• pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The right to smoke and be unhealthy.

    Also bodily autonomy. That kind of action, if accepted, could be used to impose incremental bans on anyone for any reason, so long as the majority is authoritarian enough to agree.

    Like access to hormones for trans people. Or abortions. Or birth control. Or weed.

        • Corporate_Hippie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope, its not. You’re confusing having a right and having the freedom to do something. In one you have no constraint from the state to carry out an action, in the other you are entitled to something by society. Different things.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s one of the facets of rights, is the freedom to do things. Rights aren’t only freedom from things.

            And you might not like smoking, but other people are going to make choices and live their lives in ways you don’t agree with, even that you abhor, and rights means you have to put up with that for the betterment of all.

            So people, young people, are going to smoke, and you’re going to put up with it.

            • Corporate_Hippie@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe you’re not quite clear on what a right is - its generally something that that’s enshrined in constitutional law like for example in a human rights act, or for some advanced democracies even the right to privacy is included in a bill of rights. The ‘right to smoke and be unhealthy’ is not a right at all, its a freedom that you may have.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, rights are natural qualities, principles or states of being we are born with. They’re either endowed by you by the creator of your choice or they exist through natural laws. They almost always can be derived from natural law and/or natural observation.

                No human being dictates what rights another has, period. That means no, you don’t get to tell people they don’t have the right to smoke.

                Grow the fuck up and accept that other people smoke and stop obsessing over things you can’t control.

                  • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m in the natural law camp of people that understand the concept of natural rights, but good on you for making it obvious you have no real respect for rights.

      • RegularJoeJoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh but it is. It is your autonomous right to duck yourself up. It’s not healthy or smart and your peers will push back at your decision. , but it is your right! Fuck this authoritarian “we will decide what you can and cannot do”

        • Corporate_Hippie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh but it just isn’t. Tobacco is a controlled substance in pretty much every country in the world. Now you may disagree as to where this government is being too restrictive and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you have any inherent rights to consume tobacco. The same way you don’t have a right to consume heroine or meth.