h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Some people don't have to have been a member of a particular group to recognise that groups right to choice.

'Nonnie

Some people don't have to have been a member of a particular group to recognise that groups right to choice.

'Nonnie

And sometimes a timeout really isn't a timeout at all.

I agree (on both points!) but it's astounding how many smokers can't recognise a non-smoker's right to choose to breathe smoke-free ait.

Or even air!

I don't know about there, but here there are vast highly ventilated non-smoking areas in most public places and only wee tiny cramped places for smokers.

'Nonnie

It's been my experience there's little point in making the smokers areas any bigger, as they won't stay in them anyway...

You notice the inadequacies of the smoking areas, I notice the inadequacies of the non-smoking areas, which always seem to have been added as an afterthought with more emphasis on "after" than "thought"... An example; In Aberdeen we have a bar which is split 50/50 between smoking and non-smoking areas. That's fine on the surface, except that to buy a drink or order food you have to walk through, and queue in, the smoking section. So, even in places which claim to "cater for non-smokers" there's no way to buy a drink or a meal without breathing in someone else's filthy eminations.

peet: i don't get your point: you run around offending people, because you don't want other people to offend people? there's a bug in that logic, i think...please forward it to you local debugging department.

i don't want to say that smoking is not harmful - it surely is (im a chain-smoker..i should know), but here in germany, smoking laws are a lot more tolerant than in the US (we can smoke in restaurants, etc.) and - correct me if i'm wrong - the average life-expectancy here is slightly higher than in the US (nice side fact: alcohol is treated WAY much cooler here, too).

i do understand peet's point, though: smoker's that run around exhaling in other people's faces or smoking in non-smoker-areas really are a pain in the...neck. as a smoker, you really should respect other people's desire not to smoke passivly....to a reasonable extend. making a whole restaurant "non-smoker" just for the sake of it is simply senseless, since the smoke simply doesn't spread that far in big rooms (as in public places). another point is that you really should try to understnd smokers: they usually are addicted. and it simply is a "evil" act to tell them not to smoke somewhere where it simply wouldn't matter...and i am aware that almost no non-smoker will really undrstand this, but forcing a smoker not to smoke is like telling him not to eat....well, it would be in my case...and besides: the stench from a couple of fags distributed in a reasonable air-volume simple isn't THAT bad, and one of the basic principles of society is tolerance of disturbances that other people cause.

...and with the aall the money going into anti-smoking-campaigns, i bet i could show that being a vegetarian is MEAN....face it: smokers are used as scapegoats/target of the "5-minute-hate" (G. Orwell, 1984).

have fun, and have fun having fun,
M.

"forcing a smoker not to smoke is like..." forcing a non-smoker to breathe smoke, perchance? An intolerable imposition which they will be complaining about for days after the idiot who did it is long gone?

Any deliberate offence on my part is retaliatory, not pre-emptory. I don't do it to "prevent" anything - it's my way of dissipating the pent-up rage caused by being forced to breathe other people's smoke.

"and besides: the stench from a couple of fags distributed in a reasonable air-volume simple isn't THAT bad..." - That may be the opinion of someone who inhales the stuff for their own pleasure, but frankly if a chain-smoker walks into a moderate sized restaurant I can rapidly pick out which table they are sitting at by the stench clinging to their clothes, even if they haven't lit up. The smell is far more pervasive than you give it credit for - when I visit two friends who are heavy smokers the first thing I have to do on returning home is put all my outer clothing in the washing basket, as if I leave them in the bedroom I can't get to sleep because of the smell. I can tell when the last person to read a library book was smoking, as the stench wafts into my face with every turning page. To conclude, it *IS* THAT bad... I'd rather share a railway carriage with a lump of dogshit than with a smoker.

I'd be happy to supply you with those.

The railway carriage, the dogshit or the smoker?

There's one other element not often discussed in the debate over the extent of smokers' impact on others.

Sure, there's the smoke. Your right to inflict smoke on me ends not far from YOUR nostrils.

But what about the longer term / larger effects? We're only *beginning* to account for the negative economic impact of smoking, and only in a pretty seriously broken way. Why should I have to pay a portion of my taxes to cover uninsured smokers' health care costs? Their need for increased fire protection at home? The cost of furniture repair in their workplace? Sure, I'm being arbitrary and random... my point is: smoking costs all the NON smokers quite a bit.

And the situation is far worse in non-western nations, due to the imbalance of information. (A free-market economy only works well when both the buyer and seller have reasonable access to the facts. Otherwise, one or the other gets taken...)

The dogsh*t.

What, personally? I thought you were a mouse, 'nonnie!

A mouse with a pack of wolves in my back yard, so dogsh*t is something I have in abundance with not a compuction to sharing.

'Nonnie

(I wish they'd develop a "" smiley...)