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}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 06:34 pm (UTC)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.