If most of the people want something to be banned, it should be banned. The government works for the people.
Of course, the definition of “most” varies depending on the issue, it’s not always 50% (looking at you, Brexit).
Smokers pollute the air in a huge area around them. For the “benefit” of one person they are annoying up to dozens around them.
Every non-smoker looking to date that I know agrees that they would never date a smoker, that’s for a reason, non-smokers cannot tolerate the smoke. It’s awful.
Now do vapes. I find that disgustingly sweet vapour harder to tolerate cigarette smoke. But I get pleasure of people blowing yhat crap in the air in the supermarket.
Vapes are already banned indoors in most places, basically everywhere smoking is banned. The issue with vapes is a lack of enforcement.
Frankly, I think vapes should be allowed in certain areas indoors, provided they are segregated from others. Vapes are drastically less unhealthy than smoking, to the point where being outside in the cold is probably a greater health risk.
You say that. But as we are talking risks to others it catches me in a way that about 50% of the time it triggers an asthma episode.
Don’t k ow about you but I kind of like unrestricted breathing
Edit forgot to add in this stage of the vape life cycle cigarettes were advertised with health benefits. While I don’t doubt it’s better than smoking the jury is still out on long term effects
I’m all for more study into the long term effects, and don’t think that vaping is completely harmless or that it necessarily has positive effects. However nothing is truly harmless, and many people are considered well within their rights to do things that have the potential to cause harm to themselves - or even others. Driving, for example, carries a significant risk, and even cycling could create a situation where you crash into another person and injur them.
I just think that allowing vaping rooms indoors would be a better solution for everyone. People who vape get to keep warm, while people who want to breathe unrestricted air could find themselves better off because the vapers are indoors and out their way.
Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms, which sure everyone in there is by choice and accepts any risk.
I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits as driving has utility it reminds me of my yank friends arguing we should allow guns or ban knives because to do otherwise is hypocritical or something
Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms
Yes pretty much. This was discussed and rejected in the UK when the smoking bans came in, however other places in Europe implemented indoor smoking just fine. As vaping is a lesser harm than smoking, and in particular vapors don’t linger like smoke does, it should be easier to implement. But UK politicians wants to maintain a hardline ban in spite of any rational reasoning.
I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits
It was just the first thing that came to mind, which is why I threw in cycling as well. Cycling is often done for recreation rather than utility, but does still carry risk to others nearby. Cars also pollute, though, which is a similar harm to smoking, yet people are against outright banning combustion vehicles. It generally boils down to “I do it, and I shouldn’t be banned, but I don’t do that other thing so that should be banned.”
For the record I don’t even smoke, in fact tobacco smoke makes me feel sick. But I don’t think people should be outright prohibited, not when a reasonable compromise can be reached.
The way the UK government has handled the whole smoking thing is a joke either fuckinhg ban it or don’t. The way they are doing it while helping in some ways makes it better in others it makes it worse as you have pointed out.
I just want to get my shopping without worrying about random asthma attacks
That’s the purpose of the government.
If most of the people want something to be banned, it should be banned. The government works for the people.
Of course, the definition of “most” varies depending on the issue, it’s not always 50% (looking at you, Brexit).
Smokers pollute the air in a huge area around them. For the “benefit” of one person they are annoying up to dozens around them.
Every non-smoker looking to date that I know agrees that they would never date a smoker, that’s for a reason, non-smokers cannot tolerate the smoke. It’s awful.
Now do vapes. I find that disgustingly sweet vapour harder to tolerate cigarette smoke. But I get pleasure of people blowing yhat crap in the air in the supermarket.
Vapes are already banned indoors in most places, basically everywhere smoking is banned. The issue with vapes is a lack of enforcement.
Frankly, I think vapes should be allowed in certain areas indoors, provided they are segregated from others. Vapes are drastically less unhealthy than smoking, to the point where being outside in the cold is probably a greater health risk.
You say that. But as we are talking risks to others it catches me in a way that about 50% of the time it triggers an asthma episode.
Don’t k ow about you but I kind of like unrestricted breathing
Edit forgot to add in this stage of the vape life cycle cigarettes were advertised with health benefits. While I don’t doubt it’s better than smoking the jury is still out on long term effects
https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement
I’m all for more study into the long term effects, and don’t think that vaping is completely harmless or that it necessarily has positive effects. However nothing is truly harmless, and many people are considered well within their rights to do things that have the potential to cause harm to themselves - or even others. Driving, for example, carries a significant risk, and even cycling could create a situation where you crash into another person and injur them.
I just think that allowing vaping rooms indoors would be a better solution for everyone. People who vape get to keep warm, while people who want to breathe unrestricted air could find themselves better off because the vapers are indoors and out their way.
Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms, which sure everyone in there is by choice and accepts any risk.
I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits as driving has utility it reminds me of my yank friends arguing we should allow guns or ban knives because to do otherwise is hypocritical or something
Yes pretty much. This was discussed and rejected in the UK when the smoking bans came in, however other places in Europe implemented indoor smoking just fine. As vaping is a lesser harm than smoking, and in particular vapors don’t linger like smoke does, it should be easier to implement. But UK politicians wants to maintain a hardline ban in spite of any rational reasoning.
It was just the first thing that came to mind, which is why I threw in cycling as well. Cycling is often done for recreation rather than utility, but does still carry risk to others nearby. Cars also pollute, though, which is a similar harm to smoking, yet people are against outright banning combustion vehicles. It generally boils down to “I do it, and I shouldn’t be banned, but I don’t do that other thing so that should be banned.”
For the record I don’t even smoke, in fact tobacco smoke makes me feel sick. But I don’t think people should be outright prohibited, not when a reasonable compromise can be reached.
The way the UK government has handled the whole smoking thing is a joke either fuckinhg ban it or don’t. The way they are doing it while helping in some ways makes it better in others it makes it worse as you have pointed out.
I just want to get my shopping without worrying about random asthma attacks