Smoking Cigarettes 40 Yrs | No Harm Reported

[wolram]

Or people around you, i have been smoking cigarettes for over 40 yrs without any sign of harm.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes.

I don't believe you.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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?

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[dacruick]

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.

 

[Borek]

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.

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[wolram]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[daveb]

My http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breuning" 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).

 

[vela]

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.

 

[dacruick]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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 won't always provide enough of a dent to their profits (depending on what they do).

 

[FlexGunship]

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 won't 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?

 

[Evo]

I find it unbelievable that a person can't go without a cigarette long enough to eat a meal.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

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).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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").

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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 won't 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...

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

EDIT: we may be in risk of derailing the thread here...

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

 

[turbo]

BTW, when I became unable to fly due to respiratory problems caused by fragrance chemicals, I ended up taking jobs locally, and I hosted open-mic jams at a couple of different pubs for extra money. People smoked in bars then, and that was not a problem. I could function, play, sing, etc with no troubles. I gave up that moonlight job after a former co-worker of my wife came to a show with her boyfriend, and they about put me in the ER with their perfumes. Too bad. Those jobs were worth up to $250/weekend for maybe 6 hours of work total, doing something I loved to do.

 

[FlexGunship]

BTW, when I became unable to fly due to respiratory problems caused by fragrance chemicals, I ended up taking jobs locally, and I hosted open-mic jams at a couple of different pubs for extra money. People smoked in bars then, and that was not a problem. I could function, play, sing, etc with no troubles. I gave up that moonlight job after a former co-worker of my wife came to a show with her boyfriend, and they about put me in the ER with their perfumes. Too bad. Those jobs were worth up to $250/weekend for maybe 6 hours of work total, doing something I loved to do.

Wear a respirator! That would've been so awesome! It would've been your "thing."

 

[turbo]

Wear a respirator! That would've been so awesome! It would've been your "thing."

Normal respirators don't stop VOCs. Plus, it would have been hard to sing into a mic properly with all that hardware in the way. Still, the smoke never bothered me. I came home smelling like a bar, but I had MONEY. $125 for 3 hour's work in the 80's wasn't a bad wage. Smoke still doesn't bother me, but if your clothes are saturated with Bounce, Downy, etc, stay away! I'll be sick for days if I have to be anywhere near you.

 

[Oltz]

See above /\

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 won't 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...

Ahh but there is the issue A ton of NON smokers "only smoke when I drink" hence bars always being smokey even tho you could ask adozen poepl smoking in the pub if they were smokers and half would say no.

The ones who wanted the ban were the ones not going to the bar and not going regularly enough to keep a smoke free bar in bussiness. The regulars and the every friday night crowd were all for smoke.

The Majority of the population was against smoke in the pub but the majority of pub patrons were for it. Where I am in the US nearly every restaurant was smoke freee 2 years before there was ever a ban and that was due to market forcing.

Bars and bowling alleys and other type places remained smoke friendly. Bowling alleys typically had a family day with no smoking and a 4 hour period on the weekend in the afternoon for childrens parties and what not with no smoke or Beer.

My favorite work around was in NC they called the bar a private club charged you a dollar and gave you a membership card then it could be smoking even after the ban as it was a private establishment. The normal bussiness doubled after the ban.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

FWIW, I'm with you on this (ugh, did I just perform a re-railment?), and like you, I do not smoke, and do not like being in smoky places.

 

[jtbell]

Or people around you,

My father smoked for about 35 years, then quit when I was a kid. Another 32 years later he died of lung cancer. Of course, it couldn't be proven that the cancer was a delayed effect of his old smoking habit, but we figured that was probably the case.

 

[khemist]

Both my grandparents on my mom's side smoked. My granddad smoked until he got pneumonia, where he was hospitalized and decided to stop (I think this was in his 30s). My grandma smoked for probably 30-40 years, and towards the end of these years she was pretty much smoking all the time. Then, she had to get quintuple bypass surgery and that was the end of her smoking...

 

[Evo]

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.

Gee, could it be that he's not licensed to sell food?

 

[drizzle]

You don't want to smoke with ME around. I don't talk or bug smokers, I just start acting like I'm being suffocated.

Sadly, a family member is a bad smoker, and just like the OP's case for 40+ yrs :(

 

[Adyssa]

I can safely say that smoking has harmed me. I'm 30, smoked since I was about 15, been through heavy stages and not so heavy stages and I currently pack away about 5 a day so definitely on the lighter end of the scale these days.

I used to be amazingly fit, I ran (athletics) when I was younger, but that's all behind me now. My lung capacity is pathetic. I hit a big hill on my cross country bike and I pretty much roll over and die for 5+ minutes when I hit the top.

I always said I would quit before I turned 30. I'd like to think I can before I hit 31. I usually smoke less in summer due to hot weather.

:S

 

[Loren Booda]

After smoking pot heavily for 12 years (ages 13-25), I developed a susceptibility to bronchitis, and debilitating psychoses.

 

[mathwonk]

you are in deep denial. it has taken probably 7-8 years off your life expectancy already.

take a look at an autopsy of the lungs of a lifetime smoker. they are shriveled like a burnt out building.

(I smoked heavily for 15 years or so and lightly for another 20. I have chronic breathing problems even after quitting for 20 years.)

I cut way down at age 35, almost stopping completely, after reading the stats on heart disease. I read that the leading cause of heart attack is genetic, and the second leading cause is smoking. I thought: well my dad died of a heart attack, so i can't do anything about that, but I would be really dumb not to stop smoking.

Look in the mirror friend, and quit kidding yourself. Not to mention you may kill your wife or child from second hand smoke. The saddest ad I saw on tv about this was the old guy who said: "I told my wife, 'it's my life', but it wasn't my life that was lost, it was hers".

quitting smoking is one of the hardest things in the world. The first step is to stop lying to yourself as you are now. The fact you are still doing that after all that is known, is evidence of what a strong hold the addiction has on you. But your asking this question suggests that you feel you need help. That's a small but good beginning.

Start now, it took me 5 years after quitting before I stopped reaching in my pocket for a smoke. good luck with this.

 

[DoggerDan]

Or people around you, i have been smoking cigarettes for over 40 yrs without any sign of harm.

Yes.

I don't believe you.

Well, now, let's examine the facts. One stands a 1 in 500 chance of dying of lung cancer if they never smoke, and a 1 in 3 chance if they smoke their entire lives. For the latter group, by the time "sign of harm" appears, it's often too late, so wolram may be in a false sense of security.

I smoke a couple of cigs in grade school, then a couple more about six or seven years back. Both times, yuck! What was I thinking?

I'm a cyclist. Smoking and cycling DO NOT MIX. In fact, any aerobic sport (or any other effort towards better health) and smoking are at odds with one another.

As for my youth, I grew up with parents who smoked. Yes, that affected me, with wrongly diagnosed "asthma" that disappeared a year after I moved out. Kept me out of a better job, dang it.