Your Hot Cup of Rant

God, watching smokers and non-smokers fight is amazing.

On one side, you have a group of people who are supposedly worried about the physical health of people they do not know. You have people who point the finger of blame at the other side for every single failing of society because somehow the other side is full of ignorant pricks who are selfish and belligerent. And, of course, you have people who complain about how they are poisoned and murdered each and every time someone on the other side is in their presence.

On the other, you have people who inhale a toxic substance into their bodies for their own benefit, oblivious to the wants of everyone else. You have people who scream “discrimination” at the first sign of anyone daring to assault their disgusting habit, and fuck you if you think otherwise. You have people who seem to feel it is their God-given right to pollute the air of others if they choose to do so, and the government taking this right away is hideously abhorrent because it inconveniences THEM, somehow.

It’s very entertaining.

If I’m honest, I’m a smoker and have been for ten years, but I like to think I’m at least a tiny bit more reasonable in my beliefs than some of my supposed brethren. To me, there’s such a thing as “compromise” and the fact that most people are incapable of understanding this thing is gloriously wonderful in its stupidity.

The crux of the argument appears to come down to this: non-smokers believe that they should never have to be exposed to a single puff of smoke in their entire lives, and smokers believe that they should be able to go wherever they please and light up without it being a problem.

Non-smokers will argue that cities and states with smoking bans in place continue to do thriving business, and when the facts either show that these bans are not very restrictive or outright contradict their assessment, they cite the “lives saved” by such bans and how smokers are hideous human beings for not supporting their favorite bars by walking outside to smoke.

Smokers will counter this argument by stating that banning smoking will hurt businesses, and when the facts show that this is not the case, or that there indeed are benefits to such bans, they often regress to a state of shouting “discrimination” to the heavens and screaming about how they don’t want to quit smoking because they still enjoy it.

Logic does not enter into the discussion on either side. No one wants to admit that they are wrong and that, perhaps, they are being a tiny bit selfish in their beliefs as a whole. That would be antithetical to everything the pro-or-anti-smoking zealot knows to be true in their heart.

To me, the solution seems reasonably simple. You’re never going to ban smoking because, much like when the United States banned the sale and intake of alcohol, it’s been legal for hundreds of years and to do so now would cause everyone to FLIP THE FUCK OUT and there would be a major problem. Perhaps in another hundred years when quitting smoking is as simple as taking a pill or something similar we can consider banning cigarettes, but until then, they exist and we will continue to smoke them as long as our lungs allow.

So segregate smokers from non-smokers to a ridiculous degree. Pass a law that requires all business establishments who desire smoking clientèle to enroll for a “smoking license”. Said license would require that the establishment in question would have to adhere to certain regulations before even considering allowing others to smoke in their establishment, including

- heavily ventilated smoking sections

- serious separation of smoking and non-smoking customers so that smokers do not expose non-smokers to their emissions,

- a requirement that the smoking section NEVER be in the front of the building,

- rotating shifts of employees so that no one is exposed to the “smoking section” for too large of a period of time, and shift differentials that earn those who do work in these sections additional pay for doing such a thing,

et cetera, et cetera. By doing this, people are generally kept marginally happy; smokers are given a public place where they may eat and drink while smoking, non-smokers aren’t exposed to the second-hand emissions of their dreaded enemies, business owners keep the money rolling in, and the government is happy because they have additional money rolling in thanks to the fees associated with said licenses. No one is TRULY happy, but then, that’s the nature of compromise: fuck everyone a little bit instead of fucking one person a whole lot.

Barring that, ban smoking everywhere and the smokers can stay home, thus allowing the non-smokers the true segregation they’ve desired all these years, while the smokers all hang out with each other, drink beer at someone’s house and laugh at the non-smokers who are paying $5 for a $1 beer in a noisy club. I fail to see a problem with this scenario, either, but then, I fail to see the need to get inebriated in public when doing so at home is more cost-effective and less likely to get you killed.

Sadly, neither side is willing to understand that theirs is a losing battle.

Smokers fail to understand that theirs is a filthy, dirty habit that non-smokers don’t want to be exposed to for any period of time because, frankly, they don’t feel they should have to. Smokers fail to understand that their problem is a problem born from an addiction that they’re either unable or unwilling to give up. These are the same sorts of people who smoke at the zoo because “Hey, I’m outside”, even though they’re also in the presence of about a hundred small children. Things like “respect of personal space” do not occur to them because they are mostly concerned with their own personal needs instead of the needs of others.

It does not occur to them that in the grand scheme of things, they’re not terribly screwed over yet. They can, after all, smoke in their homes, something marijuana lovers are prohibited from and arrested for doing. It does not occur to them that they can still smoke in their cars, something alcohol lovers cannot do without facing jail time. It does not occur to them that their arguments are generally stupid because even though they are paying a large amount of taxes, both state and federal, to do what they do, they are owed nothing by the government they pay those taxes to except a kick in the ass when they get too out of line.

You are offered a choice when your favorite establishment no longer offers you the option to smoke because of government mandate: continue going, stay home, or go somewhere else. Accept this and move on. Speaking as someone who lives in New Jersey, I go to Pennsylvania when I want to go to a bar or diner, because I can smoke there, and that’s really my decision. If Pennsylvania banned smoking, I wouldn’t go out as much. This is apparently a radical concept for most smokers, for reasons I fail to understand: you either suck it up or you stay home.

Of course, it’d probably be easier to accept this if non-smokers weren’t belligerent pricks all their own. Non-smokers argue that, in states where businesses HAVE lost money because of government bans, it falls squarely on the backs of the smokers for not supporting their favorite bars and restaurants because they can no longer smoke in them, which is like smokers holding non-smokers responsible for their favorite bar going out of business because they stopped coming to said smoke-filled bar. Deal with this: there are restaurants that, even in states where smoking is permitted indoors, DO NOT ALLOW SMOKING. If you do not want to eat in a smoking establishment, you can choose not to do so; to expect smokers to not make the same decision is, frankly, ignorant, and you should be ashamed for even thinking it.

Non-smokers are people who pay lip-service to the idea that life is somehow sacred and special while they change the channel every time Sally Struthers pops up on the TV. They’re the sort of people who complain about what a public nuisance smoking is, then go to a bar, get rip-roaring drunk, and have the designated driver bring them to a diner at three in the morning so they can loudly shout the lyrics of “Hotel California” to the general annoyance of the staff and patrons of said diner. They’re the sort of people that fail to understand that as annoying as smoking is, their pious rhetoric is equally unwelcome and honestly, no one gives a shit if your grandmother died from fifty years of being exposed to second-hand smoke; frankly, if she was responsible for your existence, we’re all really sorry it didn’t happen sooner.

So in conclusion, shut the fuck up.

Smokers, stay home. The non-smokers won’t miss your pissing and moaning about how much fun you used to have, and if the businesses miss your money enough, they’ll pool their money and promote politicians who espouse their ideals of wanting to make money. Stop posting on message boards and going on TV and complaining about how your basic civil liberties have been stolen from you, because come on now; we can’t masturbate in public or drink and drive, and no one’s complaining. Give it up, your cause is lost.

Non-smokers, shut up. You’re a band of hypocrites who only care about your own personal accommodation and you’re as bad as those you rally against. You’re not going to go out more often to subsidize the business lost by smokers, you can’t understand the concept of smoking because you’ve never done it and assume that smokers should just be able to quit because hey, you never started, and frankly, you’re annoying and no one really wants to hear your sob stories. Stop posting on message boards and going on TV and complaining about how you hate being exposed to cigarette smoke because come on now; if you don’t want to eat at Dennys, there’s an IHOP up the fucking street that doesn’t allow smoking, just go there instead. And if they ban smoking and the Dennys closes, don’t blame the smokers because frankly, when people DID smoke in the Dennys, YOU went to the fucking IHOP in the first place, so you’re guilty of the exact same thing.

And in conclusion, the world needs an enema. Pass me a cigarette.