Why do non-smokers often display hostility towards smokers?

[Bratticus]

evo, have you considered a meeting of all the affected parties with the smokers... perhaps if you all get together you can work out a compromise that will be acceptable to all parties. Until then... get a nice big fan, and blow the stuff back :)

 

[rootX]

The quickest way to get started changing attitudes might be legislation, but quickest doesn't mean best or smart. Just because youve started social change doesn't mean in the end you'll have the problem stopped. At the turn of the century legislators banned certain drugs, social change started, but here it is 100 yrs later and even though social change started (and millions punished) do you see an end anywhere. And yes all legislation is punitive, was it not a punishment for blacks to be classified as property by legislation? Then was it not punishment to the people that paid money for that legal property to have that property removed through legislation? Wasnt it legislation that didnt give women the right to vote, wasnt that punishment? People in disenfranchised groups always feel the punishment, but once they get to dole it out it is no longer punishment its the right thing to do(since its the right thing to do it isn't punishment its for the punished's own good).

Okay, we should not use laws. What you recommend then? Last time I read, you pointed that people should be educated well and there should not be any laws.

1) How well that (no laws - only education) would work?
2) Isn't education used even now?

 

[Bratticus]

Okay, we should not use laws. What you recommend then? Last time I read, you pointed that people should be educated well and there should not be any laws.

1) How well that (no laws - only education) would work?
2) Isn't education used even now?

It would work in "Shangri La"... to bad that place is fictional

 

[rootX]

get a nice big fan, and blow the stuff back :)

This sounds like a good idea. There are also air cleaners etc.

 

[Jasongreat]

First of all, punishment has a particular meaning which is NOT covered by any of the examples you have here. It does not simply mean "do something bad to someone."

Secondly, there are plenty of laws which don't "punish" anyone; who suffers the "punishment" when laws against, for example, car theft get enacted? If you're going to say "car thieves," you can just go sit in the corner until you figure out why that's a stupid answer.

The car thief gets punished, but the car thief did actually violate someone elses right to control their property. Therefore he/she deserved their punishment. On the other hand to many times now days people are punished for what they might do or could do, intead of what they have done.

I guess I'm off to sit in the corner.

 

[rolerbe]

Check your smoke detectors and make sure they function properly, your life may depend on it. And if you do not have a carbon monoxide detector, get one, it also may just save your life.
A child died in Ocean City MD in a hotelroom from carbon monoxide poisoning. You can smell smoke, carbon monoxide is odorless, it just makes you sleepy (and you may not wake up).

Do not depent on your landlord in this.

I cannot support the above statement for CO2 detectors strongly enough. Of course we all know its a good idea, but hey, its 2009 for pete's sake. CO2? How often in this modern age is that really a problem? Answer: Much, much more frequently than you would ever think.

I didn't know the facts until my whole family nearly died of CO2 poisoning. We were very lucky. Speaking with the fire authorities afterwards, in our town of about 60,000, they average about a CO2 call every week somewhere in the town!

Don't mean to threadjack, but cannot pass up the opportunity to stump for a $20 lifesaver. Get it today. Plug it in. (I had actually bought one some time before, but never got around to installing it). Now go back to the rest of your life.

 

[turbo]

Just a clarification - it's not CO₂ that is deadly. It is CO. Big difference.

 

[negitron]

CO₂ is deadly, too. Just in a different way.

 

[Jasongreat]

Okay, we should not use laws. What you recommend then? Last time I read, you pointed that people should be educated well and there should not be any laws.

1) How well that (no laws - only education) would work?
2) Isn't education used even now?

First, I never said we shouldn't have laws, but I believe we should have laws that punish actual crimes instead of fictional crimes that may or may not happen.

If you think that forcing stats down someones thoat, and then abusing them if they don't believe the stats you provided is education, then yes we are using education. IMHO that is not education but coercion.

 

[Jasongreat]

First of all, punishment has a particular meaning which is NOT covered by any of the examples you have here. It does not simply mean "do something bad to someone."

QUOTE]

According to wiki:
Punishment: is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or adversive, to a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.

 

[rootX]

First, I never said we shouldn't have laws, but I believe we should have laws that punish actual crimes instead of fictional crimes that may or may not happen.

1) What are actual crimes?
2) What you want for preventing crimes from happening?
3) What you want for making sure that everything runs smoothly?

(Laws are meant to address 2 and 3 which you are ignoring)

If you think that forcing stats down someones throat, and then abusing them if they don't believe the stats you provided is education, then yes we are using education. IMHO that is not education but coercion.

Are you saying here that statistics are meaningless? Crime cannot be defined by statistics. People who do not believe in those statistics are abused?

 

[Jasongreat]

1) What are actual crimes?
2) What you want for preventing crimes from happening?
3) What you want for making sure that everything runs smoothly?

(Laws are meant to address 2 and 3 which you are ignoring)



Are you saying here that statistics are meaningless? Crime cannot be defined by statistics. People who do not believe in those statistics are abused?

1) a crime has both a perpetrator, and a victim(physically), not a perpetrator and a fictional victim.
2) name a law that has prevented a crime. Laws are for punishing a behavior, not for preventing that behavior. Murder has been against the law since the first civilization and yet there are still quite a few murders that take place every day(and no I don't believe murder should be legal since the law to stop it hasnt worked, since laws arent in place to stop, but to punish behavior).
3) laws that pertain to everyone not just certain groups of people



I am not saying stats are meaningless, but they can be misleading. Say for example you have a stat that says the crime rates are increasing, you can't live with that, so you decide to enact some laws to prevent this(I have already mentioned above how I feel about prevention, atleast as far as laws go), now the day after you enact those new laws, there are people that yesterday were law abiding citizens and today are now criminals. So your stats still show that crime rates are still increasing, so you use that stat to get more laws passed, and on and on.

 

[rootX]

1) a crime has both a perpetrator, and a victim(physically), not a perpetrator and a fictional victim.

What about the crimes like frauds etc?
By your definition, a father who keeps his daughter in cellar is also not a crime if the daughter is physically healthy.

2) name a law that has prevented a crime. Laws are for punishing a behavior, not for preventing that behavior. Murder has been against the law since the first civilization and yet there are still quite a few murders that take place every day(and no I don't believe murder should be legal since the law to stop it hasnt worked, since laws arent in place to stop, but to punish behavior).

That's was my original question. Recommend an alternative "to prevent crime". I am not asking why laws don't work (Real world - nothing is perfect)

3) laws that pertain to everyone not just certain groups of people

Is this possible? If it is then those would be very rare cases.

I am not saying stats are meaningless, but they can be misleading. Say for example you have a stat that says the crime rates are increasing, you can't live with that, so you decide to enact some laws to prevent this(I have already mentioned above how I feel about prevention, atleast as far as laws go), now the day after you enact those new laws, there are people that yesterday were law abiding citizens and today are now criminals. So your stats still show that crime rates are still increasing, so you use that stat to get more laws passed, and on and on.

Nothing is perfect. Some laws/stats are meaningless while others not. I asked you to provide a better alternative that would work all the time or more than laws.

 

[BobG]

1) a crime has both a perpetrator, and a victim(physically), not a perpetrator and a fictional victim.
2) name a law that has prevented a crime. Laws are for punishing a behavior, not for preventing that behavior. Murder has been against the law since the first civilization and yet there are still quite a few murders that take place every day(and no I don't believe murder should be legal since the law to stop it hasnt worked, since laws arent in place to stop, but to punish behavior).
3) laws that pertain to everyone not just certain groups of people



I am not saying stats are meaningless, but they can be misleading. Say for example you have a stat that says the crime rates are increasing, you can't live with that, so you decide to enact some laws to prevent this(I have already mentioned above how I feel about prevention, atleast as far as laws go), now the day after you enact those new laws, there are people that yesterday were law abiding citizens and today are now criminals. So your stats still show that crime rates are still increasing, so you use that stat to get more laws passed, and on and on.

A law that has totally eliminated all crimes associated with that law or a law that prevents some crimes associated with that law? The image of order or disorder often has a larger impact on behavior than police or the laws themselves. The laws are just a supporting player in creating an image of order, albeit an important supporting player. Or...

If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. . . . One unrepaired window is a signal that no one cares, so breaking more windows costs nothing. . . . Untended property becomes fair game for people out for fun or plunder.

From http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3563677.html - an article that lends support to your point that the laws and/or law enforcement in itself just isn't sufficient to maintain order. You're just overstating the case that laws don't help support order.

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.

The real solution to Evo's smoking problem is in the complaints by other tenants. A joint complaint to the landlord signed by other complaining tenants would be one significant step to resolving the issue. A form letter explaining the problem, why the problem exists, and that solicits signatures to the joint complaint that was sent to all tenants might have an even bigger impact. People are getting ticked off and possibly bad solutions are coming down the road unless folks start paying attention to how they're affecting their neighbors.

In other words, the effort to enact some new rules and punishments can be more important than the rules and punishments, themselves.

 

[Jasongreat]

What about the crimes like frauds etc?
By your definition, a father who keeps his daughter in cellar is also not a crime if the daughter is physically healthy.

That's was my original question. Recommend an alternative "to prevent crime". I am not asking why laws don't work (Real world - nothing is perfect)

Is this possible? If it is then those would be very rare cases.


Nothing is perfect. Some laws/stats are meaningless while others not. I asked you to provide a better alternative that would work all the time or more than laws.

Fraud has both a perpetrator and a victim, the perpetrator steals the victims money(property), even if the victim gives it up voluntarily, since the perpetrator used fallacious means to entice the victim to part with their property.
If the daughter is being held(physically) against her will, that is a crime, no matter how healthy she is.

So the reason laws don't work is that the world is imperfect and not that the laws are imperfect? Education is the only way, but still you must realize that even if you give others the same facts that swayed your opinion, they have the right to freedom of conscience, and therefore have the right to disagree with you. So education is not going to completely stop behavior, but you have a far better chance to signifigantly reduce the behavior than through punishment, since the people that don't agree with the law will feel that the law is oppression and revolt against it. Where as with education you are allowing them to think for themselves, what oppression/coercion is there if they choose for themselves?

Yes it is possible, to make a law that affects every group the same. Look at murder again, it doesn't matter if your a smoker, doesn't matter if your a drinker, doesn't matter the color of your skin, doesn't matter which political party you belong to, doesn't even matter if your in the majority(3 perps. 1 victim),you cannot commit murder without being punished for that crime, unless of course you didnt get caught. If you didnt get caught what good was is the law anyway?

I have said education is the alternative numerous times. I like how I have to come up with something that works all the time, where as laws don't have to work at all, as long as the intention is there. If education prevents one crime, it is already more than any law has prevented.

 

[turbo]

Education is not the only way, when empathy can do so much. The bikers that came to my open-mike jams were outwardly fearsome and tough (and I played a lot of weekend biker-parties in outdoor settings, too), but were decent, fair-minded people who valued friendship and loyalty. They would buy rounds for the musicians on our breaks, and wanted to "hang out", talk about music, make requests, and get introductions to locals. Just regular folks. They wouldn't light up in the tavern, and they would encourage other patrons to step outside to smoke, without being mean about it. One day, we had a couple of idiots show up at the tavern with brand-new Springer Softails, and one of them wanted to drive into the joint and make an *** of himself. That didn't last more than a few seconds. Rudeness, lack of respect, and imposing your own jerkiness on others didn't sit well with the Iron Horsemen. They just wanted a nice place to kick back on warm Sunday afternoons/evenings.

There was another tavern a town away that my band played at off and on over during that period. The owner (another biker) was hugely possessive of our band, and his wife screened people at the door. Anybody wearing cologne/perfume was welcome to drink in the bar but was barred from the stage/performance area.

If people are well-mannered and considerate of others, no problem. If they are not, then some level of coercion might be in order, though that was never my first choice. I really loved having the Iron Horsemen around, and leading by example - people thought that it was cool ducking outside for a smoke and hanging with some bad-asses who treated them like humans and didn't foul-mouth anybody.

 

[Jasongreat]

From http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3563677.html - an article that lends support to your point that the laws and/or law enforcement in itself just isn't sufficient to maintain order. You're just overstating the case that laws don't help support order.



The real solution to Evo's smoking problem is in the complaints by other tenants. A joint complaint to the landlord signed by other complaining tenants would be one significant step to resolving the issue. A form letter explaining the problem, why the problem exists, and that solicits signatures to the joint complaint that was sent to all tenants might have an even bigger impact. People are getting ticked off and possibly bad solutions are coming down the road unless folks start paying attention to how they're affecting their neighbors.

In other words, the effort to enact some new rules and punishments can be more important than the rules and punishments, themselves.

Thanks Bob for that article it was a good read. I agree I might be overstating the case that laws don't help support order, but that is only because I believe most people understate the case that unjust laws do contribute to dis-order(and then use that dis-order for a reason for more un-just laws, kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy). If I go over the top, and they go below the bottom, maybe we just might meet in the middle(hasnt worked so far, but maybe one day, a guy can hope can't he).

I also agree with your assessment of evo's situation. All problems in that condo should be solved from within the condo, not from without. If Evo has the majority(of the tenants) on her side, the minority should have to capitulate. But we need to try and solve our problems on the local level, not national, or even statewide when it comes to an individuals behaviour. Since even if the majority in that building would like to ban smoking(or any other behaviour), there might be another building across town that is completely opposite.

Wouldnt your last statement be considered education? As the discussion goes along, people will learn more about each others concerns and come to an educated concensus.

 

[negitron]

Education only goes so far. You can NOT force someone to learn something. You can force them to go to school, you can force them to sit through classes, you can even force them to repeat grades until they pass (do they even still do that anymore?) but you can NOT force them to learn. Or if they do learn, to apply it appropriately. All you can do is expose them to it and hope some of it sinks in; it rarely does. Not that there isn't room for improvement in our educational system. While we cannot reasonably expect to reach all of the student population, we can doubtless do things to encourage more interest. We'll always have a large, undereducated populace, however. It's the human condition.

 

[Jasongreat]

Education is not the only way, when empathy can do so much. The bikers that came to my open-mike jams were outwardly fearsome and tough (and I played a lot of weekend biker-parties in outdoor settings, too), but were decent, fair-minded people who valued friendship and loyalty. They would buy rounds for the musicians on our breaks, and wanted to "hang out", talk about music, make requests, and get introductions to locals. Just regular folks. They wouldn't light up in the tavern, and they would encourage other patrons to step outside to smoke, without being mean about it. One day, we had a couple of idiots show up at the tavern with brand-new Springer Softails, and one of them wanted to drive into the joint and make an *** of himself. That didn't last more than a few seconds. Rudeness, lack of respect, and imposing your own jerkiness on others didn't sit well with the Iron Horsemen. They just wanted a nice place to kick back on warm Sunday afternoons/evenings.

There was another tavern a town away that my band played at off and on over during that period. The owner (another biker) was hugely possessive of our band, and his wife screened people at the door. Anybody wearing cologne/perfume was welcome to drink in the bar but was barred from the stage/performance area.

If people are well-mannered and considerate of others, no problem. If they are not, then some level of coercion might be in order, though that was never my first choice. I really loved having the Iron Horsemen around, and leading by example - people thought that it was cool ducking outside for a smoke and hanging with some bad-asses who treated them like humans and didn't foul-mouth anybody.

How does empathy work without first educating the other, so they can understand what it is like to be in your shoes? If they don't understand the other side, how do they empathize with the other side?

I liked your stories by the way, things getting handled where they should, locally, and by the owners of the establishment.

 

[Jasongreat]

Education only goes so far. You can NOT force someone to learn something. You can force them to go to school, you can force them to sit through classes, you can even force them to repeat grades until they pass (do they even still do that anymore?) but you can NOT force them to learn. Or if they do learn, to apply it appropriately. All you can do is expose them to it and hope some of it sinks in; it rarely does. Not that there isn't room for improvement in our educational system. While we cannot reasonably expect to reach all of the student population, we can doubtless do things to encourage more interest. We'll always have a large, undereducated populace, however. It's the human condition.

I like that, "you cannot force someone to learn something", exactly just like you can't force someone to believe what you believe. Also I don't agree that you can even force them to go to school, or to pay attention. They could always dropout. In the end the moral of the story is you can't force someone into anything, period. Say it with me, "you can't force anyone into anything"

 

[Zantra]

I like that, "you cannot force someone to learn something", exactly just like you can't force someone to believe what you believe. Also I don't agree that you can even force them to go to school, or to pay attention. They could always dropout. In the end the moral of the story is you can't force someone into anything, period. Say it with me, "you can't force anyone into anything"

Of course that will not stop them from trying

*shrug*

FWIW, I smoked for 12 years, and listened to a thousands lecturers, advisors, and well intentioned annoyances trying to make me see the light, and I KNEW it was bad for me, and I didn't care, at least not enough to quit. My favorites were the girlfriends who would try to "threaten" me into quitting. It never worked. I just found a girlfriend who smoked. Probably not the best move, but in hindsight I was better off, as the threats were generally warning signs.

When I finally quit, it was quite simply a decision I came to. Do I wished I had never started? absolutely! But I quit on my own terms. I can say that a lot hard core smokers likely feel the same way.

Evo, I feel for you and your problem, but if you're not willing to dialogue with the offenders in order to resolve it, then I doubt you'll ever fix it. If someone pointed a fan at me, or made rude comments to me, I'd probably come knocking at your door, and my first question would be, if you had a problem, why didn't you come to me? If these guys are jerks, then you move to the more obnoxious behavior, but taking the low road is the wrong move. If they are jerks, the behavior will only get worse.

Passive aggressive behavior incites, and does not solve the problem. It only leads towards escalating behavior and away from a solution.

 

[BobG]

Passive aggressive behavior incites, and does not solve the problem. It only leads towards escalating behavior and away from a solution.

Mahatma Gandhi was a passive aggressive.

 

[rolerbe]

Just a clarification - it's not CO₂ that is deadly. It is CO. Big difference.

Dumb typing too fast typo. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Zantra]

Mahatma Gandhi was a passive aggressive.

Gandhi was starting from a position of disadvantage and conflict, and his people were oppressed.

I guess I missed the part where he rose up in defiance of tyrrany, oppression and ciggarrette smoke.

I can't imagine him blowing smoke in someone's face because they annoyed him.

That sounds like "Ghandi gone wild" to me



But since you mention him anyway, here's a few words of wisdom I believe are germaine to this topic:

"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary

And my favorite:

Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I just wanted to point out the fact that smokers could simply switch to hand vaporizers or 'e-cigarettes'. I've noticed that hookahs seem to be becoming popular in Universities around my area.

The e-cigarettes are essentially vaporizers with nicotine packets in them. Granted they are not the same as a cigarette, but they are about as bad for you as nicotine gum and the vapor you exhale is mostly water. Also, the e-cigs are far cheaper in the long run (if you just want the nicotine buzz).

Either way, hookahs, vaporizers and e-cigs seem to eliminate most of the problem, but as I said; they are not cigarettes, nor are they cigars or any other method of burning tobacco for inhalation. They produce just nicotine/water/flavoring vapor.

 

[russ_watters]

I have said education is the alternative numerous times. I like how I have to come up with something that works all the time, where as laws don't have to work at all, as long as the intention is there. If education prevents one crime, it is already more than any law has prevented.

I was with you up until there. You're creating a strawman and a false dichotomy at the same time. You are the one claiming that laws have to be successful in preventing crime all the time to be considered a success while simultaneously claiming they never prevent crime. On the other side, people are not suggesting that you must come up with an alternative that works all the time, just asking if there is something that works better (better enough to justify reducing spending on law/law enforcement).

The reality is that neither position is exclusive. You can't do without education (compulsory, state provided, or otherwise) and you can't do without laws. Education helps prevent some crimes, but not all. Laws (and enforcement) help prevent some crimes, but not all. The best countries are those with a proper balance between the two.

[edit] Oops, sorry, oldl post...

 

[Bourbaki1123]

You are aware that there are highly educated professionals that smoke right? There are professors in the hard sciences (and computer science/math) that smoke. I fail to see what education has to do with it.

I think that the allure of smoking comes from two sources, depression and anxiety. For a person who is dealing with anxiety or is too speedy, nicotine provides a calming effect and allows them to think clearly. I believe this to be the case with my Theory of Automata and Languages prof. He is always jittery and paces constantly, and he smokes like a chimney.

Relaxants make it hard to do intellectually demanding work, slight anxiety makes it difficult as well. Nicotine seems to smooth things out. The thing is this: there are alternatives for administering nicotine, and there are probably better drugs to use, this is why I'm guessing a bit of depression/self destructive tendencies.