Ah but the problem with dogs is that for every decent dog owner who has a properly trained dog under good control appropriate for the situation, there are several who do none of the above and whose dogs are at best an annoyance and at worse actually detrimental in terms of either hygiene or actually biting people. It's the irresponsible spoiling it for the responsible really. I have nothing against well trained well cared for dogs with considerate owners, regardless of my personal feelings about being around dogs in places XYZ, but sadly it's too hard to legislate and enforce rules that make subjective judgements (and of course if people don't agree a certain type of them kick off).
Smoking is in my view a little different because it is not physically possible for even the most considerate smoker to have control over where their smoke goes unless they are in a confined area devoid of people who don't wish to breathe it in, and trying to make any public place so, while protecting workers, is tricky and probably too complex to legislate and police effectively with too many ifs and buts; hence the blanket ban we now how I suppose.
every decent dog owner who has a properly trained dog under good control appropriate for the situation, there are several who do none of the above
I think that's untrue, but it's not really on topic so I won't argue further.
However, it may be relevant to mention that the law on dogs specifically does cover exactly the sort of adult judgement you mention. The law says that dogs must be 'under control', and every local council has an officer whose job it is to try to enforce and explain that. (I'm not sure if you thought that dogs were legally banned from pubs or cafes, but if you did think that, no, that's not the case, it's a free choice by the owner)
I don't see why smoking has to be on/off rather than the law requiring that it be 'considerate' or confined to areas frequented by 'consenting adults'.
It annoys me that increasingly blanket laws are being made because there is this idea that adult human beings cannot be expected to be responsible, considerate or have any common sense.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Smoking is in my view a little different because it is not physically possible for even the most considerate smoker to have control over where their smoke goes unless they are in a confined area devoid of people who don't wish to breathe it in, and trying to make any public place so, while protecting workers, is tricky and probably too complex to legislate and police effectively with too many ifs and buts; hence the blanket ban we now how I suppose.
no subject
I think that's untrue, but it's not really on topic so I won't argue further.
However, it may be relevant to mention that the law on dogs specifically does cover exactly the sort of adult judgement you mention. The law says that dogs must be 'under control', and every local council has an officer whose job it is to try to enforce and explain that. (I'm not sure if you thought that dogs were legally banned from pubs or cafes, but if you did think that, no, that's not the case, it's a free choice by the owner)
I don't see why smoking has to be on/off rather than the law requiring that it be 'considerate' or confined to areas frequented by 'consenting adults'.
It annoys me that increasingly blanket laws are being made because there is this idea that adult human beings cannot be expected to be responsible, considerate or have any common sense.