Smoking

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't have a problem with bars keeping smoking. but to say that you can just let the market dictate without any legistlation is ridiculous. If that was the case non-smokers would have no where other their own homes to be safe from it. It required legistlation to make airlines non smoking (by the way - there is a all smoking airline, at least there was a few years ago), malls would be all smoking, places of work would be all smoking, restaurants now. I actually don't have a problem with the amount of restrictions as it stands now - except when it comes to people smoking right outside doorways. Wehn I exit a mall and I HAVE to go through the smoke - I have no choice.

Then I suggest you lobby for sensible ordinances that will be enforced. Such as patio's for smoking areas, located away from entrances. Comfy patios.

You aren't going to catch many flies with viniger.

However, I doubt you have correctly estimated the market share of people who would frequent smoke-free establishments.

Legislation is not a tool to be lightly weilded, and it can have far reaching consequences. Non-smoking on airlines is one reason I don't fly any more. I don't presume that they are missing my business, or anyone else who feels the same way. But it does have an impact.

Likewise again you are overstating reality when you say non-smokers must be confined to their homes in order to remain safe from second hand smoke (if the market dictated) It's just not so. Even before regulation became commonplace, there were many areas that were off limits to smoking, due to custom or politeness, or local ordinance.

It's also rather an interesting aside that the air in most homes (in the US) is rather a bit more toxic than being outside, which gives us nowhere to hide, thanks to the studies on Radon, MO, mold, dust, fungi, and who knows what else.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

No you don't have to tell me - but let me know if you would let a friend die or what ever. ... I changed the way I helped him.

I've had some of my friends die, and many of my patients. Sometimes I even did everything "by the book". Like I said, it's hard to tell, and sometimes, the only way you find out is by looking back.

Well everyone has their problems. You may view it as tragic - but knowing him and his attitude- it was stupid not tragic. He made his choices - now he has to live with them. As hard as it is - he finally has realised that his life isn't his father's fault or anyone elses. He may never have been able to live up to his father's expectations - but he's older now. He's finally realised - after I have told him a thousand - that only he can get himself clean - only he can make his life better.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. However, I must point out that no one can get themselves clean. It takes outside help to get out of the hole once you've fallen in.

Now if you keep jumping BACK in the damned hole... well maybe we can begin to talk about wilfull stupidity.

The bottom line is that it's not like people don't know the consequences to smoking, doing drugs or alcohol. People can't whine about it after they have cancer, liver disease or brain damage and say "If I only knew". My friend has said that many times.

No, the bottom line is, no one ever thinks it will happen to them. Ever drunk any alcohol? any at all? It's the same way every alcoholic you ever heard of started. Beleive me, the power of rational choice and decision making goes away LONG before you realize what's happening to you.

I've heard hundreds, no thousands of parent, spouses, freinds and employers say similar things about "their" addicts, so you'll just have to excuse me if I seem a tad over interested in convincing you. After all it was part of my job for a very long time.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Yes, YOU have a choice of employment. Some people don't. In fact, a lot of people who work the bars and stuff - over here anyway, are people without qualifications. Sure, they don't HAVE to work in a bar; they could work somewhere else. However, unqualified people have less choice. And the job market is distinctly unfriendly to young unqualified people.

If they're unqualified, and beat down to the level where they don't have a choice- they should have a cigg- it'll help them deal with some of the stress :P

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Laurelyn
Gods, if poeple that smoke would please stay away from me with that cigarette . . .
It wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't make me feel so damned sick. I can't tolerate secondhand smoke- I get sick to my stomach, I cough, I can't breathe, and I get headaches, feel dizzy and see spots. In Athens, Greece, we drove through part of the city in a taxi. It smelled so strongly of cigarette smoke, I was struggling not to pass out for the whole ride. Those stupid spots I see have a habit of getting more frequent, and denser, and darker in color, until I lose my vision and have it replaced by a wave of black . . . and another . . .
If you wish to have me stay conscious . . .don't smoke near me, thanx.

'nuff said, I think. If people want to kill themselves smoking, great. That's their problem.

Err.... a point of concern - that's not a normal reaction, and it might indicate an abnormality, such as an allergy, or early hypertension. Have you seen a doctor?

Oh and thanks for giving us permission to off ourselves

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Then I suggest you lobby for sensible ordinances that will be enforced. Such as patio's for smoking areas, located away from entrances. Comfy patios.

You aren't going to catch many flies with viniger.

First of all i was defending the rights of smokers. And I am talking about sensible legislation. Not outlawing smoking - not even eliminating smoking. I AM for comfortable patios for smokers. The companies don't necessarily have to do it. But then smokers can freqent the stores that give them nice smoking areas.

However, I doubt you have correctly estimated the market share of people who would frequent smoke-free establishments.

If smokers were really avoiding airlines - there would have been a lot more smokers only airlines started. Instead I only ever heard of one and that one I don't even know if it's in business anymore. Also - where did I even give estimates on how many people would frequent or not frequent a certain establishment? In New Jersey - very few people smoke - at least the area I live in. So of course if you live in a high smoking area - less people would be frequenting a non-smoking restaurant. In Indiana the non-smoking areas are usually empty and here it's the opposite. So it depends on your area.

Legislation is not a tool to be lightly weilded, and it can have far reaching consequences. Non-smoking on airlines is one reason I don't fly any more. I don't presume that they are missing my business, or anyone else who feels the same way. But it does have an impact.

i perfectly realise that - I guess you miss the point of just requiring restaurants to install better ventalation systems so that the smoke IS contained in the smoking section. As I said above - if the majority of smokers felt they couldn't fly unless they smoked - there would be a more smokers only planes. Obviously the market isn't there to warrant it or the laws were made tougher (in which case I'm against it - there should be able to have smokers only planes)

Likewise again you are overstating reality when you say non-smokers must be confined to their homes in order to remain safe from second hand smoke (if the market dictated) It's just not so. Even before regulation became commonplace, there were many areas that were off limits to smoking, due to custom or politeness, or local ordinance.

Can you explain how local ordaninances AREN'T regulations? And i guess smokers wouldn't be filling up the malls with smoke or in the restaurants or planes if smoking was allowed. How many smokers were conserned about the affect of their smoke as they lit up in restaurants or planes on the other customers?

It's also rather an interesting aside that the air in most homes (in the US) is rather a bit more toxic than being outside, which gives us nowhere to hide, thanks to the studies on Radon, MO, mold, dust, fungi, and who knows what else.

I'm aware of the study - but it's not true when you're in a plane cabin for 3 hours surrounded by smoke or in a restaurant and everyone around you is smoking. the rules change now. The only reason why we're not surrounded by smoke is because of the current regulations and ordinances.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart

No, the bottom line is, no one ever thinks it will happen to them. Ever drunk any alcohol? any at all? It's the same way every alcoholic you ever heard of started. Beleive me, the power of rational choice and decision making goes away LONG before you realize what's happening to you.

Yes I have drunk alcohol and yes I have been drunk. The last time i was drunk was a while ago after my mother died. After that I decided I would never get drunk again or i would at least watch it. Alcoholism runs in my family and I recognised that when I came home the next day and felt like drinking again like I had the day before - that that was the spiral downward. The last time I had anything to drink was an after dinner drink back in March or April at a restaurant.

I've heard hundreds, no thousands of parent, spouses, freinds and employers say similar things about "their" addicts, so you'll just have to excuse me if I seem a tad over interested in convincing you. After all it was part of my job for a very long time.

Well the problem is is that when you're dealing with patients - you generally have a bigger picture of what the person is like that you're dealing with. I've seen my friend go back and back, Keep thinking that no matter how many times he falls into the drug scene or the alcohol that he can just casually use. Or the fact that no matter what - he won't distance himself from the friends that bring the drugs over to his house. Or the fact that he comes out of an AA meeting and decides to "take a short cut" that just happens to go past a liqour store. It's very difficult to diagnose someone within a few posts and it's impossible to judge how I feel about or deal with my friend and his substance abuse.

By the way - my friend does finally admit that he knew the consequences. He just didn't think it would happen to him or that the doctor was going to tell him that he has Cirrhosis of the Liver at the age of 25. Nor did he think he would be in a week long coma from an alcohol/drug use combination (which happened when he was 19).

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I AM for comfortable patios for smokers. The companies don't necessarily have to do it. But then smokers can freqent the stores that give them nice smoking areas.

Suits me. Market forces at work. Minimum regulation.

In New Jersey - very few people smoke - at least the area I live in. So of course if you live in a high smoking area - less people would be frequenting a non-smoking restaurant. In Indiana the non-smoking areas are usually empty and here it's the opposite. So it depends on your area.

Which is why I think local ordinances and market forces are a better way to go.

i perfectly realise that - I guess you miss the point of just requiring restaurants to install better ventalation systems so that the smoke IS contained in the smoking section.

No, I get that. But are we prepared to pay the cost that is passed on to the consumer? I happen to think that letting market forces decide, instead of forcing every establishment to spend what could be a sizable chunk to upgrade it's ventilation, is a better way to go. Of course, it might be easier and cheaper in the long run to install ventilation. But that's what studies are for. Unless the ordinance is framed correctly, you might wind up forcing some business out of the area, or requiring some establishments to install ventilation that isn't neccessary.

Of course it's easier for me to go to waffle house. They all allow smoking, and basically have stated that smokers are their market. And the hash browns rock.

As I said above - if the majority of smokers felt they couldn't fly unless they smoked - there would be a more smokers only planes. Obviously the market isn't there to warrant it or the laws were made tougher (in which case I'm against it - there should be able to have smokers only planes)

Well- it's not just the airlines- I don't know about the regulations anymore, but I suspect that there really isn't a choice. But it's also the terminals. Most of the one's I've seen are non smoking also. I can do without for an hour or two. But If I'm going to be sitting in a terminal for an hour, flying for two hours, then waiting an hour to get my baggage, I'm a risk to society. Someone's head might get bitten off. So I don't fly.

Can you explain how local ordaninances AREN'T regulations?

Local ordinances ARE NOT Federal regulations. Local ordinances are one thing, but federal regulation is an entirely different matter. And yes I was under the distinct impression that we were discussing Federal regulation, esp since airlines are being discussed. I have no problem with local ordinance, since it's more responsive to the people, local area, and local values.

And i guess smokers wouldn't be filling up the malls with smoke or in the restaurants or planes if smoking was allowed. How many smokers were conserned about the affect of their smoke as they lit up in restaurants or planes on the other customers?

How many were? Not very many. Since there was little to no imformation available, about second hand smoke, and what there was was supressed by the coorporations. (for which they have already been sued for restitution).

Now however I think you might be a bit surprised. Education has benefits. I for one, prefer to be outside while smoking.

I'm aware of the study - but it's not true when you're in a plane cabin for 3 hours surrounded by smoke or in a restaurant and everyone around you is smoking. the rules change now. The only reason why we're not surrounded by smoke is because of the current regulations and ordinances.

I disagree that it is the only reason. And I'm fairly sure the ordinances could be crafted in a more elegant and effective manner.

[Sween]

i think most people are quite passive to smokers in certian situations. I know most dont mind if you light up in a club or pub or even on the street. But from working in a resrant it has to be non smoking because it really anoyes people then.

90% of the people i work with smoke and i dont mind it seems to keep them happy.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Alcoholism runs in my family and I recognised that when I came home the next day and felt like drinking again like I had the day before - that that was the spiral downward. The last time I had anything to drink was an after dinner drink back in March or April at a restaurant.

Then you are lucky that you have been educated to the dangers, especially since you may have a genetic predisposition. Now imagine if you had no idea what an alcoholic was, or had the all too common concept- that an alcoholic is someone who lives on the street behind the liquor store. It might have turned out differently. (I'm glad for your sake that it didn't, however.)

There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

Well the problem is is that when you're dealing with patients - you generally have a bigger picture of what the person is like that you're dealing with. I've seen my friend go back and back, Keep thinking that no matter how many times he falls into the drug scene or the alcohol that he can just casually use. Or the fact that no matter what - he won't distance himself from the friends that bring the drugs over to his house. Or the fact that he comes out of an AA meeting and decides to "take a short cut" that just happens to go past a liqour store. It's very difficult to diagnose someone within a few posts and it's impossible to judge how I feel about or deal with my friend and his substance abuse.

No, I wouldn't presume to do an intake on your friend, even if I was still in the "business". All I'm doing is giving you what information I have. I'm not really concerned with your friend. It's you I'm giving the information to.

Recidivism is a very real problem for addictive personalities. The stark reality is that the average life expectancy (figuring in overdoses, accidents, health problems, and crime) is about 35 years. And the recovery rate is about 20% on the first treatment bout, 25% (of the remaining population) on the second bout, and 5-10% on any remaining attempts. Simply put, most people who have "the disease" die from it.

I don't particularly think it's because they want to suffer. Though there are those that probably think they deserve it.

By the way - my friend does finally admit that he knew the consequences. He just didn't think it would happen to him or that the doctor was going to tell him that he has Cirrhosis of the Liver at the age of 25. Nor did he think he would be in a week long coma from an alcohol/drug use combination (which happened when he was 19).

Yes, he probably had an idea of the possibilities. The same way you know that when you get into an automobile, you know that one of the possible consequences is death from an accident. But he's right. No one ever thinks it can happen to them.

Unfortunately, by the time they actually realize it is happening/has happened to them... it's to late.

I'm not telling you to coddle your friend, or not to be angry with him. I'm not even telling you that he's not responsible to some degree for treatment failures, and he's certainly responsible for all the insane and crazy things he did while under the influence.

All I'm saying is that you can't assign blame for a disease. Not in the same way you can for other actions. Stupidity doesn't enter into it. Ignorance yes, stupidity no.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart

No, I get that. But are we prepared to pay the cost that is passed on to the consumer? I happen to think that letting market forces decide, instead of forcing every establishment to spend what could be a sizable chunk to upgrade it's ventilation, is a better way to go. Of course, it might be easier and cheaper in the long run to install ventilation. But that's what studies are for. Unless the ordinance is framed correctly, you might wind up forcing some business out of the area, or requiring some establishments to install ventilation that isn't neccessary.

You obviously misunderstand me about requiring ventalation systems. I'm saying the restaurants ONLY have to install them if they ALLOW smoking. If they don't want to spend the money to make sure the smoke doesn't go over to the non-smoking section - then they can't allow smoking. They HAVE a choice whether they spend the money or not. And if they have two differnet rooms - that are completely seperate. Not just seperated by a 3 foot wall thing. Then they don't need to have seperate ventilation either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart

Of course it's easier for me to go to waffle house. They all allow smoking, and basically have stated that smokers are their market. And the hash browns rock.

That's why I was so annoyed when I went to Waffle House in Indiana with some friends and it was like sitting in a chimney. I didn't know they didn't have a no smoking section. I couldn't even breath in there.

Local ordinances ARE NOT Federal regulations. Local ordinances are one thing, but federal regulation is an entirely different matter. And yes I was under the distinct impression that we were discussing Federal regulation, esp since airlines are being discussed. I have no problem with local ordinance, since it's more responsive to the people, local area, and local values.

You never distinguised between local or federal regulations. New Jersey's laws are a lot tougher than other areas of the country. They just passed no smoking at school event - that includes teachers, parents, anyone - whether it's a football game outside or going to an amusement park on a school trip. If your at a school sponsored event - there is no smoking.

How many were? Not very many. Since there was little to no imformation available, about second hand smoke, and what there was was supressed by the coorporations. (for which they have already been sued for restitution).

So - people have to be told that something is bad? People aren't smart even to think anymore? Were people too stupid to realise that the smoke is unhealthy for the non-smokers around them? I don't need someone to tell me that everything is bad for me to realise it is. It used to be a time where there weren't warning labels on lawns mowers saying that if you put your hand by the blades while they're moving - that your hands will get cut off. Now they do - so I guess in all actuallity people have stopped using their common sense and brains. Unless we're told about something - we're too stupid and ignorant to figure it out ourself.

I disagree that it is the only reason. And I'm fairly sure the ordinances could be crafted in a more elegant and effective manner.

So I guess smokers didn't smoke where ever they wanted before any regulations or anything? It was impossible to go on a plane without the cabin full of smoke - or into a restaurant or at the mall or in the office. Where ever you went there was smoking.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Then you are lucky that you have been educated to the dangers, especially since you may have a genetic predisposition. Now imagine if you had no idea what an alcoholic was, or had the all too common concept- that an alcoholic is someone who lives on the street behind the liquor store. It might have turned out differently. (I'm glad for your sake that it didn't, however.)

There is tons of education now in schools and outside. Anyone that thinks that alcoholics are only the street alley bum is living under a rock.

There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

I agree there is a difference. But there is very little excuse today to claim ignorance in drug abuse or alcoholism. No. I'm sorry - me dealing with a lot of people that have had alcoholism and drug abuse problems - ignorance isn't an excuse. They all knew the potential consequences. Maybe in the 60's people didn't but I had always had drug, sex, smoking education in school. Ignorance is when you lack the knowledge - stupidity is when you choose to ignore it.

Yes, he probably had an idea of the possibilities. The same way you know that when you get into an automobile, you know that one of the possible consequences is death from an accident. But he's right. No one ever thinks it can happen to them.

Unfortunately, by the time they actually realize it is happening/has happened to them... it's to late.

When I go to Great Adventure and ride Nitro (230 ft roller coaster that goes 80+ mph) or Medusa I know I'm taking a risk. Do I think that I will die when I get on there? No. Is it possible - yes. Do I need someone to tell me that? NO. Not thinking it'll happen to you is no excuse. I know I can die from a heart attack if I don't eat right - is that going to stop me from having a steak or a Whopper at Burger King? No. I'll take the chance - but if I get heart desease or something - it's my fault. Not the government's not Burger King's - no one else other than my fault. People have to take responsibilty for their actions - and thinking that something won't happen to you is no excuse.

I'm not telling you to coddle your friend, or not to be angry with him. I'm not even telling you that he's not responsible to some degree for treatment failures, and he's certainly responsible for all the insane and crazy things he did while under the influence.

All I'm saying is that you can't assign blame for a disease. Not in the same way you can for other actions. Stupidity doesn't enter into it. Ignorance yes, stupidity no.

He's stupid for getting involved in it in the first place with drugs and smoking. If you can't deal with the potential consequences - then don't do it. If I drive over the speed limit - I have to face the concequences of MY actions. If I get a ticket or a serious accident - it's my fault. It was his CHOICE to light the first cigarette, his CHOICE to sneak alcohol on his 13th b-day and get drunk, his CHOICE to take his first hit of acid or his first snort of coke. Just because he didn't think it would happen to him is no excuse. He made his choices - now he has to figure out how to live with what he has and the choices he made.

There is a lawsuit against Six Flags Magic Mountain out in California because a woman got on a roller coaster with an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. She died on the ride. Now the husband is suing the park. He thinks there should be more warnings to the consequences of riding on a roller coaster. How would having more warnings have helped his wife? Should parks be required to give people a physical before they can ride on a roller coaster? 100's of thousands of people ride on roller coasters every day - very few die from it. But the possiblilty is always there. People must realise that. I'm sorry but anyone that doesn't is stupid in my eyes. Not ignorant, stupid. They choose to ignore the facts that they're strapped into a machine that goes 60-80 mph with NO way to stop until it comes to the end of the ride.

stu·pid Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

ig·no·rant Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's why I was so annoyed when I went to Waffle House in Indiana with some friends and it was like sitting in a chimney. I didn't know they didn't have a no smoking section. I couldn't even breath in there.

Yes, apparantly they aren't concerned about their market share.

You never distinguised between local or federal regulations. New Jersey's laws are a lot tougher than other areas of the country. They just passed no smoking at school event - that includes teachers, parents, anyone - whether it's a football game outside or going to an amusement park on a school trip. If your at a school sponsored event - there is no smoking.

That might work in NJ. But It certainly won't work everywhere. State laws aren't federal laws either. Lets just put this out where we can see it, I'm definately opposed to federal regulations. I'm just glad I don't have to go to any NJ school functions.

So - people have to be told that something is bad? People aren't smart even to think anymore? Were people too stupid to realise that the smoke is unhealthy for the non-smokers around them?

Yes. No. No.

By the way. Your cell phone is irradiadiating me everytime you use it, causing depletion of my serotonin levels and causing me to be depressed and affecting my health. Are people too stupid to realize that or just ignorant?

Of COURSE it's ignorance, and OF COURSE people have to be told something is bad

I don't need someone to tell me that everything is bad for me to realise it is. It used to be a time where there weren't warning labels on lawns mowers saying that if you put your hand by the blades while they're moving - that your hands will get cut off. Now they do - so I guess in all actuallity people have stopped using their common sense and brains. Unless we're told about something - we're too stupid and ignorant to figure it out ourself.

I see you want to argue using the lowest common denominator. Did you know your aerosol cans were destroying my ozone layer? Why in the hell didn't you know that CFC combines with Ozone and exposes us to excessive UV light? What?!?! No one told you??!

Common sense has nothing to do with survival in a complex environment. What do you think modern anxiety is all about???


[/quote]
So I guess smokers didn't smoke where ever they wanted before any regulations or anything? It was impossible to go on a plane without the cabin full of smoke - or into a restaurant or at the mall or in the office. Where ever you went there was smoking. [/QUOTE]

I don't agree. I have no idea how old you are, or where you've lived, but I certainly remember that it was different in the south in the 60's-70's, before regulations of any kind. Men didn't chew in front of the ladies (nor did the ladies dip snuff in front of the gents). If you asked someone not to smoke near you, they complied. If they didn't they were generally unwelcome in the establishment again, because rudeness wasn't tolerated. At least in public. I'm certainly not here to go over the schizms of my culture, they are well known.

Of course, people were polite then also, and waved to their neighbors, and sat on the porch. Now all these damned people have moved into the south from the north and west coast, and it's completely different. People are getting so rude I'm starting to wish my family had moved to Brazil after the un-civil war.

Perhaps you are right after all. I came from a culture where individuality, self reliance, genteelness and responsibility were considered the foundations of a persons character. I don't see that as having much application to the mass of Americans nowadays however. Whereever I look I see a mass of spoiled and entitled children. Perhaps they do need the government to take care of them, and force them to be polite and responsible

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is tons of education now in schools and outside. Anyone that thinks that alcoholics are only the street alley bum is living under a rock.

I wonder. How recent is that? When I was in school, there wasn't even a concept that addiction even was a disease.

From the statistics, and the amount of money the goverment allots for drug awareness education, there may be a lot of people out there living under rocks. I guess they don't deserve anything however.

I agree there is a difference. But there is very little excuse today to claim ignorance in drug abuse or alcoholism. No. I'm sorry - me dealing with a lot of people that have had alcoholism and drug abuse problems - ignorance isn't an excuse. They all knew the potential consequences. Maybe in the 60's people didn't but I had always had drug, sex, smoking education in school. Ignorance is when you lack the knowledge - stupidity is when you choose to ignore it.

Apparantly New Jersey has some very powerful drug awareness programs. Even so, you can tell someone that alcoholism is a possibility, even for people with no family background, but they aren't going to believe it strongly unless they have some personal experience.

By the way. Why the hell does someone need an excuse? Why do you need an excuse to develop a disease? Excuses have absolutley nothing to do with it. It's a disease. You can't blame someone for getting a disease.

You may have had effective education. I'm happy for you. However that doesn't mean that you are in the majority. Not at all.

People have to take responsibilty for their actions - and thinking that something won't happen to you is no excuse.

I think you're confusing the concepts of blame and responsibility here. Responsibility means that it's your problem. You must respond to it, or accept the consequences. Blame is a criminal or moral concept. You say responsibility, yet you talk like it's a moral problem or a defect in their humanity.

He's stupid for getting involved in it in the first place with drugs and smoking. If you can't deal with the potential consequences - then don't do it.

You drank once. Sometimes, once is all it takes. It depends on the degree of sensitivity.

If I drive over the speed limit - I have to face the concequences of MY actions. If I get a ticket or a serious accident - it's my fault. It was his CHOICE to light the first cigarette, his CHOICE to sneak alcohol on his 13th b-day and get drunk, his CHOICE to take his first hit of acid or his first snort of coke. Just because he didn't think it would happen to him is no excuse. He made his choices - now he has to figure out how to live with what he has and the choices he made.

Yes. It was his choice. Just like it was the same choice thousands and millions of other people made. And guess what? They didn't suffer those consequences. Certainly he has to take responsibility. But all that means is he has to deal with the consequences. One of those consequences is obviously the anger of the people around him, including his friend who now seems to regard him as less of a person and a stupid ****up.

I don't particularly care to continue this discussion anymore either, it's begining to remind me of why I quit counseling addicts and alcoholics. I really dreaded family night.

[jerseydevil]

You're completely ignoring half of what I'm saying. Having the disease is not a person's fault. Deciding to first do drugs IS a person's choice. They ARE TWO DIFFERENT things. It's the chance you take. People have to accept that. A person is stupid if they think that becoming an alcoholic, or a drug addict can't happen to them. Having alcoholism - I realise is not a choice. You can be an alcoholic and never drink - the disease is still there. You don't seem to want to seperate the difference between first smoking, drug taking or drinking versus actually having the disease of addiction after the person has gotten caught up in the whole thing. Sorry - people make a CHOICE to have their first cigarette, their first drink, their first snort. By the way - i also seperate drugs out. Most people are going to become addicts to heroin. It's just the nature of the drug. So for people to think that - "oh that won't happen to me, I'll be able to control the heroin use" is pure stupidity and wishful thinking.

I can't believe you can compare CFCs, which had no odor, with smoking. When a person starts smoking there is CLEAR indication that a person's body does NOT want to accept it - that is what coughing does. The problem is - most smokers just force their body to get used to. It isn't until the smoker has done so much damage to their airways and lungs that they start to cough again. It's the bodies involuntary response to reject something that it knows is dangerous. Someone can look at a polluted lake and see that all the fish are dead and they should be able to figure out that maybe it would not be a good idea to swim there. I don't think they need to be told. All people have to do once and a while is use common sense.

And by the way - I've been to the south many times and I lived in the midwest - the so-called polite places. Most people there ARE nice to people's faces and the moment the person is out of earshot - they're talking about them. At least in the northeast - if someone doesn't like you - they have no problems in letting you know.

you can tell someone that alcoholism is a possibility, even for people with no family background, but they aren't going to believe it strongly unless they have some personal experience.

So then what you're saying now - is that education doesn't do anything. If a person has to experience it personnally - then you can tell them until you're blue in the face and it does no good. I mean my friend saw at least 3 close friends (I was somewhat friends with one of them) that I know of die from heroin overdoses. That was BEFORE he did heroin. He didn't have to do it - he CHOSE to do it. Then he bacame addicted. If he never touched it - never asked a friend to shoot him up - he would never have suffered from heroin addiction. Yeah - he was addicted to other things already - and he wanted the more intense high - but that does not exonerate him from the fact that he first CHOSE to do it. After he did heroin the first time - yes - then it had a hold of him. Then it was out of his hand and the heroin ruled his life.

One of those consequences is obviously the anger of the people around him, including his friend who now seems to regard him as less of a person and a stupid ****up.

This might come as a surprise to you - but you are entirely wrong. As I said before you can NOT gleam anything about how I feel about my friend and his drug use from a few posts. I do NOT think he is a stupid f**k up or less of a person. There are others in his life that do, however. But don't judge what I think about my friend - because obviously you have no idea.

I don't particularly care to continue this discussion anymore either, it's begining to remind me of why I quit counseling addicts and alcoholics. I really dreaded family night.

You're problem seems to be that you think that family and friends of addicts don't understand what the addict is going through. That is NOT always the case. I AM perfectly aware of what he is going through. But you only listen to half the stuff I say. Also - I'm not giving a life history on my friend or even saying everything about how I feel about his drug use. So you have only 1% of the picture that you're basing how I feel about drug addicts or what I think about my friend.

[Ben]

Legislation looks like a fast way to get results, unfortunately it has proven notoriously ineffective, and even harmful, in the past.

It does get quick results. People didn't want smoking in restaurants. A law was passed in New York barring smoking in most restaurants. Now those restaurants no longer have smoking, accomplishing the objective. How is that ineffective?

How often do you sit next to smokers? (and why )

It is not by choice. Often, there is no physical barrier at all between smoking and non-smoking areas, so the next table over could have smokers. Or, in areas where there is no segregation, I could easily be next to a smoker.

If you're on the road however, you can't really spot someone who is impaired, unless they are obviously weaving.

Well, good thing we can easily spot smokers, since that will make it easier to avoid them/stop them.

Easy answer: Resturants and bars like the money that smoking patrons spend. Especially bars. If you beleive in market forces, then why not let the market decide. Refuse to patronize businesses that allow smoking. Many smokers don't go into businesses that don't allow smoking. I don't see a need for legislation when the market can sort it out, perhaps even developing niche businesse opportunities.

Enron. WorldCom. ImClone. I'm afraid the market is not particularly moral, and letting it continue unregulated is not a good thing, since business types would be free to look after only profits. If the market were allowed to decide everything without any outside push, we'd still have slavery, unregulated pesticides, contaminated water, cars without adequate safety precautions...

Also, my family won't eat in any restaurant that doesn't have a non-smoking section. It's not just smokers who choose establishments based on the smoking policies.

If enough businesses ban smoking, then perhaps people will reconsider trying a cigarette, or make a determined effort to quit if they've already started.

What makes you think it's all about business? Or have you missed the effects of prohibition on society over the past century? The turf wars, the shame, the lack of funding for proper treatement, the ignorance and the fear.

Cigarette companies knew for years that their product was harmful, long before it became common public knowledge. We know this product contains carcinogens. Not only does it poison the willing user, but it also poisons everyone around the user, who have no say in the matter. This is a serious public health threat, and if huge profits weren't a determining factor, the cigarette companies would've shut down a long time ago in shame.

Tell me, what happens when a toy manufacturer discovers that a certain toy has a broken part that is a choking hazard to children? It's recalled, of course, even at great expense to the company. What happens when a car manufacturer learns that a defect caused the car to be dangerous? It's recalled, in the name of public safety and health, even if the company must lose money.

Well guess what, tobacco kills, and I haven't heard of any recall.

Big Tobacco has huge power, and that's why nothing has been done.

I personally would like to see the eventual phasing out of cigarettes, but I realize a Prohibition-style thing would not work. My immediate concern is keeping the cigarettes as far away from ME as possible. BoP had a valid point about not "doing your business" in front of everyone in a restaurant. There are just things that are rude in public company, and smoking is one of them.

Here's the thing. You are entitled to your choice. You have chosen to expose your body to these dangerous chemicals, despite all the known consequences. But I choose not to be exposed to the carcinogens from cigarettes. Many other people would make this choice. Both wishes cannot be simultaneously fulfilled, so which is of greater validity: the "right" of someone to poison himself and harm others in the process, or the right to remain unpoisoned? That's a no-brainer for me.

Oh? Well since I spent nine years of my life as a therapist treating victims and sufferers of substance abuse, I'm not particularly OK with suicide, except as a last resort (in which case it's euthenasia actually). Homicide either, however one usually goes with the other.

My point was that it's not really my problem or my business what people do to themselves in the privacy of our own homes. It becomes my problem and my business, however, when that something is brought out into the public. I would prefer that no one smoke, and so avoid the horrible dangers and negative consequences of smoking, but that's not my decision to make at this point. I can't control anyone else, and if some person decides to treat himself to a slow death and breathing problems, there isn't anything I can do, and I'm not adversely affected so I'm not heartbroken. When he lights up next to me, however, he is also exposing me to these dangers which I do not want to experience. That is not ok.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by bmilder
It does get quick results. People didn't want smoking in restaurants. A law was passed in New York barring smoking in most restaurants. Now those restaurants no longer have smoking, accomplishing the objective. How is that ineffective?

I wasn't referring to just nicotine. However one of the side effects of banning smoking inside an establishment, is to move the smokers outside, where you can walk through the smoke.

Move them from the front to another area and there are other consequences. It's ineffective when the legislation is crafted without considering all the ramifications.

It is not by choice. Often, there is no physical barrier at all between smoking and non-smoking areas, so the next table over could have smokers. Or, in areas where there is no segregation, I could easily be next to a smoker.

So you are exposed to smoke when you are forced to share the same area.

I don't know if it helps, but I'm allergic to the base used in perfumes and colognes. I start choking when I get near people using these substances. I usually get up and move. That may not be an option you are satisfied with however.

Well, good thing we can easily spot smokers, since that will make it easier to avoid them/stop them.

Avoid, yes. Stop? It's nearly impossible to stop people from engaging in a behavior. You can however modify people's behavior. It is in much easier.

Enron. WorldCom. ImClone. I'm afraid the market is not particularly moral, and letting it continue unregulated is not a good thing, since business types would be free to look after only profits. If the market were allowed to decide everything without any outside push, we'd still have slavery, unregulated pesticides, contaminated water, cars without adequate safety precautions...

I'm not talking about unregulated capitolism. I'm talking about using a tool other than legislation to modify people's behavior. Unregulated capitolism is not the same as market forces, market forces adapt to whatever business model they exist in, even if they are in a socialist arena (cf. Black market).

Also, my family won't eat in any restaurant that doesn't have a non-smoking section. It's not just smokers who choose establishments based on the smoking policies.

Which is as it should be. Isn't it nice to have a choice?

If enough businesses ban smoking, then perhaps people will reconsider trying a cigarette, or make a determined effort to quit if they've already started.

Gee, I guess maybe you don't agree with the choice thing after all. Mayhap banning bars would be a good next step on the road to a drug free society. Then people who want to drink can lock themselves in their homes to imbibe.

Cigarette companies knew for years that their product was harmful, long before it became common public knowledge. We know this product contains carcinogens. Not only does it poison the willing user, but it also poisons everyone around the user, who have no say in the matter. This is a serious public health threat, and if huge profits weren't a determining factor, the cigarette companies would've shut down a long time ago in shame.

Oh... like the coal companies, and leaded gasoline, and who knows what else. Tobacco companies aren't any different than other coorporations. That's my point. It's just a favorable time to single them out. Why the furor over tobacco, while everything else is being basically ignored?

Tell me, what happens when a toy manufacturer discovers that a certain toy has a broken part that is a choking hazard to children? It's recalled, of course, even at great expense to the company. What happens when a car manufacturer learns that a defect caused the car to be dangerous? It's recalled, in the name of public safety and health, even if the company must lose money.

Uhm.. yeah- that whole Ford/Firestone thing.. yeah- they fessed up to that immediately...

Maybe they should ban SUV's? They certainly don't do the environment any good. Banning a product on the basis of health risk alone opens a nasty Pandora's box of issues.

No more Big Mac's for you. Or ho ho's. Or Beer. Or cheap electrcity, gas guzzling vehicles etc. Some of these might be "banned" effectively. But let's get realistic. Which ones can be effectively eliminated without resorting to draconian measures that will destroy concepts such as civil liberty? (War on Drugs? are they shooting pot plants?)

Well guess what, tobacco kills, and I haven't heard of any recall.

Big Tobacco has huge power, and that's why nothing has been done.

Eat your Big mac. And enjoy the inexpensive meal, it was cooked using cheap electricity. And have a beer with it. Go get it in your SUV. Sure Tobacco has power. It has money. Now how in the heck is that any different than any of the other coorporations out there?

I personally would like to see the eventual phasing out of cigarettes, but I realize a Prohibition-style thing would not work. My immediate concern is keeping the cigarettes as far away from ME as possible. BoP had a valid point about not "doing your business" in front of everyone in a restaurant. There are just things that are rude in public company, and smoking is one of them.

Well now here's a statement I can agree to whole heartedly. Yes it is useless to engage in prohibition, it merely makes smugglers rich.

Yes you should keep ciggs as far away from you as possible. That's your right. As long as you don't deprive anyone else of their own civil liberties, I'm willing to help even.

And yes, there are things that are rude in public company, like lighting up a smoke in a crowded room. Of course, conversely it could be considered rude to walk into a known establishment that condones smoking, such as a bar, and demand that everyone cease their activities so that an individual might be comfortable. I'm all for politeness.

Here's the thing. You are entitled to your choice. You have chosen to expose your body to these dangerous chemicals, despite all the known consequences. But I choose not to be exposed to the carcinogens from cigarettes. Many other people would make this choice. Both wishes cannot be simultaneously fulfilled, so which is of greater validity: the "right" of someone to poison himself and harm others in the process, or the right to remain unpoisoned? That's a no-brainer for me.

Actually, the right to not be poisoned only goes so far. There has to be limits, just as their are limits on free speech for example. You have the right to be unexposed to secondhand smoke, but does that include the right to demand that everyone everywhere cease all possibly offensive activities? Or does it mean that you have the right to the same opportunities, while remaining (relatively) unexposed? I would think that the latter interpretation is more correct.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I can't believe you can compare CFCs, which had no odor, with smoking. When a person starts smoking there is CLEAR indication that a person's body does NOT want to accept it - that is what coughing does. The problem is - most smokers just force their body to get used to. It isn't until the smoker has done so much damage to their airways and lungs that they start to cough again. It's the bodies involuntary response to reject something that it knows is dangerous. Someone can look at a polluted lake and see that all the fish are dead and they should be able to figure out that maybe it would not be a good idea to swim there. I don't think they need to be told. All people have to do once and a while is use common sense.

And by the way - I've been to the south many times and I lived in the midwest - the so-called polite places. Most people there ARE nice to people's faces and the moment the person is out of earshot - they're talking about them. At least in the northeast - if someone doesn't like you - they have no problems in letting you know.

I'll address this, since it's related to a topic I'm still interested in, and doesn't increase my anxiety level.

Don't want to compare CFC's eh? - Many things people do are "aquired tastes". Coffee. Alcohol. Red Bull (god it tastes like crap). Monkey brains. Tobacco.

I guess "common sense" would tell you not to do any of those things. But people do them anyway. Why?

The same reason people have always done such things. Imitation of behavior and discovery of a reward. The fact that ciggarette smoke is toxic beyond the effects of tar was not obvious, no matter what you say. Not until research began to hint at it.

Hell, lead makes a wonderful paint base, and a gasoline additive. But it's also a poison. Gee, maybe it should have been "obvious". But it wasn't. Not until someone began to make connections.

"Common sense" is basically useless for determining long term or complex effects. That's what modern anxiety is all about. Sometimes "common sense" is just plain wrong also, but I don't particularly feel like dredging up examples, since someone just called and said the servers aren't synching up.

Oh and how do you know the people in the South and Midwest- those "polite places" are talking about you as soon as you are out of earshot, if you are out of earshot?

And does the fact that someone tells you to your face that they don't like you keep them from talking about you behind your back? I don't see the rationale here.... But I also don't think its relative to the topic either. But then that's never been a major criteria of mine either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart

Oh and how do you know the people in the South and Midwest- those "polite places" are talking about you as soon as you are out of earshot, if you are out of earshot?

And does the fact that someone tells you to your face that they don't like you keep them from talking about you behind your back? I don't see the rationale here.... But I also don't think its relative to the topic either. But then that's never been a major criteria of mine either.

I'm going to answer this now - because I'm getting ready to leave. It wasn't directed at me. I had seen the way many people acted toward others in the midwest and south. I'd be talking to someone - someone else would come up to us. The person would act nice as if they were best friends. The moment the person left I got a history of why the person was an idiot, a$$hole, whatever.

It doesn't matter if the person is talking about you behind your back if you already know how they feel. If they hate you to your face - then you can pretty assume that they don't say nice things about you when you're not around. But then it doens't matter anyway since they're not putting on this show of liking you. I can deal with people not liking me or others - it's the phoniness that gets to me.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
I don't know if it helps, but I'm allergic to the base used in perfumes and colognes. I start choking when I get near people using these substances. I usually get up and move. That may not be an option you are satisfied with however.

So, let me get this straight? If I liberally coat myself in perfume, it'll ward you off?