Attention smokers: everything in your house is ruined.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@randompattern

If you have cats, to me, everything in your house is ruined.

That’s true enough.

@Bo_Pai

If you need a citation, then rest assured, I’m not talking to you. <snip>

That’s the best response to a request for citations that I’ve ever seen. You really are a marvel.

@scabpicker

Wow, you actually believe this crap?

Ok, so why don’t you smell like cat litter everywhere you go?

ETA: I mean, a dog could probably tell you owned a cat, or that a smoker had been in the house. A human? Fucking unlikely.

This has been answered already, but I’m still wondering - you don’t think smokers smell like smoke, even when they’re not currently smoking? I can walk down an aisle in our local Safeway and tell you that a smoker just walked through there ahead of me.

@Ferret_Herder

No it’s fucking not the basis of immunology. You’ve made it perfectly clear that you don’t understand immunology, human biology, or a goddamned thing about how biology on a general basis works. You’re babbling a meaningless word salad of pseudoscientific buzzwords like some schizophrenic who thinks he’s discovered the connection between the US currency’s “secret” markings and the people he thinks are watching him from rooftops. Pony up some citations, you nonsense-spewing twat.

{Reminds self to not piss Ferret Herder off.}

@Guinastasia

I can smell smokers across the internet.

You can sure tell who’s a smoker - they get a pretty defensive about what is an indefensible habit.

@Qwisp

These didn’t come from normal smile Akers homes.<snip>

Best auto-correct of the day?

@scratch_llll

Ironically? It’s downright hillarious anyone would buy an ashtray and expect it not to smell of smoke. Or am I missing some triple convoluted joke? I actually came into the thread to make a joke about buying antique tobacco tins that smelled of tobacco but yours is better.

If it was posted by Bryan Ekers, chances are very good it’s a joke.

@Club_33

<snip>
If something is causing you harm, that’s one thing. If it is just annoying you, I’ll still do my part to make sure that your exposure to my habit is minimized, but how come the courtesy is never reciprocated in regard to other annoying smells?

Because people don’t think their own shit smells, that’s why.

I’m with you on the perfumes and colognes; I’d prefer not to smell strong smells like that, either.

[RivkahChaya]

I don’t use perfume, and never have. I buy the most minimally scented soaps and detergents I can find. Painting happens. It’s necessary for the maintenance of a building, and like you said, it was just a week. If someone smoked for a week, and never again, you might not hear so much complaining. At any rate, second hand smoke is bad for other people in ways that perfumes and paint aren’t.

Although, FTR, I’m glad a lot of people are speaking up about how obnoxious scents are, and some buildings are banning them.

Also, IME, the biggest scent offenders are smokers, who think they can hide the scent of smoke with a good dousing of a perfume that is cheap enough to douse themselves in several times a day. Before smoking was banned on planes, I was once in non-smoking, but in the row right next to smoking. The woman behind me lit one up every 20 minutes of so, then went to the bathroom, and came back reeking of some floral scent more pungent than the cigarette. I had to beg the flight attendant to reseat me, because I was getting a rash, and my eyes were swollen and puffy.

Apparently, flight attendants, at least back then, kept Benadryl on hand for nervoud passengers (or rowdy children?) and gave me some, which helped a lot, and she did find someone willing to change seats with me. I get headaches on planes as it is, and I was so miserable, I didn’t fly again for like, 8 years. I took Amtrak from NYC to Indiana to avoid flying once.

[scabpicker]

@Cat_Whisperer

This has been answered already, but I’m still wondering - you don’t think smokers smell like smoke, even when they’re not currently smoking? I can walk down an aisle in our local Safeway and tell you that a smoker just walked through there ahead of me.

No, where did I say anything even remotely near that? My position is that the smoker walking through Safeway doesn’t contaminate it to the point that an average human could detect their presence say, the next day. To pretend that people can’t smell cigarette smoke is a position just as preposterous as yours. Stop trying to attribute it to me.

Again, just about every building on the planet has had someone smoke outside of it, and has had a person who was recently smoking in it. We still have plenty of buildings that don’t smell like cigarettes.

[Guinastasia]

@Cat_Whisperer

.}

You can sure tell who’s a smoker - they get a pretty defensive about what is an indefensible habit.

Apparently not all that well, since I’m not, nor have I ever been a smoker.

[Club_33]

@RivkahChaya

At any rate, second hand smoke is bad for other people in ways that perfumes and paint aren’t.

Ah, but we aren’t talking about secondhand smoke; we are talking about the smell of the residue left by those who smoked. Do you have any evidence that this residual smell is bad or harmful in ways that perfumes and paint aren’t?

Meanwhile, I was just standing next to a group of teenagers in a Taco Bell who were wearing enough Axe body spray to cause my eyes to water. Their stench was every bit as harmful as a room where someone once smoked or a shirt they once wore.

Let’s not confuse the (probably) harmful effects of second hand smoke with a harmless but annoying smell. Being annoyed by smells are a part of life.

[Mrs.Cake]

As a result of growing up in the '60’s, I can’t watch something like “Mad Men” without getting a strong flashback to the scent of stale cigarette smoke and Aqua-Net. Seems like everything smelled like cigarette smoke all the time, but you didn’t notice it until places started going smoke-free.

[Helena330]

@Club_33

I bet a good portion of the people complaining about the smell of cigarette smoke never think twice about dousing themselves in cologne and perfume and walking into an elevator, not to mention the reek of their unhealthy car exhaust and a thousand other things that someone might find offensive. I just had to endure a week of smelling paint when my neighbors decided to add a new coat to their house. Should I have knocked on the door and told them they were disgusting people?

If something is causing you harm, that’s one thing. If it is just annoying you, I’ll still do my part to make sure that your exposure to my habit is minimized, but how come the courtesy is never reciprocated in regard to other annoying smells?

Because people don’t think their own shit smells, that’s why.

How on earth is this even approaching logical? I can’t stand cigarette smell, or strong scents of any kind. The only things I put on my body are soap, deodorant and unscented lotion. Maybe I should skip the deodorant-it has some scent and I wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@scabpicker

No, where did I say anything even remotely near that? My position is that the smoker walking through Safeway doesn’t contaminate it to the point that an average human could detect their presence say, the next day. To pretend that people can’t smell cigarette smoke is a position just as preposterous as yours. Stop trying to attribute it to me.

Again, just about every building on the planet has had someone smoke outside of it, and has had a person who was recently smoking in it. We still have plenty of buildings that don’t smell like cigarettes.

I’m obviously not understanding you very well; my bad. I thought you meant that you couldn’t smell a smoker even though they weren’t currently smoking or hadn’t smoked recently. Some people reek very much of smoke; you can tell they’ve been around for a surprisingly long time after they’re gone because they smell so strongly of it. That’s my position.

@Guinastasia

Apparently not all that well, since I’m not, nor have I ever been a smoker.

I wasn’t accusing you of being a smoker; just other people in threads like this who become very defensive quite easily. I’m obviously not communicating very well today.

@Club_33

Ah, but we aren’t talking about secondhand smoke; we are talking about the smell of the residue left by those who smoked. Do you have any evidence that this residual smell is bad or harmful in ways that perfumes and paint aren’t? <snip>

A little bit of search turns up this - Third hand smoke may be as dangerous as second hand smoke, study suggests. It sounds like this type of research is pretty new, but it makes sense; a whole bunch of toxic chemicals aren’t going to create something less toxic.

From the article -

Her team notes third-hand smoke has been found to persist in houses, apartments and hotel rooms long after smokers move out.

[Club_33]

@Helena330

How on earth is this even approaching logical? I can’t stand cigarette smell, or strong scents of any kind. The only things I put on my body are soap, deodorant and unscented lotion. Maybe I should skip the deodorant-it has some scent and I wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

Well, you wouldn’t be offending me, and even if I did find your deodorant repulsive (which I’m sure I wouldn’t), I wouldn’t think that gives me the right to demean or insult you.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case with most nonsmokers, who somehow feel that they have the right to dictate how the world should smell. Meanwhile, they drive around pouring exhaust into the air that is every bit as harmful as cigarette smoke.

[scabpicker]

@Cat_Whisperer

I’m obviously not understanding you very well; my bad. I thought you meant that you couldn’t smell a smoker even though they weren’t currently smoking or hadn’t smoked recently.

:dubious:
I find it very hard to believe you misinterpreted my post to mean that. This was the portion of your post I took issue with, and the only part I quoted:

@Cat_Whisperer

Re. smoking only on the patio - I suspect that will still make your house smell. Smokers drag that smell in with them after smoking - it doesn’t just stay outside.

Which basically implies that smokers go around ruining houses even when they’re not smoking in them. But if your not saying that, or backing down from it, we don’t have an argument.

Don’t get me wrong, smoking is bad in a way that most annoyances aren’t. It killed or significantly contributed to the death of both my parents, my grandfather, my aunt and will probably have a big hand in my eventual death. But to exaggerate the annoying part of this habit to the point where you’re implying that smokers are somehow ruining buildings they aren’t smoking in is a pretty bold claim. You’re going to have to come up with some fantastic evidence to back that up before I’ll be convinced you’re not a loon.

If that is your claim, and you’re sticking with it: Jesus titty fucking christ, the habit kills people after taking their money for years. Isn’t that bad enough without making shit up?

[Kenm]

I had a pipe-smoking uncle whose death preceded my aunt’s by more than 20 years.

Every time I walked into her apartment, even two decades after his death, I wondered whether the odour proved the existence of ghosts.

[Ferret_Herder]

@Cat_Whisperer

{Reminds self to not piss Ferret Herder off.}

Sorry. I hate fake “science” being spewed by idiots acting sanctimonious about what they think they understand.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@scabpicker

:dubious:
I find it very hard to believe you misinterpreted my post to mean that. This was the portion of your post I took issue with, and the only part I quoted:

Which basically implies that smokers go around ruining houses even when they’re not smoking in them. But if your not saying that, or backing down from it, we don’t have an argument.

Don’t get me wrong, smoking is bad in a way that most annoyances aren’t. It killed or significantly contributed to the death of both my parents, my grandfather, my aunt and will probably have a big hand in my eventual death. But to exaggerate the annoying part of this habit to the point where you’re implying that smokers are somehow ruining buildings they aren’t smoking in is a pretty bold claim. You’re going to have to come up with some fantastic evidence to back that up before I’ll be convinced you’re not a loon.

If that is your claim, and you’re sticking with it: Jesus titty fucking christ, the habit kills people after taking their money for years. Isn’t that bad enough without making shit up?

Do you really need me for you to have this fight?

[scabpicker]

@Cat_Whisperer

Do you really need me for you to have this fight?

You’re the one who made the assertion, there would be no argument without it. Since it doesn’t look like you’re trying to back this nonsense up, I’ll assume you’re backing down from it.

[flatlined]

@Cat_Whisperer

You can sure tell who’s a smoker - they get a pretty defensive about what is an indefensible habit.

Gets all defensive and stuff. I honestly don’t know any smokers who don’t think they are idiots. The smokers I know admire me because I was able to kick the habit. (almost 2 years now.)

I honestly don’t know anyone who smokes tobacco in their home.

[j666]

@Cat_Whisperer

A little bit of search turns up this - Third hand smoke may be as dangerous as second hand smoke, study suggests. It sounds like this type of research is pretty new, but it makes sense; a whole bunch of toxic chemicals aren’t going to create something less toxic.

Oh, my good heavens. That’s really appalling, though I don’t know what I would expect from research into “third-hand smoke”, rather than, I don’t know, “residue”.

You really should not read stuff like this.

1.) Which “Scientists say this third-hand smoke can accumulate on surfaces and in house dust and age over time, becoming progressively more toxic with carcinogens”? How does the residue become progressive more toxic? Which carcinogens?

2.) We have one study, on mice. Mice, note, are not human.

3.) At what level and how recently were the cages exposed to cigarette smoke?

4.) What is “significant”? Statistically significant, or significant in that it effects the organ functions? Two (possibly) very different things.

5.) How much longer did the wounds take to heal? How similar was it to poor healing in human smokers? How similar were the wounds to surgery? How were the mice wounded, specifically how did the researchers ensure the study and control mice had similar wounds?

6.) Why are we still torturing mice?

7.) What are “signs of hyperactivity”? Surely in a mouse we could define the criteria pretty clearly.

8.) What is “tobacco-specific”? Are they referring to a carcinogen that is associated with tobacco only? And, again, what is “similar”?

9.) How did they ensure the mice were not ingesting the residue?

10.) Of course the researcher says more research is urgently needed! Has there been a grant-dependent researcher in the history of the world who said,“Meh, maybe we should look into this some other time?”

Seriously, do not read stuff like this; popular press seldom reports on science, or even activities of people who do not know the word “residue”, well at all. When you’re interested in stuff like this, go straight to the link study.

Which I will now do. Primarily to see if a cell biologist calls a surface residue “smoke”.

[Guinastasia]

As much as it smells, I’d rather be around a smoker than someone who uses chew. Now THAT is fucking disgusting.

[j666]

@Club_33

Ah, but we aren’t talking about secondhand smoke; we are talking about the smell of the residue left by those who smoked. Do you have any evidence that this residual smell is bad or harmful in ways that perfumes and paint aren’t?

@Cat_Whisperer

A little bit of search turns up this - Third hand smoke may be as dangerous as second hand smoke, study suggests.

I can’t finish reading that “study”; when the description of the test conditions include “etc.”, I kind of lose faith in the scientific rigor.

However, I read long enough to verify that the study does not support the argument that the residue on a smoker’s clothes will transfer to the surface in an enclosed area the smoker subsequently enters, or that the smell of the residue is harmful. It also does not provide evidence the residue does not dissipate over time.

Sixteen cages were filled with cloth materials and exposed to the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes for five days, each week of the study.

No steps taken to prevent the mice from ingesting the residue were described.

“Two packs of 3R4F research cigarettes were smoked each day, 5days/week and smoke was routed to a mixing compartment and distributed between two exposure chambers, each containing 8 cages with the materials.”

“By using two sets of cages and material, each of which were exposed on alternating weeks, we ensured that mice inhabited cages containing fabric that had been exposed (according to the regimen described above) to fresh SHS during the previous week.”

Oh, and they removed the hair from the subject mice, but not from the control mice. Why would they do that, particularly for studies on behavior and would healing?

@Cat_Whisperer

It sounds like this type of research is pretty new, but it makes sense; a whole bunch of toxic chemicals aren’t going to create something less toxic.

Yes, sometimes they are; polymerization is a very good example.

[butterfiles]

But some cigarettes smell like burnt ass. Others smell bad, but not as bad as burnt ass.

[butterfiles]

Actually, it occurs to me that I haven’t found many smokers who curtail their habit even around the sick (I have lung issues due to a childhood disease). It’s almost always up to the non-smoker to put the brakes on the smoking. I guess that’s okay since I’m willing to say something. I don’t have much of a problem with objects having smoke residue, but I do with active smoking and for about the first 10-15 minutes after a person has smoked. I’ve needed nursing assistance due to above-mentioned illness; you might be surprised by how many nurses smoke!