# Smoking or non smoking



## modgirl

I live in the US, but I've visited many lands on different continents and have seen that various cultures have a variety of both laws and social attitudes towards smoking.

Wherever you live at the moment, do you agree with the general social atmosphere and the legal laws of that country?  Why or why not?

I'll answer the question, but I'd like to hear other opinions first!


----------



## Merlin

modgirl said:
			
		

> I live in the US, but I've visited many lands on different continents and have seen that various cultures have a variety of both laws and social attitudes towards smoking.
> 
> Wherever you live at the moment, do you agree with the general social atmosphere and the legal laws of that country? Why or why not?
> 
> I'll answer the question, but I'd like to hear other opinions first!


What a great topic modgirl! Here in the Philippines, we also have laws regarding smoking in public. It's against the law to smoke inside vehicles, parks, and other public places. But the problem is, most people smoke wherever and whenever they want. And the number of lawbreakers are increasing because those who implement it are sometimes the number one violators. The law is not strictly implemented. Even teenagers can buy cigarettes in "sari-sari" stores. Part of thier allowance is consumed on cigarettes and liqiour. Another sad part is that their parents aren't aware of it. Or sometimes, they're the reason whay thier children engage in smoking. They will send thier children to buy cigarettes for them. There are designated smoking area. However, as I've mentioned above, most of the time, law makers/enforcers are the number one law breakers.
On the lighter side, we have a certain city wherein smoking in public places is strictly prohibited. I am refering to Davao city. Located in the southern part of the Philippines. Thanks to their mayor, who strictly implement laws and ordinances. He designated smoking areas and he is the number one abider. If he likes to smoke, he will go to the the smoking area. Same goes with anti-littering law. He is very strict that's why the city is so beautiful. He said that no one is above the law including him. 
I used to smoke before. (3 months) But I don't see any benifit from it so I stopped. Just sharing my thoughts


----------



## timebomb

Modgirl,

I'm a smoker so this is a topic that's close to my heart or maybe I should say "close to my lungs"   

It used to be that in Singapore, smoking was not only socially acceptable but encouraged.  In the old days, the bridegroom at a wedding dinner will hold a tin of cigarettes in his hands and offers the contents to his guests.  In parties or other social functions, it was quite normal to see strangers offering cigarettes to each other as a sign of friendship.

But now things have changed.  A lot.

Smoking is not only discouraged by various government laws but also socially unacceptable.  I do feel like a pariah whenever there's not a single smoker in the crowd I'm hanging around with.  

Smoking is banned in many places in Singapore.  We aren't allowed to light up in public transport vehicles, cinemas, food establishments, lifts, sports stadiums, bus/taxi stands and buildings that are air-conditioned.  Just 2 days ago, the government said they will pass new laws forbidding smokers from lighting up in open-air coffee-shops.  It won't be long before the only place I'm allowed to smoke is in my own house but then again, my daughters and wife would probably chase me out    

Cigarettes are expensive in Singapore.  A pack of 20s costs about Sing $11.00.  That would be about equivalent to US $7.  Cigarettes here are not sold in small packs.  Only one size is allowed, the 20 sticks' pack.  Anyone who's 18 or below isn't allowed to smoke.  They aren't even allowed to buy cigarettes.  Stores that sell cigarettes to minors face heavy fines if caught.

Smokers in Singapore suffer silently.  You could say I should very well just give up the filthy habit but heck, it's not like I don't want to.  I've tried several times but it's just so damn hard.  I do believe that inside every smoker, there's a non-smoker struggling to get out.  But non-addicts will never understand.

How do I feel about the laws and social atmosphere here?  Well, I think the government did a good job.  Not only have they make life very difficult for smokers but they have also successfully made smoking socially unacceptable.  
As a smoker, however, I feel terribly pressured.  On the one hand, I do feel guilty that the amount of money I spent on cigarettes each month, which is quite substantial, could have been put to much better use but on the other, I feel non-smokers should be more tolerant of us.  I can understand the ill-effects of inhaling second-hand smoke but the way some people react when we light up, it's like they will drop dead any moment if they so much as get a whiff of our exhaled smoke.  Sometimes I feel like telling them, "Hey, if second-hand smoke is that bad, why not take it first hand?  Be a smoker"   

Despite all the strict laws against smoking, however, statistics here have shown that more young people are lighting up.  Where it was absolutely taboo for a woman to smoke before, now it's quite common to see young girls smoking.  Many would even walk around with a lighted cigarette in one hand, behaviour which was deemed to be very unbecoming of a lady in the old days.  

The government tries to make it an "uncool" habit but the way young people are, the more they say they shouldn't smoke, the more the young will want to take it up.  Forbidden fruits always taste sweetest.  As a smoker myself, I try to discourage the young from taking up the habit and I think I can be quite persuasive in this.  It's not what I tell them but how I cough when I do.


----------



## Artrella

modgirl said:
			
		

> I live in the US, but I've visited many lands on different continents and have seen that various cultures have a variety of both laws and social attitudes towards smoking.
> 
> Wherever you live at the moment, do you agree with the general social atmosphere and the legal laws of that country?  Why or why not?
> 
> I'll answer the question, but I'd like to hear other opinions first!




Interesting topic Modgirl.  I'm a smoker, however I don't like to smoke in public, and don't like people smoking in public places.  Now that I have contact with people all over the world (thanks to this forum) I got to know that you cannot smoke in hotels, which struck me really bad, because here we are allowed to smoke in hotels.  So I was really shocked because I'm planning to do a trip to several countries and what will I do?  A friend told me that you cannot smoke for instance in pubs, which ir really strange to me, because here it is common to go to have a drink with friends and smoke a lot.
When you go into a pub here in Argentina, you are "immersed" in a cloud of smoke, sometimes you even get your eyes red of so much smoke.
However, the tendency in my country is to forbide smoking in public places, offices, banks, etc.  In pubs there are places for smokers and non-smoking areas.  
People complain about this, but I wish this policy will make us -smokers- quit this terrible "addiction" that is slowly killing us.


----------



## VenusEnvy

I'll speak for the US, Mod, if you'd rather be the initiator of the topic.   


It has become more and more socially unacceptable to be a smoker. (This still remains untrue among teens, I've noticed. More and more teenagers smoke nowadays.) Our states also differ in laws regarding tobacco usage. 


For example, in Maryland, it is generally ok to smoke in a bar, as long as the bar has doors, or is separate from the restaurant area, and is completely enclosed. This "law" took effect about 2 years ago.


In Delaware, smoking is not allowed in bars at all.


Hotels in the US usually have smoking, and non-smoking rooms.


In southern states, however, smoking is allowed everywhere! And, there isn't even a non-smoking section in some restaurants. The entire restaurant is smoking! I was also shocked to see that this was true in fast-food places especially.


----------



## The Barefoot Contessa

Though there are several laws against smoking in public places in Spain, the truth is they are not strictly implemented, which means you can virtually smoke wherever you want. Even worse is the fact that you are looked down on by smokers if you dare tell them to put out their smokes where smoking is not allowed. Barajas, the airport in the capital, Madrid, is the best example. The persistent smell of smoke is a clear sign you got to Spain.


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I'll speak for the US, Mod, if you'd rather be the initiator of the topic.


 
Actually, I'm more concerned with your personal opinion!  Has the United States gone overboard in laws and attitudes towards smokers, or should we do more to protect the rights of non-smokers?


----------



## modgirl

Artrella said:
			
		

> I got to know that you cannot smoke in hotels, which struck me really bad, because here we are allowed to smoke in hotels. So I was really shocked because I'm planning to do a trip to several countries and what will I do?


 
I seriously doubt you'll have trouble finding a hotel where you can't smoke.  Although it's true that many hotels have non-smoking rooms, there are still many rooms where you'll be able to puff up (at least in the US and definitely in western Europe).


----------



## Reili

I'm very happy about don't have to breathe CANCER.


----------



## desde aquel verano

Artrella said:
			
		

> A friend told me that you cannot smoke for instance in pubs, which ir really strange to me, because here it is common to go to have a drink with friends and smoke a lot.


Hi Artrella, I'm guessing your friend must be Irish because you can still smoke in pubs here in the UK.
I also think it's strange not to be able to smoke in a bar or pub (even though I don't smoke myself), but I'm sure that it won't be too long before they try to introduce the blanket "no smoking in public places" policy here too.


----------



## GenJen54

This is a great thread, modgirl, and I can speak for one of the minority in the "Southern States" who does not smoke. However, I must disclaim that at one point I did smoke (in college), but it was really more of a "social" thing, and I have been essentially smoke free for several years.

At this time, in my state (Oklahoma), we have the following laws:



no smoking in Public (government) buildings, including state-funded Universities;
no smoking in private office buildings;
restaurants must offer smoking and non-smoking areas, and by 2006, they will need to be separated by a glass partition and separate ventilation system. Restaurants which do not wish to make this concession will have to go completely "smoke free."
To be honest, when I did smoke, I always tried to be very contientious about others around me, and when around a group of non-smokers, would always ask if they minded whether I would "light up." I appreciate the courtesy today.

I also understand the reality that if I go into a bar, I should expect to be around cigarette smoke, because I choose to put myself into that atmosphere. I have no reason to complain because I made the decision to go where I know smoke will be an issue.

However, what bothers me is the belligerence of many smokers who, when asked to please step aside or blow "in a different direction," become almost violently defensive about their rights to smoke. 

We were at an outside music festival once with friends, one of whom was seven months pregnant. We had already established our spot on the ground, complete with picnic, and were enjoying ourselves, when another group came, sat next to us, and started smoking. We asked them to please go elsewhere when they wanted to smoke, as the wind was blowing right at us. They turned and yelled at us, and told us that we needed to get out of their way, that they couldn't help it if the wind was blowing their smoke in our direction. 

I probably would not have minded the scenario so much if my friend had not been pregnant. As adults, we have responsibilities and have the abilities to make decisions in our lives, no matter what they are. I took particular offense, however, that these people did not respect that someone else was pregnant, and very obviously so. 

Smoking itself doesn't bother me so much as the attitudes of some who feel their right to smoke is more important than my right to breathe smoke-free air.

I personally believe there is a place in the world for everybody, but that we should try to be more respectful of one another's space.


----------



## modgirl

timebomb said:
			
		

> I can understand the ill-effects of inhaling second-hand smoke but the way some people react when we light up, it's like they will drop dead any moment if they so much as get a whiff of our exhaled smoke. Sometimes I feel like telling them, "Hey, if second-hand smoke is that bad, why not take it first hand? Be a smoker"


 
Many children do. I remember a girl in school whose parents were both chain-smokers. Twice, she was taken to the principal's office for allegedly smoking herself. The problem was that she wasn't a smoker, but the smoke from her parents' constant smoking permeated her hair and clothing so badly that she smelled just as smoky as her parents. We all felt just awful for her, and she hated the way she stank, as well.

The problem with smoking is that it doesn't just affect the smoker. Some people even go so far as to call children of smokers "abused." I'm not sure I agree with that, but children are forced to suffer because of their parents' smoking. My heart goes out when I see a parent smoking around his child.  Children learn by example.



> As a smoker myself, I try to discourage the young from taking up the habit and I think I can be quite persuasive in this. It's not what I tell them but how I cough when I do.


 
Actually, several former smokers with mouth or throat cancer or emphysema (the ones who are still alive, that is) are doing an incredible public service by visiting schools. Some of the most effective ones are those whose faces have been disfigured due to the cancer. Some people have to speak with a "box" in their throats because their voices have been stripped due to the cancer or other disease caused by smoking.


----------



## modgirl

The Barefoot Contessa said:
			
		

> Even worse is the fact that you are looked down on by smokers if you dare tell them to put out their smokes where smoking is not allowed.


 
Isn't this absurd? Several years ago, I was in Montreal and dining in a lovely restaurant. We asked for the non-smoking section and when seated, found it rather bizarre that ashtrays were on all the tables...

A bit later, someone sat next to us and began smoking. We very politely contacted the waiter and told him that someone was smoking in the _non-smoking _section. His response, _"Well, I don't want to insult them by asking them to stop smoking." _ (Again, they were smoking in the _alleged _non-smoking area!)

This is illogical. If an institution makes a policy or law and has absolutely no intentions of enforcing it, then the policy/law is absolutely meaningless. 

In this particular case, apparently the smokers were more valuable customers than the non-smokers!


----------



## Vanda

In my country we have some restrictions too.
It's forbidden to smoke at

Public (government) buildings.
some private buildings
most restaurants (there are special areas for smokers)
inside public transportation
As a non-smoker I like these restrictions because before they came
to existence people would smoke anywhere without any consideration to
others. For example, when we traveled in buses , mainly during winter 
when all the windows were closed, we had to "smoke with " the smokers.
Our hair, clothes, all smelled pretty bad. 
Once the person has consideration to the non-smokers, it's his/her choice
to do it.


----------



## Edwin

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> In southern states, however, smoking is allowed everywhere!



Venus, I think this is an exaggeration.  What states do you know about and how old is your information. The laws on smoking are changing rapidly.  For example, Florida bans smoking in all workplaces and all restaurants (defined as places where food is served I think).   The ban in restarurants is fairly recent. Formerly most restaurants  just had  no-smoking areas, but now the entire restaurant must be smoke-free. 

According to American Cancer Society 

All 50 states have clean indoor air provisions restricting smoking in *certain places*.  

Googling around I find that Georgia (not mentioned in the ACS website) passed a law banning smoking in public building beginning July 1, 2005. The article says Georgia is the twelfth state to enact a public statewide smoking ban. It apparently applies to restaurants. Source of Georgia ban


----------



## depassage

I think it's fine to do some preventions, to explain the danger of smoking provided that it's done in a fair way and not an alarmist way. Here in France, it's getting "n'importe quoi", we had the smoking and non-smoking area and they're talking about forbid every smoking area. the price of the cigarettes is getting higher and higher  (to finance the social security ! ) and the "smoke kills" on the packet is getting bigger...
they're frightening people with the tar, the ammonia, etc... but if it's so dangerous, why don't they just forbid it, instead of scaring people ?
One day, the smokers will be thrown in jails.
I can easily understand that some people don't like the smell of the tobacco, and I'm happy there are some non-smoking area.
But I want to have the choice.
Yes smoke kills, I know that. After 20 years of 2 packets a day smoking, it may kill. Or not. I take the chance. And I won't complain if something wrong happen to me, I won't sue the cigarettes manufacturers.
And I drink alcohol too, I eat red meat, I do some sports, I live a very dangerous way.


----------



## rob.returns

REspectfully depassage,

dangerous way...and expensive way. If you have like cancer, or ephysema, you have to spend some money for your problem. Dying is not a problem, Everybody dies. It's the pain and spending that matters. 

If somebody wants to die suavely and in a cool manner. Then smoke.(I don't mean to offend anybody, but I do care for Non-smokers who have gotten some bad things from the smokers)

BOttomline is, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Edwin

rob.returns said:
			
		

> If you have like cancer, or ephysema, you have to spend some money for your problem. Dying is not a problem, Everybody dies. It's the pain and spending that matters.



The red you is my emphasis. Actually it is often the government (therefore every taxpayer)  that ends up paying most of the expenses for the treatment of smoking-related illnesses.  The state of Florida was one of the first states to sue the tobacco companies to recover cost for such treatment.  I think they got an out-of-court settlement for around 11 billion dollars --that was a number of years ago. Since I believe there has been a national settlement. But I don't know the details.


----------



## rob.returns

THat's in FL. But how about in other countries? PIty on us.


----------



## Reili

The Barefoot Contessa said:
			
		

> Though there are several laws against smoking in public places in Spain, the truth is they are not strictly implemented, which means you can virtually smoke wherever you want. Even worse is the fact that you are looked down on by smokers if you dare tell them to put out their smokes where smoking is not allowed. Barajas, the airport in the capital, Madrid, is the best example. The persistent smell of smoke is a clear sign you got to Spain.


 
Well I don't know why but in my the place where I live in Mexico city, almost immeadiately each smoker stopped smoking when we got laws banning smoking in public places. I remember that lot of people smoked on buses and in restaurantes which was to annoying. Actually only some buses drivers use to smoke but nobody protest because the driver "need it", however if any other passenger smoke, all people will start watching him telling with the eyes "ey, don't smoke here", or some will start coffing in order to he realizes it's been annoying.


----------



## MrFred

Hi all, I'm going to explain you all something that happened here in B.A which made everything change about "smoking".
There's a newspaper here in Buenos Aires called " Ambito Financiero.. one of Ambito Financiero writters..took legal action against the company...because he was surrounded by smokers in his job area..Being all the time with them caused him lung cancer...
From that moment on...all the private companies were aware of that case and prohibited smoking while working...and it happened the same to the state owned companies, museums, theathers...and so on.
In my opinion it was the best thing they could have done...I'm a 18 years old boy who doesn't smoke...I enjoy doing sports and breathing fresh air...and I'm not going to bear someone's else smoke.
Thanks For reading...
Federico.


----------



## Merlin

Reili said:
			
		

> I'm very happy about don't have to breathe CANCER.


It feels good right? As I've mentioned in my previous post, I tried but I didn't like the effects. I'm engaged in sports and I play Basketball. I used to have asthma and I hate smoke. (But tried smoking...hehehe) It affected my game. I can't stay in the game for a long time. That's why I decided not to smoke. Since then, my asthma is gone and I can play 4-5 basketball games. My lungs became stronger. My high school friends whom I used to play basketball who smoked can't stand one basketball game. Their bodies and lungs became weak. Now they can't enjoy playing basketball as they used too. Good thing none of my family members smoke. Just sharing my thoughts.


----------



## modgirl

Merlin said:
			
		

> That's why I decided not to smoke.


 
I wanted to say this earlier:  Very, very smart man!  Congratulations on quitting!  I've never smoked, so I don't know how difficult it is to quit, but a lot of people say that it's one of the hardest addictions to overcome.

Not only are you much healthier, but think of all the money you'll save; it's not inconsequential.


----------



## Merlin

modgirl said:
			
		

> I wanted to say this earlier: Very, very smart man! Congratulations on quitting! I've never smoked, so I don't know how difficult it is to quit, but a lot of people say that it's one of the hardest addictions to overcome.
> 
> Not only are you much healthier, but think of all the money you'll save; it's not inconsequential.


Gee thanks! Consider yourself lucky for not smoking. I tried to smoke around 3 months. The I realize there's no benifit from it. So I decided to stop and quit. I hope people will realize the bad effects and stop smoking.


----------



## modgirl

Okay, here are my comments on the legality of smoking.  On one hand, smoking is a personal choice and should be a personal right.  It should not be illegal.  In fact, probably the worst act imaginable is to ban it.  In the United States, our 18th Amendment to the Constitution banned alcohol.  It took effect in 1920, and of course, since drinking was prohibited by law, everyone wanted to do it!  And many did, and major problems ensued. _Forbidden fruit_ is usually quite attractive to people.  When a group tries to ban a film in the United State I'm usually the first to stand in line to see it, even if I normally would not be interested.

However, the problem with smoking is that a smoker cannot smoke around others without directly affecting them.  The clothing and hair of a non-smoker (standing next to a smoker) are often as foul as the smoker himself.  Non-smokers generally have a much better olfactory sense than smokers, so unfortunately, many smokers do not realize how offensive the odor can be.  It's often quite difficult for a person with smoke-free lungs to breathe in the heavily polluted air that a smoker provides.

If there were some way that a smoker could submit to his habit without affecting others, I'm all for it!  But by the very nature of sucking on a burning weed, it is impossible not to affect others in the immediate vicinity.

In short, the rights of smokers end when they violate the rights of non-smokers.  What's especially bad is the situation for children of smokers -- they have absolutely no choice but to smell like smokers themselves and to have lungs that are not as healthy as a normal child's should be.  Unfortunately, children have no rights or choices at all in the situations of smoking parents.  In my opinion, that's grotesquely unfair to the children.


----------



## astronauta

I used to be a smoker and worked in a smoker restaurant, I got pneumonia, it was SO painful on my back; could not talk for a month or so... 
I have not smoked since.

For me, it is a luxury that smoking is banned in most public places in Canada, except, like Modgirl, when I go to Montreal, I feel I could die! (but partying is so gooooood there!!, just like Mexico and Spain).


----------



## SusieQ

I am a former smoker.  It took me about two years to finally give it up.  Not counting the 9 months of preganancy that I did not smoke.  When I started smoking again after my son was born, I made up this rule for myself that I would never smoke in my house or wherever I was with my baby.  And I kept it.  Now everytime that I got in the car the anxiety kicked in and most of the times I would light up even before I got the car running.  (of course this was when I was alone).  My best friend and I were smokers, but we were of the few smokers who care about the non-smokers.  I would always ask if they did not mind if I light up when noone was smoking.  Then again those type of situations almost never occurred since almost everyone I know smokes.  

I used to work in customer services for a telecomunications company.  It was so stressful and almost everyone smoked.  I remember that the elevator was alwasy broke and from time to time you could see groups of at least three people running down the stairs to be able to get enough time to finish a cigarrette before running up the stairs again.

I really think that smoking parents should have more consideration to their children.  I remember that my mom never smoked in front of us when we were little and just now that the house is empy most the time she started smoking inside the house though must of the time she does it out in the backyard.  My dad has asthma and he kept telling me that even if when had been 19 years without smoking he stills coughs out yellow stuff from the twenty plus years he did smoke.

I did not stopped smoking because of what my dad told me, or what my husband told me, not even because I knew it was bad for me and the people around me.  I stopped because it was not only destroying my body, it was destroying a part of my sould.  That was how I felt.  I was trying to find myself and I realized that I had not been blessed as I could be because I was doing something that was not natural to my body.  I was destroying everything that I was working for and did not even notice at the time.  After several days of consideration I made up mi mind and threw all the cigarrettes I had left, which were an unopened packaged and one that was almost full.  I even thought "what a waste of money, this will be my last pack"  but then I knew that it was not going to be that way.  How many last packs did I have before this one? Dozens.  So I just threw them to the trash and have not bought another cigarrette yet.  I am still struggling.  I've been about three months without smoking which is more than I have ever been.  I know this time is for good.  And you will never see me again with a smoke in my hand.


----------



## astronauta

Susie, way to go!!! Congratulations; not only you made the right choice for your body but are a great mom by respecting your childen.

I ALWAYS get infuriated with my sister and other Spanish women who get together to chat and drink coffee right beside their children!

P.S. After I stopped smoking, it seems that my senses were enhanced; I can sense and distinguish smells that were unknown to me (such as different types of wine, some spices, etc) I can even identify, with great accuracy most perfums. My skin changed quite a bit as well, it has this lovely lustre and glow!


----------



## VenusEnvy

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> I ALWAYS get infuriated with my sister and other Spanish women who get together to chat and drink coffee right beside their children!


Sorry for the silly question, but what's wrong with chatting and coffee? . . . .


----------



## Phryne

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Sorry for the silly question, but what's wrong with chatting and coffee? . . . .


 I thought the same thing. I thinks she means... "chatting, coffee and a fag"


----------



## VenusEnvy

Phryne said:
			
		

> I thought the same thing. I thinks she means... "chatting, coffee and a fag"


I realize that in BE, they use the word "fag" for cigarette, but I am not from BE. So, this phrase looks hilarious to me.


----------



## odelotj

Well, as many people know, it is illegal to smoke almost EVERYWHERE in California! They even banned it from beaches the last I heard. There are some clubs for dancing that you can go to that still allow smoking. I think it's tough for smokers, but they all know the places they can go to still smoke. Often, I notice that people light up as soon as they get to the parking lot of a place that is no-smoking. 

I am not a smoker myself, but I have to say that we should say there are rude people in general. There are rude smokers and rude non-smokers. People who go crazy when someone lights up, and smokers who go crazy when asked to stop or "blow the other way". Many of my friends who do smoke are considerate, or try to be. It's my choice if I decide to stay there while they are smoking though, I can easily leave, and I have. I remember though, on a trip to Italy with my aunt and mom, we went to a bar and all the people were smoking. I had to step outside, to the sidewalk to get some fresh air. How ironic, usually in California, the minute you step outside, to the sidewalk, all the smokers are huddled together smoking. I feel badly that they are stuck out there sometimes, sometimes when it's very cold and raining; but I stop to think about my health, and how much more I enjoyed myself INSIDE because no one was smoking, and well, my sympathy has it's limits, I'm sorry. 

I really do understand it is hard to quit. My father for example, he used to smoke and he quit when my mom had their oldest child, my brother. He would sometimes go outside, or smoke when we were outdoors, at the beach in El Salvador with their friends. But eventually he quit. Now, 26 years later, I am sad to say, he has picked it up again. And smoking after dinner and when he drives long distances, etc. He never does it in the house, but now that his kids have "left the nest" he is back at it again. It's really such a shame, but I don't feel it is my place to tell him to stop, especially when he already knows that it's bad.

They smoke at clubs in El Salvador a lot, and bars, some restaurants, lots of other places too I'm sure. My strongest opinion is that it is not made illegal because it is a multi-billion dollar business, even in the US, surely trillion dollar around the world. That buys an awful lot of influence if you want my opinion.


----------



## Phryne

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I realize that in BE, they use the word "fag" for cigarette, but I am not from BE. So, this phrase looks hilarious to me.


 Hey, I don't speak BE either!! .. but somehow I do say "fag"...  

Is it perhaps something humorous my friends use, like in "Austin Powers, the spy who _shagged_ me"?


----------



## astronauta

Sorry for the confusion, I obviously meant smoking; thought I had included it...

I totally dissprove of my sister&friends chatting for hours while drinking coffee *and smoking* in front of their children.


----------



## rob.returns

A million claps for SusieQ, that was great...great willpower lady! Salutes!


----------



## gilbert0

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion, I obviously meant smoking; thought I had included it...
> 
> I totally dissprove of my sister&friends chatting for hours while drinking coffee *and smoking* in front of their children.


 

I agree with you. I don't like to see people smoking infront of children. I also hate people throwing cigarettes butt everywhere.


----------



## odelotj

Where are all the smokers opinions?  I know you all have opinions but we've had 1 or 2 brave souls admit to smoking and contribute.  I think that though the majority of replies are from non-smokers, a good insight from you would be welcome.


----------



## gilbert0

odelotj said:
			
		

> Where are all the smokers opinions? I know you all have opinions but we've had 1 or 2 brave souls admit to smoking and contribute. I think that though the majority of replies are from non-smokers, a good insight from you would be welcome.


 
Well odelotj I used to smoked before. But I have this attitude not to smoke infront of children or to nonsmoker that when I smoke I go to smoking area or place where somebody is smoking too. When I was in college I used to go to soccer field where we called backfield and there we smoke together with my freinds.

For me when your a smoker you must have this attitude of respect to other nonsmoker people.


----------



## Merlin

gilbert0 said:
			
		

> For me when your a smoker you must have this attitude of respect to other nonsmoker people.


I salute you! You're the man!  




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> In short, the rights of smokers end when they violate the rights of non-smokers. What's especially bad is the situation for children of smokers -- they have absolutely no choice but to smell like smokers themselves and to have lungs that are not as healthy as a normal child's should be. Unfortunately, children have no rights or choices at all in the situations of smoking parents. In my opinion, that's grotesquely unfair to the children.


Respect, respect, respect.


----------



## superromu

in France, some years ago the smokers have the power, if they want to smoke they smoke even if there are non smoker near them. 
now non smokers become intolerent, aggressive ... against smokers, like in the middle age against leprous.

i m not smoker, so i like to be in a place without puff of smoke, but i think we are going to far.


----------



## Cath.S.

modgirl said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm more concerned with your personal opinion! Has the United States gone overboard in laws and attitudes towards smokers, or should we do more to protect the rights of non-smokers?


Here is a personal opinion.
I quit smoking nearly two years ago and now the smell of cigarette smoke puts me slightly off  but this is beside the point.
Yes I think the ban on public smoking has gone too far including in my own country.
Why?
Because this is one more opportunity of personal, real-life communication that goes down the drain.

Before the law, people would use smoking as a pretext to talk to one another
"Do you mind if I smoke?"
"No, not at all, I'm a smoker myself"
"Well, personally, I'd rather you didn't, as I suffer from asthma."

Small talk. Chit chat. 
Useless?
Not in my view.

The more laws we have, the less actual communication goes on.
Too many laws make us lazy, too many rules and regulations make us dumb.

Have a nice day!


----------



## VenusEnvy

Euguele: It is so funny that you mention this. No one has brought it up yet! I forced myself to start smoking when I was a teenager, actually it was during my very first job! Everyone else smoked, and would take smoke breaks, and chat. I was (one of) the only ones that didn't smoke. So, I felt somewhat "out of the loop". I hate to admit it, but I began smoking for this reason! 

Actually, I began just holding them, and putting them in my mouth. I never inhaled, until one day they began to notice. They actually teased me for a little while, until I began to inhale.

Oh, it hurt. And, I didn't like it. My parents found out, too. And, they were sooo angry.    But, I was 15! The only thing that mattered to me at that age was fitting in, and not being an outcast.

(I don't smoke anymore. And, it was quite easy for me to stop: I hated it!   When I was a teenager, it's like they say, "_Everyone _ was doing it".....)

Smokers have their own little "culture". And, going outside for a cigarette can actually bring people together that wouldn't normally speak to one another. While you smoke, you chit-chat, talk about life, and it becomes a regular event.

But, recently, it seems as though smoking has become "uncool", as more and more people stigmatize it. In my office, the "smokers" are somewhat isolated from the rest of us.


----------



## GenJen54

> The only thing that mattered to me at that age was fitting in, and not being an outcast.



Wow, VE, you hit the nail on the head for me, too.  That's why I took up smoking in college and for a few years thereafter.  Having always been the "nerdy" one in school, smoking gave me a chance to hang around some of what I considered to be the "cool" kids.  It definitely was a part of "fitting in." 

At that time, too, I rarely smoked outside of this context.  When I was alone or with non-smoking friends, I did not smoke.  But when I went out with my "cool" friends, we'd all smoke.


----------



## SusieQ

I remember when my little sister began pretending she somked.  I began to notice that it was everytime a cousin of ours came to visit from Venezuela (she is a smoker).  So I immediately knew that she was pretending to smoke because our cousin did it and I did it.  Since my cousin does not live with us there is little if not anything I can do to prevent that from happening.  But then we were talking about my little sister, who at the time must have been at the most 12 or 13 years old and I did not want her to be a smoker like me, so I began trying to talk to her.  Try to find out why she wanted to smoke.  Of course she never actually told me, so everytime she came up to me and ask me for a cigarette, instead of just sayin NO, I asked if she wanted to smoke for herself or because our cousin and I smoked.  I am not sure if it was the correct approach to the problem, but it actually worked.  After that summer she has not picked up another cigarette and actually scolds my mother because she hasn't been able to quit.

I guess she began to realize that smoking was not cool at all and that even if everyone else is doing it it does mean that it is right to do it.  I thank God that she actually listened to me that time and she was brave enough to admit to herself that she did not need to be smoking for us to like her.  Which is more than I can say for most teenage smokers nowadays.


----------



## Sev

I agree that smoking can be a way to communicate easily with people. But for me it's not the  reason why it sould still be allowed to smoke in public. If lighting a cigarette is the only way people have found to talk together, I find that sad. I know it's not what you're saying egueule, but see Venus felt obliged to smoke to be able to communicate more easily (nothing personnal Venus  , but as you mentionned it).

I take :
* tea breaks ("No I never drink coffee blah blah")
* chewing gum breaks ("Do you want one ? yes they're banana-strawberry-chocolate new chewing-gums blah blah blah")
* break just for the sake of break ("What an awful wheather", "Oh you've got a nice shirt today" etc etc)

There are thousand ways to start a conversation, and even if you don't smoke you can talk about smoking, smokers, quit smoking  

Anyway I agree with the statement of frenchies in that thread, this (laws and so on) is going too far. I'm a non smoker but I think we can just share public places (which doesn't always mean one side for smokers/one side for non-smokers), just as there are people listening to music in the streets when others don't like their music. We are adults and can find ourselves solutions to live together, no ?


----------



## odelotj

Sev,
I completely read everything you had to say, but this in the one flaw I find with your post, the rest I agreed with.

The only problem and the argument from non-smokers is that it is NOT the same as putting up with other people's music.  If you are stuck in a place where you hate the music you are uncomfortable for awhile, bored, irritated even.  But you move on when you are able to, and leave maybe not in a good mood.  Big deal.  If you are stuck in a place where you can't just pick up and leave with a smoker, the second hand smoke itself is harmful to your health.  I know, maybe not one time, or two times you are exposed, but it eventually is damaging to your health, and that my friend to me is a big deal.

I completely agree with you 100% that we are all adults, and _should_ find our own solutions, I dont think gov't should be as involved as they are, but, the sad reality is that not all people are as considerate as those we've come to know in this forum.


----------



## Cath.S.

> Big deal


Odelotj, I think, and numerous experiments in psychology have shown, that stress is also likely to cause cancer.


> the sad reality is that not all people are as considerate as those we've come to know in this forum


I think it is totally unrealistic to expect all people to be considerate at all times. People are not machines, they are mammals with ups and downs, with feelings of love as well as feelings of aggression, and I would find a perfectly safe and clean world , where everybody behaves politely and nicely to each other at all times, very much like hell on earth, of the cold and bland type. 
I pray for truth.


----------



## odelotj

I dont know that I believe listening to music you don't appreciate will cause cancer, but I don't want to argue trivial points with you.  I agree though, variety is the spice of life, and the quirks of every day folks make life interesting it's true.  But I dont think it's too much to ask for consideration of others when you're talking about critically damaging people's health, sorry.  But if you also read all of my past quote, I did say I dont think it's the gov't duty to make people be considerate to one another and things had gotten out of hand.  

Still, I more than welcome listening (reading) any other opinions you might want to share, surely I can only be adding more to my small pool of knowledge.  Thanks!


----------



## gorbatzjov

Hi,

I'm interested to know how your culture, and YOU, think about smoking. Is it frowned upon, does it bother people, are their laws prohibiting smoking?

For example, in Belgium they passed a law that from 01 January 2006 no-one could smoke at work unless there was a designated and closed smoking area. This has caused a lot of anger with people who do smoke. They see it as an attack to their "right to smoke". If people follow this law has yet to be seen as this law exists not very long.

01 January 2005: Belgium prohibits smoking in public areas like trains and trainstations. Most smokers, especially young smokers, do not obey this law. No-one fines them. 

01 January 2007: smoking will be banned from all restaurants; smoking in pubs will remain possible. There are already rumours of a group of restaurants that will change their name to "pub" and sell illegally food in order to keep having smokers satisfied.

*Mod Edit:*  This is a post which started another thread on Smoking.  It has been merged with the original "smoking" thread.


----------



## Black_Mamba

At the moment in Britain there is a massive debate about whethe to ban smoking in public places or not. As far as I know it is in Scotland, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong. Personally, I think that smoking should be banned for a number of reasons, the first being that passive smoking has been scientifically proven to cause cancer. Ilike to bear that in mind when I'm sat on the bus and people are blowing smoke into my face. Great. Secondly, there is a massive problem with the health care system over here. Why not ban smoking, encouraging people to stop, and significantly reduce admittances into hospitals? It would seem that most of Britain holds the same mentality as me on this one, but the government are sitting on the fence as per.


----------



## gorbatzjov

In Belgium it is illegal to
- smoke in public areas (like libararies, hospitals (NOT hospital restaurants!!), train stations, ...) --> since 1 jan. 2005
- smoke at work (unless there are closed smoking rooms) --> since 1 jan 2006
- smoke in restaurants (not pubs) --> from 1 jan 2007

It's illegal to buy cigaretes under 16, but 99.99% of the shops do not ask ID and "estimate" the consumer's age.
Smokers generaly tend to smoke when and where they like since no-one fines them and non smokers don't have the habit to ask smokers to put out their cigarettes.


----------



## Mei

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Euguele: It is so funny that you mention this. No one has brought it up yet! I forced myself to start smoking when I was a teenager, actually it was during my very first job! Everyone else smoked, and would take smoke breaks, and chat. I was (one of) the only ones that didn't smoke. So, I felt somewhat "out of the loop". I hate to admit it, but I began smoking for this reason!


 
You're not the only one... why do we start to smoke? Because others do it and it's cool... well it was, now you're a "criminal" if you smoke... 

I started to smoke when I was 17 for the same reason that Venus and now I don't smoke since December 16th because I don't want to... It is beeing easily for me... I don't need "parches" or chewing gum.  

Good luck for others that are trying to and it is beeing difficult. (is correct this phrase? It sounds strange to me)

Cheers

Mei ;P


----------



## gisele73

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> In Belgium it is illegal to
> - smoke in public areas (like libararies, hospitals (NOT hospital restaurants!!), train stations, ...) --> since 1 jan. 2005
> - smoke at work (unless there are closed smoking rooms) --> since 1 jan 2006
> - smoke in restaurants (not pubs) --> from 1 jan 2007
> 
> It's illegal to buy cigaretes under 16, but 99.99% of the shops do not ask ID and "estimate" the consumer's age.
> Smokers generaly tend to smoke when and where they like since no-one fines them and non smokers don't have the habit to ask smokers to put out their cigarettes.



Hi 

Good to know the law has changed in Belgium.

I've been there several times, love the country, but last time I was there (three months ago) I noticed it was still allowed to smoke in restaurants and  most of the restaurants where I ate didn't have a non smoking area, so that was a little annoying, since I don't smoke. I'm glad to know that will change next year 

In Peru, where I'm originally from, even if it's not allowed to smoke in public places, most people don't respect that, that is quite upseting! That law is only respected at restaurants, and probably not all.

Here in Norway is not allowed to smoke in public places at all. All restaurants for example, are non smoking. It has been like that since 2004.


----------



## gisele73

Mei said:
			
		

> You're not the only one... why do we start to smoke? Because others do it and it's cool... well it was, now you're a "criminal" if you smoke...
> 
> I started to smoke when I was 17 for the same reason that Venus and now I don't smoke since December 16th because I don't want to... It is beeing easily for me... I don't need "parches" or chewing gum.
> 
> Good luck for others that are trying to and it is beeing difficult. (is correct this phrase? It sounds strange to me)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mei ;P



It's true. It's easy to start smoking when you're a teenager, because you want to be as "cool" as the rest.

I don't smoke. I have never smoked in my life, not even one cigarette. But I do remember when I was in highschool, (17 years old) my friends almost convinced me to try...but in the end I didn't. I said to myself: "If I smoke now, two things can happen...either I will like it and so will start smoking and in the end i will regret because it's not healthy...or, I won't like it and I will regret for having tried"....so that's why I decided not to.


----------



## KingSix

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> For example, in Belgium they passed a law that from 01 January 2006 no-one could smoke at work unless there was a designated and closed smoking area. This has caused a lot of anger with people who do smoke. They see it as an attack to their "right to smoke". If people follow this law has yet to be seen as this law exists not very long.


 
The problem for the smokers is that many companies don't have a seperate smoking area, at least not yet.  So if you want to have a smoke during coffeebreak while it's freezing/raining outside and there's no designated area, you'd be angry too.

Anyway I think it's good that our government does something about public healthcare.  If you are a smoker you shoudn't bother other people with your smoking. It seems that most smokers don't really care what other people think but these new measures will force smokers to chance their smoking ways.

Being an occasional smoker myself I still find it disgusting when I'm eating in a restaurant and a cloud of smoke spoils my meal.


----------



## SusieQ

Here in Guatemala there are no active laws regarding smoking.  Even so, when I was in college, they had the rule that you could not smoke in a closed area.  I've tried to stop smoking but never managed for more than a few months at a time, but even when I was smoking regularly, it felt weird to me to smoke indoors.  Of course I always tried to go where there were other people smoking so to not disturb anyone.  I always go outside to smoke, even if it means going down six floors to leave the building.  If it was too cold outside then I had two choices:  either I freezed while having a smoke or I simply had wait for the day to get better.  Either way I think there should be a compromise between smokers and non smoker.  I've just started working in a new office and here they are allowed to smoke inside if they want to, but I find it a bit annoying to try to work when the person working next to me is smoking.  Maybe I feel this way because I am so used to going outside to smoke that I simply regard people who smoke indoors to be as incosiderated as a person can be.
But hey, that's just me.


----------



## blancalaw

In my opinion I am glad that here they banned smoking from most public places. (only in certain restaurants one can smoke) Smelling smoke personally bothers me and it makes me cough, have a headache, and makes my food taste bad (if I am eating).
I can also sympathize with those who do smoke having to go outside all the time or asking others if they can smoke. I can understand their frustration. But if one wants to smoke, it is easier for them to go to a smoking environment than for me to avoid their smoke. Especially if I was pregnant I would not want anyone smoking around me.


----------



## Poetic Device

I personally understand both sides of the coin as far as non-smoking establishments are concerned. It is ones right to not smell smoke no matter where they are. However, It is not the right of the non-smokers to take away the right of a smoker so that they cannot sit down with a beer in a bar and enjoy a cigarrette. There are many establishments where they have an almost completely different side of the place so that there is no smoke contact with the non-smokers. Also, every place of business has vents and air filters that take up most of the smoke and discards it. If you were to go into many resteraunts you would first walked through the smoking section before getting to the non-smoking section. I'm sorry, but being a person that has not smoked for a bit of time now, an asthmatic and otherwise highly sensative to smoke I have never smelled it, so therefore I cann't see how anyone else can. 

One final note: 


			
				egueule said:
			
		

> I think it is totally unrealistic to expect all people to be considerate at all times. People are not machines, they are mammals with ups and downs, with feelings of love as well as feelings of aggression, and I would find a perfectly safe and clean world , where everybody behaves politely and nicely to each other at all times, very much like hell on earth, of the cold and bland type.


 
Absolutely right and perfectly put. Kudos to you!


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> However, It is not the right of the non-smokers to take away the right of a smoker so that they cannot sit down with a beer in a bar and enjoy a cigarrette.



In Ireland it is not the non-smokers' rights which are being vindicated, it is the rights of the workers not to have to work in an unhealthy workplace.
The ban on smoking was put about as being about smoking in bars and restaurants - but it isn't that. No-one in Ireland may smoke in any enclose space where people have to work. This is not just in public places. It is illegal to smoke in staff rest-rooms and canteens, in factories and in other places. It is even illegal to smoke in the cab of a lorry if someone else has to share it with you in their working day.

This is as it should be.
What "right" does a smoker have? Rights are things which society affords its members by common accord (or by international pressure in some cases), but they are not automatic anywhere.


----------



## Eloisa Giseburt

I have heard that some companies in United States are not only not hiring people who smoke but also they are firing them!   The incredible thing about all this is those people did not smoke IN those companies (no company time nor lunch time)...! They smoked at home!


----------



## GenJen54

Eloisa Giseburt said:
			
		

> I have heard that some companies in United States are not only not hiring people who smoke but also they are firing them!  The incredible thing about all this is those people did not smoke IN those companies (no company time nor lunch time)...! They smoked at home!



It is a contentious issue, but it is becoming more popular.  Don't forget, in many of these instances, these companies are *paying for* private medical and life insurance for these employees.  Some of these companies feel they have the right to dictate certain behaviors - yes, even at home - that may jeapordize their employees' health - especially if it costs them more money, not only in hospital bills, but in productivity lost because of smoking-related illnesses.

It's not the greatest of policies, I agree, but many companies are starting to take a look at this type thing in order to lower their costs (and risks) from an insurance standpoint.  (If we want to open disucssion on whether employers should dictate employee behavior at home, we need to open a new thread).


----------



## Eloisa Giseburt

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> It is a contentious issue, but it is becoming more popular. Don't forget, in many of these instances, these companies are *paying for* private medical and life insurance for these employees. Some of these companies feel they have the right to dictate certain behaviors - yes, even at home - that may jeapordize their employees' health - especially if it costs them more money, not only in hospital bills, but in productivity lost because of smoking-related illnesses.
> 
> It's not the greatest of policies, I agree, but many companies are starting to take a look at this type thing in order to lower their costs (and risks) from an insurance standpoint. (If we want to open disucssion on whether employers should dictate employee behavior at home, we need to open a new thread).


 

I understand that but I am a smoker...what can I say? Long time ago I was offered a job but I was not going to be able to smoke so I did not accepted. I did not have any trouble finding another one. 

Some years later I came to USA I had a very hard time finding a job, when my new boss hired me she told me I could not, of course, smoke in the building nor anywhere around. I needed the job, it is a good pay so I took it! I haven't stopped smoking but I smoke a lot less!


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What "right" does a smoker have?


 
Just as a non-smoker has a right to be healthy. a smoker has the right to pollute themseles.  (Like I said before, I understand both sides of the coin and I understand that a non-smoker more than likely does not want to smell the smoke.  That is why when and if I light up I always ask the people that I am around if they mind.  If someone objects then I go outside.  THAT is how it should be.  Smokers should be courteous of non-smokers and visa versa.)  Like everything else in life, this is a two-way street.

As for the companies not hiring smokers, yes I think that it is a very ridiculous thing.  I was more than qualified for this one job that I was applying for, and I had the owner of the establishment admitting to it.  He asked me if I smoked and my answer was "I do but on my own time."  He then gave me a condescending look and told me to have a nice day.     Just thought that I would throw that one in there.


----------



## badgrammar

It's somewhat off-topic, but haven't health problems related to obesity replaced those linked to smoking as the greatest killer in the US?  Perhaps obesity even costs more in terms of health care than smoking - but they can't refuse to hire you over weight issues.  I've not been able to find any websites with statistics, but I am curious...


----------



## Poetic Device

I'm not sure how on or off topic this one is, but wrap your minds on this:

I work for a state psychiatric hospital, and there is a lot of talk about turning the hospital into a 100% tobacco free establishment.  This means that not only do the staff members get their smoking privelages revoked but the same goes for the clients.  (keep in mind that these are people with problems like bi-polar disorder, demensia, schitzoprenia and so on.)


----------



## maxiogee

badgrammar said:
			
		

> It's somewhat off-topic, but haven't health problems related to obesity replaced those linked to smoking as the greatest killer in the US?  Perhaps obesity even costs more in terms of health care than smoking - but they can't refuse to hire you over weight issues.  I've not been able to find any websites with statistics, but I am curious...



In Ireland smoking and weight-problems are often related. Those with self-inflicted weight-problems are often smokers. I would be slow to say that health problem X, related to obesity, is not also related to smoking.

This is a self-respect/self-awareness issue. Employers are entitled to make their choice of staff based on what they see as a person's attitude to their health. 

Being a smoker is a personal choice - a personal choice to put your own health at risk. This is something employers have a right to be concerned about.
Being overweight is not always a personal choice - not every overweight person has made a lifestyle choice which causes their problems. An employer needs to be aware of this and not make assumptions about the person on unwarranted grounds.


----------



## GenJen54

> As for the companies not hiring smokers, yes I think that it is a very ridiculous thing. I was more than qualified for this one job that I was applying for, and I had the owner of the establishment admitting to it. He asked me if I smoked and my answer was "I do but on my own time." He then gave me a condescending look and told me to have a nice day.  Just thought that I would throw that one in there.


While this is an unfortunate situation, I tend to lean a bit to the side of companies on this. 

In the U.S., many companies pay for health insurance for their workers. Statistics have shown that the health costs associated with non-smokers are lower, and productivity levels tend to be higher. An indurance premium for a smoker is typically higher than for a non-smoker, given that all health factors of the insureds are otherwise equal (same age, sex, weight, activity level, etc.)

I agree with badgrammar that obesity is becoming just as bad a problem as smoking - if not moreso. I also agree that it is *off topic.* 

The key problem with smoking that is not necessarily a problem with other "habits" is the* direct effect* smoking has on others. If I have a drinking problem, unless I get into and attempt to operate a vehicle, that habit is not harmful to others. If I do drugs, unless I get into and attempt to operate a vehicle, that habit is generally not directly harmful to others. If I habitually eat too much, I am hurting myself, and that habit is not causing direct harm to others. 

If I smoke, that habit is directly harmful to others.


----------



## badgrammar

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how on or off topic this one is, but wrap your minds on this:
> 
> I work for a state psychiatric hospital, and there is a lot of talk about turning the hospital into a 100% tobacco free establishment.  This means that not only do the staff members get their smoking privelages revoked but the same goes for the clients.  (keep in mind that these are people with problems like bi-polar disorder, demensia, schitzoprenia and so on.)



That sounds like a nightmare of a withdrawal period in a psychiatric hospital.  And it does violate the patient's rights, because he or she has to live there.  It is his or her home.  Good luck on that one, Poetic !


----------



## badgrammar

Yes, but a lot of people, especially women, smoke to "control" their weight.  When people quit smoking, they usually gain weight, and most keep it on.  I just wonder if the "fooding" habit in the general population has replaced the smoking habit, atleast in the US, and now health problems related to obesity have skyrocketed...  Just a thought, perhaps totally unfounded.  



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> In Ireland smoking and weight-problems are often related. Those with self-inflicted weight-problems are often smokers. I would be slow to say that health problem X, related to obesity, is not also related to smoking.
> 
> This is a self-respect/self-awareness issue. Employers are entitled to make their choice of staff based on what they see as a person's attitude to their health.
> 
> Being a smoker is a personal choice - a personal choice to put your own health at risk. This is something employers have a right to be concerned about.
> Being overweight is not always a personal choice - not every overweight person has made a lifestyle choice which causes their problems. An emp-loyer needs to be aware of this and not make assumptions about the person on unwarranted grounds.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> If I smoke, that habit is directly harmful to others.


But to an employer who makes you go outside to smoke, you are no health-risk to his other employees.


----------



## Poetic Device

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> If I do drugs, unless I get into and attempt to operate a vehicle, that habit is generally not directly harmful to others.


 
Well, unless you are talking about inter-veinious drugs or snorthing you are risking someone else's health.  Smoking the drugs is virtually the same thing as smoking stokes.  There will be another person inhaling the smoke and if not anything else the smoke from drugs spreads wider than the smoke from cigarrettes.  Of course, that is just my opinion.


----------



## allykat

Even if you smoke outside, most of the time smokers smell like smoke.

Personally, I can't stand that habit and we need to remember that second-hand smoking also kills people. 

Companies who do not want their employers to smoke in my opinion have every right to do so. Many offer programs, etc. that help people quit. You can't tell me that people want to smoke because it is cool. Most are addicted and (not to generalize, but I have friends who smoke who would like to quit but its just too hard for them) many would probably like to quit smoking. If the company is willing to help a person quit in order to lower health cost, let them do so.

I know people say that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and I agree but smoking is the straw for me. I don't like smelling it everywhere I walk (speaking of my university here, if you cross the street, someone else is smoking on the other side). The way my luck runs, I'll be the one to end up with cancer and the smoker will live to be 85! 

People should be able to do what they want to themselves, except smoke (in my perfect world  ), but we don't live in a perfect society.


----------



## Poetic Device

allykat said:
			
		

> Even if you smoke outside, most of the time smokers smell like smoke.
> 
> Personally, I can't stand that habit and we need to remember that second-hand smoking also kills people.
> 
> Companies who do not want their employers to smoke in my opinion have every right to do so. Many offer programs, etc. that help people quit. You can't tell me that people want to smoke because it is cool. Most are addicted and (not to generalize, but I have friends who smoke who would like to quit but its just too hard for them) many would probably like to quit smoking. If the company is willing to help a person quit in order to lower health cost, let them do so.
> 
> I know people say that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and I agree but smoking is the straw for me. I don't like smelling it everywhere I walk (speaking of my university here, if you cross the street, someone else is smoking on the other side). The way my luck runs, I'll be the one to end up with cancer and the smoker will live to be 85!
> 
> People should be able to do what they want to themselves, except smoke (in my perfect world  ), but we don't live in a perfect society.


 
As far as second hand smoke killing people, I am not saying that it doesn't, but I am saying that you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus than dying from it.  Most of the people that get lung cancer--smoking or not--get it because of radon in the air.  If someone wants a job that badly then yes, they will quit.  I commented on the job thing because I feel that it is very judgemental.  Smokers who smell of smoke usually, not all the time, do not really take care of themselves and are not that cordial to other people.  There a a ton of people that smoke and you would never know.  Your last sentence to me is the biggest contradiction there is.  It's just like in that Stallone movie, *Demolition Man*, "You can't take away people's right to be @$$holes."-Wesley Snipes.  You can't take away people's right to smoke.  You might as well stick everyone in a plastic bubble in your "perfect world" and have them wear the same clothes and such.  Actually, that world sounds more like Ayn Rand's *Anthem*.


----------



## maxiogee

allykat said:
			
		

> Even if you smoke outside, most of the time smokers smell like smoke.



Back in the mid-to-late 1970s I was a smoker. 
I worked in an office with 7 others. I think most of us smoked.
We worked with a colleague who had the most appaling personal hygiene problem.
Hints, tips, clues and the occasional direct approach did nothing to alleviate the problem.

Were she and I back there, and I smoking outside maybe 5 or 6 times in the working day and returning to the office, I doubt my lingering miasma would be as 'noxious' as hers. 
No employer would have any right to refuse to emply either of us.


----------



## allykat

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Your last sentence to me is the biggest contradiction there is. It's just like in that Stallone movie, *Demolition Man*, "You can't take away people's right to be @$$holes."-Wesley Snipes. You can't take away people's right to smoke. You might as well stick everyone in a plastic bubble in your "perfect world" and have them wear the same clothes and such. Actually, that world sounds more like Ayn Rand's *Anthem*.


 
Hey I said in my perfect world . I have long ago let go of the notion that society will conform to my standards.

Smoking is not just a matter of hygiene (at school, if you smoke outside right before class, you usually end up smelling like smoke, however well you try to cover it up because it gets into your clothes, always happened to me, someone would come in late and sit down, and you had to move to avoid smoke smell), it is a matter of health. Sure you might get hit by a bus faster than dying from second hand smoke, but trust me, cancer is no picnic. Just because the earth is already so polluted that breathing it practically ensures health problems (my prof. keeps telling us one in four will get cancer) doesn't mean that we should expedite the process.


----------



## maxiogee

In Ireland, the ban which forbids smoking in the workplace exempts …

Prisons 
St. Patrick’s Institution (a remand home)
Garda Station detention areas 
Nursing homes 
Hospices 
Religious order homes 
Central Mental Hospital 
Psychiatric hospitals 
Residential areas within third level education institutions 
Hotel, guesthouse and B&B bedrooms

So to disallow the inmates of any place a "right" which is enojoyed by people living in their own homes would be something with which I would see problems.


----------



## Bilma

allykat said:
			
		

> Companies who do not want their employers to smoke in my opinion have every right to do so.
> 
> .


 

I think If I choose to smoke *in my house* shouldn't bother the company. At this rate companies will tell us how many times a week is healthy to make love !. (If you are married, of course!)


----------



## maxiogee

Bilma said:
			
		

> I think If I choose to smoke *in my house* shouldn't bother the company. At this rate companies will tell us how many times a week is healthy to make love !. (If you are married, of course!)



The companies do these things because we let them.
If the staff of these companies walked out over the pettifogging they impose, and the ridiculous demands they make on people then they would cease to make them.
People with power exercise that power because other people let them.


----------



## badgrammar

I'm sorry the odor of smoke bothers you.  I'm a cyclist, and I can tell you that the odor from your vehicles bothers me.  Not only does it bother me, it may be giving me cancer.  

I'm agaisnt Air Conditioning, do you know what your AC is doing to my outdoor air?  Seriously?  Should you have the right to run it?  What about global warming? That's bad for everyone.

The noxious odors coming from paints and chemicals used in people's homes and public buildings also are a problem for me - I use the organic stuff.  The smell of bleach makes me gag.  And those products may well give me cancer.

I also have big issues with perfumes worn by other people - the formaldahyde present in most of them irritates my nose and throat.

Do not even get me started on others' bad hygeine, halitosis and diffusion of corporal gasses.

There is something called "tolerance", it's rather important.  It won't kill you half as fast as making a big stink about everyone else's bad habits .

Edited to add:  SOrry about the somewhat inflammatory tone of that post, but I think what got me going was the idea that merely being able to smell someone else's smoke - even if it's from accross the street, or just a lingering odor on the person - is somehow an issue we should be concerned about.  The reality of the danger of second-hand smoke simply does not cover the idea that getting a whiff of smoke in an open space should be illegal.  That's just going waaaay to far.  Not wanting to be exposed to smoke trapped indors is one thing - but complaining that you simply _smell_ smoke somewhere?  

My neighbors like to barbecue sardines on weekends.  Stinks to high heaven.  But it's not going to hurt me, and it would be very intolerant if I tried to make them stop on the grounds that "I don't like the way it smells".  

I don't like extremes on either side of any debate...  JMHO 





			
				allykat said:
			
		

> Even if you smoke outside, most of the time smokers smell like smoke.
> 
> Personally, I can't stand that habit and we need to remember that second-hand smoking also kills people.
> 
> Companies who do not want their employers to smoke in my opinion have every right to do so. Many offer programs, etc. that help people quit. You can't tell me that people want to smoke because it is cool. Most are addicted and (not to generalize, but I have friends who smoke who would like to quit but its just too hard for them) many would probably like to quit smoking. If the company is willing to help a person quit in order to lower health cost, let them do so.
> 
> I know people say that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and I agree but smoking is the straw for me. I don't like smelling it everywhere I walk (speaking of my university here, if you cross the street, someone else is smoking on the other side). The way my luck runs, I'll be the one to end up with cancer and the smoker will live to be 85!
> 
> People should be able to do what they want to themselves, except smoke (in my perfect world  ), but we don't live in a perfect society.


----------



## Bettie

The Barefoot Contessa said:
			
		

> Though there are several laws against smoking in public places in Spain, the truth is they are not strictly implemented, which means you can virtually smoke wherever you want. Even worse is the fact that you are looked down on by smokers if you dare tell them to put out their smokes where smoking is not allowed. Barajas, the airport in the capital, Madrid, is the best example. The persistent smell of smoke is a clear sign you got to Spain.


 
Yeah, I was in the Barcelona's Airport, or was it Madrid's Airport, and people were smoking right there next to the sign saying it was not permitted to smoke  .

In Cancun, you can smoke in bars and clubs, restaurants have smoking and non-smoking areas, but sometimes smoking areas are bigger and nicer that the non-smoking areas.

Here in Florida I think you can smoke in bars as long they don't serve food, it's forbbiden to smoke in restaurants.


----------



## Poetic Device

Update on the Laws:
The State of New Jersey and the State of New York are now trying to pass a law that states that you are not permitted to smoke in your own motor vehicle. Crossing the boundaries??? Next thing that you'll know is they will try to tell you how to wipe your own rear.  The message that they (and other people) are trying to convey is simply this: "We are superior and you are a dumb shmuck. We know what's best for you even though we have no idea who you are."


----------



## ceci '79

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Update on the Laws:
> The State of New Jersey and the State of New York are now trying to pass a law that states that you are not permitted to smoke in your own motor vehicle. Crossing the boundaries??? Next thing that you'll know is they will try to tell you how to wipe your own rear.  The message that they (and other people) are trying to convey is simply this: "We are superior and you are a dumb shmuck. We know what's best for you even though we have no idea who you are."


 
I definitely agree with your analysis.


----------



## ceci '79

badgrammar said:
			
		

> My neighbors like to barbecue sardines on weekends. Stinks to high heaven. But it's not going to hurt me, and it would be very intolerant if I tried to make them stop on the grounds that "I don't like the way it smells".


 
I read a newspaper article stating that during an average grilling session we inhale an amount of noxious chemicals (what chemicals? Either the article didn't say or I forget) equivalent to the one we would inhale by smoking 20,000 cigarettes.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Update on the Laws:
> The State of New Jersey and the State of New York are now trying to pass a law that states that you are not permitted to smoke in your own motor vehicle. Crossing the boundaries??? Next thing that you'll know is they will try to tell you how to wipe your own rear.  The message that they (and other people) are trying to convey is simply this: "We are superior and you are a dumb shmuck. We know what's best for you even though we have no idea who you are."



The problem is - with regard to smoking they are right, they do know what is best for you. Smoking is not - in any situation - the best choice one can make. It's not even a good choice.
As to smoking whilst driving —> there is probably a case to be made that getting a cigarette from a packet and lighting it whilst the car is in motion is a distraction best avoided. And dropping a cigarette into your lap, whilst at the wheel - it happens - is a thing definitely to be avoided. 

But, let them away with this and they will encroach further on personal liberties. Thin end of the wedge and all that, what?
I say don't vote for candidates likely to win, it only makes them think they have to pass laws!


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The problem is - with regard to smoking they are right, they do know what is best for you. Smoking is not - in any situation - the best choice one can make. It's not even a good choice.
> As to smoking whilst driving —> there is probably a case to be made that getting a cigarette from a packet and lighting it whilst the car is in motion is a distraction best avoided. And dropping a cigarette into your lap, whilst at the wheel - it happens - is a thing definitely to be avoided.
> 
> But, let them away with this and they will encroach further on personal liberties. Thin end of the wedge and all that, what?
> I say don't vote for candidates likely to win, it only makes them think they have to pass laws!


 
I see what you are saying as far as "them" knowing what is best for you, however, I must argue the laws based on the fact that everyone (or at least the people with a quarter of a brain) know what the consequences of smoking and what have you are. Lord knows, they drill it into your head in health class enough (at least in America, I don't know about anywhere else). If one knows what the reprecussions of smoking are, yet still want to smoke, I say let them puff away. That will just ensure that the questionably saine or just plain dopey (including myself) will perish and the smart people will thrive and allow the human race to become more intelligent. I say this because who in their right mind would pick up smoking knowing the consequences? Like I said, I am no exception to the rule. I will admit that i am stupid for lighting up with my knowledge of what cigarrettes do to you, and especially because of my respiratory problems. However, that does not give ANYONE the right to take away my right to slowly kill myself (that is in a sense what I am doing, as grusome as that seems). Especially working at a psychiatric hospital, I find nothing more soothing than a long drag and slowly exhaling the smoke through my slightly parted lips, but I digress. 

One last note, I very much agree with your last two sentences. Huzzah!


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> However, that does not give ANYONE the right to take away my right to slowly kill myself (that is in a sense what I am doing, as grusome as that seems).



Aaah, but to this "them" you would not be killing yourself, you would be sabotaging a tax-paying unit of production.
It has cost $X to get you educated, fed and watered to the point you are at now and the actuarial types see you as being good for Y more years of taxation. How dare you deny them that tax! 

I speak as an ex-smoker who, truth be told, only gave up because he was 
* paying a fortune for the privilege
* nagged until smoking lost its pleasure
* coughing more than was pleasant on many mornings.
You may rank those how you wish.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Aaah, but to this "them" you would not be killing yourself, you would be sabotaging a tax-paying unit of production.
> It has cost $X to get you educated, fed and watered to the point you are at now and the actuarial types see you as being good for Y more years of taxation. How dare you deny them that tax!
> 
> I speak as an ex-smoker who, truth be told, only gave up because he was
> * paying a fortune for the privilege
> * nagged until smoking lost its pleasure
> * coughing more than was pleasant on many mornings.
> You may rank those how you wish.


 
Touche.  I tip my hat to you.  Bravo!


----------



## Lore bat

I think it's all about common sense and respect.

I am non-smoker and from my experience when people say "Do you mind if I smoke?" I appreciate the fact that they have asked but sometimes it's difficult to say no.  It can be because of the situation, because you don't know the person very well... 

Last month I had a lunch with all the people of my office.  There are some of them who are smokers, so we asked for a smoker area.  The fact is that one of them started smoking while we were eating .  He said:  "oh, it is allowed to smoke here!".  As it was allowed we could do it but I think it's not respectful.  I don't mind if in that case they smoke after the lunch, while we were talking…  But during the meal it’s nasty!


----------



## Bettie

What really bothers me it's when pregnant women smoke!! Ok, they can decide about their own health but the poor baby doesn't have a choice, the same with parents smoking in front of their children.
I, as a adult, can leave if I don't one to be near a smoker, but the kids can do nothing!!


----------



## justjukka

modgirl said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm more concerned with your personal opinion! Has the United States gone overboard in laws and attitudes towards smokers, or should we do more to protect the rights of non-smokers?


 
Here's the plain truth of it:  if one person in an office is smoking, the rest are smoking against their will.


----------



## badgrammar

Rozax said:
			
		

> Here's the plain truth of it:  if one person in an office is smoking, the rest are smoking against their will.



Yes, but if one person who works in the office goes outsode and smokes outdoors, it's not hurting anyone except for them.  In any case, all offices are non-smoking now, so everybody shuld be happy.

Unless of course, you consider that smoking out of doors is unacceptable, because non-smokers can still _smell_ the smoke...


----------



## Poetic Device

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Yes, but if one person who works in the office goes outsode and smokes outdoors, it's not hurting anyone except for them. In any case, all offices are non-smoking now, so everybody shuld be happy.
> 
> Unless of course, you consider that smoking out of doors is unacceptable, because non-smokers can still _smell_ the smoke...


 
Let's not forget the fact that (at least in the U.S.) there is a law that says you must be at least 15 feet away from a public building when smoking, otherwise you are subjected to a $300 fine and possibly community service.  Meanwhile, as I have said oin other ways here, things like radon are the main cause of lung cancer and lung cancer deaths.  In 1999, radon was the cause for 20,000 lung cancer deaths, and the numbers have only gone higher.  Part of the reason for radon is all of the factories.

Hey, that's it!  If you really want to save everyone, stop _that_ kind of smoking!  Stop the smoking from the factories, because God knows that they are doing more of a job on the health of people and the enviroment then the smokers.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

In France it is said that there is a non-smoking policy, but that's not true : on one side, you see the big "smoking kills" signs on the boxes, and there was a period when there were advertisements against smoking.
And last year they even made the gesture of proposing a law against smoking in pubs and restaurants, but of course, it was just a fake, because the State perceives a tax on the cigarettes sold, therefore, we all knew that such law would never be approved.
Therefore now, the oly places where it is forbidden to smoke are public transports, shops and supermarkets, and some offices, but it depends on the boss : if he's a smoker he won't do anything to stop his employees from smoking in the offices. And in the subway stations we regularly see people smoking, and if we wanted to tell them anything, we couldn't even show them the "non smoking" sign, because it's very small and almost hidden.
In Paris there isn't a single restaurant where you can eat without that stink coming up your nose, and in the rare places where there is a non smoking zone, it is so small that it is always fully booked.

... and French people say that they are civilized!


----------



## maxiogee

Rozax said:
			
		

> Here's the plain truth of it:  if one person in an office is smoking, the rest are smoking against their will.



As often happens, the *plain* truth has been sieved and screened and remodelled to suit someone's personal prejudices… it is not necessarily "against their will" —> maybe they don't mind!
Try not to be so *Black and white!*


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

maxiogee said:
			
		

> As often happens, the *plain* truth has been sieved and screened and remodelled to suit someone's personal prejudices… it is not necessarily "against their will" —> maybe they don't mind!
> Try not to be so *Black and white!*


 
Very few people don't mind breathing other people's cancer : it's just that most of them don't dare saying that smoke disturbs them, or are not allowed to say anything because there is no sign that prohibits smoking in the place where they are (for instance in a restaurant or in a pub).
And don't say that the solution is avoiding the places where smoking is allowed, because you know better than me that our favourite restaurants, pubs and discotheques are all smoking places.

and excuse me if I went a little bit out of topic, if you were speaking about smoking in the office, but I couldn't stop myself from saying what I needed to say.


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Very few people don't mind breathing other people's cancer : it's just that most of them don't dare saying that smoke disturbs them, or are not allowed to say anything because there is no sign that prohibits smoking in the place where they are (for instance in a restaurant or in a pub).


 
How do you know that they mind if no one says anything?  Can you read their minds?  Are you part of the psychic friends network.


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Very few people don't mind breathing other people's cancer : it's just that most of them don't dare saying that smoke disturbs them, or are not allowed to say anything because there is no sign that prohibits smoking in the place where they are (for instance in a restaurant or in a pub).



If they don't say, then all you can deduce is that they may not want to. 
You cannot infer anything from their not saying if you don't ask them.

How does there not being a sign stop them from asking the manager to stop someone smoking? 
I'm sure there's no sign that you tear your newspaper into strips and setting fire to it, 
but they'd ask the manager to stop _that_ - or to stop someone who was causing a nuisance in any other manner.

How do you think the bans get imposed in places? 
They get imposed because the owners come to know that paying customers would prefer a ban 
- ask, ask again, then withdraw your custom and tell them why!



> And don't say that the solution is avoiding the places where smoking is allowed, because you know better than me that our favourite restaurants, pubs and discotheques are all smoking places.



"And don't say…" Why on earth not?
You are the one who decides what "our" favourite places are?
I'm sorry, but I do not know better than you *anything* about your favourite restaurants, pubs and discotheques 
- for all I know they could be for left-handed lesbian midgets with red hair!
*You* are the one who makes the choice to go into a premises where smoking is permitted 
- and then *you* tell *me* that I'm not allowed to point that out to you? 
*Why* —> because it makes you out to be ???? 

As my mother was fond of asking people "Have you not got the sense you were born with?"
You don't need to go to places you don't want to go to! 
You're a big kid now, take responsibility for yourself!


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If they don't say, then all you can deduce is that they may not want to.
> You cannot infer anything from their not saying if you don't ask them.
> 
> How does there not being a sign stop them from asking the manager to stop someone smoking?
> I'm sure there's no sign that you tear your newspaper into strips and setting fire to it,
> but they'd ask the manager to stop _that_ - or to stop someone who was causing a nuisance in any other manner.
> 
> How do you think the bans get imposed in places?
> They get imposed because the owners come to know that paying customers would prefer a ban
> - ask, ask again, then withdraw your custom and tell them why!
> 
> 
> 
> "And don't say…" Why on earth not?
> You are the one who decides what "our" favourite places are?
> I'm sorry, but I do not know better than you *anything* about your favourite restaurants, pubs and discotheques
> - for all I know they could be for left-handed lesbian midgets with red hair!
> *You* are the one who makes the choice to go into a premises where smoking is permitted
> - and then *you* tell *me* that I'm not allowed to point that out to you?
> *Why* —> because it makes you out to be ????
> 
> As my mother was fond of asking people "Have you not got the sense you were born with?"
> You don't need to go to places you don't want to go to!
> You're a big kid now, take responsibility for yourself!


 
I say that most people mind because when I speak with my friends most of them say that they do, but of course they keep going in smoking places because non smoking places are very rare here. (and non smoking pubs and discotheques don't exist here)

In my favourite restaurant, which has two separated rooms, I asked so many times the manager to make one of them non smoking, and she clearly made me understand with her nicest smile that she had no intention of doing that.
If I decided not to go to that restaurant anymore, I would be the only loser, because Paris is such a big town that the place is always crowded, therefore the manager wouldn't care at all. Maybe I'd do her a favour : she'd finally get rid of one customer who complains about smoke every time.

When I say that "our favourite places are all smoking places", I thought that you'd understand that I don't mean that we all like the same places. "our" here is in the general meaning of "people's"

Therefore, my sentence meant that usually, people's favourite places (which, of course, can be different from mine) are always smoking places... unless you have the luck of living in a country where it is possible to find a non smoking pub or discotheque.

If I chosed not to go in smoking places, probably I wouldn't go out at all because here in Paris only very few restaurants have a non smoking room (unless your favourite place is McDonald's, which is entirely non smoking), and if there's a non smoking room (which is usually much smaller that the smoking one) it's always fully booked.

So, when you say that I can chose, you are right : I can chose to stay home! (like all non smoking left-handed lesbian midgets with red hair!  )


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> When I say that "our favourite places are all smoking places", I thought that you'd understand that I don't mean that we all like the same places. "our" here is in the general meaning of "people's"




To say that people object to other people smoking, and to say that their favourite places are places where people smoke, well that just means that, like your friends, they don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

maxiogee said:
			
		

> To say that people object to other people smoking, and to say that their favourite places are places where people smoke, well that just means that, like your friends, they don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it.


 
I wish it were possible, but we can't make any fuss about it when there is no law that prohibits smoking : they would say that we are fascists and tell us to get out.
(here the law simply suggests to make two separate areas, but doesn't fine the restaurants when they don't do it)


----------



## geve

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Therefore now, the oly places where it is forbidden to smoke are public transports, shops and supermarkets, and some offices, but it depends on the boss : if he's a smoker he won't do anything to stop his employees from smoking in the offices. And in the subway stations we regularly see people smoking, and if we wanted to tell them anything, we couldn't even show them the "non smoking" sign, because it's very small and almost hidden.


About smoking in office buildings in France: I think this is getting less and less true. I see that the rule is being more strictly enforced now, with many big companies making their buildings entirely non-smoking (not even a smoking room).
Why? Because now, if an employee quits his/her job because of disturbance caused by the lack of enforcement of the non-smoking policy, the resignation can be requalified as a layoff, and the employer can get in trouble.

My office building (with 1000 persons among which a large proportion of smokers) became entirely non-smoking one year ago. In spring, many a non-smoker is jealous of their smoking coworkers, who get to take a break on a terrace with a view on Montmartre (of course non-smokers are welcome to go too, but they have no excuse!)
People in business suits having a ciggy on the sidewalk are not an unusual sight anymore.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

geve said:
			
		

> About smoking in office buildings in France: I think this is getting less and less true. I see that the rule is being more strictly enforced now, with many big companies making their buildings entirely non-smoking (not even a smoking room).
> Why? Because now, if an employee quits his/her job because of disturbance caused by the lack of enforcement of the non-smoking policy, the resignation can be requalified as a layoff, and the employer can get in trouble.
> 
> My office building (with 1000 persons among which a large proportion of smokers) became entirely non-smoking one year ago. In spring, many a non-smoker is jealous of their smoking coworkers, who get to take a break on a terrace with a view on Montmartre (of course non-smokers are welcome to go too, but they have no excuse!)
> People in business suits having a ciggy on the sidewalk are not an unusual sight anymore.


 
I know that some big firms started applying a non smoking policy : I worked in IBM in La Défense, and the only disturbance I had to suffer was being obliged to pass through a cloud of smoke every time before entering the smoke-free building, but let's tolerate this.
Now I'm working in a non-smoking firm too (it's a big bank), but it happened to me to go to some recruiting interviews where the interviewer was smoking in front of me, and It told the agency that one of the reasons why I refused that job was that people were allowed to smoke in the offices.


----------



## Poetic Device

To Lavinia:
     I have a question for you (and hopefully this will prove a point that I am trying to make).  YOu say that your favorite eateries have large smoking sections?  Well, they probably have always been that way (and correct me if I am wrong).  So, with that being the case, here is my question:  If the smoke bothers you that much why did  you go there in the first place? Does thast not seem a bit hypocritical?  Do you see what I am getting at at all?


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

To Poetic Device :
usually we go there in the first place because of the good reputation of the restaurant, then we find out that the cuisine is very good and in the end we think that if we give up going there because of the smoke we'll be the only losers because anyway the owner won't give a damn.

And here in Paris if you want to have good food you are obliged to suffer other people's smoke, because the only non smoking restaurant is McDonalds : the others only have a symbolic non smoking area which is never available.

Make a reservation for a non smoking table? impossible : most restaurants in Paris don't accept reservations. (I don't know about the high ranking restaurants, I'm talking about the average restaurants that we, poor employees, can afford)


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> To Poetic Device :
> usually we go there in the first place because of the good reputation of the restaurant, then we find out that the cuisine is very good and in the end we think that if we give up going there because of the smoke we'll be the only losers because anyway the owner won't give a damn.
> 
> And here in Paris if you want to have good food you are obliged to suffer other people's smoke, because the only non smoking restaurant is McDonalds : the others only have a symbolic non smoking area which is never available.
> 
> Make a reservation for a non smoking table? impossible : most restaurants in Paris don't accept reservations. (I don't know about the high ranking restaurants, I'm talking about the average restaurants that we, poor employees, can afford)


 
Not to sound non-sympathetic, but I greatly doubt that you are looking that hard for non-smoking areas.  In New Jesey and in New York, before the laws 100% forbidding smoking in any public area, we had the sam problem but the other way around.  Meaning, it was impossible to find a place with a smoking section.  However, as I proved at that time, if you want something that badly you will find it.  After searching for about a week or so, my associates and I found a nice resteraunt/diner with a quasi-closed smoking section.  

Basically, my point is this:  instead of crying and complaining, find a place that accomidates to your needs.  It's fine that you don't want to inhale smoke.  What is not fine is you and anyone else trying to enforce your life style upon everyone else.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how on or off topic this one is, but wrap your minds on this:
> 
> I work for a state psychiatric hospital, and there is a lot of talk about turning the hospital into a 100% tobacco free establishment. This means that not only do the staff members get their smoking privelages revoked but the same goes for the clients. (keep in mind that these are people with problems like bi-polar disorder, demensia, schitzoprenia and so on.)


 
The  problem is that smoking doesn't just affect the smoker.  It affects everyone around him.  New studies have just come out that second-hand smoke does have ill effects on people.  I support a person's right to smoke; however, I don't support that choice when it affects others who are forced to breathe the smoke.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> It's fine that you don't want to inhale smoke. What is not fine is you and anyone else trying to enforce your life style upon everyone else.


 
But that's exactly what smokers do when they smoke around other people.  A non-smoker is forced to smell like a smoker whether he likes it or not and more importantly, is forced to breathe very harmful fumes.


----------



## southerngal

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> And here in Paris if you want to have good food you are obliged to suffer other people's smoke, because the only non smoking restaurant is McDonalds


 
I was in Paris a few years ago and found several non-smoking restaurants (that weren't Mcdonald's)!  They're there, but they're kind of hidden.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> What is not fine is you and anyone else trying to enforce your life style upon everyone else.


 
The same thing I could say to you : smoking in a restaurant means imposing your lifestyle upon everyone else, and I daresay it's even worse, because smoke not only stinks and keeps us from appreciating the good food we spent so much money on, but it also gives cancer to people who never smoked in their own lives.
So, what's worse : imposing my non-smoking life style upon the others, or imposing your smoking lifestyle upon the others? (considering that even in non smoking places, smoke-addicts can always go out for a cigarette)

In addition to that, a total non smoking policy could be a good reason for some smokers to quit smoking. Don't you agree?


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but being a person that has not smoked for a bit of time now, an asthmatic and otherwise highly sensative to smoke I have never smelled it, so therefore I cann't see how anyone else can.


 
With all due respect, I think that's a very dangerous attitude in life:  *If I don't feel it/think it/see it/experience it/ then I can't see how anyone else can.  *Unfortunately, not everyone else is just like we are, so it's very important that we acknowledge that other people may experience life differently than we do.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> With all due respect, I think that's a very dangerous attitude in life:


Welcome Southerngal

With all due respect, I think that telling people (even with "all due respect") they have a very dangerous attitude in life is a dangerous attitude in life.


----------



## Poetic Device

Wow, this is going to ba a long one. Please use the restroom before reading this.  


			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> The problem is that smoking doesn't just affect the smoker. It affects everyone around him. New studies have just come out that second-hand smoke does have ill effects on people. I support a person's right to smoke; however, I don't support that choice when it affects others who are forced to breathe the smoke.


 
In the facility that I work at, the people that we attend to are psychotic, and therefore obviously reside there. If the individuals live at the facility, then that is by definition their home. How can you tell someone (especially a mentally unstable person) they are no longer allowed to smoke at their home? I say "at their home" because the smokers go outside to a designated area certain times of the day to smoke. They are nowhere near any non-smokers, so nothing interferes there. As for the non-smokers, they have thier own fresh air group, so they are not being neglected. I have an idea, how about you go to a psychiatric hospital and tell a bi-polar person with psychosis and demensia that they are not allowed to smoke ever again because of the fact that you wanted to turn their home into a 100% tobacco-free establishment.



			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> But that's exactly what smokers do when they smoke around other people. A non-smoker is forced to smell like a smoker whether he likes it or not and more importantly, is forced to breathe very harmful fumes.


 
That is why there are resteraunts that have either 100% non-smoking or the non-smoking section is not only right up front but closed off to the smokers. Bong.



			
				Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> ... it also gives cancer to people who never smoked in their own lives.
> So, what's worse : imposing my non-smoking life style upon the others, or imposing your smoking lifestyle upon the others? (considering that even in non smoking places, smoke-addicts can always go out for a cigarette)
> 
> In addition to that, a total non smoking policy could be a good reason for some smokers to quit smoking. Don't you agree?


 
Okay, first of all, I don't know how many times I can repeat myself as far as second-hand smoke causing cancer. I gave you a bloody link for crying out loud. Until you do research and open your eyes, please don't direct anything on _that_ particular section of the topic towards me. I will only ignore it. (Sorry if I am sounding harsh, but you would get sick of repeating yourself after a while, too.) 

As for this: "considering that even in non smoking places, smoke-addicts can always go out for a cigarette" It does not sound like that really matters to you because you--and others--have said in the past that the smell on other people sicken you, so why do you want to entertain any notion of even sharing the same building with a "dirty person"?  I do have to say one thing, though. I do agree with you on how it will give many people the influence to quit. In the long run, it is better for them, however I just feel that they are quitting for the wrong reason. They are being quasi-forced to quit. If they don't want to quit 100% and solely for themselves, then no matter what it will never work.

Told ya this was going to be a long one.


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi

I heard that topic on the news yesterday. In California if a smoker was found smoking inside of a restaurant, hotel, bar, etc…was fined by $250 dollars.


----------



## GenJen54

poetic device said:
			
		

> Okay, first of all, I don't know how many times I can repeat myself as far as second-hand smoke causing cancer. I gave you a bloody link for crying out loud. Until you do research and open your eyes, please don't direct anything on _that_ particular section of the topic towards me. I will only ignore it. (Sorry if I am sounding harsh, but you would get sick of repeating yourself after a while, too.)


 
I must be blinded by my own prejudice here.  That, or something else.  I have gone through this thread about three times and have not found the link you said you provided.


----------



## Poetic Device

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I must be blinded by my own prejudice here. That, or something else. I have gone through this thread about three times and have not found the link you said you provided.


 
That's really wierd. I could have sworn that I gave the site(s). I know that I at least gave the statistics. No matter. My apologies. Here they are:

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/radon/
http://www.nsc.org/EHC/jrn/tips/tipehc88.htm 

(NOTE: I am not saying that smoking or second hand smoking do not cause cancer, I am saying that there are other reasons that are equal [if not greater] to the cause of lung cancer, and that they are seldom--if ever--taken into consideration and that second-hand smoke is not the leading cause of cancer among non-smokers.)
Thank you, GenJen54, for letting me know.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> That is why there are resteraunts that have either 100% non-smoking or the non-smoking section is not only right up front but closed off to the smokers. Bong.


 
Outside the US, the places that cater to smokers far outnumber the non-smoking places.  What are small children supposed to do?  It really is a form of child-abuse.  Children have no choice.




> Okay, first of all, I don't know how many times I can repeat myself as far as second-hand smoke causing cancer.


 
If you just watch the news, there is very recent evidence!  Even if smoking isn't the number one cause of cancer, does that mean it isn't a danger?  There will almost always be something "more" dangerous but it doesn't mean that we should partake in everything except the absolute most dangerous!

Smokers should smoke at home where they will only damage themselves and not others in the immediate vicinity.








Told ya this was going to


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Welcome Southerngal
> 
> With all due respect, I think that telling people (even with "all due respect") they have a very dangerous attitude in life is a dangerous attitude in life.


 
Please look at my original wording.  I said the attitude itself was dangerous.  It was not a personal attack at all, and I stand by my statement that the attitude itself is dangerous, which is not the same as saying that the poster has that attitude.  In other words, I was commenting on the attitude, not on the person.  Big difference.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> Outside the US, the places that cater to smokers far outnumber the non-smoking places.  What are small children supposed to do?  It really is a form of child-abuse.  Children have no choice.


Small children are meant to have parents who protect them.
If their parents are as unconcerned as to bring them into a smoking environment then *that* is a form of child-abuse. Just because Bill brings his children into a place where Fred is smoking doesn't make Fred a villain!




> If you just watch the news, there is very recent evidence!  Even if smoking isn't the number one cause of cancer, does that mean it isn't a danger?  There will almost always be something "more" dangerous but it doesn't mean that we should partake in everything except the absolute most dangerous!


Just how many cancer cases does this "recent evidence" state are caused by second-hand smoke?

Smokers need to decide for themselves to quit. They can be hleped in this by people making it difficult for them to enjoy a cigarette as part of their everyday life. To do this, and to protect themselves, non-smokers need to demand non-smoking restaurants, bars, cinemas etc.
That they don't do this says one of two things…
Either they don't care about their own chances of contracting disease from second-hand smoke (or they don't believe the evidence you mention)
or
It isn't a problem for them.

The answer rests purely in the hands of non-smokers. They outnumber smokers in the Western world (we are led to believe) and probably outspend them - hit the owners of places where you would rather not be exposed to smoke where it hurts them - in their takings. If the anti-smoking brigade don't, won't or can't do that, don't come running to the rest of us who either smoke, or don't care if others do, seeking our support.


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If their parents are as unconcerned as to bring them into a smoking environment then *that* is a form of child-abuse. Just because Bill brings his children into a place where Fred is smoking doesn't make Fred a villain!


 
Sometimes there is no choice.  Fortunately, in the US, most federal buildings are smoke-free, but it wasn't always that way.  What if a parent must take his child to a place where smoking is allowed?  It really isn't too bad in the US, but in Europe, it's so much worse.  I've taken my children to Europe, and it's just so sad that we've had to do an amazing amount of work to try (and it doesn't always happen) to avoid smoke.



> Just how many cancer cases does this "recent evidence" state are caused by second-hand smoke?


 
It was determined by the US Surgeon General, so you may not have heard about it.  I haven't read the detailed report.



> To do this, and to protect themselves, non-smokers need to demand non-smoking restaurants, bars, cinemas etc.


 
Oh, we do!  Actually, several establishments have banned smoking based on letters I've written.  What's funny is that their business actually increased, which I think is great.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> It was determined by the US Surgeon General, so you may not have heard about it.  I haven't read the detailed report.



I've just had a quick look. it starts out startling and then gets dubious to say the least.

The US Surgeon General's website offers this openingt sentence to their press release


> U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.



Then I got the PDF of the full report. My first target was to see what they consider to be "exposure to secondhand smoke", so that I would know what we're talking about.

This is the full extent of the Definitions and Terminology section


> *Definitions and Terminology *
> The inhalation of tobacco smoke by nonsmokers has been variably referred to as “passive smoking” or “involuntary smoking.” Smokers, of course, also inhale secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke contains both particles and gases generated by the combustion at high temperatures of tobacco, paper, and additives.
> The smoke inhaled by nonsmokers that contaminates indoor spaces and outdoor environments has often been referred to as “secondhand smoke” or “environmental tobacco smoke.” This inhaled smoke is the mixture of sidestream smoke released by the smoldering cigarette and the mainstream smoke that is exhaled by a smoker. Sidestream smoke, generated at lower temperatures and under somewhat different combustion conditions than mainstream smoke, tends to have higher concentrations of many of the toxins found in cigarette smoke (USDHHS 1986). However, it is rapidly diluted as it travels away from the burning cigarette.
> Secondhand smoke is an inherently dynamic mixture that changes in characteristics and concentration with the time since it was formed and the distance it has traveled. The smoke particles change in size and composition as gaseous components are volatilized and moisture content changes; gaseous elements of secondhand smoke may be adsorbed onto
> materials, and particle concentrations drop with both dilution in the air or environment and impaction on surfaces, including the lungs or on the body. Because of its dynamic nature, a specific quantitative definition of secondhand smoke cannot be offered.
> This report uses the term secondhand smoke in preference to environmental tobacco smoke, even though the latter may have been used more frequently in previous reports. The descriptor “secondhand” captures the involuntary nature of the exposure, while “environmental” does not. This report also refers to the inhalation of secondhand smoke as involuntary smoking, acknowledging that most nonsmokers do not want to inhale tobacco smoke. The exposure of the fetus to tobacco smoke, whether from active smoking by the mother or from her exposure to secondhand smoke, also constitutes involuntary smoking.



I'll just highlight that relevant section - 





> *Because of its dynamic nature, a specific quantitative definition of secondhand smoke cannot be offered. *


So we know nothing about what is considered "exposure" to second-hand smoke - it could be sitting for years in an office with someone with a fifty-a-day habit, or it might be passing one smoker in the street once in your life!
Come on! Let's get serious here.


----------



## badgrammar

> Outside the US, the places that cater to smokers far outnumber the non-smoking places. What are small children supposed to do? It really is a form of child-abuse. Children have no choice.






> Just because Bill brings his children into a place where Fred is smoking doesn't make Fred a villain!



(Edited to add:  Maxi, I completely agree with you on this statement, but it's late -- and I wasn't clear! Sorry)

That may be true in the occasional case where parents make no effort to guard their children from second-hand smoke, but children, and people in general will be exposed to all kinds of things in their life!  That's not to say "let's take them to the bar every night", that's to say that on occasion, a kid will be in an environment where there's smoke,  and it's neither a crime nor neglect.  I just get tired of wanting to protect everybody from everything.  



> With all due respect, I think that telling people (even with "all due respect") they have a very dangerous attitude in life is a dangerous attitude in life.



Absolutely.  We all have our weaknesses.  If you don't smoke tabaco, what is yours?  Drinking, religion, food, shopping, pornography, trail biking, 4x4's and SUV's....  WRF ??  Who might you be harming? And how much? 


"What if a parent must take his child to a place where smoking is allowed? It really isn't too bad in the US, but in Europe, it's so much worse."

It is _very_ rare nowadays, in any place in the US _and_ in Europe (or atleast France), that a parent has the _need_ to take his child to any public building (apart restaurants) where smoking is allowed.  Five years ago, that may not have been the case.  But today, it is.  

And European legislation is moving quickly, I am sure in a ffew years, smoking will be banned from French restaurants and bars.  I can't say it's fundamentally the wrong thing to do, but... has anybody got a light? 

In any case, I think smokers may tend to go out more often than non smokers, and non-smoking bars have a hard time at first, as smokers may prefer to stay in.  But gradually, we all get used to it.  Just give us some nice benches out front, it will be fine.  

I wish there could be a happy medium, where smokers are considerate *most* of the time (offices, businesses, public buildings, non-smoking sections, _all_ transports, and non-smokers are tolerant *some* of the time (*outdoors*, bars, and in other people's homes (and occasionally their own).


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

_



			It is very rare nowadays, in any place in the US and in Europe (or atleast France), that a parent has the need to take his child to any public building (apart restaurants) where smoking is allowed. Five years ago, that may not have been the case. But today, it is.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
There are several smoking places where a parent may "need" to take his child : restaurants and also bars, I don't necessarily mean late at night, but if for instance the parents want to meet their friends during the day and they can't really afford a nanny every time they go out.


_



			And European legislation is moving quickly, I am sure in a ffew years, smoking will be banned from French restaurants and bars. I can't say it's fundamentally the wrong thing to do, but... has anybody got a light?
		
Click to expand...

_ 
I live in Paris (bad luck for me) and I can tell you that smoking is not really likely to be banned from restaurants and bars here : the State perceives a tax on the cigarettes sold, therefore they'd never approve such a law.
Last year in September they tried to propose the "total smoking ban" law in the Parliament, and it was immediately rejected, while the polls said that 80% of the French people would have agreed to such a law


_



			I wish there could be a happy medium, where smokers are considerate *most* of the time (offices, businesses, public buildings, non-smoking sections, all transports, and non-smokers are tolerant *some* of the time (*outdoors*, bars, and in other people's homes (and occasionally their own).
		
Click to expand...

_ 
I wish I could say that I agree with you, but unfortunately smoke is a nuisance to us non smokers even in outdoor places : have you ever been obliged to walk in the street behind somebody who is smoking, because you need to go in the same direction and can't do otherwise? well, there's nothing you can tell him : there's no law against smoking in the street, but as a matter of fact it does disturb and it is equally harmful to the health.
That's why, in my utopic ideal, I'd like to have smoke banned even in outdoor bars and restaurants.
Of course, in private homes everyone is free to do whatever they want.


----------



## badgrammar

Well, Lavinia, I am dazzled by your intolerance.  Good luck with that.  Getting a whiff of smoke on the street is not putting your health in danger.  There is a difference between a health hazard and something you just would rather not smell.  So I guess you are for a total ban on any vehicles that run on fossil fuels? 



> have you ever been obliged to walk in the street behind somebody who is smoking, because you need to go in the same direction and can't do otherwise? well, there's nothing you can tell him : there's no law against smoking in the street, but as a matter of fact it does disturb and it is equally harmful to the health.



And I'm sorry dear, but just as it has gone and is going in the rest of the world (including Italy), of course nonsmoking legislation will soon be enforced in France.  Don't make blanket statements about such things when you obviously have no idea whatsoever.  How about you do a little research on smoking bans in Europe and then get back to us? Within a few years, France will go the way of Spain, Ireland, Italy


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> I live in Paris (bad luck for me) and I can tell you that smoking is not really likely to be banned from restaurants and bars here : the State perceives a tax on the cigarettes sold, therefore they'd never approve such a law.



Have you any idea how much the Irish state rakes in in tax on every packet of cigarettes sold?


----------



## Sallyb36

*: have you ever been obliged to walk in the street behind somebody who is smoking, because you need to go in the same direction and can't do otherwise? well, there's nothing you can tell him : there's no law against smoking in the street, but as a matter of fact it does disturb and it is equally harmful to the health.*
Lavinia, what is traffic pollution like in Paris?  Should we ban all traffic as well?


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> *: have you ever been obliged to walk in the street behind somebody who is smoking, because you need to go in the same direction and can't do otherwise? well, there's nothing you can tell him : there's no law against smoking in the street, but as a matter of fact it does disturb and it is equally harmful to the health.*
> Lavinia, what is traffic pollution like in Paris? Should we ban all traffic as well?


 
It is impossible to ban traffic, although the Mayor of Paris is doing his best to hinder the circulation of cars by making the roads narrower by unnecessarily enlarging sidewalks that are already wide enough, creating bycicle tracks that nobody uses, creating bus lanes where cars are not allowed to go when the subway is a much better solution for public transport.

The point is that people need cars, and the pollution caused by them is already enormous without having to add the unnecessary smoke of cigarettes.


----------



## Sallyb36

people do not need cars any more than they need cigarettes.  People who smoke do so largely because of the fault of the governments due to extensive advertising campaigns in the 70's and 80's, and the huge taxes that the government receives from smokers.  They cannot take so much tax on the one hand and ban it on the other, it doesn't make sense.  
The tobacco companies and the government combined did all they could to make sure that tobacco sales were profitable, and now we're all bad because we're addicted.  It's not the fault of the smoker, it's the fault of the tobacco companies and the government.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> people do not need cars any more than they need cigarettes. People who smoke do so largely because of the fault of the governments due to extensive advertising campaigns in the 70's and 80's, and the huge taxes that the government receives from smokers. They cannot take so much tax on the one hand and ban it on the other, it doesn't make sense.
> The tobacco companies and the government combined did all they could to make sure that tobacco sales were profitable, and now we're all bad because we're addicted. It's not the fault of the smoker, it's the fault of the tobacco companies and the government.


 
OK, I agree with you that anyway the Government has no interest in putting a ban on smoke, seen the taxes it receives from smokers.

There is also one horrible thing I heard about tobacco companies : it is that they could remove nicotine and harmful substances from cigarettes but they don't do it because without those substances people wouldn't get addicted.

What I wouldn't say is that it is the Government fault if people became addicted to smoke. We are all responsible for our own actions : I see many advertisements about alcoholic drinks but that's not a reason to become a drunkard.


----------



## Sallyb36

Ok, I agree that it si not the Governments fault that people have become addicted to smoke, but they and the tobacco companies did all they vcould for at least 20 years to sell it to the public, they made it seem so cool.  When I was a child it was the epitome of being grown up!  
People who start nowadays have less excuse than people who started 10-20 years ago and more.  They used to give soldiers in the army free cigarettes, even when they didn't have food!  You cannot completely take blame away from the government as they were helping the tobacco companies to sell thier products so that they would be able to get more taxes.


----------



## badgrammar

I bike wherever I go in Paris, last year alone I did about 1500km on my bike in and around Paris (I have a car too, so it's a choice).  Those bike lanes that "nobody uses" are a real godsend for cyclists in Paris, and there is an enormous amount of bike (and bus) traffic on them.  The bus system in Paris is also quite good and an excellent and more pleasant alternative to the metro. You may prefer the subway to buses and do not ride a bicycle, but why do you seem to be against the MAyor's effort to adapt the streets of Paris to environmentally sane forms of transportation in order to cut down on dangerous _air pollution_?  Cars are _NOT_ a necessity in Paris.

I suck the fumes from all those private vehicles that circulate in Paris, and so do you.  It's a much bigger problem than being inconvenienced by smelling smoke on the street!  

My question for you is do you ever really try to put yourself in someone else's shoes?  It sounds like your arguments are simply based on your personal likes, dislikes and interests, and you don't make much effort to imagine that other people have other priorities and preferences that may be just as valid as your own.  

I repeat, TOLERANCE, TOLERANCE, and more TOLERANCE!!!



			
				Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> the Mayor of Paris is doing his best to hinder the circulation of cars by making the roads narrower by unnecessarily enlarging sidewalks that are already wide enough, creating bycicle tracks that nobody uses, creating bus lanes where cars are not allowed to go when the subway is a much better solution for public transport.
> 
> The point is that people need cars, and the pollution caused by them is already enormous without having to add the unnecessary smoke of cigarettes.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

badgrammar said:
			
		

> I bike wherever I go in Paris, last year alone I did about 1500km on my bike in and around Paris (I have a car too, so it's a choice). Those bike lanes that "nobody uses" are a real godsend for cyclists in Paris, and there is an enormous amount of bike (and bus) traffic on them. The bus system in Paris is also quite good and an excellent and more pleasant alternative to the metro. You may prefer the subway to buses and do not ride a bicycle, but why do you seem to be against the MAyor's effort to adapt the streets of Paris to environmentally sane forms of transportation in order to cut down on dangerous _air pollution_? Cars are _NOT_ a necessity in Paris.
> 
> I suck the fumes from all those private vehicles that circulate in Paris, and so do you. It's a much bigger problem than being inconvenienced by smelling smoke on the street!
> 
> My question for you is do you ever really try to put yourself in someone else's shoes? It sounds like your arguments are simply based on your personal likes, dislikes and interests, and you don't make much effort to imagine that other people have other priorities and preferences that may be just as valid as your own.
> 
> I repeat, TOLERANCE, TOLERANCE, and more TOLERANCE!!!


 
I'm not really saying that bycicle lanes are not a good thing, but the matter is that I almost never see anyone on them (except myself when I jog).
As for going to the office by bike, it's not really easy when you are wearing the "penguin suit" as I call it, and considering that in summer you'd arrive drenched in sweat even worse than in the metro.

Concerning buses, I'm not sure that it's a more pleasant alternative than the metro if you have to wait for them longer, and when they arrive they are always crowded? they are also slower.
The metro is also too hot and crowded, like buses, but at least it is faster.

I agree with you that in Paris cars are more or less useless : the subway network is very efficient.
But I don't know how much we can blame those people who don't want to use public transports : who likes to travel standing in those crowded dirty wagons, in that stifling heat, and with all those smelly people stuck upon you?

I never use my car in Paris, I use the metro, but that's only because of traffic jams and lack of parking spaces.

I'd really like to see the Mayor of Paris traveling by metro during the rush hours for a couple of months like we all do, and then I would ask him his impressions about it!

I don't think I ever said that cigarette smoke in the street is a greater problem than pollution. It seems to me that I said that we don't need to add this nuisance to the already big problem of pollution.


----------



## geve

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> It is impossible to ban traffic, although the Mayor of Paris is doing his best to hinder the circulation of cars by making the roads narrower by unnecessarily enlarging sidewalks that are already wide enough, creating bycicle tracks that nobody uses, creating bus lanes where cars are not allowed to go when the subway is a much better solution for public transport.
> 
> The point is that people need cars, and the pollution caused by them is already enormous without having to add the unnecessary smoke of cigarettes.


Lavinia, I feel sorry for you: is your glass never half _full_? 
Don't you see that sidewalks were enlarged just to allow you not to walk right behind someone smoking, but a little on the side and off the smoke?  

You said that we didn't really need buses -yet you say they're crowded... And it's all a matter of cause & consequence: if there are not enough bus lanes, buses won't go very fast, and people will prefer to take their car...
Buses go where subway doesn't - it is much easier to create a new bus itinerary than a new subway line! And I concur that it's a nice alternative to subway. Just this morning I thought I'd vary from my usual subway trip, and take the bus (which makes me walk a little more but hey, let's take advantage of morning air before it gets too hot!): there are bus lanes on the itinerary I'm taking, it's not crowded (you actually get to choose where you seat!) and you can sightsee (good thing when you forgot your book which was my case this morning).

Erm... I realize the above paragraph doesn't really fit in the "Smoking or non smoking" topic anymore.  
I guess I'm just trying to say like badgrammar: Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance...

You might be disgusted by the mere smell of meat - but you can't have the kebab shops shut down. You may be totally allergic to body odor - yet you can't forbid physical workers to use public transportation to go home. 

There's a sunny side to all this (in this weather be careful to wear appropriate sun protection though ): no matter what, you'll always have a good reason -and the right- to complain!


----------



## Sallyb36

ok, there are always reasons for not doing what we don't want to.
Like not giving up smoking because we're addicted.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> ok, there are always reasons for not doing what we don't want to.
> Like not giving up smoking because we're addicted.


 
Ok, I surrender, you are right!

Let smokers poison themselves if they want to : they are free.
But let's also tell them that their freedom's only limit is where other people's freedom begins.


PS : let's not mention that in France non smokers also pay the National Health System to cure diseases due to smoke, and I don't know how fair is this, since those diseases are not incdental but caused by the smoker himself.


----------



## Sallyb36

PS : let's not mention that in France non smokers also pay the National Health System to cure diseases due to smoke, and I don't know how fair is this, since those diseases are not incdental but caused by the smoker himself.
I think that smokers pay enough taxes on their tobacco over a lifetime to pay for medical treatment.


----------



## badgrammar

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> PS : let's not mention that in France non smokers also pay the National Health System to cure diseases due to smoke, and I don't know how fair is this, since those diseases are not incdental but caused by the smoker himself.



How about treating diseases related to obesity?  That is something people do to themselves.  

Lavinia, again, I find your perspective on the issues raised in this thread very narrow-minded, and based strictly on your own preferences.  

What do you think of "tolerance"?  *Perhaps it is only others that should be tolerant of your actions,* such as running in the bike lane ?  (Especially the small ones!  Run on those overly roomy sidewalks.)


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

badgrammar said:
			
		

> How about treating diseases related to obesity? That is something people do to themselves.
> 
> Lavinia, again, I find your perspective on the issues raised in this thread very narrow-minded, and based strictly on your own preferences.
> 
> What do you think of "tolerance"? *Perhaps it is only others that should be tolerant of your actions,* such as running in the bike lane ? (Especially the small ones! Run on those overly roomy sidewalks.)


 
Ok, Ok, you are right : if we wanted a hypothetic "fair State", then the people who practice a sport should pay more for the "sécurité sociale", as should smokers or people suffering from obesity because they are causing their own diseases, but that's impossible to do.
In the case of smokers, I don't know if a part of the taxes taken by the State on cigarettes goes to the Sécurité Sociale for lung cancer treatment... that would be interesting to know.

As for jogging on bycicle lanes, 1st : I do it only when there are people on the sidewalk. 2nd : whenever a bycicle is approaching, I obviously get myself out of the way. 3rd : maybe jogging should be banned from everywhere except treadmills because it's also dangerous for the people you may run into.


----------



## Poetic Device

To Lavinia:
     Honestly, do you listen to yourself before you speak?  Step away, clear your mind, and then calmly and slowly read your posts.  Does any of it make sense?  You contradict yourself to fit your convenience, and it confuses me greatly.



			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> Oh, we do! Actually, several establishments have banned smoking based on letters I've written. What's funny is that their business actually increased, which I think is great.


 
     Then why don't you go to *those* places instead of harassing everyone else?
     As far as the taxes are concerned, do you have any idea what they are like in the United States?  When the cigarettes were 4.5 euros (about $5.60 in American dollars) at the turn of the century, they were $6.80 (about 4.82 in euros) and, unlike what the majority of the world may 
erroneously think (thanks to rubbish like Mtv) not that many people are well off or a little more than comfortable.  The average hard working individual purchases the cigarrette because that is their one release from the rest of the world.  They need the time to sit, relax and reflect.  
     (This is just to prove my point.)  For a brief moment, I am going to get off topic, and I apologize.  Has anyone ever seen someone do marajuanna (pot/weed) or actually done it themselves?  What does it do to the smokers and the people that inhale the smoke?  It relaxes them and mellows them out.  The basic principle goes for the average smoker.  The dirty and disgusting habit relaxes them but I guess in order to understand that you need to be a little tolerant (wow, that word sounds familiar) 

     You are right, people do have a right to do what they wish.  However, wrap your mind around this:  the areas that you are complaining about are *PUBLIC PLACES.  *You can't tell the puvlic that they cannot do something that they wish, especially if the chances of becoming terminally ill are either slim or undetermined.  As far as the coice to smoke itself is concerned, here is my outlook:  we all have to go sometime, so I might as well choose how.  (That is of course in hopes that I don't get hit by a bus or run over by a cyclist because I am jogging in their rightful area.)


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> To Lavinia:
> Honestly, do you listen to yourself before you speak? Step away, clear your mind, and then calmly and slowly read your posts. Does any of it make sense? You contradict yourself to fit your convenience, and it confuses me greatly.


 
Please quote the sentences where I contraddict myself.

PS : how many times do I have to say that I'm not jogging in bus lanes, and that I use bycicle lanes for jogging only occasionally (I usually jog on the sidewalk)


----------



## badgrammar

Not to beat a dead horse, but you really need to think about how we can better all live together, with our faults and qualities, our bad habits and our good ones.  I ride my bike in Paris.  I smoke in smoking areas, and out of doors.  Would it be better for you that I not smoke but drive a 4x4?  Or better that I not smoke but suffer from obesity-related illnesses?   Perhaps I will become ill from smoking one day, but in the meantime, I use my securité sociale maybe twice a year, for a pap smear and a dental check-up.  

Do you really think the world would be a better place if smokers could only smoke in their own homes?  Better for who?  Do we have to shut our windows so that nthing could seep out and possibly be smelled by someone else? 

Life is not with out risks.  And as we all know, "L'Enfer, c'est les autres" (Hell is other people) .  So if I'm to put up with some of your unsavory behaviors, you'll have to put up with some of mine.


----------



## geve

Warning! This post contains figures on French healthcare that not everyone might want to know.


			
				Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> In the case of smokers, I don't know if a part of the taxes taken by the State on cigarettes goes to the Sécurité Sociale for lung cancer treatment... that would be interesting to know.


You just have to ask:
Taxes on tobacco are among the few ones that are directly affected. They go to the _Sécurité Sociale_, and more specifically (and logically) to the branch "Maladie" (the other categories being "Accidents du travail", "Famille", "Vieillesse").

After a bit of investigation I can tell you that the CNAM (_Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie_) received *3,4 billions (milliards) €* from tobacco taxes in 2005.

I was surprised not to see taxes on alcohol there too - but thanks to that I've just dicovered that it had been re-affected to the CMU funds ("Couverture Maladie Universelle" = access to healthcare for people who are not entitled to the Assurance Maladie)

Source : www.securite-sociale.fr and more specifically the financial report: 
warning: Warning again! 244 pages-pdf file filled with figures and state stuff coming up (affected taxes are on page 42 - aren't I too good??))
http://www.securite-sociale.fr/secu/finances/ccss/2006/ccss200606.pdf


----------



## geve

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> PS : how many times do I have to say that I'm not jogging in bus lanes, and that I use bycicle lanes for jogging *only occasionally* (I usually jog on the sidewalk)


Maybe the smokers you see in the streets, *only occasionally* light a cigarette outside.  But you always happen to be there when they do! (you know what they say, that smoke always goes to the one person who can't stand it)


----------



## badgrammar

Wow, Geve, how very interesting and pertinent to the whole debate !  Thanks!


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Then why don't you go to *those* places instead of harassing everyone else?


 
I do! But I don't always have a choice. The great thing is that because of all the "harassing" (which is exactly what smokers do with their smoke to everyone else) that things have changed.  

Last weekend, I ate at a restaurant whose menu said at the top "We do not allow smoking because smoking deadens the palate, and we want you to enjoy our food!" I thought it was great.

That's really the problem with smokers. Most do not seem to realize how offensive their habit is to others because their sense of smell is greatly diminished. Imagine a person who doesn't bathe or use deodorant, and the person is sitting next to you on a hot day, and you're in the downwind. Most people would probably find it very offensive, even smokers. Yet, the burning smell of tobacco is just as offensive to many of us, yet we're supposed to put up with it. Smokers want to be able to offend others but probably won't put up with the same behavior from other offensive sources.





> The average hard working individual purchases the cigarrette because that is their one release from the rest of the world.


 
That may be true of blue collar workers, but I don't think it's a fair statement for others in the western world, especially the United States. Where I live, it is seen as what it is, just sucking on a burning weed, which is kind of gross, if you think about it.





> However, wrap your mind around this: the areas that you are complaining about are *PUBLIC PLACES. *You can't tell the puvlic that they cannot do something that they wish, especially if the chances of becoming terminally ill are either slim or undetermined.


 
So, is it all right if someone stands around screaming or playing loud music, even though it bothers other people? Remember, you're in a public place. Somehow smokers arrogantly think they have the right to do whatever they please, regardless of how others around them feel. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Not to beat a dead horse, but you really need to think about how we can better all live together, with our faults and qualities, our bad habits and our good ones. I ride my bike in Paris. I smoke in smoking areas, and out of doors. Would it be better for you that I not smoke but drive a 4x4? Or better that I not smoke but suffer from obesity-related illnesses? Perhaps I will become ill from smoking one day, but in the meantime, I use my securité sociale maybe twice a year, for a pap smear and a dental check-up.
> 
> Do you really think the world would be a better place if smokers could only smoke in their own homes? Better for who? Do we have to shut our windows so that nthing could seep out and possibly be smelled by someone else?
> 
> Life is not with out risks. And as we all know, "L'Enfer, c'est les autres" (Hell is other people) . So if I'm to put up with some of your unsavory behaviors, you'll have to put up with some of mine.


 
Well, I agree with you about most of what you said : you are right when you say that some of my behaviours might disturb others. In that case, I hope they'll tell me, and I'll stop if possible, unlike many smokers who will extinguish their cigarette for 5 minutes and then light another one when you are eating your dessert.

And of course I agree with you that a person who smokes all day long and uses public transports or bike is much less harmful than somebody who doesn't smoke but drives a 4x4

Now let's make a comparison (a very absurd one, but at least appreciate my attempt to stand in your shoes) : how would I feel if there was an absurd law that prohibits chocolate eating outside your own home (I say chocolate because it's my favourite food). Well, I'd certainly think that it's absurd, but in the end, it wouldn't cost me that much, eating my chocolate in my own home if it disturbs others.

Could this (absurd)comparison fit smokers?


----------



## southerngal

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Do you really think the world would be a better place if smokers could only smoke in their own homes?


 
It would be a lot cleaner. Cigarette butts all over the ground is not an appealing sight to me, sorry. 




> So if I'm to put up with some of your unsavory behaviors, you'll have to put up with some of mine.


 
Really? So, at 3am, if your next-door neighbor blasts his stereo (because that's his right), and you have to get up at 6am for an important business meeting, you won't complain? 

I agree that we should all be more accommodating in life. However, smoking is a very aggressive act that affects everyone around the smoker, just as loud music does, so when our behaviors intrude so blatently upon others, that's when we need to reassess our "rights" that aggressively force our habits or _pleasures_ upon others.


----------



## Sallyb36

chocolate is not physically adictive as far as i know but apart form that the argument stands, but what if you were in dire physical need of chocolate and very far from home.  What would you do?


----------



## geve

southerngal said:
			
		

> Imagine a person who doesn't bathe or use deodorant, and the person is sitting next to you on a hot day, and you're in the downwind. Most people would probably find it very offensive, even smokers. Yet, the burning smell of tobacco is just as offensive to many of us, yet we're supposed to put up with it. Smokers want to be able to offend others but probably won't put up with the same behavior from other offensive sources.


Do you not put up with the smelly guy? Or do you send the police after him? _"Officer, this man stinks to a point that should be illegal."_

Following your logic, if you are going to forbid smoking in the streets, you should ban body odor too. 
Smelly people go home! 
Have faith in deodorant! 
I'm not sure what we'll do with people who work in public works though: they are likely to sweat a tad, and their job takes place in the street - a public place. What should we do with them? A special derogation? Anti-odor walls?
(oh - and another thing that is likely to cause sweat/body odor: jogging!!  Joggers go home! But then we said we wouldn't talk about it anymore  )


----------



## maxiogee

Having declared myself much earlier to be an ex-smoker, could I ask the combatants forer@s here to declare their status vis-a-vis tobacco?

I'll even go further than just stating that I gave up. It was about ten or eleven years ago.
My mother smoked for many years, eventually giving up. Almost a year later she was diagnosed with lung-cancer and had a hunk of one lung removed. She was given six months to live, but lasted another thirty years. She finally succumbed to a combination of diseases all brought on by smoking. She was one of eight children - each one of whom died of some form of cancer - some of whom had never smoked. Her parents never smoked.. I for one am convinced that there is a genetic link to a predisposition towards developing cancer.
My wife used to smoke, but I can't remember now if she stopped before we married twenty-three years ago.

I think it can be highly informative to know where we are all "coming from" in relation to tobacco.


----------



## GenJen54

*Here are a few points to ponder:*

Smoking is a serious health hazard, both to the smoker and non-smoker.   Radon, a naturally occurring gas omitted by the earth, is also a health hazard.  In my neck of the woods, it is not a threat.  Second-hand smoke is.

Smoking is a nuisance, and like other nuisances, those who are bothered by it have the right to complain about it. 

Smoking is an environmental hazard which is *NOT NECESSARY *for human survival or everyday life function.  Not only is the cigarette smoke bad, but so are the butts littering the streets, walkways and other public areas.  They are not biodegradable and cannot be recycled.  In short, they're here forever.

Driving is also an environmental hazard, creating a great deal of pollution (it's probably the greatest threat to global warming today). Unlike smoking, driving is often necessary for survival in those cities where the infrastructure holds few options with regard to public transportation. I live twenty miles away from my workplace.  No public busses or other transport go to the area where I live.  I have no choice but to drive.

Smoking lessens productivity in the workplace, both by time spent away from one's desk, as well as the number of sick days taken by smoking employees.  Non-smokers have no option to leave their desk and "feed" their habits.  When they allow me to get up for a "brownie" break, I'll be thrilled. 

Similar vices as mentioned, including shopping, chocolate, over-eating in general (obesity), etc. are hazardous only to those individuals who partake in those habits.  Exceptions are excessive drinking (where one gets into a car), and/or recreational drug use (where one gets into a car or exhales their cannibis).  However, recreational drugs are generally NOT consumed in public places, where others can breathe in these fumes.

I'm not really sure I can find many benefits to smoking. 

Yes, I am an ex-smoker (a "social" smoker who smoked mainly when I drank and of course, when I lived in France).  Yes, I still partake from time to time (and by that I mean once every six months or so in the privacy of my or anothers' home).  Yes, I still find it an obnoxious habit and go out of my way to avoid it. 

The bottom line, as someone suggested, is TOLERANCE.  But perhaps that tolerance needs to be for those who are forced to put up with someone else's habit simply because it is the air they breathe.  If that same person were to overeat, unless they belched loudly and with a very strong gaseous emmission, it would not interefere in the natural breathing or way of life of the other person.


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Please quote the sentences where I contraddict myself.


 
I would absolutely love to, however I do not have the mentality to go through all of this thread, so here is one example:

Originally Posted by *Lavinia.dNP*
_
PS : let's not mention that in France non smokers also pay the National Health System to cure diseases due to smoke, and I don't know how fair is this, since those diseases are not incdental but caused by the smoker himself......._

_Next Post:_

_Ok, Ok, you are right : if we wanted a hypothetic "fair State", then the people who practice a sport..._

     It is subtle but it is there.  You have mastered the fine art of politics in this entire thread.  Brava!  Instead of standing up for what you think, you cover up your statements temporarily and slowly bring them back to the surface.  This shows the possability of many things (i.e. you really don't have any idea of what you are talking about or you have a hard time standing up for yourself).  Try doing research.  You will find that it is a lot easier to put up an argument when you are armed with knowledge.   



			
				Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> PS : how many times do I have to say that I'm not jogging in bus lanes...


 
Oh, Please!  What are you talking about?!  Sweetie, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but I was not directing my bus comment towards you.  It is a figure of speech that just so happened to be coincidental with what you had said.  Not everything is about you, dear. 

This was fun!  Let's keep going!


----------



## southerngal

geve said:
			
		

> Do you not put up with the smelly guy?


 
I've never encountered it in the United States and only rarely in Europe. I'm talking about very bad hygiene, not just someone who bathes regularly and perspires. 

However, there's a brand-new invention called.....anti-perspirant! It works wonders.  However, I'd honestly rather sit next to someone with bad hygiene than a smoker. The stench is much less.  However, people who smoke are probably 1:100,000 to people who really reek because of bad hygiene.  In an office, someone *would* speak to the person because someone like that is a bad representative of the company.

Maxiogee -- I've never smoked, or at least have never smoked first-hand. Both my parents were smokers, and I grew up with the stench all over my clothes and hair. And, several upper respiratory infections. Once I left for college, my health improved drastically, and I'm rarely ill. Fortunately, my parents are now both non-smokers, although my father has cancer (big surprise..).



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Smoking is an environmental hazard which is *NOT NECESSARY *for human survival or everyday life function.


 
Excellent point. And what, you don't like cigarette butts littering the parks and walkways? Gee, what is wrong with you?  

There are definitely benefits to smoking! My college roommate is a physician who specializes in pulmonary diseases. She makes a fortune from patients who are smokers. People who own stock in tobacco companies have made a very wise investment (if they aren't considering it from a moral point-of-view) from the addictions of smokers. So, for all the physicians who treat diseases related to smoking and all the stockholders who own shares of tobacco, smoking is wonderful! (Not really, my friend would love to help people who have diseases that they didn't themselves cause)

Here's something I really don't understand: many places that encourage cigarette smoking will not allow cigar and pipe smoking. Why not? It's no less offensive. If cigar and pipe tobacco are that offensive, you can only imagine how offensive the cigarette tobacco is to people who still have a strong sense of smell.

Tolerance with smoking is a one-way street:  non-smokers are forced to put up with smokers.  By not smoking around people, a person is not forcing smokers to do anything.  A non-smoker isn't polluting the air or otherwise invading those around himself.  But a smoker, by the very nature of smoking, is invading everyone around himself.

Again, I think a good correlation for how smoking is obnoxious to others is loud music.  By not playing loud music,  you are respecting those around you who may not care for the volume or choice of music.  Same with not smoking.  I dare anyone to say, "Sure, anyone around me has the right to blast music around me at all hours, no matter whether I like the volume or the type of music or not."  Loud music does bother and affect others around you.  So does smoking.


----------



## maxiogee

It is not just that cigar and pipe tobacco are generally more pungent than cigarette tobacco, they both give off much more smoke. Oh how I love the smell of a nice pipe tobacco - Clan was a favourite of mine.


----------



## Poetic Device

southerngal said:
			
		

> Maxiogee -- I've never smoked, or at least have never smoked first-hand. Both my parents were smokers, and I grew up with the stench all over my clothes and hair. And, several upper respiratory infections. Once I left for college, my health improved drastically, and I'm rarely ill. Fortunately, my parents are now both non-smokers, although my father has cancer (big surprise..).
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. And what, you don't like cigarette butts littering the parks and walkways? Gee, what is wrong with you?
> 
> There are definitely benefits to smoking! My college roommate is a physician who specializes in pulmonary diseases. She makes a fortune from patients who are smokers. People who own stock in tobacco companies have made a very wise investment (if they aren't considering it from a moral point-of-view) from the addictions of smokers. So, for all the physicians who treat diseases related to smoking and all the stockholders who own shares of tobacco, smoking is wonderful! (Not really, my friend would love to help people who have diseases that they didn't themselves cause)
> 
> Here's something I really don't understand: many places that encourage cigarette smoking will not allow cigar and pipe smoking. Why not? It's no less offensive. If cigar and pipe tobacco are that offensive, you can only imagine how offensive the cigarette tobacco is to people who still have a strong sense of smell.


 
Oh my Lord.  Southerngal, I feel so sorry for you, you poor girl.

Yes, smoking is not a natural necessity, but for those who do indeed smoke, it has become a necessity.  It is just like any other drug (that's right, I said drug.  Cigarrettes are a drug because of all of the additives that the tobacco companies put in the cigarrettes).  once the body becomnes addicted to the niccotine, it will go through a series of withdrawl symptoms.  Hence why it is not easy to quit.

As far as the cancer is concerned, you apparently did not see what I had said in that regards.  You have so many sides to that coin.  You have people that smoked and get cancer; people of whom never smoked and were never around any form of smoke, yet still get the cancer; people who don't smoke and never get cancer; and people who smoke like a chimney and never contract any form of illness.

The thing about cancer is this:  every being on Earth has cancer cells.  There are factors that trigger those cancer cells and cause them to rise up to the surface, fester and infect.  As I have said before, do the research, then come talk.


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> It is not just that cigar and pipe tobacco are generally more pungent than cigarette tobacco, they both give off much more smoke.


 
Really?  This is hilarious!  You can have a room filled with everyone smoking cigarettes, yet you couldn't have a room filled with only one person smoking, and he happens to be smoking a pipe.  Now, if we could only apply that concept to cigarette smoking as well.  In other words, one burning "instrument" is too much!


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Yes, smoking is not a natural necessity, but for those who do indeed smoke, it has become a necessity. It is just like any other drug (that's right, I said drug. Cigarrettes are a drug because of all of the additives that the tobacco companies put in the cigarrettes). once the body becomnes addicted to the niccotine, it will go through a series of withdrawl symptoms. Hence why it is not easy to quit.


 
I *do not* mean this in any kind of a personal attack whatsoever, but if you're 21, why did you start smoking?  For someone over 40, it may be more understandable because smoking was seen as more of a social activity, but all smokers had to start somewhere.  From what I understand, most kids by the age of 13 or 14 have been well-educated in the dangers of smoking and its addiction.  So, I wonder why someone would purposely engage in an activity that is well-known for being financially draining, socially unacceptable to many, and very harmful to your health.

If you look at the statistics for lung cancer, however, the vast majority of them are/were smokers.  Of course, there are exceptions.  There are people who live to be 100 who have smoked two packs a day for the past 80 days!  There are people who live extremely healthy lives who develop cancer.  There are always exceptions.  But there is absolutely no doubt that smoking increases your chances for cancer and a host of other nasty diseases.


----------



## geve

I smoke, and I'm not proud of it. Yet...


			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure I can find many benefits to smoking.


No, I won't reply "taxes" because I don't think it really holds. 
To me, a cigarette is not just "sucking on a burning weed" as southerngal puts it; no, it's another happy moment that I can anticipate. These happy events can be of many kinds, big or tiny, a trip to some place, a piece of chocolate that you'll take after coffee, taking off your shoes at the end of the day, a soda with ice after walking in a 40°C street... Cigarettes are part of my daily routine of little things that pleases me. 

Yes, I am aware that it is sad and wish I had never started. I only blame myself for it -not the government or tobacco companies.

I try to respect people's right to not suffer from my smoking. I have a friend at work who can't stand smoke. When we have lunch together, I book in the non-smoking area (they do exist in the Paris I know), and I have a cigarette while walking -yes, in the street!-, since my office building is smoke-free too. 
About productivity at work: in 5 years of work life, I had never missed one single day of work - not once until this year, and I really doubt that foot surgery can be imputed to smoking! And I don't think you need the cigarette alibi to be unproductive at work - when you really want to you find a way!  (you can just visit WR , or even doze off behind your screen)



This was an excerpt of "Geve: _Confessions of a shameful smoker_". Ó WRF editions, 2006.


----------



## Poetic Device

southerngal said:
			
		

> Really? This is hilarious! You can have a room filled with everyone smoking cigarettes, yet you couldn't have a room filled with only one person smoking, and he happens to be smoking a pipe. Now, if we could only apply that concept to cigarette smoking as well. In other words, one burning "instrument" is too much!


 
     Babycakes, have you ever smelled a pipe or cigar?  There is a reason as to why the two of them release more smoke than a cigarrette.  Here is reason number one:  
     When a person smokes a cigarette, they inhale the smoke and breathe it deeply.  When smoking a pipe or cigar, one does not inhale the smoke.  They only allow the smoke into their mouth and let it linger for a bit.  The smoke does not go into the esophagus.  Why would this create such a difference?  It is because your lungs act like a filter when releasing the smoke from your body.
     Don't take my word for this, though.....
*RESEARCH!!!*


----------



## southerngal

Research:  More than 87% of all lung cancer victims are smokers.  Whoa.  Anyone who voluntarily smokes that first cigarette is just asking for cancer.  http://www.lungcancer.org/patients/lc_101/lc_101_about.htm


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Babycakes, have you ever smelled a pipe or cigar?


 
(Why the silly name?)  I rarely am around smoke, fortunately.  Remember, you said that if I don't like it, I should avoid it!   





> *RESEARCH!!!*


 
Since I have no interest in delving into a dangerous and filthy habit, I don't know the intricate details of cigar and pipe-smoking!  Burning tobacco is invasive, period.


----------



## Poetic Device

From the same site:
Exposure to other carcinogens such as asbestos and radon gas also increases an individual's risk, especially when combined with cigarette or cigar smoking. 
In other words, the cancer could often be because of these other factors, however cigarrettes trigger the effect.  Sort of like the straw that broke the camel's back.  

However, you did find a good site with exceptional sources.  I am going to read on and further.  Thank you for the site!


----------



## Poetic Device

southerngal said:
			
		

> Since I have no interest in delving into a dangerous and filthy habit, I don't know the intricate details of cigar and pipe-smoking! Burning tobacco is invasive, period.


 
All that I am saying is that you should investigate into something before you bring up the subject.  For example, do you think that I know the conversion from euros to dollars off the top of my head?  Heavens, no!  However, I did my research and was able to talk about my point and explain it without looking like a poof.  That is all that I am saying.  If you don't want to know what you are talking about so that you get backed into corners that's fine.  More fun for us...


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> Really?  This is hilarious!  You can have a room filled with everyone smoking cigarettes, yet you couldn't have a room filled with only one person smoking, and he happens to be smoking a pipe.  Now, if we could only apply that concept to cigarette smoking as well.  In other words, one burning "instrument" is too much!




You amaze me. You are so self-centred that you cannot see things from anyone else's point of view.
Put yourself in the position of the owner of a pub.
It's mid-afternoon and you've about half-a-dozen customers. If they all smoke cigarettes with their drinks it wouldn't make a vast amount of 'fug' in the bar, and prospective customers looking in the door would not be put off. A smoker who gets through 40 a day in their waking hours is getting through one in about every half hour. A cigarette lasts lets say 5 minutes. So in any one half hour those six people have one cigarette continuously on the go.
Now, change those six for pipe or cigar smokers. Have you any idea how long a fill of a pipe lasts? Or a cigar? Any prospective customer looking in isn't going to be able to _see_ in, and will head for the next bar.
And - that's not to bring in the more pungent aroma of the smoke from cigars and pipes!
And - pipe and cigar smokers are fewer in number and owners don't feel they are losing irreplaceable custom by banning them. Bar owners, and owners of other premises are driven by volume of customers spending as much money as possible.
*That's *why they're not allowed.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> All that I am saying is that you should investigate into something before you bring up the subject.


 
It was just a question.  That's how we learn!


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You are so self-centred that you cannot see things from anyone else's point of view.


 
Not at all, and I ask you please to not attack me personally again. Since cigarette smoke in general is obnoxious to me and many others, the "amount" won't make a huge difference.  You seem to think that cigar/pipe smoke can be so offensive -- that same level of offensiveness is often felt by non-smokers.




> Now, change those six for pipe or cigar smokers. Have you any idea how long a fill of a pipe lasts? Or a cigar? Any prospective customer looking in isn't going to be able to _see_ in, and will head for the next bar.


 
If you can look at it from another point-of-view, that's how it feels for many non-smokers to walk into a smoking restaurant or pub! So, perhaps you may have more empathy for smoke-free persons.




> And - that's not to bring in the more pungent aroma of the smoke from cigars and pipes!


 
It's amazing how some may be so turned off by cigar and pipe tobacco yet insist that others put up with their cigarette smoke. Again, I think that the tolerance seems to be a one-way street for many smokers and in their favor only.


----------



## GenJen54

I happen to love the scent of a nice cigar or pipe.    Cigar and pipe smokers generally do not smoke in the same quantity as cigarette smokers, although they do put out *more* smoke, as poetic device mentioned, because in general, they do not inhale.  

This hardly deters the risk.  Other cancers have been found associated with these habits.

I do not know the additives in cigar or pipe smoke.  I believe in most cigars, there is tobacco and tobacco only.  This may not be the case.

With regards to Poetic Device's call for others to do *research*, have you yourself researched what you are putting into your body?  It's not just tobacco. 

Here is a sampling of the chemicals used in the production of cigarettes:

nicotine - a natural pesticide - nope, it's not in the tobacco

arsenic - no old lace, here.  Just pure poison.

carbon monoxide

formaldehyde - don't they use this to embalm bodies? Yum.

ammonia - you're not even supposed to inhale this when using cleaning products

hydrogen cyanide - ever wonder what prisons used to use in their "gas chambers?"  This is the same stuff used in rat poison.

Fun stuff, huh?


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> You seem to think that cigar/pipe smoke can be so offensive -- that same level of offensiveness is often felt by non-smokers.


I don't "think" anything of the sort. Please read what I write with care. I cannot really be expected to defend things I haven't said! I said (twice) "more pungent", and I commented on the volume of smoke from pipes and cigars compared to cigarettes. At no point did I indicate anything about offensiveness. I even went the other way and said that I love the smell of some pipe tobaccos.

Please don't misquote me again. It is becoming a tiresome habit of yours and it just reinforces my developing opinion of you! 

You seem to be totally unable to bring any sense of proportion to this discussion. All smokers should just scoot off home and lock themselves away and die! Anything so that Ms SouthernGal not be discommoded!




> If you can look at it from another point-of-view, that's how it feels for many non-smokers to walk into a smoking restaurant or pub!


I don't like music when I'm in a pub. Even though I cannot drink I still enjoy the atmosphere and the chat, up to a point and then I have to leave. Many of Dublin's finest pubs have 'live' music playing, often loud enough to kill off conversation, or piped music or a sports TV playing in a corner. I hate that too. So I don't go to these places.
If these non-smokers of yours walk into a smoking pub, they can always walk out again. If they don't it is because they, unlike you, are prepared to compromise. They will put up with the smoke so that they can enjoy what the premises has to offer.

Now, here's a thought - Just how many people object as strongly as you do?



> So, perhaps you may have more empathy for smoke-free persons.


 If you have read my posts on this thread you will see that I do have empathy - I have advised non-smokers how to pressure owners of premises they wish to frequent into changing the status of the premises. What would you have me do? Advise all smokers to give up? They won't listen to me. Advise them all to stay out of restaurants and bars? Why should they if the owners let them in?



> It's amazing how some may be so turned off by cigar and pipe tobacco yet insist that others put up with their cigarette smoke. Again, I think that the tolerance seems to be a one-way street for many smokers and in their favor only.


Can I get this straight - are you suggesting that the ones who object to pipe and cigar smoke are cigarette smokers?


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> All smokers should just scoot off home and lock themselves away and die!


 
Now you're being ridiculous and misquoting me.  Please don't be hypocritical.  

If I can't play extremely loud music in parks or blare my stereo in my flat because it will bother others, why can others bother us with their smoke, which isn't just annoying but is also a health hazard?  It makes no sense.  




> If these non-smokers of yours walk into a smoking pub, they can always walk out again.


 
Agreed.  However, if I'm traveling, and it's late at night when I stop at a hotel, and I need to eat, I don't have time to shop around for smoke-free places.  Or, if my flight is delayed overnight, I might have to stay in a hotel (which I didn't plan) and have very little time, so again, I don't have the luxury of finding smoke-free places.




> Now, here's a thought - Just how many people object as strongly as you do?


 
Probably many, based on how restricted smoking has become.  Fortunately, in the US, we're rather spoiled because there are few places where people can force their smoking habits on others.


----------



## grego47

modgirl said:
			
		

> I live in the US, but I've visited many lands on different continents and have seen that various cultures have a variety of both laws and social attitudes towards smoking.
> 
> Wherever you live at the moment, do you agree with the general social atmosphere and the legal laws of that country? Why or why not?
> 
> I'll answer the question, but I'd like to hear other opinions first!


Yeah, I enjoy the laws in Spain that emphasize a reduction in secondary smoke generated by smokers - and later leave it up to the proprietor's call. The Spanish are becoming more and more aware of the dangers of smoking but they are not fanatical about critici<ing others for enjoying a smoke. I do not smoke.


----------



## GenJen54

southerngal said:
			
		

> Agreed. However, if I'm traveling, and it's late at night when I stop at a hotel, and I need to eat, I don't have time to shop around for smoke-free places. Or, if my flight is delayed overnight, I might have to stay in a hotel (which I didn't plan) and have very little time, so again, I don't have the luxury of finding smoke-free places.


 
With this polemic, I have to take a middle ground. 

Let's change the wording a bit, shall we? 

However, if a smoker traveling, and it's late at night when a smoker stops at a hotel, and needs to eat, he/she doesn't have time to shop around for smoke-free places that allow smoking. Or, if a smoker's flight is delayed overnight, that smoker might have to stay in a hotel (which he/she didn't plan) and have very little time, so again, he/she doesn't have the luxury of finding smoking places.

In this case, it goes both ways.  And yes, in this case, I have to agree with Max and Poetic Device.  This is more of a matter of personal inconvenience to *you* than it is an argument against smoking in general. 

We all experience personal inconveniences in many ways.  Smokers are not allowed to smoke at the workplace, public buildings, theatres, etc.  Non-smokers are inconvenienced by having to endure smoke, or the smell thereof when going into bars, etc.  That is a risk they assume by choosing to go to those places.  

I agree that if you don't have time to find a non-smoking hotel, restaurant, etc., that is a great inconvenience.  But the world is made up of all kinds of people and all kinds of inconveniences.  It cannot stop and bend to our own preferences each and every time. 

Especially if you travel abroad, you have to expect to deal with the issues inherent in that country.  If smoking is one of those issues, then all I can say is caveat emptor.


----------



## Poetic Device

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I happen to love the scent of a nice cigar or pipe. Cigar and pipe smokers generally do not smoke in the same quantity as cigarette smokers, although they do put out *more* smoke, as poetic device mentioned, because in general, they do not inhale.
> 
> This hardly deters the risk. Other cancers have been found associated with these habits.
> 
> I do not know the additives in cigar or pipe smoke. I believe in most cigars, there is tobacco and tobacco only. This may not be the case.
> 
> With regards to Poetic Device's call for others to do *research*, have you yourself researched what you are putting into your body? It's not just tobacco.
> 
> Here is a sampling of the chemicals used in the production of cigarettes:
> 
> nicotine - a natural pesticide - nope, it's not in the tobacco
> 
> arsenic - no old lace, here. Just pure poison.
> 
> carbon monoxide
> 
> formaldehyde - don't they use this to embalm bodies? Yum.
> 
> ammonia - you're not even supposed to inhale this when using cleaning products
> 
> hydrogen cyanide - ever wonder what prisons used to use in their "gas chambers?" This is the same stuff used in rat poison.
> 
> Fun stuff, huh?


 
I am very aware of what is in the average cigarettes.  I am not defending the habit.  I am defending the right to have the habit.  Thank you for trying to educate me, though.


----------



## southerngal

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> However, if a smoker traveling, and it's late at night when a smoker stops at a hotel, and needs to eat, he/she doesn't have time to shop around for smoke-free places that allow smoking. Or, if a smoker's flight is delayed overnight, that smoker might have to stay in a hotel (which he/she didn't plan) and have very little time, so again, he/she doesn't have the luxury of finding smoking places.


 
Does a smoker have to smoke during a meal?!  There really isn't a correlation because the smoker can smoke outside, go inside to eat the meal, then return outside and smoke all the cigarettes he wants without bothering others.

Same with the hotel.  The smoker smokes outside, goes inside and goes to bed.  I suppose if he has to smoke in the middle of the night (!), he can go outside, and then in the morning, go outside again to smoke.  That way, he doesn't disturb others with his smoking.

Smoke-free places are ideal because people can always smoke elsewhere.


----------



## geve

southerngal said:
			
		

> Does a smoker have to smoke during a meal?! There really isn't a correlation because the smoker can smoke outside, go inside to eat the meal, then return outside and smoke all the cigarettes he wants without bothering others.
> 
> Same with the hotel. The smoker smokes outside, goes inside and goes to bed. I suppose if he has to smoke in the middle of the night (!), he can go outside, and then in the morning, go outside again to smoke. That way, he doesn't disturb others with his smoking.
> 
> Smoke-free places are ideal because people can always smoke elsewhere.


But... I thought you didn't approve of people smoking in the street?


----------



## Poetic Device

southerngal said:
			
		

> Does a smoker have to smoke during a meal?! There really isn't a correlation because the smoker can smoke outside, go inside to eat the meal, then return outside and smoke all the cigarettes he wants without bothering others.
> 
> Same with the hotel. The smoker smokes outside, goes inside and goes to bed. I suppose if he has to smoke in the middle of the night (!), he can go outside, and then in the morning, go outside again to smoke. That way, he doesn't disturb others with his smoking.
> 
> Smoke-free places are ideal because people can always smoke elsewhere.


 

Granted, everyone needs excersise, however that is still infringing on the individuals right to sit down and smoke.  I agree with you as far as the pwerson smoking right in the middle of their meal, however I have noever met anyone that does that.  Before and after, yes; during, no.

If i may make a comment on the walking out of the resteraunt thing, I have yet to come across any resteraunt or eatery of other sorts that will allow you to do that for fear of you walking out without paying your cheque.  Even if you leave your purse at the table it would not happen.  You would not believe how often that actually happens.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> Now you're being ridiculous and misquoting me.  Please don't be hypocritical.



I wasn't misquoting, I was paraphrasing…

1) Smokers should smoke at home where they will only damage themselves and not others in the immediate vicinity.
2) I wonder why someone would purposely engage in an activity that is ... very harmful to your health.
3) But there is absolutely no doubt that smoking increases your chances for cancer and a host of other nasty diseases.


----------



## GenJen54

poetic device said:
			
		

> I agree with you as far as the pwerson smoking right in the middle of their meal, however I have noever met anyone that does that. Before and after, yes; during, no.


Oh, I have. It's not pretty, I assure you. 



			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> Same with the hotel. The smoker smokes outside, goes inside and goes to bed. I suppose if he has to smoke in the middle of the night (!), he can go outside, and then in the morning, go outside again to smoke. That way, he doesn't disturb others with his smoking.


 
I agree the experience is not pleasant. Hotel rooms designated for smokers often still smell of stale smoke and are not pleasant to my non-smoking nose.

The challenge is simply this:

Smokers have a habit that damages the quality of air others (non-smokers in particular) must breathe. Is it rude of them to smoke in enclosed places where they put others at risk. 

*However*, in places where this is still allowed, that right - to pollute the air around them - is still allowed. Until the laws of the land change that state specifically "smoking is only allowed in the privacy of your own home," I daresay those of us who are non-smokers (or almost) must put up with this. 

Some can argue that "we" are the "victims" since we are not adding to the decline in air quality. 

Let's ask this question. 

Hunka hunka walks into restaurant. Hunka hunka is wearing enough cologne to cover an entire room of hunka hunkas. He is obviously breaking the "spray just enough so they smell you when they're close to you" rule. The cologne is distractingly strong, and instead of smelling good, almost makes me throw up into my nice steaming plate of fajitas (the smell of which might offend someone else's olfactory sensitivities). 

Hunka hunka gets seated right next to my table. As much as I enjoy the view, the stench is vomit-enducing.

Now, should hunka-hunka be forced to leave the restaurant because my dellicate nose is bothered? 

What if hunka hunka didn't smell good, but rather had very bad B.O., the result of having worn the same work shirt four days in a row. Who has the right here?

You (and me), who done our laundry and applied the appropriate amount of deodorant and cologne, or hunka hunka, who has not?


----------



## southerngal

geve said:
			
		

> But... I thought you didn't approve of people smoking in the street?


 
I don't recall saying that exactly, but I may have. I'd rather people smoke outside than in an enclosed area. What is bad about people smoking outside is all the litter from the cigarette butts.





			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Granted, everyone needs excersise, however that is still infringing on the individuals right to sit down and smoke.


 
My rights are infringed when I cannot bring in a radio to the restaurant and play it loudly. I won't complain because I realize that it will probably bother others.

However, is smoking really a right? Or a privilege? Our rights end when they infringe upon another's rights. I have the right to play my music loudly. I don't have the right to bother others with it. A smoker has the right to smoke. A smoker doesn't have the right to bother others with it.




> If i may make a comment on the walking out of the resteraunt thing, I have yet to come across any resteraunt or eatery of other sorts that will allow you to do that for fear of you walking out without paying your cheque.


 
I meant before and after the meal. If someone is so addicted that he can't go 15 or 30 minutes without a cigarette, there are bigger issues at hand. What does someone like that do if he has to go to a courthouse, a driver's license station, or any other building where he may have to wait a period of time longer than it takes to eat a meal?




> Smokers have a habit that damages the quality of air others (non-smokers in particular) must breathe. Is it rude of them to smoke in enclosed places where they put others at risk.
> 
> *However*, in places where this is still allowed, that right - to pollute the air around them - is still allowed.


 
The following isn't so much of a problem now, but it used to be just horrible to be in airports (no choice but to be there) where one couldn't escape the smoke. Another problem is when there are no non-smoking alternatives available. I've been in small towns where there simply is no non-smoking restaurant at all. If there were an non-smoking alternative for every place that allowed smoking, that would be so fantastic!

Regarding Hunka Hunka, if I were a waiter or owner of a restaurant, here's what I'd do. If only one person complained about him, I'd move the person who complained to another area. If more than one table complained, I'd move Hunka Hunka. I've never been next to anyone who was that bad, but I don't doubt those people exist. I've seen waiters move very noisy people to other areas of the restaurant. (And I do fault those people who were talking so loudly that they were disturbing others)

Maxiogee, you said that I would prefer people to go home and die. Why would you say something so cruel and then pretend I said it?  It's true that I don't care to be around smoke, and I wish people would smoke only in the privacy of their homes, but I have no death wish for smokers.


----------



## Sallyb36

I've smoked since I was 19, and only stopped when I was pregnant.  I smoked 1 cigarette a week then every Wednesday night at 10.30 in my back garden (after The golden girls on Channel 4).

Some people (like me) cannot smoke in their own homes (my son hates it), so I always go outside if I have to smoke while I'm at home.  It's not really a problem, and makes me smoke less in the winter as I can't be bothered going outside!


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I would absolutely love to, however I do not have the mentality to go through all of this thread, so here is one example:
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lavinia.dNP*
> 
> _PS : let's not mention that in France non smokers also pay the National Health System to cure diseases due to smoke, and I don't know how fair is this, since those diseases are not incdental but caused by the smoker himself......._
> 
> _Next Post:_
> 
> _Ok, Ok, you are right : if we wanted a hypothetic "fair State", then the people who practice a sport..._
> 
> It is subtle but it is there. You have mastered the fine art of politics in this entire thread. Brava! Instead of standing up for what you think, you cover up your statements temporarily and slowly bring them back to the surface. This shows the possability of many things (i.e. you really don't have any idea of what you are talking about or you have a hard time standing up for yourself). Try doing research. You will find that it is a lot easier to put up an argument when you are armed with knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Please! What are you talking about?! Sweetie, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but I was not directing my bus comment towards you. It is a figure of speech that just so happened to be coincidental with what you had said. Not everything is about you, dear.
> 
> This was fun! Let's keep going!


 
I never meant to be an expert on anything, I'm just expressing an opinion.

I can't see where is the contraddiction when I say that I don't know how fair it is that non smokers pay for the cure of diseases due to smoke, and then I say that in a hypotetic "fair state" smokers and all the people whose behaviour might cause diseases to themselves could pay an additional tax (and in case you didn't understood, this second idea is a figure of speech).


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> With this polemic, I have to take a middle ground.
> 
> Let's change the wording a bit, shall we?
> 
> However, if a smoker traveling, and it's late at night when a smoker stops at a hotel, and needs to eat, he/she doesn't have time to shop around for smoke-free places that allow smoking. Or, if a smoker's flight is delayed overnight, that smoker might have to stay in a hotel (which he/she didn't plan) and have very little time, so again, he/she doesn't have the luxury of finding smoking places.
> 
> In this case, it goes both ways. And yes, in this case, I have to agree with Max and Poetic Device. This is more of a matter of personal inconvenience to *you* than it is an argument against smoking in general.
> 
> We all experience personal inconveniences in many ways. Smokers are not allowed to smoke at the workplace, public buildings, theatres, etc. Non-smokers are inconvenienced by having to endure smoke, or the smell thereof when going into bars, etc. That is a risk they assume by choosing to go to those places.


 
One thing I don't understand is why it is so difficult for smokers to step out of the restaurant/bar/pub/discotheque for just a few minutes in order to have their cigarette in peace. In that way, nobody would complain!


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

geve said:
			
		

> But... I thought you didn't approve of people smoking in the street?


 
Of course, Southerngal and I we don't approve of people smoking in the street, and in our "ideal world" nobody would smoke, but we are not in Barbieland, and therefore we have to put up with smokers, and if it's already difficult to have smoke banned from restaurants and pubs, I think that having smoke banned in the streets would be mere science-fiction.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Granted, everyone needs excersise, however that is still infringing on the individuals right to sit down and smoke. I agree with you as far as the pwerson smoking right in the middle of their meal, however I have noever met anyone that does that. Before and after, yes; during, no.
> 
> If i may make a comment on the walking out of the resteraunt thing, I have yet to come across any resteraunt or eatery of other sorts that will allow you to do that for fear of you walking out without paying your cheque. Even if you leave your purse at the table it would not happen. You would not believe how often that actually happens.


 
1st comment : yes, very few people smoke in the middle of their meal, but they don't mind doing it in the middle of their neighbour's meal.

2nd comment : I don't think that anyone would go to a restaurant or pub alone, usually it's something you do with friends, therfore it is always possible for someone to step out for a few moments in order to smoke, provided that there's someone else who remains at the table. You don't want to leave him/her alone? well, in the same way you'd have to bring him/her with you to the bathroom too.

PS : never leave anything unattended in a public place (the purse you were talking about)
I do not even leave my bag unattended at the office!


----------



## badgrammar

> I don't recall saying that exactly, but I may have. I'd rather people smoke outside than in an enclosed area. What is bad about people smoking outside is all the litter from the cigarette butts.



It was Lavinia who complained about smelling smoke in the street, which I feel really goes above and beyond intolerant.  If we don't smoke in that hotel, office, restaurant, etc. in order to respect non-smokers, then non-smokers can tolerate the smell of it wherever we group outside to smoke.  And the reason in the US that you see butts on the ground outside establishments is _because ashtrays are not provided_! 



> it used to be just horrible to be in airports (no choice but to be there) where one couldn't escape the smoke.



I am all for the ban on smoking in all forms of public transporrtation including airplanes.  It was nauseating when smoking was allowed.  But I think it almost cruel that now in many international airports, there are no smoking areas (even enclosed).  You have to go out of the airport in order to have a smoke, which is very time-consuming.  When smokers get off a twelve hour flight and are waiting to transfer to the next 3 hour flight, they are in physical _need_ of a smoke.  I think refusing to accomodate smokers in such a context is simply wrong.



> If there were an non-smoking alternative for every place that allowed smoking, that would be so fantastic!



I absolutely agree with you.  That said, smoking sections are being banned entirely nowadays.  I cannot say I'm willing to fight for my right to smoke in a restaurant, I concede it's better for everyone in the long run.  BUT then, please, whenever possible, non-smoking establishments _should_ provide atleast an ashtray out front or out back.  And a bench to sit on is a nice touch.  They're not obligated, but we're paying customers, too...  and I think it is _completely unreasonable_ that, because the _*smell*_ bothers some, smoking outside should be banned.  *I'm not smoking inside out of respect for you, let me smoke outside and you be respectful of me.* 



> I wish people would smoke only in the privacy of their homes



Maybe in your ideal world that is how it would be.  But smoking is a physical dependence, and it is unreasonable to expect that a smoker smokes only in his home, unless you think he will never be leaving it for an extended period of time.  If I leave my house at 8am and come home at 10pm, I don't think I'll be able to wait.  If I travel, I'm not in my home for days and days.  Gotta' be able to smoke somewhere, y'know? 

SHould smoking become some kind of thing honest and good people have to hide themselves in their darkened garage to do?  Is it a crime?  SHould we be ashamed and feel like lepers?  Like crack smokers?  So long as _we make an effort to respect non-smokers, they should make an effort to respect us. _  Today I just don't think non-smokers have that much to complain about, as things are evolving and there is little exposure to indoor smoke in public anymore.  

If you're in that restaurant in Podunk and there's no where else you can go, well, I'm sorry, really.  Every once in a while you may find yourself in a situation where you have to put up with how the locals do it.  Maybe you should just accept it and _chill_, you can't always have it your way. Luckily for you, these situations will be getting rarer and rarer.


----------



## badgrammar

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> 1st comment : yes, very few people smoke in the middle of their meal, but they don't mind doing it in the middle of their neighbour's meal.



I understand that may be frustrating, but in a restaurant someone is always in the middle of eating something.  It would be incredibly difficult to time your cigarette so that no one at any neighboring tables be eating.  

If the restaurant allows smoking where I am seated, I smoke.  If it does not, I don't.  In a smoking restaurant, I will smoke if I feel like it, because that is a pleasure that will not be possible within a few years.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> geve said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But... I thought you didn't approve of people smoking in the street?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that exactly, but I may have. I'd rather people smoke outside than in an enclosed area. What is bad about people smoking outside is all the litter from the cigarette butts.
Click to expand...


You have said and you should remember, as I reminded you of it a little over three hours before you made the post to which I'm replying…
"Smokers should smoke at home where they will only damage themselves and not others in the immediate vicinity."


You also posted an analogy…
"Imagine a person who doesn't bathe or use deodorant, and the person is sitting next to you on a hot day, and you're in the downwind."
Now you only get "downwind" outdoors!


And you posted this
"And what, you don't like cigarette butts littering the parks and walkways? Gee, what is wrong with you?"

I think these show that you disapprove of people smoking outdoors!








> Maxiogee, you said that I would prefer people to go home and die. Why would you say something so cruel and then pretend I said it?


I never said, or pretended, you said it.



> It's true that I don't care to be around smoke, and I wish people would smoke only in the privacy of their homes, but I have no death wish for smokers.


You have made the following comments:-
1) "I support a person's right to smoke;"
2) "Smokers should smoke at home where they will only damage themselves"
3) "A non-smoker <edit> is forced to breathe very harmful fumes."
4) "Even if smoking isn't the number one cause of cancer, does that mean it isn't a danger?"


At no time in any of your posts have you indicated that smokers should give up. (Lavinia belatedly speaks for you here "and in our "ideal world" nobody would smoke". How she knows that you feel this way is not apparent. but she hasn't gleaned it from your posts here.)
You are fully aware that smoking kills.
You wish that smokers would smoke only in their homes.
You haven't mentioned the word, but I must presume that you are aware that cigarette smoke is (deliberately made to be) addictive.
How else can I interpret your references to smokers as other than a wish they they'd confine themselves in their homes and not bother you in any way until their addiction kills them?


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> I've smoked since I was 19, and only stopped when I was pregnant. I smoked 1 cigarette a week then every Wednesday night at 10.30 in my back garden (after The golden girls on Channel 4).
> 
> Some people (like me) cannot smoke in their own homes (my son hates it), so I always go outside if I have to smoke while I'm at home. It's not really a problem, and makes me smoke less in the winter as I can't be bothered going outside!


 
Great Sally!


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Assuming that smoke is an addiction, therefore, when you need to smoke is like when you need to go to the bathroom (and here I'm starting another one of my "absurd" comparisons). It's a real need, and therefore all you need is some place where you can do what you need to do, because you can't help it.
Therefore, "smoking rooms" could be created (and in airplanes they could be "smoking pods") where smokers could go just the time to smoke their cigarettes and then come back. The same use as bathrooms : you go there, do what you need to do, and come back.

In this way non-smokers wouldn't be obliged to accept smoking tables because there are no tables free in the non-smoking zone, which is usually much smaller than the smoking zone.

Well, of course, this is just an absurd comparison, and a hypothetic idea which would be impossible to implement, but it could become tomorrow's way of thinking. (not that smoking is to be considered shameful, it's just that since it disturbs others, then why not creating special rooms for that activity?)


----------



## GenJen54

Lavina.dNP said:
			
		

> Well, of course, this is just an absurd comparison, and a hypothetic idea which would be impossible to implement, but it could become tomorrow's way of thinking. (not that smoking is to be considered shameful, it's just that since it disturbs others, then why not creating special rooms for that activity?)


 Here's a twist on that tale.

Our city spent $90 million building a new multi-purpose concert and sports arena. It seats approximately 19,000 people. On each level (there are three), there are several closed-off smoking "rooms." These rooms were designed for smokers who wanted to step away from the game/concert for a cigarette break since smoking in the main arena is prohibited by law.

Of course, these smoking rooms are ventilated and closed off from the main corridors, but visible to everyone who passes by. 

They were popular at the beginning.  Now, they are nearly always empty.  

The smokers choose to go outside of the arena, even if it means walking down three levels to the main entrance of the building. Why?

Because the smoking rooms are (according to the smokers) "too smoky." Go Figure!


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> The smokers choose to go outside of the arena, even if it means walking down three levels to the main entrance of the building. Why?
> 
> Because the smoking rooms are (according to the smokers) "too smoky." Go Figure!


 
Wow!! that's incredible!

I thought that when you smoke that's because you like the smell of it, and therefore being in such a "bubble of smoke" would be like heaven to a smoker.


----------



## Poetic Device

_Is smoking a privelege or a right?_  I suppose that is a fair question.  Since you asked that, let me ask you a few questions of my own.  Is getting a body peircing a right or a priveledge?  Is drinking alchohol a right or a priveledge?  (And the touchiest of them all...)  Is getting an abortion a right or a privelege?  I asked these specific questions because these are all doings that harm your body in one way or another or at the least are not natural.  The last one I chose specifically for many reasons.  Yes, you are harming _your _body, but what else are you hurting?  (I think I actually might have subconciously tapped into the other side on that one.)  Personally, I think that the abortion is wrong, and I think that smoking is wrong.  They are both unnecesary evils.  However, it is a person's *right* to decide if they want to smoke and where (so long as it is not ridiculous) and sadly it is the woman's choice as to whether or not she wants the abortion.   



			
				Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> One thing I don't understand is why it is so difficult for smokers to step out of the restaurant/bar/pub/discotheque for just a few minutes in order to have their cigarette in peace. In that way, nobody would complain!


 
I'll tell you what is wrong with that.  Once you shoo the smokers outside, they will congregate and then you will whine and complain about how you have to smell the smoke as you walk in and out of the building.  Give an inch and they take a foot.  At the end of it all someone will be looking to kill all smokers.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what is wrong with that. Once you shoo the smokers outside, they will congregate and then you will whine and complain about how you have to smell the smoke as you walk in and out of the building. Give an inch and they take a foot. At the end of it all someone will be looking to kill all smokers.


 
In a sense you are right : when I was working for IBM, it was a real pain having to inhale the smoke as I walked in and out of the building. But there was no other alternative, and it's really better than having people smoking near the coffee machines while you are queuing up to get your coffee (I experienced that in another firm).

Therefore, I would say that smokers outside restaurants are OK, since there is no alternative. I'll just hold my breath as I walk past them.


----------



## Sallyb36

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Wow!! that's incredible!
> 
> I thought that when you smoke that's because you like the smell of it, and therefore being in such a "bubble of smoke" would be like heaven to a smoker.



You couldn't be more wrong.  We smoke because we're addicted, it's a physical addiction, and I don't know any smokers who think it smells nice!  I don't even enjoy every cigarette I smoke.  I've tried to give up numerous times and failed every time so far.  The longest I gave up for was 8 months, not counting the 1 a day for 18 months when I was pregnant and breastfeeding.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> You couldn't be more wrong. We smoke because we're addicted, it's a physical addiction, and I don't know any smokers who think it smells nice! I don't even enjoy every cigarette I smoke. I've tried to give up numerous times and failed every time so far. The longest I gave up for was 8 months, not counting the 1 a day for 18 months when I was pregnant and breastfeeding.


 
That sounds weird to me : people who smoke and don't like the smell of it!
It sounds to me like I was addicted to spaghetti and didn't like the taste of them. (I'm a spaghetti addict, but that's because I love the taste)

I'm curious about one thing : what are the symptoms of addiction when you didn't have a cigarette for a long period?
Is it just a strong desire for a cigarette, or is there any physical symptom?

If there's no physical symptom, then why can't people fight the desire for a cigarette, if it's just a desire?

For instance, if the doctor told me that I can't eat spaghetti anymore, that would be a tragedy to me, but in the end there are so many other nice things to eat!

Therefore, why is it not the same for smoke? there are so many other nice things to smell!


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> That sounds weird to me : people who smoke and don't like the smell of it!
> It sounds to me like I was addicted to spaghetti and didn't like the taste of them. (I'm a spaghetti addict, but that's because I love the taste)
> 
> I'm curious about one thing : what are the symptoms of addiction when you didn't have a cigarette for a long period?
> Is it just a strong desire for a cigarette, or is there any physical symptom?
> 
> If there's no physical symptom, then why can't people fight the desire for a cigarette, if it's just a desire?
> 
> For instance, if the doctor told me that I can't eat spaghetti anymore, that would be a tragedy to me, but in the end there are so many other nice things to eat!
> 
> Therefore, why is it not the same for smoke? there are so many other nice things to smell!


 
It's not just physical.  It's also very psychological.  There are a plethora of symptoms.  One example is constant couching because your body is trying to take the chance to get all of the toxins out.  Another is the cravings and such.  Then you have the withdrawl and cravings, which lead to moodiness and a nasty disposition.  Then you have just the motion of smoking in itself.  Smoking has become a habit--almost second nature and comes as naturally as closing your eyes as you sneeze.  A smoker has fallen into a routine and though we are a sophisticated animal we are still just animals and we train our bodies to do things at certain times and taught our minds to associate one thing with another.  Does this make any sense???


----------



## Sallyb36

It is physical, a feeling of tension and nervousness,sweaty palms etc... and you can go without for a very long time with the help of gum, patches etc.Lots of people manage to give up.  My downfall has been that I cannot deny myself a pleasure all my life.  I can deny it most of the time, but sometimes not!
I hated it when we could smoke on buses because the smell was always so bad.


----------



## Sallyb36

Poetic device, it makes sublime sense.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> It's not just physical. It's also very psychological. There are a plethora of symptoms. One example is constant couching because your body is trying to take the chance to get all of the toxins out. Another is the cravings and such. Then you have the withdrawl and cravings, which lead to moodiness and a nasty disposition. Then you have just the motion of smoking in itself. Smoking has become a habit--almost second nature and comes as naturally as closing your eyes as you sneeze. A smoker has fallen into a routine and though we are a sophisticated animal we are still just animals and we train our bodies to do things at certain times and taught our minds to associate one thing with another. Does this make any sense???


 
It quite makes sense to me, but all the symptoms you describe don't seem so terrible to me, and I'd think that someone who really wanted to quit the habit could overcome them (of course, not without efforts).

But I'm just making logical connections, and I'd like to know why doesn't it go the logical way.


----------



## Sallyb36

Addiction is not logical!!


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Addiction is not logical!!


 
In the case of drugs, I can understand, because drug addicts really feel sick when they quit, but in the case of smoke, the symptoms wouldn't seem to me so impossible to overcome.


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> In the case of drugs, I can understand, because drug addicts really feel sick when they quit, but in the case of smoke, the symptoms wouldn't seem to me so impossible to overcome.


 
I understand what you are saying, but please remember that because of all the things that the companies added to the tobacco cigarrettes are now a drug.  100% natural cigarrettes are nowhere near as addictive (or dangerous to one's health) as say Newports.  It is very difficult and when you quit it seems everyone on Earth wants to bother you which makes it even harder.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."




How stunningly appropriate for the thread!


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How else can I interpret your references to smokers as other than a wish they they'd confine themselves in their homes and not bother you in any way until their addiction kills them?


 
Your logic is absent.  Of course smoking is dangerous, and I don't want to be put in that danger.  However, I'd rather smokers quit and be healthier themselves.  I don't wish death upon anyone.  Your inferring that I hope smokers die is not only mean-spirited but fabricated, yet you bitterly complain that I misquote you.  Lay off and practice what you preach.


----------



## badgrammar

Lavinia, it is a drug whose withdrawal symptoms are very unpleasant.  That is why people can't quit.  That is why it is such a struggle.  The symptoms of withdrawal, like with any drug, can be overcome when you quit, although the craving may stay with you forever. 

Whatever seems logical to you, it is simply a very unpleasant withdrawal.  Otherwise smokers would have no problem quitting.

But I am glad that you have come around towards a more tolerant point of view, and I respect you for it .


----------



## southerngal

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Lavinia, it is a drug whose withdrawal symptoms are very unpleasant. That is why people can't quit. That is why it is such a struggle. The symptoms of withdrawal, like with any drug, can be overcome when you quit, although the craving may stay with you forever.


 
Now the argument is different than someone having a choice in the matter.  In the case of addiction, it is a medical problem.  I am not advocating this, but when the argument of addiction arises, then it could be an argument in favor of prohibiting all tobacco, which is clearly a drug.  In most countries, heroin and cocaine are so addictive and harmful that they're outlawed.  Tobacco isn't as harmful as those substances, but since tobacco does have high health repercussions, some (and again, I am not personally advocating this) might argue that it should be illegal.

The argument that people have a right to enjoy themselves (whether with smoking or playing loud music) with something that bothers others is, in my opinion, a very different argument from people being addicted to a drug.  Why do people usually begin smoking?  Because others do; peer pressure.  And the addiction cycle begins all over again with a new generation.


----------



## badgrammar

Southerngal, prohibition does not work.  It never has and never will.  Outlawing tobacco altogether in a democratic country will never work...


----------



## southerngal

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Southerngal, prohibition does not work. It never has and never will. Outlawing tobacco altogether in a democratic country will never work...


 
I agree completely.  However, since tobacco is an addictive substance, and people often start smoking because others around them do, how do you suggest we curb the problem of preventing new addicts?  If all your friends smoke....


----------



## GenJen54

southerngal said:
			
		

> However, since tobacco is an addictive substance, and people often start smoking because others around them do, how do you suggest we curb the problem of preventing new addicts? If all your friends smoke....


It's not the tobacco, but the nicotene and other additives that are addictive. The cigarette companies are well aware of this, which is why they continue to put it into their product. 

I am a former smoker. I never was a hard-core smoker, and never truly became "addicted." (For some reason, I don't have that genetic predisposition to it). I can have one cigarette every six months (which is one too many), but then it never bothers me. I can have a single pack over the course of a weekend (something I have not done in several years), then not think about another cigarette for months or years on end. It's just my body chemistry.

My husband is also a former smoker. He tried everything to quit: the "cold turkey" method, anti-depressants, gum, nicotene filters until finally one day he tried the patch. He had to double up on them, but he was finally, after about a month or so, able to quit. 

This is an individual choice people make for themselves.
Smoking as a habit is picked up by watching role models smoke (parents, celebrities). Education also plays a role. 

The biggest threat, however, at least in the U.S., is the economy of smoking. Prohibition is not an answer because the legislator's pockets are too deeply lined with tobacco money. 

The answer lies in getting rid of the marketing and the companies who market. Take a look at the number one "sport" in the U.S. (if you can call it a sport): NASCAR. They have an entire racing series named after a cigarette brand (Winston Cup). Look at all of the cars branded with cigarette packaging. 

The tobacco companies are paying millions for this kind of exposure because they know who they are after (middle income, not highly-educated), and will reap even more millions, if not hundreds of millions from the exposure. 

The cycle starts and ends with the tobacco companies, and they aren't going anywhere. Ask your local politician.


----------



## Poetic Device

Let me reiterate myself for southerngal...


			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, but please remember that because of all the things that the companies added to the tobacco cigarrettes are now a drug. 100% natural cigarrettes are nowhere near as addictive (or dangerous to one's health) as say Newports. It is very difficult and when you quit it seems everyone on Earth wants to bother you which makes it even harder.


 
If the chemicals were not there there would not be that much of a terrible problem.  How do we attempt to stop the problem?  That's a good question.  The best that we can do is educate pwople at the earliest age possible and let them know that there are no advantages to smoking.  There is this thing called free will.  Most of the time it is a great thing, however most of the time it is the key to our demise.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> However, I'd rather smokers quit and be healthier themselves.


This is the first time, in twenty posts, that you have indicated that they should quit — and that only after I prompted you.




> I don't wish death upon anyone.


Nobody does — and I never implied that you did. What I said was that it appeared that you wished they do their smking at home, where it wouldn't bother you. Their death there is merely a logical and hastened consequence of the smoking which, until now, you seemed quite happy to let them do as they don't bother you while doing it.


You really do need to express yourself more clearly.


----------



## southerngal

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> This is an individual choice people make for themselves.


 
Then, how can some smokers insist that there must be places for them to smoke everywhere?  They had the free will to partake in an addictive habit.  If one chooses to smoke and must endure a 24-hour plane ride, can he blame the airlines for not allowing him to smoke or not allowing him to smoke in airports?

And, running full circle here...that individual choice doesn't just affect the smoker.  It affects everyone around the smoker.  And now we're back where we started.


----------



## southerngal

Max, here is your quote:

*You seem to be totally unable to bring any sense of proportion to this discussion. All smokers should just scoot off home and lock themselves away and die! Anything so that Ms SouthernGal not be discommoded!*

Instead of becoming highly emotional and attacking me, how about you calm down and discuss the issue at hand? If you can't comprehend my posts, then the problem is yours, but if you politely ask for help, I'll be glad to give it to you.   

Peace.


----------



## maxiogee

I can comprehend your posts perfectly.
You seem to be unable to see your stance from someone else's point of view.
In fact you seem to be unable to accept that there *is* another point of view.
Not everyone is like us, it's important we accept that others may experience life differently than us.


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Not everyone is like us, it's important we accept that others may experience life differently than us.


 
I'm glad you agree! (This is what I said in an earlier post)

So, when I sit at a restaurant blaring my radio so loudly that you can't hear anything else, you'll understand how I feel when second-hand smoke gets on my clothing and in my lungs. Smokers and loud music lovers should have the right to partake in their preferred activities in public just as much as anyone else.

Sharing our habits and preferences with others is good.


----------



## Poetic Device

southerngal said:
			
		

> I'm glad you agree! (This is what I said in an earlier post)
> 
> So, when I sit at a restaurant blaring my radio so loudly that you can't hear anything else, you'll understand how I feel when second-hand smoke gets on my clothing and in my lungs. Smokers and loud music lovers should have the right to partake in their preferred activities in public just as much as anyone else.
> 
> Sharing our habits and preferences with others is good.


 
The problem with your analogy, Dear, is that you are comparing apples with banannas (not oranges, because you can say that the two fruit have similair shapes ).  One is a habit that after some time can't be helped (hence why it is called an addiction) and the other is just being an ass.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> The problem with your analogy, Dear, is that you are comparing apples with banannas (not oranges, because you can say that the two fruit have similair shapes ). One is a habit that after some time can't be helped (hence why it is called an addiction) and the other is just being an ass.


 
There are two arguments here. One is that smoking is a pleasure, a right for people to do as they choose. The loud music analogy is very appropriate for this argument.  However, the discussion has now switched gears.

The other argument is that it's an addiction. Earlier, you and others spoke of free will. A person chooses that first cigarette. No one forced him to smoke. Then, he becomes addicted. Is it really the responsibility of the public to endure someone else's addiction, especially when there are (or substitute "may be" if you wish) health repercussions for the non-addicted person? I didn't force anyone to smoke, yet I have to put up with that addiction, as well.


Thus, we need to decide which side of the argument to discuss, since, as you pointed out, mixing the two yields different discussions.


----------



## badgrammar

southerngal said:
			
		

> Then, how can some smokers insist that there must be places for them to smoke everywhere?  They had the free will to partake in an addictive habit.  If one chooses to smoke and must endure a 24-hour plane ride, can he blame the airlines for not allowing him to smoke or not allowing him to smoke in airports?
> 
> And, running full circle here...that individual choice doesn't just affect the smoker.  It affects everyone around the smoker.  And now we're back where we started.



But earlier you said that if there were smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, that'd be great.. Now you're saying again that it is normal that there should not be any, for example, in international airports?



> I didn't force anyone to smoke, yet I have to put up with that addiction, as well.



Yup, and I didn't force you to drive an SUV, or use a leaf-blower on Sunday morning, or any of the other things you might do that might annoy me.  

It's called (I repeat) TOLERANCE  TOLERANCE  TOLERANCE...


----------



## Poetic Device

southerngal said:
			
		

> There are two arguments here. One is that smoking is a pleasure, a right for people. The other is that it's an addiction. Earlier, you and others spoke of free will. A person chooses that first cigarette. No one forced him to smoke. Then, he becomes addicted. Is it really the responsibility of the public to endure someone else's addiction, especially when there are (or substitute "may be" if you wish) health repercussions for the non-addicted person?


 
Okay...  Let's see if I can do this correctly without being an ass...  (If anyone wants to help out with this one feel free. )
Legend:  the person=  Tom

Tom is out and is curious about what it's like to smoke, so he decides to pick up a pack of cigarrettes.  Upon lighting one he inhales and savours the flavor.  Finding that he actually enjoys the taste of the cigarrette and how it feels in his hand he continues to smoke it.  Later that night Tom goes out with his friends and has another while drinking Guinness.  This continues for a few weeks, perhaps months, and all the while he thinks to himself, "I can quit anytime, so I'll just keep enjoying this one.  I'll stop after this one."  Tome will constantly make up excuses for why he can't quit just yet.  Then months roll into years and Tom is now addicted and yet he still enjoys the tast of the "cancer stick".  

Do you see how it can be both?

Now, as far as the public goes this is what I have to say about it.  It is not the obligation of the public to endure the addiction, however it is the public's *responsability* to be *tolerant *of the habbit.  You put up with someone with a horrible odor, you (or some at least) put up with stupid people and you put up with bums lying in the gutters of your streets.   Tolerating smokers does not require any more patients than those two do.


----------



## GenJen54

> Now, as far as the public goes this is what I have to say about it. It is not the obligation of the public to endure the addiction, however it is the public's *responsability* to be *tolerant *of the habbit. You put up with someone with a horrible odor, you (or some at least) put up with stupid people and you put up with bums lying in the gutters of your streets. Tolerating smokers does not require any more patients than those two do.


 
Do you tolerate drunk drivers?


----------



## southerngal

badgrammar said:
			
		

> But earlier you said that if there were smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, that'd be great..


 
I didn't say that specificially. I said non-smoking alternatives. I've rarely seen it successful when "sections" are in any building. I'd much rather prefer to eat in a completely smoke-free restaurant than one which had a non-smoking section. 



> Now you're saying again that it is normal that there should not be any, for example, in international airports?


 
It's probably better to use a direct quote rather than try to paraphrase what I'm saying because it isn't entirely accurate. I'm saying that if smokers are addicted and they chose a habit of their own free will, why should others have to accommodate them?



> Yup, and I didn't force you to drive an SUV, or use a leaf-blower on Sunday morning, or any of the other things you might do that might annoy me.


 
Different argument.  Annoyance/health concerns vs. addiction.  Will you allow me to blare my stereo in your presence?  Of course not.  But I am supposed to be tolerant of a smoker's smoke.  Where's the tolerance for non-smokers?



> It's called (I repeat) TOLERANCE TOLERANCE TOLERANCE...


 
Where's the tolerance for non-smokers?

What's happening is that we're mixing up arguments for smoking being a pleasure/right and smoking being an addiction.


----------



## southerngal

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Do you tolerate drunk drivers?


 
That's *exactly* what's been on my mind, but I keep editing it out!

Alcoholism is an addiction, and yet (it seems) most of society will not put up with the effects of what alcholics can and sometimes do in public.  If alcoholics drink at home, it really only affects themselves (a possible exception is rising health-care insurance), but when they are in public, their addiction affects us all.


----------



## GenJen54

southerngal said:
			
		

> What's happening is that we're mixing up arguments for smoking being a pleasure/right and smoking being an addiction.


 
How about this: Everyone has the right to chose to engage in a habit they know to be life-threatening and addictive. Some would argue that since this habit endangers the lives of others, it should not be tolerated. Others argue that they have the right to continue feeding their addition, regardless of what it does to theirs' or anyone else's health.  

(snicker!  I love playing both sides of the argument!)


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> I'm glad you agree! (This is what I said in an earlier post)


 Where do you think I got it, and - more importantly, why do you think I used it? 



> So, when I sit at a restaurant blaring my radio so loudly that you can't hear anything else, you'll understand how I feel when second-hand smoke gets on my clothing and in my lungs. Smokers and loud music lovers should have the right to partake in their preferred activities in public just as much as anyone else.



Alas you have again chosen to make a comparison with other activities which, in many countries, are legislated against. The person playing their personal music so loud that you can't hear anything else is more than likely falling foul of a statue or bye-law concerning "a nuisance", and the authorities would be obliged to ask them to cease and desist.
For whatever reason, in most jurisdictions, smoking does not come under the definition of "a nuisance".



> Sharing our habits and preferences with others is good.


You may very well think so, but the law might say differently.

In Ireland, at least - but possibly also elsewhere, you need to be licensed and to be paying royalties if you wish to play music in a public place.


----------



## GenJen54

southerngal said:
			
		

> Alcoholism is an addiction, and yet (it seems) most of society will not put up with the effects of what alcholics can and sometimes do in public. If alcoholics drink at home, it really only affects themselves (a possible exception is rising health-care insurance), but when they are in public, their addiction affects us all.


 
The majority of drunk driving accidents are not caused by chronic alcoholics, rather by those who indulge in "binge" drinking over the weekend and think they can handle that "quick drive home."

For many chronic alcoholics, the ability to function is heightened when they are drunk, than when they are sober. They are surprisingly adept at functioning well in public, despite being very drunk.

It does not have the same level of environmental threat as smoking.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Do you see how it can be both?


 
Certainly, but the arguments are different for each.

Loud music is a pleasure, but I shouldn't bother others with it.  But it isn't an addiction.

An addiction is now a medical/psychological problem, so the person has no choice.  But he did have a choice whether to have that first cigarette.

A drunk driver may not have had a choice when he actually got behind the wheel (and possibly caused great damage or death), but he did have a choice whether to drink in the first place.  We don't tolerate the effects of drunk driving, but we're supposed to tolerate the effects (not just nuisance, but ill health effects) of the addiction of smoking.  Why?


----------



## southerngal

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> The majority of drunk driving accidents are not caused by chronic alcoholic.


 
I understand, but I think I was using the subject of alcohol in general to link the addictions of tobacco and alcohol.  We're rarely tolerant of either alcoholism or drunk driving, yet we're called intolerant if we aren't as tolerant of smokers.  It doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## badgrammar

The tolerance for non-smokers lies in the fact that today, because of legislation as well as health awareness campaigns, most places are smoke free or will soon be that way.  Where is the problem, southerngal?  It's going the way you want it to, so what's up? When is the last time you saw someone light up in a no-smoking area?  Probably a long time ago.

Listen, this discussion is fruitless, I think I am going to bow out, gracefully or otherwise.  You refuse to see that other people's choices may be different than your own.



> if smokers are addicted and they chose a habit of their own free will, why should others have to accommodate them?



This is the essence of tolerance, accomadating the habits of others that may displease you.  Tolerance for non-smokers means being considerate and obeying the laws.  I do that.  Tolerance for smokers means being considerate of their smoking and allowing them room to do so in a respectful way (putting a smoking cage in an international airport, for example).  

Do you disagree with that?  I suspect you do, so I wish you a good one and, I trust that you are doing nothing to infringe on my or anyone else's pursuit of happiness and well being, and that you always behave in a manner that respects the envirmonment in general (because that concerns all of us in partiular).

You do drive an SUV, don't you  !


----------



## GenJen54

southerngal said:
			
		

> A drunk driver may not have had a choice when he actually got behind the wheel (and possibly caused great damage or death), but he did have a choice whether to drink in the first place.


Sure he did.  He could have handed his keys over, or at least called a cab? 



> We don't tolerate the effects of drunk driving, but we're supposed to tolerate the effects (not just nuisance, but ill health effects) of the addiction of smoking. Why?


  Now we're getting somewhere.  
That is the big question.  WHY?


----------



## Poetic Device

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Do you tolerate drunk drivers?


 
Drunk drivers are a product of sheer stupidity, not addiction.  Once again, apples with banannas, Sweetheart.


----------



## GenJen54

> Drunk drivers are a product of sheer stupidity, not addiction. Once again, apples with banannas, Sweetheart.


 
Talk about excuses!

Did someone force that first cigarette into your mouth? Did someone else force you to keep partaking of that habit? I agree the chemicals "got to you," but I'm also saying it can be quit, and its a habit that's equally as dangerous, if not moreso than driving drunk (if you can call that a "habit"). Drunk drivers generally don't get behind the wheel day in day out.  Some do, but the majority don't.

Smoking, like it or not, can be quit. I'm not saying it isn't easy (read post about my husband), but it CAN be done. 

My mother quit cold turkey. My husband quit with the aid of medication. I quit because I was never really "chemically" addicted (call me lucky). 

All it takes is the will to do it, but putting that cigarette in your mouth is tantamount to a drunk getting behind the wheel. Either way, you are putting your life, and the lives of others (assuming they're around you) in danger!

No apples or bananas necessary, sweetheart. They're all oranges!
The bottom line: I do have to respect your right, but it doens't mean I have to tolerate it!


----------



## Poetic Device

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Quote:
> We don't tolerate the effects of drunk driving, but we're supposed to tolerate the effects (not just nuisance, but ill health effects) of the addiction of smoking. Why?
> Now we're getting somewhere.
> That is the big question. WHY?


 

 Oh my Lord!  I think that I am going to follow badgrammar's example amd get off this merry-go-round.  Drunk driving and smoking are two TOTALLY different topics!  A drunk driver is a time and time again proven danger (among other things that are too elementary to mention).  Smoking is a slight percentage of a danger for non-smokers.  

This is my conclusion until I come back (if I do):  no matter what the opposition says you are still going to think what you want, so why waste any more breath?  People like the ones that were shown here will not be satisfied until we are all character's such as the ones found in *Anthem* or *Farenhiet 451*.  Please tell me that you at the least understand why I am saying that (not whether I am right or wrong).  Otherwise I and the rest of the people arguing you might as well just shut up.


----------



## southerngal

badgrammar said:
			
		

> You do drive an SUV, don't you  !


 
Not only do I not drive one (I drive a small compact, despite having children), I don't know anyone who even owns one!

Gee, you're from France, so you must smoke, don't you?

(Life in the United States is quite different from a lot of the stereotypes that others have about it.  I'm surprised at all the pre-conceived ideas that a lot of people make!  I guess my pre-conceived idea is that most people in Western Europe are open-minded and don't make assumptions based on nationality--  I've certainly learned that pre-conceived ideas are not a good idea....)


----------



## Poetic Device

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> ... but I'm also saying it can be quit, and its a habit that's equally as dangerous...


You really don't read any of the other sides comments (as in read, ponder and read again in order to comprehend), do you?  I feel so sorry for you.


----------



## GenJen54

> You really don't read any of the other sides comments (as in read, ponder and read again in order to comprehend), do you? I feel so sorry for you.


 
I've not only been reading, I've been arguing both sides!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GenJen54*
> Quote:
> We don't tolerate the effects of drunk driving, but we're supposed to tolerate the effects (not just nuisance, but ill health effects) of the addiction of smoking. Why?
> Now we're getting somewhere.
> That is the big question. WHY?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Lord! I think that I am going to follow badgrammar's example amd get off this merry-go-round. Drunk driving and smoking are two TOTALLY different topics! A drunk driver is a time and time again proven danger (among other things that are too elementary to mention). Smoking is a slight percentage of a danger for non-smokers.
> 
> This is my conclusion until I come back (if I do): no matter what the opposition says you are still going to think what you want, so why waste any more breath? People like the ones that were shown here will not be satisfied until we are all character's such as the ones found in *Anthem* or *Farenhiet 451*. Please tell me that you at the least understand why I am saying that (not whether I am right or wrong). Otherwise I and the rest of the people arguing you might as well just shut up.


 
You misquoted me here. I didn't say that! Please look at the posts and WHO WROTE THEM. I agreed with it, but I didn't say it. 

As I said and will stand by it: I believe in a smoker's right to partake in their habit, addiction, whatever they want to call it. They have the right to do it in places where the law deems they may do so. I don't, as a person who values my health, have to tolerate it. There's a big difference.

And no pity is necessary, thank you very much.

*Edit and Caveat to PD*:Your situation given your workplace at a Mental Institution (which was brought up long ago in this thread) is different, and if you don't mind my saying, somewhat removed from the situation of the general populous.   People who have mental illnesses are experiencing life through a different filter (no pun intended) than the rest of us, having do deal with issues of brain chemistry and life challenges that the general person will hardly ever understand.  Asking them to give up smoking in what you say is "their own home" is, I agree, wrong. 

That is a small, small part of the polemic, however.


----------



## southerngal

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Sure he did. He could have handed his keys over, or at least called a cab?


 
When one is drunk, the senses are impaired.  Therefore, people often don't make the same choices when they're drunk as when they're sober, which is why a lot of people get in trouble when they get really soused.  I don't think many would actually choose to drive drunk, but when they're drunk, many don't think of themselves as impaired at all.


----------



## badgrammar

Sorry, one last remark - I'm 100% born and raised Texan (therefore American), m'dear, from Austin.  Moved to France about 12 years back (I'm 38).  

My assumption wasn't based on your nationality, it was based on your one-sided thinking .  Have a good one!



			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> Not only do I not drive one (I drive a small compact, despite having children), I don't know anyone who even owns one!
> 
> Gee, you're from France, so you must smoke, don't you?
> 
> (Life in the United States is quite different from a lot of the stereotypes that others have about it.  I'm surprised at all the pre-conceived ideas that a lot of people make!  I guess my pre-conceived idea is that most people in Western Europe are open-minded and don't make assumptions based on nationality--  I've certainly learned that pre-conceived ideas are not a good idea....)


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> When one is drunk, the senses are impaired.  Therefore, people often don't make the same choices when they're drunk as when they're sober, which is why a lot of people get in trouble when they get really soused.  I don't think many would actually choose to drive drunk, but when they're drunk, many don't think of themselves as impaired at all.



As an alcoholic (recovering) I think we must ask one question of any driver going into a bar - why did you bring your car?


----------



## southerngal

If we are to have empathy for addicts, is that empathy extended to other addictions?  Usually, with most addictions, we try to help the person overcome the addiction, not provide more opportunites for them to feed their habits.

Badgrammar asked When is the last time you saw someone light up in a no-smoking area?

In Paris four months ago.  No kidding.



GenJen said, Smoking, like it or not, can be quit. I'm not saying it isn't easy (read post about my husband), but it CAN be done. 

To say that the addiction cannot be beat is to be ignorant of the fact that thousands, if not more, overcome the addiction each year.  I have no doubt it's very, very difficult to do!  But it has been done.  My parents were both smokers for several decades, and neither has smoked for 15 years now.  

I do feel very sorry for smokers.  I'm sure that many want to quit, not only to improve their health, but to save an enormous amount of money.  Fortunately, with a lot of enacted legislation to restrict smoking, many people have taken that opportunity to find the strength to quit or seek hellp, and I applaud them loudly.


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> As an alcoholic (recovering) I think we must ask one question of any driver going into a bar - why did you bring your car?


 
Excellent question. If someone brings a car, then he should also bring along a designated driver.  A pregnant friend is almost always a sure bet.  

Edit: I also wanted to say that I admire you greatly for being in recovery! I can't imagine how difficult that has been.


----------



## southerngal

badgrammar said:
			
		

> My assumption wasn't based on your nationality, it was based on your one-sided thinking


 
Because I don't agree with you doesn't make me one-sided. Remember -- tolerance? The effects of smokers are often everywhere. Cigarette butts all over park grounds. Ashes and burn marks on restroom sinks. I won't go on.


What an SUV has to do with any of this is quite puzzling.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Lavinia, it is a drug whose withdrawal symptoms are very unpleasant. That is why people can't quit. That is why it is such a struggle. The symptoms of withdrawal, like with any drug, can be overcome when you quit, although the craving may stay with you forever.
> 
> Whatever seems logical to you, it is simply a very unpleasant withdrawal. Otherwise smokers would have no problem quitting.
> 
> But I am glad that you have come around towards a more tolerant point of view, and I respect you for it .


 
You are saying "unpleasant", therefore you agree with me that it doesn't mean "unbearable".

Now, let's make an example : surgery is very unpleasant, not to say painful, but do you know anyone who'd refuse surgery and let himself die because he cannot overcome the unpleasant side of surgery?

If I compare this example to smoke, then I infer that people who say that they can't quit don't really want to, because otherwise, those same people would let themselves die if they needed surgery.

It may sound absurd, but you cannot deny that there is a logic in this argument, can you?


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> The biggest threat, however, at least in the U.S., is the economy of smoking. Prohibition is not an answer because the legislator's pockets are too deeply lined with tobacco money.


 
You got the point!!

I totally agree with this, therefore I think that we'll never have the smoker-free world we are dreaming of : the State sometimes comes out with some dull anti-smoke advertisement, but it's just to "save the face", because on the other hand they do everything to keep people addicted and if possible make new addicts.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

badgrammar said:
			
		

> The tolerance for non-smokers lies in the fact that today, because of legislation as well as health awareness campaigns, most places are smoke free or will soon be that way. Where is the problem, southerngal? It's going the way you want it to, so what's up? When is the last time you saw someone light up in a no-smoking area? Probably a long time ago.


 
My comment : of course we, non smokers are glad that several places are now non smoking, but I think that it's not enough : here in France bars and pubs are all smoking places, and restaurants are not obliged to have a non smoking section.
Concerning people who light up in a non smoking area, I see them regularly, for instance in the subway, and I cannot say anything because I don't know how they might react, and also because that would be useless since I'll probably never meet that person again, and every day I'll have to cope with new "outlaw smokers"


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Sure he did. He could have handed his keys over, or at least called a cab?


 
What if there's nobody who can drive him home? We don't all live in the same block, do we?

Call a cab? it depends on wether he can afford going back home by cab every time, and in that case, who's taking his car back to his home?, and provided that he solved both these points, how is he going to find a free cab on a saturday night in a big town?

The best solution would be not getting drunk at all, wouldn'it?


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> What if there's nobody who can drive him home? We don't all live in the same block, do we?
> Call a cab? it depends on wether he can afford going back home by cab every time,


He has the money to drink, but not the money for the cab?




> and in that case, who's taking his car back to his home?,


He has no friends/family who can drop him at the bar?




> and provided that he solved both these points, how is he going to find a free cab on a saturday night in a big town?


They take advance bookings in any city I've ever been in.




> The best solution would be not getting drunk at all, wouldn'it?


One doesn't have to be "drunk" to be legally incapable of driving in most countries nowadays. The blood/alcohol level in Ireland is 80mg per 100 ml - I'm told that this is the equivalent of about 2 pints of beer for the average man.

How far does the average guy think is "too far" when it comes to walking home?


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> One doesn't have to be "drunk" to be legally incapable of driving in most countries nowadays.


 
There's a billboard near my home that says "Buzzed Driving *is* Drunk Driving."

However, I just wanted to share good news for smokers!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3092690.stm


Are there any smokers here (who are addicted) who, if the vaccine proves to be effective, would choose not to take it?


----------



## geve

I'm sorry, but I really can't see how smoking can be compared to drunk driving. 
Unless you fear that inhaling a mere puff of my smoke will make you drop dead or bleeding in the street. 

What are we discussing here? Did any one of us said that smoking should be allowed everywhere? 

When I light up a cigarette in the street, honestly I don't feel like a potential murderer - are you going to tell me I should? 
Can we please not mix inconvenience and manslaughter?



(southerngal, you can very well listen to loud music in a restaurant! You just have to go to places where it's _allowed_ - in one of these loud music bars and restaurants that Maxiogee said he carefully avoided. )


----------



## GenJen54

> I'm sorry, but I really can't see how smoking can be compared to drunk driving. Unless you fear that inhaling a mere puff of my smoke will make you drop dead or bleeding in the street.


 
No, one puff of your smoke is not going to make me drop dead or bleeding any more than one drunk driver is necessarily going to cross my path.  The FACT remains that both habits put OTHER people at risk.


----------



## geve

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> No, one puff of your smoke is not going to make me drop dead or bleeding any more than one drunk driver is necessarily going to cross my path. The FACT remains that both habits put OTHER people at risk.


I don't think drunk driving can be called a habit or an addiction. I've never heard anyone say _Oh yeah, I love to drink and drive on the highway on saturday nights_. Not every time is lethal, but one time is enough. One puff of cigarette smoke does not put other people at risk. I don't see how my having a cigarette in the street puts people more at risk than, say, the guy who lets his engine running while queuing up at the bakery. Again, I never said that smoking should be allowed with no restrictions.

Some presidents have the habit of taking unwise decisions, which puts many other people at risk. 
Some people like to spit cherry pits in their backyard. There's a tiny chance that one day, one of these pits might end up in the throat of a neighbour who would just happen to be yawning at the very same time, and he might choke to death. 
So both habits put other people at risk. I still wouldn't compare the two things. I really don't think I deserve to be compared to a drunk driver.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

maxiogee said:
			
		

> He has the money to drink, but not the money for the cab?
> 
> 
> He has no friends/family who can drop him at the bar?
> 
> 
> They take advance bookings in any city I've ever been in.
> 
> 
> One doesn't have to be "drunk" to be legally incapable of driving in most countries nowadays. The blood/alcohol level in Ireland is 80mg per 100 ml - I'm told that this is the equivalent of about 2 pints of beer for the average man.
> 
> How far does the average guy think is "too far" when it comes to walking home?


 
Prices are quite high, at least in Paris, therefore, if I had to pay for a taxi everytime I go out, i'd probably be obliged to divide the number of evenings out by two.

What happens if he needs his car the morning after and he left it 10 miles away, and there's nobody available in that moment to drop him there?

Even in France you are considered incapable of driving if you have 0,4 g of alcohol , which I've been told is the equivalent of a couple of beers.


----------



## Sallyb36

We have to use a taxi every time we go out here in the UK unless someone is driving who is not drinking, which very rarely happens.  I think more than 2 drinks and here that's over the legal limit.  There is absolutely no excuse for drink driving whatsoever.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> We have to use a taxi every time we go out here in the UK unless someone is driving who is not drinking, which very rarely happens. I think more than 2 drinks and here that's over the legal limit. There is absolutely no excuse for drink driving whatsoever.


 
I've been in London for just a week, and seen from a foreigner's point of view, it looks like there having fun means drinking : you see so many drunken people in the streets on saturday nights!

Personally, I don't associate fun with drinking, Even when I'm not driving, I won't have more than a couple of drinks, because I don't feel the need.
On the contrary : the less I drink, and the more I have fun, because I feel more aware of what's happening around me.

but, we were talking about smoking, weren't we?


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Prices are quite high, at least in Paris, therefore, if I had to pay for a taxi everytime I go out, i'd probably be obliged to divide the number of evenings out by two.



Is it necessary for you to drink alcohol on all your outings? Can you not arrange with friends to rotate which of you doesn't drink for one evening?



> What happens if he needs his car the morning after and he left it 10 miles away, and there's nobody available in that moment to drop him there?


I really fail to see how people cannot plan their drinking so that their car is where they need it to be the following morning.
Why is this reveller drinking 10 miles from home? Has he been barred from all the establishments closer to home?

Ah well, at least he can smoke frfeely on his walk to his car the following morning!


----------



## Bonjules

Hello,
Would someone comment on how the new Spanish Smoking Laws are working? The participants of that thread are either drunk, asleep at the wheel or they have all decided to come to this one.
Thanks


----------



## stephyjh

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> In southern states, however, smoking is allowed everywhere! And, there isn't even a non-smoking section in some restaurants. The entire restaurant is smoking! I was also shocked to see that this was true in fast-food places especially.


 
5 or 10 years ago, this would have been an accurate statement. But in the part of North Carolina where I live, really, fewer and fewer restaurants are allowing smoking at all. None of the fast-food restaurants here allow it, and most sit-down restaurants allow smoking only in the bar area. There are a few roadside places that are different, but the statement that people can smoke anywhere in the South is just not true.

And to the person who thought to drag NASCAR in: It's been the Nextel Cup for quite a few years now. 

It seems that people's ideas of tobacco's place in the South is pretty outdated.


----------



## badgrammar

I'm from Austin, Teaxs, you can't smoke in any restaurant anymore...  Been a while since you went "South" .



			
				stephyjh said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by VenusEnvy
> In southern states, however, smoking is allowed everywhere! And, there isn't even a non-smoking section in some restaurants. The entire restaurant is smoking! I was also shocked to see that this was true in fast-food places especially.


----------



## Poetic Device

badgrammar 
*Re: Smoking in public* 
I'm from Austin, Teaxs, you can't smoke in any restaurant anymore... Been a while since you went "South" .

Quote:
Originally Posted by *stephyjh*
Originally Posted by VenusEnvy
In southern states, however, smoking is allowed everywhere! And, there isn't even a non-smoking section in some restaurants. The entire restaurant is smoking! I was also shocked to see that this was true in fast-food places especially.



When the south was first brought into this discussion, was it meant as Texas south or Georgia South? From what I understand there is a slight difference...


----------



## timebomb

It could be all along, instead of putting others at risk, we smokers were providing protection.

New evidence just in.


----------



## Poetic Device

timebomb said:
			
		

> It could be all along, instead of putting others at risk, we smokers were providing protection.
> 
> New evidence just in.


As much as I hope/wish that what you said is true, I am not too sure on how genuine the article is.  I do not see anyone's name as the author (and what author would not want credit for their work, especially something that is such a breakthrough?).  Another thing is this:  I have noticed several mis-spellings, and if I can spot them you know that they are bad (being as I can't spell my own name)   I am not trying to rain on your parade, I am just being practical.  These things that I have mentioned are things that my proffessors have told me to look for in order to see just how credible a source is.


----------



## timebomb

Your professor gave you good advice but for the life of me, I can't find any spelling errors in the article.  I spotted the one in your post though   Anyway, would you be so kind as to point out to me where the spelling errors are.  Thank you.

By the way, the name of the author is clearly stated in the article.  It's just below the heading.


----------



## southerngal

The website is one that promotes smoking.  The very first page has a very young girl with a fag sticking out of her mouth (yuck).  It encourages people to smoke!  Sorry to disappoint you, but the website is a joke.


----------



## maxiogee

timebomb said:
			
		

> It could be all along, instead of putting others at risk, we smokers were providing protection.
> 
> New evidence just in.



*Not* *new* - check out the dates for that article - 
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
Copyright 1998 Electronic Telegraph
March 8, 1998

If the report has been suppressed for that long don't you think we'd have heard more about it by now?


----------



## timebomb

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If the report has been suppressed for that long don't you think we'd have heard more about it by now?


You're right, Maxiogee.  I wonder about that too and I was hoping someone would point me to a page to debunk what was said in that article.  I wouldn't like to think that there was a cover-up on the part of WHO.


----------



## maxiogee

timebomb said:
			
		

> You're right, Maxiogee.  I wonder about that too and I was hoping someone would point me to a page to debunk what was said in that article.  I wouldn't like to think that there was a cover-up on the part of WHO.



Maybe there never was a report.
Maybe the report's methodology was faulty.
Maybe the report was sabotaged by the tobacco industry.


----------



## Poetic Device

timebomb said:
			
		

> Your professor gave you good advice but for the life of me, I can't find any spelling errors in the article. I spotted the one in your post though  Anyway, would you be so kind as to point out to me where the spelling errors are. Thank you.
> 
> By the way, the name of the author is clearly stated in the article. It's just below the heading.


 
Oh, good grief.  I see it.  As far as the mispelling in my post, I don't doubt it.  I was and still am always too worried about my grammtical patterns to be bothered with spelling.  This is a habbit that I should take care of.  I can't find the three out of four that I spotted when I first glanced at the article, but they certainly spelled organization wrong (spelled "organisation" there").  As far as the author goes,here is a link about her:  http://cs.itn.co.uk/news/making-news/channel-4-news/correspondents/victoria-macdonald.html

Just in case no one knows who she is.  

As far as if the site does indeed encourage smoking or not, might I suggest that you look at the websites that are sited as references at the bottom of the page before you send it and the creator to hell.


----------



## Sallyb36

organisation is the English spelling, organization is the American spelling.


----------



## Poetic Device

Ah huh. I see.  The reason why I said thati t was mispelled was because I went onto an online dictionary and tried it.  There goes that site.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> *Not* *new* - check out the dates for that article -
> By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
> Copyright 1998 Electronic Telegraph
> March 8, 1998
> 
> If the report has been suppressed for that long don't you think we'd have heard more about it by now?


 
Not necessarily.  THere are a lot of things that are kept hidden from the public because the government(s) think that is what is best for the general public.


----------



## badgrammar

Lavinia.dNP said:


> I live in Paris (bad luck for me) and I can tell you that smoking is not really likely to be banned from restaurants and bars here : the State perceives a tax on the cigarettes sold, therefore they'd never approve such a law.
> Last year in September they tried to propose the "total smoking ban" law in the Parliament, and it was immediately rejected, while the polls said that 80% of the French people would have agreed to such a law





Lavinia.dNP said:


> OK, I agree with you that anyway the Government has no interest in putting a ban on smoke, seen the taxes it receives from smokers..



Just as an update to this thread, smoking in all public paces will be banned in France starting February 1st, 2007...  

I hate to say I told you so, but...



badgrammar said:


> And I'm sorry dear, but just as it has gone and is going in the rest of the world (including Italy), of course nonsmoking legislation will soon be enforced in France.  Don't make blanket statements about such things when you obviously have no idea whatsoever.  How about you do a little research on smoking bans in Europe and then get back to us? Within a few years, France will go the way of Spain, Ireland, Italy


----------

