A very interesting read

[rengadeirishman]

a treatise called "In Defense of Smokers" its an ebook, but its free, granted its from 1999, but i think it has some interesting viewpoints and some food for thought.

http://www.lcolby.com/index.html

do i think smoking is healthy? no of course not, but do i think that its the scourge of civilization that everyone says it is? no, i don't think that either.

read it if you have a chance, especially if your a fellow tobacco fan. I'm tying myself to the stake already, just to save people the trouble.

 

[Liar]

I've read it. It's bloated with as many faults and fallacies as the "second-hand smoke is terrorism and we're all gonna die of lung cancer" hysterics.

Much of the rhetoric of the anti-smoking movement seeks to demonize tobacco smokers as "nicotine addicts". In the past, of course, the term "addict" has been generally applied only to mind-altering drugs, e.g., heroin and cocaine. Even alcohol, which is mind-altering, is not generally referred to as "additive". So, the argument is one of semantics. If nicotine is addictive, so are chocolate candies, pies and cakes, etc. Indeed, if "addiction" is defined as dependence upon some chemical, everyone is addicted, to air!

How far in the past was "addiction" only applied to heavy narcotics? The 19th century? And alcohol is not generally referred to as addictice? On what planet? No, the argument is not one of semantics. Yes, sugar is an additive chemical (anyone with a waist knows this). And air is not a chemical.It's a bunch of 'em. The one he's looking dfor is oxugen, and even then he's wrong. Addiction is the body expecting a not needed chemical (or excesses of a needed chemical that you actually need very little of), and getting alarmed when it's deprived of it.

Look, I'll listen to any rational arguement that eases the smoke-banning hysteria. I don't like the smoke banning hysteria. But this is not a rational guy saying rational things.

 

[rgraham666]

As I've stated before, the anti-smoking hysteria is based on one of the central North American neuroses. Simply put we're all going to die and there's not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

For North Americans, who regard themselves as a step below God for the most part, this is a frightening fact they can't deal with. So they panic.

Anti-smoking is one of the ways the hysteria is manifested.

 

[keeblercrumb]

As I've stated before, the anti-smoking hysteria is based on one of the central North American neuroses. Simply put we're all going to die and there's not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

For North Americans, who regard themselves as a step below God for the most part, this is a frightening fact they can't deal with. So they panic.

Anti-smoking is one of the ways the hysteria is manifested.

Interesting point... We are going to die of something...

A few years back when the Czech Republic (or somebody) was debating higher taxes, etc. on smoking, one the key rationale being that the drain on the national health system caused by smokers.

An enterprising group of researchers working for an Ad agency hired by Phillip Morris, came to the statistical conclusion that smokers actually saved the health system money because statistically they die much younger, saving years of health service for them. P-M decided they did not want that to be their argument and fired them all.

Speaking as an ex-smoker, the problem is not that rest of the public is hysterical about dying, it is just that now there is a vast majority who do not smoke; their tolerance for being around it has greatly diminished. Sorry... it stinks and can ruin a meal.

If not dying younger is not an incentive, then perhaps, the mess, the coughing, the stink on your clothes and the general annoyance to your fellow humans should be. Oh yeah, and the expense.. but that is because of the high taxes, of course, so really doesn't count.

Sorry... but I think you all have lost this one, no matter what the book says.

-KC

 

[rgraham666]

I know what you mean.

I loathe cars, can't stand the smell of them. I hate the way they can ruin a meal on a patio, and it gets all over a driver's clothes.

But driving is normal so I have to put up with it.

 

[keeblercrumb]

I know what you mean.

I loathe cars, can't stand the smell of them. I hate the way they can ruin a meal on a patio, and it gets all over a driver's clothes.

But driving is normal so I have to put up with it.

I certainly catch your point, Rob, but not the best analogy until the guy at the next table starts his car up in your face.

And..... as soon as bicylces are in a majority... guess what? They will ban cars in the city..... they have in some places...

The joys of democracy.

But that is not what first came to me when I read your post. ...

I grew up in a non-smoking house (except for us kids out back). The first time I rode in my Uncle's big old Buick... it just reeked of the cigars he smoked... And THAT is what I thought of.... Cars DO smell! But I guess that is not what you meant.

Oh... and I cannot grill out in my apartment in Germany because the smoke it bothers the neighbors. And you can't burn leaves or have open fires just about anywhere in America/Canada/Europe for exactly the same reason.Well.. okay.. and the fire hazard.

I do miss the wonderful smell of burning leaves from my youth... sigh.....

Pesky annoyances, our fellow citizens...

-KC

 

[rgraham666]

Well, I'm looking forward to the day the anti-smokers make it illegal.

I'm already setting up my supply and distribution networks.

I'm going to be rich!

 

[keeblercrumb]

Well, I'm looking forward to the day the anti-smokers make it illegal.

I'm already setting up my supply and distribution networks.

I'm going to be rich!

Damn straight! You must have talking to the Columbians!

Anybody notice that little news item that after spending billions on aerial eradication projects and other anti-drug programs there in recent years, last year Coca production went UP!

Unfortunately for your scheme, there is little chance of making it illegal... the rest of us still need some addicted minority to squeeze for more taxes.

In my most recent home state of Delaware (The "Where are we? State"), we were able to dispense with sales tax in favor of a toll booth on our 25 miles of I-95. A booth, incidentally, none of my fellow Delaweenies or myself actually go through ourselves.

A "perfect" tax source... just like you poor and getting poorer smokers.


-KC

 

[rgraham666]

I go to the Indian reservations for my tobacco.

No taxes.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Commissar, it is time we developed a new condom for the masses.

I go to the Indian reservations for my tobacco.

No taxes.

There is some great historical irony in that... going to the Indian reservation for tobacco.... just can't quite put my finger on it... Hmmmm


-KC

 

[Recidiva]

I'm a polite nonsmoker. I think you should be able to do whatever. I think drugs should be legal. Smokers have the freedom to smoke.

However, smoke makes me sick. I was okay with that until I noticed it made my son sick too.

If smokers have the right to smoke then I have the right to not be around smoke.

Handle the smoke, problem's handled. I can't just not get migraines and my son can't not get asthma around it. We don't have a choice.

So outside, better ventilation, or me just not being there is fine. I don't go to bars or concerts and demand that everyone keep it down.

But at a restaurant where the smoke destroys the fragrance of the food, and in my home where smoke gets into everything, makes me sick and stinks and turns stuff black?

Hell no.

I'm not making any judgment call about the smokers themselves. I don't actually care. I only care if it's around me. Then I will move, and if I can't move, I will stand my ground.

I'm fine with smoking as long as I don't have to share.

 

[rengadeirishman]

those are rational responses, as an enthusiastic smoker, i dont smoke in other people houses, i dont even ask if i can. I only do if theres an ashtray and the host lighting up. I also understand completely not being able to smoke in restaurants. I object wholeheartedly to not being allowed to smoke in a bar, drinking and smoking go together, and I have spent more time in bars then most people my age, (i look older then i am, and i know lots of bartenders) i have never heard anyone bitch about the smoke. I understand that its polite to stand away from doors and stuff, but sometimes, its pouring down rain and you try to stand under an awning and everyone looks at you like your murdering them and i wonder why smokers have to be polite, but non-smokers dont.

 

[Recidiva]

those are rational responses, as an enthusiastic smoker, i dont smoke in other people houses, i dont even ask if i can. I only do if theres an ashtray and the host lighting up. I also understand completely not being able to smoke in restaurants. I object wholeheartedly to not being allowed to smoke in a bar, drinking and smoking go together, and I have spent more time in bars then most people my age, (i look older then i am, and i know lots of bartenders) i have never heard anyone bitch about the smoke. I understand that its polite to stand away from doors and stuff, but sometimes, its pouring down rain and you try to stand under an awning and everyone looks at you like your murdering them and i wonder why smokers have to be polite, but non-smokers dont.

It looks very different from this side. Like any groups that are trying to scratch out some ground that is theirs and theirs alone, I have met some ugly smokers who wrap themselves in the flag and the first amendment and think I'm being dramatic if I get sick.

But I don't judge the entire group by that.

 

[Liar]

I object wholeheartedly to not being allowed to smoke in a bar, drinking and smoking go together, and I have spent more time in bars then most people my age, (i look older then i am, and i know lots of bartenders) i have never heard anyone bitch about the smoke.

Possibly because those who are sensitive to smoke know that bars are fogged up, and avoid them like plauge?

I used to have to say no when my buddies asked if I wanted to come down to the local pub. Because I enjoy being able to breathe. Now, I'm not extremely sensitive. In the summers I had no problem, because then the windows were open and that was enought to make it ok for me. But there are those who have it much worse than me. So the fact is, if you allow smoking in an establishment, you effectively ban some people. If you ban smoking, you ban nobody, just a thing that some like to to.

Now, should a bar owner have that right to exclude? That's where I think the discussion should be. Maybe it's better business to only cater to the "drinking and smoking go together" crowd. Should they then have the right to make that business desicion?

I'm torn on this one.

As a non smoker and smoke sensitive, I say hell no. I wanna drink too.
As a libertarian, I say hell yes.

 

[rengadeirishman]

Possibly because those who are sensitive to smoke know that bars are fogged up, and avoid them like plauge?

I used to have to say no when my buddies asked if I wanted to come down to the local pub. Because I enjoy being able to breathe. Now, I'm not extremely sensitive. In the summers I had no problem, because then the windows were open and that was enought to make it ok for me. But there are those who have it much worse than me. So the fact is, if you allow smoking in an establishment, you effectively ban some people. If you ban smoking, you ban nobody, just a thing that some like to to.

Now, should a bar owner have that right to exclude? That's where I think the discussion should be. Maybe it's better business to only cater to the "drinking and smoking go together" crowd. Should they then have the right to make that business desicion?

I'm torn on this one.

As a non smoker and smoke sensitive, I say hell no. I wanna drink too.
As a libertarian, I say hell yes.

but one oft heard concern is that many people who do smoke will stop coming because they cant relax and drink and have a smoke, they will instead stay home.

My main concern is government overstepping its bounds yet again.

 

[Recidiva]

but one oft heard concern is that many people who do smoke will stop coming because they cant relax and drink and have a smoke, they will instead stay home.

My main concern is government overstepping its bounds yet again.

It's entirely due to the delivery method. Someone snorting cocaine or shooting heroin up next to me can do it alone without me being involved at all.

I can be social and not make any comment because it doesn't affect me in any way.

 

[michchick98]

Interesting point... We are going to die of something...

A few years back when the Czech Republic (or somebody) was debating higher taxes, etc. on smoking, one the key rationale being that the drain on the national health system caused by smokers.

An enterprising group of researchers working for an Ad agency hired by Phillip Morris, came to the statistical conclusion that smokers actually saved the health system money because statistically they die much younger, saving years of health service for them. P-M decided they did not want that to be their argument and fired them all.

Speaking as an ex-smoker, the problem is not that rest of the public is hysterical about dying, it is just that now there is a vast majority who do not smoke; their tolerance for being around it has greatly diminished. Sorry... it stinks and can ruin a meal.

If not dying younger is not an incentive, then perhaps, the mess, the coughing, the stink on your clothes and the general annoyance to your fellow humans should be. Oh yeah, and the expense.. but that is because of the high taxes, of course, so really doesn't count.

Sorry... but I think you all have lost this one, no matter what the book says.

-KC

As a long time smoker and having many friends who don't smoke, I can see both sides of the arguments.

It's a lot easier for someone who has never smoked a day in his/her life to lecture a smoker about quitting. They haven't had the addiction to nicotine or the cravings for a cigarette when you've gone for a long time without.

I don't like the non-smokers who get over dramatic about my smoking. A prime example happened just a few weeks ago at work. We are not allowed to smoke in the building, but we can smoke anywhere outside.

As I stepped out for the first break of the day and walked to the food truck, several co-workers followed me out. I stood aside, lit my cigarette and waited until everyone had made their selections before I stepped up to the truck.

I took a hit off my cigarette and blew out the smoke just as someone else was coming up BEHIND me. She started coughing and glared at me and muttered something under her breath. I turned and told her, "You saw me smoking, yet you walked right up behind me and into the smoke. It's YOUR fault, not mine. I'm in the SMOKING section."

Everyone laughed and the girl just grumbled and walked away. Now, I normally do have respect for those around me who do not smoke, but when someone walks into my smoke and gets all dramatic about it, it pisses me off. I think I deserve the same respect I try to give others in that aspect.

I'll not argue health issues and the like because I know the harm smoking causes. I will, however, argue when someone brow-beats me about quitting.

And as for the cost? I roll my own now. I can get a carton of cigarettes (tobacco and filter tubes) for around $11. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than a carton of the name brands and in my opinion, they're just as good.

 

[Liar]

but one oft heard concern is that many people who do smoke will stop coming because they cant relax and drink and have a smoke, they will instead stay home.

Let me tell you what happened here: They didn't.

They grumbled and moaned about it for about a week. But come saturday night, beer is still beer.

Doesn't mean banning is right. Just that it works, with little to no social-life-devasating effect for the smokers.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's a lot easier for someone who has never smoked a day in his/her life to lecture a smoker about quitting. They haven't had the addiction to nicotine or the cravings for a cigarette when you've gone for a long time without.

In my experience, it is the "born again" ex-smokers wo are the most obnoxious lecturers and smoking ban advocates.

I quit just over a year ago becuase of health problems and a 72 hour hospital stay that got me past that critical first stage of breaking the addiction.

However, being mindful of how obnoxious ex-smokers can be, I don't preach to smokers about quitting or smoking where smoking is not banned.

Theone thing I never understood about smoking ban proponents -- smoking is banned for health reasons, but forcing smokers to go outside without regard to climate or weather conditions does far more to cause lost work time to sick days by smokers than providing a ventilated indoor space where they're not subjected to freezing temperatures, rain and snow in winter, or heat stress and sunstroke in summer.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Having created a socialized health care system for old people in the U.S. (Medicare) and an unfunded old age benefits system (social security) that is actually a politically-designed wealth transfer mechanism from the young to the old (rather than an actuarially sound pension system), the government has created an incentive for younger people to prefer that older people die sooner. The same is true in other welfare states also.

I'll let readers connect the dots themselves between this and smoking.

BTW, just because you have an incentive to hope that in the aggregate old people die soon doesn't mean you must do so, and of course there's no incentive to wish this for old people close to you personally - this perverse incentive only applies in the aggregate.

 

[Guest]

In my experience, it is the "born again" ex-smokers wo are the most obnoxious lecturers and smoking ban advocates.

I quit just over a year ago becuase of health problems and a 72 hour hospital stay that got me past that critical first stage of breaking the addiction.

However, being mindful of how obnoxious ex-smokers can be, I don't preach to smokers about quitting or smoking where smoking is not banned.

Theone thing I never understood about smoking ban proponents -- smoking is banned for health reasons, but forcing smokers to go outside without regard to climate or weather conditions does far more to cause lost work time to sick days by smokers than providing a ventilated indoor space where they're not subjected to freezing temperatures, rain and snow in winter, or heat stress and sunstroke in summer.

I agree that ex-smokers are the most obnoxious (me being one, too.)

I became very militant over this, but not for myself, for my children, especially when they were very young.

In fact, we stopped going to restaurants for awhile in order to protect them from the negative effects from other people's smoke.

I don't care if people wish to smoke. I don't want my children to have to breathe it.

 

[jomar]

Once the tobacco lobbyists get smoking designated as a disability smokers will be sitting pretty.

 

[3113]

Once the tobacco lobbyists get smoking designated as a disability smokers will be sitting pretty.

Well, there's that problem, too. I don't care if smokers smoke--though I don't think they should smoke in restaurants where, as said, it will affect the taste and enjoyment of *my* food at the table next to them (we'll get back to that). But do *I* have to pay if they end up in the hospital?

I should also like to add, that prior to bars saying "no smoking" my non-smoking husband would come home smelling like cigarettes. This is the issue. This habit *does* leave a residue on people. It does pollute the air...

...and it does burn things down! I mean, when you think about it, how smart is it to have a club or bar or restaurant filled with people waving around burning things? You might say that people light candles, and I'll agree, that's not safe either. But they rarely do it on a daily basis, regularly after they eat or sit down for coffee, and they don't usually wave the candle around flicking off hot ash and sparks. Things catch fire--tablecloths, napkins, clothes.

I've a scar on my left hand thanks to a smoker waving around her cigarette. I was a kid, and I feel lucky it was my hand that hot cigarette end accidently smashed into and not an eye. When a heroin addict sticks a needle into their vein, they put the addictive chemical right into themselves. They don't wave the needle about and risk sticking anyone else, or--as happened at one club--setting an entire building on fire with people trapped in it and burning to death or dying of smoke inhalation.

If we remove the law for a moment and go back to yesteryear: we've a restaurant where a dozen people, at least, are smoking several cigarettes over the course of their meal, all of them waving about burning cigarettes, all of them flicking burning ashes into ash trays. The same is going on in the bar next door, and the coffee shop after that, and the club on the corner. All these burning, hot-ash flicking cigarettes waved about carelessly in hand...Given this, does a ban on smoking in all these places still sound unreasonable? As getting rid of a fire hazard if nothing else?

 

[Liar]

Let me tell you what happened here: They didn't.

They grumbled and moaned about it for about a week. But come saturday night, beer is still beer.

Apparently, beer is not still beer in the UK....

Must be a culture thing. Not sure if it's a good one (that people are not that desperate for beer) or a bad one (that people are desperate for cigarettes). But some difference, it is. Because the smoking ban sure didn't affect the beer sales here.

--------------


UK beer sales tumble to the lowest since 1975

UK beer sales have fallen through the five billion litre mark for the first time since 1975 as the consumer downturn and smoking ban continue to hit Britain's pubs and brewers.

News that annual beer sales have slipped below 50m hectolitres will come as a further blow to an industry already suffering as pubs go out of business and brewers are forced to consolidate.

Figures released to the brewing industry by the British Beer and Pub Association, and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show total UK beer sales fell 1.7 per cent in the year to the end of April.

More...

 

[JagFarlane]

Apparently, beer is not still beer in the UK....

Must be a culture thing. Not sure if it's a good one (that people are not that desperate for beer) or a bad one (that people are desperate for cigarettes). But some difference, it is. Because the smoking ban sure didn't affect the beer sales here.

--------------


UK beer sales tumble to the lowest since 1975

UK beer sales have fallen through the five billion litre mark for the first time since 1975 as the consumer downturn and smoking ban continue to hit Britain's pubs and brewers.

News that annual beer sales have slipped below 50m hectolitres will come as a further blow to an industry already suffering as pubs go out of business and brewers are forced to consolidate.

Figures released to the brewing industry by the British Beer and Pub Association, and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show total UK beer sales fell 1.7 per cent in the year to the end of April.

More...

Well being a smoker I can say I definatly enjoy a cigarette with alcohol. But in defense of here, there are still states that allow smoking in bars [VA for example], hell I know there are still airports that allow smoking [Charleston SC, DC, and in NH, SC and DC had bars attached to the smoking areas]. So its not quite like all bars are affected.

What really surprises me about that, is that usually in a more recession driven area, alcohol sales go up. Course in this case, it may be giving up alcohol to fuel ones car and put food on the table.