Actually, I would be against that for completely different reasons. Mostly, if it's all public space then all of the public should have access to it. Smokers don't need to smoke in parks. They can exit parks and take their unhealthy activities elsewhere. I don't see the problem.
Apparently you don't understand what having access means. Non-smokers do indeed have acces to smoking locations.
All you have done is prove that my beliefs about non-smokers are corect. they are by far and away the far more selfish of the two parties being discussed.
I believe I already pointed out how your electron analogy was flawed; I also pointed out how your shellfish allergy does not compare to the universal toxicity of smoking to all humans. It's ironic because thus far all I have seen from those against this law are non-sequitur comparisons to other things that are not even comparable to the issue of smoking. Now because I'm pointing that out, I'm equivocating? What a joke.
Your not equivocating for "pointing" out your perceived flaws in my argument, you are equivocating because you created a new definition for a word.
Your arguments about my analgies have alrteady been proven false. And you've made up infomation to make SHS more dangerous than it really is in public space
Can you present a fallacy-free defense for your position?
I have. Peopel who aren't even aware of which fallacy is which that have presented nothing more than emotional rhetoric and hyperbole aren't really in a position to criticize my logic until they develop an arugment that is actually logical.
Can you even form of an argument in favour of smoking in parks without comparing it to other irrelevant things?
Yeah, there is significant no risk posed to others in open space posed from SHS. The whiners who pretend there is are distorting the data to suit their selfish agenda which is entirely because rthey don't like the smell and they will whine incessently about it until they get their way.
Because of that, it is morally correct to smoke around them, if only to piss them off for their lies and distortions.
All objective studies on SHS prove it to be harmful, which is why it's also called "passive smoking".
No obejective study has ever shown minimal exposure in an open environment to have any harmful effects.
The vast, vast majority of studies that dispute this are funded by the tobacco industry. Do some basic research on how the studies are funded and the facts will be very clear to you; it's one of the few instances in health research where the info lines up in a rather black and white manner. Outdoor smoke poses lesser risk, but there is still risk. There is no excuse for exposing others to the toxic material in cigarettes. This isn't about my comfort, but my health. If that makes me selfish, then oh well. Maybe my health matters more to me than yours does to you. :shrug:
You distort the facts. teh studies you are referring to all look at prolonged exposure in closed environments. No objective study supports an outdoor ban.
I'm a fairly staunch defender of people being able to do what they want to do.
Only when you agree with it.
I think you can find evidence of that on DP. I sympathize with most libertarian arguments; this, however, is not one of them. Smoking is a menace to the well being of society and the more limits put on it, the better. The only reason why I'm against an all out ban on tobacco itself is because it, like the war on drugs, would be a dismal failure. But the government might as well tax and fine the hell out of smokers in order to make up some of the cost to society.
You could rewrite this as "I really really really really really hate smoking so I want it banned from ever happening in any place I could possibly encounter."
I'm OK with that argument. At least it's an honest one. But distorting the facts about the dangers to present an argumetn while simultaneously rejecting a legitimate arguemnt regarding a legitimate threat as being irrelvent, when it is actually being used to illuminate the hypocricy and self-centered nature of the anti-smoker's position (and it really is doing a
fantastic job of that, BTW) is dishonest.
Admit it's not about public safety, and it's not about "equality" and simply admit it's
all about your personal hatred of cigarrettes and then we can move on.
The probelm is that everyone can see through the rationalizations. We've had non-smokers come in and agree with me on this multiple times in this thread. The only proponents of such bans are entirely, I mean
entirely motivated by their selfish desire to not have to deal with the mild discomfort they occasionally encounter from cigarettes. I'm OK with that as long as they admit it.
It's just like how 9 out of 10 people who oppose the "ground zero mosque" are actually motivated by a secret dislike of muslims/islam, not the rationalizations they present in lieu of admitting the truth. (that's a non-sequitor, but it's also a comparison)