Is Calabasas Right to Ban Outdoor Smoking?

[loseyourname]

hmm. I didn't consider an asthma attack. I guess that's a good point.

What about this: Say I had this special interpretive dance that I enjoyed doing in my spare time in the local public park. This dance involves me flailing wildly such that if anyone were to walk in the vicinity, they would definitely get hurt. Should this dance be outlawed if it is general knowledge that walking near me would result in trauma?

Smoking, unlike interpretive dance, is pretty much guaranteed to at least annoy most non-smokers, and possibly endanger anyone allergic to the smoke. A better analogy might be if you walked around throwing pebbles at everyone around you. It's generally annoying, but not likely to be harmful, except on the rare occasions that you hit someone in the eye or throat or some other overly sensitive area.

 

[tribdog]

All this arguing is causing me a lot of stress, and as we all know stress is bad for your health. I think a law should be passed that you can't argue in my vicinity.

 

[tribdog]

In Calabas can you get arrested for smoking in your car while you are driving down the road?

 

[GeorginaS]

Smoking indoors in any public place is completely illegal here. For a while, government implemented laws about strict separation between smoking and non-smoking areas of public places. That meant, smoking areas of food fairs in shopping malls or smoking sections of restaurants, had to be entirely walled off (usually with plexiglass or something similar) and then have a separate ventilation system for the smoking area. A lot of buildings (like office buildings with public common areas) and restaurants went to the expense of creating these completely separate areas. Because, yes, an imaginary line between the smoking section and non-smoking section was stupid. The smoke didn’t know to stop.

Then the governments changed their minds again (and/or got lobbied hard enough) and banned it altogether in all public places. Which, okay fine. But smoking outside? Ban smoking outside. That makes me sigh. I can walk out of a store and breathe in a lung-full of exhaust fumes from a passing bus. I’m trying to feature that being less harmful to me than walking past someone sitting nearby having a smoke. Sure, I can smell it, but so what? I don’t know. There are so many other things spewing toxic crap into the air, I think it’s a bit much to get on smoker’s cases. Then again, I live downtown where car and industry fumes abound.

Indoors, no. You want to smoke, take it outside. People should always be courteous if they’re going to light up around other people and ask first and also stand down wind. That’s only proper. If people around you don’t do that, mention it to them.

The one thing, though, that I have quite a bit of trouble wrapping my mind around is, where did all of these “smoke sensitive” people come from in the first place? I’m not poking fun or saying it isn’t real, it’s just that, when I was a kid, everyone smoked. I mean everyone, everywhere. People smoked in grocery stores, in department stores, in elevators, in hospitals, in doctor’s offices, I mean everywhere. It was totally normal, most people did it, and I cannot remember even once hearing anyone who didn’t smoke complain about it. I don’t ever recall anyone saying, “I’m asthmatic and can’t be around smoke”. Again, I’m not saying that people aren’t, I’m just wondering where this huge population of people who can’t tolerate smoke without massive ill effects came from.

I think that sounds angry, but it’s not meant to be; it’s just perplexing. I guess I think of people like my mother who never smoked but my father did. And everyone else in my family, on both sides, did. And, as I said, everywhere you went, everyone smoked. And not once, not once when I was kid did I hear my mother complain and fuss about it. Nowadays? Oh well, she can’t breathe around it. She pretends to choke, she claims she gets sore throats from it. My mother’s a drama queen, so it’s difficult to tell, maybe she does. Who knows? But for all of those other years, how come it wasn’t an issue at all? She didn’t move away if someone next to her lit up a cigarette, she even occasionally took a drag off of my father’s cigarette. She’d go to friend’s homes for coffee in the afternoon, and the friend could sit and chain-smoke and my mother never got runny eyes or a sore throat from it. But these days? My heavens. If she walks past someone who recently had a cigarette she starts to perform. Maybe she’s the yardstick I’m using.

Like zooby pointed out, it’s fashionable and acceptable to demonise smokers these days, and I really and honestly think that an awful lot (not all) of people are over-dramatising their issue with it. I really do. If I’m around people who smoke, I put my clothes in the laundry when I get home. I have a shower and wash my hair, and I’m all fine. Someone having a cigarette outside doesn’t bother me any more than that gravel truck spewing exhaust that just passed by me.

My whole point, in all of this, laws banning outdoor smoking, I think, are taking matters a little too far.

 

[Moonbear]

Georgina, about all the sensitive people, while your mother may be more dramatic about it, I think there are plenty of us who have always been sensitive to smoke, but years ago, nobody really cared that we were, or we just didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize it was the smoke that was the problem. I have a cousin who is asthmatic. My uncle is a smoker (my aunt used to be, and quit sometime around when she got pregnant or soon after). My cousin used to have horrible asthma attacks as a kid, was in the hospital for a lot of them, and they were always getting rid of something else in the house, blaming that for the latest attack...no pets, no plants, pull up the carpet, get a humidifier, no get a dehumidifier, close up the windows and keep the kid indoors protected from all the allergens outside...and then, one day, someone finally realized it was his father's smoking. For a while, my uncle moved his smoking to the basement, and that wasn't enough...the smoke still wafted up to the main floor, so then he was banished to the garage to smoke. Only then did my cousin's asthma ease up and stop causing him such problems.

For me, whenever I'd go to family parties, everyone was smoking, and I always had the sore throat and headache by the end. I just never realized it was from the cigarette smoke when I was that age, I just thought it was from being tired or talking too much, or that I caught something from one of the other kids there. My father was always sensitive to the smoke then too; he came home with the same headaches, but since smoking was the "fashionable" thing at the time, you just didn't ask people to stop smoking to accommodate you, so you didn't say anything. My father would make excuses to not attend the parties or to leave early. Now, I can only speak from personal experience there, but if others were all the same way, there were always people sensitive to smoke, we just didn't feel it was okay to say so years ago, or hadn't really nailed down that that's what was causing the headaches or sore throats. The watering eyes and sore throat are pretty much the same response as when you're grilling on a charcoal barbecue, and the wind shifts the smoke into your face. For me, anyway, it's not specific to cigarette smoke, it's just smoke of any kind. The headaches come more with the prolonged exposure. I don't suddenly get a headache if I walk through the smoke cloud of someone smoking out on the street, though it does temporarily irritate my nose and throat.

As for comparing it to bus fumes, well, I'd like to reduce those too. I just look at it as trying to reduce any form of pollutants. Some we can reduce more easily than others.

Zooby, as for the comparison between alcohol and smoking, while both are unhealthy to the person choosing to indulge in either, only smoking is forced upon those around you as well. If I'm sitting next to someone having a beer, my liver isn't affected by their choice. We already do have laws against and/or frown very heavily on those whose alcohol consumption is affecting others, such as prohibiting drinking and driving or making it very socially unacceptable for a woman who is pregnant to drink (have you ever noticed the glares a pregnant woman gets if someone even thinks she's having a drink, even if she isn't? If you haven't noticed, try going out somewhere with a pregnant woman and have her get some apple juice in a wine glass...just watch the reactions of others around her). So, I think for the most part, we are tolerant of people choosing to make bad health decisions for themselves, but are not tolerant when their bad decisions are forced on others around them who may have chosen to avoid those health risks. I can choose to be a couch potato too, but as long as I'm not tying all the fitness nuts to a chair and making them watch Oprah, that's fine.

Now, there are issues in terms of things like increasing healthcare costs and such, where it doesn't make sense to single out smoking any more than drinking or couch-potatoing , but I think that's a separate issue from the reasons for making some things unacceptable in public places when others are not.

As I said before though, I don't think an entire outdoor ban is required, but a ban of smoking from say 10 feet or so from building entrances, so people who need to enter those buildings aren't forced to walk into a cloud of smoke. The thing is, in a city, that would almost effectively be a ban of smoking from all public sidewalks anyway, because building entrances are so close together. But, if you want to go sit in a park, that's fine. I think in an open space like a park, I'm capable of finding enough room to stay away from any smokers if it bothers me.

 

[GeorginaS]

Okay, Moonbear, I'll go with that. Maybe no one made the connection years ago between being exposed to smoking and feeling ill effects. That makes some sense. We did know a whole lot less about smoking, that's for certain.

I hope you realize I wasn't trying to target anyone, (and my mother is a special case in any conversation) but it's never bothered me and it continues not to. Bus fumes will choke me. And I'm not saying that other air pollutants are okay, I was talking about proportionately speaking. I swear, when I see those huge trucks with the tall pipes and the flap at the top of the pipe opens, and black smoke spews out, I'll bet that's worse than 50 smokers all exhaling at the same time.

Indoors, yes, no smoking. Outdoors? Again. I've never seen a cloud of cigarette smoke near an entranceway where people smoke. I've smelled it on my way by, but I've never had to walk through a cloud.

 

[Moonbear]

Again you are missing the point. You went out last night and got too drunk to drive home. At the same time you are that impaired you judge yourself sober enough to monitor a friend who is supposed to drive you home. Foolish. The designated driver doesn't drink, and certainly shouldn't be monitored by those who are too drunk to drive. But there's no outcry against your story, or nearly any such story.

And isn't your post just such an outcry?

G, after responding to your earlier post, I've been mulling that issue of sensitivity to cigarette smoke. I think it would be pretty obvious that those who start smoking are able to tolerate being around it, or they would never even consider it. But, then of the non-smokers, wouldn't it be so easy if we could say, "AHA! It's the people who are sensitive to the ill-effects of second-hand smoke who don't become smokers." But, that's not the case. And it is something to wonder about, why are some people so sensitive to it, and others who are not smokers are not really bothered at all, other than because they choose not to expose themselves to the health risks (i.e., if they didn't know about the health risks, it wouldn't matter at all to them to be around cigarette smoke). When I was a kid and figured out eventually it was the smoke that made me feel ill, I really thought I was just strange, because nobody else complained about it, and I just assumed it meant something was wrong with me that I couldn't tolerate it when everyone else had no problem at all. Of course, now I've learned I'm hardly without company on that. What's even more interesting is the case of one of my best friends from childhood. Her mom was/still is a chain smoker. There was just never a time you could go to her house, or get a ride from her mom where she didn't have a cigarette lit. You'd think that because my friend had always been exposed to this her entire life, that she'd be used to it, probably already addicted and likely to end up being a smoker herself. But, that wasn't the case. She HATED it, used to try to be outside as much as possible, sit near an open window in the car, go to friends' houses instead of inviting friends to her house, and just couldn't stand being around her mom when the cigarettes were lit, which was most of the day. Isn't that an interesting situation? I mean, it makes complete sense to me that someone who has never been exposed to something while growing up, or only on rare occassions, would be sensitive to it or find it bothersome when exposed to it as something more novel, as it was for me, and it makes sense to me that someone who has grown up around smokers, except for someone like my cousin who is asthmatic, would have grown acclimated to it and not really be bothered much, somewhat like your experiences, but how does it happen that someone growing up with a smoker should be so sensitive to it all her life?

It has me wondering, maybe it's not just something where you either have gotten used to it or not, but maybe it's something where there's a real biological difference that makes some people sensitive to cigarette smoke, and others insensitive to it (or tolerant of it)? Now, someone tolerant of cigarette smoke may still wind up being a non-smoker because they made a choice for health reasons to avoid it, but I wonder if that's the reason why we have these debates where the non-smokers just sit here puzzled at why someone would start smoking in the first place when cigarette smoke is such a disgusting thing...maybe it just doesn't seem as disgusting to someone predisposed to that addiction. Is there anyone who was sensitive to cigarette smoke when younger who actually took up smoking anyway and somehow overcame that to the point of becoming a lifelong, addicted smoker?

I know this is off the topic of the outdoor ban, but the discussion just seemed to lead to this thought, and now I can't shake the idea that maybe this is why smokers and non-smokers just can't "get" the other's view on the issue, because it's two groups of people who really experience smoke exposure in very different ways, biologically speaking.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And isn't your post just such an outcry?

No, because the only reason I pointed it out was to show the difference in attitude. Risky drinking behavior: no one blinks. Smoker:EVIL.

Smoking is the featured vice-of-the-day.

 

[tribdog]

just because my posts are short they shouldn't be ignored

 

[scott1]

"poll" on there website

How much did California taxpayers spend on smoking-related health costs in 1999?

I wonder if there just trying to find a way to reduce taxes

 

[russ_watters]

No, because the only reason I pointed it out was to show the difference in attitude. Risky drinking behavior: no one blinks. Smoker:EVIL.

Smoking is the featured vice-of-the-day.

I don't consider smokers evil. Some of my best friends smoke. Most non-smokers do not seek to ban smoking entirely, just remove it from places where it affects them.

Also, there is a biological difference between their effects on the body. While I understand that many people drink to get drunk, having one or two drinks a night will not adversely affect your liver. Your liver is designed to remove such toxins - that's its reason for existing. It is only if you overload it that it gets damaged. Not so with smoking: your lungs are not designed for smoke removal.

In addition, Not even the heavy social drinker who is doing damage to his/her liver will typically end up with liver cancer. Why? It is a phase most people go through and get over before they hit 40 and after that, the 1 or 2 drinks a night most people have are not harmful. Smoking is a lifetime destructive habit because it is addictive and because of that, it kills an extrordinary number of people.

[edit]And compare habits:

Typical drinker: 5-10 drinks, twice a week.
Typical smoker: 5-10 cigs, every day.

It should be clear which person is doing more harm to his/her body.

 

[Evo]

I don't consider smokers evil. Some of my best friends smoke. Most non-smokers do not seek to ban smoking entirely, just remove it from places where it affects them.

I agree. My favorite co-worker smokes, he is extremely considerate about his smoking. At our building, smokers can only smoke outside the back door and not within about 8 feet of the door. There is a sign outside saying "no smoking beyond this point". This prevents the smokers from hanging around the doorway and getting smoke inside the building when the door opens. I don't care if someone smokes as long as it is not around me.

 

[Jelfish]

In Calabas can you get arrested for smoking in your car while you are driving down the road?

My guess is that it's ok if you keep the windows up until you get into your garage. Otherwise, it would sort of be the same as smoking on the sidewalk.

 

[Bystander]

From the OP: "Business owners will be responsible for ensuring that all employees and patrons comply with the new law."

This is the part that gets every case in Boulder thrown out of court.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't consider smokers evil. Some of my best friends smoke. Most non-smokers do not seek to ban smoking entirely, just remove it from places where it affects them.

I tried to point out in an earlier post that there are two anti-smoking factions: a moderate, level headed one, and a second one that pretty much just sees smokers as an easy target to vent on simply because they are famously unpopular. Georgina's first post explained the dynamic perfectly. People, like her mother, have been slowly taught over the past three decades to be actively and openly bothered by smokers to the degree where they'll throw a fit over it, while not throwing a fit over any similar thing like automobile exhaust, the fumes from a charcoal grill at a cookout, someone burning incense, candle smoke (which, for some reason, I'm strangely sensitive to, despite being a smoker), or the smoke from a wood fire in a fireplace.

I know a woman here who lectures me gently about my smoking and tells me the story of how she quit over and over, to try and plant the idea that I could do it too if I wanted. However, she burns a few sticks of incense every day in her place, just cause she likes the scent, and actually has a smokers hack from it.(That's some powerful smoke, incense.)People who would never let someone smoke in their house are completely, strangely, oblivious to any irritation from candle smoke, or smoke from a fireplace, (which gets me a little headachy after a while) and put up with it the same way everyone used to ignore any irritation from cigarettes. The same person who doesn't want people smoking at a restaurant where they're eating will be completely oblivious to the candles in jars burning at all the tables.

It's because people have been trained to be psychologically ultra-sensitive to cigarette smoke over all other similar irritants. During prohibition people were trained to be ultra-sensitive to the many downsides of alcohol. If things were in balance here, a couple/three people at least should have piped in about what a crap/sh*t thing it was that Moonbear had to make sure to sit next to her alcoholic father when he drove the family around to be ready to grab the wheel. Instead, everyone's posting how alcohol isn't bad for the people around the drinkers.

 

[loseyourname]

I know a woman here who lectures me gently about my smoking and tells me the story of how she quit over and over, to try and plant the idea that I could do it too if I wanted. However, she burns a few sticks of incense every day in her place, just cause she likes the scent, and actually has a smokers hack from it.(That's some powerful smoke, incense.)People who would never let someone smoke in their house are completely, strangely, oblivious to any irritation from candle smoke, or smoke from a fireplace, (which gets me a little headachy after a while) and put up with it the same way everyone used to ignore any irritation from cigarettes. The same person who doesn't want people smoking at a restaurant where they're eating will be completely oblivious to the candles in jars burning at all the tables.

Can't you just respond to the people in here, though, instead of deflecting to criticize the most extreme incarnation of the opposing faction? That's a borderline straw-man argument (not truly a strawman because that faction does exist). Hell, I won't speak for everyone in here, but at least I'm consistent in decrying what irritates my allergies. I crucify my girlfriend if she tries to burn incense or candles, or even just to wear perfume.

I don't exactly like that all this stuff gives me fits, and sure, I can take medication to stop it, but the medication is so strong that it gives me the world's most unpleasant high and kills my senses. My little sister's medication made her stop growing while she was on it.

 

[JasonRox]

The purpose of smoking is... ?

You don't get high. You don't get drunk. You basically get nothing out of it.

It does not relieve stress like smokers say. The stress cigarettes relieve is the stress that was created by the chemicals of the cigarettes themselves.

Seriously, try quitting.

Can you discriminate against smokers when it comes to hiring? Curious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Can't you just respond to the people in here, though, instead of deflecting to criticize the most extreme incarnation of the opposing faction? That's a borderline straw-man argument (not truly a strawman because that faction does exist). Hell, I won't speak for everyone in here, but at least I'm consistent in decrying what irritates my allergies. I crucify my girlfriend if she tries to burn incense or candles, or even just to wear perfume.

As far as I can tell, you're completely consistant. You're also in a different category than either faction of the anti-smokers because of your allergies. My initial response to you was prompted by your statement that anything that is done to make it harder for smokers is OK with you. It has, to my ears, the ring of revenge to it. That's just elicits a counter-productive reaction.

I think I am addressing all the people in this thread in all my remarks. Everyone is at least a little brainwashed these days about it being OK to jump on smokers while not getting the least bit upset about other equally harmful things. There have been a couple instances of the extreme faction in this thread: Matt and Evo. Some other people are bothering me a bit by continually misunderstanding or ignoring my point about it being the fad thing. It's not sinking in that their attitude was primarily shaped by propaganda.(Not you: you allowed that it probably was the current politically incorrect vice. ) If tomorrow the propaganda breeze turns against drinking, they'll all blow with it or stand against it. Except Georgina, who strikes me as someone who owns her own opinions.

 

[russ_watters]

It's because people have been trained to be psychologically ultra-sensitive to cigarette smoke over all other similar irritants. During prohibition people were trained to be ultra-sensitive to the many downsides of alcohol. If things were in balance here, a couple/three people at least should have piped in about what a crap/sh*t thing it was that Moonbear had to make sure to sit next to her alcoholic father when he drove the family around to be ready to grab the wheel. Instead, everyone's posting how alcohol isn't bad for the people around the drinkers. [emphasis added]

But it is true that alcohol in normal use isn't bad for people around the drinkers. In fact, in moderation it isn't even bad for the drinker! That's a pretty significant difference between smoking and drinking. To be a constant alcohol abuser is a disease as you noted in your post. If you want to keep the parallel between alcohol and tobacco, you'll need to start considering tobacco use itself to be a disease like alcoholism.

And drinking and driving laws - heck, they parallel just fine with anti-smoking laws, don't they...? Both drinking where it is harmful to others (drunk driving) and drinking where it is really annoying to others (disorderly conduct, public drunkenness) is already illegal - so that means to make the parallel correct, smoking must be outlawed in the same context.

Sorry, zooby - you're trying to set up a double standard that simply doesn't exist because you aren't making the comparison correctly. You seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't draw the comparison like you do is an extremist or is brainwashed, but you are missing some key points in the comparison yourself.

It is even unreasonable to say someone who wants smoking banned altogether but doesn't want drinking banned altogether is an extremist. Why? Because drinking, if done responsibly, isn't a danger to anyone (drinker or people around them), whereas smoking is unhealthy at any dose.

 

[Astronuc]

I think everyone would agree that excessive consumption of alcohol and smoking anything is harmful to one's health.

The question then becomes one of how to regulate an individual's behavior in order to mitigate the harmful or potentially harmful effects that might be imposed on others.

Regulation of the smoking of tobacco is clear cut because cigarette smoke does not limit itself to the person smoking, and in fact, second hand smoke can be harmful, particularly infants, young children and those with respiratory problems. Limiting smoking indoors in public places, and even outdoors where the public gathers, makes sense. Limiting it outdoors completely seems to be unreasonable, especially when a community does not seek to limit more harmful emissions.

When I smoked as a teenager, I smoked with other smokers and away from non-smokers. Simple matter of consideration for those who do not smoke, and I didn't feel it right to impose my smoke on others.

Similarly, there are limitations on the consumption of alcohol. I doubt that consumption of alcohol is tolerated in the work place. Rather consumption of alcohol is regulated by place (a place must have a license) and age (age limits on who can drink). There are also ordinances/laws against driving while intoxicated, as well as laws against public intoxication.

I used to go to pubs or bars while at university, and usually with friends, in order to drink beer. After a few years of university, I stopped going to bars except for some special occasion such as a birthday or other celebration. Now, I rarely go to bars. If I drink at home, I usually drink only one or two beers, a glass of wine, or perhaps a small volume (2-3 oz (60-90 ml)) some other stronger drink like whisky or rakiya/tsuica. If I go out, I usually drink beer, wine or whisky in conjuction with a meal.

I have friends who smoke, and I can choose to visit them or not. If I visit their house, I can expect that they will smoke inside, but it is still my choice to visit or not. If my smoking friends visit me, I expect them to go outside if they wish to smoke.

My wife used to smoke and she quit after we got married. I certainly did not criticize her for smoking. For one thing, we discussed it before we got married, and she had decided that she wanted to quit, particluarly if she planned to have children.

I also must say that I don't see Matt's or Evo's positions as being examples of an extreme faction.

 

[Moonbear]

I agree. My favorite co-worker smokes, he is extremely considerate about his smoking. At our building, smokers can only smoke outside the back door and not within about 8 feet of the door. There is a sign outside saying "no smoking beyond this point". This prevents the smokers from hanging around the doorway and getting smoke inside the building when the door opens. I don't care if someone smokes as long as it is not around me.

Our hospital here has a set up that works well for everyone (other hospitals do the same; they know they have patients and visitors with addictions and can't just tell them to not smoke for days, especially if their other health problems would be complicated by treating withdrawal symptoms at the same time). They set up smoking shelters near a few entrances (one is in a courtyard between two buildings and another on the parking lot side of the building...there is no courtyard in that direction, but due to the L-shape of the building there, several doorways are facing that shelter. They're basically bus shelters...plexiglass enclosures with a roof and benches and only open on half of one side. They are placed away from the doors, far enough that I never smell the smoke when I walk into the building even when the shelter is full of smokers on their lunch break, and provides them with a shelter from the elements so they don't feel they need to huddle near the door to stay out of the rain or snow or wind. There are ashtrays in there, so it keeps the cigarette butts off the ground. The smokers are happy, the non-smokers are happy, the grounds crew are happy (they don't have to pick up all the cigarette butts, just clean the ashtrays when they pick up the trash).

 

[Moonbear]

Similarly, there are limitations on the consumption of alcohol. I doubt that consumption of alcohol is tolerated in the work place. Rather consumption of alcohol is regulated by place (a place must have a license) and age (age limits on who can drink). There are also ordinances/laws against driving while intoxicated, as well as laws against public intoxication.

The laws aren't only against public intoxication, but public consumption. I can't walk down the sidewalk with an open bottle of beer, even if I'm not driving, not drunk, not consuming more than one, and ensuring I properly dispose of the bottle when done. In addition to the laws against drinking and driving, I cannot even allow a passenger in my car who is drinking, although I can transport someone already drunk. So, we already have the comparable laws against drinking in public, and the act of drinking itself or the possession of an open container of alcohol is far less harmful to the casual passer-by than carrying a lit cigarette. The effects of intoxication on people's behavior and how that affects others is really a different argument entirely, and we already DO have laws against all of that.

 

[Evo]

Our hospital here has a set up that works well for everyone (other hospitals do the same; they know they have patients and visitors with addictions and can't just tell them to not smoke for days, especially if their other health problems would be complicated by treating withdrawal symptoms at the same time). They set up smoking shelters near a few entrances (one is in a courtyard between two buildings and another on the parking lot side of the building...there is no courtyard in that direction, but due to the L-shape of the building there, several doorways are facing that shelter. They're basically bus shelters...plexiglass enclosures with a roof and benches and only open on half of one side. They are placed away from the doors, far enough that I never smell the smoke when I walk into the building even when the shelter is full of smokers on their lunch break, and provides them with a shelter from the elements so they don't feel they need to huddle near the door to stay out of the rain or snow or wind. There are ashtrays in there, so it keeps the cigarette butts off the ground. The smokers are happy, the non-smokers are happy, the grounds crew are happy (they don't have to pick up all the cigarette butts, just clean the ashtrays when they pick up the trash).

Same where I work, there is a covered area, nice, with benches and tables, urns for cigarettes, and it overlooks the lake. Nice landscaping around the sheltered area with a large stone dog that is currently dressed for winter (sweater, hat and muffler) that I want to steal and put in my yard. Damn smokers have the nicest area outside the building. Of course we have similar picnic type areas closer to the lake and a bocce ball court, but they're in the open.

 

[Hurkyl]

Everyone is at least a little brainwashed these days about it being OK to jump on smokers while not getting the least bit upset about other equally harmful things.

You ever stop to consider that people complain about smoking because they can? Go back and reread some of the testimonials in this thread -- people didn't complain about smoking way back when because they couldn't: they had no expectation that anyone would listen to them. Today, people have the expectation of being heard when they complain about smoking, so they are much more likely to complain about it.

But do you think anyone expects anybody to take them seriously if they were suggesting that something serious was done to prevent, say, drunk driving?

 

[Moonbear]

Same where I work, there is a covered area, nice, with benches and tables, urns for cigarettes, and it overlooks the lake. Nice landscaping around the sheltered area with a large stone dog that is currently dressed for winter (sweater, hat and muffler) that I want to steal and put in my yard. Damn smokers have the nicest area outside the building. Of course we have similar picnic type areas closer to the lake and a bocce ball court, but they're in the open.

Yeah, sometimes I wish they'd put out a nice little shelter for non-smoking too...for those of us who just want a shady spot to get a breath of fresh air on our lunch break, or when it's one of those summer days when it's raining but very warm, so if you had a shelter to stand under, you could still spend a little of the daytime outside. Office space here is hard to come by, and since I'm the newest faculty to join the department, I'm stuck with the office with no windows (one of the senior faculty made me feel good/hopeful one day by telling me that it was her first office too), so getting outside for fresh air during lunch, or any chance I have for a short break, becomes REALLY important to me. I'm definitely glad they've at least set things up here that when I do get that chance, I can actually stand outside and GET a breath of fresh air rather than a lung-full of smoke.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While Zoob may be going abit over board I do agree with him that smokers are singled out and picked on. When they bumped up the tax on tobacco here in CA people were immediately working on getting it repealed. The antismoking side made the tax that much more apealing by saying that it would go to education. I've heard that in reality very little of that money went to education. As soon as it was time to vote on repealing the tax suddenly they're telling us that the bill aims to take money from our children with no mention of what the bill was actually about.

be back..

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

To continue...

Zoob also seems to be right about the suggestion that it's ok to pick on smokers. The majority of this thread is people discussing what they don't like about smokers with little relavence to the OP. The OP isn't about smoking around children, smoking in resteraunts, smoking while standing around the entrance to a building, or even really about smoking in a crowd of people.
Most of the relavent remarks from the 'anti-smokers'(I don't mean this in an attacking manner sorry) have been more or less "it's a bit extreme".
We're talking about a law that means a smoker must locate a specially designated location where he is grouped together with the other social pariahs or else hide out in their home if they want to have a cigarette lest they get a ticket. They can't smoke in their own car (as Trib pointed out). Even if a person is not smoking around any non-smokers the law is only "relaxed", what ever that is supposed to mean exactly.
Personally I find the law to be quite extreme.
Smoking in resteraunts, there are already laws against that here. Even bars are non-smoking and no matter how hard any bar has tried to get around the law they are smacked down anyway. One bar near here went so far as to make their establishment techinically a "private club" where every person who walks through the door signs up as a member and is made quite aware that they will have to put up with smoking in their "club". The bar has been to court several times and even won a few times but ultimately, even though they must have wanted their establishment to have indoor smoking pretty badly, they are a non-smoking bar today.
Smoking around children definitely should be a finable offense, I think that in at least some circumstances it is, and extending such laws most likely wouldn't piss off many smokers.
If your friends refuse to respect you enough to not smoke around you even though you could have an asthma attack and die you don't need laws to protect you, you need to ditch the jerks and find new friends.

 

[hypnagogue]

Zoob also seems to be right about the suggestion that it's ok to pick on smokers.

There was a bit on an episode of South Park about this. The boys are taken on a guided tour through the "Museum of Tolerance" in order to show them the importance of accepting individual differences of all sorts and avoiding discrimination and so on. After the tour, they exit the museum to the following events:

[Museum of Tolerance, outside.]
Tour Guide: Well, that's the end of our tour.
Randy: Now do you see why tolerance is so important, boys?
Stan: I guess.
Tour Guide: We have to accept people for who they are and what they like to do. [notices someone nearby] Hey! What the hell are you doing? [it's a man smoking a good distance away on the edge of the fountain]
Smoker: Oh I was just uh-
Tour Guide: There's no smoking in the museum!
Smoker: But I'm not in the museum.
Tour Guide: Get out of here, you filthy smoker! [the smoker rises and walks off]
Gerald: Yeah, dirty lungs!
Sharon: Go ahead and kill yourself, stupid tar-breath!
Chris: Dumbass!
Richard: Get out of here! [the smoker walks out of view dejectedly]

 

[big man]

haha that episode is a classic.

While the law is a bit extreme I doesn't really bother me either.
Most of my family are smokers and I don't give them crap, nor do I care if they smoke around me. However, there are smokers that piss me off. They are the ones that will smoke and be completely oblivious to the fact that they are blowing in your frickin' face or around children. Those smokers also tend to get quite annoyed and angry if anyone asks them to redirect it or stop completely. While you can smoke it isn't your god given right and you should still be able act with some civility.

My point is that there are some good smokers, but there are also some bad smokers who behave disgracefully. It's mainly the bad smokers that make an impression and lead to generalisations that extend to all smokers. That's why you get people taking pot shots at smokers. So yeah it is OK to pick on anyone that annoys you at a particular time isn't it ?

 

[Leah]

Well we are ALL different kinds of people. This world is for ALL of us to live. I agree that smoking indoors is bad. I agree that smoking is bad. But, being an addict myself, I know how hard it is to quit. Having an addiction is like knowing you're going to die early in life and you don't have the power to stop it. Smokers and drinkers got problems. But, I happen to know they are some of the most intelligent people on earth...

 

[Monique]

On the first date with my boyfriend, I noticed he had a cough. I jokingly told him that it was a smokers cough, I was shocked when he told me that it was: from second hand smoking.

I really can't understand how smokers don't feel embarrassed about blowing smoke in someone else's face. I know I would feel very uneasy, forcing my way up on other people.

 

[Jelfish]

On the first date with my boyfriend, I noticed he had a cough. I jokingly told him that it was a smokers cough, I was shocked when he told me that it was: from second hand smoking.

I really can't understand how smokers don't feel embarrassed about blowing smoke in someone else's face. I know I would feel very uneasy, forcing my way up on other people.

Many do. In fact, I know people who very obviously hide it. I bumped into a friend of mine who smokes (I didn't know at the time) and he definitely tried to hide it while we were talking. In fact one of the reasons why he really loves his girlfriend is that she didn't automatically disregard him as a potential boyfriend because he smokes. I'm pretty sure he isn't proud of the fact that he smokes and I'm willing to bet that most smokers now-a-days aren't either.

It doesn't seem as righteous to abolish something that some people struggle and fail to give up. But I suppose we all have some will power and if it results in innocent bystanders no longer suffering second-hand smoke, the ends justify the means?

 

[radams58]

This will be an odd first post...

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/"
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/16/smoking030516"
http://www.forces.org/evidence/debunk_junk_science_casino.htm"

So let's knock the crap off shall we? I'm not saying it isn't a risk or that there isn't a SLIGHTLY higher incidence of risk. Heck, I'm not even going to say that it isn't worthwhile to try and get everyone to quit.

What I'm saying is that if you want to fight a health risk... find a more cost effective target. There are a slew of things that can be changed, far more cost effectively, than people's smoking habits.

Don't get me wrong here, smoking sucks. I know this. I'm actually now 15 days without a cigarette (and the first person to congratulate me gets a dirty look). Not necessarily for the health benefits (though I've started swimming again and figured my body didn't need the beating), but because I'm on the prowl for a friendly-type female for the first time in a while.

Which segues nicely back to my original point. You folks don't like it. You don't want people doing it because it irritates you. You've managed to get a little bully bandwagon to go for the ride with you. Fine. I'll make you a deal. It's a good one, too. You folks take your impressive little lobbying and "think of the children mentality", and get the freaking morons off the road.

Think about it, and I'm only being partially facetious, health benefits abound!
1) Fewer cars = Fewer emissions = Better Air Quality
2) Fewer cars = Less Traffic = Productivity Gains = Less Stress
3) Less Traffic + More Education = Fewer Accidents
4) Fewer Accidents = Lower Insurance Premiums = Better Standard Of Living = Better Healthcare
Not entirey health related
5) Lower consumption of fossil fuels = Lesser foreign dependence
6) Increased use of mass transit = Less social atomism

You can fairly call some of these arguments specious, but there is a preponderance of value here as compared to banning second hand smoke.

...

But it's so darn inconvenient, sets unreasonable standards, etc, etc, etc...

Call a spade a spade.

To those of you who directly experience health problems from second hand smoke:

It sucks, I've got a friend who cannot be in a smoking bar. I'm not attacking you directly; actually I'm not attacking anyone directly. Life is a compromise and I find it difficult to believe that most people cannot come to a somewhat pleasant solution. I do my best to avoid roads where people drive in ways that confuse and frighten me, you do your best to avoid smokers. I go a little out of my way, you go a little out of yours... No one's particularly happy about it and yet, life surges blithely along running you head long into a grave.


Just my .02 :)

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but smoking is a choice, not a need. If you can't refrain from smoking in public, then don't go out in public. Don't try to equate an uncontrolled desire to smoke with something totally unrelated such as bad driving. I don't approve of bad drivers, but that's a totally unrelated issue, unless they're driving through the restaurant I'm eating in.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sorry, but smoking is a choice, not a need. If you can't refrain from smoking in public, then don't go out in public.

So smokers should just hide in their homes like lepers or something?

 

[radams58]

Sorry, but smoking is a choice, not a need. If you can't refrain from smoking in public, then don't go out in public. Don't try to equate an uncontrolled desire to smoke with something totally unrelated such as bad driving. I don't approve of bad drivers, but that's a totally unrelated issue, unless they're driving through the restaurant I'm eating in.

If you can't refrain from driving like a complete nitwit, use the bus. It is, in fact, a reasonably fair comparison. In an urban environment driving is a choice and not a need. Not driving is just less convenient.

I'm fairly certain that the number of innocent people killed and injured by idiot drivers FAR outweighs those killed and injured by ETS.

Don't dismiss the argument out of hand, simply because you don't like it. The uncontrolled desire to smoke and bad driving share many causes and effects. Poor impulse control, questionable decision making, a personal disregard for others. And don't get me started on the smokers.