But it also assumes that one smoker making an occasional visit's comfort does not overrule that of, say, 20 regulars enjoying not breathing in noxious fumes. Rather than expecting them all to cough and wheeze, the committed smoker could just choose another venue, too.
At the end of the day I would favour the option that does not have a measurable chemical impact on bystanders to the activity in question.
Mind you, now lots of pubs smell of toilet cleaner, damp and eau de old gent's wee instead of stale tobacco, which is not the greatest improvement.
Now, I would say that was a matter of politeness, not legislation? I agree that smoking surrounded by non-smokers is pretty damn rude, but not all smokers do this, and it's not essential to the habit. If they are prepared to do it where I don't have to breathe it, let them if they must, say I.
The problem is the vast majority of smokers don't appear to be able to realise about the politeness. This has gone on for sufficiently long to demonstrate that they never will without it being forced. This is what this legislation has done.
I agree - but how many extra miles should I be expected to walk in order *not* to breathe it in public, shared spaces, when the smokers are by choice the ones with the smelly toxic habit?
You shouldn't, no question - but I feel that there are probably middle ways between that and banning smoking everywhere but in people's own homes. What about, for example, pubs being able to offer a smoking room if it meets certain ventilation standards and 2/3 of the pub is non-smoking? Or being able to offer 'smoking nights' 2 nights in 7? Or perhaps being able to have a smoking pub if there is a non-smoking pub within a 5 minute walk? I'm sure others could be devised...
I just don't like the primary-school absolutism of bans. I agree non-smokers should not have to put up with smoking, but I don't like the 'you can't kill yourself here' aspect.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
At the end of the day I would favour the option that does not have a measurable chemical impact on bystanders to the activity in question.
Mind you, now lots of pubs smell of toilet cleaner, damp and eau de old gent's wee instead of stale tobacco, which is not the greatest improvement.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I just don't like the primary-school absolutism of bans. I agree non-smokers should not have to put up with smoking, but I don't like the 'you can't kill yourself here' aspect.