It's effing amazing. You'd rather me drive by with Capt. Morgan than

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

with the Marlboro man.

I promise you. You are much more likely to die if I've been with Captain Morgan or Jack Daniels than if I drive by with a cigarette.

I drink and smoke, I'm the self destructive antichrist.

However, I do not ever drive after drinking... But many (Many!) do. Hell, I don't smoke around you either. But that doesn't stop you from trying to turn me into a social pariah.

It's fine and dandy to advertise and promote beer, wine and liquor. There's no public outcry. No people crying that they're "allergic" to being run over by a drunk driver. But the folks who want to cow-toe to the latest "holier than thou" pitch of the decade decide to ignore availability of liquor, radon and hamburgers.

Liquor can kill without an automobile. Very easily. Falling off the roof, in the Bathtub, cleaning the gun, getting pissed off... it goes on and on.

There are plenty of habits, products and behaviours that lead to a demise. Let's make them all illegal! Let's put every fucking body in prison or jail who walks by us with an odor that we do not like!

Sorry, saw a liquor advert and it all hit home after the sad news of Ms. Reeve's passing and the barrage of how amazingly someone can contract lung cancer without smoking... And the attitude of the stories that seemed to be apologetic to the diagnosis that she did not smoke.

Sorry, it's my belief that if you took the figures given out by the anti smoking propaganda and applied them to the real world, humanity should have ceased to exist 100 years after the first load of smoke made it from the Americas to Europe... Or at least by 1965 after virtually every human on earth smoked.

/end rant.

[freeplessinseattle]

1. in WA now even bus shelters are sacred

they just put stickers on them prohibiting smoking in or within 25 feet. doesn't say if it matters if anyone else is within breathing range or not but I was paranoid just now that I'd get a ticket for smoking inside a deserted bus shelter that is doesn't seem to retain smoke any longer than the air a few feet away.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. Of course though, the fumes from the bus are healthy and good for you.

[leftstreet]

12. Breathe deep, the Gathering gloom

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Portland too

It's insane.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. It's an easy law to pass. Smokers are the new n-people. A society

needs someone to look down on.

[LynneSin]

76. So I'm guessing Rosa Parks decided to be a black woman when she was 15

or around that time.

Please do not insult those who fought for civil rights with your disgusting habit. It's one thing to be a certain group through no fault but the genetic makeup given to you from your parents. You choose to smoke and trust me, everyone warned you ahead of time what you were going to have to deal with.

[RPM]

120. sweet

i am sick of other peoples smokes while i wait for the bus.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. I agree

The one thing I am sure about is that I'm gonna die. With that in mind,
I smoke Dunhills, drink Stolie, drink boutique wines of the best caliber I can afford, and smoke excellent cigars. I think God expects us to enjoy life to the fullest and everyone else can go to hell. Actually, I don't believe in God but I do believe you should try everything once because you only get one chance at this life and God will be pissed if you don't try everything he/she has to offer.

[Binka]

61. Ok It's Official I Love You!

I buy Cohiba's at the gas station but hey this is Sicily, good smokes and fine wine are everywhere! I like to get nice and waxed and toast Mt Etna from my balcony!

Chillin with Laverne!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

116. Binka, I love you too

Can you realy get real Cohiba's at gas stations? They sell them in the States at gas stations but there is NO WAY that they are real Cohibas. A real Cohiba, from a real cigar store, under the counter and you have to be a trusted customer to even broach the subject, is about $25.00 TO $3O.OO. Every once in a great while, I can get someone to smuggle a few in for me but it dosn't happen very often. I don't suppose I could talk you into sending me a few?

[Binka]

128. They are Real!

PM me your addy etc. I will get someone to send you some from NAS Sigonella!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

169. RUserious?

Marry me!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. 10:59 CST, ad for Absolut and Dominos Meat Lover's Pizza on TV...

Both of those could kill me one hell of a lot quicker than cigs.

[mondo joe]

43. Is it some sort of special pizza that passes the toxins into the bodies

of people near you who are not actually eating the pizza?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

94. Have you ever been in a small car with someone who has consumed

a medium pizza and pitcher of beer?

The resultant flatulance can peel paint.

[Inland]

89. Maybe if you smoked them regularly.

But I suspect that if you ate them, you'd be okay. Not so with smoking.

[bbinacan]

7. Amen brother. I'm enjoying

a Camel Ultra Light and a Budweiser. I have simple and inexpensive tastes.:smoke: :beer:

BTW, thanks for your PM.

[mondo joe]

8. Did I miss a thread promoting legalizing drunk driving??

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

22. I must have missed that one, myself.

[buddysmellgood]

28. I think we're supposed to choose. I guess we have to either die by second-

hand smoke or because someone drinks and drives. Either way, the idea is that individuals have the right to do whatever they want, no matter how it hurts anyone else. No middle ground. Excuse my now, while I go shit on the curb in front of my neighbor's home.

[mondo joe]

31. Then what's with "Driving with Capt. Morgan"?

What's the comparison of use of alcohol or tobaccco in ways that impact others?

I'm unaware of any argument against expoosure to second hand smoke that is pro-drunk driving.

[Inland]

34. It was "YOU would RATHER".

Who is this "you" guy who is more favorable towards the dangerous activity of drunken driving than the dangerous activity of smoking?

Clearly setting up a straw man to knock down.

[Swede]

9. Nicotine is far too addictive to be sold to anyone.

Let's hope we can stop these nice tobbaco executives from hooking out kids.

[magellan]

11. And alcohol isn't too addictive?

Particularly for those genetically predisposed to alcoholism?

[Swede]

13. Not even close.

I've seen too many try and fail to quit smoking. My mom had a stroke and walked to the fucking corner store to get cigarettes.

[magellan]

14. You've obviously never lived with an alcoholic

I have. My mother died drinking. And I don't suppose I need to tell you how many people "need" that drink when they get home from work, be it beer, wine or what have you.

[Inland]

26. Unlike smokers, not every drinker is addicted/alcoholic.

Tobacco is addictive to all, alcohol is addictive to some. They aren't comparable in terms of addiction.

[magellan]

46. If that's true

...then how is it that after 20 years I can stop whenever I like? I was in the hospital before Christmas for several days, came out and was smokeless for two weeks, and I didn't crave a cigarette once the entire time. It was only when I was feeling well again that I chose to smoke again, because I enjoy it. And that wasn't the first time. Whenever I'm sick I stop without issue. If I ever stop enjoying it, then I'll quit.

I've also known several people who keep a pack around for months and only smoke when they're especially stressed. Doesn't sound like any more of an addiction than "needing" that drink after work.

I'm not saying people don't become addicted to the chemicals in cigarettes; obviously some do. But from my own experience I have to wonder how often the habit of putting that little white stick in the mouth is mistaken for a chemical dependency. Psychological dependency can be just as difficult a thing to conquer. I happen to be very strong-willed so it doesn't bother me.

Anyway, I'm just saying the assertion that "tobacco is addictive to all" is poppycock.

[Inland]

53. "I can quit anytime I want to, I just don't want to"

isn't an argument against the addictive quality of cigarettes. Both the cigarette industry and the quit industry make all their money on it. Why do you think snuff and pipes became fashionable in Europe, Asia and Africa while buffalo meat didn't? It's addictive.

Is it addictive to you? Well, all I can say is that not stopping is not stopping, or smoking only when there is a predictable life event, like stress or the sun rising, isn't stopping either.

Saying that you'll quit when it stops being enjoyable isn't a sign of a lack of addictive quality either. Plenty of people have continued to enjoy cigarettes through a hole in their trachea or in the prescence of a oxygen tank. Will you? We won't know if you are an except to the rule until you become an exception to the rule. But I wouldn't bet your life on it.

Why did you stop when you were hospitalized? Ask your doctor. My guess is that smoking makes you sick all the time, and being sick already, you found them repulsive.

[magellan]

58. We can argue the meaning of "addiction" till the cows come home

Or the buffalo, if you will.

It's illogical to claim that needing a drink to relax every now and then isn't an addiction while treating cigarettes with the same infrequent useage is...unless you're putting your own very personal spin on what constitutes an "addiction".

I could equally argue that both are addictions: needing a cigarette or a drink to help one's mood in certain situations isn't suggestive of a completely healthy frame of mind. But neither necessarily equate to a chemical dependency.

Obviously I stopped smoking when I was hospitalized because I wasn't allowed to smoke in the hospital! I continued smoke-free afterwards for two weeks because I was healing from major surgery. I also avoided coffee and lifting heavy objects. I wouldn't have had a drink during that time either, if I was the sort who enjoyed a beer or wine every day, for the same reason.

The other time I don't smoke is when I have a headache. Some people continue smoking through headaches; I find it makes my head hurt worse so I avoid them then. Some people drink through hangovers; back in the days before I became a teetotaler, the mere thought of having a drink when I was hung over made me feel even sicker.

It's not complex. In fact, it's rather down to the individual...something broad generalizations like "tobacco is addictive to all" fail to take into account. It's a bit like saying everyone who drives fast is addicted to speeding.

Mine is a habit that I don't inflict on others and can overcome when I choose to. Now, you can try to convince me otherwise all you like, but I know myself and you don't. I'd suggest, with respect, that your time would be better spent on something else.

[Inland]

68. We weren't arguing about "addiction". We were arguing about

cigarettes and whether they are "addictive".

That is, of course, not subject to argument. They are.

What you are trying to say is, "not all tobacco smokers are addicted", but that doesn't change the nature of tobacco. The issues you raise are, who's a "smoker", and what to say about somebody who is sure they could stop if they wanted to, but doesn't want to. It's an addictive product, it's someone who doesn't want to stop, and......nobody's addicted who DOESN'T want to quit, by that rationale, because only those who try to quit and fail are proven addicts. I suppose nodding politely and wishing all the best is where we are at. In the meantime, I'm feeling pretty comfortable with my broad generalization.

[magellan]

70. You're putting words in my mouth

...and I'll thank you to quit it.

I'm not trying to say "not all tobacco smokers are addicted"; I am saying it, loud and clear.

I never raised the issue, nor do I dispute, that anyone who smokes, even infrequently, is a smoker. Where do you get that?

And what is there to say about somebody like me, who can stop if they want to but doesn't want to, except "Have at it"? What business is it of yours if they aren't violating your airspace?

Neither did I say nobody who doesn't want to quit isn't addicted. Again, you're twisting my words. It's patently obvious that unless you give smoking up and see how you react to going without it, you won't know if you're addicted or not. There is no flaw to that rationale. How one is addicted is another matter entirely, which I've already covered.

What evidently gets your goat is my assertion that there are some like me who are not addicted in any fashion, who choose to smoke for the pleasure of it. Call it crazy, foolish, stupid...anything you want. But you can't disprove it.

I think you like to paint all smokers with the same broad brush of "addiction" simply because it makes it easier for you to attack people who have a habit you clearly abhor. Why are you unable to allow for a middle ground, to see shades of gray in the black and white issue you make this out to be? Did someone you love die from smoking? If so, I'm truly sorry.

[Inland]

81. Of course I can't disprove whether someone smokes

for pleasure or addiction. All I can tell from observation is that they smoke: there isn't even that much of a subjective difference between smoking for pleasure and smoking to feed an addiction, and I'm not sure how to objectively prove it without the person deciding he'd like to stop and reporting his difficulty. I can't prove, at least not without a lot of observation, that a person who claims that he could simply stop if he wanted to, but just doesn't want to, is addicted.

But then again, the person who claims they aren't addicted can't prove it while still smoking.

So what are we left with? All the people who try unsuccessfully, who admit they wish they could stop but can't, and who successfully quit and report that it was difficult.

The addictiveness of tobacco doesn't say anything bad about smokers. Smoking is dirty, dangerous and unpleasant to be around, regardless of whether it's undertaken to feed a habit or out of just plain fun. The quality of addictiveness says something about who tobacco should be marketed to and why people in general continue to smoke, and a few outliers on the addiction issue doesn't change that. Nobody is going to stop raising cigarette taxes on the concept that a few might be able to quit. Especially when they don't anyway.

But it seems to me that your attitude is, if you aren't addicted, then it's just a moment of pleasure rather than something like taking drugs, it's not done out of weakness. To you, smoking out of an addiction is a statement of morality and character. To me, it beats smoking out of pleasure, because that strikes me as a bad choice willfully made. But my point wasn't to condemn smokers but to tell the truth about smoking. The truth is, simply, that there isn't any other legally available product like it.

On edit, because you asked, my father in law died of lung cancer from smoking, but we weren't all that close. When I bring it up, it's only because I had no idea how a person dies from lung cancer. They suffocate, really, really slowly. I felt bad for his family, all gathered around his bedside, crying and telling him that they loved him and goodby, and he didn't hear a word, because every single ounce of his being was occupied in the effort of getting a few more molecules of oxygen into his lungs. Nasty stuff.

[High Plains]

86. If it's so addictive, how have millions managed to quit?

[Inland]

87. Hard work. I wasn't a smoker, so I don't have details.

It's not a death sentence, just addictive. You could ask them yourself.

[magellan]

108. I asked you once to stop putting words in my mouth

You've done it again.

"But it seems to me that your attitude is, if you aren't addicted, then it's just a moment of pleasure rather than something like taking drugs, it's not done out of weakness. To you, smoking out of an addiction is a statement of morality and character."

I don't distinguish between smokers based on why they smoke. A smoker is a smoker to me. I made a distinction between the different reasons people smoke -- pleasure or addiction -- only because you asserted "Tobacco is addictive to all". You've taken my explanation out of context to assume something unpalatable about me.

That's a shame, too, because after mulling it over I realize I was wrong: tobacco is more addictive than alcohol. I was thinking of alcohol addiction in terms of the hell I watched my mother go through for years instead of on a general scale of use and potential addiction.

Unfortunately I'm not willing to discuss this anymore with someone who is so insistent on being right that they happily make their opponent out to be something they're not.

Peace.

[dcfirefighter]

18. Can I grow it myself? Will you protect me from my other bad habits?

All we can ask is 1) honesty in communication 2) a reasonable effort in limiting damages to 'bystanders'.

I say reasonable, because if we take stuff to teh point of absurdity, we only have opinions to differing degrees of absurdity: You may think it reasonable to legislate against smoking in any place you may legally travel.
By similar logic, it may be reasonable to legislate against noise (noise being a known stressor, and stress kills) in any place a person may legally travel. For instance, perhaps children below the age of 8 should be prohibited from restaraunts, bars, and other establishments open to the public.

A more reasonable tactic in each case would be allow for the proprietors to choose to cater their business to people with children and people who don't mind children, or not.

[buddysmellgood]

30. We do legislate against noise. You can have all the bad habits you like.

Once your habits damage my health, I have a say in where and how you conduct those habits. If you can prove that people in restaurants are a threat to public health, you can try to pass legislation or an ordinance or restriction that address that.

[Kingshakabobo]

38. Noise. The ridiculous arguments pile up in these threads, don't they?

[dcfirefighter]

42. Yes they do. Unfortunately they're made by both sides.

The data was cooked. Learn it, love it, accept it.

You cause me harm every day you drive your car, every time you buy just about any product, etc. etc. Where is the line drawn? In a court of law? OK, i'd take that. The courts have been relatively fair. What hasn't been fair is the legislatures - without proof of harm, without the due process accorded to other 'workplace hazards', cigarette smoking has been singled out. Why? Because relatively few people do it.

Authoritarianism of the left isn't any better than authoritarianism of the right.

More importantly, you have no 'Right' to enter private establishments, even if they are 'open to the public'. Ever heard 'we reserve the right to refuse service...'?

So, take your 'Rights' and keep them away from mine.

[TahitiNut]

45. Let's outlaw sidestream carbon dioxide!

:silly: :eyes:

[Kingshakabobo]

54. Huh? What data? n/t

[Cats Against Frist]

158. REASONABLE? OH, YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF REASON?

Why do you hate America? You honestly think that letting proprietors CHOOSE what kind of environment they wish to have in their place of business is a GOOD PLAN. As IF free adults can come and go as they please. :eyes:





:sarcasm:

[Kingshakabobo]

162. Just like those America hating asbestos banning fanatics.

Asbestos was a cheap effective way to retard flames and those pesky nanny-staters came along and banned it. The nerve. I mean, AS IF free thinking employees aren't smart enough to find work elsewhere.

[buddysmellgood]

164. Hey, I happento enjoy breathing asbestos. It's my body. Keep your laws off

my lungs. If you don't like asbestos then don't breath it. This is America.

[magellan]

10. Thank you

The idiocy of the anti-smoking campaign hit home with me when I was carded in a gas station convenience store for a pack of cigarettes. ONE. PACK.

I was 35. I was carded for 31. I was flattered...but moreso enraged. At the fridges, kids who still had peach fuzz on their faces were stocking up on beer for the weekend -- and I was being carded for 31 for cigarettes.

Where is the sense in this, I ask? Have I somehow missed the statistics showing that a less than 31-year old smoker is more likely to kill themselves or others than kids barely out of their teens who drink and then choose to drive?

Drinking and smoking aren't dissimilar as bad habits go. They have similar consequences on the "offender" and any innocents around them and so should be treated the same. What's up with the disparity in the law?

[dcfirefighter]

16. I recently quit

You people stink, as did I, I now realize with clarity.

But, that being said, I think you should be able to smoke freely on private property, according to the owner's wishes.

On public property, outdoors you should smoke only with the permission, or rather failure to complain, of those within 5' of you.

There are a few 'public' property indoor areas in which I think smoking should be allowed in designated areas: airports, certain collegiate buildings, etc: IOW, if there is a bar in a public building, it should have the option of allowing smoking.

Oddly, as much as I loved smoking - I really did, I don't really miss it. Black coffee, dark chocolate, and a cigarette were wonderful companions on midnight watches. I could not imagine drinking bourbon in the quantities I enjoy without a pack of smokes on the bar next to me.

On the other hand, I attribute my 'success' to two things: the patch (get the clear kind, not the band-aid kind), and the fact that I haven't really quit. The idea of forgoing smoking for the rest of my life scared me. I mean really, some mornings, when the world is quiet, and the weather perfect. . . so I vowed not to quit, just to slow WAY down. I still smoke 0-2 cigarettes each week, say 4 a month. I don't count them. Whenever I want one, I mooch one (karma's a bitch). I live with 3 smokers, and work with several more. I'm constantly near cigarette smoke - and I rarely desire one. I'm not resisting an urge, I don't have an urge. Most, if not all, of the smokes I do have, are in anticipation of pleasure - because the situation is one of those 'classic' ones that I counted as the great times to smoke. And they're almost always dissappointing. The romance of the moment is mostly in my head.

I still drink a load of coffee, though, more than before 'quitting'. I never used to fix coffee in the afternoon, now I often do.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

19. So ... you quit, but you didn't quit

Your post cracks me up. You still smoke but you call smokers "you people." You don't have an urge, you just love to have a smoke now and then.

How many times have you quit? I quit three times with the patch. The patch is great! It's a gateway drug back to lighting up. Glad you don't have an urge!

I'm having a smoke right now because this is one of those classic situations that calls for a cigarette.


:smoke:

[dcfirefighter]

24. Something like that

'You People' = tongue in cheek

I've quit once, for 6 months now (though for much of that time I was still getting my beloved nicotine).
During that time, I've smoked less than 20 cigarettes, I'm sure.
My goal was to get it down to 2 a day. I think I far surpassed my goal.
I figure that 2 a day puts me into the 'noise' area of health risks - IOW the risk of 2 a day is on par with living marginally closer to power lines, or other relatively minor risks.
I wasn't looking for perfection, I was looking for good enough.
I wouldn't say I 'love to have a smoke'. Occasionally, when one of my friends is lighting up, I'll ask for one, if the mood hits me. By the back of the envelope, this happens roughly once every 800 times one of my friends lights up. I'm not even tempted the other 799.

More importantly, having explained the 'you people' remark, I don't really care what you think or what you do with yourself.

[Inland]

29. You know the joke.

Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it a dozen times.

I also don't think that the two cigarettes a day put you in a marginal risk category. It might put you in an acceptable risk category as a personal choice, and I'm not a doctor, but "marginal"? I really don't think so.

[dcfirefighter]

41. It's relative

I live in a violent county
work at a dangerous job
and have dangerous hobbies

I feel that <2 cigarettes a day puts you at a similar risk to living in a polluted world, etc. It's down by the statistical 'noise'.

And i'd rather ask a statistician than a doctor. Most doctor's have the same mindset as the fun police: any avoidable risk isn't worth taking. Statisticians don't judge. They may compare the risk of early death due to smoking 2 cigarettes a day to the risk of dying early due to a fall in the home.

[Inland]

83. That's true.

And in fact, the reason why soldiers took up smoking....aside from cigarettes being in the ration kit....is that they were going to die anyway. Relatively, the risk of dying of a cigarette looked minimal.

And I can't judge your weighing your present pleasure against your future icky death, but let me ask you to ponder something: if you weren't already a smoker, would you start TODAY? If not, then it's not just fun vs risk. The decision is partly made by teh addiction. Which makes it look like less than a fully rational choice that is going to be changed by a statistician.

I don't know if I've met anyone who really only took up smoking as an adult making a completely rational, informed decision. It's almost always the same age that people are doing things that SEEMED cool at the time and not so much later.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

47. ooh, musta struck a nerve

If you really didn't care, you wouldn't bother to explain.

Yep, "quitters" don't like to hear about recidivism. I know I didn't. If you want to be pissed off about it, it's no tar off my lungs. Maybe it will needle you enough to really quit. Good night, and good luck.

[Bluebear]

74. You didn't quit, you just stopped buying your own :)

It's a horrible substance to get off of, I know. I wonder if you have had the nicotine buzz if you ever truly 'quit', the brain seems to think about it forever.

[dcfirefighter]

80. I hate myself

but, I figure at the current rate, It will be the year 2198 before i have mooched more cigarettes than i have given away.

[Bluebear]

82. Don't hate yourself.

And don't blame yourself. Millions of us were suckered into the addiction bro.

[dcfirefighter]

146. Ha! i don't hate myself, that's sarcasm

And it wasn't for smoking, it was for mooching.
But thanks for the sympathy.

[Individualist]

15. The media whores never mention diesel soot

because smokers are such an easy scapegoat. www.catf.us/projects/diesel/

Nor do you hear an equal amount of bitching about diesel from people who love to bitch about smokers in public places.

[dcfirefighter]

17. Or Uranium in coal soot n/t

[mondo joe]

27. Is your arugument that because there are multiple toxins we shouldn't

take steps to minimize ANY of them unless they can all be eliminated at the same time?

[dcfirefighter]

44. We have a de facto 'acceptible risk' standard

If the risk is acceptible for one thing, why not the other? Especially if the other involves individual lifestyle choices vs. merely being cost-expedient?

You can avoid second hand smoke by not associating with smokers.

Instead, you choose to avoid second hand smoke by removing the legal ability of smokers to smoke.

You choose the more authoritarian choice. I despise authoritarians.

[mondo joe]

50. How do you feel about legislation regulating auto emissions?

Or toxic dumping?

Are those too authoritarian for you?

[dcfirefighter]

71. Clear damages vs. implied damages

Auto emissions have clear and proven damages to the environment, as does toxic dumping.

Someone smoking in a building you don't have to go in doesn't damage you in the least.

[mondo joe]

122. Hm? You don't have to live near toxic dumps.

Do you?

[dcfirefighter]

150. Not really

the spread of toxins from dumps can be quite far if by air, or water.

I challenge you to detect harmful levels of cigarette smoke more than a few feet away from the cigarette. (I to can smell them 100's of feet, but as of yet, odors aren't terribly regulated).

[Viking12]

57. Any equation for "acceptable risk" must include

a factor for "expected benefit"? What's the social benefit of smoking? If it's purely risk without reward the level of "acceptability" is much lower.

BTW I :smoke:

[dcfirefighter]

72. The social benefit of smoking is in the eye of the beholder

like many other 'enjoyable' activities:

reading, sex for fun, watching TV, etc.

[Kingshakabobo]

163. Exactly. You see, I receive exactly NO benefit from your silly habit...

yet it affects my health. Therefore, the threshold for risk is VERY low.

[Individualist]

60. No,

I'm saying smoking and smokers are demonized while other carcinogens are almost completely ignored. During all the reports about Dana Reeve, how many times did you hear anything about environmental carcinogens?

[enlightenment]

62. They did a shill for radon testing.

"It's cheap!" Only $250 for the test -- and then thousands to "fix" your house.

And inserting my little toe into this very volatile debate: I started smoking at 13; quit for 5 years at 22; quit again at 34 (1998) - haven't smoked since and no desire, but who knows what's down the road?
Took me 2 weeks and approximately 1 trillion sunflower seeds in the shell to quit (never having mastered the art of extracting the seed using only teeth and tongue, sunflower seeds kept both my hands and my mouth busy!)
However, considering the level of stress that living in this country creates, starting up again almost (almost) sounds appealing.

I don't like the smell of smoke anymore and its presence makes my head hurt and my eyes water; but I really, really dislike the thought of becoming a "born again" non-smoker -- so I rarely criticize.

on edit: clarifying a statement.

[Inland]

32. Smokers ARE an easy scapegoat. For a reason.

Unlike diesel trucks and buses, smoking doesn't get food to the stores or kids to school. Unlike limiting or modifying diesel trucks and buses, limiting smoking does not cost money, it saves money. And unlike the next generation of diesel engines, all attempts to make a safer cigarette have failed, with the exception of the self-extiguishing cigarettes, and that's only with regard to fires.

That's why smoking is an easy target.

[northofdenali]

20. Tom, will you marry me and have my babies?

Oh. That's right. I'm a girl. sigh.

Great rant (just a little pat on the back from one smoker to another).

[REP]

21. Hate The Sin, Hate The Sinner More

I smoke. I get nagged a lot to quit by well-meaning people who don't quite understand that smoking isn't making my kidney failure worse.

In California, I'm vilified and taxed heavily to subsidize some amn children's project (I'm childfree). The last time a stranger chided me for smoking, I said with great innocence, that I did it for the children.

[Devlzown]

23. That's one of the few advantages

of living in a red state. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.:smoke:

[Bridget Burke]

33. Smoking was banned in Houston restaurants last September....

Nobody's shed any tears.

[Devlzown]

49. Well, when they outlaw smoking in the casinos

here in Mississippi, I might start to worry.:P

[Bridget Burke]

55. When I find myself in a Mississippi casino....

I'll start to worry!

(No offense to your state; it's hard enough being a Texan.)

[pitohui]

167. hey!

there are some casinos in mississippi second to none in the world, visit silver star and then repeat that allegation

[EvolveOrConvolve]

117. My red state banned smoking in restaurants

which didn't bother me at all, but now they're aiming for the bars, bowling alleys, and clubs.

Fucking ridiculous is what it is.

Me ->:smoke:

[Inland]

25. Of course, no apologist for tobacco ever notes this "real world" fact.

Cigarettes are bad for your health when used as recommended. Follow all the recommended uses and they make you sick. It's merely a question of how sick and how fast.

That makes tobacco different from alcohol, which if used in moderation and wisely won't lead to death. If I don't drive while drinking, no car crash. If I don't drive while smoking, I still get sick. There is no safe level of tobacco use.

If I eat a ton of hamburgers in one sitting, I die. If I eat two Big Macs a week, I'm fine...I have to run ten miles, but I'm fine. But I can't work off cigarettes, or skip a meal to make up for it.

So whenever discussing the "plenty of habits that lead to demise", there's really only one that can be described with one word. Give me one word that tells me all I need to know about a habit that leads to demise, such as "smoking." Of course, it can't be "eating", or "boozing", because it also needs a qualifier of "too much" or "while driving" or "all the time". The only ones I can think of is "heroin".

Look, whatever one wants to make out of all the no smoking areas and such, there's no covering up the difference between cigarettes and other legal activities. Even the aside that every person in the world would be dead isn't exactly true, because thanks to the lag time in contracting cancer, you are able to breed another generation of users before passing away in a truly, truly icky fashion. (Everyone thinks they are going to pass away beautifully, like Ali McGraw in Love Story. With emphysema or lung cancer, first you waste away painfully, and then it gets bad. Ever watch a person suffocate to death over a half hour? Ask for a hot shot, trust me on that.) Like a successful virus, tobacco doesn't kill the host immediately. First you have to buy them for years and pass them on to your kids.

[Kingshakabobo]

35. There you go, using logic in a smoking thread....

you oppressive ant-smoking nazi. :sarcasm:

[Inland]

37. Only because it's early and I'm not drunk yet. nt

[GaYellowDawg]

36. The Marlboro Man is dead.

The actor died of... you guessed it... CANCER.

Sorry, it's my belief that if you took the figures given out by the anti smoking propaganda and applied them to the real world, humanity should have ceased to exist 100 years after the first load of smoke made it from the Americas to Europe... Or at least by 1965 after virtually every human on earth smoked.

Some points:

1. Lung cancer generally hits at an age after which people have reproduced, so humanity was never in danger of ceasing to exist.

2. Tobacco wasn't as bad in terms of carcinogen and nicotine load until the tobacco companies discovered that nicotine was addictive and bred much stronger tobacco.

3. Even if tobacco was that strong to begin with, if people in North America and Europe died out, there would have been plenty of people in ASIA who didn't have the habit.

4. In 1965, far from "virtually every human on earth" smoked. There were plenty of people who thought it was a nasty habit and declined to smoke.

5. The penalties for alcohol-related crimes are a lot stiffer than smoking ordinances, thanks. There are also plenty of laws against public consumption, public drunkenness, etc. As for hamburgers, there's no such thing as secondhand cholesterol, so that's an inapt analogy.

Frankly, I love anti-smoking laws and ordinances. It means that I don't have to be assaulted by the smell or the smoke. It means that it's a lot harder for one person to stink up an entire room. It means that you can't force your habit on me.

[jmowreader]

77. The Marlboro Man died from Emphysema. Not cancer.

Which doesn't change the fact that the Marlboro Man died from a disease which is primarily caused by smoking cigarettes.

[GaYellowDawg]

95. Thanks for the correction.

I'd rather be accurate than win a point.

[jmowreader]

125. But you WERE accurate!

He died from an illness he got smoking cigarettes. It's not like there are degrees of dead.

[Toots]

39. You wish to smoke in private that's fine by me but what gives you

the right to foul my air with your poison? I don't give too shits what you do to yourself but you have no right to do the same to me. It makes no difference whether it is actual poison or just foul oder, you have no right to force it upon me. People drinking do not force alcohol upon me. They may exhibit bad behavior because of alcohol but people exhibit bad behavior all the time. As soon as you let me piss in your water, I will let you poison my air. Humans need three things to sustain life. Food, Water, and Air. None should be allowed to be polluted by others. It just is not right...

[magellan]

48. Where does Tom even suggest he has the right to impose his habit on you?

Nowhere. Read the OP again. I'm another smoker who would never think of imposing on another person's air quality without at least asking first...and that even goes in my own home when guests are here.

And this is just plain wrong:

"People drinking do not force alcohol upon me."

You've been lucky then. There are plenty of people in this country who have alcohol imposed on them every year by drunk drivers.

[mondo joe]

56. Drunk driving is illegal. Please don't confuse legally

condemned actions with legally condoned actions.

Having alcohol "imposed on you", as you put it, is illegal.

Why should having cigarette smoke "imposed on you" be different?

[magellan]

59. And I say again

...where does anyone here suggest they have the right to impose their cigarette smoke on others? I certainly don't. I haven't smoked in a public place for years. I get that others don't appreciate it and that it's an outright danger to some with allergies or asthma. I'm just waiting for the preaching to get as widespread and indignant about alcohol use.

[mondo joe]

64. If smoking in areas of public accomodation isn't the issue

then I missed the point of the thread, and apologize.

[magellan]

78. Nope, it's me, sorry! I missed the point of the thread

And if it's that smoking should be allowed in bars, I'd have to agree and disagree. I've no problem with bars going non-smoking. But the decision should be left up to the owner of the establishment, not dictated by law.

[Bandit]

65. What is his bitch then?

No one has ever suggested smoking in private be illegal. The whole fuss about smoking is because it is subjected upon others against their will when done in public. I have not read a single thing ever that said you could not smoke in your own home if it didn't endanger children. Why the big long rant about how dangerous alcohol is? Someone drinking alcohol does not foul my water or food or air so why should I care as long as they follow the laws? Drunk driving is a major problem but laws are in place to protect citizens from such. Why are there no laws to protect my right to clean air as well as clean food and water? I am quite sure there is a law against me pissing in the public water reservoir. Why not the public air reservoir?

[Inland]

69. Good question. It's yet another straw man, and we're all the poorer.

If everyone was all agreed on who should smoke where, who was being referenced? Apparently, the same guy who would rather have him drink than smoke while driving.

[Cats Against Frist]

159. I was just wondering where you purchased

the air inside a private bar.

[Toots]

168. If it is a Private Club open to members only that is one thing

but if it is open to the Public it is Public air.....or don't you get that simple fact?

[Kingshakabobo]

40. She was a cabaret singer and was exposed to loads of second-hand smoke.

Does that enter in to you thinking when you say?:

"And the attitude of the stories that seemed to be apologetic to the diagnosis that she did not smoke."

I know, I know, we'll never be able to PROVE that second hand smoke caused her death. Nice little racket the smoking industry has, isn't it?:

A product that, due to normal use, causes great harm to it's users AND bystanders but it's so addictive it causes users to defend it's public use with ridiculous arguments and false analogies.

A product that, when consumed in public places, is harmful to innocent bystanders. It doesn't cause it's victims to keel over at the scene so users can give themselves moral cover and say "they woulda died from somethin." Also, users can give themselves moral cover by "believing" bull-shit "studies" funded by the tobacco industry that says second-hand smoke is not dangerous even though logic says if you breath that shit year after year it's gotta cause harm.

[Javaman]

51. Drinking or smoking. fast death or slow death, your choice, but

the results are still the same.

I do not drink nor do I smoke. statistically, I should live a long healthy life.

Some say boring, but to me, just because I do neither, doesn't mean I don't enjoy life.

Peace is not defined by what you do, but by what you don't do.

Peace.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

165. Peace Is Defined By However The Hell Any Individual Chooses To

define it.

[genie_weenie]

52. Why not ban everything IN THE WHOLE WORLD? (dun dun dunnn)

Why not let the government or some other organization (your Parent Corporation/Church/Bowling League) determine how many grams of chocolate you can have daily, plan and detail out a specific workout/diet for you to conform to daily...

Some human habits are destructive and bad, who determines what is acceptable? The usual measuring stick is when one person's behavior infringes and/or endangers another...

I know my CO always had my best intrests at heart that's why I always wore my seatbelt when driving around MSR Michigan in Ramadi!!!

[Kingshakabobo]

63. So, you are for public spaces smoking bans?

>>The usual measuring stick is when one person's behavior infringes and/or endangers another... <<<

Unless, of course, you don't think second-hand smoke is harmful to bystanders?

[genie_weenie]

67. Yes, I dislike smokers in public enclosed places

Second hand smoke is a killer. And this does fall under my usual measuring stick definition. However, I am always leery when I hear about more Government pressure/regulations...

[dcfirefighter]

79. The usual measuring stick . . .

I've always feared this measuring stick, because there is a lot of leeway in 'infringes and/or endangers another'...

The fundies claim that the existence of pornography degrades infringes on their right to live in a porn-free world.
They also claim that nontraditional marriages degrade the sacrament of their traditional marriages.
Every drop of fresh water you use, every square foot of earth you occupy, every breath of air you strip of oxygen or pollute with combustion, removes an amount of the natural world that I may access.
I can prove that every bit of real estate you own causes any real estate I may wish to buy to be more expensive - is this a damage?

There was once a crusade against highway speeding: every accident was then attributed, at least partially, to speed.
There has been an ongoing crusade against smoking: every death that can possibly be attributed to smoking has been. What do they have? 3000 cancer deaths a year assigned to second hand smoke.

For comparison:
more than 500,000 deaths from other cancers
40,000 highway deaths
5000 asthma deaths
70,000 diabetes deaths (closely linked to obesity)
3215 motorcycle deaths
3447 drownings (more people die each year from accidental drownings than from second hand smoke)
5500 people accidently choke to death each year
3159 peopel die by fire each year
17,500 accidental poisonings

I will concede that smoking is harmful enough to be barred from public places. I cannot see why smoking gets special treatment (other than most people don't mind being authoritarian when they're in the majority) over other workplace hazards in bars, restaraunts, etc.

And for the record, I dislike people smoking around me, especially while I'm eating. You'll note that many, if not most, restaraunts are smoke-free even without legislation.

[Kingshakabobo]

84. You missed a few deaths.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545


>>>>>>>>>What about passive or secondhand smoke?
The link between seconhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke) and disease is well known, and the connection to cardiovascular-related disability and death is also clear. About 37,000 to 40,000 people die from heart and blood vessel disease caused by other people's smoke each year. Of these, about 35,000 nonsmokers die from coronary heart disease, which includes heart attack.<<<<<<

[dcfirefighter]

147. Methodology, please?

Who's to say that the 40k deaths are due to smoking and not other factors. As I pointed out earlier, just like the highway speed crusade, everythign possible is attributed to smoking.

[Kingshakabobo]

161. "everything possible"?? We are talking about 40k deaths....

Not "everything possible". That's a silly statement. I'll take the work of the Surgeon General and the AHA over an anonymous poster on an internets thread.

If you have something to refute it put it up. Are you saying secondhand smoke isn't a public health hazard???



edit; to add "K" after 40

[Inland]

85. Smoking's special treatment is only favorable.

There aren't any materials with that carcinogenic flavor that aren't regulated somehow. Most are banned, others have exposure limits. You don't even know what's IN your cigarettes. Food, drugs, air quality, are all regulated for the safety of the individual who is consuming it. Not cigarettes, aside from sales to youth.

[dcfirefighter]

148. Grilled meats have been proven carcinogenic

They are not banned, nor do they have exposure limits.

Vehicle exhaust has been proven carcinogenic, there aren't really any limits.

There are no OSHA limits, as far as I know, regarding cigarette smoke, and this is the crux of my argument against smoking bans:

The banners tried to work the public health angle, it didn't take: the public isn't required to go to bars and restaraunts. (plus, most restaraunts, esp. family restaraunts, were already smoke free)

So they went for a workplace health angle: the poor waitresses and bartenders shouldnt' be forced to work in a smoky environment. Unfortunately, the regulators didn't bite. The OSH types didn't see fit to regulate ETS. EPA studies ETS, and found it NOT to be a concern. Political pressure was applied, and the EPA changed it's classification system, and, voila, ETS is now a concern.

So, the newly armed banners, on their moral crusade against smokers, took the cases to the people: and proving that the majority of people don't mind telling the minority of people what they can and can't do, they have been successful in banning smoking.

Surprisingly, such authoritarianism is strikingly popular in otherwise liberal strongholds.

[Inland]

151. They have? News to me.

Who has died of grilled meat lately? At least I can find out what's in my meat, and there are laws preventing anyone from selling me dangerous food. Not so with cigarettes. They are privileged.

As to vehicle exhaust, feel free to take my emissions test for me next year. It only takes about a half hour and costs only about $1200 bucks to repair the system that the government mandates is on your car as part of its ...wait for it...wait for it....regulation of the dangerous pollutants caused by driving it.

And yeah, regulating radiation, benzene, and huge chopping blades in the workplace is one of those ways that liberals have found to institute totalitarian control over workers and take away their rights to work and get unhealthy in the same location. You can argue against that if you want. I don't, and therefore I'm able to say that the exclusion of cigarettes simply puts it in a PRIVILEGED position. There just isn't any other legally available product like it. .

Smoking is dangerous, smoking is addictive, because it's addictive it's popular and profitable, and because it's popular and profitable, the manufacturers and smokers make sure it's treated differently than any other dangerous activity. The regulators DON'T bite. It's just not a good thing.

[dcfirefighter]

152. There are no laws preventing selling you dangerous foods.

Despite the rhetoric, not everyone who smokes a cigaretted dies from tobacco - related diseases. Some live long and otherwise healthy lives. Therefore, cigarette smoke does not cause cancer / heart disease: they merely increase your likelihood of developing them.

Similarly, Lard, Bacon, Meat, Sweets, etc. do not cause obesity, diabetes, or heart disease, they merely increase the likelihood of developing them.

As for the labelling laws: I agree with you, cigarettes should be labelled, esp. if they contain stuff other than organic tobacco. I've no problem with putting big full color pictures of cancerous growths on one side of them - though I think it's a waste of time.

Tobacco is profitable. Oddly enough, it's still profitable for the corporate giants who lied, misrepresnted, and otherwise acted like evil bastards. The fact that they weren't put out of business and replaced with new tobacco companies boggles my mind. But growing, processing, and selling tobacco products still employs many thousands of people. It does this precisely because ~20% of the adult population finds tobacco use enjoyable. Being profitable and popular isn't evil.

Regulating everything to the nth degree will crush any chance we have of eliminating poverty. The best worker protection available - better than any OSHA, EPA, or Union - is the ability to walk away to a better job. The only way to ensure that everyone has that oportunity is to encourage productivity, by stripping as many taxes, hindrances, & regulations from productive activity as we can. I would guess that being fairly liberal with the legality of enjoyable activities would help, more than hinder employment and working conditions.

[Inland]

153. Wha wha wha wha WHAAAAAT?

Pure Food and Drug Act? the FDA? Now, those acts don't apply to cigarettes, of course, because they are privileged. There isn't any other drug, or food, or supplement, sold that will make you sick when used as recommended. None.

See, you call "foods" dangerous when you really mean "overeating". Eating isn't a dangerous activity, overeating is. Cigarettes, however, don't have a safe recommended dose, and you don't only get sick from "oversmoking".

As I said to the OP's own false analogies:
*That makes tobacco different from alcohol, which if used in moderation and wisely won't lead to death. If I don't drive while drinking, no car crash. If I don't drive while smoking, I still get sick. There is no safe level of tobacco use.

If I eat a ton of hamburgers in one sitting, I die. If I eat two Big Macs a week, I'm fine...I have to run ten miles, but I'm fine. But I can't work off cigarettes, or skip a meal to make up for it.

So whenever discussing the "plenty of habits that lead to demise", there's really only one that can be described with one word. Give me one word that tells me all I need to know about a habit that leads to demise, such as "smoking." Of course, it can't be "eating", or "boozing", because it also needs a qualifier of "too much" or "while driving" or "all the time". The only ones I can think of is "heroin". *

Being popular and profitable isn't evil, but it does explain why it's priviliged without justifying why it should be.

[dcfirefighter]

155. How unsafe is 1 cigarette a week?

What is the recommended use of cigarettes?

Even the FDA laws imply that the consumer is competent to decide on his own diet.

Cigarettes will not make EVERY person who uses them sick, just like peanuts won't cause an allergic reaction in every person who eats them.

The nature of allergies is such that you can suddenly develop an allergy - so not everyone already knows that peanuts will cause an adverse reaction.

In either case, only a very small percentage of people who ingest one of these products will be killed by it.

It seems only reasonable to me to allow the individual to decide what is and isnt' an acceptible risk.

[Inland]

156. There IS no recommended use of cigarettes.

That's just the point. There's no safe use. It's just a question of how sick and how fast. What's the recommeded use of heroin? What's the recommended number of bullets to the brain?

Cigarettes DO make every person who use them sick. All you can do is play with the word "use" ("a cigarette a century/"). What you mean is, not everyone dies of them. It's true. Sometimes something else gets them first. But everyone gets sick.

The FDA laws DON'T imply that everyone is competent to decide on their own diet. The issue of "diet" just has nothing to do with "dangerous foods", because the FDA regulates dangerous, impure food and drugs, not misuse of them. But there is no "misuse" of cigarettes. There is no cigarette that is safe for everybody but those with a special condition, like an allergy. A pure cigarette, done to code, being exactly what a cigarette SHOULD be, causes cancer and heart disease in humans, and there is no theoretical cigarette that doesn't. The only reason why the FDA doesn't ban cigarettes is because, well, the law doesn't require cigarettes to be safe. Cigarettes are privileged.

[dcfirefighter]

160. OK then

With the logic like that, there is no point in pursuing this debate in a logical manner; (they all make you sick, some people die of something else first... I cannot argue this. I know someone who smoked half a cigarette once when they were 18, they appear healthy to me - according to you they are sick)

I will argue this on a emotional ground.

I will fight every attempt by the government to regulate personal choices. I will not make exceptions for regulations that are 'for your own good'. I will not attempt to determine a safe level of risk - all actions carry risk - i will allow the individual to decide.

Just as all actions carry risk, all actions damage others: even inaction damages others. Some actions, like swatting a fly on the other side of the world, carry almost no damage to me; others, like the open burning of coal upwind of me, carry significant damages.

Where the damages are against public goods and commonwealth; we should seek to eliminate the damages, or at least be compensated for them. Pollution charges work for this. I favor charges more than regulations because, in my experience, regulations protect the polluter just as much as the environment: if the regulations say that effluent discharges cannot contain more than 1 ppm of benzene, then an infinite amount of benzene can be discharge with an infinite amount of water (somehow dilution isn't pollution). Without getting into a debate about refining the regulations, I will state that other forms of regulation also tend to merely establish a floor below which the polluter isn't responsible. OTOH, if each and every bit of pollution carries an immediate financial cost to the polluter, he will seek to limit his pollution in a cost effective manner.

Where the damages are against individuals, or even groups of individuals, we have a court system for redressing these damages. Such a system develops precedents: as such, eventually, the fair means of dealing with ETS would evolve.

Certainly, in a democracy, the majority has the ability to pre-emtively prohibit certain activities, like smoking in public. This should not be sufficient for open-minded liberal types: we fight the same attidute in regards to minority rights, abortion, etc.

[bbgrunt]

66. great rant. The whole world has gone insane.

[leftofthedial]

73. hate the smoke, love the smoker

[LynneSin]

75. Sorry but absolutely WRONG

First, I might be able to drive after one Captain Morgan, but I know in my state (which has a smoking ban) they can ticket me for even smelling booze on my breath even if I am still under the limit.

Driving drunk is a crap shoot. Today I might get lucky but tomorrow I might not. And the laws are getting stricter for driving under the influenence which let's face it - only a dumbass would do.

But stop thinking about yourself or anti-smokers like myself. Consider the fact that there are employees that work there that have to deal with this pollution day in and day out. I use to work fulltime in a restaurant/bar and trust me, after three years my hacking cough was as bad as any smoker and my mother swore I did smoke. I didn't smoke, I spent 5 nights a week working in a bar where there was smoking. But I needed the job and income and so did the two women who were working while pregnant.

So get off your highhorse and realize the real reason for smoking ban. If you want to pollute your own lungs so be it. But someone has to serve you those drinks and believe it or not - not everyone enjoys breathing your pollution!

[Inland]

90. Restaurants are a question.

My post number 25 sets forth my distinguishing smoking from everything else.

I would be satisfied with restaurants simply haveing sections, except for the workers. IF it's not a safe workplace, something has to be done.

Plus, in some of my fave little places to eat, the smoking section is avoided by people with children and not much smoking going on. Kids put me off my dinner as much as smoke, in all honesty.

[LynneSin]

91. If it's in the building - you're breathing it

The only way to protect everyone from the smoke would be if the room was totally isolated with a ventilated system that had an exhaust that would sent outside of the building.

[Inland]

110. Right, but that's not the issue.

The issue is more to, how bad for the workers and, should it be handled by letting workers get another job if they don't want the risk?

[LynneSin]

112. So you're saying if someone has a handicap - fuck em

Yeah, that's right out of the republican handbook

Here's the facts - unless you happened to be about 60+ years old, you (or anyone who smokes) were warned about the dangers of smoking. Yet people smoked anyways.

Smoking is a personal choice which means in your own private place - light em' up.

But I find it pretty fucking rude of anyone suggesting that a person needs to find another job especially with how difficult the job market is out there. I needed a job and put up with it for 3 years because back then I had no idea that something so profound as indoor smoking bans could happen here on the east coast. I figured Californians were a bunch of health nuts and it could never pass here.

Reality is, in about 5-10 years this will be nationwide and about time. Polluting your own lungs with Carbon Monoxide and other addictive carcinogenic materials is a personal choice. I realize I'm kinda stuck with other sorts of pollutions and I work with groups within my state to help clean up those pollutions (BTW - Wilmington, like many states & urban areas, is switching their buses to alternative, non-pollutive forms of energy).

I'm just tired of smokers complaining about 'their rights' when it was a choice they made. Keep it to yourself - I'm not interested in it

[Inland]

113. Yeah, I hear ya.

Telling people to just find a different job doesn't work with, say, factory workers. Or anything else. They get OSHA. Fact is, smoking has a privileged place because it's profitable and popular, relatively.

I don't want to say restaurants and bars are for desparate people....but SOME of them are, or at least, there's not a ton of mobility. If there was, sure, let the smokers work in bars and restaurants and the non smokers go get some other job. But the reality is that the non smokers will take their chances and before you know it, five years gone by and you've gotten a lungful.

[LynneSin]

123. Screw you - OSHA is for everyone!

I worked in a restaurant and I take offense at your statement

OSHA covers ALL workers not just the ones you select are worthy enough. My restaurant had an OSHA poster there that told us about worker related injuries and rights so I was just as protected as much as the factory workers you put above me. Get over it - you're stuck with a dirty habit you can't quit so enjoy polluting your lungs in the privacy of your own home!

[Inland]

134. You must think you're talking to someone else.

I don't smoke, never have. As for whether to ban all smoking at all restaurants and bars, I'm sympathetic. I'd be satisfied with non smoking sections, but the danger posed to the workers gives me pause. OSHA clearly doesn't protect them, not for cigarette smoke, so it's an anamoly. I'm on your side, hon. Read my posts in this thread.

[DarbyUSMC]

99. IMO we have way too many "for your own good" laws. When did this

become the norm in the USA I wonder. Maybe when they voted in prohibition. Gee, that worked well, eh? Anyone see that segment of 60 Minutes on Sunday? Our law biding country is trying to arrest a Canadian for selling Marijuana to American citizens. Imagine? The very thought of it is just too much to fathom. We'll spend who knows how much to pursue this guy who makes a lot of money but lives very modestly. It was quite eye opening to see our law enforcement officers going on about this dangerous mild mannered man.

If a person owns a business he/she should have the right to announce or advertise that it is a smoking or non smoking place and let the customers decide whether or not to patronize the place and let the prospective employees decide to apply or not apply for a job there. How hard would that be? Too easy. Power to the people isn't exactly our motto here in the USA. Prostitution is illegal but there will never be an end to it. Now that "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" is an Oscar winning song, it's literally written in gold that life isn't like we saw it on Father Knows Best or Leave It To Beaver. If Marijuana were legal think of all the manpower hours they'd save (and the agita as well.) Who set the first age limits on buying alcohol I'm wondering. Did that take the responsibility from the parents? I don't recall watching a movie taking place in the frontier where they proofed anyone. If our children didn't think that drinking or smoking was an "adult" thing to aspire to, maybe they wouldn't be getting blitzed at fourteen and fifteen. I wonder if those in Europe who are used to having wine with meals make such a big deal out of booze as teenagers. I guess it's pretty obvious that our country is stuck in a Puritanical maze that so confuses people they don't know if they are afoot or on horseback. There are so many don'ts that the joke about an entire body condom isn't too far-fetched after all. From Puritanical America to the MTV image that those who have never been here think is the real USA ---- is it any wonder that people see an out of focus, hypocritical country?

Welcome to our beatiful National Park. Enjoy your visit and we hope you'll come back soon.

Do not walk on the grass.
Do not lean over the fence.
Do not run down the hills.
Do not climb any trees.
Do not pick the flowers.
Do not eat the daisies.
Do not touch the wild life.
Do not feed the wild life.
Do not shoot the wild life.
Do not wade in the river.
Do not swim in the river.
Do not wade or swim in the pond or lake.
Do not launch a boat in the river.
Do not launch a boat in the lake.
Do not picnic by the lake.
Do not leave your garbage on the picnic table.
Do not use the grills unless you have a permit.
Do not stay in the park after sunset.
Do not bother the hikers by asking them directions.
Do not build a camp fire in the woods.
Do not get in the way of the fire trucks.

[LynneSin]

109. No one is taking away your rights to pollute your lungs

just do it in the privacy of your own home.

Get over it

[bleedingheart]

121. well said..

[transeo]

88. Who the f*ck promoted drunk driving?

What the heck are you talking about? A lot of drinkers do not drive after drinking, myself included. I don't even own a car. And besides how hard is it to just step outside into the fresh air to have your cigarette? I don't mind doing it with my joints. Good grief.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

92. Who the fuck promoted smoking?

How many incidents of spousal abuse have alcohol as a contributing factor?
How many beaten kids?

It's about the advertising and social acceptance about two things that could have an adverse consequence to those nearby.

Smoking killed my Great Grandfather. HE WAS 102.

[Inland]

93. Last I knew, drunk driving was illegal. But smokers getspecial treatment

See, the comparable treatment for smoking would be to make it illegal.

Public smoking's dangerous and harmful, drunk driving is dangerous and harmful. Don't smoke while around everyone else, and don't drink while driving. And don't beat your spouse at all.

I mean, if you really want smoking to be treated the same as drinking, there's going to be a lot more laws restricting smoking then there are now.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

96. "Public smoking's dangerous and harmful..." No. Owning Guns

or running with a fork in your mouth is. Inhaling exhaust fumes is dangerous and harmful.

Christ, getting up in the morning can be dangerous.

Yes, many people are sensitive to smoke, but passing by a lit cigar will not kill you unless you are of such a genetic make-up that you should by all rights already be dead from the pollution in the air from industry and automobiles.

[Inland]

97. You can't help but make false comparisons.

Public smoking is dangerous and harmful. As much as drunk driving, which, last I knew, was illegal. No drunk driver gets to say that he wasn't coming all that close to anyone else or blame someone else's genetic inability to move out of the way. Treat smoking the same, and nobody gets to smoke in public.

Getting up in the morning isn't dangerous, except to the extent that it gives you the opportunity to do something dangerous. If getting up is "dangerous", not smoking is more dangerous than smoking, because only by killing yourself can you really, really keep from doing something harmful. Yeah, it's pretty much nonsense.

Bottom line is, there isn't any other legally available activity like smoking. It's time you stopped getting special treatment and stopped being considered a uniquely privileged activity.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

98. Listen to what you are saying: "Public smoking is dangerous and harmful.

As much as drunk driving."

If you really believe that, I have some swamp land I'd like to sell you.

[Kingshakabobo]

100. Ummm.

What's your point? Are you saying they are not comparable?


Driving:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Year:2003 Total Fatalities:42,643 Caused by alcohol:17,013 Percentage:40

Secondhand smoke:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545

The link between secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke) and disease is well known, and the connection to cardiovascular-related disability and death is also clear. About 37,000 to 40,000 people die from heart and blood vessel disease caused by other people's smoke each year. Of these, about 35,000 nonsmokers die from coronary heart disease, which includes heart attack.

edit: to add additional link

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

102. And how did they get those figures...

"He died from coronary heart disease."

"Was he ever near a smoker?"

"Yes, his uncle smoked."

"Then he died because of 2nd hand Smoke!"

"But he weighed 300 pounds and his family has a history of heart disease!"

"Next case."

[Kingshakabobo]

104. Are you saying secondhand smoke ISN'T deadly?

Where are YOUR links?

FWIW, I'll take the word of the Surgeon General and AHA over an anonymous poster. Unless, of course, you have a link.

[Inland]

106. Not deadly ENOUGH, to curtail the privileges of the smoker.

You're going to have to come up with a few thou more than THAT.

[Inland]

103. The alchohol related deaths, however, include the driver.

They shouldn't be counted, if you are going to compare second hand smoke deaths. The premise of legal smoking is that killing oneself doesn't count, so to compare apples ot apples, delete the drivers.

[Kingshakabobo]

105. Of course.

Found some interesting statistics but I won't post them from "Modern Drunkard"

LOL

[Inland]

101. Well, let's look at the facts.

How many people die of second hand smoke? How many die of drunk driving, not counting, of course, the drivers, because the premise of allowing smoking is that the person doing the deed can kill himself and leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

Hmmmmmmm.

Well, let's argue it's NOT AS dangerous. So make a lesser penalty. let someone smoke in public, say, five times before forbidding him from ever smoking again.

OR, public smoking is as dangerous as speeding in a car. Ticket them.

Any reasonable set of facts you care to take as true, smokers are coddled. If tobacco wasn't profitable, you would get the same treatment as all the other dangerous activities. So quit whining, already.

[SPKrazy]

107. Oh Horseshit!

Smoking kills, and it kills those who are in contact with the secondhand smoke as well.

Drinking kills, in many ways too.

If I eat a hamburger, am I going to be more likely to have an accident? Does my hamburger threaten your health?

I'm only opposed to behaviors that endanger the health and well being of those around that person who are not participating in that behavior.

[Lorien]

118. While I agree with your first two points, it might surprise you to know

just how much harm America's love of hamburgers does to other people and the planet: http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html

[SPKrazy]

124. Well That Does Put A Different Picture On Burgers

Interesting

I'll have to digest it.

I love home made burgers better, but I've eaten my share of fast food over the years.

Like I said interesting site.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

111. Interesting article...

<snip>
I addressed specifically the health of workers. Such independent bodies as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory have found that in facilities where smoking tables are segregated (virtually all that even allow smoking), passive smoke "concentrations in the nonsmoking section of the restaurant in question were not statistically different from those measured in similar facilities where smoking is prohibited."

Another Oak Ridge study of waiters, waitresses, and bartenders in the Knoxville, Tennessee area found a large range of exposure, with nothing detected at the bottom end. But even the top end the levels indicated were "considerably lower than Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration workplace standards."
Yet we've long known that "passive smoking" is not a scientific term but a propaganda one. A 1975 New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back then, when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants and bars, the concentration was equal to merely 4/1000s of a cigarette per hour.

And while obviously you can inhale smoke from others' cigarettes, we also know "the dose makes the poison." Thus we are constantly bombarded by such human carcinogens as ultraviolet radiation and estrogens but in such small amounts the body's defense systems ward them off. We weren't built to defend against several cigarette packs daily.

This explains why, despite what we're so often told, passive smoke health studies keep coming up negative unless twisted into something resembling the Gordian knot.

None of which matters to the activists, to whom any means justifies the end. Having made all the progress they can with "Your smoking will kill you," they changed tack to "Your smoking will kill others." (Or at least give them herpes.)

Former Surgeon General David Satcher essentially admitted as much at a Washington, D.C. hearing when he said a ban on workplace smoking would "be effective in creating a new social norm that discourages people from smoking."

Smoking – real smoking – is both vile and deadly. I fully sympathize with those who want to see it go the way of the mastodon. But they lose me when they slip on the jackboots and fudge the science.
<snip>

From: http://www.fumento.com/disease/passive-smoking.html

[Kingshakabobo]

114. Don't get too impressed with Oak Ridge National Laboratory...

Their work on secondhand smoke is a bunch of bullshit bought and paid for by the tobacco industry.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=331


>>>Michael Guerin and Roger Jenkins have well-documented ties to the tobacco industry over the past several decades through their work at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Studies coming out of national laboratories, and the scientists conducting the research there, have a high level of perceived credibility simply because they come from government entities. However, in addition to research and development in its official capacity as a national laboratory, ORNL also accepts private contracts whose research and results do not have official government standing.

Michael Guerin, who runs the analytical chemistry division at ORNL, has received more than $1 million from the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) and the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR).1

Roger Jenkins, a chemist with ORNL, performed research on tobacco smoke and secondhand smoke exposure for the tobacco industry, specifically on research commissioned by R.J. Reynolds (RJR) and the CIAR.2<<<

edit to add:

>>In 1997, Dade County (FL) Circuit Court Judge Robert P. Kaye barred tobacco industry witness Roger Jenkins from testifying in the Florida flight attendants’ lawsuit regarding his secondhand smoke studies, on the grounds that R.J. Reynolds’ (RJR) assistance with field work and lab analysis made the research suspect. Judge Kaye stated, “ It reminds you of having the fox in the henhouse in a situation like this.”7<<

[Kingshakabobo]

115. FYI, the blogger you are quoting seems to be a right-wing asshole.

Although, I'm not 100 % sure since I didn't spend a lot of time on his site soiling my cookies.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

127. I didn't research his background. Can you tell me where he's

posted RW asshole stuff?

[Kingshakabobo]

145. Read your own link or get off your lazy ass and do a google search.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for initially posting an article based on a Tobacco paid Oak Ridge Lab study but your lack of comment on THAT is very telling.


The "smoking success stories" are a real hoot as well. Out of a group of my, probably, 12 person circle of friends, 5 have either had a parent die of lung cancer or surgery/remission for lung cancer. How's that for anecdotal?

[bleedingheart]

119. Tell me about how you love to smoke when you cough up blood

I have asthma....when I was a kid my dad smoked 2 packs of Pall Mall a day....I had multiple attacks but back then...no one associated smoking parents with asthmatic kids...

When I was about 9 years old I watched my father lean against a wall coughing his lungs out...and later watched as my mother washed all the blood off that wall....

By the age of 10 my dad was dead and my asthma went into remission.

I understand it is addictive, I understand people take pleasure from it....but my father missed my graduation, my wedding and his grandchildren because of a very nasty habit.

So enjoy it while you can and when you are carting around an oxygen tank or have a concentrator in your home because you can't get to the mailbox and back without passing out...you will have the joyous memories of all those long drags on a cig...and I wonder what poor soul will be watching you die...what loved one will cringe as I did when I heard the coughing jags and wince as they have to wipe away the bloody spittle from the corner of your mouth.... I bet they will be thinking of those times when you looked so cool with a cigarette.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

126. Sorry you are predisposed to that sort of thing.

My Great Grandfather was a amoker for over 80 years and died at 102. My Grandfater smoked and died at 87, my Mother's a smoker and still doing well in her 70's, I've smoked for 40 years and am still kicking well.

Another glass of kool aid?

[bleedingheart]

129. so your lungs are better than those of a person your age who

has never smoked? I don't think so...

While there are some folks who are genetic anomalies, the majority of folks don't do so well. Plus you can live a long time but is it a quality life?

My neighbor is a smoker at 74...and she has spent the entire winter with bronchitis and pneumonia...I guess in your bubble...her smoking has no effect on her lung's health..

[Kingshakabobo]

144. Lol. Maybe you and your family can do......

"Smoking Success Stories" commercials for big tobacco.

I hope you never have to deal with lung cancer in your family because it isn't pretty. My mom used to share her "smoking success stories" with with me all the time. She died of lung cancer.

Kool Aid? What a ridiculous statement.

[LynneSin]

130. My father missed my graduation and plenty of other stuff too

My father died when I was 14. People wonder why I'm such a diehard Zeppelin fan. Well, when you're a little kid dealing with the fact that the center of your universe is in a hospital weighing about 90lbs and hooked up to tubes, you need something to escape the horrible pain that wracks through your own body.

My father died of lung cancer. But to his credit, he took up smoking in a time when everyone convinced you it was a healthy habit and they had people like Ron Reagan posing with his smokes looking like all was well with the world

[Minnesota Libra]

131. People will grumble about cigarette smoke and then jump in their cars....

.....and pollute the air with one car MUCH MORE than my one cigarette does. :wtf:

[mondo joe]

132. You may have missed it, but car and other pollution have been liberal

issues for a long time too.

[Minnesota Libra]

133. My point is Liberals still drive cars while grumbling about smoking..nt

[mondo joe]

135. Of course they do. For many, cars are a necessity, even for those who

don't like them, even for those who support strong auto emission regulation, and even for those who as often as possible carpool or bus.

Or are you suggesting that if you use any toxins you must support unlimited use of all toxins?

[Minnesota Libra]

137. I'm simply saying......................

....it's hypocritical to not insist on using public transportation or at the very least car pooling LONG BEFORE grumbling about cigarettes.

I'm extremely careful with my cigarette smoking and usually smoke ONLY in my own home AND I use public transportation on a regular basis.

Yet some of the very people who grumble about cigarettes think nothing of going to "Happy Hour" and then jump behind the wheel of a car to drive themselves or others somewhere. Believe, as I'm making my way to the public transportation that DEFINITELY endangers my life and the lives of others.

I just wish people who grumble about cigarettes would look in a mirror before judging me.

[mondo joe]

138. Baloney.

If one is consistent in their efforts to minimize toxins there is no hypocrisy.

I don't care if you smoke 3 packs a day - I only care if you expose me to it. So you needn;t worry about my judgment.

[Minnesota Libra]

139. I only care if.........

.....the car exhaust impacks me and my life. BTW, your response sounds very much like what a rethug would come up with. Why not visit "freerepublic.com" where you'll find like minded souls.

[mondo joe]

140. Car exhaust does impact you, which is a good reason to strongly support

emissions regulation, and public transportation, like I do.

I also support regulation on smoking for the same reason.

Now please stop with the name calling just because we disagree - implying that others are freepers is a violation of DU rules.

[Minnesota Libra]

142. Then kindly don't use the word "Baloney" as if my words have no merit nt

[mondo joe]

143. The word "baloney" is not a violation of any DU policy I'm aware of. n/t

[mdmc]

136. please only smoke herb around me

and don't drive drunk

[OnionPatch]

141. Have to stand with you here

I'm in California and you can't even go to a pool hall anymore and smoke a cigarette.
I'm sorry, but there are some places where people have traditionally smoked cigarettes for centuries and bars and poolhalls are two of them. I can see banning smoking in places where people eat and most public places, around children, etc., but for crying out loud, a bar??!! I think it's gone to far and I don't even smoke.

So great, I don't have to catch the slightest whiff of cigarette smoke anywhere anymore but what I'm really waiting for is for them to ban smog. All this worrying about a whiff of distant cigarette smoke seems ridiculous when you walk outside and breath the LA smog.

[Yollam]

149. The fact that booze is poison doesn't mean cigarettes aren't.

My three great aunts all spent their last years in agony with emphysema, and my father-in-law just got a big chunk of his throat removed due to cancer - all heavy smokers. Personally I'm very glad to have quit smoking - hopefully I did it early enough. I'm also glad that I don't drink much, like my alcoholic father, who can't go a day without drinking.

It's your life and your body to do with as you please, put posting self-righteous rationalizing screeds like this won't make what you're doing to your body any more healthful.

[dogday]

154. There are alot of drinkers out there...

Working men after work every day buying 12 pack for their nightly drinking sessions... Politicians on the hill drinking their fancy liquors but still achieving the same affect as the working man.

I have said before, we are going down a slippery slope here when we single out a group of people and everyone gets on board with it... Once smoking is completely outlawed, what will be next you ask? And what will be after that?.. If you think it stops with the smokes, you are wrong, it is just the beginning.....

[Cats Against Frist]

157. Smoking and drinking are motherfuckingsexy

Down with nannies.

Sorry -- I'm being glib, but most know where I stand, and there's no need to re-hash it. This is a big and diverse world. There are matters of law, and matters of choice. The balance between is a fine line, and there should be some common sense applied. Nannies aren't working from a common-sense position. Neither are rude smokers or drunk drivers. When either group gets free reign, someone gets hurt, but we can work toward diversity. Just like race and sexual orientation. If I don't like smoking, I won't work or go there. If I don't want to land my ass in jail or kill someone, I won't get behind the wheel. If I want to stop drunk driving or smoking, I'll work or give money to a nonprofit, and vote for laws where people who are harmed who didn't have any choice. I'm not going to, however, figure out what would be perfect for me, and then impose it on everyone else.

[pitohui]

166. question

that amazing bit of artwork, is it yours? i think i like it