Go and give yourselves cancer somewhere else, please [Archive]

Podkayne

04-19-2002, 10:39 AM

I'm dating myself . . . but I remember all-night "Less Filling! " "Tastes Great!" contests shouted across the courtyard of my dorm. *sigh* It's so good to be a grown-up and live in a real house.

Returning to the OP, smokers who think that it's okay to smoke anywhere that's technically "outside" suck ass. Yeah, if you stand right outside the door, you're technically not in the building . . . but everyone who walks in or out has to walk through your fucking smoke, and, if you solve some the equations of fluid dynamics which govern the situation (don't be scared . . . you can handle a system of 3-D coupled partial differential equations, can't you?), you will realize that smoke does not stop at the threshold of an open door, but will actually enter the building! Isn't science amazing?

I don't give a shit if there is an ashtray there. That's poor planning on the part of whoever's in charge of placing ashtrays--or maybe they intended the ashtray to be a convenient place for smokers to extinguish their smoking materials before entering the building. In any case, use your own fucking head. You've already turned your money, your time, and your health over to the tobacco companies . . . maybe you could take this opportunity to exert a bit of free will instead of assuming that the almighty ashtray gods, in their infinte wisdom, have designated any place with a bucket of sand as a guilt-free smoking area.

Smoking inside bus shelters is my personal pet peeve. No, wait, fuck it. Inside bus shelters is so obviously not a polite place to smoke that it doesn't even qualify as a pet peeve, but rather as a legitimate cause for righteous indignation. People smoking at bus stops are my pet peeve--when you can't stand far enough away from them to avoid the smoke without having to run to catch the bus when it arrives. And if you have to light up at the bus stop, fucking stand still. I do not want to have to constantly move to avoid your cloud of nasty stench while you wander about, spreading your vile pollutant over a maximum area.

You have every right to ingest whatever chemicals you desire . . . just acknowledge that when you indulge your filthy little habit, you impose on every person in the vicinity, and try to be the least bit considerate about it, won't you? I don't even bother to play the cancer card anymore. All health considerations aside, it is simply unpleasant for non-smokers to have to breathe in your damn smoke while you feed your stupid, pointless addiction, and you have no earthly justification for inconveniencing everyone around you.

(To smokers who are conscientious about where they smoke: I thank you for taking the time to be considerate to others--we do appreciate it. I wish you luck if you decide to kick the habit, and I wish you smooth, satisfying taste and efficient nicotine delivery if you don't.)

Michael Ellis

04-19-2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by catsix
If you look out there and see an ashtray or a cigarette urn, then it's probably not designated a No Smoking area.

If you see signs that say No Smoking, then you're within your rights to bust them for the smoking.

No ashtray.

No sign, but the RA confirmed it's not a smoking area. I also remember a sign warning people not to smoke on a similar terrace in a different building.

Eve

04-19-2002, 11:17 AM

Well, this IS actually kinda of a problem, but it's a problem you can do NOTHING about. My Mom has severe bronchial asthma, and the guy who lives right below her smokes—her whole apartment fills up with his smoke, but she realizes all she can do is open the windows and put the fan on.

The white-trash hillbillies who live below me sit out in the yard and smoke, and it drifts right up into my living-room window something awful—but again, I'm hardly going to tell them not to smoke in their own backyard! it's just one of those annoyances that comes from living around other people. Other than becoming Ted Kaczynski, there's not much to be done.

Eve

04-19-2002, 11:18 AM

"Kinda of a problem" . . .

Gotcha ya!

Quintas

04-19-2002, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nightsong
I don't mind if people smoke: if they are aware of what they're doing to themselves, fine. Their life to do with as they please, so long as they don't infringe on the rights (or life) of others, and they don't litter.

Infringe on your life? A little 2nd hand smoke is not gonna give you cancer. I hate it when people get a whiff of smoke and start acting like you just sprayed them with tear gas. whatever.

Michael Ellis

04-19-2002, 11:36 AM

Quintas,

It's got nothing to do with 2nd hand anything, I just can't stand the smell at 2 or 3 in the goddamned morning!!!

pendgwen

04-19-2002, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Quintas
Infringe on your life? A little 2nd hand smoke is not gonna give you cancer. I hate it when people get a whiff of smoke and start acting like you just sprayed them with tear gas. whatever.

Are you not aware that some people are allergic to cigarette smoke? And that others have severe athsma attacks that can be triggered by a little whiff of smoke? Certainly these are relatively rare cases and most of the people you see reacting this way are just being dramatic but your 2nd hand smoke is a real hazard for some people. As far as they are concerned you might as well have sprayed them with tear gas.

Myrr21

04-19-2002, 04:31 PM

Infringe on your life? A little 2nd hand smoke is not gonna give you cancer. I hate it when people get a whiff of smoke and start acting like you just sprayed them with tear gas. whatever.
Ok, what about my buddy the voice major? A little second-hand smoke can screw up his voice for a few hours, or even a day or two, depending on how much it is. His college major depends on his voice, and soon (with any luck) his career. He can't even go to many parties and events held in non-smoking areas because even if people don't smoke inside, they smoke in areas where it is guaranteed to waft in.

There are plenty of people allergic to smoke, and life ain't no picnic for them either when somebody holds open the door with their foot while they smoke technically "outside".

Monty

04-19-2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by catsix
If you look out there and see an ashtray or a cigarette urn, then it's probably not designated a No Smoking area.

Or that somone went ahead and put an ashtray there anyway because they didn't want to go where igniting cancer sticks is permitted.

alice_in_wonderland

04-19-2002, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Quintas
Infringe on your life? A little 2nd hand smoke is not gonna give you cancer. I hate it when people get a whiff of smoke and start acting like you just sprayed them with tear gas. whatever.

Actually - it DOES "infringe on my life". I have asthma and a little bit of smoke makes me pretty miserable. I can't breath. I get light headed. I develop a horrible headache. I feel sick to my stomach.

For this reason, I almost NEVER go to bars or clubs where smoking is permitted. I wait for an extra 1/2 an hour in line at a restaraunt to get a non-smoking table (no longer a problem in Calgary), I don't visit the homes of people who smoke.

However, I don't really have the option of not walking into my work place, or never leaving the house, so, yes, if I have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get to my job AT THE TOM BAKER CANCER CENTRE then you ARE infringing, thank you very much.

This rant brought to you by the makers of Nicoderm. Well, no, not really.

LurkMeister

04-19-2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Podkayne
Returning to the OP, smokers who think that it's okay to smoke anywhere that's technically "outside" suck ass. Yeah, if you stand right outside the door, you're technically not in the building . . . but everyone who walks in or out has to walk through your fucking smoke, and, if you solve some the equations of fluid dynamics which govern the situation (don't be scared . . . you can handle a system of 3-D coupled partial differential equations, can't you?), you will realize that smoke does not stop at the threshold of an open door, but will actually enter the building! Isn't science amazing?

Then there are the assholes who think that the moment they get to the revolving doors they are "outside the building" and light up, filling the doorway section not only with smoke but also with the delightful aroma of butane/sulfur. :rolleyes:

And apparently "no smoking" only means you can't have a lit cigarette in your hand when you enter the bus/train etc. Taking one last drag, pitching the still-lit butt on the floor, and then exhaling after you get inside is perfectly OK.
:wally

Fenris

04-19-2002, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Ukulele Ike
Mebbe he goes to one of those right wing Christian colleges, where smokin' and drinkin' and dancin' are forbidden by the Flaming Sword of Jesus.

:rolleyes:

Fuck off, you asshole.

I am so sick of the fucking political hijack by assholes like you who unable to discuss any issue without bringing their pet political rant into the situation.

Fenris

Quintas

04-19-2002, 06:37 PM

For those whom a whiff of smoke while walking thru a doorway triggers an asthma attack, then i feel bad for you. Seriously. It must be very difficult having such a weak constitution. However the majority of militant anti-smokers need to lighten up. The air in most major cities is probably worse for your health than the horror of having to walk thru a cloud of smoke.

alice_in_wonderland

04-19-2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Quintas
For those whom a whiff of smoke while walking thru a doorway triggers an asthma attack, then i feel bad for you.

But not bad enough to try a little consideration?

If that's what you mean, then you are a total asshole.

Smoke that.

Michael Ellis

04-19-2002, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Ukulele Ike
Mebbe he goes to one of those right wing Christian colleges

Not unless you call UC Santa Cruz a "right wing Christian" college.

Quintas

04-19-2002, 07:06 PM

Such as? Ask everyone if i'm about to trigger lung spasms?
I have an aunt who claims she is allergic to perfume,deodorant etc. Should everyone shout a warning when they come near her, like a leper? It only takes maybe a half a sec to walk thru some smoke. How bout hold your breath.

alice_in_wonderland

04-19-2002, 07:10 PM

Monty

04-19-2002, 07:24 PM

Suck off, Quintas. Some of us are actually allergic to that shit.

Ukulele Ike

04-19-2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Fenris
Fuck off, you asshole.

I am so sick of the fucking political hijack by assholes like you who unable to discuss any issue without bringing their pet political rant into the situation.

Excuse me?

Fenris

04-19-2002, 08:43 PM

Ike, I sincerely apologize for the tone and language of that post. Chalk it up to tiredness, crankiness and a growing irritation with (what I percieve as) an escallation of political hijacks of non-political threads I've seen on the Board recently. But even if your post was one, I apologize for blowing up at you. It was a gross overreaction and uncalled for.

Sorry, Ike.

Fenris

Ukulele Ike

04-19-2002, 08:59 PM

Fuck you, man.

I expect flowers, AND chocolates, AND warm cuddling with foot-rubs before I ever talk to YOU again.

(political?)

Kru-baby

04-19-2002, 11:31 PM

This sounds like a serious case of non-smokers over reacting. If you are walking down the street and you see a smoker coming your way, if it is going to cause an asthma attack, for god's sake - hold your breath. Everyone has allergic reactions to all kinds of things, perfume, whatever. I get a headache everytime I smell someone with extremely strong perfume like White Diamonds, but I just hold my breath. Honestly, most smokers do not want to harm anyone, it is an addiction. If there is that bad of a problem, go tell your hall monitor (assuming that you are not the hall monitor) that people are smoking in non-designated smoking areas. If they are in fact in designated smoking areas, maybe you should consider re-locating yourself. Some smokers can be extremely inconsiderate, and those are the people that your post is directed to (I hope). I happen to be a considerate smoker. I dont smoke around non-smokers and I only smoke in designated smoking areas. I smoke because I am addicted and I enjoy every last drag of every cigarette that I take, not because I want to keep you up at night or because I want to trigger an asthma attack.

Michael Ellis

04-20-2002, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Kru-baby
If they are in fact in designated smoking areas

As I've said, they are not.

alice_in_wonderland

04-20-2002, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Kru-baby
This sounds like a serious case of non-smokers over reacting. If you are walking down the street and you see a smoker coming your way, if it is going to cause an asthma attack, for god's sake - hold your breath.

Fine, I will.

And I'll quit ranting about smoking when a cancer patient can enter my place of work (hospital, research centre and
CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE)without having to hold theirs because some fuck wit smoker is too fucking inconsiderate to take a few steps away from the door.

If you're a considerate smoker, great.

To those smokers who aren't - I hope your camel gets hump hives.

galen ubal

04-20-2002, 12:23 AM

To those smokers who aren't - I hope your camel gets hump hives.

Isn't that some kind of STD?

alice_in_wonderland

04-20-2002, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by galen ubal

Isn't that some kind of STD?

I dunno - but I've heard it's quite unpleasant and expensive to treat...

galen ubal

04-20-2002, 12:44 AM

Probably requiring a humpectomy...wonder if they can get hump implants.....

Oh! The OP! I forgot...

Hmmm - I've nothing to add to this discussion, I'm afraid. A smoker who is outside, though, and not in a designated non smoking area, is not being rude by smoking. If I'm walking down the street and encounter someone who is medically sensitive - how do I know? I'm not out to hurt anybody, but some things I just can't see worrying about.

alice_in_wonderland

04-20-2002, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by galen ubal
If I'm walking down the street and encounter someone who is medically sensitive - how do I know? I'm not out to hurt anybody, but some things I just can't see worrying about.

So, if you're outside a CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE and a CANCER PATIENT is trying to enter the building WITH OXYGEN ya don't think it might be nice to get out of the way a few feet so they don't have to inhale yer discarded, exhaled, skank-ass, 2nd hand smoke nastyness?

alice_in_wonderland

04-20-2002, 12:55 AM

alice_in_wonderland

04-20-2002, 12:56 AM

Ooops.

<Please insert appropriate blushing smilie here>

galen ubal

04-20-2002, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by alice_in_wonderland

So, if you're outside a CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE and a CANCER PATIENT is trying to enter the building WITH OXYGEN ya don't think it might be nice to get out of the way a few feet so they don't have to inhale yer discarded, exhaled, skank-ass, 2nd hand smoke nastyness?

I think the oxygen tank would give me the appropriate clue. I was talking about someone with no external indications walking down the sidewalk.

Now, would that be a saline or a silicone hump implant...

lezlers

04-20-2002, 01:17 AM

Geez Alice,

I don't think anyone would argue that it is wrong for someone to smoke IN THE DOORWAY OF A CANCER TREATMENT CENTER! What some people are trying to say and that I agree with, is that many non-smokers act like smokers are outside butchering fluffy the dog or something. Smokers smoke. It is legal. Smokers are perfectly aware that it is a nasty and harmful habit. Do you think we CHOOSE to be addicted? I think it is people with attitudes like yours who show no respect for smokers at people and feel that it is perfectly within your rights to throw around insults and speak in a condecending and outright nasty tone that make some smokers not really give a fuck.

I am an EXTREMEMLY considerate smoker. If I am on a park bench and someone is on the other end of the bench, I will not light up unless I see them light up as well as to not blow smoke around them. If i'm at an outdoor restaurant with ashtrays on every table I still won't light up because there are other people around. But people that speak like you do, who are desrespectful to me just because I happen to have an addiction I haven't been able to kick yet, make me want to blow smoke right, directly into your upturned nose.

yosemite

04-20-2002, 02:39 AM

lezlers wrote
Do you think we CHOOSE to be addicted?
Well, yes. You chose to start smoking. I don't believe that you were completely unaware that smoking is bad for you, and yes, addictive. If it weren't addictive, it wouldn't be so hard for so many people to quit, now would it? Even if you were pretty young when you first started smoking, surely you had some grasp of that concept.

But, that being said, as long as smokers are considerate, I have no problem with them. We all have our vices. As long as they don't play the "victim" card ("I didn't know it was bad when I started!" "I didn't choose this!"). Because, you know, that's bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit.

Enjoy your cigarettes, my best wishes in quitting (if indeed you wish to quit).

Futile Gesture

04-20-2002, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by lezlers
Do you think we CHOOSE to be addicted? I think it is people with attitudes like yours who show no respect for smokers at people and feel that it is perfectly within your rights to throw around insults and speak in a condecending and outright nasty tone that make some smokers not really give a fuck.
What, no-one told you that smoking was addictive? Bummer that must have been a real shock for you, and right after you coming out of that cave that you've be living in the last 50 years too.

I'm sick of smokers whining about people being inconsiderate and rude to them, and how tough it is being addicted to something. Smoking is not a disease. It is not an affliction you can't do anything about. It's a hobby. Despite all the warnings you chose to take it up. It's something you do because you get pathetic little kicks out of it. You do it cause it makes you feel good, well, at first.

But if you want a hobby that makes you stink, ruins your health and eventually kills you, that's your business. But don't come over all hurt if people get annoyed when your selfish hobby starts infringing on their life. If I had a hobby that you still stunk of an hour after being in my company would you be happy about it?

And yes, you do stink. What, you think people can't smell it? I'm afraid you've been relying on your much depreciated sense of smell. People who don't spend their day with mouldering ashes under their nose can smell you coming a mile off. Again; your hobby, your choice. You stink.

Futile Gesture

04-20-2002, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Futile Gesture
mouldering ashes

I meant "smouldering ashes", of course. :rolleyes:

PosterChild

04-20-2002, 09:07 AM

First: To the OP. Inconsiderate addicts suck.

and B: I think we can (most of us agree) that inconsiderate anyones do. Whether they are smokers or not. So none a'y'all should be getting your knickers in a twist just because the inconsiderate ones are being ranted on.

and Lastly: It must be difficult to remember or realize that smoke really is nasty after you've gotten used to it. I remember a tour I took of a waste treatement plant that smelled like feces that had been sitting in the sun for a LONG time. The people working there had gotten so used to it that they didn't even smell it anymore. So remember that non-smokers haven't gotten used to the stench.

and OTOH: Yo Michael. Fomer Cowell College fighting Banana Slug here. Hope you're having a good time. :)

alice_in_wonderland

04-20-2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by lezlers
Geez Alice,

I don't think anyone would argue that it is wrong for someone to smoke IN THE DOORWAY OF A CANCER TREATMENT CENTER!

And yet everyday, as I enter my workplace, I am forced to wade through about 15 smokers, blocking the doorway, despice the fact that there's a smoking shelter a mere 10 meters away. Interesting.

So, if I have a bad attitude, I think I've earned it.

Galen - salene of course - silicon can be harmful...

SpazCat

04-20-2002, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Kru-baby
This sounds like a serious case of non-smokers over reacting. If you are walking down the street and you see a smoker coming your way, if it is going to cause an asthma attack, for god's sake - hold your breath. Everyone has allergic reactions to all kinds of things, perfume, whatever. I get a headache everytime I smell someone with extremely strong perfume like White Diamonds, but I just hold my breath.

I live in North Carolina's Tobacco Country. If I held my breath every time I smell cigarette smoke I'd be dead in ten minutes.

You say you get headaches from smelling strong perfumes. Alrighty then, imagine getting that reaction from smelling cigarettes. I live on a non-smoking floor in a dorm, however the smoking terrace is right under my window. It's ninety degrees out here so I can't close my window if I want to stay solid. Just a whiff of that stuff makes my sinuses clog up. This triggers a severe sinus headache. Ever been around someone with a sinus headache? Did you come out of that situation alive with all your parts in working order? You're lucky. Fortunately I'm only exposed to the stuff for about half an hour each night and I can run to the other side of my room or there'd be some unsolved squirt-gun shootings. (Said squirt-gun would not be loaded with water but rather the sweet, sweet liquid known as sufuric acid.)

Personally, I hate it when people stand right outside the main entrance to a building and smoke. Where my father works they have to stand by the back entrance where nobody comes in. I rejoice every time I see a main entrance ashtray knocked over and shattered. I like to think it was people like me who are sick of having to hold our breath and running into a building to avoid allergy attacks because people are unfamiliar with air circulation patterns.

lezlers

04-20-2002, 05:49 PM

Alice,

I meant everyone in this thread.

Futile,

I rest my case. I'm not pretending I didn't know it was bad when I started. I was a teenager and stupid and that's pretty much WHY I started. I blame it on no one but myself. But does that still give you a right to speak to me so disrespectfuly and condesendingly? Do you ever drink? That's bad. Would you like for me to say things like "you're stupid for drinking. Your breath stinks. You are so dumb for CHOOSING to engage in such a destructive habit." No? I agree. If you were trying to pour it down my throat I would come at you harsly about that particular act. Not about the fact that you drink when it's not good for you. That's not my place. Because it's not my place to speak to you like that. That's the point i'm trying to make. If someone is harming you, then politly ask them not to. If they don't agree, then get nasty about what they are doing at that moment. But don't come at me like i'm your child that you're lecturing. It's not your place nor your right. I'm not playing victim, contrary to what people may think, i'm just asking to be treated with the same respect you would pay to an adult non-smoker. It's a nasty habit yes, but i'm sure you have some habits you're not fond of either, do I come at you ranting and raving about them?

Monty

04-20-2002, 06:04 PM

Last time I checked, someone's consumption of an alcoholic beverage did not inflict that same alcoholic beverage into a bystander's system.

Monty

04-20-2002, 06:05 PM

BTW, what's the respect being shown by those who are consuming their cigarettes in a prohibited area, lezlers?

shrew

04-20-2002, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Quintas
Such as? Ask everyone if i'm about to trigger lung spasms?
I have an aunt who claims she is allergic to perfume,deodorant etc. Should everyone shout a warning when they come near her, like a leper? It only takes maybe a half a sec to walk thru some smoke. How bout hold your breath.

This kind of existence sucks. I'm very allergic to perfumes, colognes, smelly lotions, and cigarette smoke. Bath and Body Works is the bane of my existence. My students ALWAYS step out into the hall if they want to put on lotion or something else that will be smelly. One of my students stopped wearing cologne to school because it was bothering my allergies, and another boy yelled at his friend who sprayed cologne in my room (the other boy didn't know of my allergies). It's very sweet of them, but I can't expect the whole world to be so sensitive. When I smell someone around me who I know is going to make me sick, I do hold my breath until they've passed or until I can get away. I do it discreetly and quietly, and I don't say anything to them. I must say, however, that I do get put out with inconsiderate smokers. There's a reason buildings are non-smoking areas. I've even had to ask my mom to stop smoking around me, which sucks since it's her house....but she loves me, so she steps outside.

Futile Gesture

04-21-2002, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by lezlers
But does that still give you a right to speak to me so disrespectfuly and condesendingly?
Er, cos this is the Pit, rants, for the use of?

Do you ever drink? That's bad. Would you like for me to say things like "you're stupid for drinking. Your breath stinks. You are so dumb for CHOOSING to engage in such a destructive habit."
My drink doesn't enter your body. Unless I'm being particularly careless or generous. And you don't stink of it an hour later.

If someone is harming you, then politly ask them not to. If they don't agree, then get nasty about what they are doing at that moment.
If someone punches you in the face do you politely ask them to stop? Smokers know all about tobacco smoke, they shouldn't need it pointed out. But apparently they do.

But don't come at me like i'm your child that you're lecturing. It's not your place nor your right. I'm not playing victim, contrary to what people may think, i'm just asking to be treated with the same respect you would pay to an adult non-smoker.
No need to take it so personally lezlers, my comments weren't aimed at you specifically. They were addressed to smokers in general.

It's a nasty habit yes, but i'm sure you have some habits you're not fond of either, do I come at you ranting and raving about them?
I certainly do have nasty habits, and the minute they start laying layers of stink on you, or impacting on your health, you have every right to come ranting at me. No dual standards here.

Cervaise

04-21-2002, 07:08 AM

(lezlers) It's a nasty habit yes:confused:

If it's a nasty habit for you, why is it somehow less nasty for the people around you who didn't make the stupid decision to get addicted in the first place?

lezlers

04-21-2002, 10:26 AM

Monty,

You're missing the entire POINT of my post. I'm not denying that it is rude to be an inconsiderate smoker. That's why i'm not. I don't smoke in public places. Unless there is no one within 20 feet of me. Period. I'm talking about people such as futile that feel it is their right to lecture me like a fuckin' child because I SMOKE. Even if it is not around HIM. That, in my opinion is not cool.

Futile,
No, I don't need it pointed out. What makes you think I do? You think I don't see the t.v. commercials every 5 minutes? You think I don't see the labels on the packages? You think the minute you start insulting me, THAT'S what's gonna make me quit? How self-important of you. And you say it's directed at smokers in general, not me. Um, i'm a smoker. How is it then not directed at me?

Cervaise,

*Sigh* see my comments towards Monty. You seem to have completely missed my point as well.

Futile Gesture

04-21-2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by lezlers
think the minute you start insulting me, THAT'S what's gonna make me quit? How self-important of you.

You are mistaking my concerns. I don't care what's going to make you quit. Just don't whine about or do it around me.

And you say it's directed at smokers in general, not me. Um, i'm a smoker. How is it then not directed at me?

Um, you did notice the word "specifically" back there? I'm trying to make a point here (albeit in a rant) and you're trying to turn it into a insult directed at you in particular. You go to great lengths to distance yourself from inconsiderate smokers, yet any criticism of your insidious habit and smokers you take personally to heart. The only comment I addressed to you specifically was regarding your ridiculous plea that 'you didn't ask to be addicted'.

It sounds like you have more of a problem about your smoking than I do.

Caffeine.addict

04-21-2002, 04:49 PM

I sympathise with those who suffer from allegeries. As a former smoker I can see this from both sides. Where would you propose that smokers go? We should be reasonable about these things. Smokers already have to go outside to have a cigarette. Is the smell of smoke that bad? I find the smell of perfume far more objectionable. What about body odor? I would rather have somebody smoking next to me than somebody who doesn't use deodorant.

How do the most fervent of you anti-smokers travel? I recall from the year I spent at a university in France that a much higher proportion of the population smoked. The university had only banned smoking during lecture the previous year. I don't recall seeing any non-smoking sections in restaurants, there was an ashtray at every table. Those of you who object to the smokers at the entrance of a building probably shouldn't visit.

There are some things that you have to live with when you function in society. Everyone has habits which can grate on someone's nerves, smoking is one of them.

cmosdes

04-21-2002, 05:36 PM

Simply put, smoking where non-smokers have no choice but to inhale your smoke is just plain wrong.

Smoking outside a doorway where people entering and leaving will have no choice but to inhale your smoke is inconsiderate, but at least it is momentary. Smoking outside someones window just seems wrong, especially if it is illegal to smoke there.

As to brujo, who asked how we deal with it when we travel, all I can say is that I either wouldn't go there or I'd have to deal with it then. At least it would then be my choice, not yours. The OP was about having the smoke forced upon them, not voluntarily going someplace where there was known to be smoke. Huge difference.

Monty

04-21-2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by brujo
Where would you propose that smokers go?

Home, anywhere indoors that permits smoking, or an outdoor venue where only smokers congregate.

Is the smell of smoke that bad?

Yes. And some of us have an allergy to it.

Nightsong

04-21-2002, 06:06 PM

*finally gets back to the thread*

Well, looks like we've covered the allergy aspect fairly well... ;)

The last time I was around cigarette smoke, I was coughing up thick yellow crud for five days, sounded like a frog, and couldn't get more than an hour or so of sleep at a time because of all of the coughing. Not Funtm. And it wasn't like I was in a smoke-filled bar, or the like. Just a standard bar-and-grill in that lull time between lunch and dinner when there were only a handful of people there, and only a couple of those people smoking. The smell of cigarette smoke (especially the stale smoke) is enough to make me want to involuntarily decorate said smelly person with the contents of my stomach.

So yes, if someone is smoking in a place where smoking isn't allowed, I will get on their case. If I'm in a place that is under my control, I will ask those who reek of cigarette smoke (or strong perfume/cologne/whatever) to leave, or at the very least get downwind of me unless they wish to buy me a case or so of DayQuil. Else, if it's a smoking-allowed place I don't bitch about it. I simply take my business elsewhere.

Now, if those smokeless cigarettes I occasionally hear about catch on in populartity, then we'd have the major problem non-smokers have with smokers solved right there. (The littering problem that unfortunately some smokers have has been fodder for other rants already.)

___
<< Wooooo >>

Caffeine.addict

04-21-2002, 09:28 PM

What do you people who are allergic to smoking do? How bad are the symptons? I'm really curious.

When I smoked, I used to smoke outdoors near the ashtrays. I can sympathise with the OP. Most smokers in fact will smoke only in a location where the are allowed to.

alice_in_wonderland

04-22-2002, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by brujo
What do you people who are allergic to smoking do? How bad are the symptons? I'm really curious.

They're bad, very, very bad.

As I mentioned previously, I don't go to bars, or restaraunts where smoking is permited. I don't go to the homes of smokers. I avoid places where I know that the smoke will be thick - there's a jazz club here in town that I love to frequent because of the live music, but I can't because of the smoke. Now I know that smoke is part of a jazz club, but I still can't go.

I never object to people smoking in designated areas, but I resent the suggestions that I should just "hold my breath" when I'm trying to enter my place of work. Even if I do that, my hair and clothing will still stink, and that's really, really disgusting.

Futile Gesture

04-22-2002, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by brujo
Where would you propose that smokers go? We should be reasonable about these things.

Where should car racing enthusiasts go? Where should wrestling fans go? Where should those interested in S&M go? C'mon, let's be reasonable about things! There should be a race track, wrestling ring and dungeon in every place of work. Otherwise people will just have to put up with getting run down, pinned to the floor and whipped by a woman in leather on their way through the front door.

Many people have personal interests and hobbies that others might find annoying or even life-threatening. But only smokers seem to think theirs is a special case that should be catered for in every location.

lezlers

04-22-2002, 03:14 PM

Futile,
brujo was asking a legitimate question quite calmly, which everyone but you seemed to pick up on. Stop being an asshole.

alice_in_wonderland

04-22-2002, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by lezlers
Stop being an asshole.

I didn't think Futile was being an asshole - I think he raised a legitimate point - if you have a habit/hobby which others do not share, why should they be forced to be exposed to it? You're not allowed to drink in public, you're not allowed to practice S&M in public, you're not allowed to strut around naked save for a bandana on your schlong in public, why should smoking be any different?

(And yes, I know that in some places you can do all of these things, however in most urban areas you cannot.)

Futile Gesture

04-22-2002, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by lezlers
Futile,
brujo was asking a legitimate question quite calmly, which everyone but you seemed to pick up on. Stop being an asshole.

And I was, quite calmly, answering him by posing my own. What makes smoking a special case?

Got an answer for it, or just name calling?

yosemite

04-22-2002, 05:23 PM

you're not allowed to strut around naked save for a bandana on your schlong in public
WHAT?!?! You mean all those bandana-on-the-schlong guys I keep on seeing are really not allowed to do that in public? Damn.

Seriously, lezlers - what makes smokers so special? Frankly, I'd rather see more bandana-on-the-schlong guys, and less smelly smokers. Even an extremely unattractive guy with a bandana on his schlong would be prefereable - all I'd have to do is avert my eyes and not see him, or his bandana'd schlong. Not so easy ignore smelly cigarette smoke.

(I just wanted to see how many times I could fit "bandana" and "schlong" into one post...)

mnemosyne

04-22-2002, 05:45 PM

yosemitebabe - you missed the subject line... :)

I'm on the non-smokers side here. If you want to smoke, go ahead and smoke. Just please do it somewhere away from me.

I seems that a lot of (inconsiderate) smokers don't seem to want to recognize that that cloud of smoke around them is their doing -that cloud isn't there when you're not smoking, people!! And the smoke does travel, through windows and doorways, etc, into the lungs of people who want nothing to do with it. So just please, move away from the building, and away from the doors so that non-smokers now can CHOOSE TO AVOID YOU!!

There are some universities (I know of two in Ontario for sure) that ban smoking within 9 feet from doorways. No one listens, and fucking security doesn't seem to care. They will, however, tackle and ticket those healthy bikers who are biking on the grass, though, because THEY are a problem.... :rolleyes:

Monty

04-22-2002, 06:50 PM

What makes smokers a special case? Selfishness. Some smokers (not all, mind you) have to get their fix and they don't care what the consequences are to others.

SpazCat

04-22-2002, 07:10 PM

What makes smoking a more socially acceptable addiction than drinking or shooting up heroin or running down the street whacking people with sticks? Why should they have special rights to indulge themselves in public and force other people to share the byproducts of it? Dammit! (There hasn't been a good swear in this thread for a while.)

Brief hijack: What I'd like to know is if I'm really allergic to tobacco smoke itself or the chemicals added to cigarettes in processing. I'm inclined to believe it's the chemicals but I'd have to grow my own tobacco, dry it, and burn it to find out.

Turpentine

04-22-2002, 07:27 PM

You know what really gets to me?

It's all those fat people who all have BO....they always stink up the goddamn place, INDOORS, while the smokers have to go outside.

So fucking inconsiderate!

Like those people at Christian Colleges who threaten you with the Flaming Sword of Christ if you smoke or drink or dance.

alice_in_wonderland

04-22-2002, 08:00 PM

Um, what?

Futile Gesture

04-23-2002, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Turpentine
You know what really gets to me?

It's all those fat people who all have BO....they always stink up the goddamn place, INDOORS, while the smokers have to go outside.

So fucking inconsiderate!
[QUOTE]
A very poor analogy. Much as some smokers seem to have difficulty understanding where they stop and the cigarette starts, they are not, in actual fact, an indivisible part of their body. They do have the option to remove them from their lips.

Now you can have a go at fat, smelly people if you want. But some people do not have that much control over their size or their smell. They can't exactly leave their body at home.

And no-one's ever died from someone elses BO. Nor do you still smell like them long after you've parted company.

[quote]Like those people at Christian Colleges who threaten you with the Flaming Sword of Christ if you smoke or drink or dance.

And this is relevant because... ?

Turpentine

04-23-2002, 12:04 PM

:rolleyes:

Wow. You are absolutely right. How horrible of me to make fun of fat people and Christian people.

Your arguments are so astute that I'm going to hide away in shame now.

I was so very wrong.

Caffeine.addict

04-23-2002, 05:33 PM

Futile Gesture

I think that what makes smoking so special is the fact that there are more smokers out there than say, people who want to walk around buck naked.

According to the CDC, 23% of Americans are currently smokers. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5040a1.htm (http://) When you have that many people who not only wish to do something but are addicted to the point where they feel they must do it, they are going to do it. A reasonable compromise has been made in the sense that for the most part, people don't smoke in buildings, or public facilities.

Has anyone actually died from the effects of second hand smoke? Yes, it is inconvenient, but we all have to make compromises when functioning as a society.

Spazcat

If you really want to find out whether you are allergic to tobacco or the chemicals, have someone smoke an American Spirit around you. From what I recall, they have no chemical additives. They also taste strange compared to what other cigarettes taste like.

alice_in_wonderland

04-23-2002, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by brujo
Has anyone actually died from the effects of second hand smoke?

Yah, probably. And while I can't prove that's true, you can't prove it's not true.

Sooo - this is something that is a PROVEN bronchia-irritating, asthma inducing, allergen that MAY cause cancer.

Yes - I think I have the right to not have to ingest that, even if 23% of the people think it's a good time.

cmosdes

04-23-2002, 06:19 PM

Originally by alice_in_wonderland

And while I can't prove that's true, you can't prove it's not true.

Hypothesis:
Exhaled air from Canadians has killed people.

I can't prove it, but since you can't prove it isn't true, it will now be illegal for Canadians to breath near doorways. If nothing else, some may have bad breath or BO and who wants to smell that?

Carry on.

Turpentine

04-23-2002, 07:05 PM

*giggle*

This thread is silly.....

Gadarene

04-23-2002, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Eve
"Kinda of a problem" . . .

Gotcha ya!

Man, I love that joke. Hee hee hee...

alice_in_wonderland

04-23-2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by cmosdes

Hypothesis:
Exhaled air from Canadians has killed people.

I can't prove it, but since you can't prove it isn't true, it will now be illegal for Canadians to breath near doorways. If nothing else, some may have bad breath or BO and who wants to smell that?

Carry on.

See, but I CAN prove that 2nd hand smoke is an allergen, causes bronchial irritation, induces asthma attacks and smells really, really shity.

I don't think the same can be said for Canadian breath, even if the Canadian in question HAS been eating bacon all day...

cmosdes

04-23-2002, 09:28 PM

First, your argument above was about cancer, not these other factors.

Originally posted by alice_in_wonderland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by brujo
Has anyone actually died from the effects of second hand smoke?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yah, probably. And while I can't prove that's true, you can't prove it's not true.

I was pointing out (rather poorly, I guess) the weakness of this by using the same 'logic' to conclude that Canadiens shouldn't be allowed to breath. Implying you are right because you can't be proved wrong is probably not a good way to argue. You can deduce anything that way. I wasn't arguing in favor of second hand smoke, just against your justification for your argument. I had hoped that would be understood.

However, instead of that, it lead to the difference between breathing and smoking.

Originally by alice_in_wonderland

See, but I CAN prove that 2nd hand smoke is an allergen, causes bronchial irritation, induces asthma attacks and smells really, really shity.

I don't think the same can be said for Canadian breath, even if the Canadian in question HAS been eating bacon all day...

Okay, allergen reactions, et. al., might be legitimate arguments against smoking in doorways. Maybe. I can prove that peanuts are an allergen, cause bronchial irritation and induce asthma. Can't say anything about the smell, though, so I guess you have me there. Should we make eating peanuts near a doorway against the law, too? Or does the smell part make it different? See, here again I'm not *for* second hand smoke, just pointing out deficiencies in your argument with another example. We can debate the merits of the metaphor, but personally I'd rather not.

I'm against forced second hand smoke inhalation. I may even be more against it than you are. Don't get me wrong on that. But.. (there is always one of those, isn't there?), I can't let comments that imply you are right simply because you can't be proved wrong go by. I tried to point out the fallacy of that argument, but it looks like it is just going to lead to something else.

You made some good points in here. Stick with those and I'm right behind you. I certainly don't want to start to look like I'm *defending* smoking near doorways. I just can't stand to see fallacious arguments from either side. Particularly from the side I'm on! It debases the entire argument.

Caffeine.addict

04-23-2002, 10:15 PM

I'm not for second hand smoke, I just think we have to be reasonable. If keeping people from smoking in buildings means they are going to smoke near the doorways for the most part, then I'm all for it. In these kinds of situations, there is always going to have to be a compromise.

People are going to smoke no matter what. I would rather they go outdoors rather than sneek a smoke in the restroom or stink up a conference room. At the university setting, if they don't smoke outdoors they will simply use the study lounge in the dorm, or smoke in someones room. The trick is to find a reasonable accomodation.

cmosdes

04-23-2002, 11:06 PM

From brujo, with my changes (in parenthesis) :

People are going to smoke (have sex) no matter what. I would rather they go outdoors rather than sneek a smoke (tyst) in the restroom or stink up a conference room. At the university setting, if they don't smoke(have sex) outdoors they will simply use the study lounge in the dorm, or smoke (have sex) in someones room. The trick is to find a reasonable accomodation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some things are allowed, but are objectionable when forced upon others. So what is a reasonable accomodation? Seriously. Smokers, and those with little disdain for smoke, think smokers near doorways are no big deal. People like me think it is a big deal. Is it reasonable to expect smokers to simply be outside? Maybe. But not on the basis they are going to smoke anyway.

alice_in_wonderland

04-23-2002, 11:23 PM

cmosdes I didn't start the "2nd hand smoke causes cancer" argument, brujo did when s/he said:

Has anyone actually died from the effects of second hand smoke? Yes, it is inconvenient, but we all have to make compromises when functioning as a society.

In my opinion, implying that no had died. This is a common argument I've heard from smokers, but more irksome, from Big Tobacco. "You can't PROVE that 2nd hand smoke kills people, therefore it doesn't!"

I'm merely pointing out that while I may not be able to PROVE that 2nd hand smoke kills people, I CAN prove that it causes bronchial spasms, allergic reactions, asthma attacks, decreased breathing capacity in some people, etc. etc. etc. That should be enough of an argument right there.

Again, let me reiterate - I never oppose people smoking in those places denoted as smoke friendly, however, I should not have to wade through a sea of smokers, holding my breath, in order to go to work, wait for my bus, enter a municipal building, or go and get cancer treatment with my oxygen tank.

If people smoke in front of the doors to public buildings, the public is forced to inhale the left over sludge. Not cool, as far as I'm concerned.

cmosdes

04-24-2002, 12:22 AM

From alice_in_wonderland

cmosdes I didn't start the "2nd hand smoke causes cancer" argument, brujo did when s/he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone actually died from the effects of second hand smoke? Yes, it is inconvenient, but we all have to make compromises when functioning as a society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, implying that no had died. This is a common argument I've heard from smokers, but more irksome, from Big Tobacco. "You can't PROVE that 2nd hand smoke kills people, therefore it doesn't!"

But you argued against this by saying that since he can't prove it doesn't, it does! That is what I called you on, not whether or not it causes cancer. I believe you can find far more credible sources to support your argument than that.

From alice_in_wonderland

I CAN prove that it causes bronchial spasms, allergic reactions, asthma attacks, decreased breathing capacity in some people, etc. etc. etc. That should be enough of an argument right there.

If it ends it right there, what about peanuts? Peanuts can KILL.. in minutes.
Check out:

http://www.oma.org/phealth/peanuts.htm

and:

http://cgi.cadvision.com/~allergy/howmuch.html

In the second link, it states:

Peanuts are one of the most common foods to cause allergic reactions in both children and adults and are the most common cause of fatal food allergic reactions. In peanut allergic individuals, accidental ingestion of peanut products can produce any or all of the following symptoms: hives, itching or swelling of the mouth and throat, tightening of the throat, sneezing, chest tightness, cough, shortness of breath, stomach upset, vomiting, drop in blood pressure, loss of consciousness, and even death.

Which sounds just a tad worse than what you described in your reaction to second hand smoke. Sure, your reaction is bad, but not lethal (immediately, anyway.).

So how much do you need to injest for peanuts to be lethal? From the same site:

Microscopic quantities of peanuts may be enough to produce a reaction in some individuals.

So I ask again. Do we ban peanut eating near doorways because, as far as I can tell, some people have reactions that are at least as bad as yours to second hand smoke?

My points are thus:
1) Your argument that second hand smoke kills because it can't be shown it doesn't is erroneous, and that was my ONLY point way back when. I don't care who started it. Find better ways to back up claims. Cites would be nice. Credible ones.

2) For everything under the sun, I'm sure you can find people that have a reaction up to and including death. Hell, even the sun falls into that category. You can't ban things based simply on that. There would be nothing left.

So what is reasonable?

Originally from alice_in_wonderland

Again, let me reiterate - I never oppose people smoking in those places denoted as smoke friendly, however, I should not have to wade through a sea of smokers, holding my breath, in order to go to work, wait for my bus, enter a municipal building, or go and get cancer treatment with my oxygen tank.

If people smoke in front of the doors to public buildings, the public is forced to inhale the left over sludge. Not cool, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with this point of view. My original post said as much.
Originally from cmosdes:
Simply put, smoking where non-smokers have no choice but to inhale your smoke is just plain wrong.

See, if you had just said, "yeah, what he said" up front you could have saved me all this typing!

(I'll give a quarter to anyone who can guess what I do for a living.)

Caffeine.addict

04-24-2002, 12:45 AM

People are going to smoke (have sex) no matter what. I would rather they go outdoors rather than sneek a smoke (tyst) in the restroom or stink up a conference room. At the university setting, if they don't smoke(have sex) outdoors they will simply use the study lounge in the dorm, or smoke (have sex) in someones room. The trick is to find a reasonable accomodation.

If that what they're gonna do, then hey, more power to them.

I'm approaching this more on a accomodation of interests theory. As a society we have to accept the fact that some of the things that people do are going to irritate some other people. As such, cigarettes are legal, many people smoke them, some people don't like them, therefore lets try to find a compromise.

Alice

FWIW, I really was asking a question, I accept that cigarettes can cause cancer, that was one of the many reasons I quit several years ago. I also recall that there was a case that was a suit in Florida(?) a few years ago where a stewardess filed suit against an airline saying that exposure to second hand smoke had given her cancer. I was merely asking if there were any figures or research that stated that it did or did not.

alice_in_wonderland

04-24-2002, 12:56 AM

Listen, cmosdes, I'm actually allergic to peanuts too, so I can answer your question easily.

The difference between peanuts and smoking is that you can eat peanuts beside me, without me having to eat them too. You can't smoke beside me without the smoke finding it's way up my nose.

Now, I know that some people are so allergic to peanuts that a mere whiff will cause anaphylactic shock (thank God I'm not one of them) and I know of just such a case in the US where an elementary school went non-peanut because of a thus afflicted student.

Was this the right thing to do? Well, should a person's right to eat peanuts override another person's right to not die of anaphylactic shock? I don't think so, just as I don't think that a person's right to smoke should override another person's right to breath (relatively) clean air.

And let me guess - you're a....

birthday clown? :p

cmosdes

04-24-2002, 10:47 AM

When you sit next to someone eating peanuts, you ARE consumming some of what they consume. But it is in such trace amounts you don't notice. Someone else might not be so fortunate. Those trace amounts might be enough to send someone into shock. So I ask again, where do YOU draw the line. What do we ban? Where should it be banned?

I don't know how to say this without making you defensive, but please understand that is not my goal. I really am looking for clarification from you on your argument.

You say that smoking should be moved to places where you can completely control whether or not you come in contact with it. In other words, away from doors, public doorways, etc. On the other hand, peanuts can cause equally severe reactions in people, if not worse. It seems that in your third paragraph you are saying peanut eating in public *should* be banned because a person's right to not die from anaphylactic shock outweights another persons right to eat peanuts. That seems a tad over the line to me.

Smoking is a habit that people voluntarity take up. Cigarettes are notnaturally occurring nor does they really have any significant health benefits. When someone takes up the habit, they should take ownership of the fact others do not wish to share in it and be reasonable in trying to not share it. In other words, smoke in designated areas so others have a choice on whether or not to share the smoke.

Peanuts, on the other hand, are a naturally occurring, relatively healthy food source for many people. If someone has such severe reactions to peanuts such that they risk their very lives by coming in contact with it, I would suggest it is their duty to keep themselves from it, not society's duty to keep all peanuts away from them. That just seems absurd to me. We just can't protect everyone from everything.

Having said all that, this is a society and there MUST be give and take. Banning peanuts in an entire school for a single student seems a bit extreme to me. Banning peanut eating in doorways is outrageous. Banning smoking everywhere is equally outrageous. The habit is, afterall, still legal.

lurkernomore

04-24-2002, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by brujo

Has anyone actually died from the effects of second hand smoke? Yes, it is inconvenient, but we all have to make compromises when functioning as a society.

The EPA estimates 3000 per year.

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html

alice_in_wonderland

04-24-2002, 02:06 PM

Eh - you say tomato, I say tamato...

Regarding the peanut issue - a peanut allergy that is severe enough to send a person into anaphylactic shock from a mere whiff is a pretty rare thing. In cases where a person has such an allergy, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban peanut consumption on school property, and apparently this (http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/1125619/detail.html) school agrees with me, so I guess it's really not that outrageous.

Regarding smoking - here in Calgary, by 2008 all restaurants will have to have a separate, vented smoking room, assuming they want to allow smoking on the premises. Smoking in any public space or location, including doorways, walkways, etc. will be banned. Currently, smoking where minors have access is banned. I guess Calgary city council doesn't find that too outrageous either.

So - it seems that YOU find these things outrageous, but legislators and lawmakers do not.

Bully for me. (And you - your lungs will be happy. :) )

SpazCat

04-24-2002, 03:56 PM

Be warned: my bml coding skills are nonexistent at the moment.

From cmosdes:

"When you sit next to someone eating peanuts, you ARE consumming some of what they consume. But it is in such trace amounts you don't notice. "

My question:

How?

SpazCat

04-24-2002, 03:58 PM

Oh and I'd also like to add in regards to the second-hand smoke debate that my father quit smoking around me and my sisters because I started getting severe ear infections because of the second-hand smoke from his cigarettes. SHSmoke doesn't have to kill you to make your life a living hell.

cmosdes

04-24-2002, 04:27 PM

We can go back and forth on this for a long time, and personally, I'd rather not. I would still like to know what you consider reasonable. All you've done is point out places where smoking has been banned, but have not stated where you think banning should end. I'd really like to think what YOU find reasonable. I'm not talking about just smoking, either. You quite well pointed out that peanuts are next. Where does peanut banning end? What happens when the kid goes to a park or rides the bus or goes to city hall or a movie or anywhere else? Where do YOU draw the line? Or don't you? Should the world make way for this poor kid? Have everyone give up peanuts because someone is allergic?

Where I live, smoking is banned in all places of business, including restaurants and bars. There aren't even special smokers' rooms (that I know of, anyway). The world is quickly seeing things the way I stated earlier: you should never be forced to endure second hand smoke.

And DON'T get me started on how happy I am that the good fairy Alice is reaching her hand out to help me and knows what is best for me and my lungs. Fucking liberals think they know what is best for everyone.

Fact is, this is plain stupid. We both detest smoking and second hand smoke. We both want the choice on inhaling it or not inhaling it. We disagree on the lengths to which it should be controlled. You seem to believe the big, wonderful gov't should protect everyone from everything. Wonderful. I'm done.

SpazCat If you can smell it, you are at least partially ingesting it. If nothing else, I would also imagine that trace particles are in the air as the food is nibbled and broken and, likely, expelled as the person talks. I have no references and that is merely a supposition. Certainly cracking peanut shells is sending peanut fragments into the air. I do realize most peanut consumption is not done in this way, however.

alice_in_wonderland

04-24-2002, 11:48 PM

Whoa, cmosdes, relax.

Everyone is aloud to have an issue, mine happens to be smoking.

This is because:

1) I'm asthmatic. If you're not, you will not understand, but not being able to breathe really, really sucks. It's scary. You start to panic as you desperately try to get a breath of air. The more upset you get, the worse the attack becomes. Perhaps you become light headed (I do). Perhaps you pass out (I have). Perhaps you die. Yes folks - people can die from an uncontrolled asthma attack.

2) January, 2001, my grandmother, whom I was very close to - we talked 2 or 3 times a week and I visited her 3 or 4 times a year - started to get a pain in her side. She went to her Dr. and he gave her some antibiotics because it was an infection. It didn't get better. He gave her some Advil because it was arthritis. It didn't get better. He sent her to an orthopedic surgeon because it was osteoporosis. It didn't get better.

In May, 2001, my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer. Further investigation revealed that it had metastasized to her bowel, her liver and her bones. Now, I don't know if you know this, but bone cancer is probably one of the MOST painful ways a person can die. It hurts to walk. It hurts to move. It hurts to breathe. My grandmother was on a pain patch as well as shots of morphine every 4 hours and the pain was barely controlled. This is a woman who drove herself to the hospital, while in labour, to deliver my uncle. The bowel cancer caused blockages in her intestines. This caused food to get backed up – she spent a lot of time vomiting. And getting enemas. And having impacted feces removed from her – manually. The only fortunate thing is that the cancer had also metastasized to her liver and once cancer is in your liver, you don't live very long - for granny, about 4 months. By the end, the cancer had gone to her brain, so she was agitated, angry and delirious.

In September, 2001, my grandmother died. From smoking. She was 73.

Now, I'm thrilled that you think we're having a debate here, cmosdes. I'm also delighted that you think I'm a fucking liberal. However, I just need to point out that I might take the smoking issue a little more seriously than other folks. Once you've watched one of your best friends die a slow, hideous death from something, you're a little bit less inclined to pontificate about it.

So, cmosdes, how far do I think banning should go? All the way, of course. I think smoking should be against the law. Cigarettes don't even have any medicinally redeeming qualities like pot does. They just kill you. They make you stink. They make your kids sick. They make strangers sick. Apparently, they kill about 3000 people per year that don't even smoke. In my perfect little world, no one would smoke. No one would be at risk of hospitalization for an asthma attack induced by cigarettes and no one would have to watch their loved ones die because of smoking induced cancer.

Now, what was the point you were trying to make?

cmosdes

04-25-2002, 11:15 AM

Well, gee, alice, you didn't tell me someone had actually DIED from cigarette smoke. I mean, that just changes my entire argument altogether. And, worse, I didn't know it was someone close to you! You seem to think the you invalidated all arguments because you suffered. Fucking liberal.

If you can't understand the point I was making, go re-read. Then read again. You are so blinded by your obsession you don't see anything but what you want to see. You think you have suffered more than everyone else and that gives you some sort of right to demand this.

I really am very, truly sorry anyone has to go through what you went through. Not to be harsh, but did your grandmother chose to smoke or are we talking second hand smoke? If it was second hand smoke, was this something she was forced to endure because of where she worked, or was this due to another family member smoking around her? If she was a smoker, when did she quit? If it was another family member, then how about blaming the family member for exposing her, despite the warnings that are all over the place, instead of the big bad company. I won't make guesses as to which way it happened, but try looking inward before blaming everyone else. Waitresses who had to work through smoke filled bars have my sympathy. Smokers who smoked in the last 30 years do not.

People who try to stop chainsaws with their mouth should not complain if they get hurt. Period.

It is not my place, nor the government's, to protect you from everything and anything. Yes, I think you are a fucking liberal because you obviously feel that IS the role of the government. I personally want people to get a sense of individual responsibility. That is an ugly phrase for fucking liberals. For decades the perils of smoking have been known. Anyone that continues such a vile habit, knowing the risks, gets very little sympathy from me.

You seem to feel the government should tell us what we should and shouldn't do, because, I suppose, they know better. The government must be sure companies are being upfront with information about their products. If the company lies, they should be squashed. Period. The government should further ensure that your dirty habits don't infringe on me. Banning smoking in public places is okay. Banning them altogether is stupid. Treat people as adults, not little kids which need to be coddled by the big, wonderful government.

Now, let's try a few things again. First, I'm against smoking in public places where people are forced to go. Places of business fall into that category as people have to work. Yes, that includes bars and restaurants. People work there, too. It includes airports, bus stations, entranceways to buildings, and a whole slew of other places.

Second, I asked you where you stop the banning of EVERYTHING. Peanuts, cigaretts and everything else you can think of that people have a reaction to.

Go read again. Where does that Iowa town draw the line for the child? Fine, the school banned peanuts. Should every restaurant also ban peanut use in case he comes in? Should they be banned at parks and school events, such as sports when teams from other schools might come and bring peanuts? What about the rest of the US? He might want to travel.

alice, people suffer every single day from all kinds of things. Because things affect you adversly doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to accomdate you. It means that YOU (there is that individual responsibility thing again!) need to keep yourself from places and situations where adverse things are to be found. It is the government's job to be sure those places exist and you have that choice. It is NOT the role of government to be sure alice can go anywhere and not have to worry about anything.

Do you really, honestly, believe that banning smoking would stop it? Really?? I guess that would explain why drugs don't exist anymore.

Fucking liberal.

alice_in_wonderland

04-25-2002, 02:44 PM

cmosdes, why don't you go diddle yourself in a corner, ok?

In case you didn't notice, I'm not having a debate with you. I don't give a shit about what you think the government should or shouldn't do. This isn't great debates, ass hat, it's the pit. People come here to vent.

I vented and now you've decided I want to have some sort of debate about Oppressive Government Legislation? No, idiot. I want to vent.

I don't give a shit what you do. I don't give a shit who you are. I don't give a shit about your argument, 'cus guess what, shit-for-brains, I'm not arguing with you. I was minding my own business ranting about 2nd hand smoke and you decided to jump right in a question the cogency of my argument.

Fine, I haven't provided a valid enough argument for your liking. Well, as I said, I'm not in Great Debates, so I don't have to.

This is the pit. I can just come in here and say Fuck a lot if that's what turns my crank.

I tried to accommodate you - point out that we were agreeing on the issue, even offer a little levity in the mix, but you're bound and determined that we're going to have a debate.

"How far should the banning go, Alice?" "I really am looking for clarification from you on your argument, Alice.

Fine, so I told you. I oppose smoking. I oppose all smoking. I even told you why, despite that being a very difficult post to write. She only died 6 months ago you obnoxious, pompous, fuck. Perhaps I'm still a tad upset about it. You were kind enough to suggest it was her own damn fault. Nice. You know, cmosdes, you really put the "ass" in "class".

I hope you never have a loved one die like that. I hope you continue to live in your argumentative little world. And I hope they shrivel up and fall off, so you can never procreate, you arrogant, bowdlerizing, antagonizing, prick face.

Alice, the Fucking Liberal.

Lute Skywatcher

04-25-2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Quintas
It only takes maybe a half a sec to walk thru some smoke. How bout hold your breath. Sorry, that won't work. Or have you not noticed that smoke particles have a nasty habit of latching onto things like clothing and hair?

SpazCat

04-25-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by cmosdes
If you can smell it, you are at least partially ingesting it. If nothing else, I would also imagine that trace particles are in the air as the food is nibbled and broken and, likely, expelled as the person talks. I have no references and that is merely a supposition. Certainly cracking peanut shells is sending peanut fragments into the air. I do realize most peanut consumption is not done in this way, however.

:rolleyes: Wow, you've certainly convinced me. How could I have ever thought you were top-full of shit? I will immediately begin building a shrine to your wisdom and omnipotence.

lezlers

04-25-2002, 04:16 PM

cmodes,

i'm sure you're a fabulous lawyer....do i get my quarter now? :)

SkyKing

04-25-2002, 04:38 PM

Ahem...excuse me for a moment! After wading thru this thread from beginning to end, I gotta wipe that nicotine (at least that's what I think it is) off my shoes!

I just wanted to make a comment pertaining to the original complaint about someone smoking on the terrace. Smoking on terraces, especially in multi-story buildings, should be against the law for very different reasons! I've heard of buildings in my own town having caught on fire and which resulted in some deaths due to someone, who after smoking on a 5th story terrace, casually flicked his butt over the railing! Apparently, it was quite windy that day, and the wind blew the still lighted butt back onto another terrace a couple of stories down. The butt apparently landed on a blanket someone had left on his terrace.

And get this...if you are a college student living in a dorm in this country, you may or may NOT have fire-sprinklers installed! It's up to the discretion of the college to install them or not. At least, that is how it is here in Mass.

cmosdes

04-25-2002, 05:57 PM

From Alice:
In case you didn't notice, I'm not having a debate with you. I don't give a shit about what you think the government should or shouldn't do. This isn't great debates, ass hat, it's the pit. People come here to vent.

Sure looked like a debate to me. Sure looked like you were arguing whether it was right or not for people to smoke in doorways. But again, just supposition on my part. mea culpa.

From Alice -
I vented and now you've decided I want to have some sort of debate about Oppressive Government Legislation? No, idiot. I want to vent.

Fair enough. I hope you feel better.

From Alice:
I don't give a shit what you do. I don't give a shit who you are. I don't give a shit about your argument, 'cus guess what, shit-for-brains, I'm not arguing with you. I was minding my own business ranting about 2nd hand smoke and you decided to jump right in a question the cogency of my argument.

You were minding your own business? Making statements like "if you can't prove it wrong, it must be right". In the pit no less. You opened the can of worms, and were called on it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the pit BBQ Pit, I might add. As in your ass was flamed. oh wait, that's right. No comments on your appearence because you don't want people to notice you. So much so you post pictures of yourself.

From Alice:
Fine, I haven't provided a valid enough argument for your liking. Well, as I said, I'm not in Great Debates, so I don't have to.

This is the pit. I can just come in here and say Fuck a lot if that's what turns my crank.

And with as much coherency as a 4 year old.

From Alice -
I tried to accommodate you - point out that we were agreeing on the issue, even offer a little levity in the mix, but you're bound and determined that we're going to have a debate.

I can only imagine that when you say you pointed out we were agreeing you are referring to your 'tomato tamato' comment. Well, go back and check. TWICE prior to that I said we were on the same side. Learn to read. Better yet, learn to comprehend.

From alice
"How far should the banning go, Alice?" "I really am looking for clarification from you on your argument, Alice.

Fine, so I told you. I oppose smoking. I oppose all smoking. I even told you why, despite that being a very difficult post to write. She only died 6 months ago you obnoxious, pompous, fuck. Perhaps I'm still a tad upset about it. You were kind enough to suggest it was her own damn fault. Nice. You know, cmosdes, you really put the "ass" in "class".

I asked about banning in all areas, not just smoking. You have ignored that several times now. Feel free to continue that.

You will never, ever believe me, but you really do have my condolences on your loss. For all you know, I've lost SEVERAL very close people to ways very similar. But maybe, just maybe, we face it differently. Doesn't mean it didn't hurt me any less than you, what it does mean is that I don't blame others.

from alice
I hope you never have a loved one die like that.

too late

from alice
I hope you continue to live in your argumentative little world.

With sunshine on my shoulder.

from alice
And I hope they shrivel up and fall off, so you can never procreate, you arrogant, bowdlerizing, antagonizing, prick face.

Feel better? Oh good.

Can we be friends now?

cmosdes

04-25-2002, 06:01 PM

lezlers Nice guess, but no. The professions are compared in my circles, however.

spazcat marble is good, gold is to audacious. I know the argument was weak, but to be honest, for a pit argument, I had little desire to do a full periodical review of airbore particles. I would think the suppositions would stand without a gov't research grant to determine ppm. If it didn't meet your requirements, fine. I suppose that when someone tells you the it is warm outside you need a full certified report from the weather bureau.

SpazCat

04-25-2002, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by cmosdes
I suppose that when someone tells you the it is warm outside you need a full certified report from the weather bureau.

Actually all I require in that case is a look out the window and maybe a second to touch the screen to check the temperature. I spend all day at my job discerning last-minute-maybe-this-will-get-by bullshit from actual facts though and I can tell the difference between the two. Perhaps if your suppositions had some corroborating evidence I'd be more inclined to believe you.

SkyKing, the dorms are like that where I live. The fraternity and sorority houses are required by law to have sprinkler systems, but not the state-owned dormitories. How's that for justice?

cmosdes

04-25-2002, 10:34 PM

SpazCat I gotta admit, those suppositions could be pretty weak, but I didn't think they were THAT weak. YMMV. What seems pretty solid to some could seem pretty weak to others. I agree, I should have put up facts instead of suppositions had I really wanted to force that portion of the debate. But given the fact I thought it wasn't too outrageous a supposition and the fact this is a pit debate, I had no such desires. Thanks for calling me on it, though.

alice_in_wonderland

04-25-2002, 10:41 PM

Jesus Christ, I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch. "We're having an argument!" "No we're not!" "Yes we are!"

Next cmosdes is going to try to convince me that my grandmother isn't actually dead, she’s just resting her eyes.

Ok cmosdes you win. I agree with all your arguments. You were right from the beginning, and honestly, I really AM a fucking liberal. I have a membership card and everything - they gave it to me after all my volunteer hours with the Cancer Society, actually. I hope when I grow up I can be as smart as you. Maybe, if I study really, really hard, I could be a lawyer too. And maybe, just maybe, if I'm good, and I keep my fingers crossed I will be as good a debater as you are. Heck - you can have a debate by yourself, your so skilled. So please, continue.

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 08:52 AM

Alice, I can't for the life of me figure out where your posts come from. I agreed that I miscontrued this as an argument/debate,a nd I get told I'm still arguing. Earlier, you said your views are your business, but you put them on the INTERNET. Wow, talk about a private person. And just how private? You share the intimate details, humiliating details, of how her grandmother died. How do you think your grandma would feel if she read in a place for all the world to see the worst details of her disease?

If I were your grandma, I'd certainly pretend to be resting every time you came around. Hell, I'd go through all that other shit just to get away from you. Who wants a granddaughter that wears the pain and suffering of a grandparent as a martyr badge and expects the world to feel sorry for her.

Wow! Baseless attacks on the net are fun! Thanks for showing me such things. Maybe, just maybe, when I grow up I can be like you, too! Of course, I'll be friendless, too, just like you, because I'd be inclined to share their lives with everyone on the net, and call it being a private person. Just how many cats do you own? I'm guessing at least 3.

alice_in_wonderland

04-26-2002, 09:25 AM

cmosdes I know that you think you're demonstrating your superior debating skills. Perhaps you are.

I also know you think I'm wingy. In fact, I AM wingy. For some people, that is half my charm, and I make no apology for it.

But I have to say, even the most seasoned pit denizen is gonna concede that when a person talks about there recently dead grandma and how upsetting it was, attacking that person, stating that the death was granny's own fault, and going on to say that person was somehow trying to benefit from that death is a pretty tacky thing to do.

Classless, I would say.

Heck, I would go so far as to say it was the hallmark of a Jerk.

And incidentally, what exactly do you have against cat owners? I myself do not have any, due to my allergies (I have bunnies (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81117&highlight=rabbits));however, I do know there are other cat owners on the site - did you something to say to them?

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 09:50 AM

Alice - It must be great to be the knower of all things. I mean, you know what I'm thinking and my motivations! Wow! Can you tell what I'm thinking now? I knew you could.

But not only do you know what I'm thinking, you know what everyone else is thinking: "even most seasoned pit denizen....". Or were you just elected spokesman for the entire pit? I hadn't heard. I'm sure everyone else here appreciates you speaking for them.

So let's recap a little. Earlier, according to you, I stongly suggested it was your grandma's fault. Now, it is stating. Bravo, Alice, you have a knack for warping things to your own benefit.

And while I'm at it, whose fault is it?? Did someone put a gun to her head and force her to smoke? Hmm? Fucking liberal. "Waa, it isn't my fault! I put the bullet in the gun, put the gun in my mouth, pulled the trigger and it hurt me! Where is the gov't to help me! Waa! Waa! Waa!"

This is the pit, honey bunny. As I said earlier, you rolled out that story as a neat little badge of martyrdom. I nearly fell off my seat laughing with your last line from that post, "Now, what was the point you were trying to make?" You CLEARLY were saying is that your sad story trumps all other arguments. The mark of a martyr, and you play it oh so well.

I said nothing about cat owners. But you do get great marks for again twisting things around. Wonderful, wonderful performance. Truly, I'm humbled by your knack to do this.

Let's review, class, okay? "If p then q does NOT mean you can then say if q then p." For example, "If billy lives in Seattle, he lives in Washington" does not mean you can say "If billy lives in Washington he lives in Seattle." I'm going slow here for you, Alice. Try to keep up, okay? But you probably stopped reading when I got to the really big words like "martyr". If I say, "Alice is a friendless, witless, martyr who will end up owning lots of cats" does not mean "people who own lots of cats are friendless, witless martyrs."

True, in your case you don't have cats. But you said yourself you would if you didn't have allergies. I hope I get extra credit for knowing that.

alice_in_wonderland

04-26-2002, 10:00 AM

Wow. You really are a jerk.

Please, continue...

kabbes

04-26-2002, 10:07 AM

Good Lord, this turned nasty...

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 10:16 AM

Standing applause for that one! Encore! Encore! I love the way you make personal attacks instead of talking about the points.

Wonderful, wonderful stuff. No wonder you are alone! (Wow, this is fun AND easy!).

I'm out. Have fun, and I'm sure I'll see you around the boards.

Lute Skywatcher

04-26-2002, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by cmosdes
Standing applause for that one! Encore! Encore!That's applause? Sounds more like crickets chriping.

alice_in_wonderland

04-26-2002, 11:44 AM

cmosdes, something occurred to me while I was driving to my office.

Why exactly have you chosen ME to demonstrate your fabulous debating skills on?

I'm not really much of a debater, nor do I profess to be. In fact, a brief search of my posting record will reveal mostly threads about my bunnies (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81117&highlight=rabbits) and nudity (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=96113&highlight=naked). I wasn't even trying to start a debate when I posted here - I just really hate smoking.

I think, when considering my board "persona", most of my fellow posters would not really describe me as a "debater". "Fun" perhaps. "Wingy" probably. And yes, probably "liberal" - I'm still not sure why you think that's an insult.

So, to my question. Why me? Because I'm an easy target - which clearly I am? I'm about as useful at debate as a one-legged man is at an ass-kicking contest. Are you scared to go over to Great Debates and take on tomndebb or Scyla or December or Sua Sponte or zev steinhardt? They're all quite seasoned debaters - much more skilled than me - or is that the problem? You're afraid that you won't be able to match them? You thought you'd start out with an easy target?

I have to give you a tip though - I know that when your a newby, there's a tendency to jump right in and try to prove your skills - but, if you want to prove how fabulous your arguments are, I'm probably not the poster to do it on.

Really, I'm interested in you motivation. Do I remind you of an ex that laughed at your willy or something?

Do tell.

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 12:58 PM

alice - I started the personal attacks by calling you a fucking liberal. I furthered them with other baseless comments that I probably shouldn't have made. I'm sorry about that. You have called me lots of things, including now trying to insult my willy. Obviously you like to argue as much as I do.

I didn't come here to pick on you. I had no intention of picking a fight with anyone, let alone someone I was agreeing with. But you know what? Even people I agree with can have baseless arguments when they use really ugly 'logic' like what got me started on this. I tried to point out the flaw in that logic and it spiraled from there.

I had nothing to prove, and nothing was I scared about. My initial point was rather clear, I thought (I was wrong), and never intended to argue that Canadian breath is associated with death. It was a satire of your argument, not intended to get me into all this.

I sincerely hope that answers your question about motivation. If it doesn't, I'll try to clarify if I can.

So, you can make all the claims you want about my motivation and thoughts and even psychological scars from previous sexual encounters. The truth is, I don't care. I honestly think it makes you look desparate. I'd rather not keep this going in that vein. Rather, I'd like to say I should have been more clear that I disagreed with your 'logic' earlier, and if things still went on from there, I shouldn't have started name calling.

I started it, and I'll let you finish it.

yosemite

04-26-2002, 06:26 PM

I've been mostly lurking on this thread for a while, and I have to add my 2 cents.

cmodes - you'd have to have been a complete dolt to not know that you'd be crossing the line by suggesting (nay, even lightly hinting) that alice's grandma was "to blame" for her suffering, or that she somehow brought it upon herself. It's just TOTALLY the wrong time to say that. No good would come of it, and as you can see, no good did come of it. You don't say that to someone who is grieving over their dear grandma, who suffered way, way TOO much.

Alice is feeling a great deal of emotion, as would any of us if we were in her situation, about the death of her grandma. You should have just left it alone. Don't go there, buddy.

If I were you, I'd apologize for that, and then go find someone to spar with in GD. And always, always remember to leave peoples' dead loved ones out of the debate.

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 07:14 PM

yosemite

04-26-2002, 07:35 PM

yosemitebabe That thud you heard was my jaw hitting the floor. I did offer an olive branch by saying I should not have started the name calling and let it spiral from there. But what really got me was the sage advice of leaving loved ones out of debates being directed at me.
Yeah, it was directed at you.

She lost her grandmother, not you. She's the one mourning the loss of a grandmother, she's the one who saw her grandmother suffering. She brings up her grandmother, in a highly emotional way. So - what to do? LEAVE IT ALONE, that's what you should do. LEAVE IT ALONE. Merely say "I'm sorry about your grandmother" and then LEAVE IT ALONE. If you are not sure you can say something comforting or helpful, LEAVE IT SO ALONE.

You may privately think any manner of things about alice for bringing up her grandmother on this board, but publicly, you LEAVE IT ALONE. No good will come of you saying one iota, one molecule of a whisp of a criticism against her dear, departed grandma. Not ONE good thing will come of that. And see? No good came of it, did it? Do you think anything good came from it? I am not talking about alice bringing up her grandma, I am talking about how you reacted to her bringing up her grandma.

It's good that you said that you shouldn't have brought up the name-calling, and I can see that you were trying to (kind of) mend fences. But, one universal truth that I have learned - when someone brings up a departed relative (especially a recently departed relative) is that you LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't criticize the dear departed. Say something sympathetic, and then don't touch it. You didn't do that.

Have you ever lost a loved one? I have. I didn't need to hear my dead loved one discussed in such a way, especially right after I lost that person. It's not useful, or helpful. It doesn't fricking matter if it's "the truth" or if "I didn't mean it that way". It's just a useless comment to make. My gosh, some people need to learn to shut up about such things.

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 08:14 PM

Okay, yosemitebabe, I get your point. I'll try this one more time. I'm *not* an insensitive jerk. On the contrary. Despite what a great many might be thinking.

If she had not said, "Now, what was that point you were trying to make?", things would be much different. That line disgusted me. Using the suffering of a loved one as a badge of honor is repulsive. She brought it up in an emotional way right up until I read that line. After that, it went from emotional to functional. Now I'm the bad guy.

To answer your question, yes, I've lost several loved ones. But I don't go around sharing their pain and suffering with strangers on public bulletin boards for all the world to see.

Your point is clear: NO MATTER WHAT, walk away.

My point is equally clear: If you intend to gain from someone else's pain and suffering, you will get flamed. Gaining like that is a wrong thing to do. I'm not talking about just mentioning what happened on a board, I'm talking about using it as an emotional blackmail tool, which is exactly what she did.

yosemite

04-26-2002, 09:25 PM

My point is equally clear: If you intend to gain from someone else's pain and suffering, you will get flamed. Gaining like that is a wrong thing to do. I'm not talking about just mentioning what happened on a board, I'm talking about using it as an emotional blackmail tool, which is exactly what she did.

But you see, that what she did won't universally be seen as that. I think she was distraught, and brought up her personal pain because she was distraught. You see her motives as something different. You are entitled to interpret her motives that way, but still, I ask you - did anything good come from you saying anything negative about her grandma? No, I don't see that anything good came of it.

Don't you think that you could have discussed this issue without dissing her grandma (even a little) in the process? If you think she used grandma as "emotional blackmail", then don't discuss her grandma. Leave grandmother out of it. It takes two to play that game.

alice_in_wonderland

04-26-2002, 09:47 PM

Ok, seeing as how this is my dead grandma we're discussing, perhaps I shall join the discussion, ummm, K?

cmosdes, despite what you may think - I'm not trying to debate you. I never was. I hate smoking. I said that I hate smoking - a lot.

brujo asked "Has anyone died of 2nd hand smoke anyway?"

To which I replied "probably". Now, that's not really a persuasive argument. I know that. It wasn't meant to be a persuasive argument.

If you read, I went on to say that 2nd hand smoke has probably killed some people, but it has DEFINATELY made some people pretty miserable with asthma, allergies, etc. etc., which, in my opinion, is enough of a reason that people shouldn't be forced to exposed to it by inconsiderate strangers.

So then you introduce a bizarre comment about Canadian breath. Had you been upset with my argument, you probably should have said - "Alice that argument blows goats" at which point I would have clarified.

In face, when I typed "Yah, probably. And while I can't prove that's true, you can't prove it's not true." I thought to myself -

"Self - that's not a cogent argument."

To which I replied

"True, but this is The Pit, not Great Debates, so it doesn't have to be cogent."

However, you had that Canadian thing going, so I tried to clarify my point:

See, but I CAN prove that 2nd hand smoke is an allergen, causes bronchial irritation, induces asthma attacks and smells really, really shity.

Then you said:

First, your argument above was about cancer, not these other factors.

Actually, what I said was:

Sooo - this is something that is a PROVEN bronchia-irritating, asthma inducing, allergen that MAY cause cancer.

That was my entire argument, right there. "Those other factors" seem to play a pretty key role in my argument - coming first and all. I would have thought that the whole "PROVEN" sort of added emphasis as well.

So you went on to say that you'd done a crappy job of pointing out my non-cogent argument. Great. You then went on to say:

Okay, allergen reactions, et. al., might be legitimate arguments against smoking in doorways. Maybe. I can prove that peanuts are an allergen, cause bronchial irritation and induce asthma. Can't say anything about the smell, though, so I guess you have me there. Should we make eating peanuts near a doorway against the law, too?

You also suggested that such legislation would be "outrageous".

And I pointed out that someone had beaten you to the legislation:

Regarding the peanut issue - a peanut allergy that is severe enough to send a person into anaphylactic shock from a mere whiff is a pretty rare thing. In cases where a person has such an allergy, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban peanut consumption on school property, and apparently this school agrees with me, so I guess it's really not that outrageous.

Also:

So - it seems that YOU find these things outrageous, but legislators and lawmakers do not.

Then, if I recall correctly, you called me a:

Fucking liberal

and went on to add:

And DON'T get me started on how happy I am that the good fairy Alice is reaching her hand out to help me and knows what is best for me and my lungs.

In an attempt to justify why I might have an interest in you and your lungs, I shared the much publicized story about my grandmother.

As a little FYI - my grandma started smoking when she was about 19. Doctors still told people that smoking was an excellent way to relax, back in the '40's. She quit in 1978 - about the time that all the ill effects of smoking were really becoming known and publicized. So, actually - she quit 26 years ago, which I realize is slightly under your *30 year window, but hey - cut the gal some slack - a 30 year habit is hard to break even if it is bad for you.

Now, my story was pretty graphic, to which you take exception. Fine, you're allowed to. However, this is The Pit - probably the perfect place for graphic stories. You've suggested that I'm attempting to somehow gain by my grandmothers death, because I told the details. What you couldn't have known, is that my grandmother was violently opposed to smoking when she died, and was confident that the horror she was going though was caused by her smoking, all those years earlier, before the negative effects were known. One of the many times I was visiting and talking with her, she told me that no one should have to suffer like she was. In fact she said that perhaps if people knew what kind of suffering was in store for them if they smoked, they would never start. Now, granny didn't actually say "Post my story on a message board", but she did tell me that if I saw young people smoking, I should tell them what she went through. I'm willing to bet that there are some young people on this board - perhaps even reading this thread. I hope that if any of them read what happened to my grandma, they will think twice about smoking - I know that's not really human nature, but if it works, my grandma will be happy.

Ok, so that's why I posted about my grandma.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, that's when you said:

Not to be harsh, but did your grandmother chose to smoke or are we talking second hand smoke? <snip> If she was a smoker, when did she quit? <snip>I won't make guesses as to which way it happened, but try looking inward before blaming everyone else. <snip> Smokers who smoked in the last *30 years do not.

See, now, that made me really, really mad. When my grandmother found out about how bad smoking was, she quit.

Regardless of that, the fact still remains that even if my grandmother had smoked up until the day she died, and even if it was her fault, you were totally and completely obnoxious in suggesting it at that point. Insensitive. Rude. Grossly out of line. It was despicable, as far as I'm concerned. Wait until a person has exposed a recent wound to their psyche and then kick them when they're down. Like I said - all class. :rolleyes:

Oh, I'm pretty sure you ranted about "fucking liberals" a bit after that as well.

Now, why, exactly is being a liberal a bad thing? Yes, I think gays should have the right to marry. Yes, I'm pro choice. Yes, I support gun control. So what? There are lots of people on these boards that agree with me. How do any of those things make me unaware of personal responsibility? I certainly never suggested that I was in favor of the litigious behaviour so common in the US. I was as stunned as everyone else when that silly woman received such a huge settlement from McDonalds for spilling her coffee on herself. I never suggested that I was going to sue the to tobacco companies on behalf of my dead grandma either.

I just really don't think people should smoke. I told you why - in apparently too much detail for your liking. It's my opinion - honestly, I don't care if you agree with me or don't agree with me - it's just my opinion.

I'm really not interested in debating with you. Like I said, unless I really put my mind to it, and devote more time to the boards than I like, I not very good at it. yosemitebabe is right - you SHOULD go play in Great Debates.

Finally, I really have no animosity towards you - this is a message board, and you didn't KILL my grandma - you just belittled her death. As far as I'm concerned, that makes you kind of a rotten person, but so what? I'm certain that my opinion - a complete stranger- doesn't mean very much to you, and it shouldn't. For me, all it means is that there's one more jerk in the world - ok, I'm a student of human behaviour - I know there are jerks in the world. It just makes me a little bit sad whenever I have the misfortune to meet one.

That is all. Please, feel free to flame me now. You seem to have developed quite a taste for it.

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 10:09 PM

From yosemitebabe
But you see, that what she did won't universally be seen as that. I think she was distraught, and brought up her personal pain because she was distraught. You see her motives as something different.

It won't be seen that way universally, no. That implies there are those that will, though. And maybe, in my dream world, a few that are reading this now will understand my explanation and think that maybe, just maybe I might have something. But then again, maybe not. To be honest, I'm really very comfortable with what happened. Except for the name calling, of course.

You are entitled to interpret her motives that way, but still, I ask you - did anything good come from you saying anything negative about her grandma? No, I don't see that anything good came of it.

No, nothing good. On that we agree. I still see her as holding out that story like a shield, and then dismissed me and my views as insignificant because she had suffered. If you don't agree she did that, no problem. If you can see where I could reasonably interpret it that way, we may have gotten somewhere. Why is it so easy to see her motives but not mine?

Don't you think that you could have discussed this issue without dissing her grandma (even a little) in the process? If you think she used grandma as "emotional blackmail", then don't discuss her grandma. Leave grandmother out of it. It takes two to play that game.

As I've said, I could not let that go just like I could not let her get away with "I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove I'm right." Her bringing up grandma was her idea, not mine. And she did it with motives I find completely reprehensible, at least in my interpretation of what she did.

I completely and totally respect the grieving process and all it entails. Many people find themselves talking about their losses in places they never dreamed, especially when they are reminded of those losses. Reading her post I felt for her. I really did. Until suddenly my view of her use of that story changed for me completely.

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 10:27 PM

alice - Thanks for the great response. You helped clarify a lot of things. Obviously my view of what transpired is a little different, but not enough to want to go through it all. You can read what I have been writing recently and probably put together the pieces of where I was coming from.

WITHOUT going into details, I don't think liberals are a bad thing. I agree with a fair number of issues you talked about (although anyone that reads the full information about the McDonald's case may change their minds). I think fucking liberals are bad. People who think the gov't should protect all people at all times. Your comments led me to think of you that way.

You are as guilty as I for a taste for flaming.

alice_in_wonderland

04-26-2002, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by cmosdes
You are as guilty as I for a taste for flaming.

You know cmosdes, I don't think you're off the hook that easily. I did a bit of name calling, perhaps disparaged your privates a little bit.

You, on the other hand, judged me, were ignorant to me, and acted insensitive to me, based on what YOU thought my feelings and motives might be.

You certainly never asked my motives - you assumed you knew what my motives were and assumed they were evil.

Well they weren’t. You insulted me for having concern about those around me and then insulted me for telling you why I did.

In any case - what were YOUR motives? What morally high-brow meaning are you going to try to assign to this:

Originally posted by cmosdes.
If I were your grandma, I'd certainly pretend to be resting every time you came around. Hell, I'd go through all that other shit just to get away from you.

What motivated that?

cmosdes

04-26-2002, 11:51 PM

alice - For someone that came here just to vent, you really, really are starting to push things. But given my previous indiscretions, you've earned an explanation or two.

From alice
You, on the other hand, judged me, were ignorant to me, and acted insensitive to me, based on what YOU thought my feelings and motives might be.

I had no other explanation for your statement dismissing all other arguments. If you can profer one, feel free. It won't change anything, though, and only give an explanation to something that was obviously wildly misunderstood. My interpretation was not an unreasonable interpretation, in my opinion. YMMV. See dealer for details. Void where prohibited or taxed. Not available in all areas.

From alice
You certainly never asked my motives - you assumed you knew what my motives were and assumed they were evil.
Yep. Guilty as charged. Again, I had no other explanation. And I did try to find one. I couldn't believe someone would do what I thought you had done.

From alice:
You insulted me for having concern about those around me and then insulted me for telling you why I did.
No, I insulted you for having concern for me; for pretending to presume to know what is best for me.

From alice:
In any case - what were YOUR motives? What morally high-brow meaning are you going to try to assign to this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cmosdes.
If I were your grandma, I'd certainly pretend to be resting every time you came around. Hell, I'd go through all that other shit just to get away from you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What motivated that?

Location: Pit. Objective: Flame on.

You fired, I fired. Once again you ridiculed me by saying something like, "next you'll be telling me my grandma is just resting her eyes." I fired back.

alice_in_wonderland

04-27-2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by cmosdes
You fired, I fired. Once again you ridiculed me by saying something like, "next you'll be telling me my grandma is just resting her eyes." I fired back.

Dude - that's a Monty Python sketch (http://www.pythonet.org/pet-shop.html) only their's features a dead parrot.

About half way down:

Owner : Oh yes, the, ah, the Norwegian Blue... What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline : I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.

Owner : No, no, 'e's ah... he's resting.

Mr. Praline : Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner : No no, h-he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!

Mr. Praline : Restin'?

Owner : Y-yeah, restin.' Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't it, eh? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline : The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead!

Owner : Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

etc, etc, etc

cmosdes

04-27-2002, 12:33 AM

dudette- In the vein you used the reference it did not appear (to me) to be stricly a Monty Python humorous interjection. In other words, it appeared to be at least partially another shot. As I said, I fired back.

Unless there are no more questions, it is time for me to bid a find adieu. As I said, I'll see you around the boards. Can't wait to see what happens if we find something we disagree on.

alice_in_wonderland

04-27-2002, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by cmosdes
dudette- In the vein you used the reference it did not appear (to me) to be stricly a Monty Python humorous interjection. In other words, it appeared to be at least partially another shot. As I said, I fired back.

Again, finding nefarious intent where none exists.

I think you must *work with criminals too much. :)

*N.B. For the humour impaired - that was a joke. Ha Ha. Funny, funny. He's a lawyer. Works with criminals. See?

cmosdes

04-27-2002, 12:44 AM

Sorry, alice, I'm not a lawyer.

Forgive me for seeing nefarious intent after having my willy insulted twice and a whole slew of other insults flung at me.

Wikkit

04-27-2002, 12:52 AM

alice- what gets you into these things? cmosdes seems to be quite a bit brighter than SkyKing, but otherwise the threads are amazingly similar...

alice_in_wonderland

04-27-2002, 01:01 AM

Wikkit I really don't know what happened here. I've been really overworked lately and wandered into the pit to relax a little.

DOH!

cmosdes

04-27-2002, 01:03 AM

cmosdes tags wikkit and says, "I'm OUTTA here. Your turn."

alice_in_wonderland

04-27-2002, 01:04 AM

Relax. I'm done. I was done a long time ago...

lezlers

04-27-2002, 01:22 AM

Ya got someone who agrees with you cmosdes. I could see your motivations, although I think you could have cut Alice's grandma a little slack...that WAS a bit on the harsh side. by the way, what DO you do? You're mighty secretive about it....CIA?

Alice, you get upset at cmosdes for arguing with you, but you instigate it. He apologizes and you just keep coming back. You've insulted him just as much as he insulted you, and i'm sorry but you WERE using your grandmothers story to invalidate cmosdes's argument, which left it open to critisism. While this ISN'T great debates, you still should be required to give SOME logical back up information to any statement you make. That's just good communication. I just think that you should never say anything that you aren't prepared to back up, no matter what situation you're in, especially on a message board though. But please smile, because your grandmother's story made a big impact in my recently quitting smoking :) wish me luck. It's day 6.

lezlers

04-27-2002, 01:28 AM

alice_in_wonderland

04-27-2002, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by lezlers
He apologizes and you just keep coming back.

He's never applogized. In fact, he's said numerous times that he doesn't need to applogize.

But please smile, because your grandmother's story made a big impact in my recently quitting smoking :) wish me luck. It's day 6.

::):):)HORRAY!! This is great news! Good luck! :):):):)

cmosdes

04-27-2002, 11:48 AM

from alice
He's never applogized. In fact, he's said numerous times that he doesn't need to applogize

from cmosdes:
alice - I started the personal attacks by calling you a fucking liberal. I furthered them with other baseless comments that I probably shouldn't have made. I'm sorry about that. You have called me lots of things, including now trying to insult my willy. Obviously you like to argue as much as I do.

No, no apology for the grandma comments. I won't rehash why.

alice_in_wonderland

04-27-2002, 12:06 PM

And interestingly, it was only the grandma comments that needed an apology.

Oh well. Enough of this - I'm getting back to work.

Turpentine

04-27-2002, 05:29 PM

Alice, you worry me....

You said that you came up with an argument against that other guy "while driving to work".....

My god, how sad. How much time during the day do you spend thinking about the Straight Dope?
It's so important to you that you have to tell people how much it sucks to have people comment on your appearance and then you post pictures of yourself? Eeck...

Is the Straight Dope so important to you that you have to bring up your dead grandmother in order to win an argument?

It just seems tacky to me to do a thing like that. If I could write as well as cmosdes, I would make fun of you too.

cmosdes

04-28-2002, 11:44 AM

lezlers and Turpentine -

Thanks to both of you for the vote of confidence that I wasn't too far out of line.

For those curious, I'm an engineer. I wasn't trying to be secretive about it. I also wondered how many people would know the "cmos" part of my name.

Turpentine

04-28-2002, 12:31 PM

I dunno....it's been a day and I read back what I wrote.

Damn, I sound really mean even for the Pit, despite the lack of swearing.

I think what I said was irrelevant and very uncalled for, and I would like to take it back, if I could. I'm a bit ashamed of myself.

I'm sorry.

catsix

04-29-2002, 01:09 PM

Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, non?

I'm also an engineer, and I also understand why you brought up the grandma thing that you did.

I wouldn't slam alice's grandma, but I do think that using someone's suffering and death to try to make a point on a message board shows extreme disrespect for the deceased party's life.

So you were right, some people would see where you were coming from with that one.

Kiki

04-29-2002, 03:05 PM

(Bolding Mine)Originally posted by alice_in_wonderland
So, cmosdes, how far do I think banning should go? All the way, of course. I think smoking should be against the law. Cigarettes don't even have any medicinally redeeming qualities like pot does. They just kill you. They make you stink. They make your kids sick. They make strangers sick. Apparently, they kill about 3000 people per year that don't even smoke. In my perfect little world, no one would smoke. No one would be at risk of hospitalization for an asthma attack induced by cigarettes and no one would have to watch their loved ones die because of smoking induced cancer.

Pretty weak arguements to me and 3,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke (if that's even true) doesn't sound too high to me. It seems drunk driving (http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html) kills more people each year than 2nd hand smoke. So why don't we ban alcohol completely? It's a more socially acceptable habit than smoking, I know, but it kills a helluva lot more people each year... most of those people innocent victims of the drunk behind the wheel. You ever known anyone killed by a drunk driver? I've lost a few friends this way. It's every bit as painful as you losing your grandmother to cancer. You'd think that people wouldn't drink and drive knowing that it killed more than 15,000 (http://www.dekalbstarteam.com/news1.htm) people last year... but they still do. Putting a ban on everything that pisses off other people isn't the answer. Everything in the fucking world would be banned then because someone's always going to be bitching about something whether it's smoking, drinking, BO, bad breath, dog poop... whatever's out there that you don't like.