Originally posted by alex_ant
If you have an allergy, you likely DO make an effort to avoid smokers. Unfortunately, making an effort to avoid the smoke is usually not enough to avoid the smoke.
Sometimes there is no way to escape cigarette smoke but to be either at home or in a public building, as I'm sure mnkeybsness will attest to. Your friend's daughter can choose not to go to public pools and be none the worse for it. Mnkeybsness cannot choose not to leave his home.
No, but he certainly can choose not to be in smoky bars, or the smoky building he mentioned. My real problem is why someone complaining about smoke because of a legitamate allergy was in a smoky building.
Agreed, however, when there is still conflict, the smoker is the one at fault. Speaking as a nonsmoker, whenever I'm near a smoker, I'd love to get away, of course. Sometimes it's not possible. Like at the bus stop where I need a good position to get on the bus since I know it will be close to full; or entering/exiting a building where there are always smokers clustered.
I agree with and respect this. I don't often smoke in bus shelters, or outside trafficked entrances.
I don't mind steppin' out for a smoke, but I cannot handle being badgered after I've already stepped out.
Some, maybe even most, people don't have a huge problem with smoke, and that's fine. But others do. We should structure our society to take the most sensitive into consideration, as we do with the handicapped.
No, we shouldn't. We should be respectful of people, but legislation has gone waaaaay to far. Legislation required a business I know to put in a wheelchair accesible bathroom, with electric stair lift. It cost this small business $80,000 unsubsidized dollars, and will keep them in the red for 2 years.
The business is a purveyor of running shoes.
Additionally, a restaurant in San Francisco had a fire two years ago. They were required to put in a handicapped accesible employee washroom, and an elevator to the dishwashig room.
Now, anyone who knows anything about the handicapped, knows that the wheelchair bound are not big consumers of running shoes, and even if they wanted them for style purposes, could be asked to use the restroom in the public lobby next door.
Additionally, if a handicapped person is capable enough to function as a dishwasher in a busy restaurant, they would surely be capable of using normal facilities.
I appreciate peoples rights, but if we don't curb the PC monster soon, we're gonna be offering driver's tests in braille.
Just as your right to wave your arms about like a maniac ends at my nose, so does your right to emit a truly foul odor - which is NOT just an odor, but a mist of toxic particles. Just as a person with a can of pressurized cigarette smoke would not be allowed to walk up to someone and spray it in their face, smokers should not be allowed to subject others to their smoke UNLESS these others are okay with it. And in public, it must be assumed that others are NOT okay with it unless they explicitly say they are.
So, if you don't like my cologne, ass gas, hippy stank, or pommade's odor, I am violating your rights? No. You have no protected odor rights. Those that find smoke distasteful should bear the burden of avoiding it in public. Those that don't care will continue happily. Those that smoke should be considerate of their surroundings.
Places where smokers are the majority (some bars, some night clubs, all tobacconists) should have the right to allow their patrons to do so.
"If you've got a problem with the smell of cigarette smoke, why aren't you calling for a ban on cars, since they pollute as well and even more?" Because I choose not to. If I could get <50% of the population to agree with me, then yes, we could ban cars as well. But I see value in cars as a tool for transportation and I don't want them banned. Unlike cigarettes, which have basically no practical purpose whatsoever.
People enjoy cigarettes. People enjoy alcohol. People enjoy drugs. People enjoy suntans. People enjoy red meat. People enjoy a lot of things which can have bad effects if used, and cause death if abused. While cigarettes have no utility, they are a practical way to relax. It may not seem like much of a purpose to you, but a cigarette break has prolly averted all kinds of office mini catastrophes, domestic violence, etc.
Back on cars, we'd save a lot of lives by reducing emissions greatly! You are no sooner going to ban cars, then you're going to ban smoking entirely, but with 1-3 dollars tax on every pack of cigarettes, the gov't has a lot of money it could use to mandate/subsidize vastly lowered emissions, especially in the "trophy wife alone in Lincoln Navigator" category.
I like cars. I have two now, and have owned many. They are not the most eco-friendly of cars (I'm no shrub cuddling eco-weenie), but I certainly don't drag 3 tons of steel, and 7 empty seats, getting 6-12 MPG to the mall so I can park in 2 spots to buy a pair of socks.
And you breathe a lot more exhaust in urban areas than second hand smoke. The LA basin has several days a year when they advise you not to go outside. I guarantee it is not secondhand smoke they're warning about. I was there over Christmas, and was conscious of the air I breathed, both in odor, and taste.
So many complain about second hand smoke because it is an annoyance, or a relatively minor health risk. Others have the gall to equate it with pollution, yet fuel up the out of tune Ford Explorer to drive one person 50 miles to work in the chemical plant.
If any of you who are complaining about second hand smoke get into your SUV to drive to a bowl game tomorrow, shame on you!
