>SNIP
>>
>>For me, all of this comes down to this. If the police see someone breaking the law, they should intervene. I am not asking that police set out for the day looking for people to arrest for spitting on the sidewalk, but if it's against the law, and a cop is there to see it, issue a ticket.
>
>No disagreement on this. It's what I said in what I cut out above. But eating a stinky burger and overdosing on perfume or playing music in earbuds too loud are not against the law.
>And, by the way, I suspect that the laws on the books would be cut way way down if cops did issue tickets or arrest people every time they saw an infraction.
>>
>>You know, what makes society work is that people understand the concept of courtesy. We made smoking in confined areas illegal, why not perfume? When my mother is on a bus or a streetcar and there is someone doused in perfume, where would you suggest she go? Should she maybe walk along beside the bus? Should she have to get off and wait for the next one and pay another fare? If someone like her is at work and the person in the next cubicle is doused in perfume, where would you suggest she go? It's real easy to say everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want, but believe it or not, that does lead to a devolution of societal structure.
>
>The way things are going, perfume will probably be illegal in confined spaces some day. But in the mean time your mom can ask the driver for a transfer to let her catch the next bus behind, or get off the subway and take the next one. After all, it's HER that has the problem, not the rest of the bus.
>As regards the next cubicle possibility, is your mom tongueless too? Can she not ask the overdoser to lighten it up? If that fails, can she not ask the boss to move one of them elsewhere? Why should someone do without perfume just because you mom has a problem (and doesn't want to say/do something to fix the problem herself?
>And what about the guy who has bad burns healing and perfumes to cover the stench??? I worked with a fellow who had bad burns and they did dtink and he was asked to do something about it or stay home. He used some scent that was much more pleasant than the stench of burned ointmented recovering skin.

Why didn't he stay home? After all it was HE that had the problem, not the rest of the office.

>Stinky burgers and perfume overload and loud music in earbuds have no impact on "devolution of societal structure" except in a very small minority. Those who want someone else to do the work they can do themselves. I understand that teachers now have to put up with a lot of crap and are basically powerless to do anything about it. In my day ANY cheek to a teacher was a trip to the Principal's office with consequences of some kind guaranteed. No cops were involved. Seems to me that a whole lot of what you want can be addressed IN schools and that they should do so.
>
>>
>>The more discourtesy and breaking of 'small laws' is allowed, the worse it will get over time. If you don't believe that, then compare today's society with that of say 50 years ago. People are becoming less and less interested in the welfare of comfort of those around them. Why? Because people like you say "This isn't a problem for me, so it's not a problem that anybody should do anything about".
>
>There you go again, accusing me of self-centeredness when it is you who is the culprit. And, again, eating stinky burgers or overdosing on perfume or playing music loud in earphones are NOT AGAINST THE LAW. So don't be accusing me when it was me who said the offended person ought to take some responsibility for correcting the situation rather than relying on cops to do it. You would have the cops so busy with miniscule crap that robberies/shootings/speeding deaths/etc would all go way up. But at least you wopuldn't have no stinky burger to put up with.

I repeat, if they were against the law, I would not ask cops to start their day looking for people playing loud music, but if one were there and it was happening, then he/she should intervene. As you point out, it is not against the law, but if you honestly believe that the growing discourtesy that people show each other in our society does not lead to a devolution of society, then on that we are miles apart.