Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
pan, after all the pro/anti arguments are over, you have hit the nail on the head. The majority claims they only want to be protected against second hand smoke but the reality is they vote to take away peoples ability to have any establishments created where they can smoke. They don't want people to smoke even in places they would never go to.
|
I think that if there's anything this thread has demonstrated, it's that it's a lot easier to cling to your position if you pretend that the other person is being unreasonable.
For instance, it's really easy to claim that ban-haters don't like bans because it's inconvenient for them to go outside to smoke and all the trumped up excuses they come up with for hating bans is just a rationalization to make them feel better. I don't know how many of my fellow smokers immediately become libertarians when the topic of smoking bans comes up.
Really, though, the whole "smoking banners are just control freaks" position requires a certain amount of willful ignorance, and that's fine. This isn't a discussion about something that might happen, it's a bitchfest about something that already did happen. I understand the need to vent, the need to villify the other guy, even the complete lack of ability to empathize with the other guy's position because when it comes to this particular subject that's really the only recourse you have. Frankly it's all irrelevant.
I can go to a bar whenever i want and not be subjected to smoke and that's great. It also means that i have to go outside to smoke and that's fine. Call me a control freak if you want, but as far as i'm concerned it's a win-win situation.