Does tobacco smoke bother you in restaurants?

[millipede]

Thanks for posting that. By giving smokers the "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they are infringing upon the non smokers rights... I agree with all you just said and very much appreciate you sharing it.

 

[Clown Monarch]

I'll say again, smoking is bad. It seems most of the people that argue for smoking are smokers and are just defending themselves. There's no justifying something that is bad. Bad is bad. Now I know, that's a horrible thing to say right...? I don't think so. Sure, I agree, we all need rights, we need freedom. Those are things this country was founded on, amongst other things(such as morals and faith)... And I also belive in personal responsability and I also agree that people are not being responsible for themsleves as much as they should.

Most of what humans do is bad. If we all lived in bubbles eating lettuce we'd probably all live a lot longer. As a matter of fact, human beings are physically comparable to herbivores, yet we eat meat when we really shouldn't.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

I'm not saying that drinking and driving is the problem, I'm saying that drinking is the problem. How many households get turned inside out by booze, how many wives, husbands and children get beaten because of booze. Yet this is still "Promoted" in public (Without concern for public wellbeing)

I was merely pointing out that if you are to police what is "good" for people, then perhaps I would listen if people were "responsible" (which is most clearly not the case when booze is involved, hence my example), and if I knew there was a drunk (or anything that can cause me harm) on that road, would I have been there? no. so if a non-smoker knows there are smokers inside, then should they go in? no.

we are taking responsibility and shoving it from one person to another.

I think I will stop there for the same reason you stated

 

[Clown Monarch]

Not to justify it, it is a bad habit, but one could say drinking is just as bad, but they encourage that in bars and provide parking lots, And if you think that it doesn't affect others, then perhaps you can explain that to my kids that were screaming while I tried avoiding a drunk that came head on with me

Not relevant. Drunk driving IS against the law. So is adding alcohol to someone's drink without their knowledge, which is akin to what smokers are doing to OUR air when they smoke. What on this earth could possibly make anyone think that they have a "right" to blow smoke into the air that others have to breathe? To me, it is the ULTIMATE in self-centeredness. I, a non-smoker, have to alter MY behavior because SMOKERS choose to blow smoke into OUR shared air? Amazing concept.

No one is infringing on smokers "rights" if smokers are required to go outside to smoke. It is simply false to suggest otherwise. Many smokers don't want the "right to smoke" - they want the "right to smoke" wherever and whenever they feel like it- without regard for others.

As I said, I really have no patience with this (so I'll quit for now), but to me, a defense of smoking by smokers is simply a rationalization of their inability to end their drug addiction. And I say this as a former smoker myself. There is help available for smokers. EVERY SINGLE member of my family quit smoking after my uncle died of lung cancer. Some of them had smoked since their navy days in WWII.

They all quit in memory of my uncle and so that they could provide two things to their children:

1) an example of doing the right thing even when difficult, and
2) a more healthy living environment free from all numerous KNOWN toxins and carcinogens in cigarette smoke.

I know, the nerve of some people. On my walk to work this morning I had to walk between two buses that were belching deisel smoke into the air - a known carcinogen. Near my building, I could smell the chocolate from the bulk chocolate candymaker across the river. I'm sure that offends someone, though not me. In the summer, people ride motorcycles with VERY loud exhaust (and legally I might add). Very irritating and damaging to my hearing, by the way.

As a matter of fact, nearly everyone I saw today impeded on my space in some way.

In my opinion, smokers aren't right and non-smokers aren't right - they just have to share the same space on occasion. There's nothing that makes non-smokers inherently "right" that they can exact legislation to support themselves.



That's why it should be in the restaurant owner's hands. They can have it however they want it and their customers can choose where they dine as they please. If it's a divided restaurant and non-smokers feel they're being infringed upon - they don't have to come back to that restaurant.

I know restaurant owners in Chicago vehemently oppose a smoking ban. Not because they don't want non-smoking restaurants, but it's their businesses and they want to be in charge of it's success.

How can anyone disagree with that logic?

 

[ReefRaff]

this is a old wound that will take a long time to heel.

As a smoker: Smokers have the right to smoke but NOT when it can be deemed dangerouse to others (non-smokers). i.e closed spaces, resterants, bars, or any other closed building where both share the air.

I'll take it outside, not a problem. I won't smoke a whole lot if it's cold or wet tho, i'll do without. one question tho, what happens when smokers aren't allowed to smoke outside either. Is it true this has happend in california somewhere already? would this be considered taking it too far and forceing a non-smokers values on smokers.

 

[Clown Monarch]

if a non-smoker knows there are smokers inside, then should they go in? no.

This is the crux of the argument to me. If there are smokers in a restaurant, then why are non-smokers subjecting themselves to a situation that will irritate them so much? Why not go to a restaurant that the owner has decided will be smoke-free?

To me, it makes as much sense as walking into a strip club and complaining about the naked women and lewd behavior.

 

[BillyZ]

what happens when smokers aren't allowed to smoke outside either. Is it true this has happend in california somewhere already? would this be considered taking it too far and forceing a non-smokers values on smokers.

I believe there are some areas that have deemed certain "areas around entry ways" to be smoking prohibited as well. Things like hospitals, schools and public buildings (such as court-houses, polices stations, town-halls etc) I know, I can see so many of you but if I have to show up for court, I shouldn't have to hold my breath to get into the building.

 

[ReefRaff]

well doorways wasn't what i was thinking. i mean a little further outside than that. sidewalks, parks, picknick areas, crossing the street. in your own car?

 

[BillyZ]

I don't recall having heard anything like that, no.

 

[midiman]

I know, the nerve of some people. On my walk to work this morning I had to walk between two buses that were belching deisel smoke into the air - a known carcinogen. Near my building, I could smell the chocolate from the bulk chocolate candymaker across the river. I'm sure that offends someone, though not me. In the summer, people ride motorcycles with VERY loud exhaust (and legally I might add). Very irritating and damaging to my hearing, by the way.

Clever argument, but just because one compares two things doesn't make them comparable. Preventability and health risk are factors to be considered. A cleanup of noxious fumes from buses is an ongoing effort, and the smell of food is hardly a health risk. Some risks are unavoidable results of modern life - smoke blown out by individuals is a voluntary act and thus not at all similar to bus fumes and the like.

As a matter of fact, human beings are physically comparable to herbivores, yet we eat meat when we really shouldn't.

Except for the fact that our digestive systems produce enzymes designed to digest animal protein. Biologically speaking, we are omnivorous non-smokers by nature.

 

[chrism]

well if you cant use a mobile in youre car you shouldnt be able to smoke in your car, in fact you shouldnt be able to change the radio, or talk to a passenger but i do think smoking is dangerous in a car...

ok, so i'm against smoking, so i wont go into a pub that allows smoking... hmmm im never going in a pub again... so i loose a large chunk of my social life because i don't want to breathe smoke? That doesn't sound fair.

Offices are non smoking, supermarkets are non smoking, doctor surgeries are non smoking, shops are non smoking, take aways are non smoking, banks are non smoking, newsagents are non smoking, so why should pubs allow smoking? granted it's not illegal to smoke in these places but still...

I've just come back from a friends and i stink of smoke, they all smoke. Do i complain? No, it's their home, they have more of a right to smoke than i do to ask them not too. If it was my house would they smoke, no. It's not a public place, we all share that air we all have the right to breathe it uncontaminated. they should have dedicated smoking pubs - fine, that way you know everyone smokes. but where its a 75 - 24 split as it is acording to this vote at the mo then i'm sorry but it should be smoke free.

We ALL should be complaining about increased polution, we all should recycle, we all should look after our selves better... humans are probably the least healthy now than they have ever been... its technology that keeping us alive longer, not life style... how many americans are over weight? 70%? And what percentage are obese? not sure but wasn't it something like 25%? Oh god and the number of fat kids!! not just america but the uk too

regarding drink... thats just idiots. I drink fri & sat night, not every wkend but most when i've got the money. not once have i turned on my family friends or even ppl i dont know. alcohol is a dangerous thing, but it is down to the individual wether it will damage anybody else, smoking damages others not matter what.


Ban smoking in public. Grant special licences to pubs that meet the "healthy air" requirements and we wont have a problem. oh and while im saving the world, praps we could reduce the alcohol consumption limit to zero before diving too.

(i did just make up the "healthy air" thing... if only Tony B liked fish...)

 

[Clown Monarch]

ok, so i'm against smoking, so i wont go into a pub that allows smoking... hmmm im never going in a pub again... so i loose a large chunk of my social life because i don't want to breathe smoke? That doesn't sound fair.

Offices are non smoking, supermarkets are non smoking, doctor surgeries are non smoking, shops are non smoking, take aways are non smoking, banks are non smoking, newsagents are non smoking, so why should pubs allow smoking? granted it's not illegal to smoke in these places but still...

I've just come back from a friends and i stink of smoke, they all smoke. Do i complain? No, it's their home, they have more of a right to smoke than i do to ask them not too. If it was my house would they smoke, no. It's not a public place, we all share that air we all have the right to breathe it uncontaminated. they should have dedicated smoking pubs - fine, that way you know everyone smokes. but where its a 75 - 24 split as it is acording to this vote at the mo then i'm sorry but it should be smoke free.

Why do Banks allow smoking but not Pubs? I don't know, ask the owners. Certainly they have good reasons for their decisions.

btw, restaurants and pubs aren't public places. I don't know a single establishment that's owned by the government.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Ban smoking in public. Grant special licences to pubs that meet the "healthy air" requirements and we wont have a problem.

I think the point of this is lost, since when does freedom of some get outweighed by the freedoms of others? when it's regarding choices (not necessity)

no one is forcing you into a store, and as the owner of that store they should have the right to decide, but even thier rights are suppressed, if the owner chooses to not allow smoking, that is thier choice, and the guests will comply or go somewhere else.

It comes down to, is what they have what you need, the answer is no, so therefor you go in by choice and demand that they change thier ways to comply to what you want? not very fair.

(yes I know, I said I wasn't going to post, but I can't resist )

 

[TomK2]

I see it as the relentless march of totalitarians. Every day freedom is chipped away, always with supposedly noble intentions. Its for your own good, for safety, for health, because we know better. There is some insatiable desire in most humans to try and control other humans. Where does it end? With smoking? With bicycle helmets? Motorcycle helmets? Seatbelts? Fast food? Guns? Religion? Politics? Race? Nationality? Pet ownership? (remember, dog ownership is outlawed in some places in china),Alcohol? It reminds me of the fable of the frog and the pot of water on an oven. If the water is hot, the frog jumps out. but slowly turn up the heat, and the frog stays put until cooked. So it is with individual freedom and choice in societies today. If governments tried to take it all at once, the people would resist. But do it one freedom at a time and tell them its for their own good, and people will give it all away without a complaint.

 

[Fruitbat]

Here's an interesting dilemma for you to consider.....the City of Dallas has banned smoking in all restaurants...which to a non-smoker is a wonderful idea! However...if I wanted to open a restaurant that catered ONLY to smokers (and advertised the fact quite clearly)...it would still be illegal. Why is it that there can't be a middle ground? It seems to me that would be an ideal solution....to have restaurants that were totally non-smoking and then to have others that were for smokers. The Smoke Gestapo want it their own way or no way at all!

-Joe

 

[midiman]

Every day freedom is chipped away, always with supposedly noble intentions. Its for your own good, for safety,

Sounds like you're describing the "Patriot Act"

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Sounds like he's describing a lot of Acts/laws..

 

[TomK2]

"there is a simple answer to every problem... and its wrong"

I love this quote, but can't remember the source, can you? Its awefully Mark Twain-ish, but Twain used to complain that anything that sounded off-beat and clever was wrongfully attributed to him. Can you remember who is credited with it?

 

[alarmguy66]

I believe people have the right to choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.......ooops, they already do.

Hmmm...makes you think. If a non-smoking establishment was that popular, would we really be talking about controling actions by legeslation?? As long as you are aware BEFORE you enter that smoking is allowed inside the business, isnt it your CHOICE to enter? This is another attempt to control CHOICE, and isnt America about CHOICE? Dont you think if a business thought they would lose business by allowing smoking they would ban it? A business should be able to decide for itself whther to allow smoking, which is perfectly legal, by the way, even for a pregnant woman.

By the way, I am a non-smoker, but not a sheep. I refuse to follow the angry peasents in their mob.

 

[alarmguy66]

OMG, I love this quote! How can you deny its simple reality?

"If there are smokers in a restaurant, then why are non-smokers subjecting themselves to a situation that will irritate them so much? Why not go to a restaurant that the owner has decided will be smoke-free?

To me, it makes as much sense as walking into a strip club and complaining about the naked women and lewd behavior. "