Has smoking harmed you

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,330
559
Or people around you, i have been smoking cigarettes for over 40 yrs without any sign of harm.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,513
8,549
Yes.

I don't believe you.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Or people around you, i have been smoking cigarettes for over 40 yrs without any sign of harm.

I don't smoke and I don't care for people smoking around me. That being said, I don't fake-cough with smokers around, and frankly, I would be FINE if they reintroduced smoking in restaurants and bars in NH.

I doubt, seriously, that you've smoked for 40 years without side effects. You're a walking creosote-packed chimney.
 
  • #4
18,674
8,673
I am all for personal freedoms, but when it comes to smoking, I love the no smoking laws in most major cities now. No longer do I smell awful when I go out for a drink.
 
  • #5
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
I am all for personal freedoms, but when it comes to smoking, I love the no smoking laws in most major cities now. No longer do I smell awful when I go out for a drink.

One of the stages that never developed was the choice for establishment owners to make a building smoke-free. That would've been the ultimate market-driven solution. Instead it went from illegal to discriminate against smokers in bars to illegal to smoke in bars.

A simple: "you get to decide if there's smoking allowed in your bar" would've solved the issue. I bet, over time, the amount of smoke-friendly establishment would slowly be driven down by people who would prefer to spend their money at the smoke-free establishment. And no one would've complained about impingement on personal freedoms.
 
  • #6
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
I have a dead granddad who smoked for decades then died of emphysema. I'm curious as to the purpose of this thread, is it to challenge the notion that smoking is harmful?
 
  • #7
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
I have a dead granddad who smoked for decades then died of emphysema. I'm curious as to the purpose of this thread, is it to challenge the notion that smoking is harmful?

He's just asking a question... stop suspecting ulterior motives. My mom is a smoker, she's cut down quite a bit in the last ten years, but I suspect everyone in the family knows what will ultimately kill her. It's sad to think about.
 
  • #8
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
He's just asking a question... stop suspecting ulterior motives. My mom is a smoker, she's cut down quite a bit in the last ten years, but I suspect everyone in the family knows what will ultimately kill her. It's sad to think about.

I'm just asking the question. It's rare that I see a question along the lines of "have you actually been harmed by smoking" without seeing it followed up by a challenge to the idea that smoking causes harm. As for your mum I sincerely hope that isn't the case and that she is one of the people who live a full life.
One of the stages that never developed was the choice for establishment owners to make a building smoke-free.

I don't know what it's like where you are but in the UK this was the case before the smoking ban. Nowhere was obliged to allow smoking however almost all bars allowed it and other places like restaurants always had smoking areas. I support the ban because the freedom of one person smoking infringes on the freedom of many people who have to breathe and smell it. For that reason I see no problem with allowing smokeless cigarettes inside if people want to.
 
  • #9
1,031
19
I am all for personal freedoms, but when it comes to smoking, I love the no smoking laws in most major cities now. No longer do I smell awful when I go out for a drink.
Drinking laws are next.
 
  • #10
1,031
19
One of the stages that never developed was the choice for establishment owners to make a building smoke-free. That would've been the ultimate market-driven solution. Instead it went from illegal to discriminate against smokers in bars to illegal to smoke in bars.

A simple: "you get to decide if there's smoking allowed in your bar" would've solved the issue. I bet, over time, the amount of smoke-friendly establishment would slowly be driven down by people who would prefer to spend their money at the smoke-free establishment. And no one would've complained about impingement on personal freedoms.
Where are you going to find employees that don't mind the smoke. Do you intend to discriminate against the ones that do. I don't mind if you smoke, I don't even mind if you burn, but do it in private. Your rights end where my nose begins.
 
  • #11
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Where are you going to find employees that don't mind the smoke. Do you intend to discriminate against the ones that do. I don't mind if you smoke, I don't even mind if you burn, but do it in private. Your rights end where my nose begins.

The employees would probably be smokers, too. Or they would at least command a higher average wage than their pickier counter-parts.

Besides, are you going to outlaw people who don't bathe often enough? Or women who wear too much perfume? What about people with bad breath? There's no law that says you MUST be allowed to attend any restaurant without being offended by smells there.

In fact, it's the height of hubris to think that your preferences should be law.

Now, to be clear, I would never go to a restaurant that allowed smoking. I just think it shouldn't be a law either way. Bars are a different story. Pool halls, especially... I love to smoke a cigar... a few times a year.
 
  • #12
543
1
The problem with letting the market decide is that it doesn't always work if the establishments you would like to frequent have some kind of specialty (OK, I imagine vegan restaurants I frequent would ban smoking). For example, when I first moved to Ohio, the smoking ban here hadn't gone into effect yet. I am an avid karaoke fiend, but I couldn't find any place that had karaoke but also didn't allow smoking. It was only after the ban took effect I could go. The same goes for bars that host local bands (which invariably have a multitude of people that would smoke, since it's part of the culture). Of course you could alwys opt to not go there at all, but that sort of defeats the purpose.
 
  • #13
1,039
1
Personally, I don't mind being around smokers of any sort but that would be a different story if people were smoking indoors. I quite enjoy not having a constant haze of death in the air while I'm out at a bar.
 
  • #14
Borek
Mentor
28,979
3,614
Not yet. But I am not smoking now. Oh well, occasionally, perhaps not more than two packets per year. Maybe four.

It's rare that I see a question along the lines of "have you actually been harmed by smoking" without seeing it followed up by a challenge to the idea that smoking causes harm.

Agreed. At the same time I know Wolly for long enough to not worry about such motives.
 
  • #15
543
1
The employees would probably be smokers, too. Or they would at least command a higher average wage than their pickier counter-parts.

Besides, are you going to outlaw people who don't bathe often enough? Or women who wear too much perfume? What about people with bad breath? There's no law that says you MUST be allowed to attend any restaurant without being offended by smells there.

In fact, it's the height of hubris to think that your preferences should be law.

Now, to be clear, I would never go to a restaurant that allowed smoking. I just think it shouldn't be a law either way. Bars are a different story. Pool halls, especially... I love to smoke a cigar... a few times a year.

It's not a question of preference - it's a question of health effects.
 
  • #16
1,031
19
In fact, it's the height of hubris to think that your preferences should be law.
It's a carcinogen, so it's only mid-level hubris.
 
  • #17
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
It's not a question of preference - it's a question of health effects.

It's a carcinogen, so it's only mid-level hubris.

I suppose... I'm still in favor of self-governance. If I want to open a restaurant for the specific purpose of catering to smokers, and I want to charge $50 for a steak, and $20 for a bottle of beer so I can pay my wait-staff $30/hr plus tips... I can't. It's illegal. I bet I'd get rich... but I can't do it.
 
  • #18
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,330
559
I have a dead granddad who smoked for decades then died of emphysema. I'm curious as to the purpose of this thread, is it to challenge the notion that smoking is harmful?

No there is no challenge, it seems my family are immune to smoke, mum 86 dad 84 both have smoked all their lives with no visible signs of smoking related harm.
 
  • #19
1,031
19
I suppose... I'm still in favor of self-governance. If I want to open a restaurant for the specific purpose of catering to smokers, and I want to charge $50 for a steak, and $20 for a bottle of beer so I can pay my wait-staff $30/hr plus tips... I can't. It's illegal. I bet I'd get rich... but I can't do it.
Where would you stand if the employees sued you for failing to provide a safe working environment. I see no practicality in your proposal.
 
  • #20
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
No there is no challenge, it seems my family are immune to smoke, mum 86 dad 84 both have smoked all their lives with no visible signs of smoking related harm.

Fair enough. It happens, though obviously in the minority of cases.
 
  • #21
543
1
My http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breuning" [Broken] says he used to smoke a cigar a day until he was in his late 90's, then stopped because it got too expensive. That's why cigarette smoke is a stochastic effect (as it relates to cancer, that is).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
15,475
2,118
The fallacy with saying the banning smoking impinges on personal freedoms is that smoking has non-negligible external effects. I think most people here would be fine if smokers could contain the smoke to themselves, but they can't.
 
  • #23
1,039
1
The fallacy with saying the banning smoking impinges on personal freedoms is that smoking has non-negligible external effects. I think most people here would be fine if smokers could contain the smoke to themselves, but they can't.

Agreed. I think almost all smokers understand that they are impinging upon the rights of others to be in a healthy and safe environment.
 
  • #24
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Where would you stand if the employees sued you for failing to provide a safe working environment. I see no practicality in your proposal.

Why would you volunteer to work at a place that specializes in providing a high-smoke environment? NH doesn't have any compulsory work laws.
 
  • #25
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
Why would you volunteer to work at a place that specializes in providing a high-smoke environment? NH doesn't have any compulsory work laws.

That's like saying "why would you volunteer to work in a mine that has no safety procedures?" Health and safety laws came into place (in the UK at least) for a reason, to stop employers providing unsafe working conditions. Saying "well you could always choose to work elsewhere" doesn't apply because a) people don't always have the luxury to pick and choose jobs at whim and this is connected to b) there is little real incentive (aside from ethical) for an employer to provide a safe working place; they can always hire someone else and the reputation of being unsafe wont always provide enough of a dent to their profits (depending on what they do).
 
  • #26
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
That's like saying "why would you volunteer to work in a mine that has no safety procedures?" Health and safety laws came into place for a reason, to stop employers providing unsafe working conditions. Saying "well you could always choose to work elsewhere" doesn't apply because a) people don't always have the luxury to pick and choose jobs at whim and this is connected to b) there is little real incentive (aside from ethical) for an employer to provide a safe working place; they can always hire someone else and the reputation of being unsafe wont always provide enough of a dent to their profits (depending on what they do).

Okay, we're way off-topic and I don't want to hijack the thread. I don't enjoy smokers, I wouldn't work somewhere that allowed smoking, and I don't honestly care to start a business that supports smoking. That being said, whenever there is a choice, I favor actual CHOICE.

If smokers want to smoke, then they can do so in a place that allows them to smoke. If they all gather in one building, what's the harm? And what's the harm if they bring some food to cook for each other? And where's the problem with having a table for them to sit at? And is it so wrong to pay one smoker to prepare food for another smoker?
 
  • #27
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
I find it unbelievable that a person can't go without a cigarette long enough to eat a meal.
 
  • #28
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
Okay, we're way off-topic and I don't want to hijack the thread. I don't enjoy smokers, I wouldn't work somewhere that allowed smoking, and I don't honestly care to start a business that supports smoking. That being said, whenever there is a choice, I favor actual CHOICE.

If smokers want to smoke, then they can do so in a place that allows them to smoke. If they all gather in one building, what's the harm? And what's the harm if they bring some food to cook for each other? And where's the problem with having a table for them to sit at? And is it so wrong to pay one smoker to prepare food for another smoker?

No problem at all, but that doesn't scale.

EDIT: To expand on that a bit, there is a difference between running a private affair and running a commercial venue. Consequently there are different rules and regulations. There was a big argument about that distinction earlier in the year when a B&B owning couple were fined by a court for not allowing a gay couple into their B&B. They argued it was their house and so they could do what they like. The law said that as a business the B&B side of their home is a commercial venue and thus governed by different rules.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
21,513
8,549
It's a carcinogen, so it's only mid-level hubris.
Not even: it most certainly IS ok to discriminate on the basis of smell and not ok for a company to provide you with an offensive smelling workplace. Yes, you can sue if your cubemate has BO and your boss doesn't fix it.
 
  • #30
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
I find it unbelievable that a person can't go without a cigarette long enough to eat a meal.

I feel the same way about women and the bathroom. :tongue:

No problem at all, but that doesn't scale.

EDIT: To expand on that a bit, there is a difference between running a private affair and running a commercial venue. Consequently there are different rules and regulations. There was a big argument about that distinction earlier in the year when a B&B owning couple were fined by a court for not allowing a gay couple into their B&B. They argued it was their house and so they could do what they like. The law said that as a business the B&B side of their home is a commercial venue and thus governed by different rules.

I go to a local smoke shop with friends sometimes to watch various sporting events or hang out and enjoy a cigar. Very rarely, but when I do, the owner of the shop is allowed to provide couches, chairs, cigars, lighters, but cannot give us food or drink.

We have to order pizza and bring our own beer.

I just think it's absurd.

Also, in principle, I disagree with the outcome of your example. I find it reprehensible that people discriminate like that, but it's their business and they are free to be as idiotic as they please.

EDIT: Maybe they should be forced to post their discriminatory practice in giant letters, or something. Compulsory disclosure is always a great law! I wonder how quickly they would be picketed or go out of business. And with no government intervention necessary other than to force full disclosure of their discriminatory practice.

Not even: it most certainly IS ok to discriminate on the basis of smell and not ok for a company to provide you with an offensive smelling workplace. Yes, you can sue if your cubemate has BO and your boss doesn't fix it.

Wouldn't have pegged you for the type, Russ. Curious how you feel about sanitation workers (or nurses, for that matter).
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
I go to a local smoke shop with friends sometimes to watch various sporting events or hang out and enjoy a cigar. Very rarely, but when I do, the owner of the shop is allowed to provide couches, chairs, cigars, lighters, but cannot give us food or drink.

We have to order pizza and bring our own beer.

I just think it's absurd.

Yes that specific scenario does sound absurd. But there would have to be a blanket rule otherwise you create loopholes. If I was a publican/restaurant owner and I found out that tobacconists could sell food I would get my premises reclassified as a tobacconists. I can't find a link at the moment but last year there was a pub that managed to get itself classified as a research establishment so that people could smoke.

I don't see that a ban could practically be anything but an all or nothing thing.
EDIT: Maybe they should be forced to post their discriminatory practice in giant letters, or something. Compulsory disclosure is always a great law! I wonder how quickly they would be picketed or go out of business. And with no government intervention necessary other than to force full disclosure of their discriminatory practice.

OK, I think the fundamental thing we disagree on here is that I don't put that much stock in market forces fixing everything. It's easier if we just have a democratically elected government that can dispense the law. I don't think it is perfect, but it's better.
 
  • #32
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Yes that specific scenario does sound absurd. But there would have to be a blanket rule otherwise you create loopholes. If I was a publican/restaurant owner and I found out that tobacconists could sell food I would get my premises reclassified as a tobacconists. I can't find a link at the moment but last year there was a pub that managed to get itself classified as a research establishment so that people could smoke.

I don't see that a ban could practically be anything but an all or nothing thing.

See, I agree with you, but I come to the opposite conclusion. That's the fundamental problem with social engineering laws; there's always an exception OR a loophole. If you just avoided the problem entirely and said: "hey, do what you want." Folks like me would get the best of both worlds, restaurants that are smoke free next smoky sports bars. If the market chose a specific one... well, all the better ("Sorry, Flex, we're not making any money with all this smoke here... we're a smoke-free establishment now").
 
  • #33
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,917
719
See, I agree with you, but I come to the opposite conclusion. That's the fundamental problem with social engineering laws; there's always an exception OR a loophole. If you just avoided the problem entirely and said: "hey, do what you want." Folks like me would get the best of both worlds, restaurants that are smoke free next smoky sports bars. If the market chose a specific one... well, all the better ("Sorry, Flex, we're not making any money with all this smoke here... we're a smoke-free establishment now").

See above /\
OK, I think the fundamental thing we disagree on here is that I don't put that much stock in market forces fixing everything. It's easier if we just have a democratically elected government that can dispense the law. I don't think it is perfect, but it's better.
The problem with your system for me is that I don't believe it works in all cases. For example; before the ban in the UK any pub could go smoke free but they didn't (curious considering there was huge public desire for a place to go and not have to be in smoke). Consequently if I wanted to go for a drink I have no choice but to go to one that has smoking. So my choice is a) don't drink or b) go to a smoky pub. People en mass wont just flock away from a place even if one pub set up a non smoking policy. That is, I believe, one of the naive assumptions about market forces; that the needs and wants of the consumer will always be satisfied because if there is a niche a business will start up.

Secondly it changes the situation from democratic to fiscal voting. The more money you have the more say you get in your local environment. Under your system I could wander into a bar and drink and smoke all day paying the barman outlandish tips that make me and the five other rich smokers worth more than ninety five average customers.

These are somewhat silly examples but the illustrate my point.

EDIT: we may be in risk of derailing the thread here...
 
  • #34
turbo
Gold Member
3,147
55
I smoked heavily for a semester in engineering school(Lucky Strikes and Ovals), and then got bronchitis and mono back-to-back, losing weeks of class. I still managed to finish with a decent GPA, though I don't know how. When I felt well enough to go to the dining hall (instead of asking friends to bring me some food), I had a good breakfast and tried to follow up with a cup of black coffee and a cigarette. I made it outside and hurled. That was my last butt.
 
  • #35
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
EDIT: we may be in risk of derailing the thread here...

Yup, I'm done. Carried to PM. Thanks, all, for the indulgence.
 

Related Threads on Has smoking harmed you

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Top