Ok but seriously, how do we start turning this culture war shit on conservatives cuz convincing a ton of them to start smoking would be a net benefit - imo.
German here, albeit not a (tobacco) smoker. The only places where you can lawfully smoke nowadays are public spaces and specifically designated areas on private properties, which are also physically separated from the non smoking areas.
There are also some Kneipen (roughly equivalent to pubs) which allow smoking anywhere inside, catering to the smoking demographic; although those tend to be frequented by older people who are used to smoking while having a drink. Well there are also the alternative places which definitely have a younger clientele, some allow it anywhere some don’t (and have a designated area outside as most other places do).
Ultimately though I believe we have a fair compromise going; and i am always taken aback by people being zealously anti tobacco anywhere, with no regard for individual liberties. Who then throw up their hands when I ask for a ban on personal cars.
Because smoking anything in public is always intruding on everybody else’s right to not have an increased risk of lung cancer. And it smells horrible. I’m fine with smoking in areas where everyone has consented to it, but public spaces like outdoor seating in restaurants aren’t that.
You are not owed clean air in public spaces. You are not owed air free of unpleasant smells. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
If you really care about unhealthy things you inhale, why aren’t you spending your time ranting against car ownership? Emissions and tire wear produces magnitudes more harmful particles you inhale every day than being in the general vicinity of someone who smokes.
Naturally you could also ask a smoker to stand downwind from you at the bus stop, or even to not light up in the first place. But the smoker has just as much rights to the public space as you do.
If we try to regulate what smells you might encounter outside there are so. many. things I’d want gone as well because they make me feel sick to my stomach. Perfumes, foods, sweaty asses. Burps and farts.
I understand how annoying public smoking can be, I live essentially next to three bars. Not a weekend evening goes by without some fuckers smoking under my window, forcing me to close it.
But I still support their right to do so (see first paragraph).
What gave you the idea that I support our current car-centric infrastructure? I don’t, for multiple reasons clean air being one of them. But that’s not an issue that can be addressed with one law, smoking in public is.
Your freedom ends where mine begins.
Exactly. And if your freedom to enjoy a public space requires you to impact the enjoyment and health of others that’s where your freedom ends.
I suppose we generally agree but have different priorities regarding what is “impacting other people’s enjoyment and health”.
E: if we agree on no emissions period in public spaces I’m game. I would still tackle cars first and foremost before I’d go after the last public smokers in the country.
Prohibiting smokers is vastly easier than redesigning cities and and convince people to invest trillions in public transportation … are you really that dense?
Clean air should be a human right. That should include pollutants from smoking, pollutants from automobiles, and pollutants from industry and commerce. It’s not a question of one or another.
Lack of clean air is one of the biggest markers of social inequality, and it demonstrably leads to higher rates of respiratory illnesses and earlier deaths for lower-income people who are often forced to live and work in polluted environments with unclean air. It takes a toll on the body over time.
Even just seeing statistics like how asthma rates among children have decreased in places that have banned the sale of gas stoves…like, it shouldn’t be a debate. Whatever people want to do to their own lungs, fine, but given that air is shared by everyone, it should be permitted only in private, where no one else is sharing the same air. It’s not about whether one has a right to smoke or drive wherever they want, but whether one has the right to infringe upon the right of others. The right to health.
You say those words but I don’t think you really understand them. It’s a declaration of negative rights, i.e. others aren’t allowed to do something to you. Freedom of speech is such a right in the US as it requires the government to not infringe upon it. This is in contrast to positive rights, e.g. the right to healthcare where somebody has to do something in order to provide the right to others. Read up at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
What it absolutely doesn’t mean is: I am allowed to take away your rights by doing whatever I want. We’re talking about smoking, but it could just as easily be pandemic prevention measures (if you were antivax or antimask because muh freedoms, let me know and I won’t waste any more of my time), or shooting a gun into the air (others don’t have the right to not have bullets randomly raining down on them /s). My freedom to not get shot (i.e. life) doesn’t end where your freedom to shoot begins. That’s called murder (or manslaughter etc). I’m not saying it’s the same magnitude as smoking, just using an example to make the situation clearer.
Fair, ignoring the reality though. Way too many people have no access to clean water, or air, or food, or housing, or safety.
Bitching about the occasional second hand smoke whiff when moving about outside - while there are an insane amount of cars emitting exhaust fumes, rubber particles; factories churning out pollution, and so forth doing far worse to your health every day - is a little like being mad about too much sodium in your industrial runoff tainted drinking water.
The point being, there are much more imminent and important battles to fight for clean air (and water, and all the other things any human should have) than to impede on the unhealthy habit of your fellow peasants in my opinion.
You can still smoke in some bars?
In Austria they completely outlawed that with the argument, that the workers are forced to work in a smoke filled room
I’m probably one of those old guys, but I really enjoy a cigarette to my “Feierabendbier” and now I’m pretty much never going to a bar anymore, because at home I can have that combination…
It depends on the state. Maps in reading direction: a) Public agencies of state and municipalities, b) prisons, c) gymnasia, pools, and similar, d) places of culture (community halls, museums, etc) e) taverns and pubs. Colors red complete smoking ban, yellow exceptions possible, green separate smoking areas, grey no rules / exempt.
That’s a high-level overview you get more fine-grained exceptions, say general smoking bans at hospitals but psych wards are exempt because have you ever tried to stop a schizophrenic from self-medicating.
Some people may now be wondering “wait, Bavaria has a complete ban on smoking in pubs” and, yes. They have a snuff tradition to fall back on. Also CSU = Verbotspartei.
Maybe it’s just my personal preference, but I really like that solution, as it doesn’t dictate how I need to live or manage my bar - if I would have one
If you want to make it a smoking one it will generally have to be small enough and not serve any food, at least no proper food (crisps and peanuts are fine).
Yeah, smoking bans and discouraging it is absolutely something the US done very well. It’s one of the few american things I’m envious of.
I think laws like that wouldn’t pass now. It’d be seized as ammo for the culture war and anti-smoking would be woke and all that.
Freedom sticks.
Ok but seriously, how do we start turning this culture war shit on conservatives cuz convincing a ton of them to start smoking would be a net benefit - imo.
You want second hand cancer again? I’ll stick with letting them take horse paste to cure the measles.
German here, albeit not a (tobacco) smoker. The only places where you can lawfully smoke nowadays are public spaces and specifically designated areas on private properties, which are also physically separated from the non smoking areas.
There are also some Kneipen (roughly equivalent to pubs) which allow smoking anywhere inside, catering to the smoking demographic; although those tend to be frequented by older people who are used to smoking while having a drink. Well there are also the alternative places which definitely have a younger clientele, some allow it anywhere some don’t (and have a designated area outside as most other places do).
Ultimately though I believe we have a fair compromise going; and i am always taken aback by people being zealously anti tobacco anywhere, with no regard for individual liberties. Who then throw up their hands when I ask for a ban on personal cars.
Can we have both? Banning cars and smoking sounds beautiful.
I’d be fine with that as well
Because smoking anything in public is always intruding on everybody else’s right to not have an increased risk of lung cancer. And it smells horrible. I’m fine with smoking in areas where everyone has consented to it, but public spaces like outdoor seating in restaurants aren’t that.
That’s why driving cars is unconscionable. Especially near schools. Giving lung cancer to children so you can go zoomies is selfish and evil.
You are not owed clean air in public spaces. You are not owed air free of unpleasant smells. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
If you really care about unhealthy things you inhale, why aren’t you spending your time ranting against car ownership? Emissions and tire wear produces magnitudes more harmful particles you inhale every day than being in the general vicinity of someone who smokes.
Naturally you could also ask a smoker to stand downwind from you at the bus stop, or even to not light up in the first place. But the smoker has just as much rights to the public space as you do.
If we try to regulate what smells you might encounter outside there are so. many. things I’d want gone as well because they make me feel sick to my stomach. Perfumes, foods, sweaty asses. Burps and farts.
I understand how annoying public smoking can be, I live essentially next to three bars. Not a weekend evening goes by without some fuckers smoking under my window, forcing me to close it.
But I still support their right to do so (see first paragraph).
What gave you the idea that I support our current car-centric infrastructure? I don’t, for multiple reasons clean air being one of them. But that’s not an issue that can be addressed with one law, smoking in public is.
Exactly. And if your freedom to enjoy a public space requires you to impact the enjoyment and health of others that’s where your freedom ends.
I suppose we generally agree but have different priorities regarding what is “impacting other people’s enjoyment and health”.
E: if we agree on no emissions period in public spaces I’m game. I would still tackle cars first and foremost before I’d go after the last public smokers in the country.
Prohibiting smokers is vastly easier than redesigning cities and and convince people to invest trillions in public transportation … are you really that dense?
… Do you think smoking does the same damage as cars
No. But its a problem we could fix while tackling a bigger problem.
Clean air should be a human right. That should include pollutants from smoking, pollutants from automobiles, and pollutants from industry and commerce. It’s not a question of one or another.
Lack of clean air is one of the biggest markers of social inequality, and it demonstrably leads to higher rates of respiratory illnesses and earlier deaths for lower-income people who are often forced to live and work in polluted environments with unclean air. It takes a toll on the body over time.
Even just seeing statistics like how asthma rates among children have decreased in places that have banned the sale of gas stoves…like, it shouldn’t be a debate. Whatever people want to do to their own lungs, fine, but given that air is shared by everyone, it should be permitted only in private, where no one else is sharing the same air. It’s not about whether one has a right to smoke or drive wherever they want, but whether one has the right to infringe upon the right of others. The right to health.
You say those words but I don’t think you really understand them. It’s a declaration of negative rights, i.e. others aren’t allowed to do something to you. Freedom of speech is such a right in the US as it requires the government to not infringe upon it. This is in contrast to positive rights, e.g. the right to healthcare where somebody has to do something in order to provide the right to others. Read up at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
What it absolutely doesn’t mean is: I am allowed to take away your rights by doing whatever I want. We’re talking about smoking, but it could just as easily be pandemic prevention measures (if you were antivax or antimask because muh freedoms, let me know and I won’t waste any more of my time), or shooting a gun into the air (others don’t have the right to not have bullets randomly raining down on them /s). My freedom to not get shot (i.e. life) doesn’t end where your freedom to shoot begins. That’s called murder (or manslaughter etc). I’m not saying it’s the same magnitude as smoking, just using an example to make the situation clearer.
🤓
What’s that supposed to say?
He’s mocking you, probably because you sound like Nestle saying access to clean water isn’t a human right.
Fair, ignoring the reality though. Way too many people have no access to clean water, or air, or food, or housing, or safety.
Bitching about the occasional second hand smoke whiff when moving about outside - while there are an insane amount of cars emitting exhaust fumes, rubber particles; factories churning out pollution, and so forth doing far worse to your health every day - is a little like being mad about too much sodium in your industrial runoff tainted drinking water.
The point being, there are much more imminent and important battles to fight for clean air (and water, and all the other things any human should have) than to impede on the unhealthy habit of your fellow peasants in my opinion.
You argument here is just whataboutism.
Yes other sources of air pollution exist and they have little to no bearing on the acceptability of smoking and second hand smoke.
You can still smoke in some bars?
In Austria they completely outlawed that with the argument, that the workers are forced to work in a smoke filled room
I’m probably one of those old guys, but I really enjoy a cigarette to my “Feierabendbier” and now I’m pretty much never going to a bar anymore, because at home I can have that combination…
It depends on the state. Maps in reading direction: a) Public agencies of state and municipalities, b) prisons, c) gymnasia, pools, and similar, d) places of culture (community halls, museums, etc) e) taverns and pubs. Colors red complete smoking ban, yellow exceptions possible, green separate smoking areas, grey no rules / exempt.
That’s a high-level overview you get more fine-grained exceptions, say general smoking bans at hospitals but psych wards are exempt because have you ever tried to stop a schizophrenic from self-medicating.
Some people may now be wondering “wait, Bavaria has a complete ban on smoking in pubs” and, yes. They have a snuff tradition to fall back on. Also CSU = Verbotspartei.
Yup, though they have a “Raucherkneipe” sign outside (and they also tend to smell accordingly even when passing by).
It is true that the staff has to work in there as well but generally they just hire smokers as barkeeps for those places.
Ah, ok, thanks!
Maybe it’s just my personal preference, but I really like that solution, as it doesn’t dictate how I need to live or manage my bar - if I would have one
If you want to make it a smoking one it will generally have to be small enough and not serve any food, at least no proper food (crisps and peanuts are fine).