Well, considering tobacco originally came from America, why don't you tell us why Europeans started smoking in the first place? :-P

I agree, it shouldn't be open season. We all agree, a human being should have a right to smoke. That said, I've never seen non-smokers invade the smoking areas with their complaints. I, however, routinely see smokers outside of smoking areas, because it's not very convenient for them to walk over. The fact that's into not very convenient for others to inhale their smoke is not apparent to them.

All persons and all situations are different, but overall if there was an obnoxiousness competition I would say the smokers' score would simply dwarf that of their opponents. Maybe my personal experiences are as incredibly unlucky as yours are lucky.

My friend tells the story of how, when she was a kid, she was eating at a restaurant and the folks on the next table nicely asked her dad whether they minded if they smoked? And of course her dad said: "Sorry, my kid has TEH asthma, we would actually mind a whole lot".

They started to smoke anyway.

It's definitely about who you meet and in what kind of smoking culture. I have, absolutely, met some courteous people in that respect. But when I stand on that platform – or during the last job, at that bus stop, and see so many hundreds of cigarette butts in the cracks of the cobblestone pavement, it's a bit difficult to keep up the faith in the polite people somewhere.

But look at how you frame this. Smokers allowed in "smoking areas", and transgressing when stepping out of them (into the default "non-smoking area" rest of the world). It could just as arbitrarily be the opposite, some designated areas being "non-smoking", and anti-smoke people being only allowed to complain when smoke reaches there (which, it used to be, actually). It's not a matter that can be put innocently in these terms. Is a open meadow a "non-smoking area" ?

This issue is also illustrated by your analogies. Being run over by a tank, shot, raped, drugged, are clear-cut binary situations. You are or aren't. The tricky thing about smoke is that it's smoke, it's as diluted or concentrated as the environment makes it, it's a whole continuum of comfort/discomfort, of health threat, that you can read however you want - the trend being "if i perceive smoke then it is a smoked area and i should complain about it". When you say "inhale their smoke" you may mean a thousand different things. And, most probably, you mean it in the most extensive way : the very presence of tobacco smoke, in any proportion, in the air you're breathing.

It's a choice. To tolerate some, or to tolerate zero. It's a choice made about many things (noise, rain, wind, alcohol, sugar, etc), and it's subjective (yet can be subjectively legitimate : some people have good reasons to not tolerate alcohol at all in their cake). But it impacts definitions, attitudes, expectations. And if you don't clarify it, then you're not fully aware of the arbitrary restrictions you impose upon others.

I consider that there is an amount of discomfort that we should all accept to endure from others, in order to coexist somewhat happily. Discomfort that we should treat as background noise. I define it roughly in utilitarian terms, I guess. It it makes them happier than it makes me unhappy (the laughter of children when I wish for some quiet) them it's fine. And, in that respect, I gladly accept -and shrug off- effluvia of tobacco if avoiding it is too cumbersome for the smoker (having a break, passing by, etc). If you define it as so inconvenient, with the background consideration that their own conveniene's priority is zero (after all, they are "in the wrong" medically), then you accept none of your own share of discomfort on that level. My whole point is how eagerly we seize opportunity to reject our "duty of discomfort", and how convenient the tool of legitimate-fight-against-cancer has become for that, in this context.

So, let's put it this way. The discussion should be about the degree of smoke that is acceptable where, in what condition, and why. We non-smokers can all agree that entering a cloud of smoke is annoying and dangerous. But maybe we define "cloud of smoke" differently. And maybe, by default, you and me don't fully trust each other's definition.

I also have the story of a french Chef (I don't remember which one) who, when customers started to smoke, would simply bring the bill and say "Since you seem to have finished your lunch...". But generally speaking, restaurants should not allow smoke at all (but they usually don't). You're supposed to taste and smell what you eat, not other people's (or even your) tobacco. It's like a spectator bringing their guitar in someone's concert.

Whenever you handle toxic, explosive or otherwise dangerous substances, it is perfectly fine to force you into a restricted area. It's not ok for me to practice my marksmanship out in the street near your house even if I don't hit you. Similarly it's not ok for a person to emit toxic gases in the general vicinity of others. So yes, the default non-smoking area is in fact the rest of the world. The designated shooting area is the rifle range. The designated smoking area is something out of the way, that was deemed safe enough for non-participants.

Exactly what I expected, with the exact sort of analogy I pointed out (perceiving smoke scent = hearing a bullet buzz by). So this ends the conversation.

As you yourself pointed out, a bullet is entirely harmless unless it hits you. Smoke is toxic even in small quantities, the question is just how toxic. Either way, I very clearly see why you should want to end the conversation. Good day.

nvm XD

my bad

*post edited*

Dammit. I do that all the time.

And this comparison between gun violence and cigarettes, Jesus. You're doing no one a favor with that, especially not yourself. Eventually someone will adopt a "cigarettes don't kill people" logic based on the stupefying gun deification mantras of the most generally accepted terrorist organisation within the US.

Well, no, of course not. This is just to ilustrate that dangerous activities should be confined to dedicated areas where there is no chance for an innocent to get hurt. Obviously not all dangerous activities are equally dangerous.

So : Proportionality of measures (and of attitudes, and of tolerances).

Edit:
And I mean, even within the subject of tobacco, as not all expositions to smoke are equally dangerous (from working in a smoke-filled bar to crossing the path of a smoker in the countryside, etc).

LOL! Actually I'd say that one's desire to pass gas (as well as all other bodily functions) is natural and insecapable, as opposed to one's desire to smoke. Therefore it should ostensibly be more accepted in public, yet somehow this isn't the case.

No, I'm not advocating for it! I'd be very much annoyed I'd people started belching, farting, and relieving themselves in front of me. Still, I'd understand that they might have no choice in certain situations. I guess.

Allow me to come with a different analogy:
Why do Americans love cars so much? Exhaust gases poison the environment, lives of millions of people are shortened due to inhaling them. Also, I've never heard of someone die from being hit with a cigarette, but cars? Different story. I believe, all but the ecology-friendly cars should only be used outside of places where people live and can get exposed to toxic gases.

Something that's "natural" isn't automatically accepted behaviour in public, and accepted behaviour isn't necessarily "natural". The thing is, Nature is frequently an asshole, and Nature has especially decided that a horrible horrible death is just about the most "natural" thing there is for us. Also, rather imminent extinction. "Natural" doesn't equal "good" or "right". "Unnatural" doesn't equal "wrong". Society has, for example, decided that biological reproductive compatibility isn't the only reason to love a person. That bastard Nature doesn't agree! But fuck Nature, seriously.

A cigarette is entirely harmless until lit, but no, no, no. A bullet is not "entirely harmless until it hits you". A gun isn't even "entirely harmless" until fired. The actual victims of gun violence number in the hundreds of thousands because you don't need to catch the fucking bullet to catch extreme cases of PTSD. Cigarettes don't cause extreme psychological trauma before they're lit, but yes of course guns manage to before they're fired (and when they are, wooo-hooo)! Also, the mere presence of a gun in the house lets the probability of suicide spike. Your cigarettes will never ever be able to do that. Come to think of it, guns seem to be the much more potent psychoactive drug you folks have. :|