Anti-smoking battle moves outdoors; bans increase

[What 23]

I do disrespect people who burn stuff around me without asking if its okay. Maybe I wouldn't call it disrespect... But do I just roll over? Ha fucking ha.

Personal attacks guy... You called me a weak celled bubble boy. None of this is true. You are unaware. Its funny how people attack me first and I (somewhat playfully, but attempt point) attack back, and then they cry.

But I can't deny weakness is here (and being made of cells)... And that I kind of do live or attempt to live in my own bubble. Self absorbed. Yea. Definitely. But I'm within my rights, and will probably be recognized as such for longer than you, as you seem to attempt to find yourself, and I recognize the rights of others to breath clean air. You don't just not take steps forward this way because you can't leap forward (to go emission/pollutant free), that's no justification. But smokers will always try to justify. Drug users...

I'm going to expand in this paragraph on being attacked. I actually said "I will kill you all" with a consciousness, to I guess, bring about the fact that you, fuckers, are killing others. Even if it's slowly. Even if you are the "giants" treading over ant-colonies (meaning, you don't know what you are doing). You are an insult, and I can insult better.

To address incoherencies, I try to avoid that, as well... There's only so much I can touch on in a post. But I guess, reading a post is also on you, not just he poster. There are plenty of posts on this forum that you kind of have to want to read, to understand it, and you are easier on those guys/gals if you want to get what they are putting out. I would like you to point out where I have been incoherent, so I can try to explain... But of course, you probably don't care enough to. Go smoke another ciggy! Fuck it away! yay! Haha.

...

But I guess to attempt to do my part in putting this back to the actual subject matter, I think this will be hard to enforce. I'm sure I'll continue to hold my breath past certain people, outdoors... Even if they all just stopped smoking. Some woman will be wearing a perfume. I don't see those going anywhere for a little while longer. It all does seem futile. Smokers love to bring up automobiles... But we can't see very far ahead. I guess. Baby steps in time. My point is you don't just not take that step just because you can't skip straight to the end. Smoking as it happens, habitually, is not a "life-style" choice. It's a disease. Argh. I'm slipping back into my "opinions".

 

[oldirtybizza]

Actually I made general comment and you made the egocentric assumption that it was about you.
Through your own actions and now admission has the association between yourself, weak cells and bubble boys been made.

I'm not making a fool of you, you're doing a good enough job of that yourself.

 

[What 23]

I guess I could apologize for that, but you clearly had fuel from somewhere. Myself and Slimvictor, I think, brought up stuff about being sensitive to this stuff, to some degree or another, and I brought it up as a possible case against extraneous pollutants, included amongst them were perfumes. Government buildings in... Detroit (not a great example of government? heh.. don't uhh.. let that be an example of this intent though) and some other places, ban even scented deodorants, among everything else (perfume, lotion, cigarettes- of course).

Yea, I'm a fool. I won't deny that, but you can't seem to accept that I have many points to make, and that your championing of smoking is also, well... quite a bit more foolish than anything I am doing here.

I identify greatly with "bubble boy". I have been called a bubble boy by more than one person, and I have seen myself as very weak. I've seen myself as "weak celled" like an amphibian lets stuff through its cells, or like everything to me seems to be as salt to a slug. I guess, forgive me. You try dating with my disease, and not let this stuff hit you personally. Again, though you might have said it generally, in your mind... I was fuel... even if unconscious to you. But, I guess I could be totally mistaken.

Remember when we could smoke on air planes? Ahh... the good ol' days.....

I'm tired of this smoking ban shit. Everyone did it everywhere a generation or two ago, and it didn't affect anyone. Just let us smoke where we want.

That's just my opinion. haha.

Good article though.

Yea, I think people with autism were thrown in general "mental institutions" back then and labeled and forgotten, too, a lot more than now, and a lot more lobotomies were given than necessary (I'm not sure, where they really necessary? Would they be, now?), back then, I hear.

Awareness...

If I let you smoke where you want, really, I should be able to kill you where-ever I want, too. Not that I really want to kill you. Just making a point, hopefully.

 

[PurpleKush1]

I do disrespect people who burn stuff around me without asking if its okay. Maybe I wouldn't call it disrespect... But do I just roll over? Ha fucking ha.

Personal attacks guy... You called me a weak celled bubble boy. None of this is true. You are unaware. Its funny how people attack me first and I (somewhat playfully, but attempt point) attack back, and then they cry.

But I can't deny weakness is here (and being made of cells)... And that I kind of do live or attempt to live in my own bubble. Self absorbed. Yea. Definitely. But I'm within my rights, and will probably be recognized as such for longer than you, as you seem to attempt to find yourself, and I recognize the rights of others to breath clean air. You don't just not take steps forward this way because you can't leap forward (to go emission/pollutant free), that's no justification. But smokers will always try to justify. Drug users...

I'm going to expand in this paragraph on being attacked. I actually said "I will kill you all" with a consciousness, to I guess, bring about the fact that you, fuckers, are killing others. Even if it's slowly. Even if you are the "giants" treading over ant-colonies (meaning, you don't know what you are doing). You are an insult, and I can insult better.

To address incoherencies, I try to avoid that, as well... There's only so much I can touch on in a post. But I guess, reading a post is also on you, not just he poster. There are plenty of posts on this forum that you kind of have to want to read, to understand it, and you are easier on those guys/gals if you want to get what they are putting out. I would like you to point out where I have been incoherent, so I can try to explain... But of course, you probably don't care enough to. Go smoke another ciggy! Fuck it away! yay! Haha.

...

But I guess to attempt to do my part in putting this back to the actual subject matter, I think this will be hard to enforce. I'm sure I'll continue to hold my breath past certain people, outdoors... Even if they all just stopped smoking. Some woman will be wearing a perfume. I don't see those going anywhere for a little while longer. It all does seem futile. Smokers love to bring up automobiles... But we can't see very far ahead. I guess. Baby steps in time. My point is you don't just not take that step just because you can't skip straight to the end. Smoking as it happens, habitually, is not a "life-style" choice. It's a disease. Argh. I'm slipping back into my "opinions".

Well then fuck off and go away if youre bother by the person lighting up next to you. Why should i not smoke because your higness doesnt liek it? What should i go next to everyone o nthe street and ask if i can light up ? hell no. Unleess you havwe some serious pulmonary issues, but if its just cuz you dont like it and you have your dumbass opinion on it then NO. And you should probably think off all the other nasty hsit released in the air,no? I mean yes tobacco smoke i s not good at all, but it is like not even a percent of a percent of a percent x 1000000 of all the pollution in the world. It dont change shit.

 

[What 23]

The point is you need to watch where you step. A baby could be crawling there where you are walking (someone you light up next to could have just had a heart attack last week, asshole, or really could have other issues).

Again, (you, and other smokers) divert attention to the other pollution in the world (and justify yourself in that laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge expanse as tiny and insignificant). We will get to that...

I guess, it's all in the person you are. I choose to try to be right. I guess I stress myself out about it a lot, but that could be the way of a suffering servant. I'm also a hypocrite, a lot. I'm just taking this stance here.

A main thing I am going on, is what we can actually do at this time. At this time, fossil fuels are something we depend on. Cigarettes, unfortunately for your argument, are not. You arguments to me are somewhat parallel to someone arguing their right to fire off shots into the night sky even though, even if it only happened once or twice in 10 years, a two or fifty five year old girl (boy, man, woman) got that falling bullet in her skull, and died. Your outbursts and letting off steam are still not justified... just like your "lighting up anywhere i fuckin want" is not... justified.

Can you justify any sacrifice (life lost) due to smoking? How can you justify quitting smoking, as a true sacrifice, to anything?

But positive might come from everything. We went to space, through technology developed in wars, Etc, and that technology might just save our asses some day. Still, I defer to the last paragraph, to carry on anything here.

 

[ro4eva]

You know what's worse than menthol second hand smoke? Stepping in dog shit - especially if it's sun dried. Man it reeks.

 

[oldirtybizza]

The point is you need to watch where you step. A baby could be crawling there where you are walking

Mate, thanks for clearing that up , your story checks out.

Smoking whilst walking may cause crawling babies underfoot , next time I light one up I'll be more vigilant of unforeseen random babies under my usual line of sight.

 

[What 23]

Did you seriously not get what I said (tried to say) or are you desperate? Basically, I'm just asking you to try to take responsibility, like anyone should.

 

[PurpleKush1]

The point is you need to watch where you step. A baby could be crawling there where you are walking (someone you light up next to could have just had a heart attack last week, asshole, or really could have other issues).

Again, (you, and other smokers) divert attention to the other pollution in the world (and justify yourself in that laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge expanse as tiny and insignificant). We will get to that...

I guess, it's all in the person you are. I choose to try to be right. I guess I stress myself out about it a lot, but that could be the way of a suffering servant. I'm also a hypocrite, a lot. I'm just taking this stance here.

A main thing I am going on, is what we can actually do at this time. At this time, fossil fuels are something we depend on. Cigarettes, unfortunately for your argument, are not. You arguments to me are somewhat parallel to someone arguing their right to fire off shots into the night sky even though, even if it only happened once or twice in 10 years, a two or fifty five year old girl (boy, man, woman) got that falling bullet in her skull, and died. Your outbursts and letting off steam are still not justified... just like your "lighting up anywhere i fuckin want" is not... justified.

Can you justify any sacrifice (life lost) due to smoking? How can you justify quitting smoking, as a true sacrifice, to anything?

But positive might come from everything. We went to space, through technology developed in wars, Etc, and that technology might just save our asses some day. Still, I defer to the last paragraph, to carry on anything here.

Yaya youre right whatever i dotn feel like arguign with somebdy like you, thinking his always right and everybody around is an idiot.

 

[slimvictor]

Did you seriously not get what I said (tried to say) or are you desperate? Basically, I'm just asking you to try to take responsibility, like anyone should.

I basically agree with most things that What 23 said in the posts above.

People can go around poisoning themselves and complain that outdoor second-hand smoke is less toxic than something else, and therefore we should shut up and take it, but those of us who take good care of our bodies don't usually trust the self-poisoners to decide what should count as poison for us.

A reasonable hypothesis is that outdoor second-hand tobacco smoke is likely to be unhealthy.
Those that are heavily addicted to that particular drug are very likely to want to consider this hypothesis ridiculous, or require extreme measures of evidence before being willing to accept it. Coincidence? I think not.

As far as human rights go, I see the difficulty and subtlety of the issue. I think it must come down to your right to smoke ending when it infringes on my right to avoid bodily harm. Obviously, if I were the only person in the world who disliked tobacco smoke, it would be up to me to fight my battles on my own, or to choose to hide out in my cave or just deal with the smoke in public. However, in case you hadn't noticed, there are millions of people that seem to feel quite strongly about disliking tobacco smoke. In the same way that it isn't fair for you to blast your music so loudly that your neighbors can't hear anything else, it isn't fair for you to expose people to your smoke when they are confined, such as in restaurants. (However, if a restaurant wants to be exclusively smoke-friendly, I have no problem with that.)
Outside, in parks etc., is a different question. I just ask for sensitivity and kindness, not rules that forbid smoking. If you are smoking, I will walk away, and that is a small sacrifice for me to make in order to preserve someone's freedom to use drugs. Still, if there were smoking (and all drug) areas, I would prefer it.

 

[Mandark]

The attitude of some smokers here... Tobacco should be the only drug criminalized, just to balance the incredible arrogance smokers present toward anybody who feels negatively affected by their smoking. "I want to smoke and I don't give a fuck about anybody else" - that's their mantra.

 

[slimvictor]

^ The thing is, smokers typically first have a mantra that goes "I want to smoke and I don't give a fuck about myself. I know it causes cancer, heart disease, etc. but I WANT it"
So it is no surprise when they fail to respect other people. It is also not something to take personally.
If smokers don't care if they themselves die, then they have no reason to care if those around them suffer ill effects from their smoking, let alone random passerby...

 

['medicine cabinet']

This is getting crazy. As it is ppl are crowded in one spot smoking, the designated smoking pavilion or whatever...usually one tiny little bench in a big ass area. this kind of ban is just going to drive the crowd of smokers across the street. Sucks its outlawed inside places, i miss being able to have a cig on the rare instance i have a drink at a bar. Sign of the times i guess.

 

[exists]

People on both sides should be more respectful. Smokers should be aware of who isn't smoking, and go downwind. A polite "sorry" is great for spreading good karma. Non-smokers should learn how to make polite requests to complete strangers, since wrinkling the nose and acting all huffy isn't going to accomplish anything.

Can't we all just... get along?

 

[kytnism]

The attitude of some smokers here... Tobacco should be the only drug criminalized, just to balance the incredible arrogance smokers present toward anybody who feels negatively affected by their smoking. "I want to smoke and I don't give a fuck about anybody else" - that's their mantra.

this post got me thinking. youre right, and im a smoker.

...kytnism...

 

[oldirtybizza]

Outside, in parks etc., is a different question. I just ask for sensitivity and kindness, not rules that forbid smoking. If you are smoking, I will walk away, and that is a small sacrifice for me to make in order to preserve someone's freedom to use drugs. Still, if there were smoking (and all drug) areas, I would prefer it.

Well if I recall this thread is about bans to outdoor smoking, not the right to smoke wherever one wishes. I believe the majority of smokers would be accommodating if someone mentioned they had a problem with their outdoor smoking.

A reasonable hypothesis is that outdoor second-hand tobacco smoke is likely to be unhealthy.
Those that are heavily addicted to that particular drug are very likely to want to consider this hypothesis ridiculous, or require extreme measures of evidence before being willing to accept it. Coincidence? I think not.

Really mate, where do you get this stuff? some book from 1920 titled "the mind of the drug addict" you seem to have a quite condescending view of addicts and their capacity for rational thought.
A reasonable hypothesis that outdoor smoking is likely to be unhealthy to others can just as easily be countered by a reasonable hypothesis that outdoor smoking is unlikely to be unhealthy to others. Personal "opinions" on either side of the smoking debate should be secondary to evidence provided by scientific investigation.
Then again I only smoke a couple packs a year so I may have only come to this conclusion because my mind still functions and is not clouded by the grip of a horrible nicotine addiction.


Why do we need more laws to regulate the freedoms of others, especially when they have little or no evidential basis for their creation.
As mentioned these bans have less to do with the health issues of outdoor smoking than ostracizing smokers and taking smoking out of the public view, to further yet another anti-drug agenda.

Absolutely the banning of smoking in bars etc. where second-hand smoke poses a real risk of harm to others is valid however " I don't like it, so I don't want anyone to see it" is not a valid reason for imposing on restrictions on others.
I can't believe people on this forum would support this type of prohibition.

Tobacco should be the only drug criminalized, just to balance the incredible arrogance smokers present toward anybody who feels negatively affected by their smoking. "I want to smoke and I don't give a fuck about anybody else"

Generalising much there buddy!

 

[ebola?]

The thing is, smokers typically first have a mantra that goes "I want to smoke and I don't give a fuck about myself. I know it causes cancer, heart disease, etc. but I WANT it"
So it is no surprise when they fail to respect other people. It is also not something to take personally.
If smokers don't care if they themselves die, then they have no reason to care if those around them suffer ill effects from their smoking, let alone random passerby...

This seems a bit psychologically and socially naive for a couple of reasons:
1. Of course obnoxious, entitled smokers are going to be more vocal. Those who politely attempt to avoid imposing offensive odors on people don't really have an axe to grind in the discussion, and are thus invisible to you.
2. I don't think it's the case that those who disregard or actively loathe themselves carry the same attitudes about others. If this were true, those who suffer from depression would generally be assholes (well, irritability is a common symptom, but it's not ubiquitous).

ebola

 

[slimvictor]

Well if I recall this thread is about bans to outdoor smoking, not the right to smoke wherever one wishes. I believe the majority of smokers would be accommodating if someone mentioned they had a problem with their outdoor smoking.

I have found that nearly all smokers are accommodating, at least to some extent.

A reasonable hypothesis that outdoor smoking is likely to be unhealthy to others can just as easily be countered by a reasonable hypothesis that outdoor smoking is unlikely to be unhealthy to others.

Really? Taking a toxin that is one of the biggest killers of humans and distributing it in the air makes the hypothesis that outdoor smoking is likely to be unhealthy to others much more common-sensical, I would say.

This seems a bit psychologically and socially naive for a couple of reasons:
1. Of course obnoxious, entitled smokers are going to be more vocal. Those who politely attempt to avoid imposing offensive odors on people don't really have an axe to grind in the discussion, and are thus invisible to you.
2. I don't think it's the case that those who disregard or actively loathe themselves carry the same attitudes about others. If this were true, those who suffer from depression would generally be assholes (well, irritability is a common symptom, but it's not ubiquitous).

ebola

While I don't really disagree with your first point - other than to say that I was referring to attitudes, not vocal exchanges - I don't agree with your second point at all. People who don't respect themselves, but have a deep and profound respect for random strangers that pass by on the street? Hard to imagine.
People who behave in ways that they know will very likely lead to a terrible fate for themselves? I wouldn't trust them much at all, since they are pretty clearly not trustworthy. Someone who is trustworthy respects their own self and others.

Therefore, to my mind, the only psychologically naive viewpoint is the one that says "Sure, he is poisoning his body with chemicals that he knows cause cancer and heart disease, and therefore he doesn't respect his body, but I am sure he will be very kind and respectful to his friends and acquaintances!"

 

[oldirtybizza]

Really? Taking a toxin that is one of the biggest killers of humans and distributing it in the air makes the hypothesis that outdoor smoking is likely to be unhealthy to others much more common-sensical, I would say.

Yes. Just because exposure to something is toxic at a certain dosage/level does not mean it will be harmful at a clinically significant at a lower level or diluted. I could list examples all day. 1 minute of sunshine vs 3 hours, eating an apple vs eating a kilo of apple seeds. a teaspoon of soy sauce vs a whole bottle of soy sauce, a beer vs a bottle of vodka.

Your hypothesis; extended exposure to large amounts of concentrated cigarette smoke is unhealthy hence short exposure to tiny amounts in the air is also unhealthy = a whole lot of something is unhealthy thus a very small amount is also likely to be unhealthy.

Common sense and an extensive amount of evidence would seem to contradict that.

 

[ebola?]

While I don't really disagree with your first point - other than to say that I was referring to attitudes, not vocal exchanges - I don't agree with your second point at all. People who don't respect themselves, but have a deep and profound respect for random strangers that pass by on the street? Hard to imagine.
People who behave in ways that they know will very likely lead to a terrible fate for themselves? I wouldn't trust them much at all, since they are pretty clearly not trustworthy. Someone who is trustworthy respects their own self and others.

Therefore, to my mind, the only psychologically naive viewpoint is the one that says "Sure, he is poisoning his body with chemicals that he knows cause cancer and heart disease, and therefore he doesn't respect his body, but I am sure he will be very kind and respectful to his friends and acquaintances!"

Er...that's not really what I was arguing. Rather, people wracked with self-loathing, or even those apathetic in caring for themselves, seem to take on a variety of approaches to interacting with the outside world and regarding those around them. Some are considerate to others, some are not.

ebola