[QUOTE=acsenray]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. It’s legitimate. It just, you know, makes the folks doing the discouraging dicks, when the activity in question is causing them minimal to no harm.
[QUOTE= acsenray]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It seems like “being a dick to them” is number one on the list so far.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
As is expecting no smoke in a smoking-permitted area.
[/QUOTE]
I expect no smoke in non-smoking areas and sometimes I get it. Smoke doesn’t always pay attention to the limits.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Battery.
Assault.
[/QUOTE]
So? You still won’t be harmed. Which is the point here. Doing something that doesn’t harm you doesn’t mean it’s not rude behavior.
People bring up things like screaming children and strong perfume as if since those people are being rude and obnoxious, that means it’s OK for the smoker to act obnoxiously.
And as far as polluting cars go? When banning them has the trivial economic impact that banning smoking (in public places) would have, then we can talk. As it is, we do pass laws to get them as clean as possible.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently not. People are still finding smoke pretty bothersome.
Why do you need the legislature to define what’s “dick” for you? Is that how you determine the considerate way to act? If it’s not proscribed by law then it’s OK? That’s your standard for courtesy?
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
You’re out of excuses.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: Excuses for what?
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Right. I’d go so far as to say that if heavy smokers had taken care to be courteous, smokers would be better tolerated. But as you can see, even daring to suggest that sometimes smoking where it’s allowed bothers people gets them insisting that they’re going to do it anyway.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
I’d go so far as to say that if heavy smokers had taken care to be courteous, smokers would be better tolerated.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s adorable.
Smoking isn’t legislated because of public health OR public convenience, any more than any other “morally questionable” item or behavior is, or has been.
Prohibition… it’s gotta work on SOMETHING I don’t like!!! 
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Right. I’d go so far as to say that if heavy smokers had taken care to be courteous, smokers would be better tolerated.
[/QUOTE]
Baloney. Smoker Nazis actively hunt smokers. You can’t run, you can’t hide. Mom & kids will find you, surround you and “cough, cough, cough” you out of the county.
It’s a good thing anti-smokers don’t feel the same way about masturbation, because the world would suddenly get really weird.
“Honey, I was jacking off! Why did you bring the kids in here?!?”
“Because masturbation is evil!”
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Baloney. Smoker Nazis actively hunt smokers. You can’t run, you can’t hide. Mom & kids will find you, surround you and “cough, cough, cough” you out of the county.
It’s a good thing anti-smokers don’t feel the same way about masturbation, because the world would suddenly get really weird.
“Honey, I was jacking off! Why did you bring the kids in here?!?”
“Because masturbation is evil!”
[/QUOTE]
Wow, you just made the perfect analogy. Smoking is like masturbation. Kindly keep your smoking to the places where you masturbate and everything will be hunky dory.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Wow, you just made the perfect analogy. Smoking is like masturbation. Kindly keep your smoking to the places where you masturbate and everything will be hunky dory.
[/QUOTE]
And quit seeking me out when I do it!
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly there are valid concerns - it’s just that one or two over-the-top complainers tend to colour peoples’ perceptions.
Me, I’m an ex-smoker who has always hated the stink of cigarettes. Wouldn’t smoke inside, and took care to keep my smoke away from other people. That’s just courtesy. Someone that lights up in a bus queue or anywhere where clouds of smoke are going to drift into occupied space is just a jerk.
On the other hand, there are the gimme-a-fecking-break people. I work in strata management and see a lot of smoking complaint letters. Most of these are valid complaints and result in warnings and/or bylaw fines. (Smoking inside common property, etc.)
Maybe twenty percent, though - they are from people who really need to get a grip. I saw one just today from someone complaining about their neighbour smoking on their patio. Their neighbour two doors over and one floor down. The letter hysterically claimed that the smoke was “funnelling into” their unit, and posed a “serious and continuing threat” to their health. Looking at the plans for the building, it is plain that there is about forty meters (about 130 feet) of space between the two balconies.
I have a hard time believing that the complainant is such a super-smeller that they could even detect the scent of smoke wafting on the air at that distance. If it is detectable, I hardly think it would be at a level that a reasonable person would find offensive. For damn sure it’s not anything approaching a “serious and continuing threat” to their health. They aren’t very far from a highway and a major industrial area. Shee-it, the emissions from the very trees in the area pose a more credible threat to their health.
No, this is clearly a case of someone suffering from an advanced case of Being A Douchebag.
People like this give smokers the impression that no consideration they will ever give to other people will ever be enough, and go a long way to associating any complaint with hypochondriac busy-bodies.
“A serious and continuing threat to my health,” neighbours on the other end of the building, sitting out on their patio.
I swear, if I ever find myself on a strata council, first order of business is a bylaw levying back-breaking fines for having too much fecking time on your hands.
[QUOTE= Yookeroo]
So? You still won’t be harmed. Which is the point here. Doing something that doesn’t harm you doesn’t mean it’s not rude behavior.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the harm isn’t physical but it is to my rights.
Same as when a smoke-patrol-captain comes trotting over with his fake cough and his handwaving.
Get a grip.
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
Maybe twenty percent, though - they are from people who really need to get a grip. I saw one just today from someone complaining about their neighbour smoking on their patio. Their neighbour two doors over and one floor down. The letter hysterically claimed that the smoke was “funnelling into” their unit, and posed a “serious and continuing threat” to their health. Looking at the plans for the building, it is plain that there is about forty meters (about 130 feet) of space between the two balconies.
I have a hard time believing that the complainant is such a super-smeller that they could even detect the scent of smoke wafting on the air at that distance.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t. That smell carries. Not that I think that would be worth complaining about (that is pretty petty). But I do believe that the smell can carry that far.
[QUOTE=DianaG]
I think that’s adorable.
Smoking isn’t legislated because of public health OR public convenience, any more than any other “morally questionable” item or behavior is, or has been.
Prohibition… it’s gotta work on SOMETHING I don’t like!!!
[/QUOTE]
The laws most certainly are public health laws. And who is advocating prohibition? I don’t car what you’re doing to yourself. Just don’t share your drug with me.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Actually, the harm isn’t physical.
[/QUOTE]
Ah well, if we’re not talking physical harm, then those smokers congregating in doorways are causing harm.
But regardless, do you deny that a smoker forcing others to breathe in his/her smoke is rude behavior? And your defending this based on “harm” and the law? If I don’t shower or change clothes for a month, am I not rude if I’m hanging out in a small restaurant and forcing people to smell my foul odor?
[QUOTE= Yookeroo]
Ah well, if we’re not talking physical harm, then those smokers congregating in doorways are causing harm.
[/QUOTE]
No, we’ve been over this. It does not.
:smack:
What’s the use?
Of all people, you bring this up? OK, let’s turn this around: there’s no difference at all between smoking a cigarette and actually taking a shit in public? None? You would react exactly the same way if someone were to take a dump on a busy street corner as if they were to light up a cigarette? Think about it. Try not to hurt yourself, though.
Actually, I quite enjoy my cigarettes. Why else would I smoke them? Then again, I only smoke cloves.
Excellent idea. Now that we have the whole legality thing behind us, I, for one, think it’s a legitimate complaint that the smoke drifts in to the cafe. If the owner can’t be arsed to do something about it (fan? AC?), s/he can lose some business.
You obviously don’t live in California. A couple of years ago the state government funded a program called “Undo Tobacco”, whose stated goal was to eliminate tobacco use in California 100%. It was pretty obvious they were trying to test the waters for criminalization.
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
You obviously don’t live in California. A couple of years ago the state government funded a program called “Undo Tobacco”, whose stated goal was to eliminate tobacco use in California 100%. It was pretty obvious they were trying to test the waters for criminalization.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not obvious at all. It was just another campaign to get people to stop smoking. All those campaigns would like to eliminate tobacco use 100%. Tobacco will never be illegal (nor should it be).
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Tobacco will never be illegal (nor should it be).
[/QUOTE]
Yet if even a hint of the smoke wafts your way you’re a whiny bitch about it. Make your decision and stick to it. If it’s not illegal, suck it up. If it is, pay your taxes and shut up about it because you asked for it.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
If it’s not illegal, suck it up. If it is, pay your taxes and shut up about it because you asked for it.
[/QUOTE]
Is that a woosh? Clearly they were referring to possession and private use as always being legal.
Your comment is a bit like saying, don’t whine that a drunk driver hit your wife, you are the one that wanted alcohol to be legal. Suck it up!
[QUOTE= jackdavinci]
Your comment is a bit like saying, don’t whine that a drunk driver hit your wife, you are the one that wanted alcohol to be legal. Suck it up!
[/QUOTE]
It’d be kind of like saying that, but in order for the metaphor to be apt, your wife would have to be invulnerable and affected not one tiny little bit by the impact.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Yet if even a hint of the smoke wafts your way you’re a whiny bitch about it.
[/QUOTE]
I am? I don’t think I’ve ever complained about this to a smoker out there in the real world (seems a dangerous thing to do).
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Make your decision and stick to it. If it’s not illegal, suck it up. If it is, pay your taxes and shut up about it because you asked for it.
[/QUOTE]
You’re joking, right? My only options are total prohibition or being forced to breathe in your pollution? There’s nothing in between? It really is too much to ask that you find ways to indulge your addiction so it doesn’t negatively affect others?
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
I am? I don’t think I’ve ever complained about this to a smoker out there in the real world (seems a dangerous thing to do).
[/quote]
Ah, I see. You’re an Internet activist. It sure is easy to be arrogant behind a keyboard, isn’t it?
You put smokers where they are: out on the sidewalks, in the back alleys, 50 feet away from buildings. So yes, you’re going to have to suck it up. There’s nowhere left for smokers to go. You claim that smoking should be legal, yet there is nowhere that you would approve of people smoking, because even a single puff anywhere near a nonsmoker is perfectly reasonable justification for passive-aggressive behavior, sneering contempt, and demands (if only over the Internet) that smokers show some respect by putting their smokes out so as not to offend your olfactory sensibilities, even if they are in a smoking area. You can’t have it both ways.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
You put smokers where they are: out on the sidewalks, in the back alleys, 50 feet away from buildings. So yes, you’re going to have to suck it up. There’s nowhere left for smokers to go. You claim that smoking should be legal, yet there is nowhere that you would approve of people smoking, because even a single puff anywhere near a nonsmoker is perfectly reasonable justification for passive-aggressive behavior, sneering contempt, and demands (if only over the Internet) that smokers show some respect by putting their smokes out so as not to offend your olfactory sensibilities, even if they are in a smoking area. You can’t have it both ways.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is called “making shit up”.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
I think this is called “making shit up”.
[/QUOTE]
Must I really go through this thread and draw quotes that support my assertion? You can try to obfuscate what you and your cohorts have said throughout this thread, but the words are there for all to see.