i don't want to tell people they can't smoke, i want them to realize it's a shitty habit and quit - which is what i did.

i run into this in a lot of situations. people don't get this subtlety. they can't differentiate between wanting to force a group to do something, and wanting to convince them to.

and, i don't like proselytizing either; in fact, that's another example: i don't want to force people into atheism, i want to convince them that it's the obvious answer and that all religion is complete insanity that should be immediately halted.

so, i mean, this isn't about smokers' rights. i mean, it's kind of a dumb idea, really - not a lot different than "religious freedom". what does it mean to say that a smoker has the right to pollute the air wherever it wants because it's a slave to a dangerous chemical? that's really crazy talk, isn't it? the better idea is smokers' responsibilities. an even better one is smokers' emancipation.

but, even so, i have only approached the smokers twice: once to ask them what the problem with the coal was (i did not get an answer), and once to assure them that i'm not trying to tell them where to smoke.

the goal of the litigation is to build a wall to prevent their habit from affecting me, not to force them to change to my liking.