The problem with what you're saying is that non-smokers thoroughly enjoy moving goalposts. The amount of places where smokers are no longer allowed to smoke is gradually increasing. Depending on your geographical location, smoking can even be forbidden outdoors where it harms absolutely noone. I can understand how it would be unpleasant indoors, with little access to fresh air - even I don't like to sit in stagnant smoke and I've smoked for over a decade, but this is a ban that's slowly but surely becoming applicable to outdoor locations which is nonsense. Non-smokers are gaining ground, smokers are gradually forced out of public institutions, pubs, stores parks and now even streets when all we really want is sensible legislature that would allow us to enjoy the one little joy in life we have without impeding anyone. Like I said earlier, your stance basically means that you're not taking away my cigarettes, you're just making it virtually impossible for me to smoke them anywhere. I really don't understand what's so difficult in creating smoking areas, it's not a mind boggling concept. You say that it's a two-way street - fair enough, but it's not the smokers who are on the offensive, it's you guys who are banning us from smoking, not the other way around. We have no beef with you people, we just want want to be treated reasonably.My problem with your argument is exactly what you're saying in this post.
"Some people really do have a hard time letting people live their lives however they want."
That's a two way street, man, and it just so happens that we are walking towards each other on it. You want the freedom to smoke wherever you want, I want the freedom to not have to worry about inhaling smoke from cigarettes that I'm not smoking nor do I have any desire to. You can't claim that one party is being intolerant or stubborn without realizing that you yourself are too.
Edit - don't make me quote contradictions from other threads, now, too.