Has smoking harmed you

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
4,267
555

Main Question or Discussion Point

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
19,402
5,548
Yes.

I don't believe you.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
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
18,079
7,499
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
369
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
5,841
711
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
369
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
5,841
711
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
918
16
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
918
16
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
369
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
537
0
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
1,033
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
28,353
2,742
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
537
0
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
918
16
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
369
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
4,267
555
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
918
16
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
5,841
711
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
537
0
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
14,580
1,193
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
1,033
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
369
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
5,841
711
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).
 

Related Threads on Has smoking harmed you

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
62
Views
13K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
813
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Top