or Connect
VeggieBoards › Forums › General Discussion Forums › The Compost Heap › Smokers' Rights?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Smokers' Rights? - Page 14

post #391 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

Can you provide some examples of behaviours that are as infringing on others' rights in public places as smoking is?



Unsolicited noise bothers me more.
post #392 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

Can you provide some examples of behaviours that are as infringing on others' rights in public places as smoking is? If there are smokers in a public place like a restaurant, a lot of non-smokers would not be able to tolerate sitting in such a place for a long time, much less eating in public while inhaling smoke. On the other hand, if smokers could just refrain from smoking for a little while while they're in the restaurant, then everyone could eat there and no one would have to leave. People with asthma and allergies to smoke wouldn't have to stay home or outdoors pretty much all the time. It's illegal to knowingly give peanuts to a person with a peanut allergy, but when you smoke in a crowded public place, you're running the risk of giving someone a severe asthma attack.



I read about a gym in Montreal that made its windows opaque because the gym was across the street from a hasidic synagogue, and the members of the synagogue were offended at seeing adults exercising through the gym window. That doesn't make much sense to me, because they could easily look away from the window if they were so offended. But when it comes to smoking, a person with asthma or an allergy wouldn't be able to just turn away, they would have to physically remove themselves from the place, regardless of what they were doing at the time. How is that fair, when all the smoker has to do is refrain from smoking while in a crowded public place! Then everyone can stay, no problem.



What exactly is a public place?



What if a bar or restaurant owner put up signs saying 'Warning: Smokers are welcome here. If cigarette smoke bothers you please go to another bar (or restaurant)'.



This would be like a restaurant similar to the Hard Rock Cafe where the owner makes a decision to have the music up quite loud in the restaurant. People who don't like loud music have the choice to dine elsewhere. Just a people who don't like cigarettes from others would be able to dine at a non-smoking restaurant.



Isn't this about choice?
post #393 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post

Unsolicited noise bothers me more.



Screaming children allowed to run riot in restaurants while their parents ignore them comes to mind....
post #394 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

I

More than a few large, gas guzzling ones. Frequently driven by one driver.





I've never seen a car with two drivers.
post #395 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Screaming children allowed to run riot in restaurants while their parents ignore them comes to mind....



That annoys me way more that cigarettes. Unfortunately it is more politically correct to lambaste smokers than uncaring parents.
Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Reply
Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Reply
post #396 of 425
But too many people are parents for us to criticize them.
post #397 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

What exactly is a public place?



What if a bar or restaurant owner put up signs saying 'Warning: Smokers are welcome here. If cigarette smoke bothers you please go to another bar (or restaurant)'.



This would be like a restaurant similar to the Hard Rock Cafe where the owner makes a decision to have the music up quite loud in the restaurant. People who don't like loud music have the choice to dine elsewhere. Just a people who don't like cigarettes from others would be able to dine at a non-smoking restaurant.



Isn't this about choice?



And what if every restaurant in town decided to do that? Then non-smokers wouldn't be able to go anywhere without inhaling others' second-hand smoke. Smokers and non-smokers should all be able to eat at restaurants; smokers should just have to undergo the minor inconvenience of waiting until they leave to light up. Why is it such a big deal? It's certainly not as inconvenient as having to go all over town (in a polluting car or bus! ) to find a non-smoking restaurant.



Though where I live, this is a moot point, as all restaurants, bars, hotel lobbies, and other indoor places are strictly non-smoking. I'm just waiting for it to apply to restaurant patios, so that smokers' cigarette ashes don't blow into my food and face.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post

Unsolicited noise bothers me more.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Screaming children allowed to run riot in restaurants while their parents ignore them comes to mind....



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

That annoys me way more that cigarettes. Unfortunately it is more politically correct to lambaste smokers than uncaring parents.



das_nut said "most of us engage in behaviors that are just as, if not more damaging". Loud kids in public are certainly annoying, and when possible, they should be removed from the area, but das_nut said damaging. Annoying does not equal damaging.
post #398 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

If they get sick and need to go to the ER, they find a way, such as the bus or calling a cab.

The ER example was meant to show that, as of present, whether they own the gas-powered vehicle or not, they will more than likely be transported by one.
post #399 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

Still, I'm seeing lack of access for disabled and lack of adequate facilities and public transportation as a massive failure of the way our society is currently structured, rather that a point of biological need.

This was part of my point. It's difficult to not depend on some aspect of polluting transportion, even if you personally don't drive a gas-powered vehicle. While someone quitting smoking, though I don't deny it can be difficult in a different sense, only involves one's own person. You have direct and total control over it, there is no indirect goal (other than perhaps encouraging others to quit smoking) like there is with the striving for total indepedence from others' gas-powered vehicles.
Quote:
The "necessity" for some people to have cars because of the way towns are spread out, inadequate mass transit and the like is a societal failure that can be addressed, it is not a physical human need. We can change the way society is structured to greatly lessen our reliance on motor vehicles. Stating that cars are a "need" and not a societal convenience is denying that.

And unlike the quitting of smoking, the changing of so many layers of society that depend upon fast, large, and often polluting, transportation seems like a much larger project to me. But who knows, I haven't studied up on this that much.
post #400 of 425
I can't believe that some people would claim that "smokers are unfairly ganged up on". There seems little reason to suspect ulterior motive when a non-smoker simply wants to be free of very noticeable, irritating cigarette smoke. I couldn't care less if the cigarette smoke comes from a snob or a homeless person, it still seems discourteous to non-smokers.



There have been several times in my life when I smoked, and I know I was sometimes rude about it. I think if I ever did smoke again, I would give much more weight to the health concerns of second-hand smoke.
post #401 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

das_nut said "most of us engage in behaviors that are just as, if not more damaging". Loud kids in public are certainly annoying, and when possible, they should be removed from the area, but das_nut said damaging. Annoying does not equal damaging.



You've never seen a kid on a mixed-use path, I take it.



One of the reasons I tend to avoid them.



(Pet owners are dangerous as well, dang leashes.)
post #402 of 425
"This would be like a restaurant similar to the Hard Rock Cafe where the owner makes a decision to have the music up quite loud in the restaurant."



It depends on how loud. It is one thing to have loud music, it is another thing to have the "music" so loud that it causes damage to the cochlear hair cells and permanent hearing loss. The first should be legal, the second should be illegal. It is only the second that is analagous to allowing smoking.
post #403 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

And what if every restaurant in town decided to do that? Then non-smokers wouldn't be able to go anywhere without inhaling others' second-hand smoke. Smokers and non-smokers should all be able to eat at restaurants; smokers should just have to undergo the minor inconvenience of waiting until they leave to light up. Why is it such a big deal? It's certainly not as inconvenient as having to go all over town (in a polluting car or bus! ) to find a non-smoking restaurant.



Though where I live, this is a moot point, as all restaurants, bars, hotel lobbies, and other indoor places are strictly non-smoking. I'm just waiting for it to apply to restaurant patios, so that smokers' cigarette ashes don't blow into my food and face.















das_nut said "most of us engage in behaviors that are just as, if not more damaging". Loud kids in public are certainly annoying, and when possible, they should be removed from the area, but das_nut said damaging. Annoying does not equal damaging.



So all we need to do is find a way to prove children are damaging and we can get them banned from restaurants?



Well, children are germ magnets. Its a proven fact that children mix with many many other children in schools and share their germs, virus and bacteria with all who come into contact with them. Just the fact that a child is withing coughing distance of me is a danger to my health. I could catch Lord knows what horrible disease from the little urchins.



And those high pitched piercing screams the little ones make when they are unhappy are certianly a danger to the hearing of those in the vicinity.



So, my hearing and general health are put in danger by screaming children in restaurants and therefore should be banned.
post #404 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

So all we need to do is find a way to prove children are damaging and we can get them banned from restaurants?



Well, children are germ magnets. Its a proven fact that children mix with many many other children in schools and share their germs, virus and bacteria with all who come into contact with them. Just the fact that a child is withing coughing distance of me is a danger to my health. I could catch Lord knows what horrible disease from the little urchins.



And those high pitched piercing screams the little ones make when they are unhappy are certianly a danger to the hearing of those in the vicinity.



So, my hearing and general health are put in danger by screaming children in restaurants and therefore should be banned.



Those are pretty unsound arguments. You can get sick from careless adults just as easily as from children. A large study showed that only 67% of men wash their hands in public washrooms, but 88% of women do. Therefore I think men should be banned from public, because they are more likely to spread germs than women



And I don't think anyone has ever literally had their hearing actually damaged by a screaming baby, annoying as it is.
post #405 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

Those are pretty unsound arguments. You can get sick from careless adults just as easily as from children. A large study showed that only 67% of men wash their hands in public washrooms, but 88% of women do. Therefore I think men should be banned from public, because they are more likely to spread germs than women



And I don't think anyone has ever literally had their hearing actually damaged by a screaming baby, annoying as it is.



Well, the point I was making is that with some serious funding into research and a subtle marketing campaign to sway public opinion, it'd be quite easy to put together some 'facts' that prove exposure to children increases the risk of catching a cold or a flu, coupled with some more facts on the deceibel levels of children screaming adding to the overall noise pollution, a case could be made. Media reports focusing on these facts would be broadcast and people would start to form an opinion, sparking a public debate. More people would jump on the bandwagon one way or another. Some people would believe the facts and demand protection right away. Some restaurants would experiment with banning children and away we go.



This is just an example of the process of vilification that has already happened with smokers.
post #406 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Well, the point I was making is that with some serious funding into research and a subtle marketing campaign to sway public opinion, it'd be quite easy to put together some 'facts' that prove exposure to children increases the risk of catching a cold or a flu, coupled with some more facts on the deceibel levels of children screaming adding to the overall noise pollution, a case could be made. Media reports focusing on these facts would be broadcast and people would start to form an opinion, sparking a public debate. More people would jump on the bandwagon one way or another. Some people would believe the facts and demand protection right away. Some restaurants would experiment with banning children and away we go.



This is just an example of the process of vilification that has already happened with smokers.



^^^ All of us (except MrFalafel who obviously fell from the sky as a perfect grown-up) started out as children. Being a child for some years, incl. the disadvantages, i. e. occasionally screaming in restaurants before one has acquired the skills to post on message boards, is not a choice, and it does not per se damage anybody elses health.



Smoking is a choice, which can easily be avoided or be restricted to places and occasions were non-smokers are not discomforted by it.



The health hazards of secondhand smoke are scientifically proven. They were not just invented for some marketing campaign concepts like smokers rights and smoker discrimination were though!
post #407 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinoa View Post

^^^ All of us (except MrFalafel who obviously fell from the sky as a perfect grown-up) started out as children. Being a child for some years, incl. the disadvantages, i. e. occasionally screaming in restaurants before one has acquired the skills to post on message boards, is not a choice, and it does not per se damage anybody elses health.



Smoking is a choice, which can easily be avoided or be restricted to places and occasions were non-smokers are not discomforted by it.



The health hazards of secondhand smoke are scientifically proven. They were not just invented for some marketing campaign concepts like smokers rights and smoker discrimination were though!



Parenting is a choice. People are not forced to have children. Also, parents have a choice of either dining at home with their children where they will not be a bother to others or they can choose to take their children to a restaurant where their screaming can affect everyone else.



Right now in most places smokers are forced to smoke outside but even this is in jeapordy. The vilification of smokers continues.
post #408 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Parenting is a choice. People are not forced to have children.

Ah, so you are comparing children to cigarettes.

I thought you were comparing being a child (which obviously is not the same as having or parenting one, regarding choices or being forced) to the action of smoking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Also, parents have a choice of either dining at home with their children where they will not be a bother to others or they can choose to take their children to a restaurant where their screaming can affect everyone else.

If you really were so concerned about not bothering others, you certainly wouldnt defend public smoking like you do. AFAIK smokers have a choice of dining at home with their tobacco where they will not be a bother to others. But no, it is non-smokers who are supposed to avoid public places where smokers want to smoke. Ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Right now in most places smokers are forced to smoke outside but even this is in jeapordy. The vilification of smokers continues.

No one is forced to smoke outside, smokers can smoke inside all they want in their own house.

(Though even there, smokers can be a bother... My up- and downstairs neighbors both smoke on the balcony, and it often is the first thing I get to smell when I wake up around 6 a. m. - not so nice)



As for "in most places". Where I live, smoking is still legal almost everywhere, incl. many workplaces and pubs. We have so called non-smoking train stations now. But on the main stations, smokers are still granted a smoking area. This is only marked by a line on the platform. Needless to say that non-smokers are still exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke there. At bus shelters, most smokers would never think to stand in the rain that is usually left to the non-smokers, if they want to wait in the shelter they have to share the smoke.
post #409 of 425
Speaking of children... I think some smoker apologists could stand to do a bit of growing up themselves.
post #410 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinoa View Post

Ah, so you are comparing children to cigarettes.

I thought you were comparing being a child (which obviously is not the same as having or parenting one, regarding choices or being forced) to the action of smoking.If you really were so concerned about not bothering others, you certainly wouldnt defend public smoking like you do. AFAIK smokers have a choice of dining at home with their tobacco where they will not be a bother to others. But no, it is non-smokers who are supposed to avoid public places where smokers want to smoke. Ridiculous.

No one is forced to smoke outside, smokers can smoke inside all they want in their own house.

(Though even there, smokers can be a bother... My up- and downstairs neighbors both smoke on the balcony, and it often is the first thing I get to smell when I wake up around 6 a. m. - not so nice)



As for "in most places". Where I live, smoking is still legal almost everywhere, incl. many workplaces and pubs. We have so called non-smoking train stations now. But on the main stations, smokers are still granted a smoking area. This is only marked by a line on the platform. Needless to say that non-smokers are still exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke there. At bus shelters, most smokers would never think to stand in the rain that is usually left to the non-smokers, if they want to wait in the shelter they have to share the smoke.





Well where does it all end? In many places in California, you are not allowed to indoors anywhere nor smoke on street corners, by ATMs, at outdoor bus stands, near doorways or anywhere at all where people gather. It would just be a matter of time before people can't smoke in their own homes if the smell wafts into their neighbors open window.



Lets take a step back here. Perhaps we should't be talking about smoking and instead be talking about air quality. Earlier in this thread we've talked about people who pollute the air with too much perfume and other air quality issues. These are not being addressed by smoking legislation.



Perhaps the legislation should be around air quality? Surely there are ventilation systems that completely replace the air in a room so quickly that any second hand smoke is almost instantly removed. Or we could have fixed smoking hoods inside bars whereby smokers could smoke and all of their smoke is sucked up into a vent whereby no second hand smoke is pushed onto others. This could all be monitored by tamper-proof air quality measurement and recording devices to ensure compliance.



Why do we not address air quality as the real issue? Because it does not vilify smokers. After all, these laws are all about attacking smokers, not air quality.
post #411 of 425
It's not an easy question for me, because I'm addicted to nicotine. I was born that way. Grew up in smoke-filled rooms. Smoke is second-nature to me. I was getting high on smoke, before I was trained to go potty or to be a meat-eater. I've given up meat, and smoking is next on my list, but it's not an easy issue.



As a smoker, I don't mind altering my lifestyle to show respect for those who don't want to breathe second-hand smoke. Limiting the places where one can smoke seems valid and fair. My objection is, the way the tax-laws are being brought into play by unscrupulous, overzealous officials and their supporters, in an attempt to financially and politically force their ideas on others. This seems an extraordinarily petty, dictatorial approach, to try to use taxation to bend others to their will. I have no respect for them and I pity them, for their lack of vision. If they cannot persuade others, through reason and good example, they have no business trying to force smokers into submission by taxation. It is socially retrograde and, in my view, far more harmful than the smoke.

"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"....The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
" .... " -Harpo Marx

Reply

"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"....The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
" .... " -Harpo Marx

Reply
post #412 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

It's not an easy question for me, because I'm addicted to nicotine. I was born that way. Grew up in smoke-filled rooms. Smoke is second-nature to me. I was getting high on smoke, before I was trained to go potty or to be a meat-eater. I've given up meat, and smoking is next on my list, but it's not an easy issue.



As a smoker, I don't mind altering my lifestyle to show respect for those who don't want to breathe second-hand smoke. Limiting the places where one can smoke seems valid and fair. []

Thanks for sharing a smokers perspective who still has regard for non-smokers. I see why it would seem much harder for you to quit smoking than it has been for some others. Wishing you good luck!
post #413 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Why do we not address air quality as the real issue? Because it does not vilify smokers. After all, these laws are all about attacking smokers, not air quality.

None of these laws are about attacking smokers at all. This perceived victimhood of smokers is the result of tobacco lobby marketing campaigns, and of their own addiction.



The laws are about protecting non-smokers from health hazards and discomforts caused by secondhand tobacco smoke. So you might say that anti-smoking legislation vilifies smoking. But certainly not that these laws vilify smokers as individuals, none of whom are forced by anything beyond their control, not even by their addiction, to smoke 24/7 and at all places.



Smokers are allowed to visit exactly the same places that non-smokers are allowed to visit, both indoors and outdoors. They are simply not allowed to smoke in certain places while they stay there.



We are talking about air quality. Restricting smoking (remember: not smokers) to areas/rooms that have monitored air ventilation systems sounds like an interesting idea.
post #414 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinoa View Post

Thanks for sharing a smoker’s perspective who still has regard for non-smokers. I see why it would seem much harder for you to quit smoking than it has been for some others. Wishing you good luck!



Good luck to you!



I'm curious why you didn't address the taxation issue. Do you have no view on this?

"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"....The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
" .... " -Harpo Marx

Reply

"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"....The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
" .... " -Harpo Marx

Reply
post #415 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

Those are pretty unsound arguments. You can get sick from careless adults just as easily as from children. A large study showed that only 67% of men wash their hands in public washrooms, but 88% of women do.



If women have to wash more, they obviously are the dirtier gender.
post #416 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

I'm curious why you didn't address the taxation issue. Do you have no view on this?

Sorry I did not mean to ignore this. I really dont know enough about taxation in the US to have an opinion on it.



In my country, there is tobacco tax. But there also is gas tax, alcohol tax, amusement tax, dog tax, church tax, you-name-it tax. I think if smoking was banned completely, theyd probably start charging fresh air tax, lol. Then again, I am fine with paying taxes in general, its how and on what they spend them which worries me more. But thats a whole different thread.
post #417 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbey View Post

A large study showed that only 67% of men wash their hands in public washrooms, but 88% of women do. Therefore I think men should be banned from public, because they are more likely to spread germs than women



A Harvard man and a Yale man find themselves standing side-by-side at the urinal. They both finish and zip up. The Harvard man walks over to the sink and washes his hands, while the Yale man immediately makes for the exit.



The Harvard man says, "At Hah-vahd they teach us to wash our hands after we urinate."



The Yale man responds, "At Yale they teach us not to piss on our hands."
post #418 of 425
I heard that joke before.. only it was an army guy and a marine guy.
post #419 of 425
A guy goes to buy a pack of cigarettes.

The salesperson puts them on the counter.

Sorry, not these ones, please.

Why not?

It says smoking causes impotence on these... Im on a date tonight, Id rather take the ones that cause cancer!
post #420 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starblossom View Post

I don't post in the heap very often so I apologize if this has been brought up already.



A lot of the people I work with are smokers. I was sitting outside with them the other day and somehow they began discussing how annoying it is when a non-smoker moves away from them to get away from the smoke. Then they went on about how the cafeterias are now smoke-free, so the smokers are now forced to go outside and it's unfair, blah blah anyways he wound up saying: "smokers don't have any rights, but one day we'll have rights."



I thought that was kind of interesting. As a non-smoker I've always felt that non-smokers didn't really have many rights until recently when they banned (in Canada, anyways), smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. Finally, I can eat out in public without breathing in the cancerous smoke that floats over the curtains that supposedly separate the non-smoking and smoking sections.



But what do you all think about the "rights" that smokers and non-smokers should have?



*edited to correct poor grammar



Really don't have time to read the whole thread, sorry guys...



Just gonna toss in my 2 cents. I HATE SMOKE.



It makes me feel literally sick to smell cigarette smoke. It sticks to everything, fingers, clothing, hair, and it reeks. It is a persistent smell, and doesn't magically avoid a person who stands upwind of their cigarette or something. It turns walls yellow, and teeth, and fingernails. People come in to order coffee at my work and I can smell it on their breath from a good two feet away. It's worse than bad breath. I'd prefer it if every single smoker in the world had halitosis instead. Seriously. Even if it was three-alarm stinky-breath. It would be better than ash-breath.



I want my rights to not have to breathe in a known toxin every time I go to a bar, or walk down the sidewalk, or wait in line for the bus.



And little anecdote: Once I was walking down the street and a smoker tossed a lit cigarette butt off their balcony and it landed in my hair. It was disgusting, AND it burned off a good section of my hair.



</bitter rant>



I feel better with that off my chest!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Compost Heap
VeggieBoards › Forums › General Discussion Forums › The Compost Heap › Smokers' Rights?