Is it possible to request non-smoking signs in front of buildings at a university?

Perhaps you could just move the non-smoking signs from the cafeteria. Then people would be able to smoke where they actually want to.

I am also a non-smoker, but I think this has gone too far. If you really don’t want people to smoke outside the building, then you have to offer them an alternative about where they should smoke that will not bother you. You have the right to breathe fresh air, but they must also have the right to breathe nicotine somehow.

I’d go and talk to the administration department. They would be able to point you to exactly who to talk to if they cannot take your complaint.

I doubt you would be able to get signs implemented unless there was a ruling or a law that supported the idea of having smokers be a certain number of feet away from the door.

My old university began a no-smoking campaign, supported if not persuaded by the president because he was opposed to smoking. They enacted rules that made it so that smokers must be 10 feet from the door. Predictably many people ignored this. So they then went on to make the entire campus non-smoking with the exception of smoking zones which they designated. I’m not too sure what the result of this action was as I graduated and left, but I do know that many more tickets were being handed out by the time I left. I don’t really agree with this choice of action, but as a non smoker I did appreciate the lack of people smoking in the mostly enclosed entrance to my building.

You might strengthen your argument if you could get a number of people who agree with your position to sign a petition or to at least give you their verbal support. Then again, petitions are never a guarantee themselves.

Jack79 – I understand they have the right to destroy their health, but dont drag me a long with them. I would like it, as dynamid duo stated, if they smoked further from the entrance door, perhaps along the side of the building or in a location where people dont walk. Its the fact that 15 people would huddle in front of the door and smoke…. creating a huge smoke of nicotine filled air. I wont tell them they can not smoke, but I ask for some consideration for those who dont.

My university put up such signs. Smokers were required to stay thirty feet (or so) away from the entrances. All the smokers ignored them. Not that it mattered. Thirty feet meant they stood on a pathway everyone had to walk on anyway.

Later on, the Chancellor of state schools banned smoking from everywhere on each campus. As you might imagine, this had as much effect as the thirty foot ordinance. In fact, it’s never been publicized.

Dream on, Glow. Dream on.

My school banned smoking within X feet of buildings as part of New York’s smoking ban several years ago. As others have said, it had little to no effect.

My university has smoking benches. You’re only supposed to smoke at one of these benches. The only enforcement is from other students though. The administration has said that this is something students wanted, then students should enforce it. Most people do smoke at the benches now (a lot of the smokers are under the impression that’s its punishable by police if they do not smoke at the bench.

Next semester this is going to change. Our city just passed a ban on smoking in public places. Our university is public, so when the ban kicks in, smoking on our campus will have to cease. I’m not sure how this will be enforced/implemented, but we’ll see.

what dd mentions is the only thing that could realistically work. It’s very easy to say “don’t do this” and then get it implemented using police logic. But it would be much easier to reasonably explain that “how about you do this in a way that doesn’t bother the others?” and ask them to slightly change their habit by smoking in specially-designated areas (again, they must be realistic) rather than “don’t smoke here” “don’t smoke there” “don’t smoke anywhere”.

I may be pessimistic and bitter, but if smokers cared that what they were doing “bothered others”, they wouldn’t be smokers to begin with.

Well this is starting to look bleak :P

Than in that case, I just hope some smokers will have the consideration in their heart to not bother others by smoking else where. But than again, as MrItty stated, if they had this to start with, they would have never became smokers or would at least quit… and I understand its difficult to quit, but ive seen people do it, including both my parents.

@MrItty

I am a smoker, I am very concerned about others, and I feel personally offended by that blunt generalization which indirectly addresses me

@TaoSan,

you shouldnt feel offended. If you know you are concerned about others, than you know you do not fit a long with those who dont and im grateful you are concerned :)

@Glow

I generally feel offended when one of my traits is used to throw me together with millions of others. Imagine the same MO for say, skin color, how long would that thread last?

It is this attitude that makes people like me change from “where won’t I bother anyone” to “why do you have to walk through my smoke?”

I don’t think anybody smokes to piss off the others mrItty. But since I have also been a smoker in the past, I can imagine how the non-smoking policies which in my opinion have spiralled out of control in some places, may in fact stimulate such anti-social behaviour.

I would like to remind you that not being able to smoke actually makes people more irritable (biolgically speaking). But for me this is not the issue. I think the problem I have (even now that I am a non-smoker) is this whole attitude of telling people what to do. The issue should be about everyone being able to breathe. Not about one group supressing the other.

So a way forward is to find some places (especially open-aired ones) where people can smoke without bothering everyone else. I don’t see why people should not be able to smoke in parks or railway platforms or the street. If you can’t smoke there, then you’re just going to secretly light up in the toilet or the lift. Or in the end just ignore the signs and be aggressive.

If Glow’s university for example had some smoking areas indoors, then there wouldn’t be that many people huddling at the entrance. Those people are not there because they want the entrance to stink. They are there because they are not allowed to smoke anywhere else, and the entrance is the closest spot to where they’d actually like to smoke.

When I first heard I could not smoke on a paricular flight, I ended up getting out of the plane and smoking on the tarmac. And when (around the same period) I landed in Madrid airport to catch my connection, eager to light up and found out I couldn’t, I just went into the closest toilet and ignored the signs.

btw I allow people to smoke on my balcony and even in the kitchen when it’s really cold, but I had a non-smoking policy in the rest of the house even when I was a smoker.

@TaoSan, no one is throwing you personally into this lump sum of people of are indeed inconsiderate, but from what ive noticed, most smokers are bitter against those who do not smoke and dislike the smoke or speak out against those who do smoke. You really shouldnt feel offended as the statement isnt directed towards all smokers, but from observation, most.

@Jack79 – Well, im not going to say they should not be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE. That, in a way, is like forcing them to quit when they require time. Also, it could cause backlash as those who smoke will feel as if they are being targeted for doing something they have little control over (although little, they still have some control though). I thought it would be nice is they had certain benches near the building, perhaps along the side where the students could sit and smoke by, and even conversate with one another. This way, the entrance way stays clean, and less huddled. It should not take more than 30 extra seconds to walk from a bench to their classes than from the entrance. I just ask for some consideration from the smokers! Im not demanding them to simply go away.

I agree with you Glow.

@Glow

Then speak out against smoke, not the smokers.

but if smokers cared that what they were doing “bothered others”, they wouldn’t be smokers to begin with

Not really a lot to interpret here than you have to be an inconsiderate a$$ to begin smoking to begin with.

Other than that, I do agree, there need to be “convenient” and acceptable smoking areas that will allow non-smokers to go about their day/business without being subjected to smoke.

The state of Nevada has some exemplary “compromising” laws.

Be that as it may, even in the deepest corners of the “stinky” smoking area, you can be sure the next militant non-smoker is just around the corner “hogging” attention with those little placative fake coughs.

Tao, I’m sorry you’re offended, but I stand by what I said and your interepretation of it. I’ve yet to meet or see a smoker that I don’t think is an “inconsiderate a$$”, as you put it.

If you are the one smoker in the world who smokes only in his own home and vehicle, without exposing anyone else to your revolting and toxic smoke, and who washes your clothes and hair after every butt, then my compliments to you. I’m guessing, however, that you’re not.

Why do you care how my hair smells? Now that’s just outright creepy!

because the odor carries with you, and therefore it carries to my nose. I don’t want to smell that.

People know to put deodorant on in the morning. They know to brush their teeth after eating garlic. They know to at least try to get out of public’s scent-radius if they have to pass flatulence. Smokers, however, seem either oblivious or indifferent to the fact that their scent is much, much worse than any of those.

Maybe try not invading their “personal” zone? A little physical distance goes a long way ;)

Try staying away a few feet :)

Some people might find it intrusive if you get into “smelling distance”

Wonder if you’re just as totalitarian with say automobiles, public transportation, public restrooms, etc.

You’re asserting that I’m the one who gets in their zone? No. Sorry. 100% the other way around. On busses, in grocery lines, in my cubicle, etc.

I’m not asserting anything, as the qualifier “maybe” indicates

Lawl, people. Chill.

@MrItty – Like I said, their is no need to lump sum all these people together, as the SMOKERS (who dont wash…). Both my parents were smokers, and although the scent did carry, they are very clean people. I understand those of whom you are speaking of, but I dont see these people are my university :P Thank goodness.

I guess to sum up what I feel of this: Laws may be a bit too harsh to enforce smokers to smoke in specific areas. In that case, I ask for their personal consideration and voluntarily not smoke in front of buildings in large crowds ): If thats all I can ask of them, than I ask with the utmost sincerity and I hope they will respond just as sincerely.

Glow, I have to disagree with your assertion that the smoker’s addiction is even a little bit out of their control. Unless they started smoking more than 50 years ago, when the effects and addictive properties weren’t common knowledge, they’re responsible. They made the choice to have the first cig. They made the choice to have the second, after most likely coughing up a lung from the first. “Peer pressure” is an idiotic answer, as we all go through peer pressure, every day of our lives. It’s the individual choices we make that differentiate us.

FWIW, I’m perfectly “chilled”, at the moment. :-) This is me having a spirited debate, not a heated argument.

Like I said, I’ve yet to meet a smoker who doesn’t fit into my lump-all. Maybe that’s because if he/she didn’t, I wouldn’t know he/she’s a smoker in the first place. <shrug>

TaoSan, I shouldn’t need to say this, but I guess I do. Most smokers radiate smoke smells for a few minutes when coming straight inside from having a smoke. Standing a few feet away does nothing, let alone in a common situation here in Canada – people smoke outside then pop right back in as a group to the very populated bar because it’s damn cold outside. You get this awesome group of smelly smokers bumping into you etc. Talk about invading someone’s personal zone.

@MrItty

The addictive potential of nicotine was not recognized until late into the ‘80s, and has even then not been widely publicized for fear of law suites.

50 years?

@dynamicduo

I know, that is a fact and it isn’t very pleasant, no doubt there.

But then, when it comes to other people obviously some compromise is necessary.

Forgive the exageration. You are likely correct about the dates.

That being said, however, the effects are known now. People can quit. Thousands of people quit every day. That they choose not to, puts them right smack back into that lump-all.

Can’t please everybody, what can I say.

By the way, alcohol and garlic don’t smell very nice either, let alone freeways, are they going to be next?

@MrItty – Normally these people began their smoking during their teens while in high school, and peer pressure is indeed difficult to resist at such a young age. I remember I took one puff of a cigarette due to peer pressure…. but because I hated the feeling I never did it again >_> But I do remember wanting to know what it was all about…. being that young, I didnt know it was simply an addiction, I thought maybe it felt good, like sipping coca cola on a hot day :P I was wrong!

I agree with DynamicDuo…again, in that people usually do tend to go straight from smoking back into the classroom to sit next to you (and sometimes stand, as I work in an art studio classroom). The smell does permeate through out after wards. It doesnt bother me since they are no longer smoking, so, they smell soon becomes either tolerable or unnoticeable.

@TaoSan – you cant please every body, you cant make em all happy, but if you do your best to be an honest and kind person, it will come back to you :) Karma perhaps…

Wow.

Good morning Asmonet :)

Glow, the number of adult smokers who were once high school teenagers is equal to the number of adult smokers. The number of adult non-smokers who were once high school teenagers is equal to the number of adult non-smokers.

We all went through high school. We all experienced peer pressure. We did not, however, all take up smoking. That is a choice. It was not forced on anyone.

@asmonet – lawl :D

Morning. :)

Itty, I never said they were forced to start smoking :0 Havent you ever been peer pressured before????????

I’ve just been told I stink and I’m inconsiderate…sniffel…..another day…..sigh

Yes, Glow, that’s exactly my point. I have been. And I either succumbed or resisted, depending on which instance we’re talking about. And both of those times it was a choice. It was completely my own choice. I accept complete and full responsibility for making each of those choices. My only disagreement with you is the assertion that smoking is “out of (smokers’) control”. They made the choice to start, they continue to make the choice not to quit. That is their control.

Lunch time, folks. Forgive me if I don’t respond for about 45 minutes or so, as I walk out of my building holding my breath until I pass the fumes of those congregating about the door… :-)

I did quit after 17 years of smoking like a chimney, and it was easier than I thought. A person that inspired me was my cousin, who had been smoking for more than 40, and was the sort of person that would get up in the middle of the night to have half a packet.

Having said that, I was 100% sure that it would be impossible for me to quit, and I’d never assume it is easy for anyone, though I do try to persuade people I know about how easy it was for me.

MrItty, may I suggest a clothes peg? Because if people who are not smoking bother you that much, then how about people who fart, or wear perfume, or sweat a lot, or work as cooks in a restaurant? Smelling bad is something that can happen to a lot of people, but you can’t really legislate it. It’s up to the individual to realise it and do something about it.

And yes, sometimes I’m also standing next to someone that stinks. It’s usually some middle-aged woman who put too much perfume on. And it’s one of the reason I can’t stand parties (where dozens of women of all ages wear tonnes of perfume). Smoking is a refreshing change by comparison.

I think Zoos should be outlawed, they smell like monkey dung, there you have it!

You choose or not choose to go to a zoo. I do not choose to have a smoker sit next to me on the bus.

@Taosan and others -

Sarcasm, blaming, finger pointing, and the such will not ease such a debate, nor will it help to allow others to change their point of mental view about the situation and about those who stand on either the smoking side, the non-smoking side, or are partial. It will just cause one to believe that all people are cruel and inconsiderate.

Please, I ask that some of you open your minds and hearts to the matter, and learn to be less cruel. As hippe and corny as that sounds…..

hey, if the people on the bus are too stinky for you, you can always take the bike ;) Or use a car maybe?

Dude, im doing this instead of my HW?!

ugh…

@Glow

Naa, this is my one pet peeve. I (usually) pride myself in being “reasonable”, two exceptions:

a) zealous religious people
b) militant non-smokers

Same crusade, different package

Tao, than this world and society is bound for very little change…

So now, let us all bury the hatchett of war, and smoke the pipe of Peace…

@Glow

Didn’t you know? Wake-up call :)

Dang, I’m getting worked up now.

If I have to listen to this whole “bohooo-some-people-don’t-smell-so-nice-and-I-don’t-like-it” crut I’m gonna start using public transportation again and will smoke stogies at the bus stop.

I mean c’mon, reality check, a valid thread by the OP, actual second-hand smoke exposure in entrance areas, has turned into whining about the guy in the bus not smelling so nice.

Cheesh, live in LA or NY, use the sub, and you’ll be happy if all you smell is smoke. Get real people

@TaoSan – huh, not a very happy person are you?

@Glow

Very happy actually. That’s why I respond so allergic to whining of that sort, it puts a crimp in my day ‘cause it sounds so miserable ;)

It’s hard to imagine finding a place for smokers to smoke without affecting others. For God’s sake. Today I was driving being the car of a smoker. He blew the smoke out his window, and it got sucked right into my car!

The truth is that if you ban smoking in public spaces, smokers will still smoke. The only thing left is courtesy, but when outdoors, few smokers ask the people around them if smoke bothers them. They just don’t believe, as we see here, that it affects others.

They say that no amount of second-hand smoke is safe. Smokers smoke, and they will continue to smoke, regardless of whether they make themselves sick, or shorten the lives of others.

The only way out of this is education. We have to work on getting people to never start in the first place. We should make tobacco a controlled substance, and smokers and chewers should need a prescription to smoke. We should offer smokers incentives to quit. We should buy out tobacco farms, and gradually reduce supply. We should raise the taxes on tobacco five times what they are now.

If we did these things, I suspect that a lot more smokers would quit, or cut back, at least.

And to all the fuckers that shower in perfume/cologne and bitch about smokers stinking. Let me tell you, you smell worse.

@daloon

Quite a bunch of insightful ideas, lurve to that. It is true, you have to catch it at the root.

The one thing i disagree is the higher taxation. Washington and Oregon states have tried that and abandoned it again (AFAIK). I remember paying $12 on a gas station in Seattle around 2001. The only result was that they had massive influx of cigarettes from other states, and illegal banderole trafficking was at an all time high.

No no Tao, I mean on the INSIDE. ;)

@daloon – education and knowledge is definately a way to go, but very few people care for the feelings of others, much less wisdom and knowledge.

@Glow

Even happier GLEAM Owing to unwavering confidence, self-love bordering on narcissism and a happy, fulfilling family life.

@TaoSan: yes, it would have to be a national tax. There will always be the problem of black market cigarettes, but it will make the cost of cigarettes higher, and that will make it more likely people will try to quit.

@daloon

Having Mexico as a neighbor, I think even national wouldn’t do much good.

Don’t forget, nicotine addiction is based in the same neurotransmitter receptors as opiates a.k.a heroin, opium, etc. It also messes with serotonin big time.

I saw a show about prisons in I think Idaho a couple nights ago (no smoking). Prisoners would pay up to $1000 !!!!!!!!!! for one carton of smokes.

I think substantially raising the price would open a whole different can of worms.

You can’t bring in all the cigarettes needed on the black market. Smuggling from Mexico would be rampant, but even that could not feed half the market.

and that exactly would be the can of worms. As long as there is a demand, someone will try to serve it.

Steep overpricing would open the door to a whole new sort of criminal enterprise.

@johnpowell

You just made my day LOOOOOOL

It’s coming. San Francisco usually leads the way. Almost all public spaces and many private spaces are no smoking zones. It is forbidden near doorways on public property, on golf courses, in your car with children, on the same block as a school, in your own apt or condo. And people will rat out smokers in a minute.

that sounds more like a witch-hunt

After a day of cooling off I have just revisited this thread, and think it turned ridiculous.

As long as militant non-smokers troll around whining about the guy in the bus not smelling right, smokers will behave inconsiderate, plainly because the militants are much more pig-headed.

There should definitely be regulation banning “huddle-smoking” in front of a building entrances, no doubt, but c’mon. To degenerate the discussion to “ooh in the supermarket line the guy ahead smells bad” is like pre-pubescent school cafeteria chatter.

So now we ban smoking not because it is unhealthy, but because some don’t like the smell of it. Does anyone even get how childish and ridiculous that is?

What next? Ban Pakistanis from the country because some of their foods smell awful to some Westerners? Grandmas with bad measure on the perfume bottle will get tickets? Greyhound will be closed because their busses smell like feces?

Well I guess some are oh so fragile in their olfactory facilities.

I guess if the poor smell-victims had it their way we’d soon live in Disneyland.

Last time I checked there was at least the illusion that this is a free country.

I won’t allow people to eat in my classroom even at lunch time because of overwhelming smells. Sometimes competing ethnic foods are enough to induce vomiting and it lingers on. I grew up with smokers but after you aren’t around it for a while it can feel stifling.

Tao, you need to re-revisit the thread, because you obviously misread it. No one, not I, nor anyone else, suggested banning smoking because people smell bad. I asserted, and continue to assert, that smokers do not care what other people think or how their odor offends others. That is all. I never said smoking should be banned because smokers are inconsiderate, merely that they are inconsiderate.

I fail to understand how that assertion makes me “militant”.

I’m sorry, but taking roughly 95 Million people in the United States alone and “asserting” they all have the same mindset requires quite a measure of ignorance only the truly militant non-smokers display.

I still want to know what you think it means to call me “militant”. I’ve never once advocated banning smoking. Never confronted a smoker and told him/her off. Never wrote any letters to government officials. Never boycotted any restaurant/bar that didn’t follow the smoking ordinances. So tell me, please, in what way am I “militant”?

And I will modify my statement about “all smokers” to “all people I can recognize as smokers”. Every single person – without exception – that I have seen and can identify as a smoker – either because I see them smoking or smell the smoke on them – has the common trait that they care more for their addiction than the effect and consequences it has on others. If there are smokers who do not share this trait, then I obviously would not be able to identify them as smokers, because they would be taking the care to not commit the same offenses as their brethren.

So, freedom in personal decision making is okay, as long as you don’t have to see or smell it?

You’re going down the road of ignorance farther and farther. Now it’s not only smelling it, even seeing it.

Yet not once you have answered my other question? What’s next? Ethnic food that doesn’t smell to your liking? Perfumes you don’t like?

You’re making it very clear:

I don’t like it -> others do it = They are inconsiderate a$$es, without any venue to satisfy your ego other then “them” disappearing from the face of the earth.

That is militant

Yes, Tao, that is exactly correct. Person decision making is great. But you are not making personal decisions. You are making a decision that affects you AND EVERYONE AROUND YOU.

I did not say that I was offended by seeing it. I said that I can recognize someone is a smoker by seeing them smoking. And if I see them smoking, that means they’re smoking in public, in something other than a “designated smoking area”. Somewhere where they will not be washing their hair and clothes after smoking. And that means they fit into the same category as every other smoker I’ve ever seen or met.

And yes, I would classify people who eat pungent food or wear too much perfume/cologne in the same category: people who have no regard for others. Again, not advocating it be banned. Rudeness is not something to make laws about. It’s simply a factor of the human condition. Some people are rude. Some non-smokers are rude. All people-I-can-identify-as-smokers are rude.

I think you are rude, more than most smokers I know….

….. why? What have I done that is rude? Please explain.

Maybe I am. I’m not denying it. Even if I am, though, my rudeness does not negate yours.

it’s hopeless….

well at least we agree one something. Neither of us seems to be getting through to the other. Oh well. Fare thee well, Tao.

Is the principle you agree on politeness? Or do you not agree to a principle on which to judge people? If you find a principle you can agree to, then the rest is just seeing if you think one behavior or another meets that principle or not.

It seems to me that Tao would consider a certain level of intrusion into other people’s personal space to be acceptable. MrItty seems to say that any intrusion that causes any harm at all is inconsiderate. Am I being fair here?

Almost. Any intrusion that causes harm or offense and can be easily prevented.

OK lets all agree that courtesy is a good and useful thing…However the smoking issue is not going to be just a matter of courtesy, civility or politeness. It is now becoming a matter of law and as with all laws there will be a number of people who don’t like it. By living in society we agree to live by a social contract that states we must give up some individual freedom for the benefit of living in that society. Smokers have protested against restrictions since it became illegal to smoke in theaters and elevators but basically the fight is all but over. Restrictions on smoking are only going to become greater. So give up smoking altogether or find some place private and suck it up!

@daloon

Actually, I thought i was done with the thread, but for clarification purposes, I haven’t agreed on anything.

Further, no “intrusion of personal space” is not okay, I never said that.

What’s the problem here, is the fact that some misunderstand the definition of personal space. You should not be exposed to second hand smoke. You should also not be allowed to judge people by the way they smell. Otherwise, I’d start randomly punching people that have patchouli on them cause it makes me gag. But that is my civil contract, I can’t punch them, ‘cause what they put on them to “smell” is their business, I’m free to leave if I don’t like it.

This thread has long moved away from exposure to second hand smoke, which clearly must be avoided at all cost, to “I don’t like how group XYZ smells.

Which is what I take strong exception to. Simply for the fact that it distracts from the real issue at hand, second hand smoke is indeed harmful. Smokers begin to see that, and are now willing to accept the restraints necessary to protect non-smokers from exposure.

Smoking is around and will be for a while, is that a good thing, certainly not. But then, on my part, the aggravation doesn’t even stem from smoking, but from intolerant whiny mindsets and self-centered reasoning.

I don’t care what trait is being decried, smoking, physical, traits, religion. Everyone who between a bagle and coffee takes a group of roughly 90 Million people and says, oh yeah, they are /rude/smelly/idiots/inconsiderate because they don’t please to liking walks a slippery path. That’s how Germany started in 1933.
See, this is one thing I very much resent about American society in general, everything always has to be so politically correct and expressed in pleasing non-offensive manners. Unless the trait being discussed is unpopular or not liked by the debater, then all bets are of and suddenly its okay to call a large group of individuals whatever based on one trait.

So just because the trait, smoking, is bad, now it’s okay to call an entire group whatever, based on personal preference and likes and dislikes. To me that’s not much different from saying all Indians are drunkards. Why? Well, they’re all red.

People always decry a social contract, but funnily, usually only if it furthers what they want or not want.

As I said before, you should not be exposed to my smoke, how I smell is my business, if you don’t like it keep your distance. If so many smell that way that you can’t stay away, guess what , tough luck.

sigh. Once again, Tao, I never said you’re not allowed to smell bad, or that you shouldn’t be allowed to smell bad. Merely that you are rude to do so. How is that difficult to understand? Yes, it is my tough luck. I have to deal with it. And I do deal with it. No where has anyone said or even suggested otherwise.

as for the sigh

@daloon meant @daloon

@TaoSan: ”how I smell is my business, if you don’t like it keep your distance. If so many smell that way that you can’t stay away, guess what , tough luck.”

In busses, elevators, or other enclosed spaces? I know what you mean, but sometimes I’ll get on an elevator, and someone has way too much perfume or cologne on, and it’s killing me. I don’t have a choice. Some people are truly allergic to these things, and can have very bad reactions.

Smell does impact others in an intrusive, unavoidable way. Now it is ridiculous to make a law that everyone should take a bath once a week, whether they need it or not. It’s also ridiculous, I agree, to make a law banning folks who reek of smoke from getting on elevators, or trolleys, or going to the theater with assigned seats.

You can’t legislate courtesy. As I’ve said before, it’s an education issue. Did you know that in Sweden there was (I don’t know if it is still on the books) a law making it illegal to sneeze while driving? You might ask what the point of such laws are, since they are unenforceable. Well, they serve an educational function. A lot of people who smoke lose their senses of smell and have no idea that they reek. A law, while unenforceable, might make them think about it.

@daloon

I’m getting your point. I also have long moved away from smoking in this thread, the “slippery slope” I bemoan is the path one were to travel down if implemented.

Who decides what is acceptable? Today we can all agree smoke smells so bad, what will it be tomorrow? We live in a case law oriented, litigious society. If you were to set the precedent for one particular odor, you’d soon have an avalanche of suits ranging from suing public transportation venues to what have you.

Soon people would become lawsuit victims for “smelling the wrong way”.

Think that is exaggerated? Go to the findlaw or Lexis Nexis jurist forums, the courts are swamped for years to come with frivolous suits.

It’s the big picture.

@TaoSan: It is true that there are so many frivolous suits. People hoping to get lucky. Is the solution to clamp down on tort laws? Maybe. I’d be more inclined to do what has been tried for family law. We set up separate courts that are designed to “streamline” the process, and handle cases more efficiently.

In some cases this work, but not in all cases. Still, I think it would be worth thinking about a way of prioritizing suits, and putting some on the “fast track” (i.e., the frivilous ones) and leaving the serious ones for the serious courts. Of course, we’d never call them that, but people in the know would know.

I think small claims court was designed to do the same kind of thing. There could be a “small” suits court, instead of getting rid of various laws. I’m sure there are other solutions, too.

faints

@Glow

LOL, need a glass of water?