How are mask requirements any different than no-smoking prohibitions?

[StarfishSaver]

Anybody?

I mean, if a theater can prohibit people from smoking in order to protect the health of other patrons, why shouldn't/can't they require people to wear masks for the same reason?

[zipplewrath]

1. No shirt, no shoes

They can prevent you from wearing, or not wearing, all sorts of things. Seat belts, hard hats, helmets, gosh one could go on and on about all of the things governments can require in terms of clothing.

[global1]

2. Do People That Refuse To Wear Masks Not....

fasten their seat belts when they are driving?

[Flaleftist]

15. Well, the seatbelt directly protects you

and for the most part, non-N95 masks are to protect others from you.

[Ohiogal]

3. That's a great point.

Also, how is it any different than when a business puts up a sign, “No shirt, no shoes, no service “?

[StarfishSaver]

4. But smoking prohibitions are more comparable

They are not for the protection of the smoker and it doesn't matter whether the smoker wants to smoke or doesn't or whether they care or not about their own health and safety. It's SOLELY about the health and safety of other people. If theaters and other public venues can ban smoking without smokers throwing fits about their "freedoms" or constitutional rights, they surely can require people to wear masks to come on to their property.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. To Answer Your OP Question

You're right. There's no difference.
Except PINO and the cult made not wearing a mask into a dumb political statement.
Even Schwarzenegger has tweeted that turning it into a political statement is moronic.
And, he was an R as governor.

[BlueJac]

6. Or seat belts?

[StarfishSaver]

7. Seatbelts are a little different

Seatbelts laws are primarily (although not completely) intended to protect the safety of the person required to wear them.

Mask requirements are intended to protect other people, just like cigarette smoking bans are.

[onecaliberal]

8. Do these people text and drive?

[crickets]

9. They aren't that different, except that the potential harm to others

around a non-mask wearer is much more immediate and therefore arguably more deadly. It potentially only takes one exposure rather than many over time. Also, the smoker only affects those around him at that time. There's no question of infection. For instance, no one can carry the potential cancer home with them to infect others, who may unknowingly affect others still, and so on.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Great point about contagion.

[LastDemocratInSC]

11. No shirt, no shoes, no service. What an insult to personal freedom!

[Staph]

12. The no shoes, no shirt, no service theme

is still useful in discussing pandemic precautions.

If a restaurant tells you no shoes, no shirt, do you expect them to supply you with a pair of shoes or a shirt just because you want to eat there? Nope, you bring your own. So, bring your own mask, idjit!

[Aristus]

13. Oh, the smokers pissed and moaned about those, too...

Upset that they had to breathe fresh air.

Deprived of the opportunity to pollute the breathing air of non-smokers...

I'll never forget my grandmother smoking at the table during a family dinner at a restaurant. I was a poor little eight year-old kid who couldn't breathe. When I complained, she said I was the one being rude.

[Hekate]

14. I think so. People whined & carried on about cigarettes, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, insecticides

You name it, someone figures their personal rights are/were being infringed if they have to comply with a public health measure.

Going waaay back, people used to think it was their right to spit on floors and sidewalks. Sounds disgusting as hell, doesn't it? But gosh almighty, brass spittoons were not always available and I'm not sure when paper hankies were invented, but they cost money, and when a feller has a gob in his mouth he has to spit.

But it turned out it was one factor in spreading tuberculosis, which killed a lot of people. So "No Spitting" signs went up, it was outlawed, and eventually the culture changed.

What we lack right now is intelligent leadership instead of someone who wants to stoke the culture wars & damn the consequences.