I think it was that second hand smoke affects the health of non smoker is the reason. It also harms the health of the smoker. They are breathing it when they are not smoking it. Inconsiderate smokers have always existed . But when it became clear that smoking was harming the non smokers and smokers kids it raised a red flag.
God yes, and have you ever smelled a vintage book that was around smokers for years? The smell never comes out, each page reeks.
I find it amusing just how much of a shitfit smokers throw over these laws…all while claiming to me considerate of non-smokers. A truly considerate smoker wouldn’t be inconvenienced in the least by these laws.
Yep, I have. My grandfather was a heavy smoker, and we bought the house he and Grandma lived in. It took ages to clean the place, and I’m sure that there’s still tobacco smell lingering, it’s just that my nose has adjusted to it.
For a while, I played Magic: The Gathering, which is a card game. People buy packs of cards, and booster packs, and there are a gazillion different cards, some better than others. These cards are, I believe, standard bridge sized playing cards. Game stores would hold card-trading events, and a lot of people flat out refused to trade with smokers, because the cards would reek.
When I’m buying something from eBay, I look for the phrase “smoke-free”, because a couple of times I DIDN’T see it, and I’ve had to set the item out in the storage shed for a while. Some things never lost that reek. I have a lovely, lovely crewel embroidery kit of owls on a branch, I bought it before the turn of the century, and it STILL reeks. I’m not going to work on it when it stinks so badly of smoke.
The shitfit is about things other than the smoking; its more from a standpoint of parity, goals and effectiveness. And one could argue quite well that a truly considerate non-smoker isn’t bothered by bars he/she can easily avoid and the laws that allow them. But as this thread shows, that is not the case we face, is it?
The old trick I got from a bookseller in Oklahoma City was to seal the book in a plastic bag with some Irish Spring/Lever 2000 type soap and set it in the sun for a few days. He made a good living rehabing books to sell to the “odor sensitive crowd” and never got caught at it once. Which was one of the things that made me believe this issue is as much psychosomatic as anything.
That was a nasty posting. “Odor sensitive crowd”. Sorry but cigarette smoke is foul and nasty. It is also bad for your health and that of the non smoker. Does unhealthy mean anything to you?
Then the fact that the guy deodorized the book and and set it in the sun for days to remove the smell gives you a conclusion that it was a psychosomatic issue? That would make it real not in the mind.
You have done nothing but grasp at straws to justify your right to smoke in public. You have failed miserably.
i.e. the 20% of Americans who smoke should be able to force their habit on the other 80%.
Promote public health and it’s a Slippery Slope towards, well, something.
As in “we’ll try to evade the law so we can say it isn’t working”.
The whining and fussing by smokers has partly to do with inconvenience, and partly an unwillingness to concede that the ground rules have unalterably changed due to the full realization that smoking and secondhand smoke have grievous health consequences and the long decline of the smoking population into an ever-shrinking minority status. We still see persistent wheedling by smokers ("C’mon, can’t we do things like we used to? Won’t you accept just a little extra heart disease and heightened cancer risk to keep us happy? It’s our right! (wheedle)).
Not going to happen.
Psychosomatic? :dubious: He came up with a good method or removing and covering up the smell, there’s nothing psychosomatic about it. If there had been something psychosomatic, all he’d have to have done is advertise the books “smoke free” and he’d be fine. Clearly, it takes at least days to remove/disguise the smell.
The laws have been extremely effective.
You guys don’t seem to realize that smokers and non-smokers like to hang out together. And ignore that fact that before these laws, there were virtually no non-smoking bars. Now, with all bars non-smoking, non-smokers can go out and come home stinky. And smokers still find a way to smoke. I know it’s a great hardship to step out on the patio for a few minutes, but they seem to manage OK.
Bricker has nailed it still. 6.5 pages of this thread is whining. We do not enact smoking bans because of that one poor woman with ten children whose only recourse is to work in a bar where people are allowed to smoke, and she brings home all the carcinogens on her clothes for her children to eat. Or something.
Smoking bans are enacted because non-smokers simply got tired of waiting for something to go their way. Let’s not mistake the means of persuasion with the underlying cause. Nonsmokers in this thread cannot hide their disgust: they just don’t like the habit. Sure, maybe it will take decades upon decades to kill, but they talk about it like it is pure enriched uranium frosting on a yellow cake force-fed to them by a mob of swarthy brutes. Once you’ve been forced (forced!) into being a stripper at a club that allows smoking, well, your death warrant is already signed. And the smokers are just laughing, laughing, laughing…
That’s good. It’ll help keep them warm. 
I think we enact smoking bans because we generally ban most all other hobbies being done in a workplace or a commercial business like a restaurant. The fire hazard itself is enough of a reason folks. But even legal normal other hobbies, like playing catch with a football are usually not permitted at work or if you go to a restaurant, either.
Other things like drinking are already controlled and often prohibited in public or say in a car, so of course we should be able to ban a dangerous hobby like smoking just as we would say fireworks, and for many of the same reasons.
It always angers me that a cell phone call in a car is often illegal but not playing with a cigarette all day in the car. There is never a reason to have to smoke, but there sure is a reason to answer a call, especially if you are on-call at work for instance.
Well, coughing, certainly.
Playing catch with a football in a restaurant isn’t illegal, it’s banned by most owners/operators.
Because being drunk poses a danger to others on the road. I’ve seen no statistical evidence that smoking while driving poses a danger to anyone except the smoker/people in the car with the smoker/the resell value of the car of the smoker.
Yeah, that doesn’t anger me, because it’s not illegal to answer your phone while driving in my state.
And it’s not illegal to answer your phone via bluetooth in any state, IIRC.