if you go into your backyard and you light a can of paint on fire, you're clearly creating a public health nuisance and opening yourself up to fines. almost nobody would argue against this point.

but, if you go outside and smoke a pack of cigarettes, you're upholding your rights in two ways: one as a smoker, and two as a property owner.

but, the functional difference between lighting a can of paint on fire and smoking a pack of cigarettes is that the paint is less harmful.

this is not thought through well, relative to the existing science, and needs to be updated to account for it. my position is that you should not have any more rights to light a cigarette on fire in public than you should to light anything else on fire; that cigarette fumes should not be treated any differently than any other kind of unnecessary pollution and that bylaws restricting property rights to create other types of pollution should be equally enforced towards cigarette smoke.

smokers are not currently being oppressed. rather, they are taking advantage of a special category under the law. the idea that you could ever smoke in public in the first place was always a loophole. that loophole has been slowly closing....

it needs to be shut altogether.