No smoking...

[Kanegrundar]

Thank you. And good luck quiting!

Thanks. Like I said, it's been rough. I promised my fiance that I would be smoke-free by the time we're married (July 2006), so I have time, but I don't want to put it off. After all, it is a nasty habit.

Kane

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Hasn't happened [yet] here in Scottsdale, Arizona. I do enjoy a good cigar, when it isn't allergy season!

 

[Ranger REG]

This states what I have been trying to get across as well (and failing miserably at). There has to be a better way than handing so much power to those in charge.

The problem is whoever is in charge become liable. If the restaurant owner puts up a No-Smoking sign, smokers believe it discriminate them, and will sue the restaurant owner for liability.

In the case of the government, smokers will sue for their right in order to repeal the law or local ordnance, even going so far as to say that such a law is unconstitutional.

 

[jgbrowning]

Thanks. Like I said, it's been rough. I promised my fiance that I would be smoke-free by the time we're married (July 2006), so I have time, but I don't want to put it off. After all, it is a nasty habit.

Kane

This may sound silly, but the way I quit was to stop buying them. I had a bit too much conscienciousness to forever bum from others. May not work for you, but sometimes focusing on "not buying" as opposed to "not smoking" is a metal gymnastic that works. Also it helped me when I realised that I couldn't rightly expect to walk into a restaurant and light up incense and claim that it was my right because I enjoyed the smell. It's an odd thought, but it worked for me.

Best of luck!

joe b.

 

[Kanegrundar]

The problem is whoever is in charge become liable. If the restaurant owner puts up a No-Smoking sign, smokers believe it discriminate them, and will sue the restaurant owner for liability.

In the case of the government, smokers will sue for their right in order to repeal the law or local ordnance, even going so far as to say that such a law is unconstitutional.

Zio's, an italian restaurant here in Independence, is a smoke-free establishment. It has been such since the day they opened (to my knowledge). They have a bar and an area that could be kept separate from the rest of the place should smoking be allowed, but they simply don't allow it. No one raises a stink about it. Ever.

Now a place that allowed smoking (such as a full-blown bar) that decided not to allow it anymore may face problems, but the stigma of being a smoker these days is such that I honestly doubt that too many would press the issue. I could be wrong, after all people sue over all sorts of things, but I doubt you'd see much of that. After all, bars and restaurants are *private* property. They are not public. The owner can decide exactly how they want to run the property. In the issue of smoking, there are enough side issues from smoke damage to worker health that would weigh greater than a smoker's right to indulge. It's not like they are putting a sign up that only allows one race over another, for example.

Kane

 

[Kanegrundar]

This may sound silly, but the way I quit was to stop buying them. I had a bit too much conscienciousness to forever bum from others. May not work for you, but sometimes focusing on "not buying" as opposed to "not smoking" is a metal gymnastic that works. Also it helped me when I realised that I couldn't rightly expect to walk into a restaurant and light up incense and claim that it was my right because I enjoyed the smell. It's an odd thought, but it worked for me.

Best of luck!

joe b.

My biggest hurdle is the drive (1 hour and 10 minutes to work everyday). I sing, eat breakfast, and try other little things to get through it without lighting up. I just need something to occupy my time. My mind begins to wander and then I'm lighting up or looking for a gas station to buy a pack (if the craving really hits me). I used to smoke 4-5 + during the drive, but now I'm down to 1, maybe 2. Plus, my job has become stressful with the possibility of the computer lab that I manage closing sometime between now and October. My job is safe, but the 8 people underneath me are not. There's a lot of bickering and complaining even though they knew the job wasn't going to last when they got hired on. I got outside and smoke to get away from it all for a few minutes. Not a good excuse, but that's what keeps me lighting up. At home, I'm fine. I have plenty of things from housework, to writing, to playing WoW that keeps me from smoking. Hopefully all that will die down when the lab closes and I get transfered to a county office closer to home.

Kane

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I've never understood the concept of "smoker's rights." (And I'm not only an extremely bright guy, I'm also a lawyer.) Why does someone have the "right" to force me to breathe air that is going to make me physically ill? Or the "right" to force me to choose a different public establishment in order to avoid it? How can anyone possibly argue that the "right" of someone to exhale toxins into the atmosphere outweighs the right not to be forced to breathe those toxins?

Smoking is analogous to carrying around an atomizer of your own urine and spraying it constantly into the air around you. Sure, there are people who don't mind getting their own piss on themselves ... hell, there are even people who don't mind getting others' piss on them. As far as I'm concerned, their habits with regard to such are none of my business ... until they're doing it in public and I'm the one getting pissed on or risking piss in my food or clean laundry or whatever. There are no such things as "pisser's rights," and there are no such things as "smoker's rights." As I said, the two things are analogous ... although smoking might be slightly nastier.

Those of you making the naive argument for letting the "free market" sort things out -- "Hey, just start up your own non-smoking business" -- don't seem to have much understanding of the free market, unsurprisingly. If you want to factor in the fact that non-smoker's subsidize the vastly higher health care costs of smokers, that's a good place to start. You won't be anywhere near a grasp of the issues involved, but it might actually clear a couple of cobwebs. (For extra credit, find a good economics or property textbook and look up "externalities.")

The responses I'm seeing here also demonstrate an immense lack of understanding of what "public accomodations" are, and how they differ from "private property." It saddens me to see people advancing arguments that are exactly the same as the arguments used for decades to deny service to minorities: "It's my business, so why do I have to serve them?"

For those who don't seem to be aware, BTW, the vast majority, if not all, anti-smoking laws are passed for the protection of employees.

Here in California, there were cries and gnashing of teeth before smoking was banned in public accomodations. "Bars and cardrooms will go out of business!" Bars are still very much in business, needless to say, and the cardrooms business went up, even before the hold'em explosion. Yet people continue to make the argument. It must be one hell of an addiction.

Finally, and just out of curiosity: how do smokers not perceive how much they stink? People make fun -- and sometimes rightfully so -- of the lack of hygiene of gamers and poker players (two hobbies in which I'm heavily involved), but as much as I dislike an advanced case of GenCon Reekitis, it's really not that bad compared to the persistent ashtray smell of a smoker. Maybe they do know, and just don't care?

 

[Mystery Man]

This may sound silly, but the way I quit was to stop buying them.

This is really the best road to take to quitting forever. It's a tough road, and depending on your level of addiction the time you spend swimming in a sea of agony and fear varies, but it subsides.

 

[Mystery Man]

I've never understood the concept of "smoker's rights." (And I'm not only an extremely bright guy, I'm also a lawyer.) Why does someone have the "right" to force me to breathe air that is going to make me physically ill? Or the "right" to force me to choose a different public establishment in order to avoid it? How can anyone possibly argue that the "right" of someone to exhale toxins into the atmosphere outweighs the right not to be forced to breathe those toxins?

Smoking is analogous to carrying around an atomizer of your own urine and spraying it constantly into the air around you. Sure, there are people who don't mind getting their own piss on themselves ... hell, there are even people who don't mind getting others' piss on them. As far as I'm concerned, their habits with regard to such are none of my business ... until they're doing it in public and I'm the one getting pissed on or risking piss in my food or clean laundry or whatever. There are no such things as "pisser's rights," and there are no such things as "smoker's rights." As I said, the two things are analogous ... although smoking might be slightly nastier.

Those of you making the naive argument for letting the "free market" sort things out -- "Hey, just start up your own non-smoking business" -- don't seem to have much understanding of the free market, unsurprisingly. If you want to factor in the fact that non-smoker's subsidize the vastly higher health care costs of smokers, that's a good place to start. You won't be anywhere near a grasp of the issues involved, but it might actually clear a couple of cobwebs. (For extra credit, find a good economics or property textbook and look up "externalities.")

The responses I'm seeing here also demonstrate an immense lack of understanding of what "public accomodations" are, and how they differ from "private property." It saddens me to see people advancing arguments that are exactly the same as the arguments used for decades to deny service to minorities: "It's my business, so why do I have to serve them?"

For those who don't seem to be aware, BTW, the vast majority, if not all, anti-smoking laws are passed for the protection of employees.

Here in California, there were cries and gnashing of teeth before smoking was banned in public accomodations. "Bars and cardrooms will go out of business!" Bars are still very much in business, needless to say, and the cardrooms business went up, even before the hold'em explosion. Yet people continue to make the argument. It must be one hell of an addiction.

Finally, and just out of curiosity: how do smokers not perceive how much they stink? People make fun -- and sometimes rightfully so -- of the lack of hygiene of gamers and poker players (two hobbies in which I'm heavily involved), but as much as I dislike an advanced case of GenCon Reekitis, it's really not that bad compared to the persistent ashtray smell of a smoker. Maybe they do know, and just don't care?

Ah California....


Mystery *still waiting for the "big one"* Man

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Finally, and just out of curiosity: how do smokers not perceive how much they stink? People make fun -- and sometimes rightfully so -- of the lack of hygiene of gamers and poker players (two hobbies in which I'm heavily involved), but as much as I dislike an advanced case of GenCon Reekitis, it's really not that bad compared to the persistent ashtray smell of a smoker. Maybe they do know, and just don't care?

They're just that used to it and probably wonder why we non-smokers wrinkle our noses at them all the time. I can't stand that stale smell they exude. My sister, who smokes, borrowed a shirt of mine and I had to rewash it as it stunk of cigarette smoke. UGH! So far, I've not met the stinky GAMER. Now the stinky Star Trek fan..... met one of those.... ick! But most of the people I've run into seem to either shower regularly or put on something to hide the smell without smelling like the perfume section of Dillards.