Not all claims are equal. For example, vaccines cause autism is not on a footing with vaccines don’t cause autism. Likewise, the burden of proof falls on the claim that a substance is carcinogenic. It may well be carcinogenic, but the burden does not fall on skepticism of the claim. Otherwise one could simply claim anything about anything and so long as it’s not patently absurd they could shift the burden of proof to skepticism of it.
So while I agree with you that the burden of proof falls on anyone making a claim, skepticism of a claim is not itself a claim.
Actually nicotine by itself, in typical doses, is nowhere near as dangerous as the carcinogens from the burning of the tobacco (tar, which is different from nicotine).
Uh, no. Cigarette smoke is unpleasant, but marijuana smoke is enough to turn my stomach. On the low end I’ll just get a bit queasy, but in severe cases (like if somebody is actively smoking nearby) I’ll get quite nauseous.
In the before times I used to fly into Oakland five or six times a year for work and I’d get a rental car every trip. Since California legalized recreational pot I’ve had to reject about 50% of my rental cars because they still had a smell of marijuana smoke in them, even though smoking is prohibited by all the car rental firms. I think it’s easier to “remove” the smell for the short period where they’re checking in your car and determine if they’re going to charge a cleaning fee, but it always comes seeping out by the time the car has rotated through to the next driver.
If someone is renting a house, appartment, or car, they should be banned from damaging it with smoke for the same reasons they should be banned from damaging it with hammers. Wether that smoke is generated by burning one leaf or another is not at all relevant.
Landlords are already free to ban smoking. This ban takes that decision away from the landlords. Are you in fact suggesting that landlords shouldn’t have the right to decide the disposition of their own property?
