Category: the Rant Board
I don't know about you all, but I think it's absolutely rude and disrespectful when you are riding in the car with someone and they have to light up a cigarette. It's not just regular people, but cab drivers do it as well. Now granit some people do ask the passenger first, but most don't. Then when you confront them about it they say "it's my car and I'll smoke in it if I want to." Yes, that may be, but it would be nice to respect the non smokers for once especially in a car because cars are so small, it makes the non smoker smell like they're the ones that smoke.
Troy
Not only is it rude and disrespectul but grose! I can't stand cigerate smoke myself and my grandfather can't do it around my sister or my mom as they can't breathe around him. No one ever asked if it was ok to light up. They just do it anyways evne if it's not their car. However the one girl in sis's medical assistance class asked if it was ok first since she knew it wasn't sis's car. And even still she said no. And then when sis did get her own car the lady asked and sis said no.
There are some smokers who are polite about it. I've got a friend who's baby is azmatic. I do not under any circumstance smoke around him. I've baby sat, and either I'll go outside; (having someone else who is responsible watch him), or I'll simply wait until his mother has picked him up. I think it comes down to curtacy on all sides. This world is sadly lacking in curtacy from most people...
my friend smokes in his car, but he asks me first. He usually apologizes for it afterwords too. It doesn't bug me though.
I hate the smell of smoke. Not only does it smell bad, but it's bad to breathe too. Lol. But luckily for me, no one has smoked in the car while i'm in it. Once though, I was driving with my sis. Well, she was driving, obviously. But yeah, she was driving, and this lunatic was smoking and he threw his cigarette butt out his window, while it was alight! It landed on my sister's car, right near the open sunroof and it would have fallen right between us and blown up the car, for all we knew! But it blew off! We are so scared! Caitlin
Just be glad they arn't smoking blunts.
Cigar smoke smells much nicer than cigarette smoke until it goes stale, and pipe smoke better still although I'm not a pipe-smoker myself, only the odd cigar every few months for me. in this country the government has, quite wrongly, banned smoking in most public bars and other public places. Smokers are now not allowed to smoke in so many places that I'm beginning to sympathise with them. All right, I agree that people, particularly cab drivers, who light up without asking, are very discourteous and inconsiderate, but you've got to feel for them a bit haven't you? The government recently banned hunting foxes with hounds in this country, but now it seems to me that the hounds are off to hunt the smokers. For smokers today, only the street is an acceptable forum in which they can indulge themselves. Like it or not, people smoke and enjoy it. Moreover, the treasury in this country gains a lot of taxes through smoking, so if people stopped smoking it would be disastrous for the economy. smoking sections of pubs and bars, in my view, are the answer. that way, those objecting to passive smoking could sit elsewhere and socity would avoid this witch-hunt of smokers. Maybe then we'd find smokers a little more willing to bow to the demands of their passnegers in cars, and not light up if the passengers object.
LawLord.
The opposite argument regarding taxes though is that the lung cancer and other smoke related illnesses weight very heavily on the health budget and reduction in smoking related deseases may do much to off-set the lost revenue from the smokers. Bottomline with smoking (vs e.g. drinking) is that you are effecting your immediate surroundings and people around you directly through your actions and it's not acceptible to force your habits on others like this. Also it is very hard, if not impossible, to have designated smoking and non-smoking areas in pubs, unless the pub is actually split up into different rooms and the smoking area is well ventelated. I don't mind that terribly much if people smoke except at my house where it will never be allowed under any circumstances (and BlindGuy btw, I think blunt smoke smells better than cigarette smoke actually, I've personally never smoked either, but the problem with pot smokers at parties is that they are the most awfully boring people to talk to afterwards and they just sit there, not wanting to go out or have fun, just indulge in their little private pot world, that's really the only reason I don't like pot smokers).
Anyways, just thought it was a point worth considering. I do not have hard statistics to accurately state how much this offset matters but I have read that it is substential. I shall do better research later on so I can back up my points with statistically significant argument. ;)
cheers
-B
Wildebrew, rare though it is, I'm going to have to disagree with a number of points you make: I agree, of course, that the offset of costs is significant (It would be stupid to suggest anything different). However, as you rightly say, the economic analysis only stands up if there would be a net gain to the exchequer after deducting the costs from the income related to smoking. In the US, smokers are taxed at a far lower rate than here, where twenty cigarettes cost nearly £5 and where the price increases everey year. The net gain to the exchequer, therefore, is enormous. secondly, I don't agree that there would be a difficulty in smoking and non-smoking areas in pubs/bars/restaurants/clubs. It is a policy that many reputable restaurants adopt and I've never experienced problems, nor do I know of a significant number who have. In any case, even if there were a problem, it should be up to the pub or club in question to choosw whether or not to implement a smoking or non-smoking policy. why, after all, should a cuban bar whose authenticity depends on the clientele being able to smoke Cuban cigars be forced out of business because of a blanket ban? I agree with you statement about people being affected by smoking and drinking and that one has no right to affect other parties through one's pursuits. We could of course say the same of many other things - excessive eating, excessive slimming, traffic on the roads causing a smog - but that in itself is not an argument for a blanket ban. It is an argument for restrictions, and that is what we have at the moment and what we won't have in the future. I don't think you're advocating a ban by the way, but it is a point nonetheless worth making. Equally objectionable to harming others by one's pursuits, is frowning upon a large minority of the population because of theirs. Notice that I say 'large minority' because I want to exclude from this general principle such pursuits as the viewing or disseminating of obscene literature and the use or dissemination of elicit drugs, to give but two examples.
LL. Good points, as usual. Here the state is levying ever higher taxes on cigarettes and the prices are coming up to par with the British counter-part. E.g. New York City is selling packets for up to $8 per pack (with the decline in the dollar that only translates to just over 4 gbp but in better times that price would've been 7gbp, however it's up to the individual state to levy taxes). And, yes, I agree that there is no reason why smokers would have absolutely nowhere to go.
If I was in charge I would ban cigarettes outright for clubs or at least have clubs apply for smoking licenses so that it would be an addded inconvenience to allow smoking. The worst thing about going out partying is going dancing and having to spend days haing one's clothes out afterwards. Where smoking is the main attraction of the place and the main form of enjoyment I think that should be a totally valid right to have so cigar bars are, in my opinion, quite a cultural phenominon that certainly shouldn't go away although here, of course, any Cuban cigars are banned.
Thirdly things such as obeasity affect other people in different/less direct ways than smoking. I e.g. think an obease person that requires two seats on an airplane should pay for two seats on an airplane and thus be responsible for inconveniences that have to do with his/her body weight and also thse people are a huge burden to the wellfare system without giving the cash advantage that smokers do in terms of taxation (no high risk tax on fast food although perhaps that is something that should be considered e.g. under the LawLord government).
But generally I do not agree on a blanket smoking ban, but I think a policy should be implemented so that those who want a smoke free experience can easily experience that.
-B
I was refering to smoking pot at the same time as driving, which isn't good. I agree with all your points, and I never have smoked anything either.
Well, I think we've reached a consensus on those points Wildebrew. When I referred to excessive eating and/or slimming I actually had in mind the disorders that follow from such things and the effect they have both on health services and families, but your point about obesity is a very good one. I do think it is important for restaurants, particularly those at the top end of the scale, to have the option of allowing customers to smoke after a meal, even if this means the reintroduction of old-style smoking rooms. after a meal of six or seven courses, many like a port and a cigar, far too many in fact for them to be disenfranchised by the restaurant's not having any smoking area. I agree that people should not be encouraged to smoke, but the non-smoking lobby have to realise, as I do being only an occasional smoker of the odd cigar, that smoking is not a sin, nor is it a crime.
A couple of points. Again, some smokers are polite about it, and some aren't. That is simply human issues; not government. However, this blanket band is getting way out of hand as I believe you guys are saying; if I'm not misunderstanding. At our local university it's even becoming "illegal" to smoke on the street. And as far as other habits effects on the people around them. You guys mentioned drinking. I'm bringing this up as the child of an alcoholic. My father has been in countless accidents and what has he gotten but a slap on the wrist and the loss of his lisence. This doesn't stop him from drinking or driving. He does as he pleases, and he has out right killed someone...Also, what about the psychological effects on families? The state usually ends up paying for helping to correct that, but yet how is alcohol be taxed? No, I don't have any "facts" to back up what I'm saying, but I can look it up later if necessary, but my point is this. Why are the smokers being hounded? Because the world didn't get away with hounding the alcoholics, or at least the US didn't.
Agreed Witchcraft, it is in a sense far more convenient to hound smokers than alcoholics. The non-smoking lobby is in danger of becoming very sanctimonious and self-righteous on this issue, as the nonsensical and absurd idea of banning it left, right and centre indicates.
Both of my parents smoke around me. Its discusting. I dont smoke nor will I ever smoke, but being in a confined area like a car is bad for non smokers. I ask them not to smoke when I'm in the car or to at least keep it out the window. That helps a little bit. BUt most of the time I stay in my bedroom where they dont smoke.
that's all jolly fine, and I agree that some smokers are discourteous, just like some non-smokers with their sanctimonious plattitudes. For the record, I don't like people smoking in cars etc. either, but I stick by what I say about bars, pubs, smoking-rooms etc. I'd be interested to know whether, even though you don't like your parents smoking in the car or a confined space where you are, you'd agree with the views I have hitherto extensively set out.
I won't smoke around children, but they are the only exception. I guess people in Canada are more easygoing about smokers, because I have a lot of nonsmoker friends and they don't hound me about it, nor do they get upset if I smoke around them. I will not have someone tell me what I can and cannot do--if they don't like my smoking, they don't have to be around me. I know cigarette smoke stinks--believe it or not, I don't even like the smell of secondhand smoke. But I'm sick of being picked on by the government and those who have no idea what they're talking about. What about the alcoholics and drug addicts that go in and out of rehab time and time again? And the obese people who have heart attacks because they refuse to eat healthy? It isn't just the smokers taxing the healthcare system, it's everyone combined...all our stupid mistakes. It's not fair to single out one group.
amen to that, I say.
Agreed. Like I stated before...