Smoking. I can chose to have none of it, right?

[joazito]

Today I entered a magazine store to buy my favorite newspaper. I stayed longer as I was trying to spend some more money (I wanted to use the ATM card, and 2€ seems too cheap to do it. Some stores even forbid it, even though I'm pretty sure that's illegal. But I digress.) I picked the newspaper up, put it on the counter and told the lady I was still looking for something more. Suddenly this guy walked in the store, smoking a cigarette. I didn't like it. It was a small store, and even though I wasn't immediately annoyed by the smoke, I would much prefer it if no smoke at all was present. I'm definitely not used to smoking being allowed in stores, particularly inside shopping centers like this one, and I asked the gentleman "Excuse me, do you think it's ok to be smoking here?". He didn't say a thing, just stood there looking at me. Funny, if he though it was ok, why didn't he just say it? After all I was just asking, in the most polite way I could. The lady behind the counter then said something like "just trying to create a fuss", directed to the gentleman (but about me) I suppose. She then talked to me to say "Why shouldn't he smoke, we sell tobacco and there's an ashtray just there". So I asked "So you (as in 'The store') are OK with him smoking here?" "Yes". "Ah, I won't be talking that newspaper then" and I proceeded to leave the store. I could still hear her commenting "just trying to create a fuss"...

Well I don't like smoke. It annoys me and it's bad for my health. I mean, really bad for my health... I lose my ability to breath normally after a very short period of time of inhaling smoke. And so I'm not OK with people smoking around me. I know a lot of people feel the same way, and that's why I asked the gentleman my question. In the absence of his reply, the lady informed me that the shop had no problem with it... and I chose to take my (small, but still...) business elsewhere. I was merely getting informed, funny how that equals "trying to start a fuss" in her mind...

So many people act this way, though. It's like we can't be honest, you're more likely a psycho who has an evil agenda...

At least I feel good to be different! Ah, and I think this was my first pit post.

[jjimm]

Move to Ireland.

[glee]

Today I entered a magazine store to buy my favorite newspaper. I stayed longer as I was trying to spend some more money (I wanted to use the ATM card, and 2€ seems too cheap to do it. Some stores even forbid it, even though I'm pretty sure that's illegal. But I digress.) I picked the newspaper up, put it on the counter and told the lady I was still looking for something more. Suddenly this guy walked in the store, smoking a cigarette. I didn't like it. It was a small store, and even though I wasn't immediately annoyed by the smoke, I would much prefer it if no smoke at all was present. I'm definitely not used to smoking being allowed in stores, particularly inside shopping centers like this one, and I asked the gentleman "Excuse me, do you think it's ok to be smoking here?". He didn't say a thing, just stood there looking at me. Funny, if he though it was ok, why didn't he just say it? After all I was just asking, in the most polite way I could. The lady behind the counter then said something like "just trying to create a fuss", directed to the gentleman (but about me) I suppose. She then talked to me to say "Why shouldn't he smoke, we sell tobacco and there's an ashtray just there". So I asked "So you (as in 'The store') are OK with him smoking here?" "Yes". "Ah, I won't be talking that newspaper then" and I proceeded to leave the store. I could still hear her commenting "just trying to create a fuss"...

Well I don't like smoke. It annoys me and it's bad for my health. I mean, really bad for my health... I lose my ability to breath normally after a very short period of time of inhaling smoke. And so I'm not OK with people smoking around me. I know a lot of people feel the same way, and that's why I asked the gentleman my question. In the absence of his reply, the lady informed me that the shop had no problem with it... and I chose to take my (small, but still...) business elsewhere. I was merely getting informed, funny how that equals "trying to start a fuss" in her mind...

So many people act this way, though. It's like we can't be honest, you're more likely a psycho who has an evil agenda...

At least I feel good to be different! Ah, and I think this was my first pit post.

I don't smoke myself and I sympathise if the smoke bothers you.

However your chosen question was a real challenge, implying that the smoker is not only smoking but is an idiot who doesn't know where or when to smoke.

Obviously he does think it's OK, and the store both sells tobacco and has an ashtray for the convenience of smokers. (Iassume Portugal has not passed a smoking ban.)

I'm afraid that was not the politest way to start the conversation.

[joazito]

However your chosen question was a real challenge, implying that the smoker is not only smoking but is an idiot who doesn't know where or when to smoke.

Obviously he does think it's OK, and the store both sells tobacco and has an ashtray for the convenience of smokers. (Iassume Portugal has not passed a smoking ban.)

I'm afraid that was not the politest way to start the conversation.

Sure I know he was OK with it. I wanted him to know I wasn't, and I wanted to see his reaction. I don't think he's an idiot.
It was the most polite way I could think of to start a conversation with someone who does something I don't agree with it.

[Contrapuntal]

Sure I know he was OK with it. I wanted him to know I wasn't, and I wanted to see his reaction. I thought you were merely getting informed. Now you say, in essence, that you were provoking a reaction. Sounds like the shopkeeper was on the mark in her assessment.

[Canadjun]

Sure I know he was OK with it. I wanted him to know I wasn't, and I wanted to see his reaction. I don't think he's an idiot.
It was the most polite way I could think of to start a conversation with someone who does something I don't agree with it.
I'd be perfectly happy to see smoking banned everywhere. However, that said, if smoking is allowed in a location that you happen to be in then you just have to live with it. I don't think there is ANY way to suggest to someone you don't know that they shouldn't smoke in a location where it is allowed, and it sounds like, encouraged (given the ashtray). I'm surprised you didn't get a much stronger reaction.

[joazito]

I thought you were merely getting informed. Now you say, in essence, that you were provoking a reaction. Sounds like the shopkeeper was on the mark in her assessment.

People replying to a question is reacting, is it not? I sure as hell didn't want him or any one else I ask a question to to just gaze at me like a deer in headlights, that's not much of a reaction. The shopkeeper was wrong.

[HazelNutCoffee]

If the shop was okay with it, then you really had no leg to stand on. If I were smoking in an area where smoking is permitted, and some random person asked me if I thought it was okay to be smoking there, I'd probably just say, "Yeah, I'm afraid so."

It's weird that they allow people to smoke in shops, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of your Pitting.

[Omegaman]

If the shop keep was okay with him smoking then thats the breaks . If he shouldn't have been smoking and the shop keep was being bitchy (at you)
still not a lot you can do. But, taking your business elsewhere , well that
is always an excellent way to extract your due. A newspaper doesn't cost
a lot of money but 365 of them do. Alot of people think that kind of attitude
is bullshit but you can't put a roof over your head with principles.

[lissener]

Putting it in the form of a question was passive aggressive; an attempt to avod responsibility for your own feelings and putting him the defensive. Asking for trouble.

Next time, be more direct: "Please don't smoke."

[myskepticsight]

That's weird. Never seen anyone smoke in a store before. And on the 2 occasions someone smoked in the pizza joint I worked at when I was present (carry out and delivery only - though some people eat at the 2 small tables up front that are meant for waiting, which annoyed the shit out of us because they always made a huge mess) I was annoyed. And I'm a smoker! One instance, the guy walked in with his lit cigarette, the other guy just lit up sitting at the table. There are no ashtrays. The food is all in the same room open to your smoke. I think he ashed on the floor. Dick. I don't know why one would assume smoking is okay in a place like that - it's a restaurant but not one you eat in. You pick it up and leave. I guess people think just because there isn't a huge NO SMOKING sign present that it's okay to light up anywhere. I would never go to the mall and light a Camel in the Gap. Or smoke at the Phillips station, or Target or anywhere else. But I have seen a couple convenience stores/gas stations in my life where the clerks smoked right there at the counter. I guess the clientele didn't care.

[lissener]

Occurs to me my previous post might be unclear.

To be clearer, I agree with you 100%, joazito: he shouldn't have been smoking in a small store. However, your question was dishonest: of course he thinks it's OK; he's smoking, ain't he? A more straightforward approach might have made him feel less defensive.

[Telemark]

To be clearer, I agree with you 100%, joazito: he shouldn't have been smoking in a small store.
Why not? It's clearly accepted there (the shopowner had an ashtray) and it sells tobacco. You can certainly ask that the person stop smoking while you are there, but you shouldn't count on them agreeing with your request.

The way the question was phrased "Excuse me, do you think it's ok to be smoking here?" was rude and aggressive, IMO. I'm certainly not surprised with the reaction.

For the record, I don't smoke, never have, can't stand the smell, will often leave places where the smell of smoke is strong. But I don't assume it's my choice whether people smoke somewhere. It's my choice whether I stay.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

On the other hand, the guy that started a fistfight in the Library for refusing to douse his cigar was a shitpot.

Ran into him in 05.

They ended up calling the cops.

[CanvasShoes]

............ She then talked to me to say "Why shouldn't he smoke, we sell tobacco and there's an ashtray just there". So I asked "So you (as in 'The store') are OK with him smoking here?" "Yes". "Ah, I won't be talking that newspaper then" and I proceeded to leave the store. I could still hear her commenting "just trying to create a fuss"...
I hate smoking with a passion, and will avoid it (sometimes to what others my percieve as silly extremes), but if a specific place allows smoking, such as a bar, or business, you either avoid that place, or don't fuss. I teach dance classes, and one of my venues was a nightclub (for about three years), I loved dancing, and teaching dancing, more than I hated the smoke. To make it tolerable, I stayed mostly in the DJ stand or on the dance floor (this particular nightclub had an excellent "smoke-eater" type system installed about the dance floor area).

......snip...So many people act this way, though. It's like we can't be honest, you're more likely a psycho who has an evil agenda...

At least I feel good to be different! Ah, and I think this was my first pit post.
Huh? I'm not sure what your comment was directed at the smoker for not wanting to get into it (not sure how that's dishonest), or nonsmokers who have to be silent when they're being smoked out. And you're not really different. I don't know about where you're from, but in the US IIRC the percentage of smokers is about 12-25% (IIRC 25% for Alaskans and Texans, though personally I think it's more like 40% for Texans from what I saw!).

[Jackmannii]

To be clearer, I agree with you 100%, joazito: he shouldn't have been smoking in a small store. However, your question was dishonest: of course he thinks it's OK; he's smoking, ain't he? A more straightforward approach might have made him feel less defensive.This really shouldn't have made a difference as far as the smoker's (non-)reaction.

A polite response would have been "I'm sorry, does the smoke bother you? I'll put out the cigarette."

According to a lot of smokers, a simple request or an indication that the smoke is bothersome is enough to get them to extinguish a cigarette. The fact that such approaches are often disdained (or that the person who is bothered is, unlike joazito, unwilling to risk any sort of confrontation) is why society as a whole needs to get involved.

My advice to joazito is to join with others who want to protect their health by outlawing smoking in enclosed public places, and in the meantime make your feelings known to shopkeepers.

[Contrapuntal]

People replying to a question is reacting, is it not? I sure as hell didn't want him or any one else I ask a question to to just gaze at me like a deer in headlights, that's not much of a reaction. The shopkeeper was wrong.You said that you were merely getting informed. You admit that you knew the answer to the question before you asked it, so that claim is bullshit. You were not merely getting informed. You were telling him what you thought. You were informing him, as lissener noted, in a passive aggressive manner. The shopkeeper was right. You were trying to start a fuss.

I don't like it when people smoke around me, but I don't try to tell people how to run their business. If you don't like something, grab some courage and say so, or just keep quiet, but don't beat around the bush.

[BabaBooey]

Sounds like you were the asshole. You walked into a shop that I highly suspect you haven't been to before (or at least very infrequently, on account of not knowing about patrons being allowed to smoke) and bitched at someone who was probably a regular customer (judging by the store clerk's comments to him). I'd be pretty pissed if you went into my store and told my customers not to do something that I allowed them to do.

[Jodi]

Sure I know he was OK with it. I wanted him to know I wasn't, and I wanted to see his reaction. I don't think he's an idiot. It was the most polite way I could think of to start a conversation with someone who does something I don't agree with it.

I'm a pretty militant non-smoker, which in the U.S. I have the luxury to be. You can't smoke in my home, in my workplace, or in most of the stores where I shop, and I'm happy that's the rule.

But I also don't enter into unpleasant conversations with strangers. Has I been asked the same or similar question ("Do you think it's okay to be eating here?" when I'm obviously eating, or "Do you think it's okay to be talking here?" when I'm obviously talking), I would probably have responded the same way -- with silence and a look intended to convey the question "And just who the hell are you?" My feeling is, I don't know you, I don't owe you an explanation for my behavior, and I'm not interested in striking up a conversation with a person who, not knowing me from Adam or Eve, still feels comfortable implicitly chastizing me.

The shopkeeper sets the rules for the shop. If it's okay with him/her, then it's okay. It is not your responsibility, nor is it even polite, to attempt to impose your preferences on your fellow customers simply because they are your preferences.

I don't like smoking either. Had I been in the same situation, I too would have laid down the paper and left the store, perhaps subtly waving my hand in front of my nose as I went to convey to the shopkeeper why he or she was losing my business. But under no circumstances would I have confronted another customer, because doing so is rude.

[shamrock227]

This really shouldn't have made a difference as far as the smoker's (non-)reaction.

A polite response would have been "I'm sorry, does the smoke bother you? I'll put out the cigarette." ....

Why? The guy was a smoker not a mindreader. He wasn't asked to extinguish his cigarette, he was asked if he was allowed to smoke (while smoking and standing next to an ashtray :rolleyes: ).

The fact is joazito was buying a paper. Picking up a paper and plunking change on the counter takes seconds - maybe a full minute. Even the most smoke sensitive person in the world isn't going to pass out and die from that little bit of exposure. He was trying to create a fuss. When it didn't go over in the store, he came here to make the fuss because of the great anti-smoking sentiment on this board. And, I'm happy to see that the Teeming Millions aren't buying into it either.

(FWIW, even in the way way back of the 1980s when you could smoke just about anywhere - I never did smoke in a store. Too paranoid of bumping into someone or something with the lit cig. Nope, nothing really to do with the topic - just thought I'd share :))

[A Monkey With a Gun]

She then talked to me to say "Why shouldn't he smoke, we sell tobacco and there's an ashtray just there". Wait a sec here. You were in a tobacco shop that sells newspapers and magazines and you're mad someone was smoking? Huh?
So many people act this way, though. It's like we can't be honest, you're more likely a psycho who has an evil agenda...You're right, a lot of people do act inappropriately. Like, say, you. Of course he looked at you with a blank stare. He was probably thinking to himself, "what is this crazy lady talking about?" He wasn't being dishonest - just mildly surprised. You were closer to being dishonest by asking that passive aggressive "question".

Darlin', there was a misanthrope with an agenda in that store, but it wasn't the clerk or the guy with the cigarette.


"Excuse me, sir, do you think it's allright to drink in front of my kids?"
"No, lady, I don't. So why did you bring them to the bar?"

[Seven]

Sorry to add to the pile on but joazito, you were being a passive aggressive cunt.

[lowbrass]

I don't see anything so horrible about joazito's actions. Had it been me, I suppose I would have been more direct, such as "Excuse me, would you mind not smoking in here?", but wording it as a question doesn't strike me as shockingly rude or anything. I guess I could be missing something - I mean most of the idioms in the story sound odd to me as an American. I would never say, "just trying to create a fuss" or "there's an ashtray just there". I would probably say, "He's just making trouble" and "There's an ashtray right here." So the wording of the request not to smoke simply sounds idiomatic to me, not necessarily rude.

Now, while cigarette smoke is extremely irritating to me physically, I personally rarely ask people to stop smoking, because I can't remember a single instance when doing so has had a positive outcome. I'm sorry to say this, and I know some people are going to be offended, but in my experience nearly all smokers become belligerent when asked to stop smoking, no matter how polite the request. I don't see anything wrong with politely asking, but smokers in almost every case seem to take the request as a personal affront. So I just don't bother even trying anymore.

Perhaps joazito was being rude; it's kind of hard to tell without having been there. But I wouldn't take the smoker's reaction as sole evidence of that, since smokers often react poorly even to polite requests. I also don't understand the argument that since a store sells tobacco, that that ipso facto makes it o.k. to smoke in the store. Supermarkets here all sell cigarettes, but it certainly is not permitted to smoke inside the store. I imagine Portugal doesn't have the wonderful no-smoking law that California has, though. I love it. I love being able to go into a store or restaurant without choking on people's disgusting smoke.

[kambuckta]

Now, while cigarette smoke is extremely irritating to me physically, I personally rarely ask people to stop smoking, because I can't remember a single instance when doing so has had a positive outcome. I'm sorry to say this, and I know some people are going to be offended, but in my experience nearly all smokers become belligerent when asked to stop smoking, no matter how polite the request. I don't see anything wrong with politely asking, but smokers in almost every case seem to take the request as a personal affront.

So, if you rarely ask people to stop smoking around you, but nearly all smokers become belligerent when asked, just how big is the 'sample' from which you are drawing your conclusions?

IME, when in an enclosed space, smokers are MORE THAN HAPPY to tot outside to suck on their cancer sticks. BTW, smoking is banned in all workplaces, restaurants , public transport and sporting venues (undercover) here in Australia. We're quite used to pissing off outside for a quick smoko!!

Now, if you are out in the open air and somebody is smoking near you, isn't the onus upon YOU to move away rather than ask the fagger to butt-out? If you were to ask me to stop smoking, however politely, I'd probably tell you to go fuck yourself.

:D

[Jackmannii]

Wait a sec here. You were in a tobacco shop that sells newspapers and magazines and you're mad someone was smoking? Huh?Today I entered a magazine store to buy my favorite newspaper.
By the way, AMWG, if the fact that a store sells something enables buyers to use the product on-premises, what's your feeling about pharmacies that sell home enema kits? :)

[DianaG]

A polite response would have been "I'm sorry, does the smoke bother you? I'll put out the cigarette."

According to a lot of smokers, a simple request or an indication that the smoke is bothersome is enough to get them to extinguish a cigarette.
Ten years ago, when smoking was allowed in most places, that would indeed have been the polite and correct response. Frankly, nowadays, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that I'm indoors and allowed to smoke where I'm standing, then I'm smoking, and if you don't like it, you can leave. I only get right here, you get the whole rest of the world. Take a walk.

I guess it's different in other countries, but in the US, in my opinion, if you walk into the one place in a seven mile radius where people are allowed to smoke, and ask them not to, you're the one being an asshole.

[yojimbo]

I can chose to have none of it, right? You can indeed. In this case that means leaving the shop and taking your business elsewhere.

It seems that the person smoking was perfectly entitled to be doing what they were doing and the shop keeper obviously didn't have a problem with it so your opinion is to leave.

The fact that you were surprised with the reaction to what you said says quite a bit about your sense of entitlement IMO.

[stegon66]

Even the most smoke sensitive person in the world isn't going to pass out and die from that little bit of exposure.

Oh, but they will! Amazing how seemingly everyone on this board that is anti-smoking has some sort of allergy to smoke and is in constant deadly peril from smoke particles. Just once I'd like to see an anti-smoking advocate admit they only do it because smokers are an easy target and it makes them feel superior. Yes, I live in Ohio and I'm cranky.

(Got enough goddamn rules in place concerning smoking, really didn't need more...)

[Lady of the Lake]

Oh, but they will! Amazing how seemingly everyone on this board that is anti-smoking has some sort of allergy to smoke and is in constant deadly peril from smoke particles. Just once I'd like to see an anti-smoking advocate admit they only do it because smokers are an easy target and it makes them feel superior. Yes, I live in Ohio and I'm cranky.

(Got enough goddamn rules in place concerning smoking, really didn't need more...)

I see your point, but hey, it's a message board! Find a topic, any topic, and there are going to be people with direct life experience that is the complete opposite of the norm coming out of the woodwork. Though, sometimes I wonder if it’s all just one person, or maybe a super computer…

Truthfully, I'm not an anti-smoking advocate because it's an easy target. Nor do I feel superior, because I’m not.

I’m just selfish.

*shrug*...smoking has a negative impact for me. It smells. It’s bad for the people doing it and the people around. And it has a way of leaving the sphere of the person enjoying it and infiltrating my sphere of enjoyment and decreasing said enjoyment.

[Canadjun]

Oh, but they will! Amazing how seemingly everyone on this board that is anti-smoking has some sort of allergy to smoke and is in constant deadly peril from smoke particles.
Not everyone. Doesn't affect me significantly unless the smoke is really dense (and then it's irritating, but I'm not in "deadly peril"). I'm still against it, given the long-term effects of it and the fact that I do respect that it causes a lot of other people problems.

[The King of Soup]

Smoking. I can chose to have none of it, right?

Apparently not when your threat to withhold the price of a newspaper fails to bully either the smoker or his host.

Portugal used to be the place (one of 'em, anyway) to smoke (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/getaways/121098/smok10.html), but the situation is less clear (http://www.smokeatwork.org/summary_index.htm) now (http://www.tobacco.org/articles/country/portugal/). In the meantime, the OP may want to reflect on the thought that whenever s/he goes through a door to which s/he does not own a key, the rules just might be made by someone else. And to Jackmanii, who said "A polite response would have been "I'm sorry, does the smoke bother you? I'll put out the cigarette," the fact is that that would have been the polite response to a different question, one like "Would you please put out your cigarette?" Pretending that some rule exists to make people conform to your preferences (no matter how admirable), when none actually does, is rude, stupid, and silence is more polite than the response it deserves.

So says the King of Soup, who was an obnoxious non-smoker, then a fairly but not perfectly polite smoker, and now is a very polite nonsmoking smoker-sympathizer.

[Jackmannii]

And to Jackmanii, who said "A polite response would have been "I'm sorry, does the smoke bother you? I'll put out the cigarette," the fact is that that would have been the polite response to a different question, one like "Would you please put out your cigarette?" Pretending that some rule exists to make people conform to your preferences (no matter how admirable), when none actually does, is rude, stupid, and silence is more polite than the response it deserves.I think joazito would have had a minimally higher chance of getting the smoker to put out his cig if he had phrased his request as "Would you please extinguish your cigarette, the smoke makes me sick". I doubt the result would have been different.

For every smoker or ex-smoker who assures us that he/she gladly puts out/put out cigarettes in a wonderfully civil way on request, there are scads of people who breathe hostility at the very notion of complying. This thread supplies ample evidence of this attitude. It is generally futile to expect compliance in such a situation. Fortunately, debates on this topic (in the U.S., anyway) are becoming increasingly irrelevant.I imagine Portugal doesn't have the wonderful no-smoking law that California has, though. I love it. I love being able to go into a store or restaurant without choking on people's disgusting smoke.Same thing here in Ohio, as the new law against smoking in enclosed public places is in effect starting today. Other states where such bans are going/have gone into effect based on recently passed public referenda - Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii.

Much of Europe seems to be lagging behind, but they're likely to catch up before long in response to the public health threat.

[HazelNutCoffee]

For every smoker or ex-smoker who assures us that he/she gladly puts out/put out cigarettes in a wonderfully civil way on request, there are scads of people who breathe hostility at the very notion of complying. This thread supplies ample evidence of this attitude. It is generally futile to expect compliance in such a situation.
So are you saying that the OP was justified in (indirectly) asking the man to stop smoking in an area where smoking was permitted?

I'm all for telling people to put out their cigarettes if they're smoking in inappropriate places. But if you are in an area where smoking is allowed, then I say tough shit.

[villa]

Someone complained to the bartender (rather than me) about my smoking a cigar last week. I should add I was in a cigar bar, was smoking it at the bar when they walked in, and they chose to sit one seat away from me at the bar when there were plenty of other seats available. They got short shrift from the bartender.

Even in that place, if someone is eating close to me when I want to light one up, I will ask if it bothers them. I have never had someone tell me not to light it up in that kind of situation there, and I would find it kind of amusing if they did. I'd probably wait in that situation until they had finished eating, though.

Fortunately that bar is surviving the DC tobacco ban.

[Missy2U]

What Seven said.

[Jodi]

Oh, but they will! Amazing how seemingly everyone on this board that is anti-smoking has some sort of allergy to smoke and is in constant deadly peril from smoke particles. Just once I'd like to see an anti-smoking advocate admit they only do it because smokers are an easy target and it makes them feel superior. Yes, I live in Ohio and I'm cranky.

(Got enough goddamn rules in place concerning smoking, really didn't need more...)

I'm not allergic to smoke; I just don't like it. It stinks, it makes you stink when you do it, it makes food taste bad, it gets into clothes and furnishings and is hard to get out, it makes my eyes sting, it makes me cough, and it is beyond argument neither good for the smoker nor for me as the involuntary second-hand smoker. I mildly resent people who inflict their stinky habits upon me without my consent, possibly negatively impacting my health as they do it. I don't feel particularly superior about it -- I can't even give up Baked Lays, I'd be a hopeless addict if I had ever started smoking -- but I hate it and if society dictates that you can't do it around me, I'm happy. That said, I also recognize that in American society there are precious few places left where a smoker can light up a cancer stick in peace, and I'm also happy to leave them to those murky stale refuges. Complain about smoking in a cigar bar or a tobacco shop? That's just silly.

I don't think smokers are any easier target than anyone else wit

[whole bean]

I hear ya, OP. The other day I was on an elevator when it stopped and a lady proceeded to get on with a, get this, cup of coffee. Turns out, beverages are not prohibited in this elevator, but man does the smell of coffee irritate me, burnt water, I say. So I says to the lady, I says, "Would you mind pouring that out before you get on?" Nothing. Bitch. Well I get to the ground floor and walk out to the garage. As I'm walking to my car, a big ass SUV lumbers past me, blowing that stinky diesel exhaust everywhere. Now I have no reason to think that this vehicle didn’t meet emissions requirements, but the exhaust -- it kills me. So I run up to the window and I get the guy to roll it down and I says, "Man, would you mind turning your vehicle off till I get in mine and get out of here?" Nothing. Asshole. The coffee, I hate the smell. The exhaust, it can't be healthy. Where the hell do they get off?

[Guinastasia]

I hear ya, OP. The other day I was on an elevator when it stopped and a lady proceeded to get on with a, get this, cup of coffee. Turns out, beverages are not prohibited in this elevator, but man does the smell of coffee irritate me, burnt water, I say. So I says to the lady, I says, "Would you mind pouring that out before you get on?" Nothing. Bitch. Well I get to the ground floor and walk out to the garage. As I'm walking to my car, a big ass SUV lumbers past me, blowing that stinky diesel exhaust everywhere. Now I have no reason to think that this vehicle didn’t meet emissions requirements, but the exhaust -- it kills me. So I run up to the window and I get the guy to roll it down and I says, "Man, would you mind turning your vehicle off till I get in mine and get out of here?" Nothing. Asshole. The coffee, I hate the smell. The exhaust, it can't be healthy. Where the hell do they get off?


Oh, but you know what's even worse? I was in the bathroom the other day, washing my hands, and someone went into a stall and took a big DUMP! You could smell it everywhere! And when she came out, I told her she should be ashamed, that maybe she could find somewhere else to do that-it's so NOT appropriate!

[jjimm]

Much of Europe seems to be lagging behind, but they're likely to catch up before long in response to the public health threat.You may perceive it thus, but much of Europe is in fact forging ahead of the rest of the world: Ireland was first country on earth to enforce a total ban on all smoking in all enclosed public spaces, in 2004; followed by Norway; then Italy; then Scotland in 2005; Denmark and France go in February next year; Wales and Northern Ireland will go in April; England in July.

[whole bean]

Oh, but you know what's even worse? I was in the bathroom the other day, washing my hands, and someone went into a stall and took a big DUMP! You could smell it everywhere! And when she came out, I told her she should be ashamed, that maybe she could find somewhere else to do that-it's so NOT appropriate!
it was probably all that damn coffee. I tell you that stuff's no good.

[lowbrass]

So, if you rarely ask people to stop smoking around you, but nearly all smokers become belligerent when asked, just how big is the 'sample' from which you are drawing your conclusions?

Sorry, I thought that was clear, but I guess it wasn't. I have tried it in the past, and had poor results, so I stopped trying. The 'sample' would be from the past when I used to do it.

IME, when in an enclosed space, smokers are MORE THAN HAPPY to tot outside to suck on their cancer sticks. BTW, smoking is banned in all workplaces, restaurants , public transport and sporting venues (undercover) here in Australia. We're quite used to pissing off outside for a quick smoko!!

I guess Australians are more polite about that than Americans.

Now, if you are out in the open air and somebody is smoking near you, isn't the onus upon YOU to move away rather than ask the fagger to butt-out? If you were to ask me to stop smoking, however politely, I'd probably tell you to go fuck yourself.

Well, case in point, then. If you were trying to prove that smokers do not become belligerent when asked politely to stop, you failed.

[lowbrass]

*shrug*...smoking has a negative impact for me. It smells. It’s bad for the people doing it and the people around. And it has a way of leaving the sphere of the person enjoying it and infiltrating my sphere of enjoyment and decreasing said enjoyment.
Amen! Why should we have to feel bad because smoke bothers us? It smells bad, it gives me a splitting headache within a few minutes of exposure, and it makes it difficult to breathe. That's the entirety of the reason I don't like smoking.

[kambuckta]

Well, case in point, then. If you were trying to prove that smokers do not become belligerent when asked politely to stop, you failed.

No, the point is that if I am out in the open air, it is your responsibility to remove yourself from my vicinity if my smoking makes you uncomfortable, and it is rude of you to ask me to stop.

And seeing as you are being rude, I will politely tell you to fuck off. See the difference?

:D

[DianaG]

Well, case in point, then. If you were trying to prove that smokers do not become belligerent when asked politely to stop, you failed.
If you expect people to stop smoking outside, then you may want to consider that it doesn't matter whether you're being polite, because you're not being reasonable.

[lowbrass]

I hear ya, OP. The other day I was on an elevator when it stopped and a lady proceeded to get on with a, get this, cup of coffee. Turns out, beverages are not prohibited in this elevator, but man does the smell of coffee irritate me, burnt water, I say. So I says to the lady, I says, "Would you mind pouring that out before you get on?" Nothing. Bitch. Well I get to the ground floor and walk out to the garage. As I'm walking to my car, a big ass SUV lumbers past me, blowing that stinky diesel exhaust everywhere. Now I have no reason to think that this vehicle didn’t meet emissions requirements, but the exhaust -- it kills me. So I run up to the window and I get the guy to roll it down and I says, "Man, would you mind turning your vehicle off till I get in mine and get out of here?" Nothing. Asshole. The coffee, I hate the smell. The exhaust, it can't be healthy. Where the hell do they get off?
I imagine you're being sarcastic, but it's not just the smell, it's the fact that the smoke is burning your eyes and lungs. A better analogy would be if someone got on the elevator with a bag of extremely finely ground coffee and started blowing it into the air to the point where you were forced to inhale the particles.

[Jackmannii]

Oh, but you know what's even worse? I was in the bathroom the other day, washing my hands, and someone went into a stall and took a big DUMP! You could smell it everywhere! And when she came out, I told her she should be ashamed, that maybe she could find somewhere else to do that-it's so NOT appropriate!This is amazingly witty, except for two things: 1) the OP was in a magazine store, not a tobacconist's, and 2) something that folks apparently need to be reminded of in every thread like this - secondhand smoke is not detrimental solely because of its smell or that it burns your eyes and gets into your clothes, but as something that causes illness and death (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/) in nonsmokers.much of Europe is in fact forging ahead of the rest of the world: Ireland was first country on earth to enforce a total ban on all smoking in all enclosed public spaces, in 2004; followed by Norway; then Italy; then Scotland in 2005; Denmark and France go in February next year; Wales and Northern Ireland will go in April; England in July.Thanks, I didn't know that so many Euro nations were scheduling public smoking bans.

Pretty soon many of you will have caught up to Ohio. :D

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

2) something that folks apparently need to be reminded of in every thread like this - secondhand smoke is not detrimental solely because of its smell or that it burns your eyes and gets into your clothes, but as something that causes illness and death in nonsmokers.

Well, sure it does, but not IMMEDIATELY, and certainly not after a minor dose.

That indignant huff you non-smokers make when you leave our presence? That's cleared you halfway out, and the self-righteous noises you make when you tell the story to your sympathetic pals finishes the job.

If I can smoke a pack a day for 10 years, and return to normal 15 years after quitting, ( http://healthbolt.net/2006/07/19/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-stop-smoking-right-now/) then you ought to be fine in a couple of minutes.

HOWEVER, this does not answer the underlying question- namely, do I have the right to inflict my smoke on you?

Here is the analysis of that. If we're talking about RIGHTS, then your wishes don't mean squat. It's what the government, or whatever regulatory agency controls such things, decides that governs.

-if I'm in an area that does NOT forbid smoking, and you wish me to put my cigarette out, you're the asshole for infringing on MY rights.
-if I'm in an area where smoking IS forbidden, I'm an asshole for even lighting up in the first place, because your right is paramount there.

So take a look around. There'll be a sign that tells you who the asshole is. If you're the asshole, expect to get treated like one. If I'm the asshole, you're free to treat me like one.

[Giraffe]

I agree with the majority here. As much as I dislike being around cigarettes, even asking someone politely to stop smoking in a smoking-designated area is rude (barring a very good reason, like an oxygen tank). joazito went way beyond rude, into full douchebaggery.

[Telemark]

A better analogy would be if someone got on the elevator with a bag of extremely finely ground coffee and started blowing it into the air to the point where you were forced to inhale the particles.
You forgot to mention the sign on the elevator wall specifically allowing users to blow finely ground coffee into the air.

Many people don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. It's nasty, and causes long term health damage. But, as long as it is legal, your main recourse is to remove yourself. If that means going to another store, or waiting for the next elevator, or moving to another seat at the bar, so be it. Sure, you can politely ask the smoker to stop, and many will. Certainly, some won't. If you are outside, I'm pretty sure nearly all of them will tell you no, but that's their right.

If you want to work to change the laws, I'm all for it. I love that many towns in and around Boston now ban indoor smoking. It makes going to the Burren an enjoyable experience now. :) But before the ban I wouldn't expect that I could go in there and ask people to stop smoking on my account. (Well, I could ask, but I wouldn't expect a positive response.)

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

It makes going to the Burren an enjoyable experience now.
No, it doesn't.

It's COLD outside. ;)

[Jackmannii]

If I can smoke a pack a day for 10 years, and return to normal 15 years after quitting, then you ought to be fine in a couple of minutes.Your cite is a bit overoptimistic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15220753&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_DocSum). "...it may take approximately 10 to 30 years of abstinence for former smokers' risk of lung cancer to reach that of never smokers..." - if they live that long (I've seen numerous cases in which cancer diagnoses were made within months to a few years of a smoker having quit).If we're talking about RIGHTS, then your wishes don't mean squat. It's what the government, or whatever regulatory agency controls such things, decides that governs.Or, as noted, citizens voting repeatedly and decisively to ban public smoking.

It's hard to tell if it's part of a general deterioration in manners or an indignant response to curbs on smoking in any form, but the level of hostility and aggression towards those that object to smoking appears to have increased considerably in recent years. It's been pointed out in other threads on this subject that the dogged stick-in-our-heels-at-all-costs attitude of diehard smokers helps prevent compromise solutions and assures that strict bans on public smoking will continue to be enacted and strengthened.

"I'm not going to put out my cigarette because YOU DIDN'T ASK NICELY ENOUGH!!"

Fine. Whatever.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Your cite is a bit overoptimistic. "...it may take approximately 10 to 30 years of abstinence for former smokers' risk of lung cancer to reach that of never smokers..." - if they live that long (I've seen numerous cases in which cancer diagnoses were made within months to a few years of a smoker having quit).

True, which doesn't change my point- that a non-smoker who breathes in one or two lungfuls of smoke will recover from the damage quite quickly.

Or, as noted, citizens voting repeatedly and decisively to ban public smoking.

Which would be the regulation of which I spoke, which would result in my rights being curtailed in favor of yours, which curtailment I accept as part of living in a republic.

It's hard to tell if it's part of a general deterioration in manners or an indignant response to curbs on smoking in any form, but the level of hostility and aggression towards those that object to smoking appears to have increased considerably in recent years.

I'd say more of the latter than the former. But the hostility, or, in my case, the general annoyance, comes from having to deal with people who, having succeeded in making the majority of areas smoke-free by law, assume that their legal protection from smoke in most areas equates to a license to leave "their" big area and impose that mandate on my small one.

It's been pointed out in other threads on this subject that the dogged stick-in-our-heels-at-all-costs attitude of diehard smokers helps prevent compromise solutions and assures that strict bans on public smoking will continue to be enacted and strengthened.

I'm a smoker. Unrepentant. Eventually, I'll quit again, but for now, I will smoke where I'm allowed.

That said, I am fully cognizant of the fact that my habit is harmful and annoying to those who do not share it. I fully support NYC's ban and Boston's ban and NJ's ban (and other bans as well, but these are the three areas in which I have lived as a smoker) because my enjoyment doesn't trump your health in those places.

THAT said, our regulatory agencies (which are either composed of elected officials or appointed by elected officials, thereby reflecting the will of the people in theory) have decided that there are still places I am permitted to smoke. In those places, you are free to avoid me and my smoke. You are free to avoid those places. So I will, of course, object vehemently to what I see as an intrusion.


"I'm not going to put out my cigarette because YOU DIDN'T ASK NICELY ENOUGH!!"

I certainly hope you're not attributing that sentiment to ME.

I'm not going to light up in a place I shouldn't, because that makes me an asshole and I'm not an asshole (I think).

But anyone who comes into a place where I am permitted to light up and tells me NOT to, well, he's an asshole. And he's going to get treated like one.

[HazelNutCoffee]

"I'm not going to put out my cigarette because YOU DIDN'T ASK NICELY ENOUGH!!"

Fine. Whatever.
If you catch me smoking in an indoor place where smoking is not explicitly allowed, and you have no choice but to sit next to me, I will put out my cigarette if you ask me to. Actually, I probably wouldn't have lit up in the first place.

However, if you ask me to stop smoking in a place WHERE SMOKING IS PERMITTED, then I will politely tell you that I am well within my rights to be doing so, so sorry, but I won't stop.

The OP says that the shopkeeper was fine with the smoking -- there she had an ashtray out for smokers, for fuck's sake. Obviously, it's a place where smoking is permitted. In this situation, what justification did the OP have in asking the smoker to put out his cigarette?

[Guinastasia]

This is amazingly witty, except for two things: 1) the OP was in a magazine store, not a tobacconist's, and 2) something that folks apparently need to be reminded of in every thread like this - secondhand smoke is not detrimental solely because of its smell or that it burns your eyes and gets into your clothes, but as something that causes illness and death (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/) in nonsmokers.Thanks, I didn't know that so many Euro nations were scheduling public smoking bans.

Pretty soon many of you will have caught up to Ohio. :D


Except, again, this place obviously ALLOWED smoking, if not actually encouraging it, with the presence of ashtrays.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Many people don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. It's nasty, and causes long term health damage. But, as long as it is legal, your main recourse is to remove yourself. If that means going to another store, or waiting for the next elevator, or moving to another seat at the bar, so be it. Sure, you can politely ask the smoker to stop, and many will. Certainly, some won't. If you are outside, I'm pretty sure nearly all of them will tell you no, but that's their right.

If you want to work to change the laws, I'm all for it. I love that many towns in and around Boston now ban indoor smoking. It makes going to the Burren an enjoyable experience now. :) But before the ban I wouldn't expect that I could go in there and ask people to stop smoking on my account. (Well, I could ask, but I wouldn't expect a positive response.) In the past, it was impossible to find a store or restaurant or elevator that didn't reek of smoke, and most likely the store or elevator had someone actively smoking in it. Restaurants ALWAYS had smokers in them. Even signs saying that smoking was prohibited on the elevator, along with ashtrays for putting out the smokables, didn't deter people from smoking in the elevators. Many smokers paid no attention to the "Non smoking section" signs in restaurants, and became quite indignant when asked to move to the smoking section or put out the offending item. I've NEVER had the experience of asking a smoker to douse the cig or move (when I was seated first) and had someone comply with my request, even when I was being as polite as can be.

I'm somewhat surprised that a shop selling magazines and newspapers (among other things) would even allow smoking. Paper products are EXTREMELY flammable. I know that back when smoking in shops was common, the insurance ompanies would not insure a bookstore that allowed smoking, or they'd only insure it at a much higher rate.

I won't necessarily quickly recover from breathing a few lungfuls of smoke, either. Cigarette smoke (and, unfortunately, incense smoek, which I love) is a migraine trigger for me. I'll get a migraine from breathing smoke only sometimes, but I'll get an asthma attack just about every time I breathe smoke. My doctor has assured me that I am not the only person who has these reactions to tobacco smoke.

I'm glad that I can go most places now and breathe. I'm sorry for those who are addicted and polite about it (and I have met a few polite smokers), but my first priority is making sure that I can breathe. To my mind, my breathing is far more important than someone else's pleasure.

[shamrock227]

To my mind, my breathing is far more important than someone else's pleasure.

God, Lynn, you're so selfish.


I kid, I kid!

[lowbrass]

No, the point is that if I am out in the open air, it is your responsibility to remove yourself from my vicinity if my smoking makes you uncomfortable, and it is rude of you to ask me to stop.

And seeing as you are being rude, I will politely tell you to fuck off. See the difference?

:D

There's a difference between inside and outside, sure. But, as I said before, I can't ever remember a smoker politely complying with a request to stop smoking, inside or outside, and if you read Lynn Bodoni's post, her experience was similar. It has been my experience that most smokers become hostile when politely asked to stop smoking in any situation, and while most will claim they are making some sort of differentiation based on the situation (it was outside, or the person was rude, or he didn't phrase the request right), and that they would gladly comply if only it were the right situation, I'm rather skeptical that the majority of smokers would ever react well to such a request. Sorry, but that's what I've observed in real life.

For the most part, smokers seem to feel "entitled" to smoke unless it is expressly forbidden. When they light up, they seem to do so with a chip already on their shoulder. They have already assessed the situation, decided that it's o.k. for them to smoke, and are ready to do battle if anyone confronts them. I actually can envision some outdoor situations where I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask the person to stop, but I would never do so now because I know they would most likely cop an attitude about it. For example, if I were standing in line for a movie, and someone is smoking in the line, and the wind is blowing the smoke directly in my face, I have nowhere to move. Or eating at a restaurant that has all outdoor seating, and having someone smoking at the next table, inches away from me. Or sitting at one of those partially enclosed bus stops. If I were a smoker, I rather imagine I would try to distance myself somewhat from the group of people sitting on the bench waiting for the bus, so as not to bother them too much. I don't imagine I'd think, "I'm outside so you all can kiss my ass". But that's just me. In situations like these, I wouldn't think it unreasonable if the smoker chose not to stop, but I also wouldn't think it unreasonable to at least ask politely if the smoker wouldn't mind putting it out. And I don't think such a request ought to rate a response of "fuck off".

I think what's really telling here is that several smokers already chimed in about how angry it would make them if anyone dared to politely ask them to stop smoking outdoors. I can certainly understand if you refused the request, but to react with anger to a polite request shows a certain degree of self-righteousness.

[lowbrass]

Let me add that the sentiment I'm getting from many is that, so long as you are legally allowed to smoke in a given situation, you consider the very fact that someone asked you to stop smoking to be rude, no matter how polite the request. So for those of you who voiced this sentiment, courtesy doesn't enter into it at all. You don't care if your smoking bothers others, so long as you have the "right" to do it.

[yojimbo]

Let me add that the sentiment I'm getting from many is that, so long as you are legally allowed to smoke in a given situation, you consider the very fact that someone asked you to stop smoking to be rude, no matter how polite the request. So for those of you who voiced this sentiment, courtesy doesn't enter into it at all. You don't care if your smoking bothers others, so long as you have the "right" to do it.
Speaking as a person who lives in a country with a total ban in all indoor public areas and all work places, yes, if I'm in a area where I'm allowed to smoke, it's your problem not mine.

I'll probably reply rudely to requests to stop in areas where I can smoke. What? Is all indoors(apart from my flat) and even some public outdoor areas not enough for you?

[DianaG]

Let me add that the sentiment I'm getting from many is that, so long as you are legally allowed to smoke in a given situation, you consider the very fact that someone asked you to stop smoking to be rude, no matter how polite the request. So for those of you who voiced this sentiment, courtesy doesn't enter into it at all. You don't care if your smoking bothers others, so long as you have the "right" to do it.
Yes, I do. And no, I don't care if it bothers you. If I'm standing in the one place where smoking is allowed, then I'm going to smoke. If you dislike the smoke, then it's your responsibility to remove yourself to any of the 837 surrounding locations where smoking is not allowed. If we're out of doors, and my smoke is bothering you, then you're standing too close to me. Move.

You're clearly using a different definition of "courtesy" than I am. "Courteous" smokers only smoke in areas where smoking is allowed. They refrain from smoking in areas where it is not allowed. This is all that should be expected or required of us in the name of "courtesy". The act of smoking is not in and of itself discourteous.

Conversely, courteous non-smokers do not enter smoking areas and ask people to put out their cigarettes. They recognize that the vast majority of places are smoke-free, and go there instead.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

There's a difference between inside and outside, sure. But, as I said before, I can't ever remember a smoker politely complying with a request to stop smoking, inside or outside, and if you read Lynn Bodoni's post, her experience was similar. It has been my experience that most smokers become hostile when politely asked to stop smoking in any situation, and while most will claim they are making some sort of differentiation based on the situation (it was outside, or the person was rude, or he didn't phrase the request right), and that they would gladly comply if only it were the right situation, I'm rather skeptical that the majority of smokers would ever react well to such a request. Sorry, but that's what I've observed in real life.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

For the most part, smokers seem to feel "entitled" to smoke unless it is expressly forbidden.


Because... we are. That's the nature of entitlement.

When they light up, they seem to do so with a chip already on their shoulder. They have already assessed the situation, decided that it's o.k. for them to smoke, and are ready to do battle if anyone confronts them.

Because it IS OK for us to smoke- it's not OK for you to ask us to stop.

I actually can envision some outdoor situations where I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask the person to stop, but I would never do so now because I know they would most likely cop an attitude about it. For example, if I were standing in line for a movie, and someone is smoking in the line, and the wind is blowing the smoke directly in my face, I have nowhere to move.

Too bad.


Or eating at a restaurant that has all outdoor seating, and having someone smoking at the next table, inches away from me.

Too bad.

Or sitting at one of those partially enclosed bus stops. If I were a smoker, I rather imagine I would try to distance myself somewhat from the group of people sitting on the bench waiting for the bus, so as not to bother them too much. I don't imagine I'd think, "I'm outside so you all can kiss my ass".

Those are non-smoking.

But that's just me. In situations like these, I wouldn't think it unreasonable if the smoker chose not to stop, but I also wouldn't think it unreasonable to at least ask politely if the smoker wouldn't mind putting it out. And I don't think such a request ought to rate a response of "fuck off".

Of course you don't think it's unreasonable- you're not the one whose rights are being infringed.

[villa]

I think a lot of this comes down to what you view as the default position - some smokers as indicated above think that absent an express ban, the default is you can smoke somewhere, while some non-smokers above see the absence of an indication that smoking is welcome as a sign you should not smoke there.

The world (or the world where I live) is moving towards the latter view. I'm a cigar smoker, and I certainly don't agree with the definition of courtesy by DianaG, limiting it to simply not smoking in areas where smoking is banned. That's just obeying the rules - courtesy goes further than that IMHO. I have been in situations where I have not lit up outside or in smoking permitted areas out of consideration for others.

If smokers feel they can light up anywhere where there is not an express ban, I think they should do so with consideration for others. That doesn't of course mean they should always default to the wishes of non-smokers, but it means those wishes should be considered, and the smoking should take place with reasonable accomodation of such wishes. However, in the situation where smoking is presumptively banned, then the position reverses. If a non-smoker comes into one of the extremely limited areas where smoking is permitted, they abandon the right to have their non-smoke exposure preference considered. Of course, a smoker may still be charitable and try to accomodate them, but there is no obligation.

I guess being a smoker of 3 or 4 cigars a week makes me have a different outlook. Just going outside for a quick smoke isn't an option for me. Nor is putting the thing out once lit until the person next to me finishes their meal (it probably cost more than the soup and sandwich they are eating, and really doesn't taste the same relit). Cigar smoking is also banned in the overwhelming majority of locations, so when I smoke, it tends to be because I have sought out a place to go.

That's a separate rant, why people would allow the smoking of chemical soaked tobacco in the form of cigarettes and ban the smoking of pure tobacco in the form of cigars or pipes. And then the bars that banned us smoking cigars asked for our support opposing the general smoking ban in DC bars?

[lowbrass]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

I'm not publishing a scientific study; merely expressing my opinion.

Because... we are. That's the nature of entitlement.

Because it IS OK for us to smoke- it's not OK for you to ask us to stop.

Too bad.

Too bad.

You're only supporting my point. These are the kind of responses one generally receives when politely asking a smoker to stop, and you freely admit it. Obviously, the only consideration that enters your mind is whether you could be legally liable for your actions. Whether you are bothering anyone does not concern you in the least, as shown by your answer: "Too bad".

I rest my case.

[lowbrass]

I think a lot of this comes down to what you view as the default position - some smokers as indicated above think that absent an express ban, the default is you can smoke somewhere, while some non-smokers above see the absence of an indication that smoking is welcome as a sign you should not smoke there.

I don't see it that way. I don't see a dichotomy where one is either expressly allowed to smoke, or must never smoke. In an ideal world, common courtesy and politeness would prevail. Smokers would be free to smoke if it didn't bother anyone, and non-smokers would be free to make reasonable, polite requests to smokers if the smoke is bothering them or affecting their health. I liken it to this: In an ideal world, if someone were playing their radio too loud in a public place, it shouldn't be unheard of for another person to politely ask them to please turn it down, even if it isn't expressly illegal to be playing the radio.

But such things don't happen in the real world. Ask someone to turn down his music, and you're likely to have a knife pulled on you. Ask someone to stop smoking, and you're likely to get an answer of "fuck off" or similar. And it goes the other way too. Instead of "Would you mind turning that down", you might get "Turn that shit off!" or instead of "Would you mind not smoking", you might get "Put that shit out!"

And so what we have is a battle that is going to be fought more and more in the legislatures and in the courts. Where common courtesy has failed, forced restrictions must take up the slack.

No, I don't believe that smoking is always forbidden unless there is a sign permitting it. It doesn't work that way. The "default" is that you are allowed to smoke. I merely think it's a shame that most smokers equate "allowed to smoke" with "I'm gonna smoke no matter what 'cuz I have a right." Since that seems to be the prevailing attitude, it necessitates explicit bans on smoking if we are to have any places people can go that are smoke-free.

The world (or the world where I live) is moving towards the latter view. I'm a cigar smoker, and I certainly don't agree with the definition of courtesy by DianaG, limiting it to simply not smoking in areas where smoking is banned. That's just obeying the rules - courtesy goes further than that IMHO. I have been in situations where I have not lit up outside or in smoking permitted areas out of consideration for others.

That's a refreshing sentiment. It's a shame so few people seem to share it.

[villa]

I think both "sides" have very much fed off each other. Just as there are rude smokers out there, there are also those non-smokers whose mission is not to ensure that smoking is restricted to certain areas, but instead to eliminate smoking altogether. Hence the fight against there being any kind of exception for cigar bars, for example, in the DC smoking ban. At least we (being not only those that smoke, but also those that feel there are some decisions that the government should not force upon people) won that one, and there will be a limited number of venues in which I can enjoy a fine Dominican even after the ban.

I don't agree with the attitude that says "I can smoke anywhere where it is not explicitly banned." But I quite understand how people come to that point of view.

As I said, it is different for me as a cigar smoker - my guilty pleasure takes a long time to enjoy, and therefore I plan for it. But as regards cigarette smokers, just as rude smokers brought much of the anti-smoking backlash onto themselves, so sanctimonious anti-smokers created much of the reaction among many smokers.

[Polycarp]

I'm not publishing a scientific study; merely expressing my opinion.

You're only supporting my point. These are the kind of responses one generally receives when politely asking a smoker to stop, and you freely admit it. Obviously, the only consideration that enters your mind is whether you could be legally liable for your actions. Whether you are bothering anyone does not concern you in the least, as shown by your answer: "Too bad".

I rest my case.

No. Unless you are of that ilk that refers to yourself as "one," those are the reactions that you get. And apparently the more common reactions that Jackmaniii gets, based on an earlier post of his.

Data, as the saying famously goes, is not the plural of anecdote.

And those of you who get offensive reactions from smokers -- one of three things is possible: (1) You have run into that subset of smokers who are assholes; (2) You are, perhaps unintentionally, being an asshole to them and they are responding in kind; (3) You live in an area where rude behavior is the norm, and you should move.

Premises that I work by, and which I've seen many other smokers work by:

1. The right of someone with a justifiable ground to ask for clean air trumps my right to smoke near them. One former boss who had had a lobe of his lung removed, the wife of another boss who was severely allergic to tobacco smoke -- they deserved my courtesy. As would Lynn, or numerous others.

2. The courteous request of someone offended by smoke to move should be honored if there is a place to move to. Simply swapping positions so that the smoker is downwind of the non-smoker outdoors will often be effective.

3. No one should smoke in an indoor location where there is no indication smoking is permitted.

4. If there is a designated smoking area, or an outdoor area that is (a) not being presently used by others and (b) not in the immediate route to somewhere people are regularly going to [such as a sidewalk to an entryway], it is acceptable to smoke there.

5. People who go in designated smoking areas and expect people to stop smoking to oblige them are being jerks.

6. Yes, there is a health danger to smoking. There is also one to sex, hang gliding, skiing, bicycle riding, swimming, taking baths. It is up to each individual to judge whether the danger in a given activity requires him to cease doing it.

7. Secondhand smoke is in fact a problem (cue back to several dozen pages across several threads of argument on that). So use some common sense on where you place designated smoking areas to avoid that feedback. Don't use it as grounds to ban smoking entirely, except in rare circumstances.

8. People who want smoking made illegal because they don't like it rank with those who want gay sex made illegal, those who want alcoholic beverages made illegal, etc., etc.

9. People who initially act discourteously or who react discourteously have just cut themselves off from any courtesy due them. Let me know politely that my smoking, in a place where it's usually acceptable, bothers you, and I'll put out my cigarette with apologies. Start in with a rant, and I'll be glad to ignore you. Even if it's justifed for health reasons. And if some dickhead cops an attitude to your polite request, he deserves no better than you would if you were being an equal jerk.

[Li'l Pluck]

Yeah, I'm gonna go with DianaG and Happy Scrappy Hero Pup on this. (And, yep, I'm a smoker. Yeah, I know it's not healthy, and I know that many people consider it to be a disgusting habit, but hey, I'm an adult, and I can make my own choices.)

Believe it or not, lowbrass, I think I get where you're coming from WRT consideration from smokers. I'm actually the guy who won't smoke underneath an enclosed bus shelter, or who will (if possible) temporarily remove myself from a movie ticket queue if I want to smoke. (This is not necessary for me, though, b/c I very rarely go to the movies and, at any rate, I'm able to wait in a line like that without smoking. Hell, I'm even more than capable of flying across the Atlantic without going into I-need-a-cigarette seizures. I will say, though, that I'm glad I fly Northwest Airlines b/c part of their terminal in Detroit is not far from an in-aiport bar that allows me to have a smoke with my scotch between flights.) The thing is, though, I can't help but get a sense from what you've written that you really and truly want to see smoking banned anywhere in public, period. Not just indoors, but outdoors, as well. (Yes, I've read what you've written, and I'm not accusing you of outright mendacity, but still, there's this...vibe that I get from your posts thus far.)

As DianaG and Happy Scrappy Hero Pup have pointed out, non-smokers who are bothered/annoyed/feel that there's a dire and immediate threat to their lives b/c of cigarette smoke have been gaining--and will continue to gain, I think--the lion's share of the pie. You guys have many, many more places where you don't have to deal with cigarette smoke, compared to the number of places where smokers are able to smoke, or at least are not explicity enjoined from smoking.

My question, then, is this: If I (and many other smokers) can deal with the fact that there's an increasing number of enclosed spaces where we can't indulge our habit (and though I really wish that bar owners, in particular, had been allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to allow smoking, I do get that the law is the law, and I intend to abide by it), why can't people like you just do a happy dance over the fact that you can go to bars, restaurants, pretty much almost anywhere--indoors--without dealing with cigarette smoke? Why do you feel the need to impose your wants (or health requirements, as the case may be) in the ever-dwindling number of places where people are allowed to smoke?

(Sweet Og, I remember reading just in the past couple of years of condos--or co-ops, I can't remember which--in New York that were instituting rules about not allowing people to smoke in their own homes because some smoke might drift through the ventilation to other units.)

I know that you object to the characterization of this kind of behavior as entitlement, but, honestly, I can't see how it can be fairly characterized as anything else.

If you don't want to smell smoke at a restaurant that has all-outdoor seating, then don't go, because the fact is, you have so many more options where your desires will be catered to than smokers do. If you don't want to smell someone's cigarette smoke while waiting in a movie ticket queue, then, until the government prohibits smoking in the open air (and I'm sure that some who share your views are chomping at the bit for this to happen), why don't you temporarily remove yourself from line? I mean, hell, I doubt that you'd have any difficulty getting someone to hold your place. Even a nasty smoker like me would hold your place for you in a situation like this. Imagine that!

I'm not trying to be unreasonable or mean, but, shit, please bear in mind that, with the ever-widening anti-smoking legislation, it is the smokers, who have to make an adjustment, who are being inconvenienced. (And before anyone starts some bullshit about why we're being inconvenienced, we generally understand the reasons, and we deal with it.) Given that, I don't think it's a cardinal sin--or even run-of-the-mill rudenss or inconsiderate--to expect you to be inconvenienced on the rare occasion that this would occur.

And yeah, if we were in the open air and I were smoking a cigarette, and you asked me--even kindly--to extinguish it, you'd get a "fuck you" from me. I might not say it in so many words (Mama raised me to be too Southern and polite for that), but you'd better damn well believe that that's what my bottom line would be.

[lowbrass]

No. Unless you are of that ilk that refers to yourself as "one," those are the reactions that you get. And apparently the more common reactions that Jackmaniii gets, based on an earlier post of his.

Data, as the saying famously goes, is not the plural of anecdote.

Another poster already said exactly that, and my reply was that I'm not publishing a scientific study; merely expressing my opinion. Anyone is free to disagree with me. At the very least, I can say that I have seen nothing in this thread that proves me wrong.

And those of you who get offensive reactions from smokers -- one of three things is possible: (1) You have run into that subset of smokers who are assholes; (2) You are, perhaps unintentionally, being an asshole to them and they are responding in kind; (3) You live in an area where rude behavior is the norm, and you should move.

Perhaps, but then that would have to apply to Lynn Bodoni as well, who wrote:

Many smokers paid no attention to the "Non smoking section" signs in restaurants, and became quite indignant when asked to move to the smoking section or put out the offending item. I've NEVER had the experience of asking a smoker to douse the cig or move (when I was seated first) and had someone comply with my request, even when I was being as polite as can be.

So maybe we're all assholes, but I rather doubt it.

5. People who go in designated smoking areas and expect people to stop smoking to oblige them are being jerks.

I can't disagree with you there, because I don't have much experience with that anymore. There aren't really "designated smoking areas" anymore. In the old days, I agree it would be quite ridiculous to sit in the smoking section of an airplane or restaurant and complain about the smoking. But that kind of situation doesn't come up these days.

6. Yes, there is a health danger to smoking. There is also one to sex, hang gliding, skiing, bicycle riding, swimming, taking baths. It is up to each individual to judge whether the danger in a given activity requires him to cease doing it.

I agree. If people want to poison themselves, I'm not going to stop them. My concern is when it's hurting me. That is to say, I'm concerned about lung cancer, a close family member died of lung cancer, and I wish people wouldn't smoke, but I don't believe they should be prohibited from doing so for that reason alone.


8. People who want smoking made illegal because they don't like it rank with those who want gay sex made illegal, those who want alcoholic beverages made illegal, etc., etc.

Yikes! I hope you're kidding.

[Li'l Pluck]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I actually dump the hot ash and unspent tobacco from my cigs and then deposit the butt into the proper receptacle. (This is, incidentally, something I became more conscious of doing after reading some the smoking/anti-smoking threads on the Dope. I just knew this place as good for something!)

Oh, and even if I'm in someone's car or home and they light up a cig, unless I know their stance on the matter, or unless they invite me to do the same if I feel so inclined, I seek their permission before doing the same myself. Who knew that a smoker could be so considerate?

[villa]

Another poster already said exactly that, and my reply was that I'm not publishing a scientific study; merely expressing my opinion. Anyone is free to disagree with me. At the very least, I can say that I have seen nothing in this thread that proves me wrong.

What would prove you wrong - you have seen anecdotal evidence both ways here. Including me, and I think I am a pretty considerate smoker. You seemed to agree in fact.


I can't disagree with you there, because I don't have much experience with that anymore. There aren't really "designated smoking areas" anymore. In the old days, I agree it would be quite ridiculous to sit in the smoking section of an airplane or restaurant and complain about the smoking. But that kind of situation doesn't come up these days.

And therein lies the problem, grasshopper. There really aren't that many designated smoking areas. Those who have attempted to ban smoking, not for their own benefit, but to save the souls and lungs of smokers, have succeeded in eliminating many of the places where people used to smoke. Indeed they are attempting to eliminate those places left, even when they have no reason to go into those places themselves. Attacking cigar bars is just dumb. And I don't even buy the argument of protecting the workforce - with cigar bars making up such a small percentage of the overall number of bars, working there as opposed to another bar has to be optional. Maybe it is just us cigar smokers tipping better that makes the bartenders where I go stay there. Or it could be that they are all cigar smokers too.

If you close off ALL indoor avenues to smoking, smokers are going to smoke outdoors. If, alternatively, you allow the smoking bars/coffee shops to exist, and simply chose to patronize non-smoking bars and coffee shops, then you will not be exposed to smoke when you are enjoying a beverage, and you will be exposed to fewer smokers out on the street. It is the success off the anti-smoking contingent that has driven some, if not much, of the behavior to which you object.

[Li'l Pluck]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I actually dump the hot ash and unspent tobacco from my cigs and then deposit the butt into the proper receptacle. (This is, incidentally, something I became more conscious of doing after reading some the smoking/anti-smoking threads on the Dope. I just knew this place as good for something!)

:smack:

(This is, incidentally, something I became more conscious of doing after reading some of the smoking/anti-smoking threads on the Dope. I just knew this place was good for something!)

I swear (on a pack of Camel Filters, natch!), I really did preview before!

[lowbrass]

My question, then, is this: If I (and many other smokers) can deal with the fact that there's an increasing number of enclosed spaces where we can't indulge our habit (and though I really wish that bar owners, in particular, had been allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to allow smoking, I do get that the law is the law, and I intend to abide by it), why can't people like you just do a happy dance over the fact that you can go to bars, restaurants, pretty much almost anywhere--indoors--without dealing with cigarette smoke?

Oh, I'm quite ecstatic about it - believe me. I already said so. Read my first post.

Why do you feel the need to impose your wants (or health requirements, as the case may be) in the ever-dwindling number of places where people are allowed to smoke?

I don't. I already said I no longer ask. And lose the "health" argument, because I don't believe in forcing other people to do what's good for them. I only care about it to the degree that it hurts other people.

(Sweet Og, I remember reading just in the past couple of years of condos--or co-ops, I can't remember which--in New York that were instituting rules about not allowing people to smoke in their own homes because some smoke might drift through the ventilation to other units.)

Hmmm...in college I lived in a dorm with a shared ventilation system. If anyone lit up in his room, you'd know about it pretty quick. I don't know the details of your story, but if it was a system like this, it could very well be a big problem. Of course, if it were me, I don't think I'd choose to live in such a place.

I know that you object to the characterization of this kind of behavior as entitlement, but, honestly, I can't see how it can be fairly characterized as anything else.

It is what it is. I'm merely pointing it out. If you agree with me that smokers feel a sense of entitlement, then why do you object to my saying so? It's true, right?

If you don't want to smell smoke at a restaurant that has all-outdoor seating, then don't go, because the fact is, you have so many more options where your desires will be catered to than smokers do.

I never understood why smokers complain so bitterly about the fact that they have fewer places they can smoke than there are places where they can't smoke. You're the ones producing the smoke, and it's an irritant and health risk for others. And you are free to smoke at home to your heart's content. Believe me, if cigarettes didn't produce smoke, nobody would care. You could ingest cigarettes anywhere you felt like. I promise, if you want to imbibe smokeless cigarettes, I won't ever complain.

If you don't want to smell someone's cigarette smoke while waiting in a movie ticket queue, then, until the government prohibits smoking in the open air (and I'm sure that some who share your views are chomping at the bit for this to happen), why don't you temporarily remove yourself from line? I mean, hell, I doubt that you'd have any difficulty getting someone to hold your place. Even a nasty smoker like me would hold your place for you in a situation like this. Imagine that!

But all I said was that I didn't think it would be unreasonable for a person to make the request. I didn't even say that I necessarily would expect the smoker to comply. But like the other people who responded, the idea that a person might even dare to ask apparently angers you.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable or mean, but, shit, please bear in mind that, with the ever-widening anti-smoking legislation, it is the smokers, who have to make an adjustment, who are being inconvenienced. (And before anyone starts some bullshit about why we're being inconvenienced, we generally understand the reasons, and we deal with it.) Given that, I don't think it's a cardinal sin--or even run-of-the-mill rudenss or inconsiderate--to expect you to be inconvenienced on the rare occasion that this would occur.

But I never said it was. Again, all I said was that I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to politely ask you to stop.

You are characterizing this as though I said it's unreasonable for you to smoke, which is not what I said. YOU are saying it's unreasonable for someone to simply make a request. I never said it's unreasonable to smoke in a place where it's allowed.

And yeah, if we were in the open air and I were smoking a cigarette, and you asked me--even kindly--to extinguish it, you'd get a "fuck you" from me. I might not say it in so many words (Mama raised me to be too Southern and polite for that), but you'd better damn well believe that that's what my bottom line would be.
And that only further supports my point. Thank you.

[shamrock227]

And that only further supports my point. Thank you.

What is this supposed point you think everyone is proving for you?

In each of the examples to which you have replied "you've proven my point". The example was the NON smoker being rude.

When a non smoker comes into a designated smoking area and tells/asks people to stop smoking it's the non smoker who is being rude. Go somewhere else. You can. I can't. That's not rude - it's common sense.

[lowbrass]

I believe the example was smoking outdoors. Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to refer to all outdoors as a "designated smoking area"?

[lowbrass]

It would be rude to go into a designated smoking area and ask someone to stop smoking. But designated smoking areas don't really exist here anymore.

[DianaG]

I believe the example was smoking outdoors. Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to refer to all outdoors as a "designated smoking area"?
Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to say that asking someone to put out their cigarette is perfectly polite and reasonable when simply standing upwind of them is also an option?

[HazelNutCoffee]

It would be rude to go into a designated smoking area and ask someone to stop smoking. But designated smoking areas don't really exist here anymore.
Out of curiosity, where is this "here" of which you speak?

[Jackmannii]

Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to refer to all outdoors as a "designated smoking area"?Based on all the ash and cigarette butts I see flying out of car windows, it's obvious that all outdoors is considered a "designated ashtray".

Hurrah for you, Li'l Pluck. I know you're out there somewhere.

[shamrock227]

It would be rude to go into a designated smoking area and ask someone to stop smoking. But designated smoking areas don't really exist here anymore.

Where's here? Here (where I am in NY) at my office there's actually a yellow box painted on the ground. It's about 10 square feet (I'm not sure what happens to you if you cross the line holding a cig. I'm waiting for one of the others to try it first). The train platforms around here have that same set-up as well (aaalllll the way on one end of the platform is the ashtray and the yellow box - can smoke not cross the color yellow painted on the ground or something?)

Those are "designated smoking areas" not "all of outside".

And when people come by me and start that hand waving and that special little fake hack - they need to move. They came over to me. They can move, I can't.

[Jodi]

Where's here? Here (where I am in NY) at my office there's actually a yellow box painted on the ground. It's about 10 square feet (I'm not sure what happens to you if you cross the line holding a cig. I'm waiting for one of the others to try it first).

Your metal collar beeps urgently for about ten seconds and then your head explodes.

[Alan Smithee]

Really, I think the reason so many non-smokers think all smokers are rude is quite obvious. Same for smokers who think non-smokers are crusading jerks.

I don't smoke where it is likely to bother other people. If I'm smoking outside, I try to be away from other people who aren't smoking. If I'm at an outside table with other people, I'll ask them if it's ok to smoke, and if I notice smoke drifting to someone at another table, I'll move or ask if they're bothered.

If someone were to ask me not to smoke around them, I would certainly comply, but I don't think it has ever happened. Polite smokers, by and large, don't bother other people to begin with. Certainly, there are times when I might not notice that someone is being bothered, but they are rare.

OTOH, there are lots and lots of people, both smokers and non-smokers, who are jerks. You shouldn't be surprised if someone who is smoking in an inappropriate place (legal or not) turns out to be a jerk. In fact, I would take it as read.

Likewise, although it has never happened, if someone were to confront me about my smoking, it would either be one of the rare situations where I was bothering someone unawares, or it would be a crusading, non-smoking jerk. Both are pretty unlikely, but I imagine people who smoke more than I, live in more populous places, or have smoked for longer might have run into a jerk or twenty.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I think that Alan Smithee makes a good argument. I've known a few polite smokers, and they do try to make sure that they're not bothering anyone when they smoke. I've never had to ask one of these polite smokers to move away from me, as they don't light up around me without asking in the first place.

The problem, of course, is that the smokers who most stick out in my mind are the ones who plop themselves down beside me and light up, and then get offended when I ask them to move or move myself.

[don't ask]

I can only suppose that the smoker did not reply because he was contemplating stabbing you in the throat. Lucky the store owner jumped in with the judiciously placed "just trying to create a fuss" comment.

[Li'l Pluck]

Lowbrass,

I can't be arsed to do a whole cut-and-paste with your posts right now, so I'll just say this:

First, nothing that I said proves your point about smokers reacting rudely when being asked to either extinguish their cigarettes or move elsewhere to smoke. My point was that smokers, when smoking outside in the open air, shouldn't feel, or be, compelled to comply with the request of non-smokers who have the lion's share of places to go if they don't want to deal with cigarette smoke. Period.

Secondly, if you didn't want people to assume that you didn't want smokers to smoke in public, open air, places where you might find yourself, and if you didn't want to be challenged on that point, then you shouldn't have brought it up in post #57. I mean, really, how the fuck else do you expect smokers, who have an ever-decreasing number of places where we can smoke, to react when someone like you "requests" that we don't smoke in your presence? Next thing, folks like you will be "requesting" that we don't smoke in our own backyards because you can smell the smoke while in your adjoining backyard. I'm sure you'll think this is hyperbole on my part, but from what you've said so far (and from what militant non-smokers have, at the very least, implied in other threads), I don't think it is.

And, Lynn Bodoni? Believe it or not, I completely understand your point about conterminous smoking and non-smoking areas inside of restaurants (which is one reason why I'm not up in arms about smoking being banned in restaurents), but I have a question for you: Why, if you happened to find yourself in a place that does not explicitly ban smoking and, therefore, could be reasonably presumed to allow it (and, given the fact that you have so many more options than I do), would you even endeavor to deny someone the right/pleasure/whatever to smoke? Are you free to remove yourself in such a situation? Sure. And while you might be free to ask me not to smoke in such a situation, don't expect me to be all sunshine and kittens when you ask me not to smoke in a public place where I am not prohibited from doing so. And while I can't speak for all smokers, the only reason that I might think negatively of you if you moved in order to avoid my smoke would be if you made a production of doing that annyoing hand-waving-cough-cough thing that so many non-smokers do while you removed yourself.

Look, I don't want to come off as militant, but I can't stand this attitude that so many non-smokers seem to have that everywhere where they find themselves should, if not by law, then by courtesy, given, again, the overwhelming number of options you guys have, be a non-smoking area. Can you--and not you, Lynn, if you don't feel this way, but other non-smokers--really not see how that is tantamount to unreasonably imposing your values/wants/needs on someone else?

And, Jackmannii? Thanks.

[Lynn Bodoni]

And, Lynn Bodoni? Believe it or not, I completely understand your point about conterminous smoking and non-smoking areas inside of restaurants (which is one reason why I'm not up in arms about smoking being banned in restaurents), but I have a question for you: Why, if you happened to find yourself in a place that does not explicitly ban smoking and, therefore, could be reasonably presumed to allow it (and, given the fact that you have so many more options than I do), would you even endeavor to deny someone the right/pleasure/whatever to smoke? Are you free to remove yourself in such a situation? Sure. And while you might be free to ask me not to smoke in such a situation, don't expect me to be all sunshine and kittens when you ask me not to smoke in a public place where I am not prohibited from doing so. And while I can't speak for all smokers, the only reason that I might think negatively of you if you moved in order to avoid my smoke would be if you made a production of doing that annyoing hand-waving-cough-cough thing that so many non-smokers do while you removed yourself.

Look, I don't want to come off as militant, but I can't stand this attitude that so many non-smokers seem to have that everywhere where they find themselves should, if not by law, then by courtesy, given, again, the overwhelming number of options you guys have, be a non-smoking area. Can you--and not you, Lynn, if you don't feel this way, but other non-smokers--really not see how that is tantamount to unreasonably imposing your values/wants/needs on someone else?

And, Jackmannii? Thanks. In the most recent instance, I was out after midnight and needed to eat something. Not WANTED, but NEEDED to eat something (I'm diabetic). The Denny's and IHOPs all have smoking sections, and after about 10 PM they tend to close down most of the restaurant and put the smoking and nonsmoking sections right next to each other. I went into an IHOP, explained to the hostess that I wanted a nonsmoking table, and was seated. No one was smoking in the restaurant at that time, so I didn't know where the smoking section was. Minutes after I got my food, the hostess sat down...and lit up. I hurriedly picked up my food and silverware and moved to a table in the closed section. Are you happy with my response to that situation? I was tired, I wasn't looking for a confruntation, my blood sugar was low (which can cause any number of inappropriate responses), I just wanted to eat something. And breathe while I ate it.

[Li'l Pluck]

In the most recent instance, I was out after midnight and needed to eat something. Not WANTED, but NEEDED to eat something (I'm diabetic). The Denny's and IHOPs all have smoking sections, and after about 10 PM they tend to close down most of the restaurant and put the smoking and nonsmoking sections right next to each other. I went into an IHOP, explained to the hostess that I wanted a nonsmoking table, and was seated. No one was smoking in the restaurant at that time, so I didn't know where the smoking section was. Minutes after I got my food, the hostess sat down...and lit up. I hurriedly picked up my food and silverware and moved to a table in the closed section. Are you happy with my response to that situation? I was tired, I wasn't looking for a confruntation, my blood sugar was low (which can cause any number of inappropriate responses), I just wanted to eat something. And breathe while I ate it.

I'm a diabetic, too, so I totally sympathize. (And yes, I know--I should definitely not be smoking. I'm working on it, I'm working on it.) Low blood sugar really isn't a good feeling.

And no, I certainly can't fault you for your response in this instance. If the hostess--to whom you'd already voiced your desire for a non-smoking table-- sat near you (which I'm assuming she did) and smoked, then that was very uncool of her. You didn't say in your post, so I'm curious: Did you explain to her your reasons for wanting a non-smoking table. i.e., the possibility of a migraine and the very real likelihood of an asthma attack?

I ask because I'd like to think that most people, knowing about the real and immediate risks to you, would conduct themselves accordingly. (Though I reckon that there are those who might say, well, fine, you're a diabetic and you need to eat something, so why not go somewhere else? Or why not keep something with you, e.g., sugar pills, etc., that you can consume in a low blood surgar emergency?)

OTOH (there's always another hand, isn't there?), I'd be wary of everyone claiming risk of an asthma attack if they inhale cigarette smoke if they willingly, absent any immediate health need (such as your diabetes), patronize an establishment that allows smoking.

I guess my concern is this: Where does it end? How long before people are banned from wearing, say, to their jobs, perfumes, body oils, and colognes because someone is allergic, or whatever? How long before, say, ballparks stop selling peanuts because someone has a peanut allergy? How long before someone lobbies for, or proposes, legislation that would prevent me from smoking in my backyard (which I don't have now, but hope to have someday) because the next-door neighbor is affected by the smoke?

Please don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't care about people's very real health needs. It's just that it's not difficult for me to imagine a day when we'll be having arguments about just how "sterile" we all have to be so as to not offend anyone's sensibilities or in some other way expose people to some kind of health risk. And that's a big part of what I think is what makes so many smokers wary of the militantly anti-smoking contigent.

[Zoe]

lowbrass: Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to refer to all outdoors as a "designated smoking area"?

<snip>

But designated smoking areas don't really exist here anymore.

Well, I'm certainly not going to assume that all outdoors is a "non-smoking" area. That wouldn't make sense. So until "They" hang signs saying that smoking is forbidden, then yes, I'm going to consider that all of the outdoors is still available for smoking. I will try to keep my distance from people who are not smoking and I hope they will do the same.

I think that younger non-smokers don't realize how much turf we have given up (and rightly so). My first job was working for a newspaper. There were fifteen women working in one room with no windows. About ten of us smoked. I don't ever recall the other four or five complaining. That was just the way things were back then. (Obviously, some folks somewhere began to complain!)

lowbrass, what's on a smoker's mind as they are lighting up is not a matter of your opinion. You can't really know what they are thinking and feeling. If you think that people will stab you when you ask them to turn down the radio, your view of other people may be a little on the negative side. I doubt that there is a bit of difference in the courtesy of smokers and non-smokers. Can you really generalize about so many millions of people with any accuracy?

Welcome to SDMB!

[shamrock227]

Did you explain to her your reasons for wanting a non-smoking table. i.e., the possibility of a migraine and the very real likelihood of an asthma attack?

I don't think Lynn should have had to explain anything to her. Requesting a non-smoking table should have said it all. Why Lynn was there and why she wanted non-smoking is none of her business. That Hostess was a real twit and it's people like her that give the rest of us a bad name. Would it really have been so hard for the hostess to pop over to the closed section to smoke? As far as I'm concerned, Lynn, you did the right thing.

For the record, even though I (and most of my friends) smoke, we usually sat in the non smoking section when we ate out. There is something so gross about a cloud around your head while you are trying to enjoy a meal. I just really wish the smoking ban didn't extend to bars and coffee shops.

[Li'l Pluck]

I don't think Lynn should have had to explain anything to her. Requesting a non-smoking table should have said it all. Why Lynn was there and why she wanted non-smoking is none of her business. That Hostess was a real twit and it's people like her that give the rest of us a bad name. Would it really have been so hard for the hostess to pop over to the closed section to smoke? As far as I'm concerned, Lynn, you did the right thing.

For the record, even though I (and most of my friends) smoke, we usually sat in the non smoking section when we ate out. There is something so gross about a cloud around your head while you are trying to enjoy a meal. I just really wish the smoking ban didn't extend to bars and coffee shops.

No disagreement here about what Lynn did. The point I was trying to make is this: Given the proximity of the smoking and non-smoking sections in this restaurant--something that Lynn admitted she was aware of, even though no one was smoking at the time she was seated--it might have served her better if she'd explained to the hostess exactly why she desired a non-smoking area. IOW, if the hostess had known about the potential effects on Lynn, she might not have smoked a cigarette where Lynn would've been affected by it.

And I agree: I think it sucks that these bans have been extended to bars across the board. I still think that bar owners should've been allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they would allow smoking. It'll be interesting to see what happens as more and more people who live near bars are exposed to the noise and, perhaps, smoke, from people who've been forced to congregate outside. Again, where does it end?

And, yeah, in the main, what Zoe said.

[Lynn Bodoni]

No disagreement here about what Lynn did. The point I was trying to make is this: Given the proximity of the smoking and non-smoking sections in this restaurant--something that Lynn admitted she was aware of, even though no one was smoking at the time she was seated--it might have served her better if she'd explained to the hostess exactly why she desired a non-smoking area. IOW, if the hostess had known about the potential effects on Lynn, she might not have smoked a cigarette where Lynn would've been affected by it. I don't know about you, but when I'm experiencing a blood sugar crash, I don't want to do any more talking than strictly necessary. I was at the "sweating and vision growing black" stage, and while I'd taken my sugar pills, I was waiting for them to kick in. I probably should have noted in my other post that the hostess seated herself at the table closest to me, presumably because it was the table closest to the door. There were other tables that she could have seated me that were not so close to the smoking section. There were other tables in the smoking section for her. I don't think she was being deliberately malicious, but I do think that she just didn't realize, or care, that she was far too close to the nonsmoking section. If I'd felt better, I would have confronted her and asked for the general manager's name. However, I just wanted to recover from my low blood sugar, get home, and go to bed.

[lowbrass]

Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to say that asking someone to put out their cigarette is perfectly polite and reasonable when simply standing upwind of them is also an option?

I gave some examples where it might not be possible to move away from the smoker. And honestly, if I were a smoker, rather than lighting up, blowing smoke in someone's face, and expecting him to move, I imagine I might consider stepping out of the way myself. Does common courtesy end when you walk outside? I don't think that's being disingenuous. You really think it is?


Out of curiosity, where is this "here" of which you speak?

California. Sorry, I thought I said that already.


Where's here? Here (where I am in NY) at my office there's actually a yellow box painted on the ground. It's about 10 square feet (I'm not sure what happens to you if you cross the line holding a cig. I'm waiting for one of the others to try it first). The train platforms around here have that same set-up as well (aaalllll the way on one end of the platform is the ashtray and the yellow box - can smoke not cross the color yellow painted on the ground or something?)

Those are "designated smoking areas" not "all of outside".

Oh, absolutely. I totally agree with you that walking into a designated smoking area that's clearly marked as such, as you describe, and then asking people to stop smoking would be ridiculous. But then you're taking my comment out of context. It was a response to L'il Pluck, who wrote:


And yeah, if we were in the open air and I were smoking a cigarette, and you asked me--even kindly--to extinguish it, you'd get a "fuck you" from me.

He just said "open air", and so that's what I was responding to.



Lowbrass,

I can't be arsed to do a whole cut-and-paste with your posts right now, so I'll just say this:

First, nothing that I said proves your point about smokers reacting rudely when being asked to either extinguish their cigarettes or move elsewhere to smoke. My point was that smokers, when smoking outside in the open air, shouldn't feel, or be, compelled to comply with the request of non-smokers who have the lion's share of places to go if they don't want to deal with cigarette smoke. Period.

But I never said anyone should be "compelled to comply". Please, when did I ever say that? Isn't this at least the second time we've gone around in a circle on this point?

Secondly, if you didn't want people to assume that you didn't want smokers to smoke in public, open air, places where you might find yourself, and if you didn't want to be challenged on that point, then you shouldn't have brought it up in post #57.

Why? Are you saying I shouldn't make a point if I don't want it to be misinterpreted? I NEVER said smokers should not be allowed to smoke in outdoor public places, and I challenge you to produce a direct quote of me ever saying that. I am not responsible for the incorrect assumptions of others.

I mean, really, how the fuck else do you expect smokers, who have an ever-decreasing number of places where we can smoke, to react when someone like you "requests" that we don't smoke in your presence?

I expect them to react with hostility. And that is what I pointed out in this thread. If it's the truth, then why does my pointing it out upset you?

Next thing, folks like you will be "requesting" that we don't smoke in our own backyards because you can smell the smoke while in your adjoining backyard. I'm sure you'll think this is hyperbole on my part, but from what you've said so far (and from what militant non-smokers have, at the very least, implied in other threads), I don't think it is.

That sounds like a slippery slope argument to me. I haven't said anything about smoking in one's own backyard. And I'm not sure what it has to do with what we're discussing.


Look, I don't want to come off as militant, but I can't stand this attitude that so many non-smokers seem to have that everywhere where they find themselves should, if not by law, then by courtesy, given, again, the overwhelming number of options you guys have, be a non-smoking area.

I certainly don't think that.

Do you think that it is never acceptable for one person to politely request that another person stop smoking? Is there any situation, other than when smoking is expressly forbidden by law, where you wouldn't consider such a request to be rude, and be angered by it?


I'd be wary of everyone claiming risk of an asthma attack if they inhale cigarette smoke if they willingly, absent any immediate health need (such as your diabetes), patronize an establishment that allows smoking.

People aren't lucky enough to have that option everywhere. I sometimes like to visit Las Vegas or Reno, and "establishment that allows smoking" is virtually synonymous with "establishment". And pretty much anywhere in Asia? Forget about it. Depends where you live and how progressive it is.


lowbrass, what's on a smoker's mind as they are lighting up is not a matter of your opinion.

I didn't claim to know what's on their mind, I merely gave my personal opinion as to my own personal experience in how they behave.

By the way, a really great point was made, and I think it has a lot of merit: It could very well be that I simply don't notice polite smokers, because they have already done whatever they can to keep from bothering other people! So I freely admit that my "sample" could be biased. Perhaps I never had to ask a polite smoker to stop because they were too polite to have bothered me in the first place.

You can't really know what they are thinking and feeling. If you think that people will stab you when you ask them to turn down the radio, your view of other people may be a little on the negative side.

Ha, ha - no, I don't "think that people will stab me". I merely meant that such things have happened in our society. I think if you walked up to the biggest, baddest thug you could find and asked him to turn down his music, he probably wouldn't be nice about it. But definitely an extreme example, and maybe hyperbole on my part.

I doubt that there is a bit of difference in the courtesy of smokers and non-smokers. Can you really generalize about so many millions of people with any accuracy?

I never said all non-smokers are polite. Good God - you didn't think I believed that, did you? I wouldn't even venture to guess what the "difference in courtesy" is between two groups.


Welcome to SDMB!

Thanks, and thanks to everyone for your great thought-provoking replies.

[DianaG]

I gave some examples where it might not be possible to move away from the smoker. And honestly, if I were a smoker, rather than lighting up, blowing smoke in someone's face, and expecting him to move, I imagine I might consider stepping out of the way myself. Does common courtesy end when you walk outside? I don't think that's being disingenuous. You really think it is?

But do you really often encounter situations where you're standing outside, minding your own business, and someone comes over, stands right next to you, and lights a cigarette? I'm honestly asking, because that's just not how it works around here, as a rule.

Since we're only allowed to smoke outside, smokers tend to congregate in certain specific areas outside of restaurants, office buildings, etc. So when I'm asked to put out my cigarette (and you'd be surprised how often it happens, people spotting my cig from 50 feet away and coughing theatrically, despite being apparently unbothered by the diesel fumes that hit you in the face the second you walk outdoors in downtown Boston), it's usually when I'm standing as far out of the flow of traffic as possible, I was there first, and there's no good reason for the person making the request to be standing right on top of me, anyway. That's what I consider rude.

I can't imagine say, walking into the park, sitting down next to someone, and lighting up. At this point, I assume that my smoke is unwelcome, so I try to do it as far from other people and as unobtrusively as possible. However, if I'm sitting on an isolated bench smoking, and someone makes the choice to sit down next to me, I'm finishing my cigarette, dammit.

[lowbrass]

But do you really often encounter situations where you're standing outside, minding your own business, and someone comes over, stands right next to you, and lights a cigarette? I'm honestly asking, because that's just not how it works around here, as a rule.

Since we're only allowed to smoke outside, smokers tend to congregate in certain specific areas outside of restaurants, office buildings, etc. So when I'm asked to put out my cigarette (and you'd be surprised how often it happens, people spotting my cig from 50 feet away and coughing theatrically, despite being apparently unbothered by the diesel fumes that hit you in the face the second you walk outdoors in downtown Boston), it's usually when I'm standing as far out of the flow of traffic as possible, I was there first, and there's no good reason for the person making the request to be standing right on top of me, anyway. That's what I consider rude.

I'll ask you a similar question: Do you really encounter people who "cough theatrically" even when you're nowhere near them and they can't even smell the smoke? I've certainly never seen that happen.

Come to think of it, someone else said that while he's in the designated smoking area at the train station, people deliberately walk over to him just so they can then complain about his smoking. I've never seen anything like that in my life.

Neither of those things are "how it works around here as a rule".

And yes, people often do stand near me and light cigarettes. Surely you aren't contending that no smoker has ever lit up when there is another person closer than 50 feet?

[lowbrass]

Come to think of it, why would you assume their coughing is fake? Perhaps they are just coughing.

[villa]

How about this as a solution for cities - they take the number of liquor licenses given out, and create lets say 20% of that number of smoking licenses. These are then allocated to the bars in some way (auction, lottery, whatever). Bartenders/waiters who don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke can work in the majority of bars that don't/can't allow smoking. Presumably either employees in the non-smoking bars who wish to smoke or find smoking bars better to work in will move the other way to take their places. If not enough do, then I the owners of those establishments will have to increase their pay rates to attract people.

The bars where smoking is allowed would have to have a sign outside clearly announcing it. Now no one is forced into a smoking bar, either to work or to drink/eat. If after a year or so, the bars that allow smoking are more crowded than the others, then the percentage of "smoking" bars could be enlarged.

Unfortunately, I think many of those who campaign for smoking bans would not be satisfied with this.

[DianaG]

While I admit that 50 feet was an exaggeration for effect, don't doubt for a moment that there are plenty of people whom, upon sight of a cigarette, begin to cough and wave wildly at the air. Now, to be fair, I have no doubt that these particular people aren't just anti-smoking activisits. I'm absolutely sure that these particular people go through their entire lives seeking out things to be offended by and disapproving of. But damn, there are a lot of them.

Nor would I say that no smoker is ever inconsiderate. But in my experience, a non-smoker is far more likely to feel entitled to ask others to not smoke (no matter where) than smokers are likely to feel entitled to light up (no matter where).

[lowbrass]

Nor would I say that no smoker is ever inconsiderate. But in my experience, a non-smoker is far more likely to feel entitled to ask others to not smoke (no matter where) than smokers are likely to feel entitled to light up (no matter where).
Well I should hope so. There are places where it is forbidden by law to smoke, but there are no places where it is forbidden by law to ask someone not to smoke. As an example, I would definitely feel entitled to ask a person not to smoke at a gas station, and I would hope that people wouldn't feel entitled to smoke at gas stations.

[Foxy40]

I'll ask you a similar question: Do you really encounter people who "cough theatrically" even when you're nowhere near them and they can't even smell the smoke? I've certainly never seen that happen.

My I pipe in , yes, yes, yes, yes,yes. I don't smoke. I work in a building with a picnic table provided for smokers on their breaks. I sometimes go out to hang out with them and get a laugh at the theatrics of the false coughs, the exaggerated hand wavings and the turned up noses of people passing by. (The path is at least five or ten feet away.)

I step back a bit so not to be breathing in the smoke so I know these folks can barely smell it if at all.

It really is amusing but I know annoying to many of my co-workers.

[Contrapuntal]

My I pipe in , yes, yes, yes, yes,yes. I don't smoke. Well then put the damn pipe out. VERY mixed signals here.

[shamrock227]

I'll ask you a similar question: Do you really encounter people who "cough theatrically" even when you're nowhere near them and they can't even smell the smoke? I've certainly never seen that happen.


Many times.

My favorite incident and the one that always leaps to my mind when we have these threads is:

Picture it: Port Authority Bus Terminal. New York, NY. 1991. Smoking is still allowed in the terminal. I'm by the newstand buying a magazine. I put a cigarette in my mouth. Some woman comes out of Walgreens, sees the cig, practically charges across the terminal at me. She starts waving her hands, coughing, gaging. Perhaps if she wasn't so busy auditioning for a Broadway drama she would have noticed that I was still looking for my lighter. The. Cigarette. Wasn't. Lit.

Now, that was, by far, the most dramatic incident of the type I've ever had. But, there have been others, including others where the cigarette hadn't even been lit, yet.

[lowbrass]

Interesting that none of the pro-smoking people are being chided with "The plural of anecdote is not data", as I was earlier, twice. ;)

[villa]

You asked if anyone had seen something. That is asking for an anecdote.

[lowbrass]

You asked if anyone had seen something. That is asking for an anecdote.
DianaG made a generalization about non-smokers being likely to ask smokers to stop.

[villa]

That's where quoting is helpful. It prevents people making the irrational assumption that a post is replying to the one directly before it, if indeed it is not replying to that post.

[lowbrass]

Sorry, I'll try to do better next time.