Category: Health and Wellness
Hello, Everyone:
Do you think that smoking should be strictly prohibited at indoor areas and outside public businesses? A few days ago I exited a shopping center and a group of min were smoking at the parking lot. The smell was strong and disturbing. If people wish to destroy their lives by entoxicating themselves with nicotine and chemicals from drugs, then so be it. However, I feel it utterly selfish and inconsiderate to expose others to "Second hand smoke." I mean, I've lived with it, but parents with babies, children and other people are exposed to this. I think there's a solution, do you? If so, what could it be?
It is restricted in some areas, but that is mainly a statutory law. I think it should be left up to the business or property owner to set those restrictions. Because I am not a smoker, and I don't care for having to breath it in, I choose to go inside the bars and restaurants that don't allow it to be done inside.
that same argument could be made for girls who wear that shitty vanilla scented perfume. I hate it, it bugs me to smell it lets make it illegal.
I'm with SL on this one.
I'm not a fan of big government and the nanny state.
If business owners want to ban smoking, good for them. However, I don't see that as the government's job.
In Colorado you can't smoke in a public business, bar, or eating place. Outside is your business.
I don't smoke and enjoyed when that law was passed. Now when I go out I don't come home smelling like the ashtrays.
People can smoke outside or private clubs, and as said businesses that permit it, or just at home.
I've known smokers that won't smoke in their cars or houses, so go figure?
I believe the government has too much and no control over almost everything, that wouldn't be a solution. This is health and wellness, and many articles have been written out there explaining why second hand smoke can result deadly, not the "vanilla perfume because you or I hate it" that's just plain baloney. Yet businesses forbidding smoking in their areas can be good.
Yes it is disturbing, I agree.
Over here in Melbourne Aus, people are not allowed to smoke under cover like under the verandahs of stations etc, but that rule hardly ever gets observed; It sucks when it's pouring down rain so I'm under shelter but the smokers are also there.
As far as I'm aware, pppl are no longer allowed to smoke in pubs here either or restaurants; this is very good for me. :)
I think people make too big a deal f this stuff. there is no huge risk of secondhand smoke. There was a study done by the EPA, and it got thrown out by a federal court because they faked it. Other than that study, there has been nothing conclusive.
So you're left with the argumen of, I don't ike it. But I don't like people with bad breath, or cheap perfume, or a number of different things. And to say you came home smelling like an ashetra from a restaurant that allowed smoking is just proposterous. I used o work in a smoke shop. There was constantly someone smoking in a very small area, and I stayed there for eight hours. I didn't smell like an ashtray.
Who said they came home smelling like an ashtray? Because I didn't. I knew people who've died of second hand smoke. Not one doctor, but many of them emphasize the importance of avoiding smoking and being around people with such habits due to it's deadly effects. Oh wait, I forgot that it's not a huge risk, sorry. So keep on smelling it for not 8, but 12 hours if you can, it's highly recommended for your good health and wellness. You'll prolong your life too
if you read through the posts, dolce, you'd see that poster five said he'd often come home smelling like ashtrays.
to answer the original question, though, no, I don't think that smoking should be banned in public places.
by that logic, as was said, we should ban people talking on their cell phones, or whatever else some human beings don't like. nope, not happening.
sorry to inform you, dolce, but there will always be things in life you don't like, to one extent or another.
if you wanna avoid them, go ahead, but if you wanna try and get people to understand where you're coming from, please say something that's actually well thought out. not just, "smoking is deadly," and "I don't like it, so it should be banned."
there are often nonsmoking areas in places, and, believe it or not, they actually live up to their wording. they don't smell like smoke.
for the record, I'm not a smoker, but I don't believe it's my right to tell others what they should do.
Chelslicious: Do you mind going back to the first post instead of just writing out what you agree with Cody, I mean what you think? I never said It is my right to tell others what to do... because not only can I say it's deadly and unhealthy, but I can give you reliable resources proving my statement, without solely basing what I say on a plain research.
I don't care about what you can "prove." the point is that there are plenty of things in the world that aren't appealing to people, so the solution would be, if you don't like them and can find a way to stay in a bubble where you never have to encounter whatever it is you don't like, fine. if you're like the rest of us who understand that in life, we can't always avoid things, but can instead, learn to deal with them the best we can, good for you. either way, it's your right to think what you want, just as those of us who feel differently, are entitled to.
Yes, I was the person that doesn’t like coming home smelling like an ashtray. I’ve had to spend many hours inside casinos where smoking was allowed, and when you come home you can taste it in your mouth, and your clothes are reeking, and have to be washed. If you don’t wash them your house will smell like smoke.
I am one that is living proof that being around too much smoke can cause health problems, and I suffer from sinus issues due to it. I never had them before I had to be exposed to it for long periods of time.
It caused me many infections, and I had to quit a job because of it.
If I am now in a confined area to long where several people are smoking I stop up and get headaches slightly, and it takes a while of fresh air to get clear.
I don’t go to places that allow smoking if I know it, but still have to agree that people should be able to do as they want except in the places I have stated.
Outside, in a business that permits it, their homes, but not in a confined space like an airplane, bus, train.
You aren’t going to smell someone’s breath unless you get close to them.
I also don’t allow smoking in my house, and invite friends that do smoke to step outside and I’ll provide something for them to put the buts and such in.
There are situations where you might encounter someone's nasty breath, though. If you sit next to them on a bus, for example, if they don't take care of themselves, you'll know it. And let's not even get started about the homeless people who reek of alcohol, piss, and everything else. Should they not be allowed in public places because someone might suffer health consequences from their stench? Because, believe it or not, if someone has powerful enough body odor, and you're in a closed space, you can pass out. this almost happened to me once when I was a kid. These Native Americans, and please understand I'm not trying to be racist here, just stating what happened, came to my elementary school to show off their art and such. We went into the library, which was a tiny, relatively airless room, and the door was closed. And those guys smelled like they had no idea what a shower was. I literally got sick to my stomach, felt lightheaded, and had to step out into the hall. So how is that any different than breathing in someone's cigarette smell?
In other words, I agree with what others have said so far. You can't eliminate every unpleasantry you come across in life, just because you want it to be so. I mean, granted, smelling someone's foul odor won't cause long-lasting health problems, but should I have went to the principal of my school and complained that no one who smelled should be allowed in our school? I think not. How silly that would have been.
Um, I hope I'm not reading right here Chels.
You are suggesting that those of us who hate the idea of passively smoking have to stay inside "in our own bubble"? OMG that's almost the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
Sure, we're all different and if we don't like something that is not harmful to our health, avoid it by all means but to suggest the above? Why should we cease our outdoor activities because of some selfish (in my opinion) smokers; not going to happen in the real world honey. You and Cody get in it.
I don't think that's what she meant.
I don't, either, and I hardly ever agree with her. In this case, the majority is speaking, though.
Ok dolce, you say you can give conclusive evidence to prove that secondhand smoke is deadly, do it.
I'm ok with smoking not being allowed indoors with the exception of bars etc. , if that's what the business owner wants to do. I'm one of those smokers who doesn't allow smoking inside my house. I never have.
However, the outdoors is different. It's open air for goodness sake. As a smoker, I can say that I do my absolute best to walk away from others if I'm outside and smoking. I don't hover around doors because that's rude. I think designated smoking areas at places like outdoor amuzement parks are a good idea too. I wouldn't want to stand next to someone smoking in a line if I didn't have to but at the same time, completely smoke free parks and such are ridiculous. There's enough open air that you're not going to get cancer by simply passing by a smoking bench. Give me a friggen break. That falls under the catagory of get over yourself. So something stinks, like others have said, lots of things stink. I used to live near a Long John Silvers restaurant and you wanna talk about stink? That thing stunk.
I would imagine that the exhaust from cars and buses, etc will do just as much dammage if not more than passing by me and my one little cigarette in the street.
finally, rdfreek said something with meaning... and if sl didn't comment on it, that it's because he hates being prove wrong, get over your pride, will you cody? And didn't you read the last poster who mentioned his/her health issues because of the second hand smoke? I think you and your friend there, are stuck up and think you are better than anyone else and like to argue just about everything and anything. Do yourselves a favor of getting a life, together if possible and get over it. I'll provide you with the evidence, and weather you take it or not I don't care, but for god's sake, quit being silly to try to make a point, it only shows your stupid ignorance
The different, in my opinion with having to smell or be confined to a small area with body order, perfume, things that stink is when you leave them you leave them.
With smoke it goes with you. It gets in your hair, your clothing your repertory tract, and it stays there.
Yes, order can make you feel nausea, but it won’t cause you any lasting effects, as smoke will.
Why do you think fire fighters, and people that work around things that burn use face mask, and in extreme cases respirators?
I have stated if a person wishes to smoke, I can simply wish to move away if not confined with them.
I’ve had to get off a bus once, because someone on their was cranking. Lol. It was a hot day, and I had time, so I just got off.
Rachel, have you heard of sarcasm? that's what I was using in my last post.
also, I'll say that Wayne's point about smoking causing severe allergies, is valid. I'm around smoke constantly, as many people in my complex have the habit. oftentimes, I can even smell it in my apartment, as the smell wafts in since they're standing right by my door. however, that simply means I have to figure out what can be done about my allergy, rather than complain about the health issues I'm now faced with.
Yes dolce, I did see the post where someone said they had health issues from smoke. But that was all I saw. I didn't see any descriptions of the health issues, or any evidence that it was caused by smoke. I saw an argument from authority, and I don't buy arguments from authority. I still await your evidence.
Yes, fire fighters use respirators, but fire fighters also go into burning buildings, where most of the air has turned to flammable gas. If you're in a place where you have so many smokers that it actually turns the air to volitile gases, then you're an idiot for staying there. There is a huge difference between a cigarette and a forest fire.
Oh, and someone also mentioned that they worked in a casino, an the smoke gave them alergies. Those alergies were probably not caused by the smoke. They were probably caused by the air. Casinos use refiltered and highly oxygenated air. It causes alergies in a lot of people. It also allows you to stay awake longer, so you can bet more. That's why your alergies were fixed by walking outside, it was fresh air, not filtered air. the same thing can happen in airplanes if you take a long enough flight.
I'm not saying it was that, it could have been the smoke, but if it is a casino, I'd bet on the air first before the smoke. Casinos are huge places with wide open space, and smoke floats. You'd have to have thousands of smokers smoking dozens of cigarettes each at the same time for it to fill the place that much. However, filtered air fills the entire building. Just a thought.
It wasn’t the casino I had to quit, but that caused me to wreak when I came home.
In a casino you have exactly the situation, thousands of people smoking all the time. Now casinos have air filters, and they are large places, but you still reeked. I doubt you’ve been in one about 2007, so you’d really not know.
Many ban smoking inside or in the main areas now, so it isn’t an issue and everyone is happy.
In Colorado you cannot smoke in a casino, and you must rent a room set aside for smokers. I see this rule as a blessing.
Next, it wasn’t the casino I quit, but a small office. It was about 20 by 20 and 15 people smoked all day every day.
I’d love to send you my medical bills so you could reimburse me for something that couldn’t have happened. I’d also love to send you the medical reports and go back to the time before I had this medical issue, and its lasting effects, so you could simply make it all go away with your informed knowledge.
You see my medical issue is now a part of my daily life and doesn’t only affect me just because I go outside and get fresh air. I said whenever I have to smell smoke it takes me some time to clear up after I am in the fresh air, or the smoke goes away.
I also have other issues due to it, or the infections it caused that will be with me for life.
One cigarette is not the issue, it is several at once.
May I ask, when was the last time you went to a restaurant and had a meal were you had about 5 people smoking at your table?
I think he's gone and like many young "mature and informed" guys he's just been passive about it, because even though he doesn't like it he can't avoid it and well there's no huge risk of it anyway, lol!
He doesn't seem passive at all about it. I assume he lives on a college campus, and in Florida, if I'm not mistaking, he can avoid it, because laws dictate he can.
It isn't in his dorm, not at the student union, not in his classes, nor the campus buildings.
The only way he has to deal is if he goes to private parties in homes or at private clubs.
He also has to deal with it outside, but outside is able to move away.
So no he doesn't deal with it at all.
Dulce, did you mean finally you agree with me on something or I was the only one in this thread (apart from you) that made sense? Lol just curious. If the former, there's always a first for everything right?! Lol
But to get back to this post, I'm sorry I attacked you in my prev post Chelsea but I couldn't understand why Dulce was being attacked for having an opinion. This very thing is what's being discussed in Doug's board post; why can't we have a clean debate without the attacks? I'll now answer my own question; because some people feel they can't justify themselves clear enough without attacks. It's also because these people are very insecure; very sad.
There's definitely ways of debating without attacks; I'll keep this in mind myself as I know I've stooped as low as some of you lately; I shall stop.
But just one last thing about the actual original topic; I definitely thought someone with health problems would be more than enough proof for some of you to realize that passively smoking is so dangerous and everyone, absolutely everyone, including you are at risk; sad, very very sad.
I meant that finally, you were the one to say something direct, to the point and without acting like a fool and silly by attacking. I don't give a flying fuck what Chelsea thinks by means of cody, she is entitled to her opinion, but being smart and acting like an smartass are two different things. sure, second hand smoke has been povred to be health threatening, causing cancer and various deseeses. Oh and by the way, the chimicals in the cheep perfumes, peoples badd oder and breath don't cause lung cancer, are not adictive and certainly don't contain nicotine... Besides, This post is about the effects of second hand smoke, the rest is just plain cheep philosophy, which is also allowed, why not? :)
On attacking. If a poster wishes to keep the debate clean I'd say don't attack back?
Stick to what the attacker has said related to your topic and ignore the rest.
If you'd not give a flying fuck, maybe a standing one? JK.
lol! forereal... :D
Sorry, was travelling, so couldn't get back. Glad to know that you attack me, then whine about being attacked when you think I'm gone though. I love people not brave enough to say negative things to your face.
So, let me clear a few things up here. No, I don't live on a college campus. I live in an apartment. The last time I had five people smoking at my dinner table was last night, and it was eight people, with cigars. I survived, I'm sure you're chagrined.
So, you have a medical issue. Even throwing aside any doubt that it was caused by cigarettes, which I still doubt. Even assuming you had six dozen smokers all shotgunning you from morning until night, please explain to me why your infermity effects my life,or the lives of millions of others?
Are you going to make the entire world fit for every ailment? Do the people whose cure is smoking get to smoke around you, or does your ailment outweigh their ailment? Who is more ill?
I really hate itwhen people think that because something bad happened in their life they get to dictate the lives of others. Guess what, I'm blind, and do you know how much of a shit the world gives about that? Absolutely none. Sure, we have a few laws, and the business owners have the right to say no smoking in their establishment. Other than that, I invite you to present me with evidence as to why I should give a shit about your sickness.
And Dolce, I'm still waiting for that evidence.
I'm usually not a harsh person, but there's one point that no one has brought up yet.
Ok, so maybe breathing in secondhand smoke does give you health problems. Let's just assume that's true for a minute. Do you know how many other things can cause health problems? Are you going to stay cooped up in a little bubble forever because you might contract a disease or die? Well, those things can and will happen to everyone. Smoking just happens to take a large chunk of the blame, sometimes rightly so, but most people need a scapegoat, I guess.
Yeah to add to the above poster, there are so many things they say can cause cancer. It's impossible to avoid every single health hazzard. We're not saying it's pointless to try and stay healthy, what we're trying to say is even the healthiest people get old at some point. That's how nature works.
I am not asking you to care about my medical issues.
I posted this fact, due to several statements that second hand smoke does not cause health risk. It can, and does.
You are also not blind due to some public use of some substance you were over exposed to.
In your case you are only exposed to second hand smoke with you choose, not because you must, and that is the different here as well.
We have laws set up to protect the majority, or masses, and the laws against smoking in public places do this.
These laws do not restrict anyone from smoking, and they do not restrict business owners from claiming the establishment a smoking zone in many states, so this law is not harming anyone, but making life better and easier for us all. It is a quid pro quo that helps everyone.
When you step on to public transportation, not only do you have the assurance and right that you won’t have to inhale smoke, you also trust that the company has proper braking systems. You trust that the vehicle you travel in is up to safety standards, and you trust the driver of that vehicle cannot drink, perfectly legal, while he or she drives, because drinking is legal should be up to the individual, and if that individual decides they can operate a high speed train intoxicated, that judgment is sound.
If they endanger the safety and health of the passengers, well these passengers have the freedom to ride on another train right? These passengers also do not have the right to test the driver of the high speed train they are about to board to make sure he or she is not intoxicated, because that would be violation of that persons freedoms.
Must goes in to deciding a law, and laws aren’t just setup randomly in the sUS, and the smoking laws are some of these that have been tested, proven, and do everyone good, not only a few.
I’d post some proof, but this isn’t my board.
I'd also like to add this question now that I know your living arrangements.
We have a noise law, and this law restricts noise after 10PM. If I lived next door, should I have the right to play my music, or hi def audio system after 10PM so that the subwolfers pound your wall?
I don't believe this would pose a helth risk. What do you think?
First, you haven't presented anything that says secondhand smoke is a health risk. It may have been one for you, but then grass is a health risk for some people, I bet you still see grass everywhere.
Considering that I was blinded by cancer, it is actually entirely possible that I was blinded because of some chemical or toxin. We don't actually know what causes cancer.
Also, you're wrong about laws. We don't make laws to enforce the will of the many onto the few. Blind peole are no the many, but we still have laws which protect our rights. The right of free speech protects the few who are willing to speak, not the many who have to listen. Laws are created to insure equality, not to enfrce the will of the many. We don't have a majority rule in this country. That would be a democracy, and we don't have a democracy in america.
But lets just take your belief amoment and say that the majority did rule. If you walked into a bar where the majority are smokers, which in many bars is acually the case, should they be able to smoke?
I have been in bars many times where the majority smoked, so the majority ruled.
It should also be noted that in a bar where the majority do not smoke 3 people should be perfectly willing to except the majority rule and not smoke inside.
I don’t know, but I suspect your cancer was not caused later in life, so you also don’t know that it wasn’t caused by nature.
I would not think that you have medical records that state that over exposure to smoking was the cause of your cancer as well. I know for a fact how my medical issues were caused.
I disagree about your views on laws and why they are created. We are not keeping anyone from free expression, not even smoking, just smoking in areas that might cause the majority health risk.
Are the laws that keep your train operator from drinking while operating your train not valid, and created to restrict his or her free expression?
We cannot prove that a particular person is not capable of operating the train you are riding on safely while intoxicated. The reason we cannot prove this, is because many people drive all the time intoxicated, or after a few drinks and have never had an accident. But, you haven’t said that law was wrong?
How about the law that prohibits use of cellphones while driving, unless you are using a hands free device?
I know of a case where a bus driver was traveling on the highway while texting. Traffic came to a sudden stop, as it sometimes will, and he never noticed it. He was videotaped texting and also videotaped ramming in to the back of the stopped car in front of him, at full speed, about 60 miles per hour. He caused a pile up.
It had never been proven that he was not capable of operating his bus while texting until that accident.
Many people do this all the time in their own cars, with their own cellphones, and never had an accident. Is that law also stupid?
You did not answer my question about playing my loud music after 10PM next door? I am just exercising my freedom right, and you should not be bothered, because you can’t prove it is hurting you in any way to the manager, so you just have to deal with it?
If we in the US, or hopefully, anyplace else took your stance, we’d all have a difficult time living with each other. We had to rely on the law of the fittest. Sadly in that circumstance you’d not be free at all, or maybe not even alive.
Yes, you should be allowed to play your music. I wouldn't care. I don't care when it happens now in my apartment.
The difference between your examples of drunk driving and smoking is one thing, you've given one piece of anicdotal evidence to support smoking being bad, we have hundreds of thousands of cases of drunk driving being bad. In that instance it was not a majority ruling the minority, it was society deciding a certain behavior was against the common good. So, you'll be presenting hundreds of thousands of cases like yours yes?
Oh, and I find it difficult to believe you have medical records that say you had cancer caused by over exposure to smoke. that might have been a best guess by a doctor, but I doubt they proved it to be the cause. I doubt that because we don't know what causes cancer. We have a few ideas, but nothing conclusive.
I don't have cancer. I never said I did. You said you do.
For the case of the law that was set up for smoking it was exactly the same.
Here in Colorado, it was the majority setting the rule. The law was put on the voters ballad, not decided in a court room. Society decided they didn't want people to smoke in certen places for the common good.
It was not a government mandate.
Well that wasn't how it is here, and it wasn't how it was in michigan either. I lived there when that kind of law was put into action there too. I had to watch as some of my favorite places were shut down because they lost so much business.
Now, most of the places that used to allow smokers, just allow smokers anyway and pay the fine whenever a cop finds out about it. They make more money that way.
Are you a smoker?
Yes.
I did some looking, because I wanted to learn if in fact in the state of Florida the smoking law was forced on the citizens, or was it voted in to law.
Here is one fact I learned.
Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (FCIAA)
The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (FCIAA) was enacted in 1985 by the Florida Legislature. The purpose of this part is to protect people from the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to implement the Florida health initiative in s.20, Art. X of the state constitution. It is the intent of the Legislature to not inhibit, or otherwise obstruct, medical or scientific research or smoking cessation programs approved by the Department of Health. In November 2002, seventy-one percent of Florida's citizens voted for a constitutional amendment to prohibit smoking in all enclosed indoor workplaces. The smoke free law became effective July 1, 2003.
Seems the majority spoke there.
Also seems the majority was fair due to this.
o The Act lists seven exclusive exceptions to this ban: (1) stand-alone bars as defined; (2) retail tobacco shops as defined; (3) designated hotel rooms; (4) tobacco manufacturing facilities; (5) custom smoking rooms in international airport in-transmit lounges as defined; (6) smoking cessation programs approved by the DOH; and (7) membership associations as defined as long as no one is
working
Now in Michigan it is different and was decided in 2009.
Michigan will go smoke-free in May once Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs a workplace smoking ban, which includes bars, restaurants and private clubs. It will become the 38th state to do so.
The Legislature passed a smoking ban exempting three Detroit casinos, cigar bars, home offices and motor vehicles.
This one was not a people vote and is sort of interesting, but gives some places the right.
Here in Colorado it was thought that businesses would lose money as well, but soon as people got used to the law they are back out in force. Bars, casinos, and such are doing just fine.
Not much of a majority rules when it takes them almost two decades to even vote on it.
Ah, I see what you mean.
The law was actually inacted and revised again. So it wasn't actually 20 years before they voted, it in some in this case, Florida was just updated.
I'd say education, and reasonableness caused these changes so that the majority could live easier.
In Michigan, you notice some would not vote for the law, not because they disagreed, they didn't see it as complete.
We didn't go through that in Colorado, and from looking at these 2 examples, and mine here, I can see that the government has allowed each state to go along as they choose.
Only 38 states have smoking laws. I'd have to check that to make sure, but from just generally reading on these state websites, was the information I learned.
You being a smoker, and me not being one, will always be on opposit sides of this, and again, that is why these laws are good things. As you say, they serve the common good, not just you or me.
But I don't think they serve the common good at all. I think they serve the common misconception.
If a person can smoke and have health problems, why is the second hand smoke different?
It doesn't change because it isn't being inhaled directly from the cigearette?
Some people smoke and live to be over 90. Others smoke and die of it at 30.
I don't know how it effect me, so why should I be subject to someone elses smoking? It is like they are deciding my future sort of.
Yes, I know that is over the top, but think about it.
Do what you like, when you are at home, outside, or at a place with like minded people, but don't decide my fate for me.
But you don't even know what the secondhand smoke is doing to you, and as I said there is no evidence it does anything. So you are deciding my life for me.
Exactly. I have no idea, so please enjoy your smokes alone, I'm not interested in joining you.
And I forgot to say, I know what it has done to me, so I'll pass on the rest thank you.
It's a foolish thing happening all over the world, I say. producing something addictive and asking us to restrict. I guess y'all are aware, If a person is getting addictive to something, getting rid of that is ... really a pain. I think instead of producing and asking us to restrict, they can stop producing the thing entirely.
For an example, I'm smoking since seventies. I tried very hard to quit. But no success yet. Since I have the capacity of buying it and since it is easily available in the shops, I'm still smoking. I do admit, as per smoking, I have less will power to stop. But still I'll try my best to quit that shit. Even though we are aware it is harmful for our health, in some addictions, it's being hard to quit.
But sadly, all the countries' governments are just giving us restrictions instead of banning that from the production level entirely.
It is just my opinion. Fire on!
Raaj.
I’m not about to quote chapter and verse, but I think it’s been scientifically established that smoking can cause a whole host of health issues for many people. Last year my father died and his heart and lung issues were due to exactly that. I also know that smoking is extremely addictive, which is why he could never stop in all the over sixty years that he did smoke. But smoking may not affect others as negatively. Some people live well into their 90s and even pass the century mark and still smoke to their heart’s content. Take Winston Churchill and George Burns as examples. What bothers me, though, is the seemingly pervasive idea that we have to have a law against anything and everything or anyone that offends us, and I’m not a smoker. Know what I do if someone bothers me for whatever reason? I avoid them. It’s what you have to do when you want to go out in public. You take the risk that a certain someone or something is gunna bother or annoy you from time to time. If you can’t avoid people or situations, you deal with them in whatever fashion you have to. I can’t stand it when Bible-thumpers get in my face, so I walk away from them. If I can’t do that and I have the means, I put in my earbuds, crank up the music and wait for them to just shut the hell up or go away. Maybe the difference between an annoying Bible-thumper and a smoker is that the one only causes annoyance and discomfort while the smoker can potentially cause a health hazard to me personally, but frankly I’ll take the smoker anytime. At least they’re quiet and will leave me the hell alone.
Sure, you could argue that smoking bans are for the common good, and maybe there is some evidence to back it up, but you could use that argument to possibly justify anything that offends some small percentage of the populace. Anybody wanna ban gay relationships between two consenting adults because it’s ungodly and we wanna protect people from the fires of hell? There go my rights. Anybody wanna reinstitute bans on interracial marriage? In some people’s warped minds that’s ungodly too and will mongrelize the races. My sister’s marriage would be declared illegitimate and my niece and nephew would be impacted. What about so-called evil or improper books? Heil Hitler, anyone? Because that is the sortof thing that happened in Germany in the 1930s. And even in our own times someone gets their underwear in a wedgy when they see a religious sign or statue somewhere and decides their rights are being violated, whereas if they stopped looking at the sign or statue or whatever, their rights wouldn’t be impacted at all. And look at that stupid ban on large sugary drinks in NYC. Maybe large sugary drinks can cause obesity, but so can a lot of other things. isn't it your right to be obese? I'm offended by things like Rush Limbaugh and Morrie Povich, but should I start a movement to ban them, or should I just be a grown-up and simply avoid them? And if I'm gunna do that, what's to stop someone from getting offended because I have a boyfriend (which I don't right now), and have the unmitigated gall to flaunnt my clearly ungodly relationship in the faces of those more holy than I? All I’m wondering is when are we gunna let adults be adults and just learn to deal?