As for smoking being "minor", ever see a kid in a car with the windows rolled up with both their parents puffing away? Think they asked for that or have a say in it? You wouldn't like it if someone was shooting herione into their veins, and it's illegal to give them alcohol to drink... why is it legal for their parents to force them to breathe tobacco smoke when they cannot purchase tobacco at that age? See, that's a double standard.
A perfect example of irresponsible behavior, and one I cannot, and WILL not support in the least. If you can't wait until you're out of the car to light up, you've crossed the line from use to abuse.
I'm not saying that people have to put up with smokers if they don't like it, what I AM trying to say is that it's up to the smokers to regulate their behavior. The tired excuse that it's the few making a mess for the many grates on my nerves.
I take issue with the support for broad-based smoking bans because they limit the freedoms of those who do so responsibly. In most areas, when a smoking ban goes into effect, there are rarely exceptions for locations that make quite a bit of secondary business off of smokers; bars for example.
I can understand frustration in customers who don't want to deal with smokers in a bar. But keep in mind that as a general rule, smokers outnumber non-smokers there. As such, why not open a smoke-free bar? Why can't people use their own bloody freedom to MAKE something for themselves instead of stealing it from someone else?
I cannot, will not, support rude smokers; but I will not simply tolerate rude anti-smokers either. If someone responsibly imbibes nicotine, for whatever given reason, I will respect that choice. I draw the line at abuse; smoking carries risks, and I view responsible nicotine usage to be similar to any number of habits and addictions people partake in on a daily basis. I use caffeine as an example beacuse it IS as addictive as nicotine, and it's abuse can be almost, if not as damaging in the long term.
And this is the crux of the matter for me, at least.
Any form of chemical abuse is damaging, and a great number of people inhale dust particles floating about their own home that are just as harmful as anything coming out of a smoldering tobacco product. I fail to see how singling out tobacco does anything productive.
Do I smoke? yes, after a fashion. If I somehow exceed my temper, it's easy stress reduction. Certainly preferable, in my mind, to a large number of more effective forms of stress relief that involve obnoxious and easily injured coworkers. I imbibe on average 1-2 cigarettes a month, and have no troubles maintaining that limit. While I can do without the nicotine, I'm certainly happier with it on those rare occasions.
I'm not saying tobacco is harmless, I simply hold the opinion that this is more a matter of civil liberties and personal responsibility.
Paradoxical as it sounds, I believe that free will includes the right to risk harm to oneself. I don't think people need to be saved from themselves, I think they need to take responsibility for their own actions. And I think they need to be HELD responsible for said actions in order for this to occur. Quitting a habit is meaningless if the will to quit does not originate from the addict. Unfortunately, part of said responsibility involves not becoming heavily addicted in the first place.
*edit*
Slightly related rant, I'm entirely supportive of proper separation of smoking vs non-smoking areas. But I keep dealing with double standards in this arena. Smoking has no place in the office, but neither does any item that could produce a counter-productive reaction.
If smokers have to stand in the rain because it's illegal to smoke within 20 feet of an office building, maybe the women who wear strong perfume should as well. The slightest whiff of some of this stuff practically makes my sinuses collapse. To make matters worse, there's nothing I can do about the perfume because said scents, according to the supervisors, are all from a supposedly hypoalergenic brand.
*/edit*
