• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      There is an absolute metric shitload of proven scientific evidence that smoke inhalation causes lasting damage to developing lungs and hearts. Do you deny this scientific evidence?

      • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        I took it to mean that we should protect everything and everybody, not just the children. I could be wrong in my interpretation.

    • ClusterBomb@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Smoking should be banned. Full stop. When my neighbours smoke I can’t even open my window, I have asthma. The smell attaches to the walls. There is also my kitchen where I cook and I can’t enjoy my little place outside because it constantly smells cigarette because they smoke regulary.

    • shplane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      “To protect children” is a stupid reason

      Just depends on what sells the legislation. People can be very entitled but they might bend if it’s to “protect the children”

    • boughtmysoul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Replace “children” with “non-consenting people” and you’re getting close. Children are the most non-consenting people in society and deserve special protection accordingly.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It works in this case. I believe developing lungs are more susceptible to damage plus children have more life ahead of them to live with damaged lungs. Most importantly we want them to have the opportunity to live without the lung damage we already have.

      And of course the practical reason is they already can’t smoke. You’re not taking anything away from them

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      all the more reason. what’s the point of banning something if no one’s doing it

  • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Good i hope more countries adopt this. Türkiye is terrible for this, lovely country and people but there are smokers almost everywhere.

  • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    LOL like here in Montreal I see people smoking right next to the “No smoking within 3 meters” or whatever sign.

  • BetaBlake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Europeans should get a new hobby, smoking is gross and you smell like burnt shit

  • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    I like these laws but also I want to smoke in some places. I’d love a return of places like cigar lounges and whisky bars

  • Zexks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I love how everyone supporting this just assumes you’ll still be able to smoke at your own home when it doesn’t saying anything of the sort. It explicitly states ‘where children COULD be present’. This is literally everywhere short of some BDSM dungeon. This is basically going to make the population choose between smoking and having kids.

  • magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    For beaches, and parks, and hiking trails, and places where smoking is usually already banned (at least here), sure.

    Standing outside my companies building and taking my smoke break should be fair game.

    There are no kids around a random office building at 1:30pm on a Tuesday.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sure, as long as you’re not inflicting it on people trying to get in and out of the building.

      Be aware that smoking has a very strong smell that you may not be entirely aware of since you’re around it all the time, plus you’re (hopefully) not asthmatic. You may be surprised how far away that should be

      • magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I usually hit a weed vape which has a much milder smell and less irritants (I make my own carts using live resin and pyur thinner, which is about the cleanest Liquidizer you can get.)

        That being said I usually park my car across the lot from the building, and blow it out the window.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Yeah, on the one hand I don’t like vapes as an enabler of bad habits, especially as edibles are so much more available now. Anything you breathe in is going to have a negative impact on your long term health. However vaping means you’re not inflicting your vice on anyone else and you’re avoiding most of the long term health impact of breathing in burnt leaves and chemicals. Vapes still stink but so much less and I can’t really claim second hand smoke danger

          But so much the better that you show that courtesy to your fellow humans. Thank you

  • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    On-and-off smoker here (mostly off)

    In my experience, nicotine is great for moderating rage and resentment. It can help in bad situations and also provides a space where one can effectively shut distractions out and enter a somewhat meditative state to work on issues. It performs this task very, very well.

    It is not the same as “just taking a walk” or “standing outside”. Absent-mindedly smoking provides a different experience. I am envious of people who can go to the park and get the same kind of effect out of it, but for a raft of different reasons I can’t reach the same experience.

    I know smoking damages nearly every part of your body. I know it’s addictive. I know many smokers aren’t considerate of others, and blow smoke all over people downwind, in through windows and leave cigarette butts everywhere. I know wildfires start from improperly extinguished butts. I am not one of those people, and take pains to enjoy a cigarette where I will impact as few people as possible. And when my life looks up? I quit, because I don’t need it anymore, and it serves no useful purpose.

    Unfortunately, there seems to be less and less room in the world to create the kind of space where one can take a few minutes such as this. And that I think is the crux of the resistance here.

    We keep asking for more out of everyone, and usually to no benefit for themselves. We keep making organizational decisions which result in people feeling stressed, angry, resentful, and then in turn quite deliberately fail to understand when people pick up a vice that is harming them… and then try to ban that behavior, or sanctimoniously tut away that they are somehow selfish for wanting a break from it all for five damned minutes.

    There’s so many different instances under which this theme plays out. I doubt this law will be enforced evenly, and it seems predictably authoritarian and counterproductive like many substance control laws. We can’t stop people stuffing a bunch of plants into a pipe, or into a paper wrapping and smoking it. It’s simply too easy to do, and it provides too much utility as a temporary respite from life for people to stop.

    Want to solve it? Try finding ways of making life less terrible for the critical mass of people so that they won’t feel a need to smoke. And even then some still will, maybe out of spite, addiction (medical/psych treatment could be offered?) or downright contrarianism; but maybe few enough that it won’t matter. That’s the hard, and proper, fix for this. Smoking cessation drives are quite effective, as well as reasonable limitations on where one can smoke, and I think that is a fine policy balance.

    I think cigarettes, especially manufactured ones, should be available and taxed appropriately for the healthcare burden they will produce later in life. Everyone should be aware of the health considerations in no uncertain terms. I think it’s appropriate to limit smoking around areas where at-risk populations live and congregate (incl. Children), and the rest really has to be allowed to work itself out in the ad-hoc grey area loosely defined as “Community”, “Consideration”, “Conscience” and “Respect”.

    The Law is too heavy handed a tool to be expected to succeed here.

    Anyway, I’m sure they’ve already thought about all of this and discussed it at length. Just like taxing older diesel cars without considering the consequences to folks the rural south who were unable to afford new vehicles.

    • iglou@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The problem is that inconsiderate smokers are actively hurting the health of the people suffering from their inconsideration. Passive smoking is a thing, and it has long term consequences.

      So while it sucks for the individual freedom of considerate smokers like yourself, banning public smoking protects a lot of people who get their health damaged by what is in my experience in France most of the smokers. And protection is one of the purposes of the law.

  • Horsey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I was in Paris just after the Olympics ended and I don’t think I smelled any tobacco at all. Marseille? Cigarettes everywhere. I couldn’t even enjoy eating at the cafés.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Reasoning aside, i agree that it shouldn’t be permitted outside one’s home

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Seems like another reason for the French to start a pointless, nationwide riot… Again…