It doesn’t matter what the motivation for the law is; it clearly makes illegal the sort of conduct he’s engaging in. It doesn’t matter if the reason goat-fucking is illegal is because the sponsoring legislator once had a goat break up with him – the conduct is still illegal.
The law does not “suggest,” it states very unequivocally: “No person may smoke in a public place or in any place of employment.” “Public place” specifically includes “restaurants.” So since there’s no evidence indicating this particular TB petitioned for a variance, and the attitude of the drive-in worker indicates they have not, and the OP’er actually assumes what he did was “probably illegal,” to speculate that his conduct was not illegal is a straw man. Even he admits that it probably was.
It makes perfect sense to me. Why should I have to breathe in your smoke because you (general you) have an addiction? Unless you can guarantee that you’re the only person on the city street in question, why should your jonesing for a smoke trump my desire to not breathe in carcinogens? It’s not like the undesirability of second-hand smoke is really up for much medical debate at this point.
What if the girl had been more polite? What if she had said, very politely, “Hey, we’d really appreciate it if you waited until you were through the drive-thru to light up. We’re sorry, but it bothers us and, actually, it’s illegal.” What if she said she was “allergic” to smoke?
Would there have been any way for this girl to register her POV that you guys would NOT have taken as a big fat smack in the smoker’s face? Because I completely get the non-smoking Nazis, I do, but to me – I just don’t see how this girl was one. So I’m wondering if some smokers haven’t gotten so over-sensitive on the issue that there is literally no way to object to the practice that they won’t be offended by.
How could bring up such a valid, reasoned point like this when issues are demanding to be shouted and there is banging of fists on the table to be done!!!111!!!
“Awash” in carcinogens? :dubious: Even if true, how is that an argument for not removing them when we can do so with very little societal cost? And how is that an argument for inflicting them on others? “Life’s hard like that” pretty much boils down to “sucks to be you,” and of course the obvious rejoinder is that since smoking on public streets is now apparently broadly illegal in Washington (and elsewhere), sucks to be you. Life’s hard like that.
Why should I have to hear your conversation when it breaks the silence? Why should you have the right to have a gas burning car on the road when its exhaust could bother me? Why should you be allowed to eat peanuts on the street when there are those with allergies? And so on. Those arguments get a bit on the silly side but carry a similar weight to them.
Frankly, I don’t want to breathe in smoke anymore than the next person. And those who smoke within the proximity of others without permission can be rude. But I’m not going around asking my world to be HEPA filtered either.
I can’t imagine any way that the smoke would magically fly from inside your car and into the window. that’s utter nonsense. especially since you’re grabbing food, so the cigarette would be in the hand furthest away from the window.
Unless the OP is actually taking a puff and purposely blowing the smoke into the window, I don’t see how this would be a problem. And the testimony in this thread from people that worked at drive-thrus seems to back that up.
Where’s the public health cost of ambient noise? You’re not allowed to pollute the public with noise that damages hearing, either.
Because we as a society have decided that the utility of cars outweighs not having them. Even so, there are broad pollution controls imposed on car builders and owners precisely because of the acknowledged public-health cost.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because the Peanut Lobby as yet has more clout that the Anti-Anaphylaxis Lobby. These arguments very obviously are not the same, and trying to make the anti-smoking argument look absurd by absurd analogies doesn’t actually work.
Well, that’s you. That’s apparently not the majority of the voters in the State of Washington. Look, I don’t live there myself anymore. I’m happy to live where the smokers still have their own sections in restaurants (provided I can sit far enough away in the non-smoking section) and people can have a smoke and a drink together. But I’m not trying to impose my preference on others who would disagree with that, and I’m not nailing myself to some cross just because some people do disagree with that.
But isn’t the fact that the woman noted the smoke and was bothered by it pretty much shown from the fact that she said something? Or are we now just assuming she’s the kind of bitch who would give a customer a snotty reprimand for no reason at all?
Might I suggest that if you don’t like those situations and don’t want to be put into them, that you get a bunch of people together who agree with you and pass a law?
I hate it when people equate smoking to… well, anything. There’s nothing that directly correlates to smoking, and any attempts to do so are merely deflections.
To someone smoking in his own car? No, I don’t think there is going to be a good way to say “Stop smoking in your own car, because I don’t like the eight seconds of exposure”.
I rather doubt there is a significant risk of contracting cancer because of those eight seconds. Even if you multiply it by ten times a day. Dose makes the poison, and there is a significant difference between spending forty hours a week in an enclosed space with lots of other smokers, and being at a fast food window and having a smoker next to you - and with the open air in between.
If there are statistics for the health risks of that level of exposure, I would like to see them. And no, growing up in a house with smokers isn’t good enough.
The fast food worker is accepting a certain level of risk from working in a job where cars go past her all day long, all of which are emitting toxic fumes like CO. Why is that risk worth $7 an hour, but the essentially unmeasurable risk of drive-by smoking is not?
I thought the law did not concern itself with trifles. This seems like a trifle to me.
They’re analogous because everyone feels their rights usurp those around them and that their peccadillos should be respected. The diluted noise and emissions are similar to a person in their car smoking. The peanut allergy has a more deadly ramification for a small populace, but is something that you’re willing to push aside while trumpeting that “your desire to not breathe in carcinogens” is tantamount. Seems oddly onesided.
It’s the libertarian in me which sees the infringement by the bell-ringers of doom as overstepping by stating what those on private property can do in regards to smoking. It’s those who would work in a smoking bar and then claim surprise that they could get second hand smoke that are indefensible. But, there’s also the part of me that is the pacifist and wishes that others would respect the wishes and keep their infringing behaviors to themselves.
Fair enough, but surely you see that this woman obviously disagrees with you. Why is her point of view invalid and yours is valid? Again, I don’t see why the empahsis on “he was in his own car.” He was also in her work space. It’s not like the car was hermetically sealed, or even the window rolled up.
So when the law says he is not permitted to do this, then SHE has to come up with statistics showing personal harm before she’s allowed to object to him doing the thing that is illegal? What if she only believes, in good faith, that he is harming her, but she is wrong? Does she then lose the right to object, even if her objection is made in good faith and backed up by the law?
Dunno, but isn’t that up to her? One is a risk that she chooses to undertake and must, given the nature of working in the drive-thru; the other she does not have to undertake because the conduct is now illegal.
But again, that’s just you. Why is the opposing POV per se unreasonable?
Again, what I don’t get is why a polite request to refrain from doing something you shouldn’t be doing anyway (at least according to the law), would cause such indignation on smokers’ parts. Why not “Sorry 'bout that,” or “Whatever,” and move on?
I don’t see the oppression, but if it exists, it’s the oppression of the The Law, not the Taco Bell chick.
do we know that it’s even illegal? I got the impression from the OP that the state of Washington just has harsh laws about smoking, and thus he was guessing that it could be illegal.
It’s just white-trash to smoke in a drive-through lane. ETA: Particularly if you’re handing over payment with the same hand that’s holding the cigarette.
Bullshit. Fragrance of any kind is a perfect correlation. Most of it smells like utter shit, and I’d be seriously amazed if Axe doesn’t cause cancer in the same doses that secondhand smoke does. Yet I’m subjected to it far more often than you are to smoke.
What cities do y’all live in where you can even smell a cigarette over the diesel? I’m guessing you don’t. You SEE a cigarette, and that’s all it takes to bunch your panties.
The law is cited up thread. Here it is again. It is illegal in the state of Washington to smoke in a public place. “Public places” by definition include restaurants and extends 25 feet from any open window or door of any public place.