![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Fair enough. A lot of that generation did, in their younger years or "just socially" or would have had friends around who smoked around the children etc. because people just did then. But it's genes and other factors too as we've both agreed I think.
I agree that there are many demonstrable benefits to having pets (to some people some of the time at the very least). BUT something controlled by having to take antihistamines a lot (ie. regular drugs) isn't ideal and some people would rather not do that - and might therefore prefer to simply not have furry pets (and doctors might thus recommend it for the same why take drugs when there's another way).
I have not yet established whether it is cats or some pollens etc that they have brought in which have given me allergy attacks, but I can't see how I could test this without having to house a cat who I might then have to get rehoused, I think it might be more responsible to not get one in the first place for the sake of the cat and possibly the humans as well. It would be even unkinder to am asthmatic/allergic child who might be very upset if the animal had to go (and have less understanding than an adult of why). And I like cats so I'm not against them at all...(although this is hypothetical at the mo as our housing doesn't allow pets).
I have not yet established whether it is cats or some pollens etc that they have brought in which have given me allergy attacks, but I can't see how I could test this without having to house a cat who I might then have to get rehoused, I think it might be more responsible to not get one in the first place for the sake of the cat and possibly the humans as well. It would be even unkinder to am asthmatic/allergic child who might be very upset if the animal had to go (and have less understanding than an adult of why). And I like cats so I'm not against them at all...(although this is hypothetical at the mo as our housing doesn't allow pets).
I don't know where you live or where you have asserted yourself but in some places one would be risking life and limb to do this (on any matter), even though some of the individuals in those areas are I'm sure, nice too. I'm assertive too, but I'm not foolhardy. (Not talking about where I live, I would do the same as you round here, unless I was getting a bad vibe).
I agree with the view expressed in the second half of pellegrina's post. I hardly know any smokers, but a favourite relation (now dead) was a heavy smoker, another relation smokes, and a few of bek's friends smoke I think, and I have nothing against any of them ;) So it's not prejudice against all smokers, I accept they have a range of demeanours in general, and regarding their smoking habits specifically. But I have witnessed enough smokers with a bad attitude (and incidentally poorly trained dogs) to be satisfied with my assessment of both situations.
I'm never totally convinced by the comparison with dogs, because legally *some* dogs are allowed into pubs. I'm thinking, obviously, of assistance dogs. Whereas there are no laws that allow *some* smokers to smoke in pubs.
Which is to say, I agree with you on the dog argument. I'm just quibbling :)
Which is to say, I agree with you on the dog argument. I'm just quibbling :)
I can go off on one very badly indeed on the subject of patio heaters, so I shall just say I AGREEEEEE! and then be quiet.
I disagree with you only on the issue of smoking-allowed pubs, and that is because of the workers in them. We've spent so long making sure that people can't be hired or fired on the grounds of sex, inclination, race, etc, but to require people to either be smokers in order to be employed, or to put themselves at risk for someone else's habit is just utterly abhorrent to me. It opens the door to a return to so many other discriminatory practices.
/rant
I totally agree with you about smoking in public places, btw, except perhaps if they were adequately fenced off from non-smoking areas.
(Though I remember seeing some people smoking something that released a lot of very blue smoke while they were sitting in a very smelly wild garlic patch in a Newcastle park. I must say, that showed a certain amount of initiative not usually associated with potheads!)
/rant
I totally agree with you about smoking in public places, btw, except perhaps if they were adequately fenced off from non-smoking areas.
(Though I remember seeing some people smoking something that released a lot of very blue smoke while they were sitting in a very smelly wild garlic patch in a Newcastle park. I must say, that showed a certain amount of initiative not usually associated with potheads!)
I appreciate that - but the thing is, if we are talking about bringing in a law to prohibit smoking in public, we need to bear in mind that laws are obeyed by law abiding people.
People who illegally smack complete strangers on the nose because they have been asked not to smoke are the same people that will ignore a law on smoking in the street.
People who respond positively to a politely phrased request are the ones who are most likely to obey the law, thus making the law simply another way of criminalising some poor sod who stops behind a bush for a furtive fag, while having little impact on the real bastards whom nobody dares to reprove.
If you make so many laws that most of your citizens are tempted to break at least some of them,then respect for the rule of law is undermined. I think that's important.
People who illegally smack complete strangers on the nose because they have been asked not to smoke are the same people that will ignore a law on smoking in the street.
People who respond positively to a politely phrased request are the ones who are most likely to obey the law, thus making the law simply another way of criminalising some poor sod who stops behind a bush for a furtive fag, while having little impact on the real bastards whom nobody dares to reprove.
If you make so many laws that most of your citizens are tempted to break at least some of them,then respect for the rule of law is undermined. I think that's important.
Quibbling even more enthusiastically than you :-D, I would point out that in pubs where dogs are not allowed, there is no legal requirement (unless there is some odd local bylaw).
Pubs (and cafes for that matter) that do not allow dogs to enter are not obeying a law, they have made their own rule based on a choice about their clientele and market. I think it should be possible to encourage pubs to appeal more to a non-smoking market, without forcing them to ban all smokers entirely.
People will tell you that you can't bring your dog in and it's all down to Elf and Safety, and those people are wrong. There are still plenty of dogfriendly eating and drinking places, Mollydog is pleased to report.
Pubs (and cafes for that matter) that do not allow dogs to enter are not obeying a law, they have made their own rule based on a choice about their clientele and market. I think it should be possible to encourage pubs to appeal more to a non-smoking market, without forcing them to ban all smokers entirely.
People will tell you that you can't bring your dog in and it's all down to Elf and Safety, and those people are wrong. There are still plenty of dogfriendly eating and drinking places, Mollydog is pleased to report.
I didn't think it was legal to forbid a blind person (say) from bringing their guide dog into a pub..?
I agree that the issue of employees for smoking-allowed pubs is a problem, and that I'm not sure there's an acceptable way to solve it. So to unpack a bit: assuming that there was an acceptable solution (robot bar-staff, perhaps ;) ) then I'd be happy with them; if the employee issue can't be solved acceptably, then I'd be worried for the same reasons you are. Partly, of course, the difficulty comes with drawing the line - after all, is it fair to insist that a fencing instructor must either enjoy fencing or put themselves at (admittedly much smaller) risk for someone else's habit? After all, people do get injured sometimes. (Granted it's much more unlikely that someone who doesn't enjoy fencing would want to become a fencing instructor than that someone who doesn't smoke would get a job in a bar, but the question is, in a sense, where between those two examples you draw the line....)
You are right - I was just quibbling with your wording as it seemed to imply that legally some dogs were excluded. It was a silly quibble really, I withdraw it.
Assistance dogs can indeed go anywhere.
Assistance dogs can indeed go anywhere.
I agree with you about the perfume, but it's harder to enact - I like perfule, especially of the BPAL variety, and the only person who has ever asked me not to wear it when I come over is my dad, who is growing very sensitive to scent these days. If someone else asked me not to then I wouldn't wear it if I was going to their function, however it's less likely to have a broad proximity effect than smoking (I think, do correct me if I'm wrong) and unless people have actually had this conversation they are probably not selfish, just ignorant of the consequences.
I'm in the slightly odd position of a guilty occasional smoker who thinks the ban is a great thing. To my knowledge I'm the only one... Then again, I never smoke indoors as it destroys the uupholstry, only outside where I'm either with other smokers or on my own. I'm not about to screw anyone else's lungs over.
Oh, dear - I fear I'm entering the lion's den here, but I said I'd leave a comment, so...
Some of you have mentioned the possibility of segregated areas: I am old enough to remember when we still had smoking and non-smoking compartments on trains; engraved glass in old pubs show that they used to have separate smoking rooms, away from the non-smokers; we used to have smoking rooms at my first permanent job etc. It probably wasn't perfect, but it seemed to work and everyone had the same protection from the weather - now I have to freeze and get rained on, as all those special provisions have been removed. I'd settle for something like a little hut in a mutually agreed "safe" area, not too long a walk away from work. Is that too much to ask?
I always used to ask if I was allowed to smoke and/or went to the appropriate place to do so - now I am so ticked off that I sometimes deliberately blow smoke at people! I used to be able to consider this subject rationally and would apologise for being a smoker; now I find myself spouting off about "both my parents and their parents and so on back to Sir Walter Raleigh all smoked and lived into their 80s and died of things not related to smoking" and "I've known dozens of bar staff who smoke as much as me and hate the ban and only two who didn't and only one of them disliked the smoke from her colleagues" and "if you want to get rid of noxious fumes, ban internal combustion engines" and... I think you get the drift.
Calming down a bit, both strong perfume (which makes me cough to the point of choking, though I am not asthmatic) and smelly food (which makes me nauseous) within the office are officially against our company's rules, but nobody takes a blind bit of notice, so I go outside for a smoke whenever either turns up! Oh, and I only pollute people's walk from the station to the office because the powers that be have so limited where I can smoke that it is very difficult to get out of the way of non-smokers in that area.
One other mischievous thought: if smoking were banned entirely, would a situation develop like Prohibition with booze - consumption would actually increase and all the profits would go to organised crime!
Seriously, though: I'd like to be as accommodating as possible to non-smokers, but in some ways things like this ban are making it more difficult, not less. I'll be more flexible if you will too.
Some of you have mentioned the possibility of segregated areas: I am old enough to remember when we still had smoking and non-smoking compartments on trains; engraved glass in old pubs show that they used to have separate smoking rooms, away from the non-smokers; we used to have smoking rooms at my first permanent job etc. It probably wasn't perfect, but it seemed to work and everyone had the same protection from the weather - now I have to freeze and get rained on, as all those special provisions have been removed. I'd settle for something like a little hut in a mutually agreed "safe" area, not too long a walk away from work. Is that too much to ask?
I always used to ask if I was allowed to smoke and/or went to the appropriate place to do so - now I am so ticked off that I sometimes deliberately blow smoke at people! I used to be able to consider this subject rationally and would apologise for being a smoker; now I find myself spouting off about "both my parents and their parents and so on back to Sir Walter Raleigh all smoked and lived into their 80s and died of things not related to smoking" and "I've known dozens of bar staff who smoke as much as me and hate the ban and only two who didn't and only one of them disliked the smoke from her colleagues" and "if you want to get rid of noxious fumes, ban internal combustion engines" and... I think you get the drift.
Calming down a bit, both strong perfume (which makes me cough to the point of choking, though I am not asthmatic) and smelly food (which makes me nauseous) within the office are officially against our company's rules, but nobody takes a blind bit of notice, so I go outside for a smoke whenever either turns up! Oh, and I only pollute people's walk from the station to the office because the powers that be have so limited where I can smoke that it is very difficult to get out of the way of non-smokers in that area.
One other mischievous thought: if smoking were banned entirely, would a situation develop like Prohibition with booze - consumption would actually increase and all the profits would go to organised crime!
Seriously, though: I'd like to be as accommodating as possible to non-smokers, but in some ways things like this ban are making it more difficult, not less. I'll be more flexible if you will too.
Page 3 of 3