An Olive Branch to smokers, and perhaps a compromise?

[trumad]

Look--if you want to smoke then by all means smoke. I believe and I think most non-smokers believe that you should have the freedom to do as you please when it comes to your own body. We're pro-choice because we believe a woman has the right to control what happens to her own body---well, that should go for smokers, drinkers, and even drug users.

Just as long as you're not hurting anyone else. That to me is freedom in a nutshell.

But here's the compromise I hope that can occur.

Please understand that non-smokers have a hard time with the smoke that emits from a cigarette. So if we tell you it effects us, ---watery eyes, allergies, smell, etc....please believe us, we're not making it up. Please quit telling us that other dangers in the world are just as bad as second hand smoke, etc. You may be right scientifically---but those dangers don't make our eyes water and leave our clothes with a smell that we find offensive.

And we as non-smokers will do our best to not be holier than thou with our attitudes about smoking. I think smokers are right when they say that there are many many things just as dangerous as Cigarette smoking.

I think if the smoke from cigarettes had no effect on non-smokers, we would not be having this debate. Funny that the cig companies couldn't figure out a way to create a smoke that had a pleasant smell and was non-allergenic. LOL

I think the ban of cigs in restaurants was a good thing and a pretty decent compromise although I must admit that I cringe when I see townships looking to ban cig smoking all together and that includes your own home. That's way over the top in mho--- AND I think that a great majority of non-smokers here on DU feel the same way.

I think what I'm seeking here is that we both understand each other a little better and that we stop kicking each others asses. Every single cig thread and most likely this one as well, has ended up in one big firestorm.

It's the perfect storm of debates and it's a debate that seems to repeat itself over and over.

I know it's a long shot that we can Rodney King with this debate and we all just get along... but I hope we do.

Peace

[SheilaT]

1. Are there municipalities

trying to ban smoking in private homes? Why not simply make all tobacco consumption illegal?

I'm very anti-smoking, but a private home ban is stupid and unenforceable.

[rainbow4321]

17. There was a thread not too long ago

about one city trying to ban smoking in your home unless it was a single family unit/house--as in if you lived in an apartment you couldn't smoke.


And then one about Belmont, CA officials about to rule that people would be banned from smoking in their cars:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2731538&mesg_id=2731538

[BeyondThePale]

2. Ok, but why do we allow corporations to market deadly and addictive...

products aimed at adolescents?

1) these products are deadly.
2) they are the most addictive substance around.
3) the products are aimed at adolescents - the fact is that if you do not start smoking in childhood/adolescence, it is VERY unlikely you will ever take up the habit
4) smokers have strong brand loyalty - they rarely switch brands. So not only do you have to start them young, but you need to be the first brand they choose
5) the products are heavily aimed at developing nations
6) second-hand smoke has deadly consequences


So, why do we allow this product when we are outlawing trans fats in some states, we outlaw relatively benign (and possibly medically useful) substance such as THC, and the health care costs associated with smoking are enormous.

I realize that this does not speak to your original issue, but smokers have been duped by companies that pushed deadly and addictive products on them.

[bobbolink]

3. Cuz it's the 'Murkin way...

That's the drill.... support the big corporations, and blame the individual person for the outcome.

You make a great point--one that should be garnering more attention.

Thank you.

[BeyondThePale]

5. Thanks! I have a son with heart and respiratory problems...

and he is very sensitive to smoke. Likewise, I am very sensitive to this issue.

[bobbolink]

6. That is so hard for a parent!

:hug:

It took me a long time to recognize that pollution was the cause of my bouts with bronchitis.

For that reason, I can't be around smoke. I can't afford to keep getting sick, and if it keeps progressing I would end up with emphasema and worse. Since I've never smoked myself, I can't allow others' smoke to penalize me in that way.

Best wishes for your son! :pals:

[BeyondThePale]

7. Thank you! It has been very challenging for him...

but we are very fortunate that he is still here with us. He truly is my hero!

Cheers!

[bobbolink]

4. Recommended for reason, and common courtesy.

Thank you. :toast:

[NorthernSpy]

8. as a nonsmoker, I think the central problem is the extreme intolerance...

... demonstated by a handful of fellow nonsmokers. I see smokers getting scapegoated for things that simply aren't their fault -- such as asthma fatalities and whatnot. As long as some people are arbitrarily and unjustly singled out for that kind of blame, then I think that bad feelings will be inevitable.

That's why I try to speak up when I see that sort of thing. I want people who smoke to understand that not all nonsmokers are intolerant scolds, and not all people with asthma regard smokers as our victimizers, or whatever.

The smokers that I know consistently demonstrate far more consideration and tolerance than do most of their shrillest detractors. They really haven't been the aggressors in all this.

[ixion]

9. I find children in restaurants annoying and smelly and a potential health hazard

can we outlaw them in restaurants, too?

I think it would only be fair.

I'm sure this idea will go over like a lead balloon, but the comparison is very accurate, IMO. Children are smelly and carry disease, but for some reason, we still allow them to crawl all over public places spreading bacteria.

Where's the outcry over that particular health hazard?

It's the selective enforcement of smoking bans that I find unpalatable. That is, one particular social construct is singled out for exile, despite the fact that it really does nothing but satisfy a particular sub-group of society in general.

Ultimately, to satisfy all groups of people, we should all just stay in our homes and avoid physical contact all together. You might think that sounds funny, but that's where things like smoking bans lead to. I know that, because I, as a smoker, no longer enjoy going out to a bar occasionally because I'm unable to smoke there. Many bars have gone out of business because of this ban. But hey, it's really all about non-smokers, right?

[BeyondThePale]

12. How many smokers do you know who honestly

wouldn't like to quit (but just can't). Every smoker I know recognizes that it is unhealthy, expensive, and socially not desirable. They are just caught in a horrible addiction.

Now, how many parents do you know who would honestly like to no longer be parents? Sure, most parents joke about it or wish for a few free moments. However, I suspect it is very rare (and in cases of extreme mental distress) that parents would no longer want to be parents.

[LizW]

13. Do you have to hire a sitter for your smokes?

Or can you leave them home alone while you go out to eat? If your house catches fire and your cigs burn up while they're unattended, will you go to prison?

Sorry to be so ridiculous, but it is called for when someone compares cigarettes to human children.

[Montauk6]

14. Hey why not just ban everybody from restaurants?

I'm sick of trying to find my waitress with a geiger counter.

[Midlodemocrat]

21. I find sanctimonious idiots annoying and a potential health hazard, myself.

:eyes:

[ixion]

22. exactly... and that's just what non-smokers who push their wonts on others are

IMO...

[Midlodemocrat]

23. Actually, I was referring to someone who would equate cigarettes with children

Here's an idea. If you ever need an ambulance or any other type of healthcare from the generation of current *children*, call your cigs instead. I'm sure they will give you the same attention. :eyes:

[ixion]

24. I don't have children, nor will I ever... I can't see a reason to bring them into

this hellhole otherwise known as civilized society.

And since I don't have a gaggle of the little darlings mussing up the house, I find them smelly, noisy and filthy. ;-)

[NashVegas]

25. Some Restaurants Do Ban Children

Or, they make it difficult by not stocking high chairs. And the majority of people with children understand that the restaurant ownership has the right to choose to do that and respect that.

But you can't really imagine anyone trying to pass ordinances and legislation to ban children from restaurants, can you?

In states without restaurant smoking laws, some restaurants do ban smoking, and the majority of smokers understand that the restaurant ownership has the right to choose to do that.

The majority of non-smokers don't think about it when they go into a no-smoking restaurant or bar, but very few refuse to go into a smoke-friendly place. A minority of my non-smoking friends express relief to be in a non-smoking joint.

Relief is an emotional response. And there's your tip off right there that some people are dealing with this issue not logically, but emotionally.

It's my belief that that emotion has a great deal to do with loss of control; we are controlled by corporations, by our governments, by our bosses, in some cases by our families or whatever other personal issues we haven't worked through.

And a former-smoker? Now, they have to deal with their issues without the benefit of their old crutch. Some people are better at it than others.

Banding against a common enemy (smokers or whatever the social outcast du jour is) makes these people feel empowered.

[ixion]

32. really, the post was far more sarcastic than serious... I don't really want children banned

but neither do I want smoking banned. I want humans to be allowed to be human, even in public. I think making laws that force humans to behave like robots, in this case not smoking when they might otherwise want to, is generally not a positive direction for society, IMO.

[BeyondThePale]

33. you can't honestly believe that people have an unalienable right to smoke

smoking is harmful to smokers, harmful to others via second-hand smoke, creates huge healthcare and loss of productivity costs, and is foisted upon naive individuals who quickly become addicted.

[ixion]

36. I believe humans have a right to be human... this means

that some of (most) of the things we do are 'bad' for us in one way or another. Such is life.

And yes, I DO believe people have a right to smoke in a free country.

[BeyondThePale]

48. Of course, you have a right to do unhealthy things...

I ate pop tarts this morning and may drink some Rioja tonight. But I really want to stress that smoking has several problems associated with it (some of which it shares with alcohol). First of all, second-hand smoke is harmful. Period. Smoking leads to tremendous social costs (via early disease and lost productivity). Finally, youth are duped into using an addictive substance -- that for many will prove impossible to stop (and fatal).

[sarcasmo]

73. Please, tell me the names of these Places. I would be a regular customer.

I always ask to be seated away from children, it's hard to have a good, quiet dinner with another couples screaming child two tables away.

[gollygee]

89. Children are smelly?

I hadn't heard that. Why would children be stinkier than adults? Or are you talking about pre-toilet trained ones? So long as their diapers are kept clean, they aren't stinky either.

[mntleo2]

10. As A Smoker ...

...way before anyone pointed out that smoke caused them to be uncomfortable, I have always been a careful and thoughtful smoker ~ especially around my kids. I do feel that establishments who wanted to allow smoking should be able to allow it ~ after all nobody is being forced to go into them.

I appreciate your olive branch because if they make smoking illegal, believe me all they will be doing is making criminals out of law abiding people. The addiction is strong, some say stronger than heroin. I understand that Canada had to back off their over taxing and draconian laws because it merely made smugglers out of their smoking citizens.

As a non-drinker for instance, I wish for once someone would take as seriously the damage that drinking does to innocent bystanders, but we all know if we did, it would merely start another gangster war, smuggling, underground kingpins who are ruthless and greedy, murders, and the like. The same tactics have done the same for other drugs and merely causes more misery rather than preventing it.

Thanks for the post, Dear, it is appreciated. Olive branch excepted.

Cat In Seattle :smoke: :hug:

[KansDem]

19. As a pipe/cigar smoker for 35 years...

I can appreciate your comments.

When smoking was "legal," I used to look for and even ask for the table or booth furthest away from the other diners in restaurants. I even moved when I noticed my smoke was bothering others.

Having said that, I can count on one hand the number of times someone complained about my smoking. On the other hand, the number of people who came up to me and complimented by tobacco numbered in the dozens or even hundreds (I lost track). The most common comments were, "I like the smell of a pipe!," or "Say, what kind of tobacco are you using?"--this comment was usually followed by a discussion of pipe tobacco. A couple of times someone would try to identify the blend from the aroma alone. I also heard, nostalgically, "You remind me of my uncle/grandfather. He smoked a pipe!"

Anyway, along came the anti-smoking temperament and the battle lines were drawn.

Incidentally, I rarely smoked a cigar in public, and when I did it was in establishments that touted a cigar-friendly atmosphere.

[hlthe2b]

11. potent migraine trigger...

FOr me, even clothing residue of cigarette (let alone, cigar) smoke is my most potent migraine trigger. It started as a child, when EVERYONE smoked and I likely became hypersensitive as a result. However, even though I'm less likely to be getting a big whiff of smoke now, it remains a major problem, because my body is already sensitized.

I had friends who clearly discounted this, until they had a baby born that would throw up every time the father held her--like clockwork. The residue on the clothes was enough. It nearly broke up their marriage, in fact...

Yet, some still think I'm being "selfish" when I ask them not to smoke around me--even outside on the patio. :shrug: For them, I just wish they could experience ONE true migraine....

Nonetheless, I have some fairly strong libertarian tendencies on personal behaviors and I'm concerned about the draconian measures being looked at for smokers. It is both a personal choice, personal risk, and most importantly, an addiction. So, while I have personal issues, I understand the need to balance rights for both smokers and non-smokers.

[BlackVelvet04]

16. You know lot's of people have unavoidable migraine triggers.....

pollen and cologne both can trigger a migraine for me. Should we outlaw cologne FOR ME?

People who spend their time and efforts trying to make everyone adapt to them instead of learning to adapt are IMO immature.

[hlthe2b]

27. This one is NOT unavaoidable...unpreventable

Please re-read my post. I gave a very balanced discussion of the need to address both smokers and nonsmoker rights. The snideness of your reponse is both undeserved and just plain rude.

[BlackVelvet04]

28. Oh, please.

We could make cologne illegal and then it would be avoidable, eh?

I've seen more rudeness, control tactics and just plain whining from non-smokers on this board than any other group.

[hlthe2b]

29. that's just ridiculous: equating cologne

Environmental cologne passive exposure has never been linked to the increased risk of heart attacks and other ill effects as has been well documented for nonsmokers exposed to other's smoke. :eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

52. We were discussing migraine triggers. n/t

[hlthe2b]

54. in the context of passive smoking regulation....

:shrug:

[Bake]

103. Exactly! Freakin' EXACTLY!!

While I am always considerate of others as to when/where I smoke (I don't just "try" to be, that's what I started to type and then caught myself), I don't think the residue of "eau de nicotine" in my clothes has ever been clinically proven to cause cancer in anybody else!!!

This sub-thread started as dealing with migraine triggers, but when you drew the obvious parallel with stank cologne, the poster switched it to sidestream smoke! What utter bullsh*t!

Frankly, this is why I think there will never be a "truce" in the smoker wars on DU. The nanny-staters, moral superiors, etc. just can't give it a rest.

Let's go have a smoke.

Bake

[TahitiNut]

59. It's actually an interesting comparison, imho.

While the side-stream effects of smoking are completely incidental to the 'purpose' of smoking, the DIRECT and INTENDED purpose of colognes and perfumes is to 'assault' the olfactory senses of others. We don't wear scents so we smell them ourselves - we even adapt quickly to the point of not smelling our own scents. We wear (well, not me - since I diligently avoid wearing anything scented) scents to INTENTIONALLY have others smell them.

While there's obviously no argument about the relative scope and severity of the health impacts, it is worth noting that the SOLE intention of colognes and perfumes (and after-shave scents, etc.) is to have an effect on OTHER PEOPLE. For me, that introduces a valid question: Is it 'right' to intentionally put such volatile (literally) substances into the air others breathe - as the sole reason for even using such substances? It's NOT some 'collateral' effect - it's the only reason for using them.

I personally avoid all kinds of artificial scents - wearing absolutely none myself - and even avoid scented soaps, room '(de)odorizers,' cleaning products, etc. My favorite places on earth are ocean shores and tropical islands - air that's as free of ANY artificial substances as possible. The scents of saltwater and tropical flora are my olfactory nirvana.

[Kingshakabobo]

76. When is the last time you had to come home to.......

......wash your hair and toss your clothes in the wash due to cologne?

[TahitiNut]

77. When I was dating? Quite often, as a matter of fact.

What does that have to do with the point I was making? Was it that difficult to comprehend?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

83. Your demeaning and insulting post is noted.

It's the habit of people without the ability to discuss in a rational, intelligent, and civil manner. It's often seen on FreeRepublic, I'm told.

:shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

86. Your inability to address my point regarding ............

.......hyperbole and "assault" versus "whiff" of cologne is noted as well....as is your playing of the "freeper" card.

P.s. your snarky "was it that difficult to comprehend?" and the shoulder shrug is what got me going. Were you genuinely asking for guidance for a re-wording of your post or was it was it a jab at me? You reap what you sow pal.

[LeftishBrit]

57. Isn't the *whole point * of being a liberal rather than a right-winger...

trying to change the world to make it more adaptive to people's needs and vulnerabilities, whether physical, economic or social? It seems to me that demanding that everyone, whatever their needs, should 'adapt to the world' without asking for any accommodation is accepting a right-wing viewpoint. Of course, that *is* largely the way the world is now, and we have to face that fact; but it has changed somewhat from the past, and we should try to change it even more. E.g. don't you agree that it's a good thing to make transport and public buildings more accessible to wheelchair users?

About the cologne: no, I don't think that it should be banned, but I think that you should have a right to tell the people who regularly visit your home that it is a migraine trigger for you, and ask for their consideration. If lots of people were using strong cologne, and a significant number of people were showing adverse reactions to it, then there might be an argument for having some 'cologne-free areas' in enclosed places.

About smoking: I essentially agree with the OP. I think that people should have a right to smoke in their own homes; to smoke outdoors; and to smoke in designated areas in most public places, so long as these can be kept reasonably separate from non-smoking areas, and so long as there isn't a major fire risk. For instance, smoking has been banned on the London Underground for some years now, not because of concern about the health risks of active or passive smoking, but because there was a disastrous fire at Kings Cross station, with many fatalities, which turned out to be due to a carelessly-dropped cigarette.

There has to be compromise between different people's needs in all sorts of areas, not just smoking and non-smoking. For instance, driving is legal, despite its dangers BUT there are regulations about it: people are not allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road, to ignore traffic lights, to go over a certain speed, or to drive drunk. I don't think people have a right to just demand the banning of an activity that has the potential to cause them harm, but there need to be regulations on some activities.

[benEzra]

102. IMHO--not exactly.

Isn't the *whole point * of being a liberal rather than a right-winger trying to change the world to make it more adaptive to people's needs and vulnerabilities, whether physical, economic or social? It seems to me that demanding that everyone, whatever their needs, should 'adapt to the world' without asking for any accommodation is accepting a right-wing viewpoint. Of course, that *is* largely the way the world is now, and we have to face that fact; but it has changed somewhat from the past, and we should try to change it even more. E.g. don't you agree that it's a good thing to make transport and public buildings more accessible to wheelchair users?

IMHO, not exactly. The progressive paradigm grew out of the Enlightenment, the idea that empowering individuals to make their own choices is a good thing.

The idea that the State exists to make people choose certain behaviors and avoid others "for their own good" isn't progressive at all, IMHO, but rather a throwback to pre-Enlightenment paradigm, back when the power structure could violate individual choice with impunity and did so at whim, on a variety of pretext that often included "the common good."

In my opinion, requiring a pub to install a wheelchair ramp, and telling a pub that they are not allowed to have a smoking section, are entirely different questions. Most nonsmoking concerns could be easily accomodated by the simple measure of air quality standards for nonsmoking sections, but IMHO accomodating nonsmokers isn't what the antismoking activists are after. The goal seems to be the demonization of smoking and the coercion of smokers into a nonsmoking lifestyle as far as current boundaries of the government-individual relationship allow--while continuing to push those boundaries as far into violation of individual choice as social mores will permit (case in point - U.S. corporations doing nicotine testing to prohibit employees from smoking at home, on pain of termination).

I am a nonsmoker. I HATE cigarette smoke; it gives me headaches almost instantly (though pipe smoke isn't so bad). My wife is actually allergic to cigarette smoke. But we both feel that banning bars and restaurants from allowing smoking at all is ridiculous--just as ridiculous, in fact, as our previous social experiment with government sanctions against alcohol.

[LeftishBrit]

107. Actually, I agree with every word that you say!

I agree that prohibition is counterproductive (in fact, I think that most drugs should be de-criminalized); and also that the government should not be in the business of dictating personal choices, as opposed to providing information and making healthy choices economically feasible. Our government is VERY control-freakish at the moment - not just about smoking, but about almost everything, from obesity to the reading schemes that primary schools can use. On the whole, British people value 'minding one's own business' in personal issues, and strongly resent the intrusiveness of the present government. I have no desire to hold up such nanny-state-ishness as a role-model.

I also fully agree with the view that pub and restaurant owners should be able to have smoking and non-smoking sections; and I am strongly opposed to bans on smoking in *outdoor* public areas, unless there is a reason such as fire hazards.

My argument was not on the smoking issue as such, but with the specific statement: 'People who spend their time and efforts trying to make everyone adapt to them instead of learning to adapt are IMO immature.' There are some people who CANNOT simply 'learn to adapt' (I'm thinking of a long list of areas where this may be the case, and smoking-related issues are quite low down on this list), and who need society or other individuals to provide them with some form of accommodation, if they are to function adequately. The original statement may have referred just to smoking and related topics, but I was responding to it - maybe wrongly - as a general comment on the world.

[valerief]

15. I hate cigarette smoke and avoid it whenever I can. However, I

find it extremely difficult to avoid the sinus-and-lung-attacking killer cologne that assaults my senses every day. Someday those fragrances-with their "trade-secret" killer carriers that have been developed over the past 25 years-will become the new "cigarette," the new enemy, the one that people can control but refuse to.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. That's a different topic, but

I agree, fragrances can be an assault.

This morning some "open and sniff" advertisements fell out of the paper onto the kitchen table. Gaggingly strong smell, maybe nice in small quantities, but overwhelming in the ad.

Regards.

I'm thinking about a "why I regret quitting smoking" thread, just to get one more angle out there.

[Bluebear]

50. wrong place

[BlackVelvet04]

20. Thanks for the thought,

but I find most non-smokers aren't interested in anything but what they want. I've heard all kinds of whining about how cigarette smoke bothers them. So? There's lots of shit that bothers lots of people and they learn to live with it.

I have to live with the idiots who slather on cologne that gives me migraines. I have to live with idiots who love to play music full blast thumping along in rush hour traffic thus exacerbating my headache. I have to live with the idiots who think a fine dining restaurant is a good place to take a squalling baby. I have to live with the idiots who can't be bothered to hold a door and let it slam in my face thus forcing me to struggle with a door that is too heavy. I have to contend with rock hard chairs and concrete floors in malls which cause me a great deal of pain because of rods and screws in my back.

Life's tough all over. Suck it up.

[BeyondThePale]

34. in large part because they are addicted

they need to smoke because withdrawal kicks in quickly and you feel horrible if you don't smoke. Again, I believe that the vast majority of smokers would love to quit -- but tolerance to nicotine increases quickly and withdrawal is just too damn unpleasant!

[SidDithers]

39. I find most smokers to be insensitive slaves to their addiction...

who know that they're killing themsleves, but don't have the willpower to stop.

Generalizations suck, don't they.

Sid

[youthere]

98. Really? I'm a non-smoker and I find it to be just the opposite..

I find most smokers to be more than sensitive about where their smoke is drifting and where they choose to light up. Weird. In fact the only time I've ever had to deal with "insensitive smokers" was when I was a child and the smokers were my own parents.

[LeftishBrit]

108. Me too!

In the last few years, I have come across ONE person who was seriously insensitive about smoking; e.g. smoking at an important lunchtime meeting, without asking permission - and he was insensitive about almost everything! In the past, I did come across people who smoked in my face, etc.; but this hardly ever happens, now that people are aware of the dangers of passive smoking. Just in my experience. I know other people have other experiences.

[Peace Patriot]

26. "...if the smoke...had no effect on non-smokers, we would not be having...

...this debate."

This, I think, is the problem--that this statement is not true. Puritans are ALWAYS trying to ban behavior that THEY regard as IMPURE. Dancing around a fire in the woods at one time could get you accused of consorting with the Devil and burned at the stake for a witch. Puritans do not like other people having fun, and they categorize almost anything that is fun as evil. Homosexuality was at one time against the law--a hanging offense!--in western societies, and remains illegal in some countries around the world even today. It is illegal in some places in THIS country to bare your breasts--even if you are doing it to breastfeed your baby. And the classic, of course, is the ban on alcohol in the U.S. which created the biggest crime wave--in illegal alcohol production and distribution--this country had ever seen, and we are having a similar one today, with the "war on drugs" and so many drugs, even fairly harmless ones, and even ones with medical benefits, outright illegal to possess, use or sell. The prison-industrial complex is feeding off this ban on drugs. Corporate fascists and profiteers love it!

The Puritan impulse to BAN other peoples' behavior, that SOME people (generally powermongering types) consider "harmful," is age-old and still with us. And I'm sure that no-smoking fanatics will come back with, "But smoking is harmful to ME!" The witch-burners of previous eras believed just that--that women's "lewdness" was harmful to THEIR souls as well as to the women's souls. They considered spiritual harm WORSE than physical harm. So they justified drowning women to "prove" their witchery, or disprove it (in any case, the women died!). And for unrepentant "witches"--drawing and quartering and burning at the stake. And you can be sure that "virtuous" women reacted to those who had been accused of witchcraft in exactly the same way fanatical non-smokers react to smokers today: a feeling that the witchery was contagious and could infect YOU, a desire for physical distance, a shudder as if the "witch" had cooties, a desire to force the witch to be like YOU, shunning all "witchcraft," and approval of whatever punishments 'society' decided to inflict to purge humanity of these "evils."

What we consider harmful to ourselves and others, in the private behavior of others, is largely RELATIVE to social norms, AND, above all, to who is in power. If white bigots are in power, even if they are the minority, blacks will be forbidden, by social norms, to look a white person in the eye--I have personally seen this occur, so I know it to be true--and of course this norm will be written into law, so that blacks cannot drink at the same drinking fountain as white people, etc. I have also heard a white bigot argue that washing machine water is not hot enough to mix black and white peoples' clothes together--i.e., blacks are dirty, have cooties. And I'm sure, in their minds, that these white bigots felt righteous--just like the Puritan witch-burners--trying to keep the white race white and clean and healthy, and not "infect" it with black blood, or black disease, or black dirt, or whatever they imagined. Of course they were utter hypocrites. White male bigots routinely raped black women. And black women were routinely used to nurse and raise white children. And the whole system was created for the purpose of economic exploitation, with the ugly bigotry coming both from white greed and from unconscious guilt at the horrors of the slave trade.

Now then, about smoking. Smoking is different from the "mark of the Devil" harming human souls. It is not an imagined danger. But the questions are: 1) Should the law be used to protect people from second-hand smoke?, and 2) if not, what other remedies are there?

The law DOES NOT HAVE A GOOD RECORD on banning private human behavior that some consider harmful. What did Prohibition accomplish? What do our drug laws accomplish? What do our laws against prostitution accomplish? They make the problem WORSE. And they compound the problem with OTHER problems--a huge jail population, where more crime is bred. And don't believe that it will stop with a fine--a mild slap on the wrist. Our grievously unjust "justice" system does not work that way. One thing that will happen is that black and brown youths will be picked up by police, for smoking where it is banned. First strike. Then they have only to look at a policeman cross-wise to find themselves in jail for life.

Smoking bans will hit the poorest hardest of all--not just because the poor tend to be the most addicted, but because the poor have NO PROTECTION against injustice. A $500 fine or a $1000 fine might seem mild to some people. You don't live below the poverty line. And what happens to a poor person who cannot pay such a fine, or can't even afford bus fare to the courthouse? They get "a record." They get harassed. They get what little they have taken from them. They end up in jail.

Smoking bans will also add to the police weapons used to remove the homeless--down and out veterans, alcoholics, drug addicts, people with psychological problems who are unable to cope, and poor families--from the streets. This category of people tend to be addicted to smoking. One more reason to haul them away, to ban them from our midst, to hide the scandal that Reaganomics and Bush's horrors have created--and to deny them human rights.

In other words, smoking bans will ADD to the horrors of the "war on drugs," anti-prostitution laws, the prison-industrial nightmare, and the NEW CALLOUSNESS in our society and our government toward those who are not rich.

I am thinking here of smoking bans on sidewalks, in parks, and other common areas. These are absurd. I have no problem with smoking bans in restaurants and other confined spaces--although I think there should be A CHOICE. If you want to go to a bar, or restaurant, that permits smoking, or to a smoking lounge, you should have that choice. Smoking should not be totally banned indoors, as long as people have a choice to be there, and there is prominent posting of the rules and the hazards, and all employees are advised of the health hazards before being given a job. This is not a wholly satisfactory compromise--for instance, some poor people may not have much choice about taking an available job--but it is better than TOTAL PROHIBITION. Far better. Total prohibition is fanatical--and it WILL create MORE problems, exponentially. The problem here is in the expectation that GOVERNMENT should be used to enforce BANS on private behavior. Regulation, yes--I can understand regulation of some behaviors (for instance, safe driving laws, DUI laws, laws against beating your children). But fining someone $1,000 for smoking a cigarette on a street corner? That is just nuts. (I've just heard of such a regulation in Santa Rosa, CA--a ban on smoking anywhere in a newly renovated section of downtown--a "gentrified' area--where, of course, the poor will be banned, and anti-smoking laws will be used to harass poor youths and others who don't have cars they can smoke in!)

Littering: A lot of work needs to be done to change the culture among smokers about littering. One of the justifications for banning smoking on beaches in southern California has been the large amount of smoking refuse--cigarette butts--left in the sand, which others have to clean up. Littering is generally banned--with fines--everywhere, but cigarettes are so small, nobody notices, and the smoker himself/herself often doesn't even realize they are littering when they toss the butt to the ground (or crush it out in beach sand). Of course, fast food chain litter is ALSO a huge problem. Are they going to ban taking a Coke in a paper or Styrofoam cup to the beach? That's the sort of nutso stuff that government gets into, when it bans individual behavior (and refuses to address CORPORATE behavior!). Solutions? Trashcans with cigarette butt side pockets? And more of them? Free portable ashtrays? A campaign to change the culture among smokers? Maybe we need a non-profit group to create a league of nice beach-watchers, who go round and politely offer portable ashtrays to smokers. A smile and a gift may do more for solving the litter problem than all the bans and fines. Banning just makes people pissed off--and gets them into covert lawbreaking.

Corporations: They are sucking us dry, bleeding us dry, draining our public treasuries, ripping us off with tax breaks, manufacturing war, and doing everything imaginable to us to prevent us from solving common problems. The cutbacks at parks and beaches, for instance, are all corporate-caused. We don't have the funds any more to adequately staff these public areas. Why, in the richest country in the world? Why are people desperate for jobs sent off the kill Iraqis, and not employed here peacefully to pick up after smokers, and Coke drinkers, and campaign among visitors against littering? Corporations are doing all these things to us, in addition to their lies about war, about global warming, about pollution, about the safety of the "legal" drugs they are pushing, and about smoking--the paradigmatic corporate lie! We're spending a trillion dollars on killing Iraqis for their oil, and can't afford to pay park employees for trash clean-up, or to teach smokers to be better citizens.

Banning smokers does not help solve this tremendous problem of corporate lies and exploitation. Banning smokers is like blaming the common soldier for the war on Iraq. They made a decision, didn't they? They joined the army! They're shooting the bullets! But what good is that--blaming the soldier? It is totally unfair. The emphasis is wrong. Way wrong. If you really want to ban smoking--as with war--you have to start at the top. And I don't mean by a federal no-smoking law. (Ye gods!) I mean providing people with the medical help they need. And not treating them like pariahs--any more than you would a fat person, or a suicidal person. Lack of access to medical care is often the main problem with nicotine addiction. Also, living in an unjust society--where smoking is the only comfort. (It's like carrying around a tiny campfire with you--always warm and friendly, even if ultimately toxic.)

Maybe the solution is just more friendliness, and maybe a bit less egocentricity on all our parts. How to respect human freedom, and create a society that is good for all of us? That is the bottom line question. Taking away corporations' legal standing as "persons" might be a good start. They do more harm to human freedom and to a good society than any individual smoker ever did.

[kiahzero]

30. Your problem is in your second sentence.

Not everyone pushing for smoking regs is a Puritan. Some of us are looking for more regulation entirely because we know there are second-hand health hazards. If there were a cigarette that had little or no second-hand effects, I would not be pushing for smoking to be banned from public accommodations.

[LynneSin]

95. Seriously - I was offended to about the Puritan comment

I don't care if people smoke but I do care if I have to smell it. And even though the amount of second-hand smoke that I find myself around is extremely limited to the point that I highly doubt I would be affected medically by being around it, I still don't want to be near it. I was out this weekend and when I got home my clothes just stunk of cigerettes and my hair absorbs smoke to the point it smells like I cleaned out ashtrays with my hair.

And finally my two cents about the public ban. Everyone thinks that establishments should be allowed to decide if they are going to ban with the logic that customers who don't want to be around the smoke could just go elsewhere. The biggest flaw in that kind of logic has nothing to do with the customers but with the employees. I waited tables for three years in a place that had smoking & non-smoking but it wasn't really separated that well. After three years my mother swore I smoked simply because I had the worse hacking cough and at one time we had three different waitresses who were at some stage in pregnancy. The reason many of wanted that job was because we could get healthcare after 6 months of employment, which is more than most restaurants offer. Smoking bans are not about the customers but about the employees who have to serve you beverages and run the establishment. They are the ones that are most affected by this environment. And please don't say they should get a job somewhere else. Waitressing can bring in excellent money - more than working a minimum wage job at a Fast Food restaurant or local convience store.

[FedUpWithIt All]

31. Very nice.

:hi:

[BeyondThePale]

35. this has nothing to do with puritans

1) smoking is the number one behaviorally-driven health problem
2) it costs you and me a ton of money for health care and lost productivity costs
3) smoking is not exactly voluntary -- youth are manipulated into smoking by clever advertising agencies and then quickly become addicted
4) again, how many adult smokers do you think would really keep smoking if it wasn't so hard to stop?

[benEzra]

101. Let's ban alcohol, too...

this has nothing to do with puritans

1) smoking is the number one behaviorally-driven health problem
2) it costs you and me a ton of money for health care and lost productivity costs
3) smoking is not exactly voluntary -- youth are manipulated into smoking by clever advertising agencies and then quickly become addicted
4) again, how many adult smokers do you think would really keep smoking if it wasn't so hard to stop?

Those are essentially Puritan arguments, and are essentially the SAME arguments marshaled in support of alcohol Prohibition.

Except that smokers are currently in the "unpopular" clique, and drinkers are currently in the "popular" clique.

Whatever the hell happened to "my body, my choice"?

[bbgrunt]

37. well said peace patriot. you're definitely on my read list!

[Withywindle]

40. Tip: Those metal Altoids tins make great portable ashtrays!

I use them when I'm hiking in the woods and other places there are no trashcans around. :hi:

Fantastic post, PP. I wish I could Recommend it too.

[alarimer]

43. That statement IS true

Smoke is fucking disgusting for one thing. Smokers stink, not to put too fine a point on it. You do.
And the smoke itself is irritating to most non-smokers- some have allergies, some have headaches, some just find it barf-inducing. This is above and beyond whatever long-term health hazards there may be.

And if cities and states can have laws regulating the FOOD quality in restaurant and the cleanliness of these establishments, why in the fucking hell can they not regulate indoor air quality? They do in many other buildings.

[BlackVelvet04]

55. Great post.....

yet here comes the chorus of ..."BUT, but, but....."

[TahitiNut]

64. Indeed. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[ComerPerro]

56. the laws dont tell you not to smoke, anywhere, ever. Just to not be an asshole

and, frankly, that's why I think a lot of you addicts have such a problem with it

[TahitiNut]

63. That's just not true. Entire towns and cities are banning smoking ...

... and employers are even firing people who smoke at ANY time, even in their own homes. Those same employers are contemplating firing anyone whose SPOUSE smokes.

In my lifetime, I've seen it go from non-smokers REGULARLY providing ashtrays (and even coffee-table cigarettes and matches) for their smoking house guests to non-smokers prohibiting smoking, by law, anywhere on school property, in open-air sports venues, anywhere within 50' of a building entrance or ventilation duct, on the public sidewalks, in ANY place of business (even tobacco shops!), and in private automobiles. Once upon a time less than 50 years ago, the only place smoking was prohibited was where the risk of explosion or fire was dire - gasoline stations and in hospital rooms where an oxygen tent was used. I even recall when movie theaters had smoking sections.

I find the extremism appalling. It's the kind of social behavior that frightens me - especially if we ever go to single-payer health care or any kind of socialized medicine. In fact, it's ALMOST enough for me to oppose national health care! I cannot even imagine how EXTREME we'd get in imposing restrictions on others. I remember when (smoking) Prohibition was almost unimaginable. Almost nobody could imagine it - even when I predicted (in the late 60s) it was going to happen. Well, it happened even more than I predicted ... and faster, too. National health care might be just enough to obliterate any kind of 'social liberalism' we might otherwise want, given the attitudes I've seen. Seat belts, helmets, and smoking. Attempts to legislate "common sense" are doomed to create authoritarian cultures, imho. The maxim of "Give me liberty or give me death!" has been abandoned - now it's "Fuck your liberties! I'm in the majority!"

[kiahzero]

66. What towns have entirely banned smoking?

What employers have fired people for smoking on their own time?

Banning smoking in public accommodations makes sense. Banning smoking entirely, or firing smokers, is disgusting.

[TahitiNut]

69. There's a company only about 50 miles from me around Lansing (Okemos) ...

... that's been discussed on DU several times for firing employees who didn't give up smoking. That same company, in interviews of the CEO, is/was contemplating extending their smoking ban to spouses of employees.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/companys-smoking-ban-means-off-hours/20050208101509990013

More recently, even, DU discussed the firing of a Scott's Co. employee who was fired because a urine test showed nicotine. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/2006/12/03/business/16153758.htm


So far, smoking has been banned in at least two towns in California, in all public spaces (indoors or out), in cars on the streets, and in any home where children live or visit or any home that doubles as a private business. This has also been discussed on DU.

I generally don't feel obliged to maintain links and bookmarks to events that have received such widespread discussion on DU ... no more than I'd keep links to 'prove' the Holocaust happened or that the earth isn't flat. That's where I tend to draw the line about what's "common knowledge" - since each topic has had SEVERAL threads, I'll merely assume that people who don't know it really don't want to know it and it's a waste of time and effort to attempt to overcome such apparent deliberate ignorance - almost like I wouldn't bother arguing with a holocaust denialist.

[kiahzero]

72. I wasn't challenging you

I was genuinely curious.

[TahitiNut]

74. Sorry if I sounded pugnacious.

Smoking threads have 'trained' me, I guess. :hi:

Calabasas, CA comes to mind as one of the towns. I think there's a couple in other states (MN?), too. It's cropped up in the news several times in the last couple of years.

[bbgrunt]

78. exactly. Tahiti Nut--you're on my definitely read list too.

[Bluebear]

96. indeed! :)

[seabeyond]

38. the olive branch doesn't work and wont until the non smoker

openly listens to what the smokers issue is and from your post, you have not addressed the issue, which in essence, is the WHOLE issue with the smoker vs. non smoker. all you seem to offer is smokers dont blow in our face and we will leave you alone? that should be a given, but that is not what the smoker issue is. i dont hear very many, a few, non smokers that truly understand what the issue is. when someone doesn't understand, the best that can be hoped for is a position as you post. but really it is truth in reflection that is being asked for and that is what a non smoker is not willing to forgo, on their battle against cigarettes, which allows them to sit in an illusion and not reality. the ignoring reality for agenda is where many of the smokers are bothered.

a good parallel example would be those that refuse to go beyond the words bush says, and look at the facts. they may say olive branch, you dont agree with war, we do, we will both be respectful of each other. we say, no we want more, we want you to look at reality and truth. how good is their olive branch. not very good in my opinion.

[trumad]

45. Then help me out here...what do I not understand?

[seabeyond]

82. a start are the anti smokers in the thread. a couple years ago

studies came out with a blast that second hand smoke was worse for the second hand recipients, than smoking a cig for the actual smoker. they tried. the absurdity of such a statement was publicized to give the anti smoker even more ammunition. i guess it didn't live long in the stupidity because i haven't heard it recently.

a few girls in my boys christian private school was praying for me every day that i dont die... when they found out i smoked. there parents had taught them, you smoke you die. my son told me they think one puff you die. i finally had to tell the girls to quit the prayer, they were scaring my son. YES, unnecessarily.

people aren't using common sense in these second hand smoke studies. intellectually, logically the information doesn't hold. but the anti smokers hold onto these positions for dear life and no one is allowed to challenge them, even though anecdotal reasoning suggests strongly they are smoke and mirrors. you will never find the anti smoker addressing this issue without bias.

for decades children and young adults should be dropping like flies. they are not. but per the reports, that should be the least that happens

so many of the anti smokers do not, will not get beyond the smoking to see a person there. all for them that is needed in deciding who the people are is that they smoke. the ugliest, nastiest comments are permitted.

i have in laws who see themselves as good people, nigh perfect. over the decade of being in this family i have seen the most irrational, nastiest behavior to me, not because i smoke around them, i would not dare, but because they know i do. to the extent that i dislike these people with a passion, because of who they are, while with me it is merely because what i do. i dont want to be around them. i dont want to participate in family gatherings. yet.... i continue because of my family, not for them.

i have had enough anti smokers come into my life that mouth off the same shit. as i go far away from them to have a cig, not daring letting them even visually see me, because i seem to get the same disgust from them just seeing a cig (which leaves me thinking it a bit immature behavior). over the years as they had gotten to know me i would leave to have a cig only for them to follow, continually chatting. i would let them know i was having a cig... i would be back, and they would wave it off telling me it was ok, it didn't bother them.

these are the same people that i hear on this board with the same disgust for cigs, yet... all of a sudden it doesn't bother them anymore. this has happened so consistently with me it is hard to take many of the posters seriously.

now.... i am the smoker that hates it. everything about it. i have wanted to quit for more than a decade. the "you smoke you die" has convinced me to the point of me being a hypochondriac and thinking i am going to die any minute. the energy i truly feel coming off these peoples comments is a desire, want, a demand that i keel over because i smoke. i feel it to be a lot sick. i am considerate of all. i "hide" cig from any visual of kids and most adults because of their ridiculous behavior, not to mention actual smoke.

my kids have learned the ugliness and meanness cloaked as concern. they have learned to look beyond these things in people and love them for who they are. they have learned none of us are perfect. they have learned to not throw rocks while living in glass houses. and they have learned to look at things, including the bad, in truth, reality and not a hyped of illusion to create a fear to mode behavior.

i dont know if i will quit. i dont know if i will die from smoking. i do know that i live my life in such a way, i do not beat anyone up, i do not judge, i do not make someone less to make me feel more grand, i can look in the mirror.... that even in my smoking, we have been able to find the lesson and higher in it.

[skypilot]

41. I'm a smoker...

...and I don't have a problem with most smoking bans. No smoking in restaurants? Fine. On public transportation? Fine. On an airplane? Natch. A smoking ban recently went into effect in my city and I only hope that the city lives up to its word to allow bars that sell little or no food to apply for an exemption from the ban. That's all I want. There are some who are against the possibility of anyone getting an exemption. Those are the folks here who tick me off. Them and the really, really sanctimonious ex-smokers. And the people who would ban you from smoking outside or in your own home.

[BlooInBloo]

42. I TOTALLY fail to understand why there can't be smoking places and non-smoking places.

Until I understand that, I can't imagine talking about "pretty-smelling" cigarettes - at least not seriously.

[kiahzero]

44. Are you asking "Why ban smoking in all public accommodations?" (n/t)

[gollygee]

90. I don't understand that either

I'm a non smoker - and a migraine sufferer for that matter (saw that above) - but I'm perfectly content to sit in a non-smoking section. I know which restaurants have bad ventilation and I avoid those. But otherwise I don't personally mind if people smoke.

[bigwillq]

46. I do my best

to avoid smoking in front of non-smokers.

At work, many smokers smoke right in front of the door that all employees must use to enter the building.

I walk away and smoke as far away from that door as possible.

CT has laws that there is no smoking in most public building including bars, clubs, restaurants....and I really like this law.

I do however smoke when I am walking down the street and I know at that time my smoke does come in contact with other people.

But I feel that I have the right to smoke when walking down the street because smoking is still legal.

I think I am considerate. At least I try to be and that's all I can do.

[LeftishBrit]

58. As a non-smoker, I agree

There is a big difference between a momentary smell of smoke when passing someone in the street, and having to spend extended time in an enclosed smoky room.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. SMOKE WILL Make me sick within 48 hours -- without a doubt

If smokers just can't live without their fix in a restaurant, why can't they get a nicotine patch?

I WILL get sick within 48 hours with a sinus infection/bronchitis, if I am around a smoker, and that will cost me around $200 in doctor visit and antibiotics.

Smokers who diss the physical hardship it takes upon those of us with allergies and such ailments are being insensitive. They could get a patch if they have to go out in public. If they want to rot their lungs that is their business, but don't do it where I can breathe it, and don't create a cloud of toxic smoke around the door to a building I'm going in.

Speaking of quitting, both my parents quit when the first report from the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans came out about lung cancer, around 1963. I was in elementary school.

However, I still have scar tissue in my lungs, visible on an X-ray, over 40 years later. It looks like little white dots (dandruff) along the linings of the tubules.

[BlackVelvet04]

67. that's unfortunate.....

but lots of things make lots of people sick. Cologne gives me a migraine that can last for days. That's life. Grow up.

[Pastiche423]

70. Have you read the dos and don'ts of nicotine patches?

People w/seizure disorders can not use the patch. Do you believe that doctors would give a prescription for the patch to their patients that have grand mal seizures?

[BeyondThePale]

49. Let's think about why people smoke...

People begin smoking because it is positively reinforcing. That means you get something good for doing it. Smoking earns peer approval, is defiant, and produces pleasant psychophysiological effects associated with stimulants (alertness, energy, brief euphoria, appetite suppression).

However, two things happen...
1) tolerance increases rapidly - this means you need more of the substance to get the sam e effect
2) withdrawal occurs - this means that when you do not have the substance, you experience unpleasant effects such as irritability, depression, and fatigue. Furthermore, because of tolerance, more of the substance is needed to prevent withdrawal symptoms

So, initially people smoke because it feels good (is positively reinforcing).

However, due to increasing tolerance and withdrawal, people no longer smoke because it is positively rewarding, they smoke because it is negatively rewarding -- that means it removes negative experiences (withdrawal symptoms). Thus the goal is to remove or prevent negative consequences -- which locks someone in a cycle of addiction.

In contrast, tolerance develops slowly to marijuana and there are few physical withdrawal symptoms (although some psychological withdrawal symptoms). Thus, marijuana is a far less addictive substance than stimulants such as nicotine (and no I am not arguing one way or another about the legality of mj).

THE BIG QUESTION - to what extent are people who are physiologically and psychologically addicted to nicotine making a volitional choice to smoke or not to smoke. Sure, they can choose to smoke, but I wonder how much of a fair choice this is. Again, if nicotine were not addictive, people would not continue to smoke -- is carcinogenic, harmful to children, and generally socially distasteful (consider the smell of your hair and clothes after a night at a bar that allows smoking). Tobacco products are available because it is big business. And this big business survives by addicting children and adolescents.

So, Ixion, people can and will smoke. But they are fooling themselves if they think that they are in control once they are addicted to what is probably the most addictive substance.

[Kelly Rupert]

51. My comprimise:

1. No smoking in public buildings.
2. No smoking within 10m of an entrance to a public building.
3. You may smoke in your car and on your private property.
4. You may not smoke in an automobile with a child inside.
5. Your health insurance premiums should not be less than 20% greater than they would be if you did not smoke, so as to cover the extra cost to society your extra risk of health problems will cause.
6. Smoking cessation aids will be subsidized by the government and available for purchase at any drugstore without a prescription for no more than $5 for a month's supply.

[walldude]

53. The only compromise left for me and most smokers

is to quit. I know most smokers are like me and I already don't smoke in "public buildings" in outdoor areas where other people congregate, or anywhere a non-smoker complains about smoke. I'm pretty much down to my car (when I'm alone) and my house (laundry room only). What more is it you people want from me? I notice that when people talk about smoking, "compromise" means do whatever the non-smokers say. Which is fine, I don't want to kill anyone with my vices but let's not pretend that this is a compromise. A compromise would be let business owners decide whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments and if non-smokers don't like it they can take their business elswhere.

[napi21]

60. Ihave no problem with your compromise idea, but it has to be compromise on both

sides. There should be completely non-smoking reataurants, bars, motels, etc, the there should also be some that permit smoking, and let the consumer make the decision.

I proisenot to smoke in in YOUR house, but you have to commit to not complaining if I smoke in MINE, even if you are visiting me.

There's something that a lot of you are probably too young to remmember. When I was young, 75% to 80% of Americans smoked. It was acceptable everywhere. And YES we did know it wasn't a healthy thing to do, so the stories about all that changing when the Surgeon General announced how bad cigarettes were are all BS! I smoked at my desk at work, the supermarket had ashtrays attached to the support columns in the asiles, and they sold little portable ashtrays to carry in your packet so you could smoke on the bus and not throw the butt on the floor. That went on for YEARS! That's why I find it so hard NOW to accept ALL THESE PEOPLE telling me I'm killing them!


I've always tried to be considerate of others, wether it be smoking, or anything else, but that same consideration sure isn't part of the smoking opposition plan!

[kiahzero]

61. Anecdotal 'evidence' trumps peer-reviewed science since when? (n/t)

[napi21]

62. HA HA! So much for compromise!

[kiahzero]

65. What's wrong with pointing that out?

What's wrong with pointing out that denying that second-hand smoke is harmful has roughly as much scientific backing as denying that global warming is happening?

[The Straight Story]

68. It is not a question of if it harms, it is a question of can people make a choice to allow

themselves to be exposed to that harm or force them to not be allowed that choice.

To wit: Having smoking allowed and smoke free bars. People are free to make a choice to expose themselves or not to. Same with private clubs. Etc.

When you tell people they are not allowed to choose they get upset. No one wants to limit the choice of non-smokers, or to make laws that places must have smoking sections. That should be left up to the business owner and let the market drive it. That is real freedom.

No one wants to force people to do something, and yet we have people doing just that. No one is forcing someone to go into a bar that smokes, you have a choice not to go into one.

When we start protecting people by limiting their ability to choose we start down a bad path. In some cases it is prudent and common sense, in others it goes beyond that and should be looked at again.

[Bake]

105. I don't even smoke in my own house when I have guests!

I'm tellin' ya, no compromise is possible with the Smoke Nazis. We have a designated smoking area (we call it the "cell block") at my office. It is outside, behind an 8-foot high concrete block wall. The building management built us a little roofed "bus-stop" type area within that space for shelter from the rain. Everybody knows it is the Designated Smoking Area.

Non-smokers will actually come out there to sit and chat with the smokers, and ACTUALLY BITCH ABOUT THE SMOKE!!!

No compromise is possible with the Nanny Staters. Liberals? Hardly. Just a bunch of whiney-ass weenies.

Oh, by the way, I have friends, non-smokers, who are always getting bronchitis, pneumonia, flu, etc. -- and missing work. Funny how, given that I smoke - a lot, I don't get sick. And I'm 51.

No compromise. We've already met them waaaaaaaay past the middle.

Bake

[novalib]

71. COSTS of Smoking!!

Your FREEDOM to KNOWINGLY put unhealthy stuff into you body stops when I have to start paying for it!!

As long as Medicare or Medicaid is used to PAY for the BAD HEALTH CHOICES of people who smoke, I say smoking should be MADE ILLEGAL!!

[TahitiNut]

75. Red Herring. Smokers pay more than they cost.

In fact, just their reduced life expectancy results in huge savings to the Social Security system. The comprehensive studies show this conclusively and only those 'statistics' that deal narrowly with taking ONE cost area and offsetting it with what smokers pay in just that area pretend to show some net "cost to society" ... but such playing with numbers excludes far more than it includes.

[novalib]

79. SO... You're Saying WE PROFIT???!!!!

So, are you saying that we PROFIT because some people KNOWINGLY put substances KNOWN TO BE DANGEROUS into their systems and DIE early???!!!

And that dying early offsets all the OTHER people who also knowingly put dangerous substances into their systems, and USE THE MEDICAL SYSTEM AT OUR EXPENSE while they die slow, painful deaths???!!!

And THAT is supposed to make me feel better??!!!

It DOES NOT!!!

In fact, it makes me FEEL WORSE!!!

It looks to me as though society is profitting from EARLY DEATH!!

And THAT "profit" is nothing more the BLOOD MONEY!!!!

MAKE BIG TOBACCO -- NOT THE TAXPAYER -- pay for the medical care of people who smoke!!!

[TahitiNut]

81. Have you heard about the "Master Settlement Agreement"?

Through the end of last year (2005), "Big Tobacco" has made $37,066,734,775 in payments to 46 states under the MSA. Under separate agreements, "Big Tobacco" has made $14,072,100,000 in payments to the four other states (FL, MN, MS, and TX). That's over $51 billion in eight years. That doesn't include taxes of $24,386,718,693 annually.

Just whom do you suppose reimburses "big tobacco" for those costs? Hmmmm? :eyes: (Hint: It's $0.45/pack of cigarettes.)


One gratuitous comment: Nobody can "make you feel" anything. Your emotional responses are up to you. :shrug:
(Funny how long it takes a lot of people to understand that. It took me about 50 years. You probably have time.)

[novalib]

84. SO???

Let's leave MY feelings (along with references to the first 50 years of YOUR life) out of this, OK??

IIRC, the MSA re-imburses the Government for PAST medical costs, and for programs designed to counteract YEARS AND YEARS of DELIBERATE LIES!!!

[TahitiNut]

85. If you want your "feelings" to be left "out of it" then why did YOU post about them?

That's your problem, kid. Deal with it.

[Bluebear]

88. ;)

[novalib]

92. CAREFUL, THERE.....

YOU are coming awfully close to HURTING MY FEELINGS!!!!!

I do NOT like being called "kid"!!!

I am NOT A KID!!

And it hurts -- IT HURTS A LOT -- when someone calls me one!

[Bluebear]

93. "HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, KID!!!!"

Don't be offended, 'kid' is an old term of endearment.

[TahitiNut]

97. Here. This might help.

Take a chill pill ...

[novalib]

110. Just A LITTLE Directive There!!

"TAKE A Chill Pill"???!!!

I only take pills on the direction of my medical advisors.

If I go to the Eckart's, which aisle do I look for Fukitol?

And, does Fukitol affect my PASSION at all???!!!!

Do the makers of HEAD ON make something like Fukitol that I can Apply to my person???

If I use Fukitol, will I need to use a laxitive??

[kiahzero]

99. Cruise control for cool

[novalib]

111. COOL KEYBOARD!!!!!

Gee, What a COOL KEYBOARD you must have!!!!

I wish mine had a little ruler above the "A" and the "S" keys!!!!

And your "CAPS LOCK" key has the CUTEST LITTLE CHRISTMAS TREE on it!!!!

WAAAAAAY COOOOOOL!

[sniffa]

91. CAPS LOCK MAKES POINT OF EMPHASIS!!!!!!!!

[frustrated_lefty]

87. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

As a smoker, I understand it really does bother some to the point of making them physically ill. When asked, I don't light up. That's just common courtesy.

This debate isn't likely to come to an end any time soon, but I do think a little courtesy on both sides of the issue would go a long way towards letting us all get along.

[leftyclimber]

94. I most gratefully accept.

I try to be a polite smoker. I always ask permission to light up, and don't if people say no. I try not to smoke around kids (hell, I don't even want kids to SEE me smoking, lest I set the example!). I try to avoid large groups while I smoke. Until someone sees fit to invent smoking-rehab ala illegal-drug rehab or some new magic help-with-agonizing-withdrawal pill (I have tried EVERYTHING, and much of it I cannot ingest), I will continue to try not to step on other people's toes. Sound fair?

Now if we could perhaps also have a climber-and-non-climber olive branch session, this lefty might start feeling welcome here again. :(

smokinleftyclimber

[benEzra]

100. Why not merely enact air quality standards for nonsmoking sections

for institutions that choose to provide them? Instead of banning smoking in restaurants completely.

I'm a nonsmoker (can't stand cigarette smoke), but I think the jihad against smoking called for by some is simply over the top.

[WI_DEM]

104. If you smoke while your posting on your computer, fine. It isn't seeping through

and affecting me on the other end.

[Bake]

106. Oh, but it does seep through!

Just the very idea that someone might be smoking is enough to piss them off in the extreme, get their blood pressure up, cause them to stroke out or have a coronary! And there you go, another smoking related death!

Bake

[Bluebear]

112. :)

[Javaman]

109. Bottom line: smoking is a privilege not a right. nt