If a person eats/cooks shellfish in public, then not everyone can enjoy that public space anymore.Shellfish is for everyone to eat, but if you can't eat it that doesn't mean everyone else can't. A public space is for everyone to enjoy, but if smoker lights up then not everyone can enjoy the public space.
And tobacco is for everyone to smoke, but if you choose to not smoke tobacco that doesn't mean everyone else can't.
Tobacco plants are also part of the food chain.But shellfish is part of the food chain, cigarettes are not.
And even more to the point, humans are not aquatic so shellfish wouldn't really fall into the natural "food chain" that humans, a land animal which evolved from arboreal animals, would be a part of.
They are both behaviors that people engage in by choice that they do not have to engage in that can put someone else at risk. We're nto simply talking about tobacco consumption (i.e. chewing tobacco isn't banned) nor are we talking about eating. We are talking about specific things that are consumed (ciggarrettes vs. Shellfish) When you invent an argumetn that I didn't make in oder to present a rebuttal to that fictional argument, it is a strawman by definition.You were the one who brought up eating shellfish as a "behavior" and compared it to smoking. It is your analogy that is the strawman because eating shellfish is not a behaviour in the same vein that smoking is a behaviour. One is addictive and habit forming, the other is not.
Which brings me to my next point: I would recommend looking up the definition of a straw-man argument prior to making the accusation about someone's argument. This is just friendly advice. You can choose not to take it, but it would add merit to your claims if the term was actually used correctly instead of incorrectly.
And this is a red herring. The quantity an individual consumes of the product is irrelvent to the discussion. The reason for the bans on cigarrette smoking are supposedly about optional behaviors that place other people in danger and/or cause them discomfort. Thus the quantity is clearly irrelvent.The act of eating shellfish is not a habit forming behaviour, like smoking is. Do you know anyone who needs to eat a pack of oysters everyday?
I didn't say it was the smokers cross to bear. I clearly pointed out that it was the non-smokers cross to bear.Smokers can quit and then they wouldn't have that cross to bear. Can you quit your allergy to shellfish?
What about my right not to be exposed to shellfish?What about the non-smokers freedom to not breath SHS?
My right to live out trumps your right to eat shellfish.The smoker can stop smoking, the non-smoker can't stop breathing. The non-smokers right to breath trumps the smokers right to smoke.
And non-smokers can still breathe in the presence of SHS, so that line of argumentation fails miserably.