posted
Danzig, no offense taken. I do, however, think you clearly have no experience whatsoever with cancer or any terminal illness of any kind. I'll also excuse your callous disregard of all your loved ones who will be blessed with the opportunity to watch you rot away before their eyes over a matter of months, if not years.
Again, I'm not offended. There's a difference between being offended and simply thinking someone's an idiot.
Edit: I should be clear. If you want to smoke, that's your own choice (and thankfully, being an American, you fellow citizens won't have to pay for your choice should you develop complications). What I object to is painting cancer with the brush you've chosen.
[ March 31, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
King Lear, that's amusing. Most actors who don't smoke (but their character does, so they fake smoke clove cigarettes) say that clove smokes are worse than regular cigarettes.
They are worse for you health wise. The clove cigarette is a regular cigarrette but with ground cloves (the spice) in the tobacco, that gets in your lung which is why you're not supposed to inhale clove cigarrettes. They have amuch better flavor in the mouth (more like a cigar).
As to actors I haven't heard about using cloves besides normal cigs, but I have heard that some use herbal cigarrettes instead of normal cigs as they have no tobacco or addictive substances. ( the primary person I heard this about was an interview with the guy who played the 'smoking man' on the X-Files.)
Posts: 100 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know, odouls, people let down their guard and post stuff in response to a question, not expecting to be called names for it.
To be frank, I didn't read any responses to the original topic prior to posting. So I have no idea who posted that they smoke, and was not directing my post at any particular person.
posted
Here's my thinking-if a person stood around other people throwing rocks at them, people would get annoyed and most people would consider that fairly reasonable. Smoking hurts other people too-but if you dare get annoyed at that, most people think you're being unreasonable, and get angry at you. Why the difference?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best ad is this anti smoking shards of glass ice pop ad. It's brilliant and makes me laugh
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember my dad accidentally brushing his cigarette against me as we stood in a line at the grocery store. I was afraid to say anything, but still have a tiny little scar...
Flash forward. I hate the smell that surrounds my dad, though I love him.
Another flash. I fly from Florida to Philadelphia to see my dad at the hospital, where he has a very unattractive funnel-type thing in this nose, in order to clear his lungs while he's dying of lyng cancer.
Final flash. I stand at the doorway of the hospital room, heading for the airport and looking at my father, knowing I'll never see him alive again, and not being able to say anything that could convery how much I will miss him, and how much I loved and valued him, and pretending it isn't the end.
Why do I not smoke? Why do I wish no one ever thought about wrapping tobacco in a piece of paper?
I give everyone their freedom of choice. Just please don't ask me to love it. I wish we didn't do this to ourselves. A person I love dearly smokes, and hides it from me, pretending I don't know she's sneaking outside for a cigarette. What can I say?
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate that argument of personal right to smoke. I really do. Its what everyone always cites, but....your right to swing your arm stops where it hits my face. And the right of people to breath, and not be at risk for illness due to second-hand smoke really ought to supercede the right of people to harm themselves smoking. So yes, let them smoke-AWAY from people who don't smoke and don't want to be around it. But ethically, they should not be allowed to smoke around people who could be harmed by it.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is unreasonable because smoking does not cause instant harm to the passer-by. Rocks will. Not to mention there is only a 1 in 30,000 chance that you will develop complications from second hand smoke if you are exposed to it regularly. That is most of the day.
That being said, I know people with allergies have problems with smoke. However, this is a small minority. Why should we cater to the minority?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Instead I got to spend time with a dying patient and her family. I got to explain to the family this afternoon that the patient has a terminal condition, and will probably be dead within the week.
Then I got to sit next to the patient while her family held her hands and I told her the very same thing. Two weeks ago I told her that her emphysema is too bad to withstand surgery so that her severe heart failure and failing heart valves cannot be surgically corrected. Today I had to tell her that her aorta clotted off completely, so that her legs have turned blue and painful, and are slowly dying. They will begin to rot away over the next few days until her kidneys fail and then she will die. The pain in her dying legs is already excruciating. Surgery could fix it, of course. But she can't have surgery. Her smoking has ruined her lungs, her heart, and her blood vessels, and her body is now dying, literally.
I have her on a morphine drip, with orders to call me anytime she needs something.
I actually like the smell of smoke. But after looking at people like her I could never choose to smoke.
posted
Why should you avoid causing harm for your own gratification? Because its wrong to hurt other people for no reason other than that you don't want to move out further.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are missing the point of my argument. Either that, or you are deliberately sidestepping it, as many of you people do. Avoiding the real point in favour of anecdotes. No worry, I will clarify.
The people to whom cigarette smoke causes instant harm are but a small, small minority. It is not as if it were a large section of the populous that is afflicted. It does not make since to change the habits of the majority, real or simple, to suit the wants of another group. It makes less sense to change the established ways for a smaller group.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, very simple. She can just avoid eating in restaurants, walking by doorways, or associating with smokers. She can continue to quit jobs and lose jobs and avoid jobs that bring her in close proximity with smokers.
I'm not saying all smoking should be banned. But it's NOT "that simple", and there's no need for swearing and being rude.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be a good way for smokers to quit without the black-sheep mentality
A little aside. California was one (if not the first) social experiment when it came to attempts to eliminate this addiction from the population. kudos, though it came right as I arrived here.
Telling smokers that they are abhorrent, mean, stinky, and otherwise unwelcome individuals doesn't work. It's not a good message to send to youngsters and/or the addicted. It backfires. "Ok, so I do this thing that everyone thinks is wrong. I'm hooked on it. My friends are hooked on it. How can it be wrong? We all get along, except for you, claiming to be the majority! Maybe YOU're wrong and me and my friends are right?"
posted
Umm, actually it is real easy to avoid smokers in restaurants. I like to call it the "Go to another restaurant" plan. This is where you go to another one, and eat there. And no, If one person wants to go to a place where many people smoke, the place should not be made non smoking for one person.
That is my point, the minority should not dictate the majority, real or simple, on anything. It seems to me that all people are doing is giving me anecdote, not an argument against. It is like I said, that is all you people do.
EDIT: Sorry if I was rude, but I am seeing nothing but the standard "smoking is the devil" crap from him/her (sorry, I am not good with remembering genders here) as I get from all those anti-smoking activists.
posted
So whatever the minority wants should go? What if the minority wants to kill everyone who has a certain characteristic? I guess the minority who are against shouldn't be able to stop the majority, though, right? The majority's bigger; they should be able to do whatever they want.
edit: Toretha is NOT just saying "smoking is the devil." Really. Are you even reading her posts? She gets sick if she has to smell smoke. A lot of people do. I do. My brother does. My mom does. How do you feel about pollution? Do you think it's okay for companies to pollute the air with smog?
another edit: Don't just apologize for being rude. STOP BEING RUDE. Don't call Toretha a nut-job.
posted
Smoking is on more of a personal level. Cigarette smoke is not everywhere. I do believe that walking past a person that is smoking is going to be fine. I mean, it takes several minutes for allergic reactions to set in. I doubt that opening a door and walking past the cast-aside smokers that don't want to travle too far will cause much trouble. It cretianly wont kill you.
EDIT: I was apoligizing to everyone for the curse word, not for cursing at anyone. But yes, I will stop being rude.
posted
You said that if someone doesn't like smoke they just shouldn't go to a place where there is any. All the bowling places around here allow smoke. And it's not just one little area of the places that has a cloud of smoke around it, it's the WHOLE PLACE. I have to breath smoke the whole time if I want to bowl. Places have to provide access for the disabled; why shouldn't they have to provide clean air for the people who need it?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after some of the comments made, I think I might not quit. Just to piss off the non-smokers who want to run my life. Maybe I'll become an alcoholic, get hooked on crack, or maybe even some sick psycho.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Umm, actually it is real easy to avoid smokers in restaurants. I like to call it the "Go to another restaurant" plan. This is where you go to another one, and eat there. And no, If one person wants to go to a place where many people smoke, the place should not be made non smoking for one person.
The point is, public places ought to be made accessible to everyone. As RRR said, we have to make ramps and all that to make resturants handicapped accessible. Well, there are other less obvious handicaps-LIKE BEING UNABLE TO BE AROUND SMOKE! So because people like my family happen to have handicaps that we can't help, WE should be forced to go elsewhere in order to accomodate the addictions of people who chose to be that way?
quote: That is my point, the minority should not dictate the majority, real or simple, on anything. It seems to me that all people are doing is giving me anecdote, not an argument against. It is like I said, that is all you people do.
It has before. Ramps to buildings. Resturants opened to all races. Minorities are entitled to equal treatment under law as majorities. And I gave you an argument-breathing is a NEED. Smoking is a WANT. And YOU have yet to explain how the desire to indulge a want gives anyone the right to interfere with someone else's need to BREATH. According to the basic principles of ethics, all people have to right to try to get their needs and those wants WHICH DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE NEEDS OF OTHERS. Tell me how the current places of smoking fit with ethics.
Or, if ethics isn't enough, here's law:
According to Title III for the Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Accomodations must comply with basic requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation and unequal treatment.
quote:Sorry if I was rude, but I am seeing nothing but the standard "smoking is the devil" crap from him/her (sorry, I am not good with remembering genders here) as I get from all those anti-smoking activists.
You see that because you don't want to see anything more. It isn't what I'm saying. (i'm female, btw) What I'm saying is that it is a direct danger that is going unadressed and is hurting people.
quote: Smoking is on more of a personal level. Cigarette smoke is not everywhere. I do believe that walking past a person that is smoking is going to be fine. I mean, it takes several minutes for allergic reactions to set in. I doubt that opening a door and walking past the cast-aside smokers that don't want to travle too far will cause much trouble. It cretianly wont kill you.
It doesn't have to be everywhere. Its enough places. You're welcome to believe its ly with fine-but I know its not. You're speaking from conjecture, I from experience-and not only my own. I've been on steriods, codiene and immune system depressants for months (except the last one) BECAUSE of walking by people in doorways smoking, and working in an office with people who smoke outside then come in smelling of smoke. My mother was hospitalized because a smoker sat next to her in mass. You call having to quit your job not much trouble? Or staying in the hospital? How about being sick for months at a time? How much does it take to qualify as TROUBLE?
posted
I'm not going to make a lengthy post, because unlike many of you, I think perhaps I lack the self-control to keep it polite.
First of all, I'm around Toretha a lot, and I hope it's perfectly clear that she's not exagerrating at all. I've never met anyone as sensitive to smoke as her, and it's not her fault she's burdened with that handicap. Why make her suffer for something that she has no control over? Just get control of your (**omit random expletives**) habit and keep smoking to the appropriate places.
SoberTillNoon - wow. Just wow. I just wanna say that I can't BELIEVE you would suggest the "go to another restaurant plan". What kind of an ego must you have to automatically assume that you can lay claim over a public place, and that just because you've got a cigarette in your hand you can restrict others from the benefit of that place. Just go outside, man. It's not that difficult. Just a little sacrifice you can make to make everyone's life a little easier. And, since you're already polluting the atmosphere and lending to the problem of secondhand smoke, is that really so much to ask?
So much for not making a lengthy post. I really feel like ranting, but Toretha's insisting that I be polite so I'm going to stop now.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to add my agreement to what Avadaru just said. Anna's quality of life is seriously damaged because people can't be bothered to do simple things that would protect her. They prefer to believe it's not true rather than to go a little out of their way. Anna HATES having to not go to things, like when her debate club meets at restaurants where there is smoke. She hates having to ask people not to smoke around her, or to hold dorm meetings in a smoke free venue, for instance. Yet she can't breathe when exposed to it. Breathing is unfortunately necessary.
It makes me pretty angry, too. Anna's gotten very sick this year trying to ignore it, and work around it. She's gotten very sick telling herself to just be tough, and take more medicine, or whatever. The medicine isn't working well. There are lots of bad side effects to it. For one thing, it intereferes with her sleep. There are a lot of long term bad side effects to taking cortisone and stuff like that too. Bone problems, and other horrible things. (My mom got a hysterical reaction to prednisone and had to be in a hospital for six weeks when I was a kid. That was before they really realized how dangerous it could be. Back when they thought it was a miracle drug. She was taking it for inner ear problems.)
And then people don't believe her.
It's not because they don't but because they just simply refuse to. If they did, they might have to admit that they ought to change somehow, to do something differently, I guess. So it's just easier for them to pretend to themselves that it's not real. Unfortunately that won't work for Anna. Because of their selfishness she's gotten very sick. Then they want to say she is just whining. It makes me quite angry, for sure.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sensitivity to smoke is not technically a disability. It is not covered under the ADA and therefore restaurants and bars have no legal obligation to accommodate those who are sensitive or allergic to smoke (unless there is a state law that requires them to do so). Banning smoking in places such federal buildings, schools, and hospitals is one thing. Banning smoking in privately-owned businesses is quite another. I am uncomfortable with that idea of the government telling people what they can and cannot do on their private property.
With all due respect to Toretha and RRR, your beef is not really with the smokers in bars and restaurants. It is with the owners of the places that allow smoking. Try to see things from their perspective - you are 2 people. If they disallow smoking, y'all will come to their restaurants, but how many smokers will stop coming? Is it really fair to ask people to risk losing income and possibly their businesses to accommodate your preferences? This has happened in NYC, where there is a smoking ban in bars. Some bars have closed and others have lost huge amounts of money.
Obviously it is in the best interest of most privately-owned business to ban smoking on their property. Who would go into a grocery store that allowed smoking, for instance. But recreational facilities earn a lot of their profits from smokers and these places can be avoided by non-smokers without undue hardship.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
(2) DISABILITY- The term `disability' means, with respect to an individual--
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
Well, asthma with severe reactions to smoke does that. So it does fall under the category of disbility
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have reactions nearly as severe as Toretha's, but cigarette smoke makes me physically ill -- and yes, StN, sometimes all it takes is walking past someone who is smoking. You want me to vomit on your shoes? Blow smoke in my face.
I remember when smoking was allowed on domestic flights. *turns green* I remember the relief when it wasn't any longer.
My quality of life is vastly improved by the fact that California no longer allows smoking inside bars and restaurants -- and so is that of all waiter-staff who are sensitive to smoke. They cannot just "go to another restaurant"!
I have a fair amount of sympathy for long-time smokers who can't quit. It must be very difficult to no longer be allowed to smoke many places, but not be able to stop smoking. I have friends who are smokers. But, forgive me, I cannot often spend much time around them. Even when they are not smoking, they reek -- and I cough.
OTOH, smokers who believe that they have a RIGHT to spew their toxins in my direction . . . Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think nicotine should be a controlled substance, without a doubt.
rivka,
Everytime I find myself behind a bus (spewing toxins in my direction, nay engulfing the entire area I might seek a breath) I get offended. But, then, it's kind of hard to demonize an automobile, particularly one of the public transport variety.
no wait. SUV's are demon vehicles. The rest are ok, so long as we need to get somewhere.
posted
I do have a comment on the indoor/outdoor. I do prefer to smoke outdoors. And most places where I worked in the past, you really had to go out of your way to get to the employees that smoked. I know when I unloaded trucks at a department store it was outside the garage. No customer goes back there, and if they do......they have bigger issues than smokers.
I try to be polite with my smoking (I was asthmatic as a kid. grew out of it). However, for me, it is when people start telling me how to live that I stop giving a rat's butt about ya (not you specific).
Quit date is next April. If I get stationed in NY as an instructor, then I will probably be glad I quit as cigs are expensive up there.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've grown up my entire life around unapologetic smokers. My clothing stinks so much of cigarette smoke that I have to explain it sometimes to my friends. "No, no, I don't smoke. My Bummy does."
When I was in fifth grade (and stupid), I thought that the smart thing to do was to get my Bummy to stop smoking. She laughed and told me to mind my business. I tried again, and she got annoyed. I don't really try, now, because she just won't.
I can't ask my Bummy and Grandad to smoke outside -- they get very angry! Teachers have asked them to smoke outside (very pushy, weird teachers) and Bummy laid the SMACK-DOWN. Honestly, this is their house!
So, yes, our ceilings are yellow and we wash our walls a lot.
I'm lucky, because I am in no way bothered by cigarette smoke (someone can blow it in my face and it'll not bother me; I probably won't even notice it). But I won't ever smoke.
Mostly because my Bummy and Grandad spend somewhere around $60 a week on cigarettes. That's my college money! Gone!!!
That sucks. Look forward to having a smoke-free home of your own? Dunno what else to say. I don't know a single smoker who isn't convinced deep down at the gut level that it's a disgusting unhealthy habit.
The price of a gallon of gasoline is quickly catching up to that of a pack of smokes.
posted
But when you come inside after smoking, your clothing stinks of smoke. It has the same effect, even if you aren't currently smoking.
And when people determined to continue smoking make me give UP major parts of my life because if I don't, I get drugged up to my eyeballs, I get upset too. But I'm forced into this. You're not. You don't like it-STOP!
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The definition of "individual with a disability" is fraught with conditions and must be applied on a case-by-case basis.
quote:A modification is not required if it would "fundamentally alter" the goods, services, or operations of the public accommodation.
In most states, having separate smoking sections is all that is needed for reasonable accommodation. I agree that they can be ineffective and I have had to leave restaurants when I was with my best friend, Cara (who has a similar reaction to smoke that you do, Toretha). It would be nice if all restaurants had separate dining rooms for smokers (like the O'Charleys near us), but that's usually not an option.
I don't want to get into a semantic ADA interpretation fest, but a lawsuit against a restaurant or bar in your area would probably not be successful. One against your employer probably would be successful (as I recall, they could have and should have easily accommodated you and spitefully refused to do so).
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand your posts. You have a very strong reaction to smoke. Are you surrounded by smokers? You work in a smoke-filled environment?
posted
You are using the parellel of disabled people. This is not comparable, seeing that a ramp does not cause anyone to change their way of life, outside a few more steps to go around the ramp.
Mrs.M thank you. I need all the help I can get.
I know that people that react badly are out out, but you have to realize that you are a very small number. A number that is almost negligible. I feel bad for the people that are put out by smoking, but there is nothing that can be done at this time without heavy medication. Why sould five or six people say that a private establishment should not allow smokin when more than 100 people are there smoking?
posted
It may be considered acceptable. But it isn't, because it doesn't work. What is considered acceptable is part of what needs to change.
And fallow, yes, I was. I work at the Louisiana School for the Deaf. I WAS in the maintenance department. Everyone smoked but me, and all the smoke on their clothes made me sick in the office, and all the smoke from outside drifted in and made me more sick. I transferred 3 weeks ago, after having tried to tough it out and hope things got better, or that people would eventually give in to my requests for change since June. I now work in a different department, with fewer smokers, so I'm now safe.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sobertillnoon, how would you respond to her statement that breathing is a need and smoking is a want?
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Do you like to go camping? If so, how do you react to a campfire? I've always found that my clothes and gear stink mightily of campfire when I get back home. Typically it gives me warm fuzzies, unless I bury my nose in a jacket or sweater and inhale deeply (not that I'm prone to this kind of behavior or anything). Then, even campfire smoke smells noxious and makes me dizzy.
posted
My dad was a heavy smoker, two packs a day. The rest of us hated it.
When he was 47 he lost a lung to lung cancer. The pain of it -- and being down to one lung -- finally convinced him to stop. After that, he hated cigarettes too, and wished that tobacco could be outlawed.
His health was never the same after he lost the lung. He ate too much and didn't exercise enough, and 10 years later he died of a heart attack.
I hate cigarettes.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would respond like this: smoking is a want shared by a greater number of poeple than the number of people severly sensitive to it. Last I checked this was a democracy, where the majority rules.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
