Smokers "Rights"

Originally posted by redshirt0202
@sparda4355

If I were to visit Manhatten and there would be someone next to me smoking and the smoke would blow in my face I would ask him to stop or to go somewhere else. This would not happen if a fat person would be standing next to me (unless that fat person would also be smoking..but thats beside the point

).

[edit on 9-3-2008 by redshirt0202]

Oh what if you were an alcoholic and you went to your AA meetings and were sober for 2 years. You don't go to bars, but you go to say Friday's and have lunch with your co workers and there are a bunch of other people their drinking you can smell the alcohol come off their breathe you can see the beer their drinking and you pray their UNHEALTHY habit doesn't make you fall off the wagon.... How's it fair for the recovering alcoholic to sit their and watch them drink. Here it is, it isn' fair but taking away everyone's free choice to do the things they like that aren't illegal say drinking smoking isn't fair. Drinking is bad for you but they still serve alcohol at almost every restaurant, so i say if people can drink around recovery alcoholics then smokers should be able to smoke, in public places, espcially in designated areas!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by diana

Well ifyou think about it depending on how old you are, you didn't always know smoking was bad for your or addicting they use to make cig commercials to cater to children, I know my parents had no idea tobacco was mad for you.
Now how about this since your not a smoker you don't identify with it. Let's go back to the prohibition days and now say alcohol was illegal. All of a sudden hyour addicted to have your drink with dinner or out at the bar on the weekends and now it's illegal. How would you feel about that?????

I'll give you that the older generations were not aware of the risks, and indeed that the tabaco industry concealed the truth for as long as they could, and the kids thing too, all true.

All irrelevant to the general points being made here. Smoking is a choice, choosing to not do it when you find that you can only do it in places you feel inconvience you can be a choice too. Oh and i do identify with smoking, my brother smoked for years then gave up. My father did too, before i was born. Some of my best friends are heavy smokers. I don;t care that they smoke infront of me, it's my choice to stay there while their having a smoke. I also identify with the right of people who don;t like smoke, who don;t want the harmful effects to not have to have smoke inflicted upon.

And prohibition can't be brought up here, smokings not been made illegal. But to answer your question, i'd be annoyed and take the risk of going to a speak-easy or whatnot to drink illegally and take my chances. But i'm afraid thats not at all comparable to smokers being told to go smoke outside away from the people they might inadvertently be harming with their smoke...

Why should employers have to buy special boxes for their employees to smoke in? Why should business owners have to fork over the cost of adding these structures to their property, just because you think you have the right to pass the negative consequences of your actions on other people?

It's not the business's problem if you don't want to smoke in the cold.

YOU are the one who smokes. It's your problem. It should be your problem. You have no right to make it anyone else's problem but yours. Bear the burden yourself, not the people around you, not your employer, nobody but you. It's yours to bear. If you don't want the problem, quit smoking.

You have two choices: You can go through withdrawal for a few weeks, or you can smoke outside. There's no rose-colored "Make society fork over a ton of money to accommodate me so that I don't have to be uncomfortable" option.

Suck it up and deal with it. If you want a weather protected shelter to smoke in, go sit in your car.

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
its like this if its really that bad for you THEN GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD SHOULD STOP SELLING THEM.

Starred!

I'll agree with the 'obese people' part, but not the 'injured people' part. It's not their fault they're injured, and in the mean time they need help to become part of a productive society again.

Whereas obese people, some of it may be hereditary, and if that's the case, it's not their fault.

Now onto smokers, as I said last time, I don't smoke. But pretty much all my ex-girlfriends have, my friends and most of my coworkers do. It's never bothered me. They also show enough respect to leave an area if there are more non-smokers then there are smokers when they have themselves a puff.

I also agree about nicotine being so addictive that it should place smokers under a 'protected class' as well.

And instead of being unreasonable, and making a smokers life so difficult, why not then either A.) as Quantum Squirrel said, stop selling it or B.) Give real help to those who truly want to quit smoking. (Be it free patches, nicorette etc.)

It's like, if you're a smoker, you're scum. Yet, if you over indulge yourself in cakes, you're a helpless angel. Seriously though, nicotine is just as addictive as alcohol, if not more so. And you can't just expect anyone to just 'stop'. Not everyone has that kind of willpower. Not everyone wants to quit. (Calming of nerves, relaxation etc. There are some benefits!)

But yeah, the whole situation has gotten outta hand. Help those who want to quit, make life easier for those who don't want to. Making them walk fifty feet in snow without protection just to have a smoke is cruel.

Peace,
FK

The only true harmful side effect of second hand smoke is delusions of granduer.

But if you think for one minute that obesity is a safe vice, guess again. Heart attacks, strokes, mobilty scooters all sorts of things that cost insurance companies money and therefore affect your rates as well. Some fat guy could have the big one while driving creating a 4-6 uncontrolled road hazard of destruction. Up to 40 tons if a semi driver.

Overly thin people are not off the hook either, they are more inclined to catch colds, be raped/abducted, murdered things that use public stocks like police and basic medical supplies.

Athletic? Sprains, torn ligiments, broken bones...things that needlessly us medical resources and insurance money to fix.

But hey at least the smokers and alcohols contribute to the system with their sin taxes. And they tend to die at a younger age rducing pressure from geriatric care and dependancy.

Everything is a choice today, gender and race can be changed by augmentation, so no more legal protections needed there either.

Yes, the smoker abuses themselves but society abuses the smoker. Get off your high horse and leave them alone and they would have less stress to cope with forcing them to smoke more and turn your abusive addiction on yourselves. Thank you.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The only true harmful side effect of second hand smoke is delusions of granduer.

Don't talk rubbish. Read the links I posted on the previous page and come back and say that with a straight face. Second hand smoke can be extremly harmful, don't you dare belittle the people that have become seriously ill or died from it by making utterly false statements like that.

Or do you have evidence to support your idea that 'dellusions of grandeur' are truely the most harmful side effect of sucking up a lungfull of carcinogens?...

I wonder how many of the people in this thread crying about being poisoned are out there everyday driving their automobiles around? Guess that's different though since we *need* our cars and smoking is just a lifestyle choice.

We really do care about the health of other people, we were just *forced* into getting a job too far away to commute any other way, or we were *forced* to live in a cold climate spot, or gosh darnit, it's just such a *hassle* to walk, or bike, or take public trans.

It's easy to look down on smoker's because their addiction means they're weak, and society backs us up, and it's a proven, harmful activity.

It's even easier to be a hypocrite.

Choices - lifestyle choices - put us in a position where our vehicles seem like a necessity.

Talk to people who walk or bike in a downtown area everyday whether pollution from vehicles is a problem? For a variety of different reasons, they are helping everyday to reduce pollution and poison in the air by not operating an automobile. They are sacrificing comfort and convenience and their reward is a lungful of toxins each day they walk to work.

What have non-smokers ever sacrificed?

Originally posted by sparda4355
… As long as we are “attempting” to quit we should get the following… Companies should be forced

Should we provide a safe place for our sexual predators to molest our children as long as they are "attempting" to quit? Maybe those addicted to food should be allowed to gorge on a company provided buffet as long as they promise they will try to quit.
Is it ok to give smokers the legal right to smoke indoors with those that choose not to be addicted to nicotine? If so is it ok to smoke in a room full of newborns? What's the difference?

reply to post by quango


I love how people like to try and swing this to automobile pollution. That is not the topic at hand. Most people didn;t have to suck down car fumes in their job before the law changed, car's not being in most work places afterall.

What have non-smokers ever sacrifced? What a bloody stupid question, you even pointed it out in your post, unless you are trying to claim that evryone who bikes or gets a bus to work is also a smoker?

Personally speaking i don;t look down on smokers, and I hope i wasn;t included in your insinuation. And I certainly don;t think they are weak, my own habits explained quite clearly earlier in this thread.

This is a thread about smokers, not cars, trucks, power stations or anything else, so let's not de-rail it, eh?...

reply to post by Vector J


It's hardly derailing to point out that certain people in this argument will claim they're being poisoned, and then go out and poison others by driving to the store at the end of the block when they could just walk.

Smoking shouldn't be allowed everywhere in buildings/workplaces. It shouldn't even be allowed most places indoors. Certainly not on airplanes, or buses. But designated *indoor* areas where non-smokers will not be exposed to it? What's the harm in having a room at the airport where people can grab a smoke between flights and no one who isn't a smoker ever has to step foot into the room?

What about outdoors areas? Parks? The beach? Open air stadiums?

What if I want to open a bar where people can smoke? What if the bar next to mine happens to have an outdoor patio section and I lose business because people want to smoke and drink at the same time? How is that fair. How is that fair if the servers and bartenders I hire know the dangers of a smoker-friendly environment and accept the job anyways?


[edit on 9-3-2008 by quango]

Originally posted by quango

It's hardly derailing to point out that certain people in this argument will claim they're being poisoned, and then go out and poison others by driving to the store at the end of the block when they could just walk.

Thats some people who do that sure, not all. But again, it's a different topic, just because smoke and poisioning effects are involved, you don;t get to lump them together.

Originally posted by quango
Smoking shouldn't be allowed everywhere in buildings/workplaces. It shouldn't even be allowed most places indoors. Certainly not on airplanes, or buses. But designated *indoor* areas where non-smokers will not be exposed to it? What's the harm in having a room at the airport where people can grab a smoke between flights and no one who isn't a smoker ever has to step foot into the room?

I tottaly agree with you. But I won;t pay for those areas for smokers.

Originally posted by quango
What about outdoors areas? Parks? The beach? Open air stadiums?

Other than stadiums where your right next to people, sure, I agree it's fine there.

Originally posted by quango
What if I want to open a bar where people can smoke? What if the bar next to mine happens to have an outdoor patio section and I lose business because people want to smoke and drink at the same time? How is that fair. How is that fair if the servers and bartenders I hire know the dangers of a smoker-friendly environment and accept the job anyways?
[edit on 9-3-2008 by quango]

Again, in total agreement, I think it should be the bars decixion, not the gorvernments. I think banning smoke from all bars is ludicrous, but I drink, and i like the bar atmosphere and personally believe some establishments like your typical 'smoky jazz bar' are being destroyed...

Here are some quick facts not everyone is aware of.
1. of all the smokers out there (99%) started before the age of 18
2. all cigarettes are infused with extra nicotine
3. cigarrettes are clinically proven to be more addictave than heroine
4. 90% of the price of cigarrettes goes to the goverment
5. healthcare and social assistence cost far less within the smoking group due to early death and lack of treatments availible to the ailments and diseases assosciated with smoking

Now given this information here is how I see it.
If the goverment has known of these facts for years, why is it that given the first point above, 30 yeas ago why didnt they move tobaco sales to pharmacy's ie. if you are a smoker go to your doctor and get a prescription for them, then pick them up at the pharmacy, if you only got a pack a day and had no other way of getting more you wouldnt be giving any away to underagers. The biggest myth out there is they would go "black market" "BULL" people dont smoke to get high, they smoke to feed an addiction.
Lets face facts plain and simple if the goverment makes 90% of the profit they are the suppliers, they should be hels as responsible as a drug dealer because thats what they are, I could keep going on but it pisses me off too much, in closing they are responsible for children smoking thats a fact

Originally posted by Vector J
reply to post by sparda4355

 

Sparda, I didn;t miss the point, you did.

Are you really trying to claim that if you'd known that this law change would happen, you'd never have started smoking?

Well i guess we will never know will we... The fact is I didn't know that, I started smoking when the law didn't exist and now it does... So that means I should be grandfathered in!

Originally posted by M4K4V3LI
An obese person eating next to me is not going to give me a headache or put me in danger of getting stomache cancer.

I think there is more of a chance of an obese person having a heart attack and falling on me causing physical harm, possibly even death or having a heart attack behind the wheel of their car and crashing into me as there is somebody who has never smoked a day in their life and doesn't live with a smoker "catching" cancer from second hand smoke...

reply to post by Jigore


I use salvia occasionally, only with a 'sitter' though. It can be quite a trip! The reason I subject myself to those few moments of distorted reality is because afterward I am left with an energetic feeling, like a big boost of energy, that lasts for days after! So if I get to feeling blah, I guess you could call it my 'pick me up'. As to smoker's rights (tobacco) I am sick of standing outside smoking. One company I worked for put up one of those metal garage topper thingys with no walls, in the winter and rain you would freeze and get soaked! We complained as a group, we were willing to depart the building to smoke but give us a place that was fit to stand in! The argument back at us was that they didn't want to promote smoking, so making the area more comfortable or even dry wasn't a priority. Anotherwords : Suffer you little smoking biotches, Suffer!

Originally posted by diana
How's it fair for the recovering alcoholic to sit their and watch them drink. Here it is, it isn' fair but taking away everyone's free choice to do the things they like that aren't illegal say drinking smoking isn't fair. Drinking is bad for you but they still serve alcohol at almost every restaurant, so i say if people can drink around recovery alcoholics then smokers should be able to smoke, in public places, espcially in designated areas!!!!!!!!

And a recovering alcoholic in that situation should either avoid places with alcohol altogether, or should have self control.

It's not my fault that you are addicted. I shouldn't have to deal with your addiction. If someone's addicted to porn, it doesn't mean they can pull porn out at work, or in a bus station, or in a mall. It doesn't matter that they're addicted.

Your addiction is not any more difficult to deal with than anyone else's, but I don't see other addicts expecting to be allowed to indulge in every public place they choose.

Stop expecting everyone else to cater to your addiction. Hell, go buy some gum and chew up your drugs. Why should I not be able to breathe because you have an addiction? I have been breathing from birth, you have not been smoking from birth. I have to breathe to live, you can probably live better without smoking.

How freaking selfish and ridiculous is this entire conversation?!? I am out.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by Jigore

 

I use salvia occasionally, only with a 'sitter' though. It can be quite a trip! The reason I subject myself to those few moments of distorted reality is because afterward I am left with an energetic feeling, like a big boost of energy, that lasts for days after! So if I get to feeling blah, I guess you could call it my 'pick me up'. As to smoker's rights (tobacco) I am sick of standing outside smoking. One company I worked for put up one of those metal garage topper thingys with no walls, in the winter and rain you would freeze and get soaked! We complained as a group, we were willing to depart the building to smoke but give us a place that was fit to stand in! The argument back at us was that they didn't want to promote smoking, so making the area more comfortable or even dry wasn't a priority. Anotherwords : Suffer you little smoking biotches, Suffer!

Well I think asking for a law to provide us a safe place to smoke not only is out of the question, it contridicts my own theory of rights... The owner of a company should not be forced to create a smoking fort... only because it was not the owners fault the law passed... I think we should all write to the cigarette companies... Get them to sponcer our companies with the funding for our smoking forts... After all, us quitting directly effects their paychecks! We should do this for our favorite bars, our work, and our malls etc...

This is my new plan!

I will see it through till the end!

In addition I think all of us should be grandfathered into the old law if we became chemically dependent before this new law was passed... That is not asking for a new law to protect our rights, but rather a loop hole into the old law that already did!

Argue this you non smoking anti smokers!

reply to post by sparda4355


Yes, I will stand behind that stamement 100%, but let's have a very clear definition here. " a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are"

Inotherwords you (used in general not specifically you) place yourself above that of others and dictate conditions according to your own morality. The arguement of whether it is the gun or the man behind the trigger that kills.

You (specifically you) entered a tirade without looking at the whole context of the post. Imagine for one minute that your backing information was statisically unprovable. That the statements of fact came from sources of bias. That the standard of deviation was so narrow that the information became indicated to fit an agenda. Then start looking at how the smoking studies are conducted and evaluated.

Look close enough and you might even see how statistics are being played in a numbers game to dupe the masses to be anti-smoking. Several organisations have the numbers too low to prove anything. Cancer, the stongest link to smoking in smokers has a fairly low potential compared to how it is presented. Tests on equivalency to whole cigarettes in passive second-hand smoke is even lower.

The studies on smoke filled bar rooms, eight hours a day only equaling 4-5 cigarettes in a weeks time. Or onc per day. Even the US Surgeon General finds cancer in 1 out of 7 pack+ a day smokers on the worst study (1 in 17 on the best).

And none, zero of the studies that are anti-smoking have allowances for environment, genetics, occupaton or other outside factors. None of them do.

What my original post dealt with was the biggest problem in the whole debate is the vocalization of the mis and ill informed when other lifestyles and conditions also have their detriments on society as a whole as well.

Thus, the worst affect (

Originally posted by Jigore
I agree with you that smoking is an addiction. But I disagree with you when you say smokers should be a protected class.

Lets say im a coc aine addict. At one time in my life I choose to take coc aine , fully knowing that coc aine is bad for my health and that I could become adicted.

Well now that I am chemically addicted to coc aine I find it kinda hard to stop.

Do you think that I should get an unpaid break everyday at job because I cant fight the need to snort the F out of my brain?
Or maybe the company should provide me with a room outside for this purpose?

I know tabacco isnt coc aine...But when you take something and you fully know that you gonna get addicted to that...You shoulnt complain that your addicted and that its hard to quit.

If you feel that your tossed asside by society its because society want you to quit smoking.

Also when you compare nicotine addiction and food addiction, keep in mind that people who get obese didnt choose to be that way. Contrary to cigarette, food is essential if you want to live.

First, let me say that you made some really good points here. And even though I am a smoker, I have to see both sides of the coin. Hopefully others will do the same.

1. Some of us became addicted to nicotine before the surgeon general told us that it was harmful. And it is hard to quit. Harder for some than others. Some will tell you that it is one of the strongest addictions there is.

2. The unfairness seems to enter in where at one time that we were able to smoke publicly, acceptably and safely. Then it just came to a screeching halt.

I totally agree that people who do not want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, should not be. But what would be the harm in having a seperate area for the smoker?

Suppose that you are a drinker of alcohol. You know it's bad for you. You know the statistics. But you are compelled to do it anyway. You enjoy it.

Then, suddenly, the guv and/or public says that the fumes are detrimental to others and you must take your drink outside in all sorts of inclimate weather and unsafe conditions?

"Do you think that I should get an unpaid break everyday at job because I cant fight the need to snort the F out of my brain? "
----------------------------

and just where can I go where I can get extra breaks to smoke cigarettes?
I get the same breaks as everyone else in the place!
and well, how would that extra break be any different than some of the other non-offical breaks I see my coworkers taking quite often...ya know, you're working with someone on a job, you come to one of the more difficult parts, and then suddenly, oops, the person is no longer there for about 15 or so minutes...you look around, and see them over on the other side of the work floor, chatting with their buddy!!

I think the story about extra breaks is a myth.....worked many years, on many jobs, never seen them!