Do you smoke?

[PaulR]

Nope, never appealed to me, so I don't smoke

[Bulldog]

I know some people have more complicated relationship with smoking (trying to quite, smoking on and off, once every blue moon, etc.)...

I'm making the question simple and straightforward: Do you currently smoke?

Might be a good idea for you to specify the product being smoked.   

[ibanezmonster]

The only thing worth smoking would be DMT, anyways.

[AllegroVivace]

I changed the settings so that everyone has to vote to be able to see the results. The statistics are really impressive. Looks like smoking will soon be a thing of the past, if the trend continues.

[AllegroVivace]

Amazing! Imagine if this poll was done in 1920s. It would be the exact reverse!

You don't have to go that far back. If you met a man in the 70s, you could assume he was a smoker (unless he declared otherwise). In Oklahoma non-smokers were often presumed to be either gay or somehow devoid of masculinity.

[SonicMan46]

Well, as a physician, I never was a cigarette (nor inhaler) smoker - my only past interests were a rare cigar and a pipe (of which I had a beautiful collection) - the latter two I just puffed and never inhaled; gave all up in the late 1990s - nothing since then. 

Wife & I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and am glad that much of it is being banned these days from public places - I usually will leave places w/ the smell - as all know even secondary smoke can be harmful if not deadly - a number of patients who have died from 'lung cancer' have never smoked (now there are many different kinds of lung cancer, a number not related to smoking but some are certainly secondary causes).

Now, I do miss the smell of a good cigar & excellent pipe tobacco, but all has a potential danger not only to the individual using the product but to their immediate relations, whether spouse or more importantly kids - best to not even get started.   

[AllegroVivace]

Yes, I think even Shostakovich died from his excessive smoking.

The most lame rationale smokers present is the pointing to some 90-year-old man who's been a smoker all his life. The fact that millions of others never became 90 years old precisely because of smoking doesn't bother them.

[ibanezmonster]

Yes, I think even Shostakovich died from his excessive smoking.

The most lame rationale smokers present is the pointing to some 90-year-old man who's been a smoker all his life. The fact that millions of others never became 90 years old precisely because of smoking doesn't bother them.

That's like the exception that proves the rule.

[Conor71]

I smoked a pack a day for about 14 years - I gave up about 4 1/2 Years ago

[Brian]

Don't the stats all seem to indicate that the more highly educated the demographic, the lower the percentage of smokers? I guess I'm an exception to that

My master's program in London (with previous schools where interesting)

1 chain smoker (Oxford)
1 "stress smoker"
2 a-few-a-day smokers (one from Cambridge)
1 ex-chain smoker who continues to smoke socially
3 social smokers (one from Cambridge, the other two U Sussex)
1 person I never saw smoke
me (I've never smoked)

[Willoughby earl of Itacarius]

Non smoker. I hate the smell of cigarettes, turn my stomach upside down.

[Brian]

Non smoker. I hate the smell of cigarettes, turn my stomach upside down.

Agreed. I'm genuinely revolted by it. I've tried to learn to tolerate it, because here in London it feels like everyone smokes, but I still have a very hard time not feeling sick from the smell. It's not just about disliking the stuff. When my mother was a kid, cigarette smoke actually made her vomit.

[zamyrabyrd]

I don't smoke but respect the minimal rights of those who do. These rights include smoking on the street in New York or Tokyo if someone wants to, or even in your own pub or restaurant and not have the nanny state intrude.  Usually self-righteous laws are enacted to take attention from more pressing problems.

The hypocrisy of banning smoking is selective morality and facetious concern for health. It's OK to breathe in by the bucketload, automobile and incinerated trash while also getting bombed out of your head with alcohol.

Now there are "citizen patrols" in Tokyo who follow and give fines to offenders for about 3000 yen. This is disingenous considering that no one actually asked the public if they wanted to be poisoned by radiation in the event of an accident or meltdown.

ZB

[Sergeant Rock]

The hypocrisy of banning smoking is selective morality and facetious concern for health. It's OK to breathe in by the bucketload, automobile and incinerated trash while also getting bombed out of your head with alcohol.

Your argument in favor of public smoking is nonsensical. Public intoxication is a crime.  And it isn't okay to breathe in auto and industrial fumes . That's why there are laws regulating that type of pollution. When someone is sipping wine at the next table in a restaurant, it doesn't affect me. If they light a cigarette or cigar, it certainly does. In fact, it ruins my meal and the damn stench follows me home (the odor attached to my clothes, my hair). Why should a drug addict have the right to do that to me in a public place? Why must the majority cater to the addiction of the minority? If the nicotine addict can't even go an hour without lighting up, they have a serious problem. Luckily, for us nonsmokers, government has finally stepped in to protect us.

Sarge

[Willoughby earl of Itacarius]

Your argument in favor of public smoking is nonsensical. Public intoxication is a crime.  And it isn't okay to breathe in auto and industrial fumes . That's why there are laws regulating that type of pollution. When someone is sipping wine at the next table in a restaurant, it doesn't affect me. If they light a cigarette or cigar, it certainly does. In fact, it ruins my meal and the damn stench follows me home (the odor attached to my clothes, my hair). Why should a drug addict have the right to do that to me in a public place? Why must the majority cater to the addiction of the minority? If the nicotine addict can't even go an hour without lighting up, they have a serious problem. Luckily, for us nonsmokers, government has finally stepped in to protect us.

Sarge

Hear, hear!

[Lethevich]

I don't mind the smell too much (car fumes are worse), but I can't risk breathing it in anymore now I know the cancer risk it offers. God knows how smokers can justify this pollution when around other people - I don't care if they do it on their own or with other smokers but fuck off doing it at bus stops

[zamyrabyrd]

Your argument in favor of public smoking is nonsensical. Public intoxication is a crime.  And it isn't okay to breathe in auto and industrial fumes . That's why there are laws regulating that type of pollution. When someone is sipping wine at the next table in a restaurant, it doesn't affect me. If they light a cigarette or cigar, it certainly does. In fact, it ruins my meal and the damn stench follows me home (the odor attached to my clothes, my hair). Why should a drug addict have the right to do that to me in a public place? Why must the majority cater to the addiction of the minority? If the nicotine addict can't even go an hour without lighting up, they have a serious problem. Luckily, for us nonsmokers, government has finally stepped in to protect us.

Sarge

Thanks so much Government for protecting us! Quite frankly, I would rather be protected from government!
Having smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants shouldn't bother anyone. If the majority want to smoke in a pub, others who don't can CHOOSE to go to one that is non-smoking. Otherwise self-righteous prohibition becomes yet another incursion on one's freedom of choice. And, really how does smoking in a park contribute to pollution? I have gotten to the point in my life that what people do to stop or ameliorate pain is really their business. If it is a cigarette, that is really NONE of my business and I don't judge others.

ZB

[DavidW]

ZB if you don't smoke, then why are you so mad?  I don't think this is about respect but finding an excuse to fume.

[karlhenning]

Having smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants shouldn't bother anyone.

But if there is a smoking area in a restaurant, there really is not any smokeless area, just an area where the patrons do not smoke.  Smoke penetrates.  (Which is why, for instance, smoke preserves meat via treatment in smokehouses.)

[Sandra]

Your argument in favor of public smoking is nonsensical. Public intoxication is a crime.  And it isn't okay to breathe in auto and industrial fumes . That's why there are laws regulating that type of pollution. When someone is sipping wine at the next table in a restaurant, it doesn't affect me. If they light a cigarette or cigar, it certainly does. In fact, it ruins my meal and the damn stench follows me home (the odor attached to my clothes, my hair). Why should a drug addict have the right to do that to me in a public place? Why must the majority cater to the addiction of the minority? If the nicotine addict can't even go an hour without lighting up, they have a serious problem. Luckily, for us nonsmokers, government has finally stepped in to protect us.

Sarge

That's a very good post. I agree with everything.
What's worse is the attitude of the smokers when you ask them to stop smoking near you. I was at a restaurant last week and we were sitting at the patio outside. A guy stood right near our table and started smoking. I asked him (very politely) if he could smoke elsewhere. He looked at me as if I was insulting him. He then moved one step away and continued smoking. A perfectly good dinner was nearly ruined. How does someone like this expect any respect or right for doing this to others who don't voluntarily share his self-poisoning lifestyle?