I hate cigarettes, hate cigarette smoke, and wish no one smoked them...

[TheWraith]

I find them to be vile, the smoke chokes me up, and they're filled with carcinogens. I am not, however, under the ridiculous belief that I am in any way entitled to demand that they be banned, either "for my own good" or for the good of other people.

In my view, there is little to no difference between that and any other "for my/their own good!" intrusion in privacy, whether that's telling you what you're allowed to smoke, what you can look at on the internet, what medical procedures you can have, who you can have sex with and how, etcetera. There is ALWAYS someone convinced that they need the government to stop you, or themselves, from doing something that's harmful to themselves or the moral fabric of society, whether it's actually harmful or not. And if you think there's a legitimate exception for things like cigarette smoking which ARE harmful to oneself, think again--there's tons of things you and I do every day that would actually harm ourselves which I'm sure we aren't so willing to agree on banning, from having a drink after work to eating that last slice of cake. The fact that somewhere there's an alcoholic or a chronic overeater doesn't negate the fact that people have a right to do as they choose with their lives and their bodies.

Is smoking bad for you? Hell yes. Should you keep smoking? Fuck no. I've been annoying family members who smoke for YEARS, trying to get them to give it up. For that matter, if you want to demand that tobacco products be regulated to the point of producing a product that's safe to use, I'm right there with you. That's a completely appropriate response to tobacco-related dangers. But if you have a problem with impulse control or addiction, there are plenty of good options and methods for quitting that do not involve trying to force everyone in the country to follow your personal belief systems. Believing that cigarettes should be banned so you can quit smoking is kind of like saying that because you have high cholesterol, no one anywhere is allowed to eat a steak.

One of the first lessons that needs to be taught in civics classes is that we're the moral arbiters of our own lives and no one else's. If you disapprove of drugs, or gay sex, or guns, or abortions, or meat eating, or breastfeeding, or hair removal lotion, or outdoor cats, or Beethoven's Fifth, or dry toast, you can avoid those things yourself. But you don't get to tell everyone else to live the same way you choose to, even if you believe it's superior, and oftentimes even if you're right.

[Autumn]

1. Excellent post

Rec

[MicaelS]

2. Prohibition has worked so well in America...

It is definitely time to try it again with Tobacco.

[onehandle]

3. As long as the carcinogenic smoke is not forced on my family in public...

...smoke away. It's your funeral.

[trueblue2007]

32. i agree. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN MY HOUSE

OR ON OUR DECK.

my dad always me..... guess i was brainwashed at 13, that my mom died because she smoked.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. You could have replied in the thread dedicated to this topic

Odd choice, but your name looks great at the top.

[Old Guy and his pipe]

5. Then learn to smoke a pipe.

Learn to smoke a pipe to avoid the stench of cigarettes. And yes, the pipe is different than cigarettes.

[Fearless]

30. It is still dangerous to your health and that of others.

It also still smells bad. I different bad perhaps, but bad nonetheless.

[The Straight Story]

6. I've been annoying non-christians for years trying to save their souls from burning/death

Everyone has something to preach to those who don't accept our beliefs...

[One of the 99]

109. Well said! nt

[hunter]

7. I'm fiercely allergic to tobacco smoke.

When I was a kid, back when asthma meds were primitive, exposure to tobacco smoke could start the cascade that sent me to the emergency room.

With modern asthma meds, tobacco smoke merely annoys me.

But I still can't sleep in a smoking allowed motel room.

[TransitJohn]

94. There are no allergens in tobacco smoke

Nothing to be allergic to.
http://www.sharecare.com/question/is-cigarette-smoke-an-allergen
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514111406.htm

[hunter]

95. You forgot your sarcasm tag.

First link: "Smoke has not been proven an allergen, but it is certainly an irritant, especially to people who are suffering from asthma or from allergic rhinitis."

Second link: "...demonstrates that cigarette smoke decreases the allergic response by inhibiting the activity of mast cells..."

I don't allow smoking in my house, and I don't hang out in places where people smoke. tobacco

[TransitJohn]

96. Smoke is not an allergen and doesn't contain any allergens. sarcasm tag not needed. eom

n/t

[hunter]

100. As they used to say about Latex, Nickel, Formaldehyde, etc. etc.

The common definition of allergen is broader then the one you demand.

And even by strict definition, the sources you cite use weasel words like "not proven to be..."

Sure, it's difficult to find proteins in cigarette smoke, but one can still be allergic to it because of substances in the smoke that damage existing proteins in the body, turning them into true allergens. That's how the poison oak reaction works:

Toxins interacting with proteins

Another non-food protein reaction, urushiol-induced contact dermatitis, originates after contact with poison ivy, eastern poison oak, western poison oak, or poison sumac. Urushiol, which is not itself a protein, acts as a hapten and chemically reacts with, binds to, and changes the shape of integral membrane proteins on exposed skin cells. The immune system does not recognize the affected cells as normal parts of the body, causing a T-cell-mediated immune response. Of these poisonous plants, sumac is the most virulent. The resulting dermatological response to the reaction between urushiol and membrane proteins includes redness, swelling, papules, vesicles, blisters, and streaking.

Estimates vary on the percentage of the population that will have an immune system response. Approximately 25 percent of the population will have a strong allergic response to urushiol. In general, approximately 80 percent to 90 percent of adults will develop a rash if they are exposed to .0050 milligrams (7.7×10?5 gr) of purified urushiol, but some people are so sensitive that it takes only a molecular trace on the skin to initiate an allergic reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy

Without knowing the mechanisms exactly, it's still a very good bet that tobacco smoke is both an irritant and an allergen.

There is much "common knowledge" about tobacco smoke that simply isn't true and it's spread by the tobacco industry and by those who want to deny the damage they do by their second hand smoke.

Claiming "Smoke is not an allergen and doesn't contain any allergens" simply isn't true.

[TransitJohn]

101. Claiming you're allergic to tobacco smoke isn't true either. eom

n/t

[graywarrior]

8. YES!

Recently, I was forced to move because the woman downstairs was a chain smoker and her 2nd hand smoke drifted into my apartment 24/7. All my clothes and furniture reeked of smoke and I ended up in the hospital because it affected my breathing.

[WillowTree]

9. "I've been annoying family members who smoke for YEARS......."

While your intentions are no doubt only the best, you're probably doing more harm than good if you really want to see them quit. I was a chain smoker for longer than I care to admit and I was only able to quit when I was ready inside my own self. And frankly, when family and friends would nag me about it, more often than not it only sent me outside to have a smoke. Better to lay off it.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

[TheWraith]

15. Never been around either enough to really judge, honestly.

I have a friend who smokes cigars who swears up and down they're far better than cigarettes, but I haven't been exposed enough to have a feeling for them.

[ThomThom]

64. Cigars are the worst because the end is wet and is a tobacco leaf

this causes mouth and throat cancer at a much higher rate than cigarettes
also the smoke is much stronger and unfiltered. It stinks worse to me
at the same time why is pot banned? What about peoples' freedom to stink up the place with that ... just saying?

[OriginalGeek]

90. I smoke 8 to 10 cigars a year

I love the way they smell. I was a 3 pack a day cig smoker until 4/20/2003 when I quit. I don't know if cigars are far better than cigs but I'm not addicted to them like I was cigarettes.

I do worry a little bit about the wet tobacco leaf end in my mouth but I guess not enough to make me stop lol. I don't inhale as much or as deeply as I did with cigs but I don't believe it's possible to get NO smoke in your lungs - you got a lit stick in your face for the better part of an hour (if it's a biggun) and you still gotta breathe...

FWIW I only smoke where others are already smoking and never in anyone's (mine included) house. My doc isn't worried about the amount I smoke either so I guess I'll just keep on with this program.

[SlimJimmy]

11. Good post (nt)

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. I'm the last person to argue *for prohibition* of anything

But I should make one point before the Rah Rah Rah really kicks in on this thread:

Posing the questions as personal moral questions rather than deeply social pragmatic questions is itself question-begging. There are perfectly good questions to ask about "prohibitions" that have to do with social cost rather than morality. And social groups do have the obligation to consider social costs. Now, they might ignore them, or determine that individual freedom should trump social costs, but to argue that civics shouldn't also be about determining social costs is the height of the very extremist individualism that has gotten us into quite the mess in the last thirty years. I don't have to care AT ALL about the morality of smoking if it can be definitively demonstrated that smoking increases the social cost of medicine for everybody in a society. It's not a moral issue of the individual, but a pragmatic concern for the social group.

[Vattel]

41. very good point

[marions ghost]

60. I like the way you think...

Smoking should be banned in public places. Whatever one does in their own home or car is fine.

Morality and "freedom" DOES involve the best interests of society. Smoking can't be defended as a neutral, non- harmful substance to others (the industry got away with that for far too long).

Polite people who smoke don't subject others to it.

[markpkessinger]

107. True, but then again, alcohol prohibitionists certainly considered "social costs" of alcohol abuse

. . . the only problem being they failed to adequately consider the social costs of alcohol prohibition as well.

[alcibiades_mystery]

111. The social cost calculation doesn't always result in prohibition

I'm merely pointing out that the OP is dead wrong in thinking that this is an issue about SOLELY individual morals or freedoms. That's an ultimately childish and selfish position to take.

[ellisonz]

127. +1

[gulliver]

13. Smoking is about where it belongs now.

It is fading fast. You can't watch someone die in hospice when they had fifteen years of grandkids, golf, and fishing left in them and think "Yeah, that smoking was sure worth it." It is a tremendously foolish thing to do.

Smoking is heavily taxed and regulated of necessity. Unfortunately, this is one case where smokers ruined things for themselves. They couldn't wait to smoke until they were outside. They smoked around people who didn't want it and without asking. It's one thing to be suicidal, but it's quite another thing to be rude and inconsiderate. I imagine nearly all of the readers of DU who smoke are not to blame. They are paying the price for the inconsiderate jerks.

Electronic cigarettes need to be perfected and made ubiquitous. They are a great answer. Smoking electronic cigarettes is a win-win. They should be allowed everywhere coffee and perfume are allowed. They should not be taxed beyond Sales tax. And their users should (and probably do) qualify as non-smokers for all intents and purposes.

[bullwinkle428]

18. This is an excellent post.

[quakerboy]

84. I dunno

Many smokers seem quite devoted to their course, in my experience. Including those who have or are watching others die in agony.

[markpkessinger]

110. Indeed. Here's a personal story related to this . . .

In 2000, I lost both parents to lung cancer, just 12 days apart (my mother on Dec. 13 and my father on Christmas Day). Both had been heavy smokers for many years, but both had also quit a number of years before becoming ill, but alas it was too late, the damage having already been done.

A month or so later, after I was back in NYC (about 200 miles from the town my parents lived in), I needed to get back to their house to retrieve some things. (My parents had both died at home, and I had taken a leave from my job in NYC to spend their last couple of months with them. I was at each of their sides when they passed.) A friend, I'll call him "Mike," who was a heavy smoker himself, offered to drive me the 3-1/2 hours so I could get what I needed. I was grateful for his assistance.

While I was at the house, trying to quickly gather up what I needed to gather, Mike lit up a cigarette. I said to him, "Mike, I'm sorry, but I have to ask you to step outside if you need to smoke. If one of my siblings were to stop by and smell cigarette smoke, it would really be extremely upsetting to them." Well, Mike threw an absolute fit, going on and on about how "ungrateful" I was in making such a request, etc. I said to him, "Mike, do you even grasp what happened in this house just a few weeks ago?" He responded by saying I couldn't prove their lung cancer had been caused by smoking.

The last item I wanted to take with me was a copy of both parents' obituaries from the local paper. But Mike threatened that I either leave immediately with him or I could find another way back to NYC (which was frankly not a realistic option), so I never did get to retrieve a copy.

I've never been as shocked by a person's complete and utter selfishness and insensitivity as I was that day.

[meegbear]

14. Good writeup ... have a cigar

[Uncle Joe]

17. A most outstanding post!

I believe our political debate; much of it influenced by the corporate media has dragged our so called "center" to the right wing, authoritarian extreme for way too long.

The have formed a narrow box; consisting of an approved right wing, authoritarian, corporate supremacist mindset, and anyone debating issues toward the true center; or a closer to the libertarian side is labeled as "liberal" or "extremist."

I believe this cognitive, institutional dysfunction over the long run can and will only lead our nation to ruin.

Thanks for the thread, TheWraith.

[chervilant]

61. Can

and WILL lead our species to ruin.

[Uncle Joe]

82. I believe you may be correct

because I can see WWIII sprouting from the seeds of extreme authoritarianism; ie: facism.

[zbdent]

19. one problem with the "for my/their own good!" issue ...

nearly every other thing usually included in the lists of "the govt. is stopping you from ..." are things that only affect yourself. That's why I feel that they make invalid comparisons.

However, smoking is one of those things that not only affects YOU, but everyone in your near vicinity. That's why I laugh when people say "Hey, if smoking's bad for you, so's eating a hamburger/ice cream, so why not outlaw hamburgers/ice cream?" ... nobody's tossing ice cream or hamburgers into your mouth from 3 feet away ...

[quakerboy]

86. Huh.

My main issue with smoking actually ties your examples back to smoking. I am going to have to think about it some more.

It really really bugs me when I see people with kids in the car smoking. It has direct effects on the children and their future lives.

However, to use your hamburger example, you actually do choose to feed your kids burgers that may be harmfull to their long term health, though I doubt many throw them at them from three feet away, its not like a kid can go out and get their own dinner of health food.

Granted, this is a limited subset of the issue. And I hate being around smokers. It stinks, but far more importantly some brands have something in the smoke that makes my throat close up and need medication to breathe. Threaten my life for your habit, and for some reason, I have very little sympathy for your cause.

But if I can say that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in cars/homes with children present(and I do hold that position) then what differentiates that from parents who take their kids to McDonalds for a "meat" burger and HFCS syrup?

[MadrasT]

20. I'm was right there with you, right up until...

...you dragged Beethoven into it.

Can't we pleeeeeeeze ban his Fifth? Pleeeeeeeeeeeze???

[Manifestor_of_Light]

21. Let's ban the Pachelbel Canon while we're at it.

Ban it because it's been played until we all went crazy.

[tammywammy]

31. I didn't realize you were in 7th grade orchestra with me

I detest Pachelbel Canon's. Disagree about Beethoven's 5th, the finale is one of my favorite pieces.

[eridani]

53. I'm back to liking it again

In the early 80s, seems like every classical station played it once an hour until it drove me batshit crazy. After 25 years of withdrawal, it sounds good again.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. I'm not debating your conclusion, but your premise is wrong.

You might think it's bad form to demand a ban on cigarettes, but you have as much right to demand they be banned as you do asbestos brake linings or leaded gasoline, and for arguably better reasons.

[Gregorian]

23. The way to facilitate change is through knowledge, not force.

Period.

I smoked. I also worked in a hospital. When I saw the tracheotomy patients smoking through tubes, and when I saw the results of chronic nicotine use, I quit. And it wasn't an easy quit.

Had someone tried to force me to quit, it would have failed.

[Guy Montag]

24. My downstairs neighbors smoke and so I can't open my door or front windows in the summer.

I can't stand the inconsideration of these addicts!!! They just don't get it and reallyn resent my feedback to them about needing to move away from the building to keep the toxic smoke from creeping into my place.

[zorahopkins]

25. Sorry. I Thiink Cigarettes Should Be Banned

I think cigarettes should be completely banned.

Corporations produce cigarettes.

Corporations get people addicted to cigarettes.

Corporations make BILLIONS from making people addicts.

I hate corporations that make people addicts, and I do think everything should be done to keep huge corporations from making billions of dollars from poor and working people who spend their money to support a habit caused by the corporations.

Cigarettes should be illegal.

I would grant an exception and allow anyone who grows his or her own tobacco to roll their own cigarettes.

But not a dime for huge corporations!

[JDPriestly]

65. And then the same corporations that make people addicts

getting them to spend money on cigarettes rather than on good food for their children -- donate huge amounts of money to the political campaigns of their right-wing supporters.

When you buy a package of cigarettes or a carton of beer, you are supporting right-wing causes. If you want to do that, be my guest. But I don't, and I don't.

The personal morality angle is interesting.

But the fact is that when you enjoy your personal freedom to smoke or drink beer, you empower the corporation that manufactures those products to back right-wing politicians who want to deprive you of far more important rights -- like the right to belong to a union, the right to know the truth about the products you are sold, the right to privacy about all the other things you want the right to do and that is just the beginning of the list of right-wing causes the tobacco and beer and hard liquor corporations support.

Think before you smoke. Think before you buy not just cigarettes and whiskey, but also your clothes and other consumer products. What are you getting for your money? A bunch of right-wing politicians breathing down your neck?

[hunter]

128. Outlawing the marketing of cigarettes would be a good thing.

No need to outlaw cigarettes themselves.

Plain black and white packaging, identical labels for all brands, just the brand names to tell the products apart.

We might legalize pot too, with the same extreme marketing restrictions.

Outlawing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical marketing would be a good thing too.

[Texas Lawyer]

26. Would you feel the same if your neighbor was a sculptor who put a smelting operation in his backyard

and the carcinogenic fumes drifted into your yard?

[GeorgeGist]

27. Another simple-minded imbecile ...

like Ron Paul.

[Prism]

28. E-cigs unmask the puritanical authoritarianism in the anti-tobacco movement

I don't smoke, I understand most indoor restrictions on cigarette smoking. I understand the public health concerns.

What I do not understand is the crusade against e-cigarettes.

Here we have a product without all the carcinogens, without the dreadful second-hand smoke, without the pollution of cigarette butts, without the smell on someone's hair and clothes . . . and the same people crusading against cigarettes are crusading against these. Instead of celebrating a step towards a cleaner environment and better health for those who cannot or will not quit, the reaction to e-cigs has been extreme and almost unbendingly ideological.

I do not like puritans or authoritarians.

We should encourage people to make better choices, but they still should have the choice. I'll never understand why a safer alternative to tobacco smoking is attacked so vigorously by people who claim they're just looking out for the public good.

[Lionessa]

35. Exactly. It has nothing to do with the smoke and everything to do with

trying to control otherwise legal personal preferences.

I've yet to be thrown out for my ecig, but mine is black with a blue tip, so very few "see" a cigarette, but I've been warned by others to start expecting to be harassed even for these, as they use the cig looking (white with beige) and are already being hassled.

[Odin2005]

37. I'm anti-smoking and have no problem with e-cigs.

It's the smoke that I hate because I'm sensitive to it.

[onehandle]

40. Doctors are puritanical?

Ok...

[Prism]

52. That's not at all what I said.

Doctors who are anti-tobacco are doing their jobs.

It's the crusade against e-cigs - which are not tobacco products and so far considered far safer than tobacco - that shows how a puritanical element against pleasure can overtake a health initiative and trample on freedom.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I don't even really understand what the fuck an E-cig is.

Still, if it were really all about trying to control nicotine intake, wouldn't people be advocating banning the gum or patch, too?

[Lance_Boyle]

55. Nicotine is an almost entirely benign drug, it's the tar and other shit that kills.

Nicotine is mildly addictive, like caffeine. No traceable amount of it is exhaled with the water vapor of an e-cig. People who oppose e-cigs oppose them because they look like smoking.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Like I said, I don't really understand the whole e-cig thing. As such I haven't taken a position

nevertheless, I think there's a decent body of evidence to dispute your claim that nicotine is only 'mildly' addictive. At least anecdotally, from all the smokers I've known, they've said it's the hardest drug of them all to successfully kick. Never heard that about caffeine.

[chervilant]

79. Actually,

nicotine in not 'mildly addictive.' Nicotine molecules bond with the brain's serotonin receptors, resulting in the euphoria smokers experience most profoundly when they have their first fix of the day. Since nicotine molecules are larger than serotonin molecules, the brain's receptors do not get the same level of euphoria from the serotonin once the nicotine molecules are removed. Thus, people who are 'quitting' are challenged by feelings of edginess, irritability, hostility, depression, sadness, ennui and rage. Nicotine withdrawal spans a measurable amount of time, as the brain's receptors recover from the ravages of nicotine. Full recovery from smoking takes multiple years.

I was privileged to see Victor DeNoble speak about nicotine addiction, and I can assure you that his research supports my contention that nicotine is highly addictive.

[chervilant]

88. Also,

nicotine is NOT "an almost entirely benign drug." Nicotine is highly toxic, and 40 to 60 mg can be lethal to humans.

[OriginalGeek]

91. I remember hearing that a drop the size of a pinhead

of pure nicotine would kill a large dog. That scared me enough in my youth to delay when I started smoking but I did eventually start in earnest.

[eridani]

54. Yes--I just can't comprehend that

E-cigs do away with everything objectionable about public smoking. I understand you can even gradually reduce the nicotine dose if you want to.

[Moosepoop]

56. We sell e-cigs where I work

I tried out the disposable versions of the several brands we have available, and then bought the kit for the one I liked the best. I haven't completely stopped smoking real cigarettes yet, but I've put a sizable dent in the number that I buy and consume, and my goal is to get switched over to the e-cig exclusively.

Over the past year, we've sold a ton of them, and the demand keeps growing. What has really surprised me is the number of customers with health problems who come in looking for them, and saying that they were told BY THEIR DOCTOR to switch to the e-cigs if they were unable to stop smoking altogether. I had done a lot of research on the product in general before trying it myself, so I was already convinced that they were safe and a good alternative to cigarettes. It's been gratifying to have that backed up by area doctors and surgeons recommending them.

[harmonicon]

68. Would you recommend them to others?

I've thought about giving them a shot.

[KharmaTrain]

108. I Would And Will

I was a 35 year two pack a day smoker...thought I would never be able to quit. I also did homework on E-cigs...switched to one last April and haven't had a real cigarette since. It wasn't easy, but it wasn't as difficult as I had expected. The advantages are many...from no longer smelling like an ashtray to being able to still puff away on something while I'm busy with work.

If you're serious, do some research...there are many good blogs out there on how other people's experiences and the various types of E-cigs out there. Good luck and hope you join those of us who have found E-cigs to be the answer to ending a lifelong habit.

[harmonicon]

63. Because they're not looking out for the public good.

It's all about puritanical authoritarianism and nothing more.

[Demonaut]

29. slippery slope

[Rex]

33. Someone needs a timeout.

I keed. You can replace the word 'cigarettes' with 'booze' or any other vice that can kill you.

[Lionessa]

36. As well as driving, which isn't a vice, but still causes most of our actual air pollution

and is more likely to be the chronic and long term issue for those with breathing problems.

[Rex]

44. True, I guess 'vice' is too narrow in scope.

[harmonicon]

70. I think that driving definitely is a vice.

People drive far more than they need to. Most people who drive could get everything they need to drive for done with fewer trips but are just casual about car use.

[Bandit]

34. The human being needs three things to sustain life

Food, water, and air.. If you don't mind me pissing in the public water supply or shitting on public food sources then I suppose people can do the same thing to our public air......

[Wistful Vista]

67. We all piss in our water supplies. Have been doing it for a million years.

[harmonicon]

71. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

However, I know for a fact that the poster you were responding to collects all of their own urine and fires it into the sun with a rocket.

[Wistful Vista]

76. A non-polluting rocket, I presume...

powered by wishful thoughts, no doubt.

[chervilant]

80. hmm...

You would likely appreciate Kathleen Meyer's How to Shit in the Woods.

[Wistful Vista]

83. She's a Catholic?

[chervilant]

87. dunno

but her book is a great compendium of respectful methods of defecating or urinating in the wild.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

38. Yep yep- here in Austin they recently passed a law to where you cannot

Smoke in public parks... Unless of course you are golfing- wonder how much monied influence that took :rollseyes:

Bullshit- I like to smoke when I am playing disc golf but since that's free to play now I can't? $2000 fine? Fuck that noise. When there are kids around I keep away and downwind. Either make it illegal or quit restricting the fuck out of us. Bad enough I can't smoke in bars or pool halls any more

[onehandle]

39. Get used to it. Municipalities across the country are passing these laws.

Which have nothing to do with smokers, but with non-smokers.

Which is more than three-quarters of us. Public smoking will be unheard of within a decade.

Get used to it.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

42. Fuck that- I'm already starting a massive "smoke in"

[Wistful Vista]

69. What do we do about lawn mowers that emit millions of times more pollutants than cigs?

Ban those too?

[onehandle]

73. Lawn mowers are generally not allowed where cigarette restrictions are in place.

If someone cranked one up at your local Chili's, I'm pretty sure that would be frowned upon.

Also, lawn mowers serve a purpose. As do automobiles, airliners, fireplaces, ...even coal burning power plants.

Cigarettes, not so much.

[Wistful Vista]

75. Ah, I see. Those emissions from internal combustion engine do not travel through the air.

I wonder why they never taught me that in engineering school at Rice?

[JohnnyRingo]

43. I enjoy my cigarettes.

I'm an addict sure, but almost everytime I light up, it's the best smoke I've ever had. I instantly gain composure and thought, I relax and gather my collective senses to see things more clearly and with a higher degree of ration.

That said, I've become more sensitive to nonsmokers in recent years. Gone are the days when I'd find myself blowing smoke in the cashier's face at Kmart. It's been along time since I fired one up in the local tavern, and I'd never dream of smoking in someone's house without permission. Even then, I keep it to a minimum.

I've come to consider smoking no more than a bad personal habit best kept rather private, like picking my nose. I wouldn't consider sitting next to someone on a bar stool and wiping a booger on their shirt, and I probably shouldn't be sending them home with a light patina of my nicotine.

Just don't tell me I have to quit. I'll have to find a replacement like masterbation, and then no one is going to want to be that person on the stool next to me.

[greyl]

47. Your replacement could be to take up vaping with e-cigs.

There are 2 people in this home who have been smoke-free for about 13 months with the help of e-cigs.
For us, I can honestly say it was easy.

No smoke, no butts, no ashes, no bad smell, no supporting the tobacco companies, you can work your way down to 0% nic if you like, and no offensive second hand effects (unless making people hungry when you vape on a French Toast flavor to be offensive)

edit: also, I turned our 75 yr old neighbor to vaping, and she's been smoke free for about 2 months so far.

[sabrina 1]

45. Very well said.

K&R

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I certainly don't support banning them. We have enough unenforceable laws as it is.

However, there is no logical basis for cigarettes and alcohol being legal and people being thrown in prison for smoking pot.

What we SHOULD do is end the fucking drug war and adopt a philosophically consistent baseline approach of saying "your body, your business". That applies to consenting adult sex (in front of a camera or in exchange for money, even) that applies to the drug war, that applies to birth control and abortion, that applies to terminally ill people being able to choose a dignified, pain-free exit, that applies to a whole TON of areas where control freaks and church lady busybodies have taken it upon themselves to set themselves up as moral arbiters of other peoples' lives.

I'm against smoking, my dad died of lung cancer, I do think it's legitimate for states and municipalities to regulate where people can't smoke smoke, i.e. indoor, public spaces and the like...

but banning? No. Consenting adults need to be free to make their own damn decisions about their own lives and bodies. Too many self-described "progressives" are pro-choice* with-an-asterisk, the asterisk meaning "as long as I approve of your choice, otherwise I'm going to write some lengthy blog screed full of some red-herring laden slippery slopes, along with authoritative-sounding psychobabble gibberish stating exactly why you making a choice I don't agree with means you're not really an adult and/or not really capable of consenting."

The number of allegedly liberal-minded people who are all too gung-ho to ban porn, or cheesecake-filled pancakes, or happy meals, or cigarette smoking by individuals IN THEIR OWN HOMES, or whatever-the-fuck-it-is that has their burlap shorts in a bunch... where do they get all this free time to fantasize about running everyone elses' lives?

[theAntiRand]

49. As long as it's illegal to attempt suicide, there's no rational basis for cigarettes being legal

Smoking is the same exact thing as shooting yourself in the head, only the bullet moves slowly. I say this as someone who watched practically his entire family die of lung and throat cancer one by one. My father would wake up at 5 AM and have an entire pack smoked already before leaving for work at 8. Then he's surprised when I start smoking. He gets diagnosed with cancer and what does he do? Nothing, smokes the same amount. And what did my mother do? Buy him the cigarettes. Then she's genuinely shocked when she's diagnosed as well. Both were dead within six months of the diagnoses. So there I was, a smoker at 12, made to go live with my uncle, who smoked just as much. He was dead before I reached 18. I had to move three times because of cigarettes.

[TheKentuckian]

92. A gunshot to the head is on whole different level of risky behavior. Most smokers don't die

of smoking related ailments, while most folks that shoot themselves in the head do die of issues relating to the injury.

Smoking is risky behavior but about a third over many years isn't suicide.

[LetTimmySmoke]

50. K&R

The War on Drugs failed because the War on Drugs mentality is flawed - that it's okay to ban the unhealthy personal behavior of others.

[malaise]

51. You are 100% correct

Rec

[divide_and_rule]

57. anti smoking propaganda was paid for by Big Pharma to sell nicotine patches

google it.

amazing how responsive homo sapiens is to propaganda

[kctim]

58. I'm pro-choice

so naturally, I am against banning ones personal choice.

[joeybee12]

59. UNREC! When your addiction affects other people...and yes, the problems

caused by second-hand smoke ARE REAL, then your argument is so thin it couldn't support a speck of dust.

Disgusting that too many people try to equate addiction with freedome.

[harmonicon]

72. Am I not free to be addicted?

Should we ban intimate contact between individuals for everything but needed sexual reproduction? See, when you spend time close to someone, it increases oxytocin in your bloodstream, and then time away from them diminishes that, and, in effect, you become addicted to spending time with them... but you don't think we're free to choose our own addictions.

I'm addicted to caffeine and nicotine. I also take hard drugs sometimes, but I'm not addicted. If I wanted to be, I think that is my right. Of course I have crazy ideas about things like free will and egalitarianism, so what do I know?

[onehandle]

74. I'm on my way to your home with an open container filled with radioactive isotopes.

I like to sit on people's stoops and radiate.

It's an addiction I have.

[harmonicon]

77. Awesome.

Compared to the rest of the state of my house, radioactive isotopes are nothing.

[Occulus]

85. "an open container filled with radioactive isotopes"

There's at least one in every house. Or should be.

They're called smoke detectors.

[kwassa]

97. Addictions are slavery, not freedom.

That is the very nature of addictions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/addiction

ad·dic·tion
? ?[uh-dik-shuhn]
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

[harmonicon]

102. ... and I'm an adult with free will who can choose what he wants to do with his life...

including forming an addiction.

[kwassa]

103. and you will lose your free will when you become an addict.

Why would you choose to destroy your freedom?

[harmonicon]

104. You know there are people who quit smoking?

There are people who give up lots of addictions. I'm quite sure that being a member of the species with by far the most advanced brain the world has ever seen endows me with the powers to conquer a plant I've decided to process and smoke the shit out of. If you don't have that much confidence in yourself, I don't know if you should be doing much of anything.

[kwassa]

113. I don't think you know much about addiction.

An addiction is, by definition, difficult to impossible to give up.

I find your statement fascinating;

I'm quite sure that being a member of the species with by far the most advanced brain the world has ever seen endows me with the powers to conquer a plant I've decided to process and smoke the shit out of.

What addictive substance have you successfully given up? Where is your proof for this statement?

Why are other human beings with the most advanced brains in the world unable to give up addictive substances, and die from their addictions? I really would like to see your answer to this.

[harmonicon]

115. Anyone can give up an addiction.

I'm sure that you and I both know many people who have. Some people choose not to. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I'm addicted to caffeine and nicotine, and I really don't mind.

[kwassa]

118. No, they can't. This is why they are called addictions.

You have no knowledge base on this subject other than your personal experience, because you are wrong on a wider factual level. This suggests to me that you are in denial about your own dependence on nicotine.

The reason some choose not to give up an addiction is that they can't. There is no rational reason to chose to smoke, only the rationalization that they will be able to quit when they really want to.

Your health is your business, and you know the risks of smoking, though you underestimate the damage smoking causes, and how hard it is to quit. You will discover that when you finally make that attempt. I quit smoking 27 years ago, and I know exactly how hard it is.

from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

Morbidity and Mortality

Tobacco use leads to disease and disability.

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, and lung diseases (including emphysema, bronchitis, and chronic airway obstruction).1
For every person who dies from a smoking-related disease, 20 more people suffer with at least one serious illness from smoking.2


Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.3
In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these tobacco-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).1
On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.4

[harmonicon]

119. As human beings, we really do have free will.

If tobacco disappeared, would smokers die? No? Therefore, anyone CAN quit, but some choose not to. I'm one of them.

[kwassa]

120. And why do you chose not to?

Do you think you are exempt from the negative health impacts of smoking?

Having free will does not prevent one from making very bad decisions.

from the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

Overview

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general.1

Smoking and Death

Smoking causes death.

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1
An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1

Smoking and Increased Health Risks

Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of—

coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times,1,5
stroke by 2 to 4 times,1,6
men developing lung cancer by 23 times,1
women developing lung cancer by 13 times,1 and
dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.1

Smoking and Cardiovascular Disease

Smoking causes coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.1
Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries) and puts smokers at risk of developing peripheral vascular disease (i.e., obstruction of the large arteries in the arms and legs that can cause a range of problems from pain to tissue loss or gangrene).1,7
Smoking causes abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., a swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body—the aorta—where it runs through the abdomen).1

Smoking and Respiratory Disease

Smoking causes lung cancer.1,2
Smoking causes lung diseases (e.g., emphysema, bronchitis, chronic airway obstruction) by damaging the airways and alveoli (i.e., small air sacs) of the lungs.1,2

Smoking and Cancer

Smoking causes the following cancers:1

Acute myeloid leukemia
Bladder cancer
Cancer of the cervix
Cancer of the esophagus
Kidney cancer
Cancer of the larynx (voice box)
Lung cancer
Cancer of the oral cavity (mouth)
Pancreatic cancer
Cancer of the pharynx (throat)
Stomach cancer

Smoking and Other Health Effects

Smoking has many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for—

infertility,
preterm delivery,
stillbirth,
low birth weight, and
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,8


Smoking is associated with the following adverse health effects:8

Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked.
Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked.

[harmonicon]

121. Because I enjoy it. nt.

[kwassa]

122. That certainly trumps all health concerns,

You might be a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

[harmonicon]

123. I also drink bourbon by the pint.

I had a steak for lunch.

I take drugs.

I do lots of things that aren't good for me physically, but I enjoy them, so it's fine. For me, yes, it certainly does trump health concerns. You are more than welcome to care about your health and live a long life. I won't judge you for that. I, on the other hand, want a different life from you, and I'm glad that I have it.

[Ino]

62. You're doing more harm than good.

"I've been annoying family members who smoke for YEARS, trying to get them to give it up."

It doesn't work, does it?! Leave them alone. They may well keep smoking "just to show you" or because your efforts just make them WANT another smoke.

I quit smoking months ago, after 40 years of 2 packs/day... because I was ready to quit. I will never tell any nonsmoking relative/friend that I've quit. I wouldn't give them the satisfaction.

[Ron Green]

78. When I was a kid I could go to the corner drugstore

and buy a bottle of mercury for a couple of bucks. I liked to play with the stuff, rub it on dimes, chase it around the floor, you know, like kids do.

As a "moral arbiter of my life," should I be able to do this today? Or have we learned something as a society that outweighs my right to manage my own addiction to the shiny, heavy stuff?

[MellowDem]

81. Couple of bad analogies...

Unlike gay sex, smoking cigarettes in public does hurt other people.

The issue isn't a moral one, it's a health issue.

Yes, there are other pollutants out there, but they usually aren't running cars or coal plants in a small enclosed restaurant. And they also serve a purpose, one which society has to accept the costs of (and which are themselves being worked on to be lessened).

Someone can smoke in privacy all they want, so no privacy is being violated.

Of course, even smoking by yourself adds on certain costs to society in healthcare costs.

Defending an industry that relies on getting people chemically addicted to carcinogens has always been something that amused/infuriated me, especially when the tired "liberty" argument comes up. Spare me the Ron Paul insanity.

Even the comparison to alcohol isn't very good. Alcohol doesn't get people chemically addicted. One can drink responsibly. One can't really use cigarettes responsibly in a regular manner. It is still bad for you.

Cigarettes can't and shouldn't be banned, but they can be heavily regulated and restricted from public areas.

[kwassa]

99. excellent summation of the real issues involved.

Except I would go further and ban them.

[taught_me_patience]

89. Smoke carcinogen affects others

I had an experience just last night. I get off the plane at LAX, grab my bags and go wait outside for curb pickup. There is a horde of desperate smokers puffing away right outside the door. Do smokers not realize that your cloud of smoke annoys people standing next to you even if you are "outdoors"? Where can a non-smoker go to avoid this smoke? You gotta stand out there and wait for your ride to pick you up...

[TheKentuckian]

93. The smokers would be in the bar and/or the smoking area if the crusade was called off.

[kwassa]

98. It isn't a crusade, it it progress. There is no valid reason for smoking.

[HangOnKids]

105. What IF people like to do it and it isn't illegal?

Then I guess they can do it. Who are you to determine what is valid? Really what a pompous attitude. I don't smoke but if someone somewhere chooses to smoke who am I to say NO?

[kwassa]

112. We should make it illegal, of course

Because smoking affects the health of all of us, environmentally, through second-hand smoke. And financially, through costs we pay for health insurance paying for treatment of the smoking addicted.

[HangOnKids]

124. What About Health costs for Fat People?

Really? You want to go there?

[kwassa]

125. Sure, I have no problem with it.

[HangOnKids]

126. Night night

Nothing more to say to you. BYE!

[HangOnKids]

106. Poor You

Move to another planet where you can control everything. I don't think patience is your gig. Might want to re-think your name.

[Jean V. Dubois]

114. Well said. I can't stand nanny staters of any persuasion.

[VioletLake]

116. Here's a picture of me from when I smoked:

Smelled like an ashtray too

[ronnie624]

117. Use of the term 'banned' is somewhat hyperbolic.

All I have ever seen in the anti-smoking 'crusade', is the logical process of regulating a dangerous substance and making the public aware of those dangers. During the thirty years that I smoked cigarettes, I never felt imposed upon by it.

Thankfully, my son has never smoked, and I think exposure as a child to anti-tobacco propaganda is the reason. Society's anti-smoking forces have had a considerable handicap to overcome from the days when doctors lauded the 'health benefits' of tobacco and our government worked hand-in-hand with the industry to promote smoking.