Why don't I care if you smoke?
 

I’m not a smoker, though I do enjoy an occasional cigar. I’m somewhat baffled by the behavior of some of my countrymen, particularly when they travel. Recently in a pub in the town of Gloucester, I watched a toad of an American woman with a honking, obnoxious Jersey accent loudly ask to be moved twice because she was “allergic” to the smoke which was, by the by, minimal and contained to the bar area.<BR><BR>Now, when I grew up in the 50’s/60’s smoking was very much in fashion. At the average party I would think it safe to say that smokers outnumbered non-smokers 2 to 1. I don’t remember EVER hearing of anyone being “allergic” to smoke until the mid 80’s when it apparently became a national epidemic (or, if you like, a form of mass hysteria.)<BR><BR>As of today smoking is not illegal. Anyone over a certain age has every right to go into a shop, buy cigarettes or cigars, and smoke them. (Granted, there may be fair limitations as to where they can smoke.)People need to learn to get over it because, as it stands, that’s the reality of the situation. <BR>Of course now the cause du jour is to stamp out all smoking everywhere! (The duplicity of someone sitting at a bar sucking down vodka martinis while simultaneously complaining that the smoker across the room is endangering their health seems to escape many of the Society Police.)<BR><BR> American society is based on the Puritan ethic, which is basically a fear that someone, some place, is having fun, and/or enjoying themselves. Face it, half of the whiners about people who smoke are based on the fact that the person is smoking whether or not it is actually bothering the complainer.<BR><BR>The idea of some cow visiting another country and loudly complaining about how they run their pubs, cafes, and bars is the height of contemptuous ill-mannered behavior. Rather than banning smokers, I’d much rather they’d ban people of that ilk. I think everyone in the place would have supported the management had they had the guts to tell her to leave. Of course then she would have come back to the States telling everyone who would listen how rude those English louts really are.<BR>

Amen! I am much more offended by loud, obnoxious, self riteous people than I am smokers. Stay home!!<BR><BR>PS: I'm an American non-smoker.

GudGawd<BR><BR>You need a day job.

Geeze. You sound like a frustrated puritanical preacher 'wannabee'. People who don't like smoke have a right to their opinion (I am one of them) but in a London pub, or in most foreign counries, your opinion is in the minority, and thus, you should stay out of those places. Can't fight city hall, you know.!!!!

GudGawd, you obviously have no idea what it is like to be allergic to smoke. Now I have NEVER been loud mouthed and obnoxious, but I take great offense to you saying that there is no such allergy, check with a medical doctor, there is and it is very real. I do not condone people that make a big fuss and draw attention, but I am sorry if the smoke is bad Im going to ask to be moved. And anyone that thinks there is no such allergy is a real idiot, try not being able to breath for a while and see how it feels.

Sometimes Americans forget that they are guests in other countries, and really shouldn't criticize local customs no matter how obnoxious they find them.<BR><BR>We had a wonderful 3-week trip to Britain last summer, but never entered a pub. We're very sensitive to cigarette smoke and knew it would be unavoidable in pubs. So we dealt with it, there were plenty of other wonderful (smoke-free) things to do!

Double Amen!! Too bad that American toad hadn't complained instead about our porous borders & visas for anyone; intolerance in that direction would have prevented 9-11 by keeping the "bad guys" out. <BR><BR>This anti-smoking pro-"diversity" attitude is NOT a Puritan thing -- it's a Clinton/yuppy/80-90s thing. 9-11 would never have happed in the late 40s/50s -- the FBI/CIA were not hamstrung then by the "rights/ liberties" groups, who actually deny native-born USA citizens their right to live as they chose in a secure nation.<BR>

Take it on the curcuit, do, GudGawd. You only need the box.<BR><BR>But don't tell me about some woman with a jersey accent unless you're willing to be more exact. Which exit? Is that too much to ask? Accents vary, you know.<BR><BR>Other than that, what a rant. Look, I grew up in the 50s/60s too - please somebody, tell me I don't sound like that!

Um, another reason that the anti-smoking movement wasn't off the ground in the 40s and 50s was that very few people realized how bad it was for you. In that era, movie stars and physicians often appeared in advertising, promoting cigarettes. <BR><BR>The medical link betwen cigarette smoking and lung cancer was established in 1963, and television advertising of cigarettes was banned a year later.

I grew up in the 40/50s -- and not 1 student in my high school of 300 had asthma or was "allergic to smoke". Indeed, a national news program discussed this recently; apparently the "clean air" we now have has actually impared our immune systems resulting in an marked increase in asthma etc.

GudGawd, you're absolutely right about the American puritan ethic. The problem is not so much when this puritan ethic prompts people to express their disapproval of some behavior. The real problem becomes when this puritan ethic prompts people to support and pass *laws* actually prohibiting people from engaging in what they see as "vices." <BR><BR>Tobacco smokers may be prohibited from smoking in certain places -- e.g. airplanes, offices, etc. -- but they are not prohibited, per se, from engaging in their "vice." <BR><BR>On the other hand, marijuana smokers are. Now, how many tobacco smokers do you think support *laws* against marijuana smoking? Anywhere. Even in the privacy of a person's house. Quite a few I'd guess. Talk about flaming hypocrisy. Talk about not wanting other people to have fun. <BR><BR>

All drug usage should be legal - be it nicotine, cocaine or heroine - not much difference- it's still a dependence upon a foreign substance so as to relax ( how pitifully weak and needy )

I think that, rant and all, Gawd’s point is valid and well made. If indeed you suffer allergies, phobias, whatever, why expect the world to change for you? The American toad in this instance should have hopped off to another place rather than complain. Personally I’d much rather smell a GOOD cigar or a pipe than the smell of some American man who’s just bathed in Avon’s Wild Country or his wife’s Wal-Mart musk. Personally I don’t like the smell of cooking meat so I stay out of hamburger stands and BBQ joints. I don’t make it a point of going in then demanding that everything around me be changed to suit my tastes. This is a particularly irritating “American thing,” it is all about “me, me, me.”<BR> Smoking for the most part is a perfectly legal, adult pastime, like it or not, and until that changes, tough luck. Sure it’s harmful to the smoker and (perhaps) to those in the immediate vicinity. But then so is car exhaust, heavy alcohol use, and leaky microwave ovens. <BR>

"it's still a dependence upon a foreign substance so as to relax ( how pitifully weak and needy )"<BR><BR>Soapbox: EVERYONE has a crutch. What's your denomination?

Soap box. There's a big difference between drugs like heroin and nicotine, and marijuana, however. Marijuana, to the best of my knowledge, has never been shown to be physically addicitive, like nicotine and heroin. In my opinion, drugs that actually get people hooked physically are far more insidious than those which do not. <BR><BR>GudGawd, personally smoke doesn't bother me unless it reaches a high saturation point in places like music clubs. But are you suggesting that people being allergic to smoke is some kind of fiction? (I will say that some people may use the term "allergic" when, in fact, what they really mean is they they simply don't like smoke.) <BR><BR>As Sue alluded to, the reason smoking used to be very much in fashion in the United States was because many people were honestly unaware of the health risks involved. Remember when the tobacco industry fought those warning labels on cigarette packages? (Now, of course, they *use* those warning labels as a defense in court when they're sued by people who get cancer from smoking, saying, in a sense, "Hey, we warned you smoking could be hazardous to your health!")

GudGawd, calling someone a toad and a cow is another example of contemptuous ill-mannered behavior. What animal best describes your wife?

My wife passed away 2 years ago, thank you for asking.

Too bad you haven't joined her.

Do you suppose if the founders of this country had been pot farmers instead of tobacco farmers, that pot would be sold at every gas station today and tobacco would be the illegal and harmful drug? <BR><BR>It all depends upon who is earning the profit as to whether a drug is deemed legal or not. Tobacco and pharmaceutical drugs? Legal of course, because corporations profit.

I'm still awestruck at the popularity of and amount of knowledge gathered by MHS. He/she knew every single one of his/her schoolmates well enough to know that not one of them had asthma. Now, that's togetherness!<BR>Cut the crap,hm?

Ah yes, corporations are the source of all evil. The Hollywood mentality of a young moron. Ever seen a movie that showed a "corporation" in a positive light? I don't think so. Idiots like the guy above really believe that evil springs from corporations, except of course, Ben & Jerry's.

Why is it wrong for corporate America to advertise cigarettes with a cartoon character like Joe Camel and yet it is perfectly acceptable for Anheiser-Busch to advertise alcohol with frogs and lizards. Is it because most lawyers drink a lot of alcohol that no one has sued these people for a billion or so dollars?

xxx, probably so. In the meantime, the U.S. government throws people in prison for smoking, or growing, marijuana while it assists the major tobacco companies in exporting their deadly products to developing countries overseas. <BR><BR>There's more than a tinge of racism behind the prohibition of marijuana (which was an obsession of former narcotics chief Harry Ansligner) since its use was associated with Mexican migrant workers and black musicians. <BR><BR>I really would be curious what percent of smokers who, of course, would be in favor of legal tobacco smoking, in turn are hypocritically opposed to legal marijuana smoking. <BR><BR>Interestingly, I read an article recently that said Great Britain has begun liberalizing their laws/attitudes toward marijuana smoking and the article mentioned it's not uncommon to see young people smoking spliffs on the sidewalk near the Brixton police station. <BR>

Capo<BR><BR>I didn't realize you were the regional president of NORML. But I do understand why some of your notes are so stupid.

That's the best you can do, Babs? Geeze, you people really need to go to Insult College so you can become a bit more creative. <BR><BR>Thanks for your substantive and intelligent contribution. We all learned a lot from it.

XXX,<BR><BR>Imagine....a pharmaceutical corporation earning profits! Amazing, what will they think of next?<BR><BR>You dimwit, of course they make profits, that is what they are in business for, that and returing value to their shareholders!<BR><BR>BTW, they also develop, test and market the drugs you and I need to survive and enjoy this great life. No profits, no research, no research no new drugs, no new drugs!<BR><BR>Get it?<BR><BR>US

I WAS allergic to it in the 50's and 60's and spent many miserable car rides trapped in a vehiclle with closed windows. at least now I can open my mouth and admit that it bothers me without being condemned except of course by some militant smokers and just plain obnoxious inconsiderate people.

Poor, poor Lillian. As we say in England, “bad form,” old dear. You luv are one, sick puppy. Someone disagrees with you and you wish them dead. Shame on you. I feel so sorry for your family dear and you’re parents must be deeply ashamed of you. Is this the militant leftist in you speaking. Perhaps you should go hug a tree and feel better. That was perhaps the saddest posting I’ve ever read on this site. Consider apologising you mean, unhappy thing.

Gudgawd, the point I woul dmake is that someone pouring martinis down their neckis harmingonly themselves and then only maybe. Passive drinking hasyet to be inentedunless you class violence to people brought on by alcohol.<BR><BR>Smoking affects so many other people. I cant stand it to be honest; clothes smell after being in a bar or restaurant where someone has been smoking, it also puts me off my food. My 2 cents anyway.

When it comes to drugs, you cannot argue against big businness. For if drugs were legalized, there production and sale could easily become the largest legal business around. Therefore, logically, "corporations" would be FOR the legalization of drugs if they thought they could get away with it.<BR><BR>Some Founding Fathers did grow hemp and crops other than just tobacco (see notes from Thomas Jefferson and his beliefs on partaking of substances -- moderation). There was MJ, cocaine, opium and lot of other crap in products up until around the 1900's when it was realized how addictive this stuff was. And, MJ is probably physically addictive and certainly mentally addictive -- look at the number of idiots that say they can stop anytime they want, they just don't want to (yeah, right).<BR>As for smoking, I prefer the (now) old addage: the residue of your pleasure is smoke, however, I prefer beer. How would you like the residue of my pleasure all over you during a nice dinner? Perhaps we'll meet someday in the same smoke-filled pub -- drinks on me.<BR><BR>

Tony Hughes,<BR><BR>All that passive alcohol in the form of martinis, when combined with an automobile may create a lot more danger than passive, 2nd hand smoke.<BR><BR>Just a thought.<BR><BR>US

Yup, you've got me there. I agree.

Well, of course there are obnoxious and unreasonable smokers, and there are obnoxious and unreasonable anti-smokers. <BR><BR>The point is not whether you like to smoke or hate smoking. The point is whether you're tolerant and considerate or whether you're so self-obsessed that you make life hell for those who don't agree with you. <BR><BR>This applies equally to smokers who are inconsiderate in a closed space, and anti-smokers who wish to show off their moral superiority and save others from thier "evil ways."<BR><BR>Oh, and Capo, yes, I think there are better uses for our scarce law-enforcement resources than chasing down citizens who grow or smoke a common garden plant.

Capo<BR><BR>Never let it be said that you ever let the fact that you don't know jack about a subject stand in the way of you offering an opinion on it. <BR><BR>A lengthy opinion too. Is there anyone who has posted more BS on these boards than you? I don't think so. <BR><BR>What a prima donna you are.

I couldn't care less about someone else's smoking if they are not anywhere near ME. My objection hasn't a thing to do with moral superiority. their smoking in private has no more impact on my than their biting their nails. But I have every right to care if they make my life miserable by smoking in places where I have a practical need to be--whether it's an airport, a plane, a train station, a restaurant where I have a lunch meeting, etc. I have alrady given up going to enough places where I don't NEED to be because of the presence of smoke, e.g., have stopped being a volunteer before elections because of smoke, and do not go to many restaurants because of smoke, which s still allowed in my home state.

<BR><BR>Lillian:<BR><BR>Good god, what a sluttish twit you are. I am ashamed FOR you. <BR>

Does anyone else here fear for Lillian's family? B-r-r-r-r-r. What a scary thing to say!

Capo,<BR>Claiming to be allergic to cigarette smoke IS, in fact, a fiction.<BR>Lisa,<BR>You are NOT allergic to smoke. Ask your doctor.<BR>BTW, there has never been a case of anyone ever dying, getting cancer, getting emphysima, or any other disease from secondhand smoke.<BR>Thanks for listening.

The question I have is why when all the non smokers go to a restaurant and the line is real long for non smoking, they are able to sit in smoking, rather than wait for a non smoking table.<BR>Just an observation from a non smoker.

GudGawd,<BR>Since the pub owner allows smoking in his establishment then the "toad" was clearly in the wrong. <BR><BR>I promote the operating of non-smoking facilities. I oppose any government enforcing laws prohibiting business owners from allowing smoking in their facilities.<BR><BR>If I wish to smoke, I will go to a facility that permits smoking and keep my mouth shut.<BR><BR>If I wish to avoid smoke I will go to a facility that does not permit smoking and keep my mouth shut.<BR><BR>If I am a pub owner in Gloucester and permit smoking in my pub I will expect my customers to accept an environment with smoke in the air. If the market indicates that I am losing customers due to smoke, I may choose to open a non-smoking facility. I which case, I would expect smokers to take their business elsewhere.<BR><BR>I don't understand people who go to the desert and bitch about the sand.<BR><BR>j.