Hacker News Reader

Comment by mdifrgechd | Hacker News Reader

Personally I find marijuana smoke way more irritating than cigarette smoke, at least second hand outside.

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?

View on HN

I find tobacco smoke the worst, and it's not even close. There is almost nothing worse than being behind a smoker on the sidewalk.

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?

>But judging the "destroying your lungs" aspect is nobody's business but the person doing it.

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.

I was thinking closer to common behaviors that are known to be unhealthy... drinking pop, not exercising, whatever. If someone is trying to kill themselves I think its different and they should get help. But we cant be hyperbolic about what that means and try to force everyone into a norm that values long term health above all else, because of how it encroaches on freedom.

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.

The big holes won't kill all of you, though, in the same way that filling your lungs with carcinogens would.

>there is no good reason to limit people's right to do that

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.

> also, marijuana smoke is hazardous, just like tobacco smoke. Why would it be more benign?

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com