Several problems I see with it. One is I can’t see how use of this device would be easier to use then a cig. Two is smokers like to be ‘cool’ and walking around with a bubble on their head is not ‘cool’. Three is that smokers are rude (as proven by ybeeyf) and they don’t give a crap about anyone else then themselves.
One thing I would like to see is some sort of mist nicotine delivery system, simular to a asmatic’s inhaler, this way a nicotine addict woudln’t interfer with the rest of us.
Otto, you appear to be of the “that which is not permitted, is forbidden” school, whereas I feel that “that which is not forbidden is permitted”.
Let’s substitute “sex” for “smoking”. Some sex acts are illegal. The state could decide that your favorite kind of sex, performed in the privacy of your home, will be illegal tomorrow. How do you feel about that?
I would love to see a well-defined double-blind study on the effects of passing through a cloud of smoke. Divide the subjects in 3 groups, each of which pass through some sort of chamber, replicating the density of cigarette smoke found outside a public building. Group (a) tell them it’s cigarette smoke, and it is. Group (b) tell them it’s cigarette smoke, and it’s water vapor. Group © tell them nothing, and it’s cigarette smoke. Check each group’s eyes, nose, lung capacity afterwards, and ask them to self-report the effects.
I would bet there’s a large anti-placebo effect – you see a smoker, you expect your eyes to tear and lungs to close.
Again I refer back to my high school-era friend, who, while not incapacitated at “the faintest whiff,” was certainly made to suffer by exposure which to most people would be irksome but not health-threatening. Smokers don’t have to smoke. No one ever died for lack of a cigarette in a restaurant. My friend, and others similarly situated, have to breathe, and if it’s a choice between a smoker’s being able to smoke and a breathing person’s being able to breathe, well, the breather wins every time.
As for peanuts, as was once famously pointed out on these very boards, peanuts doesn’t suddenly fly through the air of its own volition. There is no such thing as second-hand peanuts. Someone with peanut allergies generally has to actively participate in the ingestion of peanuts.* Peanuts don’t suddenly appear in their mouths because someone else around them is eating them.
No, I’m not particularly of one school or the other here. I was simply pointing out that those who hang their hats in this discussion solely on tobacco’s being legal are drawing kind of slim. I am very much in the camp of maximizing personal liberty, but not at the expense of someone else’s personal liberty. In the case of smoking, the two competing interests are one person’s smoking and another person’s breathing smoke-free air. Smoking is intrusive on breathing, so smoking gets less respect.
*Yes, I know that there are many products which are manufactured with peanut products in which the peanuts aren’t obvious, and good for whoever it was who decided that labeling those products is a good idea. I’m talking about in general.
Wait–I detect sarcasm! You mean to tell me that tastes and smells that you personally find unpleasant (but that other people enjoy) cause you more harm than infectious diseases? What are we going to outlaw next, your least favorite restaurant?
That’s littering. It’s visually disgusting and denigrates the value of nearby homes and the overall enjoyment of the citizens of and visitors to the neighborhood. Smoke, on the other hand, dissipates into the air, causing much fewer environmental problems than cars (have you ever been to Southern California?), factories or infected people.
*BTW, the nice Las Vegas casinos have sufficient ventilation that when I was there I never noticed the smoke unless I was right next to a smoker. That was before I smoked, too.
She was inside a restaurant. I’m talking about the cluster of smokers outside in open air. Would she have the same or a comparable degree of discomfort walking through this cluster of smokers outside, where the wind may or may not blow an insignificant amount of it at her before it goes up and dissipates? If so, remember the reason they’re clustered out there in the first place: they don’t have any (sealed-off, ventilated) place to smoke inside.
How many times have a half-dozen or more people (or, for that matter, one person) fired shots of cigarette smoke in your direction? I’m willing to bet no smoker would unless either (a) they had the morals of a date rapist or (b) you were really nasty to them. I personally have only ever intentionally blown smoke in someone’s direction one to three times that I can remember: only at smokers, and only if they were being assholes, and only in a joking context. I certainly wouldn’t blow smoke at someone who was bothered by it, unless they were attacking me or being really unreasonable with me (ie, a non-allergic non-asthmatic in the open air trying to get me to leave the only place I can smoke in the general vicinity when they could just move further away without being inconvenienced). I don’t think I would in those circumstances, either. Now, I can’t speak for all smokers, but AFAIK every smoker I’ve known has had similar views.
How about the entirely voluntary act of driving a car? You could commute, ride the bus, or move closer to your workplace (or work closer to your place of residence) and ride a bike or walk.
Harvard president (forget the name): “We can’t allow Jews in our school because Jews cheat.”
Dissenter: “Don’t lots of Gentiles cheat in academics?”
Harvard president: “You’re changing the topic! We’re talking about Jews here.”
Huh. I wonder why. Let me ask you this: If cars are such an environmental problem, why don’t you just don your cape and fly to work?
Why are they there, directly outside your building, instead of in a sealed-off, ventilated room inside?
In San Diego, the only places I’ve ever seen where you can smoke indoors are smoke shops and your home. Some smoke shops don’t even let you smoke inside.
Arrogant jerk. Has it occurred to you that he was responding to a statement that he shouldn’t be allowed to smoke on his private property? It’s not debate that makes you happy, it’s taking people out of context and trying to make them look like the Antichrist.
(bloding mine) Because there are so many other lethal habits that pollute the personal space of non-consenting complete strangers. :rolleyes:
Rockclimbing? Nope. Drinking alcohol? Nope. Blackjack? Nope. Porn? Nope. Nice try, though. When come back bring sound logic.
Here’s the relevant municipal code for Madison WI:
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=50000&sid=49
Enter “23.05” in the search field.
Seems the only indoor smoking “allowed” is in private residences (and up to 25% of hotel rooms). I’d say that most people are away from their private residence for the majority of their waking hours. So smoking is effectively banned in virtually all indoor places. Now the movement is to ban it outdoors as well. Should smokers be quarantined, then?
Thanks for the rescue, Ellis Dee and kanicbird! As far as I remember, that’s the first and only time I’ve ever used a size=6 tag on these boards, and it would have been just too humiliating if everybody had gone on ignoring me all the same. 
But I wasn’t talking about health risks. I’m simply referring to the fact that many, many, many non-smokers (and even some smokers) absolutely HATE smelling other people’s smoke and breathing other people’s smoke and getting other people’s smoke all over them. It isn’t that most of us are seriously concerned about the health risks to ourselves, and it isn’t that we want to stop you from doing something you enjoy. We just absolutely hate the invasiveness of it.
Smoking is the olfactory and pulmonary equivalent of playing loud music: it’s an annoying nuisance that is enjoyed by the person who’s generating it but loathed by the other people enduring it. You can’t ignore it and it doesn’t go away. Loud music isn’t a serious health risk either, except in extreme cases, but everybody understands why there are restrictions on spewing it out in public.
Fortunately, technology has come to our rescue in the case of music, and we have those wonderful earphones so that people can listen to loud music to their heart’s content without inflicting it on anyone else.
So why, oh why, aren’t smokers using an equivalent sort of “smoke earphones” that will similarly transform them from infuriating public nuisances to innocuous and completely acceptable public non-nuisances?
You seem to be trying to dismiss the question by arguing that the invasiveness of smoking, and the annoyance it causes to others, is not a problem you should have to worry about at all unless is actually seriously threatening other people’s health. But I think that’s absurd. As in the case of loud music, something can be a terrible public nuisance even if it’s a negligible public health risk.
And if you can transform yourself from a public nuisance into a non-nuisance, why on earth wouldn’t you want to?
Well, it wouldn’t have to be easier to use it than not to use it. After all, it would be easier just to blast your music volume than to waste time fiddling with earphones, too. But people are willing to put up with the slight inconvenience of using earphones in order not to inflict the large inconvenience of loud noise on other people. So the idea is that smokers would be willing to make that compromise too.
Even if that was really a significant factor affecting most smokers’ attitudes (and it seems kind of silly and shallow, doesn’t it?), I bet it wouldn’t last long. It probably used not to be “cool” to walk around with wires trailing out of your ears silently bobbing your head to the rhythm instead of blasting your boombox, either. But “cool” culture adapted to earphones pretty quickly, and I bet it could adapt to “smoke earphones”, too.
I’d hate to think you were right about that, but some of the posters here are making it sound more plausible. Oh well, if some smokers really are just being selfish and rude and refusing to care about the annoyance and inconvenience that they inflict on other people, we non-smokers (and non-selfish non-rude smokers) will just have to keep using our majority power to control their behavior by force of law.
Now there’s an idea. But like a nicotine patch, might it have the effect of just satisfying a smoker’s physical addiction without actually being any fun to use? Remember, I’m not out to deprive smokers of their pleasure here. I’m just trying to figure out whether and why they can’t or won’t enjoy their pleasure in a non-invasive way.
[In preview: and thanks to you too, fetus! Here we go:]
You mean, my proposed “smoke earphones” are really a technological impossibility comparable to a superhero-powers flying cape? :sad: That doesn’t sound right. I can’t see why some kind of personal smoke-capture device would really be such a hard thing to make.
Because it stinks up the house and everything you own and it’s hard to get the smell out, even with a good airing out of the house. Plus, it’s being considerate if you live with children or a non smoker. (I smoke in my house. I’m just giving you the reasoning behind it).
Just suck it up and stop already. You only smoke to piss people off anyway. It’s not like it’s a real addiction like alcohol or heroin or something. :rolleyes:
What many non smokers don’t realize is that smoking is really, truly, honestly an addiction not just “some habit”. This isn’t like biting your nails, we are inhaling a drug. I would never stand outside freezing or sweating to have a drink or to eat something, but several times a day I do just that to have a smoke. And, the worst part of all this is I DO NOT WANT TO BE A SMOKER. I was going to quit when it got to $3 a pack - it’s now $5.50 - still smoking. I was going to quit when I felt it was bothering my health - I have no energy and sometimes get a little cough when I’ve smoked too much the night before – still smoking. I have been hypnotized, patch, gum, cold turkey - I have never successfully stopped for more than a few weeks (although, I am still trying).
The legislation itself only bothers me because I feel that bar and restaurant owners should have the right to decide to make their establishment smoking or non. And, against all the hopes of the militant non-smokers, all this legislation will not stop those awful people from having this dirty “habit”. Prohibition didn’t stop drinking and these laws will not stop smoking.
Yes, some smokers are jerks and I have run into my fair share of jerky nonsmokers. But, let’s keep in mind that stupid assholes are stupid assholes whether they are smokers or not, the smoking is just a side issue. I am very allergic to fragrances. I can’t even go into places like Yankee Candle for more than a few minutes. I can’t wear perfume or use anything with fragrance (hair sprays, etc). The woman who sits next to me at work knows this and yet sprays tons of hairspray and perfume right at her desk - aiming it towards me - every. single. day. For some reason, she finds the wheezing and choking amusing (of course, she also takes her scented body lotion and says “this one’s nice, try this” and slaps it on my arm or any other exposed skin she can find because “she thinks it’s funny” when the rash develops (and this woman is 36 years old). But, she’s a non smoker - so I guess that means she’s still a great person, right? Anyway, this is where I think the “it’s my property” argument breaks down. This is exactly her reasoning to me. She is spraying her stuff at her desk and she has the right to do what she wants at her desk.
IMNSHO, no, she sounds like a total jerk, comparable to the jerkiest of jerky inconsiderate smokers. I am completely with you on the idea that other people’s strong fragrances are just as invasive and annoying as other people’s smoke, and I totally support anti-smoking ordinances being expanded to include those other stinkers too.
And putting allergenic substances on your skin against your will just so she can laugh at your rash goes beyond jerkish to downright sadistic, if you ask me. How you have managed to go this long without grinding out a lighted cigarette in this beeyatch’s ear is more than I can understand, but I take my hat off to you for it.
Re: liability in indoor smoking areas. Liability for what? Fire? Do you really think that Phoenix Sky Harbor is in danger of going up in flames because of a smoking room in Concourse B? I’d bet that most building fires caused by smoking occur in the home. People fall asleep (or pass out) in their easy chair, sofa, or bed. Compare that to a typical smoking room. No curtains, draperies, or upholstered furniture. Linoleum floor, hard plastic furniture, if any at all. The only way to start a fire there would be to do so deliberately.
What’s wrong with having a smoking train car? So it smells, so what. The only passengers are those who ride in it voluntarily. The conductor could collect/check tickets in the vestibule, so no employees would be affected.
But banning outright is usually easier than making reasonable accomodation, so there we are.
They’d fire me and I need the paycheck :rolleyes:
I’m not the only one who has complained about her, but she’s friends with the boss. It goes like this.
Of course, this is the same person that pretends to vomit in my plate when I eat sushi. She just makes me :rolleyes:
Anyway – sorry for the hijack. Go back to your regularly scheduled sniping…
Or banning smoking outright is usually easier then getting smokers to be reasonable.
Do you agree that smokers should be responsible for the smoke they create? The smoke gets into clothes, which have to be washed, which shortens their lifespan, I assume that the smoking car would need better cleaning and more frequent service in the ventalation system, and then we have the issue of the health and well being of Mr. Conductor and ticket taker. Smoking cost other people money and makes a miserable stanky enviroment for others.
Don’t ride the smoking car. Your clothes won’t smell. As I said, the conductor can collect tickets at boarding, without entering the evil smoking car. They could even charge a ticket premium to cover cleaning costs. Do they do any of that? Nope, they just ban smoking altogether. Lame.
Man, your brother just can’t catch a break, can he?
I’m all for banning smoking in public places. I further believe that the federally mandated tax on cigaretts should be somewhere between $5 and $10 a pack (at $10 a pack, in SC, would be a roughly 500% tax.) That’d kill smoking right, quick, and in a hurry. Furthermore, individuals who violate a public smoking ban (which, IMHO, should include pretty much anywhere that isn’t stationary private property, such as your home or yard) should be subject to fines or prison time (for repeat offenders.)
However, in the interest of fairness, we should also see to it that all alcohol sales see a similar tax of 500%. Any individual who is in a bar, resturant, or other public place which isn’t their own stationary private property and consumes an alcoholic beverage should be fined and or jailed. Same for persons who wear too much perfume or refuse to bathe or are homeless or play music too loud or eat fatty foods or drive junk heaps or don’t mow their lawns or allow their children to scream in public or suffer from depression/anxiety or wear gaudy clothing or own yappy dogs or allow their cats to roam free or look at me withouth me inviting them to do so.
Each of these things are a public health risk, an annoyance, or could cause someone mental/emotional distress and as such should be treated the same as smoking.
Or instead, how’s about you take your smoke free self out of my smoke filled bar and down the street to that other bar, you know, the one that doesn’t allow smoking?
fushj00mang, that wasn’t funny. My blood pressure shot up so fast at your first paragraph I think I just had a stroke.
OK I can buy this one, except that sometimes you have to move from car to car, sometimes you want to, and again I see no smokers offereing a few bucks for the damage they caused to my clothes on my way, which they did on public property.
On the trains I have ridden, this would mean a conductor on every door, and a train 10 cars long has 20 to 30 doors, as wll as a long boarding line as the conductors take care of tickets while people are trying to board. Normally people get on, and 1 of 3 conductors come down the isle to chck tickets - yes again smokers raising the cost for other people.
Why do you want to pass the cost of smoking onto the non-smokers?
I’m not usually one who suggests running off to the lawyers, but in this instance it might be worth a chat with one. This woman is committing repeated batteries on you and your boss is knowingly allowing an employee’s health to be affected. I have to think that the boss has some sort of obligation to prevent it, and sending blanket emails isn’t resolving it. You’ve tried to resolve it through the corporate chain of command to no avail. A lawsuit naming the cow-orker, the boss and the company might just be in order. Throw in an OSHA complaint while you’re at it.
Otto knows all about asshole coworkers, too. 