Smokers – selfish scum or persecuted minority?

rholland1125

I am currently a smoker trying to quit. I am mindful of others around me, especially children and non smokers. I will walk away to have a cigarette, I too believe smoking with children in a vehicle, inside a home, should be considered child abuse. My ex-husband, I found out, smokes in the garage with my son in there, with the garage door open....still child abuse in my book. I am not a smoker that litters, my cigarette butts all get put out and either put in the garbage, an old water bottle, or in an ash tray.

The smoking ban in all public places is a little harsh, I live in California, and they have banned smoking on hospital property, even the parking lots, at parks (which is understandable because of the children, litter and such), at restaurants and bars...the ban has been for at least 18 years now that I remember...

Melolicious

Society needs a group to pick on and for the longest time, it's been smokers. I live in Alberta and all bars and restaurants and most public spaces are non-smoking, including children's play areas in outdoor parks. People groaned and grumbled and here, a pack of smokes is in the $10-14 dollar range. Bowling alleys, bars and restaurants didn't go out of business. People adjusted and for the better. I used to be a smoker, it just made it really easy to quit. Smoking isn't healthy and while obesity and alcohol consumption isn't either, it doesn't impinge on my breathing space, I don't have asthma or a compromised immune system like a surprising portion of our population. Some anti-smoking crusaders are ridiculously fanatical in their persecution of the lowly smoker, but there are a lot of inconsiderate smokers who deserve the wrath. My biggest pet peeve is cigarrette butts tossed everywhere - that's still littering.
Besides, when there are no smokers left, who will 'they' pick on next?

moosegt35

Most if not all of the people against smoking because of second-hand smoke drive cars, and have a carbon footprint. I used to smoke, I'll occassionally have a smoke now, and I love a cigar from time to time. Would I be upset if it was banned? Probably. I can understand the concern behind second-hand smoke though and it's a valid complaint, but I do think it should be considered that everything we do pretty much impacts the people around us.

Now we are comparing apples to computer screens again. Good logic

moosegt35

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.

But drinking in front of kids, or verbal/physical/emotional abuse of your SO in front of them (such as I experienced) is PERFECTLY acceptable, right?

I don't smoke, I don't like the smell or taste of it, and it makes me sick. However, I'm not going to tell someone else they can't do it just because *I* don't like it.

Actually physical abuse of your SO is also illegal. Do you people not know any laws? How is drinking in front of your kids harmful to them? They aren't getting any 2nd hand alcohol and a responsible drinker isn't going to get drunk and beat them or anything, which is also illegal BTW.

TexasTroy

Its really not about rights of the individual. Fact is , smoking is a public health issue and YES SHS and smoking kills-period! Protecting the overall health of the public is and should be the concern. Its the number one PREVENTABLE cause of disease and law's should be passed to protect those that choose to breath clean air. And those that say "your" business will be hurt, that has proven to be an invalid argument where as most business' though, drop at first, end up increasing sales revenue- so stop with all that non-sense. If you wanna smoke, smoke, but do it in your own personal space.

KombuchaCat

As an ex-smoker I now totally understand why my smoking bothered non-smokers so much. That being said I feel that I was always a corteous smoker. I always smoked outside, even before my state banned it in bars/restaurants, and asked if I was bothering anyone. If I was I would move away. I never felt that non-smokers should be subjected to my second hand smoke if they did not want to be. I know that not all smokers are this consciensious which is a shame.
Now that I have quit for over 3 years the smell repulses me, I feel physically ill when I have to pass through the cloud of smoke on the way into a bar.

rlynnehawk

I quit smoking 10 months ago and I feel better but, when I did smoke the new laws and 100% price increases as tax used to piss me off. They made me want to defy the "politically correct" crowds. I did not want to quit because the government made me. For the record I did not quit because of big brother nanny...I would of quit sooner if it weren't for them, and a proper mind set is everything when you decide to give up a 30 year smoking habit. Stop smoking aide companies make a fortune to "help" people quit, and state and federal governments make a fortune on 100% taxes on the cigarettes. I think if a restaurant wants to have a smoking section and provide adequate ventilation it should be able to.

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.

I don't smoke and never have. Would also never date someone who did.

With that said, your comments have been incredibly ignorant. Everyone has lived under different circumstances. Many people have lived around smokers their entire lives (parents) and many haven't had the education about smoking that many of us have. Some people have friends who've peer-pressured them while they were young and easily influenced.

It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would 'try' smoking and could potentially get addicted.

You never have, I never have. Good for us. But get off your high horse and realize that many people aren't as fortunate.

I actually did grow up around smokers, My step dad smoked his whole life and my step mom did as well. He died of lung cancer and she talked like a man at age 30 and still does. My mother also use to smoke and stopped when I picked one up at age 9 and told her if she was going to smoke then so was I. So, my mother's and my father's house always smelled like an ash tray and I had to breath this stuff as a kid. I also tried a cig or two and absolutely hated them. Peer pressure is an excuse for the weak minded. People get peer pressured to do meth too, and if you fall into that pressure then you are weak and stupid. Cigs aren't meth, you don't get addicted by "trying" one.

rarellano05

Last time I checked we lived in the United States of America. The land of the free. I understand that there are people that do not like smoking out there. However who is anybody to say what another individual can and can not do. If someone wants to get cancer by smoking so be it. Every smoker knows what they are doing to themselves.

moosegt35

Last time I checked we lived in the United States of America. The land of the free. I understand that there are people that do not like smoking out there. However who is anybody to say what another individual can and can not do. If someone wants to get cancer by smoking so be it. Every smoker knows what they are doing to themselves.

No one said they can't smoke, did you read any of the thread? Smoke all you want, just don't subject me to it. Do my freedoms of not being a smoker get trumped by yours?

sixrings

This has been entertaining to read. I grew up in a house full of smokers but don't smoke myself. I am not a doctor and can't quote any studies. However, I do consider myself smarter than a rock and can figure out that if I spend a lot of time in a coal mine breathing in coal dust it could be bad for me. I know that people who smoke have a higher rate of cancer. Therefore I don't need a study to tell me that if I spend a lot of time breathing in unfiltered smoke, it could be bad for me. The risk may not be as high as a smokers risk but its still a risk I don't want to take.

I've seen some arguments that government should not mandate no smoking in bars/resturaunts...but the government mandates a lot of food safety, work safety issues, handicap accessibility and we are all ok with it. I don't see any difference with this one. I'm not against people smoking when it only affects them...same with shooting guns. I don't care if someone takes a gun and shoots it all day at a range--good for them...but once they start just shooting it in the air where you don't know if someone will get hurt when the bullet comes back down--then I do care--even if the odds of someone actually getting hurt are small.

chinatbag

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

This is one of the best replies in this whole thread and it is probably overlooked by everyone that wants to add in their personal opinions.

charlottelouise12345

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.

Two 'crazy days' in one week? Is it the moon? Are people drinking? What the heck. ><

If you have a non biased study by all means share it. I dont want to see the cancer society etc.. I want to see and actual study published in a medical journal. You wont find one. Every study ever done shows the same thing. Exposure to second hand smoke does not put your health in an type of long term danger or any higher risk of cancer.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/20/2684.short

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=646710

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=646710

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/179/11/1029.short

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=387760

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/4/386.short

http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1213/1404/

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/294/2/E456.short

http://ajplung.physiology.org/content/298/1/L3.short

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7446/977


Here. Studies from 1995 up to recently published ones. Published in peer reviewed medical journals from America, Europe and New Zealand. Those are just the ones I found on the first page of my search, there were pages and pages of articles on this topic. One of the studies directly looks at the effects of a public smoking ban. You cannot say that there is no evidence.

solyhhit

I don't smoke and never have. Would also never date someone who did.

With that said, your comments have been incredibly ignorant. Everyone has lived under different circumstances. Many people have lived around smokers their entire lives (parents) and many haven't had the education about smoking that many of us have. Some people have friends who've peer-pressured them while they were young and easily influenced.

It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would 'try' smoking and could potentially get addicted.

You never have, I never have. Good for us. But get off your high horse and realize that many people aren't as fortunate.

Great answer. I totally agree.

opalescence

I had a procedure done on Monday and the woman in the bed next to me had emphysema severely and never smoked a day in her life and neither did her parents etc, she could not recall ever being around cigarette smoke so it may not entirely be the cigarette smoke thats causing such health problems, it could be all the pollutants in the air we breathe.

Until companies stop polluting the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food they serve us and everything else, I will continue to enjoy my only vice, I mean after all it is perfectly legal.

I am very considerate of non-smokers as long as they give the same consideration.

Koldnomore

I smoked for over 25 years - Have been smoke free now for almost 5. Where I live smoking has been banned in public for just over 4 years, this also includes smoking in your car if you have a minor in there with you. Additionally you have to be at least 9 meters from a door to a public area if you are going to smoke.

When I did smoke I was always a very courteous smoker and I did not litter my butts everywhere either! When I started smoking it was a 'normal' thing to do. Pretty well everyone I knew smoked. My father smoked 42 years before he quit cold turkey - right around the time I started actually.

These days I really think that smokers are almost persecuted..The hate towards people who have this addiction is crazy - you can see it in some of the replies. I really don't believe that most smokers are out to be *kitten*. I think they are just trying to find a little relief in whatever way they can, having smoked as long as some of you people have been alive I can understand where they are coming from.. If you have never smoked it's hard to be 'compassionate' - kind of the same argument we make for people who have never been fat and how they can't possibly understand the addiction and emotional attachments to food.

I think that as a business owner you should have the choice with respect to what you will allow on your premises however then you would also have to make certain that anyone who works with you will also agree to be OK with the SHS - of course this may open a can of worms with respect to 'discrimination' against hiring non-smokers ( I don't know enough about the law to say). As a patron I have the choice to either go into your place, or not.

If I am walking around and someone blows smoke in my face believe me I will say something..same if they are smoking in a place with obvious no smoking signs, but if they are in a 'designated smoking area' then it's up to me to find a way around it or deal.

moosegt35

I don't smoke and never have. Would also never date someone who did.

With that said, your comments have been incredibly ignorant. Everyone has lived under different circumstances. Many people have lived around smokers their entire lives (parents) and many haven't had the education about smoking that many of us have. Some people have friends who've peer-pressured them while they were young and easily influenced.

It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would 'try' smoking and could potentially get addicted.

You never have, I never have. Good for us. But get off your high horse and realize that many people aren't as fortunate.

Great answer. I totally agree.

If you agree then you obviously didn't read my response to his post. If you get addicted to ANYTHING, you are weak minded and have no self control.

moosegt35

I had a procedure done on Monday and the woman in the bed next to me had emphysema severely and never smoked a day in her life and neither did her parents etc, she could not recall ever being around cigarette smoke so it may not entirely be the cigarette smoke thats causing such health problems, it could be all the pollutants in the air we breathe.

Until companies stop polluting the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food they serve us and everything else, I will continue to enjoy my only vice, I mean after all it is perfectly legal.

I am very considerate of non-smokers as long as they give the same consideration.

Someone got emphysema without being around smoke? That must mean smoke isn't what is causing it. Next you are going to tell me someone is HIV+ that didn't sleep with someone who has AIDS. I just don't believe it.

katescurios

I smoke and personally am pig sick of everyone having such a problem with it! The arguament about it being financially draining to the health service (UK) is crap! In the UK in 2011/12 the government generated £12.1 billion tax revenue from the sale of tobacco, cost to the NHS in treating smoking related illness - £2.7 billion a year. As far as I can see all non-smokers should be really bloody happy that smokers are providing so much income to the government, as without us there would be a deficit of nearly £10 billion that they would have to fund in additional tax payments!

I don't smoke around kids, I don't even smoke inside my own house, but if I want to sit outside a cafe/bar/restaurant or stand outside my work on my lunch break and have a cigarette then I should be able to do that without having interferring busy bodies coughing obnoxiously as they pass me or even worse coming up to me to tell me about the dangers of my choices.

It is apparently OK to get so drunk you end up vomiting or urinating all over the streets, starting fights and verbally abusing people but it is not ok to calmly and happily enjoy a cigarette????? The world is mad!

newmanmb463

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:

Then you appear to be in the minority of smokers. I drive an hour to and from work every day, mostly on two lane roads, so when you get behind someone, you tend to be behind them for quite a while. Most of the people that I see smoking in their car throw their butts out the window when they are done,

In order to walk from my house to the downtown area, we have to walk through a congested intersection with gravel shoulders. It's disgusting how many of hundreds and thousands of cigarette butts are on the shoulder there. If you want to talk about legislature that should be implemented immediately, I'd love to start seeing $50-$100 tickets being handed out for littering (for any kind of litter, but definitely keep after the cigarette butts).