Why do non-smokers often display hostility towards smokers?

[Chi Meson]

Oh, I do see the difference, but it's only a matter of scale.

"...anti-tobacco gurus line up to crucify you..."
"...here come the preachers..."
"...never saw any smokers go off on a tirade..."

Some people see it as "being passionate about an issue," others see it as "hostility."

Personally, I am seeing both sides exhibiting passion and hostility; it's hard to keep one from spilling into the other. We all need to own up to that much. We see our own posts as entirely rational, don't we all?

I was not entirely joking when I admitted to being "unhinged." We'd all do a lot better if we at least recognized the point where we personally become unglued. If you read my linked post, and if you read Evo's own recounts of growing up with asthma in the age where smoking was "the norm," you might understand where this passion is coming from.

And let's please all remember that it is not about the "smell," or as smokers call it, the "flavor." It's about the chemicals, the drug, and the particulate infiltration of the lungs.

 

[BobG]

We are very kind to our smokers here. Granted, they take more breaks and keep the health ensurance relatively expensive. However, they also pay for the collective pensions funds and usually never get to collect that money, so our pension funds are very strong financially. That outweights the higher ensurance fees.

Ah, a country has understands sound fiscal policy.

I do find it ironic that a government facing budget deficits and shortfalls in Social Security funding would spend money on things that would extend peoples' lives. At least efforts to stamp out things like drunk driving make economic sense. Drunk driving eliminates people that could be paying into Social Security while smoking and obesity eliminate people that could be drawing Social Security funds.

Now, if there were just a way to target drunk drivers without going to the extreme of banning alcohol altogether or violating protection against unreasonable search and seizures. (And targeting by snipers would not be an acceptable method, since how could a sniper really know a driver's blood alcohol level).

I think the majority of people have some group they're hostile against.

(And it's probably a little too true to be funny. If you eliminate racism and bigotry, it seems those type of emotions have to find an outlet somewhere else.)

 

[rootX]

Wow heated debate

As an ex-smoker I will say that anyone who used to smoke, then lecutures other smokers is a hypocrite. I'm extremely sensitive to smoke, and I get irritated when someone smokes. But I don't go off on them. I may POLITELY ask them not to smoke. Being rude just makes you a jerk, nothing more.

There is a big difference between making an argument (here or in general) and going off on them whenever you see them smoking. If someone does latter, s/he has some anger issues which has nothing to do with non-smokers. I am sure mostly people who make arguments and not dwell into making personal attacks would ask them politely not to smoke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really don't understand the arguments about health care costs and smoking. I know the statistics but they are incomplete. Unless a person is really lucky and dies unexpectedly in their sleep, in all likelihood, they will at some point incur huge financial costs for medical care before they die. Smoking will kill you, but SOMETHING is going to kill you whether you smoke or not. That will likely cost lots of money before you die. Smokers also pay dearly for taxes on tobacco products. Also, by dying younger, they will collect less social security.

I have to wonder if smokers aren't a net positive to the system financially. This obviously ignores demographics and economic factors, education, etc, but those are coincidental factors and not the result of smoking. I also notice a lot of assumptions that correlation implies causation. For example, there are certain personality types that are more likely to smoke than others, but I don't see those types of distinctions applied to conclusions about smoking.

Some of the claims about smoking are rather dubious as well. When I read one study that concluded that being in a room with smokers is worse than smoking, I knew we were into the silly season, as Obama says. Anyone smoking is exposed to primary and second-hand smoke, so I see no possible way that the report could be true. The study claimed that since smokers get filtered smoke, the exposure is less than that to non-smokers.

Evo probably has ER costs exceeding the lifetime cost of most smokers.

 

[f95toli]

When I was younger I was very sensitive to cigarette smoke (asthma, still got it but nearly as bad). Now, most smokers didn't have a problem with me asking them not to smoke when I was around (or asking them to go somewhere else to smoke) since they understood the reason.
What some of them did NOT understand was that cigarette smoke sticks to your clothes (and hair) pretty badly and when I was extra sensitive (because of e.g a cold) I could not even be around someone who HAD smoked earlier; and on a few occasions some smokers interpreted my unwillingness to go near them as a form of "anti-smoking" insult.

I've seen this more recently when some hospitals etc introduced rules that said that staff were not allowed to smoke during their breaks unless they changed into their civilian clothes; many of them seem to interpret this as some form of witch hunt on smokers (and many of them should know better).

My point is that some smokers seem to be quite oblivious just how badly cigarette smoke can affect some of us.

For the records; smokers are of course not the only problem. If you have asthma you are equally likely to run into e.g. equally oblivious horse owners.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I was younger I was very sensitive to cigarette smoke (asthma, still got it but nearly as bad). Now, most smokers didn't have a problem with me asking them not to smoke when I was around (or asking them to go somewhere else to smoke) since they understood the reason.
What some of them did NOT understand was that cigarette smoke sticks to your clothes (and hair) pretty badly and when I was extra sensitive (because of e.g a cold) I could not even be around someone who HAD smoked earlier; and on a few occasions some smokers interpreted my unwillingness to go near them as a form of "anti-smoking" insult.

We had a grad student who was a smoker. She always went outside to smoke but worked in an optics lab. One day they started having problems with the lab equipment and realized that a fine layer of contaminants had coated the lenses of some of their optics. The claim was made that it was caused by residue on her clothing from smoking. I don't know if that was true but she certainly took the blame for it.

I guess smoking jackets should have never gone out of style.

 

[Bratticus]

Ahh well, the economics of smoking..
Just how many people are employed in the tobacco industry? (They pay income tax and social security).

Now, if one would accommodate the non-smokers and ban all smoking, there would be no need for the employees of that tobacco industry.

So, they would be on unemployment, and when that runs out, on welfare.

Not only will the government get less tax revenue, they will have to shell out a lot of cash. Mind you, all the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products will be gone as well. And that will cut into all those social programs people have become accustomed to; no money, no service.

And let us not forget the farmers growing that stuff. No market, no income.

No you may argue that they could get other employment. Looking at the latest jobless figures... where would they work?

But, we all would be so much healthier, live so much longer, pay more and more taxes, and the unlucky may simply starve to death.

 

[rootX]

Ahh well, the economics of smoking..
Just how many people are employed in the tobacco industry? (They pay income tax and social security).

Now, if one would accommodate the non-smokers and ban all smoking, there would be no need for the employees of that tobacco industry.

So, they would be on unemployment, and when that runs out, on welfare.

Not only will the government get less tax revenue, they will have to shell out a lot of cash. Mind you, all the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products will be gone as well. And that will cut into all those social programs people have become accustomed to; no money, no service.

And let us not forget the farmers growing that stuff. No market, no income.

No you may argue that they could get other employment. Looking at the latest jobless figures... where would they work?

But, we all would be so much healthier, live so much longer, pay more and more taxes, and the unlucky may simply starve to death.

Well, there are many other markets like assassinations/human (children) trafficking/supporting insurgents or governments suppressing its citizens. I am taking no interest in drug economies. But, you simply don't let the markets run because otherwise we would be worse off economically.

 

[Saladsamurai]

Is smoking bad for you or something?

 

[Evo]

I apologize for sounding hostile, but I have really good reason to want to vent in this thread. I have to deal everyday with obnoxious cigarette smoke filling my house and preventing me from even being able to sit outside on my own patio.

I moved into an apartment and the people above me and next to me are all chain smokers. The problem is that they don't smoke inside their homes, they come outside to smoke. The weather has been beautiful lately, but if I open my windows, my house is instantly filled with smoke to the point where I have trouble breathing, I'm coughing and my throat gets sore and my eyes start burning. I cannot go outside and sit on my patio for the same reason. This is not right. The people above me also lean over the railing, flicking their hot ashes off so that they cover my plants, burning holes in the leaves. From the layer of cigarette butts covering my yard below them, they obviously do not own an ashtray. Actually the grounds people were so disgusted by their mess, that they sent a warning for them to stop, so now they throw their butts deeper into the ravine.

So, not only can I not sit outside and enjoy my yard, I can't even open my windows and get fresh air. I have to keep the windows closed and run my air conditioner due to their smoke polluting my home.

Happily, it seems the tides are turning and people are pushing through laws making cigarette smoke a public nuisance. I don't mind my neighbors smoking inside their homes, but they should not be allowed to smoke in our common shared outdoor space.

More California Cities Consider Ordinances Making Smoking a Public Nuisance

The city of Dublin, California, recently charted new legal territory in the fight against tobacco by passing an ordinance that classifies cigarette smoke as a public nuisance, allowing residents to sue if a neighbor’s smoke wafts onto their property. Now other California cities, such as Belmont and Emeryville, are considering passing ordinances of their own classifying smoking as a nuisance, and are using the Dublin ordinance as a reference in forming these ordinances.

The Dublin ordinance protects the rights of those who wish to keep their homes smoke-free and who find that theirneighbor’s cigarette smoke infiltrates their homes and property. Just as nuisance laws do not prevent people from playing loud music at home, this ordinance would not prevent people from smoking in their homes. It would, however, offer a legal remedy for those who are annoyed or harmed by their neighbor’s smoke. To view the ordinance, http://209.172.109.140/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=130668"

Elsewhere in the nation, ordinances and policies classifying cigarette smoke as a public nuisance are gaining in legal acceptance. A Colorado district court judge recently upheld a condominium complex’s bylaws making units smokefree and classifying cigarette smoke as a nuisance. The judge determined that the smoke smell that wafted in-between neighboring condominium units constituted a nuisance, regardless of whether any actual smoke passed between units.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4667551 to learn more about the Colorado decision.

http://www.tclconline.org/documents/LegalUpdate_Nov06.pdf

I think banning soemone from smoking "inside" their own home is a bit much, but seriously, people do not have the right to do anything that can be considered harmful, or a nuisance to others.

Utah has also passed a law making cigarette smoke a public nuisance and addresses the rights of people in their homes to not have second hand smoke in or around their homes.

Section 4. Section 78-38-.5 is enacted to read:
21 78-38-.5. Legislative intent.
22 (1) The Legislature finds:
23 (a) the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that environmental
24 tobacco smoke is a Group A carcinogen, in the same category as other cancer-causing chemicals
25 such as asbestos;
26 (b) the EPA has determined that there is no acceptable level of exposure to Class A
27 carcinogens; and
28 (c) the EPA has determined that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke also causes an
29 increase in respiratory diseases and disorders among exposed persons.
30 (2) The Legislature finds that environmental tobacco smoke generated in a rental or
31 condominium unit may drift into other units, exposing the occupants of those units to tobacco

- 3 -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 smoke, and that standard construction practices are not effective in preventing this drift of tobacco
2 smoke.
3 (3) The Legislature further finds that persons who desire to not be exposed to drifting
4 environmental tobacco smoke should be able to determine in advance of entering into a rental,
5 lease, or purchase agreement whether the subject unit may be exposed to environmental tobacco
6 smoke.
7 (4) The Legislature further finds that if tobacco smoke regularly drifts into a unit, and the
8 renter, lessee, or purchaser of the unit was not advised in the rental, lease, or purchase agreement
9 that environmental tobacco smoke may drift into the unit, that person should have a cause of action
10 for a nuisance under state law.
11 Section 5. Section 78-38-1 is amended to read:
12 78-38-1. Nuisance defined -- Right of action for -- Judgment.
13 (1) A nuisance is anything which is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses,
14 or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of
15 life or property. A nuisance may be the subject of an action.
16 (2) A nuisance may include the following:
17 (a) drug houses and drug dealing as provided in Section 78-38-9;
18 (b) gambling as provided in Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 11;
19 (c) criminal activity committed in concert with two or more persons as provided in Section
20 76-3-203.1;
21 (d) party houses which frequently create conditions defined in Subsection (1); and
22 (e) prostitution as provided in Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 13.
23 (3) A nuisance under this section includes tobacco smoke that drifts into any unit rented,
24 leased, or owned by the plaintiff and this smoke:
25 (a) drifts in more than once in each of two or more consecutive seven-day periods; and
26 (b) creates any of the conditions under Subsection (1).
27 (4) Subsection (3) does not apply to residential rental units that are available:
28 (a) for temporary rental, such as for vacations; and
29 (b) for only 30 or fewer days at a time.
30 [(3)] (5) An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected,
31 or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance.

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1997/bills/sbillint/SB0049S2.htm

 

[WhoWee]

I apologize for sounding hostile, but I have really good reason to want to vent in this thread. I have to deal everyday with obnoxious cigarette smoke filling my house and preventing me from even being able to sit outside on my own patio.

If you don't smoke, a very small amount of smoke is very easy to detect. Non-smokers who point this out are not being over-sensitive. Every time I smell (someone else's smoke) - it triggers a thought that I'm inhaling their bad breath.

 

[Bratticus]

Now, honestly, blowing smoke at a person that does not smoke is simply rude. It should not need laws for people to display good manners. I do not walk though our condo complex with lit tobacco, because I consider it rude to do so. I can do as I wish, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others... stated ad nauseum... smoking in the presense of non-smokers is rude, simple as that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of smokers or non-smokers, it is a simple display of respect and courtesy, imho.

Not all smokers are rude, and not all non-smokers are courteous. All ladies are after all women and all gentlemen are men, however, not all women are ladies and not all men are gentlemen. It is a sad state if we need, lawyers and law suits to remind people to be respectful of their fellow man/woman and display basic manners.

 

[WhoWee]

Now, honestly, blowing smoke at a person that does not smoke is simply rude. It should not need laws for people to display good manners.

I agree. We should all treat other people the way we would like to be treated.

I can't really say that people blowing smoke in my face has ever been a big problem. However, it did happen once. A young fellow, trying very hard to impress a young lady as well as his group of friends, stepped very close to me and exhaled a lung full of smoke directly into my face. I smiled, took the cigarette away from him and quickly put it down his open shirt. He didn't bother me ever again.

 

[kldickson]

Realistically, if you want to kill yourself, that's your prerogative. I just don't want to have my respiratory system assailed by carcinogenic fumes.

Find somewhere to smoke where it won't blow into someone else's face. We shouldn't have to breathe your cancer stick crap.

 

[Bratticus]

Hrm... so much for courtesy

 

[Lacy33]

Hrm... so much for courtesy

Why are you looking for courtesy?
A person who is still smoking is at a dangerous level of denial. A nonsmoker has to live with this dangerous denial just like we all suffer potential hazard or death from a drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car. These are behaviors that are known to harm other people and a smoker or a drinker are not going to step over their own denial to protect another persons health. Perhaps a few here and there, but not the majority.

 

[negitron]

Why are you looking for courtesy?

Because if you want courtesy from smokers you have to give courtesy back. That's the way society works, whether you like it or not.

 

[Lacy33]

Because if you want courtesy from smokers you have to give courtesy back. That's the way society works, whether you like it or not.

No, I do not agree. "Society" does not work well on these kinds of issues at all. The system is broken as far as I can see. I am a nurse and I see on the unit what smoking and other such "Society" accepted behaviors do to a person. How many times have I heard from a pt, I wish i would have quit? No, I'm sorry for "courtesy" sake, your comment sounds like more denial. I hope your not a smoker and if you are I hope you are able to give it up somehow.

 

[negitron]

The system is broken as much because of self-righteous people like you as by rude smokers.

I quit smoking 6 years ago.

 

[Lacy33]

The system is broken as much because of self-righteous people like you as by rude smokers.

I quit smoking 6 years ago.

Do you really think I'm being self righteous?

 

[negitron]

Yes, that is the overall tone of your posts thus far, intentional or not.

 

[Lacy33]

Yes, that is the overall tone of your posts thus far, intentional or not.

And I see that you are not prone to suffering fools. To say that you would know one when you see one. So I guess you win and I better go anyway. Happy you were able to stop smoking. I was able to as well.

 

[Hootenanny]

Because if you want courtesy from smokers you have to give courtesy back. That's the way society works, whether you like it or not.

I suppose we should also be courteous to drink drivers then, shouldn't we?

 

[negitron]

Driving drunk is illegal and therefore undeserving of courtesy. Try again.

 

[Hootenanny]

Driving drunk is illegal and therefore undeserving of courtesy. Try again.

Okay, fair point. Suppose I came and stood beside you whilst cutting up some old asbestos filled boards. Would you 'politely' ask me to do it somewhere else? Or would you think that I was obnoxious?

 

[Lacy33]

I suppose we should also be courteous to drink drivers then, shouldn't we?

I would give a drunk driver all the consideration/courtesy they required.
They could have the entire road, sidewalk, front lawns, storefronts, living rooms, driveways, parks, beaches, rivers, lakes and oceans to drive drunk in.


(sorry, could not resist) I get the point.

 

[negitron]

Suppose I came and stood beside you whilst cutting up some old asbestos filled boards. Would you 'politely' ask me to do it somewhere else? Or would you think that I was obnoxious?

That would also be illegal; as a hazmat, asbestos requires special handling by EPA-licensed contractors.

 

[Hootenanny]

That would also be illegal; as a hazmat, asbestos requires special handling by EPA-licensed contractors.

You understand the point I'm trying to make.

Suppose I came and set a fire next to you? There's nothing illegal about that now is there?

 

[rootX]

Why are you looking for courtesy?
A person who is still smoking is at a dangerous level of denial. A nonsmoker has to live with this dangerous denial just like we all suffer potential hazard or death from a drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car. These are behaviors that are known to harm other people and a smoker or a drinker are not going to step over their own denial to protect another persons health. Perhaps a few here and there, but not the majority.

Are you saying that if someone harms only himself not anyone else, he does not deserve courtesy?

You understand the point I'm trying to make.

Suppose I came and set a fire next to you? There's nothing illegal about that now is there?

See Lacy33 above post, from where it started. It is not about troubling others.

 

[negitron]

Yes, that's likely illegal, too, depending on where I happen to be at the time. In any case, I do understand the point you are trying to make but unfortunately, it's invalid. See, smoking (in addition to being perfectly legal, with certain exceptions previously noted upthread) has, at least up until recently, a long, long history of being socially-acceptable and as such at least a modicum of common courtesy is due to those who choose to indulge in it provided they are, likewise, courteous in their indulgence.