Killing your child because it’s inconvenient to you is a “right” and “privacy”?
Say if I got a smoke eater? I would still be forbidden from smoking in the privacy of my own home.
Your dry cleaning affects me. Why isn’t that banned?
Maybe he’s twitchy from not, y’know… smoking.
Very true, but you have to admit “nico nazis” is sort of funny in a ridiculously-over-the-top kind of way. 
Yeah. If you’re smelling poop, e. coli bacteria are in the air and landing on you. It’s not a claim I’m making up, it’s just the way things are. Fortunately, your body will probably be able to cope with it.
Same principle applies to everything else. If you’re feeling shotgun pellets hitting you, shotgun pellets are hitting you. And so on. The presence of something does indeed imply the presence of that thing.
I dunno, the phrase “nico nazis” is vague - are they pro or con?
I admit they’re obviously energetic about the issue, whatever side they happen to be on.
Why are you allowed to wear dry cleaned clothes at home, in bars, and at work? You are exposing others. Because it doesn’t smell bad? So you can ignore the risk?
If it really worked then I’d have to say go for it - you’re no longer encroaching on the rights of your neighbors.
Yet in your view, smoke in tiny quanties is always deadly, but nothing else is?
But I’d still be violating the law. So what happened to privacy rights in the liberal utopia? It’s merely them banning things they don’t approve of.
Next up - the evils of dihydrogen monoxide!
Should bathtubs get banned because children can drown in them filled up with dihydrogen monoxide?
Okay. Let me clarify my question, if I may, as I did a poor job the first time. Cite that smelling the aroma of smoke is as physically harmful as inhaling actual cigarette smoke.
First of all let’s get one thing straight. A great deal of the people who are pro-choice do not “approve” of abortion. They recognize it as a private decision that is not up to the government to make.
I would suggest you have grounds to fight the law and should probably do so.
And this nonsense:
Does not make a convincing argument. What say we stick to the facts?
No but caregivers must be held responsible for their safe use with children. Is this sinking in at all?
We in fact DO regulate the safe use and mandate that due care be taken.
Well, you haven’t checked out the price of real estate here lately. Not to mention the very large number of townhomes and condos.
Anyway, San Raphael is in Marin County. Enough said!
Huh? That’s strawmanning, and I demand a retraction! Nowhere did I imply living next to a smoker exposes you to smoke in tiny quantities.
Living next to a smoker exposes you to vast quantities of smoke on an almost continual basis.
And secondly, what’s this “always deadly” thing? This guy was hit 21 times by police bullets and lived. Does that mean it’s okay to shoot your neighbors, since it’s not “always deadly?”
So ifthese liberals believe in choice to do things they dont’ approve of, why won’t they let have smokers have bars just for smokers, where non smokers don’t have to enter?
Seems thtat the only choice liberals care about is to kill their own children.
Another straw man?
They breed like rabbits!
Of course, in the presence of rabbits they get eaten, but until then - they breed like rabbits!
Are you going to answer the question? What is wrong with smokers having bars just for smokers? They need to be protected from themselves? THen why not do that with other groups of people who live unhealthy lifestyles?