Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbrock | Hacker News Reader

"Your right not to be bothered by it" sounds really spurious. Being "bothered" is an extremely subjective judgment. If we outlaw everything that's potentially bothersome, that's complete paralysis... It's not a defensible right. Why should people hide in their homes to partake in something that you don't personally care for?

View on HN

As an example, cigarette smokers as a group were horribly inconsiderate and often aggressively rude. They littered the ground and the air. The tar and the smell gets in your hair and clothes. They walked around burning people and things with their cigarettes. It was terrible. I don't miss it, even though I am sad that it took a broad law restraining everyone's behavior. That being said, even the possibility that pot smokers might become as obnoxious as tobacco smokers were before they were shunned en masse, it isn't a good argument against legalization.

Your right to consume drugs (which I fully support) stops when you begin to pollute the air I breathe.

People shouldn't have to hide in their houses, but neither should they be allowed to spew smoke where others will breathe it.

The problem is that this is really an air pollution issue but is being painted as a drugs issue, from both sides. Grandparent poster thinks that air pollution from portable fires is somehow related to the legal status of cannabis. Conversely, lots of smokers probably think that efforts to restrict their ability to pollute is some sort of effort to outlaw their drug.

> Your right to consume drugs (which I fully support) stops when you begin to pollute the air I breathe.

Really? The air you breathe is mostly polluted by fossil fuel combustion. We should by that logic ban cars and power plants, not cigarettes.

We should, and do, heavily regulate those activities. Banning them altogether is impractical, but we don't just give people carte blanche to dump whatever they feel like into the air.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com