since north carolina is considered part of tobacco road (that is to say, it is one of the states which depended &, in some cases still depends, heavily on tobacco for profit), it is interesting to consider the institution of no smoking in areas around the state.
i'm happily a non-smoker & frankly find the habit somewhat off-putting. i couldn't imagine that smokey smell clinging to my clothes & hair all the time. i'm also not a fan of secondhand smoke in clubs, bars, restaurants & other public buildings. since i have a heightened sense of smell, if i come home from somewhere that has engulfed me in smoke, i can't rest until i bag those clothes until they can be washed & i take a shower. no matter if it's 4 AM, it's happening.
all that being said, i wonder about the supposed infringement of our rights to smoke. obviously, it's stupid to think that smoking is not a HAZARD to our health, but we don't limit people's drinky-drinky or their eating, which can be damaging as well.
bartender: here you go, sir.
man: thanks. hey, this is just water!
bartender: yep, we reserve the right not to infringe on other patrons with your alcohol fumes.
waiter: can i take your order?
woman: yes, please. i'll have the club sandwich & fries.
waiter: right, then. so that's one veggie sandwich & carrot sticks. coming right up!
woman: but ...
waiter: do you really want me to go there?
heh.
although, i'll freely admit secondhand smoke that is curling & snaking it's way through a restaurant or gathering place into my hair, eyes & clothes can be annoying & damaging to my health, moreso than someone's drink (within reason) & eating habits.
i'm just considering the so-called "moral legislation" factor that we seem so prevalant to induce into society. conservatives are stretching hardest to legislate morality regarding gay marriage & abortion, whereas liberals are seeking hardest to legislate a person's financial contribution to society & health care provisions.
so then, where is the line?
she asks rhetorically, yet still wonders.
i'm happily a non-smoker & frankly find the habit somewhat off-putting. i couldn't imagine that smokey smell clinging to my clothes & hair all the time. i'm also not a fan of secondhand smoke in clubs, bars, restaurants & other public buildings. since i have a heightened sense of smell, if i come home from somewhere that has engulfed me in smoke, i can't rest until i bag those clothes until they can be washed & i take a shower. no matter if it's 4 AM, it's happening.
all that being said, i wonder about the supposed infringement of our rights to smoke. obviously, it's stupid to think that smoking is not a HAZARD to our health, but we don't limit people's drinky-drinky or their eating, which can be damaging as well.
bartender: here you go, sir.
man: thanks. hey, this is just water!
bartender: yep, we reserve the right not to infringe on other patrons with your alcohol fumes.
waiter: can i take your order?
woman: yes, please. i'll have the club sandwich & fries.
waiter: right, then. so that's one veggie sandwich & carrot sticks. coming right up!
woman: but ...
waiter: do you really want me to go there?
heh.
although, i'll freely admit secondhand smoke that is curling & snaking it's way through a restaurant or gathering place into my hair, eyes & clothes can be annoying & damaging to my health, moreso than someone's drink (within reason) & eating habits.
i'm just considering the so-called "moral legislation" factor that we seem so prevalant to induce into society. conservatives are stretching hardest to legislate morality regarding gay marriage & abortion, whereas liberals are seeking hardest to legislate a person's financial contribution to society & health care provisions.
so then, where is the line?
she asks rhetorically, yet still wonders.
This entry was posted
on 04 November 2004 at 11/04/2004 01:29:00 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Well, what'd you expect other than wonderment? After all, that's what you get for asking a rhetorical question...
well...one could argue that the former attempt to legislate morality is a derivative of christian fundamentalism, whereas the latter is a derivative of the secular social contract. I, however, am not claiming to be that one. I'm just saying... ;) - apathy
» Post a Comment