Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[dust1n]

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

What you do entirely on your own property is your own business, but if your smoke is wafting into someone else's house, then what you're doing isn't entirely on your own property.

Banning smoking in certain businesses makes sense because of the health concerns of a worker. There is no evidence to suggest that smelling a cigarette from a cross the street has negative health effects. So it's a matter of distaste. Here, sound curfews don't start until around 10 p.m., which makes sense, because it would physically keep someone up. But during the day, no one is entitled to deny someone Else's freedom to make sound. I certainly don't have the right to tell my neighbor they can't barbecue out back because I don't like the smell of rotting meat and it makes me uncomfortable. Why should they have the right to say the same about my cigarette smoke.

 

[Sententia]

Banning smoking in certain businesses makes sense because of the health concerns of a worker. There is no evidence to suggest that smelling a cigarette from a cross the street has negative health effects. So it's a matter of distaste.

This seems like I should just say ok but is this supporting some form of your argument?

Here, sound curfews don't start until around 10 p.m., which makes sense, because it would physically keep someone up. But during the day, no one is entitled to deny someone Else's freedom to make sound.

This is an odd argument. The obvious for me is that I grew up in a household where my mom worked third shift and slept while I was at school... She would have an issue with you making noise while she was sleeping. But there is also the term sound... obviously sound can kill you instantaneously... It can harm your hearing and there are laws against how loud sound can be in some areas.

But legally I could buy some Holosonic speakers and play music at the loudest legal level ONLY in your house. (Think laser pointers but instead of focusing light you are focusing sound only where you want it: Audio Spotlight - Add sound and preserve the quiet.)

Arguing that I'm entitled to make sound during the day is not really the same thing in my opinion.

I certainly don't have the right to tell my neighbor they can't barbecue out back because I don't like the smell of rotting meat and it makes me uncomfortable. Why should they have the right to say the same about my cigarette smoke.

Your argument depends on the fact that smoke from cooking burgers is equivalently innocuous as smoke from a modern cigarette. Which might be true.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Penguin,
You still haven't established that second-hand smoke is inherently more dangerous than other trappings of modern society. Until such time, you're making bald assertions and I hope you'd have the intellectual honesty to disclose such.

You are wrong. Second hand smoke has been proven to be bad for. It is bad for people who have breathing problems and it can cause migraines and let me tell you that migraines are no fun. I get them without smoking so when I do smoke I feel even sicker. I have the right to not be sick.

 

[Rakhel]

You are wrong. Second hand smoke has been proven to be bad for. It is bad for people who have breathing problems and it can cause migraines and let me tell you that migraines are no fun. I get them without smoking so when I do smoke i feel even sicker. I have the right to not be sick.

Ismaila, he was asking how is it worse than the current environment. You know, the air you breath that is polluted with toxins worse than that of a cigarette? Or are we just so used to smelling all the fumes from buses, cars, semis and other gases, that we miss exactly what is happening to us and figure it's easier to blame it on the tobacco?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Ismaila, he was asking how is it worse than the current environment. You know, the air you breath that is polluted with toxins worse than that of a cigarette? Or are we just so used to smelling all the fumes from buses, cars, semis and other gases, that we miss exactly what is happening to us and figure it's easier to blame it on the tobacco?

You are wrong. I have the right to a smoke free environment.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You are wrong. I have the right to a smoke free environment.

A friendly tip...


Starting many of your posts with the words "You are wrong." is the sort of thing that is likely to get people upset with you, and you might end up having to apologize later.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing in a debate thread. That's the reason you're here. But there's no reason to do it disrespectfully.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

You are wrong. I have the right to a smoke free environment.

Yeah, you have that right in San Francisco, but I live in New York. I have the right to smoke on the sidewalk, whether you ******* like it or not.

 

[Rakhel]

You are wrong. I have the right to a smoke free environment.

"You are wrong?" that's the best you got? Can you even answer the question I posed? Or is that....






I don't want to be mean. I can be very mean right now but I won't. (I deserve frubies for this)

 

[HiddenDjinn]

You know, if you want clean air, you may want to avoid anywhere within 100 mi of a coal or natural gas-fired power plant. You may want to avoid major highways. You may want to avoid farmland. In other words, there are a few mountainous regions in the US you can have clean air. Oh, wait, those areas have guns. Smokeless powder fouls air quality as well.

 

[dust1n]

This seems like I should just say ok but is this supporting some form of your argument?

Just an illustration that I'm not entirely unreasonable regarding smoking regulations... a Waffle House waitress has much more weight in her argument than a neighbor.

This is an odd argument. The obvious for me is that I grew up in a household where my mom worked third shift and slept while I was at school... She would have an issue with you making noise while she was sleeping. But there is also the term sound... obviously sound can kill you instantaneously... It can harm your hearing and there are laws against how loud sound can be in some areas.

If my sound is an issue with my neighbors, I would alter routines. I split a 2-story house with a much older gentlemen, but he is rarely home. When he is, I don't play drums and I don't blare my 2 subs and 4 speakers and full length. Our neighbor also has a drum. For the most part the sound doesn't travel too loudly.

I feel the illustration is similar because laws aren't meant to address distaste, they are meant to address real issues in a community. Most sound laws are local, and this is for a good reason.

But legally I could buy some Holosonic speakers and play music at the loudest legal level ONLY in your house. (Think laser pointers but instead of focusing light you are focusing sound only where you want it: Audio Spotlight - Add sound and preserve the quiet.)

Yeah, well that isn't in my budget. Too bad.

Your argument depends on the fact that smoke from cooking burgers is equivalently innocuous as smoke from a modern cigarette. Which might be true.

Well neither are harmful to the body and can both be considered offensive. I don't think either are either of those two things. The law should concern what might be harmful to someone or their property, ideally, not what someone finds uncomfortable because they leave their window open. Personally, I don't like my neighbor weed-eating his yard at 9 in the morning once a week, but I deal with it, because weed-eating is part of life, much like cigarettes and bbq's.

 

[dust1n]

You are wrong. Second hand smoke has been proven to be bad for. It is bad for people who have breathing problems and it can cause migraines and let me tell you that migraines are no fun. I get them without smoking so when I do smoke I feel even sicker. I have the right to not be sick.

Which is why businesses without proper ventilation shouldn't be allowed to provide smoking areas. Long durations in isolated areas of second-hand smoke has the potential to harm people, no doubt. However, the distaste of a smelly cigar across the street has no potential to harm people. It's not even 'second-hand' smoke.

 

[dust1n]

You are wrong. I have the right to a smoke free environment.

Hmmm.. not really. I'm not aware of any legislation that guarantees the right to a smoke free environment.

 

[dust1n]

You know, if you want clean air, you may want to avoid anywhere within 100 mi of a coal or natural gas-fired power plant. You may want to avoid major highways. You may want to avoid farmland. In other words, there are a few mountainous regions in the US you can have clean air. Oh, wait, those areas have guns. Smokeless powder fouls air quality as well.

Not to mention the soil and water. It's strange how people fall for caring about frivolous things while being distracted by obviously more important things.

 

[Kathryn]

Day Five, and my husband is driving me crazy with his gripiness - but at least he's not smoking!

Be calm, be calm...

 

[Poisonshady313]

Day Five, and my husband is driving me crazy with his gripiness - but at least he's not smoking!

Be calm, be calm...

Congrats on Day Five!!

You might recommend that he re-read a couple of chapters... in particular, 33, 35, 39, and any others that might address any issues he's dealing with.

The first three week period involves getting over the physical addiction. He's already done the hard part by getting over the mental addiction. Now he's in a position where he knows that the nicotine from the last cigarette left an itch that can only be scratched by another cigarette, and if scratched would require a lifetime of scratching... but given a couple of weeks without scratching, the itch will disappear.

The difference between someone who uses willpower and someone who uses easyway is that your husband isn't afraid to stop scratching because he knows the itch will go away.

He might be griping because he's itchy, but as long as he doesn't feel like he's being deprived and remains confident in his decision to stop smoking, the griping will stop, and he will remain a happy non-smoker for good.

 

[dust1n]

Started thinking about this the other day, so I decided to sign on real quick and mention it.

Why is it that non-smokers are entitled to 100% of the public air to exercise public freedom? It's, like, every time a non-smoker is inconvenienced by smoke in the tiniest way, they become offended by the thought the public air has a little smoke in it (granted a carton wouldn't compare to what your car does...), but why are non-smokers more entitled to non-smoke than smokers are more entitled to smoke?

And more important (even though health risks don't exist in open areas, unless severe allergic reaction.. and they do exist), why is the blame being placed on the consumer? You allow companies to produce insane amounts chemical additives that cause the ******* cancer in the first place, and then you blame the smoker for lighting the extremely addictive piece of ****?

 

[Mathematician]

Started thinking about this the other day, so I decided to sign on real quick and mention it.

Why is it that non-smokers are entitled to 100% of the public air to exercise public freedom? It's, like, every time a non-smoker is inconvenienced by smoke in the tiniest way, they become offended by the thought the public air has a little smoke in it (granted a carton wouldn't compare to what your car does...), but why are non-smokers more entitled to non-smoke than smokers are more entitled to smoke?

And more important (even though health risks don't exist in open areas, unless severe allergic reaction.. and they do exist), why is the blame being placed on the consumer? You allow companies to produce insane amounts chemical additives that cause the ******* cancer in the first place, and then you blame the smoker for lighting the extremely addictive piece of ****?

And yet we arrest people who smoke non-addictive alternatives to the hybrid tobacco crap put out on the market nowadays. The law here is seriously messed up.

 

[waitasec]

i keep coming back to this thread and i have now decided...
it is a smokers right to harm themselves
it is not a smokers right to harm others.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

i keep coming back to this thread and i have now decided...
it is a smokers right to harm themselves
it is not a smokers right to harm others.

At the same time, people seem to be quibbling over whether a smoker's actions, outside, in the public, harm others.

 

[waitasec]

At the same time, people seem to be quibbling over whether a smoker's actions, outside, in the public, harm others.

if it has been scientifically proven that smoking outside in public harms others then i believe the smoker is over stepping their boundary...if it has not been proven then go right ahead...but lets be realistic...smog harms the lungs too.

personally i don't know of any studies about outside smoking ...and if i'm outside and my friend lights up...go on ahead.
:cigar: