I assume you would prefer to see stricter legislation/enforcement about smoking in public versus outright sales bans, correct? I can totally get on board with that.
I would, however, such a ban would be harder to implement and enforce. Also, most setups where the smoke would not affect the public also risk a massive increase in exposure for those close to the smoker. (E.g. if you can’t let smoke outside, then some people will effectively hotbox their house and children). We apparently cant currently enforce the 5m rule around entrances to buildings a more complex set of rules could easily become toothless.
I’ll admit I have a personal bias. Incidental exposure to the smoke from someone 20-40+ meters away is enough to mess up my lungs and set me coughing for around a day.
I’d maybe even add a ban for in-home use around children under a child abuse clause. Very hard to enforce of course but I can think of some meaningful ways to make it not worth the risk for most people.
I’m also quite biased in the opposite direction. I just quit (4 months) vaping and have had some strong opinions that my own stupid choices should be mine alone. I draw a hard line when my choices become your consequences.
But frankly, us both being biased in opposite directions and still agreeing on potentially meaningful bans just tells me that it should be easier to get done in a way that might actually be effective.
One thing that concerns me is how a ban might impact the homeless population. It’s already basically illegal to be homeless in many places and the rates of smokers among the homeless is probably significantly higher. It could end up being yet another thing enforcement uses to harass people.
I assume you would prefer to see stricter legislation/enforcement about smoking in public versus outright sales bans, correct? I can totally get on board with that.
I would, however, such a ban would be harder to implement and enforce. Also, most setups where the smoke would not affect the public also risk a massive increase in exposure for those close to the smoker. (E.g. if you can’t let smoke outside, then some people will effectively hotbox their house and children). We apparently cant currently enforce the 5m rule around entrances to buildings a more complex set of rules could easily become toothless.
I’ll admit I have a personal bias. Incidental exposure to the smoke from someone 20-40+ meters away is enough to mess up my lungs and set me coughing for around a day.
I’d maybe even add a ban for in-home use around children under a child abuse clause. Very hard to enforce of course but I can think of some meaningful ways to make it not worth the risk for most people.
I’m also quite biased in the opposite direction. I just quit (4 months) vaping and have had some strong opinions that my own stupid choices should be mine alone. I draw a hard line when my choices become your consequences.
But frankly, us both being biased in opposite directions and still agreeing on potentially meaningful bans just tells me that it should be easier to get done in a way that might actually be effective.
One thing that concerns me is how a ban might impact the homeless population. It’s already basically illegal to be homeless in many places and the rates of smokers among the homeless is probably significantly higher. It could end up being yet another thing enforcement uses to harass people.
100%