Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[Commoner]

Who has made the claim that they have that right?

I mean, you flat out said that simply smoking a cigarette gives non-smokers the right to be dis-courteous. Post #199.

I think this is pretty absurd. You're saying that people are discourteous when they frown upon people who start purposefully farting in the middle of a bar?

 

[Songbird]

Ah..
I agree.
And in California, it also illegal for Truckers to smoke in their trucks.

Really? Why? Risky while driving?

 

[Commoner]

Did you even read the example you're opining on?

I wasn't giving an opinion on any specific example - certainly not your example, I didn't know you were referring to that.

 

[Storm]

Storm, your example of someone sitting next to you then asking you to smoke elsewhere was ridiculous. In most instances, if I don't want to be around smoke I'd be the one to leave.

Thank you! I have to admit that I'm shocked people are defending such ludicrous behavior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All because non-smokers are unable to keep themselves from entering a smoking establishment?

I had no idea that non-smokers were so weak willed.

They're no more weak-willed than a person in a wheelchair who wants to eat at a restauant with no ramp.

 

[Revoltingest]

Caution! This technique is not recommended except by professionals.

Back in the day, I worked as security in a big gymnasium. It was a non-smoking building.
Quite often, people would enter the building smoking, & I'd politely explain the policy.
Once, some guy took exception & decided he'd smoke in there anyway. Discharging a
fire extinguisher to extinguish the 'blaze' succeeded where words failed.

 

[McBell]

I think this is pretty absurd. You're saying that people are discourteous when they frown upon people who start purposefully farting in the middle of a bar?

How the hell did you get that from MY posts?
YOU are the one who said that non-smokers are justified in being dis-courteous simply because someone is smoking.

I never made any claims that would even remotely imply that I agree your blatant double standard.

 

[Commoner]

Storm, where exactly is your example, I can't seem to find it?

 

[Storm]

Storm, where exactly is your example, I can't seem to find it?

Here.

 

[McBell]

Really? Why? Risky while driving?

The ban was intended for bars, restuarants, factories and the like.
However, with California being the biggest anti-trucking industry state in the USA, they merely took it to the extreme of fining truckers who smoke.

 

[Commoner]

How the hell did you get that from MY posts?
YOU are the one who said that non-smokers are justified in being dis-courteous simply because someone is smoking.

I never made any claims that would even remotely imply that I agree your blatant double standard.

I didn't, I don't know what you're talking about! I mean, what exactly is discourteous about frowning upon people who smoke (insert any obnoxious behaviour) in bars instead of going out for a ***? You're equating the act of smoking and being bothered by the smoke and saying that those who are bothered by the smoke should extend the same courtesy to those who insist on smoking as vice versa and this is supposed to be a double standard. Please...

 

[Magic Man]

Storm, your example of someone sitting next to you then asking you to smoke elsewhere was ridiculous.

Yes, I think it's important to make this distinction. I think pretty much all of us would say that sitting down right next to a smoker and then asking them to stop smoking in a park is ridiculous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The ban was intended for bars, restuarants, factories and the like.
However, with California being the biggest anti-trucking industry state in the USA, they merely took it to the extreme of fining truckers who smoke.

A truck is a workplace. Just as a rule that says that every workplace must have a first aid kit would mean that trucks have to carry them, a rule that bans smoking in workplaces would mean that truckers can't smoke.

Frankly, I see other reasons to ban smoking in trucks besides health concerns.

 

[Commoner]

Here.

Well, I agree with you, that's absurd. But how is that even in the same ballpark as smoking in bars where both smokers and non-smokers congregate in a small enclosed space?

 

[Revoltingest]

Here in the state bordering Revoltistan (MI), we have cigar bars.
I have no problem with this. The workers & patrons know what to expect.
If they don't like it, they can simply not go there.

 

[Storm]

Well, I agree with you, that's absurd. But how is that even in the same ballpark as smoking in bars where both smokers and non-smokers congregate in a small enclosed space?

It's not... I don't do that.

 

[McBell]

Here in the state bordering Revoltistan (MI), we have cigar bars.
I have no problem with this. The workers & patrons know what to expect.
If they don't like it, they can simply not go there.

Well, see, the problem is that non-smokers have no choice but to go in there.
I have no idea who or what is forcing them to though.

 

[Commoner]

It's not... I don't do that.

Well, from the time I entered this thread, I've only been referring specifically to smoking in bars... so I think we're pretty much in complete agreement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here in the state bordering Revoltistan (MI), we have cigar bars.
I have no problem with this. The workers & patrons know what to expect.
If they don't like it, they can simply not go there.

What does "they can simply not go there" imply for a worker? It's not like Michigan is swimming in job openings. What if "not going there" implies no job and no money for food, housing, etc.?

If a person is choosing between breathing second-hand smoke every day and being evicted, I question whether we can assume they've made a truly free choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, see, the problem is that non-smokers have no choice but to go in there.
I have no idea who or what is forcing them to though.

Does a person have to be forced to go to a place before they should be accommodated? The legal framework of your country and mine says "no".