tiempo del fumar

[gwen]

Sc'Eric said:
> You know Rapier, I used to be just as vehemently on your side as I am  now against.

OK, how on earth can you be vehemently before or against Rapier?  He's
been arguing both sides of this pretty continually, and managing to
contradict himself in the process.  It's been amusing me greatly that
anyone then continues trying to defeat his arguement on what he's
saying.  :)

Rapier said:
> How many times am I going to have to tell you people this. I'm not a
> libertarian. They are almost, but not quite, as bad as Objectivists -

OK, Rapier has been consistent on this point, and vehemently so.  And
I do agree with him here, very whole-heartedly.

Rapier said:
> Also, I still believe that if you don't want to be around smokers then
> you shouldn't go to places where you *know* that people are smoking.
> Sure sucks if its someplace you really want to go but no one ever said
> life is fair. If you really can't accept that risk then either change
> the law (not that anyone on this list can generally be bothered) or

Hey, I'm the one who brought this up, and I'm the one who stated that
I really wouldn't mind seeing such a law put in place.  The point
isn't making people go outside now, since that's impossible with The
Upstage's no-re-entrance policy.  I think a fair discussion on why
such a law is or isn't fair is probably a good thing... especially
considering that there *are* people out there working on this law as
we speak.

But, you're saying, "Hey, life isn't fair, so suck it up that you
can't go where the smokers go, because they can smoke and you can't,"
isn't really a justification... unless you are an Objectivist.  And I
think that's why people are getting you confused with one, because you
claim to dislike them, and yet you use their own method of arguing for
something.  No, people who can't survive smokers can't join us at the
goth clubs at this time -- and there is at least one of them on this
list.  But is this really fair or right?  Your words here indicates
that it isn't.

I do object to thinking that not being able to go out with your
friends to *all* of the goth nights is the same amount of
inconvenience as stepping outside for five minutes.  Let's take this
from the opposite side a moment... let's say that smoking inside the
clubs wasn't allowed, smokers had to go outside.  Would the smokers
really give up going to the club, because they felt too inconvenienced
by walking out the door to light up?  You know, I'd consider that
whinging, but their right to not go.   It's not like they were
actively prevented from going, which is the case for the other side
now...

And thus, there is not the same amount of inconvenience on both sides.

Ideally, I would like *all* to be able to go out to the nights they
want to, see their friends, dance, laugh at the monkey boys, complain
about the music, and shout "WHAT???" a lot.  Er, wait, why are we
fighting for this again?

Jen said:
> to campaign to make cigarettes illegal, go ahead and do so.  I don't

No one's talking about making cigarettes illegal, just that smoking
should be taken outside.

Jen said:
> No one has made a convincing case that (with the exception of people
> with extreme respiratory problems or alleriges) incidental smoke that
> you're exposed to for three or four hours on a Saturday night is
> anything more than a slight inconvenience.  Deal with it.

But the fact is, there are people it can kill.  It's not a "deal with
it" issue, or a minor inconvenience.  I developed this sympathy
because my mom is one of them, I've seen her in the hospital after
someone's blown smoke in her face, and not just once.  Are you really
trying to diminish the problem this has for people who are severe
asthmatics into "a minor incovenience for most people"?  I just don't
get the ability to overlook this real problem, even when recognizing
it.

Rapier said:
> I can't even imagine what any of you would have to say about hooka bars.

You're being absurd here.  Yes, hooka bars are not where people who
can't be around smokers should go -- but they're bars set up
explicitly for smoking.

Would you take someone allergic to peanuts to a peanut factory and
force them to eat peanuts?  No.  It's the same thing.

OTOH, would you require that everyone who stepped foot in Ceremony,
which is a club night about the goth scene, to eat peanuts?  Or meat? 
Or celery?  Hell, we don't even have a bloody dress code, unlike many
goth clubs in the world.  But the effect of excluding those allergic
to smoke is the same as force-feeding everyone who walked in the door
those peanuts.

> start your own place that is smoke free

In the immortal words of Jon Stewart, "Some of us have SHIT TO DO!"

Seriously, I'm tired of "then just do it yourself!" being a way to
tell the other side of an argument to shut up.

Discussing issues allows people who may be in a position to do
soemthing like this options for making their establishment smoking or
smoke free.  It's also a way for us to discuss how we feel about the
fact that there are an amazing number of cities going smokeless these
days, and we probably will be on that list sometime in the next few
years (as I insinuated earlier, I know of efforts towards it already).
 Or perhaps it's just a discussion in academic interest.

Telling one side that they're whinging, or that they should shut up,
is just detrimental to all of the above purposes for debate. 
Attaching a DIY ethic to the "shut up" implication just tarnishes DIY
ethics.  I really dislike that immensely.

--
gwen.
gamergothgeek