Smokin'!

First off, if a vegan is smoking they're a moron and deserve to be mocked relentlessly as they're obviously too far up their own ass to do the due diligence that is required of every vegan in changing their lifestyle. Cigarettes are widely known to be tested on animals, honey/honey byproducts are used as natural sweeteners, etc. Kinda goes against their supposed choice to live within vegan means, no?

You're going to need a little bit more than "you'd be surprised!" logic to convince me that the average smoker doesn't give a shit about what they put in their body, that they're probably right in line (if not worse) with the average person as far as consumption of shitty food, etc. Proof is a nice thing. I feel like it's common sense that a smoker would have a shittier diet than a non-smoker, but since I can't expect something out of you I won't do myself, here's some reading.

<a class="postlink" href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1988.tb00471.x/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/5/933.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/5/933.abstract</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2010/06/05/jech.2009.099440.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2010/ ... 0.abstract</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://cpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://cpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/279</a>

Where did I say cigarettes should be illegal?

I feel like you're missing the point, but for the sake of your comparisons I'll indulge you.

Porn is awesome. I feel like any educated, secure, level headed socially sane person would agree with that. If you saw some guy watching porn at the table next you while in you're in the middle of dinner with your girlfriend, volume turned all the way up, a screen so big that you can see ingrown hairs on an asshole....would you be annoyed? if it was bothersome to your present company, would it not upset you? You don't hate porn, you don't give a shit who watches what, but is it not a little unreasonable for him to be doing it there? Go home, or outside, or somewhere that people don't mind standing around in a group and watching porn.

Drinking is awesome. Most people who truly enjoy life and everything it offers drink socially and have been known to get a little loose. Should drinking be illegal because of the blacked out frat star trying to finger girls in the bar, throwing beer bottles into trashcans and missing, picking fights, throwing up on the bar? No, but that activity is frowned upon/not welcome because it bothers the rest of the bar. Are you seeing a theme here?

TV? If you're in a library, is it okay for someone to sit next to you, flip on Netflix and watch season one of Bones at full volume? I mean, he's just trying to enjoy himself. Would it not bother you? Or perhaps he can do it in a way that wouldn't be bothersome? Maybe headphones? You know...keeping his business and shitty tv show to himself? He's not doing anything illegal, but if only there were some sort of rule that would make him go do it somewhere that's not around me. Maybe I'll write a strongly worded letter to someone and suggest that.

Do you get the point? It's not an all or nothing affair. If someone goes into a smoking bar, and sits there and complains about how bad it smells and how awful of a time they're having, then fucking leave. You made the choice. If you go to a bar that makes you smoke outside and you hate it, fucking leave. You made the choice. If you want to smoke, your consciously limiting what you can do in public and where you can do it. That's your choice. I like banging my girlfriend. I wish I could do it whenever and wherever I wanted. What? Sex bothers you while you're trying to pick out a TV at Best Buy? I guess you think sex should be BANNED. What next, you're going to take away my guns? Or maybe if I like fucking in public I should just go to a swingers club or do it somewhere it's not bothering anyone.

I like the analogy, I really do. Actually pretty funny. Rosa Parks' incident was a planned demonstration in the name of that one tiny little, miniscule thing that wasn't important at all...I think it was called civil rights or something. I dunno. Probably on the same level with someone wanting to smoke a cigarette though. I'm not even going to open the can of worms that's running a business model that caters to smokers. Talk about a limited customer base, and an expiring one at that.

I made those ridiculous comparisons because thats exactly what all of this is, ridiculous. It boggles my mind how someone can think that behavior that is potentially harmful and bothersome to the general public can get upset when it's called into question. I just don't get it. You'll have some witty retort, and try to poke holes in my obviously exaggerated logic, but that'll just prove my point even further.

This isn't a witch hunt, this isn't an infringement on your fucking rights as a citizen, nothing is being taken from you. You're being asked to do it somewhere that it doesn't bother people. That's it. If you can't comprehend that and accept it, you have bigger problems than smoking.

 

I started smoking regularly when I was 18. I know it's bad for me, and I know I need to quit.

I have no problem not smoking inside. I don't smoke in my car or in my apartment because I don't want the smell stuck to everything. Even before there was no smoking in restaurants at all, I would usually sit in the no-smoking section if I was going to be having a meal. The only time I would ever sit in the smoking section was if I was just with someone at a Denny's or something for coffee really late at night. So that doesn't bother me. As for bars, I have been in both smoking and non-smoking bars and it's not a huge problem for me to just go outside and have a smoke.

Honestly I'm alright with no smoking inside because I smoke far less when I actually have to go outside to have a cigarette. When I spent time in Austria I went through more cigarettes in the month that I was there than I normally would in twice that amount of time. You could smoke everywhere and by the time I got back I was kicking myself. I have never smoked that much a day before or since. As far as outside entrances of buildings, I guess I can get that if it's a really busy one with people constantly going in and out. At that point it's not so much about the smoke as it is about people standing around blocking people. If it's a back entrance that nobody uses I think smoking should be alright, and have a place to put the butts, cause I don't leave them on the ground and I hate having to carry them around in my pack until I can find one.

I try to be as courteous as I can when I smoke. If I am with a non-smoker, I'll do my best to stay down wind so the smoke doesn't blow in their face. I never leave butts lying around because I think it's disrespectful and gross. However, if I'm doing all I can to stay out of your way and you go out of your way to come up and bitch at me I think you really need more to do with your life.

 

I would be annoyed, but I simply wouldn't go to a restaurant that allowed people to watch porn loudly, I don't think the government should say that no restaurant can allow anyone to watch porn. Do you think it should be strictly illegal for a restaurant to allow porn for a niche market of customers who want to watch Scootah gang bang people with stuff he found lying around his wood shop while they eat their tacos? I don't

I'm not sure if you're equating the smoker to an annoying drunk douche, but if the smokers were bothering people that much, then where were all the smoke free bars before the ban? If it was as annoying to everyone (and I'll admit it annoyed me enough to not want to go sometimes, but I'm an exception) as you say it was there should have been as many or almost as many smoke free bars as ones that allow smoking, just like most bars toss out idiot drunks.

Again, I just wouldn't go to a library that allowed that, this one is a little tricky since most are government run, but I think you know where I'm going with this. Maybe a better example would be a bookstore with an area to read, I would stop going to that bookstore if they didn't stop people from watching Netflix at full blast and go to the one that enforces silence. But I don't think it should be law that "if you open a bookstore, you MUST have a place for people to read quietly."

It was admittedly poorly worded, but I meant banning them in public, ie. bars can't serve alcohol, have big screens for sports games, serve junk food, etc because people don't like it. You have to do all that at home where you're not "bothering anybody."

This is where the argument really comes to a head, where do you define where it doesn't bother people? I totally understand banning it from public parks, government owned buildings etc, but if people are really bothered by others smoking in a bar, they simply shouldn't go. It should be up to the owners and patrons what they are willing to accept, not lawmakers. And like I said before, if it really is that bad, then why weren't there a shit load of smoke free bars before?

 

To those who suggest that you should be able to smoke outside freely because it's open air and there's already several contaminants in the atmosphere (and since I have frequently done it myself, I acknowledge the hypocrisy of this question):

What if I suggested that I should be allowed to blow a vuvuzela outside, since it's the open air, and there's already a lot of noise pollution? What if I did it in Central Park? Would you support the police labeling this behavior as a public nuisance/disturbance of the peace? Would you at least admit that it is dick-ish?


Unrelated: anti-smoking campaigns frequently zero in on peer pressure. "Come on dude, it's just one. Just try it. You'll be cool!"

Am I the only one who never experienced anything like that? In fact, dramatically the opposite? My friends and acquaintances, if anything, exhibited peer pressure in the opposite direction, reminded me what an idiot I was. And those who smoked rarely "pushed" it; the dynamic was more one of camaraderie between those who had already picked up the habit.

 

I started smoking in the last couple of years. I didn't do it in high school because I worked in my family's restaurant and I knew I wouldn't get a smoke break for my whole shift.

I went away for college, which is where I picked up the habit. By the time I moved back home, there was a city-wide ban on smoking. So far, it hasn't been much of a problem for me, although this may have to do with the fact that I started smoking around the time that these no-smoking laws started to get popular. Scranton is just small enough where, as long as you are not inside the building, the staff doesn't really hassle anyone.

 

I started smoking when I was 15. I quit smoking regularly when I was amost 30. I have two good buddies from college that still smoke, and I get to together with them about once a year. When we go out, I smoke with them (I buy my own, so I don't mooch off them). I love smoking and reading this thread makes me want to smoke right now. I am still a smoker, I just don't do it anymore. The only reason I don't still do it regularly is because I know how bad is for me.

I didn't see anybody say this yet, so I will. I started smoking because I thought it was cool, and a lot of people do that. A lot of people keep smoking into their 30's because they think it's cool (after that, it's just because you're addicted to the nicotine and the oral fixation). Most artists / musicians / actors do it because they think it's cool, and is typically portrayed that way on screen. I also liked that in college, girls would come up to me to bum a smoke (if she smokes, she pokes) and it was a good ice breaker. Girls with whom I normally wouldn't have the nerve to strike up a conversation would come up to talk to me instead. So, it seemed cool.

 

This is incredibly interesting, in the T-34c that I flew in Primary from July-November they have an ash tray in the front and rear cockpits. Also, in the back seat of the TH-57 that I fly now, there is one on the back of the pilots seat. In these old school Naval training aircraft, they allowed smoking in the cockpit while flying. During my one of my first cockpit test where I'm blindfolded and I have to pick out instruments from memory, the instructor asked where the ash tray was, I had no idea.

 

I used to smoke. I started when I was 23. I quit on New Years of this year and haven't had one since. My grandmother and dad smoked. My grandmother died of emphysema a few years ago. My dad is attempting to quit. He's in his 60s and has been smoking since he was a teenager.

I started when I was out drinking with my friends. I had just moved back to Hawaii and was standing outside the bar with a friend while we were waiting for some more people to show up. I was stressed out with my move, getting a job and all the bullshit that entails. I asked for one of his Marlboro Lights and enjoyed the shit out of it. The next week we all went out, I had my own pack. I lead the way during our exodus to the smoking area outside.

I stopped because it's getting close to $9 a pack for my Marlboro 27's. While I could afford to continue smoking, I figured that the $50 a week I'd be spending on cigarettes would be better spent on booze and stuff that doesn't make me and my apartment stick.

I find it more than a little disconcerting that I would have been labeled a windowlicking idiot by some of you because they saw me enjoying a cigarette in my car or wherever. I wasn't breaking any laws, using a legal product that's bad for me. Using that kind of logic, it would make sense for me to immediately label a majority of you people retarded because you use a product that leads to liver failure, brain damage and death. I honestly think most of the vitriol comes not because cigarettes are bad for you, but because of the smell.

 

I think this is probably true of most people, and is the only reason I have been tempted to smoke in the past. Of course, I was already pretty uncool when I was younger, and smoking cigarettes wasn't going to do a damn thing to change that.

 

I get what you're saying here and while some may find the smell of smoke as offensive as the sound of a vuvuzela I find it more likely that someone blowing the horn will get their ass kicked by many more people because one horn will affect more people than one person smoking. Is it close to the same thing? I'm a smoker so clearly I'm going to say no for the reason mentioned, my smoke will affect fewer people than that damn horn. Yes its dick-ish and I see where that came from, I just don't think its equally dick-ish. I don't see that as the same. You can walk a short distance to avoid the smoke, much further to avoid the horn. The horn can do damage immediately, second hand smoke won't unless you stand there breathing it in for years while you protest the scum-bag smokers who keep smoking outside of the same bars you happen to frequent.

Aside from that I don't mind smoking outside. I won't smoke in my home because I don't like the smell and I even avoid some bars where the smoke is extra thick. We still have some bars that are grand-fathered in or have chosen to be all smoking, all the time. Because I don't like the smell and understand the health risks involved with smoking I get why some people don't want to deal with it. But don't fuck with me when I've gone outside to smoke. I only really smoke when I'm drinking so if you blow me shit you'll either get drunk me angry or just be ignored completely. I'm not that important and you don't care what I think, fine just know the same applies to you. Of course when I say "you" I mean anyone who might "have a problem" with me personally or say something to me about it while I'm doing it, not anyone here.

 

I found, and my roommate agreed with me, that most of my smoking was being done out of boredom. If I didn't have anything going on at the moment I would go outside and have a smoke. It also was more of a physical habit with my hands than anything. I would go out to my car to go somewhere and I would go for a smoke. I wouldn't miss the nicotine but the activity of doing something with my hands.

 

The parallel can be drawn because both are behavioral and the health consequences are preventable by modifying those behaviors. The number of smokers has declined sharply in the last 20 years (although the decline has tapered off in recent years), while obesity has reached epidemic status (and is linked with the same number of leading causes of death as smoking, including cancer, heart disease and stroke). My point is, smoking and obesity (poor diet, sedentary lifestyle) both pose grave health risks, and if the government is going to apply a sin tax, it should be applied to both. It's like taxing winnings from the craps table but not from the blackjack table.

 

Did you read the rest of my post? There might be a parallel, but I specifically said equivocating. One smoker will be a vastly greater burden on the health care system than one fast food eater. The smokers retorting "You think I'm a burden on the health care system? Well, your diet isn't too optimal" comes across like someone who chronically sends text messages while driving as saying "You accuse me of causing traffic accidents? Well, you drive 10 over the limit", which neglects the fact that many texters also drive 10 over the limit while texting.

 

Slippery slope here...

Some lower income families/single parents will argue that they don't have money to buy proper groceries, nor the time or energy to cook every night for their children. I feel like it's pretty common knowledge that fast food corporations/food manufacturers target low income areas/children so that would be an argument that would be plastered on every blog, daytime talk show, checkout lane magazine, etc. "People are choosing to smoke, it's a luxury that they're making a decision to spend money on. I can't afford whole grain bread and fresh fruit/veggies...it's cheaper to just do fast food..."

I'm of the opinion that as a parent you should do whatever you can to manage and control what your children are putting into their bodies, instilling good eating habits, nutritional awareness, etc but I can see how it would be easier to just roll through McDonalds on the way home from work. They're "left with no other choice", which is bullshit when taken to the extreme that they do, but an understandable situation.

 

How about putting a sin tax on couches and chairs? The direct link between cigarettes and lung cancer is quite a bit stronger than obesity to fast food.

I'm against all forms of tax that try to influence someone's behavior. Especially when the tax is used to balance the budget or appropriated to irrelevant resources i.e. the sin tax.

It's an easy tax to levy when your target are the poor and uneducated. But it's downright unethical to impose the tax and use the revenue for other purposes.

 

A sin tax on fast food would work if accompanied by agricultural subsidy reform, which sadly is not happening anytime soon. If broccoli and carrots were significantly subsidized that's what more poor people would eat.

 

They do, it's called Medicaid. Too bad you can use food stamps to buy all kinds of shit that isn't nutritious.

Besides, produce isn't exactly expensive, especially compared to fast food.




Am I the only one that finds a thread about taxation turning to subsidies a bit ironic?

 

In terms of caloric density there's obviously a major difference. When you have $5-$10 per meal to feed an entire family purchasing dollar cheeseburgers might be the logical options. Obviously I'd want food stamps reformed to stay consistent with this hypothetical policy change. No irony, these subsidies already exist, but because multinational conglomerates have pull in congress the vast majority goes towards shit that subsidizes fast food (corn, wheat, etc.).

 

One of the new bars that opened up here in Huntsville was voluntarily non-smoking, and a lot of the customers loved it, and go there largely for that reason. Free market WIN! Woot!

They have a small outdoor space in front of the bar, 4 small tables, maybe 12-16 seats, with like a 3 foot tall fence around it, defining the space. The only people who ever go out there are people leaving the bar to smoke, especially since it's too cold still to be drinking outside.

About a week ago, the owner put up a no smoking sign in the outdoor area and has asked smokers to please go around to the side of the building. Apparently walking through a very thin cloud of smoke for an entire one second is too much for some people.

I think businesses should be free to handle smokers however they want, but fuck me, make a God damn rational choice at least!