Poll
Question:
Do you smoke?
Option 1: Yes
Option 2: No
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?
I've been interested in the statistics. In the US, for example, there's been a dramatic decrease in the number of smokers over the last two decades (especially states like California, Hawaii...) It's interesting to know what percentage of the musical community here smokes, as compared to other statistics.
Nope, but I did for nine years when I was younger. Then I quit. Better not to smoke, though I did enjoy it.
Non, never smoked. I helped a friend quit a few years back which made the house smoke free (everybody else had smoked at a light level at previous points in their life) - ironically this caused her to up her intake of alcohol in the period afterwards, but that evened out later.
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 ;)
Wow! 1 in 10 so far...
This is already impressive, considering that the overwhelming majority here are men.
My Dad was a smoker. He hasn't smoked in 20 years now. My Mom now smokes, which I'm not sure why, I guess it calms her nerves. I never cared anything about smoking or even drinking alcohol. I hate cigarette smoke and I can't stand the taste of an alcoholic beverage. This certainly doesn't make me better than anyone else, I just know that these kinds of things aren't for me.
Quit 3 years ago after smoking for about 12 years off and on...mostly on.
No, I don't smoke - as of the last 2 days. :)
I tried to become a smoker (there was a girl involved), but couldn't stick it. I generally hate the smell (I can detect the faintest whiff of smoke), but some of the exotic tobaccos have appeal.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 01, 2011, 09:28:33 PM
I tried to become a smoker (there was a girl involved), but couldn't stick it. I generally hate the smell (I can detect the faintest whiff of smoke), but some of the exotic tobaccos have appeal.
I love the smell of a cigar and pipe, but not lit of course.
My parents were heavy smokers so I guess I was a smoker as a child after breathing in the air in our house. However, I have never smoked a cigarette/cigar/joint so I am a virgin in that respect and intend to remain one. I am also very sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke and as a darts player I also had to endure the second hand smoke of the pub environment. I hope my passive smoking doesn't come back to bite me!
No, never did except for the occasional cigar on New years Eve in the distant past. But my dad did, and died of lung cancer (at the ripe old age of 84 it must be added)
Don't smoke now, never have....and that despite the army prior to the 80s making it financially attractive to smoke with subsidized prices in the PX and cigs in every C-ration box.
Sarge
Smoked Marlboro longhorns (mostly) for about 15 years(?). Quit many times and finally for good.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2011, 03:06:19 PM
Nope, but I did for thirteen years when I was younger. Then I quit. Better not to smoke, though I did enjoy it.
I've never smoked cigarettes - no appeal whatsoever - but I do like a good cigar now and then, maybe once a month.
--Bruce
Quote from: Brewski on August 02, 2011, 07:39:44 AM
but I do like a good cigar now and then, maybe once a month.
--Bruce
Nothing wrong with that, Bruce.
Amazing! Imagine if this poll was done in 1920s. It would be the exact reverse!
Quote from: Sandra on August 02, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Amazing! Imagine if this poll was done in 1920s. It would be the exact reverse!
So true, Sandra!
My Grandmother died of lung cancer, I have never and will never smoke.
Quote from: DavidW on August 02, 2011, 12:43:37 PM
My Grandmother died of lung cancer, I have never and will never smoke.
Change that to grandpa that I only saw once in my life (on his deathbed), and the same is true for me.
Nope, never appealed to me, so I don't smoke
Quote from: AllegroVivace on August 01, 2011, 02:40:41 PM
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. 8)
The only thing worth smoking would be DMT, anyways.
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.
Quote from: Sandra on August 02, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
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.
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. 8)
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.
Quote from: AllegroVivace on August 02, 2011, 06:17:57 PM
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.
I smoked a pack a day for about 14 years - I gave up about 4 1/2 Years ago :)
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 01, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
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)
Non smoker. I hate the smell of cigarettes, turn my stomach upside down.
Quote from: Harry on August 03, 2011, 02:37:20 AM
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.
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
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 03, 2011, 03:04:42 AM
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
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 03, 2011, 03:46:27 AM
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!
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 :-\
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 03, 2011, 03:46:27 AM
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
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.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 03, 2011, 10:53:07 AM
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.)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 03, 2011, 03:46:27 AM
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?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 03, 2011, 10:53:07 AM
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
I spend a lot of my time in countries where smoking is still permitted in restaurants. Even though I sit in the non-smoking area, you can smell the smoke in many cases. That is just the way it is with smoke - it gets everywhere and into everything. The cigarette becomes your business when the smoke ends up in your lungs. And if you read the literature, even secondhand smoke is quite deadly.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 03, 2011, 10:53:07 AM
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
ZB, there is a serious flaw in this argument about choice. Anti-smoking legislation was enacted state by state in Australia after an employee successfully sued the owners of the licenced club she worked in after contracting lung cancer. She was a non-smoker who worked behind the bar of a smoked filled club and as it was one of the few employers in town for her skills and qualifications she literally did not have a choice.
My local pub has a smoking area that is outside so both smokers and non-smokers can socialise together. I can choose to go outside and talk to the the smokers if I wish and that is a far more preferable choice.
I'm curious as to what the culture in Europe these days is regarding smoking?
I know in North America - it is pretty much banned in all indoor public places - and in some cases: public outdoor places.
Although, I see that in so many Hollywood movies, smoking is still so commonplace and it seems that every one is lighting up there.
What will it take for non-smokers to be satisfied?
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 03, 2011, 01:17:34 PM
Although, I see that in so many Hollywood movies, smoking is still so commonplace and it seems that every one is lighting up there.
Really? I don't think so. I think that in the oldies you would see people smoking alot in movies. Now you rarely see people smoking in movies.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 03, 2011, 01:29:34 PMWhat will it take for non-smokers to be satisfied?
Possibly prohibition.
Quote from: DavidW on August 03, 2011, 01:30:07 PM
Now you rarely see people smoking in movies.
Well, I totally disagree here with you, David. Respectfully so.
Quote from: Todd on August 03, 2011, 01:30:49 PM
Possibly prohibition.
I have friends who don't smoke, that's all I need 99% of the time and the other 1% I just deal with it (or try to leave).
Quote from: Todd on August 03, 2011, 01:30:49 PM
Possibly prohibition.
Could well be. I've noticed that current smokers tend to be less considerate of non-smokers than in past decades. Maybe they feel that they are being treated like second-class citizens and react accordingly.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 03, 2011, 02:14:39 PM
Maybe they feel that they are being treated like second-class citizens and react accordingly.
They are the lepers of the 21st Century. Oh well, so it be.
I know I always felt guilty when I smoked, even if it is was in privacy, outside, and nowhere near anyone. You do feel like a pariah, and maybe that's the way one should indeed feel when they do smoke.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 02, 2011, 03:04:43 PM
Might be a good idea for you to specify the product being smoked. 8)
Marijuana prevents cancer. Google it. There are many scientific studies demonstrating this. Of course, you will be cancer-free but delusionally paranoid and unable to effectively manage your life....
Quote from: DavidW on August 03, 2011, 11:30:51 AM
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.
Fume LOL!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 03, 2011, 03:46:27 AM
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
Sarge for Mayor!
Quote from: eyeresist on August 03, 2011, 07:02:28 PM
Fume LOL!
Yeah after I wrote it I realized how unintentionally funny that was! :D
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 03, 2011, 12:51:49 PM
I spend a lot of my time in countries where smoking is still permitted in restaurants.
A big surprise for me was when in Barcelona there were people smoking in the underground. Good heavens! And not one of your modern, relatively well-ventilated patches of the underground, either.
Ptrobably the only thing which at all annoyed me about an otherwise wonderful, beauteous city.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 03, 2011, 01:29:34 PM
What will it take for non-smokers to be satisfied?
What will it take for smokers to be considerate?
Quote from: DavidW on August 03, 2011, 11:30:51 AM
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.
Ha, ha - "fume"! My point is that even if I don't agree with someone, I will still defend his right to express his opinion. I believe that government is getting more than a wedge into people's private lives through the loophole of prohibiting smoking. It is an erosion of freedom. If left to the free market, this could get sorted out with a voluntary exclusion of smoking on one's premises (as this may be more attractive to a certain clientele), if there is a demand for it, restaurants and pubs where you can fume all you want.
Is liquor better or worse than smoking? Do more people get killed because of DUI or lighting up? Prohibition of alcohol in the US was supposed to make people virtuous from about 1917 to 1933. Drinking only went underground, became infinitely more profitable like drugs are today.
I really despise the nanny state with its false self-righteousness. There is so much toxicity and downright destruction coming from government (you know, like war and all) that to focus on tobacco as the cause of all evil is but a futile distraction.
ZB
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 03, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Well, I totally disagree here with you, David. Respectfully so.
Ray, what new movies have people smoking? I guess I'm not watching them. I suppose the hobbits in LOTR must smoke pipeweed, of course . . . . I have thought, at least half a dozen times, "If this scene had been in a movie made 20 years ago, there would be cigarettes, smoke and ashtrays. But not now"
Quote from: Bulldog on August 03, 2011, 02:14:39 PM
Could well be. I've noticed that current smokers tend to be less considerate of non-smokers than in past decades.
Well, we cannot expect anyone in public to be considerate of others, can we? Not when it's a question of nursing one's own addiction. We're entitled to be asses, then.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2011, 11:57:58 AM
Is liquor better or worse than smoking?
As Sarge points out, the mere act of partaking of liquor does not affect those in your vicinity; but of smoking does. Arguing for smoking in public, because the intoxicating effects of liquor can be objectionable, is a non sequitur.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2011, 12:11:15 PM
As Sarge points out, the mere act of partaking of liquor does not affect those in your vicinity; but of smoking does. Arguing for smoking in public, because the intoxicating effects of liquor can be objectionable, is a non sequitur.
I am not arguing for smoking in public but saying that control can be exerted voluntarily without the Big Brother or Big Nanny Sister stepping in. The unsuccessful campaign against smoking foisted on by the government is disingenous, saying that is is bad for you! Those who smoke are not going to read the warnings on cig packs anyway, no matter how big or graphic. Well, plenty of other things are just as bad, maybe even worse, much worse, aided and abetted by the government itself.
ZB
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2011, 12:58:36 PM
I am not arguing for smoking in public but saying that control can be exerted voluntarily without the Big Brother or Big Nanny Sister stepping in. The unsuccessful campaign against smoking foisted on by the government is disingenous, saying that is is bad for you! Those who smoke are not going to read the warnings on cig packs anyway, no matter how big or graphic. Well, plenty of other things are just as bad, maybe even worse, much worse, aided and abetted by the government itself.
ZB
I'll just say that the ban is more connected to protecting non-smokers from smokers than it is to protecting themselves. Just like DUI/DWI laws are more for the protection of the general public than it is for the health of the driver. Although having said that, it was also passed in restaurants for the protection of the servers, who were at risk in their job. I would agree that an existing smoker might not be pursuaded by the packaging. But perhaps a new smoker would.
You seem to be against government intervention for any reason, and I think that is the topic you are really addressing. It is not an uninteresting topic - perhaps in its own thread?
Funny though how this interesting conversation ended up in the Borders thread.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 04, 2011, 01:50:22 PMI'll just say that the ban is more connected to protecting non-smokers from smokers than it is to protecting themselves.
Not really. The intent of smoking bans is ultimately to ban smoking everywhere. Where I live some "hookah lounges" have been around for a while that have as their sole purpose selling tobacco for consumption on premises. All customers and workers understand this before stepping foot in the door. But the anti-smoking crusaders were not happy with that. So now no new such establishments will be allowed in the state going forward. That goes beyond protecting poor, poor innocent bystanders and straight to sanctimonious ideology where taking away the ability of people to engage in a heretofore legal activity is somehow deemed a good thing, and I predict that someone, somewhere will try to make this appear to be an expansion of liberty rather than a reduction of it. Throw in widening bans on smoking in open public places, and even attempts to close down evil - nay, downright wicked - cigar bars, and the real goal is clear. Public health is a perfect excuse for stripping people of rights because it sounds so reasonable, so economic, and so righteous all at once. I have no problems with banning smoking in most enclosed public places, but at some point it's time for non-smokers to just suck it up.
Quote from: Todd on August 04, 2011, 04:31:59 PM
Not really. The intent of smoking bans is ultimately to ban smoking everywhere. Where I live some "hookah lounges" have been around for a while that have as their sole purpose selling tobacco for consumption on premises. All customers and workers understand this before stepping foot in the door. But the anti-smoking crusaders were not happy with that. So now no new such establishments will be allowed in the state going forward. That goes beyond protecting poor, poor innocent bystanders and straight to sanctimonious ideology where taking away the ability of people to engage in heretofore legal is somehow deemed a good thing, and I predict that someone, somewhere will try to make this appear to be an expansion of liberty rather than a reduction of it. Throw in widening bans on smoking in open public places, and even attempts to close down evil - nay, downright wicked - cigar bars, and the real goal is clear. Public health is a perfect excuse for stripping people of rights because it sounds so reasonable, so economic, and so righteous all at once. I have no problems with banning smoking in most enclosed public places, but at some point it's time for non-smokers to just suck it up.
The rights of smokers will continue to dwindle further an further. I understand this. I know prohibition will never work, but you almost wonder - what's the point of allowing it if it is so bad (not just to smokers, but to others)? And if they say they pay out more in health costs than they collect in taxes from sales of cigarettes?
I think with prohibition, the majority of law abiding citizens who do smoke, would indeed quit for good - knowing it was illegal. Perhaps naive thinking on part, I do realize.
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 04, 2011, 04:43:36 PMAnd if they say they pay out more in health costs than they collect in taxes from sales of cigarettes?
This is a terrifying inquiry. Are we to judge the value of all liberty using a ledger?
Quote from: Todd on August 04, 2011, 04:51:34 PM
This is a terrifying inquiry. Are we to judge the value of all liberty using a ledger?
I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, Todd. I personally think that non-smokers rights are more than adequate as they are right now (at least in Canada).
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 04, 2011, 04:43:36 PM
I think with prohibition, the majority of law abiding citizens who do smoke, would indeed quit for good - knowing it was illegal. Perhaps naive thinking on part, I do realize.
Because you know that worked with alcohol and continues to work wonderfully for pot and meth! :D
Quote from: DavidW on August 04, 2011, 04:59:51 PM
Because you know that worked with alcohol and continues to work wonderfully for pot and meth! :D
Well, it doesn't work that well. However, don't you think more people would smoke pot, if it were considered perfect legal?
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 04, 2011, 05:01:29 PM
Cost of a bullet: Pennies on the Dollar.
Cost of cancer: Thousands on the Dollar.
Well then - the answer is simple. Death by firing squad to all smokers! Or, no cancer care treatment.
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 04, 2011, 04:58:17 PMI'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, Todd.
I understand that, I was simply making a point. I've heard your question turned into serious arguments multiple times, as though
everything can or should be determined using such an analysis.
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 04, 2011, 05:02:17 PM
Well, it doesn't work that well. However, don't you think more people would smoke pot, if it were considered perfect legal?
Yeah because it would then be cheaper and more easily available. I can already see people lined up for the walmart brand! ;D
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 04, 2011, 05:01:29 PM
Cost of a bullet: Pennies on the Dollar.
Whoa there, not always true! Custom 454 Casull ammo, for instance, can be quite pricey.
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 04, 2011, 05:02:17 PMHowever, don't you think more people would smoke pot, if it were considered perfect legal?
There would be a short term increase of some notable size, followed by a gradual decline in usage to a level above, but not significantly above, current levels. Pot is illegal. It is not hard to get, and it is not expensive. Or so I've heard . . .
I find the smoke itself so obnoxious that it is hard to care about the rights of the emitters to emit.
I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 04, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.
Amen!
Quote from: eyeresist on August 04, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.
So true! Some people just cake it on so much, you'd just rather they stink like B.O. Seriously. :(
My second-hand set of Vaughan Williams' symphonies conducted by Thomson STILL hasn't lost the strong odor of the previous owner's cologne! Honestly, was it meant to be some sort of burglar deterrent or something? My feelings when reaching down that set are quite Pavlovian.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 04, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
I find the smoke itself so obnoxious that it is hard to care about the rights of the emitters to emit.
I also feel this way about strong perfume or aftershave.
Very good point, where does it stop when anything deemed offensive or even irritating can be prohibited legally? The trough is so wide that whoever has the biggest mouth or wallet can trump the rights of minorities, the opposite of what was intended in the first place. Plenty of things are best sorted out without government interference like bullying in schools and what constitutes hate speech short of outright racism or sedition. There's always the hypothetical victim who might be scandalized by innocent satire or anything religious, so self-censorship becomes the norm and speech becomes bland and boring.
I'm sorry but the example given of a woman who only had "skills" to work in a club that contributed to her cancer because of being exposed to smoke is a bit disingenous. So clubs have to become smokefree in order to protect another hypothetical victim? Developing other "skills" would have been the conclusion when logic was a little more widespread than it is now. Well, other workplaces have their dangers too like coal mines.
How about inhaling hairspray or ethylene in petrol stations? And some people are allergic to alcohol based scents. Shouldn't they be also prohibited to protect the rights of someone who may go into prophylactic shock? How about a bubble zone around people who wear strong smelling
eau de cologne?
ZB
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2011, 09:14:28 PM
Very good point, where does it stop when anything deemed offensive or even irritating can be prohibited legally?
No, that's the opposite of what I meant. I'd like to ban strong perfume and aftershave too! I think my right to not be irritated should trump someone else's right to irritate me.
Quote from: Todd on August 04, 2011, 04:31:59 PM
Not really. The intent of smoking bans is ultimately to ban smoking everywhere. Where I live some "hookah lounges" have been around for a while that have as their sole purpose selling tobacco for consumption on premises. All customers and workers understand this before stepping foot in the door. But the anti-smoking crusaders were not happy with that. So now no new such establishments will be allowed in the state going forward. That goes beyond protecting poor, poor innocent bystanders and straight to sanctimonious ideology where taking away the ability of people to engage in a heretofore legal activity is somehow deemed a good thing, and I predict that someone, somewhere will try to make this appear to be an expansion of liberty rather than a reduction of it. Throw in widening bans on smoking in open public places, and even attempts to close down evil - nay, downright wicked - cigar bars, and the real goal is clear. Public health is a perfect excuse for stripping people of rights because it sounds so reasonable, so economic, and so righteous all at once. I have no problems with banning smoking in most enclosed public places, but at some point it's time for non-smokers to just suck it up.
I had not realized that some states were so activist. Banning it outside seems odd to me, although sometimes when I walk outside, someone's smoke might float my way. And I had not heard of cigar bars being banned. Where is all this 'sin' happening?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2011, 12:58:36 PM
I am not arguing for smoking in public but saying that control can be exerted voluntarily without the Big Brother or Big Nanny Sister stepping in.
In my experience (prior to the strictures of the ordinances), there is quite a gap between control can be exerted voluntarily and control will be exerted — and there is the question of the degree to which volitional control can be exercised in the matter of an addiction.
So, Todd, you object to buildings which prohibit smoking within 25 feet of an entrance? For myself, I know of no other such bans of smoking in "open public places" — apart from beaches, where the objection is more a question of smokers seeing sand, and figuring that, well, the entire beach is a big ashtray, really . . . .
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 04, 2011, 06:08:50 PM
. . . you'd just rather they stink like B.O. Seriously. :(
Speaking from recent experience on the T — no, actually ; )
Quote from: eyeresist on August 04, 2011, 06:19:47 PM
My second-hand set of Vaughan Williams' symphonies conducted by Thomson STILL hasn't lost the strong odor of the previous owner's cologne!
Dude, that's a property of the music. Suck it up.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 04, 2011, 06:19:47 PM
My second-hand set of Vaughan Williams' symphonies conducted by Thomson STILL hasn't lost the strong odor of the previous owner's cologne!
English Leather?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 04, 2011, 10:33:28 PMAnd I had not heard of cigar bars being banned.
Where I live the same people who pushed to ban new hookah lounges have made it very clear that they want to extinguish all facilities that allow indoor smoking. They already succeeded in squeezing out one type of business going forward, so it is entirely possible, and even probable, that they can succeed in eliminating cigar bars. Of course, where I live, plastic bags have just been banned from large retailers, and there is a group that is active in trying to ban children – ie,
anyone under 18 – from buying Happy Meals or similar meals at fast restaurants. The Left Coast is filled with people with an insatiable desire to exercise control over the lives of others.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 05, 2011, 03:32:04 AM
So, Todd, you object to buildings which prohibit smoking within 25 feet of an entrance?
It depends. If such a ban is purely on private property, I have no problem with it at all. If it extends out to public property, I do.
Quote from: Todd on August 05, 2011, 08:55:23 AM
Where I live the same people who pushed to ban new hookah lounges have made it very clear that they want to extinguish all facilities that allow indoor smoking. They already succeeded in squeezing out one type of business going forward, so it is entirely possible, and even probable, that they can succeed in eliminating cigar bars. Of course, where I live, plastic bags have just been banned from large retailers, and there is a group that is active in trying to ban children – ie, anyone under 18 – from buying Happy Meals or similar meals at fast restaurants. The Left Coast is filled with people with an insatiable desire to exercise control over the lives of others.
:D Oh boy! That is excessive, indeed. No Happy Meals??? I'm all for not encouraging anyone to eat at McDonald's every single day, but?? Talk about removing any parental responsibility. ::)
Yikes.
Anyway, it's probably about time to remind everyone that pointing to fringe extremists does not invalidate sane regulation. And, sorry all you cancer-stick-suckers, but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity. Mens sana in corpore sano . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 05, 2011, 09:09:06 AM
Yikes.
Anyway, it's probably about time to remind everyone that pointing to fringe extremists does not invalidate sane regulation. And, sorry all you cancer-stick-suckers, but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity. Mens sana in corpore sano . . . .
Karl, calm yourself down!! Just joking. ;) Go to the golden arches and buy yourself a McHappy Meal - you'll feel better (initially.....then you'll feel like crap). Hah! :D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 05, 2011, 09:09:06 AMbut banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity.
For the most part I agree, with the obvious exception of workplaces where smoking is the entire reason for such a place to exist. Such places are rare. I would even go so far as to say that banning smoking anywhere on a medical facility campus is reasonable. But things can, will, and do go too far. For instance, various public colleges and universities are looking to ban smoking on campuses. Well, I'm a non-smoking taxpayer, and I find such an idea ludicrous.
Quote from: Todd on August 05, 2011, 09:15:12 AM
For the most part I agree, with the obvious exception of workplaces where smoking is the entire reason for such a place to exist. Such places are rare. I would even go so far as to say that banning smoking anywhere on a medical facility campus is reasonable. But things can, will, and do go too far. For instance, various public colleges and universities are looking to ban smoking on campuses. Well, I'm a non-smoking taxpayer, and I find such an idea ludicrous.
Against that, there is the objection of dedicating state resources (space, cleaning) to an area which can be used only by people suffering from an elective addiction.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 05, 2011, 09:09:06 AM
Yikes.
Anyway, it's probably about time to remind everyone that pointing to fringe extremists does not invalidate sane regulation. And, sorry all you cancer-stick-suckers, but banning smoking from airplanes, restaurants and workplaces is mere sanity. Mens sana in corpore sano . . . .
All three of them?
Wow Todd that sounds like you in San Francisco! :D
This reminds me of Davis, CA (I went to college there). They built a special tunnel for frogs (I'm sharing this because it seems like a very similar liberal feel good project at the tax payer's expense) to use so they don't get run over crossing the road. Well story has it at the inauguration, they pushed a frog into the tunnel, and it was a very hot day... and well... the frog sizzled! :D :D
Quote from: DavidW on August 05, 2011, 11:50:41 AM
Wow Todd that sounds like you in San Francisco! :D
This reminds me of Davis, CA (I went to college there). They built a special tunnel for frogs (I'm sharing this because it seems like a very similar liberal feel good project at the tax payer's expense) to use so they don't get run over crossing the road. Well story has it at the inauguration, they pushed a frog into the tunnel, and it was a very hot day... and well... the frog sizzled! :D :D
Not sure whether to laugh or cringe! The good news is: I've never heard a restaurant patron yet complain that the air in the place was too fresh ; )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 05, 2011, 10:38:27 AMAgainst that, there is the objection of dedicating state resources (space, cleaning) to an area which can be used only by people suffering from an elective addiction.
Ah, yes, the resource issue. And just how resource intensive are such functions? The state dedicating state resources to menial or meaningless tasks is something the state does exceedingly well.
Incidentally, non-smokers have full use of smoking facilities, they just choose not to use them. That's markedly different from the situation smokers face.
Quote from: DavidW on August 05, 2011, 11:50:41 AMWow Todd that sounds like you in San Francisco!
Nah, I live north of there.
I do think that stopping smoking-specific venues is ridiculous. Certainly hard to reconcile with the advocates' presumable support for supervised injecting centres for junkies (which I do favour, BTW).
The whole world should just follow Portugal when it comes to drugs:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization#comments
But, nah, let's not think about what's actually best, lets, uh... hmmm.... i don't know... ::)
The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn't (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/americas-new-tobacco-crisis-the-rich-stopped-smoking-the-poor-didnt/2017/06/13/a63b42ba-4c8c-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_stillsmoking-155am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.00687faba955)
"Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times." - Mark Twain.
Thread duty: no, never have smoked. Quite lucky considering how addicted I am to Pepsi and Coke.
I'm the only one from among my brothers and sisters who never acquired the habit. No, that's not true: neither the eldest nor youngest fell prey to the vice which my father modeled :(
Never smoked (I found it quite repulsive when I tried for fun, very late, already in my mid-twenties and I am glad because the nervous and fidgety type I am I would probably have made a "great smoker") and I am generally happy about more smoke free environments.
Although I think that it has been exaggerated a little by making most pubs completely smoke free. Germany was late in this respect compared to the US. When I studied in the US in 1996 I was stunned at the smoke-free clubs and pubs. But Germany has become considerably more smoke free in the last 20 years. In my childhood in the 1980s it was disgusting, in hindsight. Virtually all restaurants were smoke-filled. People smoked in their cars when taking children of friends home from school etc. It was just a normal thing to do (although I think the percentage of smokers had been falling already since the 1970s).
What I am still wondering about, though, is whether the rise of overweight and obesity rates (both in the US and Germany) is connected to less smoking. Smokers often tend to be slim and if one looks at pictures from the 1970s it is amazing how slim the *average* person is. Even fat people apparently were not as massive as one frequently encounters today. Sure, there are a lot of factors involved but I think less smoking could be one of them.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 16, 2017, 05:27:59 AMWhat I am still wondering about, though, is whether the rise of overweight and obesity rates (both in the US and Germany) is connected to less smoking.
Almost certainly not. In the US, the cheap food policy begun under Nixon (ie, increased subsidies for certain calorie-dense commodity crops like corn) is more commonly cited as a/the major contributor. Also, obesity levels were not so much of a problem before tobacco products became popular (ca, WWI) and while food was still comparatively expensive. Policies that alter prices for foodstuffs (ie, increase junk food prices and decrease fresh fruit/vegetable/lean meat prices) on a systemic basis would almost certainly reduce obesity levels in the regions affected by such policies.
I smoked off and on in my youth. In my 20s I lost half a lung for reasons unrelated to smoking and decided I should take care of the remaining lung tissue. No desire to smoke since.
Non-smoker. Here in the UK it has declined a great deal in recent years, no doubt helped by the ban on smoking in public places (including pubs). Apart from the obvious health benefits and resource saving to the health service, it's good that one can come back from a pub, club or concert and not have to put all your clothes in the wash and probably need a shower so you don't stink of stale smoke next morning.
Recently I've started noticing more people smoking and they are invariably Eastern European, usually Polish. Presumably they have different sorts of lungs.
I'm a former smoker. And as usual I have a story.
I grew up in an environment where almost everyone was addicted to some sort of drug. When I was 14 at the end of the school day I'd walk out the gates with my friends and into the newsagent across the road, where for the sum of five pence we'd buy one cigarette and two matches. It would get smoked on the walk home, sometimes shared (including the coughing and spluttering) which often led to accusations of "You gie'd it a coo's lick!" if anyone committed the crime of making the filter wet and soggy. One year passed and I was out of school for good and away from such peer pressure temptation. But many years later I was in a period of life where I started to smoke again in a misguided attempt to deal with stress.
This too will pass. That stressful period eventually ended but the smoking continued. I'd been away from the boxing for a couple of years but even when I returned to it I still smoked (and I wasn't the only one in that gym who did) and trained hard. But worst of all was when I was working. My job involved a lot of 'hurry up and wait' which meant I'd light a cigarette and put it down as soon as we were ready to start, but then there would be the first of many short breaks for a makeup touch up or wardrobe adjustment and I'd light another cigarette and smoke half of it and so on. In total I must have been smoking at least forty a day.
Eventually I quit smoking after going to speak to my doctor about it and having a brief meeting with a nurse who was their stop smoking practitioner. But I found that all I had to do was in a way almost exactly the opposite of what they prescribed. And when I did quit, that was it. No relapses, no setbacks. No more. I just quit.
Just saw today that diagnosed cancers have been coming down (for men) at a rate of 1.5% a year for the past 5 years. While there are probably many reasons for this, it matches the decrease of the number of smokers in western countries.
Quote from: Spineur on June 16, 2017, 08:36:00 AM
Just saw today that diagnosed cancers have been coming down (for men) at a rate of 1.5% a year for the past 5 years. While there are probably many reasons for this, it matches the decrease of the number of smokers in western countries.
That's indeed the reason - and since the trend of women smoking has been pretty much the reverse, women's cancers not show the drop. Obviously alcohol and obesity are significant carcinogens too, but smoking is far more potent.
As for me, yes, yes I do smoke. Salmon, perch, ham, and other stuff, in the wood/brick cabin.
"Do you smoke after sex?"
"I don't know, I've never looked."
I used to enjoy smoking a lot, these days either my tastes have changed or the cigarettes have, but I don't find it pleasant any more. I was never particularly into the nicotine rush, only the sensation of the smoke itself, so it has always been quite easy for me to stop, and I have for several lengthy periods, only taking it back up as I felt like it. I feel quite lucky to have never really had a problem with addiction, but I feel for those who do and wish them the best in trying to stop. I have not smoked since around October 2016 and I probably won't take it up again, but I don't think I will ever not be nostalgic for the days when I could sit back and relax of an evening with a pack of Luckies and a Manhattan.
Quote from: North Star on June 16, 2017, 10:38:34 AM
As for me, yes, yes I do smoke. Salmon, perch, ham, and other stuff, in the wood/brick cabin.
:laugh:
Can't stand the stench of it. Whenever I come across a smoker I tend to keep my distance, particularly when the smoke is being blown about everywhere. Thankfully anyone I know who does smoke is very respectful towards others about where they do it, away from non-smokers and more often on private property with friends. People who smoke in public, walking down a busy street in the city, that seems extraordinarily disrespectful to everyone else who is breathing the same air as them.
(http://i.imgur.com/PVJIPZ1.jpg)
Although I no longer smoke I still carry a cigarette lighter, because I find they're useful. And quite often when walking down the street shop girls or office ladies will stop me and ask if I'll give them a light. Usually all they want is to get their cigarette lit, but occasionally a woman will be forward enough to grab your hand and pull it closer and hold eye contact while you light her. ;D It's cool as hell, because out of nowhere you can know right away where you stand. 8)
Sometimes at a concert or ballet during the interval I'll stretch my legs outside. I was doing so when a 'staff only' door burst open and a dude dressed in tails flew out, spied me, held an unlit cigarette up and said one word "Gasping!" :laugh:
They know whom to turn to!
Not as much as I'd like, sadly.
It's kind of like Cronenberg's The Fly, where our hero vomits on his food to digest it and on seeing the reaction says something like "Oh, that's...disgusting" in a half questioning manner. It's a heartwarming moment.
There are more nonsmokers than ever, and as the numbers continue to shift I expect the idea that smokers might have rights will come to seem ridiculous. So I'm a fossil.
By the way I should report that it's still legal not to smoke in Paris. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
NO.
I mean, a bit of self-destruction is ok I guess, we are going to die anyway... but being unable to breathe... lung transplants... awful cancers... it's kinda a bit too much!*
*To this individual, of course. To each, its lung! :)