Smokers Unite

[Ponderthought]

A thread to bemoan persecution from the non-smoking public.

Looks like im heading off to Six Flags again in October. Me and my aunt will no doubt have loads of fun standing in the "smoking section" of a largely outdoor amusement park, while passerby regard us as if we were zoo animals.

:smallannoyed:

[CynicalAvocado]

it seems people have forgotten the gentile art of pipe smoking

[shadow_archmagi]

A thread to bemoan persecution from the non-smoking public.

I'm not sure persecution is the right word

[Knaight]

The smoking section bit is fair enough, though being stared at is always obnoxious. Some people -myself included- can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke, and in a place as crowded as Six Flags it could get thick.

[RabbitHoleLost]

I smoke hookah... very rarely. And I guess it doesn't count.

I'll go sit over here in the "not cool kids" section :smalltongue:

[Elentari]

Also, for those who smoke, please keep in mind that some people have allergies that can be worsened by tobacco smoke. It is not very fun to have to inhale smoke, the spend the next day taking more antihistamines than normal to try to keep the drippy nose, itchy eyes, coughing, etc under control. Also, some people have asthma. So, we're not trying to persecute, but at the same time, its not very fun to be next to someone that is smoking.

[CynicalAvocado]

of course at the dallas bus station the smoking section was in the bus bay i'd rather be stared at in a zoo than be deafened by 20 idling buses

[Xyk]

{Scrubbed}

[nihilism]

meh. yeah its probably annoying. but its bloody annoying having to breath peoples smoke it often gives me a headache or sorethroat.

my city has a total ban on smoking in public places. going abroad is always a disgusting shock.

[Gorgondantess]

I smoke (well, not as much as some, but I do smoke regularly), and I hate, for lack of a better word, secondhand smoke. Primarily because I'm a snob and what most people smoke I consider to be crap, but even with nice tobacco, if I want to smoke I'll light one up myself thank you very much. It's also just not nice to be smelling it wherever you go. So, there's these sections for a reason. Honestly, I've never noticed any staring... but I usually just smoke in the privacy of my own backyard anyways.

[Ponderthought]

I smoke hookah... very rarely. And I guess it doesn't count.

I'll go sit over here in the "not cool kids" section

Nah, ill get you a pass for the ultra-cool kids section. hookahs are awesome. I've been trying to pick one to buy for ages.


Also, for those who smoke, please keep in mind that some people have allergies that can be worsened by tobacco smoke. It is not very fun to have to inhale smoke, the spend the next day taking more antihistamines than normal to try to keep the drippy nose, itchy eyes, coughing, etc under control. Also, some people have asthma. So, we're not trying to persecute, but at the same time, its not very fun to be next to someone that is smoking.

Of course most of us realize that. If im aggravating someone by smoking near them, all they have to do is bring it up, and ill smoke somewhere else or put out my pipe. I just find it irritating that after being chased outside by city ordinances, im now being confined to very small areas of outside.

Plus, several non-smokers im acquainted with never seem to realize that smoke, outside in the open, as a form of hot gas, travel upwards, and dosent hang around their face like they keep telling me it dose. Especially when im standing down wind.

[Forever Curious]

...is it wrong the first thing I thought when I saw this thread was "Copper-burning allomancers"?

I need to get out more. :smalleek:

[Sneak]

I don't mind the idea of other people smoking in the abstract.

I just don't like being near smokers, because secondhand smoke is disgusting.

I think that's pretty fair and reasonable.

[Katana_Geldar]

Now that smoking is banned in pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs here, I will say it is a relief to not hang your clothes near a window for the better part of a week to get rid of the smell of stale tobacco smoke.

One thing I have against smokers is that at work they can have their nicotine fix, their smoko, a quick break which can add up to almost an hour at times while the rest of us who value our lungs are still working. :smallmad:

And I hate walking down the street and getting smoke blown in my face by a staff member having their smoko outside a shop.

[Knaight]

Its an aesthetic thing really, barring the occasional allergy issue. More comparable to public nudity than restrictions on chemical dumping.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Nah, ill get you a pass for the ultra-cool kids section. hookahs are awesome. I've been trying to pick one to buy for ages.


Ah, I don't own one, either. Tulsa, Oklahoma just has some awesome hookah bars :smallsmile:

Also, BOOYAH. I'M A COOL KID.

[CynicalAvocado]

I don't mind the idea of other people smoking in the abstract.

I just don't like being near smokers, because secondhand smoke is disgusting.

I think that's pretty fair and reasonable.

what about e-cigs? all they put out is water vapor

[shadow_archmagi]

all they have to do is bring it up

The difficulty being that that system requires ME to initiate a conversation in which I ask a complete stranger to go away because I don't enjoy their hobbies.

[Skeppio]

Now that smoking is banned in pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs here, I will say it is a relief to not hang your clothes near a window for the better part of a week to get rid of the smell of stale tobacco smoke.

One thing I have against smokers is that at work they can have their nicotine fix, their smoko, a quick break which can add up to almost an hour at times while the rest of us who value our lungs are still working. :smallmad:

And I hate walking down the street and getting smoke blown in my face by a staff member having their smoko outside a shop.

Katana_Geldar? Haven't seen you around in ages.

And yeah, this happens to me all the time at work. It's a bit hard to like your manager when she goes off for a smoke every hour or so while I have a huge pile of work to do. :smallmad:

But if they're not blowing it in other's faces, I'm okay with it. I just don't like all the chemicals they put in em. My friend smokes all-tobacco ones, so that's cool. :smallsmile:

[golentan]

Plus, several non-smokers im acquainted with never seem to realize that smoke, outside in the open, as a form of hot gas, travel upwards, and dosent hang around their face like they keep telling me it dose. Especially when im standing down wind.

I beg to differ. As a gas, even when it tends towards upwards movement while hot it dissipates that heat quickly and tends to permeate the area regardless. Granted, I have a sensitive nose and pallet, but the odor of smoke lingers for hours. A regular smoker never stops smelling of it. Someone who quits the habit can ditch the odor after a year or two, or if they wash new clothes separately from the old. Smokers don't realize this because they are used to the smell.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Oddly, I love the smell of cigarette smoke, but both my parents, my grandmother, and most of my aunts smoked, so there's the rub.
However, the taste of a smoker's kiss is unpleasant, I will say.

[onthetown]

I don't smoke, but I certainly won't tell somebody not to... our city has a ban on smoking in public places within 15 feet of the door or on patios and whatnot. Doesn't stop people from exhaling right into my face as I pass them on the street.

The break thing is an annoyance. Smokers can go out for five minutes to get their fix, but non-smokers aren't allowed to go out for five minutes just to get some air unless it's a designated break (or unless you've befriended a smoker and go out with them). I'm a little confused as to why the special privileges...

It doesn't make somebody a bad person, though. It just makes you wish that you could take a bottle of whiskey to work and claim that you're an alcoholic and need to go take a drink every hour. :smalltongue:

[Katana_Geldar]

I want a chocolate break!

[Ponderthought]

It doesn't make somebody a bad person, though. It just makes you wish that you could take a bottle of whiskey to work and claim that you're an alcoholic and need to go take a drink every hour.

Wait, everybody else isnt bringing their own Jack?:smallbiggrin:

[Gorgondantess]

On the subject of smoking breaks: where do you people work that is so loving and kind and amazing? Because I need to work there. I've never seen that happen.

[onthetown]

Wait, everybody else isnt bringing their own Jack?:smallbiggrin:

Shhh... Our secret might get out. :smallamused:

[Malfunctioned]

Oddly, I love the smell of cigarette smoke, but both my parents, my grandmother, and most of my aunts smoked, so there's the rub.
However, the taste of a smoker's kiss is unpleasant, I will say.

Trust me, a smoker kissing you whilst having a mouth-full of smoke is so very bad. :smallmad:

That's the closest I've come to smoking and I don't really want to. I don't mind if other people do it just as long as I they don't try to force it onto me.

[ForzaFiori]

The difficulty being that that system requires ME to initiate a conversation in which I ask a complete stranger to go away because I don't enjoy their hobbies.{Scrubbed}

Personally, I think that if I am outside, it should be completely my right to light up and smoke. If you have a problem with it, either ask me to move, or move yourself. I can understand having smoking sections or banning smoking indoors. I've hotboxed enough cars and small rooms to understand what happens when people smoke in a room. But outside, especially in cities (where it seems smoking is banned most often), I think a little bit of tobacco smoke is the least of your worries, what with the smog, greenhouse gases, diesel, and who knows what else that is already invading your lungs.

[Katana_Geldar]

My stepdad used to smoke, and I tell you cleaning out his filthy full ashtrays, some of which had been left out in the rain, turned me off the habit for life.

And there's a curious relationship between governments and cigarette taxes. They put gross ads on TV around dinner time to encourage people to quit and do all sorts of funny bans on advertising...but they'll never actually ban cigarettes due to all the money that comes in.

It's like what they said in that Yes, Prime Minister episode "The Smoke Screen".

I hope that doesn't count as politcal... :smalleek:

[CynicalAvocado]

Now that smoking is banned in pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs here, I will say it is a relief to not hang your clothes near a window for the better part of a week to get rid of the smell of stale tobacco smoke.

One thing I have against smokers is that at work they can have their nicotine fix, their smoko, a quick break which can add up to almost an hour at times while the rest of us who value our lungs are still working. :smallmad:

And I hate walking down the street and getting smoke blown in my face by a staff member having their smoko outside a shop.

i know how you feel, half the people in my air mech class smoke including the instructor so we have a break every hour on the hour. thats not so bad but we all converse smoking or non and one guy smokes a cigar (if there is one method of smoking i hate, it's cigars) so we have to endure the funk that comes of the thing (not this (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6700000/We-ve-got-the-Funk-the-mighty-boosh-6784637-470-343.jpg) kind of funk either)

[Skeppio]

My stepdad used to smoke, and I tell you cleaning out his filthy full ashtrays, some of which had been left out in the rain, turned me off the habit for life.

:smalleek:

That sounds absolutely nauseating. I'm just glad my stepdad cleans his own ashtrays. That and he doesn't smoke in the house, only in his shed.

[CynicalAvocado]

:smalleek:

That sounds absolutely nauseating. I'm just glad my stepdad cleans his own ashtrays. That and he doesn't smoke in the house, only in his shed.

i used to smoke cigarettes but i choked on one once. never doing that again

[golentan]

Apologies. I'm going to let this one go.

[Pyrian]

But outside, especially in cities (where it seems smoking is banned most often), I think a little bit of tobacco smoke is the least of your worries, what with the smog, greenhouse gases, diesel, and who knows what else that is already invading your lungs.Put a full-strength catalytic converter on your cigarette and we'll talk. :smallamused: All of those things are heavily regulated, what makes you think smoking should be exempt?

[Chambers]

On the subject of smoking breaks: where do you people work that is so loving and kind and amazing? Because I need to work there. I've never seen that happen.

Restaurants. My unscientific study conducted right now by searching my memory of working in restaurants tells me that about half the people that worked there smoked. Put a dedicated smoker in a sometimes high stress environment and tell them they can't smoke their whole shift...and you'd probably have half your wait (and kitchen) staff walk out.

[GrassyGnoll]

I love my pipe, my sketchmeister, dumpster-liquid-yellow pipe. What I smoke out of it is my business, but classy and sophisticated regardless.

On a less cheerful note, my intersecting identities of transsexual and smoker are at odds. I have to drop the tobacco habit before hitting the titty skittles. Invariably, abstention from smoking will damage my lez-cred. How many piercings equal a pack?

Has anyone gotten their slightly-stained hands on an electronic cigarette and its vaporized chemical payload? I'm excited at the prospect of benefiting from nicotine's short-term memory boosts minus the sabotage of my air sacs.

And one last hurrah for hookahs. I've not sucked one yet, but friends and acquaintances have. Truly they have smoked like sultans.

[Syka]

I can't handle cig or cigar smoke. At all. My friends are all very courteous and will smoke outside and far away from me if we are hanging out and they need to light up. I can't even be standing in the VICINITY without my asthma getting triggered (although, cigars take a bit longer to effect me). It's why I would never be able to date a smoker. Because of my already pretty bad physical reaction, the smell alone has resulted in me feeling severely nauseous. It's pretty bad when heavy smokers come in to my store to buy cigarettes/tobacco*.

I respect your right to smoke, but expect me to stay shouting distance away for my health. It also bums me out that I can pretty much never go to local bars/pool halls because of this. They are always pretty poorly ventilated, save for an open front door, and filled with smoke. :smallfrown:

Also, at both jobs I've held smokers were allowed to take breaks whenever they wanted. It was pretty simple at Movie Gallery, since we could just step outside the door and see everything going on inside anyway. At my current job, as long as you have someone covering you- you're fine. When I first started there, half the staff and managers smoked. It's probably about a third now. I'm STILL, to this day, tempted to request a "mental break" to match up with the "smoke breaks" the smokers are allowed, lol. I get annoyed with customers, too. ;)

And E-Cigs are a blessing for people like me, since the vapor is no where near as bad as the smoke. One of my coworkers has it, and it's wonderful. It also helps him, 'cause he can "smoke" inside now. He has absolutely no complaints, and another of my friends has been thinking of investing. This current FDA ruckus might prevent it from getting widespread in the near future, though.

Also also, I call total bull on the "well the smoke rises, it doesn't linger". Try sitting across a bench from someone smoking. Even down wind, I can still get a strong whiff and have it set my asthma off. And it lingers on ME. My boyfriend can tell if I've been anywhere near someone who was smoking.

*The loose tobacco we sell is the worst. It doesn't trigger my asthma, but it IS how I discovered that I have allergies to tobacco. I have a dual reason to loathe cigarettes and assorted smoking things. Hookahs don't normally bother me, since they are so watered down, but I still can't be around them for more than half an hour- max. Sucks, 'cause it otherwise smells yummy.

[Xyk]

Personally, I try to stay as far away as possible from physically addictive substances that are also harmful. I had to take prednizone (a steroid that I'm not sure how to spell) for my ulcerative colitis and weaning off took six months after less than that actually fixing problems. Withdrawal sucked loads and I still have gross scars from the obscene amount of acne accumulated as a side effect of the steroid and withdrawal. I figure nicotine would be similar. I do not see the appeal. There are better smokables* and ways to relax. I guess they do look really cool though.

*Legal ones are scarce except for hookah, which is cool from what I hear.

[MoelVermillion]

I don't smoke and I hate inhaling second hand smoke, that said though I'm still actually pretty annoyed that its flat out illegal to smoke in pubs and such over here. Back in the day there was smoking bars, non-smoking bars and bars with smoking sections, they've now made it so every bar must be non-smoking in indoors sections.

I find this pretty unfair on smokers; if you don't want to be smoked at just go to a non-smoking bar; that's what they're there for. It just gets me worked up when people force their choices on to others even if I agree with that choice, and people often argue "Well I didn't agree to be smoked on so why should they be able to force that choice on to me!?" but honestly the second you walked in to a smoking establishment you agreed to inhale second hand smoke, you weren't forced to go in there you were given the choice not to inhale second hand smoke when you chose your venue and you decided to decline that right.

So yeah not happy, but then it doesn't affect me too much so no sense getting overly worked up about it.

[Ponderthought]

Man, ive never worked anywhere that allowed smoke breaks. I mean, you could smoke on you lunch break but that was it. Walmart even canned me for smoking on the job..outside, in the parking lot, still working, and with no prior warning (then again, just about everyone I worked with was out of a job in a week..still, a lame excuse.)

Anybody else have any opinions on the electric cigarette? I havent tried them, but the concept interests me.

[Katana_Geldar]

I guess we're a bit more accomodating downunder. :smallwink:

[xPANCAKEx]

i love it when smokers feel i should tollerate their addiction

Tough.

You started the habit. Its up to you to find a way to do it at other peoples convieniance if you wanna keep it up. And if that makes you feel put upon or 'persecuted' in any way, then maybe you should reconsider it.

However, if you wanna keep up the habit, and can work around other people then kudos to you. Smoke all you want.

[Skeppio]

Wierd, smokers in the firm I work at just go outside whenever they feel like a smoke (I do too if I want to use the ATM). I didn't realise some places didn't allow smoke breaks.

[Katana_Geldar]

It is understandable to some extent, they're not paying for you to smoke. But smokers get irritable if they aren't allowed to.

[Innis Cabal]

I find this pretty unfair on smokers; if you don't want to be smoked at just go to a non-smoking bar; that's what they're there for. It just gets me worked up when people force their choices on to others even if I agree with that choice, and people often argue "Well I didn't agree to be smoked on so why should they be able to force that choice on to me!?" but honestly the second you walked in to a smoking establishment you agreed to inhale second hand smoke, you weren't forced to go in there you were given the choice not to inhale second hand smoke when you chose your venue and you decided to decline that right.

So yeah not happy, but then it doesn't affect me too much so no sense getting overly worked up about it.

I'd agree with this if only for the fact that the choice they're trying to push on me will kill me. Are you telling me that I have to sit in a nice resturant and pay 10+ a plate on my meager salary and taste dirt because the guy at the table next to can't put the cig out for 10 seconds? And while I'm paying for my food that I can no longer enjoy that I'm actually dying because of it?

The right of the individual ends where anothers begins, and the right -not- to die because of someone elses addiction is totally on the last of things they just have to suck up. As said elsewhere, it's an addiction. It's their problem. I myself smoked for a long time, and I was always polite enough not to force other people to inhale my smoke. Plenty of other people are not so polite. Non-smokers should have the right not to have smoke blown on their face, make their food taste lousy or die from second hand exposure just because someone else needs a fix.

[Helanna]

...is it wrong the first thing I thought when I saw this thread was "Copper-burning allomancers"?

I need to get out more. :smalleek:

It's not wrong, it just makes you really freaking awesome. :smallbiggrin:



Plus, several non-smokers im acquainted with never seem to realize that smoke, outside in the open, as a form of hot gas, travel upwards, and dosent hang around their face like they keep telling me it dose. Especially when im standing down wind.

So . . . do you just think that all your acquaintances are just making it up? Trust me, you can smell smoke on and around smokers.


{Scrubbed}


It is not your "perfect right" to endanger the health of everyone around you. If you've got an addiction that can be extremely dangerous to anyone around you (anyone with asthma or allergies in particular), it's not your perfect right to force it on them.



I find this pretty unfair on smokers; if you don't want to be smoked at just go to a non-smoking bar; that's what they're there for.

Again, they're the ones with a potentially dangerous addiction. We don't let alcoholics threatening to harm people walk around. We don't let violent drug addicts walk around if they're an obvious danger. Why should we let somebody smoke if it's an obvious danger? Quite besides second-hand smoke effects, the effect on asthmatics and people allergic to smoke can be devastating, and there's no way to tell if someone around you is going to have a potentially fatal reaction to your smoke. Unlikely? Yes. But it's possible, so just stick to the freaking smoking sections.

Honestly, nobody is being 'persecuted'. Smokers have a habit that is dangerous to others around them. They don't have a 'right' to force that on others, and it's not 'oppressive' to force them to smoke away from non-smokers.

[Skeppio]

It is understandable to some extent, they're not paying for you to smoke. But smokers get irritable if they aren't allowed to.

They don't pay me to post on here, either. :smallbiggrin:
Maybe firms should offer complimentary nicotine patches or gum? Actually, that sounds like it'd get real expensive real fast. Scratch that.

[MoelVermillion]

Again, they're the ones with a potentially dangerous addiction. We don't let alcoholics threatening to harm people walk around. We don't let violent drug addicts walk around if they're an obvious danger. Why should we let somebody smoke if it's an obvious danger? Quite besides second-hand smoke effects, the effect on asthmatics and people allergic to smoke can be devastating, and there's no way to tell if someone around you is going to have a potentially fatal reaction to your smoke. Unlikely? Yes. But it's possible, so just stick to the freaking smoking sections.


Nah what I'm talking about is over here there aren't any smoking sections anymore. If you own a public venue you're not allowed to have anyone smoke under your roof full stop. If a dedicated smoker wanted to open a smoking bar for smokers, with everyone entering the building under the understanding that people will be smoking inside? Yeah, that would be against the law. This also means the smokers generally gather out the front of premises blowing smoke on passers by because there is no smoking zone for them to do that in.

I agree with you that a smoker should have to stick to the dedicated smoking zones at establishments; that's what they exist for after all, but does allowing a venue to accommodate smokers if they choose to hurt anyone when the non-smokers are free to go somewhere that doesn't? Admittedly yes, but the smokers are grown adults and therefor should have the right to make that choice for themselves as long as cigarettes remain legal.

[Innis Cabal]

Nah what I'm talking about is over here there aren't any smoking sections anymore. If you own a public venue you're not allowed to have anyone smoke under your roof full stop. If a dedicated smoker wanted to open a smoking bar for smokers, with everyone entering the building under the understanding that people will be smoking inside? Yeah, that would be against the law. This also means the smokers generally gather out the front of premises blowing smoke on passers by because there is no smoking zone for them to do that in.

I agree with you that a smoker should have to stick to the dedicated smoking zones at establishments; that's what they exist for after all, but does allowing a venue to accommodate smokers if they choose to hurt anyone when the non-smokers are free to go somewhere that doesn't? Admittedly yes, but the smokers are grown adults and therefor should have the right to make that choice for themselves as long as cigarettes remain legal.

Because you can't keep smoke out of the entire establishment easily. So having a non or smoking section is really just a joke. Always has been. If you can't not smoke for an hour then you've got a serious problem well beyond your addiction.

[Helanna]

Nah what I'm talking about is over here there aren't any smoking sections anymore. If you own a public venue you're not allowed to have anyone smoke under your roof full stop. If a dedicated smoker wanted to open a smoking bar for smokers, with everyone entering the building under the understanding that people will be smoking inside? Yeah, that would be against the law. This also means the smokers generally gather out the front of premises blowing smoke on passers by because there is no smoking zone for them to do that in.

Ah, sorry, that makes a bit more sense then. If it's made very clear that everyone in a certain establishment will be smoking, and there are plenty of non-smoking alternatives around, then I don't really see a problem.

Although like Innis Cabal said, there are some places where having separate smoking and non-smoking sections simply doesn't work. It can work if it's, say, a restaurant that has two completely separate rooms, but if all you're doing is moving the smokers to a different section of one room . . . well, it's not gonna do much.

[VanBuren]

I'd agree with this if only for the fact that the choice they're trying to push on me will kill me. Are you telling me that I have to sit in a nice resturant and pay 10+ a plate on my meager salary and taste dirt because the guy at the table next to can't put the cig out for 10 seconds? And while I'm paying for my food that I can no longer enjoy that I'm actually dying because of it?

The right of the individual ends where anothers begins, and the right -not- to die because of someone elses addiction is totally on the last of things they just have to suck up. As said elsewhere, it's an addiction. It's their problem. I myself smoked for a long time, and I was always polite enough not to force other people to inhale my smoke. Plenty of other people are not so polite. Non-smokers should have the right not to have smoke blown on their face, make their food taste lousy or die from second hand exposure just because someone else needs a fix.

Not even to mention the employees that would be subjected to the secondhand smoke.

[Innis Cabal]

Or that. There's no right anywhere that says your entitled to smoking where ever you please. It's not persecution, it's non-smokers finally getting the right to say where they get to go. The solution of "go somewhere else if you don't like it" that non-smokers had to go through wasn't fair. No one's barring you from going anywhere, unlike before were if you didn't like the smoke, you had to pony up and deal with it, or go somewhere there wasn't smoking (And seriously...how many places was that?). All your being told to do is "Don't smoke here." and as said, if you can't go 2-3 hours without a cig, then your in serious trouble.

[BizzaroStormy]

I dont mind the smell of pipe tobacco or a cigar of at least moderate quality, its the cheap crap the bugs me. All the additives really change the smell.

A guy I knew had a pipe tobacco that smelled like barbeque.

[Recaiden]

it seems people have forgotten the gentile art of pipe smoking

Not quite. I know a few people who smoke pipes, and I applaud them for it.
Especially as the smell of tobacco can be very nice in some amounts and places.

[Ponderthought]

My whole gripe involves regulations against smoking outside, which is ridiculous. Dammit, outside is my last haven for having a good smoke.

I do however, agree that smokers should simply keep to smoking sections inside. The problem is that smoking sections are rapidly becoming non-existent. The no longer exist in the entire city of fort worth, save for bars. Cut into the business of dozens of cigar shops.

Yes, second hand smoke is dangerous. But so is everything else. If its bothering you, tell me and Ill gladly put it away, or smoke somewhere else. But dont off-handedly decide that if you don't do it, Im not allowed to.


Edit:

Now that i think about it, the whole damn second hand smoke issue is irrelevant in my case, as my pipe has a cap.


So . . . do you just think that all your acquaintances are just making it up? Trust me, you can smell smoke on and around smokers.

I was just singling out the really irritating acquaintances, that do the whole hands-waving, fake gagging shtick. Frankly, I find it goddamn insulting. They could politely ask me not to, like a human being, but noooo...

[Runestar]

I still have this mental image of a "responsible smoker" smoking while wearing some sort of inverted fishbowl helment to keep the smoke in, from a prior discussion. :smalltongue:

[Ponderthought]

I volunteer to test the smokers helmet. Bet it'd make me look like Mysterio.

>>

[Asthix]

I also have several friends, late 20's who smoke a pipe that have never smoked cigarettes. One of them is an eagle scout!

My former roommate smokes shisha, a tobacco leaf / syrup mix out of a hookah like a fish. (He smokes like a fish) He's had bad asthma his whole life and also never touched cigarettes but the water filtration in the hookah ameliorates the tar and the natural tobacco leaf doesn't cause him problems.

I also know someone who has been prescribed those E-cigs. His had a clear filter with its own little carbon hepa filter and everything.

Funny story. Once when I was a freshman in HS I wanted to smoke like the cool kids on the corner so I stole a pack of herbal cigarettes from this alternative healing store by my house and went out to the smoker's corner the next day. After I had lit up, more and more people began complaining about whoever it was in the crowd that smelled like fish. Embarrassingly, I realized that my funny cigarette was the cause and I blended out before I could be identified. Further tests proved that 9 out of ten people thought they were 'fishy'.

[The White Lyre]

Really, arguments for and against smoking often just spiral out of control into all sorts of issues that shouldn't even be brought forward in the first place. The facts are that smoking kills, it is an addictive activity that is expensive as hell and besides being harmful to oneself it is also usually to others. But that's basically it - don't bring to the table these stupid (inane, juvenile, etc etc) arguments about clothing smelling for years, or even just days afterwards. A person would literally have to smoke a cigarette (cigar, pipe, whatever) once every half hour and not wash their clothes/brush their teeth/wash their hands ever to smell like smoke all the time. I'm sorry if the poster of that comment has to live with someone like this, but although that is directly caused by smoking it is more an issue of hygiene.

People these days often take smoking in public way out of proportion to the damage it is actually doing to themselves and their environment. It is true that it is harmful, but so are all gas powered cars. I read a comment saying that is a heavily regulated industries and smoking isn't. First of all, that statement is bunk because they both are heavily regulated industries and second of all regulating either of the industries is an irrelevant point to make. The amount of "damage" you take (1d6, btw :smallwink:) from a face full of smoke is the same as you'd get from a face full of gas emissions. And yes, you do inhale those fumes - they just disperse enough that by the time they reach your nostrils you can't smell it, unlike smoking.

Chill out, please! What people have to realise is that we (North Americans, at least) live in a culture that is perfectly fine with health damaging hobbies, but has a recently developed stigma against smoking. It's a bit ridiculous - don't get me wrong, I understand where it's coming from, but the outrage expressed is just plain unproportional to the issue itself.

Also, someone commented something like "we don't let violent alcoholics and junkies walk around harming people". C'mon! Comparing smoking to violent and intoxicated people who are down and out is just silly. Or maybe you just want to sound like an *******.

With that said, its the smoker's responsibility to realise that people have this unrealistic view of second-hand smoke, etc. and treat it diplomatically. Don't fight silly arrogance with more silly arrogance by saying "Oh, well you have life-endangering asthma? Stay inside!" That's absolutely ridiculous and insensitive.

Btw, smoker here...

[Runestar]

I was in a toilet cubicle once when the person next started lighting up and the smoke soon filled my stall as well. Came out with my shirt reeking of smoke. That stuff really lingers, I tell you.

Plus, I had an aunt who passed away from lung cancer, and the cause was pinpointed to many years of passive smoking (her colleagues in the factory she was working at were mostly heavy smokers). I am not saying you will immediately contract cancer, but this sort of thing really adds up. Oddly enough, her smoking colleagues were still quite healthy (or at least appeared so).

I also had a funny experience where all my 6 other buddies in my firing unit (back when I had to serve the army) were all smokers, and I for one just cannot tolerate the smell of cigarette smoke. So outfield exercises together was quite...interesting, with me effectively being segregated from them when it was time for smoking break. I think they felt bad also, because it made more sense for me to move away than the 6 of them. :smalltongue:

[SDF]

What I'm getting is that if you are in a non-smoking area deal with it.

If you are in a smoking area, freakin deal with it.

[KuReshtin]

A quote in the smoking/non-.smoking areas in a restaurant or pub that have stayed with me for a long time is this:

"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool."

[Katana_Geldar]

Well, they did used to have smoking rooms in various places...

[Runestar]

And if your seat so happens to be quite near the smoking area? What is to stop the smoke from wafting over to you? It is not like you can tell the smokers, "Hey, this is my area, you take your smoke back!" :smallconfused:

Maybe I am being selfish, but I have always felt that it was simply easier for smokers to just not light up at certain areas, rather than expect the rest to avoid those places. More of a "Yah, you can smoke, so long as it does not impact me" sort of mentality. :smallannoyed:

[jmbrown]

I'm a pretentious smoker. Only the finest pipes and cigars for me, please *raises pinkie*

I prefer smoking the hookah. I usually smoke it every Friday with my friends before playing a game of D&D. When I can't break it out then I have a Sunday night meditation cession where I sketch something in my sketchbook while sucking on a pipe for an hour with a cup of tea. It's relaxing to say the least and that's all that matters to me.

[Syka]

Problem: Not all areas have smoking and non-smoking bars. In my area, I know of exactly one bar that is non-smoking. All others allow it, and this really effects my going-out options. It eliminates all but that bar, and all pool halls from my options. Friends getting together down the road? Can't go. Mom wants to go to the pool hall's lady night (free pool)? Nope, can't take the risk.

I can't even be around ONE person smoking OUTSIDE. Whenever a friend has lit up around me, I have begun coughing within 30 seconds and have to remove myself from the area to avoid it getting worse. Being in an enclosed space with SEVERAL people smoking? No way.

How is it fair that my options for recreation are limited because they can't be courteous enough to step outside and there aren't restrictions on it? And it's not like I can ask an entire bar to step outside to smoke. Well, I suppose I could, but really? Imagine the reaction to a small woman asking a bunch of people who've been drinking to do that.


In order to make recreation options fair for ALL, I don't see how having smokers go to a designated area outside is unfair.


And yes, my asthma CAN be life threatening. I was once (outside!) with a friend smoking a cigar. I was mostly downwind. I did not end up smelling of cigar smoke. I barely smelled it myself. The next morning, I woke up and felt like an elephant was sitting on my chest, it was so difficult to breathe. For several hours that day, I dealt with not being able to breath properly which led to me being unable to go to work. My chest and back were sore from the effort it took to get proper air. My rescue inhaler helped some, but if it had gotten any worse/lasted much longer, I was going to go to the hospital. The ONLY thing that could have possibly triggered the attack was my friend's cigar. Given the immediate reaction I have to cigarette smoke, I imagine it could be far worse.

[SpiderMew]

I need a better pipe thats easyer to clean.

I have this cheep metal pipe with a shiny blue grip. I use stuff i can get with a medical card out here in california :smallwink: (which might become legal state wide for general public use very soon)

Ive got a bit of a problem with it though. I get a bit of a build up and it clogs up. I cant seem to unscrew all the peices anymore because of this buildup, i can just take the bowl off. Ive had to use one of my grandmothers long needles to poke the clog out, and that isnt an easy task.

Is there an easyer way? Or is there just a better pipe i should use?

[Syka]

Pipe cleaner? I don't mean the cheapo bendy things used in craft projects by kids. I know at Walgreens we have some that (look) pretty heavy duty behind the counter with some other smoking accouterments.

I'd also hazard a guess that cleaning in thoroughly after every use to avoid build up in the future would be a good idea. :)

[Onlyhestands]

I need a better pipe thats easyer to clean.

I have this cheep metal pipe with a shiny blue grip. I use stuff i can get with a medical card out here in california :smallwink: (which might become legal state wide for general public use very soon)

Ive got a bit of a problem with it though. I get a bit of a build up and it clogs up. I cant seem to unscrew all the peices anymore because of this buildup, i can just take the bowl off. Ive had to use one of my grandmothers long needles to poke the clog out, and that isnt an easy task.

Is there an easyer way? Or is there just a better pipe i should use?

Well to clean my pipe, I soak it in rubbing alcohol (listorine works in a pinch), then clean it with a pipe cleaner, though it sounds like you need something smaller to actually get in your piece.

For myself I mainly smoke cigars (I run almost everyday so I don't want to inhale tobacco), as well as something else best not mentioned on this forum.

[Obrysii]

One thing I truly hate about smokers? Utter disregard for what happens to the cigarette butt.

Throw it out the window of your car? Really? Into traffic, open windows, motorcycles, dry grass? You know that butts don't biodegrade, right?

Throw it onto the sidewalk? Really? Why not hold onto it until you can throw it into a butt collector? They exist for a reason. I've seen so many people who just flick them down without a care even when there was a proper cigarette butt collector feet away.

[Terumitsu]

Huh... Would'ja believe that I thought this thread was about smoking meat?

Here I was thinking I could get some cooking tips...

Ah well, I don't much care for the smell of cigarretts but my late grandfather on my dad's side had a pipe which I remember didn't smell all that bad when he pulled it out. I think it's cause of him is why I always thought pipes were awesome.

[Syka]

One thing I truly hate about smokers? Utter disregard for what happens to the cigarette butt.

Throw it out the window of your car? Really? Into traffic, open windows, motorcycles, dry grass? You know that butts don't biodegrade, right?

Throw it onto the sidewalk? Really? Why not hold onto it until you can throw it into a butt collector? They exist for a reason. I've seen so many people who just flick them down without a care even when there was a proper cigarette butt collector feet away.

I was once taking care of the trash and all outside my work. This includes cleaning the cigarette trays.

Halfway to the dumpster I realize a cigarette is burning through the bag. :smalleek: I had to figure out where it was and put it out. x.x Sadly, not my worst cleaning-at-the-store-experience, but still up there.

Also the time someone bought cigarettes, tore the filters off every. single. cigarette in both packages they bought and just tossed them in the parking lot. :smallfurious: I knew exactly the person who did it (the only person who'd bought that brand that day) and would have strangled them if they were still there*.

Overall, the smokers are fairly considerate and I'd say about 50% of cigarette butts end up in the proper receptacle. Pretty decent considering the many folk who consider the ashtray's by the front door to be garbage dumps (grr) and those who throw stuff on the ground. 2 feet from a trash can. *sigh*



*Oh, the stories I have about cleaning the parking lot...oh the stories.

[Pyrian]

:smallsigh: I've been on beach clean-ups where we'd fill whole garbage bags with cigarette butts, one...at...a...time. Fricken' annoying. :smallannoyed: I can't really blame ALL smokers for that, of course.

[The Big Dice]

Throw it onto the sidewalk? Really? Why not hold onto it until you can throw it into a butt collector? They exist for a reason. I've seen so many people who just flick them down without a care even when there was a proper cigarette butt collector feet away.

Chewing gum is much, much worse for that than cigarette butts. It literally will not come up unless you use highly specialised and quite toxic chemicals to dissolve it. And it's not in the least bit biodegradable. Those grey spots you see all over the place? That's gum.

At least butts just sweep up.

I just gave up smoking myself. Having a double bypass before you're 40 will put you off, even though I smoked for well over 20 years before that. And you know what, I support the rights of anyone to smoke. And I think blanket smoking bans are ridiculous things. In my town doing that has literally killed half the bars and clubs that were once the main attraction of the place.

Why go out to the pub where you can't smoke when you can stay in and smoke while you drink? It would have made more sense to give landlords the choice of whether or not they want a place to be a smoking or non smoking bar.

A guy I know even got ticketed and given an official warning becaus he was smoking in his work van. Despite him being the only person in the vehicle at the time. It counts as a place of work, so there's no smoking allowed.

There's also some extremely dodgy "science" been done regarding things like second and third hand smoke. It all makes me think that the current anti smoking trend is a bit of scapegoating so that people forget about the real issues and problems around, combined with a bit of social engineering to see if the media can be used to really change public attitudes.

[MoelVermillion]

Why go out to the pub where you can't smoke when you can stay in and smoke while you drink? It would have made more sense to give landlords the choice of whether or not they want a place to be a smoking or non smoking bar.

Yes! This is what I agree with, it gives the smokers a place to smoke and the non-smokers a place with fresh air, everyone wins.

[Pyrian]

Chewing gum is much, much worse for that than cigarette butts.So start a "chewers unite" thread. :smallwink:


This is what I agree with, it gives the smokers a place to smoke and the non-smokers a place with fresh air, everyone wins.It never worked in practice.

[Sholos]

Yes! This is what I agree with, it gives the smokers a place to smoke and the non-smokers a place with fresh air, everyone wins.

It would if any bar owners actually took the route of making their bars a non-smoking bar. Sadly, this does not happen in most cases.

[The Big Dice]

So start a "chewers unite" thread. :smallwink:

It never worked in practice.


It would if any bar owners actually took the route of making their bars a non-smoking bar. Sadly, this does not happen in most cases.

They were never given the option in the UK.

[SensFan]

Yes! This is what I agree with, it gives the smokers a place to smoke and the non-smokers a place with fresh air, everyone wins.
The problem is that the large majority of people who frequent bars/clubs are smokers. Thus it makes financial sense for the owner to make it a smoking venue. Which leads to a lack of venues for those of us who don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke.

[shadow_archmagi]

I respect your right to smoke, but expect me to stay shouting distance away for my health.

Also also, I call total bull on the "well the smoke rises, it doesn't linger". Try sitting across a bench from someone smoking. Even down wind, I can still get a strong whiff and have it set my asthma off. And it lingers on ME. My boyfriend can tell if I've been anywhere near someone who was smoking.



This. Although admittedly, for me it's not so much an "Arrrgh I am literally dying" sort of health condition so much as that smoke causes the sensation that I have a mosquito bite inside my eye. I also dislike the smell.

My experience with smoke has been that there's a 30 ft radius or so where it's unpleasant. Even outdoors, with a gentle breeze.


{Scrubbed}


Curiously enough, there actually ARE city noise ordinances. I don't want to have to go and argue with everyone in a 30 ft radius on a regular basis.

[Pyrian]

The problem is that the large majority of people who frequent bars/clubs are smokers.This is not true around here, and I'm frankly pretty dubious about it having been true for a long time, certainly longer than smoke-free bars were theoretically available but not practically available. The bar-going population is not that different from the general population, current company notwithstanding.


Thus it makes financial sense for the owner to make it a smoking venue.Almost nobody starts a business thinking "hey, let's restrict my clientele more than I absolutely have to!", whether it actually makes sense or not.

[SensFan]

Almost nobody starts a business thinking "hey, let's restrict my clientele more than I absolutely have to!", whether it actually makes sense or not.
Exactly. A Non-Smoking venue will restrict the clientele much more than a Smoking venue.

[ForzaFiori]

Put a full-strength catalytic converter on your cigarette and we'll talk. :smallamused: All of those things are heavily regulated, what makes you think smoking should be exempt?

My car, currently, has a bypassed catalytic converter, and is still road legal. There are factories in most industrial cities that spew smog into the air, and chemicals into the water. And yet everyone makes a fuss about a little bit of smoke. Have you ever SMELLED NYC or LA? I live in a house with 3 smokers, and it smells better inside my house than it does ANYWHERE in those cities.



It is not your "perfect right" to endanger the health of everyone around you. If you've got an addiction that can be extremely dangerous to anyone around you (anyone with asthma or allergies in particular), it's not your perfect right to force it on them.


Last I checked, there is no amendment that says non-smokers can tell me where I can and can't smoke either. Which is why I support the theory that if it bothers you, tell the person and ask them to please move, or do it yourself. Why should I not be allowed to smoke inside a building, EVEN IF THERE ISN"T A SINGLE NON SMOKER THERE. Which is the case in many cities now, where it is illegal to smoke indoors. PERIOD. Greenville even attempted to charge a man with smoking IN HIS HOME. That is wrong. plain and simple. I don't care how much you hate smokers, we have the right to smoke, just like you have to right to do whatever you choose to.




Again, they're the ones with a potentially dangerous addiction. We don't let alcoholics threatening to harm people walk around. We don't let violent drug addicts walk around if they're an obvious danger. Why should we let somebody smoke if it's an obvious danger? Quite besides second-hand smoke effects, the effect on asthmatics and people allergic to smoke can be devastating, and there's no way to tell if someone around you is going to have a potentially fatal reaction to your smoke. Unlikely? Yes. But it's possible, so just stick to the freaking smoking sections.

Honestly, nobody is being 'persecuted'. Smokers have a habit that is dangerous to others around them. They don't have a 'right' to force that on others, and it's not 'oppressive' to force them to smoke away from non-smokers.

Last I checked, you can walk down the street and drink a beer, you can drink a beer in a restaurant, and until your drinking makes you punch someone, you can do it all you like. Why the hell can't I do that with smoking? The second hand smoke from a single cigarette is not going to kill you, unless you have sever asthma. It's not even gonna seriously effect you in any way, other than briefly smelling like smoke. Even if you feel that shouldn't happen, what is so wrong with just politely asking someone to stop? Once again, there are things I don't like people to do. I don't try to get a city wide ban on it. I ask people to please stop when they're around me.


Or that. There's no right anywhere that says your entitled to smoking where ever you please. It's not persecution, it's non-smokers finally getting the right to say where they get to go. The solution of "go somewhere else if you don't like it" that non-smokers had to go through wasn't fair. No one's barring you from going anywhere, unlike before were if you didn't like the smoke, you had to pony up and deal with it, or go somewhere there wasn't smoking (And seriously...how many places was that?). All your being told to do is "Don't smoke here." and as said, if you can't go 2-3 hours without a cig, then your in serious trouble.

There's no right that says your entitled to a smoke free area. Nor one that says you have to be able to go into a bar, or a restaurant, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't even try to bring that up, cause it's just stupid. If the OWNER of a building says can't smoke there, that's his right. But no one should be able to tell me that I can't smoke in a public place, or in a building who's owner doesn't care. At least, I shouldn't be allowed to be told that unless you can be to told that you can't go there. Why do you get the right to go somewhere and I don't? Smoking doesn't make me give up rights.


One thing I truly hate about smokers? Utter disregard for what happens to the cigarette butt.


I'm a smoker, and I agree with you. which is why I try to dispose of them correctly. I will toss them down sometimes, but only if I'm somewhere with no ashtrays or anything, and I make sure it's out.



Curiously enough, there actually ARE city noise ordinances. I don't want to have to go and argue with everyone in a 30 ft radius on a regular basis.

I love the hyperbole of talking to EVERYONE, since you know, everyone but you smokes and we're all out to get you. Honestly, on a given day, how many people's smoking bother you? Are you really telling me that you can't work up the energy to say one sentence to those people? What if those people were just punching you on the arm over and over again? According to most non-smokers on this thread, smoking is about a million times worse than that, but you'd tell someone to stop punching you, wouldn't you?

[Ponderthought]

Pretty decent considering the many folk who consider the ashtray's by the front door to be garbage dumps (grr)

Oh good lord do I hate those people. My favorite variety? People who think the really tall ashtrays with the single tiny hole in the top are trash cans. You have no idea how many goddamn times the damn things caught fire because people stuffed garbage in them.

[Boci]

I love the hyperbole of talking to EVERYONE, since you know, everyone but you smokes and we're all out to get you. Honestly, on a given day, how many people's smoking bother you? Are you really telling me that you can't work up the energy to say one sentence to those people? What if those people were just punching you on the arm over and over again? According to most non-smokers on this thread, smoking is about a million times worse than that, but you'd tell someone to stop punching you, wouldn't you?

To use another example, what if me and my mates go down to the park and take a stereo. It is reasonable for me to have the attitude "If it bothers someone they can ask us to move on, otherwise its their problem?"

And on a side note if someone was punching my arm over and over again I would not ask them to stop.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Exactly. A Non-Smoking venue will restrict the clientele much more than a Smoking venue.

No. There are more non-smokers than smokers, hence the point of his post that while in the context of a bar it makes sense, no businessman would restrict his potential clientele in that way.

[Pyrian]

My car, currently, has a bypassed catalytic converter, and is still road legal.Not where I live, it isn't.


There are factories in most industrial cities that spew smog into the air, and chemicals into the water.And I think they should be regulated, much like smoking. Let's hook a factory chimney up to your bar and see how you like it.


Have you ever SMELLED NYC or LA? I live in a house with 3 smokers, and it smells better inside my house than it does ANYWHERE in those cities.This is delusional. Don't get me wrong, L.A. doesn't always smell so great, but it's a rose garden compared to a house full of smokers. You're probably just used to it. Heck, you crave it, in all likelihood. Of course it's going to smell better to you.


Last I checked, there is no amendment that says non-smokers can tell me where I can and can't smoke either.You seem to have a notion that there's an amendment giving you the right to smoke at all nevermind wherever you please. There isn't any such "right" in the first place. Having such activities regulated violates no statute at all.


Which is why I support the theory that if it bothers you, tell the person and ask them to please move, or do it yourself.Yeah, that always goes over well. You know what they're going to say? At best, hyperbolic and presumably addiction-fueled rants about their imaginary "rights".


...we have the right to smoke...Yeah, that.


Last I checked, you can walk down the street and drink a beer...Heh. Many locales have regulations about that, actually. Rather less defensible, I have to say.


Even if you feel that shouldn't happen, what is so wrong with just politely asking someone to stop?Why is it the only remedy you want to offer is the one you know won't work?


There's no right that says your entitled to a smoke free area.(OSHA standards actually do include such things.) Besides, there's no certainly right to muck places up, either. The whole subject is well within the bounds of lawful government regulation.


Nor one that says you have to be able to go into a bar, or a restaurant, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't even try to bring that up, cause it's just stupid. If the OWNER of a building says can't smoke there, that's his right. But no one should be able to tell me that I can't smoke in a public place, or in a building who's owner doesn't care. At least, I shouldn't be allowed to be told that unless you can be to told that you can't go there. Why do you get the right to go somewhere and I don't? Smoking doesn't make me give up rights....It really does, though. Because you have the right to not smoke. And for all intents and purposes, when you're in the grip of the addiction, you've thrown away that "right" because you can't do it. Right here you're going on and on about smoking restrictions as if they're against you instead of against a certain activity you do. Smokers are allowed in every place that doesn't allow smoking. You just can't smoke there. The fact that this distinction is totally lost on you says more about how pernicious that stuff really is than any scientific evidence I could post.


I'm a smoker, and I agree with you. which is why I try to dispose of them correctly. I will toss them down sometimes, but only if I'm somewhere with no ashtrays or anything, and I make sure it's out.This is another one of those perspective shifts. To a non-smoker, nevermind to a person who's spent a great deal of time picking up massive amounts of butts in otherwise beautiful natural places that don't have ashtrays, this is not a reasonable compromise.


According to most non-smokers on this thread, smoking is about a million times worse than that, but you'd tell someone to stop punching you, wouldn't you?The law would back us up in that case. The puncher couldn't just claim to have the right to punch indiscriminately. (And if they did, they would.)

[zeratul]

Have you ever SMELLED NYC or LA? I live in a house with 3 smokers, and it smells better inside my house than it does ANYWHERE in those cities.

As someone who frequents NYC and has several smoking friends, the smell in NYC is by far less annoying and lingering than that of even one smoker within a 5 foot radius or so.


Last I checked, you can walk down the street and drink a beer That's a misdemeanor here last I checked.

[shadow_archmagi]

I love the hyperbole of talking to EVERYONE, since you know, everyone but you smokes and we're all out to get you. Honestly, on a given day, how many people's smoking bother you? Are you really telling me that you can't work up the energy to say one sentence to those people? What if those people were just punching you on the arm over and over again? According to most non-smokers on this thread, smoking is about a million times worse than that, but you'd tell someone to stop punching you, wouldn't you?


Let's use your scenario:

If one in five people were inclined to punch you, would you prefer to

A. Argue with each and every one of them, and listen to their protestations about how they have a RIGHT to punches? Particularly given the "tough guy" culture that the media spent YEARS attaching to people who punch? Consider also that once you've been exposed to punching, or even just enter an area where a lot of people have been punching recently, there's still a lingering unpleasantness that will stay on your clothes for hours.

B. Insist that not being punched should be a basic rule of social affairs

[Zar Peter]

I would like to read more of the thread but I have to go out to the smoker section in my restaurant fogging it with my two pipes. :smallbiggrin:

[Indurain]

I've been a smoker for over 10 years now, and have seen the bylaws in my area change drastically in that time.

When I first began smoking, it was a simple smoking/non-smoking option. Even back then I understood that there really was no such thing as a non-smoking section. (Please refer to the Pee in the public pool quote) Granted, that didn't stop me from lighting up, but I was a teenager and other people's concerns were far from my mind.

As I got older, the city brought in regulations that the smoking sections must be boxed off, and have their own ventilation systems. I agreed with this, and thought it made a great deal of sense, but I HATED going into those fishbowl rooms. It made me realise how much cigarettes really stunk (but at this point I was too addicted to stop, and still pretty young and foolish).

Some bars and restaurants abused this rule however, and the government had to step in once more and now there is a total ban on smoking in businesses, and honestly, I think it really is our best option. Many businesses protested this, screaming about the customers they would lose. However, in the 3 or 4 years since this has come in, most businesses report no change to their bottom line (with some even reporting an upward trend). The fact is that with this law in place the non-smokers can now get out more. (See Syka, who could have her social options go from 1 bar to ALL OF THEM)

Is having to go outside an inconvenience to me? Yeah, of course it is. But it's my choice to smoke (well, my addiction's choice) and as such I am the one who should be thinking of others while in public. When I go out to smoke, I often try to find an out of the way spot.

It's not a choice to be a non-smoker (we're all born that way), it IS a choice to become a smoker. If you've made that choice, than you have to deal with the consequences of that choice, and sometimes that means setting the beer down and going out into the cold for 5-10 minutes to get your fix. That's a choice I've made, and I understand what it means for me. Smokers don't have "rights", human beings do.


(I would also like to apologize to anyone who has picked up one of my cigarette butts, seeing your posts makes me now think of better ways of disposing of my used cigs. Sorry!)

[bluewind95]

O-ho... smoking. One of the very few things I hate with an intensity to rival my need to breathe.

Yes, it lingers. I can smell the stench in a room even if the cigarette has been turned off for hours. Add carpets and the such and you can have it for weeks. Clothes smell at LEAST a day when exposed for a few hours. So does hair.

No, being outside doesn't help. I can smell it a BLOCK away if the wind's down that way. Now, if the wind is blowing it away from me then I won't notice it. If the wind is not blowing, I can smell it in the area a typical restaurant takes.

No, I'm sorry, but I am NOT exactly going to approach random strangers and ask them to turn their cigarette off. I have been outright harassed when I've tried that. And considering the reason I hate the smoke so much... this is a dangerous venue.

Smoking/non-smoking areas are a joke. How many times are they actually entirely independent and separate from each other? No, they're mostly in the same building. IF you're lucky, they're separated by a door. Which... uh... opens a lot. I have detected the stench of smoke from halfway across the NON-smoking area, if not immediately upon entering a restaurant.

Smoking just outside a building is just as much of a problem for me. You know... I kind of have to walk through there to get in and out of the building...

Now, the reason all this is a huge, huge problem for me? I have a very, VERY severe allergy to that smoke. As in... on a bad day, ONE breath and I will be on the ground, choking to death. Yes. ONE. WHIFF. of smoke. And I mean outside, too. On a good day, I will be half-choking to death and unable to so much as speak due to an insane asthma/allergy-cough that will linger for hours, just for ONE breath of smoke. And despite that, I've had smokers feel entitled enough to their drug that they've smoked near me and blown the smoke at me for me asking them to please not smoke there (many times in NON-smoking areas!). No, sir, I don't want to have to ask them all to please smoke away from me and risk their blowing the smoke on me. Until they started the no-smoking-inside-buildings law, there were many places I would *need* to avoid, or, if I had to go to them, go heavily medicated and carrying my inhaler (which is expensive, interacts badly with my heart condition, and I would not need save for smokers...), and I would still suffer for it. I'm sorry. But you not smoking won't kill you... while your smoking will kill me. Therefore I think it more fair that you get to not smoke in public places and I get to be able to walk through them if I need/want. After all, I'm not hurting anyone by walking there, and you are practically murdering me (albeit without the explicit intention).

[Syka]

Indurian, thanks for understanding. :) Most of my friends are like that (after my separating myself from the group a couple times to escape a smoker, the smoker has taken to separating himself and just asking for someone to accompany him).

Honestly, even though I don't drink, I DO love to go out. The best places for live music in my area are....bars. Heck, I even leave a tip if I just get water (usually $2, which is what I did at college when we'd go out...apparently the bars/clubs there did have some sort of no-smoking policy). I would love to support the local bars, particularly one next to where I work. I ALWAYS see the owners. But, right now, people are allowed to smoke inside. Last I heard, they were actually working on adding a deck outside for smokers to use and going non-smoking. But, also last I heard, they didn't have the capital for it. :(

I've had to miss get together's with Oz's coworkers (at a pool hall/bar, even Oz only went a couple time 'cause he hated the smell), at least one going away party, and can't join my boyfriend's parent's pool league because I can't go to any of the venues they play at. I also can't go support Oz's dad at most of his gigs, because most are at bars (yay for Starbucks, lol).


It really sucks. Is the inconvenience of stepping outside of a place you are already at really that bad that you would completely disregard those of us who can't be there whilst there is smoke? I'm not even including people like Oz, who just can't abide the smell.

And that's a general you, not you specific.

[GrassyGnoll]

I have this cheep metal pipe with a shiny blue grip. I use stuff i can get with a medical card out here in california :smallwink: (which might become legal state wide for general public use very soon)

As an upstanding citizen peddling Prop 19 to the voters of California I must tag a disclaimer on your parenthesis. The legal cultivation and use of cannabis in the state of California, even if passed on the November ballot, will take until 2012 at least to go into effect. And that's before considering appeals to the judiciary.

Now, onto the topic at hand. Cigarettes are a nifty conversation sparker outside clubs, prominent only before lighters. It's a shade more egalitarian than drinks at a bar and substantially cheaper.

[Helanna]

Also, someone commented something like "we don't let violent alcoholics and junkies walk around harming people". C'mon! Comparing smoking to violent and intoxicated people who are down and out is just silly. Or maybe you just want to sound like an *******.


Yes. You did not agree with the analogy I used. I was clearly just trying to be an ******* instead of trying to explain my opinion.



Last I checked, there is no amendment that says non-smokers can tell me where I can and can't smoke either. . . I don't care how much you hate smokers, we have the right to smoke, just like you have to right to do whatever you choose to.

Um . . . do you know how the government works? Because . . . that's not it. Nobody has the right to do whatever they want to, especially when it harms other people. Like, y'know, smoking does.


The second hand smoke from a single cigarette is not going to kill you, unless you have sever asthma.

1.) Second-hand smoke can and will seriously harm and/or kill you. Don't even try to pretend that it won't. Smoke is a danger to everyone who inhales it. THAT'S why we are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed in public.

2.) You can't tell who has severe asthma just by looking, and there are some people so reactive to it that they wouldn't even be able to approach a smoker to ask them to stop.You would be endangering anyone like that without even knowing. Another reason not to smoke in public.


Even if you feel that shouldn't happen, what is so wrong with just politely asking someone to stop?

Do you really think that that would work even 50% of the time?


There's no right that says your entitled to a smoke free area . . . Why do you get the right to go somewhere and I don't? Smoking doesn't make me give up rights.

Again. That is NOT how that works. YOU do not have the right to smoke wherever you want. Get over it. You have a dangerous addiction, you do NOT have the inherent right to force other people to share in it.



Now, the reason all this is a huge, huge problem for me? I have a very, VERY severe allergy to that smoke. As in... on a bad day, ONE breath and I will be on the ground, choking to death. Yes. ONE. WHIFF. of smoke. And I mean outside, too.

And THAT is what I'm talking about. You never know who you're going to affect or how strongly. Stop pretending that smoking is just some harmless hobby and that non-smokers are trying to oppress you and take away your supposed 'right' to smoke wherever you want. Smoking is dangerous. You don't get to force other people into a position of danger.

I apologize for any typos or nonsensical bits in any of this, it was a bit rushed. I'd check it over, but if I don't leave right now, I'm gonna be late for class. Again. :smalleek:

[The Big Dice]

Stop pretending that smoking is just some harmless hobby and that non-smokers are trying to oppress you and take away your supposed 'right' to smoke wherever you want. Smoking is dangerous. You don't get to force other people into a position of danger.
So if someone smokes a cigarette near you, YOU WILL DIE AND PUPPIES WILL DIE TOO!

And yet cars pour out more carcinogens and toxins in ten minutes than a smoker who smokes 20 a day does in a week.

I don't see anyone trying to ban cars though. Even though they are pumping out literally tens of millions of tons of pollutants a year. Not to mention the damage done to the environment by the digging up, transporting, processing and other uses of crude oil.

Lead from burned gasoline gets into the air, settles on plants, gets eaten by farm animals which in turn provide milk and meat to people.

But hey, that guy lit a cigarette so we have to declare him UNCLEAN!

[Syka]

Smoking causes an immediate effect on my health. It also limits where I can and cannot go.

Car emissions do nothing of the sort. There aren't many places where I'm going to deal directly with un-diffused car emissions. There are many places I have to deal with un-diffused cigarette smoke. When those places are outside, it is much easier on my lungs 'cause I can just move out of the area. In a building, this is significantly more difficult without some super incredible ventilation system or totally separate rooms in different parts of the building. Or, I just can't go.

EDIT: I deal with cigarette smoke on an almost daily basis, too. Two or three of my managers smoke, along with several coworkers and classmates. Additionally, many of our customers smoke. After a shift, I frequently have the choice of either A. sitting next to person smoking on the only bench, or B. standing for another God knows how long after standing all day at work. I can't ask a customer to move so I can sit down and not be assaulted by smoke, so I often end up standing more.

[bluewind95]

So if someone smokes a cigarette near you, YOU WILL DIE AND PUPPIES WILL DIE TOO!


Yes, actually that is surprisingly accurate. I don't know about the puppies, but force me to inhale the smoke of a single cigarette and you will have a cold, blue body lying down next to you probably before you are done smoking.



And yet cars pour out more carcinogens and toxins in ten minutes than a smoker who smokes 20 a day does in a week.

I don't see anyone trying to ban cars though. Even though they are pumping out literally tens of millions of tons of pollutants a year. Not to mention the damage done to the environment by the digging up, transporting, processing and other uses of crude oil.

Lead from burned gasoline gets into the air, settles on plants, gets eaten by farm animals which in turn provide milk and meat to people.

Uh-huh. I don't think anyone disagrees with cars = bad for the environment. However, a little difference. Cars actually are useful. They take me places. Like the hospital when I'm very sick. Like to work, with which I can pay for food and shelter. Cigarettes? They bleed your wallet. And for what? For a deadly addiction. It feels good? So do illegal drugs, I hear. That doesn't make them any less dangerous.



But hey, that guy lit a cigarette so we have to declare him UNCLEAN!
No, I don't think you're getting the issue. It's not that you're "unclean". It's that you're doing something utterly useless that is literally killing people. Slowly, but surely. It's made worse by the fact that it's not even a "necessity" of modern life like a car is. It's just a luxury you feel entitled to perform where it affects me enough to be a fast danger to my health.

[Pinnacle]

Which is the case in many cities now, where it is illegal to smoke indoors. PERIOD. Greenville even attempted to charge a man with smoking IN HIS HOME. That is wrong. plain and simple.
Indeed it is. if smoking is to be allowed, in his home is the one place it should be. After all, allowing smoking outside is a pretty bad idea.


I don't care how much you hate smokers, we have the right to smoke, just like you have to right to do whatever you choose to.
Interesting that it's "hate smokers" rather than "hate smoking".
Of course, I absolutely do not have the right to do whatever I choose to do. There are any number of things that I may choose to do that I may not do, like punching people or taking your wallet. My rights to do whatever I please end at exactly the point where my behavior would infringe upon your rights.




Last I checked, you can walk down the street and drink a beer, you can drink a beer in a restaurant, and until your drinking makes you punch someone, you can do it all you like. Why the hell can't I do that with smoking?
You can drink beer until the point where has a negative effect on another person, and you want the same right with smoking? Fine! I'll grant you that one. Of course, that restriction you want bans pretty much all smoking entirely.


But no one should be able to tell me that I can't smoke in a public place, or in a building who's owner doesn't care.
I'll grant you the building, I suppose. But you are actually telling me that whatever jerk wants to tell me that I'm not allowed to breathe in a public place should be allowed to do so? Now that is not fair.


At least, I shouldn't be allowed to be told that unless you can be to told that you can't go there. Why do you get the right to go somewhere and I don't? Smoking doesn't make me give up rights.
You haven't been told that there's anywhere you can't go, you've just been told not to attack people while there.
Now me, I've been told there are places that I can't go unless I'm willing to be attacked.



What if those people were just punching you on the arm over and over again? According to most non-smokers on this thread, smoking is about a million times worse than that, but you'd tell someone to stop punching you, wouldn't you?
Wow. I was considering comparing smoking to punching people. Um, thanks for doing it for me? Whose side are you on, anyway?

I disagree with your assessment that smokers/people-punchers should just assume that others are willing to be attacked and that those unwilling should beg you to stop (which will probably be mocked before anyone considers listening) after you've started.
And no, if someone starts punching me repeatedly, I'm not going to tell him or her to stop. I'm going to punch him or her back and call the police.
I don't think this is a very good argument.

[Syka]

I'll also add that in my area, you aren't allowed to have an open container on a public street or something like that. At a local surf festival there were big signs everywhere saying "DO NOT TAKE BEER OFF THE BEACH. $100 FINE" Taking a step off the sand and on to the parking lot was illegal. The only time I see alcohol on the streets in my town is during a city-organized block party, where it is contained to a few cordoned off blocks. Alcohol is not allowed to be on the street outside of there.

[The White Lyre]

Yes. You did not agree with the analogy I used. I was clearly just trying to be an ******* instead of trying to explain my opinion.
You're right, I appologise - I was just trying to get a rise out of you last night with that, unfairly. But since you obviously aren't an *******, there is the option I had first offered: your opinion is silly. Don't confuse your overall opinion with what I'm referring to as your opinion with that example; it is a gross exaggeration comparing smokers to violence-prone junkies and alcoholics and is unfair to smokers in so many ways. It is also incredibly insensitive to junkies and alcoholics, belittling their situation to simply "an addiction they should solve, instead of endangering the public".



Um . . . do you know how the government works? Because . . . that's not it. Nobody has the right to do whatever they want to, especially when it harms other people. Like, y'know, smoking does.


2.) You can't tell who has severe asthma just by looking, and there are some people so reactive to it that they wouldn't even be able to approach a smoker to ask them to stop.You would be endangering anyone like that without even knowing. Another reason not to smoke in public.

I'll bite, just for the sake of argument :smallsmile:.

First of all, everybody does have the right to do what they want to, until it starts threatening or harming others or themselves. That the democracy that we live in. (Canada, States...)

Besides that, the government works as a representation of the people as a majority. It does mean that nobody has the right to do whatever they want to when it comes to endangering others. However, it is a representation of the safety and freedoms of all people, more inclined to side with the majority on most controversial issues. For the government, the distinction between safety and freedom is a hard thing to be 50/50, but they do try to walk that thin line on most issues.

When you say that people with severe asthma are so reactive to smoke that it could directly endanger their lives, this is something that, however insensitive, the government would say "Nuts to you," if it were ever brought through as a bill to remove smoking entirely in the public. They would say that it is not a smoker's responsibility to look around and make sure an asthmatic is nearby - even if they could do that - but rather the asthmatics responsibility to look out for themselves because of their unique illness only held by a few rather than by a lot. I know that sounds brutal, but thats how our society works.

All of this is because smokers are more of a majority than those with this life-endangering illness.



So if someone smokes a cigarette near you, YOU WILL DIE AND PUPPIES WILL DIE TOO!

And yet cars pour out more carcinogens and toxins in ten minutes than a smoker who smokes 20 a day does in a week.

I don't see anyone trying to ban cars though. Even though they are pumping out literally tens of millions of tons of pollutants a year. Not to mention the damage done to the environment by the digging up, transporting, processing and other uses of crude oil.

Lead from burned gasoline gets into the air, settles on plants, gets eaten by farm animals which in turn provide milk and meat to people.

But hey, that guy lit a cigarette so we have to declare him UNCLEAN!
This is what I'm getting at. Yes, people do have the right to a smoke-free environment in restaurants and bars. Outside hospitals, as well. Even not around elementary schools, considering the image your giving. But taking it and trying to remove smoking from public walkways and basically everywhere but your home is just out of hand and unrealistic to the actual damage being caused by smoking.

Yes, second hand smoke is incredibly harmful, much more than we thought years ago, but it is not as harmful as people think when you inhale the indirect fumes of a smoker at the bus stop. The problem with second hand smoke, and the reason it has received so much publicity and warning, is that people used to and still do smoke in the house with their children or in the car with their siblings with the window rolled down only a crack. It is a serious problem in closed quarters, but remarkably less so out in the open.

[Syka]

OK, I think I see communication gap.

What we're saying: We want to be able to be in indoor establishments without being subjected to smoke.

What you're saying: We should not have to give up smoking in public.

What you think we're saying: Smoking is always horrible and should be banned outright everywhere no exception.

What we think you're saying: If you don't want to deal with smoke anywhere including indoors, too bad! We have a right to smoke there!


Seriously...all we're saying is that smoke INSIDE is harmful. Thus, it should not be allowed inside enclosed establishments. We are NOT saying that smoking should be banned everywhere. If I see someone smoking, I know to stay away. But I want to be able to go to bars and pool halls without potentially worrying about ending up in a hospital.

How my university had it set up was pretty good. Smoking was not allowed in buildings or 15 feet of an entrance way. Not everyone abided by the 15 foot rule, but most kept well out of entryways so that it could be avoided.

[Pinnacle]

First of all, everybody does have the right to do what they want to, until it starts threatening or harming others or themselves.
Smoking is an example of something that threats or harms others (and themselves, actually).



I know that sounds brutal, but thats how our society works.

All of this is because smokers are more of a majority than those with this life-endangering illness.
I don't think either of those is a majority at all. So if you're saying majorities have the right to violate minority rights (not actually a thing), shouldn't we ban smokers?
Of course, "smoker" isn't actually a type of person. Smoking is a behavior. Banning it has no effect on a minority's rights at all.



This is what I'm getting at. Yes, people do have the right to a smoke-free environment in restaurants and bars. Outside hospitals, as well. Even not around elementary schools, considering the image your giving. But taking it and trying to remove smoking from public walkways and basically everywhere but your home is just out of hand and unrealistic to the actual damage being caused by smoking.
How the heck am I supposed to get to the Designated Breathing Area if the Non-Breathing Area is in the way? And why should I have to find a Designate Breathing Area, anyway?
Seems to me like those who do something that might harm others should have to make sure it doesn't.

[thubby]

as a member of the public who smoking will reasonably hospitalize, i thank you all for staying in your little boxes.

[The Big Dice]

You know wha most people who smoke want?

They want to be able to have a cig in a place where they aren't going to be stared at like second class citizens and where they aren't going to disturb anyone or trigger asthma attacks.

That's it.

The problem is, there is a small but vocal group of people who claim to know what is best for us all and to be stopping us from doing things "for our own good." These are the same kind of people that brought in prohibition in the US back in the 20s. They are the same kind of people that have turned the UK into the surveillance capital of the world in the 2st century.

Those people, like Henry Anslinger did in the 30s, manage to change public opinions and even laws by the vocal and constant pressure they bring on people in public office. But the next time someone tells you that something is for your own good, ask yourself who really gains from you doing as you're told. Especially if that message is coming from a lobby group that's taking n an industry that the law says can't defend itself.

[KnightDisciple]

Cigarette smoke is utterly disgusting. I may not be allergic (though I doubt it will do my allergies any favors), but the smell makes me fell all but sick to my stomach. Even the traces on smokers' clothes can be off-putting; directly smelling it is worse. A house that's soaked in years or decades of smoke is just nasty.

This doesn't even touch on the horrible health effects first and second hand smoke can and will have.

I'm not for outlawing them, but I'm also not going to look for ways to go out of my way to accommodate them. *Shrugs*

As for having sections in a restaurant...maybe a special room off to one side. Anything beyond that, and it's worthless; the smoke will inevitably drift over and sour my dining experience.

[Zar Peter]

I'm happy I live in Europe, Austria especially. Yes, the laws about non smoking are coming and I can see that it's a relief to eat without smoking but we don't have this absolutism here. And the laws about alcohol... I so hope we never, NEVER copy them from the US.

And I have three kids.

Don't take this post too serious, I'm drunk.:smallwink:

[Mystic Muse]

Here's my stance on smoking and other hobbies.

If you're the only one harmed by it, or the amount others are harmed by it isn't worth bringing up, then I don't care. It's your body/mind you can do what you want (Although, if you're my friend I will bring up that you really shouldn't every once in a while.)

If it harms others in a noticeable and significant way, then either you should stop doing it or you have no right to complain when they come out with laws and regulations to help those who are negatively affected by it.

It's a hobby and an addiction. It won't kill you to quit but you will kill others with it. So why do you get to complain when your hobby is being restricted when it's negatively impacting us?

Now, some of the things that have been done are a bit draconian (Not being allowed to smoke in your own home where the only one being negatively impacted is you?:smallsigh:) but you're not going to get any sympathy from me if it's banned in a public place so that those who do not wish to partake aren't negatively affected.

sorry if I'm unclear. I'm in a bit of a rush.

[AtlanteanTroll]

It won't kill you

Oh yes it will.

[Worira]

It won't kill you to quit

Pretty sure it won't.

[CynicalAvocado]

Oh yes it will.

it sucks something fierce, but it wont

[Obrysii]

You know wha most people who smoke want?

They want to be able to have a cig in a place where they aren't going to be stared at like second class citizens and where they aren't going to disturb anyone or trigger asthma attacks.

That's it.

This is an utterly false analogy. You CHOOSE to be a smoker - minorities do not choose to be second class citizens.

If you have a problem with where you have to smoke, you have two choices:
1) do it anyway
2) quit.

The choice is yours to stay addicted - it is possible to quit. Many people have - you simply have to have the will to do it.


Cigarette smoke is utterly disgusting. I may not be allergic (though I doubt it will do my allergies any favors), but the smell makes me fell all but sick to my stomach. Even the traces on smokers' clothes can be off-putting; directly smelling it is worse. A house that's soaked in years or decades of smoke is just nasty.

A car that has been smoked in has been damaged - there's no going back.


If you're the only one harmed by it, or the amount others are harmed by it isn't worth bringing up, then I don't care. It's your body/mind you can do what you want (Although, if you're my friend I will bring up that you really shouldn't every once in a while.)

If it harms others in a noticeable and significant way, then either you should stop doing it or you have no right to complain when they come out with laws and regulations to help those who are negatively affected by it.

It's a hobby and an addiction. It won't kill you to quit but you will kill others with it. So why do you get to complain when your hobby is being restricted when it's negatively impacting us?

This is how I feel entirely. If you're doing it in your own home and you're not stupid enough to smoke around other people, do whatever you want.

The moment - the very moment that you start to smoke around others, that's where I draw the line. It is harmful to others, damages things (a car that has been smoked in is always going to have that smell), and benefits only the smoker (and then, only on a very short-term level).

You have absolutely no right to complain when something you choose to do is restricted by those who do not have the same hobby when it damages people and property. You wouldn't want us doing things that put you into danger, why should we want that?

[shadow_archmagi]

peeing into a pool

You know, urination is an excellent analogy for smoke. We don't ask that you stop, just that you do it in such a way that we do not get any in our eyes or lungs or our clothes.

[KnightDisciple]

A car that has been smoked in has been damaged - there's no going back.Cars are absurdly good at absorbing smells.

My car originally belonged to my grandparents; they had it for years (I got it back in...2004). They lived on a farm during that time, primarily raising cows and chickens.

The car was never used to transport animals, or drive in the pasture, or pretty much any farm-specific duties. It was a "drive to town or up to our kids and grandkids" vehicle. At most, it ended up around the chicken houses and cow pastures.

It took 3-4 years before the smell of the farm (by which I mean "heavy hint of manure") really faded away, so that it was safe to turn the heat on.

And either my memory plays tricks on me, or I still catch a tiny whiff of farm smell once in a while.

So yeah, I can totally see smoking never leaving a car, barring a complete gutting and refit.:smallyuk:

[CynicalAvocado]

You know, urination is an excellent analogy for smoke. We don't ask that you stop, just that you do it in such a way that we do not get any in our eyes or lungs or our clothes.

i understand your concerns that is why i only smoke my pipe in the company of other smokers in a lounge.

[Obrysii]

So yeah, I can totally see smoking never leaving a car, barring a complete gutting and refit.:smallyuk:

I got REALLY lucky that my '86 VW Jetta was never smoked in. It has other scent related issues (the "VW smell" as well as a small amount of mold), but smoking isn't one of them.

Shadow_archmagi - I totally agree with that.

[Indurain]

You know, urination is an excellent analogy for smoke. We don't ask that you stop, just that you do it in such a way that we do not get any in our eyes or lungs or our clothes.

I'm very concerned about you, if urine in your eyes/lungs is a worry you must face. :smallwink:

[Obrysii]

I'm very concerned about you, if urine in your eyes/lungs is a worry you must face. :smallwink:

'tis why it's an analogy and not a literal thing.

[VanBuren]

I got it out of my car after about a year or so. It was a pain in the ass, though.

Still, it let me get a hell of a deal on the car. Great car too, apart from the smell.

[SDF]

Question for the thread: Does it really bother people that much that there are smoking bars? The place where you engage in the healthy act of drinking?

[VanBuren]

Question for the thread: Does it really bother people that much that there are smoking bars? The place where you engage in the healthy act of drinking?

Somewhat, at least in terms of the employees.

[Obrysii]

Somewhat, at least in terms of the employees.

This, pretty much.

A friend of mine, who does not smoke, worked in a casino where smoking was permitted. Within a month, she couldn't run as far and her skin was definitely suffering due to the second hand smoke.

I'm glad she got out of that.

[Pyrian]

Does it really bother people that much that there are smoking bars?It does not at all bother me that there are "cigar lounges", but it bothered the heck out of me when virtually all bars (and indeed restaurants) allowed smoking inside. My quality of life has substantially improved more than I'd've expected, enough such that when I travel and find myself in the supposedly non-smoking section of shared restaurants without serious protections in place, I find it a pretty significant nuisance.


The place where you engage in the healthy act of drinking?You have to drink a lot more than I do, to make drinking a serious health hazard. I probably drink less than I ought to... 'Course, I don't spend a lot of time in bars, anyway.

[Froogleyboy]

Never tried cigarettes, don't think I ever will, but I enjoy some nice shisha every once in a while, and a friend of mine bought some mu'assel from the local smoke shop. It was pretty good. I also enjoy a pipe now and then, but the hookah is where it's at :smalltongue:

{scrubbed}

[Ponderthought]

I simply cannot drink without smoking..It's like some sort of ritual for me. I may have to tone it down abit, they folks down at Jason's get nervous when you start the kettle drums and gongs.

[KnightDisciple]

On the topic of smoking/non-smoking bars:

The employees is one major reason. Another is people like Syka, who literally can't go to the bar all her friends are going to because of the smoke.

After all, alcohol requires that you purposefully drink it to be affected. You can hang out with people who are drinking, and suffer no side effects (except maybe dealing with drunk friends).

But you can and will be affected by cigarette smoke if you're near it.

Of course, the issue isn't limited to bars in this discussion. Regular restaurants and even just generic workplaces can and will be affected.

[CrimsonAngel]

Nah, ill get you a pass for the ultra-cool kids section. hookahs are awesome. I've been trying to pick one to buy for ages.



Of course most of us realize that. If im aggravating someone by smoking near them, all they have to do is bring it up, and ill smoke somewhere else or put out my pipe. I just find it irritating that after being chased outside by city ordinances, im now being confined to very small areas of outside.

Plus, several non-smokers im acquainted with never seem to realize that smoke, outside in the open, as a form of hot gas, travel upwards, and dosent hang around their face like they keep telling me it dose. Especially when im standing down wind.

It's a shame the people in this forum are some of the only non-******* smokers i've met, right?

Ah shoot, censored.

[Xyk]

{scrubbed}

I said more or less the same thing on the first page. But nobody noticed because it was obviously off-topic.

[KnightDisciple]

I said more or less the same thing on the first page. But nobody noticed because it was obviously off-topic.That, and there was already enough disagreement staying on-topic. Kinda borderline political anyways, you know? :smalltongue:

[shadow_archmagi]

That, and there was already enough disagreement staying on-topic. Kinda borderline political anyways, you know? :smalltongue:

I don't think "VOTE LIKE THIS ON THIS ISSUE" is borderline political.

You'd best edit it before someone appears and fires off a warning.

[SDF]

I said more or less the same thing on the first page. But nobody noticed because it was obviously off-topic.

And clearly a forum inappropriate discussion to go into.

I don't smoke, and don't really have a problem banning it in restaurants, public buildings, whatever. As for bars drinking if far worse for you than smoking and you'd have to hang out in a bar enough for alcohol to be a health concern if the second hand smoke was. Bar work is also hard to get and lucrative, you pretty much have to love that environment to want to work there. (There are also restaurant bars where smoking isn't really a problem)

[Katana_Geldar]

I said more or less the same thing on the first page. But nobody noticed because it was obviously off-topic.

Yeah, but you were expressing an opinion without being blatantly political as the above poster was doing.

[Xyk]

My original one had a :smalltongue: next to it. Or maybe a :smallbiggrin:. That's how you know I'm just playing.

[Zeb The Troll]

And yet cars pour out more carcinogens and toxins in ten minutes than a smoker who smokes 20 a day does in a week.The facts do not support this.

This link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12481.php) states that cigarettes put out 10x more particulate matter than a diesel engine.

This one (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/588.html) that cigarettes put out more than 4x the carbon monoxide of an idling engine.

Also

Troll Patrol: Please steer clear of political discussion.

[SDF]

Being a bike courier in a large city is pretty bad for your health, though.

For me comparing x to y, or using analogies doesn't factor into the argument at all. It is an issue of liberty.

[Katana_Geldar]

Here's one other thing that one of my friends, a smoker and a doctor, told me. What smokers inhale is filtered, and the smoke inhaled by other people isn't. So what non-smokers are getting by standing next to a smoker is actually worse than what the smoker puts in their lungs, the smoker only has it for a longer sustained period.

I heard a radio program where this lady had lung cancer (same one that talked about Yes, Prime Minister), she had never smoked but everyone else in her family had. And she's rather upset when people assume straight away she's a smoker because she has lung cancer.

[Knaight]

Here's one other thing that one of my friends, a smoker and a doctor, told me. What smokers inhale is filtered, and the smoke inhaled by other people isn't. So what non-smokers are getting by standing next to a smoker is actually worse than what the smoker puts in their lungs, the smoker only has it for a longer sustained period.

That's not quite accurate. Its unfiltered, but the concentration is significantly lower, as the smoke spreads out. It can still be bad for you, particularly with asthma or similar, but smoking is worse.

[Froogleyboy]

Yeah, but you were expressing an opinion without being blatantly political as the above poster was doing.

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I'm not sure why I thought that would be okay, I just got done posting on another thread on the same topic on a different forum that is much more lax about politics (seeing as it has a political sub-forum :P)
I guess it just slipped my mind. I hope you guys aren't too mad at me.

[Syka]

SDF, I understand where you are coming from. I don't drink, though. The tastes I've had over my entire life probably don't even come to a mouthful. My friends go to bars mostly because it's one of the few places for live music (they are more than happy to gather at an apartment to drink, cheaper too). Additionally, one of the only places (only, maybe?) to play pool with out having your own pool table. So drinking is a moot point, in my case at least.

Additionally, when you choose to drink it only effects yourself (unless you make the idiotic decision to drink and drive or know you get violent). My friends can drink all night, but I'm not at risk of being unable to do something vital to living because of it.

The one non-smoking bar in my area is incredibly popular and always has live acts. I doubt the other bars getting rid of smoking would be significantly effected, either.

[Jack Squat]

Lead from burned gasoline gets into the air, settles on plants, gets eaten by farm animals which in turn provide milk and meat to people.

I don't think this has been addressed, but you know that leaded gas has been effectively gone (at least here in the US) since the '70s, right?

As far as smoking goes, I don't really care out in public unless someone's blowing it in my face. There's worse health risks I take than breathing some cigarette smoke.

I don't particularly care for the smell either, but it's less choking than what some females deem to be the proper amount of perfume.

[SensFan]

I've been looking for an article online about someone I knew when I was younger, and I managed to find it. This is why smoking in venues like restaurants and bars had to go in Ontario. This is why it shouldn't be up to the owner of the place.


May 25, 2006
Smoke-free advocate Heather Crowe dies of lung cancer
Non-smoking Ottawa waitress got lung cancer from second-hand smoke, became advocate for smoke-free workplaces

The Lung Association joins millions of Canadians in honoring the life of Heather Crowe, who died from lung cancer on Monday May 22.

Heather never smoked a day in her life, but spent 40 years working as a waitress in smoke-filled environments. Four years ago when she received her diagnosis and could no longer work, she applied for Worker's Compensation only to be told that her lung cancer, due to second-hand smoke, was not recognized as a work-related injury and therefore was not covered.

Heather didn't give up. Suddenly, the shy, soft-spoken woman was forced into a very public battle, all the while struggling through cancer treatment. Her case set a precedent in that Worker's Compensation was forced to acknowledge that exposure to second- hand smoke was indeed a work-related injury, and Heather received her compensation.

Heather continued as an advocate for safe and healthy workplaces right up until the time of her death, visiting towns and cities across Canada. As she stated, "It's too late for me, but it's the next generation I've been doing this for. I want to be the last worker to die from second-hand smoke."

Heather's face became a familiar one as she became the subject of a Health Canada mass media campaign raising awareness of the dangers of second hand smoke and advocating for smoke-free workplaces.

The Lung Association would like to offer our sincere sympathy to Heather's daughter, Patricia, her granddaughter, Jodi-Ann, as well as her family and friends.
Source. (http://www.lung.ca/media-medias/news-nouvelles_e.php?id=55)

[Indurain]

I've been looking for an article online about someone I knew when I was younger, and I managed to find it. This is why smoking in venues like restaurants and bars had to go in Ontario. This is why it shouldn't be up to the owner of the place.


Source. (http://www.lung.ca/media-medias/news-nouvelles_e.php?id=55)

I remember this. And am surprised it was only in 2006. SensFan (As a Leafs fan I won't hold your name against you). Was this the original movement for smoke free venues (but allowed seperate smoking areas), or was this when bars and restaurants had to go completely smoke free?

[SensFan]

I remember this. And am surprised it was only in 2006. SensFan (As a Leafs fan I won't hold your name against you). Was this the original movement for smoke free venues (but allowed seperate smoking areas), or was this when bars and restaurants had to go completely smoke free?
Just looked it up, Ottawa passed a smoke-free bylaw as of Aug 2001 barring smoking in public places. Other cities in Canada followed after that, though I am unsure if any came before it.

--

As an aside, I do think the Leafs are play-off bound this year, and unlike most in Ottawa, I don't have anything against them. I'd much rather see them win the Cup than any team south of the border.

[Marnath]

What I'm getting is that if you are in a non-smoking area deal with it.

If you are in a smoking area, freakin deal with it.

I'd like to chime in to say I agree with this sentiment. Smoking is a terrible habit, and you shouldn't be allowed to do it in non-smoking zones. But I don't care if you go someplace like a bar and smoke, because I know there will be smoking done there so I go someplace else. >.>

More power to you, if everyone at a place smokes or is fine with it, smoke your heads off for all I care.

[The Extinguisher]

Man, everyone here has such sensitive noses and lungs. It's intense. Even before I started smoking, I could barely smell cigarette smoke. One of my friends is asthmatic and smokes almost a pack every two days.

Second hand smoke isn't that bad for you. I've been on the receiving end of someone taking a puff of their smoke, kissing me and blowing it into my mouth (again, before I started smoking) and it didn't really do anything for me.

And if you're allergic or deathly asthmatic that even being near a single unlit cigarette would kill you for life, I don't see why I should have to work around you. If I'm deathly allergic to peanut butter, or car emission, or seafood, I shouldn't expect everyone else to not eat peanut butter, or seafood or drive a car on the off chance I'll be walking by. It's hardly fair.

And you know what, smokers aren't all jerkfaces. If someone lights up, and you ask them to move, they'll usually do it. People tend to be nice. Just don't walk up to someone smoking, and assume that they should be the ones to move away.

Yeah, sure, it sucks that I have to go out in the cold to smoke, even if I'm at a bar destroying my liver with alcohol, but it's not big deal. At least you're allowed to smoke anywhere outside in this city (for now :smallannoyed:) And yes, it's annoying to be looked at like I'm some sort of criminal whenever I light up.


Also, smoking is really cool and sexy. This is definitely true.

[SensFan]

Man, everyone here has such sensitive noses and lungs. It's intense. Even before I started smoking, I could barely smell cigarette smoke. One of my friends is asthmatic and smokes almost a pack every two days.

Second hand smoke isn't that bad for you. I've been on the receiving end of someone taking a puff of their smoke, kissing me and blowing it into my mouth (again, before I started smoking) and it didn't really do anything for me.

And if you're allergic or deathly asthmatic that even being near a single unlit cigarette would kill you for life, I don't see why I should have to work around you. If I'm deathly allergic to peanut butter, or car emission, or seafood, I shouldn't expect everyone else to not eat peanut butter, or seafood or drive a car on the off chance I'll be walking by. It's hardly fair.

And you know what, smokers aren't all jerkfaces. If someone lights up, and you ask them to move, they'll usually do it. People tend to be nice. Just don't walk up to someone smoking, and assume that they should be the ones to move away.

Yeah, sure, it sucks that I have to go out in the cold to smoke, even if I'm at a bar destroying my liver with alcohol, but it's not big deal. At least you're allowed to smoke anywhere outside in this city (for now :smallannoyed:) And yes, it's annoying to be looked at like I'm some sort of criminal whenever I light up.


Also, smoking is really cool and sexy. This is definitely true.
Gee, it sure does suck that people have to go to a slight inconvenience to fuel their dangerous habit. I bet all those people that smoked at the places Heather Crowe worked at are happy they could smoke right at their seats while the smoking killed her.

[Ponderthought]

Also, smoking is really cool and sexy. This is definitely true.

Dammit, I forgot the one thing that makes up for being regulated to the smokers zoo: I can blow smoke rings. And that is GODDAMN AWESOME.


Edit:


Gee, it sure does suck that people have to go to a slight inconvenience to fuel their dangerous habit. I bet all those people that smoked at the places Heather Crowe worked at are happy they could smoke right at their seats while the smoking killed her.

Oh yes, im sure they were all in on the plot to murder the waitress with smoke. Because, of course, us smokers are filthy, immoral people. Blegh.

[Innis Cabal]

Second hand smoke isn't that bad for you. I've been on the receiving end of someone taking a puff of their smoke, kissing me and blowing it into my mouth (again, before I started smoking) and it didn't really do anything for me.

:smallconfused:

Really? (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke) I suppose the American Cancer Society just likes to make things up. Well, since the Cigarette companies are totally trust worthy and say they're wrong, we can call off the ban!

No, but seriously. Just because you had someone blow smoke into your mouth and you were ok totally dosn't make second hand smoke any less dangerous. Not that it matters for you, because your getting first hand smoke, which has been totally proven to kill people.

[Boci]

And if you're allergic or deathly asthmatic that even being near a single unlit cigarette would kill you for life, I don't see why I should have to work around you. If I'm deathly allergic to peanut butter, or car emission, or seafood, I shouldn't expect everyone else to not eat peanut butter, or seafood or drive a car on the off chance I'll be walking by. It's hardly fair.

Unless I can trigger an allergic response by eating seafood in the same room as them, thats an unfair example. And cars have a function + everything else that has been said.


Oh yes, im sure they were all in on the plot to murder the waitress with smoke. Because, of course, us smokers are filthy, immoral people. Blegh.

No, but their habit resulted in her death. That is not right, even though they obviously did not intend for it to happen.

[SensFan]

yes, im sure they were all in on the plot to murder the waitress with smoke. Because, of course, us smokers are filthy, immoral people. Blegh.
As has been pointed out by someone else (Pyrian, I believe), you are misunderstading the point. I did not so much as imply that they caused her death in the slightest. Their addictive habit did.

[The Extinguisher]

Gee, it sure does suck that people have to go to a slight inconvenience to fuel their dangerous habit. I bet all those people that smoked at the places Heather Crowe worked at are happy they could smoke right at their seats while the smoking killed her.

If you notice, I never really said I think people should be allowed to smoke wherever. I just said it sucks. (Seriously, it does. I hate going outside to smoke in -40) I don't even smoke in my own home, because it lingers in the air if you're not outside.


Unless I can trigger an allergic response by eating seafood in the same room as them, thats an unfair example. And cars have a function + everything else that has been said.



No, but their habit resulted in her death. That is not right, even though they obviously did not intend for it to happen.

Well the example is still valid for peanut butter (and with the extremes people keep mentioning here, my seafood example seems pretty close as well) And cigarette have a function too. It's not like I smoke because I like getting sore throats now and again. It's stress relieving and calming, as well as also being cool and sexy, as I mentioned before. Also, I don't drive and I get around just fine, so they're not essential.

Again, people die in car accidents all the time. They obviously don't intend for it to happen, but it does. Maybe we should ban cars afterall.

[SensFan]

Again, people die in car accidents all the time. They obviously don't intend for it to happen, but it does. Maybe we should ban cars afterall.
I don't have the source or stats on hand, but I've heard several times that smoking is far and away the leading cause of preventable deaths in Canada (YMMV). I believe drunk driving is number two.

Edit:
From a quick search, it appears that obesity is now the second-leading cause. Smoking is indeed the leading one.

[Indurain]

Man, everyone here has such sensitive noses and lungs. It's intense. Even before I started smoking, I could barely smell cigarette smoke. One of my friends is asthmatic and smokes almost a pack every two days.


I'm asthmatic, and I smoke about the same amount as your friend. Thing is there are different levels of Asthma. I am on the low end. When I was young though my asthma was very severe, and yes, being near lit cigarettes could cause an asthma attack. (It rarely happened, but enough times that I remember it)

And it's clearly not an age thing, as Syka has shown (though I have no idea how old Syka is). I began smoking when I was 18, and at that time I usually had to take my "puffer" after smoking. I grew accustomed to it as I aged, and now only the rare cigarette will cause even slight wheezing. But just because I can smoke and get away with it, doesn't mean that other people have the same tolerance.

As for having smoke blown into your mouth, and nothing happening. One puff of smoke is unlikely to set you off. So, I don't think comparing that one instance to other people's varying levels of Asthma is a fair statement to be able to say, "smoking can't be that bad for you."

Please keep in mind other people's varying level of medical conditions (and tolerance for disgusting behaviour) before making blanket statements about second hand and first hand smoke.

Edit:


It's stress relieving and calming, as well as also being cool and sexy, as I mentioned before.

While I won't argue with the cool and sexy. /sarcasm

However, as for stress relieving and calming, what you are actually feeling at this point is just the nicotine feeding your addiction. Studies have shown that cigarettes actually hold no stress relief benefits (and are often linked to higher levels of stress).

(Sorry, I don't have a link to this, however it can be found in Allen Carr's Easy Way to Quit Smoking [Sadly, he was lying...it's not easy])

[Innis Cabal]

Well the example is still valid for peanut butter (and with the extremes people keep mentioning here, my seafood example seems pretty close as well) And cigarette have a function too. It's not like I smoke because I like getting sore throats now and again. It's stress relieving and calming, as well as also being cool and sexy, as I mentioned before. Also, I don't drive and I get around just fine, so they're not essential.

Again, people die in car accidents all the time. They obviously don't intend for it to happen, but it does. Maybe we should ban cars afterall.

No it's not. Peanut butter is only dangerous to literaly 1% of the human population. Cigarette's are dangerous to 100% of the worlds population. Do you not see the scale here? Are you honestly saying it's ok to smoke because a minority can die from anything, so why should it matter if they die from cigarette's?

Also, car accidents are just that. Unavoidable. Unlike the deaths from smoking, which literaly are avoidable if they're removed from where it can hurt people.

[Boci]

Well the example is still valid for peanut butter

No, because peanut butter is not a gas.


It's stress relieving and calming

No, you're calming yourself because A, you fixing a craving and B, you're generally standing still and taking deeper breaths.


as well as also being cool and sexy, as I mentioned before.

Thats debatably not a proper reason.


Again, people die in car accidents all the time. They obviously don't intend for it to happen, but it does. Maybe we should ban cars afterall.

You cannot equate cars and cigarettes. Without cars the world would fall apart. Without cigarettes we'd have a lot of stressed out people until they completed withdrawal.

[thubby]

You cannot equate cars and cigarettes. Without cars the world would fall apart. Without cigarettes we'd have a lot of stressed out people until they completed withdrawal.

to say nothing of the fact that cars have designated areas of operation. :smallannoyed:

[The Extinguisher]

Hey you know what's fun! Telling people not to making blanket statements and generalizations then turning around and making them yourself.

Also, I was unaware everyone here is an expert at my mental well-being. That's good to know in the future. (For the record, I started smoking as a stress reliever, and it worked well when I was first starting out)

Okay sure, maybe I was exaggerating a bit with my examples and all that, but honestly it's not like everyone else here isn't.

[KnightDisciple]

to say nothing of the fact that cars have designated areas of operation. :smallannoyed:And require licenses to operate. And have increasingly strict construction regulations. And your license to drive can be taken away.

Oh, and the fact that quite often, accidents happen due to outside factors that you cannot control. It's like a scaled-up version of slipping on ice on your sidewalk.

[The Big Dice]

The facts do not support this.

This link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12481.php) states that cigarettes put out 10x more particulate matter than a diesel engine.

This one (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/588.html) that cigarettes put out more than 4x the carbon monoxide of an idling engine.

Also

Troll Patrol: Please steer clear of political discussion.

If you look at independent (that is, studies done on gasoline alone and those done on tobacco alone) you find results that disagree with just about everything. But I'm not going to debate a mod. I'm not that foolish...

I am going to request that the thread be locked, though. It's an inately political subject and it's impossible to discuss it failry and completely without stepping over the lines laid down by the forum rules.


And require licenses to operate. And have increasingly strict construction regulations. And your license to drive can be taken away.
Again, something that inevitably leads into politics. Man, I'm having to bite my tongue.

Oh, and the fact that quite often, accidents happen due to outside factors that you cannot control. It's like a scaled-up version of slipping on ice on your sidewalk.
Don't call them accidents, call them what they are: crashes. Most of them happen because of something someone does or doesn't do rather than because of some outside factor. I visit the US three or four times a year most years, and literally every time I visit, I see the aftermath of one fatal car crash plus at least two or three non fatal ones. And all you hear on the news about them is "an accident is causing delays on such-and-such a road."

[Boci]

If you look at independent (that is, studies done on gasoline alone and those done on tobacco alone) you find results that disagree with just about everything. But I'm not going to debate a mod. I'm not that foolish...

I am pretty sure you can disagree all you want with a mod as long as the text isn't red.


Don't call them accidents, call them what they are: crashes. Most of them happen because of something someone does or doesn't do rather than because of some outside factor. I visit the US three or four times a year most years, and literally every time I visit, I see the aftermath of one fatal car crash plus at least two or three non fatal ones. And all you hear on the news about them is "an accident is causing delays on such-and-such a road."

Yes but as a race we need cars. We do not need cigaretes.

[thubby]

Also, I was unaware everyone here is an expert at my mental well-being. That's good to know in the future. (For the record, I started smoking as a stress reliever, and it worked well when I was first starting out)

science>subjective analysis.

[Innis Cabal]

Again, something that inevitably leads into politics. Man, I'm having to bite my tongue.

This isn't really political, nor are car laws or enforcement the issue of the the thread. And the offical term used by the Police are Collisions F.Y.I.

The point here is that smoking isn't a right, nor are people who smoke a demographic that are abused or neglected by the evil evil selfish non-smokers who just want to run the buzz and make life inconvinent.

Smoking kills people. Second hand smoke kills people. It's not some myth, it's fact backed up by hard science. Your more likely to get cancer if you smoke. Your more likely to get cancer from second hand smoke as well. Smokers who have lived their whole life smoking have backed this up. So it's even beyond science, it's proven by the people who smoke.

And you, nor anyone else, don't have the right to force something potentially lethal on anyone else. No matter how good it makes you feel, or how it reduces your stress. It's an addiction. The companies that make the things say it's addicting. You can stick your fingers in your ears if you want, but the facts, evidence and proof are not that hard to find.

This isn't a "Law Thing" its the right for us who don't (Or no longer) smoke to have to put up with the air pollution and potential risk of DEATH just because you can't put your cig away for an hour or two.

[shadowxknight]

{Scrubbed}

Amen brotha!

But ya, after watching the movie Thank You For Smoking, I've come to realize that smokers have rights too - -

[Indurain]

Hey you know what's fun! Telling people not to making blanket statements and generalizations then turning around and making them yourself.

Also, I was unaware everyone here is an expert at my mental well-being. That's good to know in the future. (For the record, I started smoking as a stress reliever, and it worked well when I was first starting out)

Okay sure, maybe I was exaggerating a bit with my examples and all that, but honestly it's not like everyone else here isn't.

The statements I made were not meant to be blanket statements, and it is entirely possible that you felt less stressed when you began smoking. I was only referring to the medical journals that say that the thought that smoking reduces stress has been debunked.

Independant Website (http://smoking.ygoy.com/can-smoking-relieve-tensions/)
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/health/10real.html)

Just a little light reading that might shine some light on the "relief" you believe you feel.

[Zeb The Troll]

If you look at independent (that is, studies done on gasoline alone and those done on tobacco alone) you find results that disagree with just about everything. But I'm not going to debate a mod. I'm not that foolish...I linked articles supporting my statements. Please link articles/studies backing your claims.


I am pretty sure you can disagree all you want with a mod as long as the text isn't red.This is the truth.

[RabbitHoleLost]

The statements I made were not meant to be blanket statements, and it is entirely possible that you felt less stressed when you began smoking. I was only referring to the medical journals that say that the thought that smoking reduces stress has been debunked.

Independant Website (http://smoking.ygoy.com/can-smoking-relieve-tensions/)
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/health/10real.html)

Just a little light reading that might shine some light on the "relief" you believe you feel.
Mayhaps it also relieves addiction cravings, but tobacco, like alcohol and several OTHER drugs, is well known to have calming properties. Atleast, with all those nasty chemicals and all. Otherwise, how can you explain those who say it has a calming effect the first time they try tobacco?

Like I said, I'm not a smoker, unless you count hookah every now and again, but I honestly feel like we're pushing it a bit far. In Oklahoma, there are NO bars you can smoke in (aside from Hookah bars, and that's ONLY hookah. And nobody goes to hookah bars to do anything but hookah).
Most buildings, you can't smoke within 500 ft of.
They were thinking of passing a law that would forbid you from smoking outside your own home, in your own backyard.

Um. Right.
I understand protecting the rights of those who choose not to smoke, but restricting smokers to their own homes is a bit much.

edit: Doing my own research further solidifies that tobacco is a stimulant and not a downer, so, er, I'm just confused. :: shrugs::

[The Big Dice]

Yes but as a race we need cars. We do not need cigaretes.We got by just fine without them for tens of thousands of years. We want cars, rather than need them, and that's why it's going to be a good 300 years before the Gulf of Mexico is clean again.


This isn't really political, nor are car laws or enforcement the issue of the the thread. And the offical term used by the Police are Collisions F.Y.I.
Policing and punishment are political though, and that's where talk of taking people's driving licences away kind of leads.

The point here is that smoking isn't a right, nor are people who smoke a demographic that are abused or neglected by the evil evil selfish non-smokers who just want to run the buzz and make life inconvinent.
Again, it's political. Seriously, everything from the price of cigarettes to where you're allowed and not allowed to smoke is political in nature. Which means we can't discuss it properly here. The current debate is all about where my right to consume a legal product begins and your right to beathe clean air ends. Don't tell me it's not a political discussion.

Smoking kills people. Second hand smoke kills people. It's not some myth, it's fact backed up by hard science. Your more likely to get cancer if you smoke. Your more likely to get cancer from second hand smoke as well. Smokers who have lived their whole life smoking have backed this up. So it's even beyond science, it's proven by the people who smoke.
I smoked for over 20 years. Seriously, non smokers don't get how bad for you smoking really is. You can talk and talk and talk, but until you wake up in the morning and cough a brown blob up into the basin, you won't get it. Nor will you understand that nicotine is more addictive and harder to kick than heroin.

We're not talking about changing what brand of soda you drink here. We're talking about giving up a substance that has literally altered your brain and body chemistry. The only thing that compares is if you were to give up sugar. All forms of sugar. Don't eat anything sweet for the next week. That means don't even take an artificial sweetner or diabetic candy, sugar free ice cream, donut, cup cake, yogurt or anything. No diet soda, none of that.

And maybe then you'll begin to get an inkling of what craving a cigarette is like.

And you, nor anyone else, don't have the right to force something potentially lethal on anyone else. No matter how good it makes you feel, or how it reduces your stress. It's an addiction. The companies that make the things say it's addicting. You can stick your fingers in your ears if you want, but the facts, evidence and proof are not that hard to find.
Every time you walk down the street and a car goes past, sit in traffic, eat or drink anything that is in a container that contains styrene, you are imbibing toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.

Every time you go out in the sun you're running the risk of UV light mutating a gene in just the wrong way. Microwaves from your cell phone don't just bake your brain, they're cooking me as well. Studies have shown that cell phones (http://www.nccs.com.sg/kac/diet/mobile.htm) are carcinogenic.

This isn't a "Law Thing" its the right for us who don't (Or no longer) smoke to have to put up with the air pollution and potential risk of DEATH just because you can't put your cig away for an hour or two.
This is exactly a law thing. Which makes it a political thing. Besides, when was the last time you saw someone light up at the movies? Or on a train, bus or other form of public transport? When was the last time you saw someone smoke on a plane? Or at an airport? When did you last see someone light up in a resturaunt? If the law says people can't smoke in those places, it's because of politics. And because of site policies on politics, I can't mention famous historical regimes that banned smoking.

That "can't put your cig away for an hour or two" line is nothing but hyperbole. It's propaganda used to manipulate the minds of people who really should know that they are being manipulated.

[VanBuren]

Oh yes, im sure they were all in on the plot to murder the waitress with smoke. Because, of course, us smokers are filthy, immoral people. Blegh.

Strawman. That's not what's being claimed.

[Lord Seth]

We got by just fine without them for tens of thousands of years.Uh, no we didn't "get by just fine". Did we get by? Sure. But the standard of living was inferior, as was life expectancy and general health. For example, we may have gotten by without germ theory, but if you get sick, I'm pretty sure you'd want to have that knowledge so you actually can get by just fine.

Even if we accept the premise that car pollution is very hazardous to health, cars help increase health by allowing quick transportation for things like medical materials or bringing people (patients or doctors) to the hospital quickly when necessary. None of the many benefits of cars on society, health, and standard of living can be claimed by smoking.


Every time you go out in the sun you're running the risk of UV light mutating a gene in just the wrong way.That's what sunscreen is for. But the thing is, the sun is there. You can't get rid of the sun or somehow manipulate it to stop UV light. It's a constant and has no meaning in this discussion because it's something that is completely impossible to change at the moment.


Microwaves from your cell phone don't just bake your brain, they're cooking me as well. Studies have shown that cell phones (http://www.nccs.com.sg/kac/diet/mobile.htm) are carcinogenic.Plenty of studies have found little or no link between cell phone radiation and cancer. It seems to me at best they can be classified as possibly carcinogenic.

[Quincunx]

(enters, begins building an outdoors smokers' shelter according to whatever, frankly arcane, local laws there are regarding the size, roofing, and airflow of same)

I am so grateful for the indoor public smoking bans that I'm willing to build quite a lot of these even if I'll never use them. They weren't psychosomatic symptoms, they were mild and situational asthma symptoms never present in a smoke-free doctor's office, and now they're gone. But for the love of all the gods there are, someone needs to tidy up the piecemeal regulations about buildings where you CAN smoke--I do not use the word "arcane" lightly!

[Phaedra]

I smoked for over 20 years. Seriously, non smokers don't get how bad for you smoking really is. You can talk and talk and talk, but until you wake up in the morning and cough a brown blob up into the basin, you won't get it. Nor will you understand that nicotine is more addictive and harder to kick than heroin.

We're not talking about changing what brand of soda you drink here. We're talking about giving up a substance that has literally altered your brain and body chemistry. The only thing that compares is if you were to give up sugar. All forms of sugar. Don't eat anything sweet for the next week. That means don't even take an artificial sweetner or diabetic candy, sugar free ice cream, donut, cup cake, yogurt or anything. No diet soda, none of that.

And maybe then you'll begin to get an inkling of what craving a cigarette is like.



I'm sorry, what is your argument here? You're addicted, therefore no one should tell you to stop? I don't think anyone here has denied that it's very hard to quit. No one has even asked anyone to quit. All anyone has said is - don't smoke in a particular place. I'm sorry if you feel bad for an hour or so if you can't smoke while on a train or something, but the fact that you've managed to get addicted isn't really an argument to let you light up.

Personally, I love the smoking ban. Prior to it, I knew of a whole one non-smoking bar in all of Nottingham, which was the place me and my friends went to most of the time (even, shock horror, those who smoked). Now I can go to any of them and have a night out without waking up feeling like my throat and lungs have been lined with sandpaper from second hand smoke.

Smokers just have to walk outside the door. Is that really such an inconvenience for you? Do you really rate walking a few metres over saving people's lives? (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smoking-ban-has-saved-40000-lives-856885.html)

(Incidentally, I've spoken about law without seeing the wrath of the mods before, if that's your fear. Law =/= politics by default).

[bluewind95]

I smoked for over 20 years. Seriously, non smokers don't get how bad for you smoking really is. You can talk and talk and talk, but until you wake up in the morning and cough a brown blob up into the basin, you won't get it. Nor will you understand that nicotine is more addictive and harder to kick than heroin.

We're not talking about changing what brand of soda you drink here. We're talking about giving up a substance that has literally altered your brain and body chemistry. The only thing that compares is if you were to give up sugar. All forms of sugar. Don't eat anything sweet for the next week. That means don't even take an artificial sweetner or diabetic candy, sugar free ice cream, donut, cup cake, yogurt or anything. No diet soda, none of that.

And maybe then you'll begin to get an inkling of what craving a cigarette is like.


Don't underestimate us so. I have twice been put into very strict diets that took away things that are absolutely a staple food for me and that my body craves above all. For months at a time. And just quitting, like that, no warning, no preparing, no medication or anything to help me through the craves. It's a matter of willpower. During those times, not once did I take any of the prohibited items, despite many times watching people eat them in front of me, or being asked to please bring them a plate full of them. Oh, yes, the cravings were BAD. But, you know, I managed.

As for not knowing how bad it is for your health... an uncle of mine died due to smoking. I saw him become a shadow.. a shell... of his former self. Yeaaaah, I think we DO know. We are just thankfully not TRYING to find out first-hand.

[Sholos]

I'd like to chime in to say I agree with this sentiment. Smoking is a terrible habit, and you shouldn't be allowed to do it in non-smoking zones. But I don't care if you go someplace like a bar and smoke, because I know there will be smoking done there so I go someplace else. >.>

The thing is, though, that without a smoking ban, you won't be able to go someplace else, because all those other places will allow smoking as well.

[Syka]

I was wondering when someone would mention nicotine is a stimulant, NOT a depressant. Physiologically, cigarettes are not calming. Psychologically, the act of a ritual combined with being still and taking deep breaths (meditation, anyone?) are what is calming. But nicotine is NOT beyond satisfying the addiction. This is not me reading your mind; this is scientific fact.


Also, as stated, there are different levels of asthma. Smoke and running are my big boogeymen. My mom has asthma, too, and smoked for decades. It effects each person differently. I'm 23 and I doubt my reaction to smoke will change, since it's been like this from childhood.

And I'm pretty sure with a peanut allergy or most other allergies, it requires to user to come in contact. Eating a peanut butter sandwich near someone (say, in class) won't trigger their allergy unless I kiss them or something. Smoke has a tendency to spread, though, making it effect the people in the vicinity (inside) rather than just the user.

[Catch]

I was wondering when someone would mention nicotine is a stimulant, NOT a depressant. Physiologically, cigarettes are not calming. Psychologically, the act of a ritual combined with being still and taking deep breaths (meditation, anyone?) are what is calming. But nicotine is NOT beyond satisfying the addiction. This is not me reading your mind; this is scientific fact.

Orly.


"At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use."

Nicotine is both a stimulant and a sedative.

[Zar Peter]

Again, people die in car accidents all the time. They obviously don't intend for it to happen, but it does. Maybe we should ban cars afterall.

This.

For me the bigger problem is the advertising machinery of the tobacco industry which tried to communicate that smoking isn't unhealthy and now they get the bill. Other industries were more clever (in the US the weapon industry for example).

[Serpentine]

Ages ago and was probably addressed, but anyways...
don't bring to the table these stupid (inane, juvenile, etc etc) arguments about clothing smelling for years, or even just days afterwards. A person would literally have to smoke a cigarette (cigar, pipe, whatever) once every half hour and not wash their clothes/brush their teeth/wash their hands ever to smell like smoke all the time.My mother could smell the cigaretted smoke on my clothes after I visited my dad for a week. It sticks, bad.
Nor will you understand that nicotine is more addictive and harder to kick than heroin.My ex's dad worked for Centrelink, and talked to ex- and junkies on a regular basis. He talked to several former heroin addicts who got on cigarettes when they quit heroin, and then found tobacco even harder to give up.
Also, to echo someone else: what exactly are you arguing? :smallconfused: It's really addictive, therefore non-smokers can't discuss how it's really addictive?

[Quincunx]

He's arguing the same argument as depressives, teenagers, and those with addictive habits: that no one from outside his own perspective can express their understanding about him and be given equal consideration with his own understanding, that the experiences of other people are worthless because he himself did not experience them. "Empathy is bunk". There is no knowledge but that which I know. You don't understand me. You have no right to judge me. The 'et cetera' trails along for fifty more books' worth of pages.

[Serpentine]

Okay. But... if basically all someone's saying is "smoking is addictive and dangerously unhealthy", what point is "you don't really know how addictive and dangerously unhealthy smoking is if you only know it from observation, education and scientific research, you haven't lived the addictiveness and dangerously unhealthiness!" meant to achieve, beyond that?

[Quincunx]

Oh, that means "stop making me face whatever justifications I've created for ignoring those truths!" We're all provoking the pain of cognitive dissonance (noticing your own doublethink) and are therefore evil pain-bringers.

[Serpentine]

Well, why didn't he just say that?! Tsk. Men :smalltongue:

[Jibar]

Well, why didn't he just say that?! Tsk. Men :smalltongue:

Hey hey hey. You mean most men.
Some of us are sensitive, caring, extremely attractive single men.

[Serpentine]

Well, sure, some. But do you say what you mean in non-long confusing rant form?

[Jibar]

Well, sure, some. But do you say what you mean in non-long confusing rant form?

Yes.
And we tend to say it while giving out back rubs and cooking your favourite meals.

[Helanna]

So, I was looking for hotels down in Dallas, Texas. I found a nice cheap one, however, I will have to pay more to get a non-smoking room.

It's not a lot more, it's like four more dollars per night. I'm not complaining about it here. Just wondering about people's opinions - should I have to pay more to get a room without smoke in it? Is this just the hotel charging more for a cleaner room? Is this a ploy by the hotel because they know some people will have to pay more for a room that won't endanger their health? Should the rooms, in fact, simply be equally priced?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

My thoughts, I like my freedom. I don't like being forced to do anything. Anything, whether its ciggies, booze, toads or caffeine (the latter I'm immune to), that is mentally and/or physically altering and/or addictive takes away my freedom isn't something I'll touch.


Yes.
And we tend to say it while giving out back rubs and cooking your favourite meals.
Yup. Men show and display their affection. Women just talk about it :smallamused:

[Quincunx]

Hey, it's hard to describe without the handy phrase! If reading psychology ever did me any good, it gave me phrases to describe trains-of-thought with which people had been irking me, and with which I'd been frustrating myself. . .

(turns around only to see that the audience is not only gone, but being woo'd)

. . .right, I'll go back over to the smokers' shelter, which apparently can't have more than 50% solid walls or it becomes a building again and subject to no-smoking regulations. However, open back gardens are OK even if surrounded by three-story houses on all sides. . .

[Serpentine]

Yes.
And we tend to say it while giving out back rubs and cooking your favourite meals....
So, about a year from now... Gonna have a couch free? :smallwink:

edit: I suspect I'm not so much being wooed as used as a handy billboard.

[The Big Dice]

I'm sorry, what is your argument here? You're addicted, therefore no one should tell you to stop? I don't think anyone here has denied that it's very hard to quit. No one has even asked anyone to quit. All anyone has said is - don't smoke in a particular place. I'm sorry if you feel bad for an hour or so if you can't smoke while on a train or something, but the fact that you've managed to get addicted isn't really an argument to let you light up.
I guess the bit where I said I'd given up smoking three months ago got lost in the shuffle.

{Scrubbed}


Personally, I love the smoking ban. Prior to it, I knew of a whole one non-smoking bar in all of Nottingham, which was the place me and my friends went to most of the time (even, shock horror, those who smoked). Now I can go to any of them and have a night out without waking up feeling like my throat and lungs have been lined with sandpaper from second hand smoke.
The smoking ban is directly responsible for around 20 pubs in my town closing. That's almost half of them. There just aren't enough non smokers going out to sustain them all, so people have lost their jobs. The town looks a mess because of closed up pubs dotted around the place and rotting away.

The other thing is the gangs of people hanging round outside the door to the pub. It's not a look that encourges people to go into that pub, no matter how nice it might be inside.

Smokers just have to walk outside the door. Is that really such an inconvenience for you? Do you really rate walking a few metres over saving people's lives? (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smoking-ban-has-saved-40000-lives-856885.html)

(Incidentally, I've spoken about law without seeing the wrath of the mods before, if that's your fear. Law =/= politics by default).
You know that "walk a few extra yards" argument goes both ways, right? And that article has a misleading headline. The actual figure it gives is 40,000 deaths over the next 10 years. Not that in the four years since the smoking ban came into force in the UK, ten thousand people less per year have died of smoking related illness.

And that's a fairly basic media trick to make you think they're telling you one thing while they're actually telling you another.

{Scrubbed}

The irony is, people smoking pays for the ban on smoking in public, with plenty left over. I ran the numbers once and it's frightening how much the government of Britain makes from people smoking.

[Lord Seth]

Again, people die in car accidents all the time. They obviously don't intend for it to happen, but it does. Maybe we should ban cars afterall.This.Sorry, but there's some major problems with this analogy.

Problem #1: As I've noted before, cars have far more positive effects than smoking does. Cars improve standard of life and have various positive effects, neither of which is true about smoking. Even if you don't drive, you still are likely relying indirectly on cars. Ever bought anything? Most likely, those products were delivered by car.

Problem #2: As far as I know, no one in this topic is calling for a full ban on smoking, so the analogy to banning cars is fallacious.

Problem #3: You might be about to say that even if it's not a full ban on smoking, it's a partial ban and that applies. Hey, guess what? There's a partial ban on driving. You're not allowed to drive if you don't have a license and it's illegal to drive while intoxicated. Plus there are a whole lot of other rules to follow when driving.

Problem #4: Cars are far, far, far more central to our society than smoking is. Smoking could conceivably be banned, even if it would be prohibition redux. The same isn't true for cars. Might as well try to ban electricity while you're at it.

[Pyrian]

Plus there are a whole lot of other rules to follow when driving.For instance, you can't drive inside a bar or restaurant. :smallamused:

[Phaedra]

I guess the bit where I said I'd given up smoking three months ago got lost in the shuffle.

{Scrubbed}

Well, I'm not sure how that's related to your previous point about addiction which I was querying, but ok. I'll be honest, this smacks of persecution complex. "It's not about public health, it's about controlling how people think"? Do you have any proof at all of that, or is this just your personal theory? Because as far as I can see, it is very much about public health and the risks of passive smoking - see the article I posted previously (though you already seem to have dismissed that as media bias, so YMMV).



The smoking ban is directly responsible for around 20 pubs in my town closing. That's almost half of them. There just aren't enough non smokers going out to sustain them all, so people have lost their jobs. The town looks a mess because of closed up pubs dotted around the place and rotting away.

The other thing is the gangs of people hanging round outside the door to the pub. It's not a look that encourges people to go into that pub, no matter how nice it might be inside.

I'd like to see proof of the closure claim as well since it goes against all my personal experience. No bars I know of closed due to the smoking ban - many closed in the years after, but that was during the recession. This seems to be backed up by academic research: The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws (http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/57/6/367). (Article examines the US laws - I tried to find a UK based survey, but they seem to have been lost in the recent government change since all the websites have moved). The economic arguments start on page 372.


You know that "walk a few extra yards" argument goes both ways, right?

Not really. A non-smoker would have to stand outside for the majority of their bar stay to avoid smoke, and would in any case have to experience it if they ever wanted to go in to buy anything. Conversely, you only have to go outside for five minutes. Who is more inconvenienced?


And that article has a misleading headline. The actual figure it gives is 40,000 deaths over the next 10 years. Not that in the four years since the smoking ban came into force in the UK, ten thousand people less per year have died of smoking related illness.

And that's a fairly basic media trick to make you think they're telling you one thing while they're actually telling you another.

Despite your insinuation, I did in fact read all the article, not just the headline. I was coming from the perspective that 40 000 over 10 years is a good thing. How can you not be happy about less death?


{Scrubbed}

The irony is, people smoking pays for the ban on smoking in public, with plenty left over. I ran the numbers once and it's frightening how much the government of Britain makes from people smoking.

Once again, no one is asking for a total ban. Just a ban in public places. The economics of a total ban are thus irrelevant.

[Helanna]

You know that "walk a few extra yards" argument goes both ways, right?

Ummmm . . . no, it doesn't. If someone is smoking inside a building, a non-smoker can't "walk a few extra yards" to get away from it. Their only choice is not to enter the building so long as someone is or was recently smoking. Whereas a smoker would have to step outside for five minutes and would then be able to return to the building.

Besides which, the foundation of our society isn't, "Oh, non-smokers should walk a few extra yards so that their lives aren't in danger." It's "Oh, smokers should walk a few extra yards so that they don't PUT EVERYONE ELSE IN DANGER." You do not have the right to put everyone around you in danger - you can go somewhere where non-smokers have the option to avoid the smoke.

[Jibar]

...
So, about a year from now... Gonna have a couch free? :smallwink:

edit: I suspect I'm not so much being wooed as used as a handy billboard.

It's more like I'm putting up a notice while winking at the billboard.
And all the passers by are incredibly weirded out.

This is the perfect metaphor.

[Serpentine]

Take that, passers-by :smallcool:

[JoshuaZ]

...is it wrong the first thing I thought when I saw this thread was "Copper-burning allomancers"?

I need to get out more. :smalleek:

Yes, all you copper-burners need to get out more. Then

my Inquisitors will be near enough to pierce your copper clouds and find you.

Hemalurgy triumphs again.

[SDF]

Well, why didn't he just say that?! Tsk. Men :smalltongue:

I think you are just phrasing the argument wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwrK-foCTaQ&feature=player_embedded). :smallamused:


Smokers just have to walk outside the door. Is that really such an inconvenience for you? Do you really rate walking a few metres over saving people's lives? (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smoking-ban-has-saved-40000-lives-856885.html)

Wow, that article is misleading. Especially their, "graphs." It shows a dramatic decline in men and women smoking starting in 1975 followed by a leveling off in the 1990's. While, at the same time, it shows a steady drop in lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in men, as well as a slight but steady increase in women. None of which has anything to do with their article, (which talks about tobacco sales rather than any kind of methodology) but I'm left thinking that men are healthier because medical science and detection methods have improved since the mid 70's, and women are getting lung cancer more often even though people have quit smoking because... actually I don't know that, and it's a little worrying.

I'm not trying to argue for or against here, I just hate it when people use statistics dishonestly. And, this is pretty blatant.

[JoshuaZ]

Wow, that article is misleading. Especially their, "graphs." It shows a dramatic decline in men and women smoking starting in 1975 followed by a leveling off in the 1990's. While, at the same time, it shows a steady drop in lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in men, as well as a slight but steady increase in women. None of which has anything to do with their article, (which talks about tobacco sales rather than any kind of methodology) but I'm left thinking that men are healthier because medical science and detection methods have improved since the mid 70's, and women are getting lung cancer more often even though people have quit smoking because... actually I don't know that, and it's a little worrying.

I'm not trying to argue for or against here, I just hate it when people use statistics dishonestly.

I don't know if that one is dishonest but it certainly isn't persuasive by itself. I'd suggest that a better set of studies which show that hospital admissions rates due to heart attacks drop after smoking bans come into effect. See for example here (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/114/14/1490) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC404491/?tool=pmcentrez).

[Syka]

Smoking has been in decline since the media bans went in to affect in America forever ago.

I think perhaps the paradoxical shift has to do with smoking habits. There may be a slight rise in women of late because, for a good while, it wasn't feminine to smoke. I think it only became accepted in the 1940's or something. Since lung cancer doesn't develop overnight, that would kind of make sense, even if overall smoking is in decline.

Disclaimer: That last paragraph is pure conjecture. Just my reasoning of something I'm not an expert on. :)


I dunno...I just love how my desire to visit social environments without risking my life is trumped by someone else's desire to not walk 5 yards and smoke outside of a building which they can then reenter without issue. Apparently desire to get a fix where you are sitting>desire to socialize with friends and hear live music without ending up in the hospital.

[jmbrown]

In case no one knows (and you probably won't if you're not in the US military), the Navy is banning smoking on submarines in December. Fear for your life, guys, because there's going to be thousands of pissed off people 3,000 feet underwater piloting nuclear submarines with ICBMs who've been underwater for 3 months without seeing port. This is how 2012 will end. Not with the apocalypse or rapture, but angry bubbleheads freaking out from withdrawl :smalltongue:

I haven't smoked in 2 weeks but thanks to this topic I feel like busting out the ol' pipe again. Thanks guys!

[Serpentine]

I have heard an unsourced claim that aircraft air quality has decreased since smoking was banned on them - before, they would have to filter and refresh the air all the time. Now, they just recycle it.

[Phaedra]

Wow, that article is misleading. Especially their, "graphs." It shows a dramatic decline in men and women smoking starting in 1975 followed by a leveling off in the 1990's. While, at the same time, it shows a steady drop in lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in men, as well as a slight but steady increase in women. None of which has anything to do with their article, (which talks about tobacco sales rather than any kind of methodology) but I'm left thinking that men are healthier because medical science and detection methods have improved since the mid 70's, and women are getting lung cancer more often even though people have quit smoking because... actually I don't know that, and it's a little worrying.

I'm not trying to argue for or against here, I just hate it when people use statistics dishonestly. And, this is pretty blatant.

The graph is titled "Britain benefits by giving up", and that is what it shows, which seems to me a decent bit of information to give to people reading an article about, you know, giving up smoking. It's fairly common for newspaper articles to give background info in graphs, so I'm not sure what your compliant is.

That said, I paid little attention to the graph when I read the article and I'm sure it does have it's flaws. The rest of the article is based on an independent study by Cancer Research and seems sound to me - the methodology won't be set out in a newspaper article, no, but you can find it in the full report.

Edit: Here's the Cancer Research, uh, research in full. (http://www.smokinginengland.info/)

See if I ever find you guys a newspaper review for ease of reading again. :smalltongue:

[Pyrian]

I have heard an unsourced claim that aircraft air quality has decreased since smoking was banned on them - before, they would have to filter and refresh the air all the time. Now, they just recycle it.Myth. Airline air comes from the air compressors in the engines (reportedly the conversation went almost exactly like this: "we need something to compress air for the cabin" "don't we already have massive air compressors in the engine turbines?" "er... yeah..."). It's continual fresh air from outside the plane - and has been since long before smoking bans in airplanes took effect.

[SDF]

I don't know if that one is dishonest but it certainly isn't persuasive by itself. I'd suggest that a better set of studies which show that hospital admissions rates due to heart attacks drop after smoking bans come into effect. See for example here (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/114/14/1490) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC404491/?tool=pmcentrez).

Second article couldn't reject the null hypothesis because of sample size, first one is good, though.


Smoking has been in decline since the media bans went in to affect in America forever ago.

I think perhaps the paradoxical shift has to do with smoking habits. There may be a slight rise in women of late because, for a good while, it wasn't feminine to smoke. I think it only became accepted in the 1940's or something. Since lung cancer doesn't develop overnight, that would kind of make sense, even if overall smoking is in decline.

The decline in the articles graph was around the time the Surgeon General's warning went into effect. So clearly health was a big factor for about half the people that smoked. The problem is that the graph had significant changes in smoking with a large decline for both men and women from similar levels - to similar levels. This graph had zero correlation to the one that showed the incidence of cancer in men and women.


Here's the Cancer Research, uh, research in full. (http://www.smokinginengland.info/)

Well, psh, we're nerds. I say go straight to the science journally stuff to begin with. If I ever want to have my information dumbed down I'll just watch cable news. :smallbiggrin:

[VanBuren]

Well, why didn't he just say that?! Tsk. Men :smalltongue:

Hey now, I believe the word you're looking for is "people". :smalltongue:

[The Big Dice]

Besides which, the foundation of our society isn't, "Oh, non-smokers should walk a few extra yards so that their lives aren't in danger." It's "Oh, smokers should walk a few extra yards so that they don't PUT EVERYONE ELSE IN DANGER." You do not have the right to put everyone around you in danger - you can go somewhere where non-smokers have the option to avoid the smoke.

{Scrubbed}

Also here's an article (http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html) on the economic impact of smoking bans. Here (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz/) is another one. And here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3678/is_200907/ai_n32422874/) is another.

In Atlantic City, the casinos got the smoking ban overturned because of the sheer amount of lost revenue it was causing them. The whole subject is deeply political. You're talking health versus personal freedom versus economics.

It's a mess.

[Indurain]

Smoking has been in decline since the media bans went in to affect in America forever ago.

I can attest to this. When I first began smoking, I would go out to a bar with my friends and about 50% would go out and smoke together. Now when I go out with my friends, I am the only one. Because of this, I understand that clearly I am the odd one out in the world, and as the minority (putting aside the health risk to non-smokers) I am the one who has to adjust. Majority rules, right?

Times have changed since I began smoking, and I have to change with them or get left with bitter angry feelings towards non-smokers. Do the people who choose to smoke deserve my anger and bitterness? No, they don't. I am the one who chose to smoke those 12 years ago, and though I'd love to be able to go back in time and slap the cigarette out of my mouth, I can't. Therefore I have to live with the consequences of my choice, whether it's a 5 second walk to the outside, or standing in -40 weather so I can get my fix. I made my bed, now I have to lie in it.

[Mystic Muse]

So, because you've done it for a long period of time means you have to keep doing it and screw the consequences?

BULL.

(Self scrubbed because it's kind of not true.) The only thing preventing you from stopping is you own unwillingness to. Unless something is physically making you do it and giving you absolutely no choice in the matter.

[Indurain]

So, because you've done it for a long period of time means you have to keep doing it and screw the consequences?

BULL. And not the red kind =p

The period of time doesn't matter. The only thing preventing you from stopping is you own unwillingness to. Unless something is physically making you do it and giving you absolutely no choice in the matter.

I have tried quitting 3 times in the past year, each time (clearly) unsuccessfully. It's not as simple as "I think I'll stop smoking today." I have used nicotine gum, nicotine inhalers, will power, books. And none of these have enabled me to quit smoking. I've been able to stop for months at a time, but my willpower eventually collapses, and I find myself right back where I started.

As was mentioned before, quitting smoking can be harder than giving up Heroin. I'd read this before, but I think it's an exaggerated statement. From my understanding (I've never done Heroin) getting over the initial addiction seems like it would be harder for Heroin addicts, but that need goes away. Ex-smokers report urges years after quitting. It's a lifelong addiction.

So unfortunately, it's not as easy as your post makes it seem to be. Fortunately, it can be done. I just have to find the proper method that will work for me.

[Mystic Muse]

So unfortunately, it's not as easy as your post makes it seem to be. Fortunately, it can be done. I just have to find the proper method that will work for me.

I'm not going to pretend it's easy. I imagine it'd be like me giving up video games or computer. I'm just saying that you can.

[Indurain]

I'm not going to pretend it's easy. I imagine it'd be like me giving up video games or computer. I'm just saying that you can.

As a video game "addict" myself, I can understand how it may seem similar. And though there are cases of true addiction to video games, etc. The physical reaction caused by quitting smoking can be quite severe. I nearly broke my hand during a quitting attempt as I punched a wall (Ironically, because I couldn't get past a boss in a video game).

I do not know what level your video game addiction is at, and it's possible that it's on the same level as my smoking addiction, just thought I would warn you to be careful about making that comparison to some smokers. The withdrawl can be a lot stronger than any non-smoker can imagine.

[Marnath]

So, because you've done it for a long period of time means you have to keep doing it and screw the consequences?

BULL. And not the red kind =p

The period of time doesn't matter. The only thing preventing you from stopping is you own unwillingness to. Unless something is physically making you do it and giving you absolutely no choice in the matter.

I guess you missed the part where it physically re-wires their brains? Besides, why flame Indurain, he's one of the more open minded people on this thread(from both sides of the arguement:smalltongue:)

I've wondered for a long time why they don't have facemask things that catch the smoke and recirculate it back to you. You'd get more ciggy for your money and we wouldn't have to breathe it. Maybe one of you guys knows why that's just a silly idea?

[Mystic Muse]

I guess you missed the part where it physically re-wires their brains? Besides, why flame Indurain, he's one of the more open minded people on this thread(from both sides of the arguement:smalltongue:)


Am I flaming? I'm just saying that saying "I've done it for so long that I can't quit" isn't true. changed the post a bit though.

[Zeb The Troll]

I'm just saying that saying "I've done it for so long that I can't quit" isn't true.There is actually more merit to the claim than one might think. One of the hardest parts of the smoking addiction is the routine. Many smokers have triggers that indicate it's time for a cigarette (I just got up, I've finished lunch, it's time for bed, I have a beer, I'm at a bar, et cetera) and those triggers are so strong that once the chemical addiction is beaten, we still find ourselves reaching for pack when those triggers occur. Many of those triggers will never go away (see: getting up in the morning) and so the draw will always be there. The moreso the longer you've been associating a cigarette with that particular activity.

[Quincunx]

Maybe that explains the only recreational cigarette smoker I knew, who puzzled me. He smoked at parties and only at parties. No cigarettes in the shared house, no smoke scent after washing the party clothes, and apparently no urge to smoke without a couple of drinks and a crowd of semi-strangers.

Phaedra & SDF: Delightfully nerdy exchange of ideas there. :smallbiggrin:

[Mystic Muse]

I don't think I have the best judgement of what my feelings are in this thread so I'm just going to leave before I say something I regret.

[JonestheSpy]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I have to say that when I saw its title I immediately thought of websites where anorexics and bulemics get together and 'support' each other against the hostile world...

[Marnath]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I have to say that when I saw its title I immediately thought of websites where anorexics and bulemics get together and 'support' each other against the hostile world...

Wait....what? Is that hyperbole is that a real thing? O.o

[JonestheSpy]

Wait....what? Is that hyperbole is that a real thing? O.o

No, they really exist.

One of the joys of the internet - making it so easy to connect with people who share your...interests.

[Knaight]

And you know what, smokers aren't all jerkfaces. If someone lights up, and you ask them to move, they'll usually do it. People tend to be nice.

This is questionable, barring the first sentence which is completely true. You've had the good fortune to know mostly nice people, I know quite a few who would pick a fight over something like one politely asking them to move or put out a cigarette, and as for the bit about people tending to be nice, I must say that your experience and mine are completely opposite, and I'm not someone who is frequently messed with;* most of those points are based on observation of others.

*Which is really odd, I'm completely harmless and look it.

Indurian, if you are currently trying to quit, good luck on it. Otherwise, enjoy your tobacco, and good luck if you decide to try again.

Regarding your point on heroin, there is also the ease of acquisition. If you are trying to quit smoking and lapse temporarily, all you have to do is walk down to the corner store, buy a pack of cigarettes, and light one. Heroin is presumably somewhat more difficult to acquire.

[Onlyhestands]

Not to derail, but I think if you have been taking heroin for a while and are exposed to the whole culture, then yes, you would at least know where to get it. Presumably, you could just hit up someone you know in your apartment building/nearby. Now, if you were some random white-collar guy who has never been exposed to heroin before in your life and you decide to take some out of the blue then it would be difficult.

[Delwugor]

28 year smoker and I can honestly say that smoking bans do not bother me all that much. Even at home Mrs. D and I have a self imposed rule of either outside or in the garage. I also don't like to smell smoke when eating so restaurants are not a problem. Movies, parks, zoos, concerts whatever are over in a couple of hours or have places to go (granted they may be hard to find). The bar I go to the most has the back door opened to step out and back in easily. Work has a place in the parking garage, ok it does get cold in the winter.


I'm not going to pretend it's easy. I imagine it'd be like me giving up video games or computer. I'm just saying that you can.
I wish it was as easy as stop playing a video game.
There is a very good reason why people use the word addiction with smoking, because it is true. Check out the success rates of various quit smoking methods! The best I've seen was 15% for 6 months, and even lower for a year.

[Mystic Muse]

I wish it was as easy as stop playing a video game.

I meant never playing video games or getting on the computer again. Not just putting the controller down or shutting the computer off for a couple of hours. The latter I can do. Not so sure about the former.

[Knaight]

There is a very good reason why people use the word addiction with smoking, because it is true. Check out the success rates of various quit smoking methods! The best I've seen was 15% for 6 months, and even lower for a year.

Nicotine is scary stuff, even in the low doses in cigarettes, and certainly very addictive. That 15% success rate isn't surprising at all for a record. Then it just gets scarier and scarier as nicotine gets more concentrated. Pure, it will kill you straight up.

[Cristo Meyers]

There is actually more merit to the claim than one might think. One of the hardest parts of the smoking addiction is the routine. Many smokers have triggers that indicate it's time for a cigarette (I just got up, I've finished lunch, it's time for bed, I have a beer, I'm at a bar, et cetera) and those triggers are so strong that once the chemical addiction is beaten, we still find ourselves reaching for pack when those triggers occur. Many of those triggers will never go away (see: getting up in the morning) and so the draw will always be there. The moreso the longer you've been associating a cigarette with that particular activity.

Vouching for this personally. I quit smoking at 19, I'm 26 now, and I still get cravings from time to time. Oftentimes, just talking about smoking or being around other smokers is enough to cause one.


There is a very good reason why people use the word addiction with smoking, because it is true. Check out the success rates of various quit smoking methods! The best I've seen was 15% for 6 months, and even lower for a year.

Add to that the fact that it will take most people at least two, more likely three, attempts for the quitting to actually stick in any meaningful way...

[Serpentine]

Maybe that explains the only recreational cigarette smoker I knew, who puzzled me. He smoked at parties and only at parties. No cigarettes in the shared house, no smoke scent after washing the party clothes, and apparently no urge to smoke without a couple of drinks and a crowd of semi-strangers.My mother only smokes around my sister.

Kyuubi: are you really claiming that your physiology has biochemically altered to make you physically addicted to gaming? There is a reason why there's a whole industry of chemical quitting aides...

[Vaynor]

My mother only smokes around my sister.

Kyuubi: are you really claiming that your physiology has biochemically altered to make you physically addicted to gaming? There is a reason why there's a whole industry of chemical quitting aides...

I think it's more likely a psychological addiction that he's referring to.

[Serpentine]

Then he is grossly misrepresenting the situation, because while the psychological part is incredibly severe, it is far from the only factor.

[VanBuren]

Then he is grossly misrepresenting the situation, because while the psychological part is incredibly severe, it is far from the only factor.

Yeah, it's a bit different from an actual physical addiction.

[The White Lyre]

Ages ago and was probably addressed, but anyways...My mother could smell the cigaretted smoke on my clothes after I visited my dad for a week. It sticks, bad.

Are you sure that wasn't while it was sitting in your laundry hamper, waiting to be washed? :smallwink: I'm a smoker, I know it's crazy how much it can cling, especially considering how small a cigarette is. But what I was referring when I wrote that was a couple comments talking about smoking in cars and houses, and one of them even about clothing, taking months to get out of clothes, and in the case of cars, years.

I do agree with the car part, though.


Smoking is an example of something that threats or harms others (and themselves, actually).

I don't think either of those is a majority at all. So if you're saying majorities have the right to violate minority rights (not actually a thing), shouldn't we ban smokers?
Of course, "smoker" isn't actually a type of person. Smoking is a behavior. Banning it has no effect on a minority's rights at all.

How the heck am I supposed to get to the Designated Breathing Area if the Non-Breathing Area is in the way? And why should I have to find a Designate Breathing Area, anyway?
Seems to me like those who do something that might harm others should have to make sure it doesn't.

The first part of your reply is a bit like an interruption on the internet (never thought I'd see that) as I say basically the same thing a couple sentences later.

Laws inhibit freedoms and laws are created to protect the majority. If you want to call that "the majority violating the minority's rights" go right ahead, but it isn't that drastic. All I was getting at was that it cannot be the responsibility of someone to be constantly looking out for the ill and unfortunate. A slightly stretched analogy would be aids; it isn't (legally) my responsibility to find out if my partner has hiv/aids, but it is their's to tell me before we have sex.

Seriously, you can't walk the five feet between the parking lot and the door to Wal-Mart? But fine, I do agree that it isn't pleasant - I never really realized how much people hated smelling cigarettes for even a second. I'll walk to the side next time. Just keep in mind that if I'm say, walking to my car with a cigarette in hand and I pass you, it isn't on purpose that you smell my smoke...just like it isn't on purpose that someone who suffers from uncontrolled flatulence isn't actively trying to stink up the room :smalltongue:.

[The Extinguisher]

So I realized today I may have sounded a bit like an ass in this thread. I kinda forgot that not everywhere has a ban on smoking inside in a public place, so I kinda took that for granted. I don't want people to be allowed to smoke indoors wherever. I personally hate smoking indoors, because it lingers around my face and gets in my eyes. I'd rather there be something to dissipate the smoke around me.

Basically it's the public perception that smokers are all evil and want to kill you with poison that I don't like. I've seen people look at me with a disgust one would normally reserve for a man killing babies in the street when I light up. Which is something I think we need to move on from. (Also, smoking shelters that actually keep people warm when it's -40 would be nice)

So sorry if I annoyed anyone. I think we weren't really arguing anything.

[Serpentine]

Are you sure that wasn't while it was sitting in your laundry hamper, waiting to be washed? :smallwink:No. On the clothes I was wearing on the 8+-hour well-ventilated train trip home again, and on the clothes in my suitcase when they're taken out that day to be washed.
I hate it when people smoke in the car, and my dad and my sister do it :smallyuk: You think winding down the window fixes it? It doesn't. It helps, sure, but it still blows it back in. The only way I can avoid the smoke is to basically hang my head out the window - really sucky when it's freezing cold, or raining :smallmad:

[Kneenibble]

Meanwhile I love smoking inside because I can blow smoke rings. Smoking outside is a little less fun and fortunately I live alone. Then again I only smoke a pipe and the odd clove cigarette. Pipesmoke smells like incense.

I don't self-apply this, but I think that other people who smoke are cool.

[THAC0]

Meanwhile I love smoking inside because I can blow smoke rings.

Clearly, you are not as awesome as Gandalf, who can blow smoke rings wherever he very well pleases! :smallbiggrin:

[Kneenibble]

Clearly, you are not as awesome as Gandalf, who can blow smoke rings wherever he very well pleases! :smallbiggrin:

Gandalf went with smoke rings, I went with hobbits... who do you think makes the Shire happier? :smalltongue:

[The Extinguisher]

Meanwhile I love smoking inside because I can blow smoke rings. Smoking outside is a little less fun and fortunately I live alone. Then again I only smoke a pipe and the odd clove cigarette. Pipesmoke smells like incense.

I don't self-apply this, but I think that other people who smoke are cool.

I envy you. I can't blow smoke rings at all. I try, and then it all ends up back in my face and laughs at me.

[SDF]

Lets not forget about the health benefits of nicotine use (http://www.uvm.edu/~CNRU/newhouse.pdf). :smallwink: As a nAChR agonist nicotine can offer neurological benefits. You are much less likely (2/3 in some studies) to develop neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases.

I'm not suggesting anyone take up smoking, just thought I'd throw it out there. :smalltongue:

[Ninja Chocobo]

I am asthmatic, and allergic to tobacco.

In any social outing, I am the one forced to make allowances for smokers. If I wish to be a part of the conversation, I must dash some ten metres away, take a couple of big, deep breaths, and dash back. (Note, here: This is in an outdoor venue, which was chosen in order to not inconvenience the smokers.)

The one time I asked someone to please move away (between hacking and choking constantly), he suggested that I was the one who should move, because clearly he wasn't bothering anyone else.
I was inside, halfway through eating lunch that I bought.

Once, I walked past a smoker without my lungs closing. I discovered later he was smoking cannabis.

My father, knowing that I was asthmatic and allergic to tobacco, refused to give up smoking when I was young, before my parents were divorced. Fifteen years later he conceives another child with another wife and decides to give up.

In my class there is a smoker who smells literally all the time like an ashtray's anus. The slightest whiff of his clothes sends me into coughing fits, and again, I am the one forced to leave the classroom.

My mother is currently the only tolerable smoker I know, for she only does so in her bedroom with several windows open and a fan on.

On the plus side, walking around the city has made me rather adept at holding my breath and short-distance sprinting.

[Moonshadow]

Smoking is a dirty, filthy habit, and I personally cannot stand to be in a 10 metre radius of a smoker. I have to hold my breath just to walk pass them, because the smell nauseates me that badly. Not to mention that my mother smoked up until I was about 12 or so, and I already know that it's affected my lungs.

And y'know, I don't see why non smokers should have to make concessions for smokers. It's not like our not smoking is having an adverse affect on your health just by being around you while we do it.

[Sholos]

Laws inhibit freedoms and laws are created to protect the majority. If you want to call that "the majority violating the minority's rights" go right ahead, but it isn't that drastic. All I was getting at was that it cannot be the responsibility of someone to be constantly looking out for the ill and unfortunate. A slightly stretched analogy would be aids; it isn't (legally) my responsibility to find out if my partner has hiv/aids, but it is their's to tell me before we have sex.

You do realize that this is an argument more against you than for you, right? In this analogy, the partner with AIDS is the smoker (the one that's being unhealthy and damaging the other person). You've just said that it's their responsibility to not damage the other person.

[Lillith]

I've been confronted with a whole range of different kind of smokers funnily enough. My grandma quit cold turkey from one day to another after figuring smoking was bad. She didn't seem to have much problems but she can hide stuff well I guess.
My grandfather smoked most of his life and died of the consequences. =/
I had a friend in college who tried to quit but had a great difficulty and it literally took him years to actually pull it off.
My dad is a recreational smoker. He only smokes cigars at parties with his brothers. Which is like, twice a years.

Personally I don't care if someone smokes. It's their choice. Though I would not date a smoker ever, but that's because smoke makes me cough and gives me a giant headache, so it's for health purposes. I really don't care if someone wants to smoke or not, if it troubles me I'll go stand somewhere else. The only thing that does bug me immensely has already been mentioned. Smokers need a lot of smoking breaks, during college this left me alone in the study room working on a group assignment. The smokers, me usually being the only non smoker, left for 15-30 minutes which delayed our work and left me doing everything by myself. I found this very obnoxious because they did this once every hour or so. But then again, that's different depending on the person I guess?

[monomer]

Yeah, it's a bit different from an actual physical addiction.

Not to say that you are wrong, but from my personal experience, a psychological addiction can be worse than a purely physical addiction.

I gave up smoking 3 years ago. At roughly the same time, I gave up video games, since they were simply eating up too much of my free time. Now, every once in awhile I will get a slight craving for a cigarette, but everyday still I am fighting the temptation to re-activate my WoW account, or load up an FPS on my computer.

The truth is that while I was physically addicted to nicotine, there was no real emotional connection to it. For me it was simply routine. As for gaming, it was a huge part of my life, and one of the main things that had basically defined me as a person. So giving up smoking was simply using my will-power to stop doing something, which was admittedly very difficult, but nowhere near as hard as changing my life completely.

[Sholos]

Not to say that you are wrong, but from my personal experience, a psychological addiction can be worse than a purely physical addiction.
Some psychological addictions might be harder to get out of, but physical is always worse, in the sense that they can literally kill you if you try to drop them.


I gave up smoking 3 years ago. At roughly the same time, I gave up video games, since they were simply eating up too much of my free time. Now, every once in awhile I will get a slight craving for a cigarette, but everyday still I am fighting the temptation to re-activate my WoW account, or load up an FPS on my computer.

The truth is that while I was physically addicted to nicotine, there was no real emotional connection to it. For me it was simply routine. As for gaming, it was a huge part of my life, and one of the main things that had basically defined me as a person. So giving up smoking was simply using my will-power to stop doing something, which was admittedly very difficult, but nowhere near as hard as changing my life completely.
And here you give a perfect explanation of why psychological addictions can be harder to kick. Stopping WoW, however, never threatened your actual life.

[The White Lyre]

You do realize that this is an argument more against you than for you, right? In this analogy, the partner with AIDS is the smoker (the one that's being unhealthy and damaging the other person). You've just said that it's their responsibility to not damage the other person.

Well, yes in a way I'm arguing against what many smokers are arguing for here. However, in the analogy the asthmatic is the person suffering from AIDS, which is why I said it was slightly stretched as asthma isn't contagious. The point I was making stands that it isn't the other person's responsibility, in law, to check, though. But if you continue that argument, then when dealing with healthy people and smokers, the smoker becomes the AIDS patient, and actually the analogy is more fitting with those two groups. I agree.

You should realize my reply was to a post on page 4, so I'm not surprised if the issues back then have moved on or changed - all I was getting at was the legal implications of an asthmatic arguing that the reason smoking shouldn't be allowed in public is because of their deathly illness. Personally, I'm fine if smokers are sent to a side exit for their smokes, just as long as smoking doesn't get banned outright "for our own good, so that we may live healthy lives like the rest of the world" :smallannoyed:.

[Lord Seth]

Some psychological addictions might be harder to get out of, but physical is always worse, in the sense that they can literally kill you if you try to drop them.How does quitting cigarettes kill you?

[The White Lyre]

How does quitting cigarettes kill you?

Sometimes the stress of quitting can actually harm you further than continued smoking would. Especially if you're going cold turkey instead of cutting down. This happens the most with old people who have smoked since their teens - smoking has become a need for them, practically, and it is very hard to make the body realize it can live without nicotine.

An example of this is that my best friend's mom smoked all the way through her pregnancy with her first child at the doctor's order. She had been a chain smoker before and the stress of quitting would have caused so much havoc on her body that the baby would have suffered more by her quitting than by her continued smoking - and could possibly have died. The doctor just told her to chill out with the chain part of her smoking habit during the pregnancy :smalleek:.

[Catch]

I like to think of cigarettes as a way to judge character. (Smoking has never become a habit for me, and I've been able to take it up and casually quit with equal ease, as it's a fundamentally social act for me. There's a natural conversation that develops in outdoor smoking areas, and I enjoy the excuse to have company.) I find smoking to be a litmus test for the kind of person I'd want to associate with. Some people are indifferent to smoking, others are bothered by smoke but won't speak up, and many are polite about their preferences (or immediate health concerns), but there are also opinionated people prone to self-righteousness. It's the latter who are often difficult to shake, once they're into the momentum of whatever they happen to be whinging about, and I find that firing up a cigarette is the quickest way to disperse them.

"Um, excuse me, I don't really feel like dying of cancer, so can you get your disgusting fix some other time?"

"Now seems as good as any."

"You know, there are some people who don't want to breathe toxic chemicals all the time."

"You're probably right, but I've already lit this one. It'd be wasteful to pitch it now."

"Whatever, I'm leaving. Have fun with your lung disease."

Not only is nicotine a natural deterrent to insects, but it also works on persona non grata. :smallwink:

EDIT: I suppose I should append my post with the clarification that I live in Chicago, where smoking is prohibited in bars, clubs, restaurants, and all other public buildings (except those obviously dedicated to smoking, i.e. hookah bars and cigar lounges). By city ordinance, you can't smoke anywhere within 15 feet of the entrance to a building, and it's not uncommon to be ticketed for for disregarding that restriction. It's a fair law and I don't have any qualms about moving when I choose to smoke. So, excluding a private residence, there are few instances where a person would be "forced" to occupy the same airspace as someone smoking, for any significant period of time. Family members and friends are certainly exceptions, and I would hope they'd be responsive to any health concerns.

[Pinnacle]

I like to think of cigarettes as a way to judge character. [...] Some people are indifferent to smoking, others are bothered by smoke but won't speak up, and many are polite about their preferences (or immediate health concerns), but there are also opinionated people prone to self-righteousness. It's the latter who are often difficult to shake, once they're into the momentum of whatever they happen to be whinging about, and I find that firing up a cigarette is the quickest way to disperse them.

[...]

Not only is nicotine a natural deterrent to insects, but it also works on persona non grata. :smallwink:

You've just completely and utterly disregarded the people around you and treated them like dirt.
You get to judge them if they are not extra-polite when asking you to stop doing so? A bit of a double-standard, no?

I'd say you are supporting your suggestion that smoking is a good test of character. If you light up within range of others without even asking, that's not a good sign.

EDIT: The edit does help a little, admittedly. The person who harms others is still the one with the responsibility to not do so, however. This is not complicated reasoning.

[Catch]

What I was getting at was, "If you act like a jerk about people smoking, you're probably not a person I'd want to associate with anyway," (which, of course, begs the immediate retort, "Well, if you smoke you're probably not a person I'd want to associate with") but since you want to argue, let's do a dry point-by-point for clarity's sake and strip out all the original intent along the way.

The assumption of this hypothetical is that you are in my airspace and are not being forced to stay there, presumably outdoors. So:


You've just completely and utterly disregarded the people around you and treated them like dirt.

No, I've lit a cigarette, which is a neutral act. I am neither actively nor passively harming you* (it's common courtesy not to blow smoke in the direction of people, even other smokers) and if smoking is something that bothers you, you have the option to say something or leave. If you interpret this as "treating the people around me like dirt," there's my litmus test working as intended.

*The obvious exception this is people who have immediate health concerns, and I'd expect them to say something.


You get to judge them if they are not extra-polite when asking you to stop doing so? A bit of a double-standard, no?

Not extra-polite. Polite. As in "not rude." Respectful. You know what rudeness sounds like and it's unnecessary to get your preferences or needs across. I'm usually happy to adjust my behavior to whatever will make someone else comfortable, but if you want to be a jerk about it, try to suppress your astonishment when you're ignored.


I'd say you are supporting your suggestion that smoking is a good test of character. If you light up within range of others without even asking, that's not a good sign.

Something analogous to "Mind if I smoke?" is certainly the polite way to go about it, and I can generally intuit when I ought to ask. The company I keep is mostly 20-somethings, which is one of the largest brackets of people who do smoke, have smoked, or are used to it (and also the age bracket likely to harbor said opinionated folk.) For the most part, if I'm outside on either my own or public property, or in my car, asking is a courtesy, but not imperative. I'd always ask if I was in someone else's residence or car, and generally default to smoking some other time. As I mentioned before, it's primarily a social activity for me, and I don't have nicotine "needs." Still, I'll agree that asking before lighting up circumvents the whole "Could you put that out" problem in the first place.


EDIT: The edit does help a little, admittedly. The person who harms others is still the one with the responsibility to not do so, however. This is not complicated reasoning.

Which, by logical extension, is saying "Don't ever smoke around anyone ever." I'd debate the accuracy of the word "harm," which is another argument entirely, but your point isn't entirely invalid. Yes, it's my responsibility to not smoke around people who would prefer I not, and while I'm in agreement, my only point of contention is that if you feel that way, I'd prefer that you let me know in a way that isn't sanctimonious or especially judgmental, because doing someone the courtesy of putting out a cigarette should be asked for courteously. That's really my only bone of contention with this thread, as I've been lurking: The belligerent "how dare you" approach may be awfully cathartic, but it's a waste of breath (:smallwink:) if your goal is to limit your exposure to secondhand smoke.

Really though, I'm just interested in how (or whether) a person reacts to smoking can speak to their nature. I imagine indifferent people tend to be more even-tempered or tolerant, those who bothered by smoking but won't speak up tend to be self-conscious, and I admire people who are clear but respectful about their preferences. And then there's the occasional indignantly outraged person who's more concerned about browbeating someone who offends them than actually getting what they want.

[Lillith]

And then there's the occasional indignantly outraged person who's more concerned about browbeating someone who offends them than actually getting what they want.
That comment made me remember a South Park episode about smoking. It was pretty funny.

Also you can´t blame people who are self conscious. It´s not an easy problem to get over. At least they´re not rude to you, you know?

Edit: There we go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Out)