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

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


Non-smokers didn't *choose* to breathe in cigarette smoke. Many directly
*chose* NOT to breathe in cigarette smoke. It's harmful in a way that goes
beyond momentary irritation, and it *is* irritating besides. One *has* to
breathe. On the other hand, smokers can leave the ciggies as home for awhile.

Sure, that's one solution. But is it really the best compromise that
our society can come up with to resolve the conflict between those who
wish to smoke in an public outdoor setting and those who wish to avoid
all exposure to their smoke? I don't think so.

My preference also would be that smokers would be considerate, such that
non-smokers don't have to resort to the broad hammer of the law, and everyone
would come out ahead.

Sounds ideal to me too. But even given inconsiderate smokers, the
broad hammer of law seems just too big a weapon to wield for such a
minor matter. Does more harm than good.

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?

Unfortunately, we ban smoking because we don't have considerate smokers, just
like we ban music from the parks often because of those who think they have a
"right" to blast it, and many places ban or restrict dogs because so many owners
can't seem to keep the dogs under control and clean up after them.

I wasn't aware that either had been banned. Not in my vicinity
anyway. Loud music bothers me a great deal more than smoke
personally.

Both are banned to one extent or another in parks around here.




If I heard from folks like you more noise about inconsideration, instead of
whining only about the laws people turn to as a last resort, I'd give you more
credibility. So let's hear it - what are the responsibilities of smokers in an
ideal no-law situation?

I think that smokers should always be considerate and never smoke
around those who object. I don't complain about inconsiderate smokers
because I don't know any personally, nor do I see any posts
proclaiming their right to smoke whenever and wherever, so I don't
address that issue.

We've seen at least one person here say something on the order of "what's your
problem lady, it isn't like someone is shooting your cat", and we haven't
exactly seen smoking apologists come out of the woodwork to say they try to do
differently.

So there you have it.

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.