and should be treated no different than if somebody throws sleeping pills into your drinks

    • the_q@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Oh? I was blaming the addiction, but maybe I should blame the smoker and their belief that everyone should just deal with their habit.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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.