posted
Here in California, indoor smoking is banned everywhere with the exception of a few bars. When I used to drink, the bars where smoking was permitted used to be my favorite spots. I figure, if you are going to one of the few bars that allow smoking, you are not going to mind the smoke.
If I am eating in a restraunt with patio seating, I normally ask everyone sitting around me if they mind me lighting up. Sometimes people mind, sometimes they don't. I have no problem waiting till I leave the facility to light up. Having to eat in a smokey evnironment blows when you are not a smoker, as I can't stand it when I am attempting to quit.
Big deal smokers. Just walk the few steps required to be in a smoke-friendly environment.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My hope with my rephrasing of that statement was to draw attention to how silly it is to deny smokers any right to smoke whatsoever. I believe that there should be a fair amount of restaurants and bars where people can smoke, or at least some decent protection from smoke that most non-smokers want in a restaurant. Removing the right to smoke in any public place is idiotic.
We pump harmful chemicals into our bodies through other means every day. Have you ever looked at a label for packaged foods? Scary stuff.
I don't smoke all that often. Most people I know have little to no idea that I do. I smoke for fun and flavor (yes, flavor.) You don't know how sick to my stomach a Newport or a Marlboro makes me. I like a good cigar/clove cigarette/pipe every once and a while. I like feeling hobbitish whilst enjoying some fine pipeweed.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by decent protection? Seperate sections of the same room? Trust me, thats not protection. It spreads to cover the full room. Yes, it may seem ridiculous to you to take away "right to smoke" in a resturant. But how about the rights of non-smokers? To be safe? Asthmatics? It's becoming a more and more common disease, and smoke is often a thing that can start problems. How much more ridiculous is to to tell asthmatics they have to deal with all the health issues other people's vices raise or avoid resturants because smokers have a right to indulge themselves, regardless of the harms it would do to others.
And what about people wishing to work in resturants? Don't they deserve some measure of protection? Aren't there laws about providing safe work environments?
Other harmful chemicals aren't the issue at hand, tu quoque fallacy. Those aren't the ones we're discussing, and frankly, to some of us, smoking is a heck of a lot more dangerous than those other chemicals in the food. And at least those chemicals, we choose to put in our bodies. Why should we have to put up with MORE harmful chemicals forced into our bodies because other people can't wait until after they're done eating to smoke outside?
posted
Because I live in effing antartica, honey. I don't want to have to freeze outside just so you can't smell the cigarette I'm lighting up 90 feet from you.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is idiotic. I don't even smoke enough to want one at dinner. The only time I smoke is if I'm out having a Guiness at the local pub, and the occasional out back for kicks.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, but Pere, you CHOOSE to smoke. You do it because you enjoy it.
Toretha, and many many others, do not choose to inhale this stuff. Not only is it unpleasant, but it usually causes heath problems both short and long-term.
So how exactly does it make sense for you to tell somone sensitive to smoke to shut up and take it,just because you don't feel like standing out in the cold?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is idiotic. It's an idiotic addiction (yes, I know you're not addicted, but other people are) people are idiotic about their right to smoke and force everyone around them to put up with it, the whole thing is idiotic. Your point?
It essentially comes down to a matter of the convenience of one persons in conflict with a matter of the health of another. How can choosing the first person's convenience over the health of the second be anything BUT idiotic?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: My hope with my rephrasing of that statement was to draw attention to how silly it is to deny smokers any right to smoke whatsoever. I believe that there should be a fair amount of restaurants and bars where people can smoke, or at least some decent protection from smoke that most non-smokers want in a restaurant. Removing the right to smoke in any public place is idiotic.
Woohoo, some sense from Glynn!
While I obviously don't think smoking is good, or that people should do it, that is their choice. I'm not suggesting that we should remove the right to smoke in any public place, just that smoking should not be allowed in bars unless there is adequate protection for the non-smokers. See, satisfaction for all. (As I've said previously, by protection from the smoke, I mean walls. Actual walls and doors.)
Posts: 1431 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
