RE: Second hand smoke

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Second hand smoke

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Second hand smoke

Page: << < prev 21 22 23 [24] 25 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/16/2006 7:41:09 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac
Opens up a can of worms but principle is non smoker has greater entitlement to not be exposed to smoke than the smokers entitlement to be free!!!!!

Makes perfect sense to me. You apparently don't understand how rights work. Pity that.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 461

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/16/2006 10:33:48 PM

Lilmissbossy

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I fail to see why I should have to suffer unemployment or breathe another person's toxic pollution, which is basically the choice that under scootertrash's view of the universe, I should have where I lived.

Nobody forced you to work in a smoking establishment any more than someone forces a vegetarian to work at a burger joint.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 462

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/16/2006 11:06:03 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy
Nobody forced you to work in a smoking establishment any more than someone forces a vegetarian to work at a burger joint.

What is the number of people in the world that don't understand how civil rights work?

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)

Profile

Post #: 463

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/16/2006 11:37:16 PM

NakedOnMyChain

Posts: 2431
Joined: 11/29/2004
From: Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

This thread is like a bad accident that I have to just keep checking out. Im not on a side. What I find disturbing is the attitude of the smokers. Theyre proud to be smokers, they make jokes about it and frankly are quite arrogant, which isnt that surprising because thats the pysche of an addict, its their coping mechanism. But what really bothers me is that they just dont care.

I am not here to puff out my chest. I used to smoke. I used to be a nicotine addict (a junkie). Theres not a day that goes by that I dont hold on tight to my resolve. I am not arrogant about it, I am not invulnerable or above anyone because I quit. But when I did smoke, I never smoked in a car when a non smoker was with me, even if it was my car. I never smoked around a kid, or an adult non smoker for that matter. I never smoked where non smokers were eating around me. When I was a smoker, I never felt this 'right' that you all speak of. I felt like what I was, which was an nicotine addict and I felt like I had an obligation to keep others from the discomfort of my smoke---whether it was the smell, or if they had an allergy, or it made them cough, or whatever. I didnt question it. I just did not impose on non smokers. I can even remember being out with non smoking friends, and needing a fix so bad that I would go outside to grab a couple of puffs and I would feel guilty just going back to the table carrying the smell with me. If I had to go somewhere, Id wash my hands or even change clothes and things like that.
Smoke is nasty to people who arent addicted to it. Smoke burns peoples eyes, its makes them cough. It smells horrible. Some get an allergic reaction to it. It burns our throats. Its the smoke...not the smoker . Its not personal!!! Theres no reason for the defensiveness. Smokers should be aware that it makes people uncomforable physically in a number of ways and its a proven health risk. I dont understand the lack of consideration and care among the smokers. Non smokers dont dislike smokers as a people. They dislike smoke.

Was that a reply to me? Or to the thread in general? All I was arguing was a business owner's right to decide whether they will allow it or not. Honestly, I don't particularly care one way or another. I just think someone who has shelled out the money to run an establishment should have the choice provided smoking is still legal.

As a general sidenote, I had a bit of a revelation a couple of weeks ago. Because of my current condition I've been avoiding places that involve heavy smoke. However, I had a friend return from a summer in Korea, and there was an indoor get-together with a bunch of my friends that I hadn't seen in a while... and most of them smoke. I was only there for an hour at most, so I was genuinely surprised when I got home and took off my clothes at how bad they smelled. It was disgusting! I had to do a load of laundry later that night and take a shower immediately to get it out of my hair. I guess when I was smoking I never really noticed it, and I'd never really been in a situation to have it happen since I quit. It was gross, and this is coming from a girl who actually likes the smell of cigarettes while someone is smoking. (My Dad smokes, and I suppose it's a comfort thing that I'm used to.) That stale smoke is just overpowering.

_____________________________

"Oh, it's torture, but I'm almost there."
~The Cure

"I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say, and I will be your slave."
~The Labyrinth

(in reply to marieToo)

Profile

Post #: 464

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/16/2006 11:49:20 PM

MistressLorelei

Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I fail to see why I should have to suffer unemployment or breathe another person's toxic pollution, which is basically the choice that under scootertrash's view of the universe, I should have where I lived.

Nobody forced you to work in a smoking establishment any more than someone forces a vegetarian to work at a burger joint.

What some of you fail to understand is these are PUBLIC places, where a safe environment is the goal; where you should be able to exist without being intentionally harmed by others. Not only do we, as a society have common courtesy (though not everyone displays it), we also have laws, and regulations of how people should behave while in public. Having these public places that we all share is our right.... doing anything and everything we feel like doing in these public places is not a right. Be naked, but not in public, pee on the floor, but not in the mall, play music as loud as you please, but not in a restaurant.... the same would apply to smoking, as it is harmful to others (even if you leave out rude).

To use the argument made by smokers: If a smoker wishes to be a part of the public in a civilized society, where people are not free to behave like animals, thieves, polluters, etc simply because they want to... then perhaps the smokers who do wish to engage in public polluting, should consider moving to another society..... no one forced them to stay here. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Yet, that's what smokers expect of the nonsmokers... inhale the harmful fumes or stay out of public places.

And by the way, a vegetarian working in a burger joint is not physically harmed by inhaling the burger fumes in the burger joint... unless said joint is a smoking establishment.

It would not be okay for me to go into a public place and spray hazardous chemicals all around .... why should it be okay for a smoker to do it? I should have equal freedom to do so, no?

When everyone (not just the smokers) is granted the right to harm the general public as they please... we will all be screwed. I don't call that freedom at all.

It's as unfortunate that people are being harmed by second hand smoke in public places, as it is that people want to harm other people with their second hand smoke in public places.

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)

Profile

Post #: 465

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 12:00:10 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain
All I was arguing was a business owner's right to decide whether they will allow it or not.

Maybe a sole proprietorship, home business with no employees. Sure, a person's home is their castle.

Otherwise you are being short-sighted on the issue.

What if the only grocery store in a small town decides they will allow smoking on the premises? Sure, the people with respiratory diseases don't have to shop there, but perhaps the closest competition is miles and miles away. Now what? A business will often not choose to do the right thing, that's why we regulate their activities. This is no different.

It's worth noting that a corporate entity is not a natural person and shouldn't have the rights of a natural person either. We are further along down that slippery slope than we want to be.

< Message edited by Chaingang -- 8/17/2006 12:10:16 AM >

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to NakedOnMyChain)

Profile

Post #: 466

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 12:30:16 AM

NakedOnMyChain

Posts: 2431
Joined: 11/29/2004
From: Indiana
Status: offline

I don't agree. I wouldn't call it short-sighted, though. I simply see it in a different light.

Oh, and I was under the impression that we were arguing about just restaurants and bars. If we're not, my mistake. In that interpretation, it's not an establishment that people would need to go to at all.

_____________________________

"Oh, it's torture, but I'm almost there."
~The Cure

"I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say, and I will be your slave."
~The Labyrinth

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 467

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 2:12:53 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy
Nobody forced you to work in a smoking establishment any more than someone forces a vegetarian to work at a burger joint.

What is the number of people in the world that don't understand how civil rights work?

Rights are arbitary and subject to fashion, like everything else in society they are subject to the whims of consensus and those in power. If people have the right not to be subject to other peoples pollution, I have a long list of people, activities and companies that infringe my rights. Of course my rights won't be upheld because they are not economic or fashionable. Chain, you are good at saying people should understand how rights work but never explain the mechanism because there is no mechanism other than imposition.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 468

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 2:15:58 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Check out either the www.bbc.co.uk or www.guardian.co.uk web pages, and one of them has details of a proposal that smokers in a company vehicle / car which was later that day going to be driven by a non smoker could be banned from smoking. Opens up a can of worms but principle is non smoker has greater entitlement to not be exposed to smoke than the smokers entitlement to be free!!!!!

Don't choke on your woodbines.

This is one of the ironies of the whole non-smoking debate. The car will cause more pollution and environmental damage than the smoker. The non-smoker has the right to a car that doesn't smell of smoke while the non-smoker driver denies pedestrians and cyclists and the population in genral of clean air. Traffic fumes are far more dangerous than secondhand smoke and cause far and away more illness.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and are subject to people's addiction and are the greatest evil to a city's environment.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 8/17/2006 2:21:01 AM >

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 469

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 4:39:18 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Rights are arbitary and subject to fashion, like everything else in society they are subject to the whims of consensus and those in power.

In part, I agree with you. But ideally, there are rights that are recognized and protected for a minority viewpoint. But I don't honestly think we can place smoking in the same category as getting to ride the front of a bus or to use the same drinking fountains.

You do really have minority rights, smoking is simply not one of them.

Why not? Because to smoke is not the same as an equal right - it is the imposition of one activity that supersedes all others. That's how smokers keep messing up where rights are concerned: they don't have the right to impose unclean air into an environment just as another person may not disturb the peace with overloud music. That's just the way it is. Other people have the right to be left alone.

And again, in your homes you can do as you like. In public you can be regulated.

And again, I will defend a smokers right to the legal status of being a smoker - as long as they don't blow smoke in my face. I defend anyone's right to be who they are and to express that in the appropriate way and in the correct space. Smokers certainly have the right to vigorously defend their rights by way of political speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Chain, you are good at saying people should understand how rights work but never explain the mechanism because there is no mechanism other than imposition.

"Every law is an infringement upon liberty." - Jeremy Bentham

The members of a civil society agree to the rule of law. All laws operate as an imposition to those that would violate them. What's your alternative? Your argument sounds neat and quasi-intellectually provocative, but it is all bullshit underneath. Vacuous - utterly. And you know it. Bentham knew it also. You're not living on your own fucking island - you have to live with your neighbors, ideally in such a manner as to keep the peace.

FWIW, the understanding of how rights work is well understood by the members of civil society, but not apparently by someone like yourself. How odd. I give you this:

The ethic of reciprocity, or the "The Golden Rule"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

"What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." -Confucius
"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -Oscar Wilde
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The last quote is of interest because Holmes is a recognized legal authority in the U.S. as a former member of SCOTUS. Further, the quote is a restatement of an old French proverb on the subject of rights. Similar statements are embodied in statements like the pagan rede: "An it harm none, do what thou will." In other words, this idea is pretty much universal to all civil societies no matter how anarchic or loosely formed. Everyone has the fundamental right to be left alone.

So because apparently it is necessary to be didactic on the issue as if some of you were preschoolers, I shall now restate the Holmes quote:

"Your right to smoke ends where the other man's nose begins."

So, in effect, you have a clear right to smoke where it doesn't bother me and not anywhere else. All the other bullshit arguments about things that corporations get away with, or how cars are much grosser polluters are immaterial. Those are issues for another day and another thread.

Seriously, I'd like to a coherent argument against what I have just written above. I doubt such an argument is forthcoming...

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 470

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 6:27:43 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

To discuss rights and then refuse to have those rights expanded to include similar cicumstances is having your cake and eat it too. If those rights make any sense, they have to be expanded to include similar acts as to include ones right to have pollution free air. If you were demanding pollution free air, I would agree with you but you aren't, you are reducing the argument to one act.

"What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." -Confucius

My smoking may pollute the environment but it no way pollutes it more than people who drive cars, I am therefore causing less harm to others than others are causing me.

"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad

Again, my smoking hurts people less than those who choose to pollute the environment through driving cars and having barbecues.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -Oscar Wilde

Quid pro quo. If people proved to me they were interested in clean air as opposed to taking an irrational stance against what they see as one form of pollution, I would oblige with reciprocal action but as long as I am inhaling dangerous car fumes and have to put up with other environmental toxins while I go about my legitimate business, I won't oblige because it is pointless.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Same again. If car drivers stopped putting me in danger with their wrecklessness, I would reconsider my position.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 471

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 8:03:51 AM

MistressLorelei

Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

To discuss rights and then refuse to have those rights expanded to include similar cicumstances is having your cake and eat it too. If those rights make any sense, they have to be expanded to include similar acts as to include ones right to have pollution free air. If you were demanding pollution free air, I would agree with you but you aren't, you are reducing the argument to one act.

"What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." -Confucius

My smoking may pollute the environment but it no way pollutes it more than people who drive cars, I am therefore causing less harm to others than others are causing me.

"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad

Again, my smoking hurts people less than those who choose to pollute the environment through driving cars and having barbecues.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -Oscar Wilde

Quid pro quo. If people proved to me they were interested in clean air as opposed to taking an irrational stance against what they see as one form of pollution, I would oblige with reciprocal action but as long as I am inhaling dangerous car fumes and have to put up with other environmental toxins while I go about my legitimate business, I won't oblige because it is pointless.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Same again. If car drivers stopped putting me in danger with their wrecklessness, I would reconsider my position.

If cars were allowed to operate indoors, you would have more of a case. If I drove my car into a restaurant and allowed the polluting exhaust to fill the inside... I'd be arrested- even if I owned the place. Telling the patrons, 'you had a choice to go to a non carbon monoxide filled restaurant instead' would not be an excuse.

Cars and transportation are considered a necessity in the US, where most people could not work without them. Meanwhile, the government regulates the harmful fumes caused by automobiles, and is constantly seeking ways to decrease the danger it poses, and creating alternate modes of transportation. Even car drivers (collectively) want the harmful pollutants cars create to be decreased, and in time, I think it will be commonplace to see cars operate with alternate sources of harmless "fuel". Why don't smokers want to decrease the pollutants in indoor public air?

I think cars, here in the US are a huge problem.... considering Americans represent about 5% of the world, and drive one third of the cars in it. We seek solutions to the car pollution problem as well.... but it is much longer process to take away someone's means of going to work, school, or to get basic needs, than it is to tell people to take their bad habit outside when in public. There are many other harmful pollutants that need to be eliminated, and more and more, we are finding solutions to do just that. Second hand smoke is being discussed as one of them here in this thread, as it is the second hand smoke thread..... and being that second hand smoke is being done indoors, the concentrated exposure to it, makes it increasingly harmful.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 472

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 8:04:22 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
If you were demanding pollution free air, I would agree with you but you aren't, you are reducing the argument to one act.

Wow, you are quite irrational with your insistences here. These are matters of respect between individual persons, not in relation to corporations and automobiles. FWIW, and even though I think it's quite irrelevant, I do want stricter pollution standards for corporations and alternative energy vehicles - my precise positions in other threads elsewhere on these forums.

But here's the thing, on a daily basis I cannot have conversations with automobiles like:
"Please Mr VW, have a heart and don't pollute my air. Okay? Thanks!"

On the other hand I can have person to person conversations like:
"Please turn that down."
"Alright, who farted in the elevator?"
"I'm sorry, I don't allow people to smoke in my house."

Your standards are basically to insist on equal time to pollute the air until such time as I can get every corporation on the planet to comply with clean air restrictions. [sarcasm]Yeah, that's rational and clearly within my sole power to achieve.[/sarcasm]

< Message edited by Chaingang -- 8/17/2006 8:42:03 AM >

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 473

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 9:17:25 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

To discuss rights and then refuse to have those rights expanded to include similar cicumstances is having your cake and eat it too. If those rights make any sense, they have to be expanded to include similar acts as to include ones right to have pollution free air. If you were demanding pollution free air, I would agree with you but you aren't, you are reducing the argument to one act.

"What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." -Confucius

My smoking may pollute the environment but it no way pollutes it more than people who drive cars, I am therefore causing less harm to others than others are causing me.

"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad

Again, my smoking hurts people less than those who choose to pollute the environment through driving cars and having barbecues.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -Oscar Wilde

Quid pro quo. If people proved to me they were interested in clean air as opposed to taking an irrational stance against what they see as one form of pollution, I would oblige with reciprocal action but as long as I am inhaling dangerous car fumes and have to put up with other environmental toxins while I go about my legitimate business, I won't oblige because it is pointless.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Same again. If car drivers stopped putting me in danger with their wrecklessness, I would reconsider my position.

If cars were allowed to operate indoors, you would have more of a case. If I drove my car into a restaurant and allowed the polluting exhaust to fill the inside... I'd be arrested- even if I owned the place. Telling the patrons, 'you had a choice to go to a non carbon monoxide filled restaurant instead' would not be an excuse.

You are free to frequent an establishment or not and if it is a smoking establishment you can make a choice and take your custom elsewhere to a smoke free establishment. I don't have a choice with roads. I have to cycle next to polluting traffic which harms me far more than an occasional cigarette.

(in reply to MistressLorelei)

Profile

Post #: 474

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 9:27:11 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Your standards are basically to insist on equal time to pollute the air until such time as I can get every corporation on the planet to comply with clean air restrictions. [sarcasm]Yeah, that's rational and clearly within my sole power to achieve.[/sarcasm]

Basically I'm insisting on my 'right' to pollute until such time that everyone decides no one has the right to pollute and since my pollution is far less harmless than that of people who drive cars or have barbecues or buy modern furniture, much of which is made of modern materials that are far more carcinogenic and harmful to them than my occasional cigarette, I will carry on as before.

Luckily I don't live in a socially fascist country and live in one where people are adult enough to avoid going into a smoking establishment if they don't want to and don't feel the need to insist on every establishment being non-smoking, whether they frequent it or not. They are also adult enough to realise that outside my smoking isn't a problem and that the real problem is traffic and industrial pollution and if anything is going to kill them it won't be my smoking.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 8/17/2006 9:29:26 AM >

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 475

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 10:54:58 AM

MistressLorelei

Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You are free to frequent an establishment or not and if it is a smoking establishment you can make a choice and take your custom elsewhere to a smoke free establishment. I don't have a choice with roads. I have to cycle next to polluting traffic which harms me far more than an occasional cigarette.

According to the philosophy displayed in your own comments, you have a choice.... simply find a place to live where cars are not an issue. There are countries, islands, and places you can live where cars play no (or very little role). Not all countries are polluted by automobile traffic, so take your preference to an auto-free environment. That philosophy, however, is unreasonable.

The whole thing is just silly. Pollution is pollution.... It seems that a reasonable goal would be to try in whatever ways we can to prevent and elliminate whatever pollution we can, and find safer solutions for all of us to breathe the cleanest air possible. The 'other people are polluting, I want to also' atttude is only adding to the problem.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 476

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 10:58:37 AM

KatyLied

Posts: 13029
Joined: 2/24/2005
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Maybe if the other people jump off the bridge he will follow them.

_____________________________

“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.”
- Albert Einstein

(in reply to MistressLorelei)

Profile

Post #: 477

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 11:05:16 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

The 'other people are polluting, I want to also' atttude is only adding to the problem.

Thanks for offering to give up your car. It does make sense to get rid of your attitude I assure you as you are probably damaging other people's lungs more than your own.

(in reply to MistressLorelei)

Profile

Post #: 478

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 11:06:44 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

Maybe if the other people jump off the bridge he will follow them.

I would definitely jump off a bridge if you would follow me.

(in reply to KatyLied)

Profile

Post #: 479

RE: Second hand smoke - 8/17/2006 11:13:30 AM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

This thread is like a bad accident that I have to just keep checking out. Im not on a side. What I find disturbing is the attitude of the smokers. Theyre proud to be smokers, they make jokes about it and frankly are quite arrogant, which isnt that surprising because thats the pysche of an addict, its their coping mechanism. But what really bothers me is that they just dont care.

I am not here to puff out my chest. I used to smoke. I used to be a nicotine addict (a junkie). Theres not a day that goes by that I dont hold on tight to my resolve. I am not arrogant about it, I am not invulnerable or above anyone because I quit. But when I did smoke, I never smoked in a car when a non smoker was with me, even if it was my car. I never smoked around a kid, or an adult non smoker for that matter. I never smoked where non smokers were eating around me. When I was a smoker, I never felt this 'right' that you all speak of. I felt like what I was, which was an nicotine addict and I felt like I had an obligation to keep others from the discomfort of my smoke---whether it was the smell, or if they had an allergy, or it made them cough, or whatever. I didnt question it. I just did not impose on non smokers. I can even remember being out with non smoking friends, and needing a fix so bad that I would go outside to grab a couple of puffs and I would feel guilty just going back to the table carrying the smell with me. If I had to go somewhere, Id wash my hands or even change clothes and things like that.
Smoke is nasty to people who arent addicted to it. Smoke burns peoples eyes, its makes them cough. It smells horrible. Some get an allergic reaction to it. It burns our throats. Its the smoke...not the smoker . Its not personal!!! Theres no reason for the defensiveness. Smokers should be aware that it makes people uncomforable physically in a number of ways and its a proven health risk. I dont understand the lack of consideration and care among the smokers. Non smokers dont dislike smokers as a people. They dislike smoke.

Was that a reply to me? Or to the thread in general? All I was arguing was a business owner's right to decide whether they will allow it or not. Honestly, I don't particularly care one way or another. I just think someone who has shelled out the money to run an establishment should have the choice provided smoking is still legal.

As a general sidenote, I had a bit of a revelation a couple of weeks ago. Because of my current condition I've been avoiding places that involve heavy smoke. However, I had a friend return from a summer in Korea, and there was an indoor get-together with a bunch of my friends that I hadn't seen in a while... and most of them smoke. I was only there for an hour at most, so I was genuinely surprised when I got home and took off my clothes at how bad they smelled. It was disgusting! I had to do a load of laundry later that night and take a shower immediately to get it out of my hair. I guess when I was smoking I never really noticed it, and I'd never really been in a situation to have it happen since I quit. It was gross, and this is coming from a girl who actually likes the smell of cigarettes while someone is smoking. (My Dad smokes, and I suppose it's a comfort thing that I'm used to.) That stale smoke is just overpowering.

Was just a general reply. But , yeah, I hear ya on the odor thing. You dont realize how bad it really is until you dont smoke anymore. My Mom smokes and when shes at my house, she goes outside and sometimes I sit with her on the steps. Personally it doesnt bother me that bad to catch a whiff of it here and there, but I wouldnt want to be indoors surrounded by smokers. If you're out in a bar or public place where people smoke, you get home and everything has to be washed. Even your purse smells. Smokers just cant fathom that. Hell, I didnt know it was that bad until I quit.

I dont know where I stand on the public establishment issue. I can see both sides of it really. I think it comes down to an individual's personal responsibility in the long run. They can decide to be a considerate smoker or they can decide to not care.

(in reply to NakedOnMyChain)

Profile

Post #: 480