The great smoking experiment?

[paulbot24]

It seems it is getting more and more difficult to be a smoker these days. Well, cigarettes anyways. I don't even smoke cigarettes and it baffles me how much they get away with making it a royal pain in the ass to be a smoker. Tax the hell out of it, people cordoned off like cattle into small little patio areas, ban it in the entire establishment completely, ban it in your car with minors, recently in your own condominium....etc....Again, I'm not a smoker and there have been several times I have been standing in line or next to somebody who I couldn't just walk away from while they were smoking and I didn't like it. Yet what I find more offensive is the government's method of dealing with cigarette smokers and the bigger picture. The "We would never take away your rights, just make them as annoying as possible to exercise" kind of mentality. As people are learning to accept this, smokers and non-smokers alike, doesn't this sound like a template for gun control? Can't carry within x yards of these buildings.... can't carry..... Can't own one with children under the age of....Can't have a gun and minors in the house. This sounds suspiciously like an experiment to see what people are willing to accept and get them used to it at the same time.....and a gleaning tool for information on how to ease in gun control laws in this country without a major revolution. I hope I'm wrong. Thoughts on this?

[phill4paul]

I agree. EVERYTHING the government does to restrict individual liberty and property rights is a test. And as a whole we are failing miserably.

[Expatriate]

I'm in the same boat, I'm not a smoker and I dislike the smell, but the anti-smoking nazi campaign baffles me.

Your theory makes a lot of sense, i think.

[CaptUSA]

Hmmm... let's see... Let's pit person A against the habits of person B and make them fight about it. Group A will vote to take away the rights of Group B. Then Group A decides that it is a good thing to take away rights. So when we want to take away their rights, no one will complain.

[Dr.3D]

It's true, they have been working for years, spreading propaganda, to destroy cigarette smoking. Anymore, it seems they have made many people ashamed to admit they smoke. I see the same thing happening with pistols as well. Many people now associate someone who isn't a cop and carrying a pistol as someone they should report as being a criminal.

[Zippyjuan]

Two people in a room. One wants to smoke. The other doesn't. Which one should be forced to leave the room if they don't like it?

[liberty2897]

Two people in a room. One wants to smoke. The other doesn't. Which one should be forced to leave the room if they don't like it?

Depends on which one of them owns the room. If the smoker owns the room, then the other person needs to make a decision if they want to stay. I wouldn't really call that "forcing them to leave though".

I'm a smoker. I try to be polite about not making things miserable for others. I smoke outdoors, so the house I'm renting doesn't smell like smoke. I'm sure the day that they start coming after me for polluting the outdoors is coming soon...

[edit]
I drive out of state to get my cigarettes. The taxes here have the price up to $9/pack or so.

[AFPVet]

Two people in a room. One wants to smoke. The other doesn't. Which one should be forced to leave the room if they don't like it?

Excellent point; however, as liberty said, it depends on who owns the room. If an establishment allows smoking, I usually just go to a non smoking establishment.

[Dr.3D]

Excellent point; however, as liberty said, it depends on who owns the room. If an establishment allows smoking, I usually just go to a non smoking establishment.
And in many places, the government won't even allow the owner to make the decision as to if he wishes to allow smoking in his establishment.

[liberty2897]

And in many places, the government won't even allow the owner to make the decision as to if he wishes to allow smoking in his establishment.

That is the case in Wa state. No smoking in public places. You have to be xx feet away from the entrance to any establishment as well. I don't have a huge problem with this, but I think the owner of an establishment should be able to declare if it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment. You don't have to go there if you don't want to.

[Working Poor]

Ah the government is just trying to heal addiction. I wish it could heal it's own addiction to our money and personal affairs.

[tod evans]

That is the case in Wa state. No smoking in public places. You have to be xx feet away from the entrance to any establishment as well. I don't have a huge problem with this, but I think the owner of an establishment should be able to declare if it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment. You don't have to go there if you don't want to.

Many bars and restaurant here in the sticks have reorganized themselves into "private clubs" in order to permit smoking.

Anyone can join for $1.00 but you acknowledge that you're joining a private club that permits smoking.

[Dr.3D]

Many bars and restaurant here in the sticks have reorganized themselves into "private clubs" in order to permit smoking.

Anyone can join for $1.00 but you acknowledge that you're joining a private club that permits smoking.
This is what I don't understand. Why does one need to do that when the establishment in and of itself is a private establishment? The owner should be able to declare who he will and will not serve as well as if he prefers not to have handicap access and if people can smoke in his private establishment. I didn't know there was such a thing as a privately owned, public establishment.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree. EVERYTHING the government does to restrict individual liberty and property rights is a test. And as a whole we are failing miserably.

Was coming in to write the same thing.

All of it, from the anti smoking to TSA groping is all beta testing, seeing just how much we'll tolerate.

When they encounter push back, then the system adjusts to do an end run.

[PaulConventionWV]

It seems it is getting more and more difficult to be a smoker these days. Well, cigarettes anyways. I don't even smoke cigarettes and it baffles me how much they get away with making it a royal pain in the ass to be a smoker. Tax the hell out of it, people cordoned off like cattle into small little patio areas, ban it in the entire establishment completely, ban it in your car with minors, recently in your own condominium....etc....Again, I'm not a smoker and there have been several times I have been standing in line or next to somebody who I couldn't just walk away from while they were smoking and I didn't like it. Yet what I find more offensive is the government's method of dealing with cigarette smokers and the bigger picture. The "We would never take away your rights, just make them as annoying as possible to exercise" kind of mentality. As people are learning to accept this, smokers and non-smokers alike, doesn't this sound like a template for gun control? Can't carry within x yards of these buildings.... can't carry..... Can't own one with children under the age of....Can't have a gun and minors in the house. This sounds suspiciously like an experiment to see what people are willing to accept and get them used to it at the same time.....and a gleaning tool for information on how to ease in gun control laws in this country without a major revolution. I hope I'm wrong. Thoughts on this?

The government shouldn't regulate this stuff, but it's kind of hard to feel sorry for people who put up with it just to get their daily dose of poison. Smoking makes no sense and is disgusting. Unfortunately, it's also highly addictive.

[GunnyFreedom]

As a smoker in the process of quitting (90% transitioned to e-cig) I have always been a ridiculously 'polite' smoker. Not only do I go outside, but if I am outside with non-smokers I examine the breeze and stay downwind. The point I'd want to add is that the smoking questions should boil down to property rights. You have to account not only for building/room property, but also ownership over one's own body.

It does, I agree, appear to be a framework for other bans in the future.

[Anti Federalist]

Many bars and restaurant here in the sticks have reorganized themselves into "private clubs" in order to permit smoking.

Anyone can join for $1.00 but you acknowledge that you're joining a private club that permits smoking.

Coming tobacco prohibition will put the kibosh on that.

[phill4paul]

Many bars and restaurant here in the sticks have reorganized themselves into "private clubs" in order to permit smoking.

Anyone can join for $1.00 but you acknowledge that you're joining a private club that permits smoking.


Coming tobacco prohibition will put the kibosh on that.

Already have in N.C. Private clubs are included in the smoking ban. Only some non-profit establishments are exempt. The V.F.W. or the Elks club for instance.

[Dr.3D]

Coming tobacco prohibition will put the kibosh on that.
Just like alcohol prohibition put an end to the "speak easy."

[PaulConventionWV]

Two people in a room. One wants to smoke. The other doesn't. Which one should be forced to leave the room if they don't like it?

A better question is: whose room is it? If the smoker owns the room, they can do whatever they want. If the non-smoker owns it, they can do whatever they want. If a third party owns it, they should consult the third party. In all likelihood, if it is an establishment, the smoker will have to go outside because it really does reduce the appeal of a place when there are cigarette smells and lingering poisonous chemicals leaching from the walls and ceiling.

That's just the nature of things. In most cases, the smoker will have to move. It's kind of like if someone had chronic flatulence (or something). If two people walk in and one of them is farting constantly, the person who is farting is more likely to be asked to leave than the person who is not doing anything. That's because something that has an effect on the environment is more likely to be offensive to property owners who will then try to eliminate the source of the effect.

[KingNothing]

Two people in a room. One wants to smoke. The other doesn't. Which one should be forced to leave the room if they don't like it?

If the owner of the room wishes to allow smoking, smoking is allowed. If the owner of the room wishes to enact a rule that anyone who enters MUST smoke, this should be respected. If the owner of the room wishes to enact a rule that anyone who enters must NOT smoke, this should be respected. It's just an issue of properties rights.

[DeMintConservative]

I'm in the same boat, I'm not a smoker and I dislike the smell, but the anti-smoking nazi campaign baffles me.

Your theory makes a lot of sense, i think.

Ditto (although I smoke the very occasional cigar and the smell doesn't bother me much).

[KingNothing]

I strongly dislike the smell of smoke, how it makes me hack and cough, and how it makes my eyes water. At the same time, I would NEVER demand that the government use force to prevent people from smoking or force an owner of an establishment to ban smoking. Would I avoid places that allowed smoking? Probably. But I'd never ask government to tell a business owner or an adult how to act.

As far as I can tell, the only involvement whatsoever that government should have here is this: in "government-owned" buildings and areas, they should be able to determine if people are allowed to smoke. Otherwise, it's none of their business.

[PaulConventionWV]

Just like alcohol prohibition put an end to the "speak easy."

The speak easy didn't exist until it started as a result of prohibition. You probably already knew that and were being sarcastic. I was just clearing that up.

[Anti Federalist]

Just like alcohol prohibition put an end to the "speak easy."

In his wildest wet dream, Elliot Ness never envisioned the surveillance grid and "War on Us" that is now in place.

There will be full compliance.

Officer Friendly is just itching at the chance to make you comply with force.

http://www.hostsonic.com/stuff/swat7.JPG

[PaulConventionWV]

Ditto (although I smoke the very occasional cigar and the smell doesn't bother me much).

I don't mind cigars nearly as much because it's the additives that really hurt you. Cigars don't have that. They might be harmful to some extent, but not nearly as much as cigarettes. The reason cigarettes smell bad is because they are so poisonous. Many poisons have bad smells because people and animals are supposed to stay away from them.

[KingNothing]

Many poisons have bad smells because people and animals are supposed to stay away from them.


Pretty neat how evolution managed to do that, eh?

[PaulConventionWV]

Pretty neat how evolution managed to do that, eh?

You could say that, or you could say that God made it that way for a reason. Both are equally valid hypotheses. Whether it's a product of design or evolution is immaterial, though. Just because it benefits survival, doesn't mean evolution did it.

[Brian4Liberty]

As a smoker in the process of quitting (90% transitioned to e-cig) I have always been a ridiculously 'polite' smoker. Not only do I go outside, but if I am outside with non-smokers I examine the breeze and stay downwind.


Very commendable and appreciated. Unfortunately, there is a portion of smokers that are not like that. There are smokers who intentionally blow smoke at the people around them. These are generally people looking for a fight. In other instances, there are cultural considerations. Some cultures have different ideas about what is polite and what is not.

All laws are slippery slopes, there's no getting around that. The fewer the better.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's true, they have been working for years, spreading propaganda, to destroy cigarette smoking. Anymore, it seems they have made many people ashamed to admit they smoke. I see the same thing happening with pistols as well. Many people now associate someone who isn't a cop and carrying a pistol as someone they should report as being a criminal.

Interesting analogy. In the case of guns, they have gone beyond making "using them" inappropriately a crime, and have criminalized possessing them. When they make the possession of cigarettes a crime, then we are in deep(er) trouble. Just an expansion of the war on drugs, and we know what the consequences of that has been.

[LibForestPaul]

Does anyone notice it odd that at the same time this zealots are attacking smoking and smokers, legislation is going up to make marijuana use "legal"...

[PaulConventionWV]

Does anyone notice it odd that at the same time this zealots are attacking smoking and smokers, legislation is going up to make marijuana use "legal"...

Not really.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't mind cigars nearly as much because it's the additives that really hurt you. Cigars don't have that. They might be harmful to some extent, but not nearly as much as cigarettes. The reason cigarettes smell bad is because they are so poisonous. Many poisons have bad smells because people and animals are supposed to stay away from them.

When I do smoke, I smoke American Spirit. All natural zero additives. I have been told by non-smokers that they don't stink as much as normal cigarettes.

[liberty2897]

When I do smoke, I smoke American Spirit. All natural zero additives. I have been told by non-smokers that they don't stink as much as normal cigarettes.

They also shouldn't cause cancer if the tobacco is grown without using fertilizer that contains the polonium-210 isotope. So... good choice.

[dannno]

They also shouldn't cause cancer if the tobacco is grown without using fertilizer that contains the polonium-210 isotope. So... good choice.

Ya I really wish they would do some testing on this type of stuff. I switched my roommate over to the blues, but it's a tough sell on the organics since they are a good $2-$3 more per pack.

[liberty2897]

Ya I really wish they would do some testing on this type of stuff. I switched my roommate over to the blues, but it's a tough sell on the organics since they are a good $2-$3 more per pack.

If you google it, you will see that there have been many studies on it. They keep using it anyway..

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/po.htm


Health effects of polonium

Polonium is studied in a few nuclear research laboratories where its high radioactivity as an alpha-emitter requires special handling techniques and precautions.

Polonium -210 is the only component of cigarette smoke that has produced cancer by itself in laboratory animals by inhalation - tumors appeared already at a polonium level five times lower than those of a normal heavy smoker.

Lung cancer rates among men kept climbing from a rarity in 1930 (4/100,000 per year) to the No. 1 cancer killer in 1980 (72/100,000) in spite of an almost 20 percent reduction in smoking. But during the same period, the level of polonium -210 in American tobacco had tripled. This coincided with the increase in the use of phosphate fertilizers by tobacco growers - calcium phosphate ore accumulates uranium and slowly releases radon gas.

As radon decays, its electrically charged daughter products attach themselves to dust particles, which adhere to the sticky hairs on the underside of tobacco leaves. This leaves a deposit of radioactive polonium and lead on the leaves. Then, the intense localized heat in the burning tip of a cigarette volatilizes the radioactive metals. While cigarette filters can trap chemical carcinogens, they are ineffective against radioactive vapors.

The lungs of a chronic smoker end up with a radioactive lining in a concentration much higher than from residential radon. These particles emit radiation. Smoking two packs of cigarettes a day imparts a radiation dose by alpha particles of about 1,300 millirem per year. For comparison, the annual radiation dose to the average American from inhaled radon is 200 mrem. However, the radiation dose at the radon "action level" of 4 pCi/L is roughly equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a day.
In addition, polunium-210 is soluble and is circulated through the body to every tissue and cell in levels much higher than from residential radon. The proof is that it can be found in the blood and urine of smokers. The circulating polonium -210 causes genetic damage and early death from diseases reminiscent of early radiological pioneers: liver and bladder cancer, stomach ulcer, leukemia, cirrhosis of liver, and cardiovascular diseases.
The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that radioactivity, rather than tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. The Center for Disease Control concluded "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."
Cigarette smoking accounts for 30% of all cancer deaths. Only poor diet rivals tobacco smoke as a cause of cancer in the U.S., causing a comparable number of fatalities each year. However, the National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active funding for research of radiation from smoking or residential radon as a cause of lung cancer, presumably, to protect the public from undue fears of radiation.

[donnay]

It's all about control. Here is a little history on smoking bans:

1575: Mexico: The first recorded passing of legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passes a law which prohibits smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies

1600s: World-wide Popes ban smoking in holy places and all places of worship. Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places.

1612: China Royal decree forbids the use and cultivation of tobacco

1617: Mongolia Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty.

1620: Japan bans the use of tobacco

1632: America The first recorded smoking ban in America occurs when Massachusetts introduces a ban on smoking in public places

1633: Turkey Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law.

1634: Russia Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution.

1634: Greece The Greek Church bans the use of tobacco claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah.

1638: China The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted

1639: America Governor Kieft of New Amsterdam beats Bloomberg by hundreds of years and bans smoking in New Amsterdam later to become New York.

1640: Bhutan The founder of modern Bhutan, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal introduces that countries first smoking ban outlawing the use of tobacco in government buildings.

1647: America People are only allowed to smoke once a day and public smoking is prohibited in Connecticut

1650: Italy Pope Innocent X's issues a decree against smoking in St Peter's, Rome

1657: Switzerland Smoking prohibition introduced throughout Switzerland

1674: Russia Death penalty introduced for the crime of smoking.

1683: America First laws in America passed prohibiting smoking outdoors in Massachusetts. Philadelphia follows suit introducing fines for offenders.

1693: England First recorded ban in England introduced prohibiting smoking in certain areas of the chambers of parliament

* Smoking bans and prohibitions became rare during the 18th and 19th century. Trade in tobacco became an important source of revenue for monarchs and leaders and tobacco bans were revoked. Even the Pope not to be left out opened a tobacco factory in 1779.

1719: France Smoking is banned with the exception of a number of provinces.

1818: USA Smoking is banned on the streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The mayor is fined when he becomes the first man to break the law.

1840: USA Smoking is banned in Boston

1893: USA Washington State introduces legislation banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes

1898: USA Total ban on cigarettes in the state of Tennessee

1900: USA The sale of cigarettes is now outlawed in the states of Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota

1904: USA A women is sent to jail for 30 days by a New York judge for smoking in front of her children.

1905: USA Indiana introduces a total cigarette ban

1907: USA Washington passes legislation banning the manufacture, sale, exchange or giving away cigarettes, cigarette paper or wrappers

1914: USA Smoking banned in the US Senate

1922: USA 15 States now have laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession and use of cigarettes

Hitler was a fervent anti smoker and a crusader for the anti-smoking cause. He personally funded research into the dangers of smoking and little wonder those results given the nature of his regime tended to support his assertions that smoking was an evil the Aryan race must be rid of. Many of the studies carried out during the Third Reich are the basis for the arguments put forward today by those seeking the imposition of repressive smoking bans.

Hitler once stated that tobacco was "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man" Under the Nazi's the Bureau Against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco was established in 1939 followed in 1942 by the Institute for the Struggle against the dangers of Tobacco. Nazi's were the first to coin the term "passive smoking"

Under the Nazi regime the German people had imposed on them the most comprehensive set of tobacco regulations and restrictions seen in any modern nation to that date. Hitler himself took particular interest in this area often personally overseeing the drafting and implementation of anti smoking policy.

Bans And Restrictions in Nazi Germany

* The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938.

* The German Post office introduced.it's own ban

* Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes.

* The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939

* SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty in 1939

* Hermann Goering's bans soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and while taking rest periods.

* Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.

* Smoking was banned in air raid shelters. Some provided separate rooms for smokers

* Tobacco coupons were denied to any woman who was pregnant

* Blanket smoking bans were introduced in many cafes, bars and restaurants

* Women below the age of 25 were banned from smoking

* Restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to all female customers

* In July 1943 it became illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.

* Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944. This initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.

1973: America Arizona becomes the first state in the current wave of smoking bans to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places.

http://www.sott.net/article/139304-Lets-All-Light-Up

[Dr.3D]

They also shouldn't cause cancer if the tobacco is grown without using fertilizer that contains the polonium-210 isotope. So... good choice.
I understand, the hairs on the leaves catch radioactive material from the atmosphere. Whenever there is a leak from a power plant or above ground nuclear test the amount of material goes up and more of it is caught on the tobacco leaves.

[opal]

and yet.. in Casino's.. smoking is fair game - or it was last time I was in one.

[liberty2897]

This sounds suspiciously like an experiment to see what people are willing to accept and get them used to it at the same time.....and a gleaning tool for information on how to ease in gun control laws in this country without a major revolution. I hope I'm wrong. Thoughts on this?

I completely agree with your assessment.
How much are we willing to let them control elections?
How much are we willing to let them control the prices of gas and food?
How much are we willing to let them control the value of our wealth through fiat currency?
How much are we willing to let them turn this country into the thing they supposedly fear the most?




I understand, the hairs on the leaves catch radioactive material from the atmosphere. Whenever there is a leak from a power plant or above ground nuclear test the amount of material goes up and more of it is caught on the tobacco leaves.

I already explained in my previous post. I also provided a link to learn more about polonium-210 and even quoted it. If you consider that tin-foil hat time for me, I'm okay with that. Personally, I believe that the only thing that causes cancer is ionizing radiation. I would bet my life that cell phones and WIFI don't (I'm an RF Engineer). I guess we all have to do our own research and come to our own conclusions on these things. I am a paranoid type by nature, but that doesn't mean they aren't after me : )

[paulbot24]

I completely agree with your assessment.
How much are we willing to let them control elections?
How much are we willing to let them control the prices of gas and food?
How much are we willing to let them control the value of our wealth through fiat currency?
How much are we willing to let them turn this country into the thing they supposedly fear the most?

These are is the questions I'm asking. "We would never take away your rights! This is a free country! We can make you feel guilty and paranoid and maligned if you use them though........" We can place incredibly difficult conditions on them, put you on surveillance for enjoying them, and make you jump through new and exciting hoops to make sure you're still qualified and safe to be enjoying them. You're still free though! If you don't like it, you can always leave! Cue flag wave......Yay.

[LadyBastiat]

And in many places, the government won't even allow the owner to make the decision as to if he wishes to allow smoking in his establishment.

I agree, the property owner should have the right to make that decision. Reminds me so much of the progression of controlling everything we put in our bodies. First it was the drugs and now NY wants to ban sodas over 16 oz. All it takes is giving away one small right (even when it is something we probably should avoid) then POOF, no rights left.

Just for the record, I'm quite proud to announce that I'm closing in on 150 days without a cigarette. ;)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I dunno how I feel about this issue. As a kid I was constantly getting ear infections. At least one every 2-3 months. I later found out being around smokers can cause these. I also developed bad lung problems. This is when people still smoked in restaurants and other establishments indoors. Mom was also a smoker at home. Now I don't have to worry about smokers when I go out somewhere and no one smokes where I live now. Haven't had an ear infection in 10 years. I don't even remember when the mist from the inhaler tastes like anymore. Should someone be able to decide on their private property if smoking is allowed? I suppose, I just wouldn't go there. I do hate having to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke because everyone is taking a cigarette break at the same time in front of the office building or when I went to university.

tl;dr
Liberty doesn't mean freedom to make me sick. How could someone argue they have the right to adversely affect someone else's health in public?

[DamianTV]

I dont even remember the last time I had a cold. Literally, it has been years. Im attributing much of it to better eating and vitamin d supplements. Oh yeah, and I smoke.

[mad cow]

I dunno how I feel about this issue. As a kid I was constantly getting ear infections. At least one every 2-3 months. I later found out being around smokers can cause these. I also developed bad lung problems. This is when people still smoked in restaurants and other establishments indoors. Mom was also a smoker at home. Now I don't have to worry about smokers when I go out somewhere and no one smokes where I live now. Haven't had an ear infection in 10 years. I don't even remember when the mist from the inhaler tastes like anymore. Cigarettes making people sick are more dangerous than guns being on someone's person. Should someone be able to decide on their private property if smoking is allowed? I suppose, I just wouldn't go there. I do hate having to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke because everyone is taking a cigarette break at the same time in front of the office building or when I went to university.

tl;dr
Liberty doesn't mean freedom to make me sick. How could someone argue they have the right to adversely affect someone else's health in public?

Maybe you will get your wish and cigarettes AND guns being allowed on someone's person will be treated as serious felonies in the near future.
That seems to be the direction we are heading.Lucky you.

[tod evans]

I hate exhaust fumes, they cause my eyes to water and make me cough, they're known to be full of carcinogens and every time I walk outside an office building I must walk through a cloud of them. Growing up my parents had cars and a lawnmower, I'm certain the fumes emitted from these internal combustion engines caused ear-aches and breathing difficulties.

Every time I go out in public I'm forced to endure these vile and noxious gasses that make me sick...



Oh-yeah, I refuse to live in the city....It's really not a problem because I made the conscious decision to live in the country.....But I still hate exhaust gasses and believe it's my moral obligation to bitch at people who have the audacity to drive in my presence...




I dunno how I feel about this issue. As a kid I was constantly getting ear infections. At least one every 2-3 months. I later found out being around smokers can cause these. I also developed bad lung problems. This is when people still smoked in restaurants and other establishments indoors. Mom was also a smoker at home. Now I don't have to worry about smokers when I go out somewhere and no one smokes where I live now. Haven't had an ear infection in 10 years. I don't even remember when the mist from the inhaler tastes like anymore. Cigarettes making people sick are more dangerous than guns being on someone's person. Should someone be able to decide on their private property if smoking is allowed? I suppose, I just wouldn't go there. I do hate having to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke because everyone is taking a cigarette break at the same time in front of the office building or when I went to university.

tl;dr
Liberty doesn't mean freedom to make me sick. How could someone argue they have the right to adversely affect someone else's health in public?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm not going to sit here and respond to juvenile strawman arguments. I expect better from RPF.
If you read it out loud you'd realize how obnoxious it sounds.

[tod evans]

I'm not going to sit here and attack strawman arguments. I expect better from RPF.

But what about all the exhaust gas?

"How could someone argue they have the right to adversely affect someone else's health in public?"

[mad cow]

"Cigarettes making people sick are more dangerous than guns being on someone's person."

You got a problem with guns being on someone's person?

[John F Kennedy III]

Hmmm... let's see... Let's pit person A against the habits of person B and make them fight about it. Group A will vote to take away the rights of Group B. Then Group A decides that it is a good thing to take away rights. So when we want to take away their rights, no one will complain.

I love it when people lecture about how unhealthy smoking is. 99/100 you can find something that non smoker does that is at least as bad for their health as smoking cigarettes.

[Dr.3D]

I already explained in my previous post. I also provided a link to learn more about polonium-210 and even quoted it. If you consider that tin-foil hat time for me, I'm okay with that. Personally, I believe that the only thing that causes cancer is ionizing radiation. I would bet my life that cell phones and WIFI don't (I'm an RF Engineer). I guess we all have to do our own research and come to our own conclusions on these things. I am a paranoid type by nature, but that doesn't mean they aren't after me : )
I find it interesting how when I agree with you, you seem to become defensive. I was just adding that those hairs also pick up ionizing radiation from other sources as well as the one you were talking about.

[KingNothing]

I love it when people lecture about how unhealthy smoking is. 99/100 you can find something that non smoker does that is at least as bad for their health as smoking cigarettes.

I don't do anything that is even close to as unhealthy as smoking. But I feel no desire to tell anyone not to smoke beyond saying "what? you smoke now? c'mon man, really? ha!" if I see one of my friends decide to light up for the first time.

[donnay]

I dunno how I feel about this issue. As a kid I was constantly getting ear infections. At least one every 2-3 months. I later found out being around smokers can cause these. I also developed bad lung problems. This is when people still smoked in restaurants and other establishments indoors. Mom was also a smoker at home. Now I don't have to worry about smokers when I go out somewhere and no one smokes where I live now. Haven't had an ear infection in 10 years. I don't even remember when the mist from the inhaler tastes like anymore. Should someone be able to decide on their private property if smoking is allowed? I suppose, I just wouldn't go there. I do hate having to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke because everyone is taking a cigarette break at the same time in front of the office building or when I went to university.

tl;dr
Liberty doesn't mean freedom to make me sick. How could someone argue they have the right to adversely affect someone else's health in public?

Gee, I think so many people have been duped with propaganda. I come from a home where both my parents smoked, and I was rarely ever sick. I had perfect attendance when I went to the government run schools too. My father held card games, twice a month at our house, everyone--smoked like fiends. The only time I ever seen my father sick was when his doctor insisted that his cholesterol was too high and put him on statin drugs. But I digress.

I bet you had all you vaccines didn't you?

Sources:
http://www.vaclib.org/links/ears.htm
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/otitis.html
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Children_s_Health_200/Serious_Lung_Infections_in_Children_Jump_After_Int roduction_of_Pneumococcus_Vaccine.shtml
http://www.drgreene.com/qa/ear-infection-vaccine
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/pcv7-and-ear-infections



Liberty doesn't mean freedom to make me sick. How could someone argue they have the right to adversely affect someone else's health in public?

Yet government has been given this right, with or without consent.

[donnay]

I love it when people lecture about how unhealthy smoking is. 99/100 you can find something that non smoker does that is at least as bad for their health as smoking cigarettes.

Yes indeed. Showering in perfumes and colognes give me massive migraines. I worked in companies where I took my lunch breaks outside getting fresh air--winter, spring, summer or fall. I opened windows, to get fresh air and had to endured people telling me to shut them, they were too cold. The same people, mind you, that showered in the very colognes and perfumes I was trying to escape from. :rolleyes:

[jay_dub]

Smoking laws do create a template for control. That is on the individual level.

On a state level, the threat of highway funds being withheld is used to get the states to toe the line. This has been done with the national seat belt law and with the reduction of the allowable BAC to .08.

What it is at the root is the gov't doing the wrong thing for the perceived 'right' reason. Once this method is established, it's not that hard to branch out to other areas and do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. We have to see this for what it is and keep the gov't from doing the wrong thing.....period.

We've also seen this creeping incrementalism in the War Powers Act and the expansion of the Patriot Act. The shame is most don't see it for what it is. We have been sufficiently conditioned to accept that which would have caused our Founders to be up in arms, yet we bleat placidly in our pens, hoping Sauron's eye isn't turned on us.

I'm a smoker and I've switched to stuffing my own cigarettes. It's MUCH cheaper (about $1.00 a pack) and you don't get all the additives that are in commercial cigs. It galls me that our gov't lets the tobacco companies put all kinds of shit in commercial cigarettes that literally are poisoning us. But, hey, they DO warn us on every pack, right? They have given the tobacco companies a license to kill. When I put my tin foil hat on, I wonder if this isn't deliberate. Of course a safer cigarette could be made. Just stop putting all the shit other than tobacco in them and quit dicking around with the nicotine levels so that the addiction factor is equivalent to smoking crack.

[tod evans]

Yes indeed. Showering in perfumes and colognes give me massive migraines. I worked in companies where I took my lunch breaks outside getting fresh air--winter, spring, summer or fall. I opened windows, to get fresh air and had to endured people telling me to shut them, they were too cold. The same people, mind you, that showered in the very colognes and perfumes I was trying to escape from. :rolleyes:

I've sprayed so much nitrocellulose lacquer over the years it's odd for me to be able to smell a skunk driving down the road let alone such things as perfume...

Still enjoy fresh air though..

[Zippyjuan]

Excellent point; however, as liberty said, it depends on who owns the room. If an establishment allows smoking, I usually just go to a non smoking establishment.

From a very broad perspective, if the smoker is not allowed to smoke, both can still enjoy what goes on in the room. If the person who does not like smoke has to leave, only one person can enjoy what happens in the room.

[donnay]

From a very broad perspective, if the smoker is not allowed to smoke, both can still enjoy what goes on in the room. If the person who does not like smoke has to leave, only one person can enjoy what happens in the room.

Not if the person 'enjoys' smoking. :p

[liberty2897]

I find it interesting how when I agree with you, you seem to become defensive. I was just adding that those hairs also pick up ionizing radiation from other sources as well as the one you were talking about.

Sorry, to me it sounded like you were making fun of the polonium-210 in fertilizer thing since you started off with "oh, I see" followed by nuclear testing fallout etc when I didn't mention those things. Anyway, good points. I don't know much about plant physiology, so not sure how that works. Seems plausible that airborne isotopes could also end up being concentrated.

I guess one point I was trying to make is that they are putting a known radioactive carcinogen on the plants even after they funded numerous studies researching the effects of polonium-210 in tobacco. You would think that all those extra tax dollars being placed on cigarettes would at least do something (in the form of regulations) to protect people who choose to smoke from getting lung cancer. At least give tax breaks to organically grown tobacco? If McDonalds was putting radioactive isotopes in their burgers, I'm pretty sure someone would do something about it. I guess we don't have to buy the cigarettes, so... not sure what to think.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Google "Fire-Safe cigarettes" ... you non-smokers will be shocked what Government has done to cigarettes adding chemicals that have (largely unknown) affects on the smoker.

Best thing a smoker can do is quit, but an alternative is rolling your own. There was a good thread on this topic awhile back.

I quit smoking because of health reasons, but at the end I was rolling my own cigarettes and the difference was incredible.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

From a very broad perspective, if the smoker is not allowed to smoke, both can still enjoy what goes on in the room. If the person who does not like smoke has to leave, only one person can enjoy what happens in the room.

Why do you assume that the two in the room can't settle it themselves? Neither of them are forced to be there and if they are in a work situation, that is at the discretion of the owner of the establishment (well it was).

Why is your first reaction more draconian laws dictating banal trivialities of life?

Or as my grandfather would say, "Mind your own goddamn business."

[PaulConventionWV]

When I do smoke, I smoke American Spirit. All natural zero additives. I have been told by non-smokers that they don't stink as much as normal cigarettes.

Probably true and much better for you. I have smoked hookah once or twice. The tobacco is much more concentrated, but it doesn't have any of the additives that cigarettes do and it can be quite relaxing in social situations. I have heard that tobacco has a natural affinity for some toxic substances in the ground, but it still isn't nearly as bad as mixing it with raw poison that goes straight into your lungs. At the very least, I don't feel like I have to avoid second-hand smoke from cigars and other smoking alternatives like I do with cigarettes.

[PaulConventionWV]

I completely agree with your assessment.
How much are we willing to let them control elections?
How much are we willing to let them control the prices of gas and food?
How much are we willing to let them control the value of our wealth through fiat currency?
How much are we willing to let them turn this country into the thing they supposedly fear the most?




I already explained in my previous post. I also provided a link to learn more about polonium-210 and even quoted it. If you consider that tin-foil hat time for me, I'm okay with that. Personally, I believe that the only thing that causes cancer is ionizing radiation. I would bet my life that cell phones and WIFI don't (I'm an RF Engineer). I guess we all have to do our own research and come to our own conclusions on these things. I am a paranoid type by nature, but that doesn't mean they aren't after me : )

Cell phones and WIFI are more of a contributing factor. All electrical appliances give off electromagnetic radiation, and areas where it is particularly strong can certainly raise the risk of cancer when other factors are present. It's not just cancer, though. It contributes to things you would hardly even notice, like reduced energy levels, allergies, mood, and general feelings of well-being. Keeping your cell phone in your pocket can also affect your sexual performance. I know this from experience. Just sayin...

[PaulConventionWV]

These are is the questions I'm asking. "We would never take away your rights! This is a free country! We can make you feel guilty and paranoid and maligned if you use them though........" We can place incredibly difficult conditions on them, put you on surveillance for enjoying them, and make you jump through new and exciting hoops to make sure you're still qualified and safe to be enjoying them. You're still free though! If you don't like it, you can always leave! Cue flag wave......Yay.

Well, taxes are coercive by nature, so it certainly doesn't fit the whole "this is a free country!" spiel. Also, I'm pretty sure the US fedgov has shown that they are not afraid to take away your rights if they can do it under the ruse of "public safety."

I have to admit, it confuses me how some people seem to think the political and social environment is hostile to smokers when we were bombarded with positive reinforcers for smoking earlier in the 20th century through movies, commercials portraying it as the "cool" thing to do. It was even used to kickstart the women's movement in the 1950s when Freud so eloquently explained to us that women smoking cigarettes was like getting their own dick and asserting their male-oriented dominance. On another note, Freud was a sick bastard.

[Zippyjuan]

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

[Dr.3D]

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?
This reminds me of the man who bought a house right next to a hog farm, then after moving in, started complaining about the smell.

[PaulConventionWV]

I love it when people lecture about how unhealthy smoking is. 99/100 you can find something that non smoker does that is at least as bad for their health as smoking cigarettes.

I'm not convinced. Nothing I do is as bad as smoking cigarettes. I don't see why it's a bad thing for me to tell people that smoking is bad for them if I'm not using government to force them to stop. The fact that smoking cigarettes adversely affects your health is a well-known fact. The fact that someone else does something else that's bad for them doesn't change the fact that it would probably be worse if they also smoked cigarettes in addition. What's more, things like breathing in car fumes are often necessary to some people's work. Smoking cigarettes is just needlessly inhaling poison when every purpose that cigarettes serve can be gained through other means. There's just no point in that kind of reckless behavior, IMO. I don't deride people in public for doing it, especially if they are my friends, but it's not good for you and shouldn't be treated as a useful or fulfilling activity in any way.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

A few problems with this hypothetical:

(I could be wrong) But I think you are assuming pollution itself is wrong or evil?
Pollution is only bad if it hurts individuals.
If an individual is hurt by pollution they have a right to compensation for injuries, obviously.

Clean air is not a right. You do however have a right to your life.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes indeed. Showering in perfumes and colognes give me massive migraines. I worked in companies where I took my lunch breaks outside getting fresh air--winter, spring, summer or fall. I opened windows, to get fresh air and had to endured people telling me to shut them, they were too cold. The same people, mind you, that showered in the very colognes and perfumes I was trying to escape from. :rolleyes:

People shower in perfumes? That's news to me. I use a plain ol' block of soap and Burt's Bees natural hair shampoo. That's it.

[Zippyjuan]

A few problems with this hypothetical:

(I could be wrong) But I think you are assuming pollution itself is wrong or evil.
Pollution is only bad if it hurts individuals.
If an individual is hurt by pollution they have a right to compensation for injuries, obviously.

Clean air is not a right. You do however have a right to your life.

Perhaps pollution is good.

[Zippyjuan]

People shower in perfumes? That's news to me. I use a plain ol' block of soap and Burt's Bees natural hair shampoo.

Not litterally. But some use lot- perhaps their own sense of smell is not very good so they put on a lot of it (more common in older people). My Mom is very sensitive to things like that- strong oders make her feel ill.

[tod evans]

Please see the car exhaust post, smells worse, is worse for you, is a "choice".

Only problem......Non smokers like to drive...



Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

[PaulConventionWV]

Why do you assume that the two in the room can't settle it themselves? Neither of them are forced to be there and if they are in a work situation, that is at the discretion of the owner of the establishment (well it was).

Why is your first reaction more draconian laws dictating banal trivialities of life?

Or as my grandfather would say, "Mind your own goddamn business."

You are obviously reading that post in a much different way than me. I didn't see him advocating any draconian laws. All I got out of it was that a non-smoker is less likely to be able to enjoy what's going on in the room than the smoker if the smoker smokes. That's true. I don't know where you are coming up with all these other assumptions that zippy supposedly made. I disagree with zippy on a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.

[PaulConventionWV]

A few problems with this hypothetical:

(I could be wrong) But I think you are assuming pollution itself is wrong or evil?
Pollution is only bad if it hurts individuals.
If an individual is hurt by pollution they have a right to compensation for injuries, obviously.

Clean air is not a right. You do however have a right to your life.

So what you're saying is that it only adversely affects your health if it's so bad that other people can notice it? "Injury" is a subjective experience. If a person has somewhat lower energy levels and suffers from allergies, that's an adverse effect. It might not cause them to have to go the hospital, but it's still something that's adversely affecting the quality of their life. Pollution is bad at all times because it ALWAYS adversely affects your health whether you notice it or not. Some people aren't aware of how bad things are affecting them until they take the time to try and rectify the situation, realizing afterward how much better they feel than they did while they were exposed to certain pollutants or toxins.

[awake]

Attacking with law the vice of smoking is the holy grail of the nanny state. From this monumental foundational achievement, all other vices can be taxed and regulated. The people who harm only themselves can be bullied by a fresh batch of violent parasites for their own selfish gain.

You noticed that obesity(gluttony) is the new front for the nannies. And they hold up the National socialist model of tobacco laws as the model every time.

[DamianTV]

Hypothetical.

Make smoking illegal.

Once it is illegal, Tobacco Lords will start popping up everywhere. Gangs will sell tobacco in any form to make money, for what ever purpose they want. The street value of Tobacco will be determined by three factors, not two, Supply, Demand, and Risk. The higher the price goes, the more incentive there is for those who are willing to break the law to become involved, thus, it will become a War of Escalation. The War of Escalation wont be the only war, as those involved in the Tobacco Trade will fight to keep on trading. This includes local rival gangs and any form of government that gets involved. People will end up being killed as a result of the fighting. The more resistance they meet, the higher the price will go, the more incentive there will be to become involved in the Tobacco Trade and the more violence will ensue.

Tobacco will be used as an excuse by the Govt for more Govt Power. Families will be destroyed when mom or dad steps outside to have a smoke by either imprisoning the parent for the possession of illegal tobacco (controlled substance), or the child will be seized by the Govt claiming the child was endangered by a parent that was not completely obedient to the corrupt Govt. The integrity of the Govt will be comprimised by the incentives that tobacco offers. Thus, Govt will probably maintain the Tobacco Trade by growing and distributing tobacco themselves. Tobacco will be used to further increase our lead in the category of people in prison, per capita. Private Prisons will lobby against it. Some on the Govt payroll will get paid large ammts of money to look the other way. People wont stop smoking or chewing tobacco. Our govt wont listen to our cries to legalize it because they can make so much more money off of us by keeping it illegal. Higher taxes, more police, more people in prison, more violence, more families destroyed, more people dying, more excuses by the Govt to take what few rights we have away, more corrupt officials looking to line their own pockets, new types of Gangs, new types of Drug Deals, new types of Drug Testing for Employment, and so many more opportunities for those in power to take away from the people who dont smoke in order to punish them by keeping tobacco illegal. Then we discover that the consequences of making tobacco illegal are far far worse than keeping it legal.

Now, replace Tobacco with Marijurana. Does making Tobacco illegal sound like a good idea to anyone? Maybe instead of finding new things to make illegal, we should be thinking just as hard about making Marijuana Legal.

[PaulConventionWV]

Please see the car exhaust post, smells worse, is worse for you, is a "choice".

Only problem......Non smokers like to drive...

How do you know that it's worse for you? As far as I know, you're not exposed to that much of it if you're just driving your car. You're more likely to be exposed to it by walking past a parked car that is idling. Even then, you're not exposed to as much pollutant as if you were to smoke a pack or two per day, I don't think. I could be wrong, but it seems like you are breathing in a lot more pollutants by smoking than by walking past a parked car.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Perhaps pollution is good.

When the first man started a fire, he was polluting. He didn't like breathing the smoke, but he cared more about staying warm. So he made a decision.

Do you drive a car Zippy? Well you are making the same type of sacrifice.

Pollution being "bad" is relative to the benefits the product has for society.

[Zippyjuan]

My basic point on the issue is that smoking does not only impact the person who chooses to smoke but also those around them. It takes away their right to choose not to smoke. If you can smoke and keep all of the smoke to yourself- fine. Build a bubble suit to contain it or some big bag to breath into with you. Do it as much you want to. It can have potential negative health impacts on others.

A less- harmful example? Music noise. Got iPod with headphones? Blast your eardrums as loud as you want. Got a million watt stereo blasting at full volume at all hours of the day and night? That is imposing on people. Don't like my stereo? Tough. Move. Sell that house you have lived in for 20 years. I have a right to be as loud as I want anytime I want.

[donnay]

Attacking with law the vice of smoking is the holy grail of the nanny state. From this monumental foundational achievement, all other vices can be taxed and regulated. The people who harm only themselves can be bullied by a fresh batch of violent parasites for their own selfish gain.

You noticed that obesity(gluttony) is the new front for the nannies. And they hold up the National socialist model of tobacco laws as the model every time.


Thread winner! +rep

[VoluntaryAmerican]

You are obviously reading that post in a much different way than me. I didn't see him advocating any draconian laws. All I got out of it was that a non-smoker is less likely to be able to enjoy what's going on in the room than the smoker if the smoker smokes. That's true. I don't know where you are coming up with all these other assumptions that zippy supposedly made. I disagree with zippy on a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.

Did he correct me?

[Zippyjuan]

Did he correct me?
PaulConventionWV was correct- I did not suggest any draconian solutions. In fact, I have not suggested any sollutions- instead I have raised points and questions. I felt he answered well enough for me so I moved on. (+rep to him for that).

[VoluntaryAmerican]

PaulConventionWV was correct- I did not suggest any draconian solutions. In fact, I have not suggested any sollutions- instead I have raised points and questions. I felt he answered well enough for me so I moved on. (+rep to him for that).

Just because you didn't suggest something doesn't mean you don't support a smoking ban.

Do you support a smoking ban in private establishments?

[Zippyjuan]

Yes. I want to take all of your cigarettes from you at gunpoint if necessary. What was your address?

[DamianTV]

Yes. I want to take all of your cigarettes from you at gunpoint if necessary. What was your address?

^^^ Wow sarcasm!

Again, lets look at Pot. Just said the same thing in another thread, but same thing will apply here too. When the Legal Consequences of any substance are greater than the Medical Consequences of that substance, you have Injustice.

[PaulConventionWV]

My basic point on the issue is that smoking does not only impact the person who chooses to smoke but also those around them. It takes away their right to choose not to smoke. If you can smoke and keep all of the smoke to yourself- fine. Build a bubble suit to contain it or some big bag to breath into with you. Do it as much you want to. It can have potential negative health impacts on others.

A less- harmful example? Music noise. Got iPod with headphones? Blast your eardrums as loud as you want. Got a million watt stereo blasting at full volume at all hours of the day and night? That is imposing on people. Don't like my stereo? Tough. Move. Sell that house you have lived in for 20 years. I have a right to be as loud as I want anytime I want.

"Imposing"? Is that your standard for government intervention, really?

[PaulConventionWV]

Just because you didn't suggest something doesn't mean you don't support a smoking ban.

Do you support a smoking ban in private establishments?

So now you're going to be all like. "You DO support smoking bans! Prove that you don't!"

Seriously, man, lighten up.

[DamianTV]

Soverign - Your house, your rules. My house, my rules.

Draconian - My house, your rules. Your house, someone elses rules.

[Anti Federalist]

I farted...

[Dr.3D]

I farted...
Nothing to be ashamed of, happens to the best of us.

[DamianTV]

I farted...

Way to kill the thread, AF!

[jay_dub]

I farted...

Quick! Somebody light up a smoke to kill the smell!!

[DamianTV]

Something I find kind of funny.

I hear a lot of people complain about the way tobacco cigarettes smell, but I hear a lot less people complain about the way pot smells. And Im sure just about everyone has been around someone else smoking pot. So we all know that pot has a very powerful odor. Much like AF's anal evaporations. Now personally, I rather enjoy the way pot smells when its smoked. But very few people seem (just my perspective) to gripe about stinky old pot.

Now why is that?

[tod evans]

Programming.



Something I find kind of funny.

I hear a lot of people complain about the way tobacco cigarettes smell, but I hear a lot less people complain about the way pot smells. And Im sure just about everyone has been around someone else smoking pot. So we all know that pot has a very powerful odor. Much like AF's anal evaporations. Now personally, I rather enjoy the way pot smells when its smoked. But very few people seem (just my perspective) to gripe about stinky old pot.

Now why is that?

[acptulsa]

Why do you assume that the two in the room can't settle it themselves? Neither of them are forced to be there and if they are in a work situation, that is at the discretion of the owner of the establishment (well it was).

Why is your first reaction more draconian laws dictating banal trivialities of life?

Or as my grandfather would say, "Mind your own goddamn business."

Some people don't take into consideration the needs and rights of others. It's called 'being rude'.

Other people capitalize on that rudeness to try to legislate politeness. But these attempts to legislate politeness put the pinch on all of our liberties. Which is also called, 'being rude'.

If you impinge someone's liberties in the name of legislating politeness, you are the most rude of all. How have we forgotten this simple fact?

Leaving it to property owners to establish which businesses allow smoking and which don't is not segregation. If it's clearly marked, maybe even in the Yellow Pages ad and the website, then no one who is extremely sensitive to smoke or smoke residue is ever at risk unless they intentionally put themselves at risk. All they have to do is boycott...

A lack of respect for one another leads to a loss of liberty. Simple. Eternal. And obvious--if you think about it a moment.

[tod evans]

If people are actually sensitive to tobacco smoke how is it that exhaust gasses don't cause anaphylaxis?

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing to be ashamed of, happens to the best of us.


Way to kill the thread, AF!


Quick! Somebody light up a smoke to kill the smell!!

There was a tongue in cheek point to that comment.

That being, we all do things that could possibly offend.

I mean, consider, what would be worse, smelling some smoke from a tiny shred of smoldering plant matter or the gas molecules that were, just seconds before, released from someone's ass?

People in general need to lighten up, not only about this, but a million other petty offenses that occur every day.

[Dr.3D]

If people are actually sensitive to tobacco smoke how is it that exhaust gasses don't cause anaphylaxis?
I'm pretty sure, if someone developed some benign odor and it smelled like tobacco smoke, those same people would still be "sensitive" to it.

[dannno]

Something I find kind of funny.

I hear a lot of people complain about the way tobacco cigarettes smell, but I hear a lot less people complain about the way pot smells. And Im sure just about everyone has been around someone else smoking pot. So we all know that pot has a very powerful odor. Much like AF's anal evaporations. Now personally, I rather enjoy the way pot smells when its smoked. But very few people seem (just my perspective) to gripe about stinky old pot.

Now why is that?

Because you can smoke pretty much unlimited quantities of cannabis in your bedroom and the next day, everything else equal, it will smell completely normal. I'd even say within 30-60 minutes is pretty safe if there is any ventilation what-so-ever. Now, if you're smoking blunts or joints that's a little different because blunt paper is made of tobacco and joints have a burning piece of paper and that smell may stick a little longer.

If you smoke cigarettes in your room, over time, the walls get yellow, the curtains, carpet and all the furniture starts smelling like tobacco. Tobacco odor "sticks" and can cause permanent damage. Many hotel rooms have that cigarette stench.

[pcosmar]

Two people in a room. One wants to smoke. The other doesn't. Which one should be forced to leave the room if they don't like it?

25 people in a bar. 15 want to smoke,, Who should leave?
Perhaps the Bar Owner should decide.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm pretty sure, if someone developed some benign odor and it smelled like tobacco smoke, those same people would still be "sensitive" to it.

That's because our brains are trained to recognize things as noxious when they carry the signs of something that is noxious, even if they are not. It is a protective mechanism that the brain uses, and it doesn't mean that cigarette smoke is not harmful.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The difference is pot is pot, it's just that. A plant. Cigarettes contain tons of dangerous chemicals added to the tobacco.

[tod evans]

The difference is pot is pot, it's just that. A plant. Cigarettes contain tons of dangerous chemicals added to the tobacco.

Be interesting to see studies done with plain ol' tobacco instead of commercially processed stuff...

[Dr.3D]

That's because our brains are trained to recognize things as noxious when they carry the signs of something that is noxious, even if they are not. It is a protective mechanism that the brain uses, and it doesn't mean that cigarette smoke is not harmful.
Speak for yourself. My brain tells me tobacco smoke smells good and I don't even smoke. I just associate that smell with my dad, who used to smoke around me when I was a kid.

[acptulsa]

If you impinge someone's liberties in the name of legislating politeness, you are the most rude of all. How have we forgotten this simple fact?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSsUoxlSADk

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[Suzu]

Here's a conundrum: I'm a smoker, and I can't stand the smell of *someone else* smoking.

And for liberty2897: Try rolling your own. I buy finely-cut natural pipe tobacco for $15/lb. and cartons of two dozen packs of Bugler papers for $20 each. One carton of papers will roll roughly 4 lbs. of tobacco. The cost per "pack" (20 cigarettes) comes to about 70 cents, and each cigarette lasts 3x as long as a pre-rolled one because it doesn't keep burning when you set it down. So you end up smoking about two-thirds fewer cigarettes. I roll them in a slightly conical shape, with almost no tobacco in the butt end and thicker at the end you burn. That in itself saves about 25% of the tobacco. This all adds up to a far lower cost to smoke than the average, and a much better quality of smoke also.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, because 20 million metric tons of pollution being spewed 24 x 7 is equivalent to a cigarette.

Additionally, you clearly bought a house on land that was zoned industrial and then got upset that industry came in.

Why not just say, simply, that you despise cigarettes and you will come up with a million reasons to say that you would like to outlaw them, the people that smoke them, etc. Which is completely fine, but I think you are on the wrong forum.

Is anybody allowed to despise cigarettes without wanting to outlaw them? What is wrong with so many people on these forums that they criticize anyone who criticizes anything and say they're anti-liberty? Just because I don't like second-hand smoke and advise others not to smoke, that doesn't mean I want to outlaw cigarettes.

[PaulConventionWV]

I find this post comical on many levels.

What's comical about it? I didn't find it funny at all.

[tod evans]

The tobacco industry is another one it would be good to get the government out of.

Could be without government regulations some of the unnatural chemicals and some of the social stigma wouldn't exist...

[Jamesiv1]

//

[tod evans]

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

:o

[Carson]

I remember being a non smoker and still picking smoker section seating on a plane because being with the smokers was where the fun was at...

that and that end was the end that usually hits last.

Woo Hoo!

[DamianTV]

I can remember a time when smokers were not as ostracised as they are today.

I find that I can not remember a time when the Medical Industry was not trying to turn a buck by keeping sick people sick.