My mother died of lung cancer.
She was a MILITANT smoker up till the end.
She would have definitely voted Yea in this survey,
and was always willing to get in the face of those
who wanted to interfere with her exercise of free will.
Though I was sad to lose her, I defended her right to
make a personal choice as a citizen of an allegedly free
country.
My condolences.
Years ago, I was having a smoke outside with a friend after work. No other people were around us when a short, overly obese man (400 lbs?) shuffled past us, waved the “second hand” smoke away and remarked that “we were killing him with the second-hand smoke”.
[ I defended her right to
make a personal choice as a citizen of an allegedly free
country.]
But that “right” infringes on the “rights” of those who want to live a healthy life, or have allergic sensitivities to smoke.
You want to endanger your health, fine. But to endanger people around you is not a “right”.
A brash generalization but TRUE.
My grandfather was, too. I never complained about his smoking in my presence because he was my grandfather. However, I always had this question. Why should his right to have a cigarette take priority over my right not to have to put up with the irritant that is cigarette smoke?
Tax-chick has it right. No one is discriminating against the person of the smoker, only the behavior. You generally won't even know that courteous smoker is a smoker. We have a rule that no one can smoke in our house. If a smoker visits and wants to have a cigarette, I'll go outside and visit with them while they are smoking, although I'll stand up-wind.