This is edited from a post I made on a forum over at IMDB. I'm posting it here because 1. I rarely find a way to express my thoughts on this so clearly and 2. If anyone reads this blog, I want to hear thoughts.
The original post is here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/board/thread/124960066
Smoking is a choice. To be honest, though, it makes me sick just smelling it. In a bad moment (if I was already feeling a little bit nauseous), it can make me feel genuinely awful. I don't think I am the only one, and I do think that I have the right to take steps to avoid it.
How far I have to go to avoid is the main issue I am concerned with here. If I have to turn down nights with my friends (eg going to the bar or out to supper) to avoid it, that makes me rather upset. You could make the argument that I could go to a bar without smoking, or sit in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. It's difficult to come up with a right or wrong here. I turned drinking age only after my province banned smoking inside buildings, so I don't know how many bars were available to go to that did not have smoking, and I'll leave out an opinion on that. In restaurants, unless there is a separately ventilated area, telling me to sit in a non-smoking area is a very weak proposition. I can still smell the smoke, and I will probably come out of the restaurant feeling light-headed and nauseous. Truth be told, I think it would be very difficult to avoid smoking establishments if they were allowed. Smokers may declare that us non-smokers would have a 'choice' to go a non-smoking establishment, and complain that they don't appreciate having to go outside in the cold. They neglect to mention that they also have a choice; they can go outside to have their smoke or stay inside where it is warm. It's not a very nice choice, but then neither is choosing to stay home because your friends are going to a place that will make you sick.
Out on the streets, it's very different. If I can hold my breath walking past a smoker, or give a wide enough berth that I don't have to smell the smoke, then fine. It's annoying but manageable. I don't think this needs to be regulated, because it is a manageable annoyance.
I think that the burden of inconvenience should lie on the smoker. Smokers have a habit that can potentially make others ill or at least uncomfortable, and they should be the ones to have to inconvenience themselves when they need to sate the habit.
I think that although there may be a better solution for putting a blanket ban on all buildings, but I do not have it. To me, it would be a great step backward to start allowing smoking in bars and restaurants again, because it might make it difficult to find places that I enjoy. With smoking inside buildings banned, places do not have to play popularity games to find out whether a smoking establishment is more profitable than a non-smoking establishment, which may or may not end up in most/all places offering smoking.
There was some mention of anti-smoking advertisements in the thread. I really cannot agree with anyone who says these are unnecessary. Even if you are a smoker, knowing the full health detriments of smoking, are you going to encourage other people to smoke? Commercials such as those are efforts to stop people from make bad decisions that will leave them with a difficult, unhealthy addiction. They are meant to inform people, in response to a culture that encouraged smoking as cool without shedding light on its detriments. You can argue that everyone knows that cigarettes are unhealthy, and that may be true, but people need reminders, and it's not just about information; it's about culture. The government ads are attempting to foster a culture where smoking is known for the unhealthy habit that it is: a culture of health. This is not a heinous thing for a government to do. It's the same as the government commercials encouraging people not to drink and drive, or to steal copyrighted material (not that I'm trying to open up a bag of worms here; that's another debate).
2 comments:
Well I mean, I smoke occasionally, usually while out drinking, but I would never consider smoking inside, even it was an option. I like the act of smoking, but am not a big fan second hand smoke. Going outside while out at the bar/a show is a nice break - you can cool down, get some 'fresh' air, have some reprieve from the noise of the bar/concert, and sometimes you can meet some random people, smoking gives you a good reason to be out there. It's something to do while you chill out, asking for a light or a dart is a good way to strike up a conversation. But yes, smoking outside is the only way I would smoke. I would hate to live in a house that perpetually smelled like smoke.
The one drawback to smoking outside is the litter. I always try to find somewhere to butt out, but a lot people do not. Sometimes there's not even an option - there may be no garbage or 'ashtrays' around. That bothers me a lot, especially when businesses do not have the social responsibility to have the proper 'facilities' in place.
-End Rant.
I definitely agree with you, and think that businesses should have proper disposal. I don't think that would completely alleviate the problem, as some people just do not have the capacity for respect to bother walking over to an ashtray to dispose of their butts.
What would you think of legislation that forced bars (I mention bars because they have a notable smoker population) to have means of disposal outside their front door?
Post a Comment