[ta92929]

They're complaining because they see the general trend.

When it's getting to the point where you don't just have to go outside, which is reasonable, or even go outside but avoid high traffic areas, but instead to go to this one specific spot outside, and there are people advocating banning smoking outdoors altogether it starts to get ridiculous.

I find it a strange comparison to the marijuana legalization movement.

EDIT: correction: they have actually banned smoking outside in certain places. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/23/new.york.smoking.ban/) So you can't smoke indoors. You can't smoke outdoors. But fuck 'em, they're smokers, so who cares.

[mikeash]

Why should smokers have the right to pollute the air in public places? We all have to breathe that stuff, you know.

Also you seem to be ignoring the "certain places" part of this ban. It doesn't say you can't smoke outdoors. It says you can't smoke in public parks, public beaches, and similar places.

You can smoke outdoors on your own property. You can smoke indoors in your own property.

The general trend is simply that smokers are free to enjoy their smokes in ways that don't affect others.

[mason240]

"You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (As long as your pursuit makes me happy as well)" - Too many Americans.

[mikeash]

I can't quite tell what you're trying to say here, but I interpret this as my desire not to be exposed to secondhand smoke being somehow an infringement of other people's pursuit of happiness.

I really don't care what you do to make yourself happy as long as it doesn't harm other people. Your right to smoke stops at other people's lungs.

[brobinson]

In Japan, it's actually illegal to smoke and walk around in public. You have to stay in a designated smoking space.

Many restaurants actually have a separate, glass-enclosed section for smokers so they don't bother non-smokers.

[ta92929]

By certain places I meant New York City.

Do a lot of people in NYC have "outdoors" on their own property? I suspect not. Do a lot of people in NYC even own their own homes? Because most rentals disallow smoking. So in order to smoke, you have to outright buy a house or condo. Yeah, that's a reasonable compromise.

[mikeash]

What about the sidewalk?

In any case, there are a lot of activities that are impractical in a large city. Try finding a place where you can have a bonfire in NYC, for example. Yet nobody is up in arms about that.

Do you know why most rentals disallow smoking? Because smoking ruins properties. It's not some vendetta against smokers, it's a pure financial consideration. It's the same reason they don't want you taking a sledgehammer to the walls, or putting sandpaper on the soles of your shoes.

Given that, why should anyone let you destroy their stuff in this way?

[seanp2k2]

You have to go to the curb to smoke in some cities now (I've seen it in the Bay, don't know the specifics).

While I don't disagree re: property destruction, they'll make you pay for any damage anyway, so it would probably make more sense as a choice. "$2000 carpet replacement + cleaning + re-painting fee for smoking in this apartment" would surely dissuade some, but if it was the actual cost of labor + materials to restore the apartment to pre-smoking conditions (including smell), I think that's reasonable. Having pets, they sure do make you pay for any bit of messed up carpet, so as long as it's not leaking through the floors / into the hallways / billowing out the windows, why not give people the choice to pay for what they're messing up instead of outright banning it?

[toothbrush]

If i was king of the world, i would probably indeed be okay with banning smoking inside of public buildings (including bars, whatever), but i think it's really rather silly to ban smoking in open-air areas, like the pavement in front of a bar. I mean, who is complaining about the cars driving past, which in my personal and very humble opinion are much more bothersome than cigarette smoke.

There is an argument to be made that if and only if we ban cars in inner cities (which would be wonderful -- they're smelly, very dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists alike, and detrimental to the environment to boot), then i would be okay with also banning smoking outside. If you think it stinks, stand elsewhere, and i don't have data on this, but i imagine that the influence of cigarette smoke on climate change is vanishingly small compared to the thousands of kilograms of CO2 put out by cars on a continual basis.

But yeah, i happen to find drivers a lot more offensive than smokers.

[ivanca]

Actually aside from minor memory problems after long term exposure (years) all reports suggest pure marijuana is very healthy, so no, no comparison with it.

If I started burning lithium batteries probably people will complain even if I do it outside or if I put it in my lungs, why should nicotine be any different?

[Lawtonfogle]

I've long since considered getting stink spray, basically the concentrated aerosol version of what is in a stink bomb, and spraying it in any smoking areas. If you can pollute the air with second hand smoke, I can pollute the air with stink. For added effect, I would want the container to look like a cigarette.

[pizza]

By your own logic, you would be guilty of polluting the air.

[Lawtonfogle]

Yes, and once it is made a crime, I would stop.