Smoking declared a basic human right

[DesertFox]

Oslo, Norway - A Norwegian county has declared smoking to be a basic human right in a dispute over a ban imposed on one town's workers.

Levanger, a township of about 18 000 people in central Norway, banned all smoking by municipal employees during working hours on or off city property at the beginning of the year.

More (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24&art_id=qw1081946161923B256&s et_id=1)

[Timberwolf]

Cool! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[Rink]

I hope this 'fundamental Human right' catches on here in America.

[No_common_sense]

Right to smoke today, government subsidized crack tomorrow. Be careful what you wish for, especially considering how much our judiciary likes to slip. I don't care if you smoke, I just don't want the libs to be given any ammunition.

[Rink]

LOL I highly doubt it, Tobacco is a Legal product, crack has never been legal and never will be.

People should have the right of choice, and if they chose to smoke then why harrass them? If tobacco is legal then there is no basis for the bans, but if they wish to get at the root of the problem, then BAN tobacco!

[Tumblehome]

[ QUOTE ]
If tobacco is legal then there is no basis for the bans, but if they wish to get at the root of the problem, then BAN tobacco!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a bad idea at all. Although it'd never work. It'd be prohibition all over again.

I'm curious why smoking-in-public bans are seen as a liberal thing and not a conservative thing. If we were talking about marijuana cigarettes, would it be the other way around?

[DesertFox]

Yep. And rightly so.

Smoking is seen as a liberal thing because liberals are the ones pushing it. They're also the ones pushing legalization of marijuana. See any correlation there?

[Tumblehome]

Smoking is seen as a liberal thing or bans on smoking are? I thought the latter. Are the liberals the ones pushing cigarettes or pushing no smoking laws?

[DesertFox]

Yeah, I said that wrong. Smoking bans are liberal things. The libs are pushing no-smoking-anywhere-ever laws.

[Tumblehome]

So its the Liberals pushing against tabaco but the conservatives pushing against marijuana. I don't see a paralelism there but contrast.

[DesertFox]

Me, too.

I also see a correlation between anti-smoking (because it's anti-conservative) and pro-marijuana (because it's pro-liberal).

[Beowulf]

I say that if you want to smoke/dip tobacco products, that's fine but if you get disfigured from disease or are dying from it, it's my right not to have pay into a system of healthcare to give the person the care they need for making a bad but legal choice on their own. Same goes for the frivelous lawsuit smokers make. My money shouldn't be a part of either.

At least tobacco doesn't make you hallucinate like marijuana does, which is why so many people smoke it and is why I oppose it.

[Tumblehome]

Beowulf, I agree with your stance wholeheartedly. Why should I have to pay for the healthcare of smokers who voluntarily destroy their lungs? My other problem with smoking is of course the basic one of not wanting to destroy my own lungs with other people's smoke. The funniest thing I've seen on this was somebody who vandalized a "no smoking sign" with the words "It's my right to smoke, It's your choice to breathe". I agree with designated smoking and non-smoking areas, but I think the anti-smoking lobby has taken it a bit too far. I think in government places there should be bans on smoking, but I think private restaurants/bars/etc should choose if they want to allow smoking. Let the non-smokers go to non-smoking restaurants/bars/etc.

I agree that marijuana should probably remain illegal for the same healthcare cost reason above, espeically here in Canada where we subsidize health care to such a large degree. I'm not certain of the health damages from marijuana. There may be long term effects to the brain (some have claimed such), but on the other hand people are far less likely to chain smoke pot than tobaco so lung cancer should be lower. I'm not sure if the second reason above appleis to marijuana or not. If it was legal would there be so many people smoking it that it'd pose the same health risk to nonsmokers that tobaco does?

And then there's alcohol. Alcohol is easily as damaging to health as tobaco or marijuana if consumed regularly. Thankfully people don't chain drink quite like they chain smoke. It may not be possible to ban alcohol (we tried once during prohibition). Instead we try to regulate it. But this does nothing for the healt costs paid for from taxes.

Here's an idea: Instead of making ciggies, booze and pot illegal, maybe a tax break for nonsmokers and nondrinkers? Problem there of course is how to regulate and enforce it - how could you prove who was and who wasn't a smoker/drinker and how many cigs/drinks makes you a smoker/boozer?

[DesertFox]

Here's a better idea: How about you pay your health costs and I pay mine? Then nobody's taxes support something the disagree with.

[Suzie]

I don't mind if you smoke, as long as I don't have to smell like an ash tray just so you can have your freedom. I want the freedom to smell the same way I smelled when I walk out of a place as did when I went in. I spend a great deal of time and money making sure I smell nice. What gives anyone the right to stink me up? I think someone should invent the smokers helmet, something like a space suit so that the smokers rights don't take away mine. If they can keep it in their own space fine, but don't abuse me with other people's bad habits.

[liberal_chick]

Although I think smoking is a harmful and disgusting habit, it is legal, and people have a right to destroy their respiratory system if they want to.

I think people should be able to smoke in public. Some places, however, are not appropriate for smoking for obvious reasons. Smoking for example, at a gas station, is a very bad (and illegal, I believe) idea. Also, it is good that smoking in airplanes was banned because it is a confined space, and there may be people who are asmathic or allergic to the smoke. Health facilities should be able to ban smoking, especially maternity oriented clinics, as it would be harmful to the unborn babies.

However, smoking in restaurants (as long as they have smoking and non-smoking areas) and outside should be okay. If someone's smoking, and you have to walk past them, hold your breath. If they're standing next to you, ask them to move, or move yourself. It's not that hard.

I am not for the legalization of marijuana. However, it's less harmful to the body than cigarettes AND alcohol, so I really don't see why it's illegal. The only reasons I can see to legalize it would be to tax it, and regulate its use. It would also provide *safer* pot to the potheads. I don't see the need to smoke pot unless you're in severe physical pain. (My best friend has severe arthritis and occasionally smokes marijuana to quell the pain. She says it works better than anything else.) Everything in moderation, right?

[DesertFox]

You've pretty-much stated my thinking and positions on those issues.

Smart! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Suzie]

Have you ever asked a smoker to move? People have become militant about this. Often if they know it bothers you I have found they try to "bother" you as much as possible. That's why I hate this as much as I do. Smokers are so gung ho on having THEIR rights they don't give a crap about yours. I think smokers are doing themselves in on this one. Beaches are starting to enforce no smoking because they leave the nasty things in the sand. I don't think my kids have ever built a sand castle where we didn't have to pick a butt out of the construction area. It doesn't bother me if you are outside because you can move far enough away from it. But smoking areas in doors are ridiculous, you can't keep smoke in an "area." If people can't eat a meal without waiting until they leave to smoke they have problems. The smokers keep pushing their hand on this and it is costing them. If they would be a little more courteous and realize there are people there to eat with their family and nothing they do at their table should invade the other persons space. If I was drinking a nice stinky bourbon and filled my mouth full of it and turned to the other table and blew it out of my mouth all over the smokers family they would be pissed, because they would have the stuff in their hair and their clothes and smell like it until they could get a shower. That is EXACTLY how I feel about the smoke. My favorite smell in the whole world is how the baby smells after a bath. We have been out for a late dinner at times and I get the kids all cleaned up in new outfits freshly bathed and when we get home that evening they smell like an ash tray and I have to put them to bed that way. This is one of my biggest peeves, and I don't support laws banning it. I just want people to be more courteous. But I am certain these reasons are why the ban laws pass.

[Kathy29]

So you wash up your babies nice and clean, then take them to a restaurant where they scream constantly then crap their diapers causing everyone near by to vomit and then complain about smoking.

It makes a lot of sense.

[Suzie]

Mine don't wear diapers, cry or vomit (unless they are sick ... perhaps of the smoke). One of them is 3 the other is 12 they don't bother anyone, so why should they be bothered? But thanks for proving my point about how nasty people get over this. Asking doesn't matter if smokers don't care about other people and their children. I usually get a smart ass remark if I ask them nicely not to smoke. And this is why these laws are passing.

But you know on the rare occasion we did go out when my kids were very small, if they did start to cry or did something that would disturb others I would take them outside or to the car if it was cold. I do try to be courteous of those around me. If other people do not they are just as bad as the smoker. But last time I checked the kids have rights as humans to be in a place for the purpose of eating. The cigarettes do not, you can leave them at home all alone and I bet they wont even miss you.

[DesertFox]

Regardless of how unpleasant it may be for some, it's a grotesque violation of property rights for govt to tell a restaurant owner that he can't have smoking in his own place. This isn't what America is supposed to be about.

[Tumblehome]

Restaurants should be allowed to choose if they wish to be non-smoking or smoking. You could always go to a different restaurant that is non-smoking. With government institutions and office workplaces its different.

In Niagara Falls Canada, there is a ban on smoking even in bars. The way the strip clubs are getting around this is by declaring themselves "private clubs". Membership cards are issued and free to anybody who wants one. There are little guest lists you can sign too, if you don't want a membership. Nobody uses their real names on the list, and some of them are hillarious.

[Suzie]

Like I said I am not for laws against it. But I do believe if the smokers were a little more courteous no one else would be either. I think the militant smokers are the reason why people feel the laws are needed and I do understand that. I believe they are bringing these restrictions on themselves, because they could be a little nicer when they are in public with non smokers. If someone can figure out a way for them to keep it in their space then it wouldn't bother me at all, but smoke goes everywhere.

[DesertFox]

Well, Sooz, what Tumblehome said is what I've been saying since this all started several years ago. Nonsmokers will never be happy sharing space with smokers, and smokers will never be happy being told to stow it.

The fix is capitalism, not authoritarian govt. Restaurant puts up a "No Smoking Restaurant" sign and nobody smokes there. If it has a "Smoking Restaurant" sign, nonsmokers go somewhere else. Everybody's happy and govt stays out of it altogether.

[Suzie]

Well you know I have little sympathy for that. If I can go outside with my baby they can go outside to smoke. If they don't want to the law seems determined to stop it all together. They get mad if you ask them not to, they try to annoy you with it because they would rather invade your rights than be nice to others. If they did respect other people the law has no reason to pass. They leave the trash from it everywhere drop and step leaving a trail everywhere they go. I feel the same way when I see someone has dropped a dirty diaper in a parking lot. Like I said this is why the laws will pass, people make an ass out of themselves to violate other people's space. So the smoker is the one creating the reason for these laws and that's a shame. The "fix" should be more respect for others.

[DesertFox]

"Respect," as you're saying it, Sooz, means smokers have to quit smoking just because you want them to. How about you "respect" THEM and say nothing when they smoke? Isn't it YOUR problem that you can't handle smoke? Why is their problem?

As you can see, this is an all-or-nothing issue.

You've had a different experience with smokers than I've had. I smoke, but can't handle smoke in the morning and often can't handle others' smoke at all. My wife can't (I smoke outdoors at home). When I see my smoke bothers others, I put it out. So do other smokers I've seen in public, once they know their smoke bothers others.

[Suzie]

I am in my space and they won't even know it! SO nothing I am doing violates them in any way. Their smoke would be the same if they could keep it to themselves. BUT YOU CAN'T

Well then you have the solution you are doing it yourself. You didn't quit you just took it outside. That's not all or nothing it's respecting other peoples space. Seems to me like you have found and practice the solution even in your own home.

[DesertFox]

Indeed I do. But that's not to say a restaurant owner shouldn't have the authority to decide the issue in his own place. What I do is common courtesy, but it would also be common courtesy for those who don't like what I'm doing to go elsewhere. As it happens, THEY aren't practicing common courtesy.

[Suzie]

But you CAN go there and eat without anyone knowing what's going on at your table. Just as I do. It wouldn't be against the law for me to go and bring a big ole can of bug spray and start spraying it around everywhere. But that is going to bother many people so why do it? It's legal ... nothing is stopping me from doing it but I figure the people around me won't like it too much so I don't. There is really no reason for me to do it. But maybe I just want to. Everybody near me is going to smell like the stuff but hey, who are they to tell me I can't?

[DesertFox]

Not a proper comparison, Sooz, and you know it. People have been smoking for centuries. Among American Indians it was even the mark of the wise when they gathered to discuss the heavy issues such as peace treaties. Bug spray never has been used that way.

This is an all-or-nothing issue, as I said. I'm not out to make anyone's meal disagreeable, and I go out of my way to BE agreeable. But neither will I allow someone who doesn't like my habits to tell me what I can't do.

This is a property issue, not an issue of likes or dislikes; and property is the basis of our civilization. It's on the basis of property rights that the issue should stand or fall.

[Suzie]

I agree about the owner, that's why most places here have gone smoke free. Our local Fridays is completely smoke free by choice, if you have a bar you can still allow smoking but they chose not to. But as I said before people get militant about it. They had to call the cops on a guy because he had too much to drink and "ain't nobody gonna tell him he can't smoke, cuz it's legal" and THAT is what is going to lead to it being illegal. As I said, the militant smoker is bringing this on themselves and all other smokers. My point remains respect for others space would eliminate the need for the law.

[DesertFox]

What would eliminate "the need for the law" would be govt respect for property rights. There's no need for ANY law on an issue such as this. The restaurant owner should decide what goes on in his place. Someone lights up in a nonsmoking restaurant, the owner calls the cops and has him thrown out. Someone complains about smoking in a smoking restaurant, the owner tells him to shut up or get out, or both.

That's what property rights iz all about. It isn't about personal respect between people because, as I noted earlier, your idea of "respect" means others do what YOU want rather than you ever once doing what THEY want, which is to allow them to smoke in peace.

[Suzie]

No, my idea of respect is to not allow what you are doing to infringe upon anyone else. No matter what you are doing. If you can go in a place and leave with the only change in you is what you personally chose to partake in then no one else has what belongs to them effected by anyone else in the place unless it is by their own choice. If you and I go in to a place and you smoke YOU are the only one who remains unaffected by our little encounter. You leave the same way you went in a smoker that smells like a smoker. I leave with the scent of your smoke drowning out the smell of freshly shampooed hair and any other grooming scents I personally chose and have the right to smell like. So my choice is the only thing violated during our meeting nothing has changed for you. If you wait till we leave then smoke both of us leave the place exactly as we went in and I still smell like my frilly soap which is what I want and pay money to have.

[DesertFox]

You dictate what I will or will not do.

Got it.

[Suzie]

No you dictate how I smell even if I am unwilling. Destruction of property, on my smelly goods.

[DesertFox]

Ah, you have changed the terms of debate from somebody's right to smoke to your right not to smell of smoke. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

But that's okay.

Presuming I was there first, you go somewhere else. Problem solved. Presuming you were there first, I go somewhere else. Problem solved.

Better yet, the restaurant owner decides who goes and who stays. It is, after all, his property. Can we agree on that?

[Suzie]

Yep, but as I said before the laws will keep coming, the more people try to violate the rights of the property owner. Because like the guy at Friday's the militant smoker will make it so that the property owner WANTS the law so they have something to back up their reason for telling people to put it out. If they want to keep the customer all they have to say is ... sorry but it't the law. People making an ass of themselves when asked to put it out only gives the owner and customers a greater desire to have the law.

[DesertFox]

You have repeatedly mentioned the militant smoker. What about the militant nonsmoker? Hmmmm? People making asses of themselves to get their way -- on either side -- give the owners and everyone else a great desire to punch them in the mouth.

[Suzie]

I have never asked a stranger not to smoke when we have gone out. I do have a friend who has a son with severe asthma and she has asked them not to on several ocasions and she is always nice about it. We have also left places before we had our meal because they wouldn't. Not smoking doesn't bother anyone though right?? And the no one can ask you not to NOT smoke, so that makes it tough to sit somewhere doing nothing but eating and be militant.

I asked someone I worked with once to stop when I was pregnant and ANY strong smell made me sick. I was nice, I told him I was pregnant and had morning sickness, he refused.

[DesertFox]

So you're nice and I'm nice. We already knew that. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

But the question was about militant nonsmokers who make a huge scene over someone smoking. Aren't these people just as bad as militant smokers?

[Suzie]

Yes, I just haven't seen as many. I wish all people would be nicer to eachother. Maybe I just live around too many rednecks. Most of the "conflict" other than what my friend has had with her son has actually been because of the smoking law. Her son is grown now and he can fight his own battles, but there wasn't even "smoking sections" when he was small.

The reason I refer to them as militant because they try to do it just for spite because of the law. That's why I think the smokers are bringing it on themselves. Places like applebees and fridays that aren't really "bars" and have a lot of families who eat there want to go smokeless. Because friday and saturday nights usually have people waiting clear out to the parking lot for non smoking. They want to be able to use the tables in the bar area to seat people to eat meals and have drinks because that's more money. Our local law first restricted all public places that serve food to non smoking. When the bars complained they changed it so that if you serve drinks you can have a smoking section. The businesses found out they were actually doing better with the ban because they didn't have a mass of people waiting on nonsmoking. Well that's when the trouble started because the smokers are saying there isn't a law to keep them from smoking in a bar and they insist on doing it anyway. So now the owners are pushing for the total ban again. Thus the actions of the smoker is why they want the law back.

[DesertFox]

But had there never been a ban in the first place, none of this would have come up. And there was only a ban because of nonsmokers. So the actions of nonsmokers are just as blameworthy as their opponents.

[Suzie]

If there wasn't smoking none of this would have came up either. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue1.gif

[DesertFox]

People been smoking for thousands of years. Objections to smoking have only arisen in the last ten years. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Suzie]

Can you prove no one objected? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[DesertFox]

No. Can you prove they did? ;D

[Suzie]

I guess we have reached a stalemate. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[DesertFox]

Seems so. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

Still buds?

[Suzie]

Always!! http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/smiley/dan.gif Besides I can't smell your smoke from here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif But you did get to hear me complain! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue1.gif

[DesertFox]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[Rink]

well comin from someone that has never smoked, i cannot abide cigarette smoke at all, but i will defend a smokers right to smoke as they so please.

restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking places situate it so the fans will take the cigarrete smoke out of the area, and put the non-smoking section away from the smokers and make sure the fans make certain the smoke doesnt come around the non-smokers.

Now, i would ask this interesting question, people object to smoking and such, but what about those people who literally bathe themselves in the most stinkiest perfumes available then permeate the entire area where they are at with their smelly perfume???

I for one cant abide cigarette smoke, perfume, or other assorted strong smells of any kind, I gagg, cough, hack and choke over that, I'm terribly sensitive over stuff like that.

What do you say on people whose body perfumes overpower the entire area and is worse than a smokers cigarette smoke??

I'll defend a person's right to smoke any ole day and so my best to keep up-wind of any smoker inside a building or outside.

[Suzie]

I believe Nothing about you and your person should invade anyone elses space unless they request it. I never wear much perfume but I do like to smell "clean". I buy shampoo based on how it smells lotion/deodorant everything I have and spend money on is because I like it. I don't want to smell like anything other than the things I have chose for myself.

I know what you mean by too much, even those candle stores at the mall give me a headache. So I don't think anything about your person should be obvious unless the person is right on top of you.

[Rink]

actually i can be two blocks away and smell a person who has too much perfume on them, as I have a nose thats too sensitive for my own good (unfortunately)

Not that I can help that, its just a fact of life.

Most smokers I've encountered are courteous enough to try to not let the smoke get in my face, and i for one do my best to not be pushy about their smoking, courtesy i guess is whats needed in asking some smokers to tone the smoke down some. Some smokers get defensive because they've been harangued by non-smokers so much its just become an automatic response, i guess the opposite can be also had.

[Suzie]

My brother wears too much cologne AND smokes. When he came to see my kids when they were babies they smelled like him just from him holding them. I ALWAYS had to give them a bath as soon as he left. But he knows I don't like the smoke and he goes out on my screen porch. But then again he IS my brother he knows I would kick his butt if he tried it in my house. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif

[Rink]

Well i guess some people have definitely dead noses LOL

and others.... LOL well too sensitive.

Nice to see your brother respects the house rules on smoking, now if you could just get im to quit bathing in perfume LOL!

Ya gots my sympathies on that one.

[2Cent]

Long before it became politically incorrect to smoke, I would NEVER have been so inconsiderate as to smoke in some one's home or vehicle who did not smoke. Still don't. As a matter of fact, I tone down my smoking in my own home when non-smokers visit. That is until I want them to leave. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif
Privately owned restaurants are private property, and it should be solely up to the owner's discretion to choose whether to have a smoking, non-smoking, or both environment. I'm getting WAY overly tired of the myth that privately owned establishments are somehow public property based on the simple notion that the general public may enter. I am floored that people's private property rights have been so easily capitulated.
THAT right there answers why anti-smoking became a 'liberal' issue. They don't believe in private property.

[Suzie]

All of that is fine and dandy. But my hair, skin, clothes and those of my family are MY property. It doesn't matter where I am or who owns the building I am in. Both of us have the "right" to be there if it is public property. But neither of us should have the right to change anything about the other person without their permission. That includes the way they smell. If I am there I do not effect anyone around me in anyway. The smoker does. So why should someone else's "right" infringe upon my own rights?

Some places allow you to drink alcohol too, but if you start drinking and annoying other people they cut you off.

[DesertFox]

It doesn't matter where I am or who owns the building I am in.

Of course it does. That's what the concept of private property is all about.


Both of us have the "right" to be there if it is public property

That's just the point: It is NOT "public property" when it belongs to someone. "Public property" would be, for example, the courthouse or the legislature building.

You have no right to dictate what will happen on his property to a private owner, much less to someone else on that property.

[2Cent]

[ QUOTE ]
Suzie said:
All of that is fine and dandy. But my hair, skin, clothes and those of my family are MY property. It doesn't matter where I am or who owns the building I am in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beg your pardon, but oh yes it does. You walk into someone else's PRIVATE property, you bare the burden of CHOICE.

[ QUOTE ]
Both of us have the "right" to be there if it is public property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. If it's PUBLIC property. But we're talking about PRIVATE property.

[ QUOTE ]

But neither of us should have the right to change anything about the other person without their permission.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that you have the right to change a LOT about the private business owners' decisions.

[ QUOTE ]

That includes the way they smell. If I am there I do not effect anyone around me in anyway.[ QUOTE ]

Yes you do. I can hear it in your 'voice'. You obviously thumb your nose and make a commosion about others interfering with your well-being in a private place. You don't have any right to tell anybody how they should or should not smell when in someone else's private estblishment.

By walking into some one else's private establishment, you are making a CHOICE, no? You seem to think that you have a right not to smell like cigerette smoke. Well, you do. You can stay out of establishments where smoking is allowed. You have a right to choose NOT to smell like cigerette/cigar smoke. You do NOT have a right to tell everybody else that they must NOT smell like cigerette smoke for your comfort.

[ QUOTE ]
Some places allow you to drink alcohol too, but if you start drinking and annoying other people they cut you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges. ALL cigerette smoke bother you - whether it's one person smoking five cigerettes or five different people smoking one.

[Suzie]

I never said they shouldn't smoke I said it shouldn't effect me or MY property if they do. If they can't control it that doesn't matter. What you do ANYWHERE in public or private shouldn't change damage or alter my own personal property in any way or you are violating MY rights. If my car is parked on someones lot they can't spray crap all over it just because they own the land.

No matter what it is, if it changes something on my person or my property without my consent it violates my rights. No matter if the place I am in is public or private.

[DesertFox]

Sooz, that's an erroneous concept of private property.

[Suzie]

No it's not, if it belongs to me especailly if it is on my body no one has a right to change it without my consent. It doesn't matter what or where it is. If it were anything other than smoke someone was putting on your clothes and you didn't like the smell look or feel of it no matter what it was you would be pissed too right? Just because it's smoke that makes it okay? Not if the person doesn't WANT to smell that way. It doesn't matter what it is people have a right to go into a property, public or private and not have anything about their person or their property changed in any way unless they want it to be changed.

[DesertFox]

If you're in my house and I smoke and you don't like it, you have no right to tell me or force me or even ASK me to stop smoking. You don't like it, leave.

THAT's what private property means.

[Suzie]

Yea but I am not paying for a food or service at your house. At least I hope you wouldn't charge me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[DesertFox]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[2Cent]

When you walk into an establishment that has raucous music, cigerette smoking, and/or praying, you are giving consent to be open to raucous music, cigerette smoke, and/or people praying around you.

[DesertFox]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif

[Suzie]

When I go into a restaurant I am there to eat. I consent to nothing else. I pay for a table reserving it for myself as my space while I eat my meal, if I wanted to be a part of what was going on at the next table I would be sitting at the next table. Therefore I don't want anything from that table making it's way over to mine. Because nothing from my table is going over to theirs.

[DesertFox]

Sure, it is. The noise of your kids. Your perfume. Your husband's after shave. Your conversation with your husband and/or your kids. Depending on what else comes in with you (e.g., a teenager with a walkman turned way up; a teenager dressed to show his butt or her belly and boobs), other sorts of things from your table go over to other tables. If you're having a disagreement with your husband, the tension wafts to other tables. Your baby screams and throws a tantrum, it affects everyone in the restaurant. Your baby poops his drawers, the stench does indeed invade the space of others. Your baby pukes, that stench carries over and the mere sight of it causes others to get sick and not want to eat.

It doesn't have to be specifically YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. The principle remains even if you personally are responsible for none of these. Other people are, yet you seem not to be bothered by them. You only complain about others' smoke.

If the restaurant has clearly posted smoking signs and you order anyway, you have indeed consented.

[Suzie]

But even if I had all of those thing ... which I don't. Moving or leaving would solve it. Not so with smoke, it's with you till you can wash it off. So it is destruction of property not disturbing the peace.

[DesertFox]

If you can wash it off, how have you been destroyed? how have your clothes been destroyed?

[Suzie]

No but dry cleaning costs money. And in the winter I have to wear a coat. If I have just got it cleaned I have to either smell it or clean it again. So they money I spent to get a clean coat is lost when the "clean" is destroyed.

[DesertFox]

So is the money I spent on my meal when some kid pukes and it makes me ill and I can't eat.

[Suzie]

You all are really stretching comparing a child to a cigarette. I think my kids have puked 3 times collectively in their lives and it was never in a public place. Usually at 2 AM when I have to change everything. But people should leave sick children at home with their smoke. I have already said NOTHING from your table should effect anyone else. It doesn't matter what it is. So what's your point?

[DesertFox]

You said that in a restaurant, others' smoke affects you; and that nothing you do affects others at their tables. I've shown that that ain't so. You DO affect others whether you want to or not.

[Suzie]

Nope, not me. I stand by the fact that I have said over and over NOTHING you do should intrude on others around you. I doesn't matter what it is. I have told you I take my kids outside if they have "problems" but you see, many times because children are human beings you can't predict what will happen. But you can decide to smoke or not to smoke which is fine that is your choice. What children do is not a matter of choice. However, if the people at the next table can be aware of what's happening with anything you do I think you should take them or it outside. And that means anything that would make it's way out of your own personal space you have paid to use while you are there. Especially if what you are doing is going to leave the place with them whether they want it to or not. My child has never went home with ANYONE sitting next to me in a restaurant.

[DesertFox]

But you aren't the only one who goes to restaurants. Others do who don't give anymore rap about the way their kids behave than you do about smokers' rights to smoke on private property.

[Suzie]

Then they are just as wrong. But there shouldn't be laws against them either. But once again we are back to the fact that because people are not more courteous that's WHY some people push for the laws and also why they pass. If people tried not to offend others there wouldn't be a case for even trying to pass a law against it. But since people seem to think it is their "right" to smoke no matter where they are or whom it might offend these laws will pass and become more and more strict. It has even got as ridiculous as banning it outdoors. Why?? because the smoker leaves their trash every where. You can't walk outside anywhere without finding the things. The guys that put the siding on my house left more butts on my lawn than nails. So even though I am not for the law I will say it again, the smoker is doing this to themselves by thinking their right is more important that the nonsmokers.

[DesertFox]

And we're right back to your definition of "courtesy" means nobody can smoke. That isn't courtesy; it's dictatorship.

[Suzie]

I have never said they shouldn't smoke. I just don't want to smell like your habit. If you can figure out how to fix that other than not smoking I would be happy with that too. But no one has the "right" to make someone else smell differently than they choose to.

[DesertFox]

Since when has anyone had a right to smell a certain way?

[Suzie]

I have the right to have anything on my person the way I want it as long as it's legal. No one has the right to change it without my permission even if what they are doing is legal, it's still my person and my property.

[DesertFox]

You have no right to dictate to anybody, on his property, what he will or will not allow on his property. The issue is private property, not your right to be free of inconvenience.

By your standard of having anything on your person the way you want as long as it's legal, I as owner of a business can't bar you from entering if you're wearing clothing that says, "F*ck the white man" or "Up with NAMBLA," even though it may be legal to wear such clothing. That's patently absurd.

[2Cent]

Suz, I about hate to say this, but you walking into a restaurant and being offended by cigerette smoke is like an atheist walking into a church and being offended by prayer.

[Suzie]

Oh come on now, you don't go out to a place and pay to smoke you go out to EAT. Now if the place was selling you cigarettes you could say that... but they don't. People bring them in with them. You go to a church knowing what they are offering.

My clothes are my property. If they were refusing to allow non smokers to eat there your T Shirt point would be valid. But you wear your clothes on their property. They can refuse to serve people based on the way they are dressed but they can't FORCE them to change their clothes nor can they do anything to their clothing to change it without that persons consent. That includes the way it looks or smells. That is THEIR PROPERTY.

[DesertFox]

When you try to dictate to an owner the things he can't do or allow on his property, Sooz, you're wrong. You can leave his property if you wish.

[Suzie]

You are trying to dictate to me that I have to smell like your smoke just because you can't control it. Once again, if it was anything else being sprayed on your clothing so that you leave smelling like it the property owner does NOT have the right to do that. They can't place anything on your clothing or change it in anyway, you are trying to tell me that just because it is smoke that makes it ok? It doesn't matter what it is your clothes are your property and customer or owner doesn't have the "right" to get ANYTHING on them. If they spilled food all over you they would offer a free meal or pay for the cleaning, because they know they don't have the right to get stuff on your clothes just because you are eating in their establishment.

[DesertFox]

I'm dictating nothing. The concept of property rights controls here. If the owner says I can't smoke on his property, I go elsewhere. If he says I can, you go elsewhere.

Simple, ain't it?

You're wanting to tell him what to do on his own property. Or rather, to tell me what to do on his property.

He tells us both what we can and can't do on his property. We don't like it, we go elsewhere. It's conceivable neither of us would like his rules, whatever they may be; and I've left places I liked to eat because I didn't like the service that day. Rather than try to tell them how to run their business, I left.

I smoke, but can't handle it in the morning. I like Waffle House food, but have left because of people smoking.

[Suzie]

Once again, I have NEVER said you shouldn't be allowed to smoke. I have said, you shouldn't be able to make me smell like ANYTHING, including your habits. If you can't control it that doesn't matter, you do not have the right to get ANYTHING on my clothing.

[DesertFox]

Property rights control, Sooz. You can't tell me what to do on someone else's property. HE/SHE can; you can't.

[Suzie]

My clothes are MY property. And no matter where I am no one has the right to put anything on them without my consent. It doesn't matter who owns the property or the building.

[DesertFox]

Again: When you go into a restaurant that has a SMOKING sign posted, you consent.

[Suzie]

No, that means YOU can smoke. It doesn't mean you can make me smell like it. I go to places that serve drinks too, but I don't agree to have them to be on my clothes before I leave.

[DesertFox]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

We're getting nowhere, Sooz. But I still like you. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon76.gif

[Suzie]

Me too. http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/smiley/hug.gif okay maybe that one likes you too much ... let's try this one. http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/smiley/kiss%20cheek.gif

[DesertFox]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[2Cent]

Suz, I like you, too. I hope I haven't made an enemy of you? That would be a drag.

However, (LOL), I don't at all care for the idea of having food thrown to me in a restaurant. Therefore, I never eat at Lambert's - the original 'toss the biscuits' restaurant. I don't expect them to quit throwing biscuits simply because I've arrived and spent money on one plate of food.

I don't like pie-throwing contests, nor wet tee-shirt contests, nor rap. Soooo, I don't go to restaurants that have pie-throwing contests, etc.
But if I DID walk into a such an establishment, I'd be wrong to EXPECT NOT to get hit with a pie, and if I did get hit with a pie, I'd have no right to complain.
But if a restaurant that sells pies doesn't have that type of 'entertainment', I do have every right NOT to EXPECT to get pie poured down my blouse, and would therefore have every right to complain.

See the difference? It's not only a matter of private property. It's a matter of expectations. Restaurant owners only have an obligation to meet certain expectations, and I only have a right to expect them to meet the standard that they set.

I honestly don't see how you come up with the thinking that your free choice of walking into a smoke-filled room somehow makes you think that you have every right not to expect to come out smelling of smoke.

It's not logical. At least not to me, anyway.

And, btw, there WAS a restaurant who had customers complaining about this certain teenager's t-shirt. (My apologies for forgetting the particulars.) The restaurant manager invited the parents to have the child turn her t-shirt inside out, or leave. The parents decided they wanted to stay, and had the teen turn her t-shirt inside out.
And, yes, he had every right to do so. Just as much right as you have to insist that people do not smoke in your home.

But all in all, in the interest of friendship.....
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon76.gif

[Suzie]

Once again if they were selling cigarettes you would be right. All of those things you mention everyone is going there for THAT, they don't bring their own biscuts or pies to these things and throw them. The owner has control over it. They can't control smoke, no one can. If they could it wouldn't get on anyones clothes.

I appreciate all of my friendships here and we can't expect to agree on everything. I think it is time to accept that this is one where we will never agree.

[Triller]

If someone wants to make a smokey restaurant its their business. But if they put a no smoking area in, they better have a method to keep out the smoke particles otherwise that is kind of like false advertising

Actually I have little problem with restaurants. Pubs, bars and clubs are where I come home stinking of smoke. I can live with it though. But if I ever get lung cancer there is gonna be some vengance taking place
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laser.gif

[2Cent]

Triller, when you make a conscious decision without being deprived of the facts, you bare the burden of that choice. For you to even suggest that you'd take vengeance out on some one else as a result of your choice is irresponsible.
(But I'll let you in on a little secret. There is no concrete evidence that 2nd-hand smoke causes cancer.)

[FreedomFighter]

sounds great especially consider most of the world including parts of the states including my own are going towards more and more regulation and I'm sure eventual ban. I'm a non smoker and forever will be but I will forever defend others right to smoke

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Regardless of how unpleasant it may be for some, it's a grotesque violation of property rights for govt to tell a restaurant owner that he can't have smoking in his own place. This isn't what America is supposed to be about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should gov't be able to tell the owner he has to abide by certain health, safety, and cleanliness laws? Just curious--

[Timberwolf]

Of course it does, DG...those matters pertain to immediate life and death. Smoking doesn't...if you don't like smoke, don't patronize those businesses that allow it.


When the government BUYS my business, it can THEN (and only then) tell me if smoking will be allowed on premises or not. It's called "private property rights" and, AFAIC they've been far too compromised already with discrimination "laws".

[DesertFox]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif

The "science" that supports the dangers of both smoking AND second-hand smoke is as bogus as that supporting man's culpability for global warming. Smoking is NOT a public health issue, whereas restaurant cleanliness clearly is.

[Halo]

I'll have to agree with the wolf and the fox. Smoking is the right of the individual not the government. On a side note global warming is a bunch of bull; the rising water level is due to water displacement from all the big ships their putting in.

[Suzie]

I guess I really don't understand why everyone thinks their right to smoke is greater than my right to not have to breath it. I pay the same amount for a table and food as everyone else, and while I am there to eat that food in a section they sell as non smoking that means it should be smoke free. If they can't provide that then it should not be offered. That's like going someplace and telling you that you can have shrimp but they give you a salad instead and expect you not to question it but still charge you the same. Non Smokers have rights too, and if they are offering non smoking that means there should be NO SMOKE. But that is impossible because you can't contain smoke. You can't have shrimp if there aren't any and you can't have a non smoking section if there are people inside the building smoking. Perhaps it would be better if it's either a smoking or a non smoking place entirely, that way you never get what you don't want. But from my experience the smoking places would be out of business in a week judging from the long list I have to get on in order to sit in the supposed non smoking places. That's what happened here and that's why Fridays has gone entirely smoke free. So hey they are leaving it up to the owners, it just seems the smokers aren't happy with the choice. But now I am finding all over town the owners are making the choice, and it's not in favor of the smoker. So hey I am with you all now, let the owner decide, it's now being banned in nearly every chain around here.

[DesertFox]

I guess I really don't understand why you think you have a right to make YOUR problem with smoke MY (or someone else's) problem. Nothing anywhere guarantees you any right not to breathe something in the air that you don't like. That changes the issue from just smoke to anything at all in the air, which means that those kids in plastic bubbles who are allergic to everything imaginable would have the right to eat in public without anybody else present because anybody else present contaminates "his" private air.

That's the inescapable conclusion that your contentions lead to, Sooz.

I'm all for the owner deciding, and have said so from the beginning of this thread.

[Wolfcounsel]

How about a NON-FARTING section? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon34.gif

[Suzie]

The kid in th bubble is a rare. MANY people don't want the smoke or this wouldn't be an issue that has came to passing laws against it. It's also the reason the owners are deciding to go smokeless. They get more business that way, the only exception being bars that don't have a large food menu as well. With that I couldn't care less what they do because those places are more of a place for adults to socialize. They aren't a place you even want to take your kids. If I was the only one who felt this way you would have a point, because bubble boy would need the world to change for him and a handfull of others. But you still really can't make that claim stand because people can't avoid spreading germs, they can avoid spreading smoke by simply not smoking that's an easy fix.

But you see you SAY let the owners decide and I am sure you mean it. That's not going over well here locally so everyone else must not feel that way. As more and more places decide they make better money staying smoke free, the more the smokers bitch. Even here on this board people are saying they will "defend the right of the smoker" NO MATTER WHAT. To hell with the business owner and the people who don't want to be around it. As I have said before, I don't support laws against it, but I am certain they will pass if the smoker continues to push the issue "no matter what" the business or the people around them think of it. So it's those people who are creating the desire for this law, then the business owner can say he doesn't have a choice and not have to listen to them bitch. My brother still goes out to eat, even with more places going smoke free and you know he can eat a whole meal without bursting into flames if they won't let him smoke there.

[Wolfcounsel]

"...the rising water level is due to water displacement from all the big ships their putting in." --Halo

There's that fly floating on its back with the boner scenario, no?

[Wolfcounsel]

"But you still really can't make that claim stand because people can't avoid spreading germs, they can avoid spreading smoke by simply not smoking that's an easy fix." --Suzie

And they can avoid farting. Sometimes. Well, maybe some of the time.



Just kidding, Suzie!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon125.gif
50 lashes

[Suzie]

Well I don't know what kind of farts you make Wolfie but if the people around you have their clothes and hair smelling like it when you are done I would seek medical help right away. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rotflmbo.gif

[Wolfcounsel]

Oh no. Not me, Suzie. I never fart. I was talking about other people who cannot put a cork in it when they eat in restaurants. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Suzie]

If it's not clinging to me or my property I don't care if they fart. But when it costs me a cleaning bill for my clothes or worse yet winter coat which is fairly expensive to clean, or drowns out the clean smell of my body and hair... then it's damaging personal property I have paid money to have or make clean.

[Wolfcounsel]

Methane molecules do tend to cling to hair and skin. So do sulfides of hydrogen. GASP! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/loo.gif

[Suzie]

Well thank the LORD I have never left anywhere smelling like a fart. Even after using a portable potty the odor from that doesn't stick around on my person. So that one doesn't compare to this either, smoke is there till you wash it off.

[Rink]

I hate to say it but I have been in restauraunt establishments that had smoking and non-smoking, and I NEVER came away from such an establishment with smoke in my hair or in my clothes, I think you are being unreasonable over that one, unless the places you have been had inadequate venting, most of the places I have been were quite fine, and mind you, I have an Incredibly sensitive nose and I can smell a person smoking in their car (with their windows rolled down) while I am driving with my windows rolled up and my fan going,
THAT is how sensitive my nose is.

I dont smoke, why? because i am Just way too sensitive a person to be able to even try smoking, I once tried long ago when my brother tried to get me to smoke, but my nose rules the roost and it didnt like it so that was the end of that.

Again I will say restaurants that have smoking & non-smoking areas have never ever bothered me.

I think the establishment has a right to serve both customers, you say non-smoking people have rights too? Well what about the smokers right?

Non-smokers can always move upwind and thats that, but what about smokers?

I remember when they started with the smoking & non-smoking establishments, to make sure they adhered to clean air standards, if THAT isnt enough for you then I suggest you eat at home from now on where you are guaranteed a perfect non-smoking atmosphere.

As for Bars, that is what you get, people who go there to relax and enjoy themselves, if you dont like the smoke, Leave, THAT is your right.

But you dont have a right to impose your non-smoking attitude on the rest of those who smoke.

[Timberwolf]

Suze...if I own the restaurant and I want to allow people to smoke in there, until such time as the government BANS tobacco, it is MY right to do so as the OWNER of the property. I am, quite emphatically, saying, "I don't care if you want to patronize my place of business or not." End of discussion. You want smoke-free environs, feel free to eat somewhere else.

The market will inform me of whether or not I must go smoke-free. If I can increase my bottom line by going smokeless, I shall do so.

But, under NO circumstances is that something for the government to decide...unless, of course, the government first BUYS my business from me.

[Suzie]

Apparently the law is disagreeing with you. And it is passing in more and more places. Once again I don't agree with the law, but as you can see people are determined to smoke NO MATTER WHAT, so the laws will pass because that's the only option they have if people are that determined to do it even when the owners of an establishment forbids it. As I said before there are many people who feel this way or it wouldn't be an issue. Smokers have a right to smoke, but their rights do not trump mine and if I don't want to breath it that's my right too. Everyone here seems to feel their right is more important. I am being "too sensitive" I should "expect it" I should live in a cave so I don't have to smell smoke. How ridiculous is that? When what I am doing doesn't impose on anyone else still I am the one that has to give in? WHY??? I have said you can smoke, I just don't want to smell it. You are telling me I shouldn't go anywhere because someone might want to pollute my air and if I don't want them to I am the one that is wrong. Smoke in your own space if you can't do that then you are the one infringing on my rights, I have said smoke'm if you got em, just be courteous enough not to make me smell like it. But I am the one who's taking rights??? Think about it.

[Rink]

hate to say it but smokers havent been trumping your right to a smoke-free environment for decades, as most restaurants provide smoking and non-smoking sections and I have been to many establishment and never came away with smoke in my hair or clothes.

I dont smoke i cant in fact I cannot abide ANY strong smells anymore without coughing, chocking and hacking anymore, why? because for 7 months i was exposed to black mold in that apt place, and I have never been the same since then, I cannot abide perfume anymore than I can abide smoke, I'd rather put up with smoke than bother with inhaling someones puky-smelling perfume that literally gaggs me.

But i cant handle either anymore, I loose wind when I cough that way.

My mom smokes but she does it outside of the house, I when encountering smokers do my best to go upwind and not bother them because I wont impose upon them.

[Suzie]

[ QUOTE ]
Timberwolf said:
Suze...if I own the restaurant and I want to allow people to smoke in there, until such time as the government BANS tobacco, it is MY right to do so as the OWNER of the property. I am, quite emphatically, saying, "I don't care if you want to patronize my place of business or not." End of discussion. You want smoke-free environs, feel free to eat somewhere else.

The market will inform me of whether or not I must go smoke-free. If I can increase my bottom line by going smokeless, I shall do so.

But, under NO circumstances is that something for the government to decide...unless, of course, the government first BUYS my business from me.

[/ QUOTE ]


For about the 50th time in this thread alone, I do not support laws against it. But the businesses here are going smoke free more and more by their own choice. We no longer have a law that forbids it in resturants that serve alchohol. But the owners are choosing to go smoke free even with that in place. But smokers are saying there is no law against it and doing it anyway. They support the rights of the owner until they say no smoking. This is why the laws will pass. People have had to be removed from places by the cops for smoking, then the business owners want the law to avoid this hassle.

[Timberwolf]

If I OWNED the bar/restaurant and made it smoke-free and some putz defied MY wishes by lighting up, he'd be arrested for tresspassing. I would file charges and said tresspasser would spend time in jail and pay the fine.

What we're saying is the government does not...or at least, isn't supposed to have...the power to pass such legislation. What's next?? I know...you cannot smoke in your own home because we know better than you, what's best for you.

[Rink]

Exactly, smokin in one's home is next, they'll say second-hand smoke is harmful to the children, so any evidence that a person might be smoking at home will be nailed.

Next, people who smoke wont be allowed to keep their children because those eeeeevil smokers are a health hazard to their children hence they dont deserve to keep their children.

in New York you cant even Smoke in your own car!!!

Wont be long, private homes will be next.

[Suzie]

Once again I do not support laws against it so what you are saying about the government doesn't apply to me. But people are not respecting the owners of place who decided that it is not a benefit to them to have a "smoking section" and they have decided they can make more money without one. If they don't have a law against it here the smoker is still saying it's their "right" just as people are saying here. And demanding the society approve of their chemical addiction regardless of what ANYONE else thinks. If they had an addiction to sex and couldn't get thru a meal without having sex I suppose they should have the right to do that too. Yes it's legal, sure there are public decency laws but there are ways to make sure nothing is seen. There are clean air laws too but we seem to make an accept ion for smoking why not sex? This theory is no more ridiculous that the bubble boy theory. I can't walk down the street with a beer in my hand and it's legal, and no one is going to even know what I am drinking unless they read a can or something. So there are demands made on what you do in public. Pushing offensive behavior is what creates bad laws and that is what is happening here and the point I am trying to make. The laws come because of people who force things offensive things into public, that's why drugs are illegal. So the question isn't whether it is legal or not because if that's all it were any addiction could be performed in public as a right. It's what people do while they are in public that forces the creation of such laws. Opium was legal and smoked in public at one time. Right or wrong it became a majority view that it shouldn't be anymore. So when the view of something in society changes so do the people who practice it. If not laws are created and that is what you are seeing in the creation of these bans. It would be better if things were so people felt no law was needed IMO.

[Rink]

Hun what you are advocating is exactly that, having laws that ban smoking in public places so that you would not be confronted by a waff of smoke anywhere you go.

[Rink]

PS: I could tell you smelling someone two blocks away because of the overpowering perfume they are wearing is Much more worse than any cigarette smoke any day, I swear some people Bathe in yucky-smelling powerful perfumes.

[Suzie]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
Hun what you are advocating is exactly that, having laws that ban smoking in public places so that you would not be confronted by a waff of smoke anywhere you go.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good Lord, do I have to say that again please read it this time. <font color="red"> I am not in support of the laws </font> . Is common courtesy so dead that all of you think a law needs to be passed to keep something from happening? I suppose it must be if you can comprehend no other solution. And the reason why you will see these laws continue to pass. I guess I am just not into assuming everyone HAS to be an asshole about it. If you do then that says alot about what type of person we are talking about here, you must be the ones who think the only way to resolve this is by passing the laws. Just because I am giving you my ideas about why the laws are passing doesn't mean I support them.

I agree on the perfume.

[Rink]

then why do you support forcing all smokers to not be able to light up on the smoking section of a restaurant because You think their smoke will get into your hair and clothing then for?

[Suzie]

Do you want laws passed against perfume? You said you can't stand that. Same thing. I imagine you hope people will stop wearing that much perfume. It might not happen, but you can hate it and tell people why you hate it all you want to, right? I hope people will quit smoking long enough to eat a meal, and not spray their filthy habit all over me. It probably wont happen but with my peeve there is more than just me who think smoking while eating isn't necessary. The difference is some of them want the law passed, and the law is passing. Society will decide this with or with out the laws, it would be nice if it could be decided without them but because the smoker wont stop even if the owner wants them to the smoker is the one creating the desire for a law.

[Rink]

Again I have stated there ARE smoking sections and there are non-smoking sections in most eating establishments, there should be absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, but the anti-smoking nazis arent happy or satisfied, they want absolutely no smoking whatsoever, irregardless of the burdens they impose on the rest of the people or any democratic process, they want no smoking by fiat and they will have it, and that is what you advocate despite restaurants smoking and non-smoking sections that have been quite successful in keeping air quality much better

I have ate in establishments that have both in one building and I have never been bothered by the smokers.

If you do not like the smoke, move to the non-smoking section, UNLESS of course it is not adequately vented to specifications to ensure proper air quality

but dont force your wishes upon the smoker anymore than you would want a smoker to force his wishes upon you.

Many smokers have been relegated to second-class citizens because of overzealous anti-smoking nuts.

and that is not right.

O and one more thing, in the college I go to theres a place where they Ask in numerous signs that people not wear perfume because theres a person in that part of the college that cannot in any way, shape or form abide such.

I have not seen any problems of incessant overbearing perfume wearers insisting upon wearing their nauseating perfume in such an area.

[2Cent]

Suz, I don't recall how many posts back, but you most certainly DID think that NO ONE had a RIGHT to smoke in a restaurant you ate in simply becaues YOU can't abide the smell of smoke. You definately stated that you thought no one in a public place had a right to make your clothes smell like smoke, whether or not you walked in there with full knowledge that smoking was allowed.

[Suzie]

You might feel that is enough, other people may not. I won't be so bold as to say you are wrong, but it's not going to convince me. I have a right to an opinion too even if no one agrees, but I do not want what anyone does in public to be offensive to me, no matter what it is. I think most people feel that way, but they aren't wanting laws against all of them. As I have said before society will ultimately decide this as they have with everything that we find acceptable or unacceptable in public today. Unfortunately that has always meant new laws and that is what we are seeing here. I don't think anyone here can say smoking is good for you, it has no value in our culture other than just a choice to smoke for what ever reason, therefore there isn't really a reason to do it everywhere you go. I believe that's what will be decided in the future, but it will probably be with a new law.

[Rink]

How can I be wrong??

When restaurants have a Smoking and a non-smoking section they design the building to shunt the smoke out, and I have been in quite a few eateries and I have never had any problems with smokers in the smoking section.

You are wrong to insist on forcing smokers into your narrow viewpoint.

if the smoke bothers you then complain to the manager, move to the non-smoking section. But again dont impose your narrow anti-smoking viewpoint on the rest.

I can least afford to breathe in cigarrete smoke, believe me i cant abide it anylonger, I choke untill I cant breathe.

But I will always stand up for the right of smokers to have their own section in a restaurant, and FYI I dont go to bars because of the fact smokers go there to relax and enjoy themselves and I am not one to endure such an environment.

thanks byt no thanks you need to lighten up and quit pushing for the anti-smoking nazis no smoking policy everwhere.

heck they even wont allow smoking in the open in public parks.

What next? Private homes?

that'll be the next target.

[Suzie]

[ QUOTE ]
2Cent said:
Suz, I don't recall how many posts back, but you most certainly DID think that NO ONE had a RIGHT to smoke in a restaurant you ate in simply becaues YOU can't abide the smell of smoke. You definately stated that you thought you had MORE rights than smokers.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't a RIGHT to smoke. Show me that in the consitution. I have said it is what I want over and over. But I haven't said there need to be a law. There are a LOT of things in this world I WANT, is there something wrong with that? Do you not want certain things? Can I not tell others how my perfect world would be? These are my opinions do you all think the world is going to change because of what I want? I sure don't. But I do not believe you have a right to inflict your bad habits on me, yes I did say that. I didn't say I had more rights, I said someone else rights shouldn't take away mine. How is that wrong? You can smoke, just don't do it around me.

[Suzie]

Rink if you don't get that I don't want laws I don't know how to say it any other way. You insist on thinking that is the only way people will quit.

People don't need to smoke. So it's not an unreasonable request for them not to do it around people who don't. If they can't do that for themselves then someone NOT ME!!(<--- please read those words and let them sink in.) will do it for them. You can see it happening now, and it will continue.

[2Cent]

There most certainly is TO the right to imbibe in lawful ingredients.

[Suzie]

Then why can't I walk down the street drinking a beer? You can't do everything everywhere. You have the right to smoke, but that doesn't mean there are places that you can't or shouldn't.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Suzie said:
Then why can't I walk down the street drinking a beer? You can't do everything everywhere. You have the right to smoke, but that doesn't mean there are places that you can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, because you cannot become enebriated by smoking a cigarette?

They're called "public drunkeness" laws and are designed to keep you from staggering out into traffic and causing all kinds of mayhem.

The reason one needs to secure a permit to serve alcohol to friends/family in public parks is for public safety.

[Suzie]

But it's one can of beer, who can get drunk on one can of beer? Why on earth would they pass a law like that? Perhaps it's because of the people who did get drunk and annoy those around them that this law passed ... hmmmm.

[Rink]

who is to say the person didnt have 5 or 6 cans before they walked down that street with that one can?

(believe me Ohio laws on open containers is real whacked, not to mention PA's laws regarding even buying beer at all)

[Suzie]

My point is laws are passed based on what the public is willing to have go on around them, that's the way it has always been. Some would say it's to keep people from killing themselves, others would say you can't protect people from themselves. But what we are allowed to do in public is based on what society accepts. And, when things reach a point where society no longer wishes to accept something, people are either forced to comply or they pass a law against it. Smoking has now reached the point where laws are being passed against it, so it is just a matter of time before this is the same as any other law where the behavior is not accepted by the people. If that weren't true there wouldn't be so many places passing these laws. My preferences have nothing to do with that fact, but the preferences of society as a whole do.

[Wyatt_Junker]

For the movie buffs, this is Travolta's pièce de résistance. Life can be a (Lu)bitch. No dry boffing for you Tod. You could catch a sniffle in the process of exchaning spit with those fun things called girls.

The Boy in the Plastic Bubble
1976
Prism Entertainment

Directed by Randal Kleiser
Starring: John Travolta, Glynnis O’Connor, Robert Reed, Diana Hyland, Ralph Bellamy

Tod Lubitch is a normal teenage boy in every way but one -- he was born without an active immune system. As a result, he must spend his life inside a plastic bubble that keeps away all germs... but also isolates him from other people. Over the years, Tod adapts to this often lonely existence with the help of his loving parents. After he becomes romantically attracted to the girl next door, however, he struggles to find a way to be with her.

http://www.travolta.com/films/film_images/bubble_hs.jpg

This is a picture of him, at long last, breaking out of the bubble in dramatic fashion. In a flash, his life went pop.

[Timberwolf]

Weeeelllll, me for one...I haven't had a beer in darn near 20 years...one would likely light me up like a Christmas tree.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[CaptainJoe17]

Its about time.

[UnkHiram]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
LOL I highly doubt it, Tobacco is a Legal product, crack has never been legal and never will be.

People should have the right of choice, and if they chose to smoke then why harrass them? If tobacco is legal then there is no basis for the bans, but if they wish to get at the root of the problem, then BAN tobacco!

[/ QUOTE ]

The Right to Choice only applyies to murdering innocent children not to smoking. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon124.gif