Smokin' in the boys room!

[RoyJackson]

At least in half. Besides, all you non-smokers (or maybe I should say "us" non-smokers since I quit nearly a year ago) should be grateful to the smokers, since the smokers are paying those high taxes which keeps the rest of us from having to pay more taxes.

Taxes is why I started rolling my own...
That...and a renewed interest in Westerns (40's, 50's John Wayne especially)

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Yep, like I said earlier, humans have a need to feel that they're "better" than someone, that there's someone they can look down on, and if weren't for not smoking some just wouldn't have any reason at all to feel superior to anyone else.

As my old grandmother used to say, it just depends on whose ox is getting gored. At the present time, Robert is happy because it's someone else's ox, but wait until it's his turn.

Now Bird, I do not think I am better then someone just because they have different habits then I do.

But I do think smoking around other people is an invasive act by the smokers part. They decide what air I can breath around them and if I don't like it I should have to move. If I want to go eat dinner with my family (during the pre-smoking laws here) I have to look elsewhere if there are smokers because their smoke does not stay in their lungs. They spread it like a virus with very little regard to the people around them.

Now if I was to be your neighbor and start raising pigs and spreading manure on my land (it is my land to do as I please, isn't it?) and the wind blew in your direction would you just accept it as my right or would you move? Or would you go to the government and report me?

 

[Bandybear]

Now if I was to be your neighbor and start raising pigs and spreading manure on my land (it is my land to do as I please, isn't it?) and the wind blew in your direction would you just accept it as my right or would you move? Or would you go to the government and report me?

But Robert, you are sounding like the people who move downwind of the pig farm which has been there for many many years and trying to have it shut down because you live there now.

Years ago, some group of men was threatening to sue Hooters beacuse they thought it was unfair that Hooters hired buxom young females for their serving staff, which excluded them from entering that line of work. The Hooters management told them if they wanted a restaurant with male servers they were free to start their own. (My wife has promised me we would go to Hooters to support them in their decision, but, because there is not currently one that is convenient to us it has not happened.) You are free to do the same thing regarding smoking, rather than imposing the force of government on everyone. Besides, at three years old, your daughter is a little young to be going barhopping with you

 

[Bird]

Now if I was to be your neighbor and start raising pigs and spreading manure on my land (it is my land to do as I please, isn't it?) and the wind blew in your direction would you just accept it as my right or would you move?

Robert, I think you keep using analogies that just are not analogous. There's a big difference between you doing something that affects the property I own and someone doing something you don't like on property that you do NOT own and do NOT have to enter.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Robert, I think you keep using analogies that just are not analogous. There's a big difference between you doing something that affects the property I own and someone doing something you don't like on property that you do NOT own and do NOT have to enter.

So help me understand this, what you are trying to say is non smokers who do not want to breath in second hand smoke need to be displaced because some people feel the need to smoke in public? Is it that hard for smokers to not light up a cigarette for one hour?

 

[Bird]

My wife has promised me we would go to Hooters to support them in their decision, but, because there is not currently one that is convenient to us it has not happened

Kevin, in this area, we have what to me is an astounding number of restaurants of all kinds; some busier than others. But we have two nearby Hooters, and both my wife and I have noticed that no matter how busy the other places are, the Hooters parking lots are always nearly full. So we did eat lunch at one of them once a couple of years ago. The place was nearly full and I think they actually had two other female customers besides my wife. The food was good, but not that good. As expected, the scenery is what draws the customers.

 

[Bird]

So help me understand this, what you are trying to say is non smokers who do not want to breath in second hand smoke need to be displaced because some people feel the need to smoke in public? Is it that hard for smokers to not light up a cigarette for one hour?

Robert, as I've said before, I quit smoking about a year ago and my wife doesn't smoke indoors (or at all for nearly a week now). Is it that hard for smokers to not light up a cigarette for one hour? I don't know, or care. If the majority of people (as you claim non-smokers to be) refuse to patronize a place that allows smoking, the owner will probably post no smoking signs of his own accord, but if the majority of his customers want to smoke in the place, that should be his right; he paid for the place, you (and other non-smokers) did not. So I'd just keep repeating myself when I say the owner of the property is the only one who should be able to make the decision. Everyone else can either enter or stay out. It doesn't seem to me that it should be hard to understand that.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

But Robert, you are sounding like the people who move downwind of the pig farm which has been there for many many years and trying to have it shut down because you live there now.

Years ago, some group of men was threatening to sue Hooters beacuse they thought it was unfair that Hooters hired buxom young females for their serving staff, which excluded them from entering that line of work. The Hooters management told them if they wanted a restaurant with male servers they were free to start their own. (My wife has promised me we would go to Hooters to support them in their decision, but, because there is not currently one that is convenient to us it has not happened.) You are free to do the same thing regarding smoking, rather than imposing the force of government on everyone. Besides, at three years old, your daughter is a little young to be going barhopping with you

Quite the opposite, I never pushed for this law and didn't really care as it was a way of life. However, after seeing the affect this law has I do feel the rest of the country should follow suit as it improves the quality of life for everyone. People can go to public places and not worry about having to find non-smoking sections or worry about going to a crowded place with a lot of people are smoking and your eyes burn because of it.

And what makes you think I go barhopping? People use to smoke in restaurants or don't they do that where you are from? I have also gone to bars to eat dinner with friends as a lot of small towns don't have a Denny's or Bob Evans on every corner. The dining experience of eating dinner at a bar in PA is terrible compared to NY because PA still allows smoking in public places.

But since I don't smoke and don't enjoy breathing it in I should have to give up going to certain places instead of a smoker being told he can't light up every 15 minutes. Is it that hard for a lot of smokers to put the cigarette down for an hour or while you are in public gatherings?

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Robert, as I've said before, I quit smoking about a year ago and my wife doesn't smoke indoors (or at all for nearly a week now). Is it that hard for smokers to not light up a cigarette for one hour? I don't know, or care. If the majority of people (as you claim non-smokers to be) refuse to patronize a place that allows smoking, the owner will probably post no smoking signs of his own accord, but if the majority of his customers want to smoke in the place, that should be his right; he paid for the place, you (and other non-smokers) did not. So I'd just keep repeating myself when I say the owner of the property is the only one who should be able to make the decision. Everyone else can either enter or stay out. It doesn't seem to me that it should be hard to understand that.

Your right, the owner has that right. But if I bought land next to you and raised pigs on my land that I owned and had the right to do what ever I wanted you would not like it because it affected you. But the analogy doesn't apply because the smell from my land would affect yours? So then if I owned land next to a bar and I didn't like the smell I could have them stop smoking because the smell affects my land?

And again, not everyone lives in a big city. Around here there are only one or two places to eat in most of these towns so how many options do people have to show their displeasure?

 

[Bird]

Your right, the owner has that right. But if I bought land next to you and raised pigs on my land that I owned and had the right to do what ever I wanted you would not like it because it affected you. But the analogy doesn't apply because the smell from my land would affect yours? So then if I owned land next to a bar and I didn't like the smell I could have them stop smoking because the smell affects my land?

And again, not everyone lives in a big city. Around here there are only one or two places to eat in most of these towns so how many options do people have to show their displeasure?

Yep, Robert, if you owned the land before the bar was there and their smoke, odor, or whatever comes onto your land and bothers you, then, yes, I'd be in favor of them stopping because it was their option to put the place there.

You keep asking, "Is it that hard for a lot of smokers to put the cigarette down for an hour or while you are in public gatherings?" In other words, you're wanting concessions from other people. What concessions do you give others? If the majority of a place's customers and/or employees want to smoke in a place, and the owner wants to allow it, why should they be required to make concessions for you? You say there aren't enough places in your area to give non-smokers reasonable options. Well, if the majority of the people there want non-smoking restaurants, you ought to open one and get rich.

This is actually one of those situations in which the majority certainly do not win. The majority of people either smoke, or don't mind others smoking, or are happy with the non-smoking sections provided by restaurants or the places that allow smoking would have seen a big decline in their business before the new laws. In other words, this is another situation in which it's not the majority that won; it's the vocal minority that won.

And of course, in this particular case, it doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I still say it's wrong!