Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[beenie]

Right, and it's their right to choose to do so. Just as it's your right to cook strong smelling foods, or run an engine which outputs toxic gases.

The idea that second-hand smoke dispersed over the area between two separate houses is dangerous is rather ridiculous, as even the science behind the effects of more direct second-hand smoke are flimsy at best.

So, essentially it comes down to discomfort caused by a smell you don't like, such as a neighbor cooking foods whose odor you find objectionable.

In regards to the neighbor that smoked the cigar, you have a point, which is why I haven't, nor will I, say anything. I'm tolerant and fair.

The construction worker, however, was too close to my home, and despite that, I still said nothing, closed my window on that side of the house, and carried on with my day.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In regards to the neighbor that smoked the cigar, you have a point, which is why I haven't, nor will I, say anything. I'm tolerant and fair.

The construction worker, however, was too close to my home, and despite that, I still said nothing, closed my window on that side of the house, and carried on with my day.

That's cool, but I guess I must have misunderstood the question or point. Carry on.

 

[McBell]

Don't they? Do they have non-cigar bars there? I would assume they do, and so there is a choice. Then again, maybe I should just let you continue with your strawmen and mischaracterizations.



Me either. I do know what was forcing non-smokers to go to bars that allowed smoking, though, when there wasn't a ban: the lack of non-smoking bars and the desire to hang out with their friends who went to bars and not sit at home by themselves.

It is not a strawman or a characterization.
You said that they have no choice.

So what did you really mean when you said they have no choice if their not having a choice is not what you meant when you said they have no choice?

it is as if you are saying that non-smokers cannot choose to stay out of bars.
And because they cannot stop themselves from going into bars, that the government should make ALL bars no-smoking.

I am begining to suspect that you merely do not like the way I phrase your argument.
You have not presented anything other than your claim that I am misrepresenting your argument.

How about you try that instead of the half arsed ad hominems?

 

[beenie]

Right, and it's their right to choose to do so. Just as it's your right to cook strong smelling foods, or run an engine which outputs toxic gases.

The idea that second-hand smoke dispersed over the area between two separate houses is dangerous is rather ridiculous, as even the science behind the effects of more direct second-hand smoke are flimsy at best.

So, essentially it comes down to discomfort caused by a smell you don't like, such as a neighbor cooking foods whose odor you find objectionable.

...which is why I didn't do anything about it.

I do have the right to be annoyed by it though...

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't think it's a matter of control; it's a matyer of accomodating the greatest number of people.

You know what, you win the debate.

Now lets apply this principle to public prayer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's all fine and well, but by that logic one should not be able to eat or drink in a vehicle either. But these things aren't illegal, even though they can pose even higher distraction than flicking a cigarette in your car's ash tray.

I do agree that people have far too many distractions on the road, and I do agree that a Truck is a workplace and all. However, with that being said, it should be up to the employer and not the government to fine a trucker that is smoking in the vehicle. On top of that, Truckers already have so much against them that their lives are stressful enough. Add to that an addiction that they can't partake in, and now we have a jumpy and likely frustrated trucker that is behind the wheel of a behemoth of a vehicle. It doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

If a trucker isn't in a fit state to drive his truck, then it's his duty to stop driving until he is.

And I didn't say that those other things weren't distractions as well, or even that they should be legal.

 

[Magic Man]

It is not a strawman or a characterization.
You said that they have no choice.

I said that people had no choice (at least in my area) when there was no ban in place. There was no restaurant or bar you could go to that didn't allow smoking. You're now extending that to a completely different scenario. If there are non-cigar bars, then obviously people have a choice not to go to them and still go to a bar. That's why it's a strawman and mischaracterization.

it is as if you are saying that non-smokers cannot choose to stay out of bars.
And because they cannot stop themselves from going into bars, that the government should make ALL bars no-smoking.

I am begining to suspect that you merely do not like the way I phrase your argument.
You have not presented anything other than your claim that I am misrepresenting your argument.

How about you try that instead of the half arsed ad hominems?

How about you try actually listening? You're a smart guy. This isn't complicated stuff. What I'm saying is very simple and clear:

When there was no ban in place, every bar or restaurant allowed smoking. If a non-smoker wanted to go to a bar or restaurant, they had no choice but to go to one where smoking was allowed. Their only other choice was to stay home. Now, with the ban in place, smokers can still go to non-smoking bars and restaurants; they just have to smoke outside, which they probably do at home anyway.

 

[Magic Man]

You know what, you win the debate.

Now lets apply this principle to public prayer.

Are you implying it isn't already? You can already pray anywhere you want. A whole group of students can get together on school property and pray. You can go anywhere you want and pray. You can get a group of people together, go to a bar, and sit there and pray. The only restrictions on prayer are that it can't be promoted or led by government officials and employees, including teachers.

 

[DarkSun]

Scenario: I open my house windows because it's a beautiful day, and instead of getting a nice, fresh breeze, the construction worker building the house next door lights up and now my house smells like an ashtray.

I'm all for personal choice, but where do his rights to smoke end and my husbands, children's, and my rights to fresh air in my own smoke-free home begin?

Edit: I forgot to mention that my neighbor across the street smokes cigars and we get that smell in our house too. So what do you think?

Call the police if it bothers you that much. If the police are unwilling to do anything then maybe file a report for public disturbance?

 

[ConfusedKuri]

Well as someone who really enjoys cigarettes, I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the smell which is one of the reasons I prefer smoking outside, as I don't like my clothes to have the scent of an ashtray.

On the other hand I believe there is worse things than smokers :S some people really exaggerate when it comes to cigarettes, as if they were the most evil thing in the world...

 

[Kathryn]

And you totally miss the point. Over the summer I was working on the electricity distribution network on voltages up to 132,000. It is my employers responsibility to provide me with the correct safety gear to minimise the risks of that job. How is this any different?

I didn't miss your point. I just didn't buy it.

I wouldn't want to work around smokers all day. I also wouldn't want to work in the oilfield all day. Both jobs would carry some unavoidable risks and dangers.

It's not the same level of risk as handling 132,000 volts of electricity though - not by a long shot.

 

[Rakhel]

The problem with calling a truck a workplace is that it is also a truckers' home.

 

[Sententia]

Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. Your right to smoke ends when your smoke hits my nostrils.

Curious... If someone offends me visually does their right to reflect light end when it reflects into my eye? If my cows mooing on my land offend you in your house do my rights to own cows end at your ears? What of the scent of their 'fertilization'? At your nose as well I presume?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with calling a truck a workplace is that it is also a truckers' home.

Hmm. Good point - I hadn't thought of that. I guess I was thinking of a smoking ban in trucks more in terms of banning smoking while driving than smoking while off-duty.

I suppose while the driver's off-duty, then the truck isn't really a "workplace". In that situation, I suppose I wouldn't want to force a smoking ban, provided the driver is the only one in the truck. In the case of a two-person team where one person drives while the other person's off-duty, I'd still be in favour of a smoking ban, because in that situation, the space is still being used as someone's workplace.

Curious... If someone offends me visually does their right to reflect light end when it reflects into my eye?

In what way are they offending you?

If my cows mooing on my land offend you in your house do my rights to own cows end at your ears? What of the scent of their 'fertilization'? At your nose as well I presume?

I live in a residential subdivision. There isn't any pastureland in earshot or noseshot (... if that's a word). There's no way I'd be able to smell or hear your cows unless you were violating the zoning bylaw by setting up an illegal farm.

OTOH, if I buy a house out in the country next to your farm on land that's established for agriculture, then hearing and smelling cows comes with the territory.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I just want to say that people have the right to a smoke free environment. If smokers want to smoke, they can it somewhere away from me.

 

[Storm]

I just want to say that people have the right to a smoke free environment. If smokers want to smoke, they can it somewhere away from me.

Fine, but return the favor and stay away from me.

 

[ChristineES]

Here in California, smoking is banned everywhere except outside and in one's own home. They are even trying to make smoking illegal in a person's own home if they have children. I don't think we all need a bunch of babysitters. I don't smoke at all, but we have to think what is next: Maybe lawmakers will make it illegal to give your children candy or make McDonald's illegal. Pet stores are already being made illegal in San Francisco.
Honestly, do we really need a bunch of politicians and such breathing down our necks and telling us all what to do? I am an adult, and like all other adults, I want to be treated like one.

 

[Kathryn]

Yay, Christine! I am not a smoker, but I am married to one. I think it's the nanny state mentality that bugs me so much about this whole scenario. Along with that mentality, comes the demonization of smokers, which REALLY ticks me off. Sure, there are some inconsiderate smokers - just as there are inconsiderate non smokers.

I can assure you that some of the most strident anti-smokers are also driving down the road texting, which endangers people just as much if not more than someone's second hand smoke.

 

[Panda]

I didn't miss your point. I just didn't buy it.

I wouldn't want to work around smokers all day. I also wouldn't want to work in the oilfield all day. Both jobs would carry some unavoidable risks and dangers.

It's not the same level of risk as handling 132,000 volts of electricity though - not by a long shot.

No but it is an unnecessary risk.

 

[Panda]

I can assure you that some of the most strident anti-smokers are also driving down the road texting, which endangers people just as much if not more than someone's second hand smoke.

Isn't that illegal over there?