Smokers – selfish scum or persecuted minority?

People who are inconsiderate *kitten* and smoke, are still inconsiderate *kitten* when not smoking.

A cigarette is not the deciding factor here.

I'll go with Persecuted Minority for 100, Alex...

The obscene price of cigarettes? Incredibly unfair. It's a product, a legal one at that. Why does the government have the right to tax at that level? It's bull.

As a non-smoker, I really wish there were still bars which allow smoking.

I don't care as long as the stench does not get on me and I would NEVER date a smoker ...

People who are inconsiderate *kitten* and smoke, are still inconsiderate *kitten* when not smoking.

A cigarette is not the deciding factor here.

I'll go with Persecuted Minority for 100, Alex...

The obscene price of cigarettes? Incredibly unfair. It's a product, a legal one at that. Why does the government have the right to tax at that level? It's bull.

As a non-smoker, I really wish there were still bars which allow smoking.

:flowerforyou:

Also I don't think it is fair the cigarettes have so many additives to make it MORE addictive...it's said when it's harder to quit smoking cigarettes over heroin. Funny, they really want us to be healthy! Not.

Selfish scum. I can't even sit outside at restaurants because my asthma starts up.

I don't really think somebody is selfish or whatever if they smoke, and I don't generally take issue with it, unless I'm dating them (I wouldn't date a smoker). But I have plenty of friends and family members who smoke. I've said my piece about it to all of them, they're all aware of the side effects, the risks, and the unpleasant things that go along with smoking, and it's their choice if they wanna continue or not, no big deal. I don't allow people to smoke in my car or home, and there has been a smoking ban in place here for quite some time now. Nobody's really raised much of a fuss about it either, people don't seem to mind having to go outside to smoke (especially since most bars and restaurants here have patios where smoking is allowed, or they have an approved separate area with its own ventilation system for an indoor smoking area), and I know my dining/going out experience is significantly better not having to inhale smoke the entire time. I can't tell you the number of times I got burned by people's cigarettes at bars when I was younger and it was still legal here. I actually get confused when I go places that don't have smoking bans and people are smoking inside a restaurant or something!

While I understand the point of view that it should be the owner of whatever establishment's choice whether or not to allow smoking, I don't agree. Bars and restaurants have to abide by mandated health codes, licensing laws, etc, and I don't see this as any different. If somebody else wants to poison themselves, that's their choice, but I shouldn't be forced to do it too. I'm also not ok with smoking in close proximity to children, or in the car with a child (which is illegal here as well).

Growing up my dad smoked inside our house and in the car, and it was awful. I got teased at school because I smelled like smoke all the time. I would stuff a towel under my door frame and open my windows all the time when I was home in an attempt to vent my room of the smoke smell, but the entire house just smelled like an ash tray. Never smoked cigarettes in my life, but my signature scent in high school was "perfume and cigarette smoke" as one of my friends put it. Gross.

All of that said, I will tell y'all, that watching a close family friend die extremely quickly of stage 4 lung cancer, due to a 35 year smoking habit, was really heart breaking, especially since, as far as we could tell, it was preventable. No history of cancer in her family. She had been advised by her doctor to quit years ago because she was already dealing with emphysema, she never quit, and her cancer progressed so quickly we barely even had time to say goodbye. She left behind a 21 year old daughter, and a husband who doesn't even know what to do with himself now because he's so depressed. Maybe it was inevitable that she would get cancer, maybe it wasn't, but I hardly think her smoking habit was irrelevant.

I read it, and it's a bummer you had to go through that as a child. I watch my brother smoke in his house during the week when his daughter is gone and then smokes outside when she is there, and he thinks that's good enough. I pick her up and her clothes stink because both of her parents are smokers. Her mom refused to quit smoking during the pregnancy, and my niece has been sickly since birth. She was born very healthy, but has since had tubes in her ears, sinus infections etc....she might have had these problems anyway...but I tend to think her chances were better if mom had quit.

After losing my aunt to cancer and watching my mom go through chemo, I was done. Not taking any chances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

How classy....

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