OK, let's get a little surreal for an analogy.

Don't consider the expense or practicality of this, but assume that you want to be in a state of constant marijuana high and that you have a legal right to do this. You then keep a 'weed' fire burning out in your yard, allowing you to walk your property and maintain your high.

I, a next door neighbor, do not want to maintain this constant high. Since it is not practical to keep your air exclusively circulating on your property, I must wear a respirator when outside, have a sealed house with it's own filtered air, and I must change clothes as I enter my house through an airlock. Never mind the hoops that I must jump through with my car and implications for guests that want to visit me or implications of residuals acquired by my clothing as I walk through our common outdoor air, then visit other locations.

Of course, I will probably not be your only next door neighbor.

All of my, and other neighbors' extra trouble is justified so that you can exercise your "right" to roam free and be high. If we complain about our situation your retort is that we simply don't appreciate pleasure and no one has turned green and died the instant they set foot on your property and even then we must somehow prove to your satisfaction that this difficulty was caused by your weed fire. Finally, since you reject any hint of 'science' we have no means to change your opinion and improve our situation. Your rights are simply superior to any rights that we attempt to assert.