A question about all the smoker issues

I am trying to figure out where all the drama is coming from regarding the smoker issues. Are smokers angry at people who are trying to outlaw smoking? Or are they angry at anyone that doesn't like smoking? Or is it that they are constantly being reminded that its dangerous?

All the emotion that this issue seems to bring out suggests to me a lot of anger. After all where there is smoke there is fire. So what is the fire in this case?

For the record I am not for illegalizing smoking.

smokers light up to cool their jets when they get angry non smokers get more annoyed when smokers light up, and do things to piss off more smokers, who in turn light up again to cool their jets. ;)

and the one of it's biggest causes: the automobile. It's the complete failure of the media, and yes, Du'ers to address the issue of creating car-free zones in the larger cities. And quite honestly, auto exhaust is killing a lot more people than someone's second hand smoke. I also realize that going after the oil industry is like trying to go after the military.
But I do think auto-free zones are quite doable.

I think all of the points you raised are also valid.

Do you think people should focus on just one issue? Or do you think there is room to discuss multiple issues? Or is it frustration that the issue you percieve as being more critical does not recieve the attention you think it needs?

I am asking specific questions not because I believe they are your positions but because I want to put all possible positions out there.

Just sayin'.

Being a nonsmoker I understand their side a bit better. Although I disagree with trying to convince people using anger. I am just trying to understand this issue a bit better. I tend to think such things typically are communication problems and the best way I know to sort out a communication problem is to ask questions.

:)

I tend to avoid these debates as I believe that people have to right to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else without their permission. As such for me smoking is a social issue rather than a legal issue.

and it seems many times the nonsmokers are that much more vehement. I don't smoke, btw, and never have.

Smoking seems to be one area that otherwise liberal people seem to be unable to find a little compassion for their fellow travelers. It's an addiction and, even if SOME people have escaped it, it seems a bit...odd that those who realize that everyone faces different challenges in so many other areas aren't willing to accept that people are different with regards to this one as well.

Do you think this is true of all liberals? Or do you suppose it is some contingent of liberals. Do you suspect this attitude is shared by most? Some? A few? Just a vocal minority?

But I do see evidence that more people seem more sympathetic to heroin addicts than smokers sometimes, even though it's fairly well known that nicotine is considered MORE addictive than even heroin. Quitting isn't necessarily the hard part. Not starting again can be the trick.

That there is an image problem conveyed by how much a person seems to struggle to quit. I can imagine there may seem to be a disparity between a heroin addict suffering in pain from withdrawal and a smoker suffering from cravings(or are there worse symptoms?).

Muscle cramps, disorientation, an inability to focus, to concentrate. Some people get REALLY pissed off in general.

But, like I said, sometimes it's not the quitting that's the hardest part. It's not breaking down in a moment of stress and buying a pack somewhere down the road. Or borrowing a cigarette in a moment of stress and falling off the wagon.

Once a heroin addict kicks the habit, they can help themselves by avoiding anyone they used to know who still does it. A nicotine addict doesn't have that luxury. Not to mention that even listening to STOP SMOKING ads can bring on cravings. There's an irony, isn't there?

smokers are as sick of the sanctimonious posturing of non-smokers as I am about the religions right

Two weeks. I had bronchitis two weeks ago, and the b**** doctor who examined me couldn't help but gloat that it was my smoking that caused it. I wanted to smack her upside the head (well, not really). But sheesh, I get it already! The only reason I quit was because I am sick and tired of someone else trying to mind my business for me! Butt out! I know smoking is bad for me. So is alcohol, fast driving, easy women, mountain climbing, and crossing the street against the light.

When my days are over, I plan on turning in a well-used corpse, not some sterile thing that never experience the edges of life. And for those of you who think that smoking is the devils work, let me tell you, it's only the beginning...

even though I no longer smoke I still prefer the company of smokers and/or former smokers - they have something those other folk just don't have - who was it who said, it is a much greater feat to have sinned and sin no more, than to never have sinned - yes.... :)

The only reason I quit was because I am sick and tired of someone else trying to mind my business for me!

Eventually I hope to be ready and able to give up my "crutch," and god help any sanctimonious anti-smoker who tries to patronize me.

She knew long before it became public knowledge that Obama smokes, and is therefore, a "less-than".


:sarcasm:

I forgot about the Obama connection. That is totally a non-issue for me.

I am battling my own addiction to nicotine, and will again swear it off as a New Year's Resolution ....

It is important to recognize that, while smokers have a 'right' to smoke, they dont have a right to force others to inhale their smoke .... It is known to be noxious and highly carcinogenic, and society has an obligation to protect citizens by demanding smokers NOT light up in certain public places ....

Smokers should be able to understand that ....

At the same time, places like bars or clubs cannot be expected to be 'healthy' places to congregate, considering the consumption of alcohol is itself a risky behaviour ... The presumption upon entering a bar is that risky behaviour is the norm, and so anyone choosing to enter accepts those risks .... Therefore it isnt necessarily logical to place restrictions on those locales, even though they are 'public places' per se ...

I think banning smoking in bars is too much, but certainly restaurants and places of employment should be free of smoke ... Even as a long time smoker I can recognize that ...

ALWAYS enjoyed your posts, Az ... Keep'm coming ...

I don't understand the banning of smoking in bars, though restaurants I can accept.

that a Californian can't go into a pool hall and smoke a cigarette anymore. :crazy:

....same shit different day...I dare say!! :D

This one was a doooozy! :hi:

Sat Mar-18-06...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2174769&mesg_id=2174769

The non-smokers are just as fervent in this whole thing.

and acknowledged. :)

good of you to suggest "A question about all the smoker issues" that all these threads about smoking is about the smoker and their unruly behavior. no bias there.

personally i am up in arms about the ugliness of the anti smokers.

is coming from much pressure from some people on the left, who I call the "life police" who think it is their duty to tell everyone what is right. Typically this is done in a very demeaning way.

I have always found it funny that the people who would reject any kind of dictatorial republican government decisions, make the same decisions about others in terms of what is "right", what others "should" do. They have become the parents and what they say is gospel.

Bores, the whole lot of them.

quit last feb, cold turkey. smoked since I was 15, 32 now. I had incentive. I was pregnant. Now, I still have that craving once in a great while, but other than that, I'm quite over that habit. Now only if I could get my hubbie to quit (he doesn't smoke around us, or in the house btw)


The only answer about the anger that I can come up with, is that you have two groups, both who feel their rights are being trampled on. In which case, both sides are correct. They need to come up with some form of compromise.

Do you know how they call marijuana the "gateway drug"? They're wrong. Cigs are the gateway drug. Every pot smoker I know, smoked a cig before they smoked pot. And everyone that I know that went further into the drug territory smoked cigs before anything else. I should start a poll here to see how many smoked cigs first before trying any other drugs. I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that didn't go further than cigs. It would be interesting to see though.

is in the inherent right of people to choose whether to smoke or not. The fire is in the right of the business owner to choose to let patrons smoke. The fire is in the knowledge of the invalid studies that have convinced a faction of our country to attack smokers instead of looking for the real causes of cancer. The fire is in the fact that if you tell someone you don't like smokers, then you are telling them you don't like them. It isn't a matter of laying them down. It is a matter of personal choice. It is a matter of more governmental control. It is a matter of freedom.

I smoke. I enjoy smoking. I apologize for the odor. I believe the studies were performed and the results skewed to take away the attention from people dying from cancer caused by chemicals in the workplace. In my entire family, there is only one case of lung cancer and that person was exposed for many years to asbestos. His cancer was directly attributed to that. Not one case of cancer attributed to smoking.

At the same time I know of a few factories where most of the people have died from the carcinogens they were forced to work in. I don't hear anyone running to come to the aid of the people who currently work there. I do not see a faction in this country working to clean up toxic landfills or to create and enforce the wealthy to stop using toxic chemicals in their factories. These are items that if the non-smoker really cared about reducing the cancer rates, they would be working hard on. These are items that need fixed.

So those who can't understand why we are angry, put yourself in our shoes for a while. In our shoes you have witnessed people smoking heavily for years and living past the average life expectancy and dying of other causes. In our shoes you enjoy smoking. In our shoes we have the right enjoy a habit that has become part of us.

When I am attacked for smoking, I am personally attacked. The person who is attacking me thinks they are just attacking my habit, but they aren't, they are attacking me. It is no different than being told they don't want you to exist anymore with brown hair, or blue eyes, or because you are too tall or too short. Telling me I cannot smoke is telling me that I am not worthy of living.

Imagine if you had an addiction that you loved, that you honestly did not believe would harm you or others. Say that addiction was just as strong as your need to breath. Then let some ill-informed people tell you that you can't do it anymore, that you need to stop breathing. And, then realize that it isn't really the bogus studies that have fueled the crusade against you. It is the odor.

And the fire burns. . .

I understand what you are saying. As a recovering smoker, I understand more of what the non-smokers are dealing with now. Most smokers I know personally are curtious. What drives me nuts are the ones who stand right in front of entrances and I have no choice, my (recently) former boss, who no matter what I said, continued to light up her smokes inside while I was pregnant, and I had begged her not too. What she was doing was illegal, btw. While I was prego, it litterally made me ill to smell cig smoke, and I tell ya, that's hard when your hubbie smokes and he comes inside smelling like it.

I think most non-smokers really don't care if you smoke or not. Just don't make us deal with the consequences. Such as increased health care, second hand smoke, and don't make your kids deal with it either.

so go ahead and light up, just don't invade other's personal space with it, because thats when you start to trample on my rights and the rights of others who don't want to deal with second hand smoke.

oh, and 1 question.....are there any studies that show cigs don't cause health probs? Since you did call them "bogus studies"....it's kind of like saying there is no such thing as global warming, and then citing the oil companies studies on the subject....

My Quit Date: 5/2/2005
Smoke-Free Days: 596
Cigarettes Not Smoked: 11,927
Amount Saved: $2980
Life Gained:
Days: 81 Hrs: 2 Mins: 32 Seconds: 26 :) and by gosh, I could really go for a smoke right about now. NOT.

bet if smoking was an illegal addiction there would be a lot less vitriol.

A person I had known in high school ran into me in a restaurant. She asked me to join her. I asked her to join me in the smoking section. She said, "Oh, no, I couldn't do THAT as I do NOT smoke." She then proceeded to tell me about her childbirth (like I wanted to hear THAT????). She said she smoked a joint before going into the hospital and the birth was a breeze and added, "But I never EVER smoked a cigarette." I shook my head and headed over to the smoking section.

I often think of that conversation when someone attacks me for smoking in the privacy of my own smoking areas.

I think that all the new non-smoking laws are dangerous to our freedoms, rights and liberties. People who are so intent on stopping smoking are not thinking beyond themselves. There are suggested laws that would ban smoking in your own cars and homes and I think that is getting to the dangerous level.

I would think that anyone who is interested in our liberties would look beyond the smoking issue and fight for the rights of everyone and not just fight for the chance to get drunk at non-smoking bars.

Forcing owners of establishments to adhere to the non-smoking laws is wrong. If the owners of these places want their clientele to be smokers, they should have that right. And as for the worker's rights, they have a choice to work in that establishment or not.


I also think that there are other things that are causing disease, but because of the money behind it, they aren't being discussed enough. All the lifestyle nannies seem to be focusing on smoking and not on some of the other real threats on our health.

Another issue is the way the anti-smokers treat smokers as filthy, second class people. If we were talking about almost any other disease besides the addiction to nicotine, the people here would be much more sympathetic. But as it stands, many of the anti-smokers here have fallen into the trap of belittling the smokers and their addiction instead of treating this particular addiction as any other disease that people would have.

I am used to the anti-smoking regimes, but it still doesn't sit easy with me. Yes, smoking is a nasty habit, but I still choose to smoke and I do my best not to disturb others with it. It is irritating to be constantly preached to.

novalib (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-19-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
61. ADDICTS Who Support Corporations That ADDICT!!
AbsoFUCKINGlutely!!!

People who suck cancer sticks and fill their own lungs with NOXIOUS TOXIC smoke (before they exhale it into the atmosphere and POLLUTE the air!)are just like junkies who support drug-pushers!!!

BIG TOBACCO is nothing more than a HUGE drug-pushing CARTEL that is in the business of HOOKING NEW ADDICTS and KEEPING them addicted!!!

Every dollar a cancer-stick sucker pays for a tobacco product goes DIRECTLY into the pockers of the PUSHERS!!!!

AND --- it's not as though there are HUNDREDS of programs and other ways to STOP!!!

No Progressive Cred for cancer-stick suckers!!!!!

debate smoking board?

(This goes for SUV debates and "climbers pay for their own rescue" debates too.)

Going to hiding land in 3...2...1....

my mom died because of smoking, and my sister's is beginning to show the same symptoms

I really hate being reminded

this will be the sixteenth, at least, thread I've hidden in about two hours

dunno why I even bothered to read this one, but the denial of the smokers is beyond belief, especially their annoyance at the rabid, unreasoned vehemence of the antismokers. theirs, of course, is totally justified

damn...now I'm riding that angry/sad roller coaster again

PLEASE, smokers....

STOP before it's too late

thread after thread after thread about it. Sheesh. Like there's nothin' else to talk about.

And I think as a public service that a smoker, like me, should have a warning on all posts. Something considerate like::smoke: Please shut down your computer. I'm smoking as I post and do not wish to subject you to 2nd hand :smoke:. You may reboot your computer when you hear the All Clear Siren. :)

They know they should quit but they can't?

I know people get really grumpy when they do try to quit, I bet that's at least part of the anger.

Sorry, but we've had enough threads about smoking for today.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator

Sorry, but we've had enough threads about smoking for today.