Smokers........... "You Bastards!"

Originally posted by junglelord
I love the polite response

Perhaps you reap what you sow. You have NO room to talk about politeness or being supportive.

pain management especially chronic pain has nothing to do with a useless addiction

Keep telling yourself that. And thanks for helping me to make my point.

See how ridiculous it is to have these judgments made about YOUR addiction? I just don't understand how a person can justify their own addiction for one substance, yet ridicule and disparage someone else's addiction that they don't understand. It seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

well I have a medical perscription and its not addictive
so your barking up the wrong tree
have a smoke

Cigarettes are perfectly legal.

And you can't convince me that pot isn't emotionally addictive. Sorry.

And... I don't smoke. I just have a certain amount of compassion for those who do.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And you can't convince me that pot isn't emotionally addictive. Sorry.

It definately is. Everything is addictive one way or the other. It's called a habit for a reason. Habits become addictions. Whether it's the habit of clicking your teeth when nervous. It will become an addiction if done for long enough.

This is THE point!!!!!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am an ex-smoker. I feel sorry for smokers today. They're being banned from everywhere. I totally think there should be certain bars and restaurants that serve smokers. And if non-smokers want to go there, fine. But shut up. It's a smoker's bar and you know that. If you don't like it, get the heck out. Go to one of the 9 bars that prohibit smoking.

I think smokers are one of the few remaining people that it's ok to discriminate against. And I disagree with it.

Many people who quit smoking think that now EVERYONE should quit smoking. I hate those people! Militant ex-smokers I call them. It's like they don't remember what it was like to smoke.

I smile at smokers and sometimes tell them that their cigarette smells so good to me, because it does! I LOVED smoking! So, just know that there's at least one non-smoker out here who still loves you and supports your right to smoke.

Well said.

Sorry for being away for 24 hrs. I have a life. Unlike what a non-smoker suggested I didn't have. I'm not surprised at the conversation here. Smokers taking it fairly quietly on the chin and the vocal non-smokers dealing out tripe. Yes, tripe.

BTW, don't try to tell me what cigarettes do to the body, I've probably been smoking longer than you've been alive. Started in '69.

BTW Grady, reciprocity of manners. I don't smoke around non-smokers, you let me have at least one area where I can smoke, while I drink my coffee, beer, whatever. Those 2 don't go together now. If I want to drink I have to do it in the bar, if I want to smoke I have to leave my beer, or finish it and then go outside.

I am a non-smoker who happens to be highly allergic to a variety of airborne substances including cigarette smoke, scented perfumes, etc. Sometimes when someone comes up next to me or into a bus shelter and lights up, I get so angry I feel as though they arrived picking their noses so they could fling the boogers at me; or came into the sanctuary of my home just because they could turn the knob-- but then (as I move somewhere else), I think about it.

Most of the time, people who do this are at least a generation older than me; remnants from a time when smoking was not only socially acceptable, it was looked upon favorably. It must be very hard to take up such an expensive habit (being the cool thing to do at the time ) only to discover in your golden years that the world seems to suddenly despise you because your physiology (and perhaps the sentimental feelings associated with memories from your youth) prevents you from quitting. I am sympathetic to the old folks out there in this situation and something (humane) needs to be done about it.

As for the young pups in high school or in their 20's, they need to be discouraged up front from ever getting started. As tough as regulations are now, you can be sure they will only get harder to cope with as a smoker over time. Heck, we may even reach a point where the next generation flees to the city limits to light up! At any rate, I think the only reasonable compromise here is to conduct some serious research into alternatives smokers find acceptable to cigarettes (the patches, gums, lasers and what-have-you obviously are not working!).

I say if the old folks want to smoke after years of contributing to society, they should be given alternatives that satisfy their cravings in a manner that does not impinge upon the air they must share with others. We must, however draw the line now and remove nicotine from general public access. Imposing age limits has limited the number of teenage smokers and although it would not completely irradicate the recruitment of new smokers, it would be a big step in the right direction. Rather than banning cigarettes across the board, why not continue to raise the age limits over time until the last generation of baby boomers passes on?

In addition, rather banning smoking in public places without alternative nicotine replacement, someone needs to invent a nicotine product smokers would actually want to use in zones where smoking is not allowed. Rather than sending a 90-year-old grandmother out into a cold winter's night to smoke while the rest of the family remains indoors, she could stay in as well, enjoying them and keeping all of that nicotine (among other things) to herself.

We should not have to make this an either/or debate. Neither group has the right to force its lifestyle on the other except in cases where members are placed in some sort of danger. Sadly, nicotine as it is delivered now is the reason this is happening. It is the design of the cigarette itself that is responsible for so much misery rather than the choices people make. There are many instances on both sides where needs of one group infringe upon the rights held dear by the other. Smokers and non-smokers alike never actively chose to harm the other side; it was merely an unfortunate side-effect derived from the inherent nature of smoking; we all share the air but we do not share each other's bodies.

If people choose to smoke until they croak, I have no desire to take that choice away. I just want to go about my business without having to stumble away in an embarassing, debilitating spasm of coughs, gasping and phlegm... I move away if I see the light before the exhalation but when it's too late-- If you see someone in respiratory distress and wish to help, could you please extinguish the butt first? I know you're trying to help but it's the smoke, not you that's hurting me.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by X-tal_Phusion]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by X-tal_Phusion]

Nice post.

The only thing about alternative nicotene products is this. It doesn't stop all cravings. What I mean is that the tobacco companies put things like ammonnia in them. If you don't know, ammonnia is extremely addictive. It's one of the main ingredients to crack coc aine.

I use the nicotene lossenge right now. It helps with the cravings but not totally. I believe it's the ammonnia addiction that I'm feeling.

That is exactly the kind of thing research needs to address in designing alternative delivery systems! It may be harmful but by making it an optional additive in a contained product, it would not affect those around you and you could go where you pleased in comfort. That is the point I am trying to make here.

I was just pointing out the flaws of the nicotene alternatives.

On a side note, has anyone tried the new prescription drug to help stop smoking? I can't remember the name. I heard it works from a few people.

Another question. Is that covered by insurance? It should since obese people are getting tax breaks for their Jenny Craig.

X-tal_Phusion, smoking is as much a habit as it is an addiction. The "hand to mouth" action is a part of that. Gum or patch doesn't address this.

BTW, your previous post was a peach. All that smokers want is a place of their own, not infringe on non-smokers. Is that too much to ask for? If not, why not?

The world wide Anti-Smoking campaign is an excersize in subjugation and mind control of the masses. Before you laugh get this.....If our governments used the same campaign techniques to get you to quit smoking on things like banning cars that use fuel and spew toxic gases enmasse and not like a little old pair of lungs puffing out smoke, wouldn't that be money well spent ?

I can hear the moans now...you cant stop us using our cars ?

Get real people smoking and blowing the discarded crap out in a few litres of pollution is infintesimal compared to the damage exhaust fumes, Power stations, steel mills and industry in general do to our health and effect the enviroment.

Condition the people to do what we say and then get the people to police it for us is the message being portrayed here. The only reason Govt's are showing concern about smokers is purely the cost to their health systems and nothing more

Originally posted by intrepid
BTW, your previous post was a peach.

All that smokers want is a place of their own, not infringe on non-smokers. Is that too much to ask for? If not, why not?

Now this IS the heart of it all. Why can't we accommodate the smokers also? How can we discriminate smokers? BTW, I have heard hearsay from others that they were refused a job because they smoked.

Originally posted by Griff
Now this IS the heart of it all. Why can't we accommodate the smokers also? How can we discriminate smokers? BTW, I have heard hearsay from others that they were refused a job because they smoked.

Employers aren't stupid, if you do the maths "25 a day habit" brings about less productivity due to more breaks and the statistic that they get sicker more often.

I woudn't employ one even if they were the best candidate.

Originally posted by mazzroth
I woudn't employ one even if they were the best candidate.

Which is discrimination at it's core. So, you wouldn't hire a black person because they MAY get sickle cell anemia? That's basically what you're saying.

Originally posted by mazzroth

Originally posted by Griff
Now this IS the heart of it all. Why can't we accommodate the smokers also? How can we discriminate smokers? BTW, I have heard hearsay from others that they were refused a job because they smoked.

Employers aren't stupid, if you do the maths "25 a day habit" brings about less productivity due to more breaks and the statistic that they get sicker more often.

You're joking right? EVERYONE gets the same breaks. Two 15's and a 30 min lunch.

I woudn't employ one even if they were the best candidate.

And with that attitude you would go out of business.

Originally posted by intrepid
You're joking right? EVERYONE gets the same breaks. Two 15's and a 30 min lunch.

Actually were I work, I could go down and smoke a cig whenever I wanted. It would be about once every 1.5 to 2 hours. But, the non-smokers are also allowed to take a break and take a walk if they want. It is the productivity that counts, not the amount of breaks.

Case in point. I used to smoke but I would produce twice as much work as a collegue of mine who didn't smoke. Guess who still works there.

Griff,

That's a bit of a stretch.no? One IS a smoker the other MAY get Sickle cell anemia. (?) Don't take that the wrong way. I smoke and agree with much of what's been posted in this thread. I just felt that your above "comparision" was really testing the elasticity afforded to analogies.

As for mazzroth's mention that smokers are less productive and more prone to illness, it's true whether one wants to agree with it or not. I recall discussing just that with my district manager back in the mid-80s, while working for the Southland Corp. More prone to take breaks, more sick days, etc. i.e. less productivity.

Me? I'd find it quite difficult to work in today's office environments as I would be what many consider a heavy smoker. Good thing I work from home and can step outside whenever I damn well please.

 



[edit on 2-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Griff,

That's a bit of a stretch.no? One IS a smoker the other MAY get Sickle cell anemia. (?) Don't take that the wrong way. I smoke and agree with much of what's been posted in this thread. I just felt that your above "comparision" was really testing the elasticity afforded to analogies.

Yes, probably. How about this. Perfume wearer. How would people like it if I didn't hire people because they came in smelling like a French hooker?

It gives me a headache, makes me ill and I can't breath around it. At least I would go outside and smoke. I have to endure your (you as in general you) perfume ALL DAY LONG.

I agree with your overall point, don't get me wrong. To consider one potential employee over another simply because the Don't smoke would be ridiculous not to mention a clear form of discrimination. Though, I'm sure it does happen.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Though, I'm sure it does happen.

That's why I made sure I said it was hearsay. Not a one liner.