SMOKERS, For your consideration

[Yesteryear]

The following is an article I wrote that I posted on my MySpace blog back in Sept. 2006 regarding smoking.

" I was reading about the E coli epidemic that was stemming from the fresh, bagged spinach and went to a message board link about it where I was sidetracked by an entry on smokers vs non-smokers. (What that subject has to do with the E coli problem I have yet to figure out.) Anyway, after reading 3 of the 11 pages of posts concerning smoking, I closed the browser and decided to post my opinion on the whole debate here.

Everyone knows that smoking is addictive. Everyone knows that it's a very offensive habit to those that do not smoke. Everyone knows that the government (the tax payers actually) has funded all of these "scientific research studies" that "prove" that smoking, particularly second-hand smoke, cause cancer and a whole host of other illnesses. And yet, every debate or arguement concerning the subject simply lists the same old facts, opinions, rants and raves as every other debate or arguement on the subject.

So what's the point of my input? Well.. hmmm.. one statement in particular caught my interest when reading the messages. One poster stated that smoking was directly linked to ALL cancers. While it's true that this was just a wild and uninformed ranting by an uneducated poster, it appears that this is a commonly held belief by a high percentage of non-smokers. I can only assume that this poster hasn't yet seen the tv commercials stating the fact that cervical cancer is caused by a virus. Human papillomavirus (HPV) to be exact. This is a recent development and what I'm wondering is how long before more of the same types of discoveries are made concerning other types of cancer?

Most cancers appear to have genetic links and predispositions. Smokers and non-smokers alike get the same types of cancers and yet science puts the blame on smoking and second-hand smoke. Why is that? Was there too much pressure to find a "reason" and appoint blame? I've known non-smokers who lived with smokers and yet lived long and healthy lives with no cancer of any kind. I've known smokers who lived long and healthy lives with no cancer. I've known non-smokers who developed lung cancer and smokers who developed lung cancer. Too many variables to appoint definate blame.

I'm a smoker. My parents were smokers, though both quit smoking quite a few years back and I applaud them both for the will and strength to successfully stop a very addictive behavior. But, back to me. Yes, I've tried quitting numerous times. The longest amount of time I was smoke free was 11 months. But the thing is.. I don't want to quit at this point and time in my life. I enjoy smoking and it is my right to do so. I respect a non-smokers right to "fresh air" and I do not smoke around non-smokers and I have no problem with businesses choosing to be smoke-free. What I do have a problem with is the non-smoker thinking they have the right to decide whether or not I have the right to smoke. I have a problem with a government that thinks it has the right to dictate to the private business owner whether or not they can allow smoking on their privately owned property. I have a problem with a government that places huge taxes on cigarettes because they are so "dangerous" and yet does not afford the same types and amounts of taxes on alcohol which is far more dangerous than tobacco. When was the last time you heard of a fatal car accident caused by someone under the influence of cigarette smoke?

Anyway.. that is my "rant" for the time being. There's a lot more I could say on the subject, but right now I'm going to exercise what's left of my "smoking rights" and go out on my front porch and enjoy a cigarette. "

That's my take on the whole situation.

Personally I don't smoke or drink (alcohol). Too cheap to spend the money on it. However, I do think those of us that want to smoke should have the right to smoke if they want. I do think they should be considerate of those of us that don't smoke just as we should be considerate of them. If you don't want to smell their smoke don't go in the smoking areas.
As far as smoking causing cancer, don't know if that is the true cause or not but I can say my great great uncle Hiram was an avid smoker. When I was a little girl I used to love sitting beside Uncle Hiram as he smoked his pipe filled with a cherry smelling tobacco. He passed away when I was 5 yers old at the great old age of 104. Still think fondly of him to this very day.

 

[layoutshooter]

No one has answered my question yet, I am not talking about smelling smoke, what about the person that it could have real and almost instant life threating effects on? Is you "right" to smoke worth that to you? Again, there are easy solutions that do not involve government. Please explain how you or anyone can justify that. Layoutshooter

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Actually, Humble, that last one was more for Layout. But he clarified his position; so it's not really for him now. LOL

Layout... I understand what you're saying. The solution you're looking for may be as simple as a mask.

Honeycomb Mask with Carbon Filter - Allergy Relief Masks

 

[Yesteryear]

No one has answered my question yet, I am not talking about smelling smoke, what about the person that it could have real and almost instant life threating effects on? Is you "right" to smoke worth that to you? Again, there are easy solutions that do not involve government. Please explain how you or anyone can justify that. Layoutshooter

Well now Layoutshooter, not to make light of your concerns but there are things other than smoking that can be a real an instant threat to another's life as well. Now remember I don't smoke so I am not just trying to side with smokers but take for instance peanuts. Should there be a law against eating peanuts. There are people that go into anaphylactic shock from just being in the room with an open bag of peanuts. Did you watch airlines where the man was suppose to be on a peanut free flight but the stewardess handed out peanuts causing him to have to give himself a shot that he carried with him at all times? He didn't eat the nuts he was just in the same room with them. I was told by doctors not to be in the same room with an open bottle of Bactrim as I am severly allergic and could die from just being in the room with it. Usually when someone is this allergic to or affected by something they tended to take precautions against it.

 

[x06col]

Layout, i'll try and answer from MY perspective. We are all dealt a hand of cards in life. Some hands are good, some not so good. As unfortunate as it is, your bride it seems didn't get very good ones. Don't ask other folks to bet on your brides cards, cause i'm sure she wouldn't bet on mine.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Amazing how everything I wanted to say, the Col said in a couple short sentences.

 

[greg334]

Amazing how everything I wanted to say, the Col said in a couple short sentences.

Experience maybe?

 

[layoutshooter]

My wife is not one who is that allergic to it. As an EMT I had to deal with anaphalactic shock. It is not pretty. Unless I am mistaken, cigarette smoking is NOT a constitutional right nor a necessity in life. The mask might be a good idea. A true non-smoking area would be better. As to peanuts, they are going a long way on that one. Listing areas where peanut or peanut products are out or removing them completly. I was not trying to argue just point out that there are very valid concerns on the smoking issue. Just as I don't shoot in areas that it is not safe, even though legal. I take responsibiltiy for my actions. I don't choose to take any un-due risk. Layoutshooter

 

[routejumper]

I think I understand Humble's request.
Tell me if I got this straight.

"Smokers, why can't you be more considerate of me (because I don't like the smell) and go smoke somewhere where it doesn't bother me (because it bothers me even where you are legally permitted to do so)?"

Humble, quit the name calling and arguing, is the above quote accurate about how you feel in a nutshell or not?

ANAWER MY QUESTION AS IT IS ASKED, IT HAS TWO POSSIBLE ANSWERS:
1. yes
2. no

Thank you!

 

[BEARTRUCKER]

One of the Petro's I've visited has a designated smokers dining area. Glass encased. Looks like a zoo exhibit. "SEE the addicts excersing their constitutional rights!"

 

[OntarioVanMan]

One of the Petro's I've visited has a designated smokers dining area. Glass encased. Looks like a zoo exhibit. "SEE the addicts excersing their constitutional rights!"

And here I thought they was protecting me from the crackers outside the box...*LOL*

 

[m2106dunit]

I'm a former smoker. After 30 years of smoking I quit 10 years ago. Now I find the smell of cigarette smoke repulsive. Everyone has a right to smoke and everyone has a right to breathe smoke free air. So smoke all you want, just don't do it around me.

I believe that 99% of all smokers would quit if they could. Smoking cost a lot of money and will eventually kill the smoker if they smoke long enough. Has anyone ever seem someone die of lung cancer? I have and it's not a pretty sight!

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Joe...Layout...not to be insensitive to Mrs Layout..but

Should we stop driving cars because of carbon exhausts just because a few have severe reactions?
Owning a car or truck is not a constitutional right neither...

Some are allergic to perfumes...should we all go around like stinkers?

Granted smoking is a dirty,filthy habit...expensive and serves no good other then feed a habit...But I am an addict to it....I hate the smell when I first wake up!!

Personally I am more concerned with my weight...how many 300 lb 75 year olds do you see....? The extra weight will probably kill you before the smoking will....

 

[cruzer]

One of the Petro's I've visited has a designated smokers dining area. Glass encased. Looks like a zoo exhibit. "SEE the addicts excersing their constitutional rights!"

The veiw is the same from where the smokers are sitting but the exhibit shows people with sticks up there *ss. And I don't even smoke,you people need real help.

 

[cruzer]

I think everyone should go back to the beginning and read what has been written.you'll find out that you've let some sunshine boy from Ca. get you all fired up on smokers when it is what it is, everyone needs to adjust for there own lifestyle.Maybe ask why the auto and truck manufacturers should have to spend billions just to meet Ca. emmision standards or why animals have to have heat and air in Ca. but truck drivers don't.These issues seem so much more important than a sunshine boys personal attack on smokers.And just for the record I don't smoke and have no dog in the fight.WHOOPS,I don't support dog fighting,just a figure of speech.

 

[MentalGiant]

I believe that 99% of all smokers would quit if they could. Smoking cost a lot of money and will eventually kill the smoker if they smoke long enough. Has anyone ever seem someone die of lung cancer? I have and it's not a pretty sight!

Its a study in theory that smoking has killed people. I won't say smoking hasn't killed anyone, because I can not prove that either, but when there are so many other factors. You just never here about the people who has smoked all their lives and lived to a ripe old age or died from lung cancer from other factors such as genetic factors, radon gas, asbestos, and air pollution. But, someone dies from lung cancer, you bet people are going to hear about that person that they smoked.

 

[Turtle]

Humble, I did read the entire thread, every word. I'm not sure why you presume that I did not, but in any case, if you go back to your original post and rewrite it to omit anything that you personally find annoying with what smokers do, you'll be left with a post about consideration.

"Why is it that many smokers don't have any consideration for the people around them???"

Good question. Asked and answered.

But, for example...
"The stench of smoke permeated every area of the building. (showers, TV room, laundry, restaurant, and eventually our clothing and lungs)."

That has nothing to do with consideration, unless it's a smoke-free building. If smoking is permitted, then the above is nothing more than a personal annoyance, and no one was being inconsiderate.


"If smokers know that smoke is bothersome to others, can't they simply limit their practice to a private area and not force it on others?? I am well aware of the fact that it is a smokers "right" to be able to smoke where it is legal to do so. That is not the question. The question is regarding consideration for others."

If it's perfectly legal to smoke in a given area, there is simply no reason to take it to a more private area. It's not a matter of consideration at all. Except, that since it's perfectly legal, the non-smoker should be considerate of that simple fact instead of asking that the smoker go out of their way to accommodate you. If you're allergic to peanuts and you walk into a restaurant where everyone in enjoying a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, rather than have all those people take it to a more private area, seems to me that you should simply choose a different restaurant.

"I have the right to cough or sneeze in your direction; however, I turn my head and cover my mouth out of consideration for others."

Yet your germs still do, in fact, permeate the air, listfully filtering around the entire area to be breathed in by everyone. Thanks for that, by the way. It's a great analogy and is very telling. The only way to cough, sneeze, or smoke, and not have it affect others is to do it in private, completely away from other humans, and have the surrounding air intensely filtered and sanitized. For those insidious coughers, sneezers and smokers out there, get a bubble!

"I have the right to allow my children to run and scream in the restaurant; however, I ask them to sit and remain quiet out of consideration for others.

Take 'em to Cici's Pizza.

I even have the right to burp, pick my nose, and pass gas at the table next to you; however, I refrain out of consideration for others."

Holding in a burp can cause gastritis and can lead to gall bladder problems. Holding in a fart can lead to hemorrhoids and irritable bowel syndrome. And as your nose fills up with boogers the hairs and cilia in the nose and nasal cavity won't be able to effectively filter out the various toxic and irritating microscopic particles that you really don't want to be inhaling.

Other than tossing the butts out of a window and littering the streets with them, the rest of the laundry list is chiefly annoyances that have nothing to so with being inconsiderate. Like, if someone walks out of a theater in the middle of a movie to go for a smoke, how can that be any more inconsiderate than getting up and going to the snack bar or to the restroom?

routejumper pretty much nailed it with his question, as did OVM with his metaphorical allegories.

I should note that my psychological evaluations and insightful conclusions have nothing to do with you personally, they are simply based on what you wrote. You claim it's a post about consideration, yet if you go back and actually read it as if someone else wrote it, you'll see that clearly it is not.

 

[xiggi]

I can't stand the smell of coffee can we ban that?

 

[MentalGiant]

I can't stand the smell of coffee can we ban that?

Lets ban broccoli also, I can't stand the smell when my wife cooks that, the smell makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Its a study in theory that smoking has killed people. I won't say smoking hasn't killed anyone, because I can not prove that either, but when there are so many other factors. You just never here about the people who has smoked all their lives and lived to a ripe old age or died from lung cancer from other factors such as genetic factors, radon gas, asbestos, and air pollution. But, someone dies from lung cancer, you bet people are going to hear about that person that they smoked.

My dad had that same philosophy. he harped on it often, right up until a week or two of his death from COPD, Emphysema, and Cancer...