Short Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke

[YT2095]

have you Seen the price of Cigs nowadays!, these ungrateful passive smoking freeloaders should be paying US!

[ParanoiA]

LOL! Have a Ronald McDonald with his hands out, saying "If you are wider than this, eat a salad"

 

Oh, now that would be sweet...

 

 

have you Seen the price of Cigs nowadays!, these ungrateful passive smoking freeloaders should be paying US!

 

I think that's the first time I've seen that argument. Excellent. I'm going to start using that as my opener...

[Sayonara]

That might actually work. If they are too tight-fisted to buy their own fags, they will scarper the moment you start charging.

[SkepticLance]

Sayonara made the following comment, relating to my description of smokers as idiotic.

 

However that is not even what you meant. The implication of "a person who is idiotic enough to smoke" is pretty clear; you are proposing that one must be an idiot to smoke. It is hardly ambiguous.

Given that idiots are traditionally linked with exhibiting idiotic behaviour, you can't seriously expect now that someone has taken offence to be able to change tack and say that you were "talking about behaviours rather than people". Particularly considering the fact that you were actually, if you remember, talking about people. Or I presume they are people, since on the subsequent four occasions you mention the smoking assistant in your experiment, you refer to them as "the sucker".

 

You have been warned without infraction points ("verbally", you might say) because it was obviously an off-the-cuff comment. I don't intend to labour over this any further and I am not interested if you "disagree" with me or not.

Learn from the mistake of assuming that you are free to take pot-shots at a group you perceive to be universally unpopular, and move on. I know that you are quite capable of making your points without needing to flaunt petty prejudices.

 

Let me tell you a story, Sayonara.

 

I am now 58 years old. When I was 14, I was told of the fact that smoking caused lung cancer. That was 44 years ago. I decided on the spot that I would not smoke, and I have not. I am a non smoker, and I do my best to persuade everyone else not to smoke.

 

Now, unless you are a lot older than me, you would have had access to the same information. I am aware that you are a smoker and that you take offense at being told that smokers are 'idiots', or any implication that says the same thing. If you are a lot older than 58, and you inform me so, I will apologise to you for personal affront.

 

If you are younger than me, then you took up smoking knowing that it was damaging to your own health. Without apology, I tell you that was an idiotic decision. By definition, anyone who engages in idiotic behaviour is behaving as an idiot. In the same way, I do not hesitate to tell anyone who takes up smoking, then they are behaving as an idiot.

 

I accept that if you became an addict in the days before we knew better, then you are unfortunate. However, if you willingly took up smoking any time in the last 44 years, you did so in the clear knowledge of harm to yourself. That is a self destructive act, and has to be described as idiotic. If that offends you, tough!

[ParanoiA]

That is a self destructive act, and has to be described as idiotic. If that offends you, tough!

 

Do you eat cheese? Grease? Fried chicken? Do you inhale automobile exhaust?

 

If you ever leave the house without need you are engaging in a self destructive act. You will more than likely die from transportation per statistics. So, while going back and forth to work is a necessity, going to meet friends, or taking a drive and etc is not a necessity and is therefore idiotic right? It's a needless self destructive behavior, which is, in your words, idiotic.

[Royston]

I am now 58 years old. When I was 14, I was told of the fact that smoking caused lung cancer. That was 44 years ago. I decided on the spot that I would not smoke, and I have not. I am a non smoker, and I do my best to persuade everyone else not to smoke.

 

How can you be accountable for what you did when you were 14 that is ridiculous, people change funnily enough, so you can't label people idiots for acts they did, which for me would be over 17 years ago now (when I started smoking), also overlooking the myriad of reasons why people do start smoking.

 

However, (back on topic) I actually welcome the smoking ban (albeit I do smoke), although I disagree with SkepticLance that smokers are idiots, but I think people should be encouraged to give up, and if you need to dash out to have a cigarette outside, then it would make you think twice, as to whether you really need a cigarette. Smoking 'is' pointless, it merely satisfies a craving that you shouldn't have to begin with. As long as the ban doesn't extend to your own home, then I can't see the problem with it personally.

[Sayonara]

Blah blah blah.

So basically, you are admitting that yes, you in fact lied to an admin just to wriggle out of something that wasn't even an official sanction.

 

You are in violation of the site rules. You can keep that and as many other strong but unhelpful opinions as you want, just don't bother us with them.

[ParanoiA]

Smoking 'is' pointless, it merely satisfies a craving that you shouldn't have to begin with.

 

But this is a subjective argument. It isn't pointless. It reminds me of pity offered to a crazy person dribbling on himself while starring out a window...smiling. The gut instinct is to feel sorry for him, when really he should be feeling sorry for you. He's happy...all the damn time. Not exactly fact, but you should at least appreciate the point.

 

Smoking isn't pointless. You create the illusion of "euphoria" by getting yourself addicted to nicotine, then you simply satisfy the craving - creating your euphoria. Yes, to most of us this is self dillusional and destructive. To others, it's a kick ass way to be euphoric relatively easy. I have to do illegal and more dangerous drugs to get there.

 

I'm an ex-smoker. And I can't stand the anti-smoking nazis. Whether SkepticLance wants to admit it or not, he thinks he's better than you. He thinks you're weak. And like the pushy bible thumpers that insist on "saving" everyone, he thinks he's noble trying to get everyone to quit. I think he's arrogant and foolish to assume his "life view" should be anyone else's.

 

 

 

SkepticLance-

 

My dad smokes too, although after neck surgery, I think he's required to quit - something about vertabrae not fusing correctly?? Anyway, he's seen lots of non-smokers die. Old people who are in terrific shape - everything working perfectly...except for one part. Just enough to stay bedridden and die slowly for years and years on end. Quality of life = nil.

 

So, how smart is that? My dad's personal "life view" was to drink and smoke and be merry so when any of his body's parts start going bad, then perhaps the whole thing will go bad and he'll just die - instead of wasting away in a white hospital room in depression.

 

Is he an idiot? Maybe doesn't jive with your life view, but how smart are those other people who took such great care of themselves that they wouldn't die and stayed bedridden while their family waits for them to die - a cloud hanging over everyone's happiness that never goes away.

 

Maybe he's wrong. But he's not an idiot. He's a critical thinker. A true critical thinker is not always going to agree with the masses...that's why they call it critical thinking. You should try it. Instead of always assuming a certain group is "stupid" or "idiotic", try realizing that other's ideas of life and happiness are different than your own.

 

Not everyone measures success by money and assets - just like not everyone measures a good life by how long you live.

[YT2095]

besides, Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cig in one hand, beer in the other, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[Royston]

But this is a subjective argument. It isn't pointless. It reminds me of pity offered to a crazy person dribbling on himself while starring out a window...smiling. The gut instinct is to feel sorry for him, when really he should be feeling sorry for you. He's happy...all the damn time. Not exactly fact, but you should at least appreciate the point.

 

Paranoia, can you change the quote to me, it's marked as Sisyphus.

 

Smoking isn't pointless. You create the illusion of "euphoria" by getting yourself addicted to nicotine, then you simply satisfy the craving - creating your euphoria. Yes, to most of us this is self dillusional and destructive. To others, it's a kick ass way to be euphoric relatively easy. I have to do illegal and more dangerous drugs to get there..

 

I guess it's a matter of opinion...but I certainly don't feel euphoric after smoking a cigarette, I just stop feeling agitated because I was craving a cigarette...that's the difference between addiction, and actually getting a high out of something e.g somebody doesn't skydive because they want relief from having their feet on the ground for so long...they do it for the thrill.

 

If you're a regular smoker, there's no thrill or high in smoking, it's just fullfilling a need, a need that I personally would rather do without. So, this is why I have no problem with the smoking ban, it may be a subjective statement, but I'm sure there are people that will share this view.

[Dak]

Paranoia, can you change the quote to me, it's marked as Sisyphus.

 

I don't know if paranoia will still be able to edit the post after this long, so i did it.

 

If you're a regular smoker, there's no thrill or high in smoking, it's just fullfilling a need, a need that I personally would rather do without. So, this is why I have no problem with the smoking ban, it may be a subjective statement, but I'm sure there are people that will share this view.

 

I kinda agree (and, incidentally, the number of people who smoke but don't want to, coupled with it's fatality, is why i'd support an outright ban on smoking, i.e. make it illegal like heroine is).

 

however, i do object to people saying, in one breath, that smoking's ok and should be legal, and our country should get huge amounts from taxing peoples legal addiction to a drug, whereas in the other breath they say that they themselves shouldn't be exposed to ciggarette smoke, even tho they're perfectly able to choose a pub/club with adequate air-con and/or no smoking policies/areas.

 

y'know, the way they'd profit from our unhealthy addiction, but not want to be exposed to it if they happen to not be arsed to chose a non-smoking area to hang out. kill yourself for our profit in private, please, but dont make me have to slightly share in your ill health that i'm paying less tax as a result of

 

either illegalise it completely, or accept it; not both.

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia, can you change the quote to me, it's marked as Sisyphus.

 

Sorry about that.

 

I guess it's a matter of opinion...but I certainly don't feel euphoric after smoking a cigarette, I just stop feeling agitated because I was craving a cigarette...that's the difference between addiction, and actually getting a high out of something e.g somebody doesn't skydive because they want relief from having their feet on the ground for so long...they do it for the thrill.

 

Point taken. The "euphoria" concept was introduced to me by a stop smoking speech that made me think. It also reminded me of Pavlov's Dog. That may be a bit of a strong word to use, but it makes sense. By creating an addiction, I had, essentially, created a conditioned response - pleasure - when that addiction was satisfied. I basically had fooled myself into believing I needed this cigarette to feel good.

 

The thing is..it works. I did feel good after a cigarette. Especially after meals and during drinking. And after a couple of years, I kind of miss them because I don't have that "conditioned pleasure" habit anywhere else in my life. Why do I miss it? Because it feels good to crave something and then satisfy that craving.

 

Some could easily argue that what does it matter how you achieved the craving, when the pleasure is in the satisfaction of the craving?

[ParanoiA]

however, i do object to people saying, in one breath, that smoking's ok and should be legal, and our country should get huge amounts from taxing peoples legal addiction to a drug, whereas in the other breath they say that they themselves shouldn't be exposed to ciggarette smoke, even tho they're perfectly able to choose a pub/club with adequate air-con and/or no smoking policies/areas.

 

Ok...how about multiple breathes?

 

1) Smoking should be legal - including heroine.

 

2) Our country should not get huge amounts of taxes, but rather standard sales tax like any other product or service.

 

3) No establishment has a right to emit mustard gas or allow others to do so, so why should smoke be any different? (This is an awkward POV for me to take, a recent development, but someone made this point sometime back and I have to admit, it's difficult to defend "smoking areas").

[Dak]

Yes, but that's not the stance being taken by my country. their stance is:

 

1) Smoking should be legal -- unlike heroine.

 

2) Our country should get huge amounts of taxes from tobacco.

 

3) No establishment has a right to emit mustard gas or allow others to do so, so why should smoke be any different?

 

iow... smoking is so dangerouse that we can't risk people who are clever enough to not smoke but too stupid to chose a non-smoking pub being exposed to cigarrette smoke.

 

however, we can let people who are stupid enough to smoke do so, and we can use their addiction to extract loads of tax from them too.

 

see why i think that's hypocritical? i have different views from you re: drug control of the more dangerous drugs (like heroine and nicotine), but at least your last post was internally consistant.

 

PS, as long as you don't have to go too near smoking areas, I don't see a problem. unlike mustard gas, tobacco smoke won't travel on the wind and melt peoples lungs.

[john5746]

Yes, but that's not the stance being taken by my country. their stance is:

 

1) Smoking should be legal -- unlike heroine.

 

2) Our country should get huge amounts of taxes from tobacco.

 

3) No establishment has a right to emit mustard gas or allow others to do so, so why should smoke be any different?

 

 

1) We have too many addicts, so we make concessions to allow people to destroy themselves. Trying to make it illegal would not get enough support and just drive it underground. Similar to alcohol.

 

2) Yes, making it legal doesn't make it desirable. Smoking costs money in healthcare, lost time working, environment, etc. Extra taxes should be levied to offset the costs(even though they are not used that way). Higher costs also keep some younger people from getting hooked in the first place.

 

3) That is a good point, but if you have signs everywhere warning people, they do not have to enter. To me the main argument is the employees. Maybe you have to pay 100% of the employee healthcare costs related to smoking damage? That in itself will probably get rid of smoking.

[ParanoiA]

2) Yes, making it legal doesn't make it desirable. Smoking costs money in healthcare, lost time working, environment, etc. Extra taxes should be levied to offset the costs(even though they are not used that way). Higher costs also keep some younger people from getting hooked in the first place.

 

I could very easily see this turning into a complete audit of each person's lifestyle and health issues. Kind of like how income taxes have turned into a yearly nightmare of endless legal beaurocracy to the point people actually go to college and make a living out of helping people comply with a law.

 

One person smokes 3 packs a day, another person smokes half a pack a day. One person eats nothing but fried foods and ice cream but doesn't smoke at all, while someone who smokes half a pack and regularly works out and eats right has to pay higher taxes for it.

 

If you're going to do it to smokers, then you have to consider everyone else too. There are plenty of other habits that can drive everyone's costs up as well, whether they engage in it or not. How about hang gliding? How about police officers? Building window washers?

 

By the time you work out a tax system that's supposedly "fair", everyone will be back to paying every penny of their own respective costs per their own lifestyle choices, which circumvents the whole concept behind group insurance coverage.

[SkepticLance]

Let me give you guys a bit more background, and you might understand my stance more.

 

My father took up smoking at age 29, as a young man in the north African desert in World War II. At the time, no-one knew of the long term devastating consequences, and of course, the stress levels on the front line in the African desert were unbelievable. My father saw both of his best friends die within metres of him. I accept that, for him taking up smoking, there was justification. He later died slowly of lung cancer!

 

My father-in-law died an even nastier death. He was a long term smoker and contracted emphysema. He spent the last few years of his life on pure oxygen struggling for every breath, till he died. That is a process of dying of slow strangulation.

 

I decided not to start, many years before either father or father-in-law died. My dear old Dad, however, strongly approved of my decision. I accept that, once you start, it is very difficult to give up, and only those people with exceptional strength of will are likely to succeed.

 

Today, and any time over the past 44 years that I am aware of, there has been ample information telling people of the harm of smoking. I am not calling smokers idiots. However, I am saying that the act of taking up smoking - getting yourself addicted to a self-destructive substance - is an idiotic behaviour.

 

I have been told that heavy smokers (defined as 2 or more packs per day) obey a 60:60 rule. 60% will die before they are 60 years old. I am 58 years old and in the pink of health. Had I been a heavy smoker, I would probably be dead.

 

It is understandable that those who smoke will justify their original decision to smoke, and come up with slogans like "eat, smoke, and drink, and be merry." My father and father-in-law showed that smoking does not make you merry. It makes you dead. Slowly and painfully!

[ParanoiA]

Today, and any time over the past 44 years that I am aware of, there has been ample information telling people of the harm of smoking. I am not calling smokers idiots. However, I am saying that the act of taking up smoking - getting yourself addicted to a self-destructive substance - is an idiotic behaviour.

 

And so is leaving the house without need. Your post doesn't change anything. It just adds emotion to an illogical charge. I guess I could call my dad for a couple of examples of non-smokers who died slowly in a hospital bed and maybe get an emotional dig myself, but that's just symbolism.

 

You have made the point that you define life by how long you live it. Good for you. I have made the point that some people define life by how much fun they have living it. Smoking, drinking, jumping out of airplans, sex with strange women - all fun stuff that can kill you early - not good for long life, but good for fun life.

 

Quit judging people so much...

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

Actually, I judge life the same way you do - mainly by its quality. While I would love to live to 110, it is only with the proviso that it is quality life. When you see a person dying from emphysema caused by smoking, and taking ten miserable years to do so, where is the quality?

 

Taking risks is fine. Driving a car can kill you, but has only a lifetime risk of 0.5%. Smoking can kill you and has a lifetime risk of more than 50%. I drive a car and don't smoke. Both are rational decisions based on risk.

[Haezed]

That's a bit of a loaded example, to be fair.

 

Why?

[Haezed]

1. Smoking is deadly but people should have the right to engage in deadly activities so long as the there is zero chance that any of the risk is passed on to other people. If it is difficult to prove the negative too bad, keep your smoke to yourself and away from me and my family.

 

2. Independent of the science, there should be no right to waft noxious vapors towards other people in public spaces. However, a restaurant, for example, should have the right to declare itself a strictly smoking restaurant or, if feasible, a sealed portion thereof.

 

3. Smokers are not inferior people. We all have our vices.

 

4. Tobacco litigation is an assault on individual responsibility. It says a lot about the change in our society that tobacco companies went from never losing to always losing in such a short time period. This is not a good trend.

[D H]

1. Smoking is deadly but people should have the right to engage in deadly activities so long as the there is zero chance that any of the risk is passed on to other people.

 

This is ludricrous.

 

My driving is a potentially deadly activity to me and to others. The only way there is a zero chance of me not passing this deadly risk on to other people is to forbid me to drive.

 

 

Tobacco litigation is an assault on individual responsibility. It says a lot about the change in our society that tobacco companies went from never losing to always losing in such a short time period. This is not a good trend.

One reason why this came to pass is the reasoning that underlies the initial paragraph of your post. This "zero risk" attitude has come to pervade American thought. Our society is much, much worse off for this "zero risk" attitude.

 

Shakespeare outlined the solution in Henry VI (Part 2), Act IV, Scene II.

[Haezed]

This is ludricrous.

 

Ludicrous? Ahem. Tsk tsk. Tut tut.

 

Anyway, driving is a function that has social utility and is necessary. So let me refine my statement to say that if someone wants to engage in a potentially deadly activity with zero social utility, I say go ahead so long as there is zero chance that it can harm other people.

 

If you disagree that the burden of proof should be 100%, what burden of proof would you apply? Surely you would not say it is on the non-smoker to prove that second hand smoke is deadly?

 

Interestingly, you bypass my second point which would make this a moot debate.

[Haezed]

Let me give some examples to make the point. Driving is necessary and benefits society so we put up with pollution and risk of death. However, there is no benefit to society to allow people to drive drunk. The driver may get pleasure from this and he may even pose more of a risk to himself than other people as he may crash into inanimate objects.

 

Contrast this to talking on a cell phone while driving. We grumble about this because it can create a similar risk to being drunk; however, we've not outlawed this practice yet because there is social utility to letting people use this otherwise wasted time to make connections. Texting while driving is a similiar example where there is a balancing we do as a society to see if the risk is justified by the benefit.

 

Smoking has no benefit to society, only possible pleasure to the user. Therefore, I see no reason to accept any risk of incidental injury to those who choose not to smoke.

[Dak]

Contrast this to talking on a cell phone while driving. We grumble about this because it can create a similar risk to being drunk; however, we've not outlawed this practice yet because there is social utility to letting people use this otherwise wasted time to make connections. Texting while driving is a similiar example where there is a balancing we do as a society to see if the risk is justified by the benefit.

 

this is illegal in the uk, pretty much for the reasons you gave.

 

note, tho, that you can't choose wether to share a road with someone who's going to distract themselves by texting whilst driving, so legislation is genuinely the only way to protect other motorists.

 

with smoking, tho, the argument is that you can choose wether to go to smoking or non-smoking places. alternatively, the law could have been that bars have to have non-smoking areas. so legislation was not required (i realise you pretty much said this earlyer on, just pointing out the analogy is flawed)