Smoker vs non-smoker threads: a few thoughts

[hedgehog]

1. Why do smokers find it so hard to believe that second hand smoke exists? Even outdoors, say walking through a parking lot, I can tell if someone walked through with a cigarette.

2. How does one form of pollution(cars, industry, barbecue grills, dry cleaners) justify another source (smoking)?

3. Aren't there also increasingly tight laws against other sources of air pollution?

4. The issue is other people's unwilling exposure to second hand smoke. It is not concern for the smoker's health. For example, we have no laws against heavy drinking, although heavy drinking can be related to liver failure and esophageal cancer. Other people can be affected if heavy drinking is combined with driving, so we do have laws against drunk driving.

5. Smoke from tobacco has particular characteristics such as chemical composition and particle size that makes it particularly irritating to others. Personal testimony: I worked in various departments of a very old steel mill. Some places had a lot of soot in the air and I would go home and cough up black phlegm. (I apologize for being so graphic.) In other departments I was fine except for the days I had to spend a lot of time working around heavy smokers. Those days I also went home coughing. I recently spent time around a smoker who was careful to smoke outside. I ended up coughing just as much as I ever did when I worked at the mill.

[Touchdown]

1. It has nothing to do with any of that.

All smokers know these things, as we can't have a day of peace go by without some sanctimonious busybody telling us in the most stern words possible.

It's the sanctimony, zealotry, hatred for smokers (not smoking) that bothers most of us. I find comfort in the fact that I can eventually quit and kick the habit. They will always be assholes though. There's no quitting that.

[hedgehog]

52. I'm sorry if you get told off by busy bodies.

I don't hate smokers, I just don't like being around smoke. We were using kerosene lanterns up at my parents' this week-end due to a power outage. I didn't like being around those either, since after I while I started getting congested. A lot of localities now require catalytic converters on wood stoves because so many people are irritated by wood smoke. Unless you want to wear a hood whenever you smoke, I think the only other option is not to smoke around people who don't want to breathe smoke.

[redacted]

350. It's an addiction. Look at my mom: she couldn't stop. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2417566

[Bandit]

64. What complete and total BS

You insist upon forcing your polution on society. I don't care one whit if you poison yourself at home. That is entirely your own business but the minute you insist upon taking your filthy habit public expect to catch flak. You can't deal with that then quit smoking..

[Touchdown]

66. Your post proved mine was not BS.

Thanks for playing. I truly hope you will find peace in the world without manufacturing enemies.:hi:

[johnnie]

130. .

:nopity:

[K8-EEE]

170. All Smokers Are NOT Jerks

I'm an ex-smoker myself and I was always very "mind if I smoke?" about it -- Don't let this guy represent all the nic addicts out there.

[Touchdown]

269. What? I have to be nice to them?

Are what they're saying here proving me wrong? If your nasty to me, then I fight back. No wimpy Dukakis liberal am I.

[TahitiNut]

174. Sieg Heil!

[rinsd]

176. LOL, you just proved the smokers point...

[BIG Sean]

213. I point and laugh at smokers...

They are so dumb...they are killing themselves and don't care.

LOL

[Touchdown]

224. I'll die before SS runs out, and won't eat cat food when I'm old.

So laugh it up all you want. Just hope that your hip doesn't give out picking up your own fur balls.

[Bluebear]

251. Hahaha! Point at people addicted to products courtesy of big tobacco!!

With government complicity in the mix because of all the taxes it generates! hahahaha! they are so dumb! Let's all point and laugh!!

:eyes:

[L A Woman]

277. I often think that way, too...

The Darwin Awards and such...but I feel bad for them. But those who are trying to quit deserve kudos, but those who defend it and continue to do it will just be gone that much faster, which in terms of the world as a whole, is probably for the best.

[Pacifist Patriot]

289. I never hated my father or my grand-father.

I did hate their smoking and I hated what it did to their bodies. That's not sanctimonious, that's caring.

No one deserves the health problems.

I've never accosted a smoker in public, but if someone asks my opinion I will tell them. If someone wants help quitting I will do whatever is within my power to assist their efforts. I was once smacked down at DU when someone at the Lounge announced he wanted to quit. I congratulated him and offered my support. Someone else took me to task both on the board and in a PM for being a sanctimonious anti-smoking pain in the ass...for offering support to quit!

Sometimes I think the smoker perception of anti-smoker sanctimony may be colored by a fair amount of defensiveness.

[bpeale]

306. intolerance

its the same kind of intolerance that you encounter with the religious right wingnuts and it seems like they don't have the market cornered on it. its alive & well right here on du.com

[BlackVelvet04]

327. I see little difference between a lot of people on DU and

the rightwingnuts I encounter elsewhere.

[roguevalley]

358. that sanctimony that you speak of used to be directed at the tiny

minority of us in the past that didn't smoke. since smokers didn't give a shit about us then, why do we suddenly have to care about smokers feeling this against them now?

[Kittycat]

2. Because then they'd have to admit that their habit is

Harmful to others, including the children they chain smoke in front of.

People also don't consider that the toxins are in their clothing. So even though they might smoke outside, coming inside and having your children hop on you - poisons them as well.

That's the most disturbing part to me, the people that smoke around their children and should know better. They're writing their children a lifetime of health problems, and possibley worse. My family smoked around me until I was 8, and had my tonsils, adenoids take out and ear tubes put in. I had also started developing asthma, and the dr told them it was because of the smoking. Even after they quit, I've had problems my entire life since. Thanks, is all I have to say to them for their ignorance. My grandpa was also diagnosed with emphazema 8 years later (8 years after quiting). What a great life smoking gave him.

And I don't even want to talk about the NICU smoker babies we saw while DS was in the NICU :( It was so sad.

[Touchdown]

4. Yeah, it's all about the children.

:puke:

I remember Anita Bryant using children as an excuse for banning gay people from society as well.

[Kittycat]

8. That's right! And I was one of them.

Subjected without choice to being sick constantly. You can disrespect your own body, but stop injuring others. And being gay has nothing to do with causing physical illness in children.

But, if you want more reasons. I wanted to puke, as my eyes teared up and started swelling while my throat began itching and closing, everytime I had to stand at a public bus stop or wait for the train with smokers all around me. Even when they weren't allowed to smoke at the bus stops. Talk about lack of consideration... DId I mention I was pregnant at the time too?

[Touchdown]

13. My heart bleeds for you.

:nopity:

I'm sure it's fine for you now, living high in the mountains, far away from any pollution caused by a major metorpolitan area, where your next neighbor is at least 3 miles away. If your respiratory problems are that severe, you should be nowhere near any city, period. BTW: That brown cloud over downtown is not second hand smoke.:hi:

[Lindacooks]

117. Wow, methinks thou dost protest too much.

Hey, keep that filthy smoke in your lungs and you can burst into flame for all I care.

Your right to smoke ends at MY NOSE.

Buh-bye!

[Touchdown]

132. Sorry, no. Smoking is legal, so your nose has no rights.

Tough tittie Babe.

[L A Woman]

278. Not for long....n/t

[Touchdown]

280. Just back from the Nurnberg Rally?

Do tell!:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. It sounds, from your description, like yours is a severe tobacco

smoke allergy, not common exposure. The current state of things is a compromise that fits the vast majority of the population - by restricting smoking areas, exposure to 2nd hand smoke has been reduced drastically - it's only been a generation since smoking was allowed everywhere, when theater seats had ashtrays attached to the back of them.

It is unfortunate for you, but the degree of 2nd hand smoke now is tolerable for the vast majority of non-smokers. And it is now engrained in the culture - people visiting me don't even bother to ask if they can smoke in my apt, they just naturally step outside. And that's in the heart of tobacco country.

I sympathise, but gotta say you can't really expect any better.

[robinlynne]

182. Thank-you touchdown.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Oh Brother!

Toxic clothing! Look, if you're argument is so weak that you have to invent canards like that, please give it a rest. That's just ridiculous.

I know a study just came out about the ill-effects of second hand smoke. What you probably don't know is that the study has already had more than 20 challenges from the academic world, for spurious conclusions and questionable analysis.

I was on the peer review committee of the CDC report on 2nd hand smoke that was released in 1997. There was NO evidence that second hand smoke rose above the level of a Class II irritant. I certainly empathize with those for whom a particulate irritant would cause problems. (I have a mild form of asthma.) But, there is a wide gulf between toxic and DLH effects and irritation.

You do know that most of the effects of smoke on respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses is caused by free radicals in the hot smoke? Right? You do know that free radicals don't remain free radicals in the presence of oxygen as they cool to ambient temperature? Right?

Let's stick to science and make sure that opinions are opinions and facts are facts, shall we?

The Professor

[Kittycat]

30. Wow 1997, really? It's 2006!

I guess I should throw out all the literature we received and ignore what the drs told us on RSV, asthma and smoking around children/infants/preemies then, right? Because they went into detail about smoking and it's risks on the child, as well as recommended that you change your clothing, or wait 30 minutes before picking up your child after smoking.

And here's a little more info for you on the effects on children. (page 5)
http://www.rileyhospital.org/attachments/number4.pdf

Maybe things are different for adults in your studies, but you can't honestly say that it's just a minor irritant in children or pregnant women (fetus).

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Do You Know How To Read For Comprehension?

That 1997 study included over 1 million(!) subjects. That's 14 times the sample of the most recent study.

I never said MINOR irritant. So, you read something that wasn't there. I said it was a Class II irritant. Class II irritants actually have an IDLH level for certain severe respiratory disorders (like emphysema and scarring asthma). So, i didn't say minor.

I also said that the study recently released is being challenged on several fronts. So, the fact that it's 2006 is irrelevant. Bad science is bad science, no matter the year. Darwin came up with evolutionary theory in the 19th century. Creationists are now saying he's wrong. It's 2006! Do you agree with Darwin or the Creationists? Your title is apropos of nothing.

And, you didn't address the free radical issue. The science in your cite, and the issue of not picking up kids for 30 minutes is preposterously unscientific. If the odor is going to trigger a respiratory episode, 30 minutes is not nearly enough. And, if it's because of toxic effects, then it is simply nonsensical and absent of any chemical knowledge.

Look, don't smoke if you don't want. Don't be around others who do, if you don't want. I support your right to choose. But, if you're going to base those decisions on anecdotal evidence and some kneejerk, unscientific recommendations, be aware that you shouldn't argue the scientific merit of same.
The Professor

[Kittycat]

54. Then you should spell it out

Respiratory disorders just don't sound "okay" to me.

But regardless, all I can argue is what I've been told directly by university pediatricians, pulmonologists and neonatologists. In addition, I can only comment with fact on what I've witnessed and experienced directly. And seeing the babies in the NICU for no other reason that their mother or father couldn't put down the damn cigarette for 9mo makes me ill. If they didn't want the child, abort it - but don't intentionally subject it to a life of problems for their own selfish desires. IMO, it's the same as doing drugs or drinking while pregnant.

And in my direct experience, although I don't use an inhaler anymore - I do have a life long impact of being exposed to smokers. I know others in the same position, as well. I'm glad that none of my friends smoke. Of course if they did, they probably wouldn't be my friends, because I couldn't tolerate being around them. I also get to watch my grandfather, whom I love dearly - slowly die over lack of education and honesty, and/or unwillingness to quit for himself (rather he quit for me).

[ProfessorGAC]

61. I Did Spell It Out! Twice

Try to catch up. I'm sorry for your own personal experience, but there are billions of people on the planet, and the data doesn't support the conclusions you're drawing from your sample of one.

And, if it were me, i would have some serious questions about these pediatricians and pulmonologists, because i doubt they've actually seen the studies themselves. I would fear that they merely know what was in the trade journals, and not the detail of the actual studies. They may keep up to date, but it doesn't mean they're insusceptible to believing studies based upon bad science.
The Professor

[Kittycat]

71. Sorry, I believe them.

My DS wasn't at a rinky dink hospital. I was at a major university NICU, with specialists on staff 24hours. I'll take their word over your 1997 findings. You've yet to even define in your research whether the impact was on children, preemies, or just adults. The risk to developing children, particularly premature or ones with compromised immune systems will be a much higher risk that any healthy adult sample. In 1997, RSV was still an unknown in many ways. They're discovering more about it, and ways to treat the child. But it is scientific fact that smoking has a direct relationship to the disease, as well as other health impacting issues.

I didn't have my son get RSV shots for 3 years, just due to risk of general illness exposure - but inadvertant risk to inconsiderate smokers.

[ProfessorGAC]

86. I Did Define It

Twice already. It was a study with virtually no stratification because it included over 1.2 million subjects exposed to second hand smoke for significant periods of their lifetime. I don't have the whole thing in front of me right now. It's at home; i'm in the office. And the thing is several hundred pages.

I'm a scientist. Most doctors are practitioners, and not scientists. That's simply a fact.

You're boring me. Believe whatever you wish.

The Professor

[Greyhound]

115. Of course you will, you're an amerikan, and therefore anything

anybody says that you like is designated as fact, anything anybody says that you disagree with is malicious propaganda.

BTW, you have no constitutional right to freedom from inconvenience nor displeasure.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnnie]

168. .

:nopity:

[NuttyFluffers]

375. my god, that summarizes the entire modern american experience...

seriously. i don't think there has been a single sentence that has been able to summarize the modern american experience so well. are we really perceived as that vapid and gullible to the rest of the world? how frightening that they may know the truth about us...

[elehhhhna]

206. You anger at your parents is misplaced, imo. And smokers should abort?

Get help. Really.

[Binka]

359. Jesus This Poster Is Mental

:wtf: how do they not choke on their toe nails?

[elehhhhna]

381. see my post 259 .

[Dorian Gray]

60. You didn't read

what ProfessorGAC said, and you are dismissing him solely because what he said was in direct contradiction to what you believe.

As a former smoker, I quit because smoking is bad for you! Nobody is denying that. What people are frustrated about it the level of sanctimony and over-reaction that smokers receive from some on this site. Sadly, your refusal to discuss this issue with someone who has experience studying it first hand without insulting him or dismissing his (or her!) information is what smokers find frustrating.

When I did smoke, I made every effort not to smoke in front of people. I was a conscientious smoker. However, I do know certain people who are not so thoughtful. There have been laws enacted to prevent smoking from harming others, and I think for the majority of society, they are beneficial. If you have asthma or other respiratory illnesses, you will have to make changes to benefit your condition. The world can not be regulated around you. Smoking is prohibited in work places. If someone smokes outside and has the smell attached to them, that is unfortunate. Refuse to let them in your house, don't hug them or shake their hands, and stay away from them if that bothers you. But, being in the same room with them will not harm you or any other person, not even a child.

[elehhhhna]

207. I quit too. Several times.

Gonna do it again soon.

[elehhhhna]

204. Yeah nothing I like better than smoking around premaure babies.

PLEASE. What a pantload.

P.S. DO NOT go to Europe. EVER.

[TahitiNut]

36. "Science"?? Regarding second-hand tobacco smoke?

Heresy!

:rofl: :rofl:


It amazes me how many people claim they're allergic to something that contains absolutely NO allergens! Those 'scientific' discoveries just keep rolling in. I've had people tell me that their doctor confirmed they were 'allergic'. When I call them liars they think I'm being rude. It's astonishing how lying is 'OK' and calling them on it is considered 'rude.' Sure sounds like the Bushoilini Regime to me.

[hedgehog]

43. I've been around too many allergic people to be willing to

challenge anyone's claim. I'd be curious to know what doesn't contain an allergen. It's possible to confuse an irritant with an allergen, but the difference is moot if you're reacting to it. It's possible to associate a smell with an allergen and think you're allergic to the smell. If you have no allergies, count your blessings instead of denying their existence.

Just to confuse the thread, I had a friend point out that if peanuts were introduced today, they would be banned because so many people are so violently allergic to them!

[TahitiNut]

53. Ignorance is bliss.

"I'd be curious to know what doesn't contain an allergen.'

Would you? Under what conditions? :eyes:
Fact: Side-stream tobacco smoke contains NO allergens. Period.
Thus, claims of being "allergic to tobacco smoke" are LIES. Period.

"If you have no allergies, count your blessings instead of denying their existence."

I said absolutely nothing about my own allergies or lack of same. It's irrelevant. Resorting to personal comments betrays an absence of valid reasoning. I NEVER denied the existence of valid allergies. An absence of reading comprehension skills on an internet discussion board can be a debilitating handicap.

[kiahzero]

75. I guess that should be comforting

I suppose people who develop allergic reactions (skin rashs, eye irritation, etc.) that allergy medication treats should just realize that it's a fact (note the underline, it's important!) that they aren't allergic, and stop malingering, right?

[TahitiNut]

82. There's a difference between an 'irritant' and an 'allergen'.

Get off the self-righteous high horse and try learning something. When an advocate of some position resorts to outright LIES, the position is probably bankrupt. It's as simple as that and "political correctness" is not the same as objective reality.

[kiahzero]

87. We're talking in layman's terms here.

Guess what? If I have a skin rash, eye irritation, and I'm coughing a lot (all of which are standard allergic reactions) as a result to being exposed to agent X, I, as a non-doctor, am going to say "I'm allergic to X." It doesn't matter if technically the mechanism that causes these reactions is different, as far as a layman is concerned.

[hedgehog]

88. Irritant, allergen, I think you're splitting hairs.

People are telling you that they are having a physical reaction to second hand smoke. The important fact is that there is a reaction, not that they are technically incorrect in labeling it an allergic reaction. Asthma can be triggered by allergens and/or irritants and even by cold air. It doesn't really matter when you can't breathe.

[TahitiNut]

112. Nonsense.

It does matter. It matters in how one deals with it. In many cases, the psychosomatic component is the greater issue. That's why asthmatics are often given biofeedback training and exercises in mental disciplines. Again ... unless and until people take some reasonable responsibility for honesty, intellectual integrity, and their own well-being, I'm not at all persuaded that the zealous witch-hunts make any sense whatsoever.

[hedgehog]

81. As I said, maybe people are confusing allergens with irritants.

If it makes you cough, wheeze, spit up phlegm, it doesn't really matter whether it is technically an allergen or on irritant. I'm not certain how to differentiate between an allergen and an irritant when some people react and others don't. It's not uncommon in industry to have some people develop contact dermatitis from a chemical that others can use with no concern. I'm not certain how to differentiate between an allergen and an irritant when some people react and others don't.

What we really need here is for someone to state what components of side stream smoke would trigger an allergy.

[TahitiNut]

84. NOT when they claim their doctor said they're 'allergic.'

That's either a LIE or a doctor well overdue for license revocation. It' ain't rocket science.

[hedgehog]

90. It wouldn't be the first time a doctor accommodated a patient's

vocabulary in order to convey the essential instruction. Here the doctor is instructing the patient to avoid second hand smoke. Many elderly patients refer to diabetes as "having sugar". It doesn't matter what they call it as long as they adjust their behavior to maintain proper insulin levels.

[bpeale]

319. its a LIE

any doctor who tells you its an allergen should have his license revoked for LIEING to you. it's an irritant not an allergen.

[cushla_machree]

178. I think allergic is a blanket term

An allergy is different than an irritant, but irritants can do similar things. Smoke particles can irritate your respiratory system just like pollen can. I can't be around wood burning stoves, i get symptoms similar to when i have pollen allergies. Its my body reacting. I get really sick around any type of burning smoke, i limit myself around campfires as well. I guess its not an allergy, but sure feels like it.

[elehhhhna]

210. Reminds me of my daughter, in daycare, aged 6. She told them she was

allergic to bees after she was stung. I asked her where she got that crazy idea. She said "Because I sneezed after it stung me."

Of course, the DC didn't call me after she told them this erroneous but important info...hell, they didn't call me when she tripped and broke her elbow, either.

Now you know why I'm a stay at home mom.


FYI I stopped smoking around the kids after I dropped an ash on baby's head while breastfeeding. (just kidding)

[mongo]

300. LOL!

Thanks, I needed that!

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

46. Professor, how dare you! Trying to interject facts into the daily

false superiority thread, the very idea.

Fascism isn't fascism if it's done for your own good, they know better than you what is appropriate behavior. A left-wing police state is just fine, it's those right-wing police states we have to watch out for.

You should realize that tobacco is the scourge of our age, worse than auto emissions, toxic municipal water systems, wars, even *gasp* skateboarding fer god's sake and must be stomped out whatever the cost. WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!11! :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

59. Amen.

Fucking tobacco Nazis. :grr:

Here's the Post of the Decade on DU - mercifully removed by the moderators - but emblematic of the attitude of "fair-minded" DUers regarding smokers ...

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Shut up, crybaby
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5325562#5333519
5333519, Shut up, crybaby
Posted by ******** on Fri Nov-11-05 01:33 PM

Go cough up blood and die.

Ain't that just wonderful? :eyes:

[Greyhound]

95. Just amazing. We hate arbusto because he is building a totalitarian

police state, but it's OK if it's in the name of a good cause. :eyes:

And all to feed the ego of the poster boy for nepotism. I wonder how he will feel when they come after the fat people for the undue burden they place on our health-care system?

[TahitiNut]

98. It's the one thing that scares the holy shit out of me about ...

... National Health Care. I really think the tobacco Nazis are indistinguishable from those who'd advocate eugenics and forced sterilization. After all ... we can't have "them" putting an undue burden on "us", right? I swear - the number of so-called "liberals" who haven't the foggiest comprehension of what "liberal" means or why it's absolutely essential appalls me.

[Greyhound]

111. Is it Amerika? Something in the water? Other places and peoples

all over the planet seem to realize that live and let live is the best social model, in fact, the only one that works over the long term. It is amerika and similarly repressed cultures that seem bent on forcing everyone else to adhere to their notions.

[SammyWinstonJack]

144. Reads like a post from FR.

:wow:

[spoony]

360. Sounds like the compassion smokers are showing

In this thread, in others. All the little violins playing in response to people with respiratory illnesses and others who just don't like your smelly output. So please, stop it. Just stop acting like smokers are poor little victims of some evil conspiracy.

[Evoman]

369. Lol...that was funny

Go cough up blood and die....who says that. Even if you don't agree with smoking, why would anyone say such a thing!

[hedgehog]

70. Here's a suggestion that smoke may linger in clothing:

It's common industrial sites for people to use compressed air to sweep a floor or clean dust off their clothes. We were warned never ever to use compressed oxygen for this purpose. The reason? The clothes would actually retain the higher oxygen content and would catch fire easily if exposed to a spark.

Consider also that when clothes come back from the dry cleaners, they have to aired out before storage to get rid of lingering vapors. If you ever had a relative who used moth crystals, you know that clothing retains chemical vapors. Why is it so hard to believe that clothing can retain cigarette smoke?

[ProfessorGAC]

91. That Is Apropos Of Nothing

I said no such thing. And, btw: Oxygen settles on clothing? Talk about unscientific. Diffusion at STP would prevent that from happening for more than a few microseconds.

To repeat: i did not say, for goodness sake, that smoke didn't linger. I said the toxins in the smoke are not dangerous due to their very existence. They readily exist in the form of free radicals which create the mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic properties TO THE SMOKER! Once those chemicals have settled to the surface of the clothing and cooled to ambient temperature in the presence of air, they are not free radicals any more. Hence the toxicity is massively reduced and the carcinogenic properties are reduced to nearly zero.
The Professor

[hedgehog]

96. Talk to the people who deal with industrial oxygen.

Diffusion is not an instantaneous process. I've seen the training videos.

As far as the smoke not being hazardous, is it not possible that the chemicals which cause the smell in and of themselves could be irritating enough to cause problems? I'm not talking about cancer, but simple respiratory reactions that can lead to congestion or asthma.

[ProfessorGAC]

99. DID YOU READ ANYTHING I WROTE?

My first post on this matter was that 2nd hand smoke is classified, scientifically so, as a Class II irritant! I said it was irritating and especially to those with some pre-existing respiratory disorder. Said that EXPLICTILY.

And, diffusion of a high vapor state gas like oxygen is EXTREMELY rapid! The flammability limit increase in an oxygen rich atmosphere is extraordinarily narrow. By the time the total oxygen in air fraction falls back below 25% it's virtually the same at the normal 19.5%. So, things are only more combustible in very high O2 concentrations.

And, i've dealt with folks in the IG field MANY, MANY times, and i've done consulting work on minimizing hazards in chemical environments. No gas salesman is going to convince me that oxygen settles on clothing, except in the most unusual circumstances.

And, you still haven't addressed that your first post to me was based upon something i didn't even say.
The Professor

[hedgehog]

108. I looked back, but I can't find your reference.

Not being snotty, just not sure what you are referring to.

Not to get too sidetracked, but I have seen liquid and compressed oxygen do some strange things outside tha lab. I think you are forgetting that clothing can retain pockets of gas between fibers. That's why some weaves are good insulators.

[elehhhhna]

217. If we can't smoke AND should avoid oxygen, wth are we s'posed to DO?

[hedgehog]

240. Not all oxygen

Just Oxygen in concentrations likely to support unusual combustion.

[elehhhhna]

275. like compressed air? there goes scuba. damn.

[hedgehog]

281. I hope you're just being sarcastic.

I don't know what gas mixtures are used in scuba diving, but I would refer you to any number of sites hosted by suppliers such as Praxair or BOC.

[elehhhhna]

312. lol yes, sarcastic is my middle name...

Thanks but no need for the links. My husband thinks he's Jaques Cousteau...thus I know more about scuba than I care to. Being a chicken of the first order, I stick w/ snorkelling.

[robinlynne]

184. paalese. if you dont like smokers, walk away from them. simple stuff.

[Zhade]

256. And if we don't like the smoke and can't?

Smokers have NO right to expose others to their smoke. None.

[PVnRT]

290. No

You don't use compressed oxygen like that because you could very easily have a spark and cause an explosion. It has nothing to do with oxygen magically adsorbing onto your clothes.

If you like, I can ask the industrial hygenist sitting in the office behind me, or the two industrial safety people sitting nearby, or the head of safety nearby, etc.

[hedgehog]

298. Check the Praxair MSDS.

You can raise the oxygen content enough to make the clothes more likely to combust. I also note all the warnings to people using medical oxygen to stay 30 feet away from ignition sources until they have ventilated their clothing.

[elehhhhna]

203. Dag, GAC, you are such a smartie. Thank you

from an ashamed smoker.

[Clark2008]

209. I think I love you!

I think FAR, FAR, FAR too much blame is placed on second-hand smoke instead of going after, oh, I dunno, major pollutors, natural toxins in the air and what-not.

I quit smoking because I'm pregnant and, guess what, my freakin' allergies have NOT gotten any better.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Dupe. Sorry

.

[johnnie]

124. Can you give me some names of these children?

The ones that I personally chain smoke in front of?

[elehhhhna]

219. LOL. Just the list of the preemies would suffice.

[Kittycat]

253. How do you know that the child next to you at the park wasn't a preemie?

With a compromised immune system? Just because they aren't 5lbs today, doesn't mean they don't have risks from their prematurity. And I find your joking about the matter, completely appauling. And if someone smoked while pregnant, then yes - I find that action horrendous and disgusting, and pray that their children have no impact from their neglegence.

[elehhhhna]

262. K'cat, pls read my post #259 right now. Thx.

[Kittycat]

265. Got it, thanks...

Pregnancy hormones aren't helping me with this matter right now. ;)

[elehhhhna]

271. Another one! Congrats!

The boy is gorgeous!

Nice siamese cat, too.

Tarzan & Rickity say Hi.

[bicentennial_baby]

338. Really? My mom smoked when she was pregnant and

my parents smoked until I was about 28...Much of that time, I lived with them. No asthma, no other problems from it....It's all just anecdotal evidence, in our cases...

[REP]

391. Parental Smoking May Cause Gayness...

...or something. Remember, the one with the anecdotes is also the one who had a seriously underweight, preterm infant.

[REP]

390. My Parents Smoked; I Was 8.8 Pounds At Birth & Still Have My Tonsils at 41

So I guess my anecdote trumps yours, huh. My brother was full-term as well, and over 9 pounds, and he still has his tonsils (we both have all our spare parts, except for our wisdom teeth ...omg! parental smoking caused impacted wisdom teeth!)

You're a holier-than-thou anti-smoker, yet you had a seriously underweight, preterm infant. Hmmm.

[skypilot]

3. Are you suggesting...

...that ALL smoking be outlawed, even ALL smoking outdoors? In short, a prohibition on smoking?

[Kittycat]

6. Smoke in your house or your car - but not around other people

And I'd prefer that you don't smoke outside and pollute my direct airflow. It already disgusts me that I can't eat in the outdoor cafes, because they're now designated smoking sections. So what, only the smokers get to enjoy fresh air - or do they just get to pollute it for the rest of us?

[skypilot]

10. I do smoke mostly in my home...

...and when I smoke outdoors I don't smoke around other people. I never smoke in outdoor cafes. "...my direct airflow" sounds like a very broad designation to me. And these anti-smoking posts taken as a whole do sound like a call for a complete prohibition on smoking, period. If we smoke outside it pollutes your airflow, if we smoke indoors the smell is in our clothes, etc.

[Sinti]

26. You poor thing

It's a shame you can't designate where other people enjoy legal activities. Really, smokers should have their own country, with a dome over it, so they don't pollute any of your air. The law that forced them to smoke outside, rather than in the bar or something, is now destroying your enjoyment of the sidewalk cafe seating - this is a crime. Start a petition, write your congressman. The whole world revolves around you, after all - I'm sure they'll fix it right away.

[Kittycat]

33. Actually, it is getting better

In DT Chicago, you can't smoke in ANY restaurant. It's not just an irritant to me, it's an irritant to many people, but more so a public health concern.

As I've stated, I have no problem if you want to poison and destroy your own life, just don't take me with you. You can do what you want in the privacy of your own home, but public spaces are up for control and review.

[elehhhhna]

228. Can't buy foie gras in Chicago now, either,

so they offer it as Lagniappe, free. LOL

Have the crabcakes at Catch35 for me, huh? I miss 'em.

[elehhhhna]

225. Time to misquote Bill Clinton; "I didn't exhale!"

[slaveplanet]

122. fresh air?

WTH, aren't most outdoor cafe's located on or adjacent to sidewalks in large cities? Aren't most sidewalks located next the street? Don't most streets have internal combustion automobiles, or other vehicles like diesel busses and trucks that belch plumes of oil smoke right onto the sidewalk? You can call a tobacco free outdoor cafe less polluted, but you damn sure can't call it fresh air...

[elehhhhna]

230. Yup. can't smoke outdoors but idiots can tie their designerdogs up and

let 'em pee next to your table anytime.

What a world.

[robinlynne]

185. I think you non smokers should stay away from "other people".

[Viva_La_Revolution]

193. I would prefer that you didn't drive in my air.

is it a deal?

[elehhhhna]

222. Perhaps one of these would help?

[spoony]

361. The responses you've received

are rather telling, aren't they? Makes one wonder if only bitter, misanthropic assholes smoke these days.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

364. Nah, they're only bitter, misanthropic assholes to people like you. nt

[spoony]

366. Which does, in fact, make them bitter misanthropic assholes n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

367. I think only when facing bitter misanthropic anti-smoking assholes.

Seriously, most smokers are pretty considerate about it. Being faced with an anti-smoking Nazi makes it pretty hard to be nice.

[spoony]

368. Lol, seriously look at these threads

Check out the smokers. They're so angry and bitter it boggles the mind. And boy you guys love throwing around conspiracy theories and the big N word don't you?

The attitude of the smokers on these threads is not "considerate." It's "I'm going to smoke so screw you." I'm not making it up for crying out loud, it's right there. While you're right that most smokers I've met are, well they think they are, curteous smokers, the ones making all the noise here are as far from civil as a deranged orangutang with a kitchen knife and a splinter in its ass.

[Warpy]

5. You may be as allergic to tobacco as I am

and if that's the case, my sympathies. I go into bronchospasm and trying to breathe around a smoker is like trying to breathe under water.

Smokers don't believe in second hand smoke because it's so much less concentrated than what they're sucking through the filter, so nobody else can possibly be affected by it if they're not. They think smoke is nice, so what's your problem? Plus, there's a basic level of denial that accompanies addiction to any substance.

It's just a shame that we had to pass laws to give them some manners.

[MrCoffee]

7. I smoke, and I do everything I can to keep it away from those who don't

It's just common courtesy not to get my fumes all over everyone else. Now if someone could tell that to perfume lady on the bus...

[peace13]

11. I hear what you are saying about the perfume! n/t

[hedgehog]

38. The focus is on smokers rather than perfume simply because

there are so many more smokers around. For what it's worth, our schools banned the use of any aerosols because too many girls were spraying cologne and perfume everywhere. There was an attempt to ban the use of perfume, but apparently the heavy users got the word and the problem faded away.

[elehhhhna]

231. LOL at our middleschool it's the BOYS oversparing AXE for Men

[truebrit71]

25. Exactly!!!! What about those that don't shower frequently....

...or don't believe in the concept of toothpaste?

Here's the deal, I try to be as considerate as possible to others, but if we're in the same place and smoking is allowed, ask nicely for some consideration or move along. Getting snippy solves nothing, and sanctimonious bastards that preach about the ill-effects of 2nd hand smoke need to stop breathing entirely outdoors, because there's far worse things than fag-smoke in the air...

[johnnie]

135. I hate to say this but

Well first off I agree about that perfume. Secondly, I wish someone would tell women that adding a few ounces extra during their time of the month does not hide all they think they are hiding.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

372. Whuh?!?

Dude, how close are you getting to women to know how they smell during that 'time'?

[Zhade]

257. You're obviously not letting your habit make you selfish.

Kudos to you! It is appreciated.

[peace13]

9. If I am exposed to cigarette smoke it takes 48

hours to recover, smokers would never believe it. I have to take drugs and forgo physical activity because of someone else's habit. Go figure. Kim

[Kittycat]

34. It's because they don't care... See the responses I've received.

Some of them are just completely inconsiderate and detrimental to everyone's health. I say some, because there are respectful smokers.

[Touchdown]

56. It's not that we don't care, it's that we know your lying.

You live in Chicago. You have no business being there if you have respiratory problems that are THAT SEVERE.

[kiahzero]

76. So I guess you know better than the person in question

Their firsthand experience is trumped by your beliefs, right?

[Touchdown]

78. The science says yes, I do.

Her first hand experience is heartbreaking. Her blaming all of it on tobacco is a load of shit. It takes no belief system to see that.

[kiahzero]

83. Hardly

If someone has a reaction consisting of standard traits of an allergic reaction when exposed to cigarette smoke, it would be unscientific to conclude, over this empirical evidence, that there is no correlation between the cigarette smoke and the allergic reaction. One of the key aspects of empiricism is that you can't throw out data just because it doesn't fit your existing model. The model changes to match the world, rather than the world changing to match the model.

Like it or not, many people experience symptoms of allergies when exposed to cigarette smoke. Claiming that it is hypoallergenic and therefore that anyone experiencing such symptoms must be faking it is absolutely absurd.

[Touchdown]

92. Read EVERY post and link in this thread.

...then come back to me. I have, and you are not worth talking to if you don't have enough information to form an opinion. That 1997 study outcome wasn't a "claim", and neither is the ingredients in a Marlboro. No matter how your circumlocutions try to find a corollary, the world changes, and new chemichals are invented and released into the atmosphere every day. One thing that is constant though, is the ingredients in Marlboros.

[kiahzero]

100. You're still tossing evidence

If I have a study that says that eating spinach doesn't contain any allergens, and yet there are numerous confirmed cases of people suffering reactions that would generally be described as "allergenic" after being exposed to spinach, would it be accurate for me to conclude that all those people had somehow discovered how to fake an allergic reaction in order to enact their anti-spinach agenda?

[Touchdown]

138. Reactions? There's a psychiatric phenomina

...called hypochondria. You would be remiss in not including that in any scientific, or empirical study. Hypochondiracs react in what "would be generally described as allergenic" as well. Considering all the propaganda and fear mongering surrounding this issue, that is a likely place to start a new study. Wouldn't you agree?

[kiahzero]

192. So it's all in their heads?

I wonder how that would explain people becoming aware of cigarette smoke in their environment after they've developed symptoms. :eyes:

[Touchdown]

205. Did I say that? No I didn't.

...but what I do find amazing is that nobody developed these symptoms when smoking was allowed everywhere except elevators, 50% of the population smoked, and well after the SHS hysteria took to the streets.

It's simple. in the 50s & 60s, everyplace smelled like smoke and hairspray. Nobody noticed because that's the way things smelled. Now that it's banned in most every public building, nobody smells it anymore, so when they do, they have a noticeable reaction to it, and many *GASP* overreact at it.

If everything the anti-smoker (not smoking) zealots said were true, then all baby boomers would be dying of lung cancer, since they were "precious children" when smoking was allowed everywhere and practiced by half of everyone else. You smell smoke, I smell bullshit.

[kiahzero]

238. You smell it because you're spouting it

Interestingly, you just said what you claim you didn't (many *GASP* overreact at it)

At least in the case I am most familiar with (my girlfriend), the allergic-like reaction (heaven help me if I don't add the "-like" to the end) was not present during her initial presence in a high-smoke environment; it only started when she was not exposed to any cigarette smoke at all for a year, and was then put back into the extremely high-smoke environment. As I understand, her doctor believes that her allergy (I guess he's a filthy liar too) only arose because she was out of that environment for long enough. So, if other cases are similar, it would make sense that we're seeing more cigarette allergic-like reactions as more people are able to escape the toxic gas in question for a significant period of time.

[Touchdown]

266. So the logical conclusion to your GF's Dr.

...is that everybody was healthier when people smoked wherever they wanted.;)

[yellerpup]

212. A guy in line behind me to buy a lottery ticket

started sneezing (fake sneezing) & rolling his eyes at me in an accusatory manner. When I acknowledged him he said he was allergic to fur glared at my coat and sneezed three times in a row. I informed him that the fur was fake and all his symptoms cleared up immediately. Just chiming in about the hypochondria.

[elehhhhna]

236. LOL yeller! A man I sort-of knew (I'd met him socially once and was

aware he was an a-hole & from Germany--he'd evidently not remembered me when this happened) was walking into a restaurant in Chgo once as I was walking out (in my gorgeous full lenght fur coat) and said "Ach! De pooooor animals!"

I immediately responded "Ach! De poooooor Jews!"

My good friend Sally damnned near peed her pants laughing.

Good times...good times...

[yellerpup]

315. Now you made me have to go!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray:

[Kittycat]

244. A yes, Hypocondria caused an 8 yo to require surgery

because her tonsils were swollen to the point that she couldn't breath. Constant ear infections. It caused her eyes to water and lead to swelling upon entering a smoke filled room. It caused difficulty breathing and asthma. All of this mind you, BEFORE the child was ever made aware that smoking was the culprit.

Ah yes, all of my symptoms of being around Cigarette smokers are just in my head. Despite the fact that the symptoms existed before knowing the cause, and the fact that they symptoms improved upon the house residents and visitors quiting smoking, eliminating the constant exposure.

Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?

Here, don't worry about disproving me... Disprove all the facts and evidence:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-52,GGLG:en&q=smoking+asthma+ear+infections+children

[yellerpup]

346. Dear Kittycat

I was not accusing you of hypocondria. Both my parents smoked when I was a child and I remember lying on the floor in the back seat of the car to try to get fresh air when we were on a long car trip. (I tried to roll down the window but my mom said it was too cold) Both my parents died from smoking related causes and so will I. From the tone of your post, I have no doubt that you have suffered, but there are fools who 'fake' physical distress just to get attention in public.

[Evoman]

370. oops...replied to wrong post

Evoman

[Evoman]

371. oops, weird dupe.

[hedgehog]

97. I think you missed what I said in my original post.

People don't react to all air pollution in the same way. It depends on the chemicals involved, the concentration , particle size, whether the lungs can clear the particles, etc. In other words, it is possible to live comfortably in polluted air and still react to cigarette smoke.

[spoony]

362. Holy crap.

So, the sick should be encapsulated somewhere, and anyone who claims they are harmed by your dirty habit is lying. What extents smokers go to to rationalize their bad behaviour!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

167. I know some raw foodists who take 48 hours to recover

if they *smell* bacon cooking.

[Touchdown]

227. That's a shame. It only takes me 48 minutes

...to recover after an orgasm.:rofl:

[elehhhhna]

237. lmao

[nini]

12. If both sides would just be considerate of the other it would help

Smokers need to be aware their habit creates an environment some do not want to be exposed to. They need to use designated areas while in public and be understanding of how that smoke may affect others.

Non Smokers need to try and be tolerant and allow smokers a space to smoke. Those spaces are usually away from others and can be avoided by you with little effort.

It's a two way street that some on both sides refuse to recognize.

[skypilot]

16. I for one don't refuse to recognize it.

But I get the sense that some people won't be happy until all smoking is outlawed, indoors and out.

[nini]

20. I agree.. there are extremists on both sides

I hate cigarette smoke, but I don't have a hissy fit if the smoker is in their own space. I appreciate it when they do that.

[Gabi Hayes]

17. sounds like the argument republicans make when they call for

bipartisanship in congress

[nini]

18. Please tell me you're not comparing me to a Republican

?

[skypilot]

21. That's a bit of a stretch.

You could say that about any attempt at compromise or mutual consideration. But I don't think you'd want to.

[BlooInBloo]

23. I thought Gabi meant the "date rape" kind of bipartisanship....

Not saying I agree with her/him - just tryin to understand...

[Gabi Hayes]

29. tough titties, smokers

I'm so sick of these disingenous arguments in favor of FORCING me to eat your smoke, while couching it in oh-so reasonable terms

get real

[BlooInBloo]

32. Then get your own damn places and stop stealing mine.

You get your places, we get ours. Sounds fair to me.

Or, be a whining thief, and take them all.

[Greyhound]

105. That was their initial strategy, it failed. Bars and restaurants that

banned smoking were a fad in California in the early-mid 90's. They all went out of business because they couldn't compete with businesses that didn't restrict their patrons choices. People just went down the street to the place where they could do as they pleased.

Then they bought local politiwhores to get municipal restrictions passed, people drove to the next town to businesses that didn't restrict their patrons choices, no joy for the health-nazis here either.

There is no satisfying nor compromise possible with zealots. I used to be the most considerate smoker you ever met. My mother had asthma so I never smoked around her, or even inside. People were always surprised when they got to know me and found out I smoke occasionally, it was never an issue. I always sit in the non-smoking section, never would dream of lighting up in a closed car or airplane.

Now that the escalation cycle has been initiated, I could give a fuck about them, anybody that is polite and straight-forward in objecting to my smoking will find me more than happy to oblige. The fake cougher's and chicken-shit loud comments directed to anyone in earshot get nothing but contempt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

173. It's no fad. You can't smoke anywhere inside in NYC

Not bars, not restaurants, not even your own goddamn office.

And you know what? I'm a smoker. And I didn't bitch about it. And now when it's 10 degrees outside in the winter and I'm out having some drinks on a Friday night, I go outside on the street and shiver and STILL have to listen to non-smokers bitch about me standing outside huddled anywhere I can possibly get out of the wind and telling me what an inconsiderate asshole I am.

It's ridiculous; for the sanctimonious non-smokers, there is no compromise except for the death penalty for smokers.

[skypilot]

264. Here in Philadelphia...

...a smoking ban just went into effect--sort of. It wasn't supposed to go into effect until Jan.2007 but some changes were made to the initial anti-smoking bill and then the mayor sprung the ban on us a couple weeks ago. Most places were anticipating the 2007 ban and were taken aback when the mayor said the ban would go into affect immediately. One of the changes that was made to the original bill was the option of bars that do less than 20% of their sales in food to apply for an exemption. This would help the "shot and beer" places, as they are called, that serve little or no food. You can opt NOT to apply for the exemption even if you meet the requirements for it. There are people here declaring that NO ONE should get an exemption. That pisses me off. It's not as though they have plans to patronize EVERY bar in the city. Just go to the ones that enforce the ban. The interesting thing is that I go regularly to only two bars in this city. One serves no food at all and is eligible for the exemption. It serves cheap booze ($2.00 bottled beer) and has a fifty cent pool table (in great condition). The place is nearly empty most times that I go there now. If there is a crowd, it's usually a group of people that have come in together and they will leave together. The owner says he plans to apply for the exemption.

The other bar I go to serves food and is not eligible for the exemption but the owner (a former smoker) did not enforce the ban when it was instituted. She decided that when she got official notification, or when someone complained, she'd enforce it. For a couple weeks the place was packed all the time. It's a live-and-let-live kind of place. This weekend someone complained to the city. There is a number that you can call to lodge complaints against businesses not enforcing the ban. It is, interestingly enough, the same number that one must call to apply for the smoking ban exemption (?!) The crowds are now gone in that place as well.

[Greyhound]

279. No, it isn't a fad now, I was just saying that's how it started out. n/t

[elehhhhna]

239. I'm smoking RIGHT NOW! You'd better hurry & get off this thread

before you get all sick and everything.

[Bluebear]

246. (...)

:spray:

[hedgehog]

35. I think you're on the right track.

Again, one problem I see is that smokers seem to be unable to fathom how irritating cigarette smoke is even in small amounts to non-smokers. I used to work Bingo in the smoking days. The first thing I did when I got home was to throw my clothes into the washer and wash my hair. Otherwise the third hand smoke would bother my kids.

Space to smoke: It's a nice idea, but the smoke doesn't always stay where it's supposed to. That's why complaints continue. Of course, when smokers are camped at a building entrance, the situation is made worse because now non-smokers have to pass through concentrated smoke.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

201. compromise doesn't belong in a smoker-bashing thread, sorry.

please try again. :rofl:


:hi:

[LeftishBrit]

261. I agree

I fully agree with having spaces available for smokers. Like it or not, once someone is addicted to smoking, it can be intolerable for them to have no place at all where smoking is possible.

However, I would be grateful if people would accept that some people don't do well around cigarette smoke. It's not even just about the long-term health risks. It's about the *immediate* risk to health and comfort.

Most of my real-life acquaintances who smoke are very considerate about it. However, insisting on your right to smoke near other people (especially in enclosed places) and treating any request not to do so as 'sanctimonious' or 'all in your head' is unfair and hurtful - on the same level as insisting that people eat a food to which they are allergic, and treating their allergy as 'faddiness', By the way, I had trouble around cigarette smoke even as a child (in the early 70s) before there were major campaigns against it, at least in the UK; so I was not being influenced by external health scares.

I'm not being santimonious if I object to someone else treading on my foot. Smoking in my face indoors is the same for me - in fact, I would probably recover physically more quickly from having my foot trodden on.

[PVnRT]

292. Don't bother

"Respect" is lost on the fundamentalist anti-smokers. If you smoke, you are automatically an asshole blowing smoke in their face, and every other bad stereotype you can think of. It's a sickness at DU, this inability to regard people as individuals instead of members of some asinine labeled subgroup.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Why do nonsmokers insist on lying about what the issue is?

I believe 2nd hand smoke exists.

I don't believe that another kind of pollution justifies any other kidns.

Yes there are tighter rules against other forms of pollution.

It's a lie that the issue is people's unwilling exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

Let it be so: that smoke from tobabcco blahblahblah


ANSWER: SO MAKE YOUR OWN NONSMOKING RESTAURANTS, BARS, CLUBS, ETC.

Why do you have to take ALL of them? If there's SOOOOO much demand for nonsmoking establishments, you should have NO problem with letting smoking/non be determined by the establishment. Since there are SOOOOOO many nonsmokers, there will be a bunch of places catering to you.

But no - out of greed and laziness, you people insist on stealing ALL establishments. Unwilling to let some places be smoking and others non, you steal them ALL - and then lie about what the issue is.


That's my issue with the nonsmoking agenda.

[kiahzero]

79. Interesting argument

Wrongheaded, of course, but interesting nonetheless. Public accommodations aren't allowed to expose their patrons to hazardous material, such as cigarette smoke. By your logic, if a business owner wanted to pump cyanide through their ventilation system, that'd be just fine, because people could always go elsewhere.

[elehhhhna]

243. Excuse me but why aren't you health freaks WORKING OUT right now?

WTH are y'all doing on the internets in the middle of the afternoon?

[kiahzero]

250. If I don't exercise, do I directly harm other people?

Nope.

(By the way, I'm not paying attention in Civil Procedure, but I feel like doing jumping jacks would distract the professor).

[Touchdown]

297. Interesting logical fallacy.

Insipid, but interesting nonetheless. Do people get physical pleasure from inhaling cyanide? Is cyanide addictive? Is pumping cyanide through ventilation systems legal? Is it sold at 7 Eleven?

A class II irritant is not a hazardous material, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

[bpeale]

321. the issue

the actual issue here is the line drawing game. non-smokers feel so smug & superior that they want to share their non-smoking ways with everyone, much the same way that the rightwing nuts try to force their religion down your throat for your own good. they are not content to draw the lines for themselves, they want to draw the lines for everyone else too.

[deaniac21]

22. Addiction and denial go hand in hand.

[K8-EEE]

232. BINGO! I can't believe anybody would call someone a liar

because they react badly to second hand smoke. That's just crazy. I personally don't get physical symptoms (other than I hate the way my clothes smell if I hang around smokers) but my sister breaks out in hives whenever she's around cigars, even outside. I picture this idiot on the thread here looking at the welts going, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING...

[elehhhhna]

245. Not so much calling anyone liars as saying "Quit WHINING".

[TahitiNut]

24. The well-grounded concerns of non-smokers about ETS is aptly shown

... by the huge and growing investment they make every year in face masks to filter out all of the noxious substances in the air. Their diligence in protecting their own health is lauditory.

I see these people EVERYWHERE!






Oh... wait... I don't. Oh well. :shrug:

[hedgehog]

44. So, are you suggesting that some people wear face masks

so other people can smoke? If that's the other option, it sounds to me as if you've made the ultimate arguement for banning smoking in public spaces.

[TahitiNut]

72. Gee, of course not.

Who would ever expect anyone to actually do something for themselves when they can claim suffering and blame others? After all, codependency is "in" these days. Never mind the fact that ETS is but one of many airborne substances loosely correlated with respiratory distress. It's just too, too effective to cough, gag, fall to the floor kicking and screaming, and holding one's breath until we turn blue in order to make someone else comply with our whims. Isn't that what our parents taught us? Of course it is. Yep. It sure does work, doesn't it?

:eyes:

[hedgehog]

77. The ruling concept here is that everyone has a right to

"natural" air. In theory, you have no right to pollute air that other people breathe even if that pollution is only a noxious smell. Therefore, the burden is on you not to stink up air that other people are using, not on them to take corrective actions to remove the stink.

For comparison, a farm is going to have certain smells and existing farms are protected to allow them to go about their business regardless of later development of joining land. However, no one is permitted to start generating noxious smells in the vicinity of an existing development.

[elehhhhna]

247. I have! Asian men on a recent flight from Chgo to Houston.

Several, in first class, wearing those masks for the entire flight. Creee-py!

[NuttyFluffers]

376. here's the funny thing, it's usually done to be polite.

you see it all the time in Japan and other asian countries. basically it is done by people who are sick with an airborn communicable disease and are being polite to not transmit it everywhere. kind of like turning your head and covering your mouth when you sneeze -- except you are doing it all the time to prevent infecting others. so polite, so sensible... so unlike america.

[elehhhhna]

380. what is this word, "polite"? I'd better look that up.

[NuttyFluffers]

392. roughly, in Americanese, it means: "Wuss -- to the Xtreme!"

or "Totally kickass... not!" if you were going for a more subtle and sarcastic explanation.

:evilgrin:

[napi21]

27. I think a lot of the objections stem from the strict unwavering

refusal of the anti smokers to accept the fact that not everyone shares their opinions!

It wasn't good enough for them to have "some non-smoking" restaurants...they had to INSIST THAT ALL RESTAURANTS BE NON-SMOKING!

It wasn't good enough to have SOME BARS be non-smoking. They insist on ALL BARS be non-smoking!

Then there's all the insanely high taxes added onto cigarettes!

Yes, I'm a smoker. Have been for well over 45 years. I have always respected the wishes of others, and refrained from smoking around them if I knew they didn't like it. I still do. BUT, I will tell you, I smoke in my house, my yard, and my car. If YOU dont like it, DON'T COME IN!!!!!!

[Kittycat]

40. We pay for your habit in the long run

Don't get so upset about the taxes, because someone has to pay for your lung disease or trac, etc when you're old and on medicare. It's a completely avoidable issue, and because you refuse to respect your health - the government foots the bill, therefore higher taxes for you.

And before the arguement begins, you can slowly kill yourself all sorts of ways, but cigarettes have been proven to be addicting and bad not only for your health, but for the health of those around you.

[seabeyond]

57. when you eat the twinkie, or sky dive, or live in populated city

or genetically inclined to poor health, i pay for you. is that how this society works, we are going to keep tabs on everyone. because even with smoking, i eat right, exercise, am old and not over weight, and genetically i will live forever,.... odds are in favor you wont be paying for shit with me,.... and as of 45 you haven't. so am i suppose to point the finger at all the sickly that i pay for? or the poor that run up my insurance cause they cannot pay their hospitable bill or buy insurance

this is about the flimsiest argument of them all.

[Kittycat]

62. Get over it...

And I don't eat twinkies.

But maybe the tax will make you think twice before you light up. And if not - at least it will hit your pocketbook, and help offset the costs you're creating as well as educate your children not to follow your path.

[seabeyond]

67. see how offensive, just ugly you people are.

you feel good about this, talking to another like this. all warm and tingling. it is just ugly behavior. and you ok it in brain because someone smokes. that is all it is no more than a cig. no bigger than that. but to be so ugly to another human being is ok, because of that very little something.

that doesnt say a lot about me. but it sure says a lot about you.

get over what? what a silly and childish, immature thing to say

[skypilot]

94. I sincerely don't want...

...to kick up any more dust (or smoke) between you two or anyone else on this thread but I do have to say that the nastiness of some anti-smokers is the thing that really rubs me wrong. I understand and appreciate their concerns but sometimes my brain just turns off to them when they express those concerns in a certain way. A smoking ban went into effect here in Philadelphia a couple weeks ago. There is a free weekly paper here in which people can post free personal ads and messages. One of the messages was from a nonsmoker sarcastically lamenting the possibility of some smokers living a little longer because of the ban. He hoped we'd get hit by buses. Nice. Apparently, the ban hasn't made him any happier.

[hedgehog]

110. You're right.

Adding malice to the discussion does nothing to clarify the situation. No smoker is ever going to believe that non-smokers have a legitimate gripe if some persist in expressing a wish for smokers to drop dead!

[Kittycat]

260. And the same nastiness by Smokers offends me.

I'm not saying they can't smoke. I'm asking that they not do it in public places or around children. Everyone else has a right to choose if they want to be in that smokers home, car, etc. But public places should be protected from something that is proven to cause harm. And I think children should be protected as well, because their life long health can be impacted.

I don't appreciate being called a liar, about what I've been through as a child - but in this thread I have been. It's gone as far as to say I'm a hypocondriac - which I'm not. It's scientifically proven that second hand smoke can harm a developing child. That second hand smoke puts others at risk.

So smoke if you want to, but do it in the privacy of your home or vehicle. Places that aren't considered public.

[skypilot]

276. I think it will be terribly difficult...

...to enforce a ban on all smoking outside. As far as children, I try not to smoke around ADULTS even when I'm outside so I'm not about to light up around kids. And frankly, I'd be more afraid of a society that tried to ban ALL outdoor smoking (regardless of who was or wasn't around) than I'd be of the smoking itself. But that's just me.

[Name removed]

301. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpeale]

68. lung cancer

there are many people who die of lung cancer who never smoked in their life. my aunt got lung cancer from making catheters for hospitals. she died a slow horrible death. what you are saying is bullshit.

[elehhhhna]

254. daddy got it from fixing brakes on trucks in Korea thanks to the US mil

[napi21]

73. Maybe, but I challenge you to find anyonewho has a health record as good

as mine! I worked for 45+ years and never had to use a sick day. I'm not overweight, and last time I went to a doctor was 3 years ago for a neck pain, which was treated with some streaching exercises.


Don't give me the BS about smokers being less healthy. I've got plenty of real life examples of those who never smoked a day in their life and can't make the statements I have.

As for the extra taxes, I would maybe be inclined to agree with youIF the states who collect themwould use them ONLY to supplement health care. I'd even look at it as me contributing to the serious health cost problems we have in the US. THEY DON'T! They just use it as extra FOUND MONEY! I recall hearing Governors like Blumberg saying we're going to make the taxes so high on these things, people will quit because they can't afford to smoke anymore! Sp much for your excuse of paying for MY health problems!

[Bake]

146. I've been a smoker for decades, Kittycat

And from the sound of your complaints, my health is a helluva lot better than yours. So my taxes then are paying for YOUR poor health.

Bake

[elehhhhna]

259. OKAY EVERYBODY HOLD UP A SEC. K'cat, I just read your blog.

Honey, given what you're going through w your sweetbaby, I apologize for sassin ya upthread.

I get it, honey.

May I suggest we retire to another thread? Nobody's mind will be changed here and I DO think the legalization of torture is the greater immediate threat to our kids well-being.

btw, the stuff at Teenibanini is DARLING!

Love and good wishes from a (EEK!)smoker,

Elena

[cushla_machree]

186. Public places should be non-smoking

Your house? Go ahead.

I don't agree on high taxes on cigarettes, because it doesn't stop people from smoking. Plus, the government is saying smoking is bad, yet makes millions of dollars off of it.

No smoking in enclosed public areas seems like a no-brainer to me. Because non-smoking rooms did not help, and even those air filters did not. And none of that protects the workers who work there. Which we have other laws on the books to protect, not only patrons but employees.

Telling people they should work somewhere else is a ridiculous argument, the only job i worked growing up had a bar, and i would hate being placed into that room...but gotta pay the bills somehow.

People can smoke all they want outdoors or in their private homes, but i don't see how limiting smoking in public areas indoors is asking a lot. Employers by law are required to create a safe encironment, whether that be chemical or air pollution.

Smoking isn't a right, it is a choice. I have no problem with smokers, i think its stupid, but as long as it does not affect me, smoke away. Its a shame that they disrupt our healthcare system, but the same can be said for people eathing junk food all the time.

I will support the smokers right to light up in a private bar as soon as the rest of us can light up a jointin public areas. But i guess, that would be the same thing. My right to get high would not include smoking in an enclosed area and getting everyone else high.

[skypilot]

294. Some here will disagree with you...

...on the "smoke all they want outdoors" part of your post. I'm not one of them, but just so you know. The idea of a society that bans even all OUTDOOR smoking scares me a bit.

[cushla_machree]

357. well then you get into the smoking x amount of feet away

From a building. 5 feet? 10 feet? What really is fair...how far away should they go???

Personally, i think outdoor smoking is fine, as long as you are not within the confines of a restaurant, as in say on the patio of a outdoor dining area.

Smokers are defensive, they want to defend their right to smoke, yet can't understand why everyone else wants the right to not have to breathe in their smoke. Alcohol does not affect other people unless you get behind the wheel of a car...hence we have laws about that. Its one thing to harm your own body, another to take other people with you.

Honestly i don't think the government should be able to tax cigarettes or support the selling of them. Its kind of wierd, they want you to stop smoking, yet make money off the taxes. Its also wierd that they would condone the selling of something that can kill you. We have whole agencies set up to not let that happen. There is no such thing as smoking in moderation.

Theoretically I think it would be in the best interest of the country to ban the sellling of cigarettes...think of workplace productivity and healthcare gains we would all see. I am not serious, but its something to think about. Didn't work out so well for alcohol and i fully support the right to do what you want, i am against the drug war. But it would be comical to see people buying tobacco at the local farmers market and basement growing...now wouldn't that be something. Support your local growers!

[Cygnusx2112]

28. I got a question for smokers ...

When you smoke in your car, do you

a. do it with the window up, so you can enjoy all the smoke,

or

b. with the windows down and the cig. near the window where all the extra smoke flows straight out?


And why don't you smoke with the windows up?

[Touchdown]

31. I got a question for non-smokers

What's it to you?

It's got a heavy smell to it, that's why. Not as toxic as the fearmongers say, but it smells heavy.
I know where your going with this, so my next answer to your next VERY predictable question would be my post #1 up there at the top.

[Cygnusx2112]

37. If you like smoke and smoking...

How come you're not submitting yourself to as much smoke as you can?

If you can't stand to be around it in an enclosed place, why is it difficult to understand OTHER people don't want to be around it?

Signed,

-ExSmoker.

[seabeyond]

49. honestly, really.... how many smokers are blowing in your face

how much of an issue is this really for you. or are you just in battle.....

[Cygnusx2112]

55. Zero issue for me...

Just like pointing out hypocrisy :)

Cheers!

[seabeyond]

58. the hypocrisy is going on a rant about all the damn second hand smoke

you are suffering and being forced upon you when it is not a reality

but thank you for being honest

[Cygnusx2112]

65. I missed my "rant" or where I talk about my "suffering" or

how smoke is "forced upon me".

Sure you're responding to the right person?

I offered up a situation to show how hypocritical smokers are and one smoker fell into that trap quite as expected. Others didn't bother replying (also as expected).

See, smokers fail to see how annoying the smoke actually is, born out by the fact that they don't sit in their car with the windows up but rather, crack the window so all the smoke escapes.

I would think if you enjoyed all that smoke, you'd want it to be around you - silly car "resale" arguments aside.

Since you don't want it to be around you, then you're being disingenuous if you can't understand why others wouldn't want it around them.

Simple, really.

[seabeyond]

74. simple. we are addicted. we know it is disgusting. we don't like the

smoke. i better change this to i, me. i don't like the smoke. i hate smoking. i am digusted with me, i feel shame and remorse. every moment i reach for that cig i hate it. i think of death, with the help of all of society telling me how i am going to die at any minute. i feel guilt. i feel horrible. i am rotten, less of a person,.... like so many of you non smokers want me to feel

do you feel better. is that what you want to hear. do you want me to cry out my shame, my disgust, my addiction

fuck you all

and do a little self reflecting. i am well aware of my faults, and all it does to my fellow man, and the horrible person i am. you all have made damn sure, i am aware of how less in this world i am compared to a non smoker.

is what you are arguing really that big of a deal, or significant in the scheme of things

thank you fellow man...... for compassion. i am truly more digusted with people on this board, than i am with myself at this moment for being a smoker. i am pretty disgusted with my addiction. i think there is some ugly behavior here.

[Cygnusx2112]

93. I was there too...I hated that I was smoking and what I was doing...

to myself...how much $$ I was wasting for doing actual harm to myself.

But here's where this thread went wrong (and, I think...smokers go wrong in their thinking):

It's the sanctimony, zealotry, hatred for smokers (not smoking) that bothers most of us. I find comfort in the fact that I can eventually quit and kick the habit. They will always be assholes though. There's no quitting that.

I don't HATE SMOKERS.

I don't hate my uncle...or my brother.

That's dumb. People are affected by it to varying degrees. Its the callousness of smokers not recognizing that what they're doing (smoking) is annoying to people.

And, in moments of clarity, as you yourself said, smokers will realized that also annoying to YOU...to themselves.

THAT is what I was trying to get at in the car windows post above.

Peace.

[spacelady]

166. Tell It!!

[Zodiak]

199. Yup, the smoking hysteria has turned a few to hate

And that is what it is, hate. Legalized and socially acceptable hate brought about by virtue of simple majority. At my place of work, they banned smoking outdoors for nearly a half of a mile and posted signs telling people to call security if they see a smoker slinking off and hiding somewhere. Yes, they wanted everyone to be a good little member of the gestapo. No one got a vote on this, of course.

The witch-hunt behavior disgusts me. It disgusts me just as much as a President wiping his ass with the Constitution while hundreds of thousands die from apathy and neglect.

After reading this thread, I think that the Professor is approaching this issue in the most level-headed fashion (thnks for trying). For those not in the know regarding the second-hand smoke issue (not just what you "heard")...start there and let the evidence guide you.

Second-hand smoke is an issue with just as much B.S. injected into the discourse as any other social issue of today. Read up on it because the measures being proposed lately border on the extreme.

[Cygnusx2112]

223. I see what you're saying....

Sort of, a "They hate us for our freedoms" riff, but aimed at smokers.

"They hate us cuz we smoke."

Definitely.

[hedgehog]

270. Do you work at a medical campus or school?

Just curious. A lot of hospitals are banning smoking as part of their teaching mission. Now if they'd just do something about the food offered in the cafeteria and vending mcahines...

[Zodiak]

303. University

but we do have a medical section (with a med school and hospital).

[hedgehog]

304. How do they keep the students from smoking?

That sounds like an impossible task.

[Zodiak]

348. Write tickets

and lots of them. Which they did, and with the fever of doing one's part to rat out a smoker in combination with cell phones and signs with what number to call, it was institutionalized within a week or two. OF course, there is gnashing of teeth, but everyone still fell into line.

Doctors, nurses, administrators, professors, security guards, staff, students, etc. now have to trudge a long way off to have a smoke, but they do it. When the winter hits, it is going to be really sad. Of course, no facilities of their own were provided.

If there was more of an atmosphere of accomodation, there would be far less gnashing of teeth and far higher morale. But that was not the case.

Telling people to narc on their co-workers crossed the line, in my opinion. That's just unamerican.

[seabeyond]

353. but everyone still fell into line.....truly that sentence literally makes

me shiver

[Kittycat]

263. As I posted earlier...

Everyday that I stook at the bus stop, or waiting for the train during my commute. When I walk down the street past buildings, as the smokers block the entrances.

My issue isn't that I want smoking banned all together. Just in public places where it impacts others.

[Touchdown]

51. Like I said...see post #1

I saw you coming a mile away. Your's is a logical fallacy. A car's interior is 5 sq feet. The re-sale value goes down the more it smells. A bar is anywhere from 25 sq feet and 4000 for a big club.

[Pacifist Patriot]

283. What's it to me?

Watching my dad battle throat cancer and bladder cancer.

Watching my grandfather deal with emphysema and lung cancer.

Feeling sick to my stomach when a I see a beautiful teenage girl giggling over a cigarette and picturing her years later with horrendous health problems wrought by a cool activity that become a horrid addiction.

My heart breaks when I see anyone light up. They deserve better than the shit they are sucking into their bodies.

The odor is gross, but that's not my concern. The worth and dignity of the human being ... that is what's it to me.

[Lisa0825]

356. Amen, Pacifist Patriot, Amen,

:pals:

I miss my parents :cry:

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Windows up or down depended entirely on

what I was smoking.

Don't smoke anything, anymore, however.

[Balbus]

39. A Democrat who smokes is as hypocritical as a gay Republican.

That is all.

[seabeyond]

47. or they are addicted. wtf. that is about stupid

[Balbus]

218. Smoking is a weakness, not an addiction.

[Bluebear]

255. SO SO SO SO WRONG. nt

[Balbus]

339. Once again, the use of all caps to make your point has forced

me to change my mind - I stand humbled before you.

[Bluebear]

345. Quite a snarky little shit, aren't you? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

287. No, it's an addiction.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances there is; its structure closely mimics that of a neurotransmitter released in the brain on natural release from tension and anxiety. Nicotine disrupts the natural production of this neurotransmitter; this is why smokers become tense, edgy, and irritable when experiencing nicotine withdrawal, and what causes the intense cravings for a cigarette that a smoker experiences.

If you deny that smoking is an addiction, it's quite obvious that you're utterly ignorant and thus anything you say on the subject is completely meaningless.

[Balbus]

336. It's labeled an addiction by weak-willed people.

But in reality, it's nothing more than a habit like chewing your fingernails.

[Spider Jerusalem]

341. Sorry, but you're completely and totally wrong.

Withdrawal causes physical distress that can only be alleviated by more nicotine; this is the definition of "addiction". I suppose you consider heroin addicts "weak-willed" too.

[Balbus]

342. It's psychosomatic - believe in yourself and don't let others tell

you what you're capabilities are.

[Spider Jerusalem]

159. That's the most utterly goddamned stupid thing I've read all day.

The vices one chooses to engage in are irrelevant to one's political beliefs. And it's hardly "Democratic" to criticise someone else's lifestyle choices, now is it? Thought that sort of narrow-minded intolerant Puritanism was what the Republicans did? Or are you blind to your own hypocrisy?

[Balbus]

214. Why do you think homosexuality is a vice?

But that's an issue for another thread. What is "Democratic" is to take care of and look after your fellow man... Smoking harms not only yourself, but your fellow man. So if you're a smoker you're knowingly and purposefully inflicting harm upon all life around you. Whereas a homosexual who is Republican is knowingly and purposefully inflicting harm (in a sense) to members of his own lifestyle. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

[Spider Jerusalem]

234. I never said homosexuality was a vice.

I was referring to smoking. And smoking doesn't harm my fellow man, not as I do it; I only smoke outdoors, or in my car, and I am considerate of nonsmokers. You know, automobile exhaust contains several known carcinogens; studies have shown a direct correlation between air quality from auto emissions and respiratory ailments including lung cancer, emphysema, and asthma in urban areas. So DRIVING is something that harms your fellow man; by driving, you're "knowingly and purposefully inflicting harm on all life around you". (And the contribution of emissions from internal combustion engines to reduced air quality is FAR more significant than that from outdoor cigarette smoking.) You could just as easily say "a Democrat who buys gasoline is as much of a hypocrite as a gay Republican."

[Balbus]

235. Or a smoking Democrat...

[Spider Jerusalem]

241. Again, I disagree, and again, that's a very stupid thing to say.

You don't smoke? Fine. You don't like to be around smoking? Also fine; it's not allowed in most indoor public spaces these days, at least in the US. But you've no right whatever to determine what constitutes appropriate behaviour on the part of someone else, so long as the boundaries of others are respected.

Operative difference here: most smokers are willing to accept the right of nonsmokers to not be exposed to cigarette smoke. Many NON-smokers, however, act as though they'll not be satisfied until smoking is a crime punishable by being pilloried in the public square, or branded with a scarlet "S".

[Balbus]

337. Nonetheless, it's true. But the weak-willed like to see things

to excuse their habits.

[Spider Jerusalem]

343. And YOU apparently like excuses...

for smug, arrogant, self-satisfied condescension.

Andone who thinks that physical addiction--a medically and scientifically well-documented phenomenon--can be attributed to "weak will" is manifestly an imbecile.

[Balbus]

385. Ironic that , on one hand, you'd use science to back up the

argument for addiction, but then discount the scientific research on the ill effects of 2nd hand smoke. Hypocritical much?

[Spider Jerusalem]

389. Except that I haven't discounted anything.

The research on the effects of secondhand smoke indoors, in an enclosed environment, indicates that a) nonsmokers inhale a miniscule amount of smoke compared to smokers; b) that secondhand smoke is a respiratory irritant which is likely to exacerbate conditions such as asthma, and c) secondhand smoke is a contributing factor to cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers exposed on a daily basis to smoke in an indoor environment (nonsmokers married to smokers, longtime bartenders and wait staff in smoking-allowed restaurants, and the like; you'll note that I haven't said I disagree with laws restricting smoking in indoor public spaces). However, the data ALSO indicate that the risk associated with lung cancer in a nonsmoker in such an environment is relatively low (the increased risk is 16% at a 99% confidence interval), and the evidence thus far doesn't support a link between passive smoking and pulmonary emphysema. The research DOES NOT indicate that transient exposure of a nonsmoker to environmental tobacco smoke poses any health risk (despite the distortions of anti-tobacco campaigners who claim otherwise).

[seabeyond]

45. 1.

if second hand smoke was even a third as deadly as people make it out to be my generation would have been dropping like flies long ago. we are not. this information was constructed for the battle on smoking. non smokers like to use this because if a smoker dares to challenge they can be ridiculed to the highest degree and dismissed. no non smoker will take it seriously and do the research themselves or think it out, because they like to have the information as fact to beat down a smoker. even the smoker walking thru a parking lot ten minutes prior to the non smoker nad the non smoker smells the smell and can accuse the smoker of bandishing death on them. it is the sheep syndrome at its worst. you dehumanize and then you can do whatever you feel like without remorse.

2. it doesnt justify squat. it is a reality all kinds of things can equally cause damage to our body if we are suseptible to it or not cause any damage at all. genetics plays way more of a role in our health than pollutants. it is a desire for the non smokers to be rational, which they chose not to be because then they cannot have their battle of beating the smoker up, dissing them like no other group, and generally just doing a mob of scorn onto the smoker.

3. no the pollutant laws have become lax with bush administration. and here is another ridiculous to suggest smoking outside is an air pollutant.

4. the issue of second hand smoke has been balance over the decades. smokers are denied the ability to smoke anywhere public. for the non smoker to suggest that this is even an issue makes me wonder, because in the world i am in, i am not seeing the non smokers right being infringed on. if it is, i am all for a non smoker to ask the smokers to not pollute their air. but that doenst mean walk a hundred yards across the park and tell me to put out my cig not because you are ingesting it, or just smelling the smell, but cause you can SEE me hold a cig

5. i think you are full of shit on this one, and really that is your problem not the smokers. i was preg in a restaraunt wanting food really really bad. a woman came in with too much perfume. made me gag. had to run out of restaraunt without food becuase i was about to throw up. i see that as my problem, not the woman who wears perfume. she has that right

you hate smoking got it. you may even hate smokers, so be it. one of my favorite is a nonsmoker saying to me, i dont want to be around you. fine.... wtf do i care. i dont want to be around someone that can only see me as a smoker, not all the rest that i am. as that person pumps chest in superiority i am not seeing a person that i am particularly impressed with either. at least mine is a stupid thing i pull out of a pack. the non smoker, .... character

i have made three friends that are totally anti smoking. first getting to know each other i endured all the bullshit rant on smoking, they are allergic to smoke, does horrible things to them, cant stand the stuff, keep away. not that they were ever around me when i smoke, i pretty much assume with the non smoker, the anti is well visible. i am a clever gal. but i still got to hear it time and again. personally i didnt really care if they were friends or not. i am not much of a people person. they came by my house. they wanted my company.

after getting to know each other over time, i would excuse myself to go smoke. they would follow me. i would sya, i am smoking.....you dont like. remember, allergies, death... yada yada, and they would wave it aside

i dont buy it.

[calico1]

50. Smoking was banned in some States

like mine because in many restaurants the smoking-non smoking areas were useless. Air flows through the restaurant so it mixes and you can't keep it from mixing. At least not in most restaurants I went to. Many people warned that if smoking was banned in bars too that business would drop dramatically and some bars would have to close. Didn't happen. The ones I have been to are as busy as ever. And now many non smokers who would avoid them before can go to them.

I wish some smokers would stop denying that second hand smoke exists. And I really wish they would stop with their "if you don't like my smoking hold your nose" or "go find your own place" shit. That has certainly gotten them a lot of sympathy. Not.

Many smokers will say that years ago people smoked anywhere, anytime. True. It is also true that many people went for lunch during working hours and had 3 martinis. Or had a drink in the office. And it is also true that if you were in a wheelchair and had to get up on a sidewalk you better have someone help lift your wheelchair because there were no ramps. As we evolve and get more information and more informed we can improve life for the majority of people both in health and safety issues. It is supposed to be what we do as a society.

[hedgehog]

63. Even if second hand smoke isn't harmful, non-smokers don't like it

The reason there is legislation against it is that there are enough non-smokers to enforce a ban. You may call it democracy or the tyranny of the majority, but there it is.

I myself breathe easier now that most places are smoke-free. I do have to say though, that if as a society we were serious about protecting children, someone would stop all the sales of cigarettes to minors.

[Drum]

69. ...yawn...

[shadowknows69]

80. COUGH! COUGH! COUGH! HACK! PUKE! COUGH COUGH COUGH

nevermind.

[On the Road]

85. I Smoke a Little

although I don't publicize it. For most social purposes I'm a nonsmoker.

I have to say that these threads are some of the worst on DU. But the thought that disturbs me is that many of the nonsmoking activists here may be approaching politics with the same attitudes. And that is killing the party at the ballot box.

[hedgehog]

104. Is it possible that we're dealing with different situations?

I can imagine that one locality is very stringent on outdoor smoking and another just limits indoor smoking. I can see how smokers in some Californian jurisdictions would start to feel persecuted. I just wanted to point out that smoke does tend to linger in the air so if someone doesn't like the smell they are going to notice it. Anti-smoking legislation isn't the first step to fascism. I would put it in the category of housing covenants that ban driveway basketball hoops and out door clothes lines. Some areas even dictate what color you can paint your house! We can argue until the cows come home about whether second hand smoke is harmful, but the fact is a growing majority doesn't like it.

[seabeyond]

107. nonsmokers are so responsible, reasoned and mature they feel a

ban should be placed on a "smell".

point out that smoke does tend to linger in the air so if someone doesn't like the smell they are going to notice it.

whatever....

[hedgehog]

113. Exactly - some smoking bans are based on the smell

There is a lot of debate about the effects of second hand smoke, but it is clear that a lot of people just don't like the smell. They have taken steps to eliminate the smell. Years ago, some localities banned spitting on the sidewalk. In Singapore, it used to be illegal to chew gum. More and more places require you to clean up after your dog. I cluttered up my original post. My point should have been that non-smokers can actually smell lingering smoke and that is why they are enacting stricter and stricter bans.

[seabeyond]

118. i am really offended by certain perfumes, and body oder.

who is with me on a law, antiperspirants and daily showers and being to poor is no excuse. this is when our society goes too far. this is the nanny state so many hate. i being one of them

[Bake]

155. DEATH PENALTY FOR FARTS!

Especially really nasty ones. I really hate those. Especially when some rude mother-effer rips one in a crowded elevator! I don't smoke in the elevator, why should they be allowed to FART in one?

I walked into somebody else's office and they had FARTED in there! Can you believe it? They subjected me to their nasty fart odor, and I'm really allergic to it. I was sick the rest of the day.

Plus, my clothes smelled like their fart. I had to wash my hair too, just to get rid of the fart smell!

Bake

[hedgehog]

160. I was working so hard to avoid bringing farts into the discussion.

Has anyone read any of Asimov's Robot stories? In one he predicted a society in which everyone lived in a gigantic enclosed building. I remember that chronic elevator farters got arrested!

[Bake]

169. 'Cuz you know, whether to fart or not is your personal choice

So why should I be subjected to your noxious gas? Can't you nasty farters just hold it in until you get to your car? And keep the damn windows rolled up too, because if I'm sitting at a sidewalk cafe, the last thing I want to smell with my meal is your fart seeping out of your car window!

Bake

[hedgehog]

175. Is it true that if you hold in a fart, you'll explode?

I was going to say something about the fact that men seem to fart more than women, but I'm afraid I'll be accused of being anti-male.

[elehhhhna]

274. me too. oh well.

[elehhhhna]

273. I have 2 nonsmoking neighbors who are very superior about it and

are also flat-out pants-peein' alcoholics.

LOL

[seabeyond]

324. wow. i have a two decade friend, alcoholic, coke, crank, probably

herion and pot lecturing meon smoking. she has been sittin in prison, hasnt raised her daughter, had daughter taken from her for hitting her in schoolparking lot and STILL lecture me on my smoking, shakes her head. i mean wtf

isnt that funny

[elehhhhna]

379. If you'd only offered her a cig about 20 years ago...

she may have avoided so many problems.

[On the Road]

116. Thanks for the Thoughtful Response

Personally, smoke only bothers me if it's stale and concentrated, and that generally means indoors.

I think confining smoke to outdoors is a reasonable compromise, especially since smoke does disperse more quickly in the open air. I don't believe the goal should be to remove all traces from public space. But maybe there are some situations where even outdoors is too much. I don't know -- it's easier to impose controls inside buildings.

[DaveJ]

89. Nobody's perfect

When I smoke am more than willing to be courteous to others. I take it outside even in my own home that I pay for, avoided others, and smile and nod when they insult me. Now you are suggesting that we should not even be allowed to smoke outside if there are any people that 'may' walk through a wisp of smoke.

My point is that duality exists in every person. For every positive personality trait you have a negative one. If a person takes the sum of one's actions and adds them up, who is to say that a smoker does more damage to society than a non-smoker?

Nobody is perfect. Everyone has a natural compulsion to be 'bad' in one form or another. In terms of what people do to each other socially, mentally, fiscally, and physically, I think that smoking outside is low on the list. And today most every smoker feels very insecure when they smoke, so at least they know what they are doing is wrong, while the finger pointing non-smoker seems to believe in the fantasy that they are much more benign than they usually are.

[skypilot]

106. The perfect post on this topic...

...as far as I'm concerned. And thank you for it.

[DaveJ]

141. Thank you.... n/t

[nosillies]

305. People may not be perfect, but your post pretty much is!

:applause:

[Ron Green]

101. I think it's not so much a second-hand smoke issue as a

public health and addiction issue. Big Tobacco loves to push the "individual choice" mantra, to avoid the point about corporate responsibility for advertising to children, who are their necessary new customers.

It doesn't take too many cigarettes to get a beginning smoker addicted. All the advertisers have to do is give the kids permission (subliminally, of course) to smoke a few, and nicotine does the rest.

If we want to continue on a path to better health, both physically and mentally, we ought to encourage the public sector to propagandize as much as the private one. The public sector at least uses better science.

[mongo]

125. In other words...

Any lie is a good lie as long as it futhers my agenda.

Geesh.

[seabeyond]

134. which i think is obvious this is alredy put into practice hence the fear

tactics of second hand smoke and refusal to reasonably look at the information. so i think they already have implemented this feeling the same as the op,..... propaganda, (lie) kinda what the repugs do with their war and everything else, end justifies the means.

[Ron Green]

150. Not really.

Maybe my use of "propagandize" was too strong. Information comes to us from advertisers, and it comes to us from official sources. I suggest that in the case of tobacco use the advertisers are wrong and the official sources are right. Therefore the "lie" exists only in the advertisers' message, which is: "Smoking this brand will bring you _______" (friends, good times, great vacations, self-esteem, whatever.)

Another message from the advertisers: "Smoking is an individual choice, and an adult one at that." The truth, of course, is that only children consider starting smoking, and that corporate advertising seeks to play up the "individual choice" aspect and ignore its own responsibility in pushing addiction, not only to tobacco but to buying stuff as a way to be valid.

The environment in which we live is private propaganda, and people love it: it's fun, it's clever, and it gives us permission for instant gratification. Government propaganda, however, is dull, gray stuff about "The Surgeon General has determined..."

It's easy to be a Libertarian, and shout about "choice" and "freedom." But so much of it harmful, and lots of bullshit, too.

[seabeyond]

330. kinda like two little blondes in pony tails hanging clothes outside

on the line (how many people today DONT have dryers) talking about how sad it is mom died of cancer because she smoked and now dad has to do ALL the work, (along with the two little girls hanging clothes on a line outside)

or the one where the mom is healthy and ges to black and white,then decay then blows away in death...... on kid channel, for my child to only then turn and look at me.

that kinda propaganda?

ya

i found them to not only be disgusting and misrepresentitive, but ugly. and certainly insensitive. my children actually now challenge people on the anti smoking stance watching the reactions and behavior of non smokers to me. and i have to bring them to balance in that. the hate projected right in front of my kids face, as adults lecture me on kids. whole lot of ironic there

my oldest came onto the computer last night into the other smoking thread,the ugliness on that thread. and he read my posts unknown to me. we had a kick ass talk. and it wouldnt be something non smokers even think about, what they give to the world with their unreasonableness, but it (just like the bush adm, the war, the christian right) has taught my children so much, that is going to serve my children as they grow older.

we tend to find the higher in all things, that includes hate. that includes the smoker i am

[Ron Green]

349. I haven't seen the ads you're talking about.

The fact is that using tobacco is one of the most harmful things we can do to our bodies, and it's extremely addictive. Only children START smoking. Adults who don't smoke DON'T start to smoke. Therefore, the tobacco companies, if they're going to survive, have to get children to start to smoke, even though they say they don't. Since 300,000 of their customers die every year, they MUST get kids hooked. It's just plain business.

Now if some anti-smoking group puts out a TV ad that is offensive or disgusting, maybe that is a way to get kids to think about the harm involved. When their friends smoke, it's a powerful bunch of peer pressure. When Joe Camel talks to them, it catches their attention. When Big Tobacco ads tell them, "smoking is only for grown-ups," they of course want to be like a grown-up. So maybe the anti-smoking ads that you don't like will do some good in the long run.

[seabeyond]

351. no they wont. that isnt what stops kids. do you know, a higher %

of kids that go thru the dare program, no smoking, no drugs program are more likely and sooner to do those things. the girlsthat declare they will be virginare more likely to have sex earlier and without protection.

fear never has worked and never will work with a teenager, seems to be the encourager and THAT is well documented. we need to teach our children from that point

i tell my kids.... when they say they will never drink.... that they will, and it isnt about the drinking per se, it is about moderation and being away of genetics. i dont work on fear to keep my children from making poor choices. and i dont try to do it out of control. i give them all angles, the realities, the risks. but i dont use fear. that seems to be the LEAST effective way of approaching a preteen or teen

[Beacho]

102. Try this on for size

This says everything I need to express on the subject

Second Hand Smoke Is Bullshit

[Cygnusx2112]

103. I'd be interested to know how many smokers

wished they could quit or never started in the first place.

(I can't set up Polls :( )

[Spider Jerusalem]

109. A fact often ignored in this debate:

The amount of smoke inhaled by a nonsmoker in a closed, indoor environment with a smoker is between .0001 and .001% of what the smoker inhales (this data comes from Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University, who conducted one of the most frequently cited studies on secondhand smoke.) The amount of secondhand smoke that would be inhaled by a nonsmoker in proximity to a smoker OUTDOORS, in open air, is negligible (you'll inhale more particles from automobile exhaust than you will from cigarette smoke on a city street in the course of one day).

My problem with the anti-smoking zealots is that they quite often, in their puritanical zeal, ignore simple, verifiable, tested scientific fact in favour of emotionally-based and anecdotal arguments. I don't believe that smoking is healthy; the health risks of smoking are well-established. Far less well-established, however, are the health risks of secondhand smoke; the risk isn't nil, but it's not as severe as anti-tobacco crusaders make out, either. I don't think that it's unreasonable to insist on either separate ventilation in public spaces that allow smoking, and I don't believe that it's unreasonable to ban smoking in public places that allow children. I DO believe it's unreasonable to suggest that smoking shouldn't be allowed even out of doors, particularly in light of the above-mentioned negligible risk factor of outdoor exposure to cigarette smoke (particularly when compared to other environmental pollutants that are far more prevalent).

[hedgehog]

114. But if people are enacting legislation to eliminate the noxious oder,

then any arguments about health effects are pointless.

[Spider Jerusalem]

119. But that's not a valid reason to enact legislation.

Especially not when 35% of the adult population evidently doesn't find the odour "noxious".

[hedgehog]

123. Now we have a clear point to argue.

Whether society has a right to define and ban noxious odors.

[Spider Jerusalem]

126. When they ban internal combustion engines and paper mills...

THEN they can go after smoking, I'd say.

[hedgehog]

129. You are agreeing that society can ban certain substances,

you are merely disagreeing as to which substances to ban.

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. Actually, I haven't agreed that.

Personally I think "society" has no right to impose limits on the private actions of an individual, so long as those actions cause no harm to others.

[hedgehog]

133. Maybe I need to re-phrase.

Are you agreeing that society has the right to limit emissions, but disagreeing on the target emissions?

[Spider Jerusalem]

137. I haven't said that, either.

Not to mention that even you've admitted that you don't object to the smell of pipe tobacco, or a fine cigar. So you don't mind SOME tobacco. (And you're not arguing about "emissons", but odours; not quite the same thing.)

[hedgehog]

142. What I'm offering for discussion is the notion that society has the

right to ban certain behaviors such as creation of an odor. This separates the discussion of smoking bans from the opposing claims as to the harmfulness of second hand smoke. It seemed to me that you were willing to allow society to ban paper mills and internal combustion engines. I would say then, that in principle, you agree that society can choose to confine certain behaviors to certain places or to ban them entirely.

[Spider Jerusalem]

147. No, I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

What next? A ban on people wearing too much cologne?

I agree that society can choose to restrict certain behaviours to specific areas; I disagree that society has any right to ban a behaviour on the part of an individual that, when engaged in responsibly, causes no harm to others. Such an attitude is nothing more or less than Puritanical; it's what gave us Prohibition, and the "war on drugs".

[hedgehog]

171. But is society limited to banning only harmful public activities?

It can be argued that some behaviors are tolerated in private, are not clearly harmful, yet are banned in public areas. For example, most places ban sexual activity in the parks. It's not really harmful, it's just that society as a whole has decided not to allow it.

In the case of smoking, I think we are seeing an increasing number of people decide they don't want to be around smoke. Regardless of the motivation, does society have a right to keep smoking out of the commons?

[Spider Jerusalem]

183. Completely? No.

The right of the individual to smoke, if he so chooses, outdoors where the chance of any harm to others in minimal, trumps the desire of nonsmokers to limit legal behaviour. That's the way our society works. As outdoor smoking constitutes neither a compelling threat to public health, nor a serious breach of the peace, there is no legal basis for banning it.

[hedgehog]

187. But what defines a serious breach of the peace?

It appears that in recent years a plurality has decided that smoking is an unacceptable behavior in public areas.

[Spider Jerusalem]

189. Enclosed public areas.

Bars, restaurants, hotels, airports, et cetera. Which are a far cry from out in the open on the sidewalk. Almost no jurisdictions have moved to ban smoking OUTSIDE, because such a ban is unenforceable in practice.

[hedgehog]

191. Again, it seems to me that you're defining the limits of a smoking ban,

not the right to institute a ban per se.

[Spider Jerusalem]

197. If you reread my FIRST post on this thread...

I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem with banning smoking in INDOOR facilities without separately ventilated smoking and nonsmoking areas. But there's a tremendous practi8cal difference between indoors and outdoor, which you SHOULD be able to grasp without the need for explanation.

[hedgehog]

202. On the other hand, in an urban environment with a lot of walkers,

such a Californian downtown, smoke can linger long enough to be bothersome to enough people to raise a call for an area wide smoking ban. Which goes back to my original post when I stated that the odor from cigarettes can linger in a large outdoor space after the smoker has left the scene.

[Spider Jerusalem]

208. That's utterly irrelevant.

Particle density and risks from inhaled smoke in an outdoor environment are an order of magnitude lower than the already minimal risks in an enclosed space. And anyone who lives in California, most particularly in LA, and prioritises CIGARETTE SMOKE over auto emissions is a goddamned moron.

[hedgehog]

258. Both statements may well be true.

I'm just trying to suggest that smoking bans may have more to do with aesthetics than health. Apparently a plurality of voters don't want to be around smoke. From their point of view, a smoking ban is akin to banning people from using power tools for yard maintenance before 8AM on Saturdays. It's not harmful to run my power mower at 7AM, it just irritates enough people that I'm not allowed to do it.

[Bake]

157. Farts. Don't forget farts.

I really hate noxious farts. I think while we're outlawing nasty smells, we need to ban noxious farts. OH - and Mexican restaurants too, because god knows after a big meal of enchiladas and all the works, you're going to have some funky nasty farts.

Bake

[seabeyond]

120. is it really an noxious oder or has society just been conditioned

to believe it is because they have been conditioned to be repulsed by smoking to such an extent as to wish smokers dead..... that the smell has been created into a bad smell, but really it is merely a smell

[hedgehog]

128. I love the smell of pipe smoke and some cigars I'm neutral about,

but cigarette smoke bothered me as a little kid back in the 50's when some people were still claiming it had healthy benefits.

[seabeyond]

136. i was htink back to both my parents. their smoking wasnt an issue

in our family. i didnt like being closed up in car, windows up. i would roll mine down. but i dont think the smell bothered me. i thinkit was a comfort smell,.... because it was my parents. it wasnt offensive. just a smell. when we would hug, or cuddle. the smell on the person

[johnnie]

121. The funny thing about my thread was

I started it about something they added in a proposal here in Ohio that I thought was a little over the line, and the non smoking fanatics came out swinging and not even paying attention to what I was saying. 99% of the people freaking out don't live in Ohio, and probably a higher percentage are never coming to my house.

So I will ask my question, how come the anti-smokers at DU are the rudest group of people we have here? And don't say it's because people who smoke are rude by blowing smoke that they are inhaling because if someone here at DU is being bothered by my smoke through a computer than they have a lot more issues than can be fixed with a few laws.

[hedgehog]

127. I'd have to say that both contingents (Smoking and non) have their

share of rude and/or fanatical adherents.

[Greyhound]

139. There's the revelation, assholes come in all shapes, sizes, colors,

sexes, political proclivities, and habits. Some of them just can't be happy unless they are spreading their ill will around. ;)

[Touchdown]

140. You know what's telling, and I'm guilty of this Today too.

That in a day like Today, where we, The United States of America has joined the dubious group of Torturing nations, the two most kicked threads are yours and this one. It's amazing what people find sooo damn important. :cry:

[hedgehog]

143. Well, I hope we wouldn't get into an argument/discussion

over the merits of torture!

[Touchdown]

148. That's not what I'm saying Hedge.

This is a historic day, in a very bad one, but historic nonetheless. Many are expressing their feelings of loss, dispair, disbelief in those other threads. It could be a time for us to get closer to our brothers and sisters in arms, and use this event to strengthen our solidarity.

But this is a message board, and rancor rules the day on DU.

[hedgehog]

156. I see where you're coming from.

I have to admit skipping over the torture threads because the entire notion of Conress rolling over for the dictator is just too much to bear.

[hedgehog]

151. I read through that thread, and people lost track of the topic.

I think you were objecting to the regulation of behavior in your home, and it turned into a free-for-all about smoking bans in general. I would have to say the gist of the argument is whether your home should remain a private, unregulated space once it becomes a place of business with access by the general public (no-related employees, customers, salesman etc,). There was a side issue os to whether the regulation would apply always or only when outsiders are present.

[johnnie]

165. I am just going to have one last word on it

My whole complaint was that one little clause they put in there. That was my whole point, but it turned right into a battle of the smoke.

The truth is, I have a possible business in my home and I would smoke in there anyway. My clients would be musicians who are a little more open to smoking even if they don't smoke. I would have no objection to people saying they will not come to my house if I smoke.

But all in all, it was about that one clause. I really don't think that taking that out would result in the deaths of millions of Tupperware women from the second-hand smoke at the parties. As for having a day care, if you take your child to a day care at someone's home, I think that smoking is only one thing you should look into when choosing a place that will be with your children all day.

To see people on here supporting the non-smoking issue all the way into people's homes is frightening. Yes, second-hand smoke is bad, yes, there should be places that smoking should not be allowed, yes, people who are smoking in place where you expect clean air is wrong and to the people who are sincere about this, I am supportive of. The militant anti-smokers who can't see beyond their own cloud of self importance, I have no pity for. I hope some day they make it illegal to be ignorant in your own home, I know many people here that will freak out.

[SnowGoose]

181. Sampling bias

In reply to your question: how come the anti-smokers at DU are the rudest group of people we have here?

I would suggest that there is a sampling bias for those with deep, even visceral, feelings about the issue. On both sides.

I'd have to call myself an "anti-smoker" and I don't think I'm rude about it.

My story: working on a PhD in a school of public health - thesis is on immune suppression caused by cigarette smoke. Not widely appreciated, but probably a significant source of morbidity and mortality due to increased risk of infectious disease.

I smoked for a few years, got bad respiratory problems, quit.

My opposition to smoking isn't based on not liking the smell - I'm a vegetarian, and I assure you the smell of cooking meat is an order of magnitude nastier than cigarette smoke to me. In fact, clove cigarettes still evoke a bit of a craving. I'm not crazy about public breastfeeding either, but I realize this is just a reflection of what I'm used to, and in the next few generations, it's going to be no big deal. These are personal preferences, and I don't feel I've got the right to make people stop eating meat or stop breastfeeding in public anymore than a homophobe has the right to disallow a gay couple from making out on the park bench. But being around smoke does make it hard for me to breathe - I've pretty much given up going to bars, which I really used to enjoy.

It's been interesting reading this discussion. The only things I have that I think are worthy of injection into this discussion are the following: if someone is sanctimonious, that doesn't mean their point is invalid (how many people here are sanctimonious about people who drive SUV's (eg "kill yourself, just don't poison my planet")? So someone could be kinda an asswipe and still have a point.

And further, one tends to *notice* the rude and vocal, while others with similar objectives or politics pass by unnoticed. There may be more opposed to smoking than are immediately obvious by their obnoxious and holier-than-thou attitude.

As always, you're free to think I'm full of shit, and I won't try to convince you that I'm not.

[hedgehog]

188. Based on my experience with Canadian geese,

No goose is full of shit; they leave it all over the lawn!

Sorry - getting silly here, I better go do something productive.

[saracat]

145. I have got to add this story. Many years ago a friend lived

across the way from the woman who spear headed all the anti smoking legislation. She also maitained a wildlife santuary of sorts for some really expensive rare birds and ducks. The ducks kept escaping and ending up in my friend's pool.He went over to talk to her about this one day and she began to cough and choke and wave him away.They were outside.She said please you must put that ciggarette out I am sooo allergic.He looked directly at her and said, but it isn't lit! I always thought that summed up a lot of people's reactions. particularly the virilent anti smokers! And BTW, when asked to resuesome bay birds that had fallen out of a tree, she said "those are just ordinary sparrows, let them die!" And for imformation purposed, I too am and ex smoker, and don't like folks to smoke in my house and I ,too think it makes clothes and hair stink but I will go and sit in a smoking section if I am with friends who smoke.I still find smokers more interseting people.

[hedgehog]

Clearly this woman had issues beyond exposure to tobacco smoke!

That's unfortunate, because incidents like this really cloud the entire debate.

[skypilot]

161. "...cloud the entire debate."

No pun intended.:)

[hedgehog]

162. I was hoping someone would notice that!

:)

[robinlynne]

198. but I think this IS the debate. I smoke. when people say I dont like

the smell. that's fine and reasonable. I try to stay away from them when I smoke. but when you start saying that smokers kill people, it is just plain ridiculous. My stepfather is a well known oncologist and researcher. Second hand smoke does NOT cause illness. They have done hundreds of studies and cannot show that it does. And they certainly try. My stepfather says that you would need to be locked into a closet for years with 5 smokers to be affected by second hand smoke.

[calico1]

172. So because she was a jerk who

was a non smoker then that means all non smokers are jerks? I have a very good buddy who is a smoker. But I have never thought that he being a great guy is due to the fact that he smokes.

[saracat]

196. No. all non smokers are not jerks but her behavior is the type

gave me a bad impression of the anti smoking movement.She was a phoney and likely not allergic to anything! As I said I am a former smoker so I guess that makes me a "non smoker". But I don't believe all of the psuedo science regarding second hand smoke and I believe as long as smoking is legal, people should have the right to participate in it. I think non smoker( who don't want to be exposed to smoke) should patronize those establishment that don't allow smoking.But businesses that want to provide smoking areas ought to be allowed to. And people should be allowed to make their own decisions about smoking at home.I understand the argument about chilren but just as with food choices, I don't think the government should be mandating how we live.Education is the key.If smoking and buyin tobbacco becomes illegal, then we have a different picture.But I don't see that as likely!

[bpeale]

291. line drawing game

this is not really about smoking. this is about not being content to draw the line for yourselves, you want to draw it for everybody else. smoking, as disgusting as it is, is a LEGAL activity. and i highly doubt it will ever be outlawed completely. anyone who tries to draw the line for ANYBODY else is a sanctimonious assh*le.

[Historic NY]

149. I was a smoker until 10 months ago............

Dr. recommend it was time to stop as it was the most likely cause of a triple A aneurysm. I went for laser acupuncture and have not had a smoke since. I do miss them but I also feel much better w/o them. My twin gave them up 2 weeks ago. I am never going to collect the big Marlboro gifts either since they stopped.

[K8-EEE]

177. Good For YOU! Remember: GWB Smiles When You Light Up!

It's true -- big tabaccky is one of the GOP's best friends. Plus big pharma gets a kickback when people end up having to do all the lung disease drugs. And if the cigs kill you it's one less liberal! IT'S ALL GOOD FOR THEM IF YOU SMOKE! That's the bottom line.

[johnnie]

216. GWB hates when I light up

And so does "big tabaccky". The tobacco I smoke comes from a small private company, and I make my own. I pay less for a pack a smokes than you do for a cup of latte. I'm a kind of smoker that pisses off non-smokers AND the big money tobacco peeps. And I am also the kind that knocks your giddiness down a notch or two. That sucks huh?

[K8-EEE]

226. Angry much?

Wow I don't remember being so angry when I smoked....angry at myself maybe for killing myself a little at a time with the damned cigs, but not at other people...

[johnnie]

242. Angry?

Not at all. Why do you say that?

One thing I have learned about the internet is that a lot of people tend to read what other people write in the manner in which they are feeling at the time. Since there really is no emotions to express in how something is said, people who read it put their own feelings in to what they read.

So, angry much?

As for killing myself. I really hate to break this to you, but it is none of your concern as to how I kill myself. You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. :hi:

[rinsd]

180. 8 months here. Went cold turkey. Stay strong.

:thumbsup:

[K8-EEE]

229. HOW I QUIT!

I quit a hundred times unsuccessfully but when I finally quit, I put a package of cigs in the freezer and did the "delay" thing, I would tell myself to wash my hair or take a walk, do my nails anything where I couldn't smoke doing it, and if I still wanted one I could have one...but usually after 20 minutes or so you don't want one so badly any more. After you get a few days under your belt you don't want to start over again.

Celebrate your success, you deserve it!

[rinsd]

284. Whatever you find that helps and works is okay.

I basically freaked out for 4 or 5 days after smoking a pack a day for 12 years. But I got thru it and as the months wore on its has gotten easier though I still get cravings from time to time.

[Broken_Hero]

282. 8 months, way to go!

I'm a day over ten weeks...and just reading this thread makes me want to light up!...congrats on your milestone...last year/part of this year, I last 9 months before caving in, in March.

[rinsd]

286. Stay strong.

I made it 3 months twice before but this time I'm done for good.

As I like to say I had my LAST cigarette on Feb 12th 2006.

[Broken_Hero]

288. I have gone months before

in 03, I lasted about 6 months, in 04, I lasted about 5 months, last year I last just over 9 months, this time around...each monday is another week of being smoke free, yesterday was ten weeks...I know, I can't quit forever, I know I will smoke again, but I need to keep it to a minimum...what makes it hard is that my wife is still smoking, and each time she lights up, it kills me to say NO...its rough. I have overcome a lot of other illegal drugs in my life, but cigs, takes the effing cake....I have known guys who quit for over 30 years, and the minute they smell it they want one...so, after 30 yrs, you still can't shake that "particular" feeling? Man, what a drug!

With my non-smoking, I have had to tone down on my drinking as well, because when I drink, the urge to smoke is unbearable....

[rinsd]

388. Every failure in my quitting efforts was alcohol related.

Its very tough to quit when your SO is smoking so I do not envy the months ahead of you.

[porphyrian]

153. I think we need to take it into the Octagon!

Or somewhere else you couldn't run too far.

[Touchdown]

164. Screw The Octagon. I say Thunder Dome!

It was built by jews so Mel can fight until he dies.

[rudy23]

154. Do non-smokers realize smoking is a serious addiction

And that smokers aren't lighting up because they don't care about you, but because if they don't light up, they may go postal on everyone? It's a serious, serious, addiction. It's not just a "habit" that people do to indulge themselves.

I promise, the person who keeps a smoker from lighting up, is imposing more discomfort than the smoker is with their second hand smoke. I'd rather cough and wheeze than feel like I'm on fire from head to toe. Smokers can only seclude themselves so much---they've been kicked out of buildings, and now people are complaining about people smoking outside. Where do you go?

It seems like people who do most of the complaining about smokers, seem to think the smokers' number one goal is to cause them discomfort. Because it's all about them.

I used to be a smoker, and I quit three years ago. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Yes, it was dumb to pick it up, but we all make mistakes.

If you don't understand why people smoke, you don't understand much about people.

[Ron Green]

233. Why people continue to smoke is one question, and I agree with you

that it's a serious addiction. And congratulations, by the way, on your success in quitting.

Another question, though, is why people begin to smoke. It's a much more complicated issue, and it involves children, who are the usual new smokers, and advertising, which creates an environment that encourages addictions of all kinds.

But to hear the Libertarians on this board and in the industry, you'd think it's all about nothing but freedom of choice.

[LeftishBrit]

383. Good points

I have known some seriously addicted smokers and know it's not as simple as some people imply.

I agree it's totally unfair to accuse all smokers of just being 'self-indulgent' and wanting to cause other people trouble for the sake of it.

But my point all along has been that it's also unfair to imply that people who have allergies and other health issues with cigarette smoke are hypochondriacs or liars. You aren't doing so, but people have on this board. It's important to recognize other people's genuine needs and vulnerabilities, in both directions.

[michaelpush]

158. Any Scientific studies on the effect of

tobacco smoke, tons of tobacco being burned every day, on the environment? I would think it would contribute to the overall air pollution?

[Bake]

163. Since we can't stop the Torturer In Chief,

then what the hell, let's kick the smokers' asses!

Oops. I'm one of them. I meant, let's kick the FARTERS' asses. Nasty, motherf***ing farting yahoos! I hate those bastards.

Bake

[hedgehog]

179. Hey, at least we get a response from them

George just ignores us.

[truedelphi]

190. The problem I have is twofold

1) the sanctimonious kneejerk response to smoking
2) the fact that we allow ourselves to feel so jacked up by the idea that smokers are the problem that we fail to see that a more insidious poison is occurring - the air fresheners the air deoderizers the disinfectants etc. World Health Organization states that these items are benzene-based.

Smoking was bad but at least in the San Francisco Bay area you have to go hide under your car or something to smoke. Given that I have never smoked, and that no one around me smokes (my one friend who did smoke died of lung cancer at the age of fifty-one) I should be healthy and feel healthy and I don't...

But the very person who screams about cigarette smoke is wearing cologne so thick that bugs can walk on the scent.

I am starting to see more and more articles in magazines about a new type of lung cancer that is affecting yourng women who don't smoke. Chris Reeves' wife died from it (Hmm, wonder if SHE was ever inside a few hospital rooms with their Lysol?) This cancer is occurring at such an elevated rate that researchers are calling it "an epidemic"

As long as our society allows us to remain mad rabid dogs over the smoking issue and ignore the other issue, we are going to be just as posioned as before but from a different source.

[Cleita]

200. Good point!

I have asthma and some of the invisible fumes you mention, not to mention certain floral perfumes, can send me into a wheezing spell in no time. There is a store in the village near where I live that I can't go into. The minute I step over the threshhold I have an allergic reaction. I don't know what it is that they are using or selling that causes this but I know I can't walk in there.

[Cleita]

194. I'm a non-smoker, but treating people addicted to cigarettes like

pariah isn't right IMHO. There should be places they can smoke indoors and out. When I was in college (a small private women's college)smoking was against the rules throughout the whole campus and that was outdoors too, however, there were designated smoking lounges and one of the campus gazebos outdoors. No one had to go to those places if they didn't want to. So for non-smokers it was a smoke free atmosphere.

Since the lounges were locked at ten in the evening, my roomate, a smoker, was known to go to the smoking gazebo in the middle of snow in winter to indulge in her habit. The rest of us thought she was crazy, but at least she had the option. Why can't buildings set aside rooms behind closed doors for people to take a break in? That keeps them from huddling in doorways and sidewalks like we see now. Outdoor areas could also have some sort of accommodations like that.

Sure public buildings should be smoke free for the most part, but even before all the banning of smokers, department stores and other businessess banned smoking because it coated the merchandise with nicotine smoke. Yet many stores had lounges attached to their restrooms where shoppers could rest and have a smoke. Most smokers don't want to blow smoke in peoples faces and would be agreeable to such a compromise. But to demand compliance to a law and not provide them with alternatives isn't going to get the compliance non-smokers might want.

[JeffR]

221. Careful, Cleita

A sudden injection of common sense like yours could produce a matter/anti-matter explosion when combined with some of the nonsense being spouted upthread!

:nuke:

[Bluebear]

248. you said it. nt

[LeftishBrit]

267. As I said above, I agree with that

I am actually opposed to blanket bans on smoking in all pubs and the like; I would prefer tax and financial incentives to make it easier for those pub owners who choose to go 'non-smoking' or at least to have non-smoking rooms.

I would never tell a smoker that I hope they drop dead, or the like. (It wouldn't even occur to me to think such things.)

However, I really don't appreciate having my cigarette smoke allergies treated as some sort of fad or imaginary malady or excuse for making unreasonable demands. Perhaps I've had too much of that sort of thing with having had Crohn's disease as a child when it was thought that kids couldn't have it, and being treated by some people as just a spoilt fussy eater. I think people's people's health problems, and areas of comfort/ discomfort, should be respected as genuine. I do think that the same sometimes applies the other way round: i.e. some non-smokers don't realize how overwhelming the need to smoke can be for some people. Compromise is valuable, but you can't have compromise until each side recognizes the other side's physical needs as genuine, and continues from there.

[Cleita]

328. When it comes to pubs and restaurants I think the owners

should be able to decide what kind of an establishment they want to have. I lived in a place like that, a resort area where DH and I worked in the summer time. There were two saloons in town, one smoking and one non-smoking. The higher priced restaurants tended to be non-smoking but some accommodated smokers in outdoor areas. The burger joints tended to be smoking, but non-smokers who didn't want to be around smoke took their food to go.

No one told anyone that they couldn't smoke in their cars or homes, however, outdoor smoking was pretty much forbidden because of the fire danger even in the campgrounds. It was a forested area.

This seems to have worked out for everyone including even the most militant non-smokers. It's a matter of giving both sides choices that are acceptable to them.

[JeffR]

195. and blah blah blah blah blah

:eyes:

[noonwitch]

211. I am a considerate smoker, but I smoke outdoors

I don't smoke in my house, because I like my towels and stuff to not smell like it. I don't smoke in my car, because I drive kids around in it and don't want it to smell like smoke. I recognize that second hand smoke exists and has bad effects on some people.

However, I do smoke on my front porch and in my back yard. I smoke outside of the door at work.

When it comes to bars and restaurants, I think the decision should be market-driven, as long as there is a non-smoking area available.

Hotels need to have smoking areas and non-smoking areas, because the smoking rooms do have that smoke smell that lingers, and because a non smoking room next door to a smoking room will get the smell in it, too, since they use kleenex for their walls (at least the cheap hotels I stay in-Hampton Inns, Sleep Inns, etc.).

[calico1]

220. You are like a buddy of mine.

He is a smoker but doesn't like to smoke in his car or inside his home. We went out to dinner once a few years back before the smoking ban took effect. The hostess asked us "smoking or non smoking?" I answered "Smoking" and my friend said "non smoking." We both said it at the same time so it was kind of funny. I asked him why he didn't want to sit in the smoking section and he said he doesn't like to eat in smoking sections because he doesn't like that while he is eating. I was kind of surprised at that.

[hedgehog]

316. Here's what i don't get

Why do people insist on smoking in non-smoking rooms? Is it that they couldn't get a smoking room or that they don't like breathing in stale smoke either?

[starroute]

215. For me, it's all about freedom of movement

I am extremely sensitive to tobacco fumes. My my nose and soft palate sting, my chest tightens up, and I start coughing, but futilely, because there isn't any phlegm there to cough up. Suffice it to say that I have problems enough that I can't be any place where I'd have to deal with tobacco fumes.

To a surprising degree, this is even true outdoors -- far more so than in a well-ventilated indoor area. Before the malls banned smoking, I had no problem being in one as long as I stayed a couple of yards from any smokers. But at outdoor events, like parades and concerts, I really have problems.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, I was weeding my drive, and the man across the street stepped out on his porch to smoke a cigarette. I had to drop everything run indoors until he was done. When my neighbor smokes in his back yard, I can't use my own.

Someone mentioned a woman who complained about an unlit cigarette, as though that proved it was all psychosomatic. It isn't. Whatever it is that cigarettes give off doesn't depend on their being burned. If you can smell the tobacco, you can be affected by it.

So for me, it's about freedom of movement and the right to enjoy ordinary pleasures and public events without being in pain or gasping for breath. Smokers can always go somewhere else for their nicotine. I can't go somewhere else to participate in everyday life. It's that simple, and if non-smokers sometimes seem shrill, it's because they feel excluded from what ought to be a birthright.

[LeftishBrit]

249. I agree

I cough, feel unwell, can't speak, can lose my voice for some time afterwards, if I am in an enclosed place with smokers. Outdoors, I am not affected unless lots of people are smoking at the same time in a small area.

I do think that there need to be some rules about smoking in enclosed places, because there are significant numbers of people who can be badly affected.

I also feel that smokers may be justified in calling us selfish if we ask for this, but not in regarding us as 'Nazis', etc. We are concerned about maintaining our own health and freedom - not about dictating to others what they can do with regard to their own health.

While car exhaust can have long-term effects on people's health, it doesn't normally have the same immediate effects on passers-by. Maybe it would if people drove their cars indoors in enclosed places - but obviously they don't. (By the way, I don't drive, and would be happy to see some reduction in car use.)

[Zhade]

252. All very good points.

I'm not anti-smoker (my dad smokes, and I love him); I'm anti-smoking and anti-secondhand smoke.

Moreso the latter than the former - if addicts want to kill themselves, it's none of my business. When they demand the "right" (that doesn't exist) to expose others to their deadly addiction, I have a problem with it.

I think banning can go too far, if it bans smoking in places where unwilling exposure can't happen (like a cigar bar). But I fully support not allowing smokers to expose their poison to others.

There's no such thing as secondhand obesity or secondhand liver disease; it's a proven fact that secondhand smoke does exist and kills people every year.

Just as I'm not one to expose the unwilling to my mj smoke (even though mine doesn't cause cancer and theirs does), smokers should realize they have no right to expose others to their smoke.

(And for the last time, I don't hate smokers. I know many of them, and like many of them a great deal.)

[hedgehog]

268. I'd like to clear the air a little ( like that pun?) by

reiterating my belief that the smoking bans are based on people not liking the smell of tobacco more than anything else. Consider that for years, even when people smoked cigarettes everywhere, cigar smoking was banned in certain places. Clearly there is a precedent for banning the creation of noxious odors. My theory is that smoking was tolerated for years because it was a male activity. As females began smoking in public, this was seen as a step toward equality. It was only in the 90's after people had stood up on so many other issues that non-smokers finally looked around, realized that they had the votes, and started getting rid of all the smoke. The less you are exposed to cigarette smoke, the more you notice it when you are exposed, so each ban led to a new, wider ban. Throw in the new etiquette that allows public scolding of behavior you disapprove of (wearing fur, eating meat, hunting) and you have a lot of smoldering resentment.

I just wish the people who are so obnoxious about objecting to smoking in public would direct their energy at protecting the Constitution from George and Co.

[L A Woman]

272. Smoking is not a RIGHT

...it is a filthy habit. Breathing clean air is a right. I think smokers need to recognize that what they are doing is outside the realm of civilized behavior.

And I smoked for 18 years, so I sure understand the power of the addiction, BUT it is not a behavior that can be defended as if it is a right. You should be using that energy to try to quit and thus stop supporting the Republican corporations who are trying to kill you for a profit.

And aside from the issue of health, you should think about the comfort of other human beings in the world. When someone is eating a meal, you shouldn't light a cigarette within 50 yards of them (yep, we can smell it AT LEAST that far away!). Imagine that I allow my dog to poop on your table while you are eating. Would that be OK with you? Isn't that my RIGHT?????

This thread illustrates what kind of world we live in now, really - a world where the comfort and health of others is secondary to our own personal immediate satisfaction.

[bpeale]

318. as long as its a law its a right. period.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

340. It's both, actually.

[Pacifist Patriot]

285. As a non-smoker, I'm really not all that concerned with...

the second hand smoke and the disgusting odors. Someone asked "what's it to me."

This is my answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2412486&mesg_id=2415564

[RedEarth]

293. Links to the Health Effects to Second Hand Smoke........

http://www.breatheeasyok.com/HealthEffects.htm

[Amaya]

295. Best Flame Thread Ever!

I've had such a good laugh reading this.... :rofl:

[hedgehog]

296. Jeeze Louise - don't accuse me of starting flame threads!

I'm trying so hard to behave but a lot of people don't share my sense of humor!

[NaturalHigh]

299. How about smoking on my back patio?

Will that be okay, or will that offend your senses as well? After all, you might happen to be walking down the street and smell my cigarette.

[hedgehog]

302. What if my patio adjoins yours?

Do we live in a townhouse?

[NaturalHigh]

308. Nope, single-family unit.

Since someone might catch a certain breeze, though, I was afraid someone might be offended. Also, I might contribute to global warming with my half-a-pack-a-day habit.

[starroute]

310. It's not about "offending the senses"

It's about physical pain and about feeling ill, sometimes for several days afterwards. Is it so hard to understand that?

Do you have any idea what it's like to have to close windows in the middle of summer because someone is smoking on the sidewalk, cross the street and then cross it back again just to get to the mailbox without walking through a crowd of smokers, or leave a yard sale prematurely because someone thinks it's fine to lollygag around with a cigarette?

When I was a kid, my father once suggested jokingly that I should buy some 4th of July sparklers -- which seemed to bother most other people more than me -- and wave them around any time someone lit a cigarette near me, just to give them the idea of what it was like. I'm half thinking that might not be a bad idea...

[NaturalHigh]

311. If you do it on your own patio, why would I care?

Again, I ask, will it be okay for me to smoke on my own back patio, or will that violate some sort of "progressive" rule?

[hedgehog]

313. Again, you can smoke all you want on your own patio

as long as the smoke stays on your side of the fence.

[NaturalHigh]

386. That might be a problem.

I don't have a fence in my back yard. I guess I'll just continue to rely on the good will of my neighbors, all non-smokers, who have never complained that I might be somehow intruding on them. None of them are very liberal, either, so I guess smoking on my own property doesn't violate their progressive sensibilities.

[hedgehog]

307. Alright, who brought up cyanide?

I was going to be a smart ass and point out that cyanide is present in cigarette smoke, and now i can't find the thread.

[TroglodyteScholar]

309. I think these threads are nothing but an excuse to behave like assholes

Stop it.

[cwydro]

382. and I think you're right

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

314. If you're a hypocrit there's nothing wrong with number 2.

It's hypocritical to be against smoking and all for jumping in your car and taking off.

[hedgehog]

325. Who says the two stands are mutually exclusive?

That's like saying that people who post with concerns about minimum wage workers are in favor of clubbing baby seals. Someone could be against smoking and simultaneously against the automobile. It's just that smoking is the topic at hand.

[ScreamingMeemie]

329. It is? Really? Are baby seals collecting paychecks these days?

I didn't know that.

[hedgehog]

332. I was trying to be humorous in making my point.

I hope I didn't offend.

[ScreamingMeemie]

334. You didn't offend.

I don't have a dog in this particular race, but I see both of them (cars/cigarettes) as the same...pollutants. Only differing viewpoints on the necessity of them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

317. Ok.

"1. Why do smokers find it so hard to believe that second hand smoke exists? Even outdoors, say walking through a parking lot, I can tell if someone walked through with a cigarette."

Never heard a smoker ever say that second hand smoke doesn't exist. In fact, this insinuation is pretty laughable. It's more simply a thought process of "Awwwww, puwr wittle u. Smelled some smokey wokey"

"2. How does one form of pollution(cars, industry, barbecue grills, dry cleaners) justify another source (smoking)?"

Doesn't. But raising those points can contribute to the awareness and absurdity of a thought process along the lines of "hey, stop squirting me with that spray bottle! I don't want to get wet!" while you're walking in a torrential downpour.

"3. Aren't there also increasingly tight laws against other sources of air pollution?"

Yup. But since they're far more valuable, maybe some think your time would be better spent preaching about them instead.

"4. The issue is other people's unwilling exposure to second hand smoke. It is not concern for the smoker's health. For example, we have no laws against heavy drinking, although heavy drinking can be related to liver failure and esophageal cancer. Other people can be affected if heavy drinking is combined with driving, so we do have laws against drunk driving."

We're all exposed to a plethora of things that are not by choice, every single day. C'est La Vie

"5. Smoke from tobacco has particular characteristics such as chemical composition and particle size that makes it particularly irritating to others. Personal testimony: I worked in various departments of a very old steel mill. Some places had a lot of soot in the air and I would go home and cough up black phlegm. (I apologize for being so graphic.) In other departments I was fine except for the days I had to spend a lot of time working around heavy smokers. Those days I also went home coughing. I recently spent time around a smoker who was careful to smoke outside. I ended up coughing just as much as I ever did when I worked at the mill."

Again, many smokers would have the mindset of "Awwwww, puwr wittle u. Smelled some smokey wokey".

[hedgehog]

323. I'm not sure if those are your sentiments or if you're just

making an illustration. However, it's silly of smokers to deny or denigrate non-smokers' complaints about smoke. If smokers are seen as unwilling to admit there is a problem, I think it puts more non-smokers in the camp that wants a total ban.

On edit: the attitude expressed toward smokers above - tough titties - is also non-productive.

[LeftishBrit]

352. Frankly, THIS strikes me as a right-wing type of attitude

"Again, many smokers would have the mindset of "Awwwww, puwr wittle u. Smelled some smokey wokey"."

I don't think that smoking as such is liberal or illiberal. However, I do find it illiberal to sneer at other people's physical vulnerabilities and weaknesses. It strikes me as not that far removed from the Thatcherite/ Republican attitude to poor people: "Awwww, puwr wittle u. Can't earn enough money to live decently? Get on your bike and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and don't expect other people to sacrifice their rightfully-earned money in taxes to give handouts to you weaklings!"

I hasten to add that I think it's just as illiberal for non-smokers to dismiss the genuineness of many smokers' addictions, and assume that it's just a bad habit that they could easily conquer - and I've seen that on this thread as well.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

355. For The Record,

If you genuinely are comparing the petty inconvenience of a slight temporary whiff of smoke to the plight of the poor, than I truly feel for you.

[CarbonDate]

365. No worse than people....

...trying to restrict public smoking being compared to Nazis, IMO.

Personally, I think if there's going to be public smoking, there ought to be public masturbation. Both are repulsive, but one is a much worse health hazard than the other.

[LeftishBrit]

377. No. I am comparing sneering at *health problems* with sneering at poverty

The whole point is that there are some people for whom smoke is NOT just a 'petty inconvenience'. It can have the same effect on a significant number of people (including myself) as catching an illness. For a smaller number of people, such as those with severe asthma, it can be life-threatening.

I am NOT saying that no one should have the right to smoke, or even that it should be completely banned in public places. In fact I've said the opposite on these threads. I am also not saying that ALL people are that badly physically affected by cigarette smoke. What is really getting to me, however, is the assumption that anyone who says they can't cope physically with cigarette smoke is lying, or deserves to be sneered at.

It may not be as extreme as sneering at poor or obviously disabled people, but it's part of the same slippery slope. Where does it end? Should people with diabetes be considered as food-faddists or worse if they refuse sugary foods? Should people who claim that they can't work due to an injury or illness be AUTOMATICALLY assumed to be lying, and denied benefits? Etc. Once you think it's all right to sneer at one type of genuine weakness or vulnerability, then it can contribute to its being respectable to sneer at other sorts

In fact, I don't have such a big problem with smoking as such, as most people whom I know who smoke have been considerate of my needs. Great! I appreciate it. However, I do have a problem - both personally (as a person with an invisible illness - Crohns disease), and politically - with people refusing to accept the genuine health needs and disabilities of other people. What got me posting and debating on these threads was the assumption that anyone who coughs or claims ill-effects of passive smoking must be lying or pretending. Perhaps some are - like there really are some people who fake disabilities to get benefits or compensation - but that doesn't mean that one should assume that people are guilty of this until proved innocent. Just as with any other health needs.

And yes, as I said in my previous post, some non-smokers have been expressing similarly illiberal and intolerant attitudes to the genuineness of some smokers' addiction; and I disagree strongly with that as well.

[RPM]

320. OK - so if i enjoy the mellow flavor of mace, you won't mind if...

i happen to get some in your general direction while i avail myself of my liberty to use mace whereever and whenever i choose?

you wouldnt mind, would you?

[hedgehog]

322. Are we talking about mace the spice or mace as in pepper

spray?

[BlackVelvet04]

326. There's a whole lot in life I don't like......

but seems I have no say about assholes inhabiting my world.

I'm absolutely disgusted and sick of all the friggin' whiney asses in this country. Everybody wants to do away with something that offends them.

Life's dangerous, messy and irritating....deal with it, folks.

[hedgehog]

331. I think the biggest difference between the 50's and 60's

is that people decided to quit dealing with it.
Handicapped? - life's hard, deal with it
Black? life's hard, deal with it.
Female in a male dominated society? life's hard, deal with it.

It might be a sign of progress that we've gotten to the point that people can worry and gripe about second hand smoke.

[ScreamingMeemie]

333. I would say that blacks and handicaps may disagree with your

point there. Much could still be done that isn't.

[hedgehog]

335. Sometimes we do need to stand back and acknowledge that

progress has been made. Otherwise we'd just curl up in despair.

I just wish we could round up a lot of the anger expressed both by smokers and non-smokers and point it all at Bush.

[Jed Dilligan]

344. I think people are directing their anger at Bush

towards easier targets.

I don't like the debate frame here: "smoker" vs. "non-smoker." It's like everyone is expected to act out of pure selfish interest. A non-smoker could oppose anti-smoking legislation, a smoker could support it. Too bad we've sunk to this level of pettiness--my health! my wallet! my rights! no my rights! you stink! no you stink!

Meanwhile, I suspect the people bringing us this legislation have things other than our health on their minds.

[Bluebear]

347. Interestingly, nobody in the 50's and 60's seemed to be "allergic"

maybe they suffered in silence as you say, but all of a sudden people have2 "allergies" to smoke.

[Lisa0825]

354. After reading half this thread....

I have to say how pathetic it is how people will cling to and justify an addiction. As I told a female friend of mine, "If a man ever tried to control you the way you let cigarettes, you'd kick his ass to the curb in no time flat."

It's really sad how many smokers don't give a shit about how their addiction affects others.

I lost both my parents way too young to smoking related diseases, and everytime I see a thread like this, it makes me really sad for the family and loved ones of those so virulently defending their sick habits, when they die young and/or end up with a horrible quality of life in their last years the way both my parents did.

Those of you who won't suffer that way should thank your lucky stars, but too many of you eventually will go through it.

[Ellen Forradalom]

363. Oh cripes. Calm down folks.

A bit of social engineering to tip public perception towards favoring non-smoking is enough. I don't want to outlaw it outright, or turn smokers into second-class citizens, but the air is a shared resource, and should be governed as such. That's why I support smoking bans in enclosed public places.

The man I love smokes; what I've told him is that quitting is strictly his choice and no nagging from me will influence it; but by the same token I'd like to see him around and healthy for a long time, so I support his quitting when he so chooses. Until then, there are some limits on his smoking (no smoking in bed, for example). And that's all.

[Bluebear]

374. How did we EVER survive the 40's through 80's?

Yours is a very sensible post.

[LeftishBrit]

378. Some of us survived that period (in my case the later part of it)

by just being frequently unable to go to cinemas, many restaurants, other social occasions.

So *our* personal freedoms were seriously restricted.

[Evoman]

373. have to admit, as a non-smoker, it is nice to not have to eat while

smelling smoke. I live in a city with bylaws that have completely banned smoking inside most establishments (restaurants, goverment place, even bars). The bars were particularly afraid of what would happen if smoking was banned. The funny thing is, from what I've read, its increased patronage at a lot of these places...people who didn't want to go the bar, because they hated smelling like smoke now did go out.

With that being said, I sympathize with the smokers. It really has not been proven that second hand smoke is particularly dangerous. In fact, there really is very little evidence at all. Yes, smoke is unpleasant (it makes me gag), but sometimes we have to put up with things we don't like in order to call ourselves a free society. Car fumes, for example, are probably as dangerous for our health as second hand smoke, and no one is saying we need to ban cars (although sometimes I find myself thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to force people to use mass transit in bigger cities). I could just as easily start a thread accusing car-drivers of killing me with their exhaust fumes, and saying their rights to drive a car ends at my nose, lol. After all, I may be a non-smoker, but I also don't drive a car. I walk and bike (and occasionally bus) places. So I get the double whammy...I'm being killed by smokers and drivers, lol.

Evoman

[joeygirl]

384. Ultimately, smoking is a choice, just like not smoking is a

choice. While smoking is disgusting and I would never do it, people who smoke aren't doing anything illegal and I'm so sick of people treating them as criminals. Really, it would just be a lot easier if we just one and for all voted on whether smoking should be legal or not in our country.

[Taverner]

387. As an ex-smoker, I still support smoker's rights

However, Second Hand smoke exists, and is dangerous. Now I highly doubt the studies that say it is more dangerous than first hand smoke....but it's a bit like arguing who's safer in a room full of gasoline, the guy with 2 matches or 3?

Second hand smoke, btw, is also dangerous for smokers too. Making smokers go outside in California has actually raised the life expectancy of smokers.