An honest question to smokers (not another one!!)

[cushla_machree]

I have been reading the smoking related threads with interest the past few days...clearly it is a topic that gets people worked up on both sides. I understand smokers like to be able to smoke wherever and whenever, regardless of how other people feel about that. Non-smokers and even some smokers, do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. So where does one persons rights infrige upon the others?

I believe everyone has the right to make the choice of whether or not to smoke, but i do not believe smoking is a right. Does someone's right to smoke trump someone else's right not to smoke? Everyone should have the right to make choices about their own health and well-being and these choices up until now, were limited for non-smokers in public settings. Gradually smoking has been phased out of public spaces....as time goes by...this becomes the norm, how many people still think they should be able to smoke in planes and movie theaters?

I feel like smokers get mad at non-smokers, because the non-smoker's life isn't being changed negatively, its being enhanced, therefore, they aren't going to stick up for the 'rights' of smokers. Smokers themselves are biased, because obviously an addict does not like being told when he or she can get their next fix of good old nicotine. Its a habit, especially at bars where it became an ingrained activity.

My question to both parties: If smoking marijuana was legalized tomorrow, would you support the right of pot smokers everywhere to smoke wherever they wanted, even in enclosed bars and restaurants, where others would be exposed to their smoke? Does the person sitting next to you have the right not to get a contact high from your joint, or should they 'just get another job' or 'go to another restaurant.?' Just asking.

[XboxWarrior]

1. Fuck iyyyttttt.

I smoke weed, I smoke tobacco......hell I've even smoked opium. (heroin)

I just do it at my home.......

I can't wait till the day they 'outlaw' that.

[MercutioATC]

3. FWIW, they HAVE outlawed smoking opium in your home...

[fenriswolf]

2. I just quit smoking

I'm very glad I live in california, if I smelled smokes in restaurants, conviniance stores, bars, etc. Like alot of southern states do I don't think I would have ever quit. Also I have been a cali smoker most of my life, if I had to smoke I went outside where it wouldnt bother anyone. I've been inside a smokers house before, its so dingy and smelly. I am glad I am not forced to go into places that have a permanant dank smell.

JMHO

[karlrschneider]

12. I quit last summer after smoking for 46 years and I am determined to not become

an anti-smoking nazi asshole.
:D

[fenriswolf]

13. me neither

just glad I live in cali thats all.

[seabeyond]

45. me too. they are the worst. hey you two

been 14 days. still i think of a cig after meal, walking to car, going on computer..... every time i am in a place i routinely smoked in the past. WHEN does that start lessening and i dont think of it so much.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

4. I think it's time we give this entire topic a good rest.

[sniffa]

5. I'm in favor of pot smoking

National and International. :thumbsup:

[FloridaJudy]

11. All three! n/t

[SeattleGirl]

6. Smoker responding:

Washington state put into effect a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants awhile back (Native American casinos are the exception, but at least one of them has built a separate building that is completely non-smoking). It doesn't bother me in the least, as I rarely smoked in a restaurant or bar before the ban. My husband is a non-smoker, as is my daughter and son-in-law, so I respect that, and don't smoke around them.

As far a marijuana goes, I would have no problem if it were legalized, primarily because the way it is currently seen (as an "evil" drug) is just idiotic. As far as someone lighting up a joint in my presence, especially in an enclosed area, I wouldn't like it at all, and I would expect that the same laws that govern cigarettes should apply to marijuana. Yes, I know it is not toxic like cigarette smoke; you'll get no argument from me about that. But some people just don't like the smell of it, some don't want to get a contact high, some don't want their clothes smelling of it. I'm one of those people, and yes, I used to smoke pot. Gave it up years ago, and wouldn't care if I were ever around it again. But that doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be legalized.

[judy]

7. This is a non-problem,

And has nothing whatsoever to do with smoking, be it cigarettes, cigars, marijuana, opium or salmon.

It has to do with decency, and being OK not doing something just because it bothers someone else for whatever reason. That's all.
Do you mind if I play the trumpet in your house while you're trying to work?
Do you mind if I smoke?
Do you mind if I practice my drum rolls at midnight?
Do you mind if I wear Chanel No5 even though you are allergic to perfume?
etc. etc.

[sweetladybug]

8. Smoking marijuana is NOT the same as tobacco. Marijuana

affects the mind, tobacco doesn't. Tobacco is legal, marijuana isn't legal. I think a person should be able to smoke in an INDOOR smoking area (or in their own office at any place of business)As far as restaurants or bar goes, there should be smoking and nonsmoking areas. Nonsmokers have stepped over the line. It's smokers being treated like crap now. I wonder what group will be next. Fat people, skinny people, old people, people with a different religion or people with a different political belief (oh sorry that's already happening to us Democrats by Republicans)

ps I tolerate the smell of people with poor hygiene and perfumes that I'm allergic to, so I can tolerate the smell of smokers.

[Clintonista2]

16. "Tobacco is legal, marijuana isn't" - His question was if it WAS legal

And poor hygeine doesn't cause lung cancer.

[RC]

17. Tobacco DOES affect the mind. Nicotine is very addictive.

More so than heron. Smokers have had their way for way too long. Smokers cannot control where their smoke goes. It is only recently smokers have had to clean up their act. Us non smokers have suffered and died long enough. We finally grew a backbone and said enough already. Get used to it.

[sweetladybug]

20. Well I suggest you go to a nonsmoking area in a restaurant or a bar

Nonsmokers have gone to far. I asked earlier what group will be next? Well it looks like the fat people

Bill would make it illegal to feed the obese
Source: USA Today

Three legislators want to make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese customers in Mississippi.

House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

The proposal would allow health inspectors to yank the permit from any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight customers.

Read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/bill-would

[cushla_machree]

22. non-smoking areas are not adequate

They don't work. Rarely are restuarants set up in a manor that would make the non-smoking section completely smoke free, and this does nothing to protect the workers. As a person who waitressed for years, I know how that is. Workplace safety is important. If a worker wants to work at a pipe shop, then obviously they know what they are getting into.

[sweetladybug]

24. Maybe nonsmoking waitresses should wait on customers in nonsmoking areas

As far as the smell goes, we all have to tolerate all kind of smells and odors on others (and in the air). So why can't we have the same respect for smokers?

[cushla_machree]

25. thats logical

I requested to be put in the non-smoking room, but i didn't always get my way. I also had to spend significant time in the bar itself making drinks....the separation is not logical nor is it feasible in smaller venues.

This isn't about smell, its about when your own personal choices in drug use should be inflicted upon others. If i want to light up my bowl sitting at the bar next to you, is that ok? Do i have a right to get others high in public areas? Just because I want to? Irritating smells are just an annoyance. To asthma sufferers, they can be a problem, but thats not the deciding factor here.

[Toots]

43. Why should we respect smokers when they obviously have no respect for non smokers

Do you respect large polluting companies? Why do you ask us to respect you when you wish to force your obnoxious foul chemicals upon us in public places? What garners respect from that attitude? I respect a person's right to do anything they wish in the privacy of their own home as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. If you wish to smoke that is fine with me just don't try and force your smoke onto me. I am not talking to automobiles which have cataletic converters on them, I am talking to you. Why should we respect you for your opinion about smoking in public when it is so offensive/harmful to so many people?

[sweetladybug]

26. Tobacco doesn't affect your judgment or can cause you not to be in your right mind

And I hope you aren't one of the people I have to deal with that has bad body odor and perfume that I'm allergic to.

[madmom]

32. I beg to differ here, have you ever been around a smoker who..

hasn't had one in a while, not a very pretty sight.I work with a group of about 10, with one smoker, this person insists on having their break at the same time everyday regardless of every one else because they "HAVE to have that toke" (their words not mine). Where I work we have different people with different start times so breaks are suppose to be whoever comes in first goes to break first, not so with smokey there, and if it doesn't happen their way it's nasty for the rest of the day. Some one with the nicotine habit does have withdraw symptoms, I do know this because I used to be a smoker.

edited to say, pot smoking should have the same laws as regular unless it's for medical reasons and then we'd have to figure something out.

[taterguy]

29. Who the hell is addicted to heron?

[cushla_machree]

18. Well

Marijuanna may affect the mind, and while cigarette smoking doesn't (at least second hand...)...cigarette smoking, espcially second hand...is toxic and can kill. I don't think weed has quite the same affect second hand on health, though I may be wrong. I don't think any type of smoke would be good for the lungs.

[sweetladybug]

23. You have a right not to be around people smoking. That is why there

should be smoking and nonsmoking areas in businesses. But you know, a lot of things causes cancer and health problems. And just think about ALL of the other chemicals in our air. But all we hear about is how smokers are killing us.

[cushla_machree]

27. But some people cannot choose

Employees would be an example. Why should the rest of society be forced to accommodate smokers, when those actions, in indoor public areas, is a very real public health threat?

What other things that cause cancer and health problems are legal in public settings?

[sweetladybug]

28. We are around all kinds of chemicals in our air. AND

caffine, sugar, saturated fats and many many many more things can cause health problems and are legal in public settings. I'm concerned about the next group of people that will be treated poorly and then the next group or the following group. Will you or me be in one of those groups?

It looks like it's going to be fat people, so I'm not in the group yet

Bill would make it illegal to feed the obese
Source: USA Today

Three legislators want to make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese customers in Mississippi.

House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

The proposal would allow health inspectors to yank the permit from any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight customers.

Read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/bill-would

[cushla_machree]

33. Oh please

Last I checked, my cholesterol levels didn't go up from the patron sitting next to me.

Caffeine, nope sorry.

Sugar? Are you kidding me? You still can't make the connection here. None of these personal choices, all of which can be bad in varying degres, will affect other peoples health if you consume them.

Also, any of those in moderation isn't going to hurt you. Smoking does.

[sweetladybug]

40. Well again, are you going to be in the next group of folks to be treated like crap?

I believe in tolerance. I don't always like things others do and at times other people's choice do affect me. If their choice affect me in a way that I don't like, I just stay away from them. I don't sit back and judge them and make them feel like crap. I was taught if I look hard enough, there is something good in most people even smokers. Also all people have their faults, even nonsmokers! Some folks are preaching non-tolerance of others AND I for one do not agree with that! This country is becoming a complete dictatorship with Bush being the top dick

Again, read this article

Bill would make it illegal to feed the obese
Source: USA Today

Three legislators want to make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese customers in Mississippi.

House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

The proposal would allow health inspectors to yank the permit from any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight customers.

Read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/bill-would

[Mnemosyne]

38. Large people next:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3165721

I have been waiting a couple years for scales in restaurants. Why did this not surprise me now?

I believe they actually weigh people for certain flights now also, read that on DU a while ago, iirc.

Control Nazis. :puke:


And as for the OP, how kind of you to make such sweeping judgments and assumptions about ALL smokers. I am a smoking nazi with people; and I smoke. I have always tried to be extremely considerate about smoking, absolutely go berserk when smokers litter with their butts. I haven't received the same respectful treatment in return for my consideration, EVER.

All smokers are not mentally deficient nor as inconsiderate as you imply, though I will grant you that many annoy me also. I always deal with someone that does mind if I smoke with respect and go outside or to my car to light up.

I have never been so rude as to ask a smelly perfume/aftershave wearing person to get away from me, I've moved, no problem. I've been near to puking from much of it. Are they to be vilified and called stupid for not knowing less is more?

You are not being fair, imo.

[KT2000]

9. No one WANTS to change

their behavior for anyone else, with very few exceptions.
As we learn more, we are going to have to consider how our behavior is affecting other people. It is generally through ignorance that we believe we are not bothering others.

A person who wears perfume is actually wearing untested and unregulated chemical mixtures. Some people get really sick being around those products. People would rather see the affected person fired from a job than stop wearing perfume.

A yard nut applies dangerous pesticides and herbicides to his yard that can cause all sorts of health problems. Some of those products even cause birth defects - brain damage and more. That person does not want to change his behavior either.

I guess my point is that smoking is but one of many sources of pollution. Right now the attention and money is pouring into the smoking issue and the others are ignored. And at the end of the day - people resent having to change their behavior for the benefit of other people.

[karlrschneider]

10. That was the goofiest post I have seen in weeks.

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

15. Rarely is such overt intellectual dishonesty entitled "an honest question"

It takes real chutzpah to do that, even in a smoking thread. :rofl:

[cushla_machree]

19. how so?

What are you getting at?

[americanstranger]

31. I hear ya.

OP wants to play 'gotcha.'

I was tipped off when I read how 'smokers want to be able to smoke whenever and wherever they want.' Anyone who smokes nowadays knows that that is an impossibility.

I'm a smoker, and if I tried to smoke 'wherever and whenever,' there would be some anti-smoker inside my shirt within ten seconds flat - not to mention that state law in my state specifically prohibits my smoking in most public places.

Any smoker knows that's the way it is now.

- as

[TahitiNut]

34. Yep. That's the dead giveaway, but there's other termites in that woodwork.

The straw man kabuki of a 'right' to smoke, for example. As with all rights, there are limits. (The 'nose' limit, of course, is a handy perversion of a metaphor.) I have yet to hear a defense of smoking claim no limits in such an indulgence - any kind of unlimited civil liberty. So, to insist that because one can argue for limits that there is some inherent "proof" that no such right exists is sheer manure.

(Then, of course, we get the faux naivete of "who? me?") :rofl:

Which brings up another debased perversion that infiltrates these threads: the preemptive fallacy of attacking the messenger (even one's self) by presuming that posing a "defense of smoking" is synonymous with BEING a smoker or "opposition to smoking" is synonymous with BEING a non-smoker. I personally find it appalling that folks are so married to the notion that ALL arguments that anyone might pose MUST reflect their own use (or abstinence) of tobacco. I don't know whether I'm disgusted more by the preamble of "I'm a (non)smoker" or the assumption that one is either a smoker or not based on their arguments. The abysmal failure of folks to adhere to the MESSAGE (i.e. the validity of the argument) rather than wallow in messenger-centric fallacies betrays a horrendous condition in our educational system, imho.

More simply stated, it SHOULD be completely irrelevant whether one smokes or not in evaluating the power of the arguments posed. Liberals SHOULD comprehend Rawls' "veil of ignorance" and, at LEAST in discussing pubic policy, adopt a perspective that's independent of their own benefit. That so many of us cannot is, to say the least, disappointing.



One further obsevervation - A noteworthy principle of law (even common law) is one of "usage" ... the idea that there IS an entitlement for people to continue a long-practiced behavior merely BECAUSE it has been historically practiced. The most obvious examples of this involve easements across private property ... for convenient access either to public or private lands. Beach access is often involved. The arbitrary prohibition of long-permitted behavior DOES run contrary to that principle. This principle is even recognized in the Bill of Rights - 9th Amendment - and we brush it away at our peril.

[cushla_machree]

37. Gotcha

Its a perfectly fine question to ask.

Its not gotcha, its the same situation, but different substance. Its not any different at all. Its perfectly clear here to me that this all boils down to 'me,' in that if the table turns, switching cigarettes to pot, suddenly things are somehow, different. It just shows that most smokers here are completely hypocritical. Since they smoke, its perfectly fine to subject others to it, hey, thats their right....right!?

[americanstranger]

39. No, wrong.

Assuming many, many facts not in evidence.

Of course it 'boils down to me' - I'm not about to speak for smokers as a group because I don't know most of the people on this board - smokers or non-smokers - personally. I can only speak to my own circumstance, and I am telling you that I personally don't want the 'right' to smoke 'wherever and whenever I want,' because I realize that there are legal and societal limits to where I am allowed to smoke. It's presumptuous of you to preface your 'honest question' with that assertion, because you start off with a premise that is inaccurate.

I do however, want to smoke in those places where it has been decided that are 'acceptable' - outdoors, in designated smoking areas, etc. - without some anti-smoker wrinkling his or her nose and telling me that I should not be allowed to smoke in that designated area.

It's really funny. Invariably in these smoking threads, someone will make the suggestion that in areas where smoking is still legal in bars or restaurants (if there even are any places like that left) that the bar or restaurant owner should be able to decide whether to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment. I feel that is a reasonable proposal.

But the anti-smokers, while demanding that I don't smoke in their no-smoking establishments (which I'm fine with), also go the extra mile and demand that there be no smoking in a smoking club, because they might want to go there sometime. I've actually seen that argument made her, and I have to ask you - who's being unreasonable here?

Your question is a 'gotcha' question, which I believe you yourself prove in the post I'm responding to - you are intent on proving 'smokers' to be 'hypocrites.' 'Honest question?' Seems more like 'bait' to me.

I could personally not care much less where people smoke pot - I used to indulge on a daily basis, but I don't any more. But even here, your 'question' falls flat because pot is not likely to be legalized in this country any time soon, so the comparison is specious. And even if pot is legalized, nobody is going to be smoking pot in a restaurant or other public building - simply because the act of smoking itself is illegal in most public spaces, whether you're smoking cigarettes, pot, cigars, a pipe, or crack.

And you seem to have missed my point in the first place. There are many places where I'm not allowed to smoke - restaurants, bars, public buildings, sporting events, concerts, etc. So I don't smoke in those places, and I'm fine with that arrangement.

What bothers me is that after obeying the law and 'taking it outside,' I'm told that I'm still offending anti-smokers and I should go smoke in may car or my house because an anti-smoker has to walk past the area that I've been relegated to.

And once again, I've violated my own rule of not participating in these stupid fucking smoking threads, because no one will ever convince anyone of anything. When will I ever learn?

- as

[bamacrat]

14. Pot smokers should be able to smoke.

It should be regulated like alcohol or tobacco is. There should also be places to do these things, like there are bars for alcohol, pipe shops for cigar aficionados, there should be head shops for smokers. It has NEVER killed anyone, and it is illegal, can't say the same for the legal drugs. If the person isnt a fan of my pot smoke, where it is allowed, then they can move or politely ask me to blow it the other direction.

:smoke:

[cushla_machree]

21. I agree in part

I would be for the ability to smoke pot in head shops. However, bars and restaurants aren't set up for the sole enjoyment of smokers. A lot of people who drink don't smoke, and a lot of people just want to eat in good company. I would be for pipe shops or private smoking clubs. Family restaurants and bars, i support the smoking ban.

[The Straight Story]

30. I support something we call CHOICE

choice of a business owner to make a decision, choice of a person to choose where they will go for a drink/something to eat.

Some folks don't support choice...

[Snarkturian Clone]

41. Some duers would rather live in a police state

then smell something unpleasant.

[originalpckelly]

35. Well, I think MJ smells like a skunk's ass, so I'm not too inclined to like it everywhere.

But hey, as long as you don't harm my health with it, do as you please. Oh yeah, please don't make me pay for your cancer treatment either. Aside from that, it's all good.

[NuttyFluffers]

36. halleluyah! yes, yes, and yes again.

free contact highs for everyone! maybe we'll finally get peace on earth! :D

[Orsino]

42. First pass a law protecting my employment from secondhand smoke.

When I can't be fired for testing positive, we'll talk.

[seabeyond]

44. no "honest" about your post. so honest, why are so many anti smokers asses

always out to make the smoker less in everything that comes out of their mouths. the point being, a smoker is a human being. really, they are. but for whatever reason the anti smoker becomes less of a human being whenever talking to the smoker, lessening themselves in order to try and shame or scorn or show disdain toward the smoker.

the anti smoker thinks the simple fact they dont smoke automatically makes them superior and then spout out their bullshit, which ultimately shows the ugliness of who they are as people.

for example, your "honest" so lacks. there is not a bet of honest in your post.

[recoveringrepublican]

46. I wish I could see the day where pot smokers could smoke like I did.

By that I mean smoking as far away from others as possible. Even when outside, I always asked, "do you mind if I smoke, be honest, it doesn't bother me to leave", if they did mind I simply walked away, did my business and then returned. If there were kids around it wasn't even a question, I just walked away.