I am an asthmatic non-smoker who reacts to cigarette smoke, but I wouldn't put my dislike of smoke in pubs as strongly as thinking the other guy selfish. I'm not a regular pubgoer by temperament: many people who are regular pubgoers smoke, if a landlord feels his business is better off catering to the smokers and annoying the non-smokers, then that's mildly annoying to me as an individual if I happen to go in there and it's too cold to sit outside, but I don't think it's selfish of the smokers.
Similar to my views on dogs in pubs actually: my personal preference is that all pubs be dog-friendly: no doubt if you have a dog allergy or phobia, that preference seems very selfish, but it's still my preference.
On the front of trying to please as many people as possible, the best solution seems to be a good range of pubs catering to as many different sorts of preference as possible. Although I liked the idea of the antismoking legislation to start with, I've gone off it. It seems too pushy now.
Heavens, I seem to be out on a limb, looking at the other responses!
I grew up in an atmosphere of yacht clubs and big bands and my mother was a teacher, so my early youth was surrounded by fagends and beer: stale smoke has got that sort of nostalgia to it to me...
Aha, you say, that's why she's asthmatic! but honestly, I don't think it is, my grandfather was exactly the same: I think I just got the wheezy genes.
Highly likely that your grandfather or his relations smoked, though? Although there's genetics in there too for sure. There are some signs that my youngest quite possibly has the same form of asthma (mildly) that her grandma was finally diagnosed with not all that long ago (but has always had, looking back) and I think I have a small touch of it too, while there's been eczema in other family members, and hay fever in several. My point is that only the grandma has been brought up anywhere near smoke though, Youngest virtually never, if not Actually never, comes into contact with it so far.
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.
To compare the desire of (some) smokers to be permitted to smoke in pubs with your desire for pubs to be dog-friendly. The key difference is (ignoring the people who are allergic to dogs etc.) that the smoke harms everyone, while the dog harms nobody.
I can see where you're coming from when you say it seems too pushy now. However, I can see that smokers have failed to kerb their behaviour to the general detriment of everyone else (smoker and non-smoker alike). And without firm, in-you-face legislation (like this) I can't see that changing.
With the way that asthma is on the increase, it wouldn't surprise me if this became a sizeable number of people in the future.
(I don't know whether they still routinely tell parents of asthmatics/sufferers of perennial allergic rhinitis to keep them away from all furry animals, or if it's just the severe cases.)
I don't think I've ever been advised that, as an asthmatic from childhood with persistent rhinitis. Not that I would pay any attention to so absurd a suggestion, so it's possible that it's been said to me and I've rudely laughed in the person's face and as a result had some sort of note put on my permanent record...
I have every sympathy with people who have genuine serious allergies to other mammalian species, or for that matter, people who have genuine fears that they find it hard to conquer, but people who go 'oh, I have asthma, the cat must go' without investigating the matter properly, I have no time for them.
Not that I would pay any attention to so absurd a suggestion
Why is it necessarily absurd? I would have thought it was worth doing for at least a while to see if symptoms improved, then you could turn around and go "Actually, no, doesn't seem to be a problem" or "Hmmm, you're right, the hamster does set me off when it is not cleaned every day". What with asthma having a combination of triggers (not all of which are allergic), it's not like they can do a completely reliable test on you and give you the all-clear or say that something will definitely cause you asthma :-(.
What I thought was absurd was the expectation of the allergist who told me I was going to have to stay away from everything with "chemicals" in, even if it was clear that the word wasn't being used in a scientific context :-).
I think it's absurd when worded as you suggested, as a blanket prohibition. There are very few people who live so closely with animals that they are never away from them, so serious reactions tend to be very easy to spot.
I have lots of pets, and am keener than most on taking them everywhere I go, but even I have significant periods when I am not around animals. There are people who holiday with their pets, sleep with their pets, and never leave them, but those people are very rare.
The question : do you have pets, and is this still a problem when you aren't around them? is valid, but a blanket ruling on all species without evidence seems to me daft when there are so many other possible triggers which are much harder to spot.
Plus, a blanket ruling on furry species is almost as silly as your 'avoid chemicals' ludicrous instruction : most people who react, react to dander or saliva, not fur, and there is no particular reason to suppose that someone who gets a rash from cat saliva will have breathing problems when he meets a rat, for example.
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
I suspect that our asthma may be of a rather differing variety here from the way you are discussing things. Either way, a disclaimer that I'm reporting on what I get told (much of which annoys me), rather than what I believe to be A Good Thing.
In the case of the allergists suggesting to stay away from furry animals, I gather that, much like the similar suggestion to stay away from feathers, that the mechanism involved is a non-allergic* one. They tell you to avoid things even if your skin prick tests come back negative. (*Or, in some cases, it's an indirect allergy reason (e.g. if things cause an increase in dust mites).)
I, too, find it intensely frustrating that specialists have to make their best guesses based on their experience rather than more rigorous scientific methods. But *shrug* their best guesses have kept me from dying, and that's the important thing to me :-). "Do you have pets?" is a common question which they *all* ask, so I figure that it's not just one person's personal ideas (even if they are a specialist).
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
I have to express my surprise at this point that anybody can manage to get to see an allergist if their condition is kept under control with antihistamines! I have to admit that I thought it took at least two or three inpatient stays or to be on at least five different relevant classes of drugs for a year before they'd even say hello to you :-).
Ah but the problem with dogs is that for every decent dog owner who has a properly trained dog under good control appropriate for the situation, there are several who do none of the above and whose dogs are at best an annoyance and at worse actually detrimental in terms of either hygiene or actually biting people. It's the irresponsible spoiling it for the responsible really. I have nothing against well trained well cared for dogs with considerate owners, regardless of my personal feelings about being around dogs in places XYZ, but sadly it's too hard to legislate and enforce rules that make subjective judgements (and of course if people don't agree a certain type of them kick off).
Smoking is in my view a little different because it is not physically possible for even the most considerate smoker to have control over where their smoke goes unless they are in a confined area devoid of people who don't wish to breathe it in, and trying to make any public place so, while protecting workers, is tricky and probably too complex to legislate and police effectively with too many ifs and buts; hence the blanket ban we now how I suppose.
every decent dog owner who has a properly trained dog under good control appropriate for the situation, there are several who do none of the above
I think that's untrue, but it's not really on topic so I won't argue further.
However, it may be relevant to mention that the law on dogs specifically does cover exactly the sort of adult judgement you mention. The law says that dogs must be 'under control', and every local council has an officer whose job it is to try to enforce and explain that. (I'm not sure if you thought that dogs were legally banned from pubs or cafes, but if you did think that, no, that's not the case, it's a free choice by the owner)
I don't see why smoking has to be on/off rather than the law requiring that it be 'considerate' or confined to areas frequented by 'consenting adults'.
It annoys me that increasingly blanket laws are being made because there is this idea that adult human beings cannot be expected to be responsible, considerate or have any common sense.
I see your point, it owuld be better all round if pubs were looked at and licenced by size (by the local magistrates) as to wether they could have indoor smoking in one room (say the old snug), or an outdoor are for non-smokers on sunny days (sited upwind of the smokers based on prevailing breeze), a child friendly area etc.
The dog bit is harder, although pubs could have signs up saying "Dogs Welcome/Not Welcome Here" so allergy/phobia sufferers knew that there may be a dog inside.
And I agree a lot of the anti-smoking stuff has gone too far, no smoking in bus shelters that are a roof and one wall!?!
Speaking as somebody who suffers when in close proximity to cigarette smoke I certainly have problems if somebody is smoking at a bus shelter (roof and one wall) where I am. My asthma is very well controlled, but in most such situations I can feel an attach coming on; it is not pleasant.
If I were standing near the bus exhaust then I'd get the same thing, and as for solid fuel boiler fumes, aaaaaargh. Sometimes you just have to be prepared to move away, I don't think one can reasonably expect the environment to eliminate all possible triggers.
The problem is where there is a long queue which one has been in for a while. If I move out from the queue and wait elsewhere then I've forfeited my place in the queue. Other people will then get upset if I try to board the bus in my previous position in the queue, particularly if they've turned up after I moved. I've seen it happen.
I completely agree with sigisgrim's logic on this matter. Why should the non-smoker have a choice of breathing the smoke or standing in the cold/rain and/or potentially forfeiting a place on the bus as well?!
If no-one's there, then fine. If someone comes along (who isn't smoking themselves at that time) either put out the ciggie or ask them in a very non-threatening way if they mind, and take "yes" graciously. People will often say (for fear of being attacked otherwise, all too common in some places) "fine" when it is far from fine so putting it out is probably the most considerate thing to do.
You are a firm and assertive person. Not everyone is. Knowing that the law is explicitly on your side when approaching a situation like that can give those who may be a bit nervous about it a moral boost and enable them to make the request.
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 :)
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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Similar to my views on dogs in pubs actually: my personal preference is that all pubs be dog-friendly: no doubt if you have a dog allergy or phobia, that preference seems very selfish, but it's still my preference.
On the front of trying to please as many people as possible, the best solution seems to be a good range of pubs catering to as many different sorts of preference as possible. Although I liked the idea of the antismoking legislation to start with, I've gone off it. It seems too pushy now.
no subject
I grew up in an atmosphere of yacht clubs and big bands and my mother was a teacher, so my early youth was surrounded by fagends and beer: stale smoke has got that sort of nostalgia to it to me...
Aha, you say, that's why she's asthmatic! but honestly, I don't think it is, my grandfather was exactly the same: I think I just got the wheezy genes.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I can see where you're coming from when you say . However, I can see that smokers have failed to kerb their behaviour to the general detriment of everyone else (smoker and non-smoker alike). And without firm, in-you-face legislation (like this) I can't see that changing.
no subject
With the way that asthma is on the increase, it wouldn't surprise me if this became a sizeable number of people in the future.
(I don't know whether they still routinely tell parents of asthmatics/sufferers of perennial allergic rhinitis to keep them away from all furry animals, or if it's just the severe cases.)
no subject
I have every sympathy with people who have genuine serious allergies to other mammalian species, or for that matter, people who have genuine fears that they find it hard to conquer, but people who go 'oh, I have asthma, the cat must go' without investigating the matter properly, I have no time for them.
Apologies, pet rant triggered...
no subject
Why is it necessarily absurd? I would have thought it was worth doing for at least a while to see if symptoms improved, then you could turn around and go "Actually, no, doesn't seem to be a problem" or "Hmmm, you're right, the hamster does set me off when it is not cleaned every day". What with asthma having a combination of triggers (not all of which are allergic), it's not like they can do a completely reliable test on you and give you the all-clear or say that something will definitely cause you asthma :-(.
What I thought was absurd was the expectation of the allergist who told me I was going to have to stay away from everything with "chemicals" in, even if it was clear that the word wasn't being used in a scientific context :-).
no subject
I have lots of pets, and am keener than most on taking them everywhere I go, but even I have significant periods when I am not around animals. There are people who holiday with their pets, sleep with their pets, and never leave them, but those people are very rare.
The question : do you have pets, and is this still a problem when you aren't around them? is valid, but a blanket ruling on all species without evidence seems to me daft when there are so many other possible triggers which are much harder to spot.
Plus, a blanket ruling on furry species is almost as silly as your 'avoid chemicals' ludicrous instruction : most people who react, react to dander or saliva, not fur, and there is no particular reason to suppose that someone who gets a rash from cat saliva will have breathing problems when he meets a rat, for example.
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
no subject
In the case of the allergists suggesting to stay away from furry animals, I gather that, much like the similar suggestion to stay away from feathers, that the mechanism involved is a non-allergic* one. They tell you to avoid things even if your skin prick tests come back negative.
(*Or, in some cases, it's an indirect allergy reason (e.g. if things cause an increase in dust mites).)
I, too, find it intensely frustrating that specialists have to make their best guesses based on their experience rather than more rigorous scientific methods. But *shrug* their best guesses have kept me from dying, and that's the important thing to me :-). "Do you have pets?" is a common question which they *all* ask, so I figure that it's not just one person's personal ideas (even if they are a specialist).
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
I have to express my surprise at this point that anybody can manage to get to see an allergist if their condition is kept under control with antihistamines! I have to admit that I thought it took at least two or three inpatient stays or to be on at least five different relevant classes of drugs for a year before they'd even say hello to you :-).
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Smoking is in my view a little different because it is not physically possible for even the most considerate smoker to have control over where their smoke goes unless they are in a confined area devoid of people who don't wish to breathe it in, and trying to make any public place so, while protecting workers, is tricky and probably too complex to legislate and police effectively with too many ifs and buts; hence the blanket ban we now how I suppose.
no subject
I think that's untrue, but it's not really on topic so I won't argue further.
However, it may be relevant to mention that the law on dogs specifically does cover exactly the sort of adult judgement you mention. The law says that dogs must be 'under control', and every local council has an officer whose job it is to try to enforce and explain that. (I'm not sure if you thought that dogs were legally banned from pubs or cafes, but if you did think that, no, that's not the case, it's a free choice by the owner)
I don't see why smoking has to be on/off rather than the law requiring that it be 'considerate' or confined to areas frequented by 'consenting adults'.
It annoys me that increasingly blanket laws are being made because there is this idea that adult human beings cannot be expected to be responsible, considerate or have any common sense.
no subject
The dog bit is harder, although pubs could have signs up saying "Dogs Welcome/Not Welcome Here" so allergy/phobia sufferers knew that there may be a dog inside.
And I agree a lot of the anti-smoking stuff has gone too far, no smoking in bus shelters that are a roof and one wall!?!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If no-one's there, then fine. If someone comes along (who isn't smoking themselves at that time) either put out the ciggie or ask them in a very non-threatening way if they mind, and take "yes" graciously. People will often say (for fear of being attacked otherwise, all too common in some places) "fine" when it is far from fine so putting it out is probably the most considerate thing to do.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Which is to say, I agree with you on the dog argument. I'm just quibbling :)
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
Assistance dogs can indeed go anywhere.