COMMENTS: 158
Should People Be Allowed To Smoke at Home?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.
A year later, a heavy smoker moved in across the hall at Ms. Wilson's second-floor apartment in Arlington Town Apartments. Wilson says her life changed.
"I started having all kinds of breathing problems and eye irritations," says Wilson, a retired assembly-line worker. After maintenance personnel tried and failed to stop the smoke in several ways, including ventilation changes, air filters, and intake fans, she was moved to an apartment down the hall. Everything was fine -- until more smokers moved in across the hall. "My doctor told me ... that I'd better move away from it or else," says Wilson.
As similar scenarios play out in apartment and condominium complexes across the country, they are resulting in a new frontier in antismoking policies: private dwellings.
Not only are some condos and apartment houses banning smoking inside private units, but there is talk in Belmont, Calif., of a city law next month that would mandate that all complexes keep a portion of their units smoke-free.
The war against smoking first ramped up in the 1980s when some of America's public buildings became smoke-free. Then, in the 1990s, a slew of restaurants and bars in US cities banned smoking.
Now, seniors are leading the way in the new battle in part because many live in communal environments and they feel they are susceptible to the health and safety hazards of smoking.
"The primary drive for smoke-free housing in America is coming from the elderly," says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Smoke-free policies in private dwellings are also taking hold because state and federal laws do not protect smokers in the same way that they protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin, say experts. But banning a legal behavior in someone's own home is an intrusion of privacy that could set a dangerous precedent that, taken to extremes, could allow government to regulate too much in private life, opponents say.
Smoking can also be safety issue, particularly in close quarters, some say. "There is a great deal of growing interest in the senior housing community about senior smokers because seniors become forgetful and careless about smoking," says Serena Chen, policy director for the American Lung Association of California. Although cigarettes cause 10 percent of apartment fires, 40 percent of apartment fire deaths are attributed to smoking. Such fires cause death because they occur while more people are asleep.
Giving more teeth to the push is a finding in the US Surgeon General report last June that there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke. Last year, the California Air Resources Board declared secondhand smoke to be a toxic air contaminant on par with other industrial pollutants.
For their part, condo and apartment owners are beginning to realize the additional costs of getting units ready for new tenants after smokers have lived there.
Across the state of Michigan,12 of 132 housing commissions have banned smoking in multiunit apartments and condos in the past two years, Mr. Bergman says. Two-and-a-half years ago, no one could find a smoke-free apartment listing anywhere in the state; now there are more than 5,000, he says.
About two or three public housing commissions in Michigan are adopting smoke-free policies each month; elsewhere in the US, Bergman says, perhaps another one commission per month is doing the same. So far, that means that the public buildings owned and run by such commissions -- such as Arlington Courts in Sault Ste. Marie -- are taking such actions voluntarily.
But that could change next month in California. In Belmont, the city attorney and city council are expected to break new ground by passing a law that affects all public and private apartment and condominium owners in the city, requiring them to adopt smoke-free policies for a certain percentage of their units.
"Belmont will be watched nationally to see how far it goes in requiring apartment owners to have smoke-free policies," says Bergman. "Since no other city has passed a law requiring private apartment owners or condo associations to have a percentage of their units be smoke-free, this will be unique in the nation and other cities will seriously consider taking the step as well."
If Belmont's and Michigan's measures are being fueled in part by statistics showing that 80 percent of Americans don't smoke, they are also drawing ire from many among the 20 percent who do. Smokers wonder where they'll be allowed to smoke if new laws proliferate. Even top proponents of smoke-free policies question whether scientific evidence overstates the dangers of being exposed to secondhand smoke, and chases smokers into an ever-shrinking portion of the great outdoors.
"There really is no evidence that even a fleeting whiff of cigarette smoke will give you lung cancer, but that's how proponents of these policies seem to be advancing their cause," says Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason Magazine, who authored a book about the antismoking movement.
If smokers are banned from apartments and condos, parks, and other public spaces, the only space left for them to smoke will be single-family homes, a place where children reside. "The next angle we are going to see on this is how to protect children from respiratory problems in the home, and that is not the kind of place where I think the government ought to be intervening," says Mr. Sullum.
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 9, 2007 12:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why I oppose a lot of the far right wing...
...and such babysitting-of-free-adults as you've highlighted here.
I won't use the term "nannystate", as it's meaning has been lost on par with "fascism", but the trend, nevertheless, is clear.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You shouldn't be allowed...
Posted by: secti
» Ah...so what you're saying is that they're two sides...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: You shouldn't be allowed...
Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: You shouldn't be allowed... Bush will tell us what we can and cannot do.
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 9, 2007 1:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2 Someone having respiratory reactions after moving next door to a smoker resides does not automatically implicate second hand smoke as the culprit. Laminates, wall coverings, plastics, carpets, paints and stains all out-gas strongly enough to cause respiratory distress/reactions. The EPA suffered with sick building syndrome at HQ that was resolved after an expensive retrofit of less noxious fabrics, paints and adhesives.
3 Dust mites are a trigger for asthma & concentrate in and on fabrics, dirty filters & ductwork. Elderly people and people with lung diseases are more likely to keep their homes 'bottled up' and use HVAC systems more heavily, exacerbating the problem. Many such people are unable to clean (sweep/mop/dust) as regularly/completely as they would wish to, exacerbating the problem. Such people are also more likely to lead a sedentary lifestyle and spend the most of their time in close contact with dust mite habitat.
4 Many home Air Filters produce ozone- a well known respiratory irritant and asthma trigger. The older the unit, the higher the likelihood that the unit produces ozone. It should also be noted that a dirty filter is worse for people with respiratory problems/sensitivities than having none at all.
What do these points have in common? Not one has a thing to do with someone smoking in their own space in a properly designed apartment. Apartheid for smokers will not address any of these significant triggers of respiratory problems that may or may not be the legitimate (by jumping to conclusions) cause.
I am not here as an apologist for smoking. However, accusing smokers for every instance of respiratory distress by anecdotal evidence when other significant causes & factors are present or possible serves nobody's interest. If the interest is in protecting people from unnecessary respiratory distress, the logical first step is to establish & enforce proper codes for ventilation, air handling and filtration in multi-unit apartments and condos with no grandfathering for old buildings.
Bad laws, based upon bad science or data are not in anyone's interest-- no matter how good the intent. Smokers should respect the rights of people to breathe air free of second hand smoke and most do. But to let the do-gooder, granola & filtered water crowd continue their jihad on anyone with a cigarette or cigar just because they think it might be causing someone's problem is BS.
I do not drink, but have to put up with roadside sobriety checks, ignorant drunks and all the rest. Drunken driving is not the only societal/health cost associated with alcohol consumption, yet drinkers are largely given a pass. I'm not outside protesting liquor stores, bars, restaurants or trying to ban drinking in apartment buildings or public parks. The anti-smoking Jihad has pushed the smokers outdoors- many times more than a football field away from any entrance--and the nonsmokers still bitch and moan.
I know a couple of things for sure:
Smokers are going to smoke
&
Nonsmokers will bitch about it
no matter what accommodations are made (or not).
It's time to call an end to this endless Jihad. Keep it up and the Jesus Camp crowd will make it illegal for you to have a sleep over in your own bed because your neighbor is offended by the moaning/howling/headboard bumping/etc. going on (or down). Our legal system is based heavily upon precedent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: mysticalrae
» Thank You!!!
Posted by: kww355
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws....and you know: It's Always Something!
Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws, and this whole smoking at home debate
Posted by: heliotropic
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: Marcy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 9, 2007 2:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a dumb, disgusting, overpriced habit. But if you must do it, go outside. It's not much to ask. We had neighbors who smoked, and they always went outside to do it, because they thought it was disgusting to pollute their own home.
Big Brother already intrudes on every aspect of our lives, so kicking the smokers outside for some fresh air won't make a difference.
How lazy and selfish do you have to be if you can't step outside whatever building you're in for 5 minutes?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: sapatatanka
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: davidbdr
» RE:Get Real
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Get Real
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» RE: Get Real
Posted by: patszar
» RE: Get Real
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» RE: Getting Real
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Getting Real
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» The worst and most intolerant seem to be the ex-smokers.
Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: suegei
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: madelinefan
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: patszar
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: Marcy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Feb 9, 2007 4:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. what the hell is that unit cooking that has toxic fumes rolling in the hallways?
2. kids playing in hallways, take em to the park!
3. do something about that baby crying for hours at 3am
4. nasty cat litter gasses escaping into your unit that you can't get rid of
there are worse things then smoking in your own home... with an apartment, it can be written into your lease that your unit is non smoking, but with a condo, it's a lot harder to control because you OWN your unit
additionally, there have been studies that have shown that overall during the cold and flu season year after year, smokers who go outside to smoke have fewer illnesses because they are out in the fresh air for a while and not trapped in recycled hothouses constantly.... also there is a lower stress level observed because of a break in scenery and getting outside for a few
we are smokers who own a condo and no one else in our particular building smokes, so to be polite, we keep a can of fabreeze air near the door for occasional sprays and not one of our neighbors complain and YES WE HAVE ASKED THEM ALL SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS!!!!
just to anger the non-smoking crowd, I do not plan on quitting, enjoy smoking for over 40 years, have already made the decision (legally in writing) to refuse smoking related medical treatment, and am polite to my neighbors....
how much more do they want?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: another point
Posted by: MAD
» RE: another point
Posted by: nylaw13
» RE: another point
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 9, 2007 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: davidbdr
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: freysdottir
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: meeper
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: alfesq
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: Larry125
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: bannelee
» You pompous ass!
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wally292 on Feb 9, 2007 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smokeing band in your own apartment
Posted by: kathat
» RE: Smokeing band in your own apartment - Bush wouldn't sign with KYOTO but no smoking.
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sheena2u on Feb 9, 2007 5:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My brother smoked when he was young, and I tried to tell him to stop, but he wouldn't listen. After ten years of smoking he quit on his own. But, he died of brain cancer last year, and I believe it was from the years of smoking cigarettes.
I have never smoked, but I have been exposed to smokers all my life. Through the 1970's and 1980's I was forced to work around heavy smokers because there were no protections then for non-smokers. So, I now have severe asthma, allergies, and chronic bronchitis, and this is only because of my exposure to smokers. At this time I cannot tolerate breathing any second hand smoke. Even the faintest hint of smoke sends me into coughing convulsions. So, I strongly believe that no person ought to ever be allowed to smoke around people who chose not to smoke. It is an extremely harmful and serious health hazard.
Cigarette smoke contains a lethal cocktail of toxic poisons, and no one should have their health poisoned by forced exposure to someone else's smoke. To force anyone to breathe someone else's poison smoke takes years off that person's life, and this is tanatmount to a criminal act.
So, I apologize for the inconvenience of those who have found themselves to be addicted to cigarettes, but they must understand their smoking is a hazard to human health and life, and they must bear the price and the inconvenience for their choice. I urge all smokers to quit asap. And, I fully support all measures to protect non-smokers from the poison gasses and fumes of cigarette and cigar smoke. The inconvenience of any smoker is less compelling than the loss of life and health to non-smokers and smokers, and the years of potential life lost due to exposure to toxic, poisonous smoke.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smoking is a public health issue
Posted by: davidbdr
» RE: Smoking is a public health issue
Posted by: Deb C
» Do you go the same way about cars and airplanes?
Posted by: Baenz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pdxstudent on Feb 9, 2007 6:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is a violation of anyone's rights or privacy, it's the property owners themselves. They are the one's being told how to run their property. Because, after all, no one who rents an apartment unit owns it. In the end, it belongs to someone else. So, in a very simple sense, there are things the property owner can contractually demand of their tenets. One of them is that the unit remain smoke-free. At least half the buildings in Portland do not allow smoking in-doors, and it's hardly out of some anti-smoking principle. Smoking is a dirty habit, and is costs the property owner more in maintenance costs, because a deposit is not going to cover the systemic damage of a smoking environment. So, I don't think that there is any ground under the feet of smokers saying their rights are being violated, when they're not, and that there will be (as there hasn't been) much resistance from property owners, since it is basically a cost-saving measure for them anyway.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sympathetic, but Confused
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Sympathetic, but Confused
Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Sympathetic, but Confused
Posted by: pdxstudent
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 9, 2007 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are truly activists for peace and justice, then we need to understand that tobacco smoke is violent and it causes much harm and death. The only winner in the tobacco war is the tobacco corporation. They profit from an addictive violent product.
You people are becoming so rabidly phobic about smokers, it's frightening. Soon you'll be burning us at the stake. Walk down any main street in the world and inhale all the toxic fumes that are being emitted from cars, trucks, factories and
airports. What do you propose to do about that? You single-issue advocates really get on my nerves.
Nicotine is addictive, so is alcohol.
How about depleted uranium, cluster bombs, agent orange, napalm, white phosphorous and other chemical and biological weapons. Most of them have been used against the Iraqi people in the last fifteen years. When are you going to start a campaign to have them banned?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nicotine
Posted by: pingoo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jnutt on Feb 9, 2007 7:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Feb 9, 2007 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was brought up with two smoking parents, even in the car on a cold day with all the windows closed. I'm pretty sure it contributed to my current quite serious respiratory problems. My parents were ignorant of the science - that excuse doesn't wash today. If you can't stop, at least go outside to do it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pretty simple . . .
Posted by: pingoo
» RE: Pretty simple . . .
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pingoo on Feb 9, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although smoking may seem appaling to many people it should not interfere with what one can and cannot do UNDER THEIR OWN ROOF.
The whole argument is total bollocks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Of course people should be allowed to smoke at home!!
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» Didn't read past the ehadline did you?
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Of course people should be allowed to smoke at home!!
Posted by: fra59e
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 9, 2007 9:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hartsmart on Feb 9, 2007 9:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad George Burns in no longer with us to contribute the wisdom of his 100 years. Did the pleasure of primary and secondary smoke (his own) keep him going?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pomes on Feb 9, 2007 10:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This invasion into people's home lives is but one more goose-step down the road of the police state. It does not need to be taken to extremes as this article implies for this to be a totalitarian police state measure. This is the extreme already.
Based on my own experience, I do NOT believe the statistic that 80% of Americans don't smoke.. Smoking annoys me, so I can't help but miss who around me does or doesn't do it. Even if accurate, we live in a country that was founded on (or at least pay lip service to the idea of) personal rights and privacy in your own homes.
Has anybody even thought about what enforcing this would entail? The UK is saturated with cameras of every public place possible, and we're following the same path here. How far are we from the television that watches us?
We already have the largest prison population and rate of incarceration on the planet. We lock up more people than Russia OR China (according to Reuters). How many more classes of criminals do we need? We MUST start resisting the urge to dehumanize and criminalize whatever portion of society or set of behaviors the media has conditioned us to hate this week.
The ruling elite always use the most impressionable members of society (eg children, seniors) to fufill their plans to dismantle our notions of rights and privacy. Don't fool yourself into thinking they give a god damn about the elderly as a class of people, or have a whit of concern about the sanctity of life. Frankly, the same people pushing this are probably the same people pushing the euthanasia agenda.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Baenz on Feb 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A question which bothers me ever since this smoking discussion started years (decades?) ago is: if smoking is so dangerous to all of us - if tobacco makes addicts of the smokers - if it creates so much misery and health care costs -... why not simply go the straightforward and clean way and outlaw the tobacco industry?
In medicine there is the basic principle: cure the illness by uprooting the source. Guess, this doesn't apply anymore where BigBiz and BigMoney is involved, eh?
Hillarious double standards one more time. It's soooo much easier to hack on the little guy rather than really solving a seemingly serious problem.
Rgds and peace to all of you and applogies, but English is not my mother tongue.
PS And no, I'm not a smoker :-)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One word:
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Feb 9, 2007 10:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having said that, I am a little surprised by some of the posts which would go so far as to omit or minimize the grave, environmental impacts associated with tobacco production. To say that you're an environmentalist and a smoker in the same breath is somewhat contradictory. It's akin to saying I'm a proponent of alternative fuels whilst I jump into my Hummer and speed off.
Tobacco production is dangerous! The plant itself is susceptible to myriad diseases and pests, and as such, must be treated with TONS of pesticides. It should come as no surprise that herbicides are commonly used to keep the fields free of weeds as well. Anyone care to ask one of the "fortunate" workers charged with spraying fields how they feel about the labor intensive and dangerous nature of tobacco production? For example, Methyl Bromide, a chemical used to treat the soil before planting, has been shown to cause ozone depletion. Much deforestation also results as tobacco companies burn extraordinary amounts of wood to dry or "cure" the tobacco. China, the largest smoking country in the world, uses coal.
Soil depletion is another huge problem. Tobacco must uptake extreme quantities of nutrients in order to ensure a higher nicotine content. Erosion is often the result of such nutrient depletion. Although tobacco cultivation isn't quite as water intensive as say, corn or soy cultivation, it still requires vast amounts of water to support your bad habit. Speaking of water, much of it is contaminated by run-off issuing from the tobacco greenhouses and plantations, and in many instances, wildlife has been decimated.
So, all you smokers quick to point out that there are bigger fish to fry, keep in mind that BIG TOBACCO is one of those big fish. I guess where one's addiction is concerned, all antipathy towards big business just melts away, or at least for RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris . Seems a bit hypocritical to point the finger at those "other" big businesses while ignoring the horrendous, SCUMMY biz you're supporting each time you light up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Feb 9, 2007 10:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» flip the question
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 9, 2007 10:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've lived in four different condos and umpteen apartments since I became a grown-up twenty some years ago. Not once has there ever been a habitat designed and constructed to keep out second hand smoke, toxics and other crap that passes for American "construction industry standard practices."
People living in communal situations have to learn to tolerate all manner of pobnoxious and annoying behaviors from others. But they should not have to pay for this tolerance with their lives.
But making laws isn't going to cut it either. That's just back-ass band-aiding the festering wound that won't heal. Construction practices have to change. (AND folks need to just give up fucking smoking, period. Stop making excuses for 'Mer'kaan stoopid). Right now there are laws banning condo owners from drying their laundry in the sun (forcing us to burn natural gas and guzzle electrons to dry our clothes, which costs money and unecessary carbon output into the atmosphere). We have laws banning us from turning off the lights outside out front doors to save electricity or the area light outside the bedroom window (making us terminally sleep-deprived from the lack of darkness required to facilitate sufficient sleep). We have laws banning our children from playing anywhere including our own front porches and the nearest park is 20 minutes' drive away. We have laws that allow single, childless overprivileged condo owners to charge fines and control the lives of those of us who have partners and offspring without our say in any of it. Can you say taxation without representation?
So, as an unsympathetic intolerant ex-smoker myself, a law that prohibits some buttlick from lighting up in his own place, seems par for the course. But it's still stoopid because poor construction and bad architectural design with the poorest quality and cheapest (which ALWAYS translates to the most toxic and inefficient) materials is the real problem that can actually be resolved as a matter of LAW. My neighbors smoke and I ride their asses on it, good naturedly because they really are great people with a bad habit (they've tried hard to quit). But seriously, we've gone and done illegal retrofitting between our chimney flues, laundry vents and duct systems, and reinsulated our floor/ceilings sharing the cost and the risk of getting caught (because all that is illegal under California law--imagine, it's illegal to genuinely improve your property, only in the Chimp's 'Mer'kuh). I still can smell their cigs. It's simply the design flaws of the structure itself that permit the cross-bleed of smoke. Bans on smoking won't fix it, but maybe enforceable laws against half-ass construction and contracter/inspector incompetence might help.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnecolby on Feb 9, 2007 11:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. There is no legally protected right to smoke.
2. In rental contracts, there are legal obligations for landlords to provide safe, habitable living spaces where one is protected from foreseeable harm.
2. There is no way to prevent second-hand smoke from making its way to adjoining apartments or condominiums.
3. Seniors, children and the disabled are especially susceptible to health problems from second-hand smoke.
4. The risks from second-hand smoke are real and quite extensive. It exacerbates breathing issues like asthma and allergies, causes pulmonary problems, exacerbates glaucoma and other eye diseases, raises blood pressure and interacts dangerously with many medications like birth control pills.
4. In communal living, one makes sacrifices to ensure the safety and habitable enjoyment of all. Smoking precludes this. So if you want to smoke, buy a house and smoke it up as much as you like INSIDE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smoking is your choice to ingest poison, not mine!
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 9, 2007 12:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd rather die from second hand smoke than be a smoke free nazi.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Feb 9, 2007 1:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ereading the article
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Feb 9, 2007 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fight for others too...
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LucyDuke on Feb 9, 2007 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you do, shut up about people smoking. You're creating way more pollution than a four-packs-a-day habit. Stop grandstanding and take a look at your own dirty behind.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Highways are smokier.
Posted by: eldoradoman1953
» Check this guy out . . .
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lessbread on Feb 9, 2007 2:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: krystal
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: krystal
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bettyd643 on Feb 9, 2007 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about some strong laws against corporate interference in our govenment. How about a more efficient way to remove an unbalanced, deranged and immature president who is a far bigger danger to this country than someone smoking a cigarrette.
If we want to limit things I can think of alot of other things that need it much more than smoking.
This article was a waste of space.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Madam Hatter on Feb 9, 2007 3:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's usually right there at the bottom of the ad, right along with "no pets, no smoking."
Alot of smokers I know who even live in rentals where they can smoke, don't. Many go outside anyway.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kranstar on Feb 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Second-hand smoke kills
Posted by: jkjelec
» RE: Second-hand smoke kills
Posted by: Jennahluv
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Edison829 on Feb 9, 2007 5:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: xcellent Post!
Posted by: krystal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Redoubt on Feb 9, 2007 6:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I HAVE argued for and will continue to say is that smokers are not second class citizens nor are they any less worthy of consideration as some anti-smoking elitists who would divide our society down yet one more line.
Curiously, or maybe not, it is not the average smoker who would trample the rights of the nonsmoker and demand to blow smoke up their skirts… err, nostrils. The main source of activity emanates from the anti-smoking camp that seeks continual, if not eternal laws and regulations to isolate the smoker as if they had perhaps approached their pet poodle for immoral purposes.
Oh yes, smokers are the 21st century equivalent of a leper colony. Gad! Lock them away!
It would take but a willing effort by business to offer both smokers and nonsmokers their own environment in restaurants, clubs and bars. But rather than this equality, the antismoking crusade stampedes past that in an effort to have it ALL their own way. They really don’t give a flying rat’s ass about anyone’s rights but their own.
This sort of assault then, of course, sets smokers into a defensive mode. Yes, some of us are likely to exhale right in the face of this ugly opposition simply to make a point. Not me personally but I have been often tempted...
But to be honest, our personal preference is to continue to respect the rights of the nonsmoker. We would never violate their holy breathing space with tobacco smoke but… we might indeed be tempted to see if they would be willing to challenge Taco Bell and a few cubic centimeters of biologic fumery…
Yeah, you like that don't you?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 9, 2007 7:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» oops,typo corrected
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: One experience with a chain smoking neighbor
Posted by: Yarman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Amore on Feb 9, 2007 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, banning abortion prior to Roe V Wade & alcohol a la Prohibition didn't keep people from getting abortions or drinking.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Puffin on Feb 9, 2007 10:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the anti-smoker forces really ought to ease up, it's become counterproductive.
The other-directed folks, the eager-to-please bourgeoisie, quit in the eighties, when the anti-smoking fanaticism really got hot. Those were the people who started smoking to fit in.
The inner-directed diehards started smoking as an act of rebellion. The more the anti-smoker movement pushes, the less likely they are to quit.
Second, it's interesting that everyone is terrified of second hand smoke but no one seems to notice that in the same time frame that lung cancer rates rose, we surrounded ourselves, from carpet to ceiling, with petrochemical-based products of every description; put questionable cleansers in aerosol form and sprayed them all over our homes; and then sealed ourselves in with the stuff in the name of climate control. We even dressed ourselves in petrochemical byproducts from bras to spandex blue jeans. That's to say nothing of the ink fumes from the photocopiers and printers at work. And let's not even discuss the fact that every American over the age of 16 thinks a personal automobile is a birthright.
No one questions the carcinogenic properties and lung damage potential of modern life because to question it would bring personal inconvenience and expense...YOU would have to build your house of wood and stone, put wool on your floor, wood in your cabinets...it's expensive, YOU would be able to afford only a small house. YOU would need to share a car. YOU would have to use elbow grease to scrub that tile. YOU might even have to (heaven forfend) sweat! Clean air and good health are important but there are limits, after all.
But these are the ravings of a lunatic...clearly, challenging the construction, transportation, home furnishings, textile and petrochemical industries about the safety of their products is an insurmountable task. It would bring the country's economy to a halt. So let's just blame tobacco and smokers. Only a few southern states' agriculture will be affected and the tobacco companies have already diversified.
But twenty or thirty years from now, when the last smoker has been exiled to an ice floe and given a shove off to sea, there will still be lung disease and there will still be inexplicable cancer. Maybe then someone will examine other possible causes.
In the meantime, don't think, just blame the smokers...it's so much more convenient.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Marc02 on Feb 10, 2007 1:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I am writing, I am smoking my old and stinking pipe and not ready to quit! I am at home it is my private place and no government should intrude.
Here in France the govrnment has banned smoking in every public places.
It is illigal to smoke at the office and we have to go outside to do it and now ayatollahs are pointing out that we must be prosecuted because we are leaving garbage on pavements.
I can read that it is worse with you.
So banning smoking at home, what's next?
Will it be illegal to be naked in the bathroom? Will we have to have a bath or a shower with a burqa?
When will Big Brother put a camera in all rooms in our homes sending cops when we are looking at the camera with an angry eye?
People must read or re-read George Orwell "1984" it is very urgent.
Stop it! Let's smoke, drink, have sex, criticize our government and chat together!
Marc a World Citizen being born in France by chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's next?
Posted by: MAD
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Feb 10, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. if you smoke marihuana or tobacco you are a criminal.
2. if you poison the envirment with a big HUMMER you are a patriot.
3. if you sleep with a 17 year old lady you are a pedofilic child molester
4.if you bomb little children in Vietnam, Germany, Irak you are a patriot.
5.if you make millions and cause unemployment for hundres you are a patriot.
6. if you think health insurance is for everybody you are acommunist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Orwell 1984
Posted by: MAD
» RE: Orwell 1984
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» RE: Orwell 1984
Posted by: Uncle Crabby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wearesilhouettes on Feb 10, 2007 6:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pick Your Poison
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Pick Your Poison
Posted by: alterbeef
» RE: Pick Your Poison
Posted by: wearesilhouettes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phosphorescent on Feb 10, 2007 8:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it to be very relaxing and stress reliving to kick back, roll a cig and smoke it.
As for the health concerns, quit going after the smokers and go after the manufacturers who lace the tobacco with 100s of toxic and addictive chemicals.
Because the the anti-smoking crusades going on in this country, I dont even ask if smoking is allowed in a place Im going to rent. I figure, if Im paying to live there, I will do as I please within the confines of my own home. And to hell with everyone who feels they can tell me what I will and will not do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Feb 10, 2007 10:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» smoke pot instead
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: smoke pot instead
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SEDGFLD on Feb 10, 2007 4:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you compare drinking to smoking, the hypocrisy is glaringly apparent. People still defend the right to drink and drive, because their egos tell them that they're the exception and the government has no right to be in the personal business of citizens. This, even when you don't always need an expert to guess when someone is inebriated like what is needed for cigarette related conditions.
People demand the right to carry a firearm, no matter the peresonal, emotional and other impairments (like drinking) because it's their "right".
We don't mind the poisons put in the air by companies that make our favorite toys and gadgets. We don't check or change the air filters where we work. We want cheaper buildings so lets make them without windows that open to go along with those black air filters.
We don't raise a stink about asbestos and other environmental poisons people have to live with because it may cost us some money. We don't worry about the public and school bus emissions because it might cost us more tax dollars to change them.
The list could go on and on. In our new "democracy" the rights and intrusions we decide on are not determined by public health and welfare. They're determined by majority selfishness and greed. It doesn't hurt if we can pat ourselves on the back for making one group of people pay for the ills of everyone else. Oh, yes, this is democracy at its finest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karyse on Feb 11, 2007 5:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next funniest was in a motel (also in L.A.), "Warning there are toxic fumes present due to the presence of cigarette smoke." I asked the clerk why the sign didn't warn everyone about the toxicity levels caused by the sealed environment due to the carpets, drapes, plastics, etc.
I am a smoker, my 103 year old grandmother smoked until she died, her still living son and daughter who have NO health problems at 88 & 92 are CHAIN smokers and have been smoking since their early teens. My brother and I both smoke and have noticed a correlation between lung cancer and stopping smoking (non-scientific, of course).
But mostly I'm commneting to say that I like to smoke. I enjoy smoking. Non-smokers and ex-smokers can't seem to understand this. I don't mind going outside to smoke because I like being outside as well, even in the fiercest of weather. But you can all go F&**&*K yourself when it comes to smoking in my own home. Get it?
P.S. By the way, up until my knee surgery, I was running six miles every couple of days, I still play tennis, work outside at physical labor, have no breathing problems (I'm 51) and put most of my non-smoking friends to shame when it comes to when it comes to any kind of physical activity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: laughable
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: laughable
Posted by: karyse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Zarquan on Feb 11, 2007 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, the chain-smoking 100-year-old Olympic athlete thing is nonsense, in case anyone had doubts. "Correlation between lung cancer and quitting smoking"? Talk about deep denial.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 11, 2007 8:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And you don't have the guts to tell them all to go to Hell!
I'm going back to China in a few weeks, I have more freedom there than in the good old USA! It's sad, isn't it?
Gary
(Gary J. Minter)
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com
www.healthchina.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gary J Minter
Posted by: PJT
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PJT on Feb 12, 2007 6:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stink is stink
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alterbeef on Feb 12, 2007 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A safer method of saving the world is to simply fake the most ridiculous cough you can think of when you walk by a smoker. Even a smoker who has been forced out onto your precious, private sidewalk because of new and ridiculous indoor anti-smoking laws.
I'm a courteous smoker, I don't want to blow smoke on people and have them smell like smoke. I don't want to smoke around kids. I'm not a bad person. But man, enough is enough. Find a new cause, you're really beating this one to death. I was perfectly content to sit and smoke my cigarettes in a big smoke filled bar with other like-minded smokers. But you convinced everyone that if only the smoke was gone, non-smokers would flock to the bar in droves. That didn't happen. Now we're outside, and you're talking about banning smoking outside. Now we can't even run to the confines of our apartments to smoke, because there will be new laws to ban it there.
And really, how can we ever afford a house of our own where we wouldn't bother anyone with all of the taxes you're putting on our cigarettes? Isn't it enough that according to your most recent study we'll all die within 6-12 months from cigarette smoke?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh you caaarraaazy anti-smoking zealots...
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Oh you caaarraaazy anti-smoking zealots...
Posted by: karyse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aklea on Feb 12, 2007 6:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: aklea
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Larry125 on Feb 12, 2007 11:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Larry125 on Feb 12, 2007 11:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Feb 13, 2007 5:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There has been ONE, yes that is ONE, scientific study on second hand smoke. It refutes everything you hear in the commercials ("I work in a bar, boo hoo, it's like smoking a pack a day, boo hoo!). Bullshit.
It should be the right of every establishment to determine whether or not smoking is allowed. No one is forced to work in a smoking envirionment. No one is required to patronize one. If you don't like it, you have alternatives. For example, you could go fuck yourself.
That being said, I haven't smoked in my own house for over 20 years out of respect for my non-smoking wife. I also don't light up in confined spaces or around others who do not smoke or around children.
But when we can't even smoke at outdoor restaurants or on the beach or in a parking lot, it has gone too far.
Fuck you people that can't mind your own business. Go stand on a corner with a bullhorn and protest abortion or someone's lifestyle. My smoking is not hurting you.
Or you could just go fuck yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hello, Smoke Nazis!
Posted by: wearesilhouettes
» RE: Hello, Smoke Nazis!
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: Hello, Smoke Nazis!
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» Hey Opeluboy, grow up!
Posted by: shhazam4
» RE: Hey Opeluboy, grow up!
Posted by: decadence
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wearesilhouettes on Feb 14, 2007 8:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 14, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They sure don't care about taking our tax money. You know the sin tax! I was recently in the Ukraine and a pack of Maraboros costed 30 cents American money..What are they here? There no where close to that? I think if everyone quit smoking tomorrow they would repeal some laws just to get people started smoking again.Because they would loose millions of dollars not to mention how much more they would need in S.S. to pay out since people would live longer who other wise might die around the time they would of retired.
I'm really surprized they got it this far for that last reason alone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Costed"???
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Feb 14, 2007 9:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say to the 'ol hag: get a life - or a home on expansive private property. But wait...Then she'll complain about pollen from a neighbor's tree, and move to have it cut down. If she wants to live in a bubble, let her buy one out of her own pocket.
steven wanzell
wanzellarts.com.ar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gcshaw5 on Feb 14, 2007 9:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justaperson on Feb 15, 2007 9:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wish the non-smokers would get over their paranoid desire to continue spotlighting extreme situations like this one. The post that said apartment dwellers should have apartments designed not to let every whiff in the building in was right.
And what about all the tobacco money the states stole? All that was going to help addicted smokers, but it all went for roads or silly stop smoking commercials.
Let's face it non-smoking America, you don't really give a damn about anyone else's health. All you want to do is feel righteous and monitor every0one else's habits. People get addicted. There is little help for any of them. America's money is being spent on killing people, not helping them live longer.
We rank 26th out of 27 when it comes to our government's spending on family well-being and health. No day care. No way for working families to pay for college. It really stinks. Everyone is all stressed out. Everyone is seeking relief in different ways. Smoking is just an easy target.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shhazam4 on Feb 15, 2007 1:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take it from an ex-smoker, all the smoker's excuses are BS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» When your bullshit gets in my brain, you must be stopped!
Posted by: decadence
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skysage on Feb 19, 2007 4:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smoking is a nasty habit but this is going too far. Why not eliminate cars? They do far more polluting than smoking?
There is a huge oil refinery right next to a housing project not far from here. Why don't those people go after the oil refinery for polluting their homes? This is far worse than home- smoking.
This attack on individual rights has lost sight of good sense. Obviously, smoking is bad for everyone, but so is a stupid war which we have failed to stop. That's really bad!
There are other ways to solve this problem than invading a person's personal rights. And there is far more damage by a president who is responsbile for destroying and polluting the lives of thousands of Iraqis.
We should be spending our energies fighting for the rights of Americans to get back their civil liberties and stop the real pollution in this country --- the corrupt, unethical, and immoral government that blind and apparently stupid citizens have put into power.
Otherwise, we will all go up in smoke! Then we won't have time to complain about the annoying pollution in our personal environment. We will be too focused on mere survival as an every day activity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 9, 2007 12:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why I oppose a lot of the far right wing...
...and such babysitting-of-free-adults as you've highlighted here.
I won't use the term "nannystate", as it's meaning has been lost on par with "fascism", but the trend, nevertheless, is clear.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You shouldn't be allowed...
Posted by: secti
» Ah...so what you're saying is that they're two sides...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: You shouldn't be allowed...
Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: You shouldn't be allowed... Bush will tell us what we can and cannot do.
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 9, 2007 1:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2 Someone having respiratory reactions after moving next door to a smoker resides does not automatically implicate second hand smoke as the culprit. Laminates, wall coverings, plastics, carpets, paints and stains all out-gas strongly enough to cause respiratory distress/reactions. The EPA suffered with sick building syndrome at HQ that was resolved after an expensive retrofit of less noxious fabrics, paints and adhesives.
3 Dust mites are a trigger for asthma & concentrate in and on fabrics, dirty filters & ductwork. Elderly people and people with lung diseases are more likely to keep their homes 'bottled up' and use HVAC systems more heavily, exacerbating the problem. Many such people are unable to clean (sweep/mop/dust) as regularly/completely as they would wish to, exacerbating the problem. Such people are also more likely to lead a sedentary lifestyle and spend the most of their time in close contact with dust mite habitat.
4 Many home Air Filters produce ozone- a well known respiratory irritant and asthma trigger. The older the unit, the higher the likelihood that the unit produces ozone. It should also be noted that a dirty filter is worse for people with respiratory problems/sensitivities than having none at all.
What do these points have in common? Not one has a thing to do with someone smoking in their own space in a properly designed apartment. Apartheid for smokers will not address any of these significant triggers of respiratory problems that may or may not be the legitimate (by jumping to conclusions) cause.
I am not here as an apologist for smoking. However, accusing smokers for every instance of respiratory distress by anecdotal evidence when other significant causes & factors are present or possible serves nobody's interest. If the interest is in protecting people from unnecessary respiratory distress, the logical first step is to establish & enforce proper codes for ventilation, air handling and filtration in multi-unit apartments and condos with no grandfathering for old buildings.
Bad laws, based upon bad science or data are not in anyone's interest-- no matter how good the intent. Smokers should respect the rights of people to breathe air free of second hand smoke and most do. But to let the do-gooder, granola & filtered water crowd continue their jihad on anyone with a cigarette or cigar just because they think it might be causing someone's problem is BS.
I do not drink, but have to put up with roadside sobriety checks, ignorant drunks and all the rest. Drunken driving is not the only societal/health cost associated with alcohol consumption, yet drinkers are largely given a pass. I'm not outside protesting liquor stores, bars, restaurants or trying to ban drinking in apartment buildings or public parks. The anti-smoking Jihad has pushed the smokers outdoors- many times more than a football field away from any entrance--and the nonsmokers still bitch and moan.
I know a couple of things for sure:
Smokers are going to smoke
&
Nonsmokers will bitch about it
no matter what accommodations are made (or not).
It's time to call an end to this endless Jihad. Keep it up and the Jesus Camp crowd will make it illegal for you to have a sleep over in your own bed because your neighbor is offended by the moaning/howling/headboard bumping/etc. going on (or down). Our legal system is based heavily upon precedent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: mysticalrae
» Thank You!!!
Posted by: kww355
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws....and you know: It's Always Something!
Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws, and this whole smoking at home debate
Posted by: heliotropic
» RE: Bad Designs & Bad Laws
Posted by: Marcy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 9, 2007 2:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a dumb, disgusting, overpriced habit. But if you must do it, go outside. It's not much to ask. We had neighbors who smoked, and they always went outside to do it, because they thought it was disgusting to pollute their own home.
Big Brother already intrudes on every aspect of our lives, so kicking the smokers outside for some fresh air won't make a difference.
How lazy and selfish do you have to be if you can't step outside whatever building you're in for 5 minutes?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: sapatatanka
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: davidbdr
» RE:Get Real
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Get Real
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» RE: Get Real
Posted by: patszar
» RE: Get Real
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» RE: Getting Real
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Getting Real
Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» The worst and most intolerant seem to be the ex-smokers.
Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: suegei
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: madelinefan
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: patszar
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Go outside
Posted by: Marcy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Feb 9, 2007 4:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. what the hell is that unit cooking that has toxic fumes rolling in the hallways?
2. kids playing in hallways, take em to the park!
3. do something about that baby crying for hours at 3am
4. nasty cat litter gasses escaping into your unit that you can't get rid of
there are worse things then smoking in your own home... with an apartment, it can be written into your lease that your unit is non smoking, but with a condo, it's a lot harder to control because you OWN your unit
additionally, there have been studies that have shown that overall during the cold and flu season year after year, smokers who go outside to smoke have fewer illnesses because they are out in the fresh air for a while and not trapped in recycled hothouses constantly.... also there is a lower stress level observed because of a break in scenery and getting outside for a few
we are smokers who own a condo and no one else in our particular building smokes, so to be polite, we keep a can of fabreeze air near the door for occasional sprays and not one of our neighbors complain and YES WE HAVE ASKED THEM ALL SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS!!!!
just to anger the non-smoking crowd, I do not plan on quitting, enjoy smoking for over 40 years, have already made the decision (legally in writing) to refuse smoking related medical treatment, and am polite to my neighbors....
how much more do they want?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: another point
Posted by: MAD
» RE: another point
Posted by: nylaw13
» RE: another point
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 9, 2007 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: davidbdr
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: freysdottir
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: meeper
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: alfesq
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: Larry125
» RE: Simple Solution
Posted by: bannelee
» You pompous ass!
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wally292 on Feb 9, 2007 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smokeing band in your own apartment
Posted by: kathat
» RE: Smokeing band in your own apartment - Bush wouldn't sign with KYOTO but no smoking.
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sheena2u on Feb 9, 2007 5:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My brother smoked when he was young, and I tried to tell him to stop, but he wouldn't listen. After ten years of smoking he quit on his own. But, he died of brain cancer last year, and I believe it was from the years of smoking cigarettes.
I have never smoked, but I have been exposed to smokers all my life. Through the 1970's and 1980's I was forced to work around heavy smokers because there were no protections then for non-smokers. So, I now have severe asthma, allergies, and chronic bronchitis, and this is only because of my exposure to smokers. At this time I cannot tolerate breathing any second hand smoke. Even the faintest hint of smoke sends me into coughing convulsions. So, I strongly believe that no person ought to ever be allowed to smoke around people who chose not to smoke. It is an extremely harmful and serious health hazard.
Cigarette smoke contains a lethal cocktail of toxic poisons, and no one should have their health poisoned by forced exposure to someone else's smoke. To force anyone to breathe someone else's poison smoke takes years off that person's life, and this is tanatmount to a criminal act.
So, I apologize for the inconvenience of those who have found themselves to be addicted to cigarettes, but they must understand their smoking is a hazard to human health and life, and they must bear the price and the inconvenience for their choice. I urge all smokers to quit asap. And, I fully support all measures to protect non-smokers from the poison gasses and fumes of cigarette and cigar smoke. The inconvenience of any smoker is less compelling than the loss of life and health to non-smokers and smokers, and the years of potential life lost due to exposure to toxic, poisonous smoke.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smoking is a public health issue
Posted by: davidbdr
» RE: Smoking is a public health issue
Posted by: Deb C
» Do you go the same way about cars and airplanes?
Posted by: Baenz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pdxstudent on Feb 9, 2007 6:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is a violation of anyone's rights or privacy, it's the property owners themselves. They are the one's being told how to run their property. Because, after all, no one who rents an apartment unit owns it. In the end, it belongs to someone else. So, in a very simple sense, there are things the property owner can contractually demand of their tenets. One of them is that the unit remain smoke-free. At least half the buildings in Portland do not allow smoking in-doors, and it's hardly out of some anti-smoking principle. Smoking is a dirty habit, and is costs the property owner more in maintenance costs, because a deposit is not going to cover the systemic damage of a smoking environment. So, I don't think that there is any ground under the feet of smokers saying their rights are being violated, when they're not, and that there will be (as there hasn't been) much resistance from property owners, since it is basically a cost-saving measure for them anyway.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sympathetic, but Confused
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Sympathetic, but Confused
Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Sympathetic, but Confused
Posted by: pdxstudent
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 9, 2007 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are truly activists for peace and justice, then we need to understand that tobacco smoke is violent and it causes much harm and death. The only winner in the tobacco war is the tobacco corporation. They profit from an addictive violent product.
You people are becoming so rabidly phobic about smokers, it's frightening. Soon you'll be burning us at the stake. Walk down any main street in the world and inhale all the toxic fumes that are being emitted from cars, trucks, factories and
airports. What do you propose to do about that? You single-issue advocates really get on my nerves.
Nicotine is addictive, so is alcohol.
How about depleted uranium, cluster bombs, agent orange, napalm, white phosphorous and other chemical and biological weapons. Most of them have been used against the Iraqi people in the last fifteen years. When are you going to start a campaign to have them banned?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nicotine
Posted by: pingoo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jnutt on Feb 9, 2007 7:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Feb 9, 2007 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was brought up with two smoking parents, even in the car on a cold day with all the windows closed. I'm pretty sure it contributed to my current quite serious respiratory problems. My parents were ignorant of the science - that excuse doesn't wash today. If you can't stop, at least go outside to do it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pretty simple . . .
Posted by: pingoo
» RE: Pretty simple . . .
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pingoo on Feb 9, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although smoking may seem appaling to many people it should not interfere with what one can and cannot do UNDER THEIR OWN ROOF.
The whole argument is total bollocks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Of course people should be allowed to smoke at home!!
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» Didn't read past the ehadline did you?
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Of course people should be allowed to smoke at home!!
Posted by: fra59e
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 9, 2007 9:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hartsmart on Feb 9, 2007 9:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad George Burns in no longer with us to contribute the wisdom of his 100 years. Did the pleasure of primary and secondary smoke (his own) keep him going?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pomes on Feb 9, 2007 10:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This invasion into people's home lives is but one more goose-step down the road of the police state. It does not need to be taken to extremes as this article implies for this to be a totalitarian police state measure. This is the extreme already.
Based on my own experience, I do NOT believe the statistic that 80% of Americans don't smoke.. Smoking annoys me, so I can't help but miss who around me does or doesn't do it. Even if accurate, we live in a country that was founded on (or at least pay lip service to the idea of) personal rights and privacy in your own homes.
Has anybody even thought about what enforcing this would entail? The UK is saturated with cameras of every public place possible, and we're following the same path here. How far are we from the television that watches us?
We already have the largest prison population and rate of incarceration on the planet. We lock up more people than Russia OR China (according to Reuters). How many more classes of criminals do we need? We MUST start resisting the urge to dehumanize and criminalize whatever portion of society or set of behaviors the media has conditioned us to hate this week.
The ruling elite always use the most impressionable members of society (eg children, seniors) to fufill their plans to dismantle our notions of rights and privacy. Don't fool yourself into thinking they give a god damn about the elderly as a class of people, or have a whit of concern about the sanctity of life. Frankly, the same people pushing this are probably the same people pushing the euthanasia agenda.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Baenz on Feb 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A question which bothers me ever since this smoking discussion started years (decades?) ago is: if smoking is so dangerous to all of us - if tobacco makes addicts of the smokers - if it creates so much misery and health care costs -... why not simply go the straightforward and clean way and outlaw the tobacco industry?
In medicine there is the basic principle: cure the illness by uprooting the source. Guess, this doesn't apply anymore where BigBiz and BigMoney is involved, eh?
Hillarious double standards one more time. It's soooo much easier to hack on the little guy rather than really solving a seemingly serious problem.
Rgds and peace to all of you and applogies, but English is not my mother tongue.
PS And no, I'm not a smoker :-)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One word:
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Feb 9, 2007 10:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having said that, I am a little surprised by some of the posts which would go so far as to omit or minimize the grave, environmental impacts associated with tobacco production. To say that you're an environmentalist and a smoker in the same breath is somewhat contradictory. It's akin to saying I'm a proponent of alternative fuels whilst I jump into my Hummer and speed off.
Tobacco production is dangerous! The plant itself is susceptible to myriad diseases and pests, and as such, must be treated with TONS of pesticides. It should come as no surprise that herbicides are commonly used to keep the fields free of weeds as well. Anyone care to ask one of the "fortunate" workers charged with spraying fields how they feel about the labor intensive and dangerous nature of tobacco production? For example, Methyl Bromide, a chemical used to treat the soil before planting, has been shown to cause ozone depletion. Much deforestation also results as tobacco companies burn extraordinary amounts of wood to dry or "cure" the tobacco. China, the largest smoking country in the world, uses coal.
Soil depletion is another huge problem. Tobacco must uptake extreme quantities of nutrients in order to ensure a higher nicotine content. Erosion is often the result of such nutrient depletion. Although tobacco cultivation isn't quite as water intensive as say, corn or soy cultivation, it still requires vast amounts of water to support your bad habit. Speaking of water, much of it is contaminated by run-off issuing from the tobacco greenhouses and plantations, and in many instances, wildlife has been decimated.
So, all you smokers quick to point out that there are bigger fish to fry, keep in mind that BIG TOBACCO is one of those big fish. I guess where one's addiction is concerned, all antipathy towards big business just melts away, or at least for RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris . Seems a bit hypocritical to point the finger at those "other" big businesses while ignoring the horrendous, SCUMMY biz you're supporting each time you light up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Feb 9, 2007 10:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» flip the question
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 9, 2007 10:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've lived in four different condos and umpteen apartments since I became a grown-up twenty some years ago. Not once has there ever been a habitat designed and constructed to keep out second hand smoke, toxics and other crap that passes for American "construction industry standard practices."
People living in communal situations have to learn to tolerate all manner of pobnoxious and annoying behaviors from others. But they should not have to pay for this tolerance with their lives.
But making laws isn't going to cut it either. That's just back-ass band-aiding the festering wound that won't heal. Construction practices have to change. (AND folks need to just give up fucking smoking, period. Stop making excuses for 'Mer'kaan stoopid). Right now there are laws banning condo owners from drying their laundry in the sun (forcing us to burn natural gas and guzzle electrons to dry our clothes, which costs money and unecessary carbon output into the atmosphere). We have laws banning us from turning off the lights outside out front doors to save electricity or the area light outside the bedroom window (making us terminally sleep-deprived from the lack of darkness required to facilitate sufficient sleep). We have laws banning our children from playing anywhere including our own front porches and the nearest park is 20 minutes' drive away. We have laws that allow single, childless overprivileged condo owners to charge fines and control the lives of those of us who have partners and offspring without our say in any of it. Can you say taxation without representation?
So, as an unsympathetic intolerant ex-smoker myself, a law that prohibits some buttlick from lighting up in his own place, seems par for the course. But it's still stoopid because poor construction and bad architectural design with the poorest quality and cheapest (which ALWAYS translates to the most toxic and inefficient) materials is the real problem that can actually be resolved as a matter of LAW. My neighbors smoke and I ride their asses on it, good naturedly because they really are great people with a bad habit (they've tried hard to quit). But seriously, we've gone and done illegal retrofitting between our chimney flues, laundry vents and duct systems, and reinsulated our floor/ceilings sharing the cost and the risk of getting caught (because all that is illegal under California law--imagine, it's illegal to genuinely improve your property, only in the Chimp's 'Mer'kuh). I still can smell their cigs. It's simply the design flaws of the structure itself that permit the cross-bleed of smoke. Bans on smoking won't fix it, but maybe enforceable laws against half-ass construction and contracter/inspector incompetence might help.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnecolby on Feb 9, 2007 11:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. There is no legally protected right to smoke.
2. In rental contracts, there are legal obligations for landlords to provide safe, habitable living spaces where one is protected from foreseeable harm.
2. There is no way to prevent second-hand smoke from making its way to adjoining apartments or condominiums.
3. Seniors, children and the disabled are especially susceptible to health problems from second-hand smoke.
4. The risks from second-hand smoke are real and quite extensive. It exacerbates breathing issues like asthma and allergies, causes pulmonary problems, exacerbates glaucoma and other eye diseases, raises blood pressure and interacts dangerously with many medications like birth control pills.
4. In communal living, one makes sacrifices to ensure the safety and habitable enjoyment of all. Smoking precludes this. So if you want to smoke, buy a house and smoke it up as much as you like INSIDE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smoking is your choice to ingest poison, not mine!
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 9, 2007 12:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd rather die from second hand smoke than be a smoke free nazi.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Feb 9, 2007 1:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ereading the article
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Feb 9, 2007 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fight for others too...
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LucyDuke on Feb 9, 2007 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you do, shut up about people smoking. You're creating way more pollution than a four-packs-a-day habit. Stop grandstanding and take a look at your own dirty behind.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Highways are smokier.
Posted by: eldoradoman1953
» Check this guy out . . .
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lessbread on Feb 9, 2007 2:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: krystal
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: krystal
» RE: Should they outlaw cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly food?
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bettyd643 on Feb 9, 2007 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about some strong laws against corporate interference in our govenment. How about a more efficient way to remove an unbalanced, deranged and immature president who is a far bigger danger to this country than someone smoking a cigarrette.
If we want to limit things I can think of alot of other things that need it much more than smoking.
This article was a waste of space.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Madam Hatter on Feb 9, 2007 3:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's usually right there at the bottom of the ad, right along with "no pets, no smoking."
Alot of smokers I know who even live in rentals where they can smoke, don't. Many go outside anyway.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kranstar on Feb 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Second-hand smoke kills
Posted by: jkjelec
» RE: Second-hand smoke kills
Posted by: Jennahluv
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Edison829 on Feb 9, 2007 5:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: xcellent Post!
Posted by: krystal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Redoubt on Feb 9, 2007 6:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I HAVE argued for and will continue to say is that smokers are not second class citizens nor are they any less worthy of consideration as some anti-smoking elitists who would divide our society down yet one more line.
Curiously, or maybe not, it is not the average smoker who would trample the rights of the nonsmoker and demand to blow smoke up their skirts… err, nostrils. The main source of activity emanates from the anti-smoking camp that seeks continual, if not eternal laws and regulations to isolate the smoker as if they had perhaps approached their pet poodle for immoral purposes.
Oh yes, smokers are the 21st century equivalent of a leper colony. Gad! Lock them away!
It would take but a willing effort by business to offer both smokers and nonsmokers their own environment in restaurants, clubs and bars. But rather than this equality, the antismoking crusade stampedes past that in an effort to have it ALL their own way. They really don’t give a flying rat’s ass about anyone’s rights but their own.
This sort of assault then, of course, sets smokers into a defensive mode. Yes, some of us are likely to exhale right in the face of this ugly opposition simply to make a point. Not me personally but I have been often tempted...
But to be honest, our personal preference is to continue to respect the rights of the nonsmoker. We would never violate their holy breathing space with tobacco smoke but… we might indeed be tempted to see if they would be willing to challenge Taco Bell and a few cubic centimeters of biologic fumery…
Yeah, you like that don't you?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 9, 2007 7:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» oops,typo corrected
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: One experience with a chain smoking neighbor
Posted by: Yarman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Amore on Feb 9, 2007 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, banning abortion prior to Roe V Wade & alcohol a la Prohibition didn't keep people from getting abortions or drinking.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Puffin on Feb 9, 2007 10:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the anti-smoker forces really ought to ease up, it's become counterproductive.
The other-directed folks, the eager-to-please bourgeoisie, quit in the eighties, when the anti-smoking fanaticism really got hot. Those were the people who started smoking to fit in.
The inner-directed diehards started smoking as an act of rebellion. The more the anti-smoker movement pushes, the less likely they are to quit.
Second, it's interesting that everyone is terrified of second hand smoke but no one seems to notice that in the same time frame that lung cancer rates rose, we surrounded ourselves, from carpet to ceiling, with petrochemical-based products of every description; put questionable cleansers in aerosol form and sprayed them all over our homes; and then sealed ourselves in with the stuff in the name of climate control. We even dressed ourselves in petrochemical byproducts from bras to spandex blue jeans. That's to say nothing of the ink fumes from the photocopiers and printers at work. And let's not even discuss the fact that every American over the age of 16 thinks a personal automobile is a birthright.
No one questions the carcinogenic properties and lung damage potential of modern life because to question it would bring personal inconvenience and expense...YOU would have to build your house of wood and stone, put wool on your floor, wood in your cabinets...it's expensive, YOU would be able to afford only a small house. YOU would need to share a car. YOU would have to use elbow grease to scrub that tile. YOU might even have to (heaven forfend) sweat! Clean air and good health are important but there are limits, after all.
But these are the ravings of a lunatic...clearly, challenging the construction, transportation, home furnishings, textile and petrochemical industries about the safety of their products is an insurmountable task. It would bring the country's economy to a halt. So let's just blame tobacco and smokers. Only a few southern states' agriculture will be affected and the tobacco companies have already diversified.
But twenty or thirty years from now, when the last smoker has been exiled to an ice floe and given a shove off to sea, there will still be lung disease and there will still be inexplicable cancer. Maybe then someone will examine other possible causes.
In the meantime, don't think, just blame the smokers...it's so much more convenient.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Marc02 on Feb 10, 2007 1:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I am writing, I am smoking my old and stinking pipe and not ready to quit! I am at home it is my private place and no government should intrude.
Here in France the govrnment has banned smoking in every public places.
It is illigal to smoke at the office and we have to go outside to do it and now ayatollahs are pointing out that we must be prosecuted because we are leaving garbage on pavements.
I can read that it is worse with you.
So banning smoking at home, what's next?
Will it be illegal to be naked in the bathroom? Will we have to have a bath or a shower with a burqa?
When will Big Brother put a camera in all rooms in our homes sending cops when we are looking at the camera with an angry eye?
People must read or re-read George Orwell "1984" it is very urgent.
Stop it! Let's smoke, drink, have sex, criticize our government and chat together!
Marc a World Citizen being born in France by chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's next?
Posted by: MAD
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Feb 10, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. if you smoke marihuana or tobacco you are a criminal.
2. if you poison the envirment with a big HUMMER you are a patriot.
3. if you sleep with a 17 year old lady you are a pedofilic child molester
4.if you bomb little children in Vietnam, Germany, Irak you are a patriot.
5.if you make millions and cause unemployment for hundres you are a patriot.
6. if you think health insurance is for everybody you are acommunist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Orwell 1984
Posted by: MAD
» RE: Orwell 1984
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» RE: Orwell 1984
Posted by: Uncle Crabby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wearesilhouettes on Feb 10, 2007 6:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pick Your Poison
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Pick Your Poison
Posted by: alterbeef
» RE: Pick Your Poison
Posted by: wearesilhouettes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phosphorescent on Feb 10, 2007 8:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it to be very relaxing and stress reliving to kick back, roll a cig and smoke it.
As for the health concerns, quit going after the smokers and go after the manufacturers who lace the tobacco with 100s of toxic and addictive chemicals.
Because the the anti-smoking crusades going on in this country, I dont even ask if smoking is allowed in a place Im going to rent. I figure, if Im paying to live there, I will do as I please within the confines of my own home. And to hell with everyone who feels they can tell me what I will and will not do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Feb 10, 2007 10:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» smoke pot instead
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: smoke pot instead
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SEDGFLD on Feb 10, 2007 4:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you compare drinking to smoking, the hypocrisy is glaringly apparent. People still defend the right to drink and drive, because their egos tell them that they're the exception and the government has no right to be in the personal business of citizens. This, even when you don't always need an expert to guess when someone is inebriated like what is needed for cigarette related conditions.
People demand the right to carry a firearm, no matter the peresonal, emotional and other impairments (like drinking) because it's their "right".
We don't mind the poisons put in the air by companies that make our favorite toys and gadgets. We don't check or change the air filters where we work. We want cheaper buildings so lets make them without windows that open to go along with those black air filters.
We don't raise a stink about asbestos and other environmental poisons people have to live with because it may cost us some money. We don't worry about the public and school bus emissions because it might cost us more tax dollars to change them.
The list could go on and on. In our new "democracy" the rights and intrusions we decide on are not determined by public health and welfare. They're determined by majority selfishness and greed. It doesn't hurt if we can pat ourselves on the back for making one group of people pay for the ills of everyone else. Oh, yes, this is democracy at its finest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karyse on Feb 11, 2007 5:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next funniest was in a motel (also in L.A.), "Warning there are toxic fumes present due to the presence of cigarette smoke." I asked the clerk why the sign didn't warn everyone about the toxicity levels caused by the sealed environment due to the carpets, drapes, plastics, etc.
I am a smoker, my 103 year old grandmother smoked until she died, her still living son and daughter who have NO health problems at 88 & 92 are CHAIN smokers and have been smoking since their early teens. My brother and I both smoke and have noticed a correlation between lung cancer and stopping smoking (non-scientific, of course).
But mostly I'm commneting to say that I like to smoke. I enjoy smoking. Non-smokers and ex-smokers can't seem to understand this. I don't mind going outside to smoke because I like being outside as well, even in the fiercest of weather. But you can all go F&**&*K yourself when it comes to smoking in my own home. Get it?
P.S. By the way, up until my knee surgery, I was running six miles every couple of days, I still play tennis, work outside at physical labor, have no breathing problems (I'm 51) and put most of my non-smoking friends to shame when it comes to when it comes to any kind of physical activity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: laughable
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: laughable
Posted by: karyse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Zarquan on Feb 11, 2007 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, the chain-smoking 100-year-old Olympic athlete thing is nonsense, in case anyone had doubts. "Correlation between lung cancer and quitting smoking"? Talk about deep denial.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 11, 2007 8:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And you don't have the guts to tell them all to go to Hell!
I'm going back to China in a few weeks, I have more freedom there than in the good old USA! It's sad, isn't it?
Gary
(Gary J. Minter)
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com
www.healthchina.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gary J Minter
Posted by: PJT
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PJT on Feb 12, 2007 6:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stink is stink
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alterbeef on Feb 12, 2007 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A safer method of saving the world is to simply fake the most ridiculous cough you can think of when you walk by a smoker. Even a smoker who has been forced out onto your precious, private sidewalk because of new and ridiculous indoor anti-smoking laws.
I'm a courteous smoker, I don't want to blow smoke on people and have them smell like smoke. I don't want to smoke around kids. I'm not a bad person. But man, enough is enough. Find a new cause, you're really beating this one to death. I was perfectly content to sit and smoke my cigarettes in a big smoke filled bar with other like-minded smokers. But you convinced everyone that if only the smoke was gone, non-smokers would flock to the bar in droves. That didn't happen. Now we're outside, and you're talking about banning smoking outside. Now we can't even run to the confines of our apartments to smoke, because there will be new laws to ban it there.
And really, how can we ever afford a house of our own where we wouldn't bother anyone with all of the taxes you're putting on our cigarettes? Isn't it enough that according to your most recent study we'll all die within 6-12 months from cigarette smoke?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh you caaarraaazy anti-smoking zealots...
Posted by: BreathesSHS
» RE: Oh you caaarraaazy anti-smoking zealots...
Posted by: karyse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aklea on Feb 12, 2007 6:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: aklea
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Larry125 on Feb 12, 2007 11:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Larry125 on Feb 12, 2007 11:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Feb 13, 2007 5:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There has been ONE, yes that is ONE, scientific study on second hand smoke. It refutes everything you hear in the commercials ("I work in a bar, boo hoo, it's like smoking a pack a day, boo hoo!). Bullshit.
It should be the right of every establishment to determine whether or not smoking is allowed. No one is forced to work in a smoking envirionment. No one is required to patronize one. If you don't like it, you have alternatives. For example, you could go fuck yourself.
That being said, I haven't smoked in my own house for over 20 years out of respect for my non-smoking wife. I also don't light up in confined spaces or around others who do not smoke or around children.
But when we can't even smoke at outdoor restaurants or on the beach or in a parking lot, it has gone too far.
Fuck you people that can't mind your own business. Go stand on a corner with a bullhorn and protest abortion or someone's lifestyle. My smoking is not hurting you.
Or you could just go fuck yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hello, Smoke Nazis!
Posted by: wearesilhouettes
» RE: Hello, Smoke Nazis!
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: Hello, Smoke Nazis!
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» Hey Opeluboy, grow up!
Posted by: shhazam4
» RE: Hey Opeluboy, grow up!
Posted by: decadence
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wearesilhouettes on Feb 14, 2007 8:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 14, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They sure don't care about taking our tax money. You know the sin tax! I was recently in the Ukraine and a pack of Maraboros costed 30 cents American money..What are they here? There no where close to that? I think if everyone quit smoking tomorrow they would repeal some laws just to get people started smoking again.Because they would loose millions of dollars not to mention how much more they would need in S.S. to pay out since people would live longer who other wise might die around the time they would of retired.
I'm really surprized they got it this far for that last reason alone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Costed"???
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Feb 14, 2007 9:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say to the 'ol hag: get a life - or a home on expansive private property. But wait...Then she'll complain about pollen from a neighbor's tree, and move to have it cut down. If she wants to live in a bubble, let her buy one out of her own pocket.
steven wanzell
wanzellarts.com.ar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gcshaw5 on Feb 14, 2007 9:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justaperson on Feb 15, 2007 9:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wish the non-smokers would get over their paranoid desire to continue spotlighting extreme situations like this one. The post that said apartment dwellers should have apartments designed not to let every whiff in the building in was right.
And what about all the tobacco money the states stole? All that was going to help addicted smokers, but it all went for roads or silly stop smoking commercials.
Let's face it non-smoking America, you don't really give a damn about anyone else's health. All you want to do is feel righteous and monitor every0one else's habits. People get addicted. There is little help for any of them. America's money is being spent on killing people, not helping them live longer.
We rank 26th out of 27 when it comes to our government's spending on family well-being and health. No day care. No way for working families to pay for college. It really stinks. Everyone is all stressed out. Everyone is seeking relief in different ways. Smoking is just an easy target.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shhazam4 on Feb 15, 2007 1:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take it from an ex-smoker, all the smoker's excuses are BS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» When your bullshit gets in my brain, you must be stopped!
Posted by: decadence
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skysage on Feb 19, 2007 4:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smoking is a nasty habit but this is going too far. Why not eliminate cars? They do far more polluting than smoking?
There is a huge oil refinery right next to a housing project not far from here. Why don't those people go after the oil refinery for polluting their homes? This is far worse than home- smoking.
This attack on individual rights has lost sight of good sense. Obviously, smoking is bad for everyone, but so is a stupid war which we have failed to stop. That's really bad!
There are other ways to solve this problem than invading a person's personal rights. And there is far more damage by a president who is responsbile for destroying and polluting the lives of thousands of Iraqis.
We should be spending our energies fighting for the rights of Americans to get back their civil liberties and stop the real pollution in this country --- the corrupt, unethical, and immoral government that blind and apparently stupid citizens have put into power.
Otherwise, we will all go up in smoke! Then we won't have time to complain about the annoying pollution in our personal environment. We will be too focused on mere survival as an every day activity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles
Bad Policies Are Really What's Driving California's Huge Prison Costs




