Smoking at the entrance of stores & buildings (alcohol, kids, workers)

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Yeah coughing and getting sick for several hours to a day from exposure isn't harm.

If you have that reaction, then you have a serious health issue that most people don't have.

One can say smokers are self-centered and crybabies when asked to put out their cigarettes. I actually have seen this several times when asking them to put their cigarettes out and smoke elsewhere.

It's rude to tell a stranger what to do or not do.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

They probably feel sorry for you for wheeling out the insipid moral equivalence fallacy.

Hmm, never heard of that "fallacy," and I took a philosophy class in informal logic that covered the fallacies.

I suspect you're just making it up.

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

There is nothing in any law that forbids employers from providing a place to smoke. Both of the local Walmarts have a nice covered area with picnic tables and ashtrays set up back away from the entrances. That is for their employees to take their smoke breaks out of the rain and snow and out of the way of incoming customers. I've seen other businesses with covered areas outside with seating for their smoking employees. Nobody is trying to stop them.

Wrong.

A lot of cities have passed laws that forbid smoking indoors and outdoors on property owned by private businesses.

Del Mar, CA, Davis, CA, and I'm sure many others.

In Del Mar, you can't smoke anywhere -- not even in your car -- outside of your own house.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

Lol, I guess it was too much to expect for the user of a moral equivalence fallacy to understand what a moral equivalence fallacy is, and why they are so utterly facile that even school aged debaters are cautioned against their use lest they be laughed at.

So what is this fallacy that you just made up?

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

Of course I can answer the question. Anyone can. But it's a meaningless and fallacious question.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by wrench409

First, your response assumes I am rude to them. I am not. As for the rest of that paragraph, it's quite assuming as well. How would anyone respond to any activity that is stinky as well as unhealthy? Be nice?

It is rude to tell a stranger what to do or not do.

It would also be rude to tell a stranger that he stinks.

Businesses have already responded. Some in stranger ways than others. My personal gripe is the hourly en mass group that heads outside for a smoke break while the rest of the crew has to cover the smokers job as well as their own job. But that's another subject.

A business owner can limit breaks.

I've never heard of a job allowing some people take longer or more breaks than others.

Originally Posted by Annie53

Same here, mother smoked while pregnant, father smoked too......two healthy kids, no asthma, no allergies, no ear aches, no learning disabilities, went through measles, mumps and chicken pox with flying colors. Rarely saw a doctor. Today, at 60 and 62, still healthy. Nowadays, hardly anyone smokes and every other kid has asthma, allergies, or a learning disability. And, back in the day, you rarely saw a fat kid.....only had one in my class throughout grade school....he died in his early 50's, heart attack.

Good points.

All this over-protectiveness is actually weakening the gene pool.

Natural selection is being interfered with, to the determinant of all of us.

Originally Posted by Bandon

Exactly. When you think about it the nonsmokers could reign in the attitude just a tad and remember to be grateful to the smokers for contributing taxes. Actually with their attitudes I hope all smokers quit and then maybe the tax barons will come for something the nonsmoker enjoy. bye bye b*tches.

They'll come after alcohol, at least by raising taxes. And after that, sodas and other sweet or fatty foods.

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Doesn't the garage have a door? I take the third choice. I am leaving and not tolerating either situation.

You can't change the choice, you have to pick one of the two alternatives.

That is what the questioner asked you to do.

You don't want to do that?

Fine.

But it doesn't make his question or his point invalid.

I'm not going to lie down on the railroad track, either, if that is your next pointless question, aiming to prove that smoking is perfectly safe because it is more dangerous to be run over by a train.

If you live in a town of more than a few thousand people, you are living in a cloud of auto exhaust fumes.

And if you live in a smaller town than that, it probably has a lot of agricultural pollutants.

I don't know of any towns where people are commonly tied down on railroad tracks.

Maybe the town in Canada where Dudley Do-Right, Nell, and Snidely Whiplash live.

[dechatelet]

Smokers need to stand up for themselves.

I was sitting outdoors at a cafe having a cigarette and a man complained.

I told him "I can't smoke inside, so I'm smoking here."

"What do you mean?" he asked.

"You should go sit inside." I said.

Then he said, "Well, if it were up to me, smoking would be banned outside as well as inside."

And I said, "And if it were up to me, smoking would be REQUIRED both outside as well as inside."

And that was the end of the discussion.

He sat there, angry, and I continued to smoke.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

Hmm, never heard of that "fallacy," and I took a philosophy class in informal logic that covered the fallacies.

I suspect you're just making it up.

I'm afraid that says either a lot about your class, or your study habits.

Did your studies guide you on the skill of research? If so, I'm sure you will have no problem informing yourself. If you really are unable to type the words "moral equivalence fallacy" into the Internet, perhaps try this alternative: not as bad as.......

Fortunately there are many text book examples in this thread that you will be able to draw on as case studies in your educational endeavour.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

Smokers need to stand up for themselves.

I was sitting outdoors at a cafe having a cigarette and a man complained.

I told him "I can't smoke inside, so I'm smoking here."

"What do you mean?" he asked.

"You should go sit inside." I said.

Then he said, "Well, if it were up to me, smoking would be banned outside as well as inside."

And I said, "And if it were up to me, smoking would be REQUIRED both outside as well as inside."

And that was the end of the discussion.

He sat there, angry, and I continued to smoke.

You smoke where people are eating food?

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

I'm afraid that says either a lot about your class, or your study habits.

Did your studies guide you on the skill of research? If so, I'm sure you will have no problem informing yourself. If you really are unable to type the words "moral equivalence fallacy" into the Internet, perhaps try this alternative: not as bad as.......

Fortunately there are many text book examples in this thread that you will be able to draw on as case studies in your educational endeavour.

Okay, I looked it up on the internets -- that source of infallible wisdom to which you refer.

So how does "comparing a minor misdeed to a major one" apply to the person you accused of committing your "moral equivalence fallacy"?

Oh, it doesn't.

Thought so.

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

You smoke where people are eating food?

Oh, the horror!

Yes, I do -- at least outdoors at a cafe (most people aren't eating, though.)

Don't like it?

Go inside, where I'm not allowed to smoke.

Smoking used to be common in restaurants, including some of very the best in world -- in Paris.

I found that I greatly enjoyed those restaurants, by the way -- smoke and all.

[Fox Terrier]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Doesn't the garage have a door? I take the third choice. I am leaving and not tolerating either situation. I'm not going to lie down on the railroad track, either, if that is your next pointless question, aiming to prove that smoking is perfectly safe because it is more dangerous to be run over by a train.

Talk about an insipid moral equivalence fallacy!



If you are not tolerating either situation, does that mean you will be trading your vehicle for a horse? Will you refuse to go anywhere near a road or highway?

[ovi8]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

Don't like it? Too bad.

Get a life, and worry about things that really can harm you.

Occasional exposure to cigarette smoke certainly cannot.

I don't deal with smokers everyday fortunately, but with your mentality - it's ridiculous that I have to sit next to someone who stinks like all hell at something like a sporting event (assigned seats) for nearly 3 hours. Last time I was at a kids sporting event and had to get up to move after 2 minutes.

This is not a "get a life" or "too bad" situation. How about I fart repeatedly next to you? That's how repulsive the stench is... probably worse since it lingers. Now think of people who do sit next to these people every day.

Originally Posted by Annie53

Next on the anti smoke agenda.......banning campfires and backyard fire pits. {cough.....cough chough....hack}

Also repulsive and inconsiderate. We have to close the windows in the summer because some yahoo thinks of only themselves. While we're speaking of inconsideration, would you let your dog bark for an hour or lean on your car horn for an hour? No? Is it only because it also annoys you? I don't get what the difference is. Don't do any of these things to others.

[Javacoffee]

Originally Posted by jay5835

All of this is true in my family except the last sentence. My mother died at age 50 of emphysema, courtesy of Lucky Strike. My father used to say LSMFT stood for Lucky Strike Means Final Termination.

I'm sorry for your loss, but I'm not defending smoking. I'm defending people's right to smoke and to be given the same humanity shown to the non-smoker. The issue is whether walking past a smoker who is smoking outside is worthy of the current hysteria. It's also about the lack of mercy and compassion shown towards those who do smoke.

[Melodica]

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

LOL, I agree!

I always ask this question in a smoking thread, but have yet to receive an answer:

What would these complainers choose: Spending an hour in a closed garage with a running vehicle, or spending an hour in a closed garage with five smokers?

Well, complainers???

I would choose neither. Thanks!

In regards to smoking and pregnancy... both of my parents were heavy smokers. My mother was a heavy smoker while pregnant with me. I want to say I saw something that said smoking during pregnancy causes low birth weight (I weighed 9lbs) and premature delivery (I was two weeks LATE). I had no health issues and though both of my parents continued smoking, neither got cancer - though my dad does have a persistent cough. Obviously smoking is not good for you, but some of us get lucky and have few adverse effects.

All that being said... I do NOT like cigarette smoke. I grew up in a house with it because my parents smoked indoors. I didn't realize just how bad it was until I moved out. Since then, I avoid being around smoke if at all possible because it irritates my throat.

I think that smokers should be courteous. If you have options to be away from others while you smoke, take them.