I still don’t buy it, at least not all of it. (Full disclosure–nonsmoker here).
IIRC it was said that 600-odd infants died from SIDS, due to secondhand smoke. How was that determination made? Were there no SIDS deaths at all in nonsmoking households?
Or some 3400 lung cancer deaths were attributable to secondhand smoke. How do they come up that figure? How do they determine that there were no other environmental factors involved?
I came into this thread prepared to argue and rant and rave about how smokers have no right to expose everyone else to their drug of choice and then whine about it when we call them on it. I had a full righteous wrath revving up.
Then Sailboat posted, and anything else that I could say would be superfluous.
Well posted, Sailboat.
I can’t help but feel that your argument that there wouldn’t be any motivation to smoke cigarettes if they were banned is somewhat undermined by the fact that each and every smoker is already so keen on their habit that they continue it, despite knowing that it will probably kill them. Next to this, the extra inconvenience imposed by prohibition rather pales by comparison. No, I have no idea why people would continue to smoke - I have no idea why they do now - but smoke they will.
Because it would be more pointless work for the police and the courts, and further progress in our race to stay on top of the percapita prisoner count.
Because the current state of affairs in Los Angeles shows that tobacco can be almost completely eliminated from public life just through smoking bans and social pressure.
Because if it were illegal to smoke even at home, we’d have ouir threads locked down for discussing it.
Can I ask you something, without any subtext whatsoever? What is the benefit of taking snuff for you? Is it to satisfy an already-existing tobacco addiction? Or does it calm your nerves/produce a high/whatever (snuff contains nictoine, which is a stimulant, right)? You’d think, with all the modern bias against smokers, you’d see more people taking snuff.
Are there any health risks associated with taking snuff, by the way? Higher rates of nostril or throat cancer, maybe? I’m simply curious.
If I’m standing outside in a area that is designated for smokers then tough fucking shit if I’m endangering you. MOVE. I had too when the laws changed. You(as in non smokers in my country at least) have all indoor workplaces and public areas. We have outside. If a business doen’t provide a area away from the door then punish the business by not giving them your money and let them know that but don’t expect to get anything other than a ‘fuck off’ from me when I’m following the law and doing what I’m meant too.
Yes, and yes. I’ve been thoroughly addicted to nicotine for years, and have at various times satisfied it with virtually every form of tobacco-taking under the sun. Snuff’s the most discreet and least offensive form of tobacco usage. Plus, it smells really good, and comes in all sorts of flavors.
You are. I’d have to dig up the exact stats, but every European snuff company has been reporting yearly increases in sales for years.
There was one study of Indian snuff users that showed chronic rhinitis, but as far as I know that’s the only drawback that’s been reported in the medical literature. No case of cancer, afaik, has been linked to snuff usage in modern times.
Okay, I don’t use snuff, but I can answer some of the questions about the “benefits”/side effects of smoking. While nicotine is a stimulant, I know that for me it calms me down and I do not believe that it is just the sating of the addiction. After all, people with ADD take stimulants, and it calms them down (as do cigarettes, I have heard). Likewise, alcohol is a depressant, but often leads to a heightened mood. Many drugs have paradoxical effects depending on the way they are taken into the body (for instance, a nicotine pill might metabolize differently than a cigarette leading to a different effect, and the deep breathing/ritual of smoking is in itself calming) and the individual biology of the user. I know that I tried a pipe once and I did not get the same effect off of it that I do from smoking. It just FELT different, in some way I can’t define.
I know that snuff users have a lower incidence of lung cancer but a much, much higher incidence of oral cancer. I saw a picture of a guy who lost his cheeks and most of his gums to oral cancer. Not pretty, and I don’t think most smokers would switch to snuff if cigarettes became illegal. Part of the allure of smoking is the ritual itself and most of the smokers I know (especially females) consider snuff or chew tobacco to be gross. (Not that it should be illegal, of course!)
On preview: Is snuff different from chewing tobacco? I thought they were basically the same thing.
I think there’s a big difference between a universally available, legal product and one that is illegal for retailers to sell. Tobacco is distributed by tractor trailer. In order to keep stores stocked they drive around all day delivering from trucks.
Make distribution illegal, how can you possibly get that volume of product to customers? How can you grow that much tobacco, when you can’t do it openly? If anything, just shutting down the farms will cut tobacco availability by orders of magnatude.
While I strongly support banning smoking in virtually all indoor public places, I really think that any further restriction on smoking is wrong. I find it very hard to believe that outdoor secondhand smoke poses any danger whatsoever, barring someone standing and blowing smoke directly in your face. Indoors, smoke can persist and accumulate and perhaps result in significant exposure. Outdoors, anything beyond the first whiff is going to disperse.
Now, I do dislike people smoking near me. I also dislike people standing and farting near me. I think it’s ridiculous to legislate against either one.
Sorry to say, that’s not the case.
Snuff seems to be aptly named. :rolleyes:
And “smokeless” tobacco as a whole has been deeply implicated for its carcinogenic potential. It has not to my knowledge been linked with secondhand risks, apart from its general disgustingness.
I just gotta say that it is pretty funny that you included a quote from a guy who died of cancer. Not lung cancer, but pancreatic cancer which can also be caused by smoking
Never heard of it. Frankly, I think the property owners should permitted to choose whether they wanna permit their patrons to smoke or not; to have a designated smoking or non-smoking area; to use whatever air quality devices they wish. Anybody trying to hide behind any piece of legislation in order to usurp the freedoms of others is a hypocritical jackass.
And when laws get passed which completely ban smoking- which, given self-entitlement assholes such as yourself, they will be- then tough shit for YOU, dickhead. Try finding an addiction which doesn’t affect other people.
I like eating sushi. I don’t force you to eat my sushi when I eat it, and the smell (which wafts a much shorter distance than cigarrette smoke) won’t potentially give you cancer. And unless you go to places specifically set aside for my enjoyment of raw fish, you don’t even have to see me eat the stuff. What’s more, there’s not a multimillion dollar industry involved in keeping me addicted to sushi.
You say “we” have all the indoor and public areas, and you don’t? Boo fuckin’ hoo. Try having a hobby which doesn’t keep everyone else from wanting to be around you. And you know what? The outdoors belong to nonsmokers, too. Your addiction doesn’t give you any more right to them than nonsmokers have.
I don’t get it, I really don’t. You’re paying a company to keep you addicted to a proven harmful substance, one which many people find disgusting. It stains your teeth yellow, costs you a huge amount of money, makes you stink, and will likely cause you all sorts of health problems… and you’re mad at the people who don’t want you to do it around them? Jeez, dude, check your priorities.
I know, wouldn’t it be crazy if suicide was illegal?! Oh wait, it is.
If there can be laws requiring seatbelts and helmets (not wearing one only hurts the individual and/or drives up medical insurance costs) then I guess there can be laws against smoking (smoking only hurts the individual and/or drives up medical insurance costs).
Please stop spreading germs.
Yes – it’s powdered, often scented, tobacco that’s sniffed into the nose.
Your link goes to a 404 page. And are you sure that you’re not confusing snuff with oral snuff or snus?
The ironing is deciduous.
The same way criminals somehow manage to supply the entire western world with enough marijuana to keep them happy, with the added bonus that it wouldn’t actually be illegal to grow in most of the world (good luck convincing China to ban tobacco, for example). And the end of taxation would at least (if not more than) compensate for the increased expense of illicit importing. Prohibition-era alcohol was trucked in as well; you’re comparing banning tobacco with banning drugs, but as with alcohol you’re talking about something that is incomparably more popular, and correspondingly more difficult to control.
I have to say, given the massive decrease of smoking in public places that we’ve seen just over the last decade or so, I really don’t see the point of mooting prohibition-style legislation. It would cost an absolute fuckload, wouldn’t result in the eradication of tobacco anyway, and wouldn’t achieve anything we’re not already achieving primarily by social mores and habits. It just smacks of vindictiveness really, seeing as how non-smokers have pretty much sewn up the argument anyway. I really don’t see how smokers smoking outside affect me (save at congregation points like bus stops; fine, stick up signs at those), and there are so many places I can go inside that are non-smoking that I just don’t see the need for further crusading. It seems counter-productive; witness people like Lightnin’ who seem to somehow summon the bile to still berate smokers for smoking in outdoor smoking areas. How does that sort of spittle-flecked ranting encourage consideration from others? I don’t get the venom, I really don’t.
Ah, I found on Google what I think is a cached version of the article you were trying to link to. It’s very poorly written, to the point of spreading falsehoods – it starts out talking about nasal snuff, but then references a blurb that was published in the Journal of Dental Hygiene, which reported an 8-fold increase in breast cancer among Lumbee women who used oral snuff, which has nothing do to with nasal snuff other than the fact that both are made from tobacco. To my knowledge, the full study has not yet been published. Oral use of smokeless tobacco is indeed linked with increased cancer rates.