Replies

I appreciate your openness - it's refreshing.

I don't think it really matters who is the first to go ad hominem. To be honest, it used to be always the anti smokers, and as I explained a bunch of us are tired of it and occassionally work from a pre-emptive strike mentality.

Does that help the debate? Possibly, only because of the reasons it is done - it shows those unaware of the total situation just how rudely smokers are treated. Is it the best way to do that? Probably not, but sometimes a little pro-active self defense is good for morale.

I appreciate your opposition to smoking bans and rudeness to smokers. In this debate there are 3 types of people the smokers, the non-smokers and the anti-smokers.

I fit in the first category, you are in the second. I have been unable to determine where DrLuv fits because with in the cross fire of ad homs he has declined to reply to any of my posts. From what I could gather he seems to be a cross somewhere between non-smoker and anti-smoker.

To me it is primarily a private property issue and I can not understand why people who do not like being around tobacco smoke don't do one of 2 things - either speak with the owner to change the smoking policy or use their wallet and open their own establishment that prohibits smoking. Instead so many insist that the government must do it for them.

One of the arguments in favor of smoking bans is that they will improve business because the non-smokers staying home will start coming out. It's just not true, it doesn't happen.

A total smoking ban in "public" places is going to take effect in Delaware starting in November. Originally there were certain exemptions to it. At the last minute an amendment was added to remove those exemptions, in order to "level the playing field." Pardon me - but if smoking bans are so good for business, why does the playing field have to be leveled???

My apologies for what may appear to be a rant - I'm just tired of automatically being tarred with a broad brush because of my views on this issue. More often than not my particular view is classified of that of a "nicotine addict that demands to have her fix anywhere and anytime she wants it." When the truth of the matter is that I believe the ownerof a private establishment open to the public should have the right to make the decisions regarding the clientele they wish to entertain.

Thanks for your further comments. I think we are in agreement about smoking laws. I wish they would leave the airlines alone, too. In due course there would be lots of advertised smoking and non-smoking flights and airlines, as was already happening before the regulations. And, rude behavior is just rude behavior. In the days when smoking was the norm, I was sometimes on the receiving end, and I am very sorry to see many non-smokers behave badly now.

I do sympathize with Dr. Luv, though. I often overeat, arguably a worse habit than smoking. If a cardiologist came on a food thread and reminded me that the free radicals from all those chips are not worth it, I hope I would say "thank you very much".

One poster made the interesting point that he smokes tobacco, but never tobacco industry products. I have wondered if someone smoked natural tobacco in pipe, in moderate amounts, what his risks would be. That seems a lot different to me than smoking poison-sprayed plants mixed with who knows what chemicals, surrounded in chemically treated paper.