and should be treated no different than if somebody throws sleeping pills into your drinks
You must log in or register to comment.
- 24 days
And when we are at it, having to breath in toxic fumes from gas/fuel powered engines should be classified the same.
- 24 days
This is the argument that led Ted to kill people, he found out his actions would save way more because of shit like this
- 23 days
Yes. But not everything though, I was disappointed about his stance on gay and black people
- 23 days
So if I drive and electric and smoke, am I better than OP or are we equally terrible people?
- psx_crab@lemmy.zipEnglish24 days
Smoking is bad and 2nd hand smoke is bad, there’s a whole lot of science about it. A lot of country/government already set up no-smoking zone(as in the whole area), whether you’re indoor or outdoor, and some country already have a law that ban indoor smoking everywhere. ICE car caused the same issue, while the regulation of exhaust emission is there it still is an issue that not a lot of country are willing to look at.
Not sure why this post getting downvoted tbh.
- hypnicjerk@piefed.socialEnglish24 days
maybe because it’s conflating something selfish and bad (public smoking) with something reprehensible and extremely dangerous (surreptitiously drugging someone with sleeping pills)
- 24 days
I get you’re upset but 100% of people would choose a breath of second hand smoke over getting drugged. Come on now
24 daysThis is extreme, but I will admit l am a fan of the UK’s plan to continually raise the age to purchase them until there’s an entire generation that will never be able to purchase them legally.
- fdnomad@programming.devEnglish24 days
the worst part is that smokers’ sense of smell is fucked so they dont even realize how bad it is for everyone around them
- 23 days
Dude after I quit I was horrified at how bad it smells. I wish I would have listened to people sooner.
- 24 days
Only if the same applies to perfume, cologne, aftershave, body spray, and body odor, and farts, and garlic burps, and fish in the microwave, fireworks, popcorn is ok, unless you burn it, then it’s at least 6 months in jail. Also, building managers are going to have to be held responsible for old ventilation systems and mustiness.
- 24 days
The real issue is the negative health effects from air pollution, regardless of it’s caused by smoking or not. I don’t think the point was “ban smoking cause it smells bad” but rather “ban smoking because of the significant cancer risk, including in secondhand smokers.”
- gastroglizzy@piefed.socialEnglish24 days
Just where do you expect people to smoke? Even if you don’t like it, people still have a right to do it and that should be respected. They’ve already been forced outdoors when in public, what more do you expect?
should be treated no different than if somebody throws sleeping pills into your drinks
Lmfao. Nice bait.
- 24 days
Just where do you expect people to smoke?
Their own homes. Nowhere public
- the_q@piefed.socialEnglish24 days
They shouldn’t. Period. They don’t have the right to cause others harm with their disgusting fucking habit.
A place where the second hand smoke won’t give other people cancer.
- 23 days
You’re free to walk away, anyone smoking where you can’t walk away is totally at fault though.
I’m all for vices that make life a bit easier but smoking is never treated with consent for the non smoking stranger.
I’ve never been asked by a stranger if they can light one up.
Women shouldn’t be banned from taking xtc at a club because some asshole likes to spike drinks. It’s the consent not the act itself.
Smoking zones work.
- 24 days
We’re all sharing space, some of us a lot of the time. It can be rude to smoke up a high traffic area at the same time that it’s rude to make a big deal about it.
Perhaps the rural life is for you!
How is it rude to make a big deal out of something that is literally well known to give you cancer?
- 24 days
The amount of carcinogenic effect from a whiff of tobacco outside is no more than that from a nice blackened chicken filet.
It can be rude because making a big deal about it likely takes more time that that you both will never get back than the puff of smoke does.
Cigarettes can be killing that guy and sweating this stuff can be killing you.
There are multiple studies from the last 30ish years showing a strong link between 2nd hand (or passive) smoking and increased cancer risk. I suspect there are fewer linking burnt chicken to cancer.
The point is you make a choice about inhaling burnt chicken smoke, you don’t about inhaling someone else’s cigarette smoke and there are way more cigarettes than burnt chicken breast!
- 24 days
Yeah but surely those studies were measuring second hand smoke from sharing a home with a smoker. That amount of exposure will certainly cause harm.
Breathing a fraction of one draw in passing isn’t gonna cause anything.
I’d like to see the study on the carcinogenic effect of blackened chicken. Until then, you can be mad smokers are hated in society.
- the_q@piefed.socialEnglish24 days
Those 2 things aren’t even remotely equal. Smokers are fucking idiots.
- 23 days
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.
- shiftymccool@piefed.caEnglish24 days
All those “misapplied efforts” got smoking banned on planes, restaurants, schools, busses, … Sometimes giving yourself high blood pressure pays off
- 23 days
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.
- the_q@piefed.socialEnglish24 days
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.
- the_q@piefed.socialEnglish23 days
Oh? I was blaming the addiction, but maybe I should blame the smoker and their belief that everyone should just deal with their habit.
- 23 days
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.
- 24 days
The most smokingest smoker response I think I could have expected from the type of personality that is prone to seeing the world as their personal ashtray.
Cope.
- 24 days
That was for your overstressed endocrine and immune systems and liver, as involuntarily tasked with managing the toxins you voluntarily introduce to your body’s most sensitive organs as the rest of your environment is with having to breathe, smell, and deal with your discarded butts. It was also for any descendants you may have created with epigentic disadvantages making their lives harder to deal with than had you chosen not to self medicate with nicotine via possibly the stupidest delivery method ever invented. No, you seem to already be coping just fine through entitled disregard for yourself, others, and whatever medical system will have to deal with your self-induced health issues and those of the people who have to be around your pollution, albeit “diluted.”
Enjoy your habit, you sound well prepared to deal with its future consequences.
completely diluted past the point of causing harm
It’s 2026, have you seriously never heard of secondhand smoke?
