Why do non smokers in Britain think their rights outweigh those of non smokers. None of us smokers are suggesting we want to sit their blowing smoke in the face of non smokers but the non smokers seem to be unable to admit that actually we do have the right to a properly segregated area to smoke in.
Where,
anywhere in either thread has
anyone said that?
NO, the rights of non smokers don't outweigh the rights of smokers, and this refrain is tired. The rights of those not wanting to breath deliberately polluted air do however outweigh the rights of those doing the polluting to pollute it.
Tangent
Yes, 'clean' air isn't exactly the norm these days but what's meant is the ambient
available to all baseline
before the addition of tobacco fumes. I imagined
that was as obvious to eveyone as it was to me.
/Tangent
Businesses had years,
years to provide
properly segregated and ventilated smoking areas but for the most part did they do so? - NO. I agree, most smokers
are considerate but
a good many are most definitely not and
will do exactly what
'none of us smokers' say they won't, why? - because until now it
wasn't illegal and smokers have rights too, as you remind us ad nauseum.
I don't believe anyone here has said smokers
shouldn't have segregated areas, I know I haven't (quite the reverse) but repeatedly
you choose to blithely ignore that, instead repeatedly complaining about how your rights are being trampled on interspersed with a single observations how drivers are akin to the Anti-Christ.
You've missed the point - separate sections as in proper sections with walls which is what we smokers want for our money.
I'm glad you mentioned that. You'll get no argument from me on the principle. However, do smokers pay extra in these establishments to support the cost of these establishments? Or, do non smokers therfore obtain a discount for
not having required their construction or use? I didn't think so.
A key part of the issue being as I said above that businesses for the most part
didn't provide them. Perhaps for financial reasons, after all smokers are unlikely to stump up for their constructon and maintanance. I mean, that would be
discrimination and smokers may feel their....
rights were being trampled on.
Trying to make an cogent argument for smoking is crudely akin to trying to make one for spitting. Actually, the direct health risks from spitting are pretty low and it tends not to make one smell for hours aftwards unless of course spitters 'spit'
on you. In this analogy that's rather what smokers do.
gangja4me said:
In principle I agree with Duality also. The reality, however is a little less clear cut.
Businesses will, naturally, want to maximise their customer base hence profit, consequently it's going to be difficult for them to turf smokers out and thus risk losing business. That
tends to mean that voluntary non smoking policies drift toward being token gestures. This leaves them open to abuse. Certainly that seems to be the case in my experience. People
are often reluctant to ask a smoker to step outside to smoke, or extinguish because. Why? Because they don't wan't to offend, cause a scene or, as I have seen get verbally (or even as I have seen physically) abused.
That, surely is an unbalanced situation, it means that non/ex smokers (the majority) will be tend toward being less inclined to return, hence hurting the business. The alternative is allowing smoking, hence risking alienating non/ex smokers (and, possibly barstaff)
and opening the bar up to potential litigation.
Business owners especially bars, clubs and restaurants, are
in general driven far more by the 411 that the health and well being of their clientele. This almost inevitably means that such thorns as a voluntary smoking ban will be more likely to be ignored when the need suits. This is an abuse of faith to those inside who entered on the understanding that it
would be enforced. Why should they leave or 'suffer' because the proprietor is too spineless or greedy to enforce a ban they themselves advertised? TMM alluded to this profit based motivation earlier so I know it's
not my imagination.
In a nutshell;
any policy needs to be enforced, and precedent suggests that voluntary bans
tend toward weak enforcement. There is a legal and health aspect to this issue so an overriding legal one has been imposed. I have no idea if it will work but at least it removes a layer of 'angst' from bar owners - they can just blame 'the government' which may,
just, ameliorate some irate smokers who might otherwise feel they were being picked on
by the owner. Time will tell I suppose.
As has been said to smokers, repeatedly, smoke all you want just do it where it affects only you. If businesses have failed to cater for your habit your beef is with
them, not non smokers, they are as much to blame for this situation as anyone. It's a source of continual bemusement how smokers almost entirely fail to get that. Instead they tend to just blame non smokers for ignoring smokers rights in the selfish persuit by non smokers of their desire, nay,
right to
not smoke.