Smoke

For those of you who don't know, it is illegal to smoke in any public restaurant or bar in New Jersey.  So I was in the American Legion canteen having a beer with my buddy.  I remarked that since this was a private club we should be able to smoke.  "Not so." said my friend.  "the bartender is an employee and the law was meant to protect him from second hand smoke."
"I guess that makes sense."  I said.  "But where is the bartender?  I need another beer."
"He's out back catching a smoke." 

That sounds like the makings for a new Bruce Springsteen song!

I feel sorry for smokers up north.
the Pilgrims are still making the laws.

Your time is comin' buckaroo, your time is comin'...

Buddy

Florida's law on this is somewhat of a compromise...If a bar doesn't serve food, the owner can allow smoking inside. If a restaurant has outdoor seating, the owner can allow smoking at the outdoor tables.

sk bob


I feel sorry for smokers up north.
the Pilgrims are still making the laws.

I've never felt sorry for a smoker.

Same here.

And we don't expect you to feel sorry for us.  But we do expect the common courtesy due any human being.

i think they are voting today in kansas for a state wide ban. i hope it passes. i'm sure it will. the only thing that gets me is casinos are excempt.

I stopped smoking at 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 2, 1993. I went from four packs a day to zero -- so far. But even after I stopped smoking I would always ask for seating in the smoking section of restaurants that had them, unless that section was crowded and my being there might deprive a smoker of a seat.
 
I still consider myself a smoker, despite the fact that it's been 17 years since I last smoked anything, including my pipes and cigars. And as a smoker who hasn't smoked in a long time I find it deplorable that those who smoke are discriminated against by a bunch of freedom-hating elitists who insist that the liberties of others don't matter as much as their own.

Good for you, Mr. Hoffman. I am also an ex-smoker who is appalled by the treatment af smokers.  I'm also appalled by a nanny state that wants to make restaurants not use salt(NYC). Leave me alone to my vices.

I do not like loud crude language, so I don't go places it is used.  Non smokers can make the same kind of choice. 

Thanks. But I'm not an ex-smoker. I'm just a smoker who hasn't smoked in over 17 years. I still reach for my cigarettes a lot, only now there's a cell phone in my shirt pocket instead of cigarettes. I really miss a good cigar after a fine meal, and I still wish I was smoking a pipe during breaks while hunting birds.

The fact is, I'm dying for a smoke.

felix4067


And we don't expect you to feel sorry for us.  But we do expect the common courtesy due any human being.

In answer to this statement and Michael Hoffman's comments above, let me just say that I have been a smoker and a non-smoker.  I understand the consternation of smokers regarding their ostracization from public places.  However, I do find it interesting that smokers seem to lack an understanding of the point of view of the non-smoker.

It's true that there is nothing illegal about the act of smoking.  Plenty of people enjoy smoking and even for many non-smokers, the smell of burning tobacco may bring back warm memories of a dear relative who was a smoker.  I have to disagree though with the notion that smokers are somehow discriminated against, or that those who object to smoking in public places are any more selfish of their liberites than smokers are themselves.

The indisputable fact is that smoking stinks.  It may be enjoyable to the person partaking of the burning leaves, but it is undeniably foul to the senses of any non-smoker in proximity of the act.  While the full, long range effects of second hand smoke may be debatable, the short term realities are that, in the close quarters of a public space, it does make life unpleasant, and in some cases unbearable for the non-smoker.

You talk about human decency and liberties.  What about the decency of respecting the liberty of those who do not wish to inhale those noxious fumes?  Last time I checked, tobacco smoke was not a natural part of the atmosphere we breathe in in order to survive.  When you smoke you are adding an unwelcome toxic element to that atmospheric mix that should not have to be tolerated in an enclosed public space.

So far, I've only addressed the sensory issues of smoking.  There is also an irrevocable affect on the physical world around us.  Smoke residue gets into all of our electronic equipment including computers, televisions, and stereos.  If smoking were allowed in the work place, smokers would be responsible for damaging their employers property; computers, fax machines, copiers, etc.

For instance, I work at a television station.  Although we all have past images of legendary broadcasters like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite sitting at their anchor desk reading the news with an unfiltered Lucky Strike burning in an ashtray at their elbow, today there isn't a TV studio in this country that would allow such activity anywhere near a television camera.  It is an undeniable fact that cigarette smoke gets in to and does damage to our environment.

If you want to smoke in your own home, then go in peace brother; I have no right to legislate your private life.  And should I enter your home, I must be prepared to deal with your right to smoke there.  But the idea that smokers should be able to light up whenever and wherever they please regardless of how it affects those around them is absurd.

I know there will be rebuttal to my comments and believe me, I'm ready.

Buddy

I've never been a smoker, but I think it should be up to business owners how to handle their businesses, rather than have it legislated out. 

At the same time, I've never understood why smokers think they have some right to go into an establishment, fill the place with the odor of their smoke that goes into woodwork and upholstery, wafts into the faces of others, without regard for others.
 
The reality of it is that, regardless of the laws, it's just kind of rude and selfish to do it around people that aren't smoking. 

 While I did try smoking a little (to be cool) in my H S years, I don't think I have consummed a whole pack (total) in my lifetime. Therefore I consider myself a non-smoker.

During the earlier years of the smoking/non-smoking space rules, I really didn't notice the issue of second-hand or residual smoke. It wouldn't  matter if we sat in the smoking or non section of a restaurant. I guess the evolution of the differences were so gradual that they just didn't affect me. 

However when we visited the local Casino last year bringing TTM to get his gambling lust fulfilled, We left as soon as possible as the place...the whole place reeked of stale "old" smoke and I found that to be a very unpleasant experience. BTW we left TTM there and haven't seen him since.

I think the issue of tobacco support funding AND anti-smoking expenditures are both wastes of the public money. Put the funding into cancer research and leave it at that.

i will be 62 in May---quit smoking on my 50th bday after starting at 12 and smoking 2-3 packs a day for 20 yrs  plus---dont miss ciggerettes at all---but i sure do get tempted by the smell of a good cigar and nothing keeps away mosqitos while your fishing like a Parodi!!!!

How interesting that my one-line comment inspired a diatribe.  You'll notice you are ASSUMING that I am like the smokers you see, and that ALL smokers are like a few who are the exception rather than the rule, BuddyRoadhouse.  This shows me exactly the type of person you are, and negates any inclination I may have had toward entering a discussion on the subject with you.

For the record:  I do not smoke in my house.  I do not think I should be able to smoke anywhere I damn well please regardless of who or what might be around.  I do think that each individual business owner (or a majority vote of its employees) should be able to decide if smoking should be allowed in said establishment.

Have a nice day!

felix4067


And we don't expect you to feel sorry for us.  But we do expect the common courtesy due any human being.

Common courtesy is a two-way street.  As soon as I see one single smoker put out a cigarette on the ground, then pick it up and dispose of it properly, I'll treat him/her with every courtesy.  I boggles my mind that smokers think it's perfectly acceptable behavior to just drop their garbage on the ground and just walk away.  Would you do the same thing with a soda can?  

felix4067


How interesting that my one-line comment inspired a diatribe.  You'll notice you are ASSUMING that I am like the smokers you see, and that ALL smokers are like a few who are the exception rather than the rule, BuddyRoadhouse.  This shows me exactly the type of person you are, and negates any inclination I may have had toward entering a discussion on the subject with you.

Huh?

Buddy

I love the words  "Have a Nice Day".............when people post this ,  we know what they are really saying                                        so  why be so trite?

@ Greymo: I'm so sorry to have been trite.  I guess we'll both have to get over it.

@ Pigiron: As for putting out a cigarette and then disposing of the butt...I have been doing just that for over 20 years.  But I don't actually throw the butt down, I field strip it and make sure no burning parts are still burning.  Just like my Navy father taught me at least 15 years before I ever smoked one of my own.  I don't throw any garbage on the ground, why should cigarette butts be any different?  

@ BuddyRoadhouse:  You strike me as the type of ex-smoker who thinks that all smokers are of a stereotype, and we are not.  If I am wrong, I apologize.  But given your extensive comments on the subject, I suspect I am not.

felix,

I'm not assuming anything.  I simply responded to your use of the word "courtesy"  relative to the subject of smokers being relegated to the outdoors, which was the topic put forth by the original poster, and Michael Hoffman's argument that "a bunch of freedom-hating elitists...insist that the liberties of others don't matter as much as their own."

Further, I'm not sure what part of my post #14 constitutes a "diatribe".  There was no name calling, no hyperbole, no wild unreasonable statements.  In fact, whether he likes it or not, Michael Hoffman's post is far more the diatribe than anything I wrote.  You haven't chastised him for his method of expressing his thoughts.  Is that because he shares your point of view?

Admittedly I made every effort to make my point, but I think I did so in a manner that was even handed and at least acknowledged the point of view of smokers while not losing sight of some real issues.  If you can point out any of my specific comments that are unwarranted, malicious, or not based on fact, please do so.  I'll either justify my statements or, if they truly are inaccurate, I will retract them.  You can't get much more reasonable than that.

As for me being any "type of ex-smoker" at all, I would say that now it is you who is making the assumptions.  Although there are times when I do find the smell of burning tobacco extremely distasteful, like while I'm eating, there are other times when I am in the company of smokers when I sidle up a little closer just to get a whiff of second hand smoke and feel a bit nostalgic.

The bottom line here is that if you're going to use the word "courtesy" in making your argument, or in Mr. Hoffman's case, "liberty", you should be prepared to hear from those among us who feel that smokers (excluding yourself of course) show very little courtesy or concern for the liberties of those those folks who don't want to smell cigar, pipe, or cigarette smoke in enclosed public places.

We breathe fresh air.  Burning tobacco is not a natural part of our atmosphere.  If you want to smoke in or around your home, that is your choice, your right, and none of my business.  Bring that same smoke into a public space and you are infringing on the rights of those around you who wish to breathe untainted air.

Buddy

In my world, a diatribe is several paragraphs in response to a single line.  That is all I meant.  Honestly, I don't take the time to read that long a response, but instead skim over it, which I have now done twice with your posts in this thread.

You had to make assumptions about what I meant purely based on the fact that I didn't actually make any statements for or against smoking in public places in my first, one-line post.  I don't see how it could be otherwise.

As for fresh air...are you up in arms about deisel fumes?  Carbon monoxide fumes?  Carbon dioxide fumes?  Nope...only cigarette smoke.  Personally, I am far more upset that I have to smell the exhaust of cars with bad mufflers while waiting for the bus.  It's far more toxic and less regulated. 

Well, whatever.  The smoking debate goes on ad nauseum, with no resolution.

Look, any more whippin' and this dead horse is just gonna be a pile of bones drying in the sun.

So, quickly and in order:

What I wrote was a carefully considered, well thought out response to not just your comment, but also Michael Hoffman's post as well as the smokers' rights question in general.  If that constitutes a "diatribe" in your world, then you should move to a world with more dictionaries listing the word "diatribe" in them.

If you're going to respond to someone's post, especially in a negative way, you should damn well make sure you read through it thoroughly, not just "skim over it", if only so you can be sure of what it is you are responding to.  If you're not going to take the time or make the effort to understand exactly what I said, then any response on your part has no validity whatsoever.

I guess you could say I made the assumption that you were a smoker based on the fact that you used the word "we", as in "...we don't expect you to feel sorry for us," and, "...we do expect the common courtesy due any human being".  By using the word "we", especially when you were responding to the previous two posts that both professed disdain for smokers, you implied not only that you were a smoker, but a smoker who felt put out by the municipal laws that prevent you from smoking in public places.  Also, the fact that this thread is all about the potential hypocrisy of anti-smoking laws might have been a tip off as to your intent and position on the subject.

Finally, once again it is you who is making the assumptions in stating that I am not "up in arms about" deisel fumes, carbon monoxide fumes, or carbon dioxide fumes.  Do you think because I didn't bring any of those things into the conversation that I am not concerned about them?  Of course I'm concerned about air pollution of all kinds, but once again, this thread is about anti-smoking laws!!!  I chose not to bring those issues up because it would only muddy the discussion and steer us away from the real issues.

In fact, the more times I read your responses it occurs to me that perhaps you were simply not aware of the topic of this thread and have posted here by mistake!

Now that's a diatribe.

Buddy

P.S. That's all I've got.  This has become silly and pointless.  If you want to continue to take offense and get "up in arms" over it, you're on your own.

I'm going outside for smoke.

B.

LOL!  Thanks so much for the giggle!  You enjoy your smoke now...I know I will.

Well, I am glad that has been resolved peacefully. Now will someone pass the Ketchup for my Hot Dog ?

Diatribe? Me?

 You guys.
You did give me an idea.
How about a ketchup filled hot dog, placed in an Arby's, rolled up in a pizza, eaten in Cleveland, the birthplace of pizza?

Boy, how dumb is that? Everyone knows that Gary, Indiana is the birthplace of catsup-filled hotdog pizzas.