# Decided:Smokers are not people **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 7, 2010, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612 "2010-03-07T11:49:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/161 "2010-03-11T17:20:48Z")
The day litter disappears on a breeze, that will be a valid comparison. As for noise, I don’t object to it during reasonable hours, if you’re bitching about noise at noon, you’re a whiny douchebag who SHOULD go live somewhere quieter. It’s called compromise, and people like Muffin want none of it, and frankly I fervently with I WAS giving them cancer with my cigarettes, I’d find that as rewarding as s/he finds anti-smoking legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/162 "2010-03-11T17:21:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s nice. I presume you also oppose laws against littering, because after all, if people are bothered by encountering other people’s trash on the sidewalk where they’re trying to walk, they can just step over or around it, or walk somewhere else. Only whiny types would complain about other people spewing their litter into the shared environment. > > And naturally, you also oppose noise ordinances, because after all, if people are bothered by other people’s persistent loud music or whatever when they’re trying to hear something or enjoy quiet, they can just put on some noise-canceling earmuffs, or go live somewhere quieter. Only whiny types would complain about other people spewing their noise into the shared airspace. > > In reality, though, I rather suspect that you’re just fine with enjoying the benefits of the efforts of “whiny” people to enact such laws. I doubt that it really bothers you that individuals who like loud music or don’t like having to carry trash to a trash can are legally prevented from spewing their intrusive pollutants into shared space. > > In short, I doubt that you really complain about “government by the whiniest” except when the “whiniest” happen to be trying to prevent **you** from spewing **your** intrusive pollutants into shared space. So forgive me if I’m not terribly impressed by your bragging about your stoical tolerance and your disdain for “whiny” types who can’t put up with a little inconvenience. I don’t know…I pretty much agree with Diana on this one, and I neither smoke (never have) nor wear any scented products. In fact, the reason I don’t wear scented products is because I’m too sensitive to them and they tend to stuff me up and make my eyes water. And yet…I’m not in favor of legislating against them. I’m in favor of letting someone know if they’re bothering you, and hopefully being able to work it out like adults. The difference between smoking and litter is this: The smoker is only going to bother you while he’s within proximity of you. If he isn’t, then his smoke isn’t going to linger there, or cause any ill effects. Litter will sit there for weeks, months, even years, affecting others’ enjoyment of the environment that entire time, and potentially causing ongoing environmental and health hazards. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/163 "2010-03-11T17:33:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Except compromise proposals where limited numbers of bars could stay smoking were rejected. Even given the fact that this would permit bartenders who wanted to work in non-smoking bars to work in non-smoking bars (and vice versa). The complete refusal to compromise at any step of the way suggests to me that driving the laws was a semi-religious fervor, aimed at stamping out smoking regardless. What were the specific reasons given for rejecting the compromise proposals? I think the pros and cons of limited smoking bans may be more complicated than you’re inferring. For instance, when Detroit was considering a limited smoking ban with exceptions for certain locations like cigar bars, [an industry group of restaurant and bar owners argued that a total ban would be preferable to a limited ban](http://detnews.com/article/20091208/POLITICS02/912080346/State-senator-believes-smoking-ban-compromise-will-pass). So apparently compromise proposals on smoking bans aren’t quite the no-brainer that you seem to be suggesting. > [@villa](#): > > The non-smoking laws have increased the forced exposure of many people to cigarette smoke. Which makes me think that protection of those people wasn’t the intention. :dubious: “Many” people? How many? Sure, I agree that any regulatory change is likely to have disparate impacts on different groups. It’s certainly true that some individuals who in the pre-smoking-ban days never went anyplace where they might encounter a smoker indoors may nowadays be breathing more smoke than they used to, simply because there are now more smokers outdoors. But I think it’s indisputable that smoking bans have reduced the **overall** exposure of people to other people’s smoke, which was the stated motive of the bans. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/164 "2010-03-11T17:48:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: “Many” people? How many? Sure, I agree that any regulatory change is likely to have disparate impacts on different groups. It’s certainly true that some individuals who in the pre-smoking-ban days never went anyplace where they might encounter a smoker indoors may nowadays be breathing more smoke than they used to, simply because there are now more smokers outdoors. > > But I think it’s indisputable that smoking bans have reduced the **overall** exposure of people to other people’s smoke, which was the stated motive of the bans. Convenient how you don’t include the word forced there, where as I specifically did. People are realistically forced to be exposed to cigarette smoke when smokers are pushed outside onto public sidewalks. Beforehand, when smokers were in bars, very few people comparably were compelled to go into bars. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/165 "2010-03-11T17:52:38Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > As for noise, I don’t object to it during reasonable hours, if you’re bitching about noise at noon, you’re a whiny douchebag who SHOULD go live somewhere quieter. In other words, somebody’s a whiny douchebag if they complain about something that doesn’t happen to be too irritating to **you personally** , like noise at noon. But if it’s something that **does** bother you personally, like noise at night, then you’re fine with the whiny douchebags legislating against it. Just as I thought. > [@DianaG](#): > > It’s called compromise What’s called compromise? The situation where you get to dismiss everybody who doesn’t want to put up with being annoyed by your intrusive smoke as a whiny douchebag and a delicate flower and a hysterical puritanical bitch? Where’s my incentive to compromise on that? Heck, if I’m going to get called a whiny douchebag anyway, I might as well push for the anti-smoking legislation; if it’s a choice between smoke and insults versus insults without smoke, the latter seems preferable. > [@DianaG](#): > > and frankly I fervently with I WAS giving them cancer with my cigarettes, I’d find that as rewarding as s/he finds anti-smoking legislation. You are apparently too delicate a flower for this world, in which people are not automatically entitled to spew their intrusive pollutants into shared space with no possibility of democratically enacted legislative restrictions on their spewing. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/166 "2010-03-11T17:56:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Convenient how you don’t include the word forced there, where as I specifically did. People are realistically forced to be exposed to cigarette smoke when smokers are pushed outside onto public sidewalks. Beforehand, when smokers were in bars, very few people comparably were compelled to go into bars. But before smoking bans, smokers were in lots of other indoor places besides bars—it’s not as though simply avoiding bars would keep you away from smokers. I think it’s kind of a stretch to imply that smoking bans have actually increased rather than decreased **any** kind of exposure to other people’s smoke **overall** , even if we’re only talking about **forced** exposure. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/167 "2010-03-11T17:58:00Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > I travel a fair bit on business over the course of a year; PM me a general location (like north of Indy) and I may just take you up on your offer. Keep specifics like the town to yourself until you feel comfortable. If it works out I’ll bring the beer and brats and you can supply the fire. > > Lets say that even what we got here is a narrow rural lane, little more than a tractor path, with little traffic - I would contend that it is virtually impossible for the smell to reach inside your house in any meaningful manner. We’re talking at least 15 feet and a wall that will block much of the odor even with the window open. I’ve dealt with people who “smell” for a living; that would mean you have a snawze more sensitive than that used by professionals in the perfume and food industries. > > I may not be an expert on senses but I an a certified counselor; are you sure part of your reaction isn’t partly psychosomatic? That the dude just annoys you by being there? Are you saying that you can tell when he is actually smoking without some other clue; be it visual or auditory? We can set up a couple experiments pretty easily. I know this is the pit but I’m not just busting your chops - annoying neighbors are annoying neighbors. I am just curious what the actual thing is here. I keep forgetting my location doesn’t show as a guest. I am in Puerto Rico. By all means PM me if work ever brings you around. You read like someone I would like to meet and have a beer with. Caveat beertor, I live about one hour away from the airport. I can most definitely know when he smokes without seeing him out the window. The clue is olfactory. The guy is nasty all the way around, but that is really not much of my problem since I hardly interact with him beyond a wave from trashcan to trashcan. What bothers me is the smoke of his cigarette (and the smoke of the dude who drives a junker and comes to see him on weekends, but that’s 1 minute a week). From his porch to where I am sitting is probably around 30 feet. Not too many obstacles in the middle, though. He is on his front porch and the front of my house is about 50% windows all open. The wind is almost always blowing from his house to mine. This is also why the windows on that side are always open (plus, they are storm windows. It gets dark in here when I close them all). I don’t think of my nose as particularly sensitive. It is big on the outside but with a deviated septum and random allergies, I normally breathe through only one side. My wife normally smells the rice burning at my in-laws before I do. Still, the smoke is perfectly noticeable. Not as a whiff that randomly comes and goes and makes you wonder what it was. It is the full blown smell of cigarette smoke and it even comes with the sting on the nose and all. The good news. He seems to have gotten a job. He has been spending a lot less time at home in the last week and is always wearing some dark blue pants that can only be part of a uniform. The bad news. As I type this, he just lit up. I went to the window and he is not even on his front porch but on the laundry by the side of the house. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/168 "2010-03-11T17:58:47Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > The difference between smoking and litter is this: The smoker is only going to bother you while he’s within proximity of you. If he isn’t, then his smoke isn’t going to linger there, or cause any ill effects. Litter will sit there for weeks, months, even years, affecting others’ enjoyment of the environment that entire time, and potentially causing ongoing environmental and health hazards. That’s one difference between smoking and litter, sure, but it’s not a material difference as far as my point is concerned. Why should I have to tolerate stepping over and around other people’s litter even if it’s only there temporarily? Why should the permanence of the nuisance be the determining factor in whether or not I’m allowed to be annoyed by it? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/169 "2010-03-11T18:07:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But before smoking bans, smokers were in lots of other indoor places besides bars—it’s not as though simply avoiding bars would keep you away from smokers. I think it’s kind of a stretch to imply that smoking bans have actually increased rather than decreased **any** kind of exposure to other people’s smoke **overall** , even if we’re only talking about **forced** exposure. I would have thought the context would make it bloody obvious I was talking about bans in bars. Especially given that most other places banned smoking long beforehand. I don’t have a major issue with most of the other smoking legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/170 "2010-03-11T18:08:15Z")
As for smoking bans, I always thought that the total smoking ban on bars was ridiculous. Let there be places where smokers can have at it. I doubt you will have a hard time finding an all smoking crew to staff it. Let the bar owners decide whether they will make a better business allowing smokers or not. And as someone said, the ban now means the smokers are on the sidewalk smoking instead of confined in a place where the smoke doesn’t spill over to the street. As for the dangers of second hand smoking. Although I do believe there has to be some danger to it, it doesn’t really matter to me. Even if it turned out it cured cancer and made my teeth whiter, it still bothers me. I find it a lot more intrusive than the strongest of perfumes and curries. As for the cries of “delicate flower” (which, btw, is probably the stupidest meme on the internets nowadays) against those bothered by smoke and wanting to have it regulated. Imagine someone farting non-stop next to you. Never mind whether it is legal or not, would you not find it obnoxious? Would you not jump at the chance to outlaw it? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/171 "2010-03-11T18:09:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s one difference between smoking and litter, sure, but it’s not a material difference as far as my point is concerned. Why should I have to tolerate stepping over and around other people’s litter even if it’s only there temporarily? Why should the permanence of the nuisance be the determining factor in whether or not I’m allowed to be annoyed by it? You shouldn’t. But if you are in a store, for example, and the store owner decides to let people litter the floor, then your choice should be to step over it or to go to a different store. Not running whining to the government saying that the store owner should not be allowed to let his or her customers litter the store. And it would be even more stupid to pass a law saying that store owners cannot permit people to litter inside the store, but that it would still be legal for them to strew the litter across the public street in front of the store. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/172 "2010-03-11T18:10:35Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > The day litter disappears on a breeze, that will be a valid comparison. So you are ok with littering in a place like Disney World where someone comes and picks it up seconds later? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/173 "2010-03-11T18:16:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, somebody’s a whiny douchebag if they complain about something that doesn’t happen to be too irritating to **you personally** , like noise at noon. But if it’s something that **does** bother you personally, like noise at night, then you’re fine with the whiny douchebags legislating against it. Just as I thought. You (unsurprisingly) missed the word “reasonable” in my post. You see, most people sleep at night, and so we as a society have decided that noise between the hours of say 11:00p and 7:00a on weeknights is an unreasonable imposition. > [@Kimstu](#): > > What’s called compromise? See above. People are allowed to make all the noise they want during SOME of the hours, but not ALL of the hours. Kinda like how it would be if I could smoke in SOME places, but not ALL. But some people aren’t happy with that. Some bitchy, puritanical, whiny and incredibly self-involved douchebags want quiet at noon, because they can’t conceive of a world in which other people’s desires also matter. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/174 "2010-03-11T18:17:59Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > So you are ok with littering in a place like Disney World where someone comes and picks it up seconds later? Hells yeah. I’m creating jobs. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/175 "2010-03-11T18:32:19Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Hells yeah. I’m creating jobs. 😃 This probably deserves its own thread but ever since the recession came down, I have stopped putting the shopping cart in its pen precisely for that reason. I was a supermarket bagger once. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/176 "2010-03-11T18:34:48Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Hey, if you’re okay with admitting that it’s really a puritanical, bitchy “I don’t approve and everyone should just learn to enjoy the stick up their ass the way that I do” thing, good on you. Just skip the hysterical “YOU’RE KILLING ME WITH THAT THING!!!” shit. Nah. Nothing Puritanical about it, and nothing hysterical about it. The simple fact of the matter is that smoke kills, so I don’t want it in my life. If that resticts the places where you can smoke, that’s too bad for you. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/177 "2010-03-11T18:40:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s one difference between smoking and litter, sure, but it’s not a material difference as far as my point is concerned. Why should I have to tolerate stepping over and around other people’s litter even if it’s only there temporarily? Why should the permanence of the nuisance be the determining factor in whether or not I’m allowed to be annoyed by it? I didn’t say you weren’t allowed to be annoyed by it. I said that I don’t agree with legislating against it. And I think there’s more reason to legislate against something you can’t easily get away from. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/178 "2010-03-11T18:48:20Z")
> [@villa](#): > > But when the policies put in place make it **more** likely that non-smokers are compelled to breath in other people’s smoke, such as taking smokers out of bars and putting them on the street outside the bar, forgive me for believing that the purpose behind said legislation wasn’t to prevent people from breathing in second hand smoke, but instead was based on a puritanical dislike for other people’s pleasure. Nah. That’s just an example of poor drafting of the legislation. The folks who drafted no-smoking legislation without first thinking about where the smokers would go to smoke had shit for brains. That’s why many jurisdictions that started with no-smoking in buildings have updated their legislation to also include no-smoking within a certain distance of entrances. Aside from legislation, a lot of places are simply prohibiting smoking on their property, which may be a dream come true for Sapo, given that it will lead to more smokers smoking at the side of the street where Sapo can run them down. Fortunately, the smoking rate is decreasing (at least it is where I live), so eventually there will not be so many people inconvenienced by no-smoking bylaws. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/179 "2010-03-11T19:03:05Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Nah. Nothing Puritanical about it, and nothing hysterical about it. The simple fact of the matter is that smoke kills, so I don’t want it in my life. If that resticts the places where you can smoke, that’s too bad for you. You are missing the Puritanical aspect. What you are saying is “Smoke kills, I don’t want smoke in my life, you shouldn’t be allowed to smoke anywhere I go” as opposed to “smoke kills, I don’t want smoke in my life, I shouldn’t go where you are smoking.” Now clearly there is a middle path between the two. But I don’t see why the preferred solution is to ban smoking from anywhere you wish to go. The only reason I can see for that is that it is a pleasure of other people’s that you do not share, hence you feel that your desire to go anywhere you wish trumps their desire to smoke. [QUOTE=Muffin] Aside from legislation, a lot of places are simply prohibiting smoking on their property, which may be a dream come true for Sapo, given that it will lead to more smokers smoking at the side of the street where Sapo can run them down. [/QUOTE] This is a good thing. I’m all in favor of businesses chosing to be smoke free. I even frequented a smoke free bar in DC pre-ban at times because my friends liked it. yet most bars did not want to be smoke free. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612/180 "2010-03-11T19:05:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But what **Muffin** ’s saying is not that he (she?) doesn’t **approve** of smoke, but rather that smoke **bothers** him. Pretending that it’s all about puritanical disapproval, rather than a natural and reasonable dislike of having to breathe other people’s stinky pollutants, is disingenuous. > > I quite agree that people shouldn’t automatically holler “Your smoke is killing me!” when a more accurate statement would be “I don’t like breathing your smoke!” But I don’t see **Muffin** doing that here. > > And I also think that smokers shouldn’t respond to statements such as “I don’t like breathing your smoke” with dismissive accusations of puritanical bitchiness or hysterical delusion or “it’s all in your head and you’re just enjoying the stick up your ass”. > > It’s not delusive or unreasonable for non-smokers to be annoyed at breathing other people’s smoke, even when the effects of the smoke as a physical health hazard are scientifically negligible. See below … > [@Muffin](#): > > Nah. Nothing Puritanical about it, and nothing hysterical about it. The simple fact of the matter is that smoke kills, so I don’t want it in my life. If that resticts the places where you can smoke, that’s too bad for you. Hmmmmm. One says people shouldn’t go into “you’re killing me” mode, and then the other … Wow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decided-smokers-are-not-people/531612.md?page=10)