Smokers – selfish scum or persecuted minority?

cmcollins001

I quit smoking a few months ago and so far not having many craving if any...until I read this thread. Now I REALLY want a smoke. It's funny, all those quit smoking commercials on TV make me want to light up as well.

bonniecarbs

Lots of responses to this one in a short time.
It makes me no diff if a person smokes but I'm always the one who has to move away from the smoker, sometimes I have to go stand in the rain while waiting for the commuter train, to get away from smoke. I am one of the unfortunate who gets really sick when I'm around smokers, so I do a lot a running and dodging since "NO SMOKING" signs mean nothing to the inconsiderate ones. Oh, the day I had to stand in the rain, I was holding my 8 month old grandbaby. He didnt care - there was a no smoking sign in the rain shelter and he lit up anyway

TexasTroy

Can't stand when people smoke in front of kids. It should be a form of child abuse, if not attempted murder. Makes me sick to think any PARENT would put there child in harms way.

That is absolute insanity. First of all, a persons kids are their kids not yours. Second, there is not a single study anywhere in the world that proves that second hand smoke is as dangerous as people try to make it out to be. My advice, worry about your own kids and stay out of other peoples business.

^^lmao...now I see why these post get closed down.....NO STUDY??? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Second hand smoke has been proven to cause health problems...its why its being banned in so many places world wide. But you go right ahead and smoke in front of your kids and kill them....your right, worry about your own kids. Hope they don't die of emphysema.

Danny_Boy13

As someone who feels ill around cigarette smoke, I consider smoking to be a public nuisance. Your addiction should not trump my ability to breathe. So, yes, I am in favor banning smoking in public places, just like I am in favor public noise ordinances and open bottle laws. That said, I don't understand people who feel the need to "enlighten" smokers about the dangers of their habit.

I would say that I mostly agree with this. I am a non-smoker, never have smoked ever in my life. If ALL public places were to allow smoking then where would the non-smoker go to enjoy themselves. Here in Austin we have a zero smoking ban in public places and sure businesses were hurting at first but it was not long before they were back to normal. Why should I be subject to inhaling second hand smoking when a smoker can either do it at home, in the car or outside. Smokers should not impede on the non-smoker. Smokers have a place to go to smoke, non-smokers do not have a place to go if smoking was allowed.

TexasTroy

As someone who feels ill around cigarette smoke, I consider smoking to be a public nuisance. Your addiction should not trump my ability to breathe. So, yes, I am in favor banning smoking in public places, just like I am in favor public noise ordinances and open bottle laws. That said, I don't understand people who feel the need to "enlighten" smokers about the dangers of their habit.

I would say that I mostly agree with this. I am a non-smoker, never have smoked ever in my life. If ALL public places were to allow smoking then where would the non-smoker go to enjoy themselves. Here in Austin we have a zero smoking ban in public places and sure businesses were hurting at first but it was not long before they were back to normal. Why should I be subject to inhaling second hand smoking when a smoker can either do it at home, in the car or outside. Smokers should not impede on the non-smoker. Smokers have a place to go to smoke, non-smokers do not have a place to go if smoking was allowed.

^^ Yep....a smoker can stop smoking and all the sudden their health gets better...a non smoker stops breathing, and they die. Where is the balance there? lol.

silvergurl518

neither. but i find the act of smoking to be disgusting. and i'm so grateful that most restaurants/statidums/workplaces/airlines these days are non-smoking. just don't like it getting into my hair/clothes/LUNGS. and kissing a smoker is the worst.

tashjs21

Smoking bans have made it possible and comfortable to eat in public again. If smokers could trade places with someone like me I think they would see this issue differently. Addiction is a terrible thing, but I do NOT understand how anyone under the age of 50 started smoking. It's not like we didn't know smoking kills people. I am 43 years old and do not remember a time when I didn't know smoking was bad for you. It's expensive, it stinks, and it causes cancer. What is the appeal?

How is any bad habit that we know is bad for us taken up? Over eating...we know it is bad for us, it is expensive...what is the appeal?

I grew up with a parent that smoked in the house. I HATED it and swore I would never smoke.

Then I started working a high stress job at a casino. I would get ticked off because smokers would be able to run outside "for a smoke break" in addition to our mandated breaks while I had to stay on the floor for 8 hours straight (with the exception of the mandated breaks). My supervisor started letting me walk outside with the smokers on their breaks to give me a "breather"...it wasn't long before I was stealing puffs of someones cigarette...then bumming one...then bringing my own.

For me, it was a stress reliever that kept me from going off on a patron and losing my job. Then the addiction took hold and I became a smoker. Something I swore I would never do.

There are many reasons people do things that they know are bad for them. It's life.

bonniecarbs

Hope this thread is beneficial to my weight loss goals! I keep reading it!

tashjs21

I am going through this thread and I am not sure it's been brought up but, in my experience, smokers tend to litter. A LOT. In that respect, I would say they are selfish scum.

Not all. I will go out of my way to find an ashtray or trashcan or put a butt in my pocket before throwing it on the ground. I've seen plenty of non-smoking people that litter, so that is a pretty generalized stereotype. :flowerforyou:

darkthund3r

I smoke, I wouldn't want to be I a room filled with smoke while I'm eating. But as far as smoking outside.. people need to get over it. I see people staring at others while they are outside smoking, freaking out like they are going to get cancer because someone 50ft away is smoking a cig in the open air.. get over, maybe you can buy yourself one of those little masks like the Japanese. Wear, lol!

And littering..... lol biodegradable mean anything? I don't litter myself...but come on, what is this a tree hugger forum. Cut cut

jealous_loser

I am going through this thread and I am not sure it's been brought up but, in my experience, smokers tend to litter. A LOT. In that respect, I would say they are selfish scum.

Not all. I will go out of my way to find an ashtray or trashcan or put a butt in my pocket before throwing it on the ground. I've seen plenty of non-smoking people that litter, so that is a pretty generalized stereotype. :flowerforyou:

I understand that, but around here there are a lot of cigarette butts everywhere. As well, a lot of my smoker friends walk out of convenience stores and unwrap their smokes and toss it on the ground.

Like I said, in my experience.

pattyproulx

Non-smoker here, but am in somewhat agreement with those who say it's over-the-top.

For decades, smoking was allowed everywhere. Everyone smoked and you couldn't go to a restaurant or bar without it being filled with smoke. People smoked in cars, at work, inside the home, etc. Even as a non-smoker, or child, you were subject to it day in and day out.

If it's as dangerous as they say it is, why isn't everyone over the age of 40 dying of lung cancer?

Surely being subject to a little bit of second-hand smoke from the man sitting 20-ft away, at the park or on a patio, isn't going to kill you.

I think that the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces is fine. If I don't want to be subject to cigarette smoke while I go to the DMV, I should be allowed not to be subject to it.
However, if someone owns a private business and allows smoking, it should be their choice. If you're a non-smoker, go somewhere they don't allow smoking.

If the demand for non-smoking restaurants and bars is high enough, the supply will be provided.

moosegt35

All I am asking is why should I feel guilty about wanting to walk into a grocery store,eat at a restaurant,take a walk n the park, go into the mall,go to an amusement park,etc, and not want to breathe toxins that will make me ill? I don't have a problem with anyone breathing air. Hey...it's free. But cigarette smoke isn't smart enough to be able to stay in the smoking section. It likes to travel and meet every body. I don't care how many fans are going, that stuff is going to travel. Then I get to share it.

As above - do you use a car, busses, some trains etc?
Do you use services which make use of these?

Some people seriously suffer from various things from car fumes, even these days with relatively 'cleaner' vehicles.

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

hilsidney

First of all, it's not about the smokers it's about the smoke. If you read the 2010 Surgeon General Report, you can find tons of information regarding the dangers of SHS, all scientific peer reviewed studies, non-biased. On the other hand if you're quoting the CATO institute...they're a liberatarian political group who is promoting the liberatarian agenda and receiving money from Companies such as Altria (formerly Philip Morris).

*There is NO SAFE level of SHS.

*If venues are required to provide clean water, clean food and buildings that meet health code standards, the air should be included in that too. Just as everyone deserves to go to a restaurant and not get sick from the food and water, everyone deserves the right to breathe clean air.

*When people eat too much junk food or fattening food they are harming themselves. When people smoke in public places they are subjecting others to harm.

*Some workers are exposed to deadly levels of SHS because they are not protected by a comprehensive ordinance. In this economy one can't be choosy about where they can work. It's not unfair not to consider worker health.

*Peanut allergies are often deadly, and although it's annoying, the parent of that child who is allergic to peanuts is terrified to get a phone call that their child stopped breathing because someone brought peanuts into the classroom.

*Numerous studies have been done showing that the economic impact of smoke-free laws actually increase business. 75% of the population don't smoke, 25% do.

So, smoke in your car, smoke at home, at friends' homes that allow it, but just because you choose to believe in junk science or be dictated by a political agenda doesn't mean that SHS isn't harmful or shouldn't be addressed.

Eat your peanut butter sandwhich outside of the nut-free school zone, that's no big deal and you're certainly helping out the parents of the child who has the horrible allergy. That's community!

moosegt35

I'm a smoker - I don't smoke in my house, I smoke outside it. I don't smoke in my car either. Oh and I don't smoke around children, or around my non-smoking friends if I can help it! The one thing that does get me is pregnant women smoking - yes I know its their choice, but I see that as being selfish (my sister in law smoked constantly whilst pregnant, and unfortunatley lost 2 children - not saying its because of this, but it could of been a factor - and now the 2 children she does have both have bad asthma, again, don't know if it is caused by the smoking whilst pregnant - but it doesnt help)

When I smoke at work, it is on the roof, away from people who would likely walk past and cough and splutter because I'm "polluting their air" - what about all the car fumes you inhale - do you cough and splutter everytime one of them goes past you? If anyone does this to me now whilst I'm walking to work, and enjoying my pre-work ciggie, I make a point of blowing the smoke toward them and try and keep up with them - petty, I know - but if you can be like that then so can I!

When I go to the pub, I smoke outside, away from the door (if I can unless there's some inconsiderate non-smoker taking up my space!)

There are so many rude people on here - everyone has their own vices, and not everyone may agree with them, but not everyone goes on about it, and tries to change people!

Wow! You comment on the rude people on here but you're just as rude when you deliberately blow smoke at someone who coughs and splutters. Believe me not everyone who coughs and splutters is doing it just to make a point. I'm one of those people who cough and splutter because I can't stand it when I get a face full of someone's cigarette smoke. I guess you don't realize how nasty that is to someone who doesn't smoke and how hard it is to even breathe! Really, I'm sorry you're offended by me trying to get that stuff out of my system and just trying to breathe again. I just kind of enjoy breathing.

But when I'm outside - you know, the great outdoors, big open spaces etc etc and you decide to walk that close to me that you do maybe catch a whiff of my smoke over the car exhausts and you cough/splutter then sorry but not my problem - plenty of space to walk around me or past me so you don't need to walk that close to me! I already said I don't smoke around people who don't smoke if I can help it, so I certainly wouldn't stand there and "blow smoke in their face" as you put it.

I enjoy breathing, I also enjoy living - and I seem to be able to both, simultaneously without having an issue with it - I don't smoke heavily so why shouldn't I?!

I bet you also talk like a man. Women smokers are so hot with their voice that is deeper than mine.

moosegt35

Smoking is repulsive and it kills. The people saying second hand smoke is harmless are kidding themselves, it's disgusting that it is still legal to sell tobacco. I appreciate the fact that it is an addiction but I just feel so sad for people who lose family members needlessly. The only people I would call selfish scum though are the people who throw their butts on the ground. THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

If you find it repulsive dont do it. Its not just people saying that second hand smoke is harmless, its the countless studies that have been done. A lot of things are disgusting. Should we ban them all? A lot of things are harmful, should we ban them all? We should ban every thing that is harmful to our health?

Ooh yeah sure.. let's go back to how our ancestors lived with just the earth and the animals...
"Don't do it"
Unless you, yourself, have been addicted I don't think you can necessarily talk.. it's not that easy

It's actually REALLY easy to not get addicted to cigarettes, actually just as easy as not getting addicted to meth or heroin. Don't do it in the first place. Common sense isn't very common these days.

pattyproulx

I bet you also talk like a man. Women smokers are so hot with their voice that is deeper than mine.

How classy....

kenazfehu

I'm very happy that smoking isn't allowed in public places. In the distant past, I've had more than one dinner spoiled by smokers at the next table.

That said, I do believe that when it's your own business, it should be legal to provide accommodations for smokers. They aren't the scum of the earth just because they've made a bad choice. I've made more than one bad choice myself, including smoking, which I quit more than a decade or two ago. It wasn't that hard to quit: don't stick them in your mouth and light them. Bingo; you're not smoking. Now I'm using the same rationale for losing fat; I don't stick the bad stuff in my mouth and chew it. Lotta cravings and feelings come up, and I deal as well as I can.

roeann53

MDWilliams185 states: "First, second hand smoke is no danger as many studies have proven. "

I am a professor and a researcher, and my response here is based solely on the one study you posted a link to - I remember this study, and the firestorm it created. So, first let's be clear, even if we assume this to be a valid and reliable study, it didn't state there was no danger, what it stated was that the level of danger was lower than was being estimated in other studies. However, the study contained some serious methodological flaws which call its validity and reliability into question. A study which isn't reliable and valid is basically worthless except as a lesson in what not to do when conducting research.

This flaws in this study stem in large part from the fact that it is difficult for any study that examines humans over the long run in an uncontrolled environment, In this study, at the time the original data was collected, there were few limits on smoking, so you can't eliminate a major confounding variable (exposures from other sources besides one's spouse). This is a major confounder, as even if a non-smoker is married to a non-smoker, this doesn't mean that they aren't exposed to second hand smoke at the work site or from other family members. So, for the study to be valid, it needed to tighten its controls to eliminate other possible sources of exposure. They couldn't do this as the researchers were reviewing previously collected data (secondary data). This leads us to the second problem, which stems from their use of this second-hand data after being warned that the data might not be 'good'. The researchers were warned by the 'owners' of that the data they were examining that it had not been collected in such a way that the research question the researchers were posing could be validly answered. If a study isn't valid it simply means it wasn't measuring what it claimed to be measuring. If that is the case, then its highly unlikely that the results can be found if the study is repeated with a new population so its results aren't reliable.

In support of my comments, I think it should be noted that, after more analysis, the BMJ, the journal that published that article, published a piece describing the research as being “fundamentally flawed". Why did the researchers persist in examining data that they knew might not produce a valid and reliable study result? The American Medical Journal had refused to publish the article for the same flaws, as well as an additional problem. This problem stems from the fact that this study is fraught with the potential for researcher bias. Both of the study authors had long histories as consultants/researchers for tobacco interests and this study was largely funded by those same interests. This is why today researchers must clearly identify their funding sources when submitting research.

As I remembered these discussions, but didn't have specific references to them I took a look around the internet and found this piece. Its published by a clearly anti-smoking group (so is potentially biased) BUT it has a great list of references if anyone wants to dig them up to assess the accuracy of the site's conclusions - http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333

moosegt35

We pay more in taxes for obesity then we ever will smoking.

when?