I am a smoker of close to 20 years and agree that it is a very bad habit, but it is my choice. I am over 18 and have tried my best to not smoke around people that I feel it would offend or harm. I obey the laws and rules all around against smoking in public, and will not smoke in a home of someone that does not smoke. I will agree that there are places that should be ban from smoking and there should be a place for people to sit and socialize with out smoke, but, does that mean because I choose to smoke I should have all my rights totally taken away? I have stopped smoking in restraunts because thats what "everyone" wants, I don't smoke in entertainment parks, because "you" say so. When and will the smokers get a chance to enjoy something they choose to do? Because I smoke I can't go to a bar and enjoy a drink with a cig. if thats what I choose. Is this society going to open bars for just smokers? I seriousely doubt it. You brought up the point that second hand smoke is as bad as drinking. I agree, but, are there stronger laws against drinking? How many accidents coming from a bar are because someone was smoking, or was it because they were drinking? I feel like that because of my "choice" that I have to take a back seat to everyone that doesn't agree with my choice. Is that fair? I have already had to deal with God being taken out of the public, and now one more thing because "someone" doesn't like it. What happens when "someone" doesn't want you to wear too much perfume, or the color of your hair, or the way you dress. Are we as a "free" nation suppose to just say, "O.K. if you say so" I think that the laws that are in effect are tough, but to just keep adding more is going above and beyond,

I have already had to deal with God being taken out of the public

Besides the tortured syntax there, can you show me any evidence that God is not EVERYWHERE in American society?

In a world of ambiguity, the smoking issue is one of the most obvious. In a battle of "freedoms" - freedom to smoke or freedom to be free of smoke, it is just so clear and fair who should win. Non smokers who do NOT want to be actively exposed to passive smoke. You are free to smoke at home and in designated areas. You're lucky to be able to smoke anywhere besides your own home.

You're disgracing the notion of true freedom by using the concept to justify your engaging in a practice that deeply infringes on other people's right to a (relatively) safe, clean, and healthy immediate environment.

Period.

You're disgracing the notion of true freedom by using the concept to justify your engaging in a practice that deeply infringes on other people's right to a (relatively) safe, clean, and healthy immediate environment.

just a fair point. I have just as much right to a NOT safe NOT clean and NOt healthy environment as you do to a clean, safe, and healthy environment. do i want that? no not necessarily, but when you talk about disgracing the notion of true freedom, you kind of missed your own point. TRUE freedom, means i do what i feel is necessary and you do what you feel is necessary, and if we happen to clash, TRUE freedom means neither of us has to back down. the first person had some very valid points. how about not taking ANYONE'S liberties away from them and focusing on something to enrich everyone's lives as a whole.

when you talk about "we should consider ourselves lucky" that we are allowed to smoke, you should consider that it is a choice. you have obviously made the choice not to smoke, while i have made the choice to smoke. i am very happy with my decision, and never once will anyone telling me it smells bad or hurts your lungs, make me deviate from my path. it's not like i didn't understand what smoking was the first time i ever tried it. why do people eat fast food? it makes you fat and unhealthy and disgusting, yet there is no ban on that. obesity is a bigger killer than cigarettes, and where is our post on trying to get it outlawed? when will all you non smokers realize that there is no argument here, you mind your own business and i'll mind mine. years ago, america had a civil war, each side fighting for what it believed in, the other side thinking they were completely wrong. is this worth a fight? I'm tired of all of these hypocrites trying to limit my happiness, while drinking or eating their own lives away. there is no such thing as a perfect person, and to all of you who think you're so close, i disagree. why not agree to disagree? That is the only thing that can be done in this matter, because none of us are right or wrong. and that being said, i'm willing to fight for my rights to happiness, and i hope you are too.

To the first reply. How can you tell me I should be happy to GET TO SMOKE. I made that decision many years ago. If you want to be lung free and healthy, then by all means build places for smokers. Think our goverment is gonna do that? Would you? We have made adjustments to all the non smokers, and yet nothing for the smokers. Start telling people that they can no longer drink except on Saturday. Tell people that they can't eat fatty foods See if you can hold to your healthy life style then. Are you perfect? Do you drink? Go out and have fun and maybe drink a little too much. Maybe I don't want to go somewhere some one is making a total butt of themselves because they have become drunk. Doesn't mean I'm going to throw a fit and raise hell because it interfers with what I'm doing. I can either deal or I can go somewhere that this is not going on. My choice. You have the same right and choice. Its America and thats the way it is.

You lost me with the God being taken away from the public business. If you truly have a relationship with God, or several gods or whatever your deal is, God never leaves you--to want to have your faith merged with what is "public" makes me wonder about the quality of your spirituality. It's like the "War On Christmas"--whether or not someone says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to me at the mall does not upset one jot of my yuletide experience. I don't care if someone smokes or not--but it is annoying to be exposed to cigarette smoke. Forgetting the debate about second-hand smoke for a moment, sitting in a smoke-filled bar impacts the quality of the air, makes your clothes stink--especially in a dive full of career smokers who have reduced the experience of smoking to the cheapest, and consequently awful-smellingest, generic variety--it is no good for the skin, and that's just from sitting among smokers. There is no other social interaction where one subject is permitted to dominate the immediate environment of another so thoroughly. Your alcohol analogy is a poor one. Sure, alcohol can be unhealthy and deadly, but if we are sitting next to each other at a bar, it is unlikely that when we part, you will smell my pickled liver on your shirt, or that your eyes will be irritated because of my liver. There are laws against being too loud. I don't know if I have ever heard anyone complain that their right to damage their hearing is being restricted when the cop tells you to turn it down or when the librarian susshes you. We accept the social contract not to do stuff we might enjoy if it fucks around with someone else's personal space. I just don't get smokers that don't accept the only time you can smoke, reasonably, is at home or in your car alone. Any other time, you must have the permission of any person that could be impacted by your smoking. If people decide they don't want to tolerate your smoke, well, it sucks being you. I think of smokers, like the one that started this thread, the same way I think of people who talk on their cell phones in a movie theater. If that is the kind of smoker you want to be, I am surprised. It is worth mentioning that the big thing driving some of the fear in the posts of smokers asserting their "right" to smoke is the fact that they are addicted. The panic of not having ready access to what you are addicted to is powerful stuff. Just think of the people outside a building, just standing there smoking--nothing else, not reading, not drinking a cup of joe, not painting, not building, just smoking because they can't smoke inside. Perhaps they will have two cigarettes because it will be a couple of hours before the next break. It could be raining, uncomfortably cold or hot, but they are still there, outside the building wolfing down cigarettes. The stuff that makes a person put themselves through that (and I have been there) is what's behind perfectly intelligent and reasonable, loving people saying that they have the "right" to surround you in smoke.

rampart said : "I just don't get smokers that don't accept the only time you can smoke, reasonably, is at home or in your car alone. Any other time, you must have the permission of any person that could be impacted by your smoking. If people decide they don't want to tolerate your smoke, well, it sucks being you."

I agree with you Rampart. However, what if you show up to a public park where someone is already smoking? Does that mean they need your permission to continue doing what they were already doing?

I have said before, and will say it again, that in this instance of a legal substance consumed in appropriate outdoor locations (i.e. a public park would be o.k., but not, say, right by the toys or in a McDonald's Playplace), this is more of a courtesy issue. I think the best and most courteous course of action (which, when I seldom indulge, I follow) is a policy of who was there first?

Again, if the smokers are there first, and you wish them to stop smoking, you should politely ask them to - the ball is in your court. If you are there first, and the smoker wants to smoke within, say, 20 feet of you, they should ask your permission. And everyone can be kind and polite, not rude or snarky. ok, America? Let's do that!

If a public park permitted smoking, I wouldn't ask someone to put out their cigarette. The park permits smoking. I want to make it clear that I am not antagonistic at all. However, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that public spaces wind up being non-smoking. Smoking has an impact beyond the smoker's personal realm. It does seem pretty simple to me.

This argument tends to depend on one's definition of "public places" then. I define those as "places owned and paid for by the government through taxes" - and yes, I agree with you (with the caveat that if smoking is allowed to remain legal, perhaps there could be designated "smoking areas" in public places)