But right now, today, we could say (as an example) that you can’t drive to bars. Simple as can be. Could be law tomorrow. Why can’t I insist on it on the same basis that people insist on a smoking ban in the same exact bar? It’s my health and I’d prefer you keep your smelly car fumes to yourself, and all that. You are OK with car fumes to the extent you’re willing to permit non-essential car travel, so don’t focus on all car travel, focus on the non-essential stuff. We could eliminate an enormous volume of car emissions if we simply say, no, you can’t drive for trivial matters. I don’t care about the economic impact of you not driving to a friggin’ bar. It’s my precious health, after all, which we’d all agree is priceless.
Worded differently, why should you get a free pass to drive to the movies? I say no. I demand you cease immediately.
You could always ask the inconsiderate driver not to drive to the movies. That’s what nonsmokers were supposed to do in the old days when their indoor air was being fouled by smokers. Legend has it that the gallant smokers always complied with polite requests. Surely someone who doesn’t absolutely need to drive will gladly agree not to when you ask.
Or you could drop the “be concerned about this issue, not that other one” act, and focus your attention on enacting public policy in whatever area is most important to you.
Tried that and had about the response you would expect because they understand a fine point you missed - air, be it indoor or outdoor, is not “yours” or “mine”. If I own the building that contains that air, I may feel I have some standing towards ownership but that is not a given as we have proven here.
I will say one thing though ------ I never had a smoker come into my home and insist he/she be allowed to smoke. I have had several car owners insist that because I didn’t own a car at the time, they had the right to park their car across my driveway. Drivers are, clearly, less considerate than smokers.
(I cannot begin to express the joy I felt at seeing their cars towed and hearing them whine about the fines afterwords.)
Of course this is just to make a point, but that doesn’t mean the point isn’t valid. If the rationale for the smoking ban is legitimate, than surely must be this demand, no? And if not, if this is a world where not everyone wants the same things, perhaps we should rethink a policy where no bar, no one, not anywhere, is permitted to allow smoking, regardless of its owner’s preferences.
Perhaps there is room for discussion beyond “no, no, no, it affects my health, so stow your filthy habit.” And, yes, you’re inferring what I thought was obvious–of course I am already of that opinion, and I really won’t be signing the petition to make you walk to the movies. That doesn’t mean I don’t want someone to try to explain why it isn’t perfectly reasonable for me to do so, if a smoking ban is likewise reasonable.
(I’m not even sure how many negatives are in that last sentence, by the way; depending upon if the “ban” counts or not, this may be the rare quadruple. Thank you, thank you very much, no extra charge.)
:dubious: You’ve had several people insist they can block your driveway because you didn’t own a car? And these situations got to the point of people just leaving their cars blocking your driveway even after you told them to move them and continuing to leave them there until they got towed away? Uh huh.
No, unless we allow “slippery slope” fears to prevent regulation of all health risks.
Or to look at it the other way, perhaps we should allow all bars the right to serve watered-down drinks and adulterated food, to allow roaches and rodents in food preparation areas, defective and unsanitary plumbing etc. I mean, it’s their businesses, they should have a right to do what they want, and unhappy customers can just go elsewhere (because of course it’d be a rare business owner trying to cut corners to maximize income).
Or we can stop drawing up silly what-ifs, and consider what public health steps are necessary and achievable.
The one-fifth of Americans who smoke have lost the ability to dictate to the rest of us that their habit and its consequences must be endured in public by everyone. And as smoker numbers decline, the situation will not change. Time to stop moaning about slippery slopes and businessmen’s rights, and either adapt, or prepare to spend another long winter bitching and shivering outside restaurants and bars.
But I’m not arguing a slippery slope. I have no fear that driving to bars or movies will be outlawed any time soon, because most people prefer to engage in such activities. In instances where it might inconvenience someone personally, the “no exceptions for your filthy habit” rationale suddenly evaporates. Or perhaps not, so I’ll ask again: Is there any reason, using the same smoking ban rationale, I can’t demand that you not be permitted to drive to the same bar I can’t smoke in? BTW, the fact that no one will answer this directly is telling. The silence is deafening.
Talk about nonsense slippery slope arguments. No one is suggesting that reasonable restrictions are out of bounds. But when the restriction changes the very nature of what the owner prefers to offer, it’s reasonable to ask if the restriction is overbearing. No one wants, or wants to offer, roach-infested food. There are people who’d like, and others would love to accommodate that preference, a place where someone can order a Budweiser and smoke a cigarette. Who the @#$% is anyone to say they can’t do so, based on the rationale, “But I don’t like that, and maybe I’ll drop by some time”?
Same old straw man. A bar that permits smoking, so long as you’re not kidnapped and dragged into it, does not infringe on your rights even a little bit. BTW, I quit smoking cigarettes years ago. I smoke my cigars on the patio or at the cigar lounge in town. So I won’t be shivering at all.
It’s been answered. You can demand that all you want, you won’t have the backing for it, since 1) nearly everyone drives, and 2) we have in fact taken numerous steps to reduce hazardous auto emissions, through things like regulations mandating catalytic converters, unleaded fuel etc.
And as for limiting driving altogether, I believe we did that as recently as WWII, when gas was rationed and you weren’t supposed to use it for frivolous purposes. If some compelling need is perceived in the future to crack down on “non-essential” driving, it will be seriously debated and enacted or not enacted with appropriate popular input. As for public smoking in enclosed places, people have been making their voices heard and their opinions have been clear and remarkably consistent.
Not surprisingly, few are willing to accept even a 20-30% greater chance of cancer and heart disease for the sake of libertarianism and faux claims of smokers’ rights/businessmen’s rights.
It has not been answered! I’m not asking about eliminating all driving, only non-essential driving. Whatever steps have been taken, that isn’t one of them. This isn’t that tough. Why can’t I demand a prohibition of you driving to the same bar that I am prohibited from smoking in? That is the question–I’m not asking “have we tried to reduce emissions?” or " has it been effective?" or “have we explored multiple methods for reducing emissions?” I’m demanding that you not drive to the movies. Why in the world couldn’t that be installed as law immediately? Why can’t I demand it, using the same rationale as that which supports smoking bans (i.e., I don’t want to deal with your habits that affect my health when those habits are easily controlled?). I wonder why no one will answer this specific question, and continue to go off on tangents? Hmm.
I’m not asking about what the tyrannical majority has already enacted! That’s obvious. I’m asking why the rationale advanced in this thread doesn’t equally apply to non-essential driving.
Again, is there any reason, using the same smoking ban rationale, I can’t demand that you not be permitted to drive to the same bar I can’t smoke in?
And should those same people be just as enthusiastic about a demand that they cease non-essential driving, for the same @#$%ing reasons? Come on, you can do it. Answer.
You know, you really should listen to yourself. Or rather, not yourself, your hindbrain, where the addiction has taken control so hard you are willing to rationalize anything that assists in making your next fix easier.
Smokers are addicts. The need for the drug makes them think and do the strangest things- denial, rationalization, anger, etc.
Seriously, this thread is amusing, devolving as they always do into the standard, thoughtless mantras, “smoking is bad, you’re an addict, your addiction is not my problem, etc.” as a response to every post, whether it’s relevant to the question posed or not. It’s like debating the “Farmer Says” toy. Doesn’t matter what question gets asked, when you pull the string, the response will not surprise you.
Question:
“If your demand that your health not be affected by my smoking habit, even in a locale you needn’t go to, why can’t I demand that you not drive to the same non-essential locale, for the same reason?”
Answer:
“Why do you smokers all think it’s the rest of the world’s problem to deal with your nasty addiction? Wake up and smell the coffee.”
i do agree smoking should only be allowed in designated areas
however, bars and casinos - it should be up to the owners;
people who are norms to these scenes usually have smoked at some time. (that may be due the social factors, and bodily stressors caused by those environments and emotions that lead people to go into these situations regularly).
plus smoking in these establishments brings in a great amount of revenue.
=before smoking bans did you go to bars?- probably
with smoking bans do smokers stay at bars?- no// bars charge a Lot for smokes and they did sell:now they wont
all smoking does to non smokers is make them feel gross from the smell.second hand smoke can kill, but the air we live with is worse compared to the amount of times you inhale air to the amount of times you inhale second hand smoke. if it was that big of a deal people would be dyeing quite rapidly
malls, cinemas and restaurants should be non smoking but i believe that should be the extent. if someone wants to kill themselves like that, let them (what else u gonna do/ u dont actually care)
so id like gasoline banned in public places. it smells sooo bad, it pollutes everything- which makes us have cancer (number one cause) and its expensive
and yes we have ways round it
even for airplanes (which would be replaced by quicker magnetic trains for the masses (apparently)
im an ex smoker, and if ppl want to smoke, i dont like it because its gross but I know it doesnt matter if i dont agree with a lifestyle choice of another that isnt actually affecting me
i agree with the ban as long (as it goes no further) because eating and smoking is gross and shopping for new things and smoking is gross-- for everyone/anyone all the time.
I’ll take slight issue with that. Not all people against smoking are psychosomatic. My wife has a bronchial/asthma-related condition where most forms of smoke put her at serious physical risk. The odor isn’t the problem; she can walk though the cigar club with ease if no-one there is actually smoking at the time. But someone lighting up at a bus stop without her noticing. or driving past with a bad exhaust system, or even “air emergency days” and she has problems. Sometimes serious problems.
Problem is ------- the laws are designed, for the most part, to appease the psychosomatic cases and not the ones that are actually physically based. Otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about bars but actual public spaces. And we would be talking all air quality and not just one small niche.
Post 188 your own words "BTW, I quit smoking cigarettes years ago. I smoke my cigars on the patio or at the cigar lounge in town. " Thereby you do smoke.
Nor does your “simple question” have any meaning in this thread, which is not about driving.
Fine, consider all the questions he asked posed from me.
I am not, nor have I ever been a ‘smoker.’ Tobacco makes me cough, and if I try to smoke much of it (even in mild forms) it gives me terrible headaches and has in the past made me puke. Just for clarification.
I happen, however, to completely agree with his questions and statements (namely that it’s the business owners right to choose whether or not to have smoking in his establishment, not yours), I just haven’t seen the need to post since his argument has so skillfully avoided your “ZOMG STOP TRYING 2 FORCE US 2 BREETH UR SMOKE1!111!”
Actually, yes. Which is why I just go right to tow and ticket and bypass trying to track down the owners. I heard excuses and anger but no good reasons. It got regular enough that the cops took care of it for me and were removing cars I hadn’t even noticed yet. Ya gotta love the cops like that.
I know you were talking to Strato but ------ Hmmmmm - seems to me folks have said the same thing about drivers. But we’ll show you the light - if you want it or not.
And I see cars parked under no parking signs, violate speed limits, fail to signal, fail to stop at stop signs and on and on and on. So smokers are almost as bad as drivers? Doesn’t surprise me any.
Sneak a smoke on a plane, no punishment is bad enough.
At your office? I would need to know more. Is it actually yours? IE - do you own the company? The building? What type of office is it; what work do you perform? If you are part of a law firm renting space from a building that has decided to be “non-smoking” and that is how the lease reads, I wouldn’t be real pleased about it. If you’re in the fishing industry or some other lines of work, I suggest you go look for work elsewhere. In other words, some workplaces aren’t smoke free and probably will never be smoke free. And that’s just the way it should be.
