• neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I live in a country with a strict outdoor smoking ban and I love it.

    There are dedicated smoking areas for people to smoke outdoors, but they are really small and cramped with smokers.

    It’s actually really nice, you never see or smell people smoking unless you wonder too close to the designated smoking areas which are often really out of the way.

    The streets are not really clean here, but at least it’s not cigarette butts. Even things like vapes need to be smoked in a designated area, but sometimes people do it on the street anyway.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nice. I think our only real outdoor restriction is “within 20’ of an entrance”. But it’s not enough.

      That reminds me I need to complain to one of my favorite restaurants. They have an ash tray outside so people are less likely to litter and it is more than 20’ from the entrance. However it’s too close. When the patio is open, the smokers are just across the sidewalk and it ruins the meal

  • Zexks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months 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.

    • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is basically going to make the population choose between smoking and having kids.

      Hell I’d start smoking again.

    • Kiliyukuxima@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      Which actually sounds fair. Kids do not choose to be born and do not need to inhale smoke because parents are addicted to smoking

    • Child_of_the_bukkake@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah don’t smoke near your kids. It’s not that hard.

      They’re also making the population choose between drinking and driving.

      • Zexks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        No they’re not. Do they outlaw drinking everywhere children might one day walk through.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Do you often spill drinks into the mouths of passerby’s?

          The issue isn’t the substance, it’s the second hand smoke. Children are smart enough to know “this is a thing my parents do that I can’t” but no level of smart can keep the air they breath from containing smoke.

  • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months 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
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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.

  • BetaBlake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • oyo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Protests bigger than anti-Trump ones in the US incoming in 3…2…1…

  • Susurrus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    You could say smoking is one of the most human activities ever. Does nothing but actively harm and potentially kill everything around you. Just what we’re the best at.

    But seriously now. Can we speed up smoking bans? Like, everywhere?

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      But seriously now. Can we speed up smoking bans? Like, everywhere?

      Some European countries, including mine, has decided to raise the smoking age by 1 every year, essentially banning the next generation from smoking. Not really rapid or speeding up, but future is looking good

      There was a slight problem where some people were allowed to smoke for portion of the year after birthday and before the age increase, for every year

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        That I can’t get on board with personally. Everyone has a vice.

        Imagine doing that with cannabis or drinking. Probably wouldn’t get near the support even though those are also vices.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Second hand drinking isn’t really a thing and I don’t see people smoking weed publicly all the time to the point it’s disgusting to eat at cafe, at least never noticed it, so most don’t really care.

          • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s irrelevant. You’re telling people what they can and cannot do based on when they were born.

            It’d be one thing if no one could smoke. But youre not saying that. You’re strictly saying because you were born after x date that you can never smoke.

            That’s entirely messed up and my point being it’s terribly against personal freedom.

            And you basically proved my point- people will make allowances for other vices but not this.

            • REDACTED@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Note that I was telling what the government does, not what is my opinion on this.

              If I was steering the wheel, I’d just ban all drug consumption in public spaces, but allow non-destructive ones in personal spaces (your property), which includes tobacco and weed. I’d probably also limit the alcohol limit in drinks to something like 11%, so no absolut vodkas or smirnoffs as those tends to cause serious brain damage, which in return affects everyone around who have to deal with your vegetable state even when sober

              Disclaimer: I’m from east europe and alcohol consumption is kinda out of control for most people (yes, most people according to my experience)

      • Goretantath@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        In your own home thats not around anyone else? Nobody wants to breath in your cancer smoke except retards.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I want to live in a world where people don’t force their vices on bystanders. I don’t give a shit what you do to yourself but it matters who you do it in front of. (Smoking in a house with children should be a crime)

            • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Everyone forces their vice on bystanders in some capacity. I consider censorship and Puritanism to be a vice that is forced in nearly every aspect of society. It’s moral fetishism.

              Between the two, I’d rather see someone smoke a cigarette than be judgmental towards others.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            They’re free to smoke when and where they’re not harming anyone.

            • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Like outside more than 10 feet from a doorway? Surely 10 feet is enough to change your walking path and save yourself from a waft.

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

                If you’re a smoker you may be surprised at the distance your smoke impacts other people. The smell, the cloud, The ash extends far beyond a mere ten feet. Where I live the law is 20 feet from an entrance and that’s just not enough.

                The problem is you can’t change your path from an entrance because you may have to enter and exit. The problem is further that multiple smokers tend to congregate at the mandated distance so the smoke is much worse. It needs to be significantly farther.

                But then it’s worse again in a city area, where the sidewalks are also a bottleneck. I can’t always cross the street to avoid smokers but frequently have to pass right next to them. And I’d like to point out they are the ones inflicting their vice/addiction on others. It should not be my responsibility to get out of the way of their bad habit when their reasonable accommodation would not inflict it on others

                • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  My point is that it is within the realm of normal annoyances from other people and there should be a reasonable expectation of both politeness from the smoker and tolerance from others. A strong perfume, a fart, body odor, spicy food, and many other gasses can be encountered at any point from a similar distance, but nobody suggests punishing people for those.

                  I find the desire to over legislate things due to personal preferences about how other people behave is a bigger and more annoying vice than smoking.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        I enjoy spreading my ass cheeks and feeling the sun on my anus. It really takes the edge off, ya know what I mean? If I can’t do it in the park or the school playground, where the fuck can I get my sunnies?

      • SW42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        72
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        In designated smoking spots and in your own home. I’d extend it to vapers. If I can smell the shit you blow out your lungs then it’s very probable it’s in my lungs. Didn’t sign up for that. Personal freedom reaches up to the point where you infringe on the freedom of others (in this care my freedom to not have to breathe your smoke)

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          There are a lot of smells that you are expected to deal with, it seems like kind of a reach. I consider most parfums thoroughly unpleasant but I dont expect it to be made illegal.

          That being said, I’m okay with this because of the littering aspect.

          • SW42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            The smell of perfume doesn’t cause cancer. Second-hand smoke is proven to do so.

            • shalafi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              27
              ·
              11 months ago

              Oh FFS, yeah, cancer for people living in the same house. Getting a whiff of cigarette smoke isn’t doing jack shit to you.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              11 months ago

              You must have a hard time being anywhere close to a car if you think you are getting cancer because of a 2 second wiff from some guys cig on a beach. Seems like exaggeration, cancer isnt some lightning bolt that hits you the moment you get a hint of something bad near you.

              • SW42@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Cars don’t make me choke, but good point! I’d ban them from the cities as well.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yes, we need to ban cars as well, pretty much all internal combustion. Unfortunately there are technical reasons that will take a while, but we’re making progress. Even worse my country has turned it political with regressives gleefully trying to turn back what progress we’ve made

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                cancer isnt some lightning bolt that hits you the moment you get a hint of something bad near you.

                You’re correct, it isn’t a lightning bolt. This goes against your statement, not with it. It’s an accumulation of increased risk, and eventually it just happens (or doesn’t). The more things that increase your risk the higher the odds. You don’t just get cancer because someone smoked near you. You have an increased risk of cancer based on how much you’ve been around your entire life, and everything else that contributes. Reducing risk means reducing as many contributors as possible.

                You must have a hard time being anywhere close to a car if you think you are getting cancer because of a 2 second wiff from some guys cig on a beach.

                One thing is bad, so we can’t do anything about another thing? “People are being killed by cars, but we can’t work to reduce that because people are dying from heart disease!” How silly.

                • Grimy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  The impact from those few odd times someone is smoking near you in an open areas is not proportional to the risk you are attributing to it imo. I am bringing up cars to highlight that.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          11 months ago

          True, but at least vaping isn’t going to hurt you like secondhand smoke, and vapers don’t throw butts on the ground.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • Horsey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months 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.

    • N0x0n@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      How ? People are garbage and throw their butts into the sand… Alot of human garbage throw their plastic and shit too, while dogs aren’t allowed on beaches? 🤦 This is a good thing + every plastic bottle or trash shouldn’t be allowed either !

      I quit smoking a year ago but I would totally agree on the Beach part. However, restaurant on an outside table? Nah, nah… That’s going to far !

      Anyway smoking is bad, its very expensive, you smell bad and it doesn’t bring you anything positive.

      • jumperalex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        So the only people that get to enjoy dining outside are smokers? Nah nah that’s going too far.

        They wanna smoke? GTFO of the entire eating area away from the entrance and suck their cancer stick there.

      • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes the garbage is a good point but I was mainly thinking that the smoke was the point of interest. Being bad for children. Idk. But taking away people’s freedom of smoking is also terrible. I mean, some people KNOW it’s bad but just don’t WANT to give it up either. Perhaps a small group, but they’re still people. That’s my two cents.

    • thejml@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I feel like it depends on the beach. Haven’t been to French one’s, but I’d bet there were some touristy ones that get slammed with people. Those make sense for this. Now, some of the quieter more locals only kinda beaches that people are able to spread out more, that’s probably fine to keep… but that’s going to be a hard distinction to make clear rules on.

  • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    11 months ago

    Anybody who thinks they are breathing clean air just because they banned smoking is kidding themselves. At least the cigarette makes the smoker happy and causes minimal damage to passersby when smoked outside—meanwhile the massive air pollution that companies emit is shortening lifespans of every breather across the globe.

    Sure, don’t smoke inside, whatever, but the criminalization and exclusion of addictive behavior is bullshit, in my opinion, especially when it comes in the form of pearl clutching “for the children”.

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

      Just because it doesn’t solve the whole problem, doesn’t mean it’s not a good step forward.

      I’m really encouraged that except for regressives in the us, the world seems to finally be turning toward renewable energy, EVs, high speed rail. Even in the US, cities are starting to build transit! There’s a couple more big steps. If we keep taking steps it will turn into moving forward!

    • Grass@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      this is like the only thing a government has done ‘for the children’ that actually benefits anyone at all

    • Goretantath@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Would be if asshole that smoke weren’t also promoting other harmfull chemicals as-well but hey, we can get to those next bucko.