That’s not what she said, at least according to you. Even if she had requested you do so, I’m not sure why that would put sand in your shorts.
Of course it’s the issue: it’s the reason she knew that she could reasonably say something in the first place. By law, you’re not supposed to smoke by the drive-thru window, and she asked you not to do so. Honestly, I’m not seeing the problem here.
And it’s her goddamn drive-thru. When you put your car in her drive-thru, the airspace is obviously used by both of you. If you want to smoke, jerk off, do drugs, or slap people in your own goddamn car, you’re still going to have to make arrangements to do so where you’re not disturbing other people or making it obvious that you are breaking the law, thereby giving them grounds to object.
I don’t think you were a jerk. You didn’t know the smoke would bother her, and you didn’t intend to still be smoking when you got the the drive-thru. But I don’t think she was a jerk, either; she just asked you not to do it again. She even said “please,” though you choose to take that as more proof of her being a jerk because she said it the wrong way. So I guess I think a better response would have been, “oh, sorry,” and then to forget about it.
If you had gone through intentionally to smoke up her work place and piss her off, then, yeah, you would have been being a jerk.
I love how all the smokers in this thread feel the need to inflict their own personal addiction on everyone else’s life.
Tobacco smoke bothers a lot of people. This thread is a direct result of that fact. If it wasn’t as bad as the anti-smokers make it out to be, this thread wouldn’t exist; we’re not complaining about smoking just for the fun of it, to control others, or out of a desire to make other people miserable.
Smokers are the ones instigating the situation. Of course they should be the ones to make accommodations for the people around them. Smokers like to complain that their rights are being infringed upon… but conveniently ignore the fact that they are the ones doing the infringing. If someone were to invent a smokeless cigarette- one which doesn’t force everyone around the smoker to “enjoy” the smoker’s experience- we wouldn’t have a problem with the habit. Until then, though, get used to people being upset.
The very act of smoking is rude. It’s a way of saying, “My vice is more important than you are”. If the smoker is going to be rude, he can expect others to be rude right back at him.
I think you should have blown a lungful straight into the window. She has zero business even requesting that you modify your behavior in your own car, since she wasn’t in it.
I think describing having a smoke inside your own car as “instigating” goes a bit too far.
This is not a bartender or waitress who has to spend 8 straight hours in a smoke filled saloon, it’s a person with a window that closes off the offending cigarette, and who only needs to spend 10-20 seconds total interacting with the smoker.
What would you call it? The clerk wasn’t being exposed to smoke. The OP drove up, she was exposed to smoke. She sure didn’t do it.
And during those 10-20 seconds, she was exposed to smoke through no fault of her own. It may not seem like much to you, but it obviously bothered her, and bothers other people (so much so that laws are now in place to prevent the exposure). There’s one quick and easy solution- don’t expose her to smoke against her will. It’s not a difficult concept.
You could have avoided the entire mess simply by telling her you had changed your mind, didn’t want their product, and would be taking your business and your money elsewhere. And then by driving right past the window in question and out to the street. Actually, you could shorten it by simply saying you didn’t want their product and then leaving.
It’s part of the job that SHE chose to do. When you interact with the public, you have to expect that the public will do the things that are commonly done, like smoke in their cars.
These laws exist because the workers would otherwise typically be exposed to significant amounts of smoke over long periods of time, not because someone is bothered by 10 seconds of smoke from a person outside of a closable window.
Even when it’s illegal to do so? She certainly shouldn’t have to decide between her job and her right to not breathe in someone else’s smoke. What you’re saying is that his addiction is more important than her livelihood.
Yesterday, I pulled up to a stoplight… and had to sit behind a guy smoking a cigar with all of his windows open. I got to “enjoy” his cigar right along with him. I didn’t have any choice but to close my windows and my vents 'til I got from behind him… but I shouldn’t have had to do anything to avoid it. He’s the one smoking- it’s on *him *to make sure that he’s not infringing on anyone else. Not me. Not anyone else. Him.
Again, she’s not the one smoking. The OP was doing the smoking. Why does she have to participate in his habit, or make allowances for him? Why are his rights paramount to hers?
Smokers aren’t aware of how far the smell carries, or how offensive it is to some of us. We shouldn’t have to make efforts to avoid smelling it or breathing it- smokers are the ones initiating the circumstance, and have a responsibility to not force others to accommodate them. Your saying that it’s not that bad, that it was only ten seconds, doesn’t excuse the rudeness.
If your argument is that it’s only ten seconds or so (although, in my experience, it’s a lot more than that) out of her life, why isn’t it just as small a deal for the OP to wait those ten seconds before lighting up?
If it is illegal, they should post a sign indicating such, and not leave it up to the cashier to make a personal request to the person who is already smoking. That way, the smoker can be informed about the law, and take steps to be non-smoking by the time he gets to the window. Please note that the rest of my post assumes that the person doing the smoking is doing so legally. Please also note that the earlier citation stating that there was a minimum 25 feet non-smoking zone around windows also allows property owners to request that this distance be modified, and requires said property owner to post conspicuous no smoking signs.
You don’t have a right to “not breathe in smoke”, anymore than you have a right to “not breathe in AXE cologne”, “not deal with smelly old people”, or “not smell Taco Bell for 8 hours a day”. If there is an identifiable health risk, the state can issue regulations like they’ve done for airplanes, offices and restaurants. If there is no identifiable health risk, and the entire issue is that you don’t like the smell of smoke, that’s just too bad, you’re occasionally not going to enjoy your minimum wage McJob.
So, to avoid any rights infringements, you want to put regulations on whether or not people are allowed to smoke outside? In addition to the regulations we already have preventing people from smoking inside?
What you really want is to prevent people from smoking anywhere but inside their own home, until they happen to live in the apartment next to you when you’ll complain endlessly about how their smoke is going through the electrical outlets and smelling up your place.
What you really, REALLY want is to simply outlaw smoking altogether.
She has to make allowances because her job brings her into a public place, and we ALL have to make allowances when other people in public places are engaging in legal activities.
This rationale didn’t stop them from banning smoking in bars in Washington, and if you can’t expect people to smoke in bars while drinking, I don’t think you can expect them to smoke anywhere. So the idea that she should have expected that he would smoke outside her open window is irrelevant; she might expect it but not like it, and with the law on her side she doesn’t have to tolerate it. I mean, it’s not like she used her Taco Bell - issued Bean And Fire Sauce Cannon Of Death to set his car of fire, she just asked him not to do it again. Again, what’s the problem with that?
And the idea that they should post signs advising drivers of the law is a straw man. The OP’er acknowledges in the OP that he was probably breaking the law, so it’s not like he was acting in ignorance. He just didn’t put out his drag because he didn’t think the line would be so long and he didn’t know she’d object.
Nobody has the right to never be bothered. If the worst thing that happens to you on any given day is smelling cigar and cigarette smoke for a few minutes, maybe you should consider counting your blessings while you hold your breath.
If your habit affects me, HELL YEAH. Deal with it. There’s a reason why smokers are being limited in where they can smoke, and it’s not because nonsmokers are big meanies.
And what you really, REALLY want is to smoke anywhere you want, whether we want to participate or not. The Seventies were really your heyday, weren’t they? An ashtray on every desk, smoke-filled airplanes… boy, the fun just doesn’t stop.
No, she doesn’t. She shouldn’t have to deal with assholes simply because they want to be assholes. Smokers are causing the problem, they get to deal with it. Not us, them.
As I mentioned, the reason for those laws is a clearly articulateable health hazard, by virtue of bars being enclosed spaces with many smokers, resulting in workers being exposed to large amounts of second hand smoke for extended periods of time. This is nothing like the situation in the OP, where the worker is infrequently exposed to small amounts of smoke through a window she can close most of the time.
Not a straw man, it’s the law, it’s part of the law that suggests it’s illegal for him to smoke in the drive through. I say suggest because the law specifically allows property owners to petition for a change in the minimum allowable distance, and nobody here has any idea whether or not the Taco Bell owner made such a petition.
You know, I don’t actually smoke, never have, never will. I just think that if smoking is going to be legal, and sanctioned by our cigarette-tax-craving government, then you need to let people have the freedom to smoke somewhere besides a hermetically sealed cave.
By and large, I like the restrictions, however this 25 foot rule is ridiculousness. It means that it is illegal to smoke while walking down a city street, which makes no sense to me at all.
But she didn’t ask to never be bothered, she only asked him not to do it again. Seriously, I’m having a really hard time seeing this as The Man oppressing those poor unfortunate persecuted smokers.
