They are being discriminated against, as there is a de facto ban on their presence in many places now due to their habit (smoking every hour to half hour). No family picnic in the park, no day at the beach. Their liberties being infringed for what amounts to a minor nuisance at most. When weighing liberties against regulations, regulations ought be enacted when there is more risk from the activity than the liberty being exercised. When there is virtually no risk, no real infringment on liberty is justified.

Drinking is allowed in parks here, so I don't know what you're after there. Littering is illegal everywhere, not just parks, as is nudity everywhere aside from private property. Crapping? You're going to compare smoking in public to crapping in public?

I'm only following through with your idea. Why only apply that argument to one specific situation? Probably because of your personal distaste for smoking



That is the only statistic you gave me that would apply to this situation and I gave you a proper solution.

For the bolded, your "personal liberty" isn't infringed upon for previous stated reasons. If someone sits next to you that you don't like, you don't create a law so they can't sit next to you. You move.



It dissipates in the atmosphere and does not affect you personally.

This post was edited by TacoBell on Feb 3 2011 07:02pm

its ok man. im not smoking tobacco. im smoking my own shit. so its totally ok.

Your first sentence is flat out untrue. The vast majority of smokers can and often go well over an hour without smoking. If they couldn't, there would be no way they could hold a real job, go on an airplane, ...
In new york, as with most states, you cannot drink in public (i.e. a public place that is not a restaurant/bar/other location that allows liquor), so yes, it is illegal to drink in a park.


Also, although I originally meant the crapping thing as a gross hyperbole, if you think about it, it holds true.
They both smell disgusting, are a nuisance, create minor health risks and have their proper place and time.

every organized religion would disagree with you on that one.

It dissipates in the atmosphere and does not affect you personally.




It dissipates in the atmosphere and does not affect you personally.

Banning drinking in public falls under the same category as banning smoking in public as far as I'm concerned, as you ignored the important point: there is no compelling public interest that outweighs trampling on liberty here.

I'm not even going to bother considering smoking and shitting in public to be comparable.



They're both smoking there...

This post was edited by Santara on Feb 3 2011 07:45pm

looks likes shes puffing instead of smoking.

smelling (aka inhaling) cigarette smoke outdoors might cause a tiny little bit of harm but definitely significantly less than being exposed to exhaust fumes (btw exhaust fumes from a car engine penetrate into the drivers/passenger cabin)
why isn't the automotive industry forced to install better filtering which definitely would be possible?
people crying foul about carcinogens should look at food sweeteners/colourings/preservatives as well (carcinogenic ones are allowed up to a certain amount before they even have to be mentioned in those countries which require mentioning them at all) - not claiming that cigarette smoke is healthy but people are getter cancer from plenty other sources, why is there a significant increase (beyond what can be explained by better detection) of cancer in the western world when the percentage of people smoking is constantly going down? somehow it looks as if smoking has been made the scape-goat to destract from all the other carcinogens we are constantly fed and all the other sources which might affect the genetic structure (eg increased microwave and similar radiation) and thereby 'assist' in generating cancers

This post was edited by brmv on Feb 3 2011 08:17pm