The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
Because… we are. That’s the nature of entitlement.
Because it IS OK for us to smoke- it’s not OK for you to ask us to stop.
Too bad.
Too bad.
Those are non-smoking.
Of course you don’t think it’s unreasonable- you’re not the one whose rights are being infringed.
I think a lot of this comes down to what you view as the default position - some smokers as indicated above think that absent an express ban, the default is you can smoke somewhere, while some non-smokers above see the absence of an indication that smoking is welcome as a sign you should not smoke there.
The world (or the world where I live) is moving towards the latter view. I’m a cigar smoker, and I certainly don’t agree with the definition of courtesy by DianaG, limiting it to simply not smoking in areas where smoking is banned. That’s just obeying the rules - courtesy goes further than that IMHO. I have been in situations where I have not lit up outside or in smoking permitted areas out of consideration for others.
If smokers feel they can light up anywhere where there is not an express ban, I think they should do so with consideration for others. That doesn’t of course mean they should always default to the wishes of non-smokers, but it means those wishes should be considered, and the smoking should take place with reasonable accomodation of such wishes. However, in the situation where smoking is presumptively banned, then the position reverses. If a non-smoker comes into one of the extremely limited areas where smoking is permitted, they abandon the right to have their non-smoke exposure preference considered. Of course, a smoker may still be charitable and try to accomodate them, but there is no obligation.
I guess being a smoker of 3 or 4 cigars a week makes me have a different outlook. Just going outside for a quick smoke isn’t an option for me. Nor is putting the thing out once lit until the person next to me finishes their meal (it probably cost more than the soup and sandwich they are eating, and really doesn’t taste the same relit). Cigar smoking is also banned in the overwhelming majority of locations, so when I smoke, it tends to be because I have sought out a place to go.
That’s a separate rant, why people would allow the smoking of chemical soaked tobacco in the form of cigarettes and ban the smoking of pure tobacco in the form of cigars or pipes. And then the bars that banned us smoking cigars asked for our support opposing the general smoking ban in DC bars?
I’m not publishing a scientific study; merely expressing my opinion.
You’re only supporting my point. These are the kind of responses one generally receives when politely asking a smoker to stop, and you freely admit it. Obviously, the only consideration that enters your mind is whether you could be legally liable for your actions. Whether you are bothering anyone does not concern you in the least, as shown by your answer: “Too bad”.
I rest my case.
I don’t see it that way. I don’t see a dichotomy where one is either expressly allowed to smoke, or must never smoke. In an ideal world, common courtesy and politeness would prevail. Smokers would be free to smoke if it didn’t bother anyone, and non-smokers would be free to make reasonable, polite requests to smokers if the smoke is bothering them or affecting their health. I liken it to this: In an ideal world, if someone were playing their radio too loud in a public place, it shouldn’t be unheard of for another person to politely ask them to please turn it down, even if it isn’t expressly illegal to be playing the radio.
But such things don’t happen in the real world. Ask someone to turn down his music, and you’re likely to have a knife pulled on you. Ask someone to stop smoking, and you’re likely to get an answer of “fuck off” or similar. And it goes the other way too. Instead of “Would you mind turning that down”, you might get “Turn that shit off!” or instead of “Would you mind not smoking”, you might get “Put that shit out!”
And so what we have is a battle that is going to be fought more and more in the legislatures and in the courts. Where common courtesy has failed, forced restrictions must take up the slack.
No, I don’t believe that smoking is always forbidden unless there is a sign permitting it. It doesn’t work that way. The “default” is that you are allowed to smoke. I merely think it’s a shame that most smokers equate “allowed to smoke” with “I’m gonna smoke no matter what 'cuz I have a right.” Since that seems to be the prevailing attitude, it necessitates explicit bans on smoking if we are to have any places people can go that are smoke-free.
That’s a refreshing sentiment. It’s a shame so few people seem to share it.
I think both “sides” have very much fed off each other. Just as there are rude smokers out there, there are also those non-smokers whose mission is not to ensure that smoking is restricted to certain areas, but instead to eliminate smoking altogether. Hence the fight against there being any kind of exception for cigar bars, for example, in the DC smoking ban. At least we (being not only those that smoke, but also those that feel there are some decisions that the government should not force upon people) won that one, and there will be a limited number of venues in which I can enjoy a fine Dominican even after the ban.
I don’t agree with the attitude that says “I can smoke anywhere where it is not explicitly banned.” But I quite understand how people come to that point of view.
As I said, it is different for me as a cigar smoker - my guilty pleasure takes a long time to enjoy, and therefore I plan for it. But as regards cigarette smokers, just as rude smokers brought much of the anti-smoking backlash onto themselves, so sanctimonious anti-smokers created much of the reaction among many smokers.
No. Unless you are of that ilk that refers to yourself as “one,” those are the reactions that you get. And apparently the more common reactions that Jackmaniii gets, based on an earlier post of his.
Data, as the saying famously goes, is not the plural of anecdote.
And those of you who get offensive reactions from smokers – one of three things is possible: (1) You have run into that subset of smokers who are assholes; (2) You are, perhaps unintentionally, being an asshole to them and they are responding in kind; (3) You live in an area where rude behavior is the norm, and you should move.
Premises that I work by, and which I’ve seen many other smokers work by:
The right of someone with a justifiable ground to ask for clean air trumps my right to smoke near them. One former boss who had had a lobe of his lung removed, the wife of another boss who was severely allergic to tobacco smoke – they deserved my courtesy. As would Lynn, or numerous others.
The courteous request of someone offended by smoke to move should be honored if there is a place to move to. Simply swapping positions so that the smoker is downwind of the non-smoker outdoors will often be effective.
No one should smoke in an indoor location where there is no indication smoking is permitted.
If there is a designated smoking area, or an outdoor area that is (a) not being presently used by others and (b) not in the immediate route to somewhere people are regularly going to [such as a sidewalk to an entryway], it is acceptable to smoke there.
People who go in designated smoking areas and expect people to stop smoking to oblige them are being jerks.
Yes, there is a health danger to smoking. There is also one to sex, hang gliding, skiing, bicycle riding, swimming, taking baths. It is up to each individual to judge whether the danger in a given activity requires him to cease doing it.
Secondhand smoke is in fact a problem (cue back to several dozen pages across several threads of argument on that). So use some common sense on where you place designated smoking areas to avoid that feedback. Don’t use it as grounds to ban smoking entirely, except in rare circumstances.
People who want smoking made illegal because they don’t like it rank with those who want gay sex made illegal, those who want alcoholic beverages made illegal, etc., etc.
People who initially act discourteously or who react discourteously have just cut themselves off from any courtesy due them. Let me know politely that my smoking, in a place where it’s usually acceptable, bothers you, and I’ll put out my cigarette with apologies. Start in with a rant, and I’ll be glad to ignore you. Even if it’s justifed for health reasons. And if some dickhead cops an attitude to your polite request, he deserves no better than you would if you were being an equal jerk.
Yeah, I’m gonna go with DianaG and **Happy Scrappy Hero Pup ** on this. (And, yep, I’m a smoker. Yeah, I know it’s not healthy, and I know that many people consider it to be a disgusting habit, but hey, I’m an adult, and I can make my own choices.)
Believe it or not, lowbrass, I think I get where you’re coming from WRT consideration from smokers. I’m actually the guy who *won’t * smoke underneath an enclosed bus shelter, or who will (if possible) temporarily remove myself from a movie ticket queue if I want to smoke. (This is not necessary for me, though, b/c I very rarely go to the movies and, at any rate, I’m able to wait in a line like that without smoking. Hell, I’m even more than capable of flying across the Atlantic without going into I-need-a-cigarette seizures. I will say, though, that I’m glad I fly Northwest Airlines b/c part of their terminal in Detroit is not far from an in-aiport bar that allows me to have a smoke with my scotch between flights.) The thing is, though, I can’t help but get a sense from what you’ve written that you really and truly want to see smoking banned anywhere in public, period. Not just indoors, but outdoors, as well. (Yes, I’ve read what you’ve written, and I’m not accusing you of outright mendacity, but still, there’s this…vibe that I get from your posts thus far.)
As **DianaG ** and **Happy Scrappy Hero Pup ** have pointed out, non-smokers who are bothered/annoyed/feel that there’s a dire and immediate threat to their lives b/c of cigarette smoke have been gaining–and will continue to gain, I think–the lion’s share of the pie. You guys have many, many more places where you don’t have to deal with cigarette smoke, compared to the number of places where smokers are able to smoke, or at least are not explicity enjoined from smoking.
My question, then, is this: If I (and many other smokers) can deal with the fact that there’s an increasing number of enclosed spaces where we can’t indulge our habit (and though I really wish that bar owners, in particular, had been allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to allow smoking, I do get that the law is the law, and I intend to abide by it), why can’t people like you just do a happy dance over the fact that you can go to bars, restaurants, pretty much almost anywhere–indoors–without dealing with cigarette smoke? Why do you feel the need to impose your wants (or health requirements, as the case may be) in the ever-dwindling number of places where people are allowed to smoke?
(Sweet Og, I remember reading just in the past couple of years of condos–or co-ops, I can’t remember which–in New York that were instituting rules about not allowing people to smoke *in their own homes * because some smoke might drift through the ventilation to other units.)
I know that you object to the characterization of this kind of behavior as entitlement, but, honestly, I can’t see how it can be fairly characterized as anything else.
If you don’t want to smell smoke at a restaurant that has all-**outdoor ** seating, then don’t go, because the fact is, you have *so many more options * where your desires will be catered to than smokers do. If you don’t want to smell someone’s cigarette smoke while waiting in a movie ticket queue, then, until the government prohibits smoking in the open air (and I’m sure that some who share your views are chomping at the bit for this to happen), why don’t *you * temporarily remove *yourself * from line? I mean, hell, I doubt that you’d have any difficulty getting someone to hold your place. Even a nasty smoker like me would hold your place for you in a situation like this. Imagine that!
I’m not trying to be unreasonable or mean, but, shit, please bear in mind that, with the ever-widening anti-smoking legislation, it is the *smokers, who have to make an adjustment, * who are being inconvenienced. (And before anyone starts some bullshit about **why ** we’re being inconvenienced, we generally understand the reasons, and we deal with it.) Given that, I don’t think it’s a cardinal sin–or even run-of-the-mill rudenss or inconsiderate–to expect you to be inconvenienced *on the rare occasion * that this would occur.
And yeah, if we were in the open air and I were smoking a cigarette, and you asked me–even kindly–to extinguish it, you’d get a “fuck you” from me. I might not say it in so many words (Mama raised me to be too Southern and polite for that), but you’d better damn well believe that that’s what my bottom line would be.
Another poster already said exactly that, and my reply was that I’m not publishing a scientific study; merely expressing my opinion. Anyone is free to disagree with me. At the very least, I can say that I have seen nothing in this thread that proves me wrong.
Perhaps, but then that would have to apply to Lynn Bodoni as well, who wrote:
So maybe we’re all assholes, but I rather doubt it.
I can’t disagree with you there, because I don’t have much experience with that anymore. There aren’t really “designated smoking areas” anymore. In the old days, I agree it would be quite ridiculous to sit in the smoking section of an airplane or restaurant and complain about the smoking. But that kind of situation doesn’t come up these days.
I agree. If people want to poison themselves, I’m not going to stop them. My concern is when it’s hurting me. That is to say, I’m concerned about lung cancer, a close family member died of lung cancer, and I wish people wouldn’t smoke, but I don’t believe they should be prohibited from doing so for that reason alone.
Yikes! I hope you’re kidding.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I actually dump the hot ash and unspent tobacco from my cigs and then deposit the butt into the proper receptacle. (This is, incidentally, something I became more conscious of doing after reading some the smoking/anti-smoking threads on the Dope. I just *knew * this place as good for something!)
Oh, and even if I’m in someone’s car or home and they light up a cig, unless I know their stance on the matter, or unless they invite me to do the same if I feel so inclined, I seek their permission before doing the same myself. Who knew that a smoker could be so considerate?
What would prove you wrong - you have seen anecdotal evidence both ways here. Including me, and I think I am a pretty considerate smoker. You seemed to agree in fact.
And therein lies the problem, grasshopper. There really aren’t that many designated smoking areas. Those who have attempted to ban smoking, not for their own benefit, but to save the souls and lungs of smokers, have succeeded in eliminating many of the places where people used to smoke. Indeed they are attempting to eliminate those places left, even when they have no reason to go into those places themselves. Attacking cigar bars is just dumb. And I don’t even buy the argument of protecting the workforce - with cigar bars making up such a small percentage of the overall number of bars, working there as opposed to another bar has to be optional. Maybe it is just us cigar smokers tipping better that makes the bartenders where I go stay there. Or it could be that they are all cigar smokers too.
If you close off ALL indoor avenues to smoking, smokers are going to smoke outdoors. If, alternatively, you allow the smoking bars/coffee shops to exist, and simply chose to patronize non-smoking bars and coffee shops, then you will not be exposed to smoke when you are enjoying a beverage, and you will be exposed to fewer smokers out on the street. It is the success off the anti-smoking contingent that has driven some, if not much, of the behavior to which you object.
:smack:
(This is, incidentally, something I became more conscious of doing after reading some of the smoking/anti-smoking threads on the Dope. I just *knew * this place was good for something!)
I swear (on a pack of Camel Filters, natch!), I really did preview before!
Oh, I’m quite ecstatic about it - believe me. I already said so. Read my first post.
I don’t. I already said I no longer ask. And lose the “health” argument, because I don’t believe in forcing other people to do what’s good for them. I only care about it to the degree that it hurts other people.
Hmmm…in college I lived in a dorm with a shared ventilation system. If anyone lit up in his room, you’d know about it pretty quick. I don’t know the details of your story, but if it was a system like this, it could very well be a big problem. Of course, if it were me, I don’t think I’d choose to live in such a place.
It is what it is. I’m merely pointing it out. If you agree with me that smokers feel a sense of entitlement, then why do you object to my saying so? It’s true, right?
I never understood why smokers complain so bitterly about the fact that they have fewer places they can smoke than there are places where they can’t smoke. You’re the ones producing the smoke, and it’s an irritant and health risk for others. And you are free to smoke at home to your heart’s content. Believe me, if cigarettes didn’t produce smoke, nobody would care. You could ingest cigarettes anywhere you felt like. I promise, if you want to imbibe smokeless cigarettes, I won’t ever complain.
But all I said was that I didn’t think it would be unreasonable for a person to make the request. I didn’t even say that I necessarily would expect the smoker to comply. But like the other people who responded, the idea that a person might even dare to ask apparently angers you.
But I never said it was. Again, all I said was that I don’t think it would be unreasonable for someone to politely ask you to stop.
You are characterizing this as though I said it’s unreasonable for you to smoke, which is not what I said. YOU are saying it’s unreasonable for someone to simply make a request. I never said it’s unreasonable to smoke in a place where it’s allowed.
And that only further supports my point. Thank you.
What is this supposed point you think everyone is proving for you?
In each of the examples to which you have replied “you’ve proven my point”. The example was the NON smoker being rude.
When a non smoker comes into a designated smoking area and tells/asks people to stop smoking it’s the non smoker who is being rude. Go somewhere else. You can. I can’t. That’s not rude - it’s common sense.
I believe the example was smoking outdoors. Don’t you think it’s a little disingenuous to refer to all outdoors as a “designated smoking area”?
It would be rude to go into a designated smoking area and ask someone to stop smoking. But designated smoking areas don’t really exist here anymore.
Don’t you think it’s a little disingenuous to say that asking someone to put out their cigarette is perfectly polite and reasonable when simply standing upwind of them is also an option?
Out of curiosity, where is this “here” of which you speak?
Based on all the ash and cigarette butts I see flying out of car windows, it’s obvious that all outdoors is considered a “designated ashtray”.
Hurrah for you, Li’l Pluck. I know you’re out there somewhere.
Where’s here? Here (where I am in NY) at my office there’s actually a yellow box painted on the ground. It’s about 10 square feet (I’m not sure what happens to you if you cross the line holding a cig. I’m waiting for one of the others to try it first). The train platforms around here have that same set-up as well (aaalllll the way on one end of the platform is the ashtray and the yellow box - can smoke not cross the color yellow painted on the ground or something?)
Those are “designated smoking areas” not “all of outside”.
And when people come by me and start that hand waving and that special little fake hack - they need to move. They came over to me. They can move, I can’t.
Your metal collar beeps urgently for about ten seconds and then your head explodes.