Smokers – selfish scum or persecuted minority?

JohnMessmer

What you are insinuating here is that the child with the allergy doesn't know better to stay away from what causes an allergic reaction. I have personally witnessed a peanut reaction where all the person did was walk by someone eating the peanuts and they went in to anaphylactic shock. I had to personally rush them to an emergency room so they could be treated while their throat swelled shut. This is not children being ignorant and a case of take care of yourself, this is life or death. What's sad is if a parent, such as yourself, said listen kid, get over it and learn to deal with it and a child died because some kid ate a peanut butter sandwich and simply touched their arm. And as for the cinnamon comment, the peanut allergy is one of the worst and widely acknowledged because it affects the MANY children attending school. One person with one allergy that can be easily handled by say Reactine or an antihistamine compared to children needing an adrenaline shock and then emergency is very, very different.

I am not insinuating anything, I am flat out saying that if my child has an allergy to peanuts then it is my responsibility to teach my child that he can not ever take any food from anyone, other than me, under any circumstance, because of his allergy. It is not everyone, who may or may not come into contact with my child, responsibilities to ensure they do not eat what my child is allergic to. I would say that it is the schools responsibility to inform me of what is being prepared for students and what ingredients are used in its preparation, so that I can make certain my child is informed if there is a potential problem. I would say that is where their responsibility ends.

As for someone touching someone with a peanut allergy and causing their death, is that a hypothetical or can you direct me to an article that states that? I have never heard of anyone dying from a peanut allergy because another person touched them.

moosegt35

In response to the ashtray thing:

I've got a 2006 Saturn Ion.
My mom's got a 2013 Ford Escape.
Step-dad has a 2007 Dodge Intrepid.
Best friend has a 2001 Chevy Impala.

Not a single one of those damn cars has an ash tray or a lighter.

I bought a cup-holder ashtray for two bucks at Walmart.

There are 15 years in between 1986 and 2001.

The point of this is that you can buy one for about ten minutes worth of work at a minimum wage job.

It's not necessary to throw your butts out the window.

I agree. You can also have a "smoker's package" added to most cars that include ash trays and lighters.

anneerick

...having peanut butter banned is the parents taking PRECAUTIONS for their children.

Seriously? So if my child has an allergy to cinnamon, your kid cant have anything with cinnamon in it? I had a severe allergy to milk as a child, so they should have pulled the milk out of the school? Now a days it seems every child has some allergy to something, at least according to all the hypochondriac parents, so there would be nothing left for kids to eat for lunch. If all of this is over one kid, I sure hope no one discovers which kid or they will be on the next episode of "Bullied".

I take it you didn't read the entire post. You know, the part about some people with peanut allergies possibly dying from contact. The suit in your pic makes you look smart, your posts, however, do not.

Yes I read the whole post. Yes people, and children, can die from peanuts; therefore, peanut butter. People also die from automobiles, school buses, Diarrhea and pneumonia kill an estimated 3.5 million kids under 5 each year globally — more than HIV and malaria combined, and a host of other reasons. Death is the end result to everyone's life and if you can not teach your child (not you specifically, me as an adult) that they can not run in front of traffic, or eat my peanut butter sandwich, or wear a seat belt, then I should not be penalized for the potential ramifications of your childs actions, it is called "Natural Selection".

As for my suit, it is a work picture and is not intended for any purpose other than to identify me.

So you obviously didn't read the entire post. CONTACT, does not mean the kid has to eat the sandwich to be harmed. Here I will break it down for you:

You are allergic to peanut butter
I am not
We are friends
I eat a PB sandwich for lunch, and probably as an elementary school kid get some on my hands
You eat your bologna sandwich, becasue you are allergic to PB
After lunch in the hallway we are playing and I touch you with my PB hands
You have an allergic reaction and get sick and/or die


Is that simple enough for you to understand now or do I need to draw pictures?


Those other things you mentioned I am not even getting into. You are comparing apples to space ships.

Although this has zero to do with the op I wanted to add a spin on this topic. This very issue has just been raised (again) at our local elementary school. The issue is that families that are living in poverty have little options for kid’s school lunches. Peanut butter and Jam sandwiches are a good option for people struggling financially. So, I guess my point is who do you "protect"... when do you just say enough is enough we cannot help/support/protect all individuals with all different issues.

moosegt35

Transportation is kind of a necessity these days, wouldn't you say? Smoking? Not at all. You are comparing apples to hammers here.

Should be able to do just fine with a push bike if you cared about other people's health.

I've been doing it for my own health and found I only need the car (well, van) for transporting large stuff for work for anything reasonably local.
I don't "need" to do longer journeys generally, just pleasure - but then I don't have a problem with smoking near me either .

for those that don't live by a paper mill here is a picture:

Indeed. I suspect people buying paper don't really care they're polluting "someone else's" air.

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to walk for several hours per day on the way to and from work. Some of the arguments in here are very poorly thought out and even stupid but I think yours takes the bait.

SaraBrown12

...having peanut butter banned is the parents taking PRECAUTIONS for their children.

Seriously? So if my child has an allergy to cinnamon, your kid cant have anything with cinnamon in it? I had a severe allergy to milk as a child, so they should have pulled the milk out of the school? Now a days it seems every child has some allergy to something, at least according to all the hypochondriac parents, so there would be nothing left for kids to eat for lunch. If all of this is over one kid, I sure hope no one discovers which kid or they will be on the next episode of "Bullied".

I agree with the allergies thing being unfair. My sons are not allowed peanut butter sarnies in school as a child in the school has an allergy. This is wrong. Potentially its setting the person with the allergy up for a fall as these precautions are not taken later on in their lives in the work place, college, uni. They should be aware of the potential dangers from the offset. There are also several kids in the school who have allergies to bee and wasp stings. Being stung has the same effect as the peanut butter allergy. Do the school keep all windows and doors shut in the summer? NO. Do the school keep the kids with this allergy in at playtime? NO. If the allergy thing went viral and all allergies were treated in the same manner then the kids without allergies would be allowed nothing... Its not nice fore the kids with allergies and yes people near them who do not suffer the allergy should be made aware but, they should not be told they are not allowed things.

moosegt35

...having peanut butter banned is the parents taking PRECAUTIONS for their children.

Seriously? So if my child has an allergy to cinnamon, your kid cant have anything with cinnamon in it? I had a severe allergy to milk as a child, so they should have pulled the milk out of the school? Now a days it seems every child has some allergy to something, at least according to all the hypochondriac parents, so there would be nothing left for kids to eat for lunch. If all of this is over one kid, I sure hope no one discovers which kid or they will be on the next episode of "Bullied".

I take it you didn't read the entire post. You know, the part about some people with peanut allergies possibly dying from contact. The suit in your pic makes you look smart, your posts, however, do not.

Yes I read the whole post. Yes people, and children, can die from peanuts; therefore, peanut butter. People also die from automobiles, school buses, Diarrhea and pneumonia kill an estimated 3.5 million kids under 5 each year globally — more than HIV and malaria combined, and a host of other reasons. Death is the end result to everyone's life and if you can not teach your child (not you specifically, me as an adult) that they can not run in front of traffic, or eat my peanut butter sandwich, or wear a seat belt, then I should not be penalized for the potential ramifications of your childs actions, it is called "Natural Selection".

As for my suit, it is a work picture and is not intended for any purpose other than to identify me.

So you obviously didn't read the entire post. CONTACT, does not mean the kid has to eat the sandwich to be harmed. Here I will break it down for you:

You are allergic to peanut butter
I am not
We are friends
I eat a PB sandwich for lunch, and probably as an elementary school kid get some on my hands
You eat your bologna sandwich, becasue you are allergic to PB
After lunch in the hallway we are playing and I touch you with my PB hands
You have an allergic reaction and get sick and/or die


Is that simple enough for you to understand now or do I need to draw pictures?


Those other things you mentioned I am not even getting into. You are comparing apples to space ships.

Although this has zero to do with the op I wanted to add a spin on this topic. This very issue has just been raised (again) at our local elementary school. The issue is that families that are living in poverty have little options for kid’s school lunches. Peanut butter and Jam sandwiches are a good option for people struggling financially. So, I guess my point is who do you "protect"... when do you just say enough is enough we cannot help/support/protect all individuals with all different issues.

Yea, I hear sliced turkey is pretty cheap also and doesn't cause allergic reactions from small children. Also, don't most people living in poverty get free lunches at school anyway? They did when I went

tashjs21

...having peanut butter banned is the parents taking PRECAUTIONS for their children.

Seriously? So if my child has an allergy to cinnamon, your kid cant have anything with cinnamon in it? I had a severe allergy to milk as a child, so they should have pulled the milk out of the school? Now a days it seems every child has some allergy to something, at least according to all the hypochondriac parents, so there would be nothing left for kids to eat for lunch. If all of this is over one kid, I sure hope no one discovers which kid or they will be on the next episode of "Bullied".

I take it you didn't read the entire post. You know, the part about some people with peanut allergies possibly dying from contact. The suit in your pic makes you look smart, your posts, however, do not.

:laugh: Bazinga!

amylovescupcakes

My parents both died from smoking. I was a smoker. I can't leave my babies in their 20's to deal with the stress. I'm 31 now, and more alone than I've ever been.

IT WAS SELFISH OF MY PARENTS TO LEAVE ME BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED PERIOD.

tashjs21

The paper mill sounds awful The part of your post I want to address: the throwing of cigarette butts out car windows. I think they actually had laws against that in South Dakota and I believe Wyoming earlier this summer, due to the high fire danger there--my good friend who smokes (and commutes between Rapid City and Gillette regularly) used a water bottle and just threw her butts in there while smoking in her car, rather than get a ticket. There are lots of options rather than litter-- I haven't seen a car with an actual ashtray built in it since I drove my grandparents' 1986 Dodge Aries

While I do not condone littering, especially throwing a small fire out your car window, my point was that the smoker is not given a safe option of disposing their butt as a result of companies trying to be politically correct with the whim of the majority of people. I was a smoker and owned a vehicle that did not have an ashtray, I used a drink can (Moutain Dew, gosh I use to love that stuff) and put my butts in it. One day I threw a butt in my drink can and about 5 minutes later there was "fire" coming out of the top of the can and disgusting smoke. I pulled over rapidly and tossed the can onto the ground and used another soda to put out the flames. If I had not been in a situation where I could pull over rapidly safely I probably would have wrecked my car trying to get the can out, and had I not been in the car who knows what would have happened.

Try using one with liquid in it next time. Liquid puts out fires.

^^^This. You're the one choosing to light something on fire in your car. Car manufactures are not required to give you a place to put these remains. I don't have a garbage can built into my car, but that doesn't make it right for me to throw my trash out the window.

Exactly, that is what the floor board of the passenger side is for.

Melroxsox

I quit smoking two weeks ago though I miss it dearly. I totally understand when people are aggravated by smoke- thus, why when I lit up it was far from people and in a large, open area no where near doorways or walkways.

Strolling past a smoker and coughing is absolutely ridiculous, you have plenty of room and are being obnoxious.

I don't think people should be allowed to own large, useless trucks that pollute the environment due to their moronic design but hey, freedom of choice.

i love loud moronicly designed big trucks! mudding in them is super fun! you should try it;) for day to day commutes...well obviously no.

anneerick

...having peanut butter banned is the parents taking PRECAUTIONS for their children.

Seriously? So if my child has an allergy to cinnamon, your kid cant have anything with cinnamon in it? I had a severe allergy to milk as a child, so they should have pulled the milk out of the school? Now a days it seems every child has some allergy to something, at least according to all the hypochondriac parents, so there would be nothing left for kids to eat for lunch. If all of this is over one kid, I sure hope no one discovers which kid or they will be on the next episode of "Bullied".

I take it you didn't read the entire post. You know, the part about some people with peanut allergies possibly dying from contact. The suit in your pic makes you look smart, your posts, however, do not.

Yes I read the whole post. Yes people, and children, can die from peanuts; therefore, peanut butter. People also die from automobiles, school buses, Diarrhea and pneumonia kill an estimated 3.5 million kids under 5 each year globally — more than HIV and malaria combined, and a host of other reasons. Death is the end result to everyone's life and if you can not teach your child (not you specifically, me as an adult) that they can not run in front of traffic, or eat my peanut butter sandwich, or wear a seat belt, then I should not be penalized for the potential ramifications of your childs actions, it is called "Natural Selection".

As for my suit, it is a work picture and is not intended for any purpose other than to identify me.

So you obviously didn't read the entire post. CONTACT, does not mean the kid has to eat the sandwich to be harmed. Here I will break it down for you:

You are allergic to peanut butter
I am not
We are friends
I eat a PB sandwich for lunch, and probably as an elementary school kid get some on my hands
You eat your bologna sandwich, becasue you are allergic to PB
After lunch in the hallway we are playing and I touch you with my PB hands
You have an allergic reaction and get sick and/or die


Is that simple enough for you to understand now or do I need to draw pictures?


Those other things you mentioned I am not even getting into. You are comparing apples to space ships.

Although this has zero to do with the op I wanted to add a spin on this topic. This very issue has just been raised (again) at our local elementary school. The issue is that families that are living in poverty have little options for kid’s school lunches. Peanut butter and Jam sandwiches are a good option for people struggling financially. So, I guess my point is who do you "protect"... when do you just say enough is enough we cannot help/support/protect all individuals with all different issues.

Yea, I hear sliced turkey is pretty cheap also and doesn't cause allergic reactions from small children. Also, don't most people living in poverty get free lunches at school anyway? They did when I went

Actually sliced sandwhich meat is quite expenisive for a family on a strict budget and opps, sorry, I forgot it was the schools responsibility to supply lunch.

geebusuk

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to walk for several hours per day on the way to and from work. Some of the arguments in here are very poorly thought out and even stupid but I think yours takes the bait.

Why would you walk?
I was talking about cycling.

However; getting accommodation close to work does make sense.
I was looking to move closer when my last job was 6.2 miles (I rode a motorbike, commute was 13 mins on a reasonable day despite being through heavy town traffic.)

Now self employed, I found accommodation .9 miles away from my work place - now moved work unit and it's 1.4 miles.
I can commute in about the same time on a push bike as a car - bit quicker down hill on the way in, JUST slower coming back.

People DO have the choice, but take a different one.

moosegt35

...having peanut butter banned is the parents taking PRECAUTIONS for their children.

Seriously? So if my child has an allergy to cinnamon, your kid cant have anything with cinnamon in it? I had a severe allergy to milk as a child, so they should have pulled the milk out of the school? Now a days it seems every child has some allergy to something, at least according to all the hypochondriac parents, so there would be nothing left for kids to eat for lunch. If all of this is over one kid, I sure hope no one discovers which kid or they will be on the next episode of "Bullied".

I take it you didn't read the entire post. You know, the part about some people with peanut allergies possibly dying from contact. The suit in your pic makes you look smart, your posts, however, do not.

Yes I read the whole post. Yes people, and children, can die from peanuts; therefore, peanut butter. People also die from automobiles, school buses, Diarrhea and pneumonia kill an estimated 3.5 million kids under 5 each year globally — more than HIV and malaria combined, and a host of other reasons. Death is the end result to everyone's life and if you can not teach your child (not you specifically, me as an adult) that they can not run in front of traffic, or eat my peanut butter sandwich, or wear a seat belt, then I should not be penalized for the potential ramifications of your childs actions, it is called "Natural Selection".

As for my suit, it is a work picture and is not intended for any purpose other than to identify me.

So you obviously didn't read the entire post. CONTACT, does not mean the kid has to eat the sandwich to be harmed. Here I will break it down for you:

You are allergic to peanut butter
I am not
We are friends
I eat a PB sandwich for lunch, and probably as an elementary school kid get some on my hands
You eat your bologna sandwich, becasue you are allergic to PB
After lunch in the hallway we are playing and I touch you with my PB hands
You have an allergic reaction and get sick and/or die


Is that simple enough for you to understand now or do I need to draw pictures?


Those other things you mentioned I am not even getting into. You are comparing apples to space ships.

Although this has zero to do with the op I wanted to add a spin on this topic. This very issue has just been raised (again) at our local elementary school. The issue is that families that are living in poverty have little options for kid’s school lunches. Peanut butter and Jam sandwiches are a good option for people struggling financially. So, I guess my point is who do you "protect"... when do you just say enough is enough we cannot help/support/protect all individuals with all different issues.

Yea, I hear sliced turkey is pretty cheap also and doesn't cause allergic reactions from small children. Also, don't most people living in poverty get free lunches at school anyway? They did when I went

Actually sliced sandwhich meat is quite expenisive for a family on a strict budget and opps, sorry, I forgot it was the schools responsibility to supply lunch.

It's not the school's responsibility, I was just stating that they do it. Who's responsibility it is was never brought up. And sliced sandwich meat is NOT expensive depending on the brand you buy.

sh4690

I am a smoker. When at home I smoke outside at the back door in the privacy of my own garden. I avoid smoking near children and if someone walks towards me in the street I will put my cigarette on the inside of the opposite hand that they are going to walk past, without taking a puff and keep it there until I am clear of them. I don't crowd round doors but go to designated smoking areas

Two of my friends smoke in the same house as their children, one keeps it in the dining room and the other smokes anywhere. The one that smokes anywhere her 3 year old has had asthma since she was 1 (VERY early age to be diagnosed with asthma, considering she couldn't even walk at that point!!) and her mother smoked heavily during her pregnancy. In their houses I prefer to sit at the back door with the door open if it is raining or go outside into the garden when it is nice.

When I go to these peoples houses my mum puts all of my clothes in the washing machine as soon as I get home because my clothes absolutely stink, like 10x worse than what they usually would.

If I am at a bus stop and it's raining and there is someone else in there with me I'll ask them if they mind if I have one inside the shelter, if they don't mind then I will have one. If they are a smoker themselves I will offer them one. If they do mind, that's not a problem I can wait.

Personally I HATE the taste of smoking, and I did try to stop, went 2 months, but unfortunately started again. The E-Cig worked for me but unfortunately I cannot afford it at the moment every month. It is an addiction I do wish to stop in the near future however.

I am respectful and I do not think it should be permitted in enclosed and close proximity public places/places where you eat etc, because even as a smoker I hate the smell of smoke. I think the smoking ban was indeed a very positive step forward, but a whole public ban on it? No. There are designated smoking areas a person can go to if they wish to have a cigarette whilst at places like theme parks, shopping centres etc in the U.K. Don't throw your cigarette butts on the ground, some poor little animal might pick it up and eat it and choke. Put it in the bins that are provided.

People do seem to forget that smoking is an addiction, personally I started smoking very young as it was my warped way of trying to fit in, and it is really difficult to stop! A little mutual respect and understanding on both parts is all that is necessary, and a little common courtesy for fellow smokers/non-smokers.

Thats my 2p's worth anyways! lol!

spikefoot

I just wish they would stop littering with their butts

KatKisses

oh just get over it!

Elzecat

Persecuted Minority.

I do not think that as a non-smoker I should dictate where a smoker is allowed to be in a public situation. I should choose where I go based on that establishments policies.

I also do not blame smokers for littering. Many vehicles these days do not have ashtrays because of the whining majority.

I find it very intriguing that the same people who protest "big brother" running our lives, support every oppressive measure placed against others. In this Country (USA) several states rely quite heavily on the proceeds from the production, distribution and sale of Tobacco. While it might seem like a great Idea to some to make it completely illegal, I wonder how they would feel if that was how they earned their living. With a soaring unemployment rate as it is, I say leave tobacco alone.

I live adjacent to a city with a paper-mill and every day on my way to and from work my eyes water, my throat is scratchy, and the pure rancid stink makes me want to vomit. Ten thousand smokers could not pollute the air any worse than this, yet apparently it is legal and you can't have a smoke in a restaurant 200 feet from this place because that is harmful to others?
for those that don't live by a paper mill here is a picture:

The paper mill sounds awful The part of your post I want to address: the throwing of cigarette butts out car windows. I think they actually had laws against that in South Dakota and I believe Wyoming earlier this summer, due to the high fire danger there--my good friend who smokes (and commutes between Rapid City and Gillette regularly) used a water bottle and just threw her butts in there while smoking in her car, rather than get a ticket. There are lots of options rather than litter-- I haven't seen a car with an actual ashtray built in it since I drove my grandparents' 1986 Dodge Aries

Have you driven a car since 1986? That's the year I was born and every car I have owned up until the last 2, a 01 and a 12, have had ash trays.

LOL, I misspoke (mis-typed?) I should have said "driven," not seen. I drove that car in the mid 2000s--before that I don't recall what the cars had, but not being a smoker, I wasn't looking for ashtrays, maybe I just don't remember. I have driven a couple newer cars since then, neither had ashtrays.

My point was supposed to be that you don't need to have a "built in" ashtray in order to NOT throw cigarette butts out the window and litter--you can put an ashtray in the car or a bottle, or a cup...

Littering of cigarette butts in high fire danger areas is a problem--it's not just ugly, it can cause fires. So...I would prefer if people would dispose of their butts some other way.

NormalSaneFLGuy

flame baiting!!!!

MandiK3

Where I live you can not smoke in any public inclosed building or patio, any company vehicle, with in 9 meters of any government building enterance, you can not smoke in a car with a minor what so ever, you can not smoke at a park where children play... all are fines if caught....

bird922

persecuted minority. I am a re-formed smoker. Haven't smoked for over a year. When I did smoke I was conscientious and considerate. I now am hearing how different towns, cities and states are passing these laws that severely overstep our right to make choices that may be harmful to ourselves. I know the argument will be made that the second hand smoke is killing everybody and blah, blah, blah. However, we breath in all sorts of things that are potentially harmful from the obvious, car exhaust and exhaust from factories and heating systems to the less obvious like perfume, scented candles and the like. Are we going to start legislating against people burning candles in their homes because cheap candles have soot and the scent is potentially harmful? What about Febreeze and the toxic cleaners most of us use and like. Aren't they harmful? I wonder where this will all stop.

Tiffikat

I don't honestly think the vast majority are selfish or persecuted. Yes, some smokers are selfish and do not care a bit about the health of others around them. Some smokers litter their butts. Not all smokers are like this. Additionally, there are people that are rude and combative to people that smoke. However, this is not a majority of people at all.

Laws that have been created to protect other people from cigarette smoke are not persecuting smokers and it would be silly to say they are. I am a former smoker and I have friends that still smoke. They don't feel persecuted. They are respectful and have no issues smoking in designated areas away from non-smokers. Many of my friends that smoke voted FOR the smoking ban in Ohio where we live.

So to answer the question honestly... neither and in my opinion anyone that says smokers are either of these extremes is possibly whining a bit.

Uuuhlexis

People smoke because it's awesome. People also don't smoke because it's unhealthy. Both groups are right.
I don't eat meat because I believe it's horrible for your health and factory farms are detrimental to the environment. Even smelling cooked meat makes me want to vomit. Am I going to tell you you can't eat that steak/burger/whatever near me? NO. Am I going to decide that no one can eat meat in public? No. Am I going to cry child abuse if you feed your child hot dogs? Noooo.
I'm also not going to go into a steakhouse and complain that they don't have enough salads on the menu. Come on people, you're smart enough to know not to go somewhere that bothers or doesn't cater to you.

Anyway, I smoke. And in WA you can't smoke inside anywhere, or within 20ft of an entrance. I abide by the laws, and I try to avoid smoking around people. It actually took me about 20 minutes to find somewhere to smoke between classes the other day because a bunch of non smokers decided to sit right next to the ash trays.
I don't smoke around kids, or inside ever (because that's nasty), and I've even been told by my doctor that the amount I smoke isn't really that bad.
Banning smoking in parks is absolutely ridiculous. I have a dog, and if I want to take her to the park for a few hours, I'm going to have a cigarette. Why? Because smoking outside, on a sunny day, in the grass is freaking fantastic. I'm not going to go smoke near the playground, so why should I have to feel bad about smoking in a large, outdoor area?

I think this whole anti smoking thing has been really really bad for smokers. Cigarettes are full of chemicals, and we can't get rid of them because it's unhealthy anyway-so why should we try to make them healthier-right? I'd love it if I could buy some turkish silvers with less chemicals-but I can't. Tobacco isn't nearly as bad for you as everything else they put in cigarettes.

Also-I can only think of one person I know who doesn't smoke (I live in a college town-everyone smokes), and they are obnoxious about it. Always complaining (when it's not even relevant) about smoking, and giving the smokers who go outside to smoke crap about it. Yet I say nothing when she shovels her face with vodka and taco bell everyday. Smoke or don't, but it's your own GD business. More laws=more problems.

Anyway, now I'm going to go have a cigarette on my deck, because it's my choice..and because it's awesome.

Tiffikat

I know lots of people that have switched to those e-cigarettes that use flavoring, nicotine, and water vapor. Less chemicals, less harmful smoke, and much less chance of affecting anyone else. Plus, here in Ohio you can smoke those anywhere since they only release water vapor. WIN all around. If you feel that you are entitled to smoke anywhere you want, this might be something you want to look into.

Smoking really isn't that awesome. I think you say that just to convince yourself. If it were so awesome there wouldn't be tons of people trying to quit all of the time. As a former smoker I remember wanting to quit because even though I only smoked a little bit it was affecting my ability to smell and taste, I hated the way the smoke clung to my clothes and contacts, I would cough more in the winter than I do now, and the craving to have a cigarette when you can't for whatever reason sucks.

MrsM1ggins

I think this whole anti smoking thing has been really really bad for smokers.

I think that's the point...