I’ve always said SHS was dangerous to all; and I’ve never needed a report to do so.
How about you growing up and quit sucking the carcinogenic “thumb?” Why should I be subjected to that stench–which, yes, does, btw, stick to my clothing–because those smokers can’t be bothered with actually following the law?
This refers to a person who smokes, not to someone who has to walk through a cloud to enter or exit a building. Not applicable to what I was talking about. Strike one.
Again, refers to those who smoke, not those walking past smokers. Strike two.
This so does not apply. Not only is it talking about those who live with smokers, but it’s for babies. Not grown adults who have to inhale a whiff of it in the outdoors. Strike three, you’re a dumbass.
I don’t smoke, dumbass.
I’m sick and tired of the complaining and the melodrama that was summed up so succinctly by CandidGamera when he said that even one molecule was invading his personal space. If smokers are smoking outdoors in the designated smoking areas, then you (the general “you”) are just going to have to deal. They’re doing what they have to to feed their addiction. I think it’s a stupid addiction, but then I also think that adults should be allowed to put whatever substance they want in their bodies for whatever reason they want, so long as they don’t hurt anyone else. Don’t fool yourself thinking that walking past the occasional cloud of cigarette smoke is going to cause you irrevocable harm. If that’s what you think, then you’re an ignorant putz.
If you don’t like the placement of the smoking area, and I’ll grant you that it’s stupid to have it right next to the front doors of a building as I often see, then bitching at them invading your bubble of cleanliness is futile and pointless. If it bothers you that much, hold your breath. It’s only about 10 feet or so. Surely, since you’re such a health nut, you do several hours of cardio a week, so your lungs are nice and strong and healthy. Should be a figurative walk in the park for you.
I swear, I fear for the future of the human race. If you introduce one iota of a toxic substance to my system against my will, you have harmed me in a miniscule fashion. You’ve set a toenail over the line that protects my rights from yours. I’m not saying you should be strung up for it. There’s no lost sense of proportion. I never said “one molecule is too much.”
When you do it knowingly and willfully, however, it’s technically just assault. Your right to cater to your pathetic addiction doesn’t trump my right to breathe freely.
Cilia? Don’t be silly. Your donated molecule might be the one that breaks the camel’s back. Because a thousand more inconsiderate idiots might’ve thought the same way.
I get that. However, I believe it to be indicitive of a overall selfish attitude that I find offensive.
This is the attitude of the people who want to have smoking banned in bars where people have traditionally gone to drink and (get this) smoke. They want to tell the owners of the establishment, “I have the right to be in here and not have to deal with the cigarette smoke.” No, you don’t.
They want to tell the smokers who are huddled outside trying to feed their legal addiction within the confines set by the law that they don’t have a right to do that because a few wisps might make their way into their precious, virginal lungs.
I find that kind of narcissism insulting.
Hmmm. So, now you’ve made the beer garden off limits to me because I do not want to expose myself to your dangerous activities. Thanks for being so conscientious
wasn’t great? Are you trying to mitigate the effects and results?
I don’t particularly enjoy government intrusion; but a federal law banning smoking in public fora (bars, restaurants, etc) would get hearty support from me. And, as I have said previously, I’ve never needed a physician or a report to tell me so.
emphasis added
That ain’t all I suck, baby.
Because the law is stupid and evil?
I don’t have a study or a cite. I have a FIL who was just diagnosed with lung CA 10 days ago. He never smoked. His wife did–for 30+ years, in a house where they never opened a window. (they go straight from furnace heat to AC). She had throat CA from smoking and drinking for those 30 years. She survived–but will he?
I must say it sucks to get a disease from a vice you didn’t even indulge in.
His doctor says he is in perfect health, except for the greater than 3cm cancerous tumor sitting just below his right mainstem bronchus–inoperable, so he faces radiation and chemo.
I used to smoke–it calmed me down and kept my weight way down. It stinks. It’s expensive. It’s not cool. It’s a stupid addiction to a plant. Have at it, if you must.
But why should others approve of your choice? I hope my MIL feels guilty as hell-but knowing her, she’s pissed about him not being able to drive her places as he undergoes treatment. I don’t think I could live with myself if I knew I had had a habit that made someone else critically ill. No matter how you look at it, that’s messed up.
Or perhaps it’s a very good law. If you don’t like it, you could, perhaps, lawfully agitate for its reform or repeal.
Of course they do. They have to be effecient, what with the cost of cigarettes and all. I don’t get it. People will pay money to ingest smoke into their lungs; but put ASHES in an ASH tray? Not on their ‘life.’ I guess the they don’t want the filth of smoked tobacco marring their interior (of their car, that is). Of course there are a few who do not do this; and I’m sure they are all right here on this message board.
emphasis added
I feel the same about the smokers who sit down right next to me in a bar (when I’ve been there for quite some time) and light up, seemingly every eight minutes. Of course I actually do try to avoid smokers when choosing a seat, but public places I like to visit aren’t quite as big as the rest of the world and smoke does ‘waft’ you know.
Oh, my.
I think we need a designated Irony Area in the Pit. The stench of this particular classic is too overpowering for general visitors. 
Actually, I think the point Lord Ashtar was making is that it should be the perogative of the establishment’s owner whether or not they want to cater to a smoking clientele. It’s not so much a matter of making the beer garden “off limits” to you…you are perfectly welcome to choose whether or not you want to patronize an establishment that allows smoking, or if you choose to take your business elsewhere.
Sounds to me like you welcome government intrusion, as long as it seems to benefit you…if it infringes on others, well that’s just too bad.
Well, I think no matter what the days of smoking in any establishment are numbered.
At my workplace, the machinery is loud. Because we can cause damage to hearing we are required to require our employees wear hearing protection. No matter what they do on their own time. No matter that loud noises aren’t inherently illegal. No matter their preferences. No matter our preferences.
Losing your hearing sucks, of course, but dying is worse. So I would expect this to become a major issue at some point, that workers cannot be exposed to smoke without adequate protection. Bartenders in gasmasks.
IIRC, California’s smoking ban for restaurants and bars was mostly for the health of the workers, not the patrons.
Gee. It must be completely and absolutely true then. :rolleyes:
Now that is a perfect summation of this whole train wreck. I’m going to keep smoking. And drinking. And eating way more than almost everyone I know. Why? Because I can. If anyone has a problem with it, too bad.
Of course. By law (for now), it is the owner’s choice in most jurisdictions.
Take my drinking business elsewhere? Sure. If you can point me to a bar in Myhometown, IL that bans smoking, I would, with earnest, take my business there. But they don’t exist. Not one. So my choices are a limited to staying away from bars altogether or risking detrimental effects to my health.*
Yes, I would welcome federal law on this issue. Indeed because it benefits me. It would benefit all of us. But this is no minor benefit. This benefit prevents health complications and quite possibly saves my life. When what people do has a profound (and detrimental) effect on others, it should be regulated.
This seems to be the prevailing attitude of smokers in bars, whose infringement upon others takes on a physical manifestation.
*Yes, I am aware of the irony that drinking alcohol could (and does) also cause health problems—but only to myself.
You can take your drinking business to a liquor store, and drink at home. Smoking in bars is in no way preventing you from killing yourself with booze.
It doesn’t necessarily benefit the bar owner.
Ack! Bad quote tags…the last 2 lines above are not mine…they should have been in quotes. Sorry!