overseas and smoking

[beyelzu]

I know we have members that live in foriegn lands.

Lunachick, JoeP, farren, and Ladyshea* all come to mind right away.


I was wondering about the whole smoking issue. Both New York and California have banned smoking just about everywhere except a person's car and house and it seems to be the trend in other places as well.

So can you furriners smoke in bars still?


I need to figure out what country to move to when the smoke nazis outlaw smoking altogether and start applying the death penalty, which is so just around the corner. I mean once the christian coalition decides that smoking is a sin against god, it's just a matter of time before they advocate the death penalty for it.

also, on a related note, how much do cigarettes cost in your country.

*vegas is positively so unlike the rest of america and actually has freedoms and stuff unheard of in the rest of the us that it counts as foriegn land. this logic brought to you by sophistry inc.

[Sonnet]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I need to figure out what country to move to when the smoke nazis outlaw smoking altogether and start applying the death penalty, which is so just around the corner.

Well, considering the fact that secondhand smoke causes cancer, it seems that smokers have already imposed the death penalty on nonsmokers, many times over, and don't seem to give a shit. It's apparently fine for us to die for your habit, yes?

Turnabout's fair play, but I'm willing to be lenient, and only have the smokers flogged.

[Petra]

Yep, we can still smoke in bars and some restaurants still have a smoking section, though that is more likely if the restaurant has a garden dining area, outside. We can smoke in the street, but not in government buildings and offices, on public transport, and in most workplaces. Naturally, a small businessman can smoke all he or she likes in his own business.

Many people here have given up smoking, and the government had a programme awhile back where they subsidised one of those stop smoking thingies - can't remember if it was patches, or something else - and set up a "Quitline", that was sponsored by the Cancer Society, Smokefree NZ, the Health Funding Authority, and the Ministry of Health. Many private homes are now smoke free, even if the owners/occupants smoke. It has become quite the norm to duck outside for a cigarette these days, so homes are generally smelling and looking a lot fresher.

There are also anti-smoking ads on tv that are sponsored by the above groups. There are no ads for cigarette brands, anywhere.

I'm still a smoker, smoking about a packet of 30's every 5 or 6 days. More if I'm being a lager lout.

While I think banning smoking in bars is a dumb idea - there should be smoking and non-smoking bars according to the will of the proprietors - I still like the smokefree attitude of many places, and I respect it.

When I was younger, the non-smokers were outnumbered by the smokers. But this has changed, and now the smokers are far outnumbered by the non-smokers - even in many pubs. I think this is a good thing; and with luck, smoking will be so anti-social that my daughter will never take it up.

For myself, I lament the money I've spent over my lifetime to date on cigarettes, and the affect they have on my overall fitness. Bugger me if I don't enjoy smoking, though. I just do.

I have tried a couple of times to give up, and when I was about 21, I gave up for an entire summer. Heinekens in a beachside garden bar never tasted so good! Only problem was, I tended to skin up a doobie everytime I felt like a cigarette instead, so I guess that was kinda counter-productive, huh.

You know, I successfully quit heroin after a two year habit, while living in Holland. While kicking that habit ached like hell and messed with my head for awhile, it was far easier than giving up such a subtle and insidious addiction as nicotine. I don't know why, but it just is.

One day...one day...

In the meantime, d'ya wanna head outside for a smoke, mate?

* Petra grabs ciggies and lighter and wanders outside into the lovely, delicious, fresh spring air to chug on a tailor made.

Edited to answer cost question. A packet of 30 cigarettes costs around $NZ12.25.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Sonnet

Well, considering the fact that secondhand smoke causes cancer, it seems that smokers have already imposed the death penalty on nonsmokers, many times over, and don't seem to give a shit. It's apparently fine for us to die for your habit, yes?

Turnabout's fair play, but I'm willing to be lenient, and only have the smokers flogged.

flog me?

I have a really high pain tolerance.

seriously I dont want to turn this into a smoking vs non smoking thread.

btw, how the fuck are getting second hand smoke via this board?

Liv and vm can y'all please turn off the second hand smoke option on this forum. or should I post request in a different forum?

[livius drusus]

I presumed she was referring to the smokers in her proximity, although now that I think of it, we certainly do have a proliferation of smoking smilies. I better beat a hasty retreat.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Yep, we can still smoke in bars and some restaurants still have a smoking section, though that is more likely if the restaurant has a garden dining area, outside. We can smoke in the street, but not in government buildings and offices, on public transport, and in most workplaces. Naturally, a small businessman can smoke all he or she likes in his own business.

Many people here have given up smoking, and the government had a programme awhile back where they subsidised one of those stop smoking thingies - can't remember if it was patches, or something else - and set up a "Quitline", that was sponsored by the Cancer Society, Smokefree NZ, the Health Funding Authority, and the Ministry of Health. Many private homes are now smoke free, even if the owners/occupants smoke. It has become quite the norm to duck outside for a cigarette these days, so homes are generally smelling and looking a lot fresher.

There are also anti-smoking ads on tv that are sponsored by the above groups. There are no ads for cigarette brands, anywhere.

I'm still a smoker, smoking about a packet of 30's every 5 or 6 days. More if I'm being a lager lout.

While I think banning smoking in bars is a dumb idea - there should be smoking and non-smoking bars according to the will of the proprietors - I still like the smokefree attitude of many places, and I respect it.

When I was younger, the non-smokers were outnumbered by the smokers. But this has changed, and now the smokers are far outnumbered by the non-smokers - even in many pubs. I think this is a good thing; and with luck, smoking will be so anti-social that my daughter will never take it up.

For myself, I lament the money I've spent over my lifetime to date on cigarettes, and the affect they have on my overall fitness. Bugger me if I don't enjoy smoking, though. I just do.

I have tried a couple of times to give up, and when I was about 21, I gave up for an entire summer. Heinekens in a beachside garden bar never tasted so good! Only problem was, I tended to skin up a doobie everytime I felt like a cigarette instead, so I guess that was kinda counter-productive, huh.

You know, I successfully quit heroin after a two year habit, while living in Holland. While kicking that habit ached like hell and messed with my head for awhile, it was far easier than giving up such a subtle and insidious addiction as nicotine. I don't know why, but it just is.

One day...one day...

In the meantime, d'ya wanna head outside for a smoke, mate?

* lunachick grabs ciggies and lighter and wanders outside into the lovely, delicious, fresh spring air to chug on a tailor made.

Edited to answer cost question. A packet of 30 cigarettes costs around $NZ12.25.

thanks for the response. Sounds kind of similar as to how the laws are here in most places in ga. Some cities have complete bans in so called public places, in that a public store is still private property. I think most consumers are certainly informed enough about smoking to make a choice when it comes to bars and restruants packs of cigarettes come in 30 there?

we only get 20 in a pack.

and let's enjoy that cigarrete


it does worry me some that you could quit heroin and have been unable to quit smoking.

you know, I have heard that it is easier to stop using heroin, but I always assumed that it was because the repercussions of cigarette smoking were less than heroin.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

packs of cigarettes come in 30 there?

we only get 20 in a pack.

Over here, they come in 20's, 25's and 30's. They used to have packs of 10, but because of the lower cost, they became known as kiddie packs (it was mostly school kids buying them), and have since been taken off the shelves.

it does worry me some that you could quit heroin and have been unable to quit smoking.

you know, I have heard that it is easier to stop using heroin, but I always assumed that it was because the repercussions of cigarette smoking were less than heroin.

Hmm, maybe the difference was in motivation, commitment and effort. Dunno.

[Farren]

We get 20's and 30's. Restaurants and bars have to have a smoking section seperate if people want to smoke and there are no cigarette ads. There are various laws against workplace smoke in shared offices, I think (haven't worked in an office for quite a while).

I took up smoking again recently after managing to give up for several months. Crap. Perhaps because I'm a smoker I find the second-hand smoking data highly suspect, especially since the EPA study that bordered on fraud. I think a lot of science is bent to the purpose of activism where popular health causes are concerned and contrary results suppressed.

Everyones rushing to shoot down a recent study published in the British Medical Journal contradicting the findings of many SHS "Metastudies". I think contrary opinions make researchers in certain areas very unpopular. I have a sneaking suspicion the whole field of study suffers from the same kind of bad science a lot of government funded Marijuana research did in the past.

In discussions about this on IIDB, I've had metastudies (studies of studies inferring harm through complex statistical analysis) thrown at me. I've also had articles linking SHS (or ETS, as they also like to call it) to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), once again via statistics. But SIDS isn't even a well defined illness. Its a catch all phrase for unexplained cot deaths. And most of the studies admit complex cause.

What makes me suspicious is that vast amounts of money have been thrown at proving the case for SHS causing severe harm to non smokers and decades on all we have is statistical proofs (usually "studies of studies") involving increased risks in the order of 10-15% with 3-5% margins of error. No experiments demonstrating causal links, no sound theories explaining causal links. Nothing. And contradictory reports. You'll find thousands of documents and web sites citing one EPA metastudy then find out that that study is hotly disputed because (a) it excluded two studies originally included which pushed down increased risk to within margin of error (b) it incorrectly inferred certain conclusions that did not logically follow from the premises.

I understand that smoking is disgusting to many non smokers and that's why I have qualms about the veracity claims of severe harm from SHS. It has political utility and most doctors I've been on friendly terms with hate smoking with an unseemly passion.

Half of the people I know find the fact that I kiss my dogs with my lips and roll around on the floor with them and get covered in hair disgusting, some so much so they can't stand to look, or feel compelled to comment in a nasty manner. I'm sure if the practice was widespread enough we'd see a slew of studies blaming over-intimacy with pets for all manner of plague and pestilence. Whatever non smokers say, the feeling of revulsion precedes the rationalisation.

I've seen the repulsion and disgust on peoples faces when they talk about it and I don't like that because its a form of hatred, which is not a healthy emotion. Long before any healthy funded studies started providing a stick to hit people with, non smokers were expressing sentiments of repulsion, which is the root of my deep misgivings about the obviously political nature of smoking studies.

That said, I am considerate about smoking. As a reflex, I don't light up in people's houses or cars (even smokers). I don't even ask, I just go outside or wait till the car ride is over. Its a small consideration and it doesn't bother me awfully much.

I fully understand why non-smokers don't enjoy the smell of strong smoke. I have a friend who is mildly allergic to smoke and we see a fair amount of each other. We even stayed together for a while and I've always had to be considerate to him and aware of the circumstances around him (like not lighting up in my own bedroom if he happens to be there).

And I actually do believe there is some harm from ETS/SHS. It kinda stands to reason. Smoking offloads all kinds of noxious particles in the air. But killing people? No, I don't believe that, unless being one of like 50 risk factors that eventually led to a disease that was the actual agent of death counts as killing people.

It bugs me though, that non smokers can spit all this venom and hatred at the drop of a hat. I haven't eaten meat in 17-18 years and even during the decade long period when I really did feel it was utterly immoral to battery farm animals I never once spat venom at a meat eater. I never spoiled anyone's meal by calling them a murderer or made someone feel bad because they had me over to dinner and didn't realise I was a vegetarian.

I realised, a long time ago, that we are not living in Utopia and no-one is perfect. That people are shaped by their circumstances. Most westerners are brought up in meat eating families without any kind of ethical consideration ever being discussed around the eating of battery farmed animals. If the opportunity presents itself, I will always discuss meat eating and the ethical considerations in a very non-judgemental way, but I realise meat eating is an addiction and one that most people never even consider an ethical problem till they're confronted by the minority who think it is.

Similarly, a huge number of smokers grew up in environments where there was a general understanding that smoking was bad for you, like eating too many rich, sweet foods and not exercising, but it was a socially acceptable and widespread habit. Now they're addicts in a society with a much larger number of non-smokers who have the full weight of moral authority behind them, a disproportionate sense of outrage and don't give a flying fuck about any other consideration except their outrage and disgust.

Many non smokers, trapped next to an incredibly overweight, sweating individual on an airplane and feeling horribly uncomfortable, might say "I mustn't judge, it must be horrible to be that fat". But let a smoker pass within 10 feet of them and they catch a wiff of smoke and they're apopleptic with rage and ready to tell the person they're a Satanic baby killer. Its not a rational reaction, its the emotional reaction of somebody who's trained themselves to despise another human being with a particular unpleasant vice just because society has made it PC. "Its OK. Smokers are complete scum"

But we're not and accusations that we're killing people are hysterical and if you ask me fucking rude. Firstly, it has not been scientifically proven that SHS/ETS kills people. It has been shown that exposure to SHS/ETS correlates closely to an increased risk (with debatable margins of error and often without considering confounding variables). That's not the same thing, people. So saying "you're killing us" is talking out of your ass without scientific backup and demonstrating that you've forgotten your manners where smokers are concerned. Feel free to discuss the issue, but don't get all venomous and potty mouthed and hysterical.

[LadyShea]

Vegas is your town. Apparently, "they" crunched the numbers of how much money the casinos. and therefore the state, would lose if every smoker left the tables/machines for 5 minutes every hour of play to smoke a cigarette....let's just say the amount was high enough that Nevada would probably leave the frickin' union if there was some kind of Federal smoking ban. A non-smoking casino opened at one time, supposedly due to "high demand" for such a place...yeah right it was bankrupt in a year.

Did you know that you can smoke even in California casinos? I thought it was due the sovereignity of the tribal nations, but they have to follow California alcohol statutes and stop serving at 2am, so I think it's simply an exception because gamblers smoke and gamblers bring in lots of dough.

Anyway, you can smoke in casinos, at the airport in the numerous smoking rooms, and most restaraunts (though some owners have chosen to have non-smoking establishments as is their right in my opinion), you can smoke in bars (almost all of which have gaming licenses so are like mini casinos) and you can even smoke in the slot machine section of grocery stores. Many other businesses seem to leave it up to the owner....like my current office building has "no indoor smoking" as part of our lease, but the last one did not.

Most show venues prohibit smoking, but more because it fucks with the lighting effects than anything else.

[Sonnet]

Originally Posted by Farren

Similarly, a huge number of smokers grew up in environments where there was a general understanding that smoking was bad for you, like eating too many rich, sweet foods and not exercising, but it was a socially acceptable and widespread habit. Now they're addicts in a society with a much larger number of non-smokers who have the full weight of moral authority behind them, a disproportionate sense of outrage and don't give a flying fuck about any other consideration except their outrage and disgust.

....But we're not and accusations that we're killing people are hysterical and if you ask me fucking rude. Firstly, it has not been scientifically proven that SHS/ETS kills people. It has been shown that exposure to SHS/ETS correlates closely to an increased risk (with debatable margins of error and often without considering confounding variables). That's not the same thing, people. So saying "you're killing us" is talking out of your ass without scientific backup and demonstrating that you've forgotten your manners where smokers are concerned. Feel free to discuss the issue, but don't get all venomous and potty mouthed and hysterical.

Ok. Your smoke nauseates a great many of us, makes us queasy and short of breath and headachy, and makes a public environment noxious and unwelcoming. It stinks, too. Yes, overeating is an addiction - the thing is, when someone else stuffs themselves, I don't get fat. Whether smokers admit it or not, what they do, regardless of whether we can absolutely prove the widely held theory that it can actually kill the nonsmokers around them (and whether THEY can prove that it can't), makes us sick and changes our day, and yet they see nothing wrong with reserving the right to sicken the people standing next to them. And THAT, to me, is rude. If you're going to force us to breathe what you do, then having to listen to how we feel about it is no great intrusion, comparatively speaking.

Venom is poison; so is nicotine. And speaking of potty-mouths, two words: smoker's breath. Talking out of one's ass might smell better.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by Sonnet

Ok. Your smoke nauseates a great many of us, makes us queasy and short of breath and headachy, and makes a public environment noxious and unwelcoming. It stinks, too. Yes, overeating is an addiction - the thing is, when someone else stuffs themselves, I don't get fat. Whether smokers admit it or not, what they do, regardless of whether we can absolutely prove the widely held theory that it can actually kill the nonsmokers around them (and whether THEY can prove that it can't), makes us sick and changes our day, and yet they see nothing wrong with reserving the right to sicken the people standing next to them. And THAT, to me, is rude. If you're going to force us to breathe what you do, then having to listen to how we feel about it is no great intrusion, comparatively speaking.

Venom is poison; so is nicotine. And speaking of potty-mouths, two words: smoker's breath. Talking out of one's ass might smell better.

I hope you are as ardent when addressing factories, vehicles, etc, etc. You do realise that they have a far greater impact on the air you breathe don't you?

Are you lobbying your local government representative to push for the ratification of any legislation that curbs the degradation of the air to manufacturing and transport?

Do you admonish those who drive cars that are either over-big for the users needs, or that are not maintained well, as they spew harmful carginogens into the air?

Are you as passionate about these things? They'll kill you quicker than a few cigarette smokers ever could.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Sonnet

Ok. Your smoke nauseates a great many of us, makes us queasy and short of breath and headachy, and makes a public environment noxious and unwelcoming. It stinks, too. Yes, overeating is an addiction - the thing is, when someone else stuffs themselves, I don't get fat. Whether smokers admit it or not, what they do, regardless of whether we can absolutely prove the widely held theory that it can actually kill the nonsmokers around them (and whether THEY can prove that it can't), makes us sick and changes our day, and yet they see nothing wrong with reserving the right to sicken the people standing next to them. And THAT, to me, is rude. If you're going to force us to breathe what you do, then having to listen to how we feel about it is no great intrusion, comparatively speaking.

Venom is poison; so is nicotine. And speaking of potty-mouths, two words: smoker's breath. Talking out of one's ass might smell better.

Sonnet,

I like you so, before I get started I should say I'm sorry I couldn't hide some of my frustration with non smokers who communicate their disgust enthusiastically and I hope that our disagreement is confined to the boundaries of this topic

I'm just gonna take this snippet first and analyse it.

Your smoke nauseates a great many of us, makes us queasy and short of breath and headachy, and makes a public environment noxious and unwelcoming. It stinks, too.

I used to know a woman who absolutely hated cats. She was allergic as all fuck to them. A cat walked past, her face became swollen and puffy, her eyes and nose started streaming and she'd get a rash.

Because of the kind of person she was (extremely cleanliness conscious and quite fussy), I always wondered, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did she hate cats because of her allergy or was the allergy it a psychosomatic reaction caused by a hatred of cats?

So one day she's visiting me and we're chatting away and my cat leaps on the back of the couch behind her. I didn't say anything when it curled itself up almost directly behind her head on the top back edge.

We sat chatting for about 30 minutes before she turned, saw the cat and had an allergic reaction. Now I'm not saying it was a fake reaction. By no means. She got a rash, for heavens sake.

But I've seen this over and over again. Your emotional response to things has a profound effect on your entire body. If you get excited, your pulse goes up. Excema on your skin is a common stress reaction and so on and so forth.

I don't claim that thats the entire cause of being "queasy and short of breath and headachy". When I smell a particularly revolting and powerful smell I find it had to suppress the urge to puke and its not an emotional reaction, so I can understand that sometimes it may be an unbiased involuntary response in a smoke filled room.

But I have my own experiences from before I began smoking. I used to find smoke very unpleasant before I started at about the age of 20 (I started for the stupidest of reasons - to give me something to do with a girl I was trying to woo). I hung around with a lot of smokers and I always thought it was quite an unpleasant odour.

I also knew people who thought it was a disgusting odour, and to the last one they had a certain personality type. Everything in its place, hygiene conscious to a fault and so on. I got the distinct impression a large part of the reaction was informed by their emotional reaction and I more or less maintain that instinctive understanding today.

Now I'm not saying that emotional reactions and their consequent psychosomatic reactions aren't valid issues. They are. What I am saying is that they are controllable by the person who feels them. Not without practice, but they are controllable.

What's happened, with smokers, is that people have been given carte blanche to conflate involuntary and voluntary effects of smoking and sum them up as the net harm that the smoker is doing to them, while smokers must say "I'm so sorry, I am a worm" to every accusation of perfidity,

I gave the example of an obese person because I have heard people guiltily complain how unpleasant and uncomfortable it was, sitting next to someone obese on the plane or bus that was sweating profusely (and in some cases occupying more than their alloted space), so your statement "when someone eats they don't make me fat" kind of missed my point. Very often obesity does affect people around you, just not in as great a degree.

Talking or playing your music extremely loud adversely affects people around you. Driving an SUV instead of an economy car adversely affects people around you. Eating too many beans adversely affects people around you. Wearing half a bottle of Poison (like my ex-bosses mother) adversely affects people around you. Never washing yourself adversely affects people around you. Being rude and nasty adversely affects people around you.

To a greater or lesser extent (and I would always say greater because of my beliefs) people around you can remain utterly unaffected, though, if they have understanding and control of their own emotions. Sadly, few people have much.

I really believe that a large component of the disgust many people feel in the presence of tobacco smoke falls well within this boundary. I can clearly recall being a non smoker sitting in smoke filled bars with friends thinking "its getting a bit much in here" and sinking down in my seat so I was a little below the line of haze that's hanging in the air and having another drink. Not "fuck I hate this!" not "christ I want to be sick!" just "phew, need a little more air" and wave a hand without much irritation. Perhaps that's why I found it so easy to just take it up when I wanted to share a bad habit with a hot girl.

And that's what I'm talking about when I talk about conflating things. Non-smokers have some valid gripes, which is why I'm painfully considerate, but in contemporary society there is no limit to the disgust and scorn they can heap on smokers and smoking. They can conflate any real concern with reflex, personally chosen emotional disgust and call the entire angry edifice "justified", but its not. A sense of proportion is necessary in all confrontational interactions.

There's one other issue. What few people who talk about "widely accepted" or even quote studies realise is that all the statistical evidence of increased risk is linked to both chronic (continuous) and heavy doses.

Several documents on the World Health Organisation site specifically state that work environments such as open plan offices and public spaces often make poor study areas because they often qualify as neither and have many other confounding variables, which is why most studies cited are homes with one heavily smoking spouse and one non-smoking spouse. Its the only place where regularity and volume add up to significant statistical increase in risk.

Think about that. The primary and most common source by far for all studies that criticise ETS are studies of homes where a non-smoker chose to live with a smoker. Not clubs. Not bars. Not railway stations. Even were we to unequivocally accept the harm indicated by these studies, it would mean the (hotly disputed and even called fraudulent by a judge) EPA figure of 3000 cases of cancer a year would be non smokers who chose to live with smokers, not commuters, club goers or the general, anonymous public.

Notwithstanding the (important) issue of children, why is all that data the source of anti-public-smoking laws, please?

And: what lunachick said.

Have you compared the supposed cancer-responsibility of ETS in the US (3000 cases a year) with the mortality rates caused by industrial waste and vehicle exhaust induced cancer? I don't want to go data hunting right now but I've been through the exercise previously and our societies have a huge number of risk vectors that are completely solveable, yet in almost all instance there's half as much legislation around those issues (such as industrial and vehicle emmissions) as there is around smoking.

If that isn't the smoking gun, prima facea evidence of the real motivation behind smoking legislation (mobs imposing personal dislikes on minorities), I don't know what is.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by Farren

If that isn't the smoking gun, prima facea evidence of the real motivation behind smoking legislation...

Not to mention the righteous heavy taxation of vice. Oldest trick in the book.


And all that other stuff you said, too.

[viscousmemories]

Weird. An issue I don't really have a strong opinion on.

I can see both sides pretty well, especially as someone who smoked for the majority of his life but hasn't for a few years. Farren I think you're oversimplifying quite a bit by reducing all complaints to that of the odor. I know from experience smoking generally impacts the environment and its inhabitants far more than just smelling bad. Not only can it irritate your eyes and lungs far more than a loud fart, it can also stain your walls and furniture, you can get ashes and little burns all over the place, etc. So I don't think it's fair to say that all criticism boils down to non-smokers finding it aesthetically unappealing.

At the same time I'm not offended by other people smoking, probably mostly because I don't frequent places where a lot of smoking goes on. Plus there's that whole I did it for 25 years so I can't really talk factor. I put countless people through the discomfort of smoke filled rooms, cars, etc. throughout my life, and never because I didn't care about people but because I was Philip Morris' (and then RJ Reynolds') bitch.

Anyway like I said, I think I understand both viewpoints but I honestly don't have really strong feelings about it one way or the other. I'm rarely in an environment where I'm surrounded by smoke and I'm not terribly disgusted by it or worried about SHS anyway, my history considered.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

...
Farren I think you're oversimplifying quite a bit by reducing all complaints to that of the odor.
...

I didn't. I explicitly stated that non smokers have some valid grips BUT a large component of criticism originates from simple dislike of the smell and society-at-large's overt declaration of open season on smokers.

[JoeP]

Foreign? There are only a couple of members here who aren't. Me and Farren of course.

Aren't there any UK members active?

Farren's covered our situation. It's largely similar to the NZ situation lunachick described. Workplace smoking is fairly tight; some provide smoking areas but for most it's out on the street, balcony or window-ledge. Some restaurants haev not much between their smoking sections and their non-smoking areas, which makes my blood boil: I don't mind smokers smoking and if in company I'll just stand upwind. But I can't stand the smell of smoke while I'm eating (you may guess around this point that I'm a lifetime non-smoker). I can't stand getting home from a bar and smelling smoke on my clothes and hair; everything goes into the incinerator. So I welcome legislation on providing at least some effective smoke-free areas for me, because the free market didn't do it.

The actual dangers of second-hand smoke are probably far less than industrial pollution, car pollution, domestic fires (of which we have a lot due to economy and tradition) etc.

But if you want a laissez-faire attitude try just about any other sub-Saharan country. Except maybe Zimbabwe where you'd have to join ZANU-PF just to get access to cigs you could afford.

One thing I don't find outside the US is this variation of laws from one town to another. Aus probably has different laws per state, and some things like the legal system differ between England and Scotland. But - I stand to be corrected - you don't get "dry counties" and individual towns banning smoking.

joe

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Farren

I didn't. I explicitly stated that non smokers have some valid grips BUT a large component of criticism originates from simple dislike of the smell and society-at-large's overt declaration of open season on smokers.

iirc
In support, at iidb, I pariticipated in a smoking thread where the smoker, even after admitting that the health risks were iffy, insisted that he would douse a smoker with water because he found the smoke offensive.

I responded that any nonsmoker that doused me with water would probably get beaten as throwing something one someone is assualt by definition.

[Godless Dave]

My city is on the verge of imposing an "indoor smoking ban", meaning restaurants and most bars will be completely non-smoking. Officially the rationale is the health of the employees even more so than the non-smoking customers. Customers can ask for the non-smoking section but the servers don't have that option. While the precise health risks of second-hand smoke have not been determined, it's a good bet that it's bad for you. I know just being in a smoky bar will trigger my asthma.

So far so good, as far as I'm concerned, if protecting the health of service employees were the real reason. But it turns out that a good chunk of state money that's supposed to be dedicated to educating people to quit smoking or not start (money the state won in a legal settlement with the tobacco industry) has been used to lobby city and county governments to enact these bans! The first time it happened people cried foul - it's one thing for residents of a municipality to lobby their government about laws that effect them, but it's outrageous IMNSHO for a state agency to do so. But the state agency is still doing it. Their rationale is that these indoor smoking bans are incentive for some people to quit. That may be true - but behavior modification is not their fucking job! That money was supposed to educate Minnesotans so they could better make informed decisions about tobacco use, not to lobby for legislation!

As you can tell I'm pretty pissed about this. Almost makes me wish Jesse Ventura had run for a second term.

So anyway, my take is I don't generally find indoor bans unduly restrictive (although I think restaurants and bars should be able to allow smoking in outdoor seating areas if they want), but many anti-tobacco activists piss me off and seem to confuse protecting the health of non-smokers (good cause) with getting on the cases of smokers (mind your own fucking business, this is America).

My city's city council actually passed a ban on smoking outdoors in city parks! Fortunately the mayor (who I otherwise hate, fucking traitor Bush supporter) vetoed it.

Obviously my opinion is influenced by the fact that I, too, like to use smoking as a drug-delivery method, although my drug of choice isn't nearly as addictive and doesn't contain carcinogens.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

iirc
In support, at iidb, I pariticipated in a smoking thread where the smoker, even after admitting that the health risks were iffy, insisted that he would douse a smoker with water because he found the smoke offensive.

I responded that any nonsmoker that doused me with water would probably get beaten as throwing something one someone is assualt by definition.

I assume you meant the non-smoker said he would soak the smoker. You see this same extremism with the animal rights forces and their paint throwing at fur wearers...all because they are "offended".

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I assume you meant the non-smoker said he would soak the smoker. You see this same extremism with the animal rights forces and their paint throwing at fur wearers...all because they are "offended".

yep, that person. I find such extremism to be offensive. assualting people is just wrong.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Farren

But let a smoker pass within 10 feet of them and they catch a wiff of smoke and they're apopleptic with rage and ready to tell the person they're a Satanic baby killer.

Oh come on, Farren. Tell me seriously you've never sacrificed a baby to Satan? You sick dog-kisser.



(And btw, note how we atheists don't bother to say "Satan" or S*t*n or rigidly use lower case?)

[wildernesse]

Athens has recently passed a no smoking ban--it affects more than just restaurants and bars, but those are the places that I mostly run into it. For restaurants and bars, though, the smoking ban is only in effect from 7am to 11pm.

I think this is a pretty good compromise for these places--altho the non-smoking ordinance is based partially on the harmful effects of smoke on non-smoking employees, which you would think would still be an issue for employees of restaurants/bars in the hours which the smoking ban is lifted.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Athens has recently passed a no smoking ban--it affects more than just restaurants and bars, but those are the places that I mostly run into it. For restaurants and bars, though, the smoking ban is only in effect from 7am to 11pm.

I think this is a pretty good compromise for these places--altho the non-smoking ordinance is based partially on the harmful effects of smoke on non-smoking employees, which you would think would still be an issue for employees of restaurants/bars in the hours which the smoking ban is lifted.

when I lived there I had heard that they had passed the law. and when I went out drinking with some friends a couple of months ago I didnt think about why we could smoke at transmetropolitan. I didnt realize the smoking ban was time restricted.

but its cool, I probably wouldnt even go to bars if they were nonsmoking.

[Petra]

As of midnight tonight, smoking will become illegal in bars, etc.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?...jectID=9002394

[Adora]

If it's not banned here nationally in bars and restaurants yet, I sincerely hope it soon will be. As someone who has pussy-fuck lungs since she was a kid (7 years of Bronchilasthma will do that to you) I hate smokers with a passion. There's just something about fainting from lack of breath when you're trying to play an indoor netball game because some fucks up on the balcony feel like having a ciggy that kind of makes you hold a grudge against smokers. And for the record, the asthma came first before I started hating smokers. And that horrible smell that permeates everything around you is just disgusting. How can you live with it? I can barely stand my brother when he comes home from work unless he's had a shower (he works in an RSL for the record).

That, and I don't really appreciate breathing poison when I'm trying to eat/have fun when I go out. But hey, that's just me and my respect for my body. There is absolutely nothing you can say that can justify smoking in my mind. It stinks, it makes you stink, it's poison that harms both you and the people around you, and nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. I mean, really, how fucking stupid can you be?

Many non smokers, trapped next to an incredibly overweight, sweating individual on an airplane and feeling horribly uncomfortable, might say "I mustn't judge, it must be horrible to be that fat". But let a smoker pass within 10 feet of them and they catch a wiff of smoke and they're apopleptic with rage and ready to tell the person they're a Satanic baby killer.

Wanna make a bet? In both cases, all I can think is "Wow, you really don't like your body, do you?", because in both cases, you're abusing it to a stupid extreme. In both cases, I don't say anything, because I know it's not worth the blood pressure, but that doesn't change my thought patterns.

I had an argument like this with my father a few nights ago. Granted, he was slightly pissed, but the logic was similar.

Him: "I had almost all my teeth pulled when I was 18 and I've never had to pay massive dentists' bills or worry about teeth problems."
Me: "Yes, but that was because you used to drink 3 cans of coke a day, ate too much chocolate and never brushed."
Him: "But I still have never had tooth problems you teeth-keeping-people have."
Me: "Yes, but you abused your body, and not many people enjoy carrying around a call-card saying they did that with false-teeth when you're 22 and all."

It's another stupid extreme, and you can justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact you're consciously abusing your body in the same way cutters and more illicit drug-abusers do.

Very often obesity does affect people around you, just not in as great a degree.

Yes, but you can eat healthy foods, and live and active healthy life, and it is not the act of eating that is causing you harm.

There is no choice of positives like this with smoking. You buy cigarettes/tobacco, and it's the same problem, in different packaging. You can't buy "healthy" smokes. Smoking is inherently damaging to your system, and the evironment around you.

Before anyone asks, the people who are my friends who smoke know my stance on this, and never do it when I'm close to their prescence, in the same way I don't eat chocolate in front of a friend who's chronically allergic to it (poor thing). It's just plain old rude.