Where there's smoke, there's fire — and things are certainly heating up in the debate about tobacco. Smoking is becoming increasingly less socially acceptable, perhaps leading to an outright ban one day. But is it fair to shun smokers? Or are bad habits a civil right?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
The American Lung Association recently graded local cities for their anti-tobacco policies, and not one Contra Costa County town got an 'A'. Pleasant Hill and Martinez both got 'B' grades, Concord got a 'C' and Walnut Creek along with the cities of Lamorinda landed 'F' grades. In response, Patch users lit up a debate about smoking.
On the Concord Patch Facebook page, Jennifer Stout says that it doesn't matter about anti-tobacco policies. Smokers are going to "light up anywhere they please" despite the rules.
Jack Grant operates a mobile cigar lounge in the area. He says he doesn't know how far cities will have to go to meet the standards set by the American Lung Association, unless it would include banning smoking in homes as well as public places. But, he added, "I couldn't agree more about banning cigarettes!"
Commenter Zach McCaslin says that smokers "have increasingly become a minority in our society, and look how readily we oppress them." He says that the focus should be preventing children from becoming smokers, "while allowing adult smokers to smoke responsibly."
McCaslin goes on to say:
"We don't need a law to enforce smokers to be considerate. A smoker that is very inconsiderate should just be cited for disturbing the peace. All these blanket bans are overkill, and show a lack of sensitivity to the cares of smokers. If a person smokes in an outdoor nonsmoking area, and no one is anywhere near them, should they be cited? Are we punishing them only when they disturb others or are we just punishing them for being smokers? I don't smoke, but it just rubs me wrong the way smokers are being treated like vagrants or criminals. They are normal people like anyone else, maybe with a bit more trouble on their minds than the rest of us that makes them need a cigarette. They deserve a little consideration. Just because there are more of us than them, doesn't make it right to treat them badly."
Commenters on the Lamorinda Patch Facebook page said they were surprised by the area's 'F' grade from the American Lung Association because they "never see anyone smoking" around town. Gail Finkelstein of Lafayette says, "either let smokers smoke or we should quit selling cigarettes here." She adds that she has wanted to quit smoking for more than 20 years.
On the Walnut Creek Facebook page, Gina Borgognoni-Wilton says that "you can pretty much wherever you want in Walnut Creek." She adds, "I don't smoke, but I think that's the way it should be. I'm not in to having people's rights taken away!"
But commenter Andrea Garcia Pezel disagrees.
"I constantly hear how smokers have rights too, but what about the rights of non-smokers?" she asks. "Why should I have to be affected and be subjected to toxins because of someone else's choice? I'm also more acutely aware now that I have a small child who is walking and is at the perfect height of where people hold their cigarettes. I don't feel like Walnut Creek has done anything to address this issue."
Are you all fired up about the smoking debate? Do you think smoking should be banned, regulated or accepted? How? Share your experiences and thoughts in the comments below.
Smokers insist on multiple breaks all day, have poor health (generally) , and smoking is nothing more than a form of self medicating emotional/behavior/mental issues. Who needs that? I've seen people deemed too fat to hire. Same thing in a way. It is entirely within a person's right to decide that smokers are just not fit for certain jobs if that's their opinion and increasingly it is. No need for a union issue Cheryll, you'd never even get past an interview. I will defend your right to smoke, but you cannot then criticize another person for choosing to not be associated or around it. It was purely your choice to smoke.
The same could be said for one's bar or restaurant as long as the people working for him/her are consenting to working in a place that allows a legal activity and the people giving him their custom are forewarned. Can't have it both ways on business rights as it suits our agenda! How would you feel if an employer decided he wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't smoke or is not gay for example? His right and privilege in a capitalist world but it doesn't make it ethical or moral especially if the rules are set out clearly that no extra time should be taken off for personal activities/habits/addictions/responsibilities. Statistically speaking there is none more unreliable than a parent with very young children, be it because the babysitter let them down, the kids are sick, doctor appts. etc... Each employee should be evaluated on his capacity to do the job properly not on generalizations and what one does outside working hours otherwise many of us would be unemployed according to the pet peeves of potential employers.
If, on the other hand, you believe that everyone who draws a breath is entitled to a job in whatever enterprise they choose, whether they are competent--or fit into the organization--or not, then you have chosen a very different system of society...one which has been periodically tried throughout history, each time to dismal failure. Pesky human nature I suppose.
OK never mind.
STILL I AM NOT THE "OMNISCIENT" one that feel's I should be telling other's "If you don't physically induce smoke in other's" That you shall be punished! I would like all people to not smoke for their own good, but where do end? Caffeine came within just a hair of in the same law that banned heroin, cocaine etc of being included as banned! I find these "ENERGY DRINKS" very dangerous, as studies now show, dO we ban them/ or all caffeine? as to workplace and health/should we be what is already possible/ require a "Complete Family health HISTORY" along with DNA to be used with your "Genetic Pre-disposition" to health issues, as "Hireling Criteria"? MEZA if you "THINK" Joe Camel's NOSE was phallic in nature! Well I Hate to think of men you have seen! Silly BS! No doubt it was evil advertisement!..PHALLIC UGG
PLEASE TAKE A LOOK// at a post by DR. CHEN.... on here also! It has some very GOOD ADVICE about "CERVICAL CANCER"! Sorry it's only SOLID Information//NO Drama// however it just could SAVE A LIFE!! Donald E. Barkley
AGAIN PLEASE ANSWER YOUR EARLIER GARBAGE! Linda Meza also commented on Incumbent Mark Ross Details Views. 10/6/12 "Donald, I believe you're making a lot of erroneous assumptions. I had a hand in convincing the current interested party to locate a restaurant at the marina. Prior to my "rah rah go Martinez!" cheer-leading you really don't want to know this particular interested party's opinion. Since I had hand in convincing him of the business potential, it is incumbent upon me to warn him off if the one component I HAVE BEGGED YOU MS MEZA TO/ BE HONEST/ for 3+ months /Tell My "MANY ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS"! Plus WHO AND WHEN were YOU Appointed to try and bring in BUSINESS to MARTINEZ! That TAXPAYER'S will have to subsidize?
have never picked your nose or passed wind in public either. How do you do it? Oh! Maybe that's why you're all puffed up over smoking. Don't hold it to long or you'll explode.
http://www.yourjerseyhome.com/NBA-Jerseys-c77.html Revolution 30 nba jerseys http://www.yourjerseyhome.com/NFL-T-Shirt-c126.htm l wholesale NFL T-Shirt, http://www.jerseycaptain.com http://www.jersey2shop.com
http://www.yourjerseyhome.com/NBA-Jerseys-c77.html Revolution 30 nba jerseys http://www.yourjerseyhome.com/NFL-T-Shirt-c126.html wholesale NFL T-Shirt, http://www.jerseycaptain.com http://www.jersey2shop.com