Smoking in books

[JLeighs]

I loathe this debate. At the end of the day, what we have (in my state anyway) is a law that says all non-smokers may go to whatever establishment they please and not have to catch a single whiff of tobacco, and all smokers can freeze their arses off (in the winter) outside should they want to indulge, or they can just stay home. It seems a bit lopsided to me, but then again, I never bought into all the second-hand smoke propoganda and hysteria. While I'm not suggesting that second-hand smoke is good for you, I think its harmful effects have been seriously and deliberately overstated to further an agenda. It worked.

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

At the end of the day, what we have (in my state anyway) is a law that says all non-smokers may go to whatever establishment they please and not have to catch a single whiff of tobacco, and all smokers can freeze their arses off (in the winter) outside should they want to indulge, or they can just stay home. It seems a bit lopsided to me, but then again, I never bought into all the second-hand smoke propoganda and hysteria. While I'm not suggesting that second-hand smoke is good for you, I think its harmful effects have been seriously and deliberately overstated to further an agenda. It worked.

Well-established studies prove that second-hand smoke isn't propaganda. But the issue isn't even on health grounds. The issue is this:

- If I light up in a bar, it's my right, but I infringe on the right of the guy sitting next to me - let's call him George - not to smell it, and not to leave the bar with his clothes reeking of stale smoke. I'm not even talking about health risks to George here.

- If George forces me to stub my cigar, he infringes on my right to enjoy it.

You might say, fine: let George patronize non-smoking bars, and you go to smoking places. Trouble is, it doesn't work that way because economics dictate that all bar allow smoking: those that don't lose smoking patrons more than they gain non-smoking ones. So the overwhelming majority of bar owners let the law decide for them.

So, in the end, you're left with George and me, who have equally valid but perfectly incompatible rights, and according to the law of the land the bar is in, one of us is going to freeze his balls outside while the other sits inside, nice and warm. Both of us demand that our rights be upheld: who is the legislator going to rule in favor of?

Well, George of course. Our rights are equally valid, but when I exercise mine next to George, I increase George's health risks, however minutely. When George exercises his next to me, he doesn't increase mine. Since smoking is a pastime and isn't essential to life, isn't the choice obvious?

Smoking bans in public places aren't an issue of rights, it's not even about public health, it's just plain and simple logic. I'm not saying that I agree with all of them - California-style witch hunts are pretty stupid for instance - but the logic behind them is sound.

[Nyssa]

I agree w/ Fastolfe although my feelings are much more emotionally driven then "just" logic.

I lost a step-parent to lung cancer (2 years after he quite). Besides that, however, I have hated cigarettes since I was a child. I used to have an allergic reaction - my face would turn raw and itchy if I were around cigarette smoke. I was approx. 8 years old, and on my first trip to Disney (which was not a smoke free place at the time). A man in line behind me started smoking, and even though my Aunt asked him nicely to put it out becuase it was bothering me, he decided it would be "comical" to blow smoke right in my face. Personally, I felt assaulted, but what could I do. Thankfully, I out grew the allergy, although it still irritates me.

[JLeighs]

I do understand that people feel differently than I do about this. When I smoked cigarettes, I was always polite about it --"do you mind if I smoke?", no lighting up and blowing smoke in people's faces, etc. My sister has a reaction to smoke of any kind, so there was no smoking around her at all. Not everyone is so polite. But when we have situations where there isn't a single establishment, not even a bar for crying out loud, where a man (or woman) can legally have a beer and a smoke inside, I have a problem with that. The state doesn't care about that, however, due to the fact that it is now considered socially unacceptable to smoke. I also believe that a business owner should be allowed to decide whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment. Not the state.

Anyway, I really dislike this particular debate because it generally turns into a free-for-all, which I have no stomach for, so I'll try to stay out of it now.

[screwballl]

I agree JLeighs... too many people place ALL smokers into this stereotypical ***hole that blows smoke into the non-smokers face and purposely causes problems, when those are the exception, not the rule. Also too many of these people think it is their right to never have to be inconvenienced by having to smell anything bad instead of being realistic and realizing that they cannot control every person and every thing. Other people have rights too, I try not to get my smoke in others faces but I also do not expect them to step right in the path of the wafts of smoke and then complain to me about it. That is like moving into an apartment with a window right next to a stinky dumpster, and then complain and have the city ban dumpsters from within 100 feet of any window of a persons residence, main walkways, parks or other public place.

I have every right to smoke just like other people have the right to not smell smoke IN CERTAIN PLACES... but that is not grounds to completely ban it from places where a person is least likely to be affected by it, such as outdoors, bars and such.

[patrickt]

What a customer in a bar wants to do is relevant only to the owner of the bar looking to do business. But, there are those who just thoroughly enjoy making other people do what they want.

[Freeshadow]

yeah thats the fact - it should be the decision of the facilities owner to allow smoking inside or not - if it's allowed and the non-smokers don't like it they are free to go elsewhere. That 'd be fair. since the decision in favour of non-smokers is pressed upon outside to everybody it is unfair treatment - well let them continue and lose customers.
I quit visiting movie theaters (among other locations) for years just because of that. now I wait for the DVDs to appear, and watch them at home.

[K-Thom]

It's interesting how much this thread changed from smoking in books to smoking in real life.

As long as they don't prohibit scratch 'n' sniff eBooks, it's fine with me.

Btw, did you notice that if you rub your finger fast at a books page and sniff at it it smells like a fresh lit cigar? It's a mild taste, so actually no Havana. And no smoke too, kids!