Smokers Vs. Anti-Smokers

I would put myself down as an anti-smoker, primarily because my father was a smoker and when I was a child he was in hospital for a smoking related condition. I believe my grandfather also died due to smoking (he had bad lungs). All of my grandparents smoked and all of them died rather young - whether thats related to smoking or not I'm not entirely sure.

I've personally never smoked as I've had no desire to, but I am genuinely interested in the various reasons why other people feel the need to smoke. I am grateful that smoking has been banned in restaurants (I don't think eating and smoke go together.) I am also happy that smoking has been banned in pubs and clubs though I can understand how alcohol/smoking go more hand in hand for many. When smoking used to be allowed in clubs, I used to come out with a dry mouth, smelly clothes and sometimes even a cigarette burn from people smoking and dancing at the same time.

Also, my eyes dry out very easily so cigarette smoke makes my eyes water. This only happens if somewhere were to literally blow smoke into my eyes (which would rarely happen) or if I am in an enclosed space with someone that smokes for a long time. My eyes always stream when I am at my friends house, as his mum and dad smoke. Of course this is their home, so I tolerate that.

I think people have the right to smoke, and if we want to address pollution in our air we also need to address cars/factories and lots more. If we want to focus on health we need to consider alcohol and fast food. If we want to focus on inconsideration we need to look at lax laws, corrupt politicians, muggings, crime and all the rest.

Smokers are the easy target, as much as I hate smoking. So long as a smoker doesn't inconvenience me and is thoughtful and so long as smoking isn't happening in most public places, which it isn't, then I am happy.

Second hand smoke does kill and for the safety of other pele, I don't see why government making a law against smoking is a bad thing. I think it's very rude to smoke near doors or people. The reason there needs to be a law about it is because people don't have that common courtesy to care about their behavior negatively affecting other people. You seem to be one of here people Or else you probably wouldn't have been asked to move. The smell of smoke does carry and you're a dick if you think it's okay to smoke it almost directly into people's faces.

You are incorrect in stating that the government has no right to tell people what they can do inside of their buildings--you could try to change the law but numerous examples exist to show vast legal precedent for anti-smoking regulations.

A few are: occupancy restrictions limiting the number of persons allowed in any room of a business, use restriction, from regulations on stoves and other equipment to limiting where alcohol can be sold and consumed, where movies that are adult films can be shown (not within a certain proximity to schools, and other places like parks, churches (that was challenged after it was shown that it was in effect a prohibition because there were churches on every block of the city), etc, prohibitions on showing "R" rated movies in malls, limits on the numbers on cars on a single lot, restrictions on building materials, wiring, plumbing, etc., and requirements that everything have permits, inspections and licenses.

Perhaps a majority of the restrictions are health and safety, but many are simply public policy--for example, use restrictions, and all the requirements that landlords rent to anyone, and must allow 2 people per bedroom regardless of how tiny the unit, who the other tenants are, how safe the building is for small children, etc... If the government can force a landlord to rent to 4 people of any age for every 2 bedroom unit in a building where every other tenant is over 70 years of age and living alone, relying on the space and quiet, they can prevent landlords from allowing patrons to smoke.

The idea that any property is yours to use as you like is an illusion, and has been for a long time. In fact, since the supposedly pro-property rights Republican Supreme Court was appointed, they have made it legal for the government to take your property if you are even suspected of criminal activity (convictions are never required, which turns the constitution on its head) and furthermore, it can be a tenant of a landlord who is clearly completely innocent of any participation in crime, yet the property can be seized and sold. Due process has been dispensed with by the Supreme Court, no constitutional amendment required.

And further, the Supremes put their stamp of approval on the practice of taking private property by eminent domain, not for governmental use, certainly not of necessity, as was a criteria in the past, but to sell it to businesses who will in turn build income (tax) generating businesses on the land. Using the excuse of a larger tax revenue, homes of ordinary people overlooking rivers or harbors are taken at rock bottom eminent domain prices, sold for pennies to developers who put in restaurants, hotels, condos, shops, golf courses...and the Supremes approved. No due process. No constitutional rights. It's an obscenity from a constitutional law perspective. The worst case was in Michigan, where the governor first took over the city government using an "emergency manager" law that the legislature passed through particularly shady means...a manager was appointed, he took the property, sold it to developer(s), who tore down the homes there, built a golf course and high income homes and businesses where ordinary people had lived... The basic law allowing a governor to fire a duly elected city council and appoint his choice as a manager is so unconstitutional you have to shake your head at the thought process that came up with it. Then, to use it to get at lake front homes located where a wealthy golf resort could be built....and you think they can't stop smoking inside your business?

If the government can now take your property, they certainly won't be stopped from limiting a practice most people find obnoxious, many find unhealthy or unsafe, and some find makes them physically ill. Personally, I think it will be easier to look to science for ways to vent smoke or separate smokers with glass partitions, etc, than try to change the law. Or do what the strip clubs did when the government passed a law that prohibited the sale of alcohol where naked women were, back in the 1970s. The strip club owners created private clubs with negligible dues, and everyone became a member who could buy alcohol...similar to country clubs and gentlemen's clubs, which will never be outlawed, and at which can do as they like... I think cigar aficionados have similar clubs so they can smoke and drink...

I remember when people could freely smoke at work--the smell on my clothing was so bad it stunk up my closet and bedroom, my cleaning bills cost more than the clothing itself, my hair esp reeked and I washed it every day, I was nauseated, asthmatic, could not run after working with smokers (cramps in my stomach and ribs), and every couple of months we'd use window cleaner and paper towels to clean the sticky green and brown residue off of the furniture in the office (metal furniture in aerospace, probably because it could be scrubbed clean where wood would need to be replaced). The sour smell made us ill, it was almost impossible to get off of our skin if we touched it. THAT was in our lungs just as it coated every surface in the building...

And as a landlord (a small apartment building where smoking is prohibited period), I can tell you that it costs thousands of dollars to have professionals remove cigarette smoke from an apartment, and you can never completely get it out of wooden cabinetry, furnace and a/c ductwork, flooring, carpet/padding, etc. I found ashes under the floorboards when we stripped a unit left it vacant for months, used an oil-based deodorizing base coat on the walls then 2 coats of paint, every wall, ceiling, closet, cabinet...every product in the book, finally pulling out carpet and padding. Subsequent tenants complain forever of the odor, esp in warm weather...making units potentially uninhabitable, as no one wants to live next door to a smoker either...the smoke wafts right out one window and in the next, and through walls in newer construction... So I cannot imagine a building owner wanting smoking in their building--as opposed from the business owner/renter who would love more customers, increased sales of alcohol, etc, then move on to new quarters when the old is smelly, dingy, soaked in tar and nicotine. Nowadays few restaurant and bar owners own their buildings--they all rent from professional building owners/investors, and few who own want to deal with the mess later. It's cost prohibitive.

For the longest time I was indifferent to people smoking. After all, it wasn't as if the cigarette smoke was "infecting" me. Right? Of course I was 100% wrong. Once second hand smoke was proven to be the health hazard it was, I was 100% against being exposed to second hand smoke, particularly when those doing the smoking were doing so in areas clearly marked "no smoking". When I pointed out that the area was a no smoking area it was not unusual to face disagreement, hostility, and profanity. We non-smokers were destined to win and we did so, though, saving no telling how many people from cancer.