Not smoking should be my choice . . . right?
 

We all know that there more than enough reasons for one not to smoke [cigarettes].

We also know there are a number of reasons why one should not eat meat, cut down trees, throw away things that can be recycled, eat too much fast food, drink too much alcohol, take too many pills at one time, or jump over the Falls in a barrel. However, we can chose to do these things when ever we want to.

Why should I be forced to smoke outside - in the cold? Isn't that why we had smoking sections? I understand that we are to believe people are dying from second-hand smoke. But we are also supposed to believe that smoking weed while babysitting will lead to you to kill the kid you are sitting for - and if you smoked weed you would know this is not true.

I can't find the numbers, but I read that out of all the people who get cancer only about 20 to 30 % get lung cancer. And that only about 15% (I'm rounding up here) of that 30% is caused from smoking. Does smoking cause some other type of cancer that I don't know about? Have these numbers greatly changed? Or was I told wrong in the first place?

Four years ago a college (in NY state) allowing smoking in the dorm rooms. Three years, when I became a student, the rules changed - you had to go outside. Two years ago the rules changed again, and had to be 25 feet away from any doors in order to legally enjoy a cigarette. Now, I work at this college, and the only store on campus that sells cigarettes are no longer selling them. The folks who run the college want to band smoking - unless you are in a parking lot. In a parking lot? I'm ALREADY outside. Non-smokers are already pissed I get a few extra 10 minute break during the work day (not that they would want to deal with me if I didn't take that break) but now you piss them off more by making 20 minutes, because it's going to take me 10 to get to and from the parking lot. Also, lets encourage all the smoking students (who pay way too much money to be here in the first place) lets encourage them to break the rules.

The store not selling cigarettes would be fine - if the closet gas station/store was not a 30 minute walk away. I know how long it talks to walk there, I didn't have a car then, don't have one now.

The college believes they are following a good example. This is because Wegman's - a major grocery store - has stopped selling cigarettes. However, no one took the time to see WHY Wegman's has stopped ordering new shipments of cigarettes. There reason being - people are buying less. This is because Wegman's charges too much for their cigarettes, but instead of lower their prices, they have decided to stop selling them all together. It is not like they were acting for the good of the people.

Cigarettes are also one of highest taxed products you can find. Why is everyone so quick to support the media in their "kill the smokers" campaign? I mean, what would you do if everyone really did stop smoking? Do we have jobs for all the people working in the fields and factories? Do we have the money to cover what's coming from the taxes on cigarettes?

Fine smoke kills, but cigarettes are not (yet) illegal and I should be able to enjoy one. But if this keeps up smoking will no longer be my choice - I mean it will be, but I'll be risking getting arrested and/fined for doing so.

And walking to class and in and out of doors without getting a face full of smoke should be my choice, too.. and if multiple people also feel the same way, they can work within the system to get things changed. If more people feel the same way you do, why don't you join together and get something changed instead of complaining about it?

Businesses can choose to stop selling cigarettes. Campuses can choose to protect their others students' health by banning smoking on campus (our medical center has a no tobacco policy, period, I see nurses smoking on the "line" all the time) because they are essentially businesses, as well. If a business has policies you don't like, take your business elsewhere.

Ohio has a public smoking ban. I personally enjoy the effects of it, but I did vote against it because I believe businesses and cities should make individual choices rather than a blanket decision statewide. I am very appreciative of Ohio's ban, though, and I felt the same way about the one in the city of Columbus before the statewide ban went into effect.

Cancer is not the only worry with smoking. I have a mild smoke allergy; I get migraines as a result of contact with secondhand smoke. It also smells bad, and clings to hair, clothes, everything.. If I go to a show in KY, I have to take painkillers beforehand, often take breaks to go outside for fresh air (And guess what! More smokers by the doors!) if the pain gets too bad, and then shower and do laundry as soon as I get home. Many businesses lost my patronage because of that, and I think a lot of restaurants that tried an entirely non-smoking policy realized that they have better business as a result: nonsmokers who don't like smoke are still paying customers, and smoking customers generally choose to refrain from smoking for an hour to have a meal or whatnot, or take a break outside to do so. If it wasn't a good business practice (i.e. if it didn't make them money), such a policy would probably not exist.

If you want to smoke inside, smoke inside your house. Second hand smoke is dangerous. If you drink in the same room as someone, they don't get drunk.

I'm on the fence about smoking in public, but agree you should be able to smoke in your own place if that's what you want to do. However, the City of Calabasas (a stone's throw away from where I live) thinks otherwise:

http://cbs2.com/health/calabasas.smo....2.633073.html

I could understand the merit of that argument if you were in a room filled with smoke. I know that this does occur - before the smoking ban went into effect here in Ontario, the local bingo hall would become filled with smoke to the point of restricting visibility on a busy night. I'll even concede that banning smoking within a school dormitory isn't wholly unreasonable; while one smoker inside his room with the door closed may not cause a problem for the entire building, if you have dozens of smokers leaving their doors open (as college students often do, judging by my admittedly limited experience of college dormitories) I could understand how that would adversely affect non-smoking students who have to share those hallways and other common areas.

Hell, I'll even concede the minimum distance rule. Non-smokers have to use the same entrances and exits and smokers and while I don't see how having to walk past a smoker (or even a group of them) could be a reason to get up in arms, I also figure from the smoker's perspective that walking an extra 10 feet for a fix isn't that big a deal.

That's as far as the argument logically extends, so far as I'm concerned.

I remember a few years ago when Keith Richards caused a stir in Scotland by lighting a cigarette on-stage. Scotland has a strict smoking ban in all public places. This, to me, is totally unreasonable. Who the hell was Keith hurting? The only person close enough to him to even smell the smoke was Mick, and between the two of them they've done enough drugs that I hardly think an extra cigarette will cause any serious harm.

To bring the argument to a more reasonable level, I do not understand in the least why banning smoking out of doors is even considered. It's the same thing on a smaller scale. I should think there would be sufficient room on an outdoor campus that any non-smokers who are sufficiently bothered by the habit would have no need to approach a smoker. Why banish them even further? What purpose does that serve?

I'll support reasonable restrictions. When dealing with enclosed public spaces that are shared by smokers and non-smokers, limiting where a smoker can light up makes sense. On the other hand, what does banning smoking from a college campus accomplish, aside from alienating a large group of students? What harm does someone smoking on a public street, or inside their own vehicle cause to anyone other than themselves?

I still believe in personal liberty. Smoking may not be a wise decision in the strictest sense, but as has been pointed out already it's not illegal yet. Allowing someone to enjoy their habit doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I am one of those self-righteous former smokers.
I quit about 14 years ago. At one point, I had a 3 PPD habit. Quitting was a bitch, but it was the smartest thing I've ever done. It also appeals to my sense of symetry as it counters the stupidest thing I've ever done which was to start smoking in the first place.

I say ban the damn things. There isn't a single redeeming factor about them.
Where I work, smoking is still allowed outside. Its going to be a smoke-free facility soon. No smoking anywhere on the grounds. Should be interesting when that goes into effect as its not only for staff but for patients as well.

The OP mentioned lung cancer. Thats not the only disease associated with smoking. Emphysema is a much more common disease. Its a long, drawn out death. I have regular bouts of bronchitis and have been having more frequent episode of mild asthma. I attribute both to my 15 years of smoking.

As far as smoking in resturants, I'm glad they stopped that. Nothing worse than smoke wafting over into my space while I'm trying to enjoy a nice meal.
Until they banned indoor smoking, I stopped going to see live music in clubs. You could see the level of haze about halfway through the evening. Not to mention the massive headache from inhaling all that second hand smoke.

To smokers that complain about beeing shunned, yes you are. Get used to it or quit smoking. Your choice.

Besides joining TFP, of course.

oh of course :suave:

I must say, as someone who has kicked a few habits, I have nothing but the utmost respect for quitters. Getting off addictive substances is a singular test of will. It shows character.

Well done.

thank you

I like to sniff turpentine. I bring a can wherever I go to enjoy the wonderful aroma as I please. People seem to get upset every time I pop the lid but I feel it's my right to sniff what I want and they should learn to enjoy it or learn to shut the hell up.

I completely agree. I resent those students who insists upon smoking right outside the doors and then the wind blows and all that smoke goes into my face and lungs. I hate how smoke smells, period. It's the biggest turn off. At Texas Tech they made it mandatory that you must be 12 feet from any doorway in order to smoke a cigarette. It is to ensure the health of the other students who choose to abstain. I'm so glad the campus has that policy. Personally I wouldn't allow smoking within several hundred yards of the building if I were in charge, but that's just me.

The city of Fort Worth has put a smoking ban in place in all the restaurants except bars. People are no longer allowed to smoke inside the restaurants at any time. My dad is a big advocate of non-smoking bans. He hates smoke and has ended his patronage to several restaurants because they would still tolerate it. Although even though the smoking bans have gone into effect, in the same restaurants that smell is still there which is pretty unappetizing.

Here's another idea, why not just create two campuses...one for smokers and one for non-smokers. Ultimately it would be ideal is they just banned smoking on public university campuses to me.
My body is my temple, I choose not to pollute it with cigarettes. That's my choice.

Other cancers associated with lung cancer include tongue and throat, pancreas, and bladder.
About 90% of lung cancers are tobacco related.
Lung cancer kills far and away more people then any other cancer in this country.
It also causes coronary artery disease, which kills even more people than cancer each year.

And I'm curious as to why you get extra breaks during the day to smoke. Do you think you deserve time off to pursue your habits? Consider yourself lucky. If you worked for a hard ass like me, you'd get no special priveleges, and if you got bitchy about it I would fire you. Then you could stay home and smoke all you wanted.

As a gigging musician, I couldn't be more pleased about the smoking ban in the UK. I hated breathing in cigarette smoke every night while singing. I didn't have the choice not to breathe it in as long as I wanted to do my job.

HOWEVER, if smokers insist on slowly killing themselves in enclosed public places, I see no problem with allowing pub / club owners to provide them with a separate, adjoining smoking room with a filtered ventilation unit so they don't have to stand out in the rain while they do it.

In Arizona it's illegal to smoke within thirty feet of any public building. I LOVE it! I could go to restaurants and bars and not walk away smelling like smoke with my eyes watering. I could take my son to a restaurant without having to worry about sitting too close to the smoking section. I only wish the (shithole) state of Michigan would adopt the same policy.

Smoking is a truly disgusting and intrusive habit, and I think it's incredibly disrespectful to light up anywhere near a non-smoker.

I quit smoking about 8 months ago.

While I'm not one of those former smokers like Fotzlid, I do agree that cigarettes have absolutely no redeeming qualities. I mean, hell, even a gun can save a life.

If we want to ban smoking, we need to find ways to show current smokers how much the quality of their life will improve when they quit. It doesn't happen by insulting them and telling them they're obnoxious or smell. The idea that shaming them will somehow get them to quit is a bit odd to me.

So, dd3953, I understand where you're coming from, but trust me, it's so much better to be smoke-free. It's hard, but it's absolutely worth it.

Smoking is a hobby for people with disposable income.

Now it is. Back in high school, there was a gas station a couple blocks from the school. 3 packs for $1. That was for name brands too.

I disregard all signs that say where I can smoke outside. I'm OUTSIDE!!


If you don't wanna be near me. Then don't. Why should I have to change my habit? Why can't you change yours? Oh, that's right... I smoke. So in a non-smokers mind I'm no longer a human. I'd have more rights if I gave a girl an abortion on the front steps.

If you want to stop people from smoking, all you need to do is attach some unreasonable tax to cigarettes. You'd be surprised just how few people would smoke if they were paying $100+ per pack of cigarettes.

Wasn't it Chris Rock that said this about bullets?


Keeps guns the same price but make bullets like $5,000 a piece.

You're old enough to remember the 80s, right? Remember ghetto-blasters? Urban-individuals would walk down the street with a boom box on their shoulders going full blast, deafening people around them. You may not remember this, but they were FUCKING ANNOYING. They'd be blasting Run DMC or whatever at decibel levels that are surprising considering the size of the device. Even crossing the street, one's ears would still hurt.

That's what you're doing, only instead of hurting people's ears, you're putting carcinogens in their bloodstream via their lungs. You're human, but you're a human who's imposing his addiction on other people to a clearly negative effect. It's your imposition. You are imposing by lighting up and smoking. If you want to impose on people, then expect hostility. If you don't, YOU cross the street.

I sometimes secretly wish I could knock a fart up into the breeze and at the face of smokers who blow smoke into my path....wishing I could do this at will.

Oh, smoking threads. I love them because they are oh so predictable.

I smoked for about 10 years. I was a semi-fuck you type of smoker. Then I became a more considerate smoker when I got into my mid-20s. Then I had a horrid cough that wouldn't stop and I decided that quitting smoking was the answer for me. That's what I did.

However, it isn't easy and you can't quit if you don't want to. No one should force another person to quit smoking. No one should name call smokers or make them feel like shit. It's a personal choice. However, the first thing I noticed when I quit was the smell of cigarettes. It is one of the most putrid smells, especially in large quantities and/or when stale. You can't smell it when you smoke, I never knew.

I'm not going on about the cancer thing because honestly walking through a cloud of smoke isn't going to kill you unless you have an extreme allergy. However, the smell is what gets me. Even now, if I'm at a bar where people can smoke, I immediately shower and wash my clothes when I get home. I also make sure to wear a coat that is machine washable.

Also, you aren't going to make people quit through taxing it higher. We were paying almost $9 a pack and we were a pack a day smokers. We didn't have a large disposable income, we had a habit that we didn't want to get kick.

I don't smoke. I think tobacco smoke reeks and extended exposure makes my eyes burn and itch. I can't understand why people would start smoking and then continue the habit...I've smoked a few cigarettes in my life and just don't get it. However, I have a hell of a lot more things to worry about than catching a whiff of smoke when entering a building. Here in Salt Lake, the air quality is such that simply breathing is equivalent to smoking five cigarettes a day (according to a recent study). I'd much rather get my knickers in a twist over exhaust spewing gas guzzlers than someone smoking a cigarette outside.

Can't it be both? :confused: I try to fight pollution, be it from an Expedition or a Kool.

Hmmm, interestingly self-righteous even from a guy who calls himself king :-p

Honestly, you are the person committing the disruptive action. Therefore the ball is in your court to make the change. How do I figure the above? How is it that the smoker is the disruptor and not the inhalee? Let's look at science. In science there is a principle (if someone can name it, awesome, I have long since forgotten) that states a natural stance or situation is one that is fallen into by default, i.e.- not smoking. As a human, we have no base level instinct to smoke. We are not born with cigarettes growing from our fingers. Smoking is dangerous to our health rather than beneficial. Therefore the non-smoker must not be the disruptor, as they are following the natural course in that aspect while the smoker is going out of his/her way to do something unnatural and disruptive.

Basically, to sum it all up, you smoke in your house? Awesome! You smoke within 100' of me? Fuck off! And yes, non-smokers SHOULD have that right. People have other similar basic right against having their space violated. Why should smoking be any different? Why should it be any different than a noise control ordinance? If you aren't allowed to play loud music on the street, which actually DOESN'T hurt anybody (unless you have a really amazing fucking system), why should you be allowed to smoke... something that DOES hurt people (and the environment, though that's less my concern)?

I don't think less of smokers, if you want to smoke, go ahead. Humans shit too... I just prefer if they shit where I don't have to inhale the fumes.

So they aren't allowed to shit in any bathroom that you use?


That's pretty selfish.

I don't care where you smoke outside as long as it isn't directly in front of the entrance to the public building that people are trying to get in to. Why should I have to smell like an ash tray because you decided at some point that sticking burning leaves in your mouth was a good idea?

You have rights until your rights infringe on the rights of others. I have the right not to suffer the consequences of your choices.

This is why I am for outlawing cigarettes in public, and against outlawing snuff/chewing tobacco/heroin altogether. You shoot up or chew, you're hurting only yourself. You wanna hurt yourself, without hurting others, have at it. Go to town. You light up, you're hurting everyone near you - people who did not get to take part in the decision of whether or not to inhale drugs and carcinogens.

Nah, the bathroom is fine. That's where they are meant to shit. The bathroom has appropriate facilities to get rid of the shit (via flushing).

Hence my post above saying that a smoking room with extractor / filter fans is the best solution for everyone. Non-smokers are happy because they don't have to inhale the smoke, and smokers are happy because they don't have to smoke outside. I'm sure you'd agree this is a fair solution, wouldn't you?

That's not a problem. I can understand that, that's why I respect the rules and stand 25 ft away from any doors. However, I should be able to smoke a cigarette without getting wet, rained on or attacked by the wind. If I can respect non-smokers enough to rule their rules, why can't respect me enough to at least put put a shelter?

I don't know how many people agree with me. Thats one of the reasons I started this thread. I was kinda hoping to find some. But as you said, you voted against the smoking band as well, it doesn't seem to be doing much. Here, where you live, or where most of my family live. And most of my family are smokers too, and they voted against it as well.

Most of my friends here in NY are non-smokers. I have lived here for about 3 years. Even the one year I lived in DC I was around non-smokers. And I have never once heard of smoke allergy. Is this just doctors bending to the media? I tried looking up stats on it, but couldn't seem to find any. If you know where I can find some that would get. I want to know when people started get diagnosed with it.

And no, being in the room with a drinker is not going to slowly kill me (and either is being in the room with a smoker) - but that drinker is going to kill me quickly and painfully as they drive home.

And that is my main point. If I am outside, where the air is as fresh as it's gonna get, and I'm not blocking a doorway, why should I have to move?

Self-righteous is not the word for it. Anyway, There isn't a single redeeming point to beer either, but you read about what happened when they tried to ban that.

YES I DO. It would I could smoke without getting wet or snowed on.

There is nothing wrong with fighting pollution. I just think that exhaust probably contributes more to our inversions than cigarette smoking.

http://saltlakecity.about.com/cs/wea.../inversion.htm

It's not really any different from other allergies. I am allergic to something in the smoke, it causes a reaction. I'm also allergic to something in my mother's laundry detergent (or fabric softener, not sure which one), some coatings on paper, inhaling certain lawn chemicals, and most tanning lotions. Are those specific allergies going to be studied statistically? No, because allergies manifest differently in different people. You don't need to be sarcastic; when I've spoken to my doctor about various reactions, all I get as an explanation is, "you're probably allergic to something in it." Without visiting an allergist for really thorough testing, I can't tell you which specific ingredient causes my reaction, but I can definitely tell you that cigarette smoke is the primary cause. I get the same reaction in the car with my dad smoking, in my sister's car period, at shows where smoking is allowed, and sometimes walking to class if I'm stuck on a sidewalk behind a smoker. The only constant? The cigarette smoke.

Smoking causes more cancer and more asthma.

I'd be fine with that on one condition.
Costs are passed onto the consumer. Since adding this extra room and all that equiptment is going to cost a lot of money, you smokers can pay the higher prices for meals/beer/whatever to pay for it. I'm not paying for it.

I think most business would be happy to absorb that cost - it's largely a one-time cost, and the extra business they'd get from smokers would compensate.

For me it isn't so much of an allergy, but if I have been working hard all day on something, just at the point of migraine, cigarette smoke will instantly set one off for me. Not something I particularly blame cigarette smokers for. Usually means I've neglected how stressful I was.



I can't see how this supports your argument.



But if you have really bad asthma, a good cigarette is sometimes more helpful than a nebulizer.



Personally, give you guys a room to smoke in if the owner feels like it. The problem with that is if a server does not want to come in contact with the smoke, he has a chance of loosing his job. If this happens, there will be "discrimination" against people those unwilling or unable to work in smoke. So what do you do? I have no strong opinions against smoking, and therefore I have though of no good solutions.

My solution of a smoking room isn't a "smoking area" where smokers are served separately. It's simply a room where they can go to have their cigarette before returning to the main area of the establishment, as an alternative to going outside. I've seen this concept at airports and it works well.

Business' don't absorb the cost of anything. It all gets passed onto the consumer.

The problem with smoke is that it doesn't just affect you. It bothers people around you, a lot. I mean, it's disgusting going out to a disco and leaving with all your clothes, hair, you name it, reeking of smoke. Or having to inhale a breath of someone else's smoke.

There is also the health factor. Not only does it affect your health. It contributes to damaging the health of others. Ok, maybe not your smoke alone. But if no-one smoked, I'm sure there would be alot less smoke related cancers and illnesses cropping up.

I have never smoked in my entire life. But I have been surrounded by smokers all my life. It bothers me that I am forced to put up with it. Hey I wouldn't care if it didn't bother me or affect my health. I mean, I don't go around pissing in your food or slipping potentially deadly toxins in the air you breathe.
Why should you be able to blow smoke where I'm eating or in my face.

Portugal has only had a smoking ban in public places and the workplace since this January. I am very thankful for it. The first time I went out to dinner and then didn't have to send my clothes out for dry-cleaning the next day was wonderful. I have noticed though that the air outdoors smells a lot more of cigarettes.

I'm not usually radical, but I hate cigarettes and they have no place in my life. I say quit smoking already and do something more useful with your money and your life.

I like this guys style.

Seriously though, as another former smoker I couldn't agree more. I started smoking when I was a very young person and didn't quit until after my freshman year in college.

Too much rum, cigarettes, and general bodily neglect gave me a terrible bought of pneumonia. I vividly remember the hallucinations that came along with the 105 degree fever. Cough was pretty bad too.

Quit smoking then. Haven't come back. Get the headaches so many have mentioned now.

There's no such thing as "second-hand vegetarianism." Smoke causes a variety of problems -- some people have asthma, for example. Rooms that people smoke in smell nasty. If they had cigarettes that didn't do these things, then puff away -- otherwise you'll have to do your destructive activity elsewhere. Sorry.

Full disclosure: I was until recently a smoker. I maintained a half a pack per day habit for over five years. I have recently decided to stop smoking because the benefits now outweigh the costs for me. My reasons for starting were my own, my reasons for quitting were my own. If I start again in the future, my reasons for resuming the habit will be my own.

I don't want accolades or pats on the back for quitting. I didn't shout it from the rooftops. I don't tell people that I've quit unless the subject specifically comes up in conversation. Frankly, quitting was nearly as easy for me as starting was. I just stopped smoking cigarettes. My big secret? I waited until I was ready to quit. The cravings sucked, but I had good reasons not to give into them, so fighting them wasn't that hard.

I'm fairly liberal and am of the belief that so long as you're not hurting anyone else you should be entitled to fuck up your body in whatever way you deem fit. Heroin? Go for it. Cocaine? Why should I care? Marijuana? Caffeine? Whatever. The fact that I don't do these things doesn't mean I'm about to get high and mighty on folks who do. It's your individual choice.

'But second hand smoke kills!' all the naysayers cry. And if smokers are in an enclosed public space where other individuals are forced to be, fine. That argument has merit. Out of doors, away from entrances and exits? Please. You're telling me that the half-second breath of tobacco smoke is going to eviscerate your children? I'm not buying it. Similarly, if a bar or restaurant owner decides that he's going to allow his patrons to smoke in his establishment, I reckon that should be the proprietor's choice. Don't like it? Vote with your feet.

Of note, when I was a smoker I made a habit of getting the go-ahead from my companions before I lit up. Whether we were outside or not, I generally asked and tried to be conscientious about it. Being a smoker does not automatically equate to being good-for-nothing, being a lowlife, being stupid, or whatever other association you want to make. All it tells you about a person is what bad habit they have.

Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by cigarette smoke. Maybe I need to be off the cancer sticks longer before that part kicks in, I don't know. But even if I were, I'm not about to get down on people who are making reasonable accommodations. Smoking outside and out of the way is reasonable. Expecting everyone to quit because you don't like it or didn't make that particular choice is not reasonable. I don't like drinking. Alcohol is a factor in thousands of deaths every year. It's certainly not good for you and has the potential to kill not only you but innocent people around you. Should we ban drinking? Or should we maybe simply expect drinkers to make reasonable accommodations, such as not driving while drunk?

The people who really bothered me when I was a smoker and continue to do so now are the ones who think that quitting entitles them to hassle all current smokers about their habit. Some smokers don't have the willpower to quit. Some just plain don't want to. There are people out there who actually enjoy the habit. I say this with confidence because I was one right up until the day I quit. Even now, I'm quite sure I'd love nothing more than to light up a smoke, but I have better reasons not to.

Of all the evils of this world, smoking is definitely not the worst. It's far more productive to turn your attention to issues that truly matter, rather than turning people into scapegoats due to a habit they chose, regardless of what you think of it.

I respect your opinion Martian, however, the bottom line is that while smoking individually is not the worst atrocity there is, it does affect the people around them.

You know damn well that people will say "yea go head" even though they really mean 'wow you're addicted, stop smoking, but let's have a conversation while you smoke anyway' type of deal.

Stop smoking.

No you don't. You just think that saying that gives you a free pass. Or that's what I'd conclude from what follows, anyway.

You cannot seriously argue from a medical basis that walking past a smoker out-of-doors will have any long-term adverse effects. Most actual smokers go 40 years or more before the serious health problems start kicking in. I'm also not buying a quality of life argument here; unless you go out of your way to put yourself in close proximity to smokers, you can't be spending more than a few seconds a day walking past them. I fail to see how this is going to do anything to ruin your day, unless you're just looking to villify smokers to begin with.

As I said above, smokers are already making reasonable accommodations. I'm all for banning smoking in the work place and in public buildings. When a smoker is outside, however, and not blocking a door, they're already doing as much as can be reasonably expected. I'm sorry you don't like smoking. I think vulgar t-shirts are stupid.

Telling me what I "know damn well" is not respecting my opinion and is needlessly confrontational. Furthermore, I would suggest that okaying it with my companions is again making a reasonable accommodation. If they don't like smoking, the onus is on them to speak up when given the opportunity; that is, after all, the whole point of the endeavour. If they don't I can't be expected to know it bothers them. Nicotine unfortunately does not grant the ability to read minds.

First of all, we read, then reply. I did stop smoking. Secondly, if I were still smoking I would find this unbelievably condescending and irritating. In fact, that I'm not smoking makes it more so, since it indicates that you can't even be bothered to read what I write before preaching to me.

This is a forum, not a personal conversation, I say 'stop smoking' as a statement. The respect was in response to your post.

You're not seriously arguing that smokey (whether it be of cigarettes or not) conditions are not hazardous to health are you?

Smoking is hazardous to a smoker's health. Smoking is not hazardous to a non-smoker's health in conditions where said non-smoker is not exposed to a significant amount of smoke. These are facts, not opinions. The issue up for debate, then, is how much constitutes a significant amount. Frankly, I'm not 100% sure where to draw the line, but unless you're deathly allergic to tobacco smoke I think it's safe to say that 1 or 2 lungfuls aint it.

I am currently 24 years old. If I don't resume smoking, the chances of it having any long-term negative impact on my health is exceedingly small. I am reasonably certain that I have inhaled more smoke over the past five years than most non-smokers will in a lifetime of walking past smokers in the street and I wasn't even a particularly heavy smoker.

If you read everything I've written in this thread carefully, you'll find that I'm not opposed to smoking bans in public indoor places. If it's an area that smokers share with other people, then sure you have a point. On the other hand, tobacco smoke is not a significant pollutant out of doors. If you're bothered by smoke and smog in the street, you need to go after cars first.

As an aside, if you address a post to me, (by prefacing it with my name, for example, as in "I respect your opinion Martian...") I'm going to assume it's addressed to me unless or until noted otherwise. This is, I think, standard forum practice.

My son is going through a bout of bronchitis at the moment (taking him to the doc in a couple hours). My mother-in-law smokes in the house but only in her room with the door closed, yet I can tell every time she lights up because my son starts coughing even harder. His room is a floor away on the opposite end of the house.

You think your smoking doesn't affect nonsmokers even if you're in a separate room? Think again. It's just plain rude and inconsiderate and should be outlawed in every public building (including apartment complexes).

My $0.02.

i looked into this - as it turns out it can't be done. smoking is illegal in all public places in most states. so businesses couldn't even do this if they wanted to.

and some how i don't think that people eating at the place would mind absorbing the cost.

Yeah I know the current law doesn't allow this - but I think it SHOULD allow it.

It's funny how all of these smoking threads are almost identical. From the reformed smokers, to the asthmatics, to the asshole smokers and the non-asshole smokers.

I always enjoy reading the "oh noes! I just inhaled 2 seconds worth of smoke! I'm gonna get the black death!" argument :rolleyes: If someone is that worried about carcinogens then.. well don't breathe at all. Cars and planes etc. don't exactly give out fresh air.

I'm not going to stand directly in front of a door and smoke. I'm considerate in that regard, however, if you make some dumb comment about the smell of smoke then.. yeah you'll get a face full of it. If I'm being considerate.. then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and be considerate as well. If I go to your house, I'm not going to smoke in it. I promise. If you come to mine.. I won't smoke either.. oh wait.. that's because I smoke outside anyway. You have asthma? Well I won't light up next to you. But seriously.. don't think I'm some weak ass pathetic person just because I enjoy a good smoke. We all have habits.. some are just more noticeable than others.

I'm also in agreement that business owners should be allowed to make their own decisions in regard to smoke policies and if they should have the ventilators and extractors etc in order to accomodate both groups of people. You know how lame it is to walk into a pub with no smoke? It's just dumb. I wouldn't even honor it with my money.

Anyways, I think I'll go have smoke now.

Life long non-smoker.

I hate the smell of smoke, and I think its an amazingly stupid habit to have. Its one I just can't comprehend.

I also support peoples right to smoke, and a business right to allow smoking.

The no smoking laws my state passes helps me out personally quite a bit. I really LIKE not smelling like an ashtray if I go out somewhere at night, but this isn't about me or my likes.

Personally I'd rather the laws be that you can't smoke OUTSIDE where I can't avoid it than inside where I can go to another establishment if I like. If I'm downwind at a beach I can smell someone smoking almost instantly and there I don't have a choice if I want to stay at public beach.

I'm not going to say that breathing cigarette fumes for two seconds while walking past a smoker will kill you. Of course it won't. If you're sensitive to it or allergic it might trigger coughing, but for most ordinary people it probably won't be anything other than unpleasant.

The main reason I like the smoking ban was that I hated the secondhand smoke that hung in the air at pubs and clubs where I was gigging. If they had just installed proper ventilation I would have had less of a problem with it. I think many smokers don't realise how much many non-smokers dislike the smell of cigarette smoke. And the fact that the smell sticks to your clothes and hair and stays with you until you wash them.

this doesn't completely have anything to do with smoking, but here it goes: many people also dislike the smells of some perfume, some soaps, and other such things. does that give me a right to tell them they can't us it any more?

i know there is more to this issue than smell, but since some many people have commented on it, i thought i should too.

that's why I smoke..

I don't feel like smelling your aqua di gio :p

If my Safari by Ralph Lauren is going to give you cancer, then by all means call me on it. Actually, if it triggers asthma or allergies, it seems reasonable to ask me not to bathe in the crap.

as much as people put on.. I wouldn't be surprised if it did cause some sort of cancer.. I mean.. doesn't everything cause it these days?

To be fair, cologne doesn't kill 1/10 adults globally.

how do you know?!!

I'd be interested to see how that figure was derived. It seems unreasonably high to me.

I think it gives me the right to tell them not to spray it on me! Seriously, the smell of secondhand cigarette smoke sticks to your clothes better than secondhand perfume does, maybe even better than sprayed perfume, and lasts much longer as well.

I sing in a local chorus. There's a "no perfume, cologne, or garlic" rule for concert days, so that you don't gag or pass out when the hot lights hit the stage.

I think society needs to be less polite at times and tell people their perfume stinks, lingers, and makes people hate them coming around.

:shakehead:

Pardon me, sir, but your colonge is killing me :dead:

I have met people who smell like they shower in it, you can smell them 2 rooms away. I have a few times politely gone over to them and told them so, and most say they will try to tone it down (or something to that degree). The reply really is all about how you approach and talk to the person.

I smoke, and I'm the most considerate smoker you'll meet. I go downwind from people at gatherings, actually I avoid anyone who isn't smoking when I am. I also have this thing where I can't leave butts laying about when I do, I hate seeing them on the ground, on offramps, in parking lots etc. Ever been behind that person at a stoplight that opens their door to empty the ashtray ? Nice.

For the record, the job I had for a few years required me to enter peoples homes. I didn't wear cologne, carried gum and did my best to be smoke/odor-free on arrival. It's something about wanting to be presentable and respectful.

So the question I have, is that why would someone go to all this effort to not intrude on others lifestyles, and still have this urge to destroy themselves ?

I think that's more the issue. Smoke or don't, drink like a fish, eat shit for food, don't take care of yourself at all. Your opinion still counts, right ?

That may be going in the wrong direction, but to say whether it's ones right or not won't really get anywhere. People are going to do, what they will do.

LOL. I love the reactions people had to the "smell" post, that's half the reason i posted it. this thread needed to be lighted up a little bit.

i do all the same things, trying to respect other people. but sometimes, it's just annoying and i just wanna have a smoke.


although, i'm sad, enough of us to start a movement. . . not on TFP anyway.

It's funny you'd say this because the law allows for this in Portugal in certain businesses (bars, discos, restaurants). As long as the space has a certain area and there is an extraction system, people can smoke in the place.

Apparently this happens in Spain too, because that's where I am right now and the other day I went out for dinner and we sat in this room with an extraction system.

I must say that the smokers didn't bother me and the air was quite fresh smelling. I'm not sure if this is just masking the problem though. I did think it was a friendly solution anyway.

The system you describe sounds like a decent compromise, tippler.

I think the solution to "being rained on, attacked by wind" and so on and so forth is to stop smoking. The alternative is to be shit on by mother nature. I think a fitting analogy would be a shooting range. It is an acceptable place to take out a gun, point it at things, and shoot. There are several people in the world that know the dangers of guns and still enjoy the feeling it gives them so society has designated a place for them to enjoy their dangerous pass time.

No I am not saying cigarettes are as deadly as guns. But I think they are becoming as big a social taboo.

Exactly, what entitles them to waste more time at work and get paid for it? What if I was hooked on crack (or phonics for that matter), should I get numerous paid breaks to feed my habit while others are doing the work I'm being paid to do?

And just because you're outside doesn't mean the smoke doesn't offend someone, if someone is smoking in a car 3 cars up at a red light I will quite often smell it.

Not only is it unhealthy, the smoke is irritating smelling, tasting, and irritating to the eyes... And not to mention, just overall disgusting.

I often house sit for smokers, and I don't necessarily notice the smell right away when I am there, but I will smell it in my clothes after I leave, and my eyes will get sore and I will get headaches...

When I was younger, my parents had friends over who often smoked... I found the no smoking sign on the computer, printed out, and posted it up in the kitchen where they used to converse... Since then no one has smoked in the house, it used to come right upstairs to where my room was.

What are the redeeming factors of smoking? :orly:

The problem with this topic is... everyone is right. And consequently, everyone is also wrong. For every logical arguement one way there is an equally logical arguement the other way. Post a link to one study, and someone else can post a link to another that disproves it.

One thing I know is true, none of us are old enough to have lived in a world without cigaretts. Smoking used to be cool, socially acceptable and downright sophisticated. Shit, there was a time when doctors prescribed cigarette smoking to their patients. Yeah yeah, we didn't know the risks & dangers associated with smoking then. What's my point? I dunno. Let's just say that things that we consider perfectly safe today may be demonized in the future.

Wether you smoke or don't smoke, wether you quit or never touched them, wether you are allercic or not, or maybe you are going to take your first puff tomorrow. There are 2 types of people in this world... assholes and everyone else. Don't be an asshole about it.

Go back and read Martian's posts on this subject, he seems to have the best slant on the topic. [applause]

I've decided to shift my policy on smoking. I support a full ban.

If you want to smoke, grow it in your closet and don't get caught.

My rule is that you can do anything you want to do as long as it doesn't negatively effect other people. If I am not paying or your health care in a socialized system, you can do whatever you want to your body.

So if universal healthcare is passed and implemented, you would then approve of a ban on smoking?

Former smoker giving my 2 cents here.

Spoken like someone who was never a smoker and has no idea how hard it is for some people to quit.
I said I would quit if packs ever hit five bucks. Guess what? I didn't. I said I would quit if they hit 7.50, and guess what? I didn't. I said I would quit when they hit ten bones. Guess what? Actually I had already quit by then. Thing is the price had zero reason to do with me quitting.
If price is the only reason you are quitting then odds are that the quit wont be successful. You don't really want to quit, you are just raging against the most recent price increase/tax. A few days later you are back smoking again.
I quit because I wasn't enjoying cigarettes and didn't want to smoke anymore.

Quoted for emphasis of the above.

Because that works well with pot. :rolleyes:

That's a rather old fallacy. "Why outlaw it? People are gonna do it anyway..."

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fIN8MmMloZE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fIN8MmMloZE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

So why not tax it?

Then again I don't even smoke pot but I'm still all for decriminalization.

Things that are addictive ruin the idea of freedom. You're free to buy what you want... but if you're addicted then you're not. It's a trap and it's not fair.

Imagine a world in which punching you in the face was addictive. That's smoking.

Very true. It is a trap. And some of have fallen in. And it seems, that while we may like our hole, instead of getting good reasons or help getting out, some people have choosen to start filling it with dirt.

Yeah. While it'd be great fun and enjoyment for some, it'd suck big time for the rest.

***EDIT***

dc_dux that was great, but it made me want smoke smoke smoke a cigarette :)

its funny you should say that. the non-smokers (at every job i have ever had) had the right to ask for those same breaks, even if they were not going outside to have a break. very few of them acted on that right and took the break.

but i think smokers get breaks because when smoking frist got popular people were allowed to do it indoors. they didn't to take a break cuz they could smoke and do their work at the same time. but with all the laws nad such we have now, people can't and so bosses, jobs, and most people are okay with allowing the smoker to do what they used to do (which is smoke) it's just now they are doing it outside. and of the smokers i know, they wouldn't mind not getting break, they would want to finish their work, but they want that cigarette too. so why bitch? just take the break and run with it.

First they came for the opiates
and I did not speak out
because I was not Chinese
Then they came for the hemp
and I did not speak out
because I did not use rope.
Then they came for the cigarettes
and I did not speak out
because I had asthma
Then they came for my level 70 fully legendary pimped paladin.
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Not a big MMORPG fan. Got any Starcraft references?
Ah, now that's fucking nerdy.

will there is a whole area out there to be dogmatic about you are missing. MMO addiction destroys lives, breaks up families, causes a rise in obesity and poor dental health.

Plus they won't have money to lobby against you as most have a hard enough time holding down a job, unless congress starts to accept WoW gold instead of cash.

You've clearly never played Starcraft. It's quite simply the greatest RTS in the past 15 years, and it was about 25% of my time from 1998 to about 2003.

For a very long time it wasn't just the addiction that kept me smoking. It was the fact that I like to smoke. I genuinely enjoyed my cigarettes. So you are looking to ban my freedom to enjoy that cigarette or not?
If I enjoy being punched in the face shouldn't I be free to get punched in the face?

To all the people out there that have never smoked, you simply do not understand that while yes it is addictive, a great many smokers continue to do so because they enjoy smoking. Why did I stop? Again because it stopped being enjoyable.

Suicide is illegal. Quite frankly the conversation should probably end there, but I'd like to address your points.

The enjoyment you're feeling is caused by nicotine, which is a stimulant. While it is addictive, it's also responsible for the mood-altering effect when one smokes (and to a lesser degree when one uses a patch or gum). I'm sure it feels like a strange combination of wakefulness and relaxation. Unfortunately, this effect, combined with the addictive nature of nicotine, manages to remove the ability to make a sober decision regarding smoking. It's not unlike someone being asked if they should continue drinking when they are already drunk. It is this issue, above all else, that really bothers me. When a person is stripped of their ability to make a sober decision, they are a prisoner. I cannot imagine allowing anyone to be left in such a condition.

I'm glad you posted, morph. Writing this post has helped me to clarify my own stance on this issue.

I am well aware of what the reason behind the enjoyment of smoking is will. Thanks for sharing though. I assume you have never smoked so you only have clinical data to work with and never first hand experience.
It's suddenly the same as asking a drunk person if they should continue drinking? Guess what? I do it all the time. I go out and get drunk and stop myself because I know my limit. So if that's the case then I guess letting people choose to smoke must be okay in my books.
Like eating fatty foods? Tough. You may get health issues. Ban them.
It pisses me off when you non-smokers come in and try to tell the smokers and former-smokers all about cigarettes. Guess what? WE KNOW. We chose to smoke. Some of us chose to quit some of us haven't.
If someone wants to smoke, outside or in their home, I'll be the first to fight for their right to do so. If they want to quit, I'll gladly help them along in anyway I can. Why? Because unlike the non-smokers here I know because I've been there in both cases.

So very, very true.

We have socialized health care here. I don't reckon cigarettes ought to be banned or excluded. If we start excluding people because they make bad choices, we're going to have a lot of out-of-work doctors.

Cigarettes are not like alcohol. Cigarettes provide a pleasure response, but they don't impair judgement like alcohol does. Smokers are able to make proper value decisions; in fact, I still maintain that's what continuing to smoke is. People smoke because they don't have a good enough reason to quit. Some people aren't overly concerned about the negative health effects. Hell, shocking as it is, there are folks out there who figure that if they live long enough for the lung cancer/emphysema to be a concern then they'll have done alright.

That's a pretty weak assumption. I still smoke cigars, though not often.
Rather weak fallacy. You might as well flip a coin. Why? Because of something called inebriation. Ever looked up inebriation in the thesaurus? Stupefaction appears right next to it. In other words, you've had so much alcohol that you've become quite stupid. What kind of decisions can one make when stupid? Bad decisions. What I'm saying is that it's nothing more than blind luck that you don't have another.
I'll tell you what, show me a hamburger that has chemicals that are as physically addictive as nicotine and I'll support a ban on it.
Suicide is illegal.
Would you also defend someone's right to use heroine? Because cigarettes are actually more dangerous than heroine (aside from cutting and dirty needles).

Well shit I guess I must be the luckiest guy in the world because I seem to know when to cut myself off 99% of the time and I go out drinking quite often. Actually its about knowing my body and how much alcohol I can consume that stops me from having another.

BTW are you sure suicide is illegal everywhere? I just looked through the Criminal Code of Canada, the only thing I could find relating to suicide was the following.
I'm too tired right now to argue the rest of your post. I'll come back tomorrow.

If you're already drunk then you've made the wrong decisions. If you're not drunk, then I'm not sure what you're arguing. It's a catch-22, I know, but it's how I prefer to argue.
Have a good night's sleep. :thumbsup:

Unless you set an alarm to go off at 3AM to play for 15 hours straight in order to gain points so maybe the next time or time after you get something you need to do the next task the same way I don't think its a valid comparison.

I played Starcraft online until I found the 'trainers' and saw how easy it was to cheat. Good game, but you were never married to it.

Starcraft addiction is to WoW addiction as Caffeine addiction is to Meth addiction.

This is turning into abit of a threadjack so heres the last thing I have to say about booze...
Hell if I'm already drunk then I've made the right decision. :) You seem to suggest that there is only one point of inebriation. Which of course is false. Am I inebriated when I go out and have three or four beers? Sure I am. Would it be wise to drive or operate heavy machinery? No but I'm still able to make decisions. Add in a few more pints am I still able to make decisions with more than just a 50/50 shot of making the right one? Hell yes. Am I inebriated? More than likely.
What I'm saying is that there is more than just sober or falling down drunk. When I say I'm able to cut myself off I'm talking about when I'm drunk but out of control. Okay I'm done talking about booze now back to cigarettes.

ANYWAY,

Sorry what I should have said is you have never been a smoker. Not a cigar here and there but a pack a day full blown smoker.

Really you should already know about the great health benefits that fast food burgers full of :rolleyes: . I never said that they contain the chemicals that cigarettes to just that they are a) bad for you and b) may be addictive depending on which side you fall (remember for a long time cigarettes MAY have been addictive too)
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/...ood041230.html


When I was smoking I (and I assume the same of most smokers) had zero intention of taking my own life. Are there health risks? Sure but I also drove a care in rush hour in Toronto.

Hey lets get pot legalized first, then we'll talk about harder drugs.

I did about a pack to a pack and a half a day when I was a freshman in high school. I managed to, after about 9 months (if I remember correctly), bring it down to 1 a day. Then I quit cold turkey. Leave us say it was difficult. It was fortunate that I didn't do any long term, serious damage to my lungs and cardiovascular system.

I waited years before I tried a cigar, and I now feel I've found a healthy and reasonable balance.

I also had zero intention of taking my own life, but I was stupid. Had I not made a correct decision, I would have been committing slow suicide.

You'll have to forgive my unfamiliarity with Canadian law. I'll have to verify suicide's legal status there before we continue on that vein. It is illegal here in the states, as well as many other countries.

Not really. Smoking does not equal Suicide will, get over it.

I repeat the definition from above that it is
Smoking cigarettes MAY kill you it's true, others though smoke until the day they die of natural causes. However unless you are deliberately trying to poison yourself with nicotine, the act of smoking is not suicide. Stupid, yes I'm not arguing that. Suicide, no.

Also you have argued earlier that an addicted smoker has no choice regarding smoking cigarettes. IF that is true then obviously they can no longer be considered a person of sound mind with regards to cigarettes. Therefor the word suicide and the laws regarding it cannot apply.

I'm all about self-control when it comes to anything considered a vice or drug or whatever. i'm of the solid opinion that everyone has that inner voice telling them whether what they're doing to their body is right or wrong and knows when they've crossed the line.

i think there's plenty of people out there that experience this or dabble in that or use something in moderation their whole life without it affecting their overall health... you just don't hear about them specifically because they never stand out and they keep their vices to themselves.

The thing about smoking, though, is it's effect on other people. that fact that even a little bit of second-hand smoke can negatively effect anyone in any way, whether it's from stanky clothes/hair to serious health problems means that you're taking away other people's choice by doing it around them. this is wrong no matter what... there's no way to argue where the line is or what's too much.

so... if you're truly alone and the only one affected by your decision... yes, smoke away. but if you can't control yourself long enough to GET away from everyone else, and end up smoking anywhere near other people because of your addiction.... sorry, but you gotta stop THAT.

If you live longer, then you cost the health system more money as you more slowly transition to dead.

Eat up, drink up, smoke up and die earlier. It will probably be the best thing you do for society during your existence.