NJ woman chides NYC smoker, gets stabbed with pen (smoking verses non smoking)

If some lady were to try to put out my cigarette ( I don't smoke ) , I would kick her in the face.


But then again this is in a subway train. I am sure you are not supposed to smoke in the train anyways. But does a lady really have the right to try to grab a cigarette out of a man's mouth, with warning? How about without warning? Did anyone else care except that lady?

This is a touchy subject.
Firstly, I believe you have the right to do whatever you want with your own body..if you want to smoke, drink, do drugs, cut off your thumb..whatever it is..you have the right.

But there is a fine line here..you don't have the right to infringe on other people's rights to comfortable enjoyment of life. I don't have the right to tell you what to do with your body, and you don't have the right to decide for me what goes into my body without permission.

I think it's been proven without a doubt that cigarette smoke and secondhand smoke is very harmful for the body. Just like all choices we make in life, you have made the choice to imbibe these drugs. But see, I made the choice not to..yet when you are smoking next to me..I am being forced to take a drug that I don't want. So how do you decide who has the right to stay or go?

Seems pretty simple to me..if you are in a smoking area..by all means, smoke away. In your own home? Smoke to your heart's content. In your car? Have at it!

But if you are in a public mixed area in a crowd of people..it might be considerate to realize that we don't all want to breathe it. It's more than just a nuisance..it is a health hazard.

I live in a very nice condo in San Diego, CA. I pay a goodly amount of rent like all San Diegans and try to be a good neighbor. Yet I cannot keep my front door and window open because the man upstairs chain-smokes on his porch the entire day and the smoke pours into my home and affects me (an asthmatic) and my little boy. The HOA for the development actually forbids smoking outside within a certain proximity of neighbor's doors, so I actually have some legal backing here.
I am VERY non-confrontational and I really would prefer not to "tattle" on someone to the HOA, but after breathing this in for weeks..I finally politely approached him one day and asked if there was any way he could maybe take it inside as it was pouring into my house. I was raised to think that you get more flies with honey than vinegar so I tried to be friendly and non-threatening. He told me he can't smoke in the house because his landlord said "No Smokers".. So I suggested he could perhaps take it to the grassy area with benches that is a few steps away on the side of the house and he said "F**k Off, lady" and that he could do whatever he wanted in his condo. Since then, he had started spitting his nasty phlegm-loogies on the walkway leading up to my door.

It wasn't until my husband went upstairs and slammed on the door that the spitting stopped..but the smoke is still ever-present. I finally had to complain to the HOA and they have put notices on his door but he doesn't stop. Now we are contemplating breaking our lease just to get away from this cloud of constant smoke.

I related that tale only to show you the other side of the story. This isn't just a simple "no one is forcing you to stand there" argument. Like I said, I am all for your rights to do as you please and don't think anyone has the right to tell you that you can't smoke..but I would like the same respect..because I am being forced to smoke when you do. And just to make it clear..it takes a lot of distance to not smell smoke..I can smell the smoke of someone down the street if the breeze blows right but I won't go into that.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by RicoMarston

 

one who is doing nothing to harm or annoy those around them, and one who is performing a conscious action which does annoy and harm those around them,

Again, can the non-smoker remove themselves from said situation? odds are yes. The fact still remains people, that those whom do not smoke, can in 99% of all situations, get up and leave. So whats the problem. If a smoker wants to smoke, that his/her right. If the a non-smoker doesnt like it...leave. Not a difficult concept to grasp?

well, that's the crux of the whole argument; what gives your smoking preference priority over my breathing preference? can the smoker simply walk away and find an isolated spot to smoke? yes. then what's the problem? smoking was banned in theaters because a person who just paid to see the show shouldn't have to leave the theater to avoid someone's smoke. why can't smokers just wait until they get in their car? or get home?

reply to post by dukeofjive


did you have anything to add to the discussion? any counter points? an explanation of why my metaphor constitutes wild exaggeration and not just debate technique?

i'm the one who needs the ride on the "whambulance?" what about the smokers who, at the first mention of no-smoking policies, throw a temper tantrum and shout "i can smoke where ever I want to cos i said so!" the people who think smoker's rights are on-par with free speech and the 4th amendment?

as I said, did you have anything relevant to the topic you'd like to share? or did you just come on here to make fun of people?

reply to post by bastet11


I live in a very nice condo in San Diego, CA. I pay a goodly amount of rent like all San Diegans and try to be a good neighbor. Yet I cannot keep my front door and window open because the man upstairs chain-smokes on his porch the entire day and the smoke pours into my home and affects me (an asthmatic) and my little boy.

Really? You are worried about some guy smoking outside your window??? What about the carbon monoxide from all the cars? Should we forbid those too? What about the pollution given off by your condo?? Should we all just live in mud huts??? Where does the demands end??? Should the smokers demand you give up your condo cause it emits pollution??? What about noise pollution from your kid outside playing??? Should we demand parents lock their kids up so they don't disturb the neighbors???? Maybe instead of constantly blaming others you should take responsibility and move to an area more suited to you. Like a rural area with limited neighbors. You don't have the right to curtail others freedoms cause you feel inconvenienced.

reply to post by ohioriver


good lord. the non-smokers aren't complaining about pollution.

the poster obviously doesn't care about the effects the smoke is having on the environment; her and her daughter have trouble breathing in their own home because of the bad habits of the guy upstairs. nothing to do with the environment or regulating carbon emissions or anything else in that rant of yours.

people who don't smoke don't want to inhale cig smoke anyway, it's as simple as that. smokers really don't have a leg to stand on. there are ABSOLUTELY no positive effects from smoking (it only calms nerves rattled by lack of nicotine) yet the smokers say that they should be able to do it anywhere they wish and the (vast and growing number of) people who don't like it should be forced to leave where ever they are, whatever they are doing, and walk away.

YOU make the (idiotic) choice to smoke and I have to change my whole life around to suit you? nonsense.

the minority smokes, smoking is stupid, the majority wins. deal.

reply to post by RicoMarston


I understand what your saying, the argument could in fact go both ways. My point was that non-smokers rights should not trump the rights of smokers.

reply to post by onehuman


All the: smoking/non-smoking, democrat/republican, gay/straight, light/dark, stupid/smart reductive, dualistic "thingies" are more examples of imaginary camps that divide us and make a more harmonious world that much more remote.

For those of us who choose (or are hoplessly addicted to) tobacco and have civily moved the habit outdoors, it's still an ever smaller world full of hostile stares. I get it, but wouldn't stare at you for farting outdoors, for example... I'd just cede my space if possible, and breathe carefully through my mouth if not.

I like to think of smoking as my insurance policy against senility. Allow us an outdoors already full of chemicals and radiation, at least. We (smokers) won't be here long.

In this story both the man and woman was in the wrong.

The man shouldn't have been smoking on public transit to begin with and the woman shouldn't be snatching things away from people, thats a good way to get knocked out.

This whole issue of smokers vs non smokers is getting pretty stupid. People in Cali, who have some of the worst air in the world, are complaining about people smoking outside.

Really? You hate smokers that much that you are forgetting that your air is so disgusting that it is yellow in a lot of areas?

Smokers, does it really bother you that bad to walk away from a group of people when you are outside to have your smoke? Sure they can leave the area, but why should they? Just remove yourself from the area for the 5 minutes it takes to smoke and comeback to the conversation. No biggie.

Non Smokers, when smokers do go to designated smoking areas please shut up about how they smell. Be thankful that they go away from you when they want to smoke. They don't complain about the horrible stench coming off of some women who douse themselves in gag inducing perfume.

Yes, I use to smoke and now i don't. I don't mind being around it, but perfer not to be. I know chew copenhagan and will carry a bottle with me if outside at a public area. I do not spit on the ground out of the same respect smokers should have for non smokers. The bottle is also blacked out so that my spit cannot be seen sloshing around.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There's a certain inevitability to where this thread is going, so I might as well ask...

Why do you believe that you have the ''right'' to emit potentially harmful chemicals on unsuspecting and non-consenting members of the public ?

Why does your self-proclaimed ''right'' to indulge in this activity trump the ''right'' for people to walk about without needlessly being subjected to harmful toxins ?

I can guarantee you that non-smokers, "emit (FAR MORE) potentially harmful chemicals on unsuspecting and non-consenting members of the public", through their regular daily activities such as driving and the pollution caused by the goods they consume - than any smoker does.

How would you like it if some zealot took away your right to drive a car using the same logic they used to ban smoking?

Originally posted by thedeadtruth

No evidence.... How about intelligence ?

First point........

(1) The first day you ever went to school, the first thing they ever teach you is if there ever is a fire, " get on the floor and crawl out because the smoke will kill you " It is part of a global curriculum for children.

Are you suggesting you never went to any school in any county ? ( If so it might account for your absence of intellect ).


(2) Smoke is an irritant, even outside. The first logical thing you would do is make sure you are downwind of everyone else before lighting up.


Manners + Intelligence = non-issue.

No manners + lack of intelligence = this conversation.

Important point...... So you ignore the above and site " no research " blah blah blah....What would you do if research was released showing it does kill people. Offer to set yourself on fire in public out of shame for hurting innocent people your whole life.

I think not. I think you just don't care for anyone but yourself.

Cool story, bro.

I am a smoker of twenty plus years. I work in a place that smoking on the property and in the buildings is strictly banned, even on breaks as there are no designated areas. I go eight to twelve hours a day without smoking (a feat i would have previously thought impossible and it was very difficult in the beginning of my employment). Do I think that we should be allowed to smoke out doors and have a designated smoking area? Hell yes I do! However I am willing to to go without to remain gainfully employed. This is what the world has come to. You may not even take many jobs these days without being demonized for your bad habit. We can not even smoke in an area where nobody is present. I have always been very respectful of others even before the bans were implemented. I now don't frequent public places or spend money for entertainment outside my home because I am limited to about six hours of time to be comfortable in my surroundings between work and sleep and I am not giving one more minute to air breathers and their politics. I know of many smokers who feel the same way and I think we all secretly hope that all businesses and public funded systems are being hurt by the cut of about one third of their clientel (spell check) because they chose one demographic over the whole. I agree that many smokers have given the rest of us a bad name, I also know that the bias is not only attributed to the smokers end of this debate. I don't see any leeway coming any time soon. Every Tom, DICK and Harry gets some sort of accomadation these days except for us. I guess I'm just asking for a few designated areas to continue killing myself in peace without the incriminating stares of those who will live forever.

I'm just at peace knowing this moron can now smoke all he wants. All he has to do is be Big Bubba's girlfriend in Sing Sing.

/TOA

Originally posted by leo123
I can guarantee you that non-smokers, "emit (FAR MORE) potentially harmful chemicals on unsuspecting and non-consenting members of the public", through their regular daily activities such as driving and the pollution caused by the goods they consume - than any smoker does.

How would you like it if some zealot took away your right to drive a car using the same logic they used to ban smoking?

edit on 21-4-2011 by leo123 because: (no reason given)

Smokers don't drive, or produce goods with harmful chemicals, or eat food with toxins? ONLY non-smokers perform those activities? Interesting.

/TOA

I guess the lesson here is:

The Pen is Mighter than the Non-smoker!

reply to post by The Old American


Correction you cannot smoke in most prisons now either. Some poor child molester is quick to call the man if you spark up there.

This is why people should carry a gun.

Some idiot whose smoking who doesn't care about your health gets mad when you ask them to be considerate in a PUBLIC setting.

reply to post by DuceizBack


Yes bullets must be the answer to annoying cigarette smoke

Why don't they just ban cigarettes?
They banned my clove cigarettes ,as soon as Obama took office.
Then I got them imported from overseas,as long as customs didn't find them.
Then a few months later,they found a loop hole and made little clove cigars.
It's ok to have flavored cigarettes as long as they are wrapped in tobacco
and not paper.
What kind of idiocy is that??????
If the goverment wants to ban cigs from almost everywhere,
why not just make them illegal?
Because of money.
Hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by kdog1982
Why don't they just ban cigarettes?
They banned my clove cigarettes ,as soon as Obama took office.
Then I got them imported from overseas,as long as customs didn't find them.
Then a few months later,they found a loop hole and made little clove cigars.
It's ok to have flavored cigarettes as long as they are wrapped in tobacco
and not paper.
What kind of idiocy is that??????
If the goverment wants to ban cigs from almost everywhere,
why not just make them illegal?
Because of money.
Hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They banned cloves and all sweet tasting smokable cigarettes.

The reason there is a loophole is because they didn't want to ban cigars which have long had sweet flavors.

They are looking into that loophole