[flagged]
There are many externalities that affect others... think of noise, smell, etc. Our parent chose smell as an example. I don't see what's wrong or inappropriate with that.
In the end, you have to find some middle ground, and then you have to manage that middle ground, which usually means keeping at bay those who want to ban externalities as well as those who simply want to make no concessions to those affected.
It's classic, really.
This specific German draft contains very specific ideas on where you can and where you can not smoke and is about to radically reduce the spaces where patients can use medical cannabis as well. We'll see whether parliament will change that.
That's my point :)
We don’t put into law how often and how you have to wash yourself, we just assume that most people will do it. But if everyone stopped washing themselves and public transport and the workplace became unbearable you would see legislature follow. Likewise if everyone overused deodorant.
I suggest that you consider Kant’s categorical imperative: “ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.
What would our society be like if everyone smoked weed and did so everywhere? That would be unenjoyable even for weed smokers. “Others do it too” or “but not everyone does it” don’t make the actions of the few ethical.
They're as addicted as they come, to a first class drug; are you going to call them "junkies" too? What about people who drink alcohol and make it everyone else's problem?
Seriously, that language is offensive af, wisen up please.
Edit: can't help but notice quite a lot of similarities between Dudester230602 and veave accounts (profile age, topics commented on, use of language, generally rocking the boat...).