RE: Second hand smoke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 11:23:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
No, he said I should be excluded from going there if I do not want to breathe his smoke, which to me is the same thing as forcing me to breathe it. I have worked in restaurants, and basically I need to make a living and I am forced to breathe smoke in order to do so, that is just wrong.. I am being forced to do so if he smokes and I am working in the same space as him. I guess when I was a waitress I could have decided that I would rather not pay my bills and be homeless or breathe smoke though, but I guess many people would choose to breathe someone;s toxic bullshit rather than starve.. if you call that a choice (I don't)


He said that if you don't want to breathe smoke you should stay out of places where smoke is present. Not that you should be excluded....except of course if it is your CHOICE to exclude yourself. How exactly is that forcing you to breathe it? I'm sorry but I fail to see your reasoning. There are certainly a good number of restaurants that are non smoking...if I were an unemployed waitress looking for employment, I would seek employment in a place that was in alignment with my personal choices. I don't like sloppy drunk alchoholics....therefore I don't apply for positions in establishments where alcohol is served. I don't like to be covered in grease, therefore I don't apply for positions in automotive repair shops. I don't like to smell strong perfumes therefore I don't apply at the cosmetic counter of Marshall Field's. It's really quite simple.

You don't like smoke....that is abundantly clear....so stay away from it. Exercise your right to choose which establishments you care to give your time or money to. But don't expect the whole world to align itself in accordance to your likes or dislikes. It is impossible to have a rational discourse or come to any resemblance of agreement with someone whose opinions on a subject are inflexibly rooted in emotion and refuses to consider the issue from any other viewpoint than that gut "because I don't like it".  

Once again I will say that no one here has said anything about FORCING anyone to do anything....other than of course those who wish to support the enactment of laws that strip others of their choices. Once those laws are in place that is the only time that FORCE really comes into the equation.



juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 11:51:41 AM)

The town I lived in had very few jobs over minimum wage for anyone. Waiting tables was one of the few jobs that I could support my child with at my educational level. Before smoking was made illegal in restaurants it was allowed in every restaurant because owners feared that the minority that smoked would stay home. I fail to see why I should have to suffer unemployment or breathe another person's toxic pollution, which is basically the choice that under scootertrash's view of the universe, I should have where I  lived. It is a nonissue because it is illegal to smoke inside of public buildings here.. period.

Under this view any place of business could allow smoking in their premises, so if I want to work anywhere I have to put up with watery eyes, breathing difficulties, stuffy nose, and headache.. Fortunately the rights of the many supercede the wants of a few.

Edited to say, I wouldn't sell cigarettes in a smoke house and complain either, restaurants sell food, not cigarettes and ashtrays and smoking space



Mercnbeth -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:13:22 PM)

quote:

Fortunately the rights of the many supercede the wants of a few.


Unless you believe that the practitioners of BDSM, subscribe to "adult" internet sites, enjoy nudity on cable TV, subscribe to "soft core" magazines such as 'Playboy', drink alcohol, go to or run a BDSM Club, or any number of other "minority" participated activities; you've just rationalized taking away a lot of many people's current rights. The argument that any of those activities don't affect you as much as smoking is personal. The same argument is made by many regarding their children's access to cable TV, yet I believe all TV's come with a channel changer and an on/off button.

Careful, you may really be a Republican.  By some people's definition, that defines you as a Nazi.



mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:15:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The town I lived in had very few jobs over minimum wage for anyone. Waiting tables was one of the few jobs that I could support my child with at my educational level. Before smoking was made illegal in restaurants it was allowed in every restaurant because owners feared that the minority that smoked would stay home. I fail to see why I should have to suffer unemployment or breathe another person's toxic pollution, which is basically the choice that under scootertrash's view of the universe, I should have where I  lived. It is a nonissue because it is illegal to smoke inside of public buildings here.. period.

Under this view any place of business could allow smoking in their premises, so if I want to work anywhere I have to put up with watery eyes, breathing difficulties, stuffy nose, and headache.. Fortunately the rights of the many supercede the wants of a few.

Edited to say, I wouldn't sell cigarettes in a smoke house and complain either, restaurants sell food, not cigarettes and ashtrays and smoking space


So now your argument is that people should give up their personal freedoms based upon others levels of education or qualifications? Please julia....I really am trying to understand. The level of education required to waitress would qualify someone for multitudes of other positions. I am sure that some of those choices would be non smoking. They may not be your first choice...but choices nonetheless. If we don't like the choices in front of us....we always have the choice to upgrade ourselves to the next level of choices.

I am deathly allergic to cats. I have a full blown anaphylactic reaction to them...including the closure of my throat. If my level of qualfications was such that the only position I could obtain was that of a cat sitter....I would have to do something to upgrade myself to the next level of choices.

As for restaurants selling only food...you are incorrect. Restaurants sell atmosphere. While a smoking atmosphere is not your preference....it IS the preference of many others. If an establishment offers that choice and it is not in alignment with your personal preferences....by all means....CHOOSE to stay away.



NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:20:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The town I lived in had very few jobs over minimum wage for anyone. Waiting tables was one of the few jobs that I could support my child with at my educational level. Before smoking was made illegal in restaurants it was allowed in every restaurant because owners feared that the minority that smoked would stay home. I fail to see why I should have to suffer unemployment or breathe another person's toxic pollution, which is basically the choice that under scootertrash's view of the universe, I should have where I  lived. It is a nonissue because it is illegal to smoke inside of public buildings here.. period.


The fact that employers allowed smoking in their establishment is not the smoker's fault, it is the employer's.  And honestly, it should have been left up to the employer.  It is unfortunate that all the restaurants in your town allowed smoking, but did you try to request covering just the non-smoking tables?

West Lafayette (the town I live in... I need to update my profile even though it's only a quarter-mile difference), just banned smoking in public places with no exclusions.  The other side of the river, Lafayette, didn't pass the same ordinance.  There was no exception made for bars or typical campus hangouts (we're Purdue town).  As a result, the campus bars have lost a lot of business, and when students get back this week they will lose more because it's easier to go the extra quarter-mile and hang out downtown, where they can smoke.  It hurts business owners.  That's why it should have been left in the hands of those owners.  City council doesn't care if people lose money and have to shut down their hard-working businesses.  They just want to look good. 

quote:

Under this view any place of business could allow smoking in their premises, so if I want to work anywhere I have to put up with watery eyes, breathing difficulties, stuffy nose, and headache.. Fortunately the rights of the many supercede the wants of a few.


It's not a right as long as cigarettes are legal.  (Provided you are in a privately owned business.  I think the smoking ban went backwards.  Smoking in open public areas that the city owns should be illegal.  Smoking in privately owned businesses should not.)

I'm sorry you had to put up with that in order to work, but you technically had the right to quit (even if not the means).  As long as someone can legally buy cigarettes, it should be a business owner's right to let them smoke in the building he owns. 

quote:

Edited to say, I wouldn't sell cigarettes in a smoke house and complain either, restaurants sell food, not cigarettes and ashtrays and smoking space


You're right.  However, a lot of people enjoy a cigarette with a meal.  And many, many more people enjoy a cigarette or ten with their alcohol (in a bar atmosphere).  It's unfortunate that they have to have a cigarette to enjoy their meal or their drinks, but if the owner decides they can, then they should be able to.  Besides, many restaurants and bars around here do sell cigarettes.  They made a killing, too.  Drunk people will pay seven dollars a pack rather than walk a block.  They don't get to sell them anymore, though.

I really do understand both sides of this argument.  Many of you know that I quit smoking quite a few months ago.  It was horrible for me and that was reason enough for me.  However, I did enjoy my cigarettes and I can see why people would not want to give them up.  Honestly, I will most likely have a cigarette the next time I have a martini.  It's nothing I'll take up again, but smoking when I'm drinking is a ritual.  And for that, I'll be going across the bridge to downtown.  Even if I don't, I'll most likely go across the bridge anyway, because most of my friends smoke.

Now do you see why the business owners didn't want to give that up?  They do lose business.   Quite a bit of it, actually. 



captiveplatypus -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:21:50 PM)

As long as you can still smoke in bars, I don't care, since I only smoke when I'm drinking.

Although my Master said the next time I smoked he'd wash my mouth out with soap. :(

Smoking is gross and smelly and does nothing but jack up health care costs.  You don't even get high on cigarettes.

Damn, now I want one.



juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:37:23 PM)

In my state it has been illegal to smoke in any public place for several years, and smokers did not fall over and die or suffer in any way because of it, unless you consider nicotine withdrawl to be some sort of suffering, which as someone who has had plenty of experience with nicotine withdrawl, it isn;t all that bad to wait 10 minutes for a cigarette or to walk outside for one.

I was a smoker for 23 years that did not believe I had the right to smoke anywhere I liked except in private homes and cars. I do not get the resistance to being kind, considerate, and respectful of others. Smoking bans were made because some people could not respect the rights of others.. simple as that. Some people need laws and repercussions because they are rude.

I read earlier in this thread that second hand smoke decreases vitamin C in the bodies of those who do not smoke, and this was the only acknowledged side effect of smoking by a smoker in this thread. What gives the right to any other person to engage in something in my presense in a public place that has any effect on my body? What gives a smoker the right to do something that alters my physical being in any way shape or form? Who are they to decide that is is ok to engage in a behavior that alters the level of vitamin C in my person? I do not think they have that right, and there is a bunch of other stuff mentioned on this thread that second hand smoke does that I am not mentioning.. I am sticking with the side effect twicehappy stated occurs... the only one she would admit to.

I have lived by the concept "your rights end where they abridge mine".. I lived by it as a smoker. It is not that hard to comprehend. If a business owner stated that he wasn't going to force his employees to wash their hands after visiting the toilet, or wash dishes in hot water, or serve food that was too old, I do not think you would think that it was his right. He could say that his profits were being cut into by heating water and he could not afford to throw out bad food, but you would think the health department should stop him, I do not see why cigarette smoke, which invades the bodies of others, should be any less of a health concern.



captiveplatypus -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:44:08 PM)

When I did smoke, I always made a concious effort to not do so in a manner that would adversly affect non-smokers around me, because that'd just be rude.



Wildfleurs -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:51:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

So now your argument is that people should give up their personal freedoms based upon others levels of education or qualifications? Please julia....I really am trying to understand. The level of education required to waitress would qualify someone for multitudes of other positions. I am sure that some of those choices would be non smoking. They may not be your first choice...but choices nonetheless. If we don't like the choices in front of us....we always have the choice to upgrade ourselves to the next level of choices.


There is no extra special freedom to be able to do certain things in public that endanger people (thats why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater - or so says the Supreme Court in terms of freedom of speech).  I've posted a very long post that cites numerous studies on the actual danger of secondhand smoke, so I'm not going to repeat mysef, except to say that it does quite obviously pose a danger.

quote:


I am deathly allergic to cats. I have a full blown anaphylactic reaction to them...including the closure of my throat. If my level of qualfications was such that the only position I could obtain was that of a cat sitter....I would have to do something to upgrade myself to the next level of choices.


Thats an orange you are trying to compare to celery.  Your cat allergy is a medical condition that you have.  Secondhand smoke is something physically dangerous to everyone, having nothing to do with preexisting medical conditions.

C~



NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 12:57:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

In my state it has been illegal to smoke in any public place for several years, and smokers did not fall over and die or suffer in any way because of it, unless you consider nicotine withdrawl to be some sort of suffering, which as someone who has had plenty of experience with nicotine withdrawl, it isn;t all that bad to wait 10 minutes for a cigarette or to walk outside for one.


To some it is.  I have no idea why.

quote:

I was a smoker for 23 years that did not believe I had the right to smoke anywhere I liked except in private homes and cars. I do not get the resistance to being kind, considerate, and respectful of others. Smoking bans were made because some people could not respect the rights of others.. simple as that. Some people need laws and repercussions because they are rude.


Not true.  Smoking bans were made to make politicians look good.  They will tell you it is for your health and hope you will vote for them next election.  And if someone is smoking in an establishment where it is allowed, it is not disrespecting the rights of others.  It is making use of one of the rights they are allowed.

Now, with that said, I believe in being a considerate smoker.  If you are sitting in a restaurant in the smoking section and a couple with a child enters, put your cigarette out.  (And question in your head why in the name of all that is right a couple would bring a child into the smoking section.)

quote:

I read earlier in this thread that second hand smoke decreases vitamin C in the bodies of those who do not smoke, and this was the only acknowledged side effect of smoking by a smoker in this thread. What gives the right to any other person to engage in something in my presense in a public place that has any effect on my body? What gives a smoker the right to do something that alters my physical being in any way shape or form? Who are they to decide that is is ok to engage in a behavior that alters the level of vitamin C in my person? I do not think they have that right, and there is a bunch of other stuff mentioned on this thread that second hand smoke does that I am not mentioning.. I am sticking with the side effect twicehappy stated occurs... the only one she would admit to.


Like I said earlier, that is where the smoking ban went wrong.  Smoking on public streets, sidewalks, government buildings, parks, and anything else belonging to the city should be banned.  The smoking issue in privately owned establishments should be left to the owner.  Why?  Because you don't have a choice but to go through public areas at some point in your life, and if it's allowed to smoke outside they can do so whereever they feel like.  Do you really want to step through a gaggle of smokers on your way into your now smoke-free establishment?  You do, however, have a choice whether or not to frequent privately owned businesses.  If the government owns the property, let them ban it there.  If a person owns the property, let them ban it or allow it as they choose.

Get rid of it where you absolutely must be around it.  Keep it where you don't have to go.  It makes sense to me.

quote:

I have lived by the concept "your rights end where they abridge mine".. I lived by it as a smoker. It is not that hard to comprehend. If a business owner stated that he wasn't going to force his employees to wash their hands after visiting the toilet, or wash dishes in hot water, or serve food that was too old, I do not think you would think that it was his right. He could say that his profits were being cut into by heating water and he could not afford to throw out bad food, but you would think the health department should stop him, I do not see why cigarette smoke, which invades the bodies of others, should be any less of a health concern.


There is a vital difference between employees washing their hands or washing dishes and smoking.  The difference is that not washing properly is against the law.  Smoking isn't, nor is buying cigarettes.  Provided a smoker has washed their hands before they serve me, I have no problem with it.  The argument you provided really doesn't add up.

The bottom line is that, yes, smoking is bad for you.  But it's not illegal, and the government should have no say in whether someone allows it in his privately owned business.  After all, the government allows it in their parks and on their streets.  Apparently what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.  What's next?  Banning smoking in individual residences?



mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 1:11:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I do not get the resistance to being kind, considerate, and respectful of others.


And herein lies the irony. The smokers on this thread have repeatedly stated that they don't believe that their right to smoke is any more important than your right not to. They have stated repeatedly that their wish is not to infringe upon your right to clean air but to have places designated that they can enjoy their choice to smoke without affecting you. They have stated their wish to smoke freely in places where you would not be effected by it out of  kindness, consideration and respect for your choices. All they are asking is for a bit of kindness, consideration and respect in return. It seems though that there are some of you on this thread that can not see past your own distaste of smoking to see that these things are even being said....over and over and over again. Your (collective your) inability to acknowledge this makes this discussion an exercise in futility. You (collective you) will simply continue to rank all smokers at about the same level as Charles Manson because you can not or refuse to comprehend that we could possibly smoke AND be courteous and respectful in the ways that we do it. We don't want to impose our choices on you....we don't want you imposing your choices on us.....and we don't want or need you to support legislation to save us from ourselves.




MistressLorelei -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 4:03:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I do not get the resistance to being kind, considerate, and respectful of others.


And herein lies the irony. The smokers on this thread have repeatedly stated that they don't believe that their right to smoke is any more important than your right not to. They have stated repeatedly that their wish is not to infringe upon your right to clean air but to have places designated that they can enjoy their choice to smoke without affecting you. They have stated their wish to smoke freely in places where you would not be effected by it out of  kindness, consideration and respect for your choices. All they are asking is for a bit of kindness, consideration and respect in return. It seems though that there are some of you on this thread that can not see past your own distaste of smoking to see that these things are even being said....over and over and over again. Your (collective your) inability to acknowledge this makes this discussion an exercise in futility. You (collective you) will simply continue to rank all smokers at about the same level as Charles Manson because you can not or refuse to comprehend that we could possibly smoke AND be courteous and respectful in the ways that we do it. We don't want to impose our choices on you....we don't want you imposing your choices on us.....and we don't want or need you to support legislation to save us from ourselves.



The non-smokers on this thread have not stated that your right to smoke is more important than our right not to smoke.  Smoke anywhere you like, as much as you like, except in public where others can be harmed because you are smoking there.   If second hand smoke was not a health risk to others, then, like in years past, non-smokers would sit in the non-smoking section and leave smelling like a cigarette.  I would still find it rude for smokers to do, but I would not expect the  government to ban public smoking, and I would keep my mouth shut about the smell and the indoor smog, as I did for all the years before I was informed of the real danger second hand smoke poses.

Public places commonly do their best to keep their patrons safe.  There are fire alarms, lighted exit signs, asbestos have been removed, restaurants are shut down if their cleanliness levels pose a risk to customers, etc.  Public places are for all of us, and safety is a factor everywhere.  Every business is encouraged (and in many cases regulated) to ensure a safe public space for everyone.  Eliminating fumes in the air that top health professionals have deemed a health risk to the public, is hardly unreasonable.  Companies have paid big bucks to get rid of their toxic mold, lead paint, and asbestos, so we can all breath safe air.... asking people to smoke outside is not only a simple health precaution, but a free one.




captiveplatypus -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 4:10:20 PM)

Honestly, I don't understand where people can argue that the government should protect their right to engage in addictive and deadly behavior, and to expose other people to said deadly and addictive substances.  Even if a person is not smoking, but around others who smoke, they are still inhaling the same chemicals as the smoker (just not quite as much, and this may be why children of parents who smoke end up becoming smokers themselves, having inhaled second hand smoke all their lives and also developing an addiction to nicotine).

Like I said, even when I did smoke, I had the decency to make an effort not to do it around others if it bothered them to do so.  That's just common courtesy.  Just let me smoke in the bars, where everyone's engaging in addictive behavior already! :p



juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 4:34:43 PM)

I am not going to validate the educational level thing with a response... it does not matter what your educational level is.. you cannot find a job, you have to work in a smoke filled hellhole that makes you sick because someone is rude enough not to care they spew toxins whereever they go

You live far away, I live in California. We have laws that I agree with, this is where I should stay, with people that see the world the same way I do.. God I love this state! I would not live somewhere that allowed people to spew toxins where I eat

Sinergy works around diesel all day long, a known carcinogen. I worry for his health and so do other organizations that are trying to do something about diesel being burned in the harbor. I hope they stop it. I would think that people would want to work in a clean environment if possible. At the harbor they are looking at ways to make it cleaner... what is wrong with cleaner?



juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 4:43:52 PM)

Second hand smoke is bad for you. Having someone serve you after wiping their ass is bad for you.. I see no difference, honestly I don't

I will repeat, it is illegal to smoke in any public building in California. I have been to places this was not the case and I will not be back.. If people want to come to California and they have to take it outside it is their problem. If I go to another state and they allow it, that is my problem.. or I just will avoid those states on my travel itinerary. Sooner or later the nonsmokers that outnumber the smokers will get their right to clean air, because there are just more of them to vote.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 6:25:41 PM)

Check out either the www.bbc.co.uk or www.guardian.co.uk web pages, and one of them has details of a proposal that smokers in a company vehicle / car which was later that day going to be driven by a non smoker could be banned from smoking. Opens up a can of worms but principle is non smoker has greater entitlement to not be exposed to smoke than the smokers entitlement to be free!!!!!

Don't choke on your woodbines.



KatyLied -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 6:31:39 PM)

quote:

if a person is not smoking, but around others who smoke, they are still inhaling the same chemicals as the smoker (just not quite as much,


Actually sidestream smoke is worse.
You can goggle and get tons of hits about the dangers of sidestream smoke.



NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 6:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Second hand smoke is bad for you. Having someone serve you after wiping their ass is bad for you.. I see no difference, honestly I don't


LOL.  Well, alright then.

quote:

  I will repeat, it is illegal to smoke in any public building in California. I have been to places this was not the case and I will not be back.. If people want to come to California and they have to take it outside it is their problem. If I go to another state and they allow it, that is my problem.. or I just will avoid those states on my travel itinerary. Sooner or later the nonsmokers that outnumber the smokers will get their right to clean air, because there are just more of them to vote.


Yes, but most of us live in the other 49 states where smoking is legal in public.  Then again, has California banned it on public sidewalks and in public parks?  If they haven't then it's hypocracy.

<sigh>  You know I respect your views, Julia, but I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this one, so I'm not going to debate it further.



juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 7:15:22 PM)

Its ok not to agree! I have to say though, I am around people all the time in public smoking their hearts out and no one is going around arresting them, so this must be a state law I haven't heard of, and the people smoking must not know about it either. There are several laws that have been proposed that I do not agree with here. San Franciscans wanted to make it illegal to smoke within 100 feet of an entrance to a building.. that would make it illegal to smoke practically anywhere, which I think is over the top (you cannot be 100 feet from some sort of entrance to something in The City). And estring said it was illegal in West Hollyweird to smoke on your own patio in your own apartment, but I saw people smoking outside at a cafe there, so I would be interested in seeing this law.

I may sound militant about this topic, but these laws have been around in this state for going on two decades as far as restaurants go, and over a decade for public buildings. It has been nearly a decade since the smoking ban took place in bars, which sucks for the bars that have no outdoor area for smokers, but most do now. I remember going to South Dakota a few years ago as a smoker and going to a crowded steakhouse for dinner, it was so revolting because I could barely breathe in there, the smoke burned my eyes and hurt my throat. You see, even though I was a smoker, I didn't even smoke in my own home. I just do not even understand why a smoker would want to be in an environment like that.. it was then I realized that even though I was a smoker I was glad California banned it. It is nice to go into public and not have the air filled with smoke. Inhaling any smoke isn't good for you.

Like I said, it is against the cultural norms to smoke here, it is up there with going up to someone and puking on them, or wiping dogshit off on their carpet.. it is really socially unacceptable here, not necessarily to be a smoker, but to do it in inappropriate spaces. Because this is the society that I live in, I have heard people for years complain about this issue, most people I know complained about smokers. I guess I became sensitive to how they felt even though I was one. And now I am not one, I expect the same politeness I gave people when I was a smoker.




marieToo -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 7:19:35 PM)

This thread is like a bad accident that I have to just keep checking out.  Im not on a side.  What I find disturbing is the attitude of the smokers.  Theyre proud to be smokers, they make jokes about it and frankly are quite arrogant, which isnt that surprising because thats the pysche of an addict, its their coping mechanism.  But what really bothers me is that they just dont care.
 
I am not here to puff out my chest.  I used to smoke.  I used to be a nicotine addict (a junkie).  Theres not a day that goes by that I dont hold on tight to my resolve. I am not arrogant about it, I am not invulnerable or above anyone because I quit.  But when I did smoke,  I never smoked in a car when a non smoker was with me, even if it was my car.  I never smoked around a kid, or an adult non smoker for that matter.  I never smoked where non smokers were eating around me.  When I was a smoker, I never felt this 'right' that you all speak of.  I felt like what I was, which was an nicotine addict and I felt like I had an obligation to keep others from the discomfort of my smoke---whether it was the smell, or if they had an allergy, or it made them cough, or whatever.  I didnt question it.  I just did not impose on non smokers.  I can even remember being out with non smoking friends, and needing a fix so bad that I would go outside to grab a couple of puffs and I would feel guilty just going back to the table carrying the smell with me.  If I had to go somewhere, Id wash my hands or even change clothes and things like that. 
Smoke is nasty to people who arent addicted to it.  Smoke burns peoples eyes, its makes them cough.  It smells horrible.  Some get an allergic reaction to it.  It burns our throats. Its the smoke...not the smoker .  Its not personal!!!   Theres no reason for the defensiveness.  Smokers should be aware that it makes people uncomforable physically in a number of ways and its a proven health risk.  I dont understand the lack of consideration and care among the smokers.  Non smokers dont dislike smokers as a people.  They dislike smoke. 
 



Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625