I understand the fact that we can't smoke in most places. I can wait until we get outside after dinner to smoke, I welcome
the oportunity to go outside during work, and...Jaysus, people used to smoke
?!? If it's a concert venue, hey, I'm a little too busy enjoying the show to nic-fit anyway. But c'mon, in a bar
, people obviously aren't too
concerned with their health!
LoveSickJerk wrote: ...why should I have my options limited simply because some other folks want to smoke?
Conversely, why should they have their options limited just because you don't like their smoke? Again, it's not really posing any risks to you, it's just annoying. I'm not trying to pick a fight, really, and even as a smoker, I hate other people's smoke going right into my face. What I wish is that smokers and nonsmokers alike would simply be more considerate of others in general. If you're smoking next to other people, watch your smoke. If at all possible, direct it away from them; if not, move so that it is
possible. If there are ashtrays all around you, don't
throw your butts on the ground; someone has to clean 'em up! And nonsmokers: stop
putting trash in the ashtrays!! Trash is for trashcans; butts are for ashtrays. Like, duh.
Smoking is not a right, it is a choice...
Exactly. We all have choices, and the only rights we are really afforded are :1.
Life. Smokers aren't abridging that right, nor are nonsmokers by bitching. Each is merely annoying the other.2.
Liberty. A.k.a. the right to make one's own choices. Smokers aren't taking away anyone's liberty by smoking in an area clearly designated
as allowing smoking. Nonsmokers, on the other hand, are indeed trying to force smokers into having only one choice: quitting or smoking only at home, with the windows closed, hiding under the covers. (Okay, technically, that's only in MD at the moment, but if they could, the same people would implement similar legislation everywhere.)3.
Pursuit of Happiness. This one's a bit tricky, because you can easily stomp on someone else's happiness in pursuit of your own. Many people do just that everyday. Certainly, if I light up because it makes me happy, I can make the guy next to me quite unhappy by grossing him out/making him cough. Which is why I always
ask before I light up in someone else's house/car, even if I know them to be chain-smoking fiends. You see, with just a little bit of thought about your effect on others, you can avoid a lot of problems. Shame so many don't seem to even realize they aren't the only person on earth until they get pissed off when someone gets in their way.
MoxieVoxie wrote:If you walked thru a bar throwing your drinks on random people just minding their own business, if you didn't get arrested you would definitely get thrown out. Smoking around people is just as invasive.
Um, no it's not, because there are no areas with signs that read, 'Designated Throwing-Your-Drink-On-People Area'. You would just be sitting there minding your own business, and BAM. Also, you can go outside for a sec and be smoke-free almost instantly. Not so with a rum-soaked shirt. Plus, throwing drinks on people necessitates intent, whereas bugging nonsmokers is merely an unfortunate side effect of smoking.
...I don't like it when I am forced to breath in other people's smoke and go home smelling like ass, and I would never impose my choice to smoke on someone who doesn't. I also don't think a non-smoker should be forced to choose to not go to see a show because it is a poorly ventilated venue. Smokers can simply go outside to smoke...big deal.
Okay, here I agree with you. Like I said above, I would never impose my smoke on someone in their home/car without at least asking first. And I sure don't want nonsmokers to stay home not enjoying a show over my smoke! As long as the show is only a couple of hours and/or has a break, I am happy to go outside provided re-entry is allowed.
The argument that a smoker's rights are being taken away can be equated with a drinker's rights being taken away because they cannot drink in vehicles or many public places.
Crap, just when we were getting on so well...no, it's not at all the same. Smoke may be annoying, but you don't get fucked up on it such that you pose a threat to others whilst driving/in public. C'mon, did I even have to point out that one?
anthropomorphizing_kitty wrote: ...Second, there is not a fiber in my being that can even begin to comprehend how a person can in good concience smoke around their children. I used to work in a restaurant and people would ask for the smoking section and a high-chair and I felt like beating them over the head with the high-chair. Absolutely intolerable.
Me too! I had a chick who was apparently about 6-7 mos. pregnant try to bum a smoke from me, and I just smiled and said, 'Sorry, I can't' and then went inside and screamed bloody murder. WTF?!?
Liesbeth wrote: Funny thing is: our non-smoking law is about guaranteeing all employees a smoke-free environment, but this was pretty much the argument the bar lobby used and it worked.
While we're at it, how about guaranteeing all employees a soft rock-free environment? Why should retail employees have to suffer that indignity? (Only half-joking here, people.)
they can work somewhere smoke-free if they so choose.
I seriuosly doubt that everyone can make such a choice so easily.
In the restaurant/bar industry? Hell yeah, they can! The turnover in those jobs is extremely high, at least everywhere I've been.
And I don't know what exactly that study is about, but second-hand smoking isharmful. I think there's more than just one study to prove that.
Um, 'that study' was done by the EPA and is the basis for virtually all claims of secondhand smoke harmfulness. Other 'studies' generally pilfer that one, tweak it a bit, and call it data.
Some people who smoke are actually quite obliging about their habit, and some are just reckless jerks.
The same can be said for people in general, including message board posters. ;)
Betty Felon wrote:...no biting!
Awwwww...you never let us have any fun! =P
...It's certainly hard to adjust to going to a place to relax and only being partially satisfied with the experience. But people DO get really sick being around smoke. And they have to take it home with them in thier hair and clothes. And when it comes to dealing with a little irritation, the same argument could be made for the smoker having to go outside.
Personally, I don't have that much trouble getting through something as short as a rock show without smoking, and those who do might think about cutting back. And the last thing I'd want to do is ruin the vibe by making a bunch of people sick and pissy. Frankly, I think outdoor concerts are the best solution, weather permitting.
I want to add that being considerate and polite to others is not something to just blow off...I'm not sure, however, that politeness should be legislated...though it certainly seems that that's the only way that anyone bothers thinking about it.
*sigh* Sad, isn't it? Why can't people just be aware of their neighbors? You don't have to love 'em, no matter what Jesus says, but is simple consideration really too much to ask? When the fuck did people stop teaching their kids manners? It's just about become an antiquated term, manners. Anyway, BF, it's nice to know I'm not the only one struggling with it.
Side note: I just went on a long road trip with a fellow smoker. In fact, she smoked about twice as much as I did. And by the time we reached Little Rock on the way home, I was about to barf. But hey, the same thing I said above applies: I'm not imposing non-smoking on someone in their own car anymore than I'm imposing my smoking on someone in their own car. Anyway, wish me luck quitting; I have to in the next 2 months.