The frequency of occurrence has absolutely changed, which in retrospect seems to be exactly what you should expect.
> They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable.
You know, I was a little worried that my comment about people losing perspective on the impacts of their habit might have been an overgeneralization (I certainly do know some people who are more circumspect about it), but thank you for volunteering to demonstrate exactly how it works.
If my "level of suffering" at being involuntarily opted into someone else's smoking choices is inconsequential, then surely their entirely voluntary choice to engage in it is inconsequential too, and their level of suffering at any requirement to forgo it should be inconsequential.
"I enjoy this and so I don't have to worry about whether it annoys or distresses anyone else" is no basis for social reasoning.
Smoke ordinances would be at least that reasonable.
I feel that it's unreasonable to equate second hand marijuana smoke with second hand tobacco. It's really hard to consume weed to the same extent as tobacco, so the smoke is in much lower quantity.
I don't really want it to be illegal, but as far as I can tell, the same thing that happens to cigarette smokers happens to weed smokers: perspective on the fact that smoking is the atmospheric equivalent of peeing in the pool is lost.
And I wake up like I did last night at 1:30am having had a neighbor opt me into the experience via my open window next to the patio. Yay, personal liberty.
I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, but please, figure out a way to keep it personal.