Now that smoking is banned in nearly all restaurants, pubs, etc ...

Should smoking be permitted in one's own yard/on one's own balcony? In public parks? In outdoor patio eating areas?

Just curious what others think about the above.

My own personal thoughts:
- Smoking should be permitted in outdoor patio eating areas if 'smoking and non-smoking' areas are seperate (and should be left up to the owner's discretion whether it's permitted or not).
- Smoking on one own's balcony should be permitted - after all, car exhaust exists out there too.
- Smoking in a public park should be permitted - egad, it's the great outdoors.
- Smoking in your own back yard is just that, smoking on your personal private property and should be permitted.

While smoking is freely acknowledged by most everyone as not being a good thing at all, isn't it odd how often the same people who have put all smokers into the 'Lepers of the 2000's' catagory are sometimes the same ones that think nothing of having a drink or two or three and then getting in their cars to drive home? Hmmm.

I really don't care where one smokes. As long as it doesn't effect me I don't care. However, the moment you affect me you got my attention.

I don't smoke but that is my choice, but I have many friends who do smoke and they have every right to do so.

Why do people vote in politcians just to take there rights away,go to the continent and smoke away.

No referendum, 400 politicians decide what 60,000000 people want,I'm English and thats my point of veiw.

This is just my opinion. I dont like smoking but no offense to any people who do.

Smoking even around your children in YOUR OWN HOME is really not good. It stays in your home and you all breath it and get second hand smoke.

Why people smoke I have no idea. It kills you and it stinks..

I think on their own balcony is fine but if neighbors cant breath the "fresh" air without getting smoked out of Their balcony I see it as a problem.

Smoke stinks so bad. So I think it should only be done when nobody is around. Like if you want to kill yourself over time fine but try not and harm others lungs too.

Yes. You have the right to kill yourself by smoking but you don't have the right to kill me. So don't smoke around me!

Smoking itself is just a waste of money and life.

What do you guys think of BBQ grills? or camp fires? The smoke from these contain many of the same chemicals that are in tobacco smoke.

Should your neighbor be allowed to BBQ if the smoke ends up in your back yard?


Second hand smoke is not healthy, but it is no where near as dangerous as the anti-smoking nazis make it out to be.

While I'm the first to admit that sucking in someone else's smoke is not fun at all, I am beginning to suspect that you are very likely right about ,(Quote) "Second hand smoke is not healthy, but it is no where near as dangerous as the anti-smoking nazis make it out to be". (Unquote).

For instance my sister is 88 years old - 'smoked like a chimney' since she was a teenager and still does - and is still healthy and happy. Her husband didn't get cancer, her 4 sons didn't get cancer and are all sons are middle-aged now (and only 1 of them smokes). (And no, I'm not 'ancient' yet myself - grin - my poor parents had actually retired before I arrived as their 'surprise of a lifetime!').

She and nearly all her friends smoked - and smoked/still smoke heavily, yet not a single one of them (or their family members) have died from lung cancer. Hmmm.

Do have a bit of curiousity about cigarettes themselves, though ... wonder why all the 'additives and perservatives' etc 'have' to be added to the tabacco - especially since most medical professionals say it's these things rather than the tabacco alone that is most harmful to humans?

And re BBQ smoke - all I ever wish when our neighbours BBQ and the smoking is drifting over to us is that their dinner was going to be mine - gentle smile.

Ah, but so is drinking and most shopping trips, etc - waste of money and life to some but great enjoyment to others! Gentle grin.

I'm with you on politicians decided for others, Ronjon. Smoking is even banned in Pubs around here and some of the owners that didn't have outdoor patio areas for their customers to use have 'lost their shirts'.

I figure if it's their money that opened their Pub (or whatever) and they should be able to decide for themselves what they want or not want to have happen on their premises. if they place a sign on the door or window saying, "Smoking IS allowed" then those that don't wish to be exposed to smoke need not enter - just as those that wish to smoke don't have to enter 'Non-Smoking' places either.

And as for staff being exposed to second-hand smoke ... one of the restaurant owners had 14 employees and each smoked already themselves. No exceptions were made when the new laws went through.

Yup, I'm with you - England is a lovely civilized mostly 'live and let live' Country!

Yup, smoke stinks (but then again, some cooking odors are pretty vile too) - and that's why they've got 'Fabreeze' - grin! - and most learn to open all windows and doors each day and never ever wear the same clothes two days in a row.

I agree completely that no one should smoke around children in enclosed spaces. Do think that most smokers have great consideration of others, even long before it became such a 'hot topic' in society.

I agree with just about everyone here. I don't smoke, and HATE when i'm in a restaurant trying to enjoy my food and can smell nothing but cigs. I'm glad they're making a move for smoking to be illegal in restaurants, and the like. Some places i DON'T think it should be illegal is places like bars, pool halls, and casinos. If you walk into those places you're ASKING to be smoked out.

Freedom to smoke is all good, but not when it encrouches on othes' rights to enjoy their environment.

BTW MaraM: Can you please try to limit your postings? I regularly see you w/ 3 or 4 posts in a row, and, imo, is kind of annoying. If you left something out, you can use the "EDIT" button to refine your post.

Another attack on personal freedoms.
Not being allowed to smoke outside in the open air is well....ignorant! IMHO
Some workplaces do not even allow employees to smoke in thier car, while parked
on company property!

I wonder if the politicians realize how much tax money they would lose if smoking was outlawed entirely, or just enough to make people quit?

I have worked in a store (in the USA) that sold cigarettes. At the time, only 29 cents of the per pack price was profit for the tobacco companies, the rest was taxes . Can we say over taxed?


Seafox14

Sorry about that! I couldn't figure out how to take a bit from one's post, using 'quote' and a bit from another's post also using 'quote' all in the same postings (without typing them in by hand) when trying to comment on what different people said.

Oops!

I feel if your out side what's the diff. I'm not condoning smoking, but if it's so bad ,BAN it completely. ban those tax$$.
I also feel it a bit "Taliban" to tell me what I can or cannot allow in MY business. If I had a restaurant or bar etc.. I would like the option of choice. Put a sign out,then your patrons and employees will know what to expect. In Nj it's a complete farce. They've barred smoking almost everywhere,to protect workers children and the general public from the dreadful "second hand smoke." EXCEPT in Casinos So you people that want visit,work or play in Casinos, well you can all die from it or is it not that badly effective for a big tax centers. I find this strangely odd. I may just go to Atlantic City to smoke and not gamble.

Hi Mara

This should help.

I didn't know that that smoke from grills and camp fires contains cyanide and tar. Thanks for the info!!!!!!!!!!!

It does, thanks!

I currently live in Germany, and one of the things I really miss about the USA is being able to go out and eat without coming home smelling like smoke. I don't understand why so many people smoke. I'm all in favor of banning smoking where other people have to work and eat etc. As far as smoking in their own home, etc, fine, just don't make me have to breather your foul air.

Do campfires and bbq's contain these:

* Acetone - Affects skin, mouth, kidney, liver, nerve damage and birth defects.
* Aluminium - Smokers may experience contact dermatitis. May be a cause of Alzheimer's disease.
* Ammonia - Highly corrosive towards the alveoli in the lungs.
* Arsenic - Poisons organs and causes organ failure. May cause cancer.
* Benzene* - Toxic. Classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Causes drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness, vomiting, irritation of the stomach and death.
* Butane - No effects although causes ozone depletion.
* Cadmium - Causes respiratory tract and kidney problems, damage to the liver, itai-itai disease, osteoporosis and osteomalacia.
* Caesium - Causes hyperirritability and spasms.
* Caffeine - Increases energy and may cause restlessness.
* Carbon monoxide* - Causes drowsiness and headaches, followed by unconsciousness, respiratory failure, and death. Also causes ozone depletion.
* Carbon dioxide - No effects although when frozen (around -78.3C) will cause skin 'burn'.
* Chloroform - Causes kidney and liver problems, birth defects and skin sores.
* Copper - Inhibit the enzyme dihydrophil hydratase, an enzyme involved in haemopoiesis.
* Cyanide/Hydrogen cyanide* - Can causes a coma with seizures, apnea and cardiac arrest, with death following in a matter of minutes. Also faintness, drowsiness, anxiety and excitement. Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness of the fingers and toes, difficulty walking, dimness of vision, deafness, decreased thyroid gland function and skin sores.
* DDT/Dieldrin - Causes tumours (generally of the liver).
* Ethanol - Excessive alcohol like symptoms.
* Formaldehyde* - Causes irritation to the eyes and mucous membranes, (resulting in watery eyes, headache, a burning sensation in the throat, and difficulty breathing), rise in blood acidity, rapid, shallow breathing, hypothermia, and coma or death. Classified as a probable human carcinogen by the United States EPA.
* Hydrogen cyanide - (See cyanide)
* Lead - Causes Lead poisoning (reduced IQ, nausea, abdominal pain, irritability, insomnia, excess lethargy or hyperactivity, headache and, in extreme cases, seizure, coma, constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, poor appetite, weight loss, anemia, kidney problems, and reproductive problems, the formation of a bluish line along the gums and extreme learning disability).
* Magnesium - Causes diarrhea. If burnt can cause eye problems.
* Methane - Cause thermal burns.
* Methanol - Causes blindness, birth defects, headache, dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, confusion, drowsiness, respiratory failure, unconsciousness and death
* Mercury - Causes Mercury poisoning (affects the mouth, gums, and teeth, brain damage and birth defects)
* Nicotine* - Causes increased activity, alertness and memory, increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced appetite, vomiting and nausea.
* Petroleum - Highly toxic to the body.
* Tar (tobacco residue)* - Black sticky resin including hundreds of different chemicals, many of which are classified as carcinogenic and/or toxic. The resin includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), aromatic amines and inorganic compounds.
* Vinyl Chloride - Cause headaches, dizziness, loss of coordination, in severe cases may progress to hallucination, unconsciousness, respiratory failure, cancer of the liver, skin irritations, birth defects and death.
* Potassium nitrate - Makes heart problems worse to those suffering from them.

I agree with him. Smoking SHOULD be banned in restaurants and inside workplaces, but not banned all together. It's cool if you want to smoke (well, by "cool" i mean ok), but people that DON'T want to smoke shouldn't be forced to breathe your crappy, harmful air. Just because you want to smoke doesn't mean others around you want to.

There are a few reasons i think smoking should remain legal in other places though. First off, i live in north carolina, which makes a LOT of money from tobacco. The government also receives millions (billions?) of tax dollars through the sale of tobacco products. It would really hurt the economy if people HAD to stop smoking. BUT, i'm not only thinking about money. If people want to smoke and slowly kill themselves with a completely useless substance, that's there decision. Who are we to tell people how to treat their bodies? The only problem is when THEIR decisions start affecting others.

Whenever you burn organic compounds, you get various chemicals in the smoke. Charcoal is relatively clean - most of the VOC's being already driven off. If you use a hardwood in the grill to add flavor, then you are adding some of these chemicals in the smoke. Different organics will give you different results.

Some info: http://www.webcom.com/~bi/pdfs/WoodSmokeTo...Smtablemira.pdf

Or are you suggesting the tobacco companies specifically add these chemicals to the tobacco?

I find it absolutely shocking that you didn't know that. A quick google search will give you many sites on the addition of chemicals to cigarettes.

Here's a list of 599 additives approved by the US government.

This site lets you search for additive lists specifically by brand.

My wife works in the tobacco prevention field, so I have heard a lot about it. Here's an extra tidbit...did you know that the fiberglass used in cigarette filters actually causes tiny lesions on the inside of smokers lips...thereby causing nicotine to absorb into the bloodstream even faster?

It's all about making the addiction stronger and the effects come on quicker. After all, a cigarette is simply a delivery system for the drug nicotine.


So here's a few more thoughts:

"Smoking causes cancer? Hah! I smoked for 40 years and don't have it."

This is a ridiculous argument. You could juggle rattle snakes for 40 years without getting bitten. Could you therefore conclude that rattle snakes don't bite people? The point is, smoking increases the odds of developing cancer. There are many other factors involved.

And yes, second hand smoke can be dangerous. Does that mean that if you are walking in the park and inhale a few breaths of smoke you will keel over within 3 years? Of course not. A bit of second hand smoke here and there isn't the danger; constant exposure, in public places, at work, ect is the problem. This is the motivation behind anti-smoking laws; not to single out and inconvenience smokers. People take things far to personally, methinks.

I suppose that a smoker, smoking on his own property, has every right to do so even if his smoke drifts into the neighbor's yard. But what about apartments? Personally, I think it's great that we can't open our back windows without sucking in that lovely aroma. Mmm mmm.

As for taxes...well, there are a lot of products that are singled out and taxed...gas, alcohol, property, ect ect. But the next time you worry about how much revenue the government is "taking" from smokers, just think about the costs that a smoking population places on the healthcare system and the country's overall economic productivity.

If anything, perhaps the cigarette taxes should go to prevention education so that the young might finally stop perpetuating the habit.

Hmm, approved, not necessarily used, additives. Looked at what I would think would be a 'strong' brand - Camel regulars. Says:

Additives:
ADHESIVE / CIGARETTE SEAM POLY VINYL ACETATE BASED MIXTURE
DIE IMPRINT / BLUE INK

Ingredients:
WATER
WOODPULP / CIGARETTE PAPER - CELLULOSE
TOBACCO
PAPER FILLER / CIGARETTE PAPER - CALCIUM CARBONATE
CITRATE CITRIC ACID MONOHYDRATE

Long way from 559 additives....

http://www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bi...constituent=all


I don't believe anyone, certainly not myself, is disputing that.


and that is where the dispute is. Chronic exposure to second hand cigarette smoke, or ANY kind of organic smoke is not healthy. Beyond that, the hype in regards to exposure to second hand smoke is more politically motivated that factually motivated. If it were factually motivated, then the same would be preached about other sources of organic smoke (which contain some of the same hazardous chemicals). No more camp fires, no more BBQ smoke pits, certainly no more leaf burning.


That is exactly what some of the antismoking zealuts are preaching. One whiff of tobacco smoke and you're dead.


Agreed


No it's not. Political correctness rules.


Yes, they do. The people taking things too far are the anti-smoking crowd.

Just as a point of info, I am a non-smoker.

Yes, but most people aren't around camp fires, smoke pits, or people burning leaves most of the day. People visit restaurants or go to work a LOT more often than the things you mention above. People that do those things KNOW they are putting themselves "at risk" for smoke. It's people that DON'T want that exposure that are pushing for clean restuarants and public places.

You can decide if you want to inhale smoke at a cook-out or leaf burning, but you can't decide if you want to inhale it at a public restaurant or business.

[quote name='Heretic Monkey' date='Jul 3 2006, 02:10 PM' post='313004']
[quote] ....but you can't decide if you want to inhale it at a public restaurant or business.
[/quote]

But you CAN! If you don't want to eat at a restaurant that allow smoking, don't. You have that free will. If the establishment finds it is loosing too many customers, it will become non-smoking.

Let the free market decide - keep the government off our backs.

ddeerrff


All in the name of rights. Well where are mine??
My rights are going down the tubes!
Just so all of the whiny socialist's and their sheep can have their way!



Infringement on personal freedoms, rights and property = socialism





Nazi policies included bans on smoking in public places, increased tobacco taxes, advertising bans, and research into links between tobacco and lung cancer.

Nazi's also taught strong patriotism, does that mean patriotism is bad?

I still fail to see how making the general public healthier by not exposing people to UNWANTED smoke is "taking away rights". Isn't it a person's right to be able to eat in a healthy environment? What about the public's right to live the 5/10 extra years they wouldn't be able to with constant inhallation of 2nd hand smoke?


You have the right to smoke. You have the right to fill your own personal space with smoke and carcinogens. You do NOT have the right to make other people smell your smoke or damage their health. If you're AGAINST abortion because it's "taking the life of another being", how are you FOR smoking in public areas?

So you pro-smokers are saying that damaging people who DON'T want to smoke is a good thing?

Exactly, HM. The problem is when you can't go to most public or private places without being exposed; constant exposure is the issue.



As the site stated, that was a list of government-approved additives, not necessarily everything in every cigarette. You had suggested that you didn't think that additives were used at all; at least, that's what I got from your post.

That list obviously doesn't take into consideration the molecular breakdown of the smoke, including the trace elements. Toxic trace elements, consumed regularly, are a danger...whether you breath unfiltered second-hand smoke regularly or chain smoke 5 packs a day. But hey, don't take my word for it; look it up, obviously I am a ‘anti-smoking Nazi’ and my sources can't be trusted.

pwned: This is the motivation behind anti-smoking laws; not to single out and inconvenience smokers.

ddeerrff: No it's not. Political correctness rules.

We aren't going to get anywhere on this. These are our respective interpretations on the issue; our opinions. And you know what they say about opinions…

Just to be thorough, this is where I am coming from: It seems to me that since there has been data to support a danger for chronic exposure to organic smoke (I will refer to all organic smoke for argument's sake; you just get more 'bang for the buck' from cigarettes), there is a viable reason for restricting public smoking. The smoker on the other hand simply thinks that he/she should be able to partake in his/her habit when ever or where ever he/she feels like it...and if anyone gets in the way, well, they're freedom-killing anti-smoking Nazis!



You have a right to expose unwilling individuals to possibly dangerous chemicals? Then you must have a right to shoot at them too (if it provides you enjoyment, at any rate).



Well, what if you got kicks from driving around shooting by-standards. Oh no, there's laws against that, because we are all better off that drive-by's are illegal. Doh!

You see how silly that argument can get if you follow it through? My analogy was equally silly...oh yes, common sense is supposed to step in and tell us where legislation is needed and where it is unnecessarily infringing on our rights. But how do you legislate common sense?

ddeerrff complained that anti-smoking activists are over-reacting. But comparing anti-smoking laws to the Nazi’s…isn’t that a bit of an over-reaction? I assumed ddeerrff’s early comment was a joke and I paid it no mind. Scarlett, are you suggesting that any organization that at any point in history spoke against smoking…are in league with the Nazi party?

So the ‘weenie socialists’ are trying to take your rights away? Now hold on, Scarlett...correct me if I am wrong...but I am guessing you'd support a law to prevent gays from getting married (even though it would be infringing on their freedoms, rights, and/or property) or a law to ban abortion (women's freedom, rights, {property? well, their own bodies}) or laws against drugs (freedom to fry your own brain) or a law against ending your own life (freedom to punch your own ticket) or laws against prostitution (freedom to rent out your own body; hey, it's your property) ect ect.

And why? Because, while you hate the idea of socialism limiting freedoms (at least socialism in its worst forms; we all benefit from some government regulation, regardless of what the classical school of economics says) you don't seem to have a problem with forcing people to fall in line with the bible through regulation; i.e. religious theocracy.

LP, Let's agree on the beauty of the mars-scape in your sig... Is that part of the pan from 'Low Haven'?

Hummm....the last time I bought a pack of Camel lights they had just gone to a dollar a pack and I wasn't really happy about that ('83-'84 I think) as that was 2 bucks a day then, I quit. it doesn't really bug me if someone smokes before or after eating but does while I'm eating if they're at the same table. unless the areas are separated by a wall ,having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool I do love a good cigar (a "maduro" Cohiba is my fav) every now and then and see nothing wrong with bars or smoking lounges keeping the smoking lamp lit.

Ok! I have to admit, I have pretty much expended my will to debate...it's been a bit weak lately. Too many other worries in life right now.

The sig...I got it here. Great image!

If you are interested in following the continuing adventures of Spirit and Opportunity, you may want to check out http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/

I have to agree that having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section of a pool. In addition, the people that work at the restaurant (waiter and waitress) have to breath in that smoke whether they want to or not. You could argue that they chose to work there and therefore take that risk. But then I suppose you could argue that the aspestus worker doesn't really need their protective gear as they chose to work there.

As someone who has flown on flight with a "smoking section" and regularly dines in restaurants with no smoking sections, I think the USA is going in the right direction. (Until I saw the no smoking light go off I didn't know there was such thing as a smoking section in an airplane)

The flight was from Germany to Greece and about 4 years ago, so its not like its in the distant past. The other interesting thing about that trip was the airport in Greece made an annoucement like every 10 minutes saying there was no smoking in the terminal in about 10 languages. By the time they finished all the languages it was almost time to start again. But people were still smoking everywhere, there was no one to enforce it.

Hi all I don't have a lot of time to answer your replies. And I do not want this to get to off topic.
So maybe we should not get to far into the nazi thing.
I will say this though. I only used such an exacerated example to point out, that once you give them an inch
they will take a mile.

For instance:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/0...tension-of.html

LOL Maybe as the article linked above states, maybe they should ban fast food too.
Or heck, go a step further and ban cigarettes altogether. If they are such a dangerous and unhealthy drug.
Maybe no one should be allowed to smoke them. Oh to much money (taxes) involved, that wont likely happen.

Now if some restaurants have bans on smoking, that is fine. They are a private establishment.
It should be up to the property owners though. Not the government.
The same goes for health related buildings hospitals, doctors offices, etc. That makes sense.
Bars and gambling institutions should allow it. Without government interference.
But there are already bans on smoking in public, in the open air. That is too much. IMHO

I do not feel the government should be allowed to decide if and where someone should be allowed to smoke,
outside of private property eiether.

Neither should there be a ban against smoking in ones private
vehicle, no matter where it is. I do not care if it is on private property or not.

When they try to ban smoking in private residences and cars that is the infrigement on
personal rights. And once the ball gets rolling well....

Like I said "Give them an inch. And they will take a mile."

All for the greater good right?
Just like eminent domain.....

Sort of like the president trying to expand his executive powers?

Not to get off topic here but...
Why does anyone smoke?
Why does anyone start?

all normal caffees of oher places to eat have tables for smokers and tables for non-smokers and you can choose where to sit at. i have noticed more places without any table for smoking persons than places which include tables for both types of people. i don't smoke my self but if i go to eat with my smokers friends, it is hard to find a place where smoking ppl are allowed.

But what about the people that work in the Bars, gambling institutions, and resturants? Should they be forced to breath the smoke as a condition of their employment? While you could say tough luck, they took the job, and they need to deal with the conditions, OSHA does not let construction of factory workers "volenteer" to work with dangerous substances without protective gear. I say it should be allowed only if waiters and waitresses, dealers, etc are required to wear protective gas masks. otherwise I say ban it.

A friend once told me that while he was in Japan he ate at a restaurant with an interesting smoking policy. It was a large open room...in the center there was a circle of tables. This was the “smoking section.” The outer ring was the “non-smoking section.” Do you suppose the smoke obeyed the rules and stayed within that center circle?





C'mon CGM...all the cool kids are doing it!

"C'mon CGM...all the cool kids are doing it!"

Sarcasm?

"Cigarettes - whether they're light, lower-tar or regular - contain more than 4,000 chemicals, including at least 40 that increase the risk of cancer."

Thats a lot of chemicals!

Smoking facts...
http://www.click2quit.co.uk/why_quit/WQ01i.asp

And this story is a must read for all smokers...
http://www.tobaccofacts.org/tob_truth/neverhappen.html

I think smoking should not be allowed in any enclosed area that non smokers occupy. Otherwise smoke on!

Did you know that in those States that have the 'No Smoking" ban,,That you Cannot open a place of Business that caters only to smokers ?? It's ILLEGAL to do that. Unless it is a membership type private club. EVEN then,IF a non-smoker comes in and complains about the smoke,,all smokes must be put out,and the building must be aired out.
And some states require a special filtering device to be put on the air system to stop the smoke from being released to the outside air. And guess who pays for all that ?
Yes, I have been a smoker for over 35 years,and no,i do not have health problems from smoking.That does not mean it's safe to smoke,and I tell all youngsters I meet to NOT smoke. But, I find it funny that the U.S.Govt. spends all kinds of money on Drug treatment programs to get them off those drugs,and spends very little to get people off of the tobacco addictions.. maybe we should start robbing people for cigarette money?? Then we might qualify for Govt aid too ???

Just to add my little bit here......
They have just started this ban in bars in our country, and the bars are compaining that takings are down about 20%... now that's a lot of revenue!!!
Plus.... if people are being forced to give up smoking or cut down because of these bans, who suffers???

• The Government receive less in tax
• People in the tabacco industry lose jobs
• Establishments that rely on smokers money (newsagents etc) lose money
• Because people lose their jobs.... the govenment pay out more in redundancy
• If the govenment receive less revenue from smokers..... taxes will rise

Surely from this list...... the non smoker loses as well........
Maybe it's time non smokers kept quiet and did the same as us smokers.... just put up with it!!!!!

Non smokers go on about how it's their right not to have to breathe in smoke from cigarettes.....
What about a persons right to smoke????? i thought it was a free country!!!!
People have the right not to be mugged.... but they do!!
People have the right not to be robbed......but they do!!!
People have the right not to be murdered...... but they do!!!!!
So why are non smokers getting their rights, above everyone else?????

End of speech!

They're not making it illegal in your own home, are they? You have the right to smoke, just not around other people that don't WANT to smoke with you. Should heroin junkies be allowed to shove needles in you? Should perverts be allowed to pleasure themselves in public? Would you like to go into a restaurant where people have the right to scream? People have the right to yell, but would you want some idiot yelling during a movie? It's not illegal....

And notice how all of those things are illegal...... i'm not seeing your point there....


Because some people like to remain healthy....

So why are non yellers getting their rights above everyone else?????

I find it ironic that smokers tell young ones not to smoke, yet they demand their right to smoke around them and adult non-smokers?

ummm that's because when i typed it all out, i missed a paragraph out!...sorry


This is a typical non smoker argument.......
You won't remain healthy at all, you'll still be breathing in all the exhaust fumes from vehicles on the road, waste products from industrial chimneys and suffer from pesticides used in your food!

The percentage of smokers has dropped over the last 30 years or so..... so there are more non smokers than smokers now.
Smoking has been banned on public transport, theatres, shops, most shopping centers.... most resturants are non smoking now........... so where is this so called danger from passive smoking coming from???
The only thing really left is the pubs or bars..... and a lot of them have seperate areas now!
What ever happened to that old fashion word..... compromise??? (obviously never used by non smokers)

The same way "i like to keep my possessions" is a typical non burglar argument...


Not everyone lives near industrial chimneys, and it's rare that people suffer from pesticides used on food. As for the exhaust argument, cars/trucks/trains are a huge value to our society, and there are movements now to reduce the output of those pollutants. Sure, fumes are bad, but people aren't usually in direct contact with a muffler.


So more people care about being healthy....

Why do you think there have been "smoking sections" in almost every restaurant in the past? What ever happened to that old fashion word.... consideration? Obviously never used by smokers....*

*That was not meant to be a real statement about how i feel. I was merely playing off his previous statement

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one Heretic Monkey

I must say that a better argument here would be considerate smokers vs inconsiderate smokers. I have had friends that smoked, but they refrained from smoking around me or my family. If they needed a cigarette while at my house, they stepped outside by their own choice. I also have had co-workers that smoked and knew that I was a non-smoker, and still smoked right in my face (or about 1 foot away from it) even though he knew I have asthma.

I have no problems if people want to smoke as long as they take non-smokers into consideration.

Seafox14