News-Record.com

"Smoke-free public places not only protect nonsmokers, they are the No. 1 reason why smokers decide to quit."

No they most certainly NOT the no. 1 reason.....that distinction belongs to the constant nagging in print, broadcast, and person-to-person. No. 2 reason is personal concern over health.

Believe me, I know. I've been there, done that.

Bubba,
You are so right. I am sick to death over all the complaining about smoking.

Why do we not just have smoking establishments and non-smoking places to eat.

I do not go to court, schools, or the theater because I know they do not allow smoking. Fine, I will not smoke if that is the case.

I promise not to go to a non-smokers space if I know ahead of time that I am not allowed to smoke there.

I do not understand all these folks who think just because they do not smoke that we can not have a SEPARATE place for smokers. Just tell us where! But that is not good enough for most non-smokers. They will not be happy until we are not allowed to smoke any where. I kind of hope it happens so when they no longer can enjoy their own private (sins) I'll have no sympathy in return.
I have no intentions of quiting smoking at this time, but am pretty tired of all the non-smokers complaining about those of us who choose to smoke where it is permitted.

Jill, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your husband. I lost my father pretty much the same way.

If you guys would rag on beer and drugs the way you do smoking you might actually save someone. I don't see many of you on the steets everytime someone dies from drunk driving, homelessness, or an overdose of drugs.

Instead you just make most of us angry that you are so high and mighty.

I wonder how many of people who constantly gripe about smoking in public are among the ones that will take "first available" when requesting a seating section in a restuarant? I am amazed every time I go out to eat and hear people choose this option. I quit smoking a year ago. When I go out to eat I always choose non smoking. Once I was offered a seat in the smoking section and turned it down in favor of waiting 15 more minutes for a table in the non smoking section. WHen I did smoke, I never sat in a non smoking area and even quit going to places like Chili's that only allowed smoking in the bar area. That was my choice. Just as the choice to eat or visit a place that allows smoking is up to the individual who does not smoke. It's all about choice and what allowences you are willing to make to eat or visit the place you want to go. Why is what the non smoker feels that what they want is any more important then what a non smoker wants?

I might agree with the writer if she would please define "public places" Most restaurants, parking lots, stores, etc are owned by "private" enterprises. I have no problem with banning indoor smoking at public places (schools, court, police stations, etc)

Littlebuddababy,

You are correct about the non-smokers taking the first table open for seating.
The last time my husband and I went to our favorite get-away we could not get a seat and chose to drive around town for twenty minutes and come back. Do you want to know why. The diner has 6 tables for non-smoking and 3 for smokers. The non-smokers were taking up the smokers tables. Did I complain to the newspaper? No, I just waited until the next open space was available.

While restaurants are privately owned, they definitely are public places. Otherwise, what would be the point in opening a public restaurant if not for the public?

How about this:

A guy likes to build little fires in an ashtray wherever he goes. He lights some foul smelling material that makes a lot of smoke. He sits right down beside you in a restaurant and starts his little fire.
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SIT THERE AND BREATHE HIS SMOKE??

Get over it, you smokers! Your inconsiderate attitudes have caused your own problem to get worse. How many of you smokers throw butts out the car or truck windows????

Ok, I have a suggestion.
Are resturants public or private?

Why can the owner not choose which public they would like to serve?

I would be happy to have, as stated in the above blog, ALL non-smoking and ALL smoking diners.

Let the public choose which they would like to frequent. Then the non-smoker or smoker knows what is or is not allowed before they go.

And please, Yvonne and Deacon, if you choose smoking don't complain that you smell the smoke, just don't choose the smoking diner.

This suggestion would cover it all, for the non-smoker and smoker, if the owners can choose which public he would like to serve, this might work. Separate but equal. Yes?

Kat,

I responded earlier to your first post (and LBB's) but it disappeared into cyberspace when I tried to post it. Basically what I said was what we have discussed before. You are an adult and can make your own choices about your habits. We are on the same page here.

I also stated you know I am not one of those people who wants to outlaw smoking. I like choices and I want other adults to have choices. My only issue, at this point, is where smoking is permitted.

I thought your suggestion of separate restaurants is a fair solution to both groups, smokers and non-smokers alike. In states that have banned smoking in public places like restaurants, they have private restaurants for smokers. They are called private clubs. This is a clear indication that you will encounter smoke if you enter. Thus I would never choose this type of establishment.

It is equally clear that smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. The reason is because there is rarely a distinct division of the two sections. And rarely are the ventilation systems separate. Smoke cannot determine where it is or is not suppose to be. So it infiltrates any space, even the non-smoking sections. Therefore, it makes as much sense to have a smoking section in a restaurant as it does to have a peeing section in a pool.

You asked why people do not rag on alcohol and drugs in the same way they do smoking. I will answer for me since that is the only one I am qualified to answer for. In public, someone can sit across from me and drink or take drugs without the harmful effects directly inpacting me. The smell of either does not usually invade my space, cause a migraine, cause an asthma attack or upset my stomach. The smell of smoke does.

I know, better than a lot who post here, the potential dangers of alcohol. My father was killed by a drunk driver. I was in a serious wreck, which resulted in me sustaining permanant injuries, when a drunk driver hit me headon. I was married to an alcoholic for twelve years. That is the major reason I now call him my ex-husband.

I have three very dear friends who smoke. When I visit in their homes and they want to light up, I either go outside with them while they smoke or go outside while they smoke in their homes. I allow enough time for the smoke to dissipate somewhat before I re-enter. If I did not make this concession, I would not be able to visit them unless they always came to my house. This would not be fair, imo.

Now suppose we both chose to dine at the same restaurant because they advertise separate sections. Then, rest assured, I always ask to be seated as far away from smoking as possible (because that is what I do). Then suppose I've been served and am eating when the smoke gets unbearable at my table. What options do I have? Sure I can choose not to go there again. But at the moment, why is your right to smoke more important than my right to eat in a smoke-free environment?

Or more to the point, why does your choice of where to eat supercede my choice of where to eat? Why is it fair that your desire to smoke in a restaurant trumps my desire to eat in the same place?

I actually applaud any business owner who wants to take a stand on one side or the other. But don't say straddle the fence and simply say they have non-smoking when the reality is they don't. Be smoking only or non-smoking. I don't really care which as long as I know in advance. (I can tell you, if I know in advance that my meal is going to be ruined by smoke, I would not choose that place.)

I am not asking you or anyone else to give up smoking. That is your choice. What I am asking is that you (meaning anyone) consider how your choices affect others in such a negative way. It is not only affecting you but all those in your vicinity when you light up in an enclosed space.

LBB,

Congrats on your success. How is the little one doing anyway? There is absolutely nothing that beats motherhood, imo.

When I enter a restaurant I automatically say "Non-smoking, please. In fact, I would appreciate being seated as far away from smoking as possibe, even if it means a longer wait." Before I added the last sentence, I would frequently be told that they had space in the smoking section but there was a wait for the non-smoking. Then they would ask if first available was OK. My response never varied; it was always "I had rather not eat than take a table in the smoking section".

By simply saying up front, "as far away as possible", I am rarely asked about taking first available. And if I enter a restaurant that has only smoking or is so small the smoke hangs like an ominous cloud, I leave. I do not even go into gas marts that allow their employees to smoke inside.

I do every practical thing I can to avoid being assaulted by others' smoke. But how one-sided is that? Why is it necessary I make all the concessions? Now that the tide is turning, perhaps smokers can understand how one-sided this whole issue has been for many years.

May both you and Kat have a blessed week. And I appreciate your civil discussions about a very touchy subject.

Your right yvonne, there is nothing like kids. Jaiden is my light. Nothing can bother me when I am with him. I hope that a resolution to this issue can be achieved without anyone loosing their personal freedoms. I doubt there is one though.

"Are restaurants public or private?"

Kat, they are private, but that has little bearing on the smoke nazi's agenda. That being to take the decision to allow smoking on their private property out of the owner's hands and place it in the hand of the all mighty government. Make no mistake, their ultimate goal is to control as much personal behavior as possible and do it by claming to be for "the betterment of the public health". (especially the children).

"In public, someone can sit across from me and drink or take drugs without the harmful effects directly inpacting me. "

I'll remember that the next time I decide to fire up my bong at Taco Bell.

Sorry, Yellowdog, but you'll have to ingest your weed. Note I said "take drugs", not smoke them. Besides, Toco Bell doesn't allow smoking!

I don't know Yvonne. I saw a joint in the bathroom of one last week. I think it belonged to an employee though.

I don't know if it was intended but TOCO Bell was a hilarious mispelling!

Have a great afternoon. :)

Thanks for the reply Yvonne.

I agree with you that the cutting up of smoking and non-smoking does not resolve the issue for people in general in any closed spaced public building.

I would like to see either all smoking or non-smoiking and I believe this would make a lot of people happier. I can go for several hours with out a smoke, and would for a great meal at a special place. (Either all smoking or all non-smoking would be my choice.)

I also do not, and never have stated that I can recall, anything about my rights. It is not about my rights. It is about all the anger and hard feelings. People get angry when that smoke gets in their clothes and personal space. It is kind of like a kid kicking the seat behind me at the movies. I do not want to hurt the kid as much as I do the parents for not addressing the issue. (I know this does not relate to health).

I have asthma, I can relate to your pain. Loud purfume does the same thing to my breathing.
You know I would never personally attach you or your feelings. Keep up the good replies and have a great week.