Why do non-smokers often display hostility towards smokers?

[27Thousand]

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 41,059 people died in traffic crashes in 2007 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 12,998 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash every 40 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2008)

Only 41,059 deaths? Something I found interesting is according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 443,000 deaths were because of smoking http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm

Just to keep things in perspective, also keep in mind they make laws about driving drunk, but it's still okay in non-driving legal situations (non-minors, etc). They didn't have to have prohibition to do that. Something to consider, what if most of the public doesn't want secondhand smoke in work related/public non-smoking areas?

 

[Lacy33]

Is this a dog pile? We are talking about smoking. Are we going to pit all the evils of man against each other here or try to resolve one at a time?

 

[russ_watters]

According to the CDC, alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. cost approximately 51 billion dollars every year and the Office for Victims of Crimes estimates that 30 percent of Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related accident at some point in their lifetime.

Why is no one climbing the barricades shouting about banning alcohol?

Oh wait a minute... we already had that, Prohibition...

That's a fase parallel since drunk driving is illegal.

 

[Artman]

The more the government attempts to dictate how people should live, the bigger the mess they make of it

Hey we agree on something!

Not saying that prohibition of smoking is a good idea. It is a highly addictive substance. I'd rather see legislation prohibiting the tobacco industry from adding chemicals to increase the addictive nature of cigarettes. I agree with the AMA that Nicotine should be reduced in cigarettes.

http://faculty.unlv.edu/sajjad/Prev%20Med%20AMA%20Paper.pdf"

Frustrated
with the lack of progress, opinion leaders and policy makers
have begun to seriously discuss the value of a more drastic
measure—reducing the main ingredient in cigarettes that
induces people to smoke: nicotine.

 

[BobG]

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 41,059 people died in traffic crashes in 2007 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 12,998 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash every 40 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2008)

According to the CDC, alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. cost approximately 51 billion dollars every year and the Office for Victims of Crimes estimates that 30 percent of Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related accident at some point in their lifetime.

Why is no one climbing the barricades shouting about banning alcohol?

Oh wait a minute... we already had that, Prohibition...

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1596.html

The rise of gangsterism

The Prohibition era of the 1920s gave rise to the organized crime syndicate in the United States. Federal efforts to enforce prohibition, including raids on speakeasies, were countered by well-organized bootlegging operations with national and international connections.

The more the government attempts to dictate how people should live, the bigger the mess they make of it

Which would cause the worst problems?

Eliminating prohibition didn't eliminate gangsterism. They found other products to sell.

I don't think they had very good traffic statistics with details about alcohol related accidents back in the 20's, but it is a possibility that making access to alcohol illegal would reduce drunk driving incidents more than it would increase the bad effects of gangsterism.

Once again, arguments make a presumption that any bad effect of a "cure" eliminates that tactic from being used (not just by you, by the way - it's pretty much the norm).

Banning tobacco isn't automatically a bad idea. I just don't think there's much logical analysis of the issue one way or the other.

The arguments seem to run "I have a right to a smoke free environment"/"I have a right to smoke if I want to".

(And I have a problem with these homeowners associations, in any event. I'd never move into a home where the neighbors are going to dictate how I live. I'm shocked any of them ever hold up in court. My favorite was during our drought - some homeowners had a choice of being fined by the city for watering their grass too much or being fined by their homeowner's association for not watering their grass enough to keep their lawns lush and green.)

 

[negitron]

Is this a dog pile? We are talking about smoking. Are we going to pit all the evils of man against each other here or try to resolve one at a time?

I don't know what the heck this is. Teach me to, y'know, sleep.

 

[Bratticus]

My initial post was not about smoking, it was about hostility. I had an severaloccasions observed people being harangued and berated for purchasing a pack of cigarettes, including some pretty colorful name calling. I can truly say, that I have never seen a person being confronted with hostility for not purchasing cigarettes.

Since this has evolved into smoking vs not smoking, I will add my 2 cents.

I do not care if people smoke or not. I do understand people's wish for a smoke free environment. I understand the wish to breathe clean air (finding that phenomenon in this country is going to be a challenge).

This country is supposedly founded on equal rights for all, but do we practise what we preach? Imho, no we do not. If we want to treat people equally, we should have places for smokers as well as non-smokers. We could reach a compromise by having bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers (no children permitted in a smoking environment). Most likely we will end up with discrimination lawsuits from non-smokers being denied employment in a bar for smokers. And if they win, the bar has to ban smoking to accommodate those people... back to square one.

A smokefree workplace... great. But if you really believe in equal rights, there should be a breakroom for smokers, well ventilated and well away from the non-smokers.

And please do not remind me of firehazards again. I am well aware that open flames and lit tobacco products pose a fire threat. One would hope reponsible adults make sure that they properly extinguish their cigarettes, cigars or pipes.

If ones employees fall asleep while smoking... hey, come on now, where they really hired to sleep on the job?

I have a problem with hostility, I am wary of one group imposing their views on another group. It reminds me more of "I have the power, you will obey or else" than true health concerns.

When government officials take it upon themselves to pass a law forbidding people to engage in a legal activity in the privacy of their own home... I have a major problem with that. I for one would not grant that much power to any official. It is a lot easier to grant power than to rewoke it. Once you allow your elected official to dictate the way you live your live, you are progressing from a democracy to tyranny.

Government should govern the country. Reasonable adults should be able to reach a compromise that respects everyones rights thru productive discussion, and not go out of their way to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the population.

What was done in the past, is done. It is history, and unless someone invented time travel while I was not looking, you can not change that.

I doubt we will have a nationwide ban on tobacco products in the near future for the simple reason that the government does not have the funds to implement that. They loss of revenue from tobacco products, income taxes from people employed in the tobacco industry and their suppliers, distributers and related industry would be to high to be absorbed. Also the cost of supporting all those people losing their job via unemployment benefits and welfare would be more that the government can afford.

However, if it is that important to eliminate smoking, I propose to levy a tax on all the supportes of a smoking ban to offset the cost, including the full income of the people that lost their job or source of income until they can find a job at equal pay.

Smokers right now pay for anti smoking advertisement and who knows what else, whereas non-smokers do not add a single penny to that pot.

If you wish to label that as hostile, so be it.

Keep in mind, hostilty creates hostility. That is the only thing it is good for, nothing else. It solves nothing.

And, Imho, government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives. They were elected to govern the country, not to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home, so long as you do not break any laws.

 

[BobG]

My initial post was not about smoking, it was about hostility. I had an severaloccasions observed people being harangued and berated for purchasing a pack of cigarettes, including some pretty colorful name calling. I can truly say, that I have never seen a person being confronted with hostility for not purchasing cigarettes.

If we're going to limit the topic strictly to hostility, then I think smokers should be forced to ride bicycles to work. Maybe the improved fitness will offset some of the bad effects of smoking.

Plus, Evo doesn't like bicycle riders, either.

 

[negitron]

Both a privilege and a right can be suspended entirely or regulated. A convicted felon can't own a firearm in most states in spite of the 2nd Amendment. A convicted felon can't vote in some states (an example that you, yourself, pointed out, except you preferred to consider it a restriction vs. complete suspension in this case).

Your argument isn't even consistent with itself, let alone correct.

You know what? You're absolutely right; that was some weak sauce on my part. I'm embarassed to have put it out there and I thank you for rightfully tearing it to shreds. Usually, I think an argument over pretty well before I post it; this is why.

I still say smoking is a right, however, if for different reasons.

 

[rasmhop]

This country is supposedly founded on equal rights for all, but do we practise what we preach? Imho, no we do not. If we want to treat people equally, we should have places for smokers as well as non-smokers. We could reach a compromise by having bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers (no children permitted in a smoking environment). Most likely we will end up with discrimination lawsuits from non-smokers being denied employment in a bar for smokers. And if they win, the bar has to ban smoking to accommodate those people... back to square one.

Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.

A smokefree workplace... great. But if you really believe in equal rights, there should be a breakroom for smokers, well ventilated and well away from the non-smokers.

Would you mind expanding a bit on this argument because I don't follow. As I see it you basically argue that we have a group of people (smokers) who want to perform an activity that requires a room separate from other people to be performed without infringing on others rights. Now you seem to believe that just because this group want a room, then they should have one. However I personally like to light fires, and I feel pretty addicted to it. My superior has informed me that he'd like me to quit practicing this habit in the office. However my company doesn't have a room in which I can light fires and if I take a trip to the nearest forest to do so occasionally they insist that I check out and I won't be paid during this break. Now assuming you don't think every company should have a fire-lighting room, do you think I'm being discriminated against? And if you don't, then how is this any different from the case of smokers?

I have a problem with hostility, I am wary of one group imposing their views on another group. It reminds me more of "I have the power, you will obey or else" than true health concerns.

Isn't this the basic idea of any government? It sets forth some rules (both legal, and social) and we are free to do whatever we please as long as we do not violate those rules. The only reason we cannot use illegal drugs like cannabis is that the government (those with the power) tells us that we should obey or else (we'll be fined and possibly imprisoned). Whether we agree doesn't matter. Universal agreement is hard when dealing with >1million people so sometimes we need to force our ideas upon others.

Smokers right now pay for anti smoking advertisement and who knows what else, whereas non-smokers do not add a single penny to that pot.

Where do you get that idea? Sure some of the money they spend on smoking will go to the government who may wish to use these on anti-smoking campaigns. However who is to say my taxes don't go towards that as well. If I pay more taxes than you wouldn't it be equally correct to say that I'm funding anti-smoking campaigns?

And, Imho, government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives. They were elected to govern the country, not to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home, so long as you do not break any laws.

The GOVERNment is supposed to govern. One of the things government is supposed to do is determine what our rights are, and to create legislature to prevent those rights from being violated.

Some argue that a smoke-free environment is a right, so if no law in effect prevents this from being violated adequately then a new one should be formed for this purpose. I believe allowing smoking in your own home can infringe on my rights since if my neighbor smoke it may well affect my environment. I spend most of my time in a room on the second floor with my windows open due to the temperature, but my room is almost right above my neighbor's garden so my room can smell quite badly of smoke when my neighbors chose to smoke in the garden (I don't know whether it has any health effects at this range, but it's extremely unpleasant). Apart from that my segregation argument also applies here as I can't enter a lot of people's houses if I refuse to be in a smoke-filled environment, and a lot of people will refuse coming to my house if I refuse smoking.

 

[WhoWee]

Don't worry, the Medical Czar will decide what is best.

 

[Jasongreat]

Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.


QUOTE]

The only difference is this would be voluntary segregation, what we have now is involuntary segregation(forced).


Another point you make(sorry I accidently erased that quote) is that government defines our rights, that is patently false, the people of the separate states gave the federal government the rights they have. We were born with all our rights as freemen(women). The government can only take rights, they cannot make them.
That is what made america different, all other governments believe that thing work the way you say, that rights come from the top down.
The constitution is not a statement of what we can do, it a statement of what the federal government can do, if its not enumerated they can't do it.(its left to the states or the people)

 

[27Thousand]

That's a fase parallel since drunk driving is illegal.

Your mind thinks like mine.

 

[Artman]

Government should govern the country. Reasonable adults should be able to reach a compromise that respects everyones rights thru productive discussion, and not go out of their way to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the population.

For how many (100s of) years did smokers continue to smoke in nearly any public location where they were not expressly prohibited by the owner? Restaurants, bars, casinos, buses, airplanes, trains, sports complexes, bowling alleys, fast food joints, workplaces, motels, hotels, and so on, all with complete disregard of the feelings of any nonsmokers present? This was even the case in past few years before the laws passed when the health issues associated with smoking and second hand smoke were known. The only way to stop them was to legislate limitations. Even then they complained about stopping, saying that the laws are unfair.

It should not fall on nonsmokers to have to request that smokers (persons under the influence of one of the most powerfully addictive drugs known: nicotine) stop their smoking, or go somewhere else to continue. Even when a nonsmoker did get brave enough to ask, often as not the response would be. "Make me. It's a free country."

What was done in the past, is done. It is history, and unless someone invented time travel while I was not looking, you can not change that.

History shows us that the addictive power of nicotine makes many smokers (please note this is not to mean all smokers) blind to common courtesy when it is not dictated by law. Also, please note that even courteous smokers may light-up if there are obviously other smokers (not so courteous) who have already been smoking in a room.

 

[negitron]

Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment.

You want to think about that for a minute?

If they're a group, either the nonsmokers already expect to be in a smoking environment or the smokers already expect to be in a nonsmoking one. Nobody's actually giving up anything.

 

[BobG]

Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.

Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.

You want to think about that for a minute?

If they're a group, either the nonsmokers already expect to be in a smoking environment or the smokers already expect to be in a nonsmoking one. Nobody's actually giving up anything.

I agree. This is the same decision groups of friends have had to make when deciding when to sit in the smoking section of the restaraunt (now non-existent) or the non-smoking section.

The real problem is that almost none of the bars would want to be the non-smoking bars. You'd have to give out huge tax incentives (eliminating tax on liquor, etc). Either smokers tend to drink more or drinkers tend to smoke more (or vice versa). Evidently, smoking and drinking to excess require similar thought processes. In any event, smokers must spend more money in bars than non-smokers (if more non-smokers would become alcoholics, bars would become non-smoking simply because it's more profitable for them to do so).

 

[DavidSnider]

Evidently, smoking and drinking to excess require similar thought processes. In any event, smokers must spend more money in bars than non-smokers (if more non-smokers would become alcoholics, bars would become non-smoking simply because it's more profitable for them to do so).

Smoking and drinking complement each other. For some reason you get a better nicotine high when you're buzzed. Not sure why. It's kind of a redbull and vodka effect.

 

[Zantra]

Here's a comparison for you, it's like someone choking you every day, just enough for your breathing to be labored, although it may eventually kill you. He claims that's his right, or that you should remove yourself from the hazard. He claims it relaxes him (as far as I can tell that is the only benefit). Does this sound like a right to you?

OK I'll see your quote and raise you

Let's say that this man wasn't choking you intentionally. He was using saran wrap to work on an art project. Every day you purposely showed up with the artist was and walked through the saran wrap wall, wrapping yourself up in it, then yelling at the artist for causing you to walk into the wall of saran wrap and "choke". The "artist" didn't follow you around with saran wrap. The artist didn't track you down and try to choke you with the saran wrap, but you showed up every day where the artist was, choking yourself in the saran wrap, and blaming the artist for hurting you. You know where the saran wrap is, and yet you keep running into it and blaming the artist.

I think we all know what kind of guy that idiot who keeps walking into the saran wrap is by now, don't we?

If you're going to put the burger in your mouth and swallow, don't stand around crying that Mcdonalds made you fat. No one makes you puit the burger in your mouth, and no one makes you linger in the vicinty of smokers.

The laws generally tip in favor of non-smokers, and until they change the laws, you just have to accept that people smoke, and you can't stop it. You can "CHOOSE" not to be around smokers, but you can't "make" someone not smoke, no matter how inconvenient it is to you, or unhealthy it is for them.

I know it sucks, but that's just how it is.


I think people tend to gloss over the fact that society was propelled through generations into smoking, being blitzed (to this day in fact) with ads glamourizing smoking and even DOCTORS giving the thumbs up to light up. And now, society has reversed itself after pushing the crack to young old and everyone in between. Now smokers are expected to just "drop it". And it all sounds very simple and straight-forward to every non-smoker.

But if you've never smoked to the point of being addicted. If you've never "craved" smokes, or any other type of drug, then you can't possibly understand the need, the physical and psychological impact of smoking year after year, all the while being told that it was fine, that there was nothing wrong with smoking, and then suddenly that you're holding death on a stick, and expected to just drop it.

I wish I could take every self-righteous person who thinks it's easy and force them to smoke a pack a day for 2 years, then watch them struggle to quit- and they would struggle, in 9/10cases. and the other 1/10 would never lecture again.

You can't cram something down society's throats telling them how good it is for them, the expect them to turn on a dime with those not using the product. It is far from that simple. Smoking will go away, but not in my lifetime, and not in yours either.

Oh, and if you tried to completely ban smoking and force all smokers to go cold turkey, you'd see murders rise instantly. Every smoker in the country would be looking for an excuse to start a fight!

 

[Hurkyl]

OK I'll see your quote and raise you

Me too. Let's say your artist sometimes makes his saran wrap wall at the main exit from your apartment complex. Sometimes, he builds it blocking the sidewalk from the parking lot to the building where you work. Sometimes, his wall cuts off the line checkout line at the cafeteria where you eat. Other times, his wall blocks off the bus stop where your kid has to wait for the school bus.

 

[NeoDevin]

Let's say that this man wasn't choking you intentionally. He was using saran wrap to work on an art project. Every day you purposely showed up with the artist was and walked through the saran wrap wall, wrapping yourself up in it, then yelling at the artist for causing you to walk into the wall of saran wrap and "choke". The "artist" didn't follow you around with saran wrap. The artist didn't track you down and try to choke you with the saran wrap, but you showed up every day where the artist was, choking yourself in the saran wrap, and blaming the artist for hurting you. You know where the saran wrap is, and yet you keep running into it and blaming the artist.

And if the artist blocks off a heavily traveled sidewalk? Or you have a team of artists blocking off almost every heavily traveled sidewalk, as well as most of the less frequently used ones? How long do you think the wall of saran wrap would last before the police told him to remove it?

However I personally like to light fires, and I feel pretty addicted to it. My superior has informed me that he'd like me to quit practicing this habit in the office. However my company doesn't have a room in which I can light fires and if I take a trip to the nearest forest to do so occasionally they insist that I check out and I won't be paid during this break. Now assuming you don't think every company should have a fire-lighting room, do you think I'm being discriminated against? And if you don't, then how is this any different from the case of smokers?

They are lighting smaller fires.

I still say smoking is a right, however, if for different reasons.

Don't you guys have a constitution, or a bill of rights, or something like that? Look up whatever your country's document which outlines your human rights, and let me know where addictive drugs which are harmful to yourself and/or others is included. And here I was thinking heroin use was a privilege, silly me!

If it's not included anywhere in there, then please elaborate why you think it is a right. Your last justification was wrong, should we just take your word that this one is sound?

 

[BobG]

Don't you guys have a constitution, or a bill of rights, or something like that? Look up whatever your country's document which outlines your human rights, and let me know where addictive drugs which are harmful to yourself and/or others is included. And here I was thinking heroin use was a privilege, silly me!

If it's not included anywhere in there, then please elaborate why you think it is a right. Your last justification was wrong, should we just take your word that this one is sound?

Unfortunately, the authors of the Constitution forgot to specifically say that our citizens have a right to read the Constitution. That might make proving or disproving your point problematic.


None the less, your point isn't completely off base. It does come at the problem from the wrong point of view. Our country started with the idea that people have many natural rights that the government has no authority to give or to take away. In fact, that's why the "Bill of Rights" had to be added as amendments instead of being incorporated into the Constitution itself (several people had second thoughts about the idea that government could restrain itself from taking people's rights unless government was specifically prohibited from taking those rights).

Generally, it has to be shown why someone should not be allowed to do something or why they have to do something. The starting assumption is that people do as they please.

 

[byronm]

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.

The very act of smoking isn't a courtesy.. When you light up the cigarette you're making a choice to ruin your own health and the health of those around you. Not to mention you're decidedly choosing to be a burden on society by choosing to do something that increases the health and welfare costs for everyone around you.

I used to smoke.. :)

I enjoy a good pipe while sitting by a camp fire but i that's about it.. do that maybe 2-3 times a year

 

[BobG]

I think the debate over anti-smoking laws is somewhat similar to laws over water rights and water right-of-ways.

You can't own a river. The water in the river is a shared resource. A farm owner can't dam a river just because it runs through his property. His property stops at the edge of the river bed in most Eastern states and at least at the edge of the water in just about every other state. You can't block passage down a shared resource any more than you can set up your own personal toll booth on a public road that passes through your property. Likewise, you can't dump your waste in a shared resource any more than you can dump your garbage in the middle of the town square.

There's still huge conflicts over water rights in the West - especially smaller waterways. Landowners hang obstacles from their bridge that don't quite touch the water, but prevent kayakers, rafters, or fishermen from passing under the bridge, forcing them to walk around the bridge where they can be prosecuted for trespassing (the obstacles were illegal, by the way - you don't have to touch the water to obstruct the waterway).

The same ideas should carry over to air, since it's obviously a shared resource that can't be owned by a private entity. Obviously, that idea doesn't have any kind of long term historical tradition. Regulations about what a private individual or company can dump into the air are pretty new. But I don't see anti-smoking regulations (or environmental regulations affecting factories, etc) as significantly different than the way we've dealt with other shared resources.

In other words, the government should be able to curtail some individual rights about what an individual can do to a shared resource. The only question is whether particular laws show common sense or not (it would be absurd to prohibit living creatures from peeing in a public reservoir, for example, since the fish and wild animals aren't going to care what laws you pass).

The comparison between smokers and drivers is a good one. Both involve private individuals disposing of their waste into a shared resource, but driving automobiles has a larger impact on the air than cigarette smoke. Banning automobiles isn't a good idea because doing so would cause an immediate crash in our economic system. The threshold for banning smoking is a lot lower because it's positive contributions to society are a lot lower. There is still some minimum threshold, though, since the default position should be no regulation at all.

I'm not sure what the threshold should be. The easy answer is that if the positive aspects of smoking (tax revenue, jobs, etc) outweigh the inconvenience and suffering of an unlucky few, then those with asthma, etc, have to adapt to society instead of the other way around. That might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, though.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I find it generally amusing that modern educated people of today fail to grasp that their own freedom ends where someone else's begins. Legislation defines where that line falls. I also find that as a rule between non-smokers and smokers, the non-smokers are the most rude when it comes to general human interaction. Just my observations. Of course there are exceptions.
-
I might also note that if I were a smoker and I had close neighbors (apartment) and I were outside smoking and got comments like the ones Evo described (coff coff coff, OMG I can't stand this smoke I think I'm going to die!) I would quite likely tell you to effing move. Not because I have no sympathy for someone who is bothered by the smoke, but because of the tactless way they tried to handle it. Acting in this way shows a general disinterest to your neighbor. It is like saying that they aren't really there so I won't speak to them. I am way up here above them, they are like mice to me, so actions are the only thing that will get through since you can't carry on a conversation with a mouse. I'm WAYYYY too good to actually speak to a smoker. That is the attitude that Evo shows when she acts in this way and I'm sure her neighbors know this.

 

[27Thousand]

I find it generally amusing that modern educated people of today fail to grasp that their own freedom ends where someone else's begins. Legislation defines where that line falls. I also find that as a rule between non-smokers and smokers, the non-smokers are the most rude when it comes to general human interaction. Just my observations. Of course there are exceptions.
-
I might also note that if I were a smoker and I had close neighbors (apartment) and I were outside smoking and got comments like the ones Evo described (coff coff coff, OMG I can't stand this smoke I think I'm going to die!) I would quite likely tell you to effing move. Not because I have no sympathy for someone who is bothered by the smoke, but because of the tactless way they tried to handle it. Acting in this way shows a general disinterest to your neighbor. It is like saying that they aren't really there so I won't speak to them. I am way up here above them, they are like mice to me, so actions are the only thing that will get through since you can't carry on a conversation with a mouse. I'm WAYYYY too good to actually speak to a smoker. That is the attitude that Evo shows when she acts in this way and I'm sure her neighbors know this.

So how would you go about it with neighbors to avoid secondhand smoke?

 

[Averagesupernova]

So how would you go about it with neighbors to avoid secondhand smoke?

Just about anything would be more tactful than what was done. Simply asking them to let you know when they go inside might be enough to get them to put it out and strike up a conversation with you.

 

[Tobias Funke]

The smell of olives makes we want to vomit. We should make them illegal because my concerns are all that matter.

 

[Jasongreat]

This whole argument starts with a faulty premise. The idea that you can change behavior by passing laws. Laws are in place to punish those that have acted in a anti-social way, Killing thy neighbor comes to mind(no second hand smoke does not kill your neighbor), not to prevent the killing from happening. The belief that laws guide your life is ludicrous and leads to the belief that "well its not against the law, is it, so we can do that" (just because something is against the law doesn't make it always wrong and vice versa just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it always right,there are exeptions to every rule)we should guide our lives by reason not punishment(since punishment doesn't work). Name one thing that has stopped because it is against the law. Now name off some things that have been stopped because of education. Betcha the second list is a lot longer than the first, since the first list is empty(atleast I can't think of one example).

 

[turbo]

The smell of olives makes we want to vomit. We should make them illegal because my concerns are all that matter.

Can I have your olives? You can have all my eggplant and zucchini.

Really, though, the problem with cigarette smoke is that it is harmful to everybody, and can trigger asthma and other respiratory problems. It's not a matter of "I don't like it" to many people - instead it is a risk to their health, even if they are not revolted by the smell. To some people, the smoke is a trigger for an asthma attack that can spiral out of control. When you can't breathe, other things fade in significance. I have always detested cigarette smoke, but it never put me in the ER like fragrance chemicals have. Still, I have a lot of empathy for people who are sickened by 2nd-hand smoke - especially children who have no defense against it, and whose immune systems are still developing.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Really, though, the problem with cigarette smoke is that it is harmful to everybody, and can trigger asthma and other respiratory problems. It's not a matter of "I don't like it" to many people - instead it is a risk to their health, even if they are not revolted by the smell.

Yeah, I know. Even though what I said was only half serious, I think some people are taking it too far. It's like this new* peanut allergy that every kid has. I don't like the idea of having to be careful where I eat a snickers bar because it might be harmful to someone else. I don't know what percentage of the population is so affected by second hand smoke that they need emergency care, but it's pretty low. Most people can just walk a few feet (how inconvenient!) to get away from the smell. Punishing all smokers seems excessive.

*I don't know if this actually is new or if too many soccer moms are just paranoid. Genetically modified food maybe?

 

[turbo]

I used to play in bars even though I hated cigarette smoke. I have a close friend who tended bar in the tavern in which I hosted open-mike jams for a few years. Young, blonde, pretty, and personable - that was all good for maximizing tips, but the pervasive smoke was a pain for her. She made the decision to work there because she could make good money in short periods of time, and tending bar left lots of time free for her to attend nursing school. Now she is a supervisor and trainer for an agency that coordinates nursing care for home-bound patients, and when I see her, she still thanks me for dialing down the volume of the music and for asking smokers to step outside when the smoke got oppressive. I wasn't derogatory or insulting about it - I'd say something like "Can we get a couple of doors open, here? It's getting a bit smoky on the stage and we want to do our best for you." Usually, that's all it took.

The open-mic sessions, in particular, drew people from 50-70 miles away at times, with parents bringing talented teens to cop some chops from professionals, and music students from colleges in that distance range sometimes swarming us to show their stuff. It was fun! Eventually, Maine banned smoking in all places open to the public (private clubs are exempted), and life got a bit easier.

A regular fan for the jams was the national enforcer for the Iron Horsemen MC. Intimidating-looking, huge guy, who always insisted on buying drinks for the band, and who loved live blues. If we played a song or two per set that he requested, he was content. Nobody at his table ever lit up when we were performing. He and his buds would ride 50 miles each way to hear some live music, and they gave us the same respect that we gave them. You may have heard bad things about "outlaw" MCs, but one thing that you should take away from this is that these people value loyalty and personal responsibility above all. If you are a friend, they will protect and value you, and they will remember you for a VERY long time. They aren't going to suffocate you in smoke if you ask them not to. Decent folks.

Getting OT, but that's the way it is here in Maine. We have some wanna-be clubs in the state (like the local Angels), and they sometimes act as if they can (and should) do any damned thing they want whenever they are in public. The real bikers (not posers) are less attitude, more local connections and family, and they encourage stuff that benefits us all.

Don't want to come down too hard on a thread on smokers, but there are times that we should recognize that there are whole classes of people who realize that if they want to smoke, it can impact others. My pals in the biker clubs were supportive and appreciative.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So how would you go about it with neighbors to avoid secondhand smoke?

Maybe something like...

I'd say something like "Can we get a couple of doors open, here? It's getting a bit smoky on the stage and we want to do our best for you." Usually, that's all it took.

Generally if you walk up to someone and talk to them like a normal human being they are fairly receptive.

 

[Evo]

I have two neighbors that need to stop smoking on their patios.

How do you suggest I get them to agree to stop, since hints like, the smoke is preventing me from breathing, I can't stand on my own patio, and I need to go inside, close my windows and turn on the airconditioning because of your smoke", didn't work?

 

[Bratticus]

I have a couple living above me that like to have their marital ddisagreements after 11 pm, which involves a lot of screaming cursing and throwing of inanimate objects. I get up at 5 am, so should I tell them they are not permitted to argue after 11 pm? They also have a toddler... and that kid got a hell of a set of lungs... she starts screeching, there goes my nights rest. So, they need to make sure not to have loud arguments after 11pm, but also to shut up their kid overnight? Ridiculous, right?

I have talked to them, politely. Told them, hey look, everyone argues at times, but the sound insulation here is not very good, and I get up at 5 am. I would appreciate it if you could tone it down a bit after 11 pm.

And guess what, it has gotten a lot more quiet since I talked to them. Well the kid still has screaming fits, but nothing you can do there.

Non-smokers won the battle about indor smoking in public buildings and at work. Smokers were relegated to smoke outside... so, now they do.

Face it, you won't get everything your way at all times.

If you can not reach an agreement with your neighbors, and you can not get a solution thru your condo association, you will either have to adjust or move into a non smoking building.

 

[GeorginaS]

This whole argument starts with a faulty premise. The idea that you can change behavior by passing laws. Laws are in place to punish those that have acted in a anti-social way,

I'd argue all of that. The quickest way to effect social change -- and especially attitudes -- is to legislate it and/or give the requested social change government support. And, not all legislation is punitive. See social attitude changes re: slavery in the US, women's rights (universal suffrage), seat belt laws, and onto the world stage, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In all of these very recent developments in modern social life, the greatest attitude shift in the general population came when the change received legislated support. Smoking in public is another.

While I was growing up, everyone smoked. They smoked everywhere, in the grocery stores, in hospitals, on tv interview shows, quite literally, there wasn't anywhere you could go where people weren't smoking. Your doctor might even have a cigarette while you had a consultation with him while you lay in a hospital bed. (I say 'him' because there weren't many 'her' doctors then.) There were people who didn't smoke and there were some annoyances like making sure that the clothes you purchased off of the racks in stores didn't have cigarette burns in them, because people smoked while ruffling through racks of clothing.

And I can tell you this: I do not ever recall seeing non-smokers hacking and coughing and pitching fits the moment cigarette smoke wafted their way. There wasn't any constant complaint about not being able to breathe because someone who didn't smoke walked past someone who'd had a cigarette an hour prior. There was none of the complaint and outcry and supposed inability to lead a constructive life if one didn't smoke but was around someone who did.

Largely through legislation, social attitudes shifted making it more and more difficult for people to smoke, so more people quit. As more people quit, and government support was thrown behind anti-smoking campaigns and advertising, it became more and more socially acceptable to treat people who do smoke as pariahs. It's even becoming socially acceptable to be outright abusive towards smokers. The shift has occurred really, really quickly in terms of an overall and pervasive societal attitude change. That hasn't been the product of the masses rising on their own accord.

Lastly, for some people, yes, quitting smoking is simply a matter of deciding, "Meh, I don't want to do this any more" and they experience a short period of discomfort and it's over with. For other people, who metabolise the drug very differently, it's a huge, huge, deal to overcome.

At any rate, as so many people here have pointed out, treat one another with courtesy and respect. It works.

 

[lisab]

I have a couple living above me that like to have their marital ddisagreements after 11 pm, which involves a lot of screaming cursing and throwing of inanimate objects.

Thank goodness they're inanimate. I sure wouldn't want to have neighbors who engage in angry, competitive cat juggling.

Trouble is, you never know how it really is living in a place until you live in it. This is even more of a problem if you're buying a place, rather than renting. I'd like to have a 30 day probation period when moving into a new place, where you can back out, no questions asked. That way, you'd know about the neighbor who gets off at 2 or 3 in the morning then listens to reggae for 3 hours (my first apartment experience...I asked him to stop, and he did).

 

[Evo]

I have a couple living above me that like to have their marital ddisagreements after 11 pm, which involves a lot of screaming cursing and throwing of inanimate objects. I get up at 5 am, so should I tell them they are not permitted to argue after 11 pm? They also have a toddler... and that kid got a hell of a set of lungs... she starts screeching, there goes my nights rest. So, they need to make sure not to have loud arguments after 11pm, but also to shut up their kid overnight? Ridiculous, right?

I have talked to them, politely. Told them, hey look, everyone argues at times, but the sound insulation here is not very good, and I get up at 5 am. I would appreciate it if you could tone it down a bit after 11 pm.

And guess what, it has gotten a lot more quiet since I talked to them. Well the kid still has screaming fits, but nothing you can do there.

Non-smokers won the battle about indor smoking in public buildings and at work. Smokers were relegated to smoke outside... so, now they do.

Face it, you won't get everything your way at all times.

If you can not reach an agreement with your neighbors, and you can not get a solution thru your condo association, you will either have to adjust or move into a non smoking building.

Here, we are told to call the local police for noise after 10pm, it's illegal. I also believe smoking outside their home is against the rules. I get along with them otherwise and we're even friends, but, they are dumber than rocks. I guess I will have to turn them into the housing office and let them get an eviction notice. But I don't want to lose them, I could get much worse neightbors.

Also, it is illegal to have an unused, unlit barbecue grill outside of your home here, it's a $100 fine if you have an unused grill outside your premises. Using it will get you hauled to jail.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have two neighbors that need to stop smoking on their patios.

How do you suggest I get them to agree to stop, since hints like, the smoke is preventing me from breathing, I can't stand on my own patio, and I need to go inside, close my windows and turn on the airconditioning because of your smoke", didn't work?

Like I said before, many people do not take the sort of hinting you have described very well. Its quite possible that you have annoyed them by it and they are maybe even intentionally trying to annoy you now.

Since I doubt you have any recourse through your apartment management* other than asking about moving to another unit the only thing you could likely do that could help would be to simply ask them nicely to smoke elsewhere. Whether or not you would actually be able to get them to stop I have no idea but I seriously doubt anything else would work at all.

There are unfortunately a significant number of people who seem to feel that they should be able to do what ever they want in their home and get upset if anyone complains. I often get the old "I pay a lot of money to live here!" and usually respond "So do your neighbours" but people who live in apartments sometimes just don't get it.

*edit: "I also believe smoking outside their home is against the rules."
That is sort of odd. Usually smoking inside apartments is against the rules.
Either way, don't you think it would be best to talk to them about it first instead of reporting them?

 

[Bratticus]

No kidding lisab, and what will one do if the nice neighbor you used to have sells his place to a really nasty person... win some, lose some.

 

[Bratticus]

Here, we are told to call the local police for noise after 10pm, it's illegal. IQUOTE]

And what do you think the police will say if I call them every night because of the neighbors screaming baby?

 

[Quincy]

Unless if you're standing really close to a smoker, the smell isn't really that bad...

 

[Hurkyl]

Unless if you're standing really close to a smoker, the smell isn't really that bad...

It depends on your sensitivities and sense of smell.

 

[Bratticus]

Here, we are told to call the local police for noise after 10pm, it's illegal. I also believe smoking outside their home is against the rules. I get along with them otherwise and we're even friends, but, they are dumber than rocks. I guess I will have to turn them into the housing office and let them get an eviction notice

And here is the difference between you and me. You call the cops and talk about getting people evicted, I have a polite, friendly conversation. From the looks of it, I got better results.

Mind you, when I bought my condo, this was an adult community, no children permitted to live here. they changed the by-laws by majority vote to allow families with children in this community. Do I like it? No, I voted against the change.

My options now are to either compromise, or sell my condo.

I like this place, so I will compromise, and if something really bothers me, I will invite the person that bugs me to a cup of coffee and we will talk.

Simple but effective.

 

[Zantra]

Me too. Let's say your artist sometimes makes his saran wrap wall at the main exit from your apartment complex. Sometimes, he builds it blocking the sidewalk from the parking lot to the building where you work. Sometimes, his wall cuts off the line checkout line at the cafeteria where you eat. Other times, his wall blocks off the bus stop where your kid has to wait for the school bus.

My guess is that MOST artists are considerate enough not to deliberately setup a "blockade" to interfere with people's lives. In fact, isn't the point of the anti smoking lawys to prevent exactly that, while still allowing the smoking?>

Again, it's not like the artist builds across thoroughfares to cause deliberate distress. In fact, it's as if the guy follows the artist around, and everywhere he sets up, the person tries to cause a fuss-so the true annoyance isn't the artist practicing his art, it's the person who keeps insisting that he not practice it, and eventually balls of saran wrap are thrown and it gets ugly


I'm not "FOR" smoking. I'm not for a lot of things, but I also recognize that we don't live in a police state, and people are freee to do activities that don't interfere with me.

In a way, it's the same thing as an anti-abortionist threatening to kill anyone who enters an abortion clinic. It's not enough to have philisophical discord, you have to "force" the other person to conform to your ideals, instead of just saying "you know know, I dislike abortion, so I'll steer clear of abortion clinics." Instead you go stand outside of them and throw firebombs because you have difference of opinion.

I think a lot of people here feel so strongly about not smoking, that they are not acknowledging this basic, simple concept.

Again I'll go back to the bar anaology. Does everyone here who doesn't drink berate everyone they see with a drink in their hand? beer is a drug. Do you go stand outside the bar and say "phew, it smells like vomit and urine, I wish they'd close this place down" ? Do you go stand outside a bar and "politely ask people to stop drinking? So if the anti-smoking rhetoric in this post is ok, then why not the above? Can anyone justify it?

If you're at least 20 feet away from smokers, breezes aside, you won't be able to smell the smoke. If you go stand close to someone and complain, then it's YOUR fault for not steering clear. Disagreeing with someone's behavior, and attacking them for practicing it, are 2 different animals.

We live in a society based on MUTUAL consideration,

 

[Zantra]

I have two neighbors that need to stop smoking on their patios.

How do you suggest I get them to agree to stop, since hints like, the smoke is preventing me from breathing, I can't stand on my own patio, and I need to go inside, close my windows and turn on the airconditioning because of your smoke", didn't work?

ok I know this is going sound absolutely nuts, but try this..


1. go downstairs...

2. knock on their door..

3. Say hello and...wait for it...


...


4. Politely explain that you are asthmatic and would they mind smoking indoors because it affects your breathing.


Or there's the other method

1. kill their pets and leave a note saying "you're next"

2. cut their brakes

3. firebomb their house

4. Put a lt ciggarette out on their child's forehead


Now you see where you're at, and where I'm at. Making sarcastic comments only incites, and it's one step away from the above... maybe you should come over my direction before you shiv someone for smoking

 

[Averagesupernova]

I have two neighbors that need to stop smoking on their patios.

Unless smoking on their patios is illegal where you live which I find hard to believe, the above is just insane. They don't NEED to do anything for you. Their freedom stops where yours begins and yours stops where theirs begins. Where that line is drawn is typically done through legislation. Now if they are indeed breaking the law and it really bothers you that much quit whining about it to us and do something about it. I hope I don't need to explain how to go about that.

 

[Evo]

I haven't made any sarcastic comments to them. They are aware that the smoking bothers me to the point that I can't be outside when they smoke. We get along great on every other issue, the husband evens offers to take my trash out for me, they just won't compromise on their smoking habits. I may have to speak to them about burning my plants with their cigarettes. Perhaps I will buy them an ashtray. Yesterday there was a solid half inch layer of ashes across the top of a decorative planter.

Unless smoking on their patios is illegal where you live which I find hard to believe, the above is just insane. They don't NEED to do anything for you. Their freedom stops where yours begins and yours stops where theirs begins. Where that line is drawn is typically done through legislation. Now if they are indeed breaking the law and it really bothers you that much quit whining about it to us and do something about it. I hope I don't need to explain how to go about that.

I can't even open my windows because my house fills up with smoke. That is an invasion of my space. There has been discussion about the smoking problem in my complex online in another forum. There have been complaints posted by others about smoke from neighbor's balconies filling their house with smoke. Apparently many people are having this problem because of the design of the units. I accidently stumpled upon the issue being discussed when I was looking up the office's phone number online.

I can discuss the issue all I want, you can choose to skip over my posts.

 

[Hootenanny]

I haven't made any sarcastic comments to them. They are aware that the smoking bothers me to the point that I can't be outside when they smoke. We get along great on every other issue, the husband evens offers to take my trash out for me, they just won't compromise on their smoking habits. I may have to speak to them about burning my plants with their cigarettes. Perhaps I will buy them an ashtray. Yesterday there was a solid half inch layer of ashes across the top of a decorative planter.

Evo, if they are damaging property then I'm sure you have some legal recourse?

 

[Evo]

Evo, if they are damaging property then I'm sure you have some legal recourse?

I'm going to point out the damage to them and advise them to use an ashtray. They already got a notice from the housing office to stop throwing their cigarette butts over the railing. I didn't complain, it was the handyman, he had to clean it all up. I'm sure they think I reported them.

 

[Bratticus]

The whole apartment fills up with smoke? wow, how do they manage that? How many cigarettes can a person smoke at the same time... it would take a few packs to be lit up at the same time for cigarette smoke from someone's balkony to fill up an entire apartment. Doesn't that set off the smoke alarms?... unless your's don't work.