Eat and breath

[Lord Jim]

Excellent points, Big RR...

As they have gotten the upper hand, the fanatical anti-smoker types have proven themselves to be exponentially more rude, obnoxious, dictatorial and inconsiderate than smokers ever were....

[Big RR]

I don't know, I've known some pretty rude smokers as well. but the point is, before the fanaticism, most people compromised and coexisted; indeed, in the 70s I never had a smoker refuse to extinguish a cigarette in a restaurant (it makes my wife ill) after i asked politely--doubt that would happen wherever smoking is permitted now (and I doubt many would ask politely as well).

[Miles]

And exactly what "more rights" do they have; it would seem that non smokers can make a choice not to smoke while smokers can make the choice to smoke. Yes, the nonsmokers may have to smell the smoke of the smokers, but then smokers may have to smell the perfume or BO of the nonsmokers; it's just the way life is. why do smelly people have more rights than non-smelly ones?

I am afraid that is a very shallow argument point. As unpleasant as BO and strong perfume may be they are not a health hazard to others. If I find myself seated near someone who is offensive I will request a different seat. The unfortunately if there are several smokers in a crowded dining room they can pollute the entire area. IMHO if you can't go the time it takes to enjoy a good meal without a cigarette you may need to rethink your priorities.

[Crackpot]

uhh there are allergens in Some perfumes Miles

[Big RR]

Indeed CP, and plenty of other dangerous things in the atmosphere going to and from the restaurant; why pick on tobacco smoke? Personally, I'm all for letting every establishment decide for itself--if that many people care and take their business away from places that allow smoking, no place will allow it. Wonder why those who dislike/hate smoking are against that. No one has to go to a particular restaurant.

[Guinevere]

And exactly what "more rights" do they have; it would seem that non smokers can make a choice not to smoke while smokers can make the choice to smoke. Yes, the nonsmokers may have to smell the smoke of the smokers, but then smokers may have to smell the perfume or BO of the nonsmokers; it's just the way life is. why do smelly people have more rights than non-smelly ones?

That's a complete misstatement of the problem. Setting aside the small amount of people who have allergies to perfume what harm is there in being subjected to perfume you don't like, or BO. None. That is hardly the case with respect to exposure to second hand smoke. The issue has nothing to do with the rights of the "smelly" vs. the "non-smelly," its about the rights of people to breathe clean air, and not be subjected to the toxins of second hand smoke.

I know that my friends and I spend far more time in bars now that we don't leave smelling like ashtrays. I suspect the only people really harmed by the smoking ban are dry cleaners.

[Joe Guy]

Personally, I'm all for letting every establishment decide for itself--if that many people care and take their business away from places that allow smoking, no place will allow it. Wonder why those who dislike/hate smoking are against that. No one has to go to a particular restaurant.

Although I don't buy the BO/Perfume argument, I agree with this completely.

Unless our government outlaws selling & smoking cigarettes, laws will never be consistent on the issue of smoking.

[Big RR]

Joe Guy--And once they do, smoking will increase and flourish, much as alcohol consumption did during prohibition and drug use continues despite the WOD.

Guin--

I know that my friends and I spend far more time in bars now that we don't leave smelling like ashtrays.

The "smelling issue aside, there are many things every one of us does every day, from running our cars and furnaces, to buying food shipped by truck or rail, to flying..., that negatively affect the health of some other people by putting hazardous materials in the air. Smoking is just another one of these; why target it. And this statement illustrates my point, if you don't like going home "smelling like an ashtray", you could patronize places where the owners didn't allow smoking (and the owners would do so if it meant more patrons who stayed longer), those who smoked or didn't care could go to smoking establishments; it seems fair to me and keeps big brother out of our lives.

[Scooter]

I suppose we could also give people the choice if they wish to patronize bars/restaurants without proper fire exits or that serve food contaminated with E. Coli or which permit their employees to spit in drinks before they serve them. What makes exposure to tobacco smoke just about the only health/safety issue around which bars/restaurants should be afforded a "choice" to endanger the lives of their staff and customers?


(edited because of some gross lapses in grammar and comprehension)

[Joe Guy]

I suppose we could also give people the choice if they wish to patronize bars/restaurants without proper fire exits or that serve food contaminated with E. Coli or which permit their employees to spit in drinks before they serve them.

I'd have no problem with that as long as the establishment let people know what they were offering.

What makes exposure to tobacco smoke just about the only health/safety issue around which bars/restaurants should be afforded a "choice" as to whether they choose to endanger the lives of their staff and customers?

I don't know.

Why does our government allow bars to serve alcohol when everyone knows that people die from alcohol related injuries and diseases?

[Gob]

Ok, lets compromise (and then have a group hug).

Restaurants/bars/cafes/pubs etc should be allowed to be smoking or non smoking, as long as they clearly state on the building and all advertisements which they are.

[Scooter]

I suppose we could also give people the choice if they wish to patronize bars/restaurants without proper fire exits or that serve food contaminated with E. Coli or which permit their employees to spit in drinks before they serve them.

I'd have no problem with that as long as the establishment let people know what they were offering.

Let me know when you are able to convince your legislators on that, and we can revisit the smoking ban issue.

Why does our government allow bars to serve alcohol when everyone knows that people die from alcohol related injuries and diseases?

Because no one else patronizing the bar is going to be injured/diseased because someone standing beside them is having a drink.

[Joe Guy]

Why does our government allow bars to serve alcohol when everyone knows that people die from alcohol related injuries and diseases?

Because no one else patronizing the bar is going to be injured/diseased because someone standing beside them is having a drink.

You've obviously never been assaulted by an obnoxious drunk or been hit by a drunk driver in the parking lot of a bar.

(Or puked on by a drunk after punching him in the stomach)

[Joe Guy]

Ok, lets compromise (and then have a group hug).

Restaurants/bars/cafes/pubs etc should be allowed to be smoking or non smoking, as long as they clearly state on the building and all advertisements which they are.

That's how it was here before it evolved into what it is now.

[Big hug... ]

[Scooter]

Because no one else patronizing the bar is going to be injured/diseased because someone standing beside them is having a drink.

It doesn't take a smoker to punch me in the face for me to be injured by their smoking. All it requires is for them to smoke in my presence.

[Joe Guy]

It doesn't take a smoker to punch me in the face for me to be injured by their smoking. All it requires is for them to smoke in my presence.

But if you complained to a smoker about his cigarette he might punch you in the nose.

And you have the option to not patronize an establishment where smoking is allowed, so you can't blame a smoker for your health problems.

[Scooter]

But if you complained to a smoker about his cigarette he might punch you in the nose.

I wouldn't have to complain to the smoker if smoking wasn't permitted.

And you have the option to not patronize an establishment where smoking is allowed, so you can't blame a smoker for your health problems.

That's like saying I can't blame a terrorist for my injuries if he releases sarin gas in my presence.

[Lord Jim]

That's like saying I can't blame a terrorist for my injuries if he releases sarin gas in my presence.

You certainly couldn't if before you walked in there was a sign posted on the door that said, "SARIN GAS RELEASE PERMITTED HERE"

[Scooter]

And is a sign on the door saying that smoking is permitted going to individually list every carcinogen and otherwise noxious chemical that is present in cigarette smoke, and the effect(s) thereof?

Because, to be legible, that sign is going to have to be bigger than the door.

ETA: And do you share Joe Guy's belief that the establishment should be permitted to sell food infected with E.Coli or not allow for proper fire exits, provided appropriate signage is posted?

[Lord Jim]

And is a sign on the door saying that smoking is permitted going to individually list every carcinogen and otherwise noxious chemical that is present in cigarette smoke, and the effect(s) thereof?

I suspect most folks will be able to figure out that "smoking permitted" means, well, "smoking permitted"....

I'm sure there will be plenty of bars that will cater to the Adrian Monk type hypochondriacs as well....