• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      There is an absolute metric shitload of proven scientific evidence that smoke inhalation causes lasting damage to developing lungs and hearts. Do you deny this scientific evidence?

      • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        29 days ago

        I took it to mean that we should protect everything and everybody, not just the children. I could be wrong in my interpretation.

    • shplane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      30 days ago

      “To protect children” is a stupid reason

      Just depends on what sells the legislation. People can be very entitled but they might bend if it’s to “protect the children”

    • boughtmysoul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      29 days ago

      Replace “children” with “non-consenting people” and you’re getting close. Children are the most non-consenting people in society and deserve special protection accordingly.

    • Owl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      I’d argue the less prevalent smoking is in public the less likely children will turn to smoking in the future. makes sense to me

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      It works in this case. I believe developing lungs are more susceptible to damage plus children have more life ahead of them to live with damaged lungs. Most importantly we want them to have the opportunity to live without the lung damage we already have.

      And of course the practical reason is they already can’t smoke. You’re not taking anything away from them