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

I am not against smokers having their own places. If one of the 3 bus stops in my apartment complex was designated for smokers, I would neither go there nor object to the designation (in fact, I would be relieved because then smokers would not try to smoke near me).

For me, problems start when you attempt to partition the same space such as a restaurant. Most do not have the high-tech ventilation required to keep the non-smoking area smoke free but if they did, then by all means let a fella like yourself have his smoke & beer together in the same restaurants as everyone else! The issue there is cost and most places are neither willing nor able to spend that kind of money to invest in the comfort of a shrinking minority. So, they cater to the larger client pool simply because it's cheaper; not because it's the right thing to do.

I still think we should do everything possible to discourage the recruitment of new smokers though. As such, smoking areas should cater to established smokers (in a given age bracket) so long as the cigarette remains the product of choice. I seek to eliminate smoking over time (raising age brackets to keep them just out of reach for future generations) rather than exacting cruelty in one swift swipe of a pen. Smoking is not a choice for everyone and it is those people who deserve the most sympathy. Those who chose to take up the habit years ago before all the research was published also deserve consideration while those who took it up more recently, despite the findings must have made the decision despite the obvious consequences for their actions. The latter group accepted cigarettes, health concerns and smoking bans as a packaged deal.

True, while not everyone smokes for the same reasons, I do have sympathy for two of three smoking groups and it was them I refered to in my post. If you do happen to fall into that final group, them I am sorry for your predicament. Unlike those who are addicted or began smoking by choice decades ago, young smokers were warned about the dangers of smoking (to themselves as well as others) just as they were also warned about drinking, recreational drugs and unprotected sex. When we make mistakes we must be prepared to bear the consequences of our actions. In short, the final group should have known better but for some reason, decided to go ahead and smoke anyway.

I suppose what I find most disturbing about this debate is that it seems to be a form of segregation. I think all of us would be a lot happier if we could all share the same public spaces somehow. Rather than attacking the smoker, I chose to attack the cigarette itself. I am fully aware that current nicotine replacement products are not adequate substitutes. Rather than engaging in a rights-fight, I would rather combine our resources and focus them on attacking the problem at its core. What you choose to do with your body is your choice and I have no right to tell you how to take care of yourself. Likewise, you have no right to trigger an illness in me I did not chose to have.

I am merely seeking a compromise which allows you to continue enjoying your smoke without my having to suffer from the nearby presence of the activity in its current form. Something needs to be done about the dispersion of the SMOKE itself! Our concerns should be focused on those who suffer (smoker/nonsmoker) because of choices they either made without sufficient information (upon which to base an educated decision) or never had the chance to make at all. I have little sympathy for those who say "Damn the consequences! I'll do what I want and I don't care who it hurts!" I do not believe the majority of smokers fall into this category.

The whole thing saddens me deeply. I can see the hurt in smoker's eyes when their arrival to an area provokes those around them to vacate. I have watched people back up as smokers approached to ask for directions or the time... It must be awful. This has to end somehow.

I remember when the bus driver smoked in the little school buses and doctors smoked on their rounds and parents keep the windows up and smoked you to death......
yeah those were the days....
any body got a Marlbourough

People, I have followed this debate thread, and found some of it strange and twisted, some of it compassionate, and everything in between. But for a forum that is about conspiracy, a lot of you have missed the point.

This worldwide movement to remove all smoke, everywhere, is a conspiracy.

Now first off, I am not a smoker. I'm not defending the habit. I'm not a person with an agenda on this. But I have, here and in every day life, seen the effects of this war.

The power to turn person against person in this matter is evil. And moreover, it goes against the idea of freedom. To ban something as a public 'evil' is one thing, but to portray those who do this as evil is another thing entirely. To say that nothing less than total compliance with a group mentality is to take away the freedom of choice. That is a slippery slope indeed.

To feel that there is no room for middle ground, no room to allow our fellow humans to choose in a manner that is personally abhorrent, is the very essence of stifling freedom. And our government leads the way in this.

It all goes back to the leadership choosing what a person may or may not do based on the safety of that action. Case in point: the wearing of a helmet while riding a motorcycle. It should be the choice of the rider, as they will be the ones with their brains splattered on the pavement. Smoking is a personal choice, and the laws that put a stigma on those people are a conspiracy to abort the freedom and rights of that group of citizens.

Should some laws be enacted to protect the non-smoking group? Yes. But should the laws be skewed to make it so hard to be a smoker that the choice is de facto outlawed? No, because then you are using the law to give an unfair advantage to one segment of society at the expense of another.

Take the case of clubs/bars. If a club chooses to ban smoking, then they would be using that to attract those who want to party in a clean and breathable atmosphere. And conversely, a club that allowed smoking would attract those who wanted a puff with every drink and dance. What would this attitude hurt? This would be the free market operating within the framework of an open and honest society.

But as long as you let the government decide right from wrong, you will remain tools of those who manipulate the perception of freedoms. I expected better here at ATS.

Originally posted by Griff

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 like that point. Because overpowering perfume and cologne are sometimes worse than getting hit with smoke. In my opinion anyway. Maybe someone can invent a smell-o-meter, and ticket people who generate a smell a certain distance from them, haha.

Originally posted by junglelord
I remember when the bus driver smoked in the little school buses and doctors smoked on their rounds and parents keep the windows up and smoked you to death......
yeah those were the days....
any body got a Marlbourough

back in the day, i would sit between my parents in their little S-10 pickup in 90 degree weather and the window up.

back in the day......

when the schools nurses office didn't have a locked medicine cabinet filled with asthma medications for the students!!!

this is one thing you can't deny....when I was young, there was more smokers, and they smoked everywhere...and yet us kids managed to breath easier than alot of the kids today are. I think there is a conspiracy within the anti-smoking blitz. once the epa was formed they started branding many of the byproducts of the oil industry as hazardous wastes....thus regulating their disposal, making it more expensive to dispose. 95% of the chemicals that are used in fragrances are synthetic substances that are from the petrol industry...they include benzene derivatives, aldehydes and many other known toxics and sensitizers.

I would propose that being so expensive to dispose of these substance, they kind of found a way to not dispose of them, instead throwing them into our products every chance they got.
now that so many are sick, well, they have to come up with an explanation somehow...smoking, ya, that's the culprit....

I've actually had very little problem from non-smokers, even though I live in California, which is likely to one day become the first state where Marijuana is legal and Tobacco isn't.

A little consideration goes a long way. I smoke outside and I stay away from crowded areas. Simple enough.

There is some extremist propaganda out there claiming that cigarettes have a larger effective radius than a tactical nuclear weapon (I love the commercial that shows the fumes from a single cigarette forming a caution tape than runs all the way out to the street from a 4 story building), but nobody seems to actually buy it. In 4 years I've had exactly two people ask me to put a cigarette out, and one of those was because he was about to start placing explosives (I was working in an open pit mine at the time).

And even I can see the argument against smokers in certain situations.
I consider it bad form to accept permission to smoke in a non-smoker's home or car, or even in that of a smoker if there are kids present (even if the host does it themself). Its a flogging offense to smoke while standing in such close proximity to someone that you have to hold the cigarette above shoulder level to move without burning anyone, because that friggin hurts.

I've found that more than sufficient to keep people around me comfortable, and no great sacrifice on my part. As for the people who think that I'm giving them cancer from 20 feet away in an open area (and I've only ever met one) they are out of their minds. From 20 feet away i could be sucking on the pin of a live grenade and they would probably make it out alive. I find it fascinating that anybody who is that afraid of smoke would ever ride in a car. Besides the obvious danger of an exhaust leak, what if somebody farts? That smell isn't magic you know: you're breathing in poo.

Originally posted by junglelord
I remember when the bus driver smoked in the little school buses and doctors smoked on their rounds and parents keep the windows up and smoked you to death......
yeah those were the days....
any body got a Marlbourough

And what has this got to do with this topic?
anybody spot a Marlbotroll?

My single issue with smokers is as follows. I have severe allergies to Cigarette Smoke. Why is it that smokers when they go outside and smoke take one step away from the doorway and light up and take Great Pride in blowing their exhaust into my face when I need to enter the building for what ever purpose. If smokers had any consideration for non-smokers why not walk around the building to light up away from common entrances.

All it takes for me is to inhale one breath of Cigarette smoke and I am stuffed up all day.

Smokers are killing themselves slowly and effecting the lives of others and oblivious to the results.

That being said I do know many Smokers whom are considerate of non-smokers and will go out of their way to avoid offending others.

Why don't we just ban the use of this addictive product as it wouldn't kill people to quit?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by junglelord
I remember when the bus driver smoked in the little school buses and doctors smoked on their rounds and parents keep the windows up and smoked you to death......
yeah those were the days....
any body got a Marlbourough

And what has this got to do with this topic?
anybody spot a Marlbotroll?

It has everything to do with the topic as before there were any restrictions thats the world we live in and some would have us go back to that.
Probably someone like yourself would love that.


so go troll yourself.

Originally posted by junglelord


It has everything to do with the topic as before there were any restrictions thats the world we live in and some would have us go back to that.
Probably someone like yourself would love that.


so go troll yourself.

You're obviously not reading my posts then. Who said anything about going back to those days? Only YOU. I'll repeat it slower just for you. I don't even smoke in the house. We're just looking for a FEW places where we can enjoy, well whatever, with a smoke.

Trolls? Hey, I just call them as I see them.

Originally posted by hal5000
My single issue with smokers is as follows. I have severe allergies to Cigarette Smoke. Why is it that smokers when they go outside and smoke take one step away from the doorway and light up and take Great Pride in blowing their exhaust into my face when I need to enter the building for what ever purpose. If smokers had any consideration for non-smokers why not walk around the building to light up away from common entrances.

All it takes for me is to inhale one breath of Cigarette smoke and I am stuffed up all day.

I'm sorry but IMO you are the one with the allergy and it's up to you to take care of yourself, not others. There are plenty of places to go these days that are smoke free. I smoke and I can honestly say I've never met anyone who intentionally blows smoke in peoples faces for no apparent reason. First they corner all the smokers in a smoking section, then they kick them outside, now you want them to go around the corner? I'm sorry there are much more smokers than people who are allergic to smoke, so you will just have to do a better job avoiding them.

Why don't we just ban the use of this addictive product as it wouldn't kill people to quit?

Because we live in a free society, thats a start. Why don't they ban oil, it's much more addictive and many people die in wars for oil. Try educating people and let them make their own choices. Going around banning everything thats unhealthy will never happen in America, and if it does im outta here.

OK, Let the banning begin. Let's take just one other example, and look at logical reasons to ban it. Now to be on par with tobacco, it must be something that is not useful, except for the enjoyment of the user, and must be offensive to another group.

How about banning swimming. There is no practical good that comes from this. the exercise that one gets, while possibly beneficial, could just as easily be had in other ways. Swimmers drown every year, including children. Having a pool at home is one of the more dangerous things possible, and makes homeowners insurance more costly.

Firefighters, and other first responders, are at additional risk when handling such emergencies, not to mention the cost to the public as a whole. Man should have progressed far enough on the evolutionary path by this time to no longer feel compelled to re-enter the water for pleasure.

Coupled with the obesity factor, public swimming is an offense to the eyes, just waiting for a poor unprepared victim to wonder by. Since swimmers make waves (sorry), passing non swimmers are in danger of coming in contact with a wide range of chemicals used in pool water, or worse, the completely unsanitary ocean and lake water.

And as if this were not bad enough, the smug and happy faces of these splashers is a constant "put-down" to those more evolved humans that remain dry.

Drylanders Unite! This outrage must stop now!

not to mention the chlorine content in the indoor pool causes asthmatic symptoms. one thing is for sure, they should stop teaching children to swim in the indoor pools...let's start there, and work our way to the other things that some of us find offensive...like the perfumes, scented laundry products and cleaners, ect.

Originally posted by dawnstar

they should stop teaching children to swim in the indoor pools...

I actually agree. Throw 'em in a river, like my dad did to me.

"Sink or swim, boy " !

Geez.

Regards,
Lex

Originally posted by dawnstar
back in the day......

when the schools nurses office didn't have a locked medicine cabinet filled with asthma medications for the students!!!

this is one thing you can't deny....when I was young, there was more smokers, and they smoked everywhere...and yet us kids managed to breath easier than alot of the kids today are. I think there is a conspiracy within the anti-smoking blitz. once the epa was formed they started branding many of the byproducts of the oil industry as hazardous wastes....thus regulating their disposal, making it more expensive to dispose. 95% of the chemicals that are used in fragrances are synthetic substances that are from the petrol industry...they include benzene derivatives, aldehydes and many other known toxics and sensitizers.

I would propose that being so expensive to dispose of these substance, they kind of found a way to not dispose of them, instead throwing them into our products every chance they got.
now that so many are sick, well, they have to come up with an explanation somehow...smoking, ya, that's the culprit....

that post makes the most sense out of all the rest.

What gives people here the idea that ANY policy or law be submitted that would do any thing for the good of the citizens? What would make people the think that they care about anything more than maximising the most amount of profit out of unwitted citizens?

isnt flouride a byproduct of aluminum?

speeking of flouride, this is a perfect example of how there is actually a war going on between those that are trying to harm us for profit; government lobyist, and those trying to protect us, protesters and such.

California Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, working with the California Dental Association (CDA), sponsored a fluoridation bill, eventually signed into law, forcing all California water companies, with 10,000 service connections, to add nonessential fluoride chemicals into the drinking water to prevent tooth decay, without constituent or local governing body approval, discussion or vote.
“To make the most of the element of surprise, it was decided that Speier would wait until the last possible moment to introduce her fluoridation bill,” writes author Joanne Boyd.


“’We pretty much knew we’d catch (the anti-fluoridation faction) by surprise because it wasn’t well known outside of the dental community what was going on,' said Liz Snow, assistant director of CDA’s Government Relations (lobbying) Office. ‘But we didn’t want to give the other side any more time to mobilize than absolutely necessary,’” writes Boyd.

fluoridedangers.blogspot.com...

why would smoking be any different. it is a different game, but all the same rules.

the funny part about cigarettes is, all the chemicals that the put into it where for curing and keeping them lit while you smoke. then a few years ago after a rash of forest fires, companies started puting more chemicals into it to help retard the burning and make them go out if not attended to (puffing)

does that make any bloody sense.

they dont even tell you about these additives, i had to find out myself after noticing my cigarette kept going out on me.

based on that i dont think they realy give a damb if people die from buying them or die from them second hand, they just dont care, they will fiind a new place to stuff their byproduct chemicals.

My Opinion

I dont care thats smokings bad for people.

I could care less if automobiles and perfumes effect other peoples health

either, if you dont like cars and scents then get out of the way.

Playing Dr Frankenstein with our food? LOL I guess you could go back to the

old days when crops failed all the times and people starved because crops

had no protection against bugs and disease much like innoculation protect

humans.

I dont care if people sell things that arent good for you, it's called personal

responsibility, people know darn well what their buying.

Why dont people smoke joints in public I could care less.

If people dont like the smell of something they should move, you wouldnt

hang around a peice of poo for too long.

Intrepid there are several reasons for smoking restrictions the main one being companies being sued by their employees for lots of money and also the tobaco companies themselves for same.

Many would like to believe it is for the well being of none smokers and smokers alike but Im afraid thats not the real reason. I personally cannot stand tobaco smoke but I believe in peoples rights and this is an errosion of those rights.

I wonder how all those anti smokers would feel if they were told they would have to stop driving because their cars pollute. Once you put restrictions in place it makes it far easier to introduce other controls that denude an individuals rights, as usual it all comes down to money.

Your sense of personal responsibility could cost someone their lives if they happen not to notice the presence of a lethal allergen before it is too late. Unlike the poo that won't kill you, walking into the danger someone else intentionally set without regard for the welfare of others (or proper signage) is the complete opposite of what it means to be responsible.

I did not choose to become asthmatic and I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) you made a conscious choice to smoke. Further, you think I should be made endure an asthma attack because doing otherwise tramples over your freedom to do whatever you please; complete and unrestricted freedom to be able to smoke wherever you want. I already feel as though I am constantly on guard so that I can move away immediately should people like you decide to light before you look but I don't always see it coming. Your pleasure vs. my respiration. Is this what you really meant to say or did I misunderstand you?

Should I have to risk leaving my home each day to contribute to society because I happen to be a member of a medical minority? Should I be living as if each day could be the day I suffocate while waiting for the subway in exchange for your free will? No matter how you spin it, someone loses the freedom to live as they wish. Your argument rests on the fact that there are more smokers than asthmatics. Therefore, we should yeild to you.

However, I must argue that the balance changes once lives are placed on the scale against pleasure. Here, the lives of the few outweigh the happiness of the many. You may not like it but this is what the legal system has decided. I would also like to add I am certain that where smokers are concerned, you are a minority group yourself. The vast majority of smokers who posted here are capable of expressing empathy and understand the need to compromise. In fact, someone argued that smokers tend to me more compromising than non-smokers overall. I do not know whether the latter is true but certainly there is significant support for the former.

Most smokers have no desire to hurt me; they just want sanctuaries, allowances and most of all, reintegration into mainstream society which I believe to some extent has been denied. I have every desire to work things out with them but I have no tolerance for people who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves whether its about perfume, smoking or carbon emissions. It doesn't matter; it's all bad.

Certainly if you are trying to elicit some sort of sympathy for your cause or barter for sufficient spans of attention from the other side in which to argue your case (if no one listens, they'll never hear you), telling them up front their oppinions are insignificant isn't the best bargaining chip. If you want something, you have to ask nicely, be diplomatic and be prepared to give a few things up in exchange. If you really want to live by your own rules, then civilization is not the best place for you and perhaps you would be better off living out in the middle of nowhere so no one can possibly be hurt by the consequences of your actions.

Ever hear the expression, "Two wrongs don't make a right,"? Certainly there are far more damaging things than cigarettes but that doesn't mean we should be allowing them either. GM foods is a good example of something that is legal but most certainly a bad idea. There are global consequences when responsibility goes by the wayside. If for instance, you and I worked for the same company and your smoking kept making me sick instead of you, who gets to pay higher insurance premiums as a result? Answer: Both of us. No matter what harm you inflict, there is no such thing as getting off scot-free. Everything comes back to haunt you eventually...

The Tax Revenues from tobacco purchases is WAY too large for it to ever be banned completely, that would be like if you got a 20 dollar bill everyday for chipping a hole in the ground. Would you not chip a hole just because people said not to?