Smoking ...
 

So, I just googled "second hand smoke ..." and instantly there came up facts/myth/studies/effects/and pregnancy etc etc etc. Friends I am really curious and I turn to you because I don't trust google. Cigarette smoke is irritable to those who don't smoke and the results of my google search were massive anti-smoke campaigns with only three or four badly written pro-smoking sites strewn here and there.

There was another thread dealing with it being alright (your right) to smoke and the common answer was "yes it is, but it is also my right not to walk out of a door and have a cloud of smoke in my face". I'm gonna try and not step on the non smokers toes here as well as the smokers too.

Here are truths that I accept of smoking:

1. It is the number 1 cause of lung cancer amongst smokers.
I added "amongst smokers" because I honestly feel if you presented with a case of lung cancer to a doctor and told him you started smoking three weeks ago he/she won't look anywhere else to find the cause. In this we present new problems. I mean, cancer is caused after a prolonged time of some sort of abuse.

2. It is the number 1 cause of lung cancer amongst second hand (non) smokers.
Another problem presents itself here, what about cooks and people who work in coal mines (mines really) oil rigs/refineries and other smoke related occupations? Do they have the same issues as smokers?

Now because I don't smoke it makes no sense to me. Why is it not illegal?

I mean really? This has to be a lie. I did another careless search on Car crashes statistics and ...

So, I justify the car crashes as necessities because we have to MOVE places but smoking ... not really. If smoking does indeed cause all the problems associated with it, then it being legal is plain dumb!!

I mean - asthma, third hand smoke **chuckles** - heart disease - lung cancer in nonsmoking adults - sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) - respiratory infections in children. etc etc etc. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF IT. It has to be a lie, smoking can't have all these effects and still be legal.

My take on smoking, I'm a non smoker. Honestly, it irritates the fuck out of me, blow smoke in my face and I will cut you where you stand - I mean WTF?! ... well, to be honest just blowing in my face pisses me off but still, I have nothing against smoking besides it annoys me. If all the data readily available to me is this bad, then it should be illegal by now.

What do you guys think about smoking? It's effects, and media sensationalization of the topic at hand?

So I guess we should ban cars too because car exhaust contains hundreds of carcinogens that can cause illness and death? What, you GET cars? Cars don't cause any problems for you? Oh, right, they're good for YOU, and the economy, you're not going to complain. Something is used for leisure, you don't get it, you don't like it? Let's ban it. When did it become your right to tell everyone else what's good for THEM? If you don't like the effects of tobacco smoke you are free to not inhale it. Used to be a different story in public, sure, but the current set of laws takes care of that quite well. This is turning from a public health issue to another morality crusade.

I doubt they will ban smoking all together, that is highly unlikely. I do agree with the ban on smoking in public places, being I am highly allergic to something in cigarette smoke specifically that makes me very sick. When I used to go out to bars before the ban in my state, I would be ill for days afterwards if I drank or not. Mostly from the smoke. Now as far as the cars go, we unfortunately need them for our soceity to function. And if it became a fashion to park them inside a bar, grocery store or hospital and let them run. I am sure they would ban it as well. I personally avoid driving my car, not only to save emissions but to save money. I don't have a problem with smoking, a few of my friends smoke and I don't say a word to them about it. I just move up wind.

I just think it's funny, like in california when there are "carcinogens" in a public place they have to post a notice, of course a public place that is next to 50 cars and a street, but they don't post warnings on roads or cars do they? I think that should be a law, print "this vehicle emits substances known to the state of california to cause birth defects and cancer" on every motor vehicle. :lol:

BTW, I only rarely ever smoke cigarettes, or smoke in public, and I always do it outside, and I don't puff around anyone. I also throw my cigarette butts where they actually belong, in the trash! That's certainly a lesson very few smokers are willing to learn, and something I'm glad is illegal, so you won't get any argument from me that they are inconsiderate.

Making a product that has addictive qualities and popular demand illegal... Hmm... That could only end well... For the gangsters.

Even if nicotine is a pesticide...

wait... smoke what?

Cigarettes? Fuck no.

Cannabis? Fuck yes.

Most car accidents are caused by people not following the rules of the road and most accidents are preventable and if you hurt someone with your car due to negligence you should and most likely will be punished. Every smoking related disease is caused by people using cigarettes for their intended purpose and nobody is punished for the deaths caused by smoking.

The comparison is a bad one.


The reason it's not illegal is because it's cheaper, actually profitable for it to be legal while it'd cost to much to enforce the law if it were illegal. Believe me, billions of dollars for the tobacco companies, politicians and the government is worth lowering the average life span by about 10 years. I'm fairly certain the government would prefer the average life span to be equal to the age of retirement anyway.

There is a difference between things that contain carcinogens and things that can be shown to reasonably correlate with increased instances of adverse medical conditions. There have been numerous studies directly linking smoky restaurants and community rates of various cigarette associated medical conditions. Do you know of any studies that directly correlate the inhalation of traffic exhaust and increased instances of adverse medical conditions? I think I know of one, and it has to do with people who live near freeways.

In any case, the mere existence of carcinogens isn't necessarily what is important from a public health stand point. As far as I can tell, prior to smoking bans, the adverse effects of passive tobacco smoke exposure were much greater than the effects of passive car exhaust exposure at the exposure levels most people were experiencing at the time.

One of my friends developed lung cancer in her young 20's. She has never been exposed to any amount of cigarette smoke for a significant length of time. She has never smoked. When her physicians saw that her case of lung cancer had nothing to do with cigarettes they were shocked.

I've never smoked. Never wanted to risk damaging my voice.
I like the scent of tobacco. I especially enjoy the scent of apple-flavored huka tobacco. I find it relaxing to watch someone smoke. I enjoy sitting on a cafe patio where people are smoking. I have never experienced someone blowing smoke purposefully directly in my face. That is the equivalent of spitting in someone's face. I don't enjoy kissing someone after they have smoked a cigarette, nor do I enjoy falling asleep next to someone who smells like cigarettes. Scented huka tobacco is much more pleasant. I detest the smell of pot. Bad pot is even more disgusting. I feel quite differently about mixes of pot and flavored tobacco - that's enjoyable to be around. I love incense. To prepare for a big exam, I will sit in a park listening to the birds and burn a stick of incense.

Car exhaust smells better than second-hand smoke. Way better.

IIRC, a person with no history of exposure to cigarette smoke has something like a 1:100,000 chance of developing lung cancer.

A smoker has... a considerably higher likelihood.

Man, cars are the cigarettes of the Earth, dude. They're totally the embodiment of cancer cells moving through veins and spreading, except they use roads, man.
/end hippie rant.
Don't ban cigarettes, ever, it's still our choice to smoke, even if you have to push us further away from buildings into seedy parking lots. We'll go, because we're addicted.
I would, however, appreciate it if smokers had a few establishment where smoking inside is ok (i.e movie theater, pool bar, bowling alley, bar, etc.).

I disagree.

The only exception is cigar and pipe smoke.

Yep, I also find the aroma of a spliff (pot+tobacco) to be quite nice, and the way the smoke looks (blue/gray/white) is quite beautiful. Then again, I like the smell of most pot, even skunk-type.

Father's a mechanic/engineer or some such?

Me - father's a mechanic... Car fumes smell homely.. as does oil, petrol (yes, petrol) and diesel.

bizarre.

My father is an oil-burner mechanic.

His hands are permablack.

;)

Cars are necessary. I never said they're "good" for me (I do love the flashy ones and I have had a couple of speeding tickets) but yes. I 'get' them. It is my belief that the accidents caused by vehicles are higher in proportion to the deaths caused by smoking. If watered down to a percantage, smoking is more dangerous than driving. At least that is what the studies suggest.

Given this, why is it legal still? I mean, if I come to your house and tell you, "your gonna die on tuesday. I know cause I'm at your house, I know where you live and I will come kill you in the afternoon maybe after 3:45 cause I got yoga after" ... why wouldnt you move?

I don't smoke myself, but I also don't mind when others smoke around me. I have a few friends who are HIGHLY against it to the point of treating smokers like lesser beings, and I don't agree with that at all. I wouldn't have known it was such an issue for non-smokers before I met them.

As far as banning tobacco altogether, I'd think that would be the last thing the government would want to do. The same argument is made for the legalization of marijuana all the time: either keep it illegal, fight the war on drugs, and spend millions OR legalize it, tax it, sell it in stores, and profit.

Mmm, spliffs. That's the only way I smoke tobacco any more. And there's a distinct difference between the smell of fine shag tobacco and the shit they put in cigarettes. Cigarette smoke stinks. Pipe and hookah smoke are fine, though.

I like to keep some Bali Shag in my weedbox.. :D. It's cheaper than buying factory-made cigarettes anyway. And the aroma is so nice.

Cigarette smoke does stink, but I think the effects of second hand smoke are a bit overblown. I have difficulty buying that 5 second exposure to a bit of tobacco smoke on the street is likely to cause anyone long-term adverse health effects. Prolonged chronic exposure? Sure. If you live with someone who smokes three packs a day for twenty years you might have problems. But one night at the bar doesn't seem likely to kill anyone.

I'm against smoking bans for one reason and one reason only, which is that I believe the venue operator should be the one to make that decision. If the bar/club/restaurant owner wants to ban smoking in his establishment then that's one thing. For the government to do it for him is quite another.

Making smoking illegal? Stupid. People do all kinds of stupid harmful shit all the time. I reckon they ought to be free to do it, so long as they're not forcing their bad habits on others. And yes, your kids may not have a choice. If you smoke around your kids, you're also an asshole. Inconsiderate smokers are ruining things for the rest of us.

Perspective:

I'm a smoker.

If I'm not actively smoking, I cannot stand the smell of tobacco smoke. I often have to wash my hands after finishing a cig.

Both my mother and my biological father smoked when I was growing up. Mum quit, but so far as I know dad still does.

If I'm with someone whose opinion I'm unsure I always ask before I light one. This goes for public places as well as my own home and even out of doors. If I ask and the other party indicates they don't mind, I figure I've taken my reasonable precautions and am unlikely to ask again or show any undue concern.

I never smoke around small children. I will stand away or even leave the sidewalk to avoid it.

I am not the typical smoker.

My father was a brilliant man and great story teller. Dead from lung cancer when I was 22.

My mom smoked so heavily that I hated to visit her home. I had to change my clothes when I left, even after just a short visit, because it was so bad. She is also now dead from cancer and was in denial for years that smoking caused my father's death.

I do not smoke, and I do not have friends that smoke.

I smoke Cigars daily and other tobacco products on occasion, I enjoy my smokes, so anyone that would like to tell me what I can and can not do with my lungs can go suck a log! That said, I don't inflict my habits on others by smoking around non-smokers, mainly because I don't care much for the smell either and I respect the individuals right to choose and expect the same in return.

As for the crying ninnies that want to remove tobacco from the planet, do a little research. The carcinogens in cigarettes are put there by big tobacco to keep their cigarettes burning so they don't go out, to improve the flavor of the bottom of the barrel tobacco they use and to aid in addiction to their product. Yes, nicotine is addictive, but so are many of their additives. I can go weeks without a Cigar, but when I smoke a cigarette I'm jonesing an hour later. The fact that what is in a cigarette isn't even tobacco, but shredded paper sprayed with macerated tobacco and chemicals speaks for itself. Ban cigarettes if you like, but leave tobacco alone.

Oh, and on final note, there is ZERO read ZERO credible research that links 2nd hand smoke to any kind of cancer. All the squawkers quote this bullshit, but ask for credible research, and none can be found.

So I say, 'Lightem if ya gottem' and if you campaign to ban tobacco, I'll start a campaign to ban crying and unruly children based on your same argument. They are public menace, health hazard (stress kills) and you have no right to inflict your habits one me. Anyone who can't out think a child should be sterilized and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Bali Shag has to be some of the best rolling tobacco out there, loved the blue label kind.

I'm pro-smoking (is that even a category?) that doesn't smoke. I smoked cigarettes on and off since I was 18 but I wasn't a child of peer pressure. Just like black trench coats, samurai swords and motorcycles, cigars held a place in my mind as being cool as hell. I thought cigarettes were stupid and didn't want anything to do with them. I got my hands on a cigar in Mexico when I was 17 and fell in love with the smell and taste of it. Smoked cigars on and off for a year then when I found out that you can get a 5 minute break from the kitchen if you smoked cigs, so I started smoking cigarettes. I quit about 5 months ago but still do enjoy the occasional cigar when I'm drinking (I like Al Capones rum flavored, check it out, very mild and sweet smelling).

There is a very small movie theater near the college I went to that allows smoking and you can buy beer there. They only have one screen and only play movies twice a night, but the place is always packed with college students.

I don't mind being around smoke unless someone blows it in my face (Who does that? That just makes you a dick). I try to be nice about my smoking at all times and I always make sure that the bar I am in allows cigar smoking before I light up. I think I'll always fight for your right to smoke, just for the fact that it's your choice not the government's choice.

I don't think there should be laws that say if you can smoke or not, that's your right as an American (I talk about the US laws cause that's where I live) and if you want to allow smoking in your place of business, you should be able to make that choice. I understand alot of people don't want cigarette smoke around them, and I respect that decision, but you should have a choice (as a business owner) if you want no smoking at all in your business. My favorite bars are dimly lit, smokey, downstairs, with a good jukebox and I want to keep it that way. Let 99% of businesses be non-smoking, just let me have my 1% that let's you light up when you want too.

PS. An other on the poll would be great, some of us are in the grey that wouldn't mind voting.

"Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancers".

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute

Perhaps, just perhaps, you're perfectly happy rampin up your own chances of smoking-related diseases, but increasing the chances of those around you? Little too much to accept... Therefore science, istead of you, is wrong.

FAIL.

I did consider this but really I couldn't come up with another option. To compensate for my lack of creativity why do you say other? If your OK with others smoking, have a couple once in a while yourself I think you fall in the second category ...

Whats interesting is I'm kinda like you LordEden but I don't smoke at all.

This is my point exactly. IF smoking had seriously all these repercussions ... then why in heavens name is it still legal? Isn't the drugs being illegal thing justified by pundits saying that they are protecting us from ourselves? I find heavy irony in the whole thing.

I didn't put myself in the second category because I don't mind being around it, it truly doesn't bother me. The only time I've had a problem with being in a cloud of smoke, the bars I go to you could cut it with a chainsaw, was when I had a cold and couldn't breathe. I let people smoke in my car because I never cleaned the "ashtray" smell out of it, but I don't smoke in it. People don't smoke in my house because I don't smoke in my house. When I lived with roommates that smoked, I smoked in the house, but if it is my choice I don't have people smoke in it. I'm weird.

I was just thinking of a lump-all category of other:explain and let people describe why in their post after voting in the poll.

My home state is one of the biggest reasons why it isn't illegal, North Carolina was THE state for tobacco, it was one our biggest cash crops. We have the cheapest cigarettes in the US and one of the few states left with BOGO free packs. A year ago I was buying $2.75 packs of Camel Lights. I smoked a brand that was $2 a pack till I quit.

I think they can't make it illegal, but will make it so hard to get with taxes and laws against smoking, it's almost a passive aggressive illegalization. Yes you can own/smoke cigarettes, after paying $10 in taxes, but you can't smoke them in public, your car, your work, any place that serves food or liquor. Therefor you are paying outrageous taxes on something that you can only do in your home (if your landlord lets you). A friend of mine just quit for the cost aspect and the fact that our town is going "smoke-free" in 6 months. My favorite 500-sqft dive bar is going to be non-smoking, unless they get the cigar bar license that they asked for goes through.

ok, I think it's hilarious that this is happening in my life at the time that this thread is coming out but...

I'm moving into a new apartment this weekend. Not a big move, but the reason why I mention it here is that the previous tenant was a smoker. Management has replaced the carpet, but it still smells like a bad Vegas hotel room.

This has made me re-evaluate my perspective on people smoking in large buildings and rental properties.

I do not feel it is appropriate to smoke in small confined apartments or other spaces with poor ventilation. While I don't mind smoke outdoors or in passing, I view living in the wake of years of bad-quality-cigarette-smell-buildup as a strange and new sort of hell.

I once cleaned the inside of windows in a room where someone spent a lot of time smoking. You wouldn't believe a) the yellow/green shit that came off of the glass, and b) how bright and shiny the room had become.

:hmm:

Really, Xerxys.... Go and research prohibition. The 18th ( ? ) ammendment?

Making things illegal, particularly drugs, for which there is demand is an incredibly bad idea.

I'm 100% against smoking. I'm 100% against heroin for the same reasons. I drink, MUCH less than in the past, but have to say that removing alcohol from my life is a goal.

I think they should all be widely legal, under different regimes, for exactly the same reasons as alcohol was made legal again in 1930's US.

Hmmm. I've never had to go home and wash my clothes 3x to get the crying baby sound off of them.

Smoking is selfish. The only reason people do it is for their own enjoyment/pleasure/addiction/need. So my reasons for not wanting anyone smoking within a mile of me are also selfish. I couldn't care less what you do to yourself. If people could/would mainline or snort all the crap that is in cigarettes 20 or 30 times a day, I say more power to ya. Then there would be no excuses to take extra breaks every couple of hours.

If you happen to work in an establishment that allows smoking, you're probably in the prolonged chronic exposure.

The government has regulated workplace exposure to toxic chemicals for a long time. I think that smoking bans make sense in this context.

Smoke odors can linger in the paint on the walls and in any draperies/blinds that are in the apartment. Ask if they will repaint or if they will let you repaint if they supply the paint. That will be a huge improvement in the smoke odor problem.

Anyone who marches onto someone else's property and demands accomodations for their own anti-smoking preferences is a prolonged exposure far more insidious than secondhand could ever be. Childish people and lobbyists never mix well.

It has a fresh coat of paint. Perhaps the painters were smoking? I started this thread about the dilemma.

Unless, presumably, those childish lobbyists are concerned with protecting the rights of private property owners to expose their employees to elevated levels of known carcinogens.

Yeah, the non-smoking workplace is a big deal for employees. It goes along with other regulations on issues of health and safety.

Let's face it, the only businesses that you can smoke in anymore, are restaurants/bars. That means only certain employees are exposed to smoke (kitchen/backend staff are exposed to smoke, but that is every kitchen with ovens, frying pans, grills) which would be Hosts/Bartenders/Waitresses with the occasional busboy thrown in. I live in a medium sized town and I can look out my window and see 3 restaurants right now. All of them are non-smoking establishments, you actually have to LOOK for places to smoke in. The places that do allow smoking are sports themed bars, which because of the allowing of smoking and strategic placement of LCD TVs bring in more business, and that means the waitresses make more money than working at a corporate restaurant (I know waitresses/waiters from alot of restaurants around town and have a good idea what they make comparatively). With that information you could say that their exposure to "toxic chemicals" brings up higher risk with smoking related illnesses, but also gives them a better chance of making a greater share of money (ie Tips) than someone working at a non smoking restaurant. It is a choice by them (baring any excuses like "it's the closest restaurant to my house") to work there with the associated risks to make more money. They aren't being "forced" to work in a unsafe environment, they chose this job for the extra cash flow. If they are worried about the exposure to extra risks, then go right down the street the chain of restaurants that DON'T allow smoking and get a job.

Yes, I know jobs are hard to come by in this economic time, but when our economy isn't in the crapper, this statement holds true. I've quit one job in a restaurant and walked across the street and had a new job in less than 2 hours. Started that day too. Restaurants have a high turnover rate.

Outright banning smoking is different from regulating the areas that smoking is allowed. By saying "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state" is not giving rights to smokers. If you changed that to "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state unless a state issued permit allows that establishment to have smoking", then I am all for it. That way, out of the 30+ restaurants in my town alone, I will have at least ONE that I can smoke in. If you don't want to be around smoke, go to the other 29 restaurants out there. I'm not forcing you to go the one WITH smoking, then don't force my favorite restaurants to go NON-smoking.

LOL yeah, I don't like the smell either and as stated I don't smoke around non-smokers, I think it's rude. But have you ever tried to have a mice meal out while a smelling the shit filled diaper of the rug rat seated behind you? Have you ever tried to enjoy a movie or carry on a conversation in a public place while a child is screaming and throw a tantrum? Have you every been on a 12hr flight with a child kicking the back of your seat because he's bored, then smelling the puke for the next 6 hours because he got air sick from turbulence??? I'm just sayin' rude behavior comes in many forms, not nearly limited to some smokers. And I gotta say baby shit and puke, you can't wash that smell off either. Also as stated before there has been NO CREDIBLE research linking 2nd hand smoke to Cancer. It is quoted everywhere as stated, but the research does not exist.


Brock

Arguably, very few people are being forced to work anywhere. Whether a job is "at will" or not doesn't seem to generally hold much sway over whether the people who work in that job can be legally exposed to toxic chemicals on a regular basis. I like it this way.

But that restaurant would essentially be getting a permit to slowly poison its employees. I mean, I appreciate how nice it is to smoke inside, but I don't think doing so is necessarily consistent with the way the issue of employee exposure to toxic chemicals is generally handled. Maybe if employees were issued gas masks?

It's not a big deal for employees who are able to discern where they want to be and where they don't want to be and act accordingly. There's no getting past that. Secondhand smoke is a choice of the inhaler.

Technically, by listing that this restaurant allows smoking (By putting up signs that THIS is the smoking area), then they have done their legal right to show that there will be a chance that you may breathe in smoke if you eat/drink here. No law yet has smoke from cigarettes listed on a Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) as a toxic checmial, so there is no legal aspect to "warning" customers or employees about the dangers of smoking. Hell, I don't think you could walk down the street of any town and find someone who DOESN'T know smoking is bad for you.

Have you seen some of the chemicals that you have to use in a restaurant to clean up to OSHA and US health inspection standards? Give me 10 years of smoke as long as I don't get the heavy duty degreaser on my arms, it will eat the skin right off of you. In some places they MAKE you wear masks to use that, now THAT is poison.

Slowly poisoning their employees? Man, that must be a great training session at that restaurant, I can see it now. Watch this video on proper food handling practices, after that is a video on corporate rules, then you will get your apron, shirt, tie. This is Tina, you will be shadowing her for the next 3 days and oh yeah, here is a cyanide pill you must take every time that you come into work. If you don't get a pill at the first of your shift, ask the MOD and you will get one from the 1st aid cabinet. If you work a double you only have to take one.

My point again is: CHOICE. You choose to kill your lungs with smoke. You choose to work in a job that allows smoking. You choose to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking. Your choice is to not be around smoke and not to smoke. I respect your choice and I only ask you to respect my choice to smoke when I want too (in the proper places, when no one around cares, yahda yahda yahda).

Can anyone imagine how much of a step back it would be from a public health perspective if workplace safety regulations were all replaced with a poster bearing the phrase "You don't have to work here"?

Inhaling coal dust is the choice of the inhaler.

Until federal law proves that inhaling smoke for a few hours a day is as the same risk as being 300 feet below the ground inhaling coal dust for 10 hours a day, I think my bartender will be ok without the warning signs in the restaurant. I'll go to the bar tonight and watch the bartender closely, just to be sure that he's not getting "the black lung" from my cigar smoke. I care like that.

The risks associated with long term exposure to secondhand smoke relative to long term exposure to coal dust aren't necessarily relevant. What is definitely relevant is the fact that there is a whole litany of adverse health effects associated with both.

I never said that second hand smoke does or doesn't kill, I'm a not a researcher, scientist, or doctor. All I can do is rehash information that I get from news and the internet that can be tailor-cut to fit my argument on the matter. All I care about is having ONE place, just ONE bar that lets me smoke. You, as fighting for the rights of non-smokers, will win. Congress, our 1-once a day president, and the house will pass laws saying that you can't smoke anywhere considered public. It's all just a matter of time.

I don't want to hurt anyone and I respect everyone's right to breathe clean air, but it's my body and my choice to smoke or not. I know people who are highly allergic to smoke, I don't smoke anywhere near them and try not to smoke anything before I see them if I can. I do my best to make sure I don't do my disgusting habit around people who don't want it around them.

I don't care if 99.9% of all public areas are non-smoking. Just let me have my basement bar that is down a trash filled dark alley, with Christmas lights that provide the only light in the place, with great rock on the jukebox and a bartender who could give a fuck if I'm there or not. As she pours me a shot of whiskey, while she chain-smokes pall malls full flavor, and tells me in that scratchy I've-smoked-for-thirty-years voice that I have to pay my tab before I get my whiskey, I'll be happy. I'll feel at home there more than I do anywhere else.

To smoke or not to smoke is your choice, just don't tell me I can't do it if I go out of my way to make sure I don't bother you.

I sympathize with your desire to pay someone to serve you booze while you smoke indoors. Really, I do. However, it isn't me who is telling you you can't do it even if you go out of the way to not bother me, it is the elected representatives of local and state governments. They are generally doing so with the overwhelming blessing of the general populace. Perhaps there will be some more discriminating legislation that comes along which will allow for exceptions to absolute workplace smoking bans and you'll get your opportunity to pay someone to pour you drinks while you smoke cigars.

As it stands now, it sucks to be have your privelidges fall on the wrong side of public opinion.