I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

a reply to: 0rbital

How would I know it would offend you if I don't do it first...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are the poster who believes he has the right to control the normal human actions of others. You believe that you can demand that "no one blow cigarette smoker near me"

Is correct?

No. Not even remotely correct.

First, I said "no one blows cigarette smoke (not smoker) near me" (those are two very different kinds of blowing)

Next, I said not to blow it near me. Now, you and I may have VERY different definitions of "near".

I mean, in my personal space. And this is relative to where I am. If I CHOOSE to go into an establishment, where smoking is permitted, that's on me, I have to expect to inhale some smoke. It's my choice to suck it up, or leave.

That's far different than someone blowing smoke right at me, and in my personal space (i.e. reach of my arms).

The rest of your tirade is completely imaginary as to what I'm actually saying. Especially as I am actually DEFENDING the rights of smokers, even though I do not smoke myself.

Dude, I was visiting my mother once, and my uncle and I were outside...remember that word (OUTSIDE)... He was smoking. Another neighbor came outside just to bitch about it. Seriously? She even threatened to call the cops.

I gave her the number.

The dingbat actually took the bait, and called them (no idea what she told them). They showed, and then told her if she calls again, they will cite her for making a false report.

Man, read between the lines a bit dude....(and chill out, maybe go outside and have a smoke?).

And as a general rule though, if anything one does, starts to infringe on the rights of another, that's when the problems arise, so yeah, you can expect that any action (including playing super loud music that makes one's chest vibrate) that impedes on another's life, is possibly abusing said right. You have to balance out the right of one, vs. the effect on others, and if those others can actually remove themselves from the situation by choice.

a reply to: Gazrok

I get what you're saying. I'm a pretty much lifelong smoker and at no point in this life of smoking have I considered it ok to blow smoke on or at nonsmoker's. Matter of fact if I'm standing around talking to one outside while I'm smoking I will do whatever it takes to maneuver them upwind of my smoke. If I'm on a sidewalk and see a small child about to come near the hand holding my cigarette which usually hangs at my side between puffs, without any conscious thought whatsoever I will instantly switch the cigarette to my other hand AND hold it up much higher so it's not right at their face height! Hell if I am about to get in a nonsmoker's car after just finishing a cigarette I will deliberately slow down and take several very deep lung clearing breaths before I hop in!

I've had people tell me dozens of times that I don't have to be so careful about all this stuff but that they appreciate the consideration I show greatly anyway.

It costs me absolutely nothing to do these things and I don't have to do them, but I'd rather not have my personal decision to smoke affect others in ways that they don't appreciate.

People talk all the time about their rights and how tolerance is mandatory and etc yet seem to forget that basic manners decorum and respect are supposed to counterbalance and temper the excesses and rough edges of all this freedom.

a reply to: roguetechie

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I am particularly concerned that balancing off the rights of one group with the desires of another must be done carefully.

Here in Canada, almost half of bars have disappeared since the smoking ban came in. The sso=called right of one group to avoid a smell they don't like, while enduring air pollution of another kind (king candles, wood burning ect) has cost the livelyhood of a large group of people and a lot of jobs.

Not to mention the social effects (no pleasant place to meet, who really wants to drink lemonade under the watchful eye of the nanny state).

Right now the pendulum has shifted to far in one direction and will soon be shifting back with a bang.

I know that you think that is crazy but you would need to know alot of history to understand that smoking is a fad. The fight has been going on for 400 years. Ant=ismokers crop up about every 70 years, last 10 yearss or so and then melt away

The last one was Lucille Gaston Page om the 1930s (There was cigarette prohibition along with alcohol prohibition). Think of how tired are of the nanny state and how ever increasing their intrusion is becoming.

it all fun and games when it prohibition starts but then the side effects kick in.

Thing is, I don't smoke, I rarely drink, nor do I do weed.

However, I will STRONGLY support the rights of others to do these things, as long as it is to a point where it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

That also has to be tempered with common sense. Considering the sheer volume of being outdoors, a person smoking 20' away from you is not something to get all uppity about, for example.

a reply to: Gazrok

I will go you a lot further

The number of cigarettes that need to be smoked in a 10 X 10 room for any of the so-called cancerous or poisonous substances to exceed safe levels of exposure would exceed 100s of cigarettes smoked simultaneously! More people than could stand in the room.

However, anti-smoking (anti anything really) are wonderful money makers for both governments and big pharma.

I live in Canada. Smokers are not even allowed to sit on a patio. there is no public place for smokers to socialize. Eventually, anger builds up and without outlets, it explodes.

Yep, I totally agree that the anti-smoking crowd and agenda has gone WAY beyond proportion.

a reply to: Gazrok

anti-anything crowds always go too far. The moment anybody says "yeah that is enough" the money dries up. Make no mistake, there are always some sincere faithful in the crowd that believe that they are doing good, but any such movement has money grubbing non-believers at the top.