Smoking ban in all public spaces
in Health ·
Scott Smith Scott Smith said:So far, nobody on this thread has managed to justify that incredibly hypocritical side of the reform... and honestly, I highly doubt anyone ever will.
I honestly don't see where you're finding the hypocrisy here. To me, the real double standard is that they passed this zero-tolerance drunk driving law, yet they haven't even touched the ban on smoking in public places...
Scott Smith Scott Smith said:I’d back this reform without a second thought if they actually stuck to their guns. But as it stands? I can't get behind it. It’s just too full of hypocrisy... Maybe that kind of double standard works for your value system, but personally, I just can't stomach it. I think we can all agree that smokers need protection, but in my opinion... Not more... or maybe even stronger... Pusac here. Honestly, I haven’t met a single smoker who’s out there actually campaigning for smoking bans... nor have I ever run into one leading a movement against smoke-free zones. It just doesn't happen. On the flip side, you see a huge chunk of non-smokers acting way more aggressive about it—you can see that clearly enough from the posts in this thread right here. Instead of looking for some middle ground or a compromise, they just demand... I guess I’ve just been thinking about how things used to be... everything felt so much more complete back then. It's funny how you don't notice it until it's gone. Just one big, seamless whole... anyway, what was I saying? It all ends up being such an absurdity... you ban everything, and then you realize that the people who just sit back and smile through it all actually end up being more tolerant of everyone else's votes than the folks who are out there fighting to make sure their own life choices aren't being messed with by outsiders...
Is that maybe because a smoker and a non-smoker are on two completely different levels? A smoker is basically committing an act of aggression against everyone else around them—so what exactly are you expecting? That a non-smoker is just going to turn to them and say, "Thanks for poisoning me slightly less than you could have"? No way. You tell them, "Stop poisoning me, damn it!" But they won't say it out loud... because, you know, they're trying to be polite or whatever...
Anyway, give this some thought...
"One person's freedom ends where another person's begins." It’s a simple concept, really. When you light up in a group, you're essentially stripping away someone else's right to breathe clean air without being hit by smoke. Sure, the law here in the States might give you the green light, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's actually moral... That's the thing. Being allowed to smoke should be treated like a privilege, not an absolute right. You don't have the right to take away someone else's freedom...
You know, there's that old biblical rule... don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. It’s pretty simple, really. When you light up around someone else, you're basically forcing them to breathe in your smoke. It's toxic... just plain disruptive...
Scott Smith Scott Smith said:I really think we need to keep in mind that what we're actually dealing with here is... completely...It’s just not right... you can't have these partial bans where they clearly pick favorites, favoring one group while basically labeling everyone else as outcasts...
That just isn't true—if you look at what's written above...
Scott Smith Scott Smith said:I’ve always felt that splitting the territory into "Pusac" and "non-Pusac" zones was actually the perfect middle ground... it balances those two opposing sides so well. Honestly, we should have pushed harder for that specific setup from the start and really focused on making sure it actually worked in practice...
It’s a tough sell, honestly, but I guess it beats having nothing at all. Though, if we're being picky, they should probably swap out "areas" for "individual rooms" or something, because even now, you still run into those "smoking areas"... But there's a bigger issue here that needs addressing—we really need to just ban smoking on ALL public transit. Like, imagine you're on an Amtrak train, and half the car is designated for smokers and the other half isn't. It doesn't matter; the whole damn thing stinks regardless. I truly don't get the point of splitting it up like that...
Scott Smith said:P.s. waving a saw around the self-checkout lane is definitely illegal. But honestly, the real kicker with this whole reform is that cigarettes are still totally legal.
I don't follow your logic at all... 😕 If we follow your train of thought, if they ban cigarettes, then we should probably just ban chickens too.