This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.
Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.
You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.
Would that upset you? Why, or why not?
My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.
My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.
I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.
I’d say no, you can develop an allergic reaction to many things, doesn’t mean we should ban it all because of that or because it’s upsetting to some people. As for “upsetting” I think it’s everyone’s freedom to perfume however they want, if it’s something socially concerning like idk, smell of puke, then feel free to raise an eyebrow at their choice and vacate the premises (if possible, if it’s on a plane then yeah might need to get them to cover it up), but just because it’s generally unacceptable to use that as an aroma doesn’t mean it should be banned still, unless it directly causes death. Banning something should be a last resort.