I'm one of the few smokers who's been used to freedoms being taken away, or having my freedoms abused by those who have hatred towards "us" as a group.
It wasn't til the 21st century when I actually started having my freedoms taken away literally. Not cause of who I am, but cause of my choice to smoke. Next, my freedom to eat will be taken away within the next 10 years with bans on .
How can a smoker counter-attack having his/her freedoms taken away? The best option I can think of is seeing more smokers and more owners challenge certain bans in court. And in the case of Ohio, I know that state ban is being challenged recently by a proposal on updating the state ban. Since Ohio residents were lied to about there being exemptions.
As much as I entertain the idea of literally fighting with the otha side (and I wasn't joking when I said in the past I WILL "pull it out" against a Fked up anti in the streets if I had one), I gotta be realistic in saying getting vicious and arrogant is not the proper way for smokers to fight back. Cause that would make antis say "See? Smokers ARE vicious, evil, and selfish! They are sick nic addicts!"
Well, I got a lil bit of a legit excuse, antis. From where I come from, if a peaceful debate doesn't work in resolving the issue around me, then "we" certainly know what will put an end to the debate. One person seeks revenge on the person he/she has a conflict with.
I guess in the case of a ban, a peaceful debate could be a meeting with state/city officials and business owners, or even a case in court. But instead of resorting to violence to put an end to the debate, the smokers and owners don't give up. I think I heard of at least one smoking-related case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.