Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
When I was in the military, smoking was allowed around the table in the center of the barracks and in the TV room. I, as a non-smoker (and we were and are in the large majority) had no choice. The smokers where making our whole “bedroom” hazy. And I simply never watched TV because one could hardly see the screen through the haze.
During my employment with a certain computer company, I attended classes. The company classes were competitive. Your job depended on your performance. They allowed smoking. By the end of a day in class, I had a pounding headache from the smoke of a small minority. This put me at a disadvantage in this intellectual competition, but the smuckers were immune to the effects of there oral farting. I had no choice, except to endure or quit the company.
It became fashionable to defend this small minority that was tyrannizing the majority of non-smuckers with the ridiculus claim of “smokers’ rights.” This of course was planted by the big business concerns in the tobacco industry, and the little puffers took it up enthusiastically.
My position is that my right to breathable air antedates a smoker’s right to pollute my air by some hundreds of thousands of years. But I had no voice, as did not all the rest of us that were in the air breathing business. The smuckers had Corpo-America in their corner.
I have no quarrel with your smoking – as long as you keep it strictly away from me. Take your smoking paraphernalia and climb into a dry cleaning bag and tie it shut. That way I have my air to breathe, and you get one-hundred percent return on your investment. Light up, marinate in it, but keep it out of my life!!!
I have no sympathy for smokers when they trespass on my rights. None!! I am so glad that the tyrannized majority has finally risen up and put the smokers in their place.
I would never support the outlawing of smoking, but my claim to breathable air eclipses any smoker’s claim of “smokers’ rights”. Cry me a river.
Smokers Rights?
|
Posted By: AZ Moderate Posted on: Jan. 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM  32 Comments
|
5.0 / 5
Based on 2 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Jan. 9, 2008 at 10:24:45 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| As I said in the parallel comment stream, Amen AZ Moderate.
|
||
|
Jan. 10, 2008 at 04:06:33 PM
|
|
| I agree 100%. After I had quit smoking, I stayed out of bars, and none of my friends were smokers. I didn't notice the changes. Then thru work, some folks persuaded me to stop on a Fri for brews. Then I quickly noticed the stench of smoke. I didn't go back into a bar until after the smoking ban went into effect in Tempe.
|
||
|
Jan. 10, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM
|
|
| Well since this subject has now been offered in a real article about it again... Az Mod, Have you ever been in a strip club, a casino or used a porta-potty or been in a bar? Many people find the strip club degrading to women, so they don't go in. Many people consider gambling to be a sin, so they don't go into casinos. Most people find porta-potties disgusting and many will do everything in their power not to use one, but when they do, it smells anyway. Some people think drinking alcohol is bad, so they don't go into bars. Some people don't like cigarette smoke, so they used to avoid going where it was allowed. Those of you who now want to start in with the health issues caused by smoking feel free. It does not affect the fact that by simply not going in, you avoid those issues. It also does not affect the fact that if someone wanted to open a non-smoking bar, grill or bowling alley they have every right to do so. I guess one could open a strip club where the girl don't strip, a casino where you can't win, a porta-potty that smells like flowers and a bar with no beer too, it would be dumb, but they could. Speaking of the health effects, any of you like twinkies, oreos or ice cream? Well they are among the fattiest foods around and the effects on your health from them can lead to heart decease, the number one killer int he nation. Will you fight when they shut down McDonald's because of the fat fast food they serve? You can choose to avoid those places by simply not going to them right? I believe these smoking bans are like the ban on alcohol in the early 20th century...short lived. |
||
|
Jan. 10, 2008 at 07:21:53 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jan. 10, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM]
Average American
Jan. 10, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM Well since this subject has now been offered in a real article about it again... Az Mod, Have you ever been in a strip club, a casino or used a porta-potty or been in a bar? Many people find the strip club degrading to women, so they don't go in.... View this Comment WWHHHOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhh …
Hang onto your hairpiece, Double A. That was the idea, pure and simple, of my article that just went over your head.
OK. So maybe you don’t have to hold onto your hairpiece. The central idea, in fact the only idea and purpose of the article apparently went so faaaaar over your head that you were completely unaware of it.
Oh. I get it. You didn’t read the article. You went right to the comments after seeing the title. That’s what lobbyist do – they have an axe to grind. Don’t let reason get in the way.
Or … Oh no! You wouldn’t be obfuscating now would you??
You wouldn't be trying to fog the issue because you have no argument, now would you Double A?
You know damned well I wasn't writing about smokers choice. Precisely the opposite!! I am steamed over decades of NON_SMOKERS NON_CHOICE! Every one of your examples had to do with choice. I was in the military, where any soldier, sailor, marine or airman knows choice doesn’t enter into it. The non-smokers had no choice but to involunarilly breathe the second hand smoke. I suppose you would say I had a choice to desert and get out of the environment. Or perhaps I should have chosen not to enlist and just face the draft (it wasn't a volunteer army in those days).
And there was no choice to go to a non-smoking classroom in the company I referred to either. But I suppose you would say I had the choice to walk out and lose my job.
Get real, my friend.
For decades non-smokers had no choice in the matter – their preferences were summilarily dismissed or ignored all together by a minority of people with a habit that encroached rather aggressively on the RIGHTS of the NON-SMOKING majority of the population.
Balderdash. Double A. Don’t play me for a fool. Get a plastic dry cleaner bag and have at it!
|
||
|
Jan. 10, 2008 at 08:16:12 PM
|
|
| The fog obfuscated the shore yet a familiar sound was heard - faint, yet clear and distinct - a bleating... but no mention whatsoever of a Liberal!
|
||
|
|
Jan. 10, 2008 at 09:20:16 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jan. 10, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM]
Average American
Jan. 10, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM Well since this subject has now been offered in a real article about it again... Az Mod, Have you ever been in a strip club, a casino or used a porta-potty or been in a bar? Many people find the strip club degrading to women, so they don't go in.... View this Comment That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. No, I take that back. That is as stupid an argument as the exact same argument you used last year whn the topic of the smoking ban came up. No AA, I don't have to go into a strip club or port-a-potty. I don't even have to breath when seated next to you in a restaurant. I have pretty good lung capacity, and can hold my breath for just over four minutes. But my right to not hold my breath around you trumps your right to foul my air. The choice is not for the diner patrons to look elsewhere if you are inside huffing and puffing. The choice is between your smoking outside the restaurant, or staying at home with a TV dinner and smoking in the comfort of your Lazy Boy. Now how is the Twinkie different from tobacco? Well, the Twinkie, when used as recommended, will not kill you. Tobacco, when used as instructed, will. Even alcohol and most hard drugs won't do that if consumed in moderation. But far too often, a moderate cigarette smoker in 20-30 years is a dead cigarette smoker. So please do not lecture us on the minor deleterious health effects of smoking. The tobacco growing industry has been grandfathered in since the days of Jamestown, long before anyone proved a strong link between smoking, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and lung cancer. There is no way in hell that the tobacco industry would have come into existence in the United States if we had known its adverse health effects ahead of time. If you are going to toss out this ridiculous argument that anything will kill you if abused enough, then feel free. Jjust be prepared to legalize heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, and all those scary illicit and addictive drugs that have put people away for life under the conservative zero-tolerance Three Strikes and You're Out policy. |
||
|
|
Jan. 10, 2008 at 10:50:34 PM
|
|
| Mic, You are the one who lectures me constantly that you can not have a free nation without rules. I understand that. Any time you completely block anything you are going to cause resistance to that thing, whatever it is. When smoking was everywhere, as Az Mod's example clearly shows, it was not fair or equitable, but neither is going to the other extreme. Baning smoking everywhere in public is stupid. People in this country have the ability to make decisions for themselves on whether to go into an establishment that allows smoking or not. Bars, bowling alley's casinos and such can be built either way, as smoking friendly or "clean air" friendly, so why do we have to ban it everywhere? We have banned drinking in public, with the exception of those establishments that are allowed by law to engage in the practice of serving it. Why can we not have a smoking friendly establishments here and there. We all know the published risks (and some of us know about those studies to the opposite, one of which was from the world health organization that was suppressed) . Property ownership mean nothing to some people, and everything to others. Give me a good reason to ban smoking in all public places. Now give me a reason it should not be baned in the home. Now tell me based on these two arguments why the substance should not simply be made illegal. These three don't mesh. |
||
|
|
Jan. 11, 2008 at 12:27:32 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Who's completely blocking smoking? Asking you not to smoke in a restaurant where large groups of people eat -- families with kids and frail people on oxygen -- is not a draconian restriction of your rights by any means. It's no more intrusive than a seatbelt. Perhaps you find a seatbelt law to be too authoritarian and nanny state, but I don't, and neither do the voters apparently. We have not asked you to stop smoking in public places AA. Outside is as public a place as it gets, and that's where we are telling you to take it. Why then, do we not restrict your ability to smoke inside your home, with the kiddies around? Because privacy rights come to bear when we start to talk about people's domiciles. Unless you are butchering Aunt Minnie or sodomizing grandpa with a baseball bat, we don't intrude past your front door, although that hasn't stopped some States from making oral sex illegal (see below).* The reality is, although we are free men, our laws restrict our freedoms by design. There are some things that we will stupidly do regardless of the potential harm to ourselves and others. Some of those things, like taking the sports car for a spin after a few drinks, taking a loaded gun to a bar, and building campfires in the middle of a drought, require laws to protect ourselves from ourselves. I might not like the speed limit. I'm sure I can drive much better than everybody else and should be allowed a top speed of 100 mph while the other peons should put along at 55. But I'd rather live in a country where these laws apply to all, me included, rather than they apply to none. I told you once before that every law is a balancing act between personal freedoms and public welfare. I might be persuaded to drop the antismoking restrictions inside an adult-only bar, where everybody has already chosen to bathe their non-replaceable hepatocytes in ethyl alcohol. But I will not compromise on the restaurant. You are under the obligation to smoke beforehand, afterhand, or outside if you simply can't get through your meal without a cigarette. The remaining patrons are not under an obligation to seek a restaurant without AA. (BTW, the French, of all people, have banned smoking in restaurants.) Now please let's not rehash the argument of a business owner's rights to set whatever rules he or she wants within their establishment, so they can deign their restaurant as "smokers-only" if they'd like. The argument is fallacious because property rights are not absolute. They don't have the right to serve you food from a rat infested kitchen because it is a threat to public health. Likewise, they don't have a right to allow you to smoke in an enclosed space, because that too is a threat to public health. And just to cut you off once again, I'm sure you'll tell me that if all the patrons and all the staff are smokers, you can't hurt them with second hand smoke when they already expose themselves to first hand smoke. My response to that would be to get real, because I think it highly unlikely you will be able to open such a restaurant if you tried, and if such a restaurant did exist, who in the world would want to come there for the food? * Crime, Punishment and the Ridiculous Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin. In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment. In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth. (There's every woman's fantasy gone down the drain). In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom. In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk to dirty in his wife's ear during sex. In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car. In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!). In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer. In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face. Animals are not exempt from the law either and here are three of the most ridiculous: In Kingsville, Texas there is a law against two pigs having sex on Kingsville airport property. In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for mooses to have sex on the city sidewalks. Lastly, even liberated California proves to be not quite so liberal for the animals...In Ventura County cats and dogs may not have sex without a permit. |
||
|
|
Jan. 11, 2008 at 11:02:04 AM
|
|
| BAA, while I agree with all Mody and Mick have said here, I'd like to stress the point that both smokers and non-smokers have rights. Once upon a time, smokers were considered he-men, non-smokers wusses and the rights of the former prevailed, without question. Nowadays, we know smokers are courting premature death and they're outnumbered by non-smokers. Ergo, in a democracy, bans against smoking in places the non-smokers wish to frequent is not only appropriate but the way it's been done is clearly legal. Yes, that's an imposition on smokers. Yes, smokers have a right to seek redress by overturning the ban with new legislation. Yes, it's clear you just don't like it! Why don't we have the option of having smoking and non-smoking establishments? In the surface that seems like a legitimate question but, in a democracy, the answer is - CHANGE THE LAW! Why don't you spearhead the effort - strike an blow for the Marlboro man! Try to establish Arizona as the wide-open home of the independent, he-man nicotine addict! Contact your state rep! We all know why you won't try - so give it a rest! |
||
Please understand that I am not raging against persons. I am raging against a rotten habit that has over the decades been shared with an unwilling population that has not chosen it for themselves, and for the industries that have promoted it for profit.
The problem was mostly societal. The tobacco industry promoted the habit and promulgated the myth of "smokers' rights" for its bottom line. And society has been decades slow in coming to grips with this whole health and personal rights issue.
Of course I have and have had friends that smoke. Friends are precious, and I do not judge them or harangue them for their habits. And everyone's consciousness has been raised to the level where most smokers are aware of their impact, and are courteous about it. The societal awareness was not there years ago, and smokers simply were not conscious of the impact of their habit on us non-smokers.
And the damned tobacco industry lobbied to see that they stayed uninformed and even promoted offensive tactics to keep the non-smoking majority off balance, if not downright apologetic for expecting to breathe air untainted by their product.
Report Abuse