- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 12,008
- Reaction score
- 9,396
- Location
- NW USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm curious. Why does a smoker's right to smoke trump the right of a non-smoker to not smoke? A person should, ideally, have the right to breathe in whatever chemicals they want. But anyone who has ever spent time near a smoker knows that the excretions from cigarettes get out into the air, that said non-smoker must then breathe. You can argue about how much or how little smoke is in the air, or about how quickly it dissipates, but there is still some there. Doesn't every bystander have the right to NOT breathe these chemicals, just as a smoker has the right to breathe them?
As a lifelong inhaler of other people's smoke, both from family and friends, I really do hate it. I would love if every cigarette was smoked far far away from me. However, I know that my preferences are not universal, and that life cannot always be comfortable. But I do support this ban. Public spaces should be held to a higher standard. Just as littering the ground is against the law, so too should littering the air. On the flip side, New York bans smoking in privately owned businesses, like restaurants and bars. And that is a completely different beast. Those businesses should have the ability to choose for themselves how they want to operate.
In summation, this ban is good. The already existing one is not.
Very well put. It is simple as that.