. I agree with everything you've said about not segregating, except for one bunch -- smokers. Yes, they have the right to smoke but, as I non-smoker, I have the right to avoid the smells and fumes.
If a restaurant does not have separate smoking / non-smoking sections, I have no idea if the person sitting at the next table might light up as soon as he/she finishes eating in ten minutes. If it's a cigarette, it ruins my meal; if it's a pipe or cigar, it chases me from the room.
What someone else eats does not affect me. Nor does what they drink, as long as they don't drive impaired. But a smoker can't keep it to himself. The only way to be fair to both populations is to make some kind of separation between the two, even if it's simply separate ends of the dining hall. .
I was talking about spending public funds. You're talking about a private issue, a commercial issue between restaurants and their patrons. Restaurants began creating smoking and non-smoking areas back in the 70's, and I have no problem with how businesses choose to operate.
There was no reason to throw my tax dollars at it when capitalism was already taking care of the matter. Throwing the power of the law behind this simply meant a lot of people now feel they have the right to abuse others based on perceived lifestyle choices. I don't smoke, but I can't tell you how many times in the years since the anti-smoking laws were passed that I've been on the receiving end of a non-smoker's abusive behavior - and they felt completely smug and justified because "it was Teh Law".
In California, it is illegal to smoke in any public accomodation: restaurants, bars, hotels, or workplaces. This is even in a room with a separate entrance and separate ventilation. Now bars have people dragging their kids in because no one smokes there anymore, so it's "family friendly". It's also illegal to smoke on any public property inside *or outside* - train stations, hospitals, courthouses, post offices.
This is past protecting the "health" of non-smokers, and into punishing smokers for having a habit that the antis have made socially stigmatized.
And I agree that most laws against smokers have gone too far - there are places where it isn't even allowed to smoke inside your own home, let alone in your own yard. They act as if even homeopathic doses (and we all know just how minute that is) are lethal.
When it was just businesses complying with customer requests, long before it was law, there was sensibility in handling it. Non-smokers didn't hang out where the smokers were, and smokers refrained from smoking when hanging out with their non-smoking friends and family members. No one abused anyone over it, or forced smokers from their desks to a small back room to outside to nowhere at all because there's room in this world for all of us to engage in enjoyable activities. I'd say "enjoyable legal activities" but anymore just about everything is illegal - can't smoke, can't be fat, can't be ugly, can't dress confortably...can't just live your own life without others getting all offended by it.
. This is past protecting the "health" of non-smokers, and into punishing smokers for having a habit that the antis have made socially stigmatized.
Agreed. New Mexico has recently gone that route (well, almost; still allowed to smoke outside, at least 25 feet from a door), and I feel for those who are craving and can't light up. I don't want to be too close to someone who's smoking, but it always seemed sufficient to put a wall or a wide enough space between the two groups. It's just crazy -- no one seems willing to compromise, anymore. .
You're right; the market will take care of it simply because restaurants need to keep their customer base reasonably happy.
I can't tell you how many times in the years since the anti-smoking laws were passed that I've been on the receiving end of a non-smoker's abusive behavior - and they felt completely smug and justified because "it was Teh Law".
Color me surprised; being abusive because other people don't get to smoke doesn't make sense to me. I'm continually amazed at the lack of courtesy demonstrated by so many people. .
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I agree with everything you've said about not segregating, except for one bunch -- smokers. Yes, they have the right to smoke but, as I non-smoker, I have the right to avoid the smells and fumes.
If a restaurant does not have separate smoking / non-smoking sections, I have no idea if the person sitting at the next table might light up as soon as he/she finishes eating in ten minutes. If it's a cigarette, it ruins my meal; if it's a pipe or cigar, it chases me from the room.
What someone else eats does not affect me. Nor does what they drink, as long as they don't drive impaired. But a smoker can't keep it to himself. The only way to be fair to both populations is to make some kind of separation between the two, even if it's simply separate ends of the dining hall.
.
(no subject)
There was no reason to throw my tax dollars at it when capitalism was already taking care of the matter. Throwing the power of the law behind this simply meant a lot of people now feel they have the right to abuse others based on perceived lifestyle choices. I don't smoke, but I can't tell you how many times in the years since the anti-smoking laws were passed that I've been on the receiving end of a non-smoker's abusive behavior - and they felt completely smug and justified because "it was Teh Law".
(no subject)
This is past protecting the "health" of non-smokers, and into punishing smokers for having a habit that the antis have made socially stigmatized.
(no subject)
And I agree that most laws against smokers have gone too far - there are places where it isn't even allowed to smoke inside your own home, let alone in your own yard. They act as if even homeopathic doses (and we all know just how minute that is) are lethal.
When it was just businesses complying with customer requests, long before it was law, there was sensibility in handling it. Non-smokers didn't hang out where the smokers were, and smokers refrained from smoking when hanging out with their non-smoking friends and family members. No one abused anyone over it, or forced smokers from their desks to a small back room to outside to nowhere at all because there's room in this world for all of us to engage in enjoyable activities. I'd say "enjoyable legal activities" but anymore just about everything is illegal - can't smoke, can't be fat, can't be ugly, can't dress confortably...can't just live your own life without others getting all offended by it.
(no subject)
This is past protecting the "health" of non-smokers, and into punishing smokers for having a habit that the antis have made socially stigmatized.
Agreed. New Mexico has recently gone that route (well, almost; still allowed to smoke outside, at least 25 feet from a door), and I feel for those who are craving and can't light up. I don't want to be too close to someone who's smoking, but it always seemed sufficient to put a wall or a wide enough space between the two groups. It's just crazy -- no one seems willing to compromise, anymore.
.
(no subject)
Agreed!
(no subject)
My apologies; I misunderstood your point.
You're right; the market will take care of it simply because restaurants need to keep their customer base reasonably happy.
I can't tell you how many times in the years since the anti-smoking laws were passed that I've been on the receiving end of a non-smoker's abusive behavior - and they felt completely smug and justified because "it was Teh Law".
Color me surprised; being abusive because other people don't get to smoke doesn't make sense to me. I'm continually amazed at the lack of courtesy demonstrated by so many people.
.