AITA for refusing to not smoke while IN the smoking area of a pub because a family was choosing to sit there?

Imagine planning a chill evening in a pub’s outdoor smoking area, immersed in your work and enjoying your own company, only to have strangers demand you change your behavior because one of them is pregnant. That was exactly my experience one evening in Toronto.

I was working away, headphones in and cigarette in hand, when a family seated nearby politely (at first) asked if I could refrain from smoking near them. I explained that I was in the designated smoking zone, but they wouldn’t have it—and soon, what began as a minor inconvenience escalated into a full-blown scene that left me both amused and baffled.

In our modern world, we all have our personal preferences, and in a smoking area, everyone should be free to enjoy themselves without interference. As the situation unfolded with the family demanding that I relocate, even after a manager intervened by offering complimentary drinks, I couldn’t help but laugh at the absurdity. So, was I out of line, or did I simply stand up for my right to smoke in the designated space? Let’s dive into the details.

‘ AITA for refusing to not smoke while IN the smoking area of a pub because a family was choosing to sit there?’

“Public spaces are meant to cater to diverse preferences, and designated areas exist for a reason,” explains Dr. Melissa Hart, a public health expert featured in The Conversation. “In a smoking area, individuals choose to engage in smoking; it is their personal right and responsibility.”

Dr. Hart’s insight highlights that when one occupies a space designated for a particular activity, it is reasonable to expect others to adhere to that function. In this case, my decision to continue smoking in the smoking area was fully justified, as the couple’s request for silence was not only misplaced but also contradictory to the nature of the space.

Dr. Hart further notes that “conflict in shared spaces often arises from mismatched expectations rather than malice.” Here, the pregnant individual’s insistence that everyone stop smoking, despite having chosen a smoking area, seems more about personal discomfort than a genuine concern for health. The expert emphasizes that while courtesy is important, one should not have to sacrifice personal freedoms in a space clearly marked for a particular activity.

Dr. Hart also stresses that public policies exist to manage such scenarios, and if the venue’s management supports the designated use of the area, then patrons have every right to enjoy their activities without undue interference.

Based on Dr. Hart’s perspective, the crux of the issue is not about being insensitive to the pregnant person’s needs but about respecting the predefined boundaries of the space. Instead of demanding others change their behavior in an environment meant for smoking, the onus should be on the individuals with specific needs to seek an alternative seating arrangement.

In short, maintaining the integrity of designated spaces is key, and any attempt to impose personal discomfort on others is both impractical and unfair. For further insights into managing conflicts in public spaces, readers might explore studies on public behavior and personal rights published on reputable health websites.

Here’s the feedback from the Reddit community:

In a nutshell, Redditors overwhelmingly defended my stance. Many highlighted that if someone opts to sit in a smoking area, they should expect the smell of tobacco. A few pointed out that it’s absurd to demand silence in an area specifically designed for smoking.

One comment humorously noted that the pregnant person’s request was an entitled imposition, while another emphasized that in 2023, common sense should prevail in public spaces. Overall, the consensus was that I acted within my rights and the responsibility to relocate fell squarely on those uncomfortable individuals.

In the end, I was simply exercising my right to enjoy my designated space as intended. While some might argue for a bit more courtesy on both sides, the core issue remains: public spaces have specific purposes, and we all must respect that. What do you think? Would you have handled the situation differently, or do you believe that sticking to your designated area was the only reasonable option? Share your thoughts and join the discussion below.