> There is no such thing as "gluten intolerance", for example

[citation needed].

I have celiac disease and a wheat allergy, which presented at the age of 3 comorbidly.

If I ingest gliadin, my immune cells take the gliadin, run a nice little check on it, and then raise holy hell and destroy my gut villae.

If I come into contact with wheat, I get a histamine response. Even a bag of (organic, locally produced) wheat flour opened in the same room as me used to be enough to make my airways close up.

You sound just delightful. A wonderful blend of ignorant and weird-but-not-in-the-good-way. Smoking anything is bad for you, including the thing you like. PM 2.5 contamination is enormously harmful, and it doesn't magically go away if it's weed.

> There is no such thing as "gluten intolerance", for example--there is only glyphosate intolerance.

This is absurd if you know anyone with a gluten intolerance. They have an immune reaction to organic wheat (so no glyphosate) but not to any other non-organic non-gluten produce (like oats, chickpea flour, etc. which have glyphosate).

I note that neither you, nor the masses of people who presumably agree with your viewpoints and find mine contemptible, have been very argumentative with me about anything I've said. Curious, as I've also noticed this forum is full of people who will argue with a brick wall if they happen to disagree with its color.

My comments have also been strangely devoid of downvotes and flags for being so wildly unpopular as you believe--this thread being the sole exception.

If you think any of my viewpoints are wrong, please do me the courtesy of pointing out exactly where so that I can either correct myself, or correct your misperception, whatever the case may be.

Passive aggressive put-downs aren't conducive to helping further anyone's understanding of anything. Nor is engaging in censorship.

(I do realize such behavior is more of a 'modern society' trait than a personal one. This is why I make it a point to keep far away from what you call 'polite society.' Most of you aren't really what I'd call polite.)

By the way, I identify as a "HE", not a "THEY." It's only one person here.

Maybe. Go and ask them. Maybe they are truly awful people, maybe they are old or ill, or disabled. Go and talk to them, then start labelling them x and y. See? No one got the idea. All “you” want is that nobody bothers “you”. But thinking from the perspective of others? No, that’s too difficult. The best realisation I had in life was that I am pissing others off for some reasons, as they piss me off for some other reasons. Unfortunately the majority of the lovely “society” doesn’t have that realisation.

> I don’t know, I’m not the one smoking. That’s their problem to solve.

And this is exactly the problem. YOU are the problem. Your attitude is completely selfish and obnoxious, like your own concerns and value judgments should be the center of the universe. You are completely incapable of compromise, which is a necessary part of getting along with others.

> It is possible for the human species to exist without cigarette smoke

Yeah, and it's possible for it to exist without whatever pleasures you enjoy too that I don't approve of. I'm sure I can invent some twisted, self serving reasoning to justify why your activity should be banned, as I don't like it, and my judgment is better than yours.

> It is not possible for the human species (or any form of mortal biological life) to exist without children.

No, but some people's kids we could do without. Especially the ones who want to ban everything.

> I don't drink coffee. And even if I did, caffeine is not a drug that spreads to others in the air they breathe.

No, it's much more insidious. It amps people up like crack cocaine or methamphetamine. It's a real killer--people have died from it. That's why the U.S. military absolutely bans caffeine use during basic training, for example. It's a really dangerous drug that should be controlled. The people pushing this poison should be behind bars. Think of the children.