social smoking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ obviously I know the health ramifications of smoking and how it all happens. I just think that it's interesting how some people, particularly on this board, are so vehemently upset about it and personally attacked by second-hand smoke.

I would rather someone walk past me with a lit cigarette than walk past diesel exhaust fumes or those horrible vendors in New York city that use coal or something to heat their stands -- all of which aren't good for human lungs.

Well, when people smoke in public, it sort of is a personal attack. It's unwanted exposure to very harmful chemicals and carcinogens. I guess I do see that as a personal attack. There is no other behavior (that is legal) that is so damaging to others.

[Anonymous]

^^Yeah...think of all of the behaviors and actions that are illegal in public or in general -- for example, hitting others, peeing, exposing yourself, even loud music in some cases....but walking around with lit cigarettes and exposing everyone around you to carcinogen-filled smoke? That's totally okay. It's crazy.

[maril332]

Anonymous wrote:^^Yeah...think of all of the behaviors and actions that are illegal in public or in general -- for example, hitting others, peeing, exposing yourself, even loud music in some cases....but walking around with lit cigarettes and exposing everyone around you to carcinogen-filled smoke? That's totally okay. It's crazy.

Smoke outside diffuses pretty quickly... Clearly smoking is a heated and loaded topic that you all have to resort to name calling and shaming in order to get your point across.

[Anonymous]

maril332 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Yeah...think of all of the behaviors and actions that are illegal in public or in general -- for example, hitting others, peeing, exposing yourself, even loud music in some cases....but walking around with lit cigarettes and exposing everyone around you to carcinogen-filled smoke? That's totally okay. It's crazy.

Smoke outside diffuses pretty quickly... Clearly smoking is a heated and loaded topic that you all have to resort to name calling and shaming in order to get your point across.

It doesn't always diffuse quickly, especially if it's humid or has been raining. But whether it diffuses quickly or not is beside the point -- If you're smoking near me, even if we are outside, it's very likely that i'm going to end up breathing at least some of your smoke. Whether it's a little (because it "diffuses quickly") or not doesn't matter. You should not get to decide for me what's an acceptable level of smoke exposure. If I don't want to breathe any of it, which I don't, then I should not have to in a public space. If you are smoking as you walk along the sidewalk, and I happen to be walking behind you, you're going to deliver a dose of secondhand smoke to my lungs. Or worse, my kids' lungs.

[Anonymous]

maril332 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Yeah...think of all of the behaviors and actions that are illegal in public or in general -- for example, hitting others, peeing, exposing yourself, even loud music in some cases....but walking around with lit cigarettes and exposing everyone around you to carcinogen-filled smoke? That's totally okay. It's crazy.

Smoke outside diffuses pretty quickly... Clearly smoking is a heated and loaded topic that you all have to resort to name calling and shaming in order to get your point across.

If you're referring to my post, which you quoted, I didn't call anybody any names.

Smoke doesn't always diffuse quickly, especially at an outdoor dining area where there may be numerous people smoking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^Yeah...think of all of the behaviors and actions that are illegal in public or in general -- for example, hitting others, peeing, exposing yourself, even loud music in some cases....but walking around with lit cigarettes and exposing everyone around you to carcinogen-filled smoke? That's totally okay. It's crazy.



Smoke outside diffuses pretty quickly... Clearly smoking is a heated and loaded topic that you all have to resort to name calling and shaming in order to get your point across.



It doesn't always diffuse quickly, especially if it's humid or has been raining. But whether it diffuses quickly or not is beside the point -- If you're smoking near me, even if we are outside, it's very likely that i'm going to end up breathing at least some of your smoke. Whether it's a little (because it "diffuses quickly") or not doesn't matter. You should not get to decide for me what's an acceptable level of smoke exposure. If I don't want to breathe any of it, which I don't, then I should not have to in a public space. If you are smoking as you walk along the sidewalk, and I happen to be walking behind you, you're going to deliver a dose of secondhand smoke to my lungs. Or worse, my kids' lungs.

Your lungs are far worse off by the passing cars outside than the sidewalk smoker you walked by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smioking is only bad for American's health. Somehow the rest of the world can smoke and not all drop dead immediately and give non-smokers cancer. Good thing Europe is to our east or we would need to set up an air filter over the Atlantic. Wonder if Caliornia is considering it?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Yeah...think of all of the behaviors and actions that are illegal in public or in general -- for example, hitting others, peeing, exposing yourself, even loud music in some cases....but walking around with lit cigarettes and exposing everyone around you to carcinogen-filled smoke? That's totally okay. It's crazy.



Smoke outside diffuses pretty quickly... Clearly smoking is a heated and loaded topic that you all have to resort to name calling and shaming in order to get your point across.



It doesn't always diffuse quickly, especially if it's humid or has been raining. But whether it diffuses quickly or not is beside the point -- If you're smoking near me, even if we are outside, it's very likely that i'm going to end up breathing at least some of your smoke. Whether it's a little (because it "diffuses quickly") or not doesn't matter. You should not get to decide for me what's an acceptable level of smoke exposure. If I don't want to breathe any of it, which I don't, then I should not have to in a public space. If you are smoking as you walk along the sidewalk, and I happen to be walking behind you, you're going to deliver a dose of secondhand smoke to my lungs. Or worse, my kids' lungs.

Your lungs are far worse off by the passing cars outside than the sidewalk smoker you walked by.

You are mistaken about this. This is a common misconception. You can easily Google 'chemicals in car emissions' or something like that and compare them to the chemicals found in cigarette smoke. Then you can look up the relative toxicities of these substances (if you don't know already). You'll find that cigarette smoke is much more poisonous than auto emissions. Furthermore, we regulate automobile emissions to keep them below toxic thresholds. Tobacco smoke sickens and kills tens of thousands of smokers and non-smokers each year. Obviously this is not true of automobile emissions.

[Anonymous]

Would someone please start a movement to ban them outright, then? They are legal. Just like guns and religion (neither of which I'm a fan of, but live with). They are not constitutionally protected.

Stop complaining about Big Tobacco and whining about your law-abiding fellow citizen outside smokers and make them illegal. Worked for the Prohibitionists, at least for a while.

[Anonymous]

Did you just actually call Prohibition a success? Please stop talking now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would someone please start a movement to ban them outright, then? They are legal. Just like guns and religion (neither of which I'm a fan of, but live with). They are not constitutionally protected.

Stop complaining about Big Tobacco and whining about your law-abiding fellow citizen outside smokers and make them illegal. Worked for the Prohibitionists, at least for a while.

The American lung Association, the Surgeon General, and many others have been trying for decades to get tobacco banned, but the tobacco industry has too much money and is too powerful. Therefore, unfortunately, we have to go another route – that is, citizens have to stop smoking.

[Anonymous]

Part of me is quietly rooting for OP, but the more she justifies her position, the less convincing it becomes, particularly with spousal deceit in the mix, not to mention the ominous allusion to "partaking." Just sounds like rationalizing a lot of destructive behavior, which gets harder to do the more you grow up. If you want to go there, you have to own it; seeking affirmation, especially here, is doomed. Maybe 20 years ago you could still pull it off, not to mention 50. Times have changed. Sure, secret smoking and "partaking" still seems charmingly roguish in "This is 40" or whatever, but modeling your behavior on the movies is perilous and silly, obviously. And it's one thing to explain to your kids why you smoked back in the day, but it's another to explain your pack of smokes they just found. Not to mention a joint. Unless you want to go all in and justify to them that this is all O.K. How's that for scandalous.

[Anonymous]

maril332 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ obviously I know the health ramifications of smoking and how it all happens. I just think that it's interesting how some people, particularly on this board, are so vehemently upset about it and personally attacked by second-hand smoke.

I would rather someone walk past me with a lit cigarette than walk past diesel exhaust fumes or those horrible vendors in New York city that use coal or something to heat their stands -- all of which aren't good for human lungs.

+1

I also, don't get why people are so mad that I am "lying" to my DH. If he was to ask me "have you been smoking" I would tell him the truth. Just because I don't tell him doesn't mean I'm lying.

Now you are splitting hairs. You've expressed in more than one post that your husband would be very upset to know you smoke. If it were him and found out, I would have to wonder what else you not telling me. You are potentially destroying trust.

[Anonymous]

maril332 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ obviously I know the health ramifications of smoking and how it all happens. I just think that it's interesting how some people, particularly on this board, are so vehemently upset about it and personally attacked by second-hand smoke.

I would rather someone walk past me with a lit cigarette than walk past diesel exhaust fumes or those horrible vendors in New York city that use coal or something to heat their stands -- all of which aren't good for human lungs.

+1

I also, don't get why people are so mad that I am "lying" to my DH. If he was to ask me "have you been smoking" I would tell him the truth. Just because I don't tell him doesn't mean I'm lying.

You're completely buried in your denial!!! What a shame!!

[maril332]

Hello I'm back. I told DH that I do occasionally smoke. He was not that upset he only said that he was happy I was able to tell him. He is not as vehemently opposed to smoking occasionally. Also he said that he would not have known unless I said something because he has never smelled the cigarettes on me.