Banty wrote in message ...
In article ,
says...


Well, the law being that certain folks will have to leave a nasty, destructive
habit at home, the only harm would be that there's a law. Unecessary laws are
bad.

Yes, unnecessary laws are, IMO, VERY bad. I don't like restricting
anyone's freedom unnecessary.

But, in tha face of "**** you", "what's your problem", butts and ashes flicked
everywhere, folks have not much option but to put up with the crap, not use the
park, or take public spaces back via laws. Folks are tired of it. I put the
blame for the laws square at the feet of a lot of the smokers.

I put the blame for the laws square at the feet of those who propose
them and lobby for them. Why are they seeking a solution through the
law and why are they insisting on banning smoking whether they are
around to be bothered or not?

Oh - I dunno - mebbe it's "**** You", keyed cars, and other general intimidation
that people meet up with nowdays when asking for consideration. It's the only
real answser to pervasive social intimidation - the force of law.

I'm sorry, but let me see if I have this straight. You feel that the
society you live in is so pervasively rude that we need to require
courtesy (such as not smoking around those who object) by force of law
if we expect to get it? And that requiring people not to smoke
OUTDOORS WHEN NO ONE ELSE IS AROUND is a reasonable cost if that's
what it takes? Am I correctly interpreting your opinon?

You should pretty much assume that there are *always* people around to be
bothered. It fits reality much better (in fact, pusing this notion in itself is
a form of social intimidation) than assuming that folks who are bothered by
smoking are a small group of curmugeons.

I'm not assuming that folks who are bothered by smoking are a small
group of curmugeons. I'm assuming that it isn't too much trouble, in
an outdoor setting, for them to either remove themselves from the
offender or to ask the offender to stop. I'll grant you that the
offender may not always stop, but that's really a rare occurrance,
especially if one asks politely. Further, I think the small minority
of smokers who won't accomodate such a request is going to be the same
small minority that would flaut the law if there were one.

Actually, the person I think you're referring to has stated that he
would, if requested, stop or move. He's also talked about how rudely
he has seen non-smokers behave when asking smokers to quit. I think he
has a point. I've never had a smoker be rude to me and insist on
continuing to blow smoke into my face. I suspect that those who
regularly encounter rude smokers are, to some extent, creating the
situation by being rude in way they phrase their request to stop. Not
always, but I'm certain it happens sometimes. I don't think that the
smokers are entirely to blame for the problem.

I *have* seen smokers be rude in response to reasonable, quiet requests. And,
like I've said elsewhere, smoking being so inherently intrusive and
trash-producing, it doens't take much inconsideration to make a huge impact.

A *huge* impact in an outdoor setting? I think this is an
exaggeration.

And, as has been pointed out, as with other innately smelly and bothersome and
intrusive things, the burden is on the SMOKER to be discreet and polite.

"Mind if I fart?"

Not at all madam. Fart all you like. However, I think I will take
this opportune time to bid you adieu. It's been an interesting
conversation, but I have other things to attend to. ANd I'd just as
soon leave before the atmosphere deteriates.