this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
832 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2831 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] _Mantissa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.