Smoking Bans

@Balmung: well, I'd be glad not to breathe smoke on you...because I try really hard not to breathe smoke on anybody. Because that'd be rude, kinda like farting in someone's general direction would be rude.

Most smokers are willing to be polite, I've found. We understand that our habit affects others and are willing to do a bit of work to see that it doesn't. In mixed company I'll ask if it's okay if I light up. I'll ask where is a good place to put my butts. *

I just think that we smokers ought to have the right to create our own establishments where we can indulge.

And perhaps somehow socially create incentives for responsible smoker behavior. Because god knows when I see a bunch of people complain about smokers at the mere mention or sight of me going outside to find a quiet place to light up, I immediately think "Why the fuck do I even try to be polite? It doesn't matter how non-existent or courteous I try to be, they will still be assholes about it."

Smokers aren't lepers, and treating a leper like shit means you're increasing the odds that he's going to just up and kiss you on the lips or touch you just out of spite for the treatment, instead of staying away and issuing warnings like a respectable person.

I guess the tone I'm going for is "I try to be polite. When can I say I take enough measures to be polite that it's acceptable?" Then I see that there is no way to please some people, to which I tell them to fuck off and that they need some smoke blown in their faces.

The problem is that smoking is banned indoors (which is fine) and within 10 feet of the entrances to any building on campus. This tends to result in a perimeter of smokers 10-20 feet from the exits of many of the buildings, particularly the math and science building, in which I have had a large portion of my classes, and naturally, this perimeter must be traversed to go to and from the building and it's kind of hard to not wind up in the clouds of smoke.

edited 15th Aug '12 11:34:21 PM by Balmung

@Balmung: you are inconvenienced, we are inconvenienced. Lord knows I'd like to be able to light up while drinking a pint in the local bar, but I can't. Lord knows you would like it if no one smoked within a zip code of you, but that's not happening either.

This is what's known as a compromise.

You could also try asking people not to smoke around you. As a smoker I respect it when people say such to me.

edited 15th Aug '12 11:38:37 PM by drunkscriblerian

I get what your saying, media & society like to focus more on the asshole smokers and less on the polite smokers [like yourself] who follow the rules.

That seems less THE problem, and more like YOUR problem {no offense.}

edited 15th Aug '12 11:39:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn

@Brae: actually, that is part of THE problem. Non-smokers feel invaded by having to smell the smoke, smokers feel invaded when people tell them they can't do what they do in X place at Y time (usually because of the first group). The whole point here is who should give.

And I'm saying both sides, with my "smokers ought to have the right to congregate" idea.

Honestly, I don't care much about people smoking in bars, though that's mostly because I don't go to such establishments (I don't get out much and I don't imbibe alcohol because I have never met a drink I liked). My father, on the other hand, as a musician, is not really a fan of smokey bars for reasons I'm sure you can figure out.

I wouldn't really care if they were smoking on campus if they were even just a bit farther from the building, because they're normally sitting on a median that produces a pair of somewhat narrow sidewalks, but about 20 feet father from the building is a rather more open area.

edited 15th Aug '12 11:53:24 PM by Balmung

"The whole point here is who should give."

My vote is on the people not killing themselves and others...

on that note my grandfather got diagnosed with copd, he's at that point where he coughs up mucus every now and then and requires oxygen. This will eventually get worse to the point of death. This isn't an especially rarer event, unfortunately.

If smoking bans can inconvenience even a small percentage of people to quit and stop people from starting in the first place, well, somehow I'm fine with that.

So why are we not getting rid of unhealthy food? My mother has Type 2 diabetes from being overweight, so I very much think that we need to get rid of prepackaged and fast food, or at least put restrictions on them. Especially because studies are coming out showing that fast food is, to some degree, addictive.

edited 16th Aug '12 12:04:17 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

To be fair, that's something that may start to happen.

Personally, given the probabilistic nature of medical science I'll say that we should wait for while before saying that "fast food is addictive". Especially now the newest study show that it is the immune system that causes addiction, which fundamentally changes our view on addiction given that we've always thought that it was the reward pathway in the brain.

Even when in print their titles should be in databases at least, for no researcher wants their work to be completely obscure and no citations. Also, note there are around 1.8 million studies on smoking health effects so the hard data is pretty convincing.

edited 16th Aug '12 12:18:44 AM by IraTheSquire

That's sort of like being at a civil rights rally back in the day and going "But what about gay people!?"

It's a separate issue that will be resolved eventually and is secondary to this discussion.

edited 16th Aug '12 12:10:37 AM by thatguythere47

The packaging legislation was brought up in a lecture I had only last month, when it was still unclear if it would go through. The rationale behind it was to reduce the appeal of smoking, make the health warnings more effective and to stop companies using, if not outright deception, something that smells awfully like it. The example we were given were the supposed "light" cigarettes marketed to new smokers and younger individuals. They don't actually contain less tar - an increased number of vent holes and chemical additives are used to make the smoke feel lighter and less irritating, and the impression is backed up by package design with lighter colours and emphasis on the "LIGHT" labelling.

Drunk, do you remember the titles, journal and/or what sort of studies they were? I'm curious as to how they defined "junk food" and "bad for one's health". Actually, I was trying to search for systemic reviews comparing the two, but I'm at loss as to how to phrase it. Both are really vague terms.

Edit: And since "it showed up in a lecture I had" is a terrible citation, here are a few sources for anyone curious about this:

• Do smokers in Europe think all cigarettes are equally harmful? European Journal of Public Health. 22 Suppl 1:35-40, 2012 Feb.
• Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes? Addiction. 107(6):1159-67, 2012 Jun.
• Graphic warning labels on plain cigarette packs: will they make a difference to adolescents? Social Science & Medicine. 74(8):1269-73, 2012 Apr.

edited 16th Aug '12 12:45:40 AM by Yuanchosaan

"Light" cigarettes were banned a long time ago. I think even "light" beer is illegal to advertise.

We banned trans-fat that is not naturally occurring in our food products. Junk food in Ontario was eliminated from all schools and even things like french fries are now restricted (if not banned). They push healthy foods at cafeterias (or at least try to do so). I don't remember if the pop ban went through or not.

But yes, trying to talk about "well what about other bad things?", we're trying to reduce those as well. So, really doesn't work well with respect to smoking.

In America, rather than Canada, I see suggestions that it is a "blue collar" habit. What the heck is that kind of class-ism? Smoking is bad, it doesn't matter who is doing it. Ideally we want to eliminate it. Most laws these days are targeting the youth to prevent people from ever smoking, so that 20 years down the road when there's very few smokers, it's much easier to legislate bans against it. As tobacco is just plain bad, I don't see the problem.

Smoking in Bars (and workplaces, rented accomadation etc...) has been illegal here in Britain for a few years — in fact, there was a story very recently where a Council in Blackpool*

^^2005 in Australia, so colour-coding and use of words like "smooth" and "fine" still contribute to the same issue.

The reason for that is because if you took a cross-section of smokers in America, a large majority of them are "blue collar", or rather they have jobs that involve working outside, or they have lower level office jobs. Part of this is probably because higher end jobs are so obsessed with appearance, or work in office buildings several stories up to where it would be a huge pain in the ass to take an elevator or stairs down to go on a smoke break, and it would take a long time.

The thing I hate the most is the sort of way you get eyed in the workplace for it. It isn't a problem at my current workplace at all, and I'm not the only smoker, but I always feel like I might have to be ready to justify that time spent based on the fact that on my lunch hour I walk to the corner store, get a sandwich, and come back and eat at my desk as I work.(I'm gone for 10 minutes max, and I don't get out of the call queue while I eat) If anyone ever says my smoke breaks take too long, I'm going to justify it with the fact that a smoke break takes 5 minutes, and my lunch hour takes me 10, and that if you put the smoke breaks and my lunch hour together, I would still only be netting 40 minutes away from my desk in a day, not counting bathroom breaks or grabbing a cup of coffee.

My co-workers are much worse in that regard, with the nerf gun wars and internet surfing at their desks in between calls. I mean I don't think it'll ever come up, but I'm ready if it does.

Smoking bans only make me use smokeless tobacco. I wonder what imapct bans will have on the use of smokeless tobacco? In 20 years?

I have a feeling that those are healthier options, since they do not involve burning and thus no tar which is the carcinogen/toxin.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:04:16 PM by IraTheSquire

They aren't. Smokeless tobacco causes pretty nasty forms of cancer too.

Dipping, chewing, snuff, and snus are just as bad for you as smoking.

I use snus when I'm on airplanes and other places where for one reason or another I won't get a smoke for a long time.

edited 16th Aug '12 3:27:27 PM by Barkey

They cause less cancer I guess, but they're still quite bad for you. They're meant for people who are already addicts to mitigate the effects of their habit, plus it is smokeless so as to avoid second-hand problems.

Now I am curious as to why, what chemical is causing it and how. Because that doesn't fit into my model of "tar in smoke is the one causing problems", given that as far as I know nicotine itself is quite harmless apart from its addictiveness.

edited 16th Aug '12 3:46:21 PM by IraTheSquire

Snuff, Dip, and Chew aren't meant to mitigate smoking.. They are separate forms of tobacco use entirely. Honestly they are widely considered nastier than smoking because of all the spitting and mouth cancer stuff.

Tar is an entirely separate issue, it's the tobacco that causes the complications. Tar is just the shit that builds up in your lungs.

edited 16th Aug '12 4:18:51 PM by Barkey

Tar is just additional problems as far as I know like Barkey said.

Pretty sure that tar does more than just "stay in your lungs". It's basically unburnt hydrocarbon which contains benzene rings that imitates nucleotides, so they cause mutations when they get slotted into DNA, which causes cancer.

What I'm saying is that tar isn't the thing that separates cancerous from non-cancerous tobacco use. Chew is highly unhealthy, right in the same league as smoking easily.

edited 16th Aug '12 4:48:16 PM by Barkey