No More Tyranny Of The Smoking Minority

[XemaSab]

Imagine that you could quantify – maybe using a 10-scale – the pleasure from smoking downtown, and from breathing clean air in public. In determining which group – smokers or non – gets its way with the smoking laws, you could just compare the two and go with the higher number.

Let’s say the amount of pleasure one gets from smoking downtown is equivalent to the displeasure a non-smoker experiences getting pelted with cigarette smoke.

There are fewer smokers than non-smokers these days. In 2011, only 19 percent of the adult populace smoked (CDC). It’s less now. Lots of Plaza users are children, so that further diminishes the proportion of people out there who smoke.

So right away, even if the individual pleasure/displeasure measure is the same, there are still at least four times as many people experiencing displeasure as pleasure.

http://www.arcataeye.com/2013/07/kevin-hoover-no-more-tyranny-of-the-smoking-minority/

[Nye Bevan]

1. Treat smoking like urination.

Legal in private but not in public, indoors or outdoors. A bunch of people standing outside a building smoking should be no more acceptable than if they were all taking a whizz together.

[TransitJohn]

2. LOL...trying banning smoking weed in Arcata!

It's at least as obnoxious as tobacco smoke.

[kestrel91316]

7. I dunno. From a respiratory and olfactory annoyance standpoint,

I find tobacco smoke about 110X worse than cannabis.

Although there might be some brands that are not so bad. I recently walked behind a guy on the street for a ways as he was smoking, and it was very different from the normal irritating tobacco smoke, much milder. I found myself wondering if it was those "natural" smokes, American Spirit or some such?

[Downwinder]

3. In Texas, smokers pay for education.

Less smokers, less teachers.

[hedgehog]

9. Because heaven forfend the tax payers take the

responsibility of ensuring an educated populace!

[bluestate10]

23. You're joking, right? Does your claim let property tax payers off the hook?

Or, are you making a desperate attempt to justify allowing smokers to pollute the air while insisting on their "right" to do so?

In regard to one other poster's claim. I am hard on smokers because they spew poison that has long-term consequences on the publics health. I am just as hard on corporate polluters, they should be jailed until the stop and clean up their damage.

[Aristus]

10. If smokers disappear entirely, they'll just find another way to pay

for education.

Or, considering the fact that it's Texas, probably not.

And I'm willing to bet that a decline in the education standards in Texas is not attributable to the decline in the number of smokers...

[bluestate10]

24. One more reason why Texas is a place that I wouldn't live in. Can't wait for democrats

to take full control there, only then will sensible public funding of education happen.

[Ilsa]

28. Texas has hundreds of millions in new revenue from

fracking, yet they are still reluctant to restore public education funding to levels before trimming billions off. That should tell everyone what Texas leadership thinks about public education.

[iemitsu]

4. I am not a smoker and never have been and I don't like the smell

or sticky smoke associated with cigarettes but, it seems to me that, identifying smokers as the prime contributors to harmful air-pollution is not fair or reasonable.
I love not dealing with smoke in restaurants and on planes but corporate contributors to pollution seem a more legitimate target to me.
On a 1 to 10 scale, who adds more harmful chemicals to our air?

[janlyn]

5. +10000 n/t

[The Straight Story]

8. Have people spend an hour in a closed room with a car running

and someone else do the same in a room with a smoker.

One will certainly pollute and do more harm than the other.

Not to mention second hand internet use (all that electricity used to surf the web for cute cat pics, and all the energy used to store them on servers....much comes from coal and such).

It goes back to controlling what others do that we don't like. And some people just love to use their personal/religious beliefs to spread their faith through laws.

Bet they would have banned indian peace pipes to save them from sinning....

[hedgehog]

11. It goes back to controlling what others do that we don't like.

And some people just love to use their personal/religious beliefs to spread their faith through laws.


Are we discussing smoking, or quoting McConnell's reasons for opposing Senate rules changes?

[The Straight Story]

12. No; fast food, guns, pit bulls, smoking, breastfeeding, abortion, and olive garden

Which should keep DU busy for the day but there are other things to add.

[pinboy3niner]

13. And don't even get me started on corn-flake fried chicken!1!!

[iemitsu]

14. And its easier to attack individuals than corporations,

they have less power or influence.
Individuals can easily be fined when they break the law (they almost always pay) while law-breaking corporations almost never pay fines.
I'm sure you are right about the "need to control others syndrome" playing a role in America's approach to airborne pollutants. And since its less tough to control individuals than corporations they are the logical target.
We are a confused lot in America, with much to sort through. Good thing the NSA took thorough notes.

[The Straight Story]

17. Yeah, we are being played - again

Right after 9/11 people rushed to pass laws to prevent something they had intelligence on and could have already prevented.

We sold fear, and people bought it.

Our biggest problems in this country is distribution of wealth and letting companies get away with anything, and those same companies go for more regulations to stifle competition and consolidate power. Day in and out we get less free, they get more free and more of our money, and people are up in arms over how they can control each other while letting the real problems slip away.

I rarely go to bars anyway, and the ones I do ignore the smoking ban anyway. I care because it is the core principle of the matter to me. Same reason I care about abortions I can't have and gay marriages even though I am straight.

When we leave our core principles behind we all suffer and give others inroads into taking away our freedoms. Texas wants to take away the ability to get an abortion, they see it as killing a living thing. CA takes away smoking in bars. Others want to take away guns. Still others pitbulls.

All in all we are aiding those who don't have to abide by the laws to restrict our freedoms. Ya think the wealthy in TX can't find somewhere to get an abortion? You think the wealthy in CA don't have private clubs to smoke in?

[iemitsu]

29. Sounds like you've got the story straight.

I agree that the unequal distribution of wealth is our major problem (along with the fact that most don't see it as a problem).
Everyone, who works a full day, ought to get enough to survive on (marginal jobs should support marginal lifestyles but the pay can't be less than it takes to survive) in fact working five full days ought to pay for seven days living expenses, under our work formula.
A more equal distribution of wealth would solve many problems as people, who feel they are rewarded for their contributions, feel better about themselves and are likely to support the communities that sponsor that feeling.
I see our "core principals" being eroded too. But I suppose those principals are, and were, really no more than slogans to get workers to buy in to a plan (the Revolutionary War) that was largely designed to free elites from their tax burdens. Those elites framed our constitution in a way to guarantee that their tax burdens would never be high again.
The rich don't have to follow laws. They make laws to reward or punish those who serve them.

[sabrina 1]

25. It's a good way to distract from the real causes of air pollution though. You have to the Corporate

Powers credit for the way manage to distract, through these emotional manipulations, from the far greater threat to the environment and to individuals by setting the 'little people' against each other.

I know they pay a lot to 'smear contractors' to start these campaigns, but they do get their money's worth as this thread indicates.

I could care less if people smoke outside, I am far more concerned about the emissions from automobiles, eg which will be in the same air as the example given here. But note not a word about all the exhausts being spewed into the lungs of the very same people we are supposedly so concerned about.

[iemitsu]

30. Corporations have figured out how Public Relations works.

They know and use psychological tricks to manipulate the masses, and they own everything (and perhaps everyone).
It sucks.
I don't like cigarette smoke but I fear it far less than nuclear radioactivity or auto exhaust.
Many years ago I commuted to school by ferry. I got off the boat and had to hoof it up a steep hill, to Fourth Avenue, to catch the bus to school.
People smoked on the ferry but there was plenty of fresh air. I felt awake and alive.
By the time I climbed the hill to Fourth, each morning, I was sick. The exhaust was so thick I could taste it.
On the bus I would collapse and barely recover to get off the bus 20 minutes later.
My wife smoked for years when we were young and it never made me feel like that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. I'm experiencing displeasure just reading this OP. Does that count?

[tritsofme]

15. I found out this weekend that smoking is banned in outdoor patios at Chicago bars and restaurants

We're not smokers, but this is getting absurd.

[bluestate10]

21. Not absurd. Do you understand how far cigarette smoke can penetrate.

May be you should show some concern for people walking on the sidewalks near those patios, or people owning homes near those patios. The law is justified, IMO. Smokers insist that they are being denied rights, that happens in a society, some rights must be set at a lower priority than other rights because exercise of those rights cause societal ill. All of us have the right to walk around nude, but not on city streets. Many rights that non-smokers have are routinely regulated behind other rights, that is society.

[former9thward]

37. It is absurd.

No scientific study backs you up. The exhaust pollution from the cars going by those patios is far worse than cigarette smoking. Bu you drive so that is ok.

[sabrina 1]

26. Why don't they ban alcohol too if we're going to pretend we care about anyone in this country?

One in six Americans are adversely affected by alcohol, including financial disaster, domestic abuse, liver desease, etc etc.

Which only goes to show how ridiculous this anti-smoking campaign really is. No one cares about people. They care about money. And if we were to focus on real pollution and worked to stop it, think of all the money that would be lost to Corporate America.

Meanwhile let everyone fight over something that has never been proven to have one tiny % of the disastrous results of actual air pollution. It keeps the 'little people' busy and distracted.

[iemitsu]

31. Or guns?

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes, let's ban everything that offends someone?? Why not? I have a list, how about you?

[iemitsu]

41. I can come up with one.

Let's see:
1. Perfume.
2. Spandex on anyone who doesn't look good naked.
3. Blood vessels in chicken parts.

These came right off the top of my head.

[markiv]

16. i was a light smoker years ago

but didnt smoke indoors, out of a mix of courtesy and feeling my smoking wasnt anyone else's business, either from me or to me

but it's air polution, period. even a lush getting bombed at the next table doesnt affect you if he/she's quiet, doesnt spill anything on you and gets a ride home

but even the most polite smoker will have a waft of smoke into your clothes and lungs

once someone's lungs are shot, that's it - if you could go to a store and swap them out for new ones. it might be different, but you cant

smoking is 100 percent insane

[gulliver]

18. E-cigs. Done.

Good for smokers. Good for society.

[bluestate10]

19. I am willing to accept smaller steps.

I want to see smokers close all the windows on their cars or trucks when smoking so that following motorists aren't forced to breath their poison. After that, we can move on to larger changes.

[iemitsu]

34. Perhaps cigarette manufacturers should be required to

produce a cigarette without all the additives that make cigarette smoke dangerous.
I hate to defend the rights of cigarette smokers, because I really don't like the smoke. I certainly smell it far less than I used to when it was acceptable to smoke in public. And I see that as a good thing.
But I also hate to see cigarette smokers demonized when individual drivers and industrial corporations spew far more dangerous pollutants into our environment each day and aren't being held accountable.

[former9thward]

38. Are you going to block off your exhaust so I don't have to breath it?

I didn't think so.

[iemitsu]

42. Good point.

The same one I was attempting to make but much more concise.

[LadyHawkAZ]

20. Body hair and breastfeeding and now smokers...

Alright, who put the Liquid Outrage in the punchbowl? We will find you and there will be consequences...

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I don't smoke anymore - but a little bit of smoke coming from several feet away is not going to

bother most people unless they want to be bothered. There is certainly no scientific basis to believe that such small amounts of occasional smoke coming from several feet away is going to create a health hazard. That kind of talk is unscientific voodoo.

Let's be honest. This is just plain old fashioned church lady moralizing. It's no longer acceptable to get all huffy about who is sleeping with who or who hasn't been seen in church for several Sundays - those inclined toward instigating problems move on to something that is now acceptable to create a stink over. - It's just being obnoxious. That's all it is.

[burnodo]

27. +1

Smokers should be afforded minority status

[HiPointDem]

33. "unless they want to be bothered" & oh boy, do they want to be bothered.

[taught_me_patience]

35. Speak for yourself. I can smell smoke from over 15 feet away

it stinks like hell and is bothersome.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. all kinds of things annoy and irritate me - but I learned a long time ago not to bully other people

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 06:07 AM - Edit history (1)

with all my annoying idiosyncrasies. If it really bothers you from 15 feet away - you can leave or better yet you can get over it.

[burnodo]

46. Make sure you don't get close to any incense

That would bother you too

[HiPointDem]

32. more from the lifestyle nazis

'tyranny'.

omg what wankers

[surrealAmerican]

36. I wish I could breathe clean air down town ...

... but there's not much chance of that because of all the car exhaust. I don't smoke, and I don't particularly like the smell, but it is far from the worst problem (as far as air quality is concerned) in a large town or small city.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. The ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has worked, and worked nicely

It is a "prohibition." It has not resulted in some rise in organized crime. It has not resulted in a severe drop off of business (forecasted by both smokers and bar/restaurant owners: it never came to pass. In Chicago, bars and restaurants are smoke free. Where is the forecasted catastrophe? Nowhere. It never happened. Smoking was prohibited, and the world kept spinning.

I smoked for 22 years, by the way. Quit cold turkey 18 months ago, and haven't had a single craving since day 4 of quit. It's not as hard as some people say. When you want to do it, you'll do it.

[sabrina 1]

43. Anyone who wants to smoke is welcome at our house. They don't go to bars where smoking is not

allowed. I am way more concerned about the pollution they are trying to distract us from with this silly 'war on cigarettes'. I couldn't care less about the miniscule amount of smoke I might breathe in in a bar compared to what is spewing our of all the cars people drive to get there. Living in the country where there are few cars, I can hardly breathe when I go on the NY Thruway or the LIE from the fumes spewing out all over the place. Cigarette smoke doesn't bother me at all and I've been around it since I was a baby.

But most people who live in suburbia and the city are so accustomed to being poisoned by automobile exhausts they don't even notice it anymore. But we are not supposed to talk about air pollution from all the sources we are exposed to it from on a daily basis.

I moved into the country and can breathe now, and nearly everyone here smokes and are healthier than anyone I know in the city. But it's a nice distraction. For the Corporations. Keep the little people at each others throats over trivia and they won't notice the big stuff.

[Fumesucker]

45. Part of the reason for my handle is that I ride a bike

Normally I can't smell the exhaust fumes very much but they are really noticeable when someone passes me slowly and then accelerates hard after they get by, the engine goes open loop for a moment or two (no feedback on the richness or leanness of the fuel mixture from the oxygen sensors) and the pollution really squirts out the tailpipe for that time. Cars that are really running rich (more fuel than needed for stoichiometric combustion) will put out fumes that will literally make your eyes burn and water and your nose sting.