Reaction to Smoker?

[OptomisticGirl]

I agree with PTH, when you are obviously in the ways of others and not caring about it, that's rude on the person blocking everyone's paths.

[90_hour_sleep]

i'm curious about why you feel it's okay to discrminate against one group of people over another? and...to be clear...i'm not twisting your words here (because, like you, i also find that tactic to be of great interest). you've acknowledged to some extent that your actions in this particular circumstance were perhaps questionable (ie. you may choose to take a different form of action in the future). i'm in full agreement that your approach here was passive aggressive. and while i don't feel it was rude...or inherently wrong...i question the moral ground you stand on that gives you the right to put your own beliefs or rights above another's. while someone in a wheelchair is presumabely in that position by no choice of his own...the smoker who smokes addictively is not doing so by choice either. most people have a very distorted image of the nature of addiction, and that has served to perpetuate the discriminatory treatment.

 

i'm in full agreement that noone should be forced against his or her will to ingest harmful toxins...but as far as basic human respect is concerned...i think it's harmful to make assumptions about others that are founded in ignorance (even a man in a wheelchair could be there of his own accord -- a bad decision perhaps?). i don't see that as particularly fair. but that's a personal opinion. i wonder...had you encountered a man in a wheelchair the next day...under the same circumstances...and responded to the situation with the same words (albeit, not with a tone that hinted at discrimination...because discriminating against a man in a wheelchair has been deemed socially unacceptable)...what do you suppose the message your son would have been (and children are incredibly perceptive...far more than we give them credit for being. they're adept at picking up on the most intricate of subtleties)? perhaps...from this he may have gleaned that it's not okay to discriminate against others...unless by our own convictions (and often ignorance) we conclude that an individual is not worthy of our acceptance.

 

of course...i'm willing to accept that there was no discrimination involved (but i believe you're far more clever than to make reference to smoke without implicitly invoking the smoker as the cause of that smoke). but...if that is the case...why was it necessary to say anything? why not just walk away? what possible purpose could saying something just loudly enough for someone else to hear serve...other than to serve your own needs...to get your own way? i don't think it's unreasonable...but i do find it interesting.

[Batya33]

I don't believe I discriminated against the smoker. I don't believe it is analagous to discriminating against someone with a disability. I don't agree that someone who is addicted to smoking needs to smoke in a small space in a public park which then precludes others from entering that space to view a monument without being engulfed in a cloud of smoke.

 

I didn't walk away -if you read what I wrote -because I didn't want to say no to my 18 month old son who wanted to play in the space where the monument was - I say no to him on a regular basis for various reasons and I balanced the result of saying no and having to carry him away crying from the place he wanted to play against the convenience of the smoker who had the choice to either walk away or continue enjoying the monument without smoking. I was passive aggressive because I was concerned about a confrontation when I had my young child with me. I've had several unpleasant encounters with smokers and fortunately none with my child involved. It's one thing for me to get smoke blown in my face, or be spoken to rudely but I'd prefer to prevent that situation from happening in front of my child if at all possible.

[Fudgie]

I am not a smoker but like PTH, I like cigars and hookah once in a while. Not a fan of cigs and I don't smoke them. I also don't smoke my cigars or hookah in a place that would bother others. I do it either in a hookah lounge or outside on a walk, not in a place with kiddies.

 

The woman was just outside in a public place, smoking a cigarette, not anywhere near you. If she were actively blowing smoke in your son's face (or your face), then yes, that's wrong and you should say something. If she wasn't subjecting anyone to her smoke and she was allowed to smoke, she should be able to do that. Frankly, I think it was a bit rude of you, IMO. You shouldn't have heard her hear it. She shouldn't have to move just because you *choose* to be in her spot. It's not like she was blocking the sidewalk or something.

 

If I had been in her position, I wouldn't have moved. It's quite rude.

[Fudgie]

Actually no because the entrance was clouded by her smoke - I deal fine with smoke that is outside and car exhaust- I do my best as everyone does - but there is no way I'm walking my child directly into a cloud of smoke. It would make me sick too.

 

That's fine. But you have a choice. You don't have to go in there. It's not like she was blocking the sidewalk or coming up to you and your child and blowing smoke on you or near you.

 

She had every right to be there as you did.

[OptomisticGirl]

I still agree with this, even as a none smoker myself. If you really didn't want a confrontation with the person then you wouldn't have said anything loud enough for her to hear - the fact you did very easily could have set her off and sent her screaming in your face with your child in your arms - I"m not sure how that is avoiding confrontation but yeah. While I think smokers (And none smokers) need to have respect for each other there is a way to go about it and ways not to - I still deem this as a way not to.

 

Look at it this way. People chose not to have children and people chose to. If you and your son were in the monument playing and someone who didn't like children came along and made a comment just oh so loud enough that they weren't going in because a loud kid was in there, wouldn't you find that rude? I sure would!

 

But again, unless this monument is specifically marked for kids only, the smoker had every right to be there as much as your kid. The only event in which your kid has a right to be some were over a smoker is a playground which is marked exclusively for the rights of kids.

[Seraphim]

It still does not give her the right to blow smoke in a baby's face. Here you can not smoke in zoos, you can not smoke at public events but for designated areas, most public spaces ban smoking. People want to smoke in their own home fine, fill your lungs to the hilt. I don't care, but do NOT fill my lungs and do not fill the lungs of my child either. I have a right not to have my health impacted and so does my son. If people think that is discrimination, I don't much care.

[Fudgie]

It still does not give her the right to blow smoke in a baby's face. Here you can not smoke in zoos, you can not smoke at public events but for designated areas, most public spaces ban smoking. People want to smoke in their own home fine, fill your lungs to the hilt. I don't care, but do NOT fill my lungs and do not fill the lungs of my child either. I have a right not to have my health impacted and so does my son. If people think that is discrimination, I don't much care.

 

I agree with this. You can't blow smoke into other people's faces.

 

But that's not what this woman was doing. She was standing by a monument awwwwaaay from Batya and her child. Batya did not have to enter there if she didn't want to. She didn't need to go through and she certainly could have decided to come back later, avoid the smoke, etc.

 

You can't baby-proof the world by expecting everyone to adhere to "child safe" activities. All you can do is expect that people will NOT blow smoke in your face (which she wasn't doing) or smoke in areas that you wouldn't be able to avoid. This isn't one of those cases.

[OptomisticGirl]

It still does not give her the right to blow smoke in a baby's face. Here you can not smoke in zoos, you can not smoke at public events but for designated areas, most public spaces ban smoking. People want to smoke in their own home fine, fill your lungs to the hilt. I don't care, but do NOT fill my lungs and do not fill the lungs of my child either. I have a right not to have my health impacted and so does my son. If people think that is discrimination, I don't much care.

 

The last time I checked the woman wasn't blwoing smoke in the baby's face - Batya's son was not near the woman. Batya and her son came to area were the smoker was - smoker did not approach them.

[Seraphim]

The thing is people have a right also not have their health impacted by the actions of other people. I mean, really, would people say it is ok to drive drunk because someone is addicted to alcohol? That is an addiction too right?? So perhaps people have the right to drive drunk and kill and maim others? You would all say that is ridiculous, well smoking is just a long form way of killing people, and that is ok?

[Batya33]

That's fine. But you have a choice. You don't have to go in there. It's not like she was blocking the sidewalk or coming up to you and your child and blowing smoke on you or near you.

 

She had every right to be there as you did.[/quote

 

Yes she did and that is why -I should have written this above-she could have done nothing in response to my explaining to my child "we can't go there because there's smoke". She chose to leave - she didn't have to.

I've encountered several people who stare at my child when he makes a noise in a public place - (or stare at me) - where we have every right to be, too - I am not thrilled with being stared at but I wouldn't expect the person to say directly "I have a headache, can you keep him quiet". Sometimes I try to quiet him down and other times I don't depending on what type of space it is - for example, I stared back at a woman who was waiting on another line to go through security at an airport and she heard my son complaining about being taken out of his stroller to go through security - she didn't have to sit near him on a plane or even be on the same line with him so I stared back, said "children cry sometimes" and we went through security. In my opinion, that's life -if you're in a crowded airport going through security right near the stroller/wheelchair line there likely will be a child crying or complaining.

 

The smoker could have ignored what I said just as I sometimes ignore people who stare, or said "I'm going to be awhile or something similar".

It's also similar to the right to curse in public. If I saw children around I would not use those words or if someone referenced my use of a curse word (where I hadn't seen the child nearby) I would stop using the curse word even though they chose to have a young child out in public. This is all hypothetical -I rarely use a curse word in public and if I do by accident I try my best not to say it loudly! But that's a good analogy in my opinion.

 

I would never have asked her to leave the space or implied/suggested it. It was the smoke, not her presence.

[Seraphim]

The last time I checked the woman wasn't blwoing smoke in the baby's face - Batya's son was not near the woman. Batya and her son came to area were the smoker was - smoker did not approach them.

 

Having your baby in a big blue cloud of smoke is virtually the same thing as having it blown in it's face.

[OptomisticGirl]

The difference is, comparing this incident to driving drunk, the drunk driver willingly set out to possibly hurt someone. From what i remember the woman was standing alone enjoying the monument smoking when Batya came up. I hate smoke, I don't smoke, and will keep my kids away from it. The difference is I also realize other people have a right - even to kill themselves from slow smoking - and if they are there before me (in a none designated kid area) I"M going to respect their right to be there just as much as me. Just because I have a child does not make my right to be there more than theirs. If someone can live with that reasoning more power to them - me, I would feel awful.

[Seraphim]

Correct, the smoker did not have to get her panties in a bunch but she chose to, that is her issue.

[OptomisticGirl]

Having your baby in a big blue cloud of smoke is virtually the same thing as having it blown in it's face.

 

From what Batya has said, her child wasn't near it. So again, it was just a rude passive aggressive way of getting her way. If they had rounded the corner and the peson was standing there huffing on the side walk the argument would have merit - but from what Batya has said, they were no were near as she keeps her child away from it.

[OptomisticGirl]

 

Correct, the smoker did not have to get her panties in a bunch but she chose to, that is her issue.

 

I actually see it as the smoker was the none rude person, but each their own. She would have been rude to stand there knowing a child wanted in.

[Seraphim]

^^ The woman could have chose to not leave, instead she got herself all insulted. That is her problem.

[OptomisticGirl]

^^ The woman could have chose to not leave, instead she got herself all insulted. That is her problem.

 

I will never understand the mindset of just because someone has a child gives them more right over another human. Again, to each their own. The woman was insulted by Batya's actions - not by being none rude and moving.

[Seraphim]

She did not say she had more right, she was more than prepared to wait for the woman to leave. However please stop infering I think I have more rights because I have a child, because I don't. I DO however think I have rights to my health, more so than someone else's right to be addicted to whatever drug of their choice is.

[OptomisticGirl]

If she were prepared for the woman to leave she wouldn't have said anything. Batya even said she wanted to avoid a confrontation which I find hard to understand because if she had she WOULD have just walked away - instead she put herself in the path of confrontation by saying it just loud enough. I have never infered that about you Victoria - but that has been the big point through this whole thread - someone who has a child has more right to be in this monument because its her child's playground over the smoker who had no idea Batya and her son were on there way there. Everyone has a right to protect their health - have never said against that - and as I have said, I Will keep my own children away from smoke. There is nothing wrong with Batya wanting to keep her son away from smoke but it's the WAY in which she went about doing it.

[Seraphim]

It is about the rights of people to be healthy whether they are children OR adult. If people want to be addicts fine, just do not include me in it. Just because society says it is ok for people to be addicted to cigarettes does not mean it is morally or ethically right to pollute other people with your addiction. I see it as the same as being addicted to alcohol, or coke or heroin, you just die slower and take others with you. If you want to give addicts rights that is up to you. If smokers want to be all insulted because someone explains to their child that smoke is not safe I think they should get a thicker skin... rights to free speech and all right?

[OptomisticGirl]

It was also done in a passive aggressive manner to get the OP's way - not the mature way to handle the situation, no. I took my nephew (who was born 2 months early) to my job Friday to show him off to my co workers. The quickiest way from one hall to another is to cut through the courtyard which although not a offical smoking designated area people do use it to smoke some days. As I was walking out I saw someone smoking right in our path. I very well could have done the passive aggressive thing and muttered to myself just loud enough that I couldn't go through because of the smoke but I turned around and went the other way with a screaming 11 month old in my arms. Was I annoyed? Yes. Did it kill me to wait another five minutes to go the long way? Nope.

 

Batya has a right to voice her concerns, yes. But she then also can't complain when smokers react badly to the way she expresses herself either. It's fine to say you have no tolerance for addicts, especially smokers, but then you also have to respect some people in the world who view children as annoying and troublesome creatures and not get mad when you bring them into a none child setting and they act like, well, kids!

[Seraphim]

Why is this turned into an anti kid crusade? This is not even about kids vrs non kids, this is about health and a person's right to be healthy no matter their age.

[OptomisticGirl]

Because it's the same principle Victoria. You say a smoker is impeeding on the rights of none smokers - which to a point I agree - but on the flip side, those of us who want kids or have kids are also impeeding on those who DON'T want kids. And parents do bring their kids into none kid settings - such as more adult resturants - and would rather not be discriminated against just because they have a screaming 2 year old sat next to them. I sure wouldn't. I'm an adult, just because I have a child doesn't mean I don't have a right to sit in a resturant. Same with the smoker. Again, I fully am behind Batya in not wanting her son around smoke or herself - I Myself do not sit outside when my co workers smoke and stay as far away from my mom as I can when she smokes - but I also view it as the way she handled was very rude. If she can live with the way she acted then that's obviously her decision - I couldn't.

[Seraphim]

No, it is not the same principle. Kids are not an addictive disease, smoking is, smoking kills people, the last time I checked having kids in your general personal space does not. That is comparing apples to oranges.