Tobacco should be outlawed in all public places

[LeftFootRightFoot]

I'm an atheist who strongly believes in personal freedoms, so naturally I think the current anti-drug climate in North America is a bit silly. That goes with the belief that if you're stupid enough to smoke 5 packs a day for 20 years, that's your right. But when your rights get in the way of my right to breathe, then fuck off please.

I have cystic fibrosis and asthma, so it's hard enough to breathe anyways. But when I breathe in tobacco smoke it makes me gag on cough up a storm, even a little triggers it. Same with pot, it actually makes me have nausea and irritates my lungs. I'd like to state that again, whatever goes into your body is none of my fucking business. But PLEASE, have some respect for what goes into MINE. All smokers out there that stand at crowded busstops on a non-windy day puffing away into the crowd while people are hacking away, go jump off of a bridge, please. People will say "just ask them politely to move or go to the other side of them", but, just like asking people to turn their super-duper loud mp3 player down, they won't do shit all.

In summary: Smokers, go home and smoke, and stop screwing with my body too. If I can spit in your face without repercussion, then you can smoke inside.

[Argent Towers]

Your wish is coming true, so don't worry. Within the next ten years, in all likelihood, you will have what you want.

[yBeayf]

*Tobacco* should be outlawed in public places, or just smoking? There are ways to consume tobacco that don't affect other people, you know.

[yBeayf]

Meant to add:

If I can spit in your face without repercussion, then you can smoke inside.

As I am someone who is exceptionally unsqueamish, you have a deal.

[MojoBox]

You know, children really bug me, their crying tends to give me headaches, they really shouldn't be allowed in public places.

What exactly gives you more right to be in a public place then a smoker? Because you have an involuntary disease, and the smoker has a voluntary addiction? But you both voluntarily came to the same place (let's say a public park). What if you didn't have a disease and just didn't like smoke, then on what grounds would you have more right to that place then the smoker? How about shops that cater to smokers, you wouldn't be banned from there, if you showed up would they all have to put it out?

I can understand, say, a courthouse disallowing it, nobody voluntarily goes there, we're generally summoned and all have to share the same space. But a park, please, there's plenty of room for everybody. And a private business, what grounds does the government have to say what perfectly legal activities can and can't go on in a privately owned building? If the owner allows smoking and you don't like it, don't offer your business, if the business goes down enough I guarantee the owner will put a stop to it, no need to ask the government to baby sit you.

[catsix]

I'll quit smoking in public places and never do it again if all taxes are removed from tobacco today, and the government refunds me every cent of tax I have paid on a pack of cigarettes for the last ten years.

I'm sick of this double-sided crap. Nobody wants smokers anywhere around them unless they've got their hands in our wallets. You hate smoking so much? Quit taking the tax money.

[tashabot]

I am an EXTREMELY POLITE smoker. I always inquire as to whether it's alright to smoke around people when I meet them, I don't smoke in other people's houses or cars without their express permission, I refuse to smoke near schools, and I even carry a little portable ashtray around so that I don't litter while I'm smoking in public. Everyone in my household (nine of us, and we all smoke) does the same. Most of my smoker friends do too.

However.

I fully believe that if I sit in the smoking section and that I pay for my meal, and I don't go out of my way to try to make your life a living hell because that's just not the way I am - well, fuck. I think that after I have my nice dinner I deserve to have a smoke. Anyone who's smoked for a while knows that after you eat, you usually want a smoke. I'm no different. Why the hell should I have to go stand out in the boiling hot (or freezing cold) outside just because you're the one in a thousand sensitive one? I go OUT OF MY WAY, and I know a lot of other smokers who do too, to not offend your precious senses. Don't bar me from one of my few pleasures in life.

That said.

I think it's stupid to try to get rid of smoking in casinos (like they're trying to here - it just isn't going to fly because a lot of people who don't smoke on a regular basis DO smoke while they're drinking, and the casinos what you drunk) and it's stupid to have a non-smoking section in a casino unless they have a REALLY GOOD ventilation system. In restaurants, I think that the smoking section (or nonsmoking section) should be physically walled off from the smoking area, not in the same room. Cuz then it's just a place where you can smell smoke but can't actually smoke.

At least I can still smoke in my car and house. Oh, wait, do you have a problem with that, too?

~Tasha

[tashabot]

Originally Posted by catsix

I'll quit smoking in public places and never do it again if all taxes are removed from tobacco today, and the government refunds me every cent of tax I have paid on a pack of cigarettes for the last ten years.

I'm sick of this double-sided crap. Nobody wants smokers anywhere around them unless they've got their hands in our wallets. You hate smoking so much? Quit taking the tax money.

Sorry for the double-post, but I called my dad and mom and read them this post from work because it was so good, and you got a resounding applause from everyone at my house.

~Tasha

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by LeftFootRightFoot

But when your rights get in the way of my right to breathe, then fuck off please.


In summary: Smokers, go home and smoke, and stop screwing with my body too. If I can spit in your face without repercussion, then you can smoke inside.

Does it apply to any kind of smoke (say, from barbeque, a fireplace, etc...) or is tobacco smoke the only kind of smoke that affects you negatively for some reason? More importantly , and more commonly, does it apply to car exhausts that certainly pollute the air and negatively affect people with asthma (and all others including me)? Should driving be drastically restricted (ie : only allowed when strictly necessary) on this basis? Should eating peanuts or wearing perfume in a public place be forbidden because some people are allergic?

IOW : why are you singling out tobacco?

[cmosdes]

Originally Posted by tashabot

Why the hell should I have to go stand out in the boiling hot (or freezing cold) outside just because you're the one in a thousand sensitive one? I go OUT OF MY WAY, and I know a lot of other smokers who do too, to not offend your precious senses. Don't bar me from one of my few pleasures in life.

I doubt he is the 1/1000 sensitive one. If that really were the case these smoking laws would never see the light of day.

Since you can't contain the smoke to one place in the restaurant, your smoke does ruin my meal. So much for your consideration. And yes, before this town went smokeless at all restaurants, I did visit just the ones that did it voluntarily.

The strongest argument I've heard for outlawing smoking in private places such as restaurants is the protection of the health of people that work there. I'm certain that you wouldn't want to work in a place in which you were subjected to carcinogens on a daily basis. Neither do the people that work in restaurants. And while in a utopian world they can go find other jobs, the truth is that it would be really hard for most people to do that. From building and fire codes to health and safety regulations, there are many, many laws on the books that prevent private owners of businesses from doing whatever the hell they want and letting the "free market" decide what succeeds and what doesn't.

Also, the argument that it is a legal habit is also a bit lacking. Not everything legal can be done in all places, even if the owner of that place agrees to it.

Having said all that, I disagree that smoking in outdoor areas needs to be outlawed. Unless you are talking an area that people are forced to be in, smoking should remain legal there. It is legal and therefore people should be allowed to smoke where others have a choice on whether or not to be around that smoke.

This thread will not end well.

[Eva Luna]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Does it apply to any kind of smoke (say, from barbeque, a fireplace, etc...) or is tobacco smoke the only kind of smoke that affects you negatively for some reason? More importantly , and more commonly, does it apply to car exhausts that certainly pollute the air and negatively affect people with asthma (and all others including me)? Should driving be drastically restricted (ie : only allowed when strictly necessary) on this basis? Should eating peanuts or wearing perfume in a public place be forbidden because some people are allergic?

IOW : why are you singling out tobacco?

Sigh...we've had so many pieces of this discussion before. I can't speak for the OP, but anecdotally, as another asthmatic (luckily of a much milder and more intermittent variety, with no cystic fibrosis, thank goodness!):

-- Tobacco smoke is by far my worst legal asthma trigger, exceeded only by marijuana smoke. Fireplaces and car exhaust do it sometimes, too, but how often do you find either of those in a public place where you need to be for any extended period of time?

-- Like the OP, I certainly wish I didn't have to give a damn about tobacco smoke. I would love to be able to hang out around cigarette smoke - as in the linked thread, it's very annoying to have what should be one's normal daily activities curtailed by one's medical limitations. VERY annoying.

In theory, I am all for free will; in practice, I am a huge fan of live music, but I am really sick of paying for, say, concert tickets and then having to run out halfway through the show because I am hacking my lungs up. I suppose I should thank my lucky stars that I am living now, rather than 50 years ago when many U.S. professional workplaces allowed smoking. I don't know how I would have managed to hold a job.

-- Peanuts, perfume, other allergens: except for the few people most severely affected, it's difficult for secondhand exposure to cause enough of the allergen to come into contact with the person's lungs to trigger an attack. On the other hand, current estimates are that about 10% of Americans have been diagnosed with asthma at some point in their lives (see chart on p. 15 of linked .pdf), not to mention with other lung diseases adversely affected by tobacco smoke. That's a lot of people. (And yes, I think people should drive less, too. And recycle more, and use less disposable stuff, etc. - I practice what I preach.)

Yes, I agree that to a certain extent, I just have to deal with my limitations - it sucks, but that's what I get for inheriting my dad's crummy lungs. But by the same token, I want to strangle the people who smoke at the subway stop, half the time while standing in front of the No Smoking sign; it's not like I really have a choice about using the subway. To whatever extent possible, I patronize places that don't allow smoking, for my own self-preservation, but in certain categories of establishments, there is simply no choice. And frankly, I will be a very happy camper when the Chicago and Cook County nonsmoking ordinances take effect.

[Jackmannii]

We've been down this road in exhaustive (no pun intended) detail in a forum more suited for the exchanges this subject provokes.

Originally Posted by cmosdes

This thread will not end well.

The debate is increasingly ending well for the approximately 80% of adult Americans who do not smoke.

In recent developments, two major hospital systems in my city (including the one I work at) have announced the establishment of smoke-free campuses. Both to my knowledge had banned all indoor smoking some time ago, and the latest action hopefully will curb both the smoke-blowers who congregate near entrances and the unending stream of discarded butts and other tobacco-related litter.

California's proposed major hike in cigarette taxes (Prop. 86), intended to discourage smoking, would raise up to 2 billion dollars a year for health spending (there's a dispute over how much it would actually garner, given the likelihood of increased buying/smuggling from neighboring states with lower taxes).

Ohio's smoke-free initiative for public places goes on the ballot this fall.

The times they are a-changing. And there's no going back.

[Argent Towers]

Cigarette smoking will be as good as extinct within the next ten years.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by MojoBox

You know, children really bug me, their crying tends to give me headaches, they really shouldn't be allowed in public places.

But their crying doesn't give you ear cancer, does it ? Not the same thing.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

But their crying doesn't give you ear cancer, does it ? Not the same thing.

Ah, but crying, annoying children could be linked to high blood pressure and heart disease... so it could be argued that there is a case for prohibiting children from public places, too. *

I don't actually mean this seriously... I'm just playing a form of Devil's Advocate. And FWIW, I don't smoke, but have no problem with others smoking in public. Restaurants and other enclosed spaces are a different kettle of fish, however.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by Eva Luna

...Fireplaces and car exhaust do it sometimes, too, but how often do you find either of those in a public place where you need to be for any extended period of time?...

Originally Posted by LeftFootRightFoot

...All smokers out there that stand at crowded busstops...

Yeah, how often do you find cars (and their exhaust) near bus stops?


CMC fnord!

[LeftFootRightFoot]

Sure, smokers have it so hard these days. Oh you poor basterds, having to step out into the sunlight to "calm yourself down". I know I have a far above average hatred of smokers (my mom has smoked for over 30 years, and is hacking her lungs up everyday). But I'm just so glad smoking is getting banned everywhere. And since when does a smokers right to smoke, outweigh a nonsmokers right to breath?

[LeftFootRightFoot]

Oh, and another thing. Of course me or any other nonsmoker breathing in smoke for a minute or 2 will basically cause no harm (unless you have asthma). But neither would me punching you in the face. You'd survive, and it would heal quickly. Can I do that, it calms me down, and it's my right as a citizen, isn't it?

[jjimm]

As I've said in many a thread, I support smoking bans in public places. I also hate inconsiderate smokers.

I ask in return that non-smokers acknowledge that, for all its ills, smoking is currently a part of society - diminishing, true, but still there. If you ban us from smoking inside, which I support, make sure that the areas where we can indulge in it are away from you but not preposterously inconvenient. And don't exaggerate the effect of tobacco smoke compared to other airborne pollutants (clearly this doesn't apply to the OP).

[catsix]

No comment on the taxes, eh?

Everybody loves the billions and billions of dollars that are taken from the smokers in taxes. Nobody's complaining about the money that rolls in because the tax on a pack of cigarettes in PA is $1.74 plus 6% sales tax which on my smokes is another $0.24.

A pack of Marlboro 27s, including PA cigarette tax, federal cigarette tax, and sales tax currently costs me $4.26. That's $4.02 if you remove the sales tax, and $2.28 when the state and federal cigarette tax is removed. Which comes out to a total in taxes of $1.98 in taxes for a $2.28 pack of cigarettes. That means 46% of the price I pay at the register for a pack of Marlboro 27s is tax, and that my cigarettes are taxed at a rate of 86%.

The hands of the people who hate the smokers are so deep in my pocket that they could shine my fucking shoes, and all I get to hear is complaining about the ever dwindling list of places I still can go out and have a cigarette with my food or my drink. I've never bitched and moaned about paying the price for a pack of cigarettes, never gone online to try to get them cheaper or avoid paying the taxes on them. What I have done is endure endless complaining about smokers being disgusting and evil and everything else, but nobody wants to give up that tax racket that's going on. Smokers in PA are subsidizing health care for thousands of people (CHIP program) and lining the pockets in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C. I don't hear anyone complaining about our second-hand dollars.

So honestly, I offered a deal. I'll even compromise. I don't need a refund on all the tax I paid in the last ten years, just don't make me pay any more taxes on cigarettes. Give up the $1.98 per pack that you get, and I will never smoke in a public place again. But that will never happen, because much like the church and gambling, the anti-smokers will continue to point their fingers and 'tut tut' at the smokers, as they shove their hands further down into our pockets.

Leave us alone in our smoking areas. Leave us alone outdoors. Leave us alone in bars. Or give up our money. Can't do it, can you? You're all addicted to our money.

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by catsix

I'm sick of this double-sided crap. Nobody wants smokers anywhere around them unless they've got their hands in our wallets. You hate smoking so much? Quit taking the tax money.

What? Tobacco taxes cause smoking? Whatever it takes to justify your habit, I guess. Do you suppose your exhaled clouds of smoke rain nickels and dimes into the pockets of those around you? A lot of this money just goes to pay for medical care that should not be necessary, for brokedown wheezers who have blown all their money on smokes. Tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, we just hate the ubiquitous smoke, butts, and ashes.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Eva Luna

Sigh-- Tobacco smoke is by far my worst legal asthma trigger, exceeded only by marijuana smoke. Fireplaces and car exhaust do it sometimes, too, but how often do you find either of those in a public place where you need to be for any extended period of time?

Fireplaces I mentionned because many people who can't bear being within 50 yards of a lighted cigarette never have any issue with any other kind of smoke, for some mysterious reason. Never seen someone who enjoys being bathed in the smoke of a firecamp but seemingly has a heart failure if he sees someone lighting a cigarette?

As for car exhausts, you must be joking. Most public spaces are *filled* with running cars. When you walk along a street, compare how many smokers and how many running cars are passing by.

When there are pollution alerts and they warn elderly people, people with asthma, etc... not to go out if they can and avoid physical efforts, it's not because there are too much people smoking in Paris. There's no way to avoid breathing car exhausts if you live in a city. Their adverse effect on health (and resulting deaths during pollution peaks, and in particular amongst asthmatics) have been amply demonstrated but seemingly no driver cares when politely asked not to use his car or at least to reduce his speed when high levels of pollution are detected, and of course mandating either is politically unacceptable.

Given the high level of health-adverse pollutants in a city, and seeing that mostly everybody couldn't care less about it, I'm not going to accept that the main issue with the air one breaths in public spaces is cigarette smoke. When drivers will leave their cars in their garages every time they can, maybe I'll listen to them complaining about the presence of smokers in the streets.

Tobacco smoke just happens to be an acceptable target in today's society, and that's why it's singled out when people are happily (or for some unhappily but without complaining much) breathing all sort of nasty stuff all day long. You mention the large number of people with asthma and other lung diseases. But car exhausts are well-known to adversely affect the exact same population. Actually, I know two asthmatics who are way more sensible to pollution levels than to smoke. And there's no possible way to avoid the former. At least not as long as careless drivers (those who could use public transportation, for instance, but won't, even during pollution peaks, or will use their car rather than walk for 500 yards) will be equally demonized, which isn't going to happen anytime soon because, of course, the general population is overwhelmingly made of careless drivers.

[Eva Luna]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

Yeah, how often do you find cars (and their exhaust) near bus stops?


CMC fnord!

I'm not nearly as bothered by smoke at a bus stop as by smoke in an enclosed public space like a subway station (where it's prohibited in Chicago anyway, though the prohibition is rarely enforced), or as by car exhaust at a bus stop. With car exhaust, the car is generally further away from my lungs (I try not to stand in the middle of the street in moving traffic), plus the source of the pollutant is moving, not standing in one spot, so less of it ends up in my lungs. Frankly, unless I'm standing directly in the path of the vehicle's tailpipte or in the middle of a traffic jam on a high ozone day, I probably won't feel the car exhaust at all.

And like I said, car exhaust is less likely to irritate my lungs than cigarette smoke, anyway - but of course this is anecdotal, and I'm sure other people with asthma or other lung problems are equally triggered by car exhaust, or dog hair, or someone else's scented shampoo, or what have you.

Come to think of it, smoking is prohibited here on any property operated by the Transit Authority; I think I need to check whether that covers bus stops.

[catsix]

Brain Wreck said:
What? Tobacco taxes cause smoking? Whatever it takes to justify your habit, I guess.

You obviously misunderstood my post.

I'm saying that you benefit from every pack of cigarettes I buy because of the taxes, and that in order to not be a hypocrite you should keep your hand out of my pocket while you're telling me not to smoke in public.

I'm not justifying a damn thing. I'm saying that anti-smokers are greedy and hypocritical and that they pretend to hate smokers while they love the money. I'm saying that I'd be fine with banning smoking in all public places as long as the public stops benefitting from my private activity.

Got it?

A lot of this money just goes to pay for medical care that should not be necessary, for brokedown wheezers who have blown all their money on smokes.

Yeah CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides medical insurance at no or low cost to the children of parents who lost their jobs really has a lot to do with paying for an old, brokedown wheezer who has blown all their money on smokes.

Because getting chicken pox shots for a five year old is what we're paying for.

Tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, we just hate the ubiquitous smoke, butts, and ashes.

Oh yes they do. We fund programs that non-smokers use all the time (see: CHIP), but it's easy for the anti-smoker to bury his head in the sand and refuse to admit it.

Really, if tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, give them up. Tell your senators and your representatives in your state government 'Hey those taxes don't benefit me at all, so let's just get rid of the cigarette tax and then ban smoking.'

See how they react.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by LeftFootRightFoot

And since when does a smokers right to smoke, outweigh a nonsmokers right to breath?

And since when a driver's right to drive outweight a non driver right to breath, not to be disturbed by the noise, not be endangered by the vehicle? Do you drive? If so, do you avoid as much as possible to use your car? If you don't, you've no ground to complain. You're exactly as inconsiderate as smokers you're complaining about.

[LeftFootRightFoot]

Honestly, taxes are so horribly mismanaged by politicians, I wouldn't trust them with any money willingly (like when Paul Martin spent BILLIONS on a gun registry that did nothing but take guns from legal citizens and give them to criminals, one of many reasons he wasn't re-elected).

And car exhaust doesn't trigger my asthma just like the post above said, they move and I don't stand in the road. But during winter and at a busy intersection, I would have to crawl on the grass just to get a breath.

And what, no comment about me being allowed to punch you in the face, or spit on you?

[Eva Luna]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Given the high level of health-adverse pollutants in a city, and seeing that mostly everybody couldn't care less about it, I'm not going to accept that the main issue with the air one breaths in public spaces is cigarette smoke. When drivers will leave their cars in their garages every time they can, maybe I'll listen to them complaining about the presence of smokers in the streets.

Tobacco smoke just happens to be an acceptable target in today's society, and that's why it's singled out when people are happily (or for some unhappily but without complaining much) breathing all sort of nasty stuff all day long.

I'm not so militant that I will come out and say that cigarette smoke is the main problem affecting air quality in public spaces. But unlike driving, a) nobody needs to smoke; b) most of us can't drive in the privacy of our own homes; and c) the very nature of the activity of smoking is one that is much more easily confined to distinct spaces.

In modern society we accept that certain activities are necessary (industrial production, driving, etc.) even if they create air pollution, because there is an economic and/or social need for them, and so all those who desire to reap the benefits of industrial society have to deal with the negatives. Smoking doesn't fall into that category, and even for activities that do fall into that category, government has created all kinds of regulatory restrictions (minimum fuel efficiency and emissions testing levels for vehicles, etc.) Frankly, I don't have a problem with that, and if there were some feasible way to encourage, or even force, people to drive less and/or use public transportation more, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. The people who drives 2 blocks to the grocery store to buy a carton of milk just boggle me.

[catsix]

LeftFootRightFoot said:
And what, no comment about me being allowed to punch you in the face, or spit on you?

Since punching someone in the face can immediately result in broken bones, eye injury, lacerations and scars, I don't think that's a fair analgoy. I also don't think that spitting on someone is a fair analogy, since whatever nasty germs the spitter has (and there are quite a few diseases communicable by saliva - mononucleosis for one) can definitely infect me quite easily. HIV even shows up in the saliva of infected people. Is that at all comparable?

How cologne and perfume? It triggers my allergies and I start sneezing and my eyes start to burn and water, which makes my quality of life go down. We should institute an 86% tax on every bottle of cologne and perfume sold. I'll reap the benefits of the cologne/perfume tax and quit bitching about people dousing themselves in the shit and triggering my allergies in public. How about that? Nobody needs to wear perfume or cologne after all, and it is an irritant to people with allergies.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by catsix

No comment on the taxes, eh?

This is frequently a source of outrage among smokers, with limited justification. Society is entitled to recoup a portion of the costs (health care, loss of productivity etc.) associated with smoking.It is not a grand conspiracy aimed just at smokers. If governments really wanted to maintain a sure source of income, they'd keep tobacco taxes at a relatively low rate. Instead, the large increases promoted in states such as California discourage people (especially the young) from smoking. It's partly seen as an anti-smoking tool (though as noted, huge increases likely will spawn smuggling and will have limited effectiveness as long as surrounding states have much lower taxes).
I do think that we should pressure our state governments to devote a much larger share of tobacco tax revenue to health care and smoking cessation efforts. "Greed" is a fairly accurate term when applied to legislators who eagerly scooped up tobacco industry settlement money and used most of it for general spending purposes.

Originally Posted by catsix

So honestly, I offered a deal. I'll even compromise. I don't need a refund on all the tax I paid in the last ten years, just don't make me pay any more taxes on cigarettes.

I'm afraid that no one in government is going to care much about this. Politicians upset by accusations of hypocrisy? It does not compute. What you can do that'll really stick it to the Man is cut them off from that revenue entirely - by quitting smoking.

Originally Posted by Argent Towers[/quote

Cigarette smoking will be as good as extinct within the next ten years.

Maybe the Smithsonian will add a new diorama to its exhibits.

Mastodons.....wooly mammoths.....smokers.

A more likely scenario is a continued slow decline in the smoking population based on expense, inconvenience and death from tobacco-related diseases. It would not surprise me to see the percent of the adult population that smokes whittled down from just over 20% to 10%.

[Wallenstein]

Nobody needs to wear perfume or cologne after all, and it is an irritant to people with allergies.
Dunno... there's a few people in our office for whom a good dose of cologne wouldn't go amiss.

I imagine all it will take is one serious class-action lawsuit by a group of e.g. pub/bar employees for "work injuries" caused by smoking, and the market will decide that the litigation risks outweigh the business benefits of allowing smoking on their premises.

IANAL but I was wondering whether by failing to legislate, the govt could be said to be complicit in the injury?

[don't ask]

I gave up smoking a few years ago after attending a cricket Test at the Sydney Cricket Ground a vast open air arena, where it became apparent that smoking anywhere in public will soon be verboten.

I had always been a considerate smoker. Other than outdoors or in my own home/car I didn't smoke unless invited to and even in places where smoking was permitted I wouldn't light up if no-one else was smoking - if I was the only smoker there I thought it fair that I step outside.

However, at the cricket it became obvious which side is winning this fight. Although you are sitting in the open with the wind blowing around you are not allowed to smoke in any seated area. I had to leave my seat and walk to an area at the end of the stand where you could not see the game in order to smoke. While there I spotted legendary cricketer and smoker Doug Walters, so beloved that he is one of only 4 cricketers to have a stand named in his honour at this ground. He had to go to the same area from the commentary box to have a smoke.

There are pubs all over Sydney with vast tracts of unused floor space because legislation dictates that 50% (it may be 75% now) of the premises have to be non-smoking but not enough patrons use the non-smoking areas to make it worth staffing the bar.

Personally I am happy to have found an opportunity to give up smoking but I am pretty sure that there is some element with the anti-smoking martinets of being able to spot the enemy that makes smokers such good targets. Society would be far better served by dealing with alcohol abuse but you can't spot your target so easily. Smokers however can be spotted even in the dark. I think when they are finished with smokers they will move on to another group they can identify on sight - the overweight. Much about the way the issue is being treated in the media and the first few forays into government interference remind me of the days when smoking began to lose its cachet.

[Martini Enfield]

The other thing that the Australian laws don't take into account is that if you say "Smokers must got to X area to smoke", then you end up with the non-smokers having to follow them in order to continue a conversation/discussion- especially if there are, say, 5 people in a group and 3 of them are smokers- which seems to render the entire concept of having massive smoke-free areas partially moot, IMO.

[George Kaplin]

Originally Posted by Jackmanii

If governments really wanted to maintain a sure source of income, they'd keep tobacco taxes at a relatively low rate. Instead, the large increases promoted in states such as California discourage people (especially the young) from smoking. It's partly seen as an anti-smoking tool (though as noted, huge increases likely will spawn smuggling and will have limited effectiveness as long as surrounding states have much lower taxes).

I don't think this is really accurate. The reason State governments apply such hefty taxes to cigarettes is because they know they can get away with it. Smoking is an inelastic commodity and those addicted generally respond to price hikes by gritting their teeth and shelling out. The taxes are certainly marketed as an anti-smoking tool but, given the reputation tobacco has in our society, it's hard to see how they could market them any other way. Instituting a cigarette tax under the auspices of protecting public health is far more voter-friendly than flat out admitting you're going to bleed the smokers for every penny you can.

[Bobotheoptimist]

I'd like to outlaw peanuts in public places. Freakin' shells blow around stadiums and my son can't make it through a soccer game without a trip to the paramedics.

It's a damn soccer game! There were maybe 1000 people in Mile High Stadium (holds 70,000 or something) and the peanut dust from a section away almost killed my son.

[Duke of Rat]

Originally Posted by catsix

Really, if tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, give them up. Tell your senators and your representatives in your state government 'Hey those taxes don't benefit me at all, so let's just get rid of the cigarette tax and then ban smoking.'

See how they react.

Or maybe if cigarettes were banned, there wouldn't be any tax revenue, either.

[davenportavenger]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

What you can do that'll really stick it to the Man is cut them off from that revenue entirely - by quitting smoking....Maybe the Smithsonian will add a new diorama to its exhibits.

Mastodons.....wooly mammoths.....smokers.

Why is it that every time I read one of your smoking posts I get the mental image of a white, overall-clad rapper in a video aimed at junior high health classes?

And also, why isn't anyone remarking on catsix's perfume post? Perfume wearing is even less essential (seeing as how it is not caused by addiction) than smoking. It also triggers many health conditions as real as your asthma. For me, it's fruit smells. Being around fruit or even things that smell like fruit for long periods has on occasion made me throw up. I don't know if it's an allergy since I've never had it checked out, but it's a problem when I want to attend picnics or other places where fruit is liable to be in close proximity. My life would be greatly enhanced if all fruit were banned from public areas. But I don't ask for that, just like catsix doesn't ask for perfume to be banned. We only ask that we be stinky in our own way. (And I would like a cite that inhaling secondhand smoke produced at a frickin' park will give you cancer, any more than other background sources.)

Unless you think my fruit-vomiting problem is not as important as your problems, in which case, you're right, you are truly the most important person in the world.

[Leaffan]

Welcome to Ontario, where smoking is not allowed in any public establishment, including covered patios, but excluding uncovered patios, parks, sidewalks, etc.

I can't tell you how marvelous it is to go into any restaurant, bar, store, cab, hotel, mall, anywhere in the province and never have to breathe cigarette smoke again.

This coming from someone who smoked, but was wise enough to quit a couple of decades ago. BTW I don't think short term exposure is terribly bad for one's health, it's just nice to be able to enjoy a beer or a meal without choking back second-hand smoke.

[DragonAsh]

Originally Posted by catsix

I don't need a refund on all the tax I paid in the last ten years, just don't make me pay any more taxes on cigarettes. Give up the $1.98 per pack that you get, and I will never smoke in a public place again.

Do you think that smoking results in an increase in healthcare costs?

And davenportavenger, despite the growing awareness of perfume allergies, the overall number of people affected to a problematic degree still seem pretty low. Second-hand smoking, on the other hand, seems to present a risk to everybody. So, not necessarily the same thing. I'd say you're better course of action would be encouraging perfume makers to stop being so secretive of their ingrediants, etc.

[davenportavenger]

Originally Posted by DragonAsh

And davenportavenger, despite the growing awareness of perfume allergies, the overall number of people affected to a problematic degree still seem pretty low. Second-hand smoking, on the other hand, seems to present a risk to everybody. So, not necessarily the same thing. I'd say you're better course of action would be encouraging perfume makers to stop being so secretive of their ingrediants, etc.

Second hand smoke in a park? From ten feet away? I don't think so.

And a lot of people on this board have even complained about having to smell smokers, like when they come back to work after a break. As far as I know smoke clinging to clothing carries no cancer risk. That, in my mind, puts it in the same league as complaining about perfume.

[Psilocybe]

Originally Posted by catsix

I'm saying that you benefit from every pack of cigarettes I buy because of the taxes, and that in order to not be a hypocrite you should keep your hand out of my pocket while you're telling me not to smoke in public.

Awwww, a pack of cigs costs nearly two dollars, I really feel for you.....not really

Try paying 20 bucks a GRAM for your favored smokable material. Next, try hiding your habit from society as to not be put in jail. Marijuana smokers are in a much worse condition. Count your blessings.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by Psilocybe

Awwww, a pack of cigs costs nearly two dollars, I really feel for you.....not really

Where I am, they cost nearly 10 bucks a pack.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by davenportavenger

Why is it that every time I read one of your smoking posts I get the mental image of a white, overall-clad rapper in a video aimed at junior high health classes?

Thanks, though this leads me to think you are smoking something stronger than tobacco.

And also, why isn't anyone remarking on catsix's perfume post?

Because comparing secondhand smoke and perfume odors is inane?

Perfume wearing is even less essential (seeing as how it is not caused by addiction) than smoking. It also triggers many health conditions as real as your asthma.

Unlike secondhand smoke, it has not been linked with heart disease, cancer, sudden infant death syndrome or any of the other conditions responsible for close to 50,000 deaths a year (source: latest Surgeon General's report).

For me, it's fruit smells.

One could go on attempting to trivialize the issue by listing things that are annoying or repellent (bodily odors of the unwashed, scratchy woolens, Tom Cruise etc.) but these things (with the possible exception of Tom Cruise, a fount of misinformation) do not have a significant impact on public health.

[DragonAsh]

Originally Posted by davenportavenger

Second hand smoke in a park? From ten feet away? I don't think so.

And a lot of people on this board have even complained about having to smell smokers, like when they come back to work after a break. As far as I know smoke clinging to clothing carries no cancer risk. That, in my mind, puts it in the same league as complaining about perfume.

Can you provide a scientific study that puts a precise distance from where second-hand smoking magically ceases to be any risk? Is it six inches? Two feet or 10? I don't know, but I'm not going to gamble that it 'might' only be X number of feet. Smokers are free to sit in their own homes and smoke, or, out in public, to go outside and smoke. I don't want to have them anywhere near me when they decide to light up. Nor do I want to foot the bill for their deadly habit-forming habit.

Complaining about perfume may well be the same as complaining about the _smell_ of cigarette smoke. Thing is, far, far more people complain about cigarette smoke than perfume (although just about everyone agrees that too much of it can induce homicidal thoughts). Hell, even smokers complain about the smoke.

That's beside the point, however: the smell of perfume hasn't been proven to increase the risk of a host of diseases that kill you.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by catsix

No comment on the taxes, eh?

I'm your huckleberry. Here is a post I made in the pit about a year ago when someone was complaining about cigarette taxes.

Originally Posted by Mtgman

RJ Reynolds(a major tobacco company) maintains a page on tax revenues from tobacco taxes.31 Billion per year in combined state, local, and federal taxes a well as payments under the Master Settlement Agreement(the multi-state lawsuit against the tobacco industry). RJ Reynolds also maintains a page breaking this figure down by state and locality.According to the Revenue by Government Level table at the Tax Policy Center the total state, local, and federal revenues in 2002 was $2,758,144,370,000 Or two and three-quarter Trillion dollars. Those figures have probably gone up a bit due to inflation and down a bit due to tax cuts, so we'll call it a wash and use the current figures for tax revenue from tobacco according to RJ Reynolds and the older figures from the Tax Policy Center(which gets its data from the Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget).

$31,000,000,000 / $2,758,144,370,000 = 0.01124 = 1.124% of revenues.

So a little over 1 percent of government tax revenue comes from the combined tobacco revenue and the multi-billion dollar tobacco settlement. I'm including the settlement payments in the "taxes" number because the tobacco industry is undoubtedly simply passing on those costs in the price of packs.

I doubt most people would even notice a 1.124% tax increase if it were spread across all the levels(state, federal, and local). This is even less likely when you consider that about some of the 31 Billion is the settlement payments. RJ Reynolds Quick Facts table has So if every smoker magically quit tommorrow it would cost the government about $20,110,820,422 / $2,758,144,370,000 = 0.00729 = 0.729 % of their tax revenues.

So it would seem, given some fairly solid sources for the numbers, tobacco revenues just aren't that big a fraction of government revenues.

Originally Posted by catsix

I'm saying that anti-smokers are greedy and hypocritical and that they pretend to hate smokers while they love the money.

The simple fact is that "anti-smokers" probably wouldn't even NOTICE the slight increase in their taxes(spread as it would be aross state, local, and federal levels). Painting the large majority of non-smokers, and the representatives enforcing their will through legislation, as "greedy" is just nonsensical. In perspective with the rest of the tax burden we bear, the portion of it which is derived from tobacco-related taxes is just damn near insignificant.

Now the estimated 50,000 deaths a year from indirect smoke, that is significant. Add it in with the more than 400,000 Americans [who] die from cigarette smoking each year and we get 450,000 lives saved by eliminating smoking. Do you really think a 1% tax burden is more important to people than nearly half a million lives per year? If a politician said "we'll raise your taxes ~1% and save 450,000 people each year" that they would be booed? That "greedy anti-smokers" wouldn't make that trade because they're all about the money?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Sunrazor]

Originally Posted by catsix

No comment on the taxes, eh?

Everybody loves the billions and billions of dollars that are taken from the smokers in taxes. Nobody's complaining about the money that rolls in because the tax on a pack of cigarettes in PA is $1.74 plus 6% sales tax which on my smokes is another $0.24.

Leave us alone in our smoking areas. Leave us alone outdoors. Leave us alone in bars. Or give up our money. Can't do it, can you? You're all addicted to our money.

Aw, quitcher bitchin'! I quit smoking because of the cost, not just in taxes but to my health and that of the people around me. And PLEASE don't try to tell me you enjoy it -- you're an addict and you're in denial about your addiction, and you know as well as everybody who reads this that you'd be better off if you could just put down the smokes tomorrow and walk away. Quit smoking and you won't have to pay all those taxes.

Personally, I wrote letters to my state legislators to get 'em to vote against the smoking ban, but it passed in the Denver metro area, so we're stuck with it. I just didn't go to places that allowed smoking, and I was happy as I could be. LFRF, take responsibility for your life (I mean responsibility, not blame -- there is no blame) and live the best life you can with the body you have. It's what we all do.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Fireplaces I mentionned because many people who can't bear being within 50 yards of a lighted cigarette never have any issue with any other kind of smoke, for some mysterious reason.

Because most other types of smoke don't produce the same sort of burning in the eye/throat/nose with me, at least, unless the concentration is very high. Cigar/pipe smoke is even worse; it's the only kind that's made me vomit. As bad as burning plastic.

I don't find it surprising that so many find tobacco smoke more irritating, since we've have fires longer than homo sapiens has been around IIRC; smoking isn't nearly that old.

Originally Posted by clairobscur

When drivers will leave their cars in their garages every time they can, maybe I'll listen to them complaining about the presence of smokers in the streets.

As said, cars are necessary; smoking isn't. I do approve of heavy pollution regulations, and would eventually like to see all cars electric when the technology is practical.

[Argent Towers]

How the hell could pipe smoke make anyone vomit? I think it smells great. Pretty much everyone thinks it smells great, even people who hate cigarettes and cigars.

[davenportavenger]

Originally Posted by DragonAsh

Smokers are free to sit in their own homes and smoke, or, out in public, to go outside and smoke. I don't want to have them anywhere near me when they decide to light up.

The OP was complaining about people standing outside and smoking. And there's the rub--some nonsmokers aren't content just to drive smokers outside. They also want to ban smoking from outdoor areas like parks and outside concert venues. Like I said, convince me that smoking outside at a good distance (forget ten, let's make it twenty-five feet) will release any more carcinogens into a nonsmoker's lungs than any average environmental hazards. Because I guarantee you that some people, even if they can barely see the smoker, will still complain. And I've gotta believe that not all (to put it lightly) their complaints stem from a physical intolerance.

[rowe]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

How the hell could pipe smoke make anyone vomit? I think it smells great. Pretty much everyone thinks it smells great, even people who hate cigarettes and cigars.

Pretty much everyone? I guess I must be one of the tiny minority that hates cigarettes, cigars, AND pipe smoke.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

How the hell could pipe smoke make anyone vomit? I think it smells great. Pretty much everyone thinks it smells great, even people who hate cigarettes and cigars.

How would I know ? I'm not a biochemist. I just know that it does. I will say that incident involved a room full of cigarette, cigar and pipe smokers, many in the so-called non smoking section. It made my brother vomit too; maybe it's in the family. One pipe will make me queasy and leave the room, but won't make me vomit.