Actually, I’m often amazed at how a single cigarette can seem to stink up the entire outdoors when I’m within a few yards of somebody smoking. It’s not as simple as stepping aside; on a calm day, a smoke cloud radiates in all directions, too.
That said, while I’m happy that Illinois finally banned lighting up in indoor businesses, outlawing outdoor smoking would be going to far. I don’t like smoking, but smelling one cigarette here or there is merely a minor annoyance to me. It’s silly to think we can ban a perfectly legal activity in open public spaces. (I would, however, like to see the 15-foot rule both increased and enforced, to avoid having to plow through a thick curtain of stench when walking in or out of any building. But that’s another thread.)
Oh yes, DT, when you bring your dead relatives up as part of your debate tactics, that doesn’t mean that you automatically win the point. It means that you’re willing to use them as weapons in order to achieve victory.
Remember how we had to stay in Iraq so as to prove that our soldiers didn’t die for nothing? Well you’re trying to ban smoking for similar reasons. It was a bad argument wrt Iraq, and it’s a bad argument wrt smoking.
I’d happily take a law banning smoking in the streets, and have suggested one for a while, but only in exchange for a law permitting once again private individuals to determine whether or not to allow people to smoke on their property. Even if that private property is a bar.
This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier - those who are against indoor smoking bans facetiously bringing up the idea of prohibiting smoking on the street (which is not an idea under serious consideration), in order to make a “point”.
Of course, the question of private property rights trumping all other rights (including the right of employees not to be sickened and killed by unhealthy workplace practices) has been done to death in other discussions, and settled decisively in court decisions.
I’m honestly not doing it facetiously - I’d actively support a ban on smoking in the street. And parks, beaches etc (where publicly owned). I’m not trying to make “a point”, and I don’t expect it to happen, but I think it is a much more logical solution to the situation.
Don’t be ridiculous, I grew up constantly surrounded by the stuff and never grew used to it. And again, I don’t even support the idea of banning it outdoors in the first place and never said I did. You aren’t arguing against me or my positions, you are arguing against a bogeyman named Der Trihs that exists mainly in your own head.
What “victory”? I brought them up to explain why I had strong feelings on the matter, not to win any points. It was you who thought mocking the dead was a good idea, apparently out of some kind of personal hatred you have for me.
Whatever,DT. It’s plain to all that cigarettes are one of your personal demons. There’s no point in trying to hold a ‘rational’ discussion with self proclaimed zealots, such as yourself.
Then your proposal has gone from facetious to nonsensical, as the rationale for indoor smoking bans is the hazard posed by secondhand smoke, which is basically a non-factor in the outdoor venues you mention.
And right you are. Some jurisdictions will hold out for awhile, but the idea of reversing indoor smoking bans is a non-starter. That ship has sailed. The horse is no longer in the barn. Elvis has left the building.
Non-smoker here who wants to make it clear I have no problem with smokers smoking on the street. I’d prefer they not all congregate around the entrance to a building, but besides that I could not care less. However, the cops should seriously enforce no-littering laws. Cig butts are disgusting and a PITA to clean up.
The OP seems to be mustering a series of weak arguments that basically serve as a fig leaf for his real argument: that things that annoy him should be made illegal.
I can get behind that, with one slight modification: things that annoy me should be illegal.
I’m fully in agreement with the OP. Why should smokers get to infringe upon my right not to breathe in their carcinogenic second-hand smoke?
Yes–and it’s not just the smell. It’s the fact that numerous studies have indicated that second-hand smoke is at least as harmful as first-hand smoking. In some cases, it’s worse, because, the smoke is completely unfiltered.
Our society has been imposing increasingly stringent regulations on all of these other polluting activities. Why should cigarettes be any different?
Why should I have to wear a mask to protect myself from your pollution? Besides, the issue is not just the smell–it’s the fact that your second-hand smoke is actively harming me.
No, we don’t, which is why we have environmental regulations. I shouldn’t have to put up with your shit.
I would not be at all surprised to see regulations imposed on outdoor smoking in my lifetime.
I hate smokers, I hate the way they smell, I hate the way the cigarette smells, I hate it all.
However, if we banned smoking on the street, why not everywhere? I mean, I can smell a smoker from a block away. You see where the argument is going. Also, how about ‘other’ smells? Body odor? I hate that smell too, or mildewed shirts (that one really gets to me)
To answer the question of why cigarettes (and even alcohol gets a pass) is simple, money.
Considering how difficult it would be to study I don’t see anyone can tell if it is a factor or not. It certainly burns my nose and throat though, even in tiny amounts.
People should be free to walk the street without having to avoid offensive odors that are created purely for somebody else’s pleasure.
potpourri and perfumes smells. When people walk on the street they cannot avoid having to smell a person’s vile perfume or cologne. If a person who is bathed in aqua-velva is walking in front of another person, the other person cannot avoid getting the smell of cheap in her clothes and hair.
While not all perfume abusers litter, enough trash is generated from glass and plastic bottles to fill a landfill every few years.
potpourii is worse than cologne in bars or restaurants. People can choose to get away from wearers of perfume, but have to just deal with the smell of rotting dried vegetation in small restrooms at tiny restaurants and coffee shops.
Potpourii and thick colognes on the street should be outlawed.
I understand that tobacco is the evil du jour, just as alcohol was during prohibition. But outlawing it on the streets nationally is silly for a wide variety of reasons:
(1) This kind of ban seems to typically be proposed by people who live in an urban environment, where the streets are packed shoulder-to-shoulder with people. A polite smoker can easily walk through this town and never exhale smoke within six feet of another person. You can double or triple that distance in the winter.
(2) Speaking of urban, if you’re in a crowded city walking down a crowded street, tobacco smoke is the least of your concerns. I don’t like the smell of cigarettes, but I walked through downtown Tokyo in the 80s when almost everyone was smoking, and the exhaust fumes & perfume quite overwhelmed the cigarette smoke.
(3) We all have something we dislike. I can tolerate cigarettes, although I dislike them, but I detest clove cigarettes. I sometimes smoke a pipe, and when I walk down the street with it, strangers come up and tell me how much they like the smell of the tobacco; how much it reminds me of their dear old Uncle Fred. So how about if we leave loose tobacco alone and ban cloves instead? For that matter, strong perfume will give me a much stronger headache than any smoke I’ve encountered. Let’s ban perfume. And diesel automobiles smell far worse than gasoline engines. Let’s ban those, too. For that matter, I can’t stand the smell of coffee beans being roasted. The roastery down the street stinks up a three-block radius when they’re operating. Let’s shut them down. And don’t even get me started on wet dogs…
(4) Why does smell get priority? You can already make loud obnoxious noises in public (ranging from yelling into your phone to singing along with your MP3 player), and there’s no law against touching people on crowded sidewalks, busses and trains. For that matter, there’s no law against wearing offensive t-shirts or being ugly. If people can assault your senses of hearing, touch, and sight, why push the smell laws to such an extreme?
(5) I can already hear Der Trihs warming up his fingers to fire off a response saying that it’s about HEALTH, not stink. Before you type it, DT, please find a study that shows secondhand smoke outdoors causes problems.
NOTE: Just as cities currently have moratoria on burning and unnecessary driving when the smog is bad, I’d have no objection to calling “smoke-free” days during still days with temperature inversions. I’m arguing that a typical day outdoors–where there’s a touch of wind and there are an order of magnitude more cars on the street that cigarettes on the sidewalk–does not pose a second-hand smoke health risk.
This is an absolutely ludicrous argument. You’re saying that the non-smoker six feet away from the cigarette is inhaling more unfiltered smoke than the smoker that’s holding it in his hand? The smoker gets both first- and second-hand smoke.
Where do you sample it and when? It isn’t like the workplace or home where you can know that a particular person is going to be in a particular place at a particular time for years on end.
Not a valid objection, since plenty of laws vary between locales according to conditions. You can ride a horse in the countryside too. And 40-50 feet away is easily close enough to be highly unpleasant.
Biology. Scent creates a strong emotional response in people and is hard to ignore, it is the oldest and most basic of senses. That’s just the way our brains are set up. Blame evolution.
<Sigh> Again, I don’t even support the idea of banning it outdoors. And again, I said that finding out the answer to that question either way would be highly difficult.
How’d I get designated chief bogeyman for a position I don’t even support?
