August 28, 2007

• Smoke smells like ass. Whether or not it causes cancer I'm just glad I can come home from the bar without having to put my clothes in a plastic bag before I go to sleep so they won't make my house stink.
• Rant much, stink breath? I agree JC, but bars are one thing. Paying to eat a $20 meal that tastes like the bottom of an ashtray because there's a smoker in the room is another. Don't tell me about ventilation systems working. I've NEVER seen one that killed the odor. It's just as bad outdoors because that stink lingers. Used to have to run the gauntlet outside the door at the place where I worked--fair turned my stomach. Can't find evidence of secondhand smoke? Take a smoker's dead husband, and you cut him open, and look at his lungs. Maybe his death was non-smoke related, or maybe his wife shot him for bitching about what her ciggy habit cost, who knows, but he still will have evidence of smoke pollution in his nasal passages, lungs, blood stream, and fat. Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins. If you want to smoke, do it in the privacy of your home and not in public places. Public places are for all of us, including kids, and not everyone enjoys smoke. Even if you don't accept it's a direct cause of death, you can't argue that it's a carcinogenic air pollutant: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent.) The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children. Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers. Exposure to secondhand smoke irritates the airways and has immediate harmful effects on a person’s heart and blood vessels. It may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent. There may also be a link between exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of stroke and hardening of the arteries; however, additional research is needed to confirm this link. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless." PS. You STINK. No, really, you do. That's the one thing every quitter has told me. "I can't believe how much I/my breath/my clothes/my house stunk."
• The same screeching voices were heard during prohibition. Someday these will be seen in the same historical context. (Fucking shrews)
• IMHO, people should be allowed to put whatever they want into themselves, if they're sane & they are fully informed - it's their life. Prohibition doesn't work. They should be prevented from affecting others in any way, though. Simple as that. Women should not smoke while pregnant, people shouldn't be forced to put up with 2nd-hand smoke. That would be a perfect world, wouldn't it? That is not the world we live in. There are lots of disgusting-smelling things on earth we are subjected to, many of them harmful. We have to put up with them, because many of 'em are natural. I don't like tobacco smoke around when I'm eating, for the same reason I don't like eating under the stench of shit or creosote fumes. Pretty obvious. But that falls to the responsibility & choice of the food establishment's owners. If they want more clientele, then maybe a ciggie ban is a good idea. On the other hand, perhaps it would be good to have smoking-friendly establishments. That way I have a choice to go where I want, & so does everyone else. Otherwise, as long as I'm not forced to be trapped in a room with it, I can tolerate it. The human body can deal with a fair amount of toxins. I breathe in worse crap from walking down the street next to the traffic. Peoples' halitosis & farts bother me more, to be honest. If it is day-in, day-out, that's another matter. It is not an insoluble problem. Getting too upset about it seems a waste of energy. Vilification of smokers appears unfair, if you ask me. It's an addiction, should be treated with a bit of compassion. People are stupid to start smoking, but people are dumb, it's the human condition. Pretty hard to stop smoking, due to the nicotine addiction. Only tolerance solves problems such as this, legislation & Wookiee screaming about it does not. The way things are going, ciggies will eventually be banned, & become an underground drug, just like all the rest, & the issue will continue. I get more pissed off with car exhaust & other pollution. Tobacco smoke is a drop in the bucket. What makes me laugh, is, the ban in pubs. Fuck me, if you're standing around pouring booze into your alcoholic self, then there's not much sense in bitching about the cigarette smoke. Booze is far more of a scourge than smoking. If you wanna go down the pub & drink booze, then maybe you should put up with people's cigar smoke, farts, etc, into the bargain. If you're willingly engaging in one bit of drug behaviour, maybe you should be exposed to all of it.
• I don't know, Hank. My opinion of smoking in booze-halls has completely reversed in recent years. San Francisco banned smoking in bars in the late 1990s. I was dead against the ban. "Bars and smoking go hand in hand, and if you don't like smoke you should just stay out of bars," I said. While it has a reputation as a health-nut's paradise, SF is an excellent bar town, and there are lots and lots and lots of folks who like to smoke while they drink here. "Surely there'll be an uproar," I thought at the time of the ban. And there was -- for a month or two. Very quickly -- surprisingly quickly -- people acclimated to stepping outside when they wanted a smoke. A few bars, either flipping the bird at the Man or with the help of cops willing to look the other way, continued to allow smoking. They became known as places you could light up. The rest of the bars -- the vast majority -- became smoke-free. AND NO ONE REVOLTED. Now everyone's happy! People who hate smoke can go drinking and not have to cough and sneeze. People who smoke can step outside for 10 minutes when they get the craving. It doesn't take much effort -- indeed, as most smokers will tell you, it can be a pretty nice change of pace. This system works great. The world's a better place for it.
• I'm asking you to trust me because I'm NOT. Many people these days, including newspaper editors and politicians, are simply not willing to challenge or question medical authorities. How could you not trust the genius responsible for the glorious classic "Steppin' Out"?
• If you're willingly engaging in one bit of drug behaviour, maybe you should be exposed to all of it. Yeah, that's why I go to Smacky McCracky's, a bar near my house where speed freaks and crack addicts and heroin junkies and opium users vomit on the floor and blow cocaine residue into the air. You don't like it? Don't come in for a glass of wine!
• I propose banning the drinking of alcohol in pubs and restaurants next.
• HawthorneWingo - similar situation in Scotland. I don't know anyone - smokers included - who is against the ban. Everyone just gets on with it. And a lot of people are using it as a chance to stop or cut back. If they want to smoke - pop outside for a couple of minutes - smoke - back in - end of story - no great curtailment of civil liberties involved. And, to be honest, especially since I have just read the postings on Pegah Emambakhsh and her planned deportation, I am finding it very hard not to feel a lot of contempt for anyone who does feel that hard done by under the public smoking ban.
• I'm very happy to be able to go to pubs, bars and clubs now. Being a singer, previously these were no-go areas for me. Loud amens to BlueHorse.
• /need the address of Smacky McCracky's
• Sadly, it's argued that bars and restaurants will lose money, because either smokers are better tippers or that grouchy non-smoking smokers are lousy tippers. Either way, the dire predictions of massive failures in the food and drink industry haven't been seen to come to pass when a municipal smoking ban has been implemented. So if the only people who were affected were patrons, I'd have more sympathy for the anti-smoke ban folks. I'd certainly be against prohibition. That said, every restaurant and bar is someone's workplace, usually someone who isn't very well paid and (in the US at least) likely someone who doesn't have any or very good health insurance. If the point of a workplace smoking ban is to eliminate the additional 20 to 30 percent chance of cancer in workers, then it's unconscionable not to extend that to bar and restaurant workers. I'm willing to trust the medical authorities on this one. I think it's reasonable to combine statistical chances of death with studies of autopsied lungs and determine that secondhand smoke is bad without a case where there's an irrefutable "cause of death". That's how quite a bit of carcinogen risk is measured. I've worked as a soundman for a touring band that was performing mostly in bars. Nonsmoking bars were nicer places to play, did less harm to the singer's voice, did less harm to expensive electronics and delicate musical instruments, and kept the van from stinking of stale smoke while we drove to the next venue. On top of that, it increases the risk of cancer in nonsmokers like me. That's what you're doing to your favorite band when they play in a smoky bar for you. So yeah, I'm not going to demonize smokers. Smokers who insist they need to be able to smoke in other peoples' workplaces? They're selfish gits, but not demons. I'm all for the restaurant, bar, and pub ban.
• Hellooooo Ladieeeesss! *offers candy cigarette*
• But first, I'd want to see at least one proven case of death caused by ETS So, DEATH is the only bad thing worth preventing?
• Two points: First, for Joe Jackson, is the story of my non-smoking uncle. His wife, a lifetime smoker, died from cancer (surprise) about 7 or 8 years ago. About 4 years ago, my uncle had some heart problems and got a triple bypass. His surgeon told him to quit smoking and didn't believe when my uncle claimed to have never smoked in his life. He was told he had the heart and lungs of a pack-a-day man. He died last December from a brain tumor. Second, I'd like to dispute Hank's claim that smokers are victims of an addiction and more to be pitied than scorned. That's bullshit. Every smoker I know has attempted to quit several times, and usually succeed for a few weeks or months before reverting. They invariably last long after the nicotine addiction is gone from their systems. When they go back to smoking it's because they choose to smoke.
• I MIGHT be tempted to give sympathy to smokers who started before, say, the 1970's. There's been so much information out there since then that anyone picked up their first ciagrette after that knew what they were getting into. Certainly since the 1980's, when the Surgeon General reported on how powerfully addictive they were.
• Jesus smoked.
• I have to echo TUM. Just because the author can't prove nobody has died from second-hand smoke, that implies that he thinks that death is the only effect worth considering. As a severe asthmatic, I have a lot of trouble around cigarette smoke. Places full of smoke were off limits for me before the ban, including restaurants with a lot of smokers in the smoking section, even if I sat in the non-smoking section. I also have to say there was a big uproar in NY when the ban first came about, which almost immediately died down to nothing. People moved on, smokers nip outside. I agree that anybody should have the right to put anything in his or her body, as long as they don't put it into mine as well. That choice is mine to make, just as it's theirs.
• Also, the ban means that smokers get more breaks during the workday than non-smokers. Most of them seem pretty happy about that.
• Either way, the dire predictions of massive failures in the food and drink industry haven't been seen to come to pass when a municipal smoking ban has been implemented. Around here, a smoking ban was passed for all public businesses except those that don't admit people under the age of 21. Nevertheless, a friend of mine who owns a bar decided to voluntarily ban smoking in his own joint, just temporarily, to see what happened. His revenue went up. That's bullshit. Every smoker I know has attempted to quit several times, and usually succeed for a few weeks or months before reverting. They invariably last long after the nicotine addiction is gone from their systems. No, it lasted after the nicotine was gone from their systems. Addiction doesn't "leave your system," which I should think would be a pretty obvious point. Once you're addicted to something, you're addicted to it for life. I haven't had a smoke for years, can't fucking stand the smell of it now, but every time I walk through a cloud of it, that little dark corner of my brain still to this day perks up and starts begging for its precious. I imagine it'll stay with me for the rest of my life, because that's, you know, what an addiction is.
• Equating smoking and drinking just does not work. I can sit next to somebody pounding shots all night and not absorb a drop of what they're ingesting. Not so with a smoker. No similarity there. Since smoking has been banned pretty much everywhere in my area, I must say going out for a drink or a meal is infinitely more enjoyable. No more stress when the table next to ours fires up their nausea-inducing cancer sticks just as the entrees arrive from the kitchen. No more gagging from fumes while enjoying a beer with friends. And, most remarkably, I hear NO complaints, even from longtime smokers. I know folks who own restaurants and bars. They report that the ban has actually SAVED them a tidy bundle on cleaning and repairs. No more burn marks on the bar, no more tarry yellow buildup on the windows, walls and ceilings. And no more barkeeps or wait staff with pulmonary impairment. More than once I've been with friends who've said they wouldn't go into certain establishments because of the smoke. No more! I do believe we all have the right to put whatever we want into our own bodies--but we have NO right to put things into other peoples', (unless, of course, asked to do so).
• Re: addiction: What MCT said.
• Yep, I've been living in cities with smoking bans (Guelph, then Ottawa) for about 10 years now, and it is nice. I used to smoke occasionally when drinking, and I don't miss that at all. Nothing worse than going to a smoking bar after all tehse years of living in smoke-free cities. The only places that went under after the smoking ban were the marginal, seedy, run-down places where every client was a heavy smoker -- mostly old taverns. Sad to see some of the very old ones close, but they were really past their expiry date. Before the smoking ban they were run-down holes with barely enough clientel to pay the waitstaff. It was weird at first when I went to my local after the smoking ban came in -- you could suddenly see clearly across the pub, and the place looked much more dingy, run down and smaller. Very disconcerting. I can't imagine ever going back now.
• Kinnikeet: Well said. The same screeching voices were heard during prohibition. Interestingly enough, I don't advocate prohibiting smoking. I think we should tax the livin' hell out of it, as well as on alcohol, simply to cover the health costs to society, so that MY insurance doesn't go up to cover YOUR lung cancer or liver failure, but don't prohibit the use. And get RID of the fuckin' drug laws. If you want to use recreational drugs--do. Make it legal to use it, illegal to manufacture. You have to be licensed. Tax the hell out of it. If they're a recreational user, fine. If they're caught using drugs and alcohol when driving, they're screwed. Big Time. Big money. Go to jail. People can have fun, but don't endanger the rest of us. If someone is a non-functioning addict, hand it out to them at drug dispensaries so people don't hurt/steal/sell their bodies/kill for the damn stuff. Have functioning people sweep the streets clean, pick up garbage, or dig ditches to pay for their habits. For that, they get three basic meals, a bunk in a dorm, and their drug of choice. If they chose to do drugs they will only have basic health care--and no major life support as a drain on the system, or even any attempt at recovery, if they OD. Serious addicts are not allowed to have a driver's license. And they have to be sterilized. One drain on society is enough, we aren't going to breed more. Make a decision--do you want drugs, or do you want to be a functioning member of society? Can't be much worse than the system in place now. Smoke, drink, drug in the privacy of your own home, or in a venue agreed upon by all.
• Most anti-smoking laws are based on workplace health & safety issues, not prohibition.
• I happily patronize bars that enforce no-smoking policy. And I'm not alone. This peculiar denial of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke has a long and storied history.
• And really, when your entire argument is dependent on claiming "No, goddammit, the Earth is flat!", you're in trouble.
• Sheeple
• Sheeple I hate to say it, man, but sometimes the herd is right. ;)
• I haven't a dog in this fight, but here's one more second to the MCT/HW comments on addiction: If you think addicts use because they are weak, or that the addiction leaves them after a period of abstinence, you have some serious learning ahead of you about what addiction is. Hint: it is never a "choice".
• Shortly after the smoking ban went into effect here, they found a dead body stuck in a crawl space in a nearby club. The only reason they discovered it was because the place no longer smelled of cigarettes, it smelled of dead body. True story. Irrelevent to the conversation, but true.
• I've decided that the noun "tobacco" needs to serve double duty as an adjective meaning "someone who is paid to lie about a subject" noun Tobacco scientist still means what it currently means, but we have a new way to describe Global Warming deniers ("Tobacco Climatologists") and holocaust deniers would be "Tobacco Historians". Our Ranter above would be a Tobacco Pundit.
• Well, I agree with Argh for no particular reason. You're all worthless and weak! Now drop and pay me twenty!
• I haven't had a smoke for years, can't fucking stand the smell of it now, but every time I walk through a cloud of it, that little dark corner of my brain still to this day perks up and starts begging for its precious. I imagine it'll stay with me for the rest of my life, because that's, you know, what an addiction is. So very, very, painfully to the point. Twelve years after quitting: WANT.
• I'm not saying overcoming an addiction is easy, or that once the chemical withdrawal stage is over it's gone forever. There are psychological issues still to be dealt with. But it *is* a choice, and it takes strength of character and conviction to make the right choice. I applaud those who have made that choice and continue to do so.
• It's not much of a choice when there are physiological issues. Some people are alcoholics from the very first drink. Me, I could care less. If you take booze off the planet, wouldn't bother me a bit. Receptors in the brain react differently in all of us to certain substances. Some people find it easier to make a "choice." For some poor shmucks, there is no "choice," they're in so deep, either physiologically or psychologically, they can't climb out. Maybe something can be done differently, and a substitute found for the addiction, but there is no "choice" for addiction. I know a former drug addict turned alcoholic that managed to substitute the endorphin high of running for the drugs and booze. "Controlled drinking was a substitute for drugs--until it went out of control. Chemicals were ruining his life. Running seemed to be the solution, until he became addicted. He's once again alienated his family, has problems with his job, can't control his anger (HAS to go running to deal with any emotion, thus escaping the issue.) Endorphins are the chemicals he's now self-medicating with. Some people are hardwired to be addicted, just as some are hardwired into bipolar or depression. Eventually we'll find how to control physical addiction. We need a saner world for the psychological stuff. Try fighting that.
• But it *is* a choice, and it takes strength of character and conviction to make the right choice. Getting addicted is a choice. Once that's happened, being addicted is not. Staying in recovery from addiction and not succumbing to it? Yes, a choice, and one that requires will, but it's more than that. It is a powerful force that follows you daily, waiting for the most opportune moments to pounce. Your comment above indicated that hey, once you're through the withdrawal, it's all gravy. It was explicitly in rebuttal to Hank's claim that addicts and recovering addicts should be given sympathy for their addiction, and that, with all due respect, is spoken like someone who has absolutely no goddamn idea what addiction is like. Your tone in that comment was like, hey, you got through the withdrawal, so it's all gravy, and that (with all due respect, natch) reveals a painfully ignorant view. Your deliberate highlighting of the word "choose" indicated a belief that your smoker friends who failed to quit woke up one morning and said "You know what, fuck my health, bank account, general odor and so forth. I'm just gonna start up again," or else were just too weak-willed to stick it out. And that sounds like a man who owns many long-legged horses, if you follow my drift. I agree with whoever it was above who said that it's your own goddamn fault if you started smoking after 1970, because you had the data, so it's a self-inflicted wound. But you can say the same thing for any drug or booze, and I don't think it follows that you have no sympathy for those who made a stupid mistake and are now struggling to undo it. Can't kick heroin? I have no sympathy for you, because you knew it was bad for you when you started, and hey, once you get through the withdrawal, all you have to do is choose not to take it anymore, amirite? Wrong. So wrong you're in a moral Bizarro World, in my humble. Staying in recovery from addiction requires will, yes. But it requires more than will. It requires battling physical and psychological needs on a day-to-day basis, and if you don't know what that's like, then you might consider the idea that referring to a call for sympathy for those who do as "bullshit" may be (again, with respect) the single most ignorant comment of yours I've ever read on this site.
• Ugh. Hadn't finished editing that when I hit post. Forgive the repetitiveness.
• All any addict needs is a little aversion therapy. Any time he thinks of going off the wagon, just whack him on the back of the head with a shovel. Problem solved.
• This guy is brilliant. It is absolutely true that second hand smoke has never caused a single death. Those deaths were all caused by heart disease and lung cancer, silly! Similarly, I don't see why people who run building sites should have to pay for expensive safety harnesses and railings. Falling from a great height never killed anyone: those deaths were all caused by high-speed ground impacts.
• Staying in recovery from addiction requires will, yes. But it requires more than will. It requires battling physical and psychological needs on a day-to-day basis How is that more than will? That's exactly what will is, and was my original point. On this, it sounds to me like we agree completely. If you want to believe that the only difference between smokers who quit and smokers who try but fail is physiological, and has nothing to do with will power and strength of character, then I'll leave you to that belief. There's an unfortunate decline lately in taking and assigning personal responsibility for choices, in favour of a tendency to view people who make bad choices as innocent victims of some unfortunate circumstances totally beyond their control. That's what I refer to as "bullshit".
• How is that more than will? It requires a lot more. It requires help, support, good coping skills, a fair amount of luck, timing, etc., etc... That's what I refer to as "bullshit". Fair enough. My objection was twofold: First, you seemed to be implying in your original comment that the difference between those who fail to quit and those who do not is that those who fail just simply make the choice to fail due to stupidity or weakness. I took exception to that, as would anyone who's grappled with addiction. Second, for the record, this was Hank's original comment: Vilification of smokers appears unfair, if you ask me. It's an addiction, should be treated with a bit of compassion. People are stupid to start smoking, but people are dumb, it's the human condition. Pretty hard to stop smoking, due to the nicotine addiction. Only tolerance solves problems such as this, legislation & Wookiee screaming about it does not. This is what you referred to as bullshit, and in no way does it make the case that smokers are innocent victims and shouldn't be held responsible for their choices. It's a perfectly reasonable comment, though I think smoking bans can and do help motivate people to quit (I'm one of them), and certainly doesn't advocate enabling or abdicating personal responsibility in any way.
• In my experience, addiction is about 50% chemical, and 50% behavioral. For the addict, the substance affects him in a profound, life-altering way, nothing like how it affects the casual user. He has to change his behavior if he wants to be sober, but it's not as simple as just not doing it anymore. The substance has become so ingrained as to be a part of his natural existence, so it's akin to asking someone to figure out how they can breathe differently, or sleep while awake. Strength of will is only half the battle, for the serious addict. IANA science-type-person.
• I agree with most of what you;re saying, MCT, but I don;t see how in this particular case tolerance is not enabling.
• You say "tolerance," I say "compassion."
• Equating smoking and drinking just does not work. I can sit next to somebody pounding shots all night and not absorb a drop of what they're ingesting. Not so with a smoker. No similarity there. Until, that is, you encounter someone who is prone to belligerence, drives under the influence, or vomits on you. Not saying the influence of someone drinking = someone smoking, but with any "drug" there are negative outcomes for people who didn't even partake of it. That said, I was completely against the ban when it started, don't mind it so much now, but for a major metropolis at least, there shouldn't be a blanket ban. If there's a pub on the north corner of block A, and it serves the same fare as a pub on the south corner of block B, there's no reason why one of the owners can't put out a sign saying "We do NOT offer a No-Smoking section" As far as empoyee "health" hazards, I don't see any people up in arms about miners and underground track workers. Just being in those environments for 8 hours a day is like smoking 5 packs a day.
• Oh, and I try to be nice about it, I NEVER blow smoke in someone's face (well not on purpose, anyway) If I see someone coming towards me on the block, I'll step right so they pass left, and then exhale down and the right. BUT. For all you douchebags out there who will cross a street behind a bus with a faulty oil gasket, but act like I'm blowing sarin gas at you, (You know the ones: the Eyes widen, OMG! *GLARE* , *waves hand in front of face frantically*, *GLARE*, , *staggers off to side*, *backwards GLARE*) you can kiss my ass. I have on occasion, went up to the person (provided I'm bigger than them :) ) and have done this: *holds up cigarette* Me: "I'm sorry, is this bothering you?" Douchebag: "Yes, yes it is..." Me: "GOOD!" *stalks off*
• I though cigarettes were supposed to be calming?
• It doesn't matter how nice smokers are, smoke still smells like ass. I can tell which students of mine are smokers when they walk into the classroom because if I'm within 5 feet of them they stink of smoke.
• I don't know about the glaring and staggering, but my asthma will definitely cause coughing and trouble breathing when getting close to a cigarette. I don't make a big production about it, but it does produce a natural reaction that I can't help.
• I agree with most of what you;re saying, MCT, but I don;t see how in this particular case tolerance is not enabling. I suppose it depends on how we're each defining "tolerance." I mean it to mean simply having some sympathy for someone trying to kick, not that you let him smoke everywhere or never challenge him to make the right choice. I support public smoking bans and heavy taxation, for the record, provided they're carried out sensibly. If we can agree on that definition, then my answer to your question is very easy. Two points: First, I am going to make the wild assumption that, your intelligence and wit and charm notwithstanding, you have on occasion in your life been guilty of what might be termed Stupid Shit. I make this assumption because you are presumably in possession of a birth certificate. We all are guilty of doing Stupid Shit and making Bad Decisions. Most of them, luckily enough, have only short-term effects, but some of them become life-altering. Smoking is just such a case, and starting is the kind of Bad Decision that people make usually when they're teenagers or younger -- prime years for committing Stupid Shit. Motivations like peer pressure, glamorization of smoking in movies, and so forth can be very powerful forces on a fifteen-year-old desperate to be cool. In my case, and feel free to mock because I do myself, it was Humphrey Bogart and a handful of friends I looked up to who smoked and made me want to therefore follow suit. That was my Stupid Shit Bad Decision, and really at bottom the only difference between mine and the ones you made at that age is that mine will follow me to my grave. To say I deserved scorn for it just because my bad decisions had long term effects and yours did not is a very banal hypocrisy, in my humble. Which brings us around to point two, in which I begin a years-long attempt to quit and face multiple failures, a very common story among smokers. The surest way to make me want to smoke? Complain about it to me. Tell me how bad I smelled. Tell me how rude it is. Any intentions I had would get washed away in a soothing flood of Go Fuck Yourself everytime someone *impolitely* (I always accommodated the well-mannered) pointed out that my smoke was bothering them. Bitching and "tough love" (a nearly universally useless tactic, in my experience) just made me puff away, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that every smoker who is reading this comment is nodding vigorously. In addition, every time I tried and failed, I (like many smokers) felt like the weakest pathetic excuse for a man on the planet. I thought I had no will power, thought I'd be tobacco's bitch for the rest of my life, even at times thought I was no good just because I couldn't beat it. I'd get discouraged, and that makes it harder to try again. Unfortunate, because statistically, the more times you try to kick, the higher your chance of success gets. Encouragement and sympathy for such a condition make it easier for a smoker (or any addict, for that matter), to pick him- or herself up and try again. In my case, it was encouragement and sympathy from a woman I was smart enough to marry that got me through. She provided a carrot, not a stick, to motivate me, which turned the drudgery of quitting into a positive challenge that would have immediate, enjoyable consequences for me and keep me on the path. Now look at me. I'm going to go run fourteen miles on Saturday. Tolerance and patience are in large part what helped get me there.
• Yeah, but the smell usually fades to an acceptable level within 15-20 minutes. Still I try not to be "all over" someone's desk after I come up from a cig break. I can also assume you'd never date/marry/hang out with someone who put out fires either... :) (I had the luxury of working in a store FireFighters patronized. Sometimes they'd come in after putting out a fire. It took HOURS for the smell to fade, even AFTER they'd left.... and not even just cig smoke, you had the lovely boquet of charred wood, melted plastic, mold, sheetrock dust (from breaking through walls), sweat, stagnant water, and wet clothes.
• Lara, it's perfectly acceptable, and by no means can I tell who has asthma, and who is a douche on a every basis, but I reserve my above listed actions for the few who will walk through a cloud of 1)exhaust or 2)heavy charcoal smoke (from street BBQs). I assume that those would flare up asthma as well....
• She provided a carrot, not a stick, to motivate me, which turned the drudgery of quitting into a positive challenge that would have immediate, enjoyable consequences for me and keep me on the path. Wait...we're not talking about pegging, are we? *pulls up a chair, sits down gingerly*
• I smoke. I would prefer not to, but all my past attempts have failed. Maybe attempt #6 will be The One. I'm fat, too. Same story. Dear god, it's amazing I haven't been stoned to death by peasants chanting "WEAK! WEAK!!!" Mark my words: once the morality police have stamped out smoking in all public places, they'll turn their attention to fat. Take this thread, substitute "Snickers bars" for "cigarettes," and "overweight" for "smoker," and that's what you'll be reading in about 5 years. Or hey, maybe they'll go after coffee first. Those of you who decry smokers: how will you feel when the tide of public opinion turns against your personal flaws? Just curious.
• Unless you're running around pouring coffee and chewed up bits of Snickers bars into people's mouths, it's an entirely separate issue.
• To reiterate: this isn't about what you choose to do to *your* body, it's about what you're choosing to do to mine.
• Fat people are considered every bit as unappealing as the smell of cigarette smoke. Additionally, the behaviors which leads to obesity are considered repugnant, and the costs to our health care system are well-documented. It's not such a huge leap. NYC recently banned trans fats, and my own city (Seattle) is planning to do so as well. Trans fats are bad, sure, but their consumption is voluntary. What about other fats? They too harm your health. We're going to ban Hostess products, but it's for your own good.
• Oh yeah right, next they'll be regulating TV. Pffftthhhh.
• I know, huh? Like, some crazy government agency will be out there laying down the law about what you can and can't say, and what you can and can't show! And fining people a ton of money for disobeying the rules! Oh wait.
• Trans fats are bad, sure, but their consumption is voluntary. We have allowed the government to regulate food prepared for our consumption for a very long time. Currently, we as a country are facing an epidemic of obesity, in which the increasing prominence of transfats, a relatively recent invention (which, unlike other fats, is not required by the body in any way, and is, indeed, far more unhealthy), has played a significant role. Given, as you say, the well-documented health costs associated with the obesity epidemic, it isn't unreasonable to regulate their use in restaurants, where people may order food without prior knowledge of their ingredients. All trans-fats can be replaced by saturated fats to a general benefit of both flavor of the item and health of the consumer. The restaurant industry opposes this because it is cheaper to use trans-fats and they prefer to cut corners in all areas. This corner cutting has also necessitated governmental regulation of sanitation in work areas, expiration dates for food, and grade categories for meats to prove them fit for human consumption. You will note that the consumption of trans-fats has not been regulated, and you are still free to eat them as much as you wish. So, to sum up: Banning the use of trans-fats in restaurants = better tasting, healthier products that consumers can order in the knowledge that a certain baseline of quality has been considered in their production (which has been the intent of the regulation of food all along). Prohibition of smoking in public space = *me* not having an asthma attack and a four hour headache because *you* decided to smoke. Like I said, two different issues.
• I suppose it depends on how we're each defining "tolerance." I mean it to mean simply having some sympathy for someone trying to kick, not that you let him smoke everywhere or never challenge him to make the right choice. Ah, that makes sense. Then we don't realy disagree at all. I was thinking of the latter meaning. And mechagrue, banning smoking has nothing to do with "morality."
• What MCT said slo brings me around to my pet peeve about advertising and PSA'a about smoking. The ads for quitting aids make it look like quitting is easy, which anyone who's tried to know it knows is complete BS. The PSA's gloss over this fact, too. Since the '80's, it's been established that cigarettes are one of the most addictive things out there, and have substances added to them to make them even more addictive. The kid who starts drinking may or may not become an alcoholic, but pretty much anyone who takes up smoking will have that monkey on his back forever. Not enough vulnerable kids are getting the message that the only reliable way to quit is to never start.
• Prohibition of smoking in public space = *me* not having an asthma attack and a four hour headache because *you* decided to smoke. I don't understand why there is no middle ground? Normally this is a subject I would jump upon and spew venom with the best or worst of you, but I know this is a pointless debate. Oh, Jesus, look; I've started: Take for example that they are planning on eliminating smoking in Persian tea-houses here in Vancouver. These establishments are created for people to smoke shisha through a hookah and enjoy some tea. Although they are called "tea houses" the people who go to these establishments go to smoke shisha; the people who work there also should know that this is primarily a shisha smoking establishment when they apply for the job. Anyone who is caught unawares by the fetid stench of apple scented shisha is a damn fool. (It's simply foolish to apply for a job in a company you have not researched to a reasonable degree - no excuses!) This attempt to shut down these establishments is worse than the consistent, mindless proselytizing and disrespectful belittling of smokers by fundamentalist non-smokers; it is forcing these like-minded people to eliminate this form of socialization in which all the players are satisfied with the terms of play. I do not accuse all non-smokers of this disgusting affront to humanity, but for those reading who may make the fundie list: please be aware of the feelings, sentience and rights of others or you may be told in a polite tone how I might suggest you have sex with yourself in order to pass your time. This rogue legislation goes beyond removing smoke from dining establishments, buses and elevators; it's removing it from everywhere - even in places of consent. Why can't there be smoking bars and non-smoking bars? I'll go to one with my smoking friends and t'other with my non-smoking friends. I apologize ahead of time for anyone I may have offended in this pointless spiel and since we all go to the bar for our health: Slainte, one and all!
• This rogue legislation goes beyond removing smoke from dining establishments, buses and elevators; it's removing it from everywhere - even in places of consent. A "place of consent" is one thing. The aforementioned shiksa bars, cigar clubs, smoke shops, etc.. Most cities allow such institutions. Not a problem there. Smoke away. Why can't there be smoking bars and non-smoking bars? Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with a smoking enclosure with it's own ventilation system set up in tandem with the non-smoking part of the bar. With the additional caveat that the employees can choose, with no penalty, which area to work in. But I believe that it is absolutely paramount that a person who chooses NOT to breathe in other people's smoke be able to do so. I think it's interesting that the non-smoker's right to, you know, not smoke is consistently minimized by the opposition. I haven't heard a single argument about why they should have this right denied to them that wasn't some iteration of "They're just a bunch of pussies that shouldn't be out at a bar in the first place." So, c'mon anti-ban-ers*, explain to me why you should have more rights than others. *I almost said "smokers", but this isn't about those who choose to smoke. It's about those who feel they should have the right to deny non-smokers their choice to not smoke.
• I'm no expert on the employment laws where I live, but I'm pretty sure that if my employer decided to store toluene or benzene or some other known carcinogen in the next cubicle, I'd have the right to refuse to work, or at least have some legal recourse to make them stop. Why is tobacco smoke - a known carcinogen - any different? This is a workplace health & safety issue. If you're against the ban, give me a reason why bar & restaurant workers should be forced to ingest carcinogens just to earn a living.
• A "place of consent" is one thing. The aforementioned shiksa bars, cigar clubs, smoke shops, etc.. Most cities allow such institutions. Not a problem there. Smoke away. I was addressing the pending legislation in my city banning those institutions. The legislation has provoked the banninatus maximus to pursue the law to every letter, rather than uphold the spirit for agreeable sorts like yourself. There are some who go so far as wanting to remove cover from any outdoor smoking enclosure, which, when you live in a rainforest like I do, really exposes the vicious sides of a persons mind and their self-inflated feelings of entitlement to you. Further, I would like to have a whiskey bar where smoking was allowed anywhere within. I'm not saying all bars should be smoking bars. So, c'mon anti-ban-ers*, explain to me why you should have more rights than others. Hmm, not so keen on that sentence. That's a lot like the pro-choice/pro-life duality which implies one of the sides hates freedom and the other hates life. I may oppose such an all-encompassing ban, but it's not because I believe I should have more rights than you. I'll admit that cigarette smoke as an issue has a "love it or leave it" mentality on the extreme "smoker's rights" side and a fascist bent on the "non-smoker's rights" side, but it all stems from a deeper conundrum than simply one side believing they deserve more. Simply, neither can honestly have their way without depriving the other side of that which the other side desires in the very transaction both are immediately involved in - even if all they want is "just their fair share." I'm no expert on the employment laws where I live, but I'm pretty sure that if my employer decided to store toluene or benzene or some other known carcinogen in the next cubicle, I'd have the right to refuse to work, or at least have some legal recourse to make them stop. When I was young and worked in the vicinity of toluene and with toluene I was given a respirator and protective gloves. If it is stored hermetically, there isn't really a problem with it as a carcinogen as it's the fumes which are dangerous. People in bars and on streets where autos drive would rather not wear respirators because it isn't in fashion and they're pretty cumbersome to deal with and communicate through. But at the same time and no offense intended, you're just committing to the same fallacy as the trans-fat argument above. But please don't tell me that the respirator argument is silly; if people were addicted to fresh air they would cow to the law and don them in smoggy areas rather than fight for what years of social guilt has told them was wrong to pursue despite the fields of neighbor-endangering choices that still go unchecked. Just to go one further, I don't really know why people who make minimum wage in steel machining places have to risk losing extremities in order to make money, or why higher payed welders should have a shorter life expectancy either. Why do tradespeople have to work more dangerous jobs than office workers who are payed on an equal level? Every job has some health issues. Office workers breathe the same stale central air all day long and many smear their snot underneath their work surfaces. Soldiers do not get paid well for what they put up with at all, especially in the USA. Miners sometimes have to be abandoned - but they at least receive danger pay. I'm not saying that any of it is fair, at all. It's not fair. I'm just saying that I find the excuse of working in the presence of a carcinogen (like a roofer does for relatively poor remuneration) is a poor argument for all-encompassing bans. You can always refuse work if you don't want to wear safety gear. There are more dangerous jobs and less dangerous jobs for a similar amount of pay. Damn it, I got involved. Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I'll try to just read from now on.
• If the primary concern was the health of nonsmokers and restaurant workers, the government would require restaurants to install a big honkin' ventilation system in their smoking section. Health inspectors would make surprise inspections to measure the levels of particulates, CO, and other carcinogens. Few restaurants would be willing to shoulder the expense. Most would choose to go non-smoking. However, a hardy few would gleefully shell out the cash in exchange for a lock on the market of smokers who want to smoke without being insulted by random strangers on the sidewalk. I know that nonsmokers insult smokers with abandon because it's considered socially acceptable to be a total ass to smokers. I know they think of smokers as a faceless group of evildoers. I know that no one in this thread meant to insult me personally by commenting on the way that I smell. And yet, I can't help but take these insults personally, because you are talking about me. And I continue to smoke despite your insults because IT IS AN ADDICTION AND THE PATCHES AND PILLS AND HYPNOSIS AND THE GUM DON'T F*CKING WORK FOR ME. I take comfort in the thought that soon we'll move on to some other health threat, and some other group will find itself the target of public insults and hazing from strangers. Maybe people with multiple chemical sensitivity will ban all forms of personal cosmetics, and we'll have to give up shampoo and deodorant. Perhaps the sufferers of peanut allergy will cause a ban on peanuts, which will perish from the world. Or it could be meat, since meat is apparently the #1 cause of global warming. (Except that with my luck, it'll be fat, and people will feel free to point at me and make oinking sounds when I'm walking down the street. (Oh wait, they already do that. People suck. Never mind.))
• IC: No offense taken. This is a controversial subject, and it's easy for everybody to get heated. Three cheers for monkeys who are passionate in their stance yet can contribute to a civil dilog without resorting to insults or sulking. It might be a good time to take a break. Anyone who would like to smoke, please step out of the thread ;)
• Simply, neither can honestly have their way without depriving the other side of that which the other side desires in the very transaction both are immediately involved in - even if all they want is "just their fair share." Except that there is an objective standard here: whose rights are more infringed upon? The person who chooses to smoke but can't due to the ban, or the person whose health is adversely affected by smoker's actions? Obviously the person whose health is adversely affected is more deserving of their rights being protected than the person who is endangering them. Any standard of "individual rights" has to preclude actions that harm others. The pro-life/pro-choice example you give isn't valid here because in that argument there is a very real and subjective question as to whose rights are more infringed upon, the fetus' or the mother's, that is dependent upon a number of interpretations as to what constitutes an "individual". When it comes to smokers rights' vs. non-smokers' rights there are no philosophical quagmires that can back up the smokers' side, only cultural tradition and, in the case of Joe's article in the FPP, irrational denial of proven facts. Just to go one further, I don't really know why people who make minimum wage in steel machining places have to risk losing extremities in order to make money, or why higher payed welders should have a shorter life expectancy either. Why do tradespeople have to work more dangerous jobs than office workers who are payed on an equal level? Every job has some health issues. Office workers breathe the same stale central air all day long and many smear their snot underneath their work surfaces. Soldiers do not get paid well for what they put up with at all, especially in the USA. Miners sometimes have to be abandoned - but they at least receive danger pay. All of these professions have fought for and won protections over the years, and most are still fighting. The dangers faced by members of one profession are not to be dismissed because other professions are also dangerous. Progress toward safer working environments should be made in all of them. If the primary concern was the health of nonsmokers and restaurant workers, the government would require restaurants to install a big honkin' ventilation system in their smoking section. In the last two cities I've lived in, there was indeed an exception to the smoking ban made for bars that were able to provide a separately ventilated area for those who chose to smoke.
• Oh, smoking is also allowed on outdoor patios in both.
• Anyone who would like to smoke, please step out of the thread ;) And those of us who choose to flame? :)
• And those of us who choose to flame? :) Well then, I guess you'd be smoking :)
• This may not be completely analagous to the approval process for ventilation and smoking sections, but I thought I'd share one of my experiences from my restaurant-working days just for giggles. The Health Seaprtment told my boss he had to install a ventilation hood over the grill, fryers, and stoves. He promised he'd have one by the next inspection, so they passed him. This happened three times. The third time, they told him it was the last time they could pass him on just a promise of future compliance, so they were coming back in six months and he'd have to have it installed by then. He went to some kind of secondhand scrap dealer and bought the outer shell of a ventilation hood and bolted it to the ceiling. No vents, no fans - just the outer shell. The health department worker wasn't about to go crawling around in the attic making sure everything wsa hooked up correctly, so he passed.
• Idiot! Why didn't the guy ask where the switch was AND TURN IT ON?? I would think there would be a code for the amount of "suck strength."
• *snork*
• There is, but it's my own personal code.
• I guess if my story were to have a point germaine to this discussion - and I'm not averring that it does - it would be that it's a much more feasible goal to enforce a total ban than it would be to evaluate every business's ventilation system on a case-by-case basis.
• I guess if my story were to have a point germaine to this discussion - and I'm not averring that it does - it would be that it's a much more feasible goal to enforce a total ban than it would be to evaluate every business's ventilation system on a case-by-case basis. Or maybe we should start hiring competent or supervised inspectors who actually do what they're paid to do? The pro-life/pro-choice example you give isn't valid here because in that argument there is a very real and subjective question as to whose rights are more infringed upon, the fetus' or the mother's, that is dependent upon a number of interpretations as to what constitutes an "individual". When it comes to smokers rights' vs. non-smokers' rights there are no philosophical quagmires that can back up the smokers' side, only cultural tradition and, in the case of Joe's article in the FPP, irrational denial of proven facts. Just to clarify here: I wasn't using pro-choice and pro-life as an analogue to smoker/non-smoker rights, but as an example of biased rhetoric which I saw in this phrase:

  So, c'mon anti-ban-ers*, explain to me why you should have more rights than others.

  Pro-choice people are most likely all for "life" even though the pro-lifers would insinuate the opposite by naming themselves "pro"-life while simultaneously antagonizing the former. Anyway, I'll just re-iterate my case, which is not an all encompassing denial of anyone's rights, but what I see as a middle ground. As long as we can have non-smoking bars we should be allowed to have smoking bars, as well. That both are allowed in seperate sections is good and well, but I'm asking for equal attention. I don't ask for this in restaurants, elevators, buses or theme parks, just in our friendly neighborhood places of substance abuse. There are sanctioned places to shoot heroin and smoke crack in my city; I'm not certain if they're allowed to smoke in there. I don't smoke indoors in my own home because I have a covered patio with a beautiful view of the mountains, but mostly I don't want my home to smell like cigarette butts. While I tend to smoke outdoors everywhere including in bars with smoking rooms, I would like the option that I once had of smoking at the bar in a bar. I don't smoke consistently, so on days when I'm not smoking, I don't really want to smell the remains of it despite that I enjoy the scent of tobacco while it's burning. The problem with smoking rooms is that people are constantly smoking in there; they tend to only enter the room if they are planning to smoke and leave shortly afterward, causing way more smoke in that cramped little area than there would be if it weren't the only place to smoke. Oddly enough, I've been in several bars in my city where the only active place in the bar is the smoking room, so I see a market for a smoking bar or two. I am not trying to segregate smokers and non-smokers, just provide options for those who would desire them, such as myself. And to tell you the truth, perhaps us anti-prohibitionists are actually asking for more rights than non-smokers. After all, the right to be allowed to smoke on private property is a right that non-smokers really could care less about, despite the fact that we both share the right to not smoke whenever we please. Anyway, I don't know if that clarifies my opinion or not, Nick, but here's a fun and utterly backwards fact for you all: In Calgary, Alberta, it is illegal to smoke on patios, if you want to smoke you must go inside the bar.
• Just to clarify here: I wasn't using pro-choice and pro-life as an analogue to smoker/non-smoker rights, but as an example of biased rhetoric which I saw in this phrase: So, c'mon anti-ban-ers*, explain to me why you should have more rights than others. Yeah, you know, I wasn't really going for "well reasoned" there, I was more going for "angry response in answer to angry response". For better or for worse, that was rhetoric formed like a glowing, glossy pearl around a granule of indignation. So, if you took offence to that, and you weren't the intended target (and you weren't, IC,) I take it back.
• Or maybe we should start hiring competent or supervised inspectors who actually do what they're paid to do? Well, if you'd like to see your taxes increase to pay for a crack team of round the clock smoking ventilation inspectors, I think you might be in the minority.
• "Do you mind if I smoke? No, do you mind if I fart?" ------------- "My doctor advised me to take up smoking. He said I wasn't getting enough tar." --S. Martin, circa 1978 FWIW, and YMMV, obv., but IMMO smoking establishments are critical to the overall culture. It seems that the best way to take care of the "Yes/No" question is to allow for a class of business, a "smoking club" that specifically allows cigarette, cigar, pipe, hookah, whatever smoking in it. Don't smoke? Don't go there and vice versa. Badda Bing problem solved, flashbulb handshake for me and then come the chicks by the dozens! Oo yeah! /Duffman
• "Do you mind if I smoke? No, do you mind if I fart?" Also in The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover iirc.
• Just to go one further, I don't really know why people who make minimum wage in steel machining places have to risk losing extremities in order to make money, or why higher payed welders should have a shorter life expectancy either. Why do tradespeople have to work more dangerous jobs than office workers who are payed on an equal level? Every job has some health issues. Office workers breathe the same stale central air all day long and many smear their snot underneath their work surfaces. Soldiers do not get paid well for what they put up with at all, especially in the USA. Miners sometimes have to be abandoned - but they at least receive danger pay. The difference here is that those workers are encountering danger, yes, but it's actually in the pursuit of the eventual goal of the actual job, i.e. make steal, mine coal, or fight a war. Waitstaff can get their jobs done whether or not there is smoke in the air. The goal of a waitperson is to serve drinks. Smoke is not inherent to that process. And I am not in the group of nonsmokers who look at smokers as a "faceless evil hoard". I have friends and family who smoke, and in no way think of them as any less than human. Then again, they love me and know I have asthma, so most try to go outside or at least to another room before they smoke. If they don't, in most social gatherings I'll hang on the porch myself until smoke has cleared. But I don't think I'd extend the same courtesy if I were a paying customer in an establishment. I pay as much as anyone else to be there, and I can't enjoy the service I'm paying for if I'm grasping for inhalers and coughing until my lungs ache* *Yes, it is this bad. I once broke a rib coughing.
• P.S. Same goes for strong perfume on the bus, but that's another debate for another time. But if any of you is the lady who sat in front of me the other day and then turned around shooting me dirty looks every time I coughed, you should know that it was your gallon of eau'de whatever that did it. I was fine until you boarded. /rant
• That was Chanel No. 5, girlie, but it was no match for your garlic breath!
• Well, if you'd like to see your taxes increase to pay for a crack team of round the clock smoking ventilation inspectors, I think you might be in the minority. No, I'd just like an inspector who actually inspects. The goal of a waitperson is to serve drinks. Smoke is not inherent to that process. Well, the goal is to serve people. Some smoke, others don't, some cough on you, others clean your table for you, some thank you, some piss and moan, some don't wash their hands after they poo-poo. We both see it differently, it seems. I would say that smoke is inherent in the job description of a smoking bar, which is really all I am supporting. And no offense taken, Nick. I know that in discussions such as these offenses can be taken far too easily for the most minute or tongue in cheek remark and so I've been trying to tread lightly with these lead clown shoes of mine.
• with these lead clown shoes of mine. What the Hell is that supposed to mean? It's some kind of crack about my deformity, isn't it? Fuck you, InsolentChimp, fuck you with a bag of fuck sticks.
• Haha! Leadfoot! *points*
• You killed Beethoven!
• Tsk, tsk, Nick. Do you need a timeout to compose yourself? Let's all just sit down for some milk and cookies and remember that we're here for a quiet discussion among friends. Perhaps we can change minds with reasoned discourse and unselfish caring. There will be no tying up and torturing with burning cigarettes in an attempt to win minds and hearts.
• When I win minds and hearts I make mind and heart pie to share. Then I get hungry and eat it all myself knowing that my intentions were good.
• Koko farted and the bus lady kicked me!
• Wrong thread, Pete.