[ QUOTE ]
The 25 foot rule seemed a bit much, but I voted for it anyway. I hate having to walk my kid through that cloud of [censored] and it is truly offensive to non-smokers. I rarely go to cardrooms because I come home 8 hours later with a hack and needing to immediately wash the clothes I have on and take a shower
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually liked it in san fran where there is no smoking iin the bars... it made me smoke less, and provided a nice non-deafening spot to meet the chicks at the bar. yours are all reasonable complaints, and, in the 'burbs, even the 25ft rule could be considered reasonable, even in washington, BUT, here's my hood:
I estimated on the size of the circles- i think mine are actually much smaller than 25ft radius... they are actually centered on entrances, though, and should give you an idea of where i'll be able to smoke.
[ QUOTE ]
Why haven't you quit yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
it used to be because i liked smoking a lot (and not just cigs, wink-wink), but now it'll be just for spite, dammit. j/k... this, as much as i dislike the idea of a majority imposing their TASTES on a minority's use of public space, may encourage me to quit....
...and it IS a matter of taste, except when it comes to secondhand smoke- and there are better, less draconian/categorical ways to deal with that. why didn't the law conditionally allow bars to continue to have smoking: bars that would let people light up would have to meet a standard of ventilation/filtration, health care and education for employees, etc: make it as safe as any other reasonable working environment for the staff and non-smoking patrons. This would allow the smokers to continue to have public places to enjoy their habit in, and solve the main problems that (theroeticly) motivate smoking bans... if it was really primarily a public health issue, then a more pragmatic solution should've been persued. Instead, most people just DON'T LIKE smoke(ers).
bottom line, IMO.
