Sorry, been at
Ultra so I haven't been able to keep up.
So what you're saying is that anyone can do whatever they want on public property? Because if that's the case, why can't people drive motor vehicles through parks, write graffiti on walls, or (usually) sell items from vendors? Most public places are in fact owned by something or someone, whether that be some wealthy individual, a company or organization, or run and maintained by a city or jurisdiction.
I'm saying that anybody should have unrestricted freedom to do as they please on public property. Obviously defacement of public property should be legal however; because defacement of anything that isn't yours is illegal and public property isn't yours. So that covers why people can't drive motor vehicles through parks (destroys the park) or write graffiti on walls. However, people should
definitely be able to vend from parks. It's public space! Why shouldn't they be able to vend? Also, many public places are in fact
financed by a company or organization, not owned.
And what if I said you have it backwards? A lung issue is usually not the individual's fault (I'm not saying you said that), but smoking is entirely up to the person doing it.
It's not about whose "fault" it is. What I'm getting at is that smoking is a decision, but something like bronchitis is not. What I don't understand is that people with lung issues should have to leave a park because some smoker decides he wants to use the particular spot that other people are using for himself.
It's not that they're lesser citizens or that they are less deserving of the park, it's about
freedom. It's an unfortunate event that their bodies are incapable of inhaling smoke, but that doesn't mean you should take freedoms from another individual to accommodate them. Freedoms should never be taken from anyone.
It's like having a group of 100 people all in a fairly tight area (e.g. a line to go into a store) and one person in the line decides to light a joint and smoke away. Well I guess that means anyone with an unavoidable condition must now leave the line cause that smoker wants to enjoy himself.
If you have bronchitis and someone lights up, instead of calling the cops try saying "Hey buddy, I'm real sorry but I've got bronchitis and that's gonna make me cough up a lung. Would you mind putting it out and smoking it later?"
And I'm not saying that smokers should be removed from the public altogether. I think they should just go somewhere with fewer people. I see employees on break who will go outside the store where they work and just stand somewhere out of the way to smoke. I don't see any issue with that.
I'm just saying that less rules are conducive to more freedom and thus more ideal. I'm not saying
no rules are conducive to freedom. Also, when I refer to freedom, I refer to legal freedom. You could make an argument that Mr. Bronchitis loses freedom to be at the park because someone's smoking there, but he still has the
legal freedom to do as he pleases, which is ideal.
Poll