posted
Did you also check to be sure it's also a government in which all people are entitled to equal treatment?
And how do you respond to the ethical argument?
And fallow-relevance? This is about being forced to be around it. No one forces me to be around campfires to go into a resturant, or to go to work in the morning. I do react poorly to campfires. I would probably have the same problems at my current level of sensitivity. At my usual level, I've been around them and been fine as long as I stayed upwind and didn't stay around them too long. But due to smokers, It's been slightly less than a year since I've been anywhere approaching my usual level of health.
posted
its not making them stop smoking. It's making them take their smoking away from other people, so it doesn't injure them.
That aside, smoking is a choice. So if you choose to smoke, you subject yourself to the limitations inherent of it. Why should others have to pay because you don't want to stop?
posted
I think the question raised by the thread originator has gotten lost, but there are quite a few interesting points that have been raised. I'd personally like to see some of them explored.
why did I start?
Idle curiosity and a penchant for self-destruction on an emotionally cloudy day. I had no idea where that would lead.
posted
StN, who's trying to make smokers stop smoking? Smoke all you want -- away from me, and Toretha, and the MANY others who are harmed by your smoke.
Interesting that you claimed this in the first post:
quote: I don't smoke. In fact, all that propoganda the public schools send out actually worked on one person. I don't want to smoke, and I suppose that is good for me.
You seem awfully defensive for someone who doesn't smoke.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you do smoke and it's a part of your life it's probably difficult to be objective about the issue. If protecting your own health isn't important enough to make you stop, protecting someone else's isn't going to be either.
I didn't even try to follow the original subject. I don't smoke, I was lucky to never really be exposed to cigarettes. Actually, I associate the smell of cigarettes with summertime things like fairs and amusement parks for some reason.
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just feel that a large group of people should not be told how to behave by a smaller group. And yes, people are saying stop smoking. When one can not smoke in public, they are being told not to smoke. I know smoke is harmful, but if you are one of the few who cannot take it for a brief peroid, go somewhere else. You should not be able to say that others should not smoke in your presence.
posted
its not always a brief period, and its not always an option to go elsewhere. And there are places to smoke-your own house, stuff like that. It's just slightly more effort. And WHY should you not be able to say that?
posted
Avadaru is right on that one w/in reason. If a non-smoker is in a DESIGNATED smoking area, then it is N/A. If you have a reaction to smoke, then you should not be there. In UNDESIGNATED areas then tell them not to smoke in your presence. By all means you should look out for your own health, but don't expect everybody to know your specific condition.
quote: Oh, boy. Here we go.
[ April 04, 2004, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course you should. And you should be able to find a seat on a plane not overflowing with someone's inability to control their caloric intake.
posted
There are relatively few who are affected to the degree that Toretha is, true. However, they are not merely affected -- the affect is debilitating.
And there are MANY who are immediately affected to a lesser degree. And everyone in the vicinity has long-term health affects.
Smoking is harmful to those around you (not to mention to the smoker themselves!). It is NOT a NEED or RIGHT. Breathing IS.
And no, requiring smokers to smoke outdoors (or in specific areas) is not telling them not to smoke. Banning cigarettes would be; and I am not in favor of that.
Oh, and fallow, I support legislation reducing the use of diesel fuel too. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smoking outside at office bulidings is reasonable. Working is something that needs to be done. However in restaurantes, there should be a non-smoking section and be done.
posted
Except that the non-smoking section is inadequate. There is no true boundry to stop the smoke.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what of the people who work in the restaurants? And the fact that the smoke travels outside the smoking-area?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And what of the people who work in the restaurants?
I may agree, but some restaurants have the staff members that smoke work in the smoking section. Not a bad idea, until you reach the fact that you may not have enough to cover a section.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
okay, see, you chose to work there, knowing that people are going to smoke. Bounderies could be better set. The smoke-allergic could be given a small room.
posted
you choose to smoke, knowing it could hurt people. People are, under federal law supposed to be able to take any job they're qualified for, unhindered by disabilities that can be worked around
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, let's try looking at this from another perspective regarding accommodation.
I have a friend who is as allergic to dogs as Toretha is to smoke. She can never come to my house and I have to make sure to wear freshly-laundered clothing when I visit her. She has her own office, but has to avoid co-workers who have dogs because the hair on their clothing makes her sick. She cannot go to public parks because everyone brings their dogs. She had to leave the Watermelon Festival because people brought their dogs.
Would it be reasonable for her to demand that dogs be banned from parks and the Watermelon Festival? What level of accommodation should she demand?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once chewed a stick of that nicorette gum while I was playing outfield during a softball game. The itching on my palms and soles got a little distracting - missed a few key plays. I had to ask one of my teammates to take me to the ER. I turned into like the michelin man. I couldn't open my eyes OR breathe. Then I got an adrenaline shot. It was sweet! All back to normal and stuff. Dunno if it was the nicorette, but I'm not going near that stuff ever again!
posted
"Tried the patch. It kept sticking to my lips. Tried the gum. I couldn't keep it lit." -Bill Engvall
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where? As far as I know Carcinogens (sp?) are bad for everyone. Goes with the alpha particles inhaled as well.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrsM is right inasmuch as there is such a wide variety of quality and quantity of secondhand smoke, and the fact that different people have different capacities to tolerate particles in the air. The subject of what constitutes 'good' air quality and 'bad' air quality *is* the subject of much debate.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having smoking and nonsmoking sections in a restaurant is like having a peeing and nonpeeing section of a pool.
I think you'll get an argument that boils down too- no, peeing in a pool is really, really gross. Smoking is just a little bit gross, and to a much smaller population.
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many dogs are there in resturants? or workplaces?
Almost none, but there are tons of dogs on the streets and public parks. Sarah cannot go to the parks that her taxes help to maintain. Even walking from her apartment to her car can be an ordeal for her if people are out walking their dogs. She has to leave her house every day - there is no way that she can avoid it. She has to work with people who own dogs - there is no way that she can avoid that. Does she have the right to demand that her neighbors and co-workers give up their pets?
My point is this, I feel that the government forcing people to limit personal freedoms like smoking and pet ownership is dangerous. I feel that the government regulating what people can and cannot do on their personal property is dangerous.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, I just realized something very important! You are never going to convince me, and I am never going to convince you. Phew, that makes things much simpler for me.
Mrs.M, I pass the buck, for I cannot take this anymore. Sorry to leave you alone - seeing that you are the only other person to share my point, so I am, indeed, leaving you alone - but I have had enough.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes you cannot just choose to walk away from second hand smoke. What if I am taking the bus, and it is raining, and someone is under the bus shelter smoking. Which do I chooses, to get drenched and perhaps get sick, or stay under the bus shelter and perhaps get an asthma attack from the smoke? And what if I have my children with me? It is very selfish for the smoker to expect another to get wet, or get sick, because they need their fix.
In our county, only bars are allowed to have smoking sections. The restaurants are smoke free. More and more bars are eliminating smking altogether too. This is because non smokers will usually not go somwhere with a smoking section. I won't is BAD BUSINESS for bars to allow smoking, and bar owners are responding.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, there's a big difference between owning a dog and smoking. Smoking hurts everyone, including the person smoking. Owning a dog has a number of good sides, and dogs have a number of other used-seeing eye dogs, therapy dogs, all that. Please, show me all the great good smoking does to counterbalance the bad?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. I'm going to leave this thread. I am getting frustrated. I feel like I'm not being respected or listened to.
Here are my final thoughts:
1. I don't believe that smoking is harmful to every non-smoker. I grew up in a family that smoked, as did my husband, brother-in-law, and their cousins. None of us have any respiratory problems or any of the other problems associated with exposure to second-hand smoke. The 1993 EPA study that started the furor about second-hand smoke has been discredited.
2. Smoking does have benefits to smokers. I smoked for 5 years and it kept me thin and relaxed. I quit 5.5 years ago and I still miss it. I have not found anything that makes me feel as calm and happy as smoking did.
3. As I've said before, I feel that the government forcing people to limit personal freedoms like smoking and pet ownership is dangerous. I feel that the government regulating what people can and cannot do on their personal property is dangerous.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
but this isn't about what people can do on their personal property. Its about what they can do in public places. And you've not shown how keeping a smoker thin and relaxed balances out cancer potential, or the harm it does to other people. Smoking fails a basic cost benefit anaylsis that dogs pass.
I'm sorry if you feel like you're not being listened to, because I am reading and thinking about what you say. But I just can't see how it balances out.
posted
Tobacco keeps you thin because it is an eating depressant. Calm....When you have the amount of nicotine in your body that it craves yes. Try not smoking for a day and see how calm you are. I realize you quit, but imagine how long that would last. I did this and lasted 7 hours w/o a cigarette. When my mind is occupied I can go all day without a cigarette. I don't feel to well the next day, but I can. It is also one heck of a buzz after the first cigarette.
I do believe that you should smoke on your private property. My property is my property. I smoke if I want to. However, the house I am at right now is owned by a smoker. Three of four of us are smokers that live in the house. It has been a house rule not to smoke in the house even before the non-smoker moved in. He'll go eat w/ us and sit in the smoking section. As long as we don't blow it in his direction, he doesn't mind.
As far as benefits.....could you have run a mile and a half w/o running short of breath when you smoked? I used to run a nine minute mile and a half before I smoked, and no shortness of breath. Now I run it around 12 minutes 30 seconds.
Test your blood pressure w/o a smoke. Have a cigarette, then test your blood pressure again. During this time keep your attitude and stress levels at what you would say as same. The results are different. Smoking will actually raise your blood pressure.
[ April 05, 2004, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a confession to make. I think less of people when I hear they smoke. Realize that I used to be a smoker (25 pack years) and both my parents were, all my aunts and uncles (except one pair who quit), and my older brother (who also quit). When I was in high school and college nearly all my friends smoked. When I started work, smoking was still allowed in the workplace and I smoked away, totally oblivious of my effect on nonsmokers.
I know what addiction is like. I remember one time nearly going postal in the Toronto airport because after you get through customs but before you board your plane there is no place you can smoke. Not without going back out to the point that you will have to go through customs again, which takes an unknown length of time depending on the line, and so can't be risked.
Addiction changes your brain. It changes the mechanism inside the pleasure centers of your brain to reward the addiction, and in the process it also dulls the pleasure your brain is able to feel from everyday life. That is why, for instance, heroin addicts care more about heroin than they do about their children, parents, spouses, etc. The reward circuitry in their brains has been coopted away from love, honor, family and so on and toward the next hit. This is also why they get character problems, even if they had a good character before.
Nicotine does this neurochemical change to a much lesser degree, and yet it still does it a bit. Recovering nicotine addicts do experience depression, anxiety, irritability, and so on due to these neurological effects. They also care somewhat less about the things that bring other people joy. Their brains are trained away from those things, to a (luckily) mild extent.
So naturally they resist mightily any suggestion that they should give up their drug, and in addition to that, they are affected a little bit less by the suffering and needs of other people.
I have loads of admiration for Mrs. M. Like any prejudice it only applies to non-specific people. (I also love my mom a whole lot.) But it grieves me to hear that anyone smokes, and yes I tend to think less of people who do. I don't think it's a very honorable thing to do, smoking. And the idea of kissing a smoker is revolting to me, for instance.
So I guess this post is to urge people to please please quit, not because you are being forced to, but because you yourself choose not to have your brain taken over in that way. And because smoking is really icky. Switch to the patch, even, which decreases the damage to your lungs, and protects those around you from the ill-effects of your addiction. Then taper down off the patch for your own sake, so you'll know that you can do it, that you have that strength, and so you'll be free.
And I'll try to work on my prejudice, too. I'm sorry. It's wrong of me to feel that way about smokers. I will try to do better.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
