Who has more right a person who smokes or me that is allergic to smoke?
Question:
Answers:
I believe that both you and a smoker have rights. There are a lot of new ( and much needed ) laws these days to regulate the areas in which a person can smoke. Most buildings are smoke free or will be in the future. You also have the right to walk away from someone who is causing you discomfort.
Nonsmokers have more rights than smokers!
Depends on whether or not the person owns the building, and if there are currently laws against it. The person in definitely inconsiderate, but may have a right depending on the situation. You also have a 'right' to be elsewhere while the person is smoking. I have friends with breathing conditions, so I refrain from smoking inside my own house, when they are present just out of consideration.
depends on if they are gay
you are right! If people who smoke dont care what happens to THEIR bodies, then they shouldnt infringe upon your rights to have a healthy body. It s nasty habit, and I have to wonder ( WHY WOULD ANYBODY WALK INTO A BURNING BUILDING AND INHALE? doesnt make sense
i think it depends on where this is happening. im getting sick of people complaining about smoking and getting it banned in buildings such as bars. it should be up to whoever owns the business to decide if they want people smoking there or not. and if people dont like it they shouldnt go there.
Neither one of you have any more rights than the other if there's no law against smoking in buildings where your at, and no "no smoking" signs posted. He's inconsiderate, especially if you've told him you're allergic, but there's no law against being a jerk.
But no, that's not a reason to cut off all smoking inside all buildings. The world doesn't revolve around you or the small percentage of the population with smoking allergies
The best thing to do is to stay away from smoke. As long as they have cigarettes in this country,it will always be a problem. I'm so glad that I quit.
Smoker for 23 years.
technically, eveyone has equal rights unless it means infringement of someone else's right. (For example, i have right to extend my elbow wherever i want, unless somebody else's nose comes in the span of my elbow.)
So, coming to ur question, u can't force someone to stop smoking in his place of right (his home, say), nor can he force you to inhale secondary smoke in ur rightful place (ur home, say). So, u should stay within designated "no smoking" places if u r allergic, and he should smoke only in designated "Smoke areas" so as not to harm others.
I hope u get the point.
We all have equal rights. Is this not America. Pesonally I feel that smokers should not have to be limited to smoking just because non-smokers are upset. If you don't like the smoke, stay at home instead of going out to a restaurant. The same with all this non-salted food. If you are THAT much concerned about the salt content of foods, then stay at home a cook. So you have the non-smoker who gets to go out into the world and enjoy their day. but the person who smokes cannot. Stay at home if you are allergic to all this stuff.
Society needs to focus more on important things. LIke the drunk driver. Me smoking three packs of cigarettes is not going to harm anyone but me. but when Joe blow gets behind the wheel of his vehicle after having several drinks with friends. He is subject to harm not only himself but me as well. I don't care what a person does to themselves or their bodies, but when it affects me then I am concerned. So let these people, smoke, eat salt and do whatever.
And before you ask or wonder. I am not a smoker but I do side with smokers, because I believe in freedom.
OF course u have rights but some times ucan not ask people to not smoke near u.maybe that time u should leave the place.
this is america. we all are supposed to have the same rights. it is not that way though. because of "groups" of people who feel they have the right to make laws for everyone most smokers have lost their right to make decisions for themselves. other people feel they have the right to decide what is or is not good or right for everyone else. the founders of this country knew that in order to establish a country wherein people could live their own life without government interference government would have to be kept out of private life as much as possible. well that did not work out to well did it? you have a right not to smoke. another person has equal right to smoke. the point was that people would decide on issues at a personal level. then came along lawyers who think they should make all decisions for everyone . i don't think so. if you don't like smoke, don't stand so close to a smoker. simple isn't it?
Well, here in BC, smoking is legal but only when you're alone, in your car, outdoors or some combination of those three. So the non-smokers are quite happy. Counterpoint; bars and restaurants have suffered large down turns in their businesses. Also, smokers here pay about $10.00 for a pack of cigarettes, 80% of that goes directly into the government's pocket. So, once all smoker's have been forced to quit, all the non-smokers can expect to pick up the tab for the loss of tax revenues the gov't has been enjoying at smokers' expense. Myself I smoke a pack a day, so that's $240.00 per month / $2880.00 per year that the gov't will need to recover from a non-smoker if I quit tomorrow (which I just might do). Multiply that amount all the packs of smokes that all the other smokers buy daily and you can see how much money smokers save non-smokers in taxes. Too bad, we're all going to be outlawed in the not to distant future, because there are a lot of non-smokers who are going to really hate the upswing in taxes they'll be paying to reimburse the gov't.
Neither of you have "more" rights than the other.
As a long time smoker, sorry linda but intolerance is a bit worse than smoking (as a way to live your life anyway),
I agree with MG.
The smoker has the same rights that you do. We don't smoke in our home because we don't want to subject our Grandchildren or non-smoking friends to the smoke (and I hate the way the house would smell if we did).
I personally always ask people I'm with or in close proximity to if my cigarette smoke will bother them. I get off the bleachers and stand away from them, when I smoke at my Grandson's baseball games.
But I do this out of consideration, not because I don't have the right to smoke. I could, instead, light up and expect everyone to move if they were bothered, I just don't think that would be very polite.
As to the "cut all smoking in any inside building" and I'm taking that to mean, inside of any building. I would agree that there should be a designated "smoking area" in buildings, where people who have allergies or some other issue with smoking could avoid, but I'm constantly amazed when someone thinks that just because a person smokes they no longer have any rights at all (and there are way too many of those people)
I think if you and the person that is smoking are in the same room out of necessity rather than choice, the person should ask if the smoke will bother anyone before lighting up.
If it's a social situation and you don't have to be there then I think you should just avoid socializing with those people in an enclosed area.
More Questions & Answers...