worse problems, which is a big part of the reason why we societally have stopped short of banning it, even though everyone knows it’s horribly unhealthy and addictive.
I believe you are overestimating the health risks of low concentration outdoor secondhand smoke, and therefore willing to take greater measures to stop it than are warranted. Banning it will create a black market as surely as the sun rises in the east, along with all the societal ills that come with that. Letting them smoke outside barely hurts anyone beyond annoying some like yourself, and creates none of those other problems.