I really wish there were also laws about not doing it in public spaces. I don't care if people do it in their own spaces, but when the smell wafts out onto the sidewalk, it makes me nauseous.
And just as a concrete example, I would rather see tax money go to an ad campaign that says "a lot of people find the smell of pot disgusting, smoke it away from others" than into law enforcement.
I really wish cigarettes were completely banned in public spaces. If you want to destroy your own lungs on your own property, fine. But I shouldn't have to breath it in.
Also, a bit of secondhand smoke outside isn't dangerous, it just smells bad.
That's provably false. And besides, not only does it smell bad, but it sticks to your clothes and then you smell bad.
Fact is, cars have a lot of other utility, and if it was possible to make a car that doesn't make smoke cheaply and without any other negatives, the whole car industry would go that way, legislation would happen and no more smoky cars would be made.
Smoking however has no other utility beyond, "screw you, I smoke wherever I want regardless of others comfort/health, and if you don't like it then you have go somewhere else".
There are ways to make cars that don't make smoke cheaply (Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt etc) and the argument about "without any other negatives" is really debatable when compared with manufacturing process of any other car.
Personally I'm a fan of the idea of those hilarious little smoking boxes that they have in some airports.
Getting off-topic, but... I'd like to get an electric car, but there's no infrastructure anywhere near my area. My coal-addicted government (Australia) is definitely not making it a priority.
Electric cars are unsuitable for lots of people currently and do have significant negatives. If the infrastructure was there, then great. But it isn't.
I wasn't actually talking about electric cars though. If suddenly a discovery was made that a catalytic converter could be made cheaply that cleans the smoke from a car completely and doesn't affect power, etc, don't you think that every single car company would adopt it immediately?
Generally speaking "weed usage" introduces far fewer carcinogens compared to "cigarette usage" - but lots of things are bad for you including alcohol and, especially, sugar.
Not a carcinogen: sugar.
Sugar demonization is out of control. Many people eat an unhealthy amount of it, but any level of tobacco or alcohol consumption harms health.
And sugar needs to be vilified more if anything. I would bet healthcare spending on issues related to excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption (aka being overweight) dwarf anything else.
That's not because simple sugars are inherently bad for you but rather because many people don't realize just how much of it fruit juices contain. Related to this, an older family member was warned by a doctor for various reasons to cut back on fruit intake (not juice, but fruit itself).
I never buy juice unless it's roughly 80-100% plus in vitamin c and it contains 0 added sugars. I'm often shocked how many "juices" are literally de-carbonized soda with a healthy looking image.
So it's possible to consider it as even worse than some carcinogens.
Maybe I'm reading too much in to your comment, but with cigarette smoking there is a lot of the "if you want to destroy your lungs" attitude that I hypothesize stems from the puritain "if you want to prioritize enjoying something over long term health, I'll be especially harsh towards you". I 100% understand the infringement (or at least encroachment) on your right to enjoy the outdoors and believe it is very rude to expose someone to obnoxious smoke. But judging the "destroying your lungs" aspect is nobody's business but the person doing it. You may not have meant it this way, but I have seen a lot of people who do.
Edit - also, marijuana smoke is hazardous, just like tobacco smoke. Why would it be more benign?
I really, really could not care less about what people smoking do to themselves, but that horrible smoke carries so far and is so overpowering that it's hard to think about anything else when you're forcefully exposed to it.
A smoker is dominating a massive area around them and preventing other members of the public from enjoying that space. In a city space is at a premium.
Being an addict skews their ideas on what is socially acceptable, but the worst part is that the smokers themselves have no idea how bad it smells because they have completely ruined their sense of smell, so they are also at a heavily reduced capacity to judge how their actions are affecting others.
We have rules around a lot of antisocial behaviors, why should smoking be exempt?
There's a limit to how far this principle goes. If you saw someone trying to saw something out of their arm, would you think "whatever, it's their arm," or "this person is having a psychotic break and desperately needs medical attention, including restraint?" A lot of people would extend that to most forms of irrational self-harm. I don't want anyone to extend it to anything I do, though, so applying the principle of liberty even when it involves letting people destroy themselves for no reason, still seems attractive.
A more realistic example of what you're saying could be like when people get those big holes in their ears. It's clearly destructive to the body, I personally think its gross, but there is no good reason to limit people's right to do that. The limitations on freedom that preventing that behavior would entail is far worse than letting it happen.
Grandparent was talking about the adverse health effects on the people around who are not smokers, but forced to breathe toxic smoke from someone who doesn't care about anyone's health, including their own.
That's a very good reason in my book.
I dunno if marijuana smoke is more benign, but I wouldn't be surprised if one is much more harmful than the other. they are different substances. wouldn't you rather be at a barbecue than next to a trash fire?
Ultimately it's the same as drinking though, just be considerate and hide it from the kids!