Why do non-smokers often display hostility towards smokers?

[Hootenanny]

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

My point is distinct from Lacy33's, but unfortunately it seems that they have become entwined, which is entirely my fault for not making my point clearly. Allow me to clarify.

My point is simply that, in my experience the majority of smokers do not extend the courtesy of not smoking around non-smokers. Therefore, I see no reason to be courteous to such smokers. I have no problem with people smoking when it affects no one else, what someone puts into their body is their own business. However, I do have a gripe when it affects other people and in particular, me.

 

[Hootenanny]

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.

I completely and utterly agree with you (see my previous post). However, as is often the case with non-mathematical discussions, I tend to be unable to clearly elucidate my point. That is why I very rarely post in GD and instead, I lock myself away in the academic forums!

 

[Evo]

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.

If they were courteous in their indulgence, I wouldn't notice them. That's the problem, most smokers are not courteous.

Your post makes no sense, why are people addicted to an obnoxious, unhealthy habit that causes ill effects for those near them due courtesy? I'll show them courtesy if they do not indulge in their vice where it can affect me.

Also, there are fewer and fewer places where smoking is legal. There are reasons for this, because the majority has spoken up and is saying no more are we going to be abused by smokers.

 

[Redbelly98]

My point is simply that, in my experience the majority of smokers do not extend the courtesy of not smoking around non-smokers.

Just FYI Hoot, it's different in the US. Smoking is not allowed inside many public buildings, at least in my state (New Jersey).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My point is simply that, in my experience the majority of smokers do not extend the courtesy of not smoking around non-smokers. Therefore, I see no reason to be courteous to such smokers. I have no problem with people smoking when it affects no one else, what someone puts into their body is their own business. However, I do have a gripe when it affects other people and in particular, me.

In my job I deal with a lot of people who are annoying each other. I have found that in the vast majority of cases if I politely ask someone to stop... they do! I have also found that in the vast majority of cases when a person is rude/obnoxious/discourteous to someone who is annoying them they just wind up pissing people off, making them less inclined to be courteous towards them, and sparking a desire in these people to find ways of getting back at them.

It is generally best to approach most any situation with courtesy to begin with otherwise you may turn a rather simple and easily resolved issue into something much more annoying than it was to begin with.

Anyone who feels that its ok to not be courteous to certain people ought not be suprised when certain people are not courteous towards them.

 

[negitron]

Anyone who feels that its ok to not be courteous to certain people ought not be suprised when certain people are not courteous towards them.

Bingo. I'm amazed that so many ostensibly intelligent people don't understand this very basic social concept.

 

[Bratticus]

kldickson, I suggest you get yourself a gasmask. Even if no one in this country smokes, you will still be breathing carcinogenic fumes courtesy of automobile emissions and industrial pollution. And to further protect yourself, only use clean energy, which excludes electricity, since much of that is generated by burning fossil fuels, more carcinogens. Might I also suggest not to eat anything cooked on charcoal (carcinogens there as well). And no burning wood or any other organic matter (more carcinogens).

 

[Evo]

kldickson, I suggest you get yourself a gasmask. Even if no one in this country smokes, you will still be breathing carcinogenic fumes courtesy of automobile emissions and industrial pollution. And to further protect yourself, only use clean energy, which excludes electricity, since much of that is generated by burning fossil fuels, more carcinogens. Might I also suggest not to eat anything cooked on charcoal (carcinogens there as well). And no burning wood or any other organic matter (more carcinogens).

I actually avoid smoked meat and have stopped cooking over fire. I threw away my $800 barbecue grill setup because of the information about the carcinogens.

I now make "barbecued ribs" by boiling the ribs in water, then covering in barbecue sauce and baking them in the oven at low heat for a couple of hours. People think they are the best ribs.

But carcinogens in air polution really are not on the same scale as the pain of having to inhale clouds of cigarette smoke. It's the immediate pain and sickness that results from that smoke that is like a direct assault.

 

[lisab]

I have found that in the vast majority of cases if I politely ask someone to stop... they do!

I've had this same experience. It made me feel vulnerable...I had to say, that's over the line, seriously...please stop. Very uncomfortable but it really was effective.

 

[Bratticus]

I actually avoid smoked meat and have stopped cooking over fire. I threw away my $800 barbecue grill setup because of the information about the carcinogens.

I now make "barbecued ribs" by boiling the ribs in water, then covering in barbecue sauce and baking them in the oven at low heat for a couple of hours. People think they are the best ribs.

But carcinogens in air polution really are not on the same scale as the pain of having to inhale clouds of cigarette smoke. It's the immediate pain and sickness that results from that smoke that is like a direct assault.

Do you make your own bbq sauce? If so, I woiuld love the recipe

I understand where you are coming from evo. I do know the pain that can be created by being exposed to something that makes you sick. I am allergic to most perfumes, and having your throat close and stop you from breathing is not fun. And I do not have asthma.

 

[rootX]

I actually avoid smoked meat and have stopped cooking over fire. I threw away my $800 barbecue grill setup because of the information about the carcinogens.

I was looking at George grills for myself..
http://www.georgeforemancooking.com/products/selector.aspx

.

 

[Evo]

Do you make your own bbq sauce? If so, I woiuld love the recipe

I used to, but then found that KC Masterpiece original, tasted very much like mine, so i buy that now.

Get some thick ribs, we love the country pork ribs, boil 45 minutes to an hour, drain, place in your baking dish and cover with the sauce. Cook on 325F for at least5 2 hours, or until meat falls apart. :!)

I understand where you are coming from evo. I do know the pain that can be created by being exposed to something that makes you sick. I am allergic to most perfumes, and having your throat close and stop you from breathing is not fun. And I do not have asthma.

I feel for you. I ran into so much smoke the last few days that I got a really bad sore throat and missed a day of work Thursday because of it.

I really like my neighbors, but my daughter and I have been dropping "hints" like going outside when they smoke and start choking and coughing and saying quite loudly that the smoke is making us sick and that we have to go inside and close the windows and turn on the a/c because the cigarette smoke is making us ill. After doing this dozens of times, they still sit outside all year, even in freezing temps and smoke like chimneys. Any normal person would have taken the hint. We tried to be polite, it didn't work.

 

[Evo]

I was looking at George grills for myself..
http://www.georgeforemancooking.com/products/selector.aspx

.

Those are good.

 

[Hepth]

My method is : Boil said ribs. Throw them under the broiler till they get a little crispy (NOT BURNT or BLACK) just so that the top layer dries out some. Then toss them into the slow cooker/crock pot for a few hours and They'll be amazing. 2-3 hours is probably good, any more and it gets mushy.

 

[Bratticus]

Thanx evo and Hepth, I wrote down both.

Evo, perhaps you can speak with your condo assn and have them post an area for smokers that will not expose you and your daughter to smoke. We did this here and it works just fine. No one has problems with it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Anyone who feels that its ok to not be courteous to certain people ought not be suprised when certain people are not courteous towards them.

So making your co-workers go outside in the winter to smoke is your idea of courteous. Install better ventilation problem solved. The thing that really kills me is when the government sued the tobacco companies and won, the reason was they were profiting off death but as soon as they won how much have taxes gone up on cigs. I would say they are being quite hypocritical. They also fund children's healthcare from those funds, what is going to happen when they get their wish and people quit smoking, will kids lose their healthcare?
Or the recent tax hike that affects all cigs. except menthols, are menthols safe? Do they really want to stop smoking or just profit off it?

For the record I am not a smoker, and I hate cig. smoke(yet I don't stop people from smoking in my vehicle if they so choose, but they are required to crack the window, ventilation is everything). But, even though I hate it, I love freedom more, there are many other options than punitive measures. If you take away someone elses right to be free through the majority, don't come whineing to me when a different majority comes to take rights away from you. And remember that government of the majority is just another name for mob rule, we weren't set up as a democracy, we were a constitutional republic, so the rights of the minority were protected from the majority by a little document called the constitution.

 

[27Thousand]

So making your co-workers go outside in the winter to smoke is your idea of courteous. Install better ventilation problem solved.

Something you may want to consider is the U.S. Surgeon General and The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, have "concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html

And remember that government of the majority is just another name for mob rule, we weren't set up as a democracy, we were a constitutional republic, so the rights of the minority were protected from the majority by a little document called the constitution.

Something to consider is many are going to point out that the government protects the majority all the time from things seen as public health issues that come from minorities.

 

[Jasongreat]

Something you may want to consider is the U.S. Surgeon General and The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, have "concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html



Something to consider is many are going to point out that the government protects the majority all the time from things seen as public health issues that come from minorities.

Could this be from the threat of second hand smoke, being so over stated. Before all these laws about smoking, Some bars you could go into, sit next to smokers all night go home and not smell like smoke, while other bars you came home and even your socks smelt like an ash-tray. They had similar layouts, what might have separated them, VENTILATION.

Why would the majority need protection from the minority, they've got the numbers. What we have now is a government that punishes the minority at the expense of the majority. You want to stop one drunken driver, you pull 100 cars into a checkpoint, the one that is drunk is caught, but 99 people had their fourth, and 5th ammendment rights violated. Or for an example a little closer to the discussion, you have an office with 100 smokers and 45 non-smokers(wasnt as far fetched 40 yrs ago), 55 refuse to smoke indoors if people object, 45 smoke indoors no matter who is around, to get the 45 to stop smoking indoors you make smoking indoors illegal. The 55 person majority lost their rights to smoke responsibly so you could get the 45 irresponsible smokers to not smoke indoors. Although there is 45 non- smokers who might thank you, you still took away the rights of 100 to save 45.

 

[Hootenanny]

Just FYI Hoot, it's different in the US. Smoking is not allowed inside many public buildings, at least in my state (New Jersey).

We have a similar situation in the UK with smoking being banned in all enclosed public spaces.

 

[Hootenanny]

Although there is 45 non- smokers who might thank you, you still took away the rights of 100 to save 45.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you here. What gives anyone the right to do something that adversely affects the health of others?

 

[27Thousand]

Could this be from the threat of second hand smoke, being so over stated. Before all these laws about smoking, Some bars you could go into, sit next to smokers all night go home and not smell like smoke, while other bars you came home and even your socks smelt like an ash-tray. They had similar layouts, what might have separated them, VENTILATION.

Over stated? And when the threat of second hand smoke regardless of ventilation being from the U.S. Surgeon General? And when it's also from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues?

 

[Zantra]

Statutory Ape still has it nailed. The back and forth keeps skimming the same basic concept- be polite. Everyone has stories of this person or that person being rude. Ignore them because they have their own issues.

Most smokers get that people are sensitive to smoke, and most non smokers get that smokers will smoke, in spite of it it all, and as long as we don't step on each other's toes, everyone can be happy. It's when one side or the other becomes indignant, self-righteous, or tries to impose their beliefs or habits on others that conflict arises.

Smoking is legal, so as long as somone doesn't infringe on someone else's personal space it's their right to smoke.by law, in certain circumstances. Advise, but don't impose.

Smokers have designated spots they can smoke in, and as long as they stay in those spots, they have every right to smoke, being aware of the dangers.

common courtesy folks- is it that difficult?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I really like my neighbors, but my daughter and I have been dropping "hints" like going outside when they smoke and start choking and coughing and saying quite loudly that the smoke is making us sick and that we have to go inside and close the windows and turn on the a/c because the cigarette smoke is making us ill. After doing this dozens of times, they still sit outside all year, even in freezing temps and smoke like chimneys. Any normal person would have taken the hint. We tried to be polite, it didn't work.

Most people don't actually consider that sort of "hint" to be very polite.

So making your co-workers go outside in the winter to smoke is your idea of courteous. Install better ventilation problem solved. The thing that really kills me is when the government sued the tobacco companies and won, the reason was they were profiting off death but as soon as they won how much have taxes gone up on cigs. I would say they are being quite hypocritical. They also fund children's healthcare from those funds, what is going to happen when they get their wish and people quit smoking, will kids lose their healthcare?
Or the recent tax hike that affects all cigs. except menthols, are menthols safe? Do they really want to stop smoking or just profit off it?

I think that in most instances not allowing people to smoke inside is probably the best solution. My Boss actually smokes in his office but it is not a normal work situation since none of the employees actually work in the office. Even if we did a pretty solid majority of us smoke too so it wouldn't really be an issue. I think perhaps if a company has enough smoking workers to justify creating an indoor smoking room that it should be allowed.

Oh and I am certainly not one to argue with you about some of these tax schemes. The last I heard quite a bit of the money that was supposed to be going to education was actually going elsewhere. And when there was a proposition here to repeal a tobacco tax the propaganda they used to fight it was "They're trying take money away from our children!"

And the thing you are thinking of with the menthols is not a tax I don't think, unless there is something else going around that I am unaware of. They are actually banning all flavoured tobaccos except for menthol. Kinda sucks since I smoke clove cigarettes. I'm going to wind up quiting. Of course I am sure most people will be happy about that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've had this same experience. It made me feel vulnerable...I had to say, that's over the line, seriously...please stop. Very uncomfortable but it really was effective.

I remember my first job doing security was actually as a pool monitor (not a life guard, I only yelled at people for breaking the rules) and I just remembered that I was rather embarrassed when a resident was smoking in the pool area and another asked me to tell them to stop. First I had to argue with the woman about whether or not I could actually make the other woman stop, I could only ask, and then I had to go over to the smoker and ask her if she would stop smoking after apparently the other woman had already annoyed her by making a point of coughing on her and such.

Its been a while now. I think on that occasion the smoker told me she wanted the other resident to come ask her politely and then she would think about it. I think on another occasion someone actually decided to stop when I asked.

 

[Bratticus]

Apparently it is. I think any issue can be resolved by courteous communication. Name calling, threats, telling people to go and kill themselves by whatever ones preferred suggestion is, or treating people that are not in concurrence with one's views as imbeciles or second hand citizens will resolve nothing. People stop listening to your arguments. You get hostile, they get hostile, and instead of politely resolving an issue to everyone's satisfaction, some will go out of their way to annoy you, because you annoyed them.

I am neither an advocate for smoking, nor non-smoking. I would like to see people get less hostile and start talking instead of shouting and finger-pointing. We style ourselves as an advanced species, but when things do not go our way, many act more like monkeys by posturing and shouting.

The words "I", "me" and "mine" do not further compromise. At least attempt to understand someone's reasons. Understanding can eliminate a lot of problems.

 

[Jame]

Because the group of non-smokers who ALSO raise their voice about it, instead of just going somewhere else, is greatly over represented by know-it-all's. I don't smoke and think it's really stupid to do so, but I still have many other harmful habits and would nonetheless say I'm an idiot, just human.

Informing them about the fact that worrying about things can be as unhealthy as the physiological danger itself might be a good reply.

 

[Jasongreat]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you here. What gives anyone the right to do something that adversely affects the health of others?

Are they forced to be in the same room, building etc; with me. They are the ones choosing to be in the same room with me, if you don't like smoke stay away. Besides I have no problem if the owner says you can't smoke in my buisiness, I would probably choose not to go to that buisiness, but that is something that would be handled locally instead of federally. On the other hand if they decided that they wanted to smoke in their buisiness, then the non-smokers would have to decide if they wanted to frequent that buisiness or take their money elsewhere. The buisiness could decide for themselves, it is their buisiness. Why do non-smokers feel entitled to be able to go anywhere they want and not smell smoke? I would stake my life on the fact that if their buisiness suffered because non-smokers refused to go there, the buisiness would set it up somehow so you could start frequenting their establishment again, they might even ban smoking, or at least separate smokers from non-smokers, but it would be the individual owners decision. The whole one size fits all argument is bogus.

 

[Jasongreat]

And the thing you are thinking of with the menthols is not a tax I don't think, unless there is something else going around that I am unaware of. They are actually banning all flavoured tobaccos except for menthol. Kinda sucks since I smoke clove cigarettes. I'm going to wind up quiting. Of course I am sure most people will be happy about that.

I like that, they are banning ALL flavored smokes, EXCEPT menthols. Why did they choose menthols as the exception? Could it be they would upset a core voting block? Profit doesn't always have to come in the form of money. Only in government does ALL have exceptions.
Clove cigs don't even have tobacco in them do they?

 

[Hootenanny]

Are they forced to be in the same room, building etc; with me. They are the ones choosing to be in the same room with me, if you don't like smoke stay away. Besides I have no problem if the owner says you can't smoke in my buisiness, I would probably choose not to go to that buisiness, but that is something that would be handled locally instead of federally. On the other hand if they decided that they wanted to smoke in their buisiness, then the non-smokers would have to decide if they wanted to frequent that buisiness or take their money elsewhere. The buisiness could decide for themselves, it is their buisiness. Why do non-smokers feel entitled to be able to go anywhere they want and not smell smoke? I would stake my life on the fact that if their buisiness suffered because non-smokers refused to go there, the buisiness would set it up somehow so you could start frequenting their establishment again, they might even ban smoking, or at least separate smokers from non-smokers, but it would be the individual owners decision. The whole one size fits all argument is bogus.

What happens if we both work in the same office? Would it be acceptable to you for a non-smoker to ask that you don't smoke inside?

 

[Jasongreat]

What happens if we both work in the same office? Would it be acceptable to you for a non-smoker to ask that you don't smoke inside?

First off I don't smoke, secondly that would be completely fine with me. There is a big difference though between politely asking me not to smoke in your presence, and having the government force me into it. Isnt it said every force has has an equal but opposite reaction?