So you’re just the stereotypical boomer who hates anything getting taxed? might surprise you but a lot of these are young kids that you seem to be joking about are actually adults now and they can vote and hopefully we vote to abolish your fucking aged care.

I just dont think ur math adds up. Here’s my logic on the matter

Loss of liberty = population * smoker% * average liberty of someone to smoke a ciggy

Gain in liberty = population * (1- smoker%) * relative air quality improvement * average liberty of someone to not be exposed to ciggy smoke

I would simply argue the relative air quality improvement is so small that the gain in liberty will never be greater than the loss. Lets assume that ciggy smoke distributes according to inverse square law and smoking reduces ur lifespan by 50% at a distance of 1m ur life is reduced by 0.039% at 2m its reduced by 0.0099% for comparison by my rough estimation the avergae driver loses about 0.036% of their life by driving and society accepts that risk so all u need to do is stand a little over a metre away from anyone with a ciggy and its safer than driving (i did all the calcs in favour of ciggies being as bad as possible.

This is all just fermi estimation but we should be in the correct order of magnitude.

Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.

Thats the one same difference

Who’s we and when was this decided?

We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.

Thats what i think it should be but yeah definatly a different conversation.

Original crackdown which i though was fair. Restricting you to a section of the place ur already at not restricting your ability to drink a beer and socialise symulationiously while also allowing people to not be exposed to carsinagens throught the entire premises. Net increase of liberty.

Is this the only universal right that exists ?

What do u think?

To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.

U cant just proclaim something to be true. You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.

Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.