Why don't I care if you smoke?

Jun 13th, 2002, 01:42 PM
  #41  
Uncle Sam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
True confessions:

I used to smoke about a pack a day for a number of years. Quit for 8 or 9 years, ran 10k's in right at 48 minutes, stayed in shape etc.

Son became a teenager, drove me crazy and I started smoking again. Now, I have quit again for two years, run three miles daily and comfined my habit to quality cigars about one or two a month.

Now I'm not even allowed that vice as I had a heart flutter, rate of 154 for 12 hours and finally the $750 medicine converted heart back to normal rhythm and regular pulse of 62. Dr. said it was too much caffinated coffee, cigars, rich chocolate candy and too many bottles of Chateauneuf du Pape on trip to Provence that sent me over the edge.

However, even when I smoked, I was bothered by second hand smoke. It just does not smell the same as the smoke you get when you smoke the darn things yourself. However, even when I smoked, I refrained from any smoking indoors unless it was at a bar where the smoke was so thick you could cut it with a knife. I was always observant of non smokers and would immediately put out a smoke if osmeone was offended.

I believe that it is good public policy to regulate smoking. I would much rather have dinner in a smoke free environment, but if not I can survive and btw, I too am allergic to smoke.

The issue is consideration. I wouldn't want to be offensive to others, nor do I want some anti smoking Nazi in my face.

Concessions and common sense tend to work!

US
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 01:47 PM
  #42  
Mike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree that Americans shouldn't complain about smoke in Europe. When you go to another land you have to abide by their rules. Europe smokes, thats's the way it is,if you don't like it don't go there.
However, here in the US, the non-smokers rule, and I'm a non-smoker. If you blow smoke in my face I'll hassle you. The mob rules. That's just the way it is.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 01:50 PM
  #43  
jeez
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Such passion for such a common problem.

Sure, there are obnoxious American complaining about smoking and everything else under the sun, and it's annoying.

But to paraphrase George Carlin, I don't mind you smoking in front of me if you don't mind me waving sticks laced with arsenic in your face.

Smoking affects everyone in the room, much more so than the guy drinking martinis (yes, I know that some drink and drive). Love-my-Marlboros, you are quite incorrect, they are linked...

Oh, and Babs and Lillian, you are too strange for words. Truly sorry you are such unhappy people.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 01:57 PM
  #44  
Capo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Congratulations, Babs. That was a bit of an improvement but I still think you could do much better. You actually might not be Insult College material, though. Perhaps you'd be better off by taking some classes at an Insult Community College first and then progress from there. Good luck!

D.B. what do you mean by saying that, logically, corporations would be FOR the legalization of drugs if they thought they could "get away with it"? Get away with what? Lobbying (which they excel at) for legalization? Or something else?

You also say that "MJ is probably physically addictive" basing this guess, apparently, on some kind of interesting scientific study: "the number of idiots that say they can stop anytime they want, they just don't want to." You should try to have that published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Uncle Sam, very true, unfortunately, that alcohol is responsible for the deaths of a lot of *other* people, both on the road and off. In fact, that was one of the reasons for Prohibition. Problem was, as we found out, people want to drink and when the demand is great, prohibiting something creates more problems than it solves. This is a lesson we are learning all over again with our "War on Drugs."

Thanks, Fair.

GASP, well said. In my opinion, while there may be *some* non-smokers who object to people smoking out of some sense of moral superiority, I think the claim, or implication, that all or most non-smokers feel that way is disingenous, and is a way of diverting attention from the real issue, which is second-hand smoke. I mean, did airlines and offices ban smoking because the people that made these decisions felt morally superior to smokers? Or could it just possibly be there were some real health issues involved? I suspect the vast majorty of non-smokers are like you and I, not caring at all about people who choose to smoke in their own personal space, or outdoors. In fact, I'd never support a ban on tobacco, just like I don't support the current ban on marijuana, since I think adults should be free to make these kinds of decisons for themselves.


By the way, here's an interesting website which talks about the a World Health Organization-sanctioned global treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). It also talks about how Big Tobacco's future lies, in large part, in the developing world and mentions how researchers working with the WHO have developed a four-stage model to explain how smoking tends to spread, and that the model demonstrates why new markets are the battleground.

http://www.fctc.org/news187.shtml
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 02:02 PM
  #45  
aurthur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Capo

Do you ever leave your house or take a break for more than 5 minutes from your computer? You, my man, do not have a life.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 02:11 PM
  #46  
hackhack
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Capo:

For someone who claims to be a nonsmoker, you blow more smoke out of your ears than anyone I have ever read!
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 02:13 PM
  #47  
Capo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Good comments, Jon. You're absolutely right in that the owner of a pub (or restaurant, etc.) who permits smoking in their establishment would reasonably expect any customers to accept that.

Where we differ is that I'm of two minds regarding government making laws prohibiting business owners from allowing smoking in their facilities, such as was done in California. One one hand, I don't like government making laws telling business owners, or individuals, what to do. And yet, government does that all the time, does it not? Government tells people of the same sex they can't get married; government tells people who like to smoke marijuana that they can't do that; govenment tells people they have to wear seat belts, etc. and how many people who are opposed to government telling business owners what do to, turn around and support government telling individuals what to do?

Also, whether one agrees with it or not, government tells business owners, via acts like OSHA, that they can't permit what it considers to be hazardous working conditions for their employees. The latter was the reason being California's smoking ban in bars and restaurants. The ban was not for the benefit of the customers; the ban was for the benefit of the employees.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 02:14 PM
  #48  
Laura
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Great post! Enjoy the intelligent opinions......cringe at the mean, self-rightous idiots.
I, too, am a reformed smoker who enjoys daily 2 mile runs at lunch but would NEVER EVER go to a foreign country (or domestic for that matter)and harass people. Make a choice but don't make others be part of your choice.

 
Jun 13th, 2002, 02:16 PM
  #49  
Capo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
*LOL* even Babs was better than you guys with her attempts at insults. C'mon guys, try harder; I KNOW you can do it!
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 02:23 PM
  #50  
John
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I just did a 5 minute survey of Capo notes and here is what I found. He has 10 messages between 6/12 at 11:40 AM until 6/13 11:37 AM and that doesn't include all the stuff he has written on this thread. ( He has 4 or 5 just on this one thread ) One thing I'll give you Capo-chino, you are an industrious sort. Do you ever go out or is this your entire sad life?
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 03:07 PM
  #51  
Capo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"Sad life" is a decent attempt an at an insult but, really John, I'm very disappointed that you couldn't come with something nastier than that. Your nasty juices must not be flowing today, eh?
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 05:08 PM
  #52  
Uncle Sam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Capo.

Tell these folks to take a long walk on a short pier.

If you want to stay on here 24 hours a day, what's it to them!

US
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 05:26 PM
  #53  
Capo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks, Uncle Sam. I appreciate it, but no need to. Not when a third-grader could come up with better insults they they do. That's why I keep suggesting Insult College, or perhaps Insult Community College. There, they could take some classes on derision, do some research projects on hurling abuse, and generally hone their insult skills.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 05:28 PM
  #54  
Ed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Interesting thread....
I am also an expat who lived 7 years in several Europe countries. I've given up trying to stay healthy....just too many things to avoid. Although I'm a non-smoker, many of my fondest memories have been in European pubs, taverns, even US taverns. I just bite the bullet, and enjoy myself.
When my time is up, it's up whether it's due to spending my time with friends in smokey pubs, eating bacon, being consumed by environmental fumes, getting hit by a bus, or whatever.
I WILL SAY THOUGH...I REALLY MISS EUROPEANS "LIVE AND LET LIVE" ATTITUDE, now that I'm back in the U.S. for good. I believe we would all be much happier with their attitude.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 05:44 PM
  #55  
Jon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Capo,
For a moment I thought you & I were going agree on an issue...
Just because our government is overly powerful does not mean we have to agree with it's mandates. You previously argued against bans on weed, and are now saying that because such laws are in place we should accept others that follow suit. I don't support a government that attempts to "big brother" industry or individuals.
As a capitalist, I support letting the market dictate how private industry operates. If there is a market for smoke-free bars, they will open in mass. If a bartender feels that his health is at risk due to smoke, he is free to pursue another job. If an employer is unable to maintain a workforce due to unsafe conditions, he will enforce safety policies or go out of business.
Once OSHA was given power (as is the case with most US Govt agencies; State and Federal) it went way beyond what is reasonable. A good example is Cali's smoking ban.
A capitalist culture will evolve naturally to supply the demand. Passing law in attempt to protect every citizen from every evil in the country is ludicrous.
Over to you.
j.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 06:03 PM
  #56  
Lucas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Look out, the MMC* is starting it's nightly meeting right here on this board. Charter members are Capo and Uncle Sam though this dude Jon looks like he will be a contender for president next year.




*MMC = Mental Masturbation Club
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 06:08 PM
  #57  
RANDI
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
First of all, all smoke is an IRRITANT, whether ii comes from a cigg or a bonfire. It is not an ALLERGEN like dustmites, cat dander, ragweed, etc. When breathed in it swells the mucous membranes and irritates the throat like an allergic reaction but is not the same. You cannot get "desensitized" to smoke or perfumes by taking allergy shots. I know my allergy stuff, huh?

Next, hey Capo, lets get together and smoke a fatty. !)
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 06:15 PM
  #58  
Lucas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Addendum

Add RANDI to the MMC list. He'll be elected director of Altered States of Awareness by a landslide.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 06:23 PM
  #59  
RANDI
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hey Lucas,

Thanks for the reply. I am happy to be director of Alt.States. But tell me, whats MMC?

Thanks bud.
 
Jun 13th, 2002, 06:38 PM
  #60  
Capo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks, Jon. I did say I was of two minds on California's smoking ban; in otherwords, I see it from both perspectives, from the perspective of regulating working conditions, but also from a libertarian perspective. The devil, as always, is in the details. I'm sure many people would agree, in principle, with the need for *some* regulation of workplace conditions (ever heard of the infamous Triangle Building fire in New York City?). The question, of course, is how much regulation, to what degree?

You say that once OSHA was given power it went way beyond what is reasonable. That may be true and I'm hardly familiar with all of OSHA's regulations. But what is "reasonable" is going to vary from person to person, isn't it?

Anyway, although I can see both sides of California's ban, if I was voting on it, I would've voted against it.

I do agree with you that just because our government is very powerful -- and has tons of laws about what people and businesses can and cannot do -- that certainly does not mean we have to agree with the laws. I disagree with many of the laws against so-called "vices", for example. The point I was trying to make -- and maybe my attempt was poor -- was how many people who are opposed to California's smoking ban as a government intrusion would turn around and support *other* government intrusions into people's lives? As I asked before, specifically, how many smokers who complain about not being able to smoke in certain places turn around and support laws against smoking marijuana in ALL places?

Back to smoking and the pub... I agree that a person doesn't have to go into a pub or restaurant that permits smoking; there are other options. And I think that non-smoking establishments, especially in the U.S., are growing as business owners see the demand for them. My main issue with smoking has always been music clubs because, if a national act is playing in town, and it's a smoking show, the only other option I have is to stay home. Fortunately, one of my favorite music clubs in Seattle has gone to a lot of non-smoking shows so I don't always have to make the choice of music & smoke vs. no music & no smoke.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:15 AM.