Unless smoking has a negative effect on people who aren’t the smoker. Then you don’t have the right to make people inhale that shit just to go about their life.
Right, but that hasn't been proven and there's no force involved. You don't get to control others and put a restraining order on them for your preferences, that isn't how freedom works.
Do you now restrict eating candy in public places because it's dangerous to put the thought of candy into the minds of diabetics? The entire line of reasoning there is completely ridiculous.
What are you even talking about at this point? When was the last time teachers smoked in the goddamned classroom? 1968?
Yes. Is a person's freedom (period) more important than a person's decision to not walk to a place where they aren't near the smoke?
Kinda like you can make the “decision” not to shop at a grocery store if they don’t allow you to carry a gun?
Kinda like you can make the “decision” not to walk down a certain street if gang members are given the freedom to control who walks down it?
There comes a point where forcing someone to make decisions they wouldn’t otherwise make is infringing on their freedom.
This one seems like a pretty fine line.
Yes, it's exactly like a store banning legal guns or gang members forcing people to NOT walk down it. Banning smoking is just like those things.
Unless smoking has a negative effect on people who aren’t the smoker. Then you don’t have the right to make people inhale that shit just to go about their life.
Right, but that hasn't been proven and there's no force involved. You don't get to control others and put a restraining order on them for your preferences, that isn't how freedom works.
Do you now restrict eating candy in public places because it's dangerous to put the thought of candy into the minds of diabetics? The entire line of reasoning there is completely ridiculous.