Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[GlennB]

Here's the crux of the issue. Do you, or do you not believe that the majority of non-smokers find cigarette smoke to be disgusting? Not just unpleasant, but actually repulsive.

It's an interesting point.

Strangely, as a smoker of ultra-thin 'prison' rollups, I used to find pre-ban New Years Eve at the local pub horrific due to the dense ciggy smoke. And I would open a window if many of us were just having a routine drink together and there were a number of smokers.

And yet, raised in London in the 50's and 60's when smoke was absolutely everywhere, I have zero recollection of even being aware of smoke in crowded buses, tubes, cinemas, pubs and cafes. Or our little flat with 2 smoking parents.

I seriously wonder if modern cigs are inherently more stinky or whether it's a question of becoming accustomed to a non-smoky world (and yet, MrsB smokes Marlboror reds....). My sense of smell certainly hasn't improved over the years.

 

[roger]

I seriously wonder if modern cigs are inherently more stinky or whether it's a question of becoming accustomed to a non-smoky world (and yet, MrsB smokes Marlboror reds....). My sense of smell certainly hasn't improved over the years.

I would guess it's like most sensory input - your brain filters it out after a while. People that live next to sewer treatment plants or a paper mill end up not being able to smell it after a while. NH, where I grew up, had a lot of mill towns (paper). My grandparents lived in one. To us, the stench was horrifying, yet they honestly could not smell it at all.

I ended up doing a short stint at a printing mill while installing some optical inspection machinery I helped design/implement. The first days were quite unpleasant due to the smell - by the end I didn't really notice it much.

 

[sadhatter]

Because tobacco ultimately has no real use. We accept that we will encounter some toxins as a result of having cars, because cars are extremely useful. We accept that we will encounter some toxins as a result of industry, because industry is extremely useful. We accept that we will encounter some toxins in food, because food is extremely useful. Smoking, however, is not in any way useful, other than perhaps to the people who choose to do it themselves. Some people therefore don't want to be exposed to the toxins that are generated by other people solely for some selfish purpose.

The other point is that smoking is in no way singled out. There is a huge amount of regulation to reduce pollution from vehicles and industry, and even things like aerosol deodorants. The problem smokers have isn't that they are being singled out, because that's simply not true. The problem seems to be that they don't want anyone to have any influence over their pollution at all.

And before people bring up things like perfume again, it is extremely rare for me to encounter someone wearing enough perfume for me to even notice, let alone have difficulty breathing. If it was common for people to hang congregate around doorways and spray passing people in the face with perfume, I'd support laws against that as well.



Wow, clearly you live in a very different UK from the one I do.

I think your missing the point though. The point, at least that i make when mentioning cars has nothing to do with use. It has to do with the people who " could die by passing by a cigarette." that have been mentioned so much. If they could die from that, how in the world did they manage to make it through the parking lot to the door?

And i would also debate tobacco has no use. People who enjoy it find it calms them down and helps deal with stress. But you would probably rebutt that with the fact that there are other methods of dealing with stress. Well there are other methods of transportation as well, why is it okay to say one person should find a different method to relax, but another shouldn't find a different method of transportation? There is no need for every person to have a car. As someone who doesn't drive, i can tell you i get along just fine in life.

The fact is if you chew gum and drive a car, your making just as much of an impact on peoples health, and the beauty of your environment as the evil smokers. It is all in what you do, if you drive you don't want to not drive just to help people's lungs, if you chew gum, you don't want to not chew gum because some people find gum disgusting, and others have to spend time cleaning it and repairing things destroyed with it.

The differences are only two fold. The first is that i can step back and say, while in my perfect world gum would be outlawed, and vehicles would be limited, the world shouldn't have to bend to everything i find unnecessary. And second, it is simply not socially acceptable to pick on the other two groups. And moreso, smokers are willing to go outside, smokers are willing to go to a shack 50 feet away from a sidewalk. Carpooling is something only seen infrequently , and chewing gum in designated areas is something that is only even enforced upon those who have no choice in the matter ( children mostly. ), so which of these groups is really the a-holes in the situation? The smokers who by and large are willing to follow the reasonable rules , or the car drivers and gum chewers who , as we can see balk at any notion of limiting their favored activities?

 

[23_Tauri]

Because tobacco ultimately has no real use. We accept that we will encounter some toxins as a result of having cars, because cars are extremely useful. We accept that we will encounter some toxins as a result of industry, because industry is extremely useful. We accept that we will encounter some toxins in food, because food is extremely useful. Smoking, however, is not in any way useful, other than perhaps to the people who choose to do it themselves. Some people therefore don't want to be exposed to the toxins that are generated by other people solely for some selfish purpose.

Smoking does have utility for those who smoke, just as alcohol does for those who drink. Nicotine is unusual in that it acts both as a stimulant and sedative, depending on how it is taken and the setting. Many studies show that nicotine makes smokers less aggressive. It improves concentration whilst carrying out repetitive tasks such as driving. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Both smokers and drinkers pay substantial amounts of tax on their chosen products that, at least in the UK, subsidise the health care system. Penny for penny, the tax on cigarettes is way higher than the tax on booze. Alcohol is steadily getting cheaper to buy in supermarkets, whilst tobacco everywhere gets more expensive.

We are all 'exposed' to the effects of drinking when we share town centres with groups of drunks spilling out of bars on binge-drinking sessions, or when there's a drunk driver on the streets. Nevertheless, I don't back stronger controls on the sale and consumption of alcohol, nor want it banned.

The other point is that smoking is in no way singled out. There is a huge amount of regulation to reduce pollution from vehicles and industry, and even things like aerosol deodorants. The problem smokers have isn't that they are being singled out, because that's simply not true. The problem seems to be that they don't want anyone to have any influence over their pollution at all.

The issue as I see it is what is reasonable in order to ensure no risk to others. Banning smoking in public parks, or prohibiting employers to cater for smokers (whether employees or customers) goes beyond what is necessary to protect the public. Therefore smokers are singled out.

Wow, clearly you live in a very different UK from the one I do.

Talk to some publicans, Cuddles. See how they feel about the smoking ban.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Talk to some publicans, Cuddles. See how they feel about the smoking ban.

If the smoking ban in London is anything like the smoking ban where I am (St. Louis), he can't. Because they're all out of business as a result of the ban.


Except that....they aren't. Despite dire predictions of doom and gloom for the restaurant and bar (pub) business, everything is pretty much as it was before the ban, except the smokers are out on the sidewalk where they belong.

 

[TragicMonkey]

except the smokers are out on the sidewalk where they belong.

Indeed, smokers should definitely smoke outdoors in direct sunlight without using sunscreen. It's a question of civil rights, and profit margins. The era of single-diagnosis cancers is over! Let's try to get in there with a double, or even triple! USA! USA! USA!

 

[23_Tauri]

If the smoking ban in London is anything like the smoking ban where I am (St. Louis), he can't. Because they're all out of business as a result of the ban.


Except that....they aren't. Despite dire predictions of doom and gloom for the restaurant and bar (pub) business, everything is pretty much as it was before the ban, except the smokers are out on the sidewalk where they belong.

I wish I could say the same for the UK, but pub closures are still running at historically high levels, despite a slight slow down in the rate of closures from 52 a week closure rate in the first half of 2009 to 39 a week in early 2010. (Sorry, no more recent figures to hand, but I can have a dig for them)

http://www.beerandpub.com/newsList_detail.aspx?newsId=317

High taxes, regulations created through the 2004 Licensing Act, cheaper alcohol in supermarkets and the smoking ban have combined to create impossible conditions for many publicans over here.

 

[23_Tauri]

Indeed, smokers should definitely smoke outdoors in direct sunlight without using sunscreen. It's a question of civil rights, and profit margins. The era of single-diagnosis cancers is over! Let's try to get in there with a double, or even triple! USA! USA! USA!

At least we won't get rickets.

 

[TragicMonkey]

At least we won't get rickets.

Bah. Any "disease" you can cure for less than $60K isn't worthy of the name!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Speaking of perfume, I always ask my coworkers not to wear perfume or cologne due to me being allergic to certain ones (it makes my skin itch and occasionally turn red). I have yet to have a coworker refuse, complain, call me a smell-Nazi, or accuse me of hypocrisy for not also asking them to stop using soap.

That's because most people are not jerks and will adjust their behavior if they are in fact causing another person harm or discomfort.

It does seem that, for some unexplained reason, smokers are an exception to this. Even if they are polite and considerate in other ways, it seems that they almost universally are rude and inconsiderate with regard to the issues that their habit causes. Even where means are provided to properly dispose of cigarette butts, where smokers congregate, there are always a great many of them just tossed carelessly on the ground. And how many smokers routinely toss still-burning cigarette butts out the window of their car as they are driving? I think that, for the most part, these are people who wouldn't think of just littering if it were a food wrapper, or some other piece of debris; but they think nothing of littering if it's their cigarette butts.

And, of course, most seem not to care about the stink and toxicity that they inflict on nonsmokers. As can be seen in this very thread, many will staunchly deny that this issue even exists; and accuse those who complain of it of being “intolerant” and “bigoted”.

 

[Stray Cat]

And, of course, most seem not to care about the stink and toxicity that they inflict on nonsmokers. As can be seen in this very thread, many will staunchly deny that this issue even exists; and accuse those who complain of it of being “intolerant” and “bigoted”.

Provide a direct quote from anyone suggesting that non smokers should be made to breathe unwanted smoke.

If you look at the attitude of all smokers, you will actually find that we resent you breathing in our smoke when you're not even paying any tobacco taxes.

*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[I Am The Scum]

Provide a direct quote from anyone suggesting that non smokers should be made to breathe unwanted smoke.

It's the logical implication of the OP.

 

[Dot Ardella]

Welcome aboard. Please extinguish your cigarette. Next stop Harlem.

Sniff, sniff ... my that's strong perfume.

My, that’s a bit of a leap.

I get migraines from cigarette smoke.

This seems to not be totally uncommon to strong smells…
It is a common reaction to incense as well.

Have you never been in a department store?

I have, it is disgusting. One of the reasons I avoid them is the perfume, admittedly the another is the lighting.

Just because one thing is also unpleasant, doesn't render the former pleasant.

 

[23_Tauri]

Further to my post above, here's more recent research that shows pub closures demonstrating a very close statistical relationship with the introduction of smoking bans in Britain. This relationship "is considerably stronger than those that could be attributed to other factors such as the recession, alcohol duty or supermarket competition."

Smoking Ban To Blame for Pub Decline

Almost three years after the introduction of smoking bans in the three countries, Scotland had lost 7.1% of its pub estate (467 pubs), Wales 7.3% (274), and England 7.6% (4,148). Scotland, which introduced a smoking ban a year earlier lost a further 4% of its pub estate in the fourth year after the ban, mirroring a similar decline in Ireland (11%) which banned smoking in pubs in 2004.

 

[Sabretooth]

It's the logical implication of the OP.

I'm not necessarily implying that. Ultimately, I thought a compromise could be reached where smokers could have their cigs under the awning during breaks in inclement weather. Non-smokers do not go outside when it's 10^oF and blowing snow. I don't see the problem with allowing that much.

 

[23_Tauri]

I get migraines from cigarette smoke.

This seems to not be totally uncommon to strong smells…
It is a common reaction to incense as well.

Really? I've been hangin' out with joss-burning hippies for over four decades and I've never come across anyone who got an migraine from incense sticks before. Or from hanging out in Catholic churches for that matter. Perhaps I've lived a more sheltered life than I imagined.

 

[Stray Cat]

It's the logical implication of the OP.

And remind me... what does it say on your avatar?

I never realised wild assumptions were such a big part of logic... I'll never look at Spock in the same way again.

*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

My understanding was FDA only restricted import of a few brands....The brands were found to have toxins, had been marketed in the US illegally as a treatment to cure an illness without FDA approval, and the manufacturers had not applied to FDA for approval.

Oh I didn't say they had banned them, just that they'd prefer to ban them regardless of how they're marketed. So far their attempts have been thwarted in court.

 

[Dot Ardella]

Really? I've been hangin' out with joss-burning hippies for over four decades and I've never come across anyone who got an migraine from incense sticks before. Or from hanging out in Catholic churches for that matter. Perhaps I've lived a more sheltered life than I imagined.

bahahahaha!

I have met quite a few people who claim this, which is somewhat annoying for me as I enjoy incense. It started with my mother, then various flatmates...and after asking (because I thought it was ridiculous and they were only complaining because they didn't like the smell) I was informed by others that it was true. Another complaint I have gotten about my incense is asthma. I am 33 and still flatting, lived with quite a few different people at this point. I tend to ask now, before they move in whether they have a problem with incense in the home.

Aside from that, both our sides are anecdotal, so I guess take what you will. *shrug*

 

[I Ratant]

It's an interesting point.

Strangely, as a smoker of ultra-thin 'prison' rollups, I used to find pre-ban New Years Eve at the local pub horrific due to the dense ciggy smoke. And I would open a window if many of us were just having a routine drink together and there were a number of smokers.

And yet, raised in London in the 50's and 60's when smoke was absolutely everywhere, I have zero recollection of even being aware of smoke in crowded buses, tubes, cinemas, pubs and cafes. Or our little flat with 2 smoking parents.

I seriously wonder if modern cigs are inherently more stinky or whether it's a question of becoming accustomed to a non-smoky world (and yet, MrsB smokes Marlboror reds....). My sense of smell certainly hasn't improved over the years.

.
Check out the atmosphere in this one... Clouds of it.
And, it's fun identifying all the performers....
http://www.last.fm/music/Roy+Orbison/+videos/+1-dSddgYKtPBE