When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation of other's right.

I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right.

If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right.

So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored.

Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed to smoke.

My right is constantly violated almost everyday.

If I don't like someone's speech that doesn't mean they are not allowed to say it. It means I can go elsewhere or ignore it. If you don't like someone's perfume your right isn't that they stop wearing it, it's that you go elsewhere and ignore it. If you don't like smoke... it's the same thing. You have every right to not want it. In which case it is incumbent on you to do something about it.

Unless you are making a health related argument. That is a different right other than you don't want it, that is a health concern, which is why smoking inside is predominately not allowed.

I'm all for personal rights... but they come with personal responsibilities that are upon you.

I don't think this is at all analogous to speech. For example, you might be entitled to say whatever you want under free speech protections in the US, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to walk up to random people and shout in their face. If you do that long enough you'll definitely earn yourself some misdemeanors. If you consistently did it to a particular person against their wishes, you'd eventually get some kind of harassment felony charge.

At the risk of being pedantic, I think the free speech analogue is still valid. You would likely receive the same harassment charge if you were purposely walking up to strangers and blowing smoke in their face. Here in Canada, there are no laws which prevent you from standing on the street corner preaching whatever you like, just like you're allowed to smoke tobacco on the street corner.

You do not have a right to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just something that have no meaning.

That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke.

Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).

Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.

Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that makes me feel funny."

In my country(Japan), there are cases which ordered the neighbor/colleague to compensate the health damage he cause by passive smoking for his smoking inside his house or his desk.

Nobody ever considers the downside to all this heavy-handed governance. When you give the government the power to regulate lives at such a level, what do you do if social mores change, and what you support is suddenly the contrary view? Do you capitulate, or do you stand firm?

> They are God-Given

Honest question, what do you mean by that?

Non-legally speaking, the term "Right" in American law refers to guarantees which are recognized to be Natural, in the sense that you're born with them and they would continue to exist even if the government were to disappear. The Declaration of Independence, though not really a "legal" document, words it the most clearly:

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

In other words, the Law doesn't "grant" you a Right to something. It recognizes that these Rights already existed, and (sometimes) forbids the government from destroying them. This is also worded pretty clearly in the of-course infamous second amendment:

> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It isn't saying that "people have the right to bear arms". Its saying that "your right to bear arms can't be infringed". So, then, where does that right come from? Its Natural.

There's an interesting, somewhat clear follow-up to this recognition of the wording of the constitution and founding documents: they don't exhaustively enumerate the rights people have. So what rights do Americans actually have? In fact, the ninth amendment recognizes this:

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Constitutional interpretation is a complex, contentious thing. The way I see it, which is hardly professional: they recognized that because they aren't enumerating every Right, it follows that there must exist rights that some people believe they have, and it isn't the place of the government to either Confirm that Right or Disparage it. If I believe I have a right to kill someone for no reason... well, this shouldn't be allowed in a functioning society. So it follows that Law will inevitably supersede some Rights, just by the nature of Rights being, to a degree, self-decided (by your belief system, or your nature, or parenting, or whatever). Thus, certain protections were put in place to explicitly protect rights they believed were critical (like freedom of speech), but others may actually be "disparaged", and the ninth amendment just says that this is the case: people DO have other rights beyond the ones we listed, but we can't deny them JUST because we listed some other ones.

That's why its fascinating when people throw around language like "I have a right to not breath in smoke". There's a lot at play there. First: If you believe you have that Right, then you do! No one can take that away from you; its your right to not breath in smoke. But, also, Second: Your belief that you have some Right does not, by virtue of it being a Right, lead to the government being compelled to protect it. A Right does not have to be respected, confirmed, disparaged, or protected by the government. Its just something you have, because you're Human.

In other words, the phrase "I have a right to X" gets thrown around a lot, but it doesn't really mean much except the cases where it is enumerated, unless a bunch of people recognize that they also have that Right, in which case it is codified into Law. In an ideal world.

(And I do want to clarify in my comment I made earlier: I was being too brash by saying that the OP "does not have a right to breath in smoke". Maybe they do have that right. My point was really to emphasize that the right isn't Recognized. I have a right to run down the street naked. That doesn't mean the government will or should let me do it. So, saying "I have a right" to something isn't really all that meaningful, unless you're specifically referring to the rights protected by the constitution or law.)

    > When one's personal liberty crash with other's 
    > personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If 
    > you believe there is a right to smoke, think 
    > about the violation of other's right.

No. One's personal liberty should extend so far as to where it doesn't impose on someone else's rights. People are and should be allowed to be offensive, annoying our outright distasteful. YOU can go elsewhere. If the owner of a business wants to allow smokers/vapers, that should be their decision.

I'm not blind to the pragmatism of public spaces and near outside entrances, etc. That said, your premise is wrong and too narrow. Which is probably a reflection on the greater issues becoming ever more relevant to shutting down conversations, ideas and election meddling that is coming to light. It's probably time for people to start actually listening to ideas they don't agree with, empathize with those positions and rationally come to reasonable compromise. Right now there's only escalation and it will likely lead to a very real, very violent and very different civil war.

I don't want to breath smog or vehicle fumes either, because I have asthma and an asthma attack could kill me.

I doubt you'll stop driving tomorrow to spare my health though.

Your right to breathe clean air in your house is violated by somebody using a juul in a different house five miles away?

We shouldn't penalize addiction. But we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit.

> we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit

Often we end up doing things to make sure they have more profit. I wouldn't be surprised if this e-cigarettes ban is coming from cigarette manufacturers lobbying for it.

>> should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit

You just sighed a death warrant to HN, and 95% of all corporations that make a profit.

Agreed; Facebook, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Lays, Twitter, CNN, Fox, Disney, and Purdue are all examples of companies that are taking advantage of people's reward path in a basically addictive way. Maybe 95% in terms of aggregate profit.

This is definitely true for a lot of the major consumer facing software companies.

"Sean Parker, the 38-year-old founding president of Facebook, recently admitted that the social network was founded not to unite us, but to distract us. “The thought process was: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’” he said at an event in Philadelphia in November. To achieve this goal, Facebook’s architects exploited a “vulnerability in human psychology”, explained Parker, who resigned from the company in 2005. Whenever someone likes or comments on a post or photograph, he said, “we… give you a little dopamine hit”. Facebook is an empire of empires, then, built upon a molecule."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopam...

Why not Google? There are a lot of kids (including my son) addicted to YouTube. Why not Amazon? There are a lot people addicted to buying stuff they don't need.

The list is definitely far from comprehensive. Thanks for adding. I think we could add many more especially if you include companies that boost their profits by taking advantage of people by presenting them with a dilemma of immediacy, such as Home Depot and their overpriced key rings, or movie theaters that disallow outside food and make all their money on popcorn and soda.

Add reddit to it too, IMO.

so be it. No non corporal entity is entitled to exploit any corporal entity. If they exist at all they should serve all.

Profit is a share of the increased wealth created, not stealing what is because you are invulnerable, soulless and can.

I'm glad to hear e-cigarettes helped your friend's grandmother!

Unfortunately there's not very much actual evidence yet that e-cigarettes help people quit smoking, and according to the actual ordinance under discussion, there's some evidence that it can actually increase smoking.

> And while there is some evidence that the use of e-cigarettes by adults may support smoking cessation under certain circumstances, a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report concluded that there was moderate evidence that e-cigarette use in fact increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future.

It's interesting that studies from across the pond show otherwise, with the NHS endorsing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation device.

I cannot stand ecigarette smell, it makes me throw up, it's way worse than a normal cigarette.

Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.

If you live in SF (or any major city), your health problems from breathing someone else's smoke outside is negligible compared to the damage done by car emissions.

Is second-hand smoke from ecigs equally harmful as real cigs? If that is not the case, then your comment sounds like you are entitled to fresh air everywhere you go -- which is not fair and seemingly self-centered.

Same reason I as an asthmatic have to endure your vehicle smog causing me breathing difficulties.

Personal freedoms.

In the world of the officials, Juul pays them generously to run "addiction relief programs" that run into the 100's of millions every year.

For the oh-so-dangerous drug called Nicotine.

I've first-hand seen the effects this Killer Drug has on the poor people caught in its grasp. One time, we were at dinner, and my friend stepped outside for five minutes for a vape. I've seen lost souls on so much nicotine, their focus is heightened significantly and they get this almost imperceptible shake in their hands, someone not even looking for it might not notice it but it must be devastating for them. Have you ever been so wasted drunk, then used nicotine to level out and pivot back toward functionality? I haven't, thank the lord.

All of this, and these poor people are also forced into paying Big Juul dozens of dollars a month. I mean, a Juul pod costs about $3, imagine if a coffee from Starbucks or a soda were to cost that much!