what if I posted "No Smoking" signs outside a cafe I don't own?

In My Humble Opinion
81

That analogy is completely absurd and you know it.

Cite?

“Unnecessarily filled with pollutants”? Do they not have cars in San Clemente?

I smoke cloves, a kind of flavored cigarette that is especially strong, and which many non-smokers rather like the smell of. Thus, when people notice the smell, they tend to say something–because it’s relatively unusual and exotic. The furthest I’ve ever been from someone outdoors and overheard someone mention it was about eight feet, maybe ten. The radius for smokers of more conventional cigarettes would probably be smaller. Unless there happens to be a strong wind, you must be bumping and grinding with every smoker you see to be that bothered by it outdoors. If you don’t want to walk through clouds of smoke on your way into work, you only have people like yourself to blame for drawing up that tiny circle where people can smoke. Or should they smoke in front of someone else’s building? Or maybe out in traffic?

The difference is that, to my knowledge, there are very few places where it’s specifically illegal to play loud music and (almost?) no places where it’s specifically illegal to allow one’s children to be obnoxious. By contrast, smoking is illegal almost everywhere (restaurants, supermarkets, etc.) and, in many cases, smokers have very few options as to where to light up without getting fined or getting tossed out. Encroaching upon our (relatively little) space, when you don’t have to, and demanding that we stop smoking to suit you, is incredibly selfish. A vocal minority of non-smokers think that they own everyone who has a cigarette in his or her mouth and have the inalienable right to push them somewhere that’s more convenient for the non-smoker. Which group is the self-righteous one with the massive sense of entitlement?

82

Actually, I think it’s an apt analogy. It’s certainly less absurd than the paranoid notion that people who object to smoking around them are merely hysterical control freaks.

83

The problem with your analogy is that there’s pretty much a universal revulsion to feces…especially the human kind. (And not without good reason…any health issue that comes from exposure to feces is bound to be a lot more hazardous than anything stemming from fleeting exposure to cigarette smoke.) This is not true for cigarette smoke…there’s a wide range of potential reactions. Some people don’t mind it at all, some people are mildly annoyed, some people are made literally sick over it. A better analogy is the perfume one…I find it unpleasant to be around a lot of cigarette smoke, but physically, I’m more affected by perfume. I once had to throw out a Coke I bought at McDonald’s because the counter person’s perfume got on the lid, and just having it in my car was making my eyes water. Maybe there should be a law against those perfume ladies in the department stores! :slight_smile:

My personal suspicion is that there are a lot more people who are righteously indignant for no real reason than there are people who have an asthma attack triggered by walking past a couple of smokers in a doorway. Sure, some people are that sensitive, but it seems like it couldn’t possibly be as many as the scads of people who complain about it.

84

Right. It took actual legislation to get considerate behavior out of smokers.

Point is, it wasn’t willingly.

No one’s saying otherwise. The question is what’s the considerate thing to do? A question that smokers never ask of themselves when they light up.

I’d rather not have to smell them.

I’m not asking you to get rid of your cigarette. I’m asking that show a little basic human decency to those of us who don’t want to unwillingly share in your drug of choice.

If someone has bad breath and is aware of it, I’d think trying to avoid breathing in people’s faces would be pretty normal behavior. If my cheap cologne is offending co-workers, I’d be glad to go lighter on it. Or stop wearing it.

Dare suggest to a smoker that their smoke might be bothersome and the response is “the law says I can smoke here, so I’m going to smoke.”

Nothing? My clothes would sure smell for the rest of the day. Cheap perfume and bad breath doesn’t do that.

But again, the question is is this a considerate thing to do? Making people walk through you stinky smoke?

Yes. And we also have laws trying to minimize those automobile pollutants. ANd I have to think cars and trucks are pretty necessary.

Well, then obviously no one 15 feet away are ever bothered. :rolleyes: Some real scientific rigor you going on there.

I don’t think there’s any place that has laws that restrict smokers to the area around the door of a building. Is it really too much to ask you to walk 15 feet downwind?

85

Ah, I see. You define “consideration” by what is considerate of you.

Is it considerate to ask me to refrain from smoking in the few places I *can * smoke, when all you need to do to avoid my smoke is stand 15 feet upwind?

86

Yes, you ARE asking me to get rid of my cigarette.

And no, we CAN’T go anywhere else. YOU, on the other hand, CAN.

87

You can. You can get out od denial and quit.

Dudes, these smokers are addicts. Thus, they are in denial. I mean look at their excuses - they blame us, the non-smokers for the fact they won’t quit. It’s not them, it’s the drug talking. I mean, it can;t be their fault they can’t quit, can it? No. Thus, it’s the rude and evil non-smokers who come after them so hard they* just want to smoke more *to spite us. Or the anti-smoking campaigns that are so bad- it just makes them want to smoke more.

etc, etc.

Denial. If they can get angry at us, or at an ad campaign- then they don’t have to get angry at themselves for being addicted. But there’s no reason to be angry at yourself for being addicted- it happens. It’s an addiction. But you have to get out of denial and admit that smoking is bad for you and that you want to quit. Then, maybe you can.

But don’t allow the drug to keep you in denial, don’t allow your hindbrain, which wants the drug very very much, to allow you to blame us for your smoking. There’s are no “smokers rights to be trampled on by the non-smokers”. That’s just the drug telling you to stand up for it’s “rights” to control your body.

Do you run your life or does the drug? If it’s you, then you know you need to quit. Admit it, stop being in denial and get some help.

Not for me, for you. Or for your loved ones, if you really hate yourself that badly.

88

We;re not blaming you for anything. We’ve accepted the bans, we’ve accepted the pariah status, we’ve accepted the herding into corners and alleyways, but we’re not about to put up with the passive-aggressive nonsense.

You put us where we are. Now it is incumbent upon you to either

a) Avoid the areas you have herded us into and shut the hell up, or

b) Ban smoking altogether, in which case you’d better be prepared for the big tax increase that will result from the end of some very large corporations and from the loss of subsidies that you’ve been receiving on our backs for about a decade now.

Yeah, I thought so. Just shut up and keep walking. I’ll quit when I am good and ready to do so, or until Mommy Government makes me, whichever comes first. In the meantime, mind your own damn business.

Buncha arrogant busybodies…

89

Again, this is denial. It’s *our *fault, not yours. And of course your rightous anger at us and the Mommy government is another reason why you won’t quit. :frowning: Denial. It’s the drug talking, dude. Sorry. Of course this will make you more angry and thus you will have to go out and have a fix. But you claim you can quit when ever you are “good and ready to do so”, *of course. * :dubious: Sure- prove it. I don’t think you can. :frowning:

90

Oooh, I got dared. Is this the dreaded “triple dog dare”? :rolleyes:

Of course, I didn’t blame you for anything, I said leave me the hell alone.

91

I don’t smoke.

And I agree 100% with Doors, and I think you’re just attempting to rationalize your desire to impose your nannyism on the rest of the world.

Walking through a cloud of smoke twice or even four times a day harms the average human being not at all.

The balance of interests between the right of someone to engage in a legal activity that is already heavily restricted against the interest (not the right, there is no right to be free from particulate matter) of those who claim aesthetic injury by the exercise of that already-heavily-restricted right comes down in favor of the former.
In other words, you’ve already won. Try to be gracious about it.

92

I’ll make you a deal. I smoke a pack a day. I’ll quit if you quit posting on the Dope. Bet you can’t do it, can you? Go ahead - prove it. I don’t think you can. It’s called an ADDICTION.

93

My god… I’ve seen the light!!! Thank you. Thank you so much! You’ve changed my life. You’re like my own personal internet guru!

You must be a fucking blast at parties, dude.

94

I’m not talking about situations where it’s the only place you can smoke and it’s easy for me to avoid. Try to keep up. I don’t have any problem with smokers if avoiding the smoke is trivial to avoid. But there are situations that even in your designated smoking area your causing discomfort to people who can’t easily avoid it. If I’m dining on a restaurant patio and your smoke is drifting my way, is it too much to ask you to give a thought to how your smoke is affecting my meal? Judging by the reaction, it seems to be.

Of course very often you can. And sometimes I can’t.

Being loud and obnoxious in a restaurant doesn’t cause any harm either. Doesn’t mean it isn’t rude behavior. Should harm really be the tipping point? In other aspects of your life, do you really only consider it rude if someone’s harmed? Is it OK if I spit on you? You’re not being harmed. Can I scream in your face? You’re not being harmed.

95

Wow, I was sort of hoping this thread would die while I went on vacation, no such luck. I see that the conversation has degenerated somewhat. :slight_smile: But it is interesting, nonetheless.

There ARE countless local enhancements of California’s laws, such that two communities in this county ban patio smoking outside restaurants, but that is not the case in San Diego proper. To be clear, my OP was based on the (faulty) premise that smoking right outside the door was illegal. I was wrong, and that changes my feeling about the place quite a bit. I agree with someone’s statement upthread that most of our activities are and should be bound by restrictions more stringent than the law. However, my thought about posting signs – which I am sure I would never have actually done anyway (part of the OP was just an idle question: has anyone ever thought about doing this?) – arose out of a desire to gently remind them to follow the law. If it’s not the law, then that’s a lot different. I’m trying to clarify here and admit that I was wrong about the law part – not inviting a new flamefest – if you feel like flaming me, I humbly request that you read through the thread and make sure someone hasn’t already used your particular insult or snarky comment. If someone did, I read it already, thanks for the input. :slight_smile:

I probably won’t go through and defend myself against everything that I thought was somewhat unfair or a mischaracterization of what I said, and I forgive you all, and I don’t eat babies, or whatever, but I did not “refuse to go to the owner” – I said I would when I figured out which guy he was. Of course, now I won’t – it’s not illegal. My point was the illegality. Also, I didn’t “refuse” to go to another cafe – when I said other ones were not as convenient, I was just explaining why I had even gone to this one more than once. I do go to another one now. Sigh. Usually. Today I locked myself out and forgot my computer charger (pregnancy?), so when my computer died I had to go to the smoky cafe and use one of their computers. I think the first time I went it wasn’t as bad or something, but as soon as I walked in I was surprised at how the smell of smoke hangs heavy in the air, like a restaurant from the old days. I think the ventilation is not that good and so the smoke, that comes in from both directions, gets in there and stays. I mention that just to say that it’s not some random whiff of smoke you get in there; it’s pretty pervasive.

I do feel a little bit sorry for smokers in that they are “herded” into little corners and vilified and have few options. I understand that it’s an addiction and that they like to relax and drink coffee and smoke at the same time. I also think they should follow the law. Of course, in this instance I am not suggesting that they don’t smoke at the outside tables, because it’s not against the law. Whew.

96

In Montgomery AL there are two restaurants in the entire city that still allow smoking. They only allow it becaue

1-technically (even though they’re a restaurant) they’re classified as a bar
2- the smoking area is contained by glass (i.e. there is no possible way the smoke can carry to the non smoking area)

So again- there are only 2 restaurants of the hundreds of restaurants in the area that still allow smoking at all, and in those places the smokers are sealed off.

I’ve been in the smoking area of both restaurants when non-smokers, seated in the smoking section for some reason, complained about the smoke. Multiple times.

I get so pissed when I hear about how inconsiderate smokers are. There are smokers who are assholes, obviously, but there are some non-smokers who are damned near CRAZY on the subject. I really do wonder what the same people are going to obsess over when smoking is illegalized. (“Waiter, where was this tuna caught? And what brand of paint is on this wall?”)

97

I smoke. And I don’t like smelling smoke when I’m not smoking.

I also don’t like screaming children, cigars, obnoxious perfume, loud drunken conversations, and the letter E. (Did I mention I hate screaming children?)

And yet I encounter these things on a daily basis.

It’s not OK to black-ball any of the afore-mentioned things–with the exception of the cigar smokers–and yet I know I am not the only one who is horrendously annoyed by all of these things. The reason the anti-smokers are hypocrites is because they cite health and well-being when they protest smoking…when really it’s one of the few things that piss you off daily that you can “legally and for-health-reasons” whine about.

If you go for a walk down a city street you’re going to inhale way more carbon monoxide than you’re getting from a cigarette ten feet away. But nobody is talking about banning cars.

If you’re in a restaurant and the table ten feet away has one or two screaming toddlers, you’re not going to campaign to ban children from public places.

If you’re at a bar, and a group of people are having one of those loud obnoxious drunk conversations, you’re not going to get behind a movement to ban loud obnoxious drunk conversations.

If you’re at a restaurant and a woman at a table near you has on so much perfume you can taste it with each bite, you’re not going to rally behind banning perfume.

All of these things are annoying. Some of them are health-endangering. All of them are legal.

But CIGARETTES?

They’re no more-or-less annoying or dangerous, but you can cite “the public health.” It’s an easy target. A bandwagon. It’s pathetic. It’s arrogant. It’s ridiculous.

It’s a cheap target borne of hypocrisy and I don’t buy it.

98

They are certainly more detrimental to the public health than most of the things you’ve mentioned, except perhaps pollution. And there are certainly people advocating for pollution controls. But carbon monoxide doesn’t have the same immediate and extremely noticeable effects and obviousness that tobacco smoke does, so of course tobacco is going to get more complaints.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s a bandwagon. You don’t find campaigns against doing other things in front of people that are only harmful to the consumer. No one is saying “don’t eat that ice cream cone because I’ll get second hand calories.” Unless someone knows you well enough to care deeply about your well being and health, they aren’t going to give a damn if you are smoking where it doesn’t affect other people.

Part of the problem is that there are three different levels of effects from cigarette smoke and each is really it’s own separate issue:

  1. Long term - possible increase in cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc. Also can affect children and adolescent in additional ways due to ongoing development. I think we know enough about this to justify banning smoking in the (indoor shared) workplace.

  2. Short term / health - yeah, being in even an extremely smoky confined indoor area for several hours will probably not significantly increase the chance of those long term health problems. But being exposed to much less than that can cause in many people significant immediate short term health effects - coughing, running eyes, stuffed noises, sneezing. In those particularly sensitive, it might cause a severe allergy attack. I don’t think you’d find anyone saying it’s ok to go into public places and start reversing your vacuum so dust is flying around making everyone sneeze.

What’s ironic is unless smokers are around other smokers, or blow smoke out their nose, they are less susceptible to this effect than those around them because they are breathing the smoke in their mouth and blowing it away from them, and usually holding the cigarette in such a way that it isn’t blowing towards their own faces.

In any case, just because it’s not going to cause cancer and the harm it cause will be gone in a few hours doesn’t make it an invalid health concern. It’s enough of a temporary harm that I think bans on smokers congregating around entrances and smoking indoors in public places is justified.

  1. Aesthetic - cigarettes are nasty. I mean really. Obviously for smokers, the enjoyment of smoking is worth learning to tolerate the smell of the smoke in the air and the residue on one’s clothing. Many would say it doesn’t bother them, but few would claim it’s a nice smell. And lots of smokers after they quit discover that the smell is quite annoying to them. It’s not just the smoke - I can appreciate the smell of cloves, cigars, a nice fire. I would even say that the smell of unlit tobacco is nice. But lit cigarettes for whatever reason just smell nasty. I think the aforementioned shitting in public analogy (minus the health issues of feces) does apply here. It’s similarly nasty in how unpleasant it smells, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn’t find it very unusual for people to willfully go around smelling like that or wiping it on other people so that they smell too.

But for purely aesthetic reasons, I don’t think it’s probably justified to legislate against. But certainly it’s within the domain of courtesy to at least consider such things. No one is going to arrest you or call you a bad person for never showering, but it’s someone impolite to go around stinking up the place if you can help it.

  1. Not really an effect - but smokers seem to think people are against smokers on some sort of moral ground and want to control what they do because smoking makes them bad people. Let me assure you, we don’t care what you do to yourself (although I wonder how many of these smokers who think it’s a busybody issue then go on to vote against who other people get to marry…). If you are smoking by yourself or find a magical cigarette where all the smoke only enters your own body, then smoke to your hearts delight. The only time I can see this happening is in some sort of strict religious community where smoking is not allowed (Mormons I think?). But you are not likely to encounter this unless you are already a subscribing member of that community.

In some ways, smokers are their own worst enemies. I can appreciate the allure, pleasures, and culture of smoking. But so many smokers are smoking just out of habit and not out of enjoyment, and so smoke to excess, and without care to others in their vicinity. People don’t make as much of a fuss about the other nuisances you mentioned because they are occasional and understandable and often unavoidable or accidental. If people smoked only occasionally, for a pleasurable treat, and took care to be courteous, and people made sure their establishments were constructed as to provide for ventilation, I would say that legislation wouldn’t have been needed and probably most people wouldn’t care if they encountered the occasional smoker.

As for the OP - letting the smoke drift inside might constitute some kind of legal violation. I have a feeling that reports of violations probably aren’t a high priority for the authorities though, so I wouldn’t expect a quick action on that front. If the owner and workers are all smokers, they probably will not care. Putting up signs probably won’t help and could make things very awkward if they find out who did it. At best, you’ll get the momentary satisfaction of feeling like you are “sticking it to them”.

But it might be worth a try to point out very politely “you probably didn’t notice - the open windows by the smoking section lets a lot of smoke inside - I thought you’d want to know about that”. You might even go as far as “I was just wondering if there’s anything you can do about that? I understand if you can’t, but I’m somewhat sensitive to it. I really love your place and was hoping I wouldn’t have to find somewhere else to go.”

99

Sure, but if you’re in a sports bar on a Monday night, expecting filet mignon bearnaise and a candlelit dinner is inappropriate.

As is expecting no smoke in a smoking-permitted area.

Battery.

Assault.
The legislature has seen fit to circumscribe those because, well, they’re pretty dick.

And to the extent that smoking is dick, it has been circumscribed.
You’re out of excuses.

100

Smoking is never going to be illegalized. There’s no reason for it to be. But it’s perfectly legitimate to use social means to discourage people from engaging in a legal activity outside the privacy of their own homes.