595
submitted 1 week ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days 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 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[-] termaxima@programming.dev 117 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

“To protect children” is a stupid reason, but banning smoking anywhere outside of your own home, or spaces expressly dedicated to it, on the other hand, is how it should always have been.

[-] boughtmysoul@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Replace “children” with “non-consenting people” and you’re getting close. Children are the most non-consenting people in society and deserve special protection accordingly.

[-] ADTJ@feddit.uk 31 points 1 week ago

I'm from the UK where it's at least banned indoors.

Visiting European pubs/bars where people still smoke is nuts and my clothes always stink after

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There is an absolute metric shitload of proven scientific evidence that smoke inhalation causes lasting damage to developing lungs and hearts. Do you deny this scientific evidence?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SW42@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago
[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week ago

If you can’t smoke outdoors and you can’t smoke indoors, where can you smoke?

[-] SW42@lemmy.world 75 points 1 week 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 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 39 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week 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.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MummysLittleBloodSlut 13 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Goretantath@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Susurrus@lemm.ee 49 points 1 week 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 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

[-] ouch@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

What country is it? I always wanted this for mine.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 1 week ago
[-] Bieren@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

Banning children seems like it would be more effective.

[-] neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

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

[-] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

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

[-] PattyP@lemm.ee 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This comment section is a disaster, just as bad as reddit. Comments of no substance on the side of popular opinion get upvotes, and waves of downvotes come for anyone who disagrees even a little, and even if they do it in a reasonable way.

I’m mildly asthmatic so I don’t smoke, vape, etc. I have tried a few times and it is simply too much for my lungs to cope with. I still think banning people from smoking in public parks or on beaches is a bit much, and not doing the same with vaping seems like a strange double standard. I had a college roommate who both vaped and smoked, and the vaping bothered me more. I still put up with it.

Hopefully enforcement is reasonable - respectful smokers who deliberately try to keep their distance should be allowed to enjoy themselves, but I understand prosecuting(?) those who show no care and smoke right next to nonsmokers.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 days ago

The issue with smoking is the second hand smoke. It causes cancer, among many other health issues. Vape on the other hand doesn’t really have this same concern.

They aren’t banning smoking because of nicotine, they are banning it because it causes cancer.

[-] PattyP@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, secondhand smoke is bad. But we are talking about outdoor environments where it should usually be possible for smokers to keep their distance.

As for vaping, it hasn’t really been around long enough yet to know for sure what the health risks are regarding the secondhand aerosol exposure, but there is reason to be concerned. It is almost certainly not as bad as secondhand smoke, but there are still risks.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago

While I agree, these laws aren’t being made because smokers keep accidentally smoking near others, it’s because a large number of smokers can’t be assed to keep their distance. The major place I notice smokers is when they are just meandering through a large crowd as if everyone around them is fine with the smoke.

[-] PattyP@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

I get that, but shouldn’t it be possible then to target that kind of behavior specifically rather than all smoking? Rather than banning smoking on x beach or in y park, they could ban smoking within x meters of a minor or non consenting adult. It would be more complicated but also more fair.

Ultimately I don’t know what all of the problems with that approach would be, but it would make more sense to me.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week 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”.

[-] Grass@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ihatefascist@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

To protect children, meanwhile the soil is filled with cancer-inducing products pumped away illegally by big chemistry plants. In belgium and netherlands we can barely eat our own produce thanks to this. When are we gonna ban them??

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

yeah also ban those... how does all that affect this exactly?

[-] prole 19 points 1 week ago

GOOD point. They shouldn't ban cigarettes until everything else bad is also banned.

[-] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 6 days ago

But they shouldn't ban anything else bad unless everything bad is banned. Fuck we can't ban shit

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] oyo@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] magic_smoke 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For beaches, and parks, and hiking trails, and places where smoking is usually already banned (at least here), sure.

Standing outside my companies building and taking my smoke break should be fair game.

There are no kids around a random office building at 1:30pm on a Tuesday.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I thought everyone in France smoked, including the kids, no?

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

all the more reason. what's the point of banning something if no one's doing it

[-] Enoril@jlai.lu 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

In cliché world yeah.... But in reality, not so much. 😀

It been years... no... decades that smoking have nearly disappeared around me - including in the office.

I work with hundreds of people and the amount of people smoking can fit one hand. 25 years ago, i needed more than 2 hands to count them. And in my family, nobody starting at my parents generation and younger smokes.

Same story with wine during lunch. 25 years ago, it was several bottles each day at lunches.

Today, no more wine bottle and the trend started since easily 15 years now. Only for big occasion and the quantity have decreased a lot.

People drink more beers now. But far less than wine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

Dang, France is really about to take away the one thing that the USA has always been ahead of them on.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
595 points (100.0% liked)

World News

47165 readers
2247 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS