LA Times: Non-smokers "have the right not to be sickened by the choices of others"

[alp227]

The LA Times' editorial The 50-year war on smoking has a very reasonable conclusion: "Smoking is and should remain a personal choice among adults, but the nonsmokers around them have the right not to be sickened by the choices of others."

Sadly, this article is already attracting the right wing "I'll smoke where I want" types like "Sorry,. we wont be fooled by the lies of big brother because a few liberals dont like the smell of tobacco smoke. Hope these idiots enjoy all the pot smoke they are trying to leglize now LOL morons."

Or (from the LAT Facebook) "walk away from smoke or go inside where we dastardly evil doers of smoking can't get to you."

And sadly I'll have to say even DU will have quite a few comments sounding like the ones I quoted.

So who has more rights, one smoker or 100 non smokers?

[onehandle]

1. One smoker has the capability to invade the personal space of 100 non-smokers in a closed space.

Possibly hundreds smoking outside the door of a building or mall.

You know my answer.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. I don't know your answer, but I suspect it's "ban smoking." Am I right?

And if so, how would you impose that?

[leftyohiolib]

7. the same way you enforce all laws (excpt for illegal immigration)

[Comrade Grumpy]

70. How many million smokers do you want to lock up?

[onehandle]

13. Keep your words out of my mouth.

Address the OP.

[Comrade Grumpy]

68. Don't try to tell me what to do. You said "you know my answer." I don't.

I took a guess and asked for clarification. Care to clarify?

[Arkansas Granny]

2. I sometimes remind people that smoking tobacco is *not* an illegal activity.

As long as people smoke in areas that are not designated or posted as smoke-free, they should be left alone.

[leftyohiolib]

4. b/c smoke only stays in the smoking area

i say put them in enclosed sealed pens with filters in roof of the pen to filter out the smoke and allow insurance companies to deny reimbursment of smoking related health issues. the reason it's legal is due to cowardice of our politcians but it's more dangerous than reckless op of a motor vehicle which is illegal but smokers are junkies so flame on

[leftyohiolib]

11. it looks out dated

im not going to apologize for my nonsmoking stance. the only place i can think of right now that is acceptable to smoke in is your own car with the windows rolled up

[Capt. Obvious]

14. I can't believe I went Godwin!

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Your words:

i say put them in enclosed sealed pens with filters in roof of the pen to filter out the smoke and allow insurance companies to deny reimbursment of smoking related health issues.

[leftyohiolib]

16. i dont know what that is, is it Dachau

[leftyohiolib]

41. yea i said that and stand by that. i am sorry if that offends but smoking needs to go and

I know it's very difficult for people to quit and so incentives are needed

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Given the choice between sharing the world with smokers or those who'd put humans in pens

I'll go with the smokers.

[beaglelover]

63. Me too. n/t

[leftyohiolib]

67. only untill the cancer from the smokers killed u

btw we put people in to pens already theyre called jails.

[OwnedByCats]

78. Give it a rest

I haven't had to deal with cig smoke for a long time. That's because in most of the country, you can't smoke inside anywhere, not even a designated area. They usually must go outside. In that case it's easy to avoid the smoke, unless you're stupid enough to go stand by them to piss and moan about their smoking, even though they are outside, not intentionally near you.

I'm curious to know what circumstance in your life has caused you to absolutely be around it? You sound like someone who is forced to be around it.

[OwnedByCats]

77. Yes!

Totally agree!

[uppityperson]

98. I've seen fully enclosed smoking areas at airports, smoking pens. They exist already.nt

[enlightenment]

59. Incentive implies carrot.

You are proposing stick.

Deterrent is the word you're looking for, I think.

[leftyohiolib]

73. incentive, because it would lead to healthier people which is a good thing

but i get what youre saying

[enlightenment]

76. I'm glad you do.

You might want to draw back on the "my way is best because . . ." scenario, though - it reeks of smug know-it-all-ism, which doesn't go over well with most, particularly with people who feel that you are infringing on their rights as much as you believe they are infringing on yours.

[roguevalley]

21. is that a crematorium? Really?

[leftyohiolib]

23. i think so, he's calling me a nazi

[roguevalley]

25. then he loses, honey. I think the last place nazi talk belongs is here. Mazel tov, honey for your

pov.

[leftyohiolib]

28. of course he did, i believe he knows smoking needs to go but habits r easier to defend than break

[OwnedByCats]

79. I wouldn't say Nazi

More like Nanny state. It's all fine and dandy to regulate that you must not smoke in certain areas, I agree with that. What I would not support is telling people what to do in their own homes (unless they rent and aren't allowed to smoke per their lease agreement or whatever), or outside secluded from everyone else. It's a slippery slope and if you're not very careful, something you like to do could be attacked also.

[Arugula Latte]

26. Well, banning smoking is exactly the same as the ruthless murder of millions, so there you go.

[SoCalNative]

18. Better yet, forget the filters

just let the smoke stay in the room with them.

[Arkansas Granny]

39. Non-smokers are free to avoid the smoking areas just as people who don't drink

are free to avoid bars.

If we are going to confine people in pens with filters to protect other people from the odor of their particular habits, I suggest we do the same with people who wear strong scented perfumes and colognes because many of them give me a headache. Should I demand that everyone who wears fragrance be held in specially filtered pens so I don't have to smell them?

[leftyohiolib]

42. smoke disperses and when smokers huddle around entrances to buildings you need to enter

you have to walk through it to get in even if they smoke 20 feet from the entrance smoke disperses as to Should I demand that everyone who wears fragrance be held in specially filtered pens so I don't have to smell them? you can demand whatever you want, when they are proven to cause cancer I will right there with you.

[tabbycat31]

47. That is easier said than done

I'm a non-smoker who is incredibly annoyed by the smell of smoke. In my experiences, smokers will smoke right outside the main entrance of a (public) building (ie store, mall, office building, etc) making it next to impossible for those who are bothered by the smell to NOT enter the building. I'd have no problem if the smokers stood to the side and didn't block the entrance.

My other issue with smoking is that when I worked retail, smokers always had more breaks than non-smokers did (i had one manager tell me to take up smoking--- this was as my stepgrandmother was dying of lung cancer).

[OwnedByCats]

80. I actually get

really sick from some perfumes. But I don't agree with telling people they can't wear it. I just get away from it as quickly as I can, the same for a non smoker, should they come across a smoker outside.

[Comrade Grumpy]

71. I love the smell of totalitarianism in the morning. n/t

[beaglelover]

62. Absolutely correct! Thumb up!

[PoliticalPothead]

5. I may be a little biased on this but I must admit...

I do enjoy the smell of pot smoke. Tobacco smoke, eh, not so much. But I don't think either of these should be banned from public use.

[leftyohiolib]

9. i know people like that my wife's aunt ( who died from smoking related emphysema )

smoked all the time but could stand pot smoke

[Inkfreak]

90. Unless it's the last bong hit

And you may have burned it a lil to long. And you get that weird ashy taste as you exhale...yea. I always pass on the last hit.

[phleshdef]

6. When I was a cig smoker, I always tried to be unimposing.

I always smoked outside and like if I'd go outside for a smoke break at work, I'd avoid doing it around anyone else who wasn't taking a smoke break with me. Its not hard to keep your habit from harming other people. Some smokers are just lazy and selfish.

[Shandris]

20. This. Consideration is the key.

I recently quit (upwards of three months ago now!) but I don't mind considerate smokers, because considerate smokers aren't violating any of my rights. If I walk by an area with considerate smokers for whatever reason, I don't become upset that I can smell their smoke; sure, it stinks to high hell now, but so does a pig farmer's field (and believe me, in Central Indiana you'll have ample opportunity to learn that). Pig farming isn't illegal, smoking isn't illegal, and I'm not going to live my life in terror that a couple of particulates of smoke in the middle of open air is going to suddenly give me lung cancer.

The key word in the above paragraph, though, is 'considerate'. I couldn't care less about the rights of inconsiderate smokers. If they won't show me courtest, I won't show it to them either. They can call me all the names they want, try to intimidate me, or whatever tactic they feel will be successful...all it will do is antagonize me more, which will end up with them being antagonized. Our mothers taught us to be considerate, and if they didn't take the lesson...not my problem. I'll be a surrogate by proxy.

[leftyohiolib]

29. pig farming serves us food smoking serves us cancer

[Shandris]

35. Dispersed smoke in the air doesn't serve you cancer.

In a confined space or something of that nature, sure. But since pig toots are methane, saying that the -smell- of smoke in an open field gives you cancer is tantamount to saying smelling pig toots will give you methane poisoning.

[leftyohiolib]

40. Dispersed smoke in the air doesn't serve you cancer. example is too narrow

'smoke in an open field" I didn't say that but cigarette smoke is a carcinogen whether you inhale it in an open field or an enclosed room

[beaglelover]

65. Living life must terrify you. n/t

[former9thward]

83. You are totally anti-science.

Link to a study where smoking in an open field causes health problems.

[Fawke Em]

97. I can go smoke and not die.

However, if I ate pork, I would.

I'm HIGHLY allergic to pork.

And, please, don't say you're sorry for me. I'm not.

Pork is like eating humans.

[Mariana]

31. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of smokers

are just like you. Thoughtful and considerate.

[OwnedByCats]

84. I smoked for a few years when I was having a rough patch in life,

even though prior I couldn't handle the smell, eventually I quit. Since I knew what it was like to be stuck around smokers as a child, I always went away from other people unless they were smokers too. Sometimes non smokers would approach, but they were types who really weren't bothered if I was smoking, even after I would tell them they shouldn't stand near me. They didn't care, for whatever reason. However it really bothered me if a non smoker came to me, while I visibly had a cigarette to lecture me about how much it bothered them. Concern for my health is one thing, but to bitch about their discomfort when they shouldn't even be around is another. I went out of my way to not impose it on them. I also would never smoke in a non smokers home or car, and never around children or animals.

One time I bought cigs at a store where the person was munching on some Oreos and he was shall I say, chubby. He was probably just old enough to sell them to me, 18 or 19. He said "those are really bad for you, you know". I said "if you continue to eat those Oreos, and whatever other junk you eat, you could die from an obesity related illness, and there are many". "Point taken" he said. I normally don't say things like that to people but only a moron doesn't know smoking is bad. It's the addiction that is not understood and people who have never gone through it simply do not know how hard it can be.

At the end of the day, smokers should be more considerate and some are. Too many are not I think. However non smokers should also respect the decisions of those who are considerate enough to do it in their own space and not around others.

[Savannahmann]

10. One smoker has more rights.

Since that smoker is funding health programs for children with the taxes that they, and only they pay.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0900461

http://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-tobacco-tax-increase-big-win-kids-health-135000077.html

Since they are paying more in taxes, then the ability to use more tobacco, and thus increase the taxes to fund the health programs for children should be paramount.

Because smokers are only taxed upon what they are actually using, instead of a per year, or per day fee to smoke, then it should be the goal of everyone to increase tobacco usage, and encourage it's use as often as possible. Don't we owe it to the children to all become smokers?

[Shoulders of Giants]

12. My parents smoked in the car and house when i was a Kid

My older brothers did as well when i turned 7 (they are about 8-10 years older than me). Essentially someone was always smoking somewhere in my house nearly at all times during the day. All of them smoked about a pack a day. Sometimes they would even come in my room and smoke. That pissed me off, but as a young kid, I didn't have a lot of power to stop them.

I have never smoked in my life. I am now in my 20s and have a bad cough. I get bronchitis about once ever 18 months also. I wonder if this is related to my childhood. It probably is. I probably got about as much smoke that was possible, despite never smoking a cigarette. Its hard for me to get behind smoker's rights. I'm angry at my family for doing this to me as kid. It was incredibly irresponsible.

Quite Frankly I would think non smoker's rights should come before smoker's rights. Smokers invade other people health with their smoke. I also have cigarette buds in my front yard from people simply walking down the street discarding their cigarettes. Its pathetic. The world is not your ashtray smokers. Also, cigarette smokers love smoking by entrances to buildings, even if there is a ban, to make sure all non smokers breathe it when going in and out. I've heard about how bad cigarette smokers have it, but there is nothing worse than being forced into their habit.

[Fawke Em]

17. Where do you live?

Nearly EVERYONE in East Tennessee, for example, has a cough whether they smoked or were around smoke or never smoked a day in their life. And I don't say this as anecdotal evidence. I live here and nearly everyone I encounter keeps a cough or sniffles or has to clear their throats a lot. It's epidemic.

The reason: pollution and allergies.

I'm not saying cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung problems - it does - but my point is that it is often the ONLY thing blamed when there are other things that can and should be blamed - such as pollution, allergies, poor diet, etc.

To me it's a cop-out: just blame smoking. Meanwhile, people continue to get sick or remain sick even as smoking rates decrease because no one wants to look at other causes to bad lungs.

[Shoulders of Giants]

36. I did grow up in a factory town in Illinois

There was bad pollution in my city from the factories.. I agree, that may have had a lot to do with it. However, I can't imagine that breathing in cigarettes all day every day, including in the car wasn't at least as harmful as well. Keep in mind I breathed in far more second hand smoke than the average non smoker did. As I said, they didn't even have the decency to put out their cigarette before coming in my bedroom. Many times, they didn't even crack open a window when smoking in the car if it was winter. And when they did crack open a window, it was about an inch and they claimed all the smoke went out. BS!

[OwnedByCats]

85. I was around smokers as a child a lot

Just as my mother was as a child, and her mother before her, and on and on. Heck even my mother smoked when she was pregnant with me, since back in 1973 nobody told my mother she should not smoke and she did not know any better. Any non smokers that came from that position in my family never came away with asthma, or were prone to infections of the lungs like bronchitis and only one smoking relative has succumbed to a smoking related illness. I started smoking in my 30's and quit in my 30's, only smoked for about 6 years, and still am not prone to those kinds of problems, with no persistent cough or anything like that. I did not live in an industrialized factory city, I grew up in the sticks and have never lived around large amounts of pollution the rest of my life either. HOWEVER, does that mean your family's smoking was not a contributing factor in your respiratory issues? Of course not. Would you have been ok if you had not lived around pollution, or alternatively, not around smokers? Tough to say, but as you said, it could not have helped. The combination was not good for you, evidently.

Everybody has different constitutions. What some can endure, others cannot. We're all different in how we respond to our environments. Some life long smokers can live to be in their 90's, never having cancer, dying in their sleep of "old age". However some die in their 50's and 60's (or like my grandmother, their 40's) of some type of smoking related cancer or respiratory disease. My grandmother had cancer of the esophagus in her late 40's. The problem here was she also had been an alcoholic for 20 years of her life - however she quit drinking 7 years prior to her death but never got around to quitting smoking. Doctors said it was most likely a combination of her smoking and drinking. Her sister, my great aunt, has been a smoker AND an alcoholic since her teens and she's still alive, now in her 70's. Even in families constitutions can vary. Admittedly she's starting to have failing health now, although her liver and lungs appear to be intact (I do not know how!).

Back when my mother and her mother made their mistakes, they didn't really know it was bad. However my mother did quit smoking, after 30 years of doing it. She never gained a nasty cough or was prone to lung infections, but other people who have smoked for 30 years have. At least now steps are being made to protect non smokers in public places, and people are being taught that it can have some nasty effects on one's health including death. We are told that smoking around children can have bad effects for them even if they never become smokers themselves.

I really do hope that someday you will find your respiratory problems get better. It's really unfortunate that your family did smoke around you (I don't want to assume that they just didn't care, did you grow up during a time when people really did not know too much about the effects of smoking?). As a child, you are powerless. I do hope that anyone who has children will not take risks because you can't ever know who can endure and who cannot.

[LiberalEsto]

15. Why don't they ban tobacco and get it over with? It's poison.

I have asthma. Any time I encounter cigarette smoke, I have to cover my nose and try to hold my breath until I've gotten far enough away from it. Because it could bring on a coughing, wheezing asthma attack.

I'm not the only person who gets sick from inhaling tobacco smoke. Lots of people have asthma and react to cigarette smoke.

Second-hand smoke can also lead to heart disease.

True story: my mother-in-law was a chain-smoker for almost her entire life, until she developed emphysema late in life and was forced to stop. My father-in-law never smoked.

In his 50s my father-in-law started having heart attacks and strokes. He ended up having quintuple bypass surgery, and was in pain from the scars for the rest of his life. His doctors asked him repeatedly whether he smoked, and could not believe that he never had. Thy told him his condition was closely associated with smoking. Living with a chain smoker was probably a major factor in his health problems.

My husband gets bronchitis at least once a year, probably from breathing his mother's smoke. He's also prone to getting pneumonia. My mother also chain-smoked, which is probably why I have asthma.

[hack89]

19. The same logic applies to alcohol

highly addictive, responsible for death and illness. Huge factor in violence, domestic abuse and suicide.

Now think what happened when we banned alcohol and you will understand no one is in a hurry to completely ban tobacco.

[LiberalEsto]

24. There's a significant difference

If someone is standing outside drinking a beer, it doesn't make me ill.

[hack89]

27. If that person gets drunk and then gets into a car then he can kill you.

If that person is an abuser, that beer could cause him to beat someone. Talk to the kids of alcoholic how hellish life can be growing up.

Alcohol causes a lot of misery and grief to innocent people everyday

[OwnedByCats]

86. Drinking by far is worse when you consider the population

at large, not just you. A person can smoke a cig, but drive just fine afterward. A person can smoke a cig and not become a different person, the sort of person who would hurt their loved ones, or fight with a random stranger in a bar. Alcohol can have some disastrous effects on people. My grandmother was an alcoholic and when she was sober, she was the sweetest woman on the planet. When she drank, she was MEAN, and could be abusive to my mother when she was a child. My best friend growing up had a mother who was exactly the same. Smoking doesn't do that.

My aunt's ex husband is an alcoholic. Not only did it ruin their marriage but he totally messed up his entire life because of his drinking. He was so consumed in his drinking he did not feed his cats and he was ill with pneumonia and didn't even know it. She went to his house because he wasn't answering his phone and she found him almost dead, and 3 dead cats from starvation and a horrible flea infestation. Smoking doesn't do that.

You cannot say smoking is worse on the whole just because you will get an asthma attack at the very first smell of cig smoke. Why do you think prohibition came about? Because it was seen as an ill to society because of addiction and the social implications of that. So they banned it, but found it only made matters worse.

Smoking is bad for you, but it is no where near as reckless as drinking on those who become addicted and it has a very nasty way of effecting innocent people in detrimental ways.

[ProgressSaves]

22. Smokers want to frame this as a nanny state issue when it is not.

When the actions of one is causing a detrimental effect on dozens or hundreds of others, then regulation is needed.

Banning tobacco would be a stupid, ineffective policy, but limiting where people can smoke is needed, effective and progress.

[leftyohiolib]

30. it's nanny state to pasturize milk too then i guess

regulate the age at which one can drive

[Paladin]

33. Well put. (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

32. Do nondrivers have the right to not be sickened by the choices of others?

Do vegetarians have the right to not have their planet become hostile to human life because of the choices made by others?

[alp227]

34. (Facepalm) HERE WE GO AGAIN with the "what about cars" fallacy.

Drivers aren't shoving tailpipes in other people's faces unless they're committing hit-and-runs.

Meat eaters aren't stuffing beef down vegetarians' throats.

[ZombieHorde]

37. No, but their choices do make people sick.

Unless you are a denier of pollution and climate change I think the two choices are very obviously hurting other people.

[LanternWaste]

55. I would imagine that prohibiting smoking in public areas

I would imagine that prohibiting smoking in public areas would create a vastly smaller cost/benefit ratio than denying transportation in public places, and have little to no impact on local and macro economics.

That I think is the relevant difference... a post-industrial economy may exist, sans disruption, without smoking cigarettes; I don't think the same may be said of transportation-- unless of course, one does believe that all transportation may end tomorrow without any collective disruption to the world's food supply. And if that is indeed the case, I await with eagerness the premise on which that rests.

Otherwise, the comparison falls apart-- quickly, dramatically, and with a nice soundtrack.

[ZombieHorde]

60. You recognize extremes are not needed for smoking,

so you should be able to recognize extremes are not needed for driving. Though something you are not considering is climate change is significantly more dangerous than second-hand smoke. A bunch of people smoking in bars and restaurants will only harm those in the bars and restaurants. The current state of driving and the meat industry harms everyone for generations to come.

You made absolutely no mention of the meat industry, which is the third leading cause of climate change.

[Luminous Animal]

43. And smokers are not shoving cigarettes into

peoples mouths.

I am always astounded by the denial of the massive amount of pollution emitted by personal vehicles and the adverse health impact as a result.

[alp227]

48. "denial of the massive amount of pollution emitted by personal vehicles"

You're changing the subject. The problem is with RUDE SMOKERS who are inconsiderate toward non smokers. No one is denying that cars pollute.

[Cerridwen]

45. "The lung development...was stunted — about 20 percent smaller than average..."

California's Air Pollution Causes Asthma, Allergies and Premature Births

More than half of America's dirtiest cities are in California, and rates of illness there are rising. Is it too late to reverse the trend?

<snip>

Called the Children’s Health Study, the research project began in 1993 and eventually involved about 5,500 children in 12 communities in Southern California. Two-thirds of them were enrolled as fourth-graders, and all were followed until they graduated from high school. Cota immediately signed up for the study and learned how to use a particle counter, which measures particulates and toxins in the air, to take samples of ambient air quality surrounding her home. “Every time a truck would go by,” she recalled as we sat sipping coffee, “the meter would spike off the charts.” Sometimes it measured 7,000 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter, which is more than 400 times the maximum level that federal standards consider healthy.

What the USC researchers ultimately uncovered after a decade of meticulous monitoring was eye-opening. The lung development of children who lived near highly trafficked corridors was stunted — about 20 percent smaller than average — which greatly impaired their functioning. These youngsters also suffered from asthma at significantly higher rates — those living within a quarter of a mile from a freeway had an 89 percent higher risk of asthma than kids more than a mile away.

Their asthma symptoms also were worse, and even among those with health insurance, their odds of ending up in the hospital emergency room choking from the bad air was triple that of youngsters in more affluent areas. Worse yet, pregnant women living in these high-traffic areas were more likely to give birth to premature or low-birth-weight infants, setting up the next generation for a lifetime of disabilities and developmental deficits.

<snip>

On hot days, locals told me, the toxic smog fills hospital emergency rooms and doctors’ offices with children who can’t breathe, and schools in Fresno fly color-coded flags to alert students to the air quality: Green means it’s OK to be outside, while red is a warning to stay indoors. On average, nearly four Central Valley residents die prematurely every day because of the pollution, and experts predict that within the next few years, as temperatures continue to rise and population growth raises smog levels, one of every four children will have asthma.

<snip to much more in this 3 page article>

(emphasis added)

Edit to add link: American Lung Association: Most Polluted Cities

[Fumesucker]

46. The reason I chose my screen name is that I ride a bicycle and I'm constantly breathing car fumes

People will come around me fairly slowly when I'm on my bike and then hit the gas when they get by, I can smell the fumes almost every time.

The pollution controls on cars are considerably lessened when the car is accelerating hard since the engine management system goes from closed loop control to open loop under hard acceleration.

[FatBuddy]

38. don't like my smoking?

go breathe somewhere else.

or confront me about it.

either way, I win.

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! AMERICA!!!!!!!! IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!!!!

[LanternWaste]

56. I imagine that same petulance is how many smokers rationalize it.

I imagine that same petulance is how many smokers rationalize it. I simply smoke in my car and at home-- either way, everyone wins.

[Vashta Nerada]

44. I totally agree with that editorial.

100 non-smokers have more rights than 1 smoker. One smoker can go outside to smoke and blow their filthy habit outdoors.

[hughee99]

49. It will be interesting to see some of the same people who fought against cigarette smoking

anywhere that anyone might want to go turn around and fight to allow marijuana smoking almost anywhere one might want it. This will start up the more it is decriminalized. I imagine many people will at least be consistent on the issue, but those that aren't are already working on their "it's not the same because..." excuses.

[alp227]

51. The issue is that people shouldn't go to jail if they're caught with cannabis.

But it's still indefensible for blowing filth in everyone else's faces.

[hughee99]

54. I don't disagree on this, but there are people who are looking to ban cigarettes all sorts of places

who will soon be complaining that you're not allowed to smoke pot in those same places. Boston, for example, just banned smoking cigarettes in all public parks. If smoking pot ever becomes legal, you'll have a bunch of people down at city hall the next day complaining they can't have a joint in the park. Some of them will be the same people.

[KitSileya]

50. I just know that life became a lot easier when smokers couldn't smoke in public buildings.

And I do know that smoking is a huge problem even outdoors for some people - when I am walking in town with one friend of mine, I always have to scout ahead to see if we need to cross the street, for example if someone is smoking while waiting for the bus. She will cough quite heavily at just a whiff of smoke, and having to stand near someone smoking will trigger an asthma attack. So we weave our way through town trying to stay upwind and across the street from any smokers. I've chosen not to socialize with smokers, because I don't want to have to take breaks from having an interesting conversation just because they have to stand outside and smoke every hour on the hour. Thankfully, my mom seems to be having luck in her attempt to stop smoking - after growing up with two smoking parents, I don't feel the need to include anymore smokers in my daily life.

[dogknob]

53. if I quit smoking and the logic of that quotation holds...

...then we'll also tax the NFL & all churches, label GMOs, overturn Citizens United, and remove all corporate tax loopholes.

[PeteSelman]

57. I don't smoke but I don't care if others do.

Smoke Em if you got Em.

[HockeyMom]

58. You are going to die of something, anti-smokers, someday, sooner or later

No matter what medical science tells you. Ban smoking, ban alcohol, take your flu shots, wellness programs, et all, but science will not save you from dying; some sooner rather than later. It is more in your GENES, but of course, since science cannot control that, they don't want to talk about it.

No way to LIVE spending your life worry about how or when you are going to DIE.

[DrDan]

69. I don't blindly cross the street, I don't eat raw or rotten meat, I don't gulp large quantities of

alcohol, I don't irritate neighborhood alligators, I don't drive at excessive speeds, and

I don't hang around those smoking.

Not because I worry about how I am "going to DIE", rather because I prefer to not bring death on prematurely if I can help it.

[HockeyMom]

72. What is premature?

Over 90? Over 80, 70, 60? 30 years ago when my Mom passed (DNR) science said it was over 70. Do you agree with that? I am 65 and fine with it.

[DrDan]

75. you understand my comment

to dismiss anti-smoker's concern over second-hand smoke by stating "you are going to die sometime" is disingenuous

[HockeyMom]

91. You misunderstand ME

I will try to accommodate non-smokers by staying away from them when I smoke. HOWEVER, we now have "science" talking about THIRD hand smoking and just smelling the clothing, hair, and smokers can cause them to get CANCER? Excuse me, but that is ABSURD. They have an agenda to TOTALLY eliminate ALL smoking, anyway they can. You are just a pawn to their agenda. Sorry, guys, but NO. Now they are harping on VAPOR cigarettes too. Some people just plain are so obsessed they don't want to see people put anything in their mouths that even looks like a cigarettes. My Uncle "smoked" TUBES that looked like cigarettes. Ban that too? Maybe these people would have a heart attack just look at someone doing that?

[DrDan]

92. I stay away from smokers, as I said . . . that means I recognize the science surrounding

second-hand smoke.

If being concerned about second-hand smoke makes me a "pawn", then so be it. I will continue to avoid smokers. I do not like the smell of smoke. I do not appreciate the violation of my safety. I do not want to have my clothing reek of smoke.

I NEVER said anything about third-hand smoking - so please do not put words in my mouth.

What you do to your body is your business - just do not jeopardize my health.

[HockeyMom]

94. You will get sick from THIRD HAND smoking

if you believe what "science" says. Do you believe that too? Answer that.

[DrDan]

96. ok - (although you are the one who continues to bring up 3rd hand smoking, not me)

yes - third-hand smoke is dangerous to humans. That is what the recent studies have shown.

Here is one: http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/03/04/mutage.get013.abstract - "Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells"

This study is as a result of science, not "science".

Ignore the warnings at your personal risk . . . and the risk to others.

[noamnety]

87. Exactly! Ditto for the anti-fracking folks.

We're all gonna die from something anyway, why not just let the frackers poison the water supply?

[madrchsod]

61. it so nice to go into a bar or restaurant and not smell cigarettes

actually just about anywhere that smoking used to be accepted.

[Go Vols]

66. Its also nice to go to a bar

or restaurant here and be able to smoke.
There are bars and restaurants that don't allow it and non smokers go there.

[valerief]

64. If we can get rid of the smokers, can we also get rid of the gungeoneers, too? nt

[PowerToThePeople]

74. that would be nice

I am all for both groups going dodo-bird style...

[valerief]

89. Well, that's two of us. We're a movement!!! nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. Both have equal rights under the law...as long as we're all choosing to wear perfume

and drive cars.

Have a wonderful weekend. I'm out.

[MFrohike]

82. Third option

The people with more rights are people who actually deal with interpersonal problems like secondhand smoke by talking to the actual people involved rather than trying to ban everything in sight. Treat others how you want to be treated and things are usually fine. Only fools take the exceptions as the rule and agitate for laws in accordance with their own blindness.

[TeamPooka]

93. this

[Prophet 451]

88. Smoking is banned in public buildings here

"Here" being the UK, "public buildings" being any building the public has access to. So if I go to my local pub, I can't smoke over a pint, I have to go outside. Now, I choose to smokke in the full knowledge of the risk it carries but I actually don't mind having to go outside. It's my choice, not one I have any right to force on others so I don't mind the slight inconvenience for the public good. I just wish more places would have a bench or something as it's painful for me to stand for more than a couple of minutes. My SO is trying to get me to try ecigarettes for that reason.

On the other hand, if they try and stop me smoking in my own home, there's going to be a fight.

Incidentally, and this doesn't apply to the USA, smokers here are a net profit centre for the state. We pay roughly £10 billion a year in tobacco taxes but cost the NHS around £6.8 billion in treatment for smoking related conditions, a profit of £3.2 billion (those figures are a few years old so might be outdated now). You know what? I'm fine with that. The taxes I pay on tobacco not only help pay if I need treatment for smoking-related illness but helps save the lives of others.

[99Forever]

95. I smoked for 3 decades before I was ...

... finally able to kick the awful habit, it's been 7 years now. One thing I promised myself, that if I could finally get over the overwhelming addiction it carries, I would NEVER become "that guy." You know who "that guy" is, right? The self-righteous schmuck that berates and denigrates people who have yet to find a way to shake an expensive and damaging ADDICTION, as if he is such a perfect human being. Those sorts of obnoxious asses, suck, way more than smokers.