• AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s the drugs going into air that other people have to breathe, or behavior while under the influence that endangers other people that’s the problem.

    • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The danger of passing a cigarette on the street pales in comparison to urban pollution, poorly regulated restaurants, and even household cleaners for the number of toxins you expose yourself to. Worrying about second hand smoke outside makes as much sense as worrying about malaria from a mosquito while you’re trapped in a cage with lions.

      • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not when you’re allergic. And even when you’re not, I’ve only met one smoker who realizes how awful they smell and tries to mitigate it.

        You do realize this is a hugely fallacious argument, right?

          • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Stay inside if you insist on indulging in a disgusting habit. I’m not stopping you from destroying yourself, but no one should have to suffer for your stupid choices.

            But smoking in public is intrinsically selfish, so I should know better than to debate it with a smoker. Nothing would convince you to have a little courtesy and class.

              • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                They literally just turned the argument around on you and you call them a bigot. Doesn’t that make your argument bigotry?

              • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You understand that the guy they’re replying to literally described them as “Bubble Boy” for being allergic to smoke?

                As @dragonflyteaparty said, if them turning the argument back around is bigotry, doesn’t that make the guy they replied to a bigot?

    • teft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      All that dangerous behavior like snacking relentlessly and laughing at dumb jokes, what horror! Also edibles have no secondhand smoke to inhale.

    • dismalnow@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      And when the government can effectively prevent massive amounts of benzene from going into the air, they are more than welcome to work on the trace amounts of nicotine.

      • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not a zero sum. You can be against both.

        That argument sounds like someone whining about car accidents while setting themselves on fire… one does not make the other okay.

        • dismalnow@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          One is clearly worse, can be stopped, and isn’t bullshit.

          The other is whiny bullshit, and your analogy sucks.

        • Scubus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But people aren’t against it. They are against cigarettes and vaping because they don’t like them. Alchohol? Totally fine. Pills? Goochie. Caffeine? Can’t live without it. And if it’s a matter of smell, then when are we making not showering illegal? Also, axe body spray, perfumes, incense, and any other form of non-consensual smells?

          These things will never be banned because people like them. The same argument applies, but it doesn’t get railed against because they don’t bother you.

      • crystal@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should only make beating others illegal once we successfully prevented all murder

        • dismalnow@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s about ease of enforcement. If you can’t enforce a law, it’s bullshit lip service.

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d be right, but those trace amount of nicotine are often going straight into our faces for the crime of being downwind of someone smoking/vaping without a care in the world.

        Health effects aside, I’d appreciate not having to breath in or smell other people’s second-hand smoke/vape.

        • sacredbirdman@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There’s more nicotine in your average pasta sauce than you’ll absorb by following a vaping person for an hour. I know you’re talking about a principle… but it’s not a very strong argument.

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, assuming that’s true, when I eat pasta with sauce, the person next to me doesn’t end up ingesting my pasta sauce.

            When you smoke/vape, the people are forced to inhale your exhaust as they breath (which we don’t really get a lot of choice in doing).

            It’s like saying because you got an X-ray you shouldn’t worry about bathing in the sun for too long.

            • sacredbirdman@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You missed the point. More accurate would be: because you watched TV for an hour you shouldn’t worry about someone shining a flashlight on you. That’s the level of consequences we’re talking about and it sounds ridiculous when someone blows them out of proportions. Maybe we should start worrying about anal residue too because people are farting outside.

            • Scubus
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re breathing the same air they are, whether you can see it or not…

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It does go both ways, but saying “my body, my right” when what you’re doing has a physical, unhealthy effect on the people around you I’d argue is more selfish than my wanting you to stop.

            Imagine if people just stood outside of buildings constantly coughing and spluttering germs at you whenever you walked past. You’d want them to stop, no?

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d argue the people blowing their exhaust onto passers by are more selfish, considering the passers by don’t get a choice in breathing, but sure I’m the selfish one.