RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

Ps103 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/24/2008 10:00:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

I have a big ol problem with the goobermint telling me what I can and cannot allow on my (MY!) property.

If a place allows smoking and you don't want to smell it, don't patronize that business. Money talks. A business owner will soon see that it's more profitable to make their business smoke-free without giving the gov't MORE control over our lives.


That is my feeling, too. Lioness.

My state recently made all restaurants smoke-free areas, unless the owners forbade those 21 and under from entering.

I fully support the right of a restaurant owner to decide to make his or her business non-smoking, but I really have a problem with the state telling them they have to do so.



stellaluna -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/24/2008 10:35:27 PM)

I think I'd actually draw the line at children. If I could write the perfect smoking ordinance, it would require restaurants to be smoke-free, but not bars. It would allow smoking in businesses with ten (maybe 20) or fewer employees, but not others. I would basically ask smokers to not smoke for an hour in case children should be in the restaurant with them and I would give small mom-and-pop businesses the option to continue doing what they've always done without being penalized. That's how I'd do it.



Ps103 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/24/2008 10:35:49 PM)

And just piping in on Lioness' question because I feel like it[8D]

Before we became a smoke-free-restaurant state (in a tobacco state, no less--where smoking should be required if they want their revenues to increase, if you ask me--I kidding) I cannot name a single restaurant that allowed smoking in the restaurant proper.

The only place I know of that one could smoke was in the bar, and the bars had seperate ventilation systems (in any place I ever went. There may well have been places that were different, but I never saw them.)

They did this by choice to accomodate their customer base. Seemed to be working--even friends of mine who were asthmatic had no problems eating out. And I have friends who *definitely* would have complained if it had not been acceptable.

The correlations people are drawing--ie, beating your children and smoking crack--do not really apply, as beating your children and smoking crack are not legal to do *anywhere.*



momma_bee -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 7:36:21 AM)

We do not have enough water at our house to do laundry at home. So, we go to the laundrymat. 8-10 loads, every week or so (I stretch as far as I can) $1.25 for small loads, $2.00 for doubles. $2.50 for triple. Then, at least $1.00 to dry each one. So, with the cost of detergent, figure somewhere at least $25 a trip.

I went in the other day, the place was empty. I had blankets and a coat in addition to our regular laundry. My clothes was in the dryer when he came in, dumped a garbage bag of clothes into a washer, changed the channel and lit up. Yep - chain smoking.

There are two booths there, my purse, coat, book and coffee were in one in the corner and he was in the other. He was so overweight he couldn't fit into the booth, so he was sitting sideways, blowing smoke out making a nice cloud for me to walk thru and then, the slight breeze from the not-quite-sealed door blew it straight back into the dryer area.

Now, he has the right to smoke there but I ask the smokers and smokers right proponents, what was I supposed to do???

1) Pull wet clothes out of the dryer and leave.
2) Pull dry clothes out of the dryer and take to the car immediately - go home and iron and fold?
3) Pull dry clothes out, fold and take home smoke-scented clothes?
4) Pull out a report on the danger of second hand smoke and accuse him of attacking me?
5) Pull out a bucket of water, put out the fire.

Ok - I'm kidding on the last one - but the mental image made me smile then. And, I went with a combo - fold and run to the car.

I spend $75 a month to have clean clothes. I pick my detergent so it doesn't bother DeeDee's skin, I pick the fabric softener so it doesn't trigger sinus problems in the hubby.

He had the right to be there, the right to smoke, but I went in to purchase CLEAN clothes, not smokey clothes.

So, my opinion? I don't care if it is legal, don't do it in front of me unless I give you the ok.

FYI - In Boy Scouts, the announced, designated smoking area is the front seat of the smoker's parked car. If you do not have a car on site, you may 'borrow' another smokers front seat. The idea is in remove the sight of the smokers and to avoid a car full of smokers. In Girl Scouts, the area is 'somewhere the girls can't see you.' WHY? Because it is bad for your health and it makes you a negative role model.



DenimDiva -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 8:13:01 AM)

mommabee- as a smoker, I find his behavior rude. Then again, I don't smoke indoors- anywhere!



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 8:17:58 AM)

quote:

I don't smoke, but I'm around people who do and I feel that it's a person's individual right to choose where and when to smoke.

If I chose to go without bathing for 5 years and, then, get next to you in an elevator, where you work, or where you are trying to eat your lunch, do you think you'd feel that my right to stink like a skunk supercedes your right to avoid smells that could make you vomit or your respiratory system to close up?

Smoking serves ONLY one purpose: to feed the nicotine addiction of the smoker. It doesn't enhance anyone else's experience in any way.

It stinks. It causes allergic reactions in a lot of people. And it can't possibly be healthy for those forced to breath the smoke.



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 8:24:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103

And just piping in on Lioness' question because I feel like it[8D]

Before we became a smoke-free-restaurant state (in a tobacco state, no less--where smoking should be required if they want their revenues to increase, if you ask me--I kidding) I cannot name a single restaurant that allowed smoking in the restaurant proper.

The only place I know of that one could smoke was in the bar, and the bars had seperate ventilation systems (in any place I ever went. There may well have been places that were different, but I never saw them.)

They did this by choice to accomodate their customer base. Seemed to be working--even friends of mine who were asthmatic had no problems eating out. And I have friends who *definitely* would have complained if it had not been acceptable.

The correlations people are drawing--ie, beating your children and smoking crack--do not really apply, as beating your children and smoking crack are not legal to do *anywhere.*

I'm happy you live in such a state, but where I live people smoked at the dining tables with nothing to separate them from the "non-smoking" sections than a 4 foot high "wall" that you could look over when you stood up and by completely inadequate ventilation systems. That was in restaurants WITHOUT bars.



CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 8:46:53 AM)

I can certainly understand why this would be upsetting to you, Jimbo.

My only contention is that change can be effected without asking the goobermint to control yet another thing. The areas Ps103 and I live are proof of it.



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 8:56:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

I can certainly understand why this would be upsetting to you, Jimbo.

My only contention is that change can be effected without asking the goobermint to control yet another thing. The areas Ps103 and I live are proof of it.

I only know of a single restaurant in my city where there was no smoking inside before the city passed an ordinance on smoking.

One.

The ordinace did not ban smoking, it only told businesses they had to declare their establishment one way or the other, smoking or non.

To my knowledge, only one restaurant chose to declare itself Smoking after the ordinance - and that included the many with bars.

One.

That lone hold-out for smoking inside was a McDonalds - which really surprised me, considering their child-friendly PR.

Again, if your businesses are enlightened enough to realize that smoking has no benefit for anyone except the nicotine addicts, I applaud them. The ones in my area were cowards until nudged.



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 9:09:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyCatSmokey2006
...Outlawing caffeine? How about sugar? Those have been found to be addictive substances, so are they going to ban those someday too? Who knows?

What do you think about this?

I have never had anyone spit caffeine-laced substances or sugar-coated food at me in the normal course of them consuming any.

Apples and oranges.

This isn't a control against people harming themselves, it's the control of people who have no concern for others with their pollution.

It's no different, IMO, than laws restricting noise pollution by neighbors with a 30 megawatt sound system.

Or neighbors from dumping their trash in your yard to save a walk out to their trash can.

Or leash laws prohibiting people from letting their pit-bulldogs run loose in the neighborhood.



momma_bee -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 9:20:19 AM)

Off topic...
quote:

ORIGINAL: DenimDiva

mommabee- as a smoker, I find his behavior rude. Then again, I don't smoke indoors- anywhere!


I have a friend who quit smoking that way...She had lived in FLA for 2 years and moved back to PA and she and hubby decided not to smoke in the house. In January, when they were standing on their porch overlooking the hill and were reminded of what a PA winter is about (not the worst, but still....) they both decided to quit rather than get sick.

Back to the topic. Thank you for your response.

I felt it was very rude, but as a non-smoker, I didn't know if that was typical behavior or not.

It seemed to me that by taking away the clean smell of my clothes he stole from me, no different than if he had taken the money before it went into the machine. I hung coats outside, dress shirts in the bathroom with the window cracked and spread the rest out on the couch to air out. In fact, I didn't let the kids put stuff away until the next day, so that it didn't scent their drawers. (dresser, and other [8D] )



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 10:57:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

I can certainly understand why this would be upsetting to you, Jimbo.

FYI, even though I used to smoke, I never smoked in a restaurant or at the dining table at home. I was raised to respect the non-addict's right to clean air while eating. So I am still astonished that anyone would defend rude, thoughtless behavior that only serves to facilitate an addiction and does nothing whatsoever for anyone else's benefit.



rlj -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 12:50:59 PM)

quote:

That lone hold-out for smoking inside was a McDonalds - which really surprised me, considering their child-friendly PR.


Obviously operator owned. ; )

quote:

I felt it was very rude, but as a non-smoker, I didn't know if that was typical behavior or not.


When I smoked I would have had no problem with moving or going outside.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 1:18:43 PM)

before the state wide ban in our area, the only place you could go and not breath smoke was the grocery store, church and most areas of the hospital. no such thing as a restaurant that banned smoking on it's own. every bowling alley every eating spot, smokey. during the transition everyone made big fusses. but it's business as usual and no one is fussing anymore.



zmanfan38 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 2:15:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103

And just piping in on Lioness' question because I feel like it[8D]

Before we became a smoke-free-restaurant state (in a tobacco state, no less--where smoking should be required if they want their revenues to increase, if you ask me--I kidding) I cannot name a single restaurant that allowed smoking in the restaurant proper.

The only place I know of that one could smoke was in the bar, and the bars had seperate ventilation systems (in any place I ever went. There may well have been places that were different, but I never saw them.)

They did this by choice to accomodate their customer base. Seemed to be working--even friends of mine who were asthmatic had no problems eating out. And I have friends who *definitely* would have complained if it had not been acceptable.

The correlations people are drawing--ie, beating your children and smoking crack--do not really apply, as beating your children and smoking crack are not legal to do *anywhere.*

I'm happy you live in such a state, but where I live people smoked at the dining tables with nothing to separate them from the "non-smoking" sections than a 4 foot high "wall" that you could look over when you stood up and by completely inadequate ventilation systems. That was in restaurants WITHOUT bars.

Our state just banned smoking in October 2007. Before that there were absolutely zero restaurants (that I could ever find) that were non-smoking establishments. They all had their smoking sections and second hand smoking sections...your "choice". There was almost nowhere you could go without second hand smoking and it was miserable.

Businesses in my area would have never, let me say that again, never opted on their own to go smoke free without the government stepping in. That's actually another way that our money talks. We complained and whined and coughed and hacked and spewed to the restaurants about their nasty buildings and they didn't listen because the smokers were complaining, whining, coughing, hacking, and spewing more loudly than we were, and they were more scared of losing their business than losing ours. So, we took it to the state and the state listened (thank you Governor Phil Bredesen!). My complaints about my health and the 2 years that I didn't eat out because I had a daughter with Reactive Airway Disease did nothing to sway the opinions of the restaurants, but my letter and email to the Governor did.



CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 2:21:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

I can certainly understand why this would be upsetting to you, Jimbo.

FYI, even though I used to smoke, I never smoked in a restaurant or at the dining table at home. I was raised to respect the non-addict's right to clean air while eating. So I am still astonished that anyone would defend rude, thoughtless behavior that only serves to facilitate an addiction and does nothing whatsoever for anyone else's benefit.

Jimbo, you're not really saying that I'm defending rude, thoughtless behavior, are you?[&o]

If this wasn't about smoking (a fight that I have no dog in), I'd still be defending business owners' rights vs. government control.

Frankly, if there were to be any new governmental controls, I vote for etiquette laws. Rudeness involves far more than smoking and affects a heck of a lot more people. You won't die of it, but it'll sure raise your blood-pressure.[;)]



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 2:24:34 PM)

On a slightly different item, I was wondering about the disappearance of the once very common spittoon and found this interesting tidbit on Wikipedia:

...Use of spittoons was considered an advance of public manners and health, intended to replace previously common spitting on floors, streets, and sidewalks. Many places passed laws against spitting in public other than into a spittoon.

Some people of this era objected to restrictions on where they could spit as an infringement on their individual rights.

That last sentence cracked me up. Something that wouldn't even be considered acceptable today was once, like smoking, a matter of individual rights.
[:D]



zmanfan38 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 2:26:28 PM)

Jimbo, I feel the need to go wash my feet.[&:]



JimboFletch -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 2:28:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

I can certainly understand why this would be upsetting to you, Jimbo.

FYI, even though I used to smoke, I never smoked in a restaurant or at the dining table at home. I was raised to respect the non-addict's right to clean air while eating. So I am still astonished that anyone would defend rude, thoughtless behavior that only serves to facilitate an addiction and does nothing whatsoever for anyone else's benefit.

Jimbo, you're not really saying that I'm defending rude, thoughtless behavior, are you?[&o]

I'm saying that there should be no right or justification for something only intended to facilitate addicts, whatever the poison, who are ruining something that may be costing other patrons $35 - $50.

Smoking does nothing for anyone BUT the nicotine addict.



CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 2:31:51 PM)

Okay, Jimbo. Thanks. Carry on.[:)]



VincentGrayson -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 3:30:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyCatSmokey2006

I've been hearing and reading various news articles about states that are imposing smoking bans in most public places like restaurants and even in parking lots of businesses and medical facilities. I don't smoke, but I'm around people who do and I feel that it's a person's individual right to choose where and when to smoke. I believe that smokers are getting a bad rap because of the negative ads claiming that "secondhand smoke causes cancer", and other propaganda by nonsmokers and medical community to try to make people feel guilty about an addictive habit. I've not seen any proof of secondhand smoke causing any problems in my life, so I'm not going to worry about it. In fact, I'm more concerned about what chemicals are in the diesel exhaust of the bus or semi I get stuck behind in traffic every now and then.

I feel that the government has NO right to discriminate against smokers by limiting where and how they can smoke. I mean, if statewide smoking bans are allowed, then what is Big Brother going to go after next? Outlawing caffeine? How about sugar? Those have been found to be addictive substances, so are they going to ban those someday too? Who knows?

What do you think about this?


It's pretty poor reasoning to assume that because you don't have any anecdotal evidence of something, that it simply isn't happening.

Either way, I don't like the bans in principle, but I can't help but love the effect. When I was in Hawaii (where smoking is banned almost everywhere but your own home), I noticed I was breathing much better. I never smelled smoke inside or out, and never once saw anyone smoking...it was kinda nice.



phosadaud -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 3:32:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103
The correlations people are drawing--ie, beating your children and smoking crack--do not really apply, as beating your children and smoking crack are not legal to do *anywhere.*


That was me, and I was trying to make a point not make it sound like it was the same thing. My point is this:

When people do something that physically harms innocent individuals, at what point do we say the government should step in?

Some say that the government shouldn't step in here. Some of us say the government should to protect the health of non-smokers, children, elderly, the sick, etc. I also come from an area where before the smoking bans, you simply did not have ANY smoke-free restaurants and indoor recreation places. I remember the first time I saw a place (while we were traveling) that was actually smoke-free. I'd literally never heard of such a thing.

And we're not talking about being annoying or obnoxious. As sick and disgusting as I find b.o., I would never say we should make all restaurants b.o. free. I'm talking about something that causes physically harm to folks - and some quite severely. THAT'S why I think the government should step in. End of story.

The fact is, we all draw lines as to where the government should step in. I used the above examples as things that 99% of us would agree the government should step in on. Why? Because, private property or not, physical harm is being done and violating the basic human rights of innocent folks. I think all of us would agree to that. Now, you may not agree that the level of physical harm from 2nd hand smoke merits governmental interference, but I do.

To me, this is not a question of "governmental" interference. To me, the question is where do we draw the line.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 3:44:53 PM)

there is private property as in property that is used by the owners and maybe a few select others, and private property that is widely used by, or serves the public. two different types of situation there.



phosadaud -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 3:47:07 PM)

Agreed



cow451 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/25/2008 4:47:35 PM)

Note to Smokers:
Get over yourselves. You have no rights (smoking-wise) that are protected by the US Constitution. deal with it.[sm=fireanger.gif] You do have the freedom to whine, though. [sm=crystreams.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI