Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[A Laughing Baby]

Here's a hint: being asked to smoke outside is not quite the same thing as waking up to a cross burning on your lawn. Or being told you'd better not let the sun go down while you are in town. Or being literally unable to attend most if not all respected higher-education facilities just because you smoke.

You might think it is, because it is surely an inconvenience to you--which is a fact I will not dispute, as I am sure it is a great inconvenience--but the fact of the matter is, to compare being required to smoke outside to total intolerance faced by any group shows a frankly astonishing lack of understanding or empathy for the experiences of groups that actually have faced total intolerance.

And I know you think that saying "well you could place any group name in there, Steelers fans, etc. and the point remains the same" exonerates you from this, but the simple fact of the matter is that it does not. Because no matter what group you place in there, you're still equating the discrimination that they face to total discrimination. The damage is done. You've already equated smoking regulations to Jim Crow.

 

[AlBell]

For that matter, show me where there's ever been any credible evidence that a black person—just by his own inherent nature—poses any sort of credible health risk to a white person that happens to be sitting next to him.

Yoiu haven't been on the subway in Harlem at 3am.

 

[fleabeetle]

The “smoking question”, turns me first and foremost toward the perception that very many humans need and want some bunch of people “other than them”, toward whom to harbour red-hot, with-all-stops-pulled-out, hatred. Such hates on the basis of race and / or religion are not nowadays, in basically enlightened circles, acceptable: so substitutes are sought; and for many, the smoking of tobacco, and the people who engage in same, have become a heaven-sent substitute.

I’m perhaps unusual, in that I have never smoked – never seen the point of it – but (British, aged 62) was brought up among smokers; don’t find smell of tobacco being smoked, nauseating. The “passive smoking” thing has always seemed rather preposterous to me: in the world as it is now, we are exposed to so many potential poisons – why single out thus, the smoking of tobacco?

Three-quarters-of-a-century ago – how did the very many people who seemingly loathe and detest the smell of tobacco smoke, cope then? How come there were not many murders / riots over the issue? How come, not quite a century ago, alcohol was legally prohibited in the USA for a decade-and-a-half or so, but AFAIK almost nobody said a thing about tobacco?

Brings me back to the suspicion that many people want there to be groups of “others-than-them”, as subjects of apoplectic hatred on their part, to be terminated with extreme prejudice if only it were allowed. Perhaps I’m a despicable “fluffy bunny”; but I favour tolerance (with sensible measures to make life as non-miserable for as many as possible) so far as can reasonably be extended; and I would see, there, smoking as on the acceptable side of “reasonable”.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The “smoking question”, turns me first and foremost toward the perception that very many humans need and want some bunch of people “other than them”, toward whom to harbour red-hot, with-all-stops-pulled-out, hatred. Such hates on the basis of race and / or religion are not nowadays, in basically enlightened circles, acceptable: so substitutes are sought; and for many, the smoking of tobacco, and the people who engage in same, have become a heaven-sent substitute.

I’m perhaps unusual, in that I have never smoked – never seen the point of it – but (British, aged 62) was brought up among smokers; don’t find smell of tobacco being smoked, nauseating. The “passive smoking” thing has always seemed rather preposterous to me: in the world as it is now, we are exposed to so many potential poisons – why single out thus, the smoking of tobacco?

Three-quarters-of-a-century ago – how did the very many people who seemingly loathe and detest the smell of tobacco smoke, cope then? How come there were not many murders / riots over the issue? How come, not quite a century ago, alcohol was legally prohibited in the USA for a decade-and-a-half or so, but AFAIK almost nobody said a thing about tobacco?

Brings me back to the suspicion that many people want there to be groups of “others-than-them”, as subjects of apoplectic hatred on their part, to be terminated with extreme prejudice if only it were allowed. Perhaps I’m a despicable “fluffy bunny”; but I favour tolerance (with sensible measures to make life as non-miserable for as many as possible) so far as can reasonably be extended; and I would see, there, smoking as on the acceptable side of “reasonable”.

So, just to clear it up, you genuinely believe that smoking regulation is the manifestation of a proto-fascist need to create an Other that can be excluded and demonized?

 

[mikeyx]

There are a couple of rules that are being re-enforced here at my office building. Both of which I think are dumb. I wanted to see if maybe I was being out of line by thinking so:

1). The entrance way to my office has an awning. During the winter months, or when it's raining in the warmer months, the smoker folks tend to congregate under the awning to stay out of the elements. Apparently, there have been some complaints from anonymous non-smokers saying that it's BS that they have to "walk through a cloud of smoke" to enter the building (which is a gross over-exaggeration). So now the smokers must stand 100 feet away from the entranceway and stay away from the awning. Now smokers have no choice but to stand in the rain/snow/wind to enjoy their cancer-stick. This effects me somewhat directly as you'll see in rant #2, but even if it didn't, I think this rule is stupid. There never is "a cloud of smoke" because, even though it's under an awning, it's outside. There is always some level of a breeze to carry the smoke away. And the smokers tend to stay off in the corner away from the doors, so this is just some idiot(s) complaining for the sake of complaining and getting their own way. How can anyone regulate smoking if you're outside. It just drives me crazy.

2). I recently quit smoking, but now I use an e-cig. E-cigs are nothing more than nicotine and water vapor. A group of about 8 of us all got one around the same time and we would enjoy them right at our desks. They don't smell like cigarettes at all...in fact...some of my neighbors in the cube farm love the smell of them because I have flavors like Coffee, French Toast, Maple Syrup, and Spearmint. They really are enjoyable. Well, now, we aren't allowed to do that either. The excuse? It's "unprofessional". I work in a call center. We never see a client...the client never sees us. But somehow, inhaling water vapor is somehow unprofessional. So now I have to go outside if I want to enjoy my e-cig. On top of that, I can't stand under the awning because it "looks" like we're smoking.

My office is obviously privately owned and smoking is most certainly not allowed indoors (and I completely understand that it should be that way)...but seriously, can the building owners really regulate smoking outside as well? It's pretty damn irritating that smokers have to jump through hoops to kill themselves...

no...... you smelly scum suck and if I had my way roving goon squads would kick in door and take your cancer sticks and...........


quit already, stinky mcbrown teeth

 

[I Am The Scum]

The problem is you think smokers experience complete intolerance, when they don't. Smokers (as a gender/racial/economic-class neutral group) have literally never experienced total intolerance.

You know, the first time I read your comment, I thought maybe you were stretching a bit. However, recent posts have proved that this sentiment is spot on.

Many people do not seem to grasp how much leeway is being given to smokers. Since many want to play with ridiculous analogies, let's make this fun:

If you think that it should be considered acceptable to smoke within close proximity to the entrance to a large business, then explain to me why it should not be considered acceptable to masturbate in that same spot. No credit for special pleading.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you think that it should be considered acceptable to smoke within close proximity to the entrance to a large business, then explain to me why it should not be considered acceptable to masturbate in that same spot.

Surely that depends on what you look like.

 

[I Ratant]

You know, the first time I read your comment, I thought maybe you were stretching a bit. However, recent posts have proved that this sentiment is spot on.

Many people do not seem to grasp how much leeway is being given to smokers. Since many want to play with ridiculous analogies, let's make this fun:

If you think that it should be considered acceptable to smoke within close proximity to the entrance to a large business, then explain to me why it should not be considered acceptable to masturbate in that same spot. No credit for special pleading.

.
For many, that's a mortal sin.
Suicide via lung cancer isn't.

 

[linusrichard]

Yoiu haven't been on the subway in Harlem at 3am.

Reread the comment you're responding to, so you can understand why your response was racist.

 

[AlBell]

Then what?

I take you haven't been in the subway as mentioned either.

ps. It is a shame many facts can be called "racist" isn't it?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Then what?

I take you haven't been in the subway as mentioned either.

ps. It is a shame many facts can be called "racist" isn't it?

Hint: any danger, real or perceived, is not purely because the person is black.

 

[MatildaGage]

I'm sure the FDA would rather just ban them though than do their jobs

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.

 

[MatildaGage]

Three-quarters-of-a-century ago – how did the very many people who seemingly loathe and detest the smell of tobacco smoke, cope then? How come there were not many murders / riots over the issue? How come, not quite a century ago, alcohol was legally prohibited in the USA for a decade-and-a-half or so, but AFAIK almost nobody said a thing about tobacco?

It was banned in some states, etc. Very politically and socially incorrect to smoke. It was politics (war) that turned the tides, not medicine or other social forces.

 

[AlBell]

Hint: any danger, real or perceived, is not purely because the person is black.

Hint: Ride as mentioned, and get back to me.

 

[Stray Cat]

You could substitute the word 'smokers' for gays, obese people, teenage mums, the feckless poor, Mormons, bikers, the Romans, even Steelers fans,

I object to the politically correct term highlighted... can we just call them fat lazy ****s please?

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

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Hint: Ride as mentioned, and get back to me.

You're still missing the point. I'll just assume for the sake of argument that in your scenario, you're picturing a black male that poses a legitimate threat to you. Is he a legitimate threat because he is black? If so, is Bill Cosby as much of a threat? President Obama? Morgan Freeman?

If you would concede that those men would not pose a threat to you in this situation, then you must accept by extension that the fact that the hypothetical man is dangerous is not dangerous purely because he is black, and therefore, the quote of

For that matter, show me where there's ever been any credible evidence that a black person—just by his own inherent nature—poses any sort of credible health risk to a white person that happens to be sitting next to him.

holds true. Now take that into consideration with what you said. Unless you would say that Bill Cosby, etc. would pose as much of a threat to you in your scenario, maybe it's not "[a black person's] inherent nature" to be a risk to you and your safety. Maybe there are other factors in play.

That you would find this notion silly and beyond the scope of my experience does nothing but reinforce this. Tell me, what have I yet to learn about black people? What is it about them, in your opinion, that makes them inherently dangerous?

 

[AlBell]

Tell me, what have I yet to learn about black people? What is it about them, in your opinion, that makes them inherently dangerous?

Who am I to dispute your views? If you're happy, so am I.

I will note the scenario envisioned a time, place, and to most that will suggest the likelyhood of who would be encountered. Hint: It won't be Bill Cosby or Obama; Morgan Freeman? who knows ... he could be a scary dude too.

 

[zooterkin]

Who am I to dispute your views? If you're happy, so am I.

I will note the scenario envisioned a time, place, and to most that will suggest the likelyhood of who would be encountered. Hint: It won't be Bill Cosby or Obama; Morgan Freeman? who knows ... he could be a scary dude too.

So, then, it won't be the colour of his skin that makes him dangerous, will it?

 

[AlBell]

So, then, it won't be the colour of his skin that makes him dangerous, will it?

Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

The real question is "Is he (illegally) smoking a cigarette?"? Hmm. Or is that a joint???

 

[zooterkin]

Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

So you're happy to make racist remarks, but drop the subject when you're called on it?