For our own good

Knock knock.  naziantismoking

Who’s there?

The Anti-Smoking Enforcement Agency — open the door or we’ll open it for you:

At today’s General Committee Meeting for the regional municipality of Peel, public health officials will present councillors with a report urging government to barge into the bedrooms (and kitchens and bathrooms and foyers) of residents of condo and apartment buildings. In the document, Peel’s commissioner of health services and medical officer of health explain that they want the Ontario government to expand the Smoke Free Ontario Act, which currently bans smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces, so that it would also ban smoking in these private (or so we thought) residences.

That’s right. Big Brother just invited himself into your home.

Peel Public Health is arguing that this kind of intervention is necessary to protect apartment and condo dwellers from the “negative health effects and nuisance associated with second-hand smoke,” primarily the result of the fumes from a neighbour’s cigar or cigarette drifting through a shared building’s ventilation system or poorly insulated walls into another tenant’s own space.

If someone in the next apartment is smoking and it’s bothersome, how about knocking on their door and telling them?  They may be more receptive than you think.  Failing that, have the landlord get some air filters or whatever — anything but invite the Nannies in to make sure nobody is smoking (or doing anything ELSE they don’t approve of).  I *get it* that some people don’t care for smoking (neither do I), but this is an outrageous invasion of privacy.

Peel Public Health has done us a favour in one way, though. We tend to assume that all suggestions coming from those said to be looking out for our health must be benign, if not outright beneficial. Now we’ve been reminded that they’re not. They sometimes, for the sake of an amorphous greater good, threaten the crucial details that make our lives our own.

You got that right.

69 Responses to “For our own good”


  1. 1 Shade Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    This is silly, we got the smoking out of public places or set up sepcific areas in clubs and such for them. That’s enough, I don’t see the point in smoking and I think it’s a disgusting habit and anyone my age who smokes is an idiot.

    But come on, if people want to damage their lungs, let them do it in their own homes. It’s their home after all.

    Next thing you know they’ll be breaking down doors making sure people are using condoms and that they have healthy snacks in the larder.

  2. 2 Toe Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    The fine people of Peel region could hire constitutional lawyer Julius Grey to represent them. It worked for the fed pen bike gang members who needed their fix.
    I think the judge even said it’s a democracy after all and rights are rights.

  3. 3 Bleatmop Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    A comment I found in the article:

    Hang on a second. I could find no reference to what Marni is suggesting. All I found in a google search regarding the Peel Health people and smoking in multi-unit buildings is an initiative:

    “Educating landlords and tenants about

    smoke-free policies and issues relevant to

    multi-unit dwellings.”

    That’s it.

    This article would be more meaningful if Ms. Soupcoff had referenced her material. I find her to be more interested in getting people to comment on her stories by being sensationalist than she is interested in actually researching her material and providing good information.

    Bottom line Marni: What document? Where can we review it? Where does it say, “Government, barge into people’s bedrooms.”

    More irresponsible journalism from Marni Soupcoff, along the lines of her ill-informed scribbles about trans fats in restaurants.”

    Indeed, what document? Where is it? Are they actually considering this, or is it just another calculated overreaction over nothing by the national post to further an agenda?

  4. 4 Bob Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 3:46 am

    Here in the USA, most building codes prohibit shared ventilation in residential buildings. It’s only used in schools, factories, and office buildings with exhaust fans to the outside for kitchens, bathrooms, and shop areas.

  5. 5 mouthyorange Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 3:56 am

    “I *get it* that some people don’t care for smoking (neither do I), but this is an outrageous invasion of privacy.”

    “But come on, if people want to damage their lungs, let them do it in their own homes. It’s their home after all.”

    I acknowledge that there’s a serious issue about personal rights here concerning what one does in one’s own home. But I think the other side of it is not about morals but about other people’s right to not be put under a significant health threat by the actions of others. The point that I would make here is that smoking damages the lungs of other people who must breathe the same air even more than it damages the lungs of the ones who are doing the smoking. This is more than just abstract theory to me because I was raised in a house with intense second hand smoke, and my lungs were damaged by the time I was ten. I have had serious respiratory issues all my adult life due to this. My mother’s lungs were also damaged — it was my father who smoked. My mother and I both suffer from repeated episodes of bronchitis (chronic bronchial inflammation) that can last for months and sometimes even years before it settles down again. We have consumed and paid for god knows how many pharma and natural substances to try to cope with it. My mother has been the beneficiary of inestimable amounts of tax dollars as the medical profession has sought and mostly failed to help her. Whereas on my meagre income I have gone into debt time and again because I must pay out of pocket to get natural health care (so much for universal health care!) and I haven’t had a whole lot more success than my mother has. With both of us, when our damaged lung tissue inflammation is triggered (by colds or flus, pollution, or exposure to second hand smoke) we can become debilitated to the point of not being able to walk or talk normally, let alone do anything else. We’ve both been lucky to live in single household dwellings (and my father stopped smoking years ago). What if we had to live in multi-unit dwellings where people share the air which is circulated throughout the entire building, and people who were smoking in the privacy of their own homes (which they should have the right to do) were rendering us significantly ill? The only people who have a choice in this situation are the smokers.

    So this issue is not about what one does in one’s own home so much as it is about what one may do when one lives collectively in a building where everyone breathes the same air. When one is living in a multi-unit building, from the physical perspective one is not living privately but is living as part of a collective, no matter what one’s conceptual construct may be about it.

    *If* (thanks, Bleatmop, for the clarification) authorities get involved with whether people may smoke in their own homes in multi-unit dwellings, it is very problematic because it pits two fundamental rights against each other. Should someone have to leave to get their needs and rights met? Who should it be? And what about when people can’t afford to move or to live somewhere else? What choice do they have then?

    “If someone in the next apartment is smoking and it’s bothersome, how about knocking on their door and telling them? They may be more receptive than you think.”

    People often are wonderful, but not everyone is. And when people are addicted to something they become compromised in their ability to choose. My father continued to smoke in our faces even when my mother and I were choking and crying and begging him to stop. Who would deal with someone like him?

    Given what’s on the table in this discussion I like JJ’s idea best of “having the landlord get some air filters or whatever”. That seems like the direction to go and the thing to legislate, if anything were to be. But I wonder if any technology is available yet that could effectively control second-hand smoke in multi-unit buildings. And there’s whether landlords would install it and maintain it.

    This issue is way more complicated than that of someone’s personal right to freedom in their own home.

  6. 6 Reality Bites Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 6:26 am

    Is anyone interested in the fact that “Peel Region’s general committee rejected the idea of passing a bylaw banning smoking in such buildings because officials said restricting tenants’ rights to do what they wish in their own homes wouldn’t stand up in court. But the committee will ask the province for legislation that would protect residents of multi-unit buildings from second-hand smoke through various measures such as changes to the Ontario Building Code.”

    http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/714783–peel-rejects-proposal-to-ban-smoking-in-tenants-homes

    Honestly, taking a commentary piece from the National Post and treating it as a valid news story is as silly as taking something from Fox news at face value. There may, on occasion, be a grain of truth hidden among all the inflammatory language. But it’s advisable to do a google news search to see if a legitimate news organization has reported on it in order to get an accurate picture.

  7. 7 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:02 am

    RB – That’s great — until the NEXT time they try 😉

    Since this was obviously something that wouldn’t stand up in court, I assumed Soupcoff’s intent with the story was more to sound a warning about the direction we’re headed, than point out where we’re at. A bit sensationalist, yes, but the concern is justifiable in light of stories like this one. It’s crazy that such notions are even entertained.

  8. 8 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:23 am

    orange

    So this issue is not about what one does in one’s own home so much as it is about what one may do when one lives collectively in a building where everyone breathes the same air.

    That’s key, but the solution isn’t to invade the privacy of individuals. The building may be a collective of single units, but it’s not a commune so people should be free to do whatever they want in their own unit. The problem of second hand smoke is better dealt with by building codes, along with other contaminants like mold, moisture etc.

    I don’t believe people have any right to be kept out of harm’s way by anyone, including the government. If that was true, every vehicle on the road would only be allowed to go 5 mph and have huge pillows attached to their bumpers :p and our homes would be kept free of toxic cancer-causing agents like whiskey and sugar. I think it’s up to the individual to assess their living situation and decide if it’s acceptable, and if not, to deal with it, either by choosing some other place or appealing to their landlord for assistance if they can’t afford to move.

    But the premium I place on personal liberty supercedes just about anything else.

  9. 9 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:26 am

    Bob

    Here in the USA, most building codes prohibit shared ventilation in residential buildings.

    That’s an interesting point, and I’m not sure how our building codes deal with that issue. I think it’s a provincial jurisdiction, so it varies across the country, but I’ll have to look into it.

  10. 10 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:43 am

    Bleatmop

    Are they actually considering this, or is it just another calculated overreaction over nothing by the national post to further an agenda?

    As RB points out, the proposal for this bylaw was rejected, on the basis that it was intrusive and would not stand up in court.

    Soupcoff may have been writing for effect or sensationalism, but I don’t think it’s off-base to be concerned that ideas like this are even being considered.

  11. 11 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:45 am

    Toe – The idea’s already been rejected… til the next time.

  12. 12 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:48 am

    Shade

    if people want to damage their lungs, let them do it in their own homes. It’s their home after all.

    I don’t think the concern is what people do to their own lungs, it’s what their second hand smoke does to other peoples’ lungs. I just think there are better ways of dealing with it than legislation — ie. building codes. As Bob points out, in the US the building code prohibits shared ventilation in residential buildings — if we don’t have something like that, we should.

  13. 13 QrazyQat Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 9:39 am

    From the National Post? Are you new to Canada? Come on.

  14. 14 Raphael Alexander Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 9:47 am

    When I lived in Ontario, I was paying $1250 a month to stay in some partitioned house and the people living upstairs had their old mother staying with her. The old woman smoked and we could smell it constantly through the vents. We went and told the kids that they would have to get their mother to stop. They refused. So we went to the landlord and told him that either he get them to stop or we’d have to escalate matters.

    To his credit, the landlord passed on the ultimatum in the form of an eviction threat. The people still refused, and gave notice they were moving out. I couldn’t believe it. You would rather smoke inside so badly that you will move out rather than show some decency for your neighbours?

  15. 15 Raphael Alexander Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 9:49 am

    By the bye, it’s fairly ignorant to treat all writers from a news publication with contempt just because it’s perceived to have a rightwing slant. Christ, we have to put up with the Star and Globe, and even they have some outstanding writers. How about debating opinions, not choice of employers?

  16. 16 Bleatmop Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    JJ – Fair enough, but I’m an anti-smoking advocate. Situations like MouthyOrange’s infuriate me, because children don’t have any recourse to their parents polluting and destroying their lungs. We wouldn’t tolerate a parent causing a gangrenous wound in a child’s arm, why do we tolerate them killing their lungs one cigarette at a time?

    There is no more scientific debate. Cigarettes kill. Second hand smoke kills. Heck, I even know a few surgeons that will refuse to do surgery if you smoke, and more than one family MD that will discharge you as a patient if you don’t quit smoking. To me, the talk about smokers rights is akin to talking about the right to slowly and painfully kill yourself and anyone else that happens to breath the same air you exhale.

    Sorry, that seems to have turned into a little rant. It’s an issue I am passionate about though.

  17. 17 Reality Bites Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    It’s not the right-wing slant, it’s that it’s a worthless, low-quality rag that any decent person would be ashamed to be associated with. Everything the Aspers touch turns to shit.

  18. 18 Cyzane Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Whenever you hear that the debate is over you can be sure it has nothing to do with science. Real science never permanently concludes anything. The debate on the harms of second hand smoke is hardly over, it is just starting as an ever increasing number of people are catching on to the way the ”science” was manipulated to come to the desired conclusions. Just because anti-smoking activists repeat the lie ad nauseam, it does not make it true. Second hand smoke may be a nuisance but it’s hardly a significant health hazard. If one is an asthmatic, second hand smoke may be a trigger but that’s about all second hand smoke would do to anyone’s health. But where would this society be going if we were to protect everyone from themselves and their ailments. Intolerant to smoke to the point that even getting whiffs of it from next door makes you ill? It is your responsibility and yours alone to make sure you move in a building that there is none of it, don’t ask everyone to stop smoking or move just to please you !

  19. 19 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    RA – Yeah, no doubt it’s difficult and sometimes intolerable to live in such close quarters with smokers when you’re a non-smoker. I didn’t realize how bad it was until I quit — then I could smell smoke from 1/2 a mile away (or at least it seemed that way).

    It’s tough when you’re a renter, unless you’ve got the whole house to yourself. But single family rental houses are hard to find, and extremely cost-prohibitive. If you were paying $1250 to live in a duplex, I shudder to think what a whole house would cost to rent.

    The upside is that hardly anyone smokes anymore — I think it’s down to something like 20%. So more landlords are making their rental units non-smoking. There’s also some self-interest in it: I used to own a rental property and I ended up insisting on it being exclusively non-smoking because smoking is so damaging to the house. When smokers moved out I’d have to scrub every surface with lysol and fumigate the place for freaking weeks, and then paint on top of that!!! Argh.

  20. 20 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    Bleatmop

    Fair enough, but I’m an anti-smoking advocate. Situations like MouthyOrange’s infuriate me, because children don’t have any recourse to their parents polluting and destroying their lungs.

    No doubt. It’s a real shame that kids get asthma or other lifelong respiratory issues because their lungs were damaged by their own parents, who probably just didn’t know any better. There was actually a time when people knew it was bad, but they didn’t know how bad it really was, and that’s definitely changed.

    the talk about smokers rights is akin to talking about the right to slowly and painfully kill yourself and anyone else that happens to breath the same air you exhale.

    I hear ya. I’m not too concerned about smokers’ rights, though — my concern is the bigger picture, privacy rights. I think it’s a bad idea to invite the government to enforce something that we should be able to sort out for ourselves. They’re like an unwelcome guest — once they’re in, it’s hard to get them to leave. And then they start looking around and the next thing you know, they’re confiscating your McDonalds coupons and making your shopping list for you. (Okay that’s extreme, but you know what I mean.)

  21. 21 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Cyzane

    But where would this society be going if we were to protect everyone from themselves and their ailments.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’m at with it. I really think we can deal with most of these issues ourselves, without the government having to step in and start legislating this that & the other.

    People with respiratory issues do have a legitimate beef about smoke, but it’s a legal substance, so there’s only so much the government can, or should, do. There’s been plenty of legislation already that’s helped minimize it, so I think the rest is up to the individual to deal with — ie., figure out what to do when the guy upstairs is a smoker and it bothers/irritates/makes you feel sick.

  22. 22 JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    RB

    It’s not the right-wing slant, it’s that it’s a worthless, low-quality rag that any decent person would be ashamed to be associated with.

    True enough. When they publish an article with the byline “blazing cat fur”, you know they’ve gone through the looking glass into batshit territory.

    I promise i will never make this mistake again! 😛

  23. 23 RealityBites Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:53 am

    Back to the subject of smoking – yesterday evening I had to take a 3-block jaunt to the bank (machine) and what a smoke-laden minefield that was! Every bar, restaurant and coffee shop had a small group of smokers outside.

    Another pet peeve is when I’m unlocking my bike (and therefore have no choice but to be and stay where I am) and there’s someone smoking a few feet away.

  24. 24 Bleatmop Monday, October 26, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Cyzane – “Whenever you hear that the debate is over you can be sure it has nothing to do with science. Real science never permanently concludes anything.”

    Whatever you say. I guess the specifics about gravity is still up for debate then? That kind of small minded understanding of science is the kind of thinking that leads to statements like “we can never really know anything”.

    Any actual scientific debate about smoking and second hand smoke is actually over. The proof is as conclusive as it can get. If some new, reliable, peer reviewed evidenced became available tomorrow that opened the debate again, then I would accept it and stop saying that the debate is over, cause it would have been reopened. Until that time, the debate is over because there hasn’t been any reputable debate for a few years now.

  25. 25 Bleatmop Monday, October 26, 2009 at 10:39 am

    JJ – I hear and understand your point about privacy. And to clarify, I’m not condemning parents who smoked around their kids in the 50’s. Just the parents that smoke around their kids since they started putting warning labels on the packages that state that second hand smoke causes cancer and all sorts of other wonderful ailments. I understand the slippery slope argument that your making, but I don’t necessarily accept it (not all slopes are slippery). I view this one more as a flat plain where its very easy to draw a line on and that just because some health professionals and bureaucrats would try and ban McDonalds coupons (which is about food) doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try and ban smoking (which is about a dangerous and addictive drug).

    As an aside, I’m actually for banning coupons at McDonalds and other fast food restaurants in theory. Or at least I’m in favor of a sin tax that would then subsidize healthy foods to lower their prices. Purchasing healthy foods should be more affordable than eating at McDonalds in my worldview. Brown whole grain bread should be cheaper than white bread and milk should be cheaper pop. But I’m getting off topic onto another different rant, so I’ll stop here 😉

  26. 26 flex Monday, October 26, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    “Bleatmop Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 9:30 pm “This article would be more meaningful if Ms. Soupcoff had referenced her material. I find her to be more interested in getting people to comment on her stories by being sensationalist than she is interested in actually researching her material and providing good information.”

    Your comment would be more meaningful if not for the fact that I read much the same in the Mississauga News and at least an other half dozen papers as well. Not to mention hearing it on several radio stations.(and most have no connection to Canwest, who owns the Post)
    Why did the council rejected and call that too intrusive if such bans was not on the agenda?
    Why was legal advice mentioned?
    Another quote from Your post: “Are they actually considering this, or is it just another calculated overreaction over nothing by the national post to further an agenda?”

    Your post appear to me a calculated overreaction over nothing supporting an agenda.

  27. 27 flex Monday, October 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    “Cyzane Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Whenever you hear that the debate is over you can be sure it has nothing to do with science. Real science never permanently concludes anything. The debate on the harms of second hand smoke is hardly over, it is just starting as an ever increasing number of people are catching on to the way the ‘’science” was manipulated to come to the desired conclusions. Just because anti-smoking activists repeat the lie ad nauseam, it does not make it true. Second hand smoke may be a nuisance but it’s hardly a significant health hazard.”

    True.

    As the smoking bans starting to spread to the great outdoors to “protect nonsmokers health” and proposals such as banning smoking in multi dwelling homes the slippery slope concept is becoming ever more appear ant.
    Just recently in Ontario, a truck driver who was alone and driving His own truck was pulled over and given a ticket because of an enacted law to “protect nonsmokers” in the workplace.
    The last thing We need is more and more laws when faiply simple solution are available.

  28. 28 flex Monday, October 26, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    “JJ Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm
    I really think we can deal with most of these issues ourselves, without the government having to step in and start legislating this that & the other.

    People with respiratory issues do have a legitimate beef about smoke, but it’s a legal substance, so there’s only so much the government can, or should, do. There’s been plenty of legislation already that’s helped minimize it, so I think the rest is up to the individual to deal with — ie., figure out what to do when the guy upstairs is a smoker and it bothers/irritates/makes you feel sick.”

    Fully agree.
    Much of the problem being mentioned are not that difficult to deal with however when unreasonable demands is not recognized as being unreasonable, We are in for a bumpy ride.
    Many of the presently enacted laws about smoking are already passed that thresh hold and keep piling on new laws just keep pushing Us closer to ever more intrusion into Our private lives.
    This is in my opinion is no longer a smoking issue.
    People with agendas pushing for more laws to make smokers life as difficult as possible. Otherwise a separated, ventilated smoking rooms options would not been banned and a private club with no employees and no children been present would not receive a ticket and or a fine for breaking the “no smoking” laws.
    Health departments becoming unhealthy for Our freedoms.

  29. 29 Luna Monday, October 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    It seems pretty simple to me. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. Your right to smoke ends at my lungs.

  30. 30 Cyzane Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    @Luna

    It seems to me what is quite simple is that all your rights and preferences end at my doorstep and at the doorstep of the private hospitality venue that you wish to enter.

    @Bleatmop

    Sorry to disappoint you but the jury is still out on any conclusive harms of second hand smoke. As a matter of fact more studies suggest that there is no risk related to second hand smoke than the opposite and this includes reputed studies such as ones conducted by the WHO. Like I said, keep repeating the lie often enough and eventually everyone (save a few) will believe it. It is not because the debate has deliberately been stifled that it makes any of what the modern back door prohibitionists spout scientific or true.

    But something tells me that being an admitted anti-tobacco activist, much like I am an adamant anti-prohibitionist activist, you know that all too well, you just like hammering in the lie.

  31. 31 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    RB

    Another pet peeve is when I’m unlocking my bike (and therefore have no choice but to be and stay where I am) and there’s someone smoking a few feet away.

    Yeah, I think the only time it really bothers me is when I’m running, and I approach a group of people walking and smoking. Since they’re walking and I’m running, it doesn’t last long, I just take a deep breath and hold it til I pass them. But it interferes with my pace, and for a few seconds, it’s like being behind a bus.

    However, I actually find heavy perfume & aftershave more irritating than smoke. But, I would never tell anyone they can’t wear it. It’s up to them if they want to stink. I manage to avoid it if need be.

  32. 32 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    Bleatmop – No doubt smoking is dangerous and addictive — it really has no redeeming qualities when you think about it. But I’m pretty adamant that the decision should be left up to the individual, so on that we will probably have to agree to disagree.

    I also support the complete decriminalization of drugs, especially pot. These fall under the definition of “victimless crime” which is a weird, wrong and stupid category of crime. If there’s no victim, there can’t be a crime. If it’s just someone making the decision to ingest something into his/her own body, that’s their decision to make, not the state’s.

    The problem with smoking, which I can totally sympathize with, is the intrusion into other peoples’ space, but again, that’s something best left to those individuals to deal with. The idea of the government banning tobacco the way they’ve banned drugs doesn’t strike me as a particularly good option. It didn’t stop drugs from being consumed and wouldn’t stop tobacco. Attrition will eventually solve the tobacco issue anyway, as more & more people quit voluntarily, so there’s no need to legislate, IMO.

  33. 33 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    flex

    This is in my opinion is no longer a smoking issue.

    Exactly, that’s my worry. Maybe I am overly paranoid and protective of privacy rights, but it seems to me that this is how major intrusions into our lives always begin. It starts with something that seems reasonable & good — usually to protect people from something bad (like tobacco smoke or terrorism) — and then the next thing you know, there are cameras spying on everyone and some faceless bureaucrat is reading all your mail. All for the greater good!

    It’s just a bad road to start going down, IMO. Most of these problems they tell us we need protection from are solvable without getting the gov’t involved.

  34. 34 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    Luna – That seems reasonable to me. The only variable would be — how to stop the smoke from reaching that threshold of where your nose begins. It’s a problem people can usually solve without any help from the Powers That Be, left to their own devices.

  35. 35 Bruce Monday, October 26, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    I might as well admit I’m one of those spineless pariahs who hasn’t been able to quit smoking. I could joke and say that quitting smoking is easy because I’ve done it a thousand times, but I’ve actually stopped bothering to worry about it.

    I have the main floor of an old Victorian house, there’s a guy I not so affectionately refer to as the Troll in the basement because his biggest life skill is complaining. The owner of the house occupies the two floors above me, and he’s an absolute sweetheart of a man.

    I don’t smoke in my own home because it really does affect the others, we share a forced air heating system and I have the thermostat (heh). But I also can’t stand the smell of it in my own place and if it’s that bad to me, I don’t want to do that to the others, except the Troll, he smokes too, but it’s mostly weed. I’ve also found how much easier it is to keep the place clean, honestly, it’s less than half the work.

    So I spend a lot of time on the back porch, this is how I know all the cats in the area. When you live down the street from the Humane Society you get to know that not all of them made it in, I call them the escapees.

    Condos and apartments are a different matter, it is against the law, except perhaps for very old buildings, for units to have shared ventilation, smoking aside, it’s a health hazard.

    So this whole business of banning smoking in residential complexes is just scare mongering because some people up here have nothing better to do than watch American news and they want our country to be just as batshit crazy as that. Some people really desperately need lives and they don’t know how to get it without making someone else’s miserable. They would do us all a favour if they just took up smoking.

  36. 36 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Bruce

    They would do us all a favour if they just took up smoking.

    😆 😆 😆

    BTW, it’s not spineless at all to be unable to quit — smoking is a stronger addiction than heroin (no source, I read it somewhere years ago, probably when I was quitting and looking for excuses not to 😛 ) You have to change your entire lifestyle — drink tea instead of coffee, sit in a different chair than the one you used to smoke in (really!). It’s no cakewalk, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve quit and started again.

    Oddly, cig smoke doesn’t bother me except some brands that stink more than others (Players light is the stenchiest) — I let people smoke in my house if they want to, I can’t bear sending them out into the rain. I just don’t allow it in my vehicle, a stinky vehicle has no resale value.

  37. 37 Dr. Prole Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 8:49 am

    In a multi-living kind of situation like an apartment, condo, or shared house, I’m less worried about the stench than someone falling asleep on the couch with a lit cig and starting a fire. Btw, I know someone who that happened to – her landlord lived downstairs (in a 4-plex) and passed out drunk with a lit cigarette. The whole place burned down, her cat was killed and she literally lost everything she owned.

    That being said, I am against the government having the right to intrude on my or anyone’s home to make sure we’re not smoking.

  38. 38 Michelle Gervais Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:06 am

    MouthyOrange

    I am absolutely fed up to the gills with people like you who choose to blame smokers for all their physical ills.

    Tell me – Is ALL bronchitus caused by exposure to second-hand smoke? Why do some people get it who have almost never been exposed to secondhand smoke? What evidence do you have that the cause of your bronchitus and your mother’s bronchitis was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke (there is a hint for you in this question)? How does bronchitus look different when it is caused by secondhand smoke than when it is caused by the very same contaminants contained in air pollution? How can you determine the EXACT cause of your bronchitus?

    Why is the rate of respiratory diseases increasing as the percentage of smokers in the population decreases.

    WHY MUST I LIVE AS IF I HAVE YOUR DISEASE!

    Apparantly, secondhand smoke is intelligent and magical! It causes every disease known to man – its eradication would automatically cure every asthmatic, every bronchial and every respiratory issue known to man! All this despite the fact that there are 20,000 other contaminants known to cause the very same respiratory reactions.

    This lighter-than-air gas can somehow travel downwards to electrical outlets and follow wiring through concrete walls to attack every neurotic in the world. It is sucked out of cracks around doors into hallways from smokers apartments and then suddenly reverse direction and be sucked into the apartments of neurotics. It can seep through concrete walls and drywall. It can even segregate itself from air flows discharging outside, reverse direction and enter into the apartments of non-smokers.

    And all of this of course only happens with secondhand smoke – no air pollution containing pollen or cockroach poop or ordinary particulate from auto exhaust ever has the ability of secondhand smoke to make the lives of neurotics miserable.

    You never hear complaints about people burning candles, although burning candles create much greater volumes of the very same contaminants that are in secondhand smoke! I wonder why that would be?

    If a law banning smoking in my private home is ever passed, I vow to start simmering African Fish Curry on my stove, 24 hours a day! Then I will defy you to complain about the smell of smoke.

    BTW – to the poster who spoke of the fire hazards of cigarette smoking: 1. The fire was not caused by cigarette smoking – it was caused by a careless drunk. Alcohol was the real source of the problem. This lady could have lit a candle or cooked up some soup and caused the same fire. So lets ban drinking! 2. Cigarettes now have fire-safe paper to cause them to be self-extinguishing. 3. Most fabrics on couches and curtains have fire-retardent chemicals. 4. The biggest cause of household fires is cooking – not smoking – so lets ban home cooking!!!

    Michelle

  39. 39 RealityBites Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    JJ, sounds like a good reason to give up running if you ask me. 😉

    I don’t run, but when walking I’ve crossed the street or stopped in order to let people get a proper distance from me, but pace really isn’t an issue for me. On the bicyle it’s much less of a problem unless you’re at a red light next to a car where someone’s holding their cigarette outside. Under those circumstances I’m usually just grateful they aren’t absentmindedly flicking ashes on me.

    Michelle, by all means enjoy your cigarettes. I can’t imagine anything else that would willingly keep you company.

  40. 40 Dr. Prole Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Michelle, I was a committed smoker for over 20 years before I kicked. I can understand your defensiveness. But let me tell you something, whether you like it or not, many others find your addiction disgusting to be around, and that’s the bottom line. For many of us who don’t smoke anymore, you might as well smear cat shit all over yourself, it smells just as bad to us. We’d rather our apartments not smell like your cat’s shit, thank you. It’s not so much of a problem in newer buildings, but I’ve been in some older apartment buildings where yes, indeed, the stink of the neighbor’s chain smoking seeped not only into our place next door, but the entire hallway. So guess what sunshine, people who don’t smoke can smell your shitty habit even though you can’t anymore.

    Btw, you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension, since I said NOTHING about banning smoking in my story about my friend’s apartment fire. Did you hurt yourself jumping to that conclusion?

  41. 41 Bleatmop Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Cyzane – Apparently the Canadian Cancer Society are liars too??

    http://www.cancer.ca/canada-wide/prevention/quit%20smoking/second-hand%20smoke.aspx?sc_lang=en

    JJ – I’m not sure if I actually advocated for prohibition, but if I did, then I did so in err. I don’t support that line of thinking, as history (and present) shows it’s futile and counter-productive. I’m in favor of people not smoking anymore though. So far, the banning it in public places, increasing the price incrementally through sin taxes and public education seems to be working. I’m in favor of anything that actually guides people to stop smoking.

    However, about your comments on choice. An addictions specialist that I saw in conference last year suggested that with addictive drugs (he was concentrating on substances of abuse, ie morphine, heroine, ect, but nicotine addiction is simular), the only true choice people have when they are addicted is the choice they have before they become addicted. Some new drugs, like champix seem effective in helping people cease smoking, but they are not without risk. I would be more accepting of the free choice argument if I believe the choice to be completely free. I would still consider it a tragic waste though when people die of smoke related illnesses.

  42. 42 mouthyorange Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 8:22 am

    Well, I took a day away from my computer and when I came back to check on this thread, wow, what a lot of stuff had come down. I know this thread is old, but I want to say a few things anyway.

    @Michele’s tirade – Heh. I have never in my life delivered upon a smoker one iota of the nastiness Michelle tried to deliver upon me there. I’ve never judged or moralized at people who smoke. In fact, I’ve roundly defended people’s right to smoke if they want to, and I’ve confronted fellow non-smokers if they tried to condemn smokers for their habit. In this light, I find Michelle’s reaction to what I wrote quite interesting. Not that I want to give it any more time.

    @ my thing – One thing I was trying to do was to indicate that the concern behind people wanting to defend non-smokers’ right not to breathe second hand smoke isn’t about merely disliking the smell of the smoke or even being made to *feel* sick by it. Rather, it’s about people actually being made sick from it or having good reason to believe that they may be. Some of you guys picked up on that distinction; some didn’t. To make my position clearer: The thought that people would push for legislation to control others’ personal choices just because they don’t like what others are doing is outrageous, and I would never support such a thing. This issue is about health rights, not indulgence of preferences.

    @ my thing – In spite of some folks’ reaction to it, I didn’t so much take a position as I went out of my way to show that this issue is more complicated than one of personal freedom versus personal preference — rather, it concerns conflicting rights. I was respectful of both sides of the issue and both sets of rights. I was posing that the subject is too complicated for a simple discussion, that’s all; it needs a more complicated discussion. I did not propose a solution to the problem, except to say I liked JJ’s direction about dealing with buildings rather than people’s behaviour. Why do I like that sort of solution? Because it would support both sets of rights much better.

    Finally, I think the most important point in my argument is that our socially constructed notions of what may constitute a “private” home may clash with the reality of what a specific physical shelter may actually offer. The nature of our physical shelter and the beliefs we have about the kind of personal living space we have within it may not match. As I said, in multi-unit dwellings, no matter how much someone believes they are living in an isolated (i.e. private) home, they are in fact living in a collective shelter and are sharing aspects of their physical living space with others. They do have private psychic space, but they do not have an isolated physical shelter wherein their actions will only affect themselves. It would have been fun for me intellectually if people had picked up on this sociological point more. Oh, well.

  43. 43 Cyzane Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    ”Cyzane – Apparently the Canadian Cancer Society are liars too??”

    The short answer is YES. The long answer you’re far from being ready to hear it and I would need a few hours to explain it to you.

  44. 44 JJ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    RB

    JJ, sounds like a good reason to give up running if you ask me.

    😆 Bad attitude, RB, bad attitude *wags finger* 😉 Sometimes attitude is the only thing steering me away from the couch and driving me towards the door. Like right now for instance, I’m waiting for the rain to abate somewhat so I can put on the old headlamp and go for a run in the dark.

    I can totally identify with the problem of being hit by objects from cars — I ride a bike too, but even running I’ve been hit by cigarette butts, empty coke cans, you name it. Worst of all was the time I got hit by a glowing cigarette butt while riding my motorcycle — it bounced off my jacket and momentarily hit the gas tank 😯 causing me to let out a blood curdling scream and probably scare the shit out of anyone driving nearby. This is how those “chain reaction” accidents happen, I think.

  45. 45 JJ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Michelle – Easy there, easy 😯

    I don’t think mouthyorange is demanding that anyone live like they have respiratory problems… people with resp. problems do have a legitimate beef, IMO, when it comes to smoke being blown in their faces. There’s a certain amount of compromise we all have to make if we want to live with the rest of the world. Otherwise, people will get frustrated, and they will (misguidedly IMO) allow the government to make laws about things that they can’t get other people to compromise on.

  46. 46 Dr. Prole Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Mouthyorange, naturally since I am your alter-ego I totally got all your points, just added my own – er, our other point. 😉

  47. 47 mouthyorange Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 5:43 am

    Right, JJ, and thanks. Interesting point about people wanting gov. to step in where other people won’t compromise. And to add to yours, I think that people who have a lot of history of other people not compromising on stuff that has a serious effect on them lose trust that people WILL be decent, and so want government to step in in anticipation of these kinds of problems (not only when the problems are actively manifesting.)

    And Prole — well, of COURSE as my alter-ego you got it all! And so of course you also know I subsequently had to display that I can remain cool and intellectually aloft in the face of an attempted nasty personal onslaught.

    I love you guys. And I love RB’s demeanor, too.

  48. 48 she29p Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 7:18 am

    I am a close relative of the better half of someone who posted here. Have spoken out on the issue of smoking before but not often.

    Dr. Prole –

    I kicked the habit after my first cigarette which was also my last one and been a committed nonsmoker ever since.
    Let me tell You something sunshine, You obsession with cat shit really stinks.
    Confess, never had the phobia to go around smelling cat shit in order to compare it to the smell I encounter when people smoking around me but be assured solutions to problems smoking causes in condos, apartments and duplexes should be relatively easy to find without the government having to step in and start legislating.
    Having said that, did noticed, Your first post last sentence states much the same.

    Btw, you might want to brush up on your communication skill toward people who smoke because Your shitty habit of making them sound to be pariahs is offensive to many of Us.
    Like it or not sunshine, it is the truth.

    mouthyorange-

    Interested.
    How do You know for sure that Your lung and Your Mothers lung was damaged because Your father smoked?

    Bruce-

    “Some people really desperately need lives and they don’t know how to get it without making someone else’s miserable. They would do us all a favour if they just took up smoking. ”

    When my sister quit smoking, She was driving everybody up the wall. My mother, who just like me is a nonsmoker was happy at first but soon changed Her mind and 8 months later was even happy when my sister started smoking again. It was a dramatic change. The good news was that She returned to be that lovable sister I had before kicking the habit and the even better news is that she smokes less than half of what She use to.
    What I do find to be strange that my uncle kicked a more than 40 years habit on impulse without any problem. Much like my grandfather who use to smoke 2 to 3 packs a day, than just suddenly stopped. Some people appear to have no problem to quit while others do.
    Mind You, after that first and last cigarette I had, could never figure it out why some people so apparently enjoy smoking at all?
    Noticed some are really addicted to it but a few can be casual smokers only, which is also difficult to understand.

  49. 49 RealityBites Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 7:41 am

    The points she29p raises about addiction/non-addiction are ones that I’ve long pondered as well. It’s said that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Can we conclude from that that for some people heroin isn’t addictive at all? I’m not willing to test the theory personally, but for some people (like myself) cigarette smoking is clearly a habit, not an addiction. When I quit I didn’t have a craving, a headache, a side-effect, mood changes, etc. Same when I quit other smoking a few years later (lungs just couldn’t take it). I’m also baffled by people’s dependency on caffeine. It has no discernable effect on me and while I do drink caffeinated beverages, I only do so in the absence of alternatives (if a restaurant has caffeine-free diet Coke or brewed decaf I’ll choose that).

    I’ve also known someone whose drinking was becoming a problem and when it was pointed out to them, just quit drinking cold turkey. This is, incidentally, someone with one of the strongest smoking addictions I’ve ever seen.

  50. 50 Dr. Prole Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 7:59 am

    Oh heavens to Betsy, I guess I’ve been chastised! Do forgive me!

    Guess what Sheep, I don’t give a fuck if you’re offended by my honest, personal assessment of smoking and how fucking gross it is. I do sincerely hope your sister never needs an oxygen tank or a lung transplant/chemo, or heart surgery, or gets bladder cancer, but if/when she does it sounds like you’re willing to accept that risk to avoid the temporary bout of unpleasantness that comes to most of us with quitting. Whatev, not my family, I’m not going to worry about it. It’s a free country after all. Just try not to blow that shit in my face is all I’m asking.

  51. 51 Dr. Prole Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 8:49 am

    I should add something here about reading comprehension. I have never said anything about smokers themselves being horrible people or anything like that. It’s just a shame that a stupid choice to start in the first place has to have life-long ramifications for so many. My husband just quit 5 months ago – and not because of any nagging on my part. A few of my friends smoke (most family has quit, thank goodness). It’s not the person – it’s the product that is so offensive. So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it, apologists and co-dependents.

  52. 52 she29p Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Reality Bites-

    I suppose, anything and everything can be addictive.
    Caffeinated beverages I enjoy but only during the morning hours.
    4 to 6 cups of coffee use to be a norm for me, the stronger the better. Problem with falling asleep,reduced to max 2 to 3 and restricting it to morning hours and problem was solved.
    My Aunt drinks a cup of coffee before going to bed every night and sleeps like a baby. Go figure.
    During the summer forgot to bring coffee to a camping trip which was in a remote location.
    Felt a slight discomfort in the morning which went away after a few minutes. My friend was jumpy, irritated and took the small boat in really choppy water across the lake to get her coffee.
    A tiny, open boat with a 2 and a half hp on really choppy water and She can not even swim. She only drinks 1 to 2 cups a day.

    Problem drinkers going cold turkey do not appear to have the hostility toward people who still drink or people they see drinking as some ex smokers have toward smokers. Some can be really nasty. My sister made my grandfather a target.
    The irony is, my grandfather stopped suddenly appr. a year after my sister started smoking again and I did not even realize He did for many days.

    Shade-

    That annoying, lingering fear of authorities becoming interested in what We now consider private activities scare me the most.

    A building code issue.
    Some will always see it differently.

  53. 53 flex Friday, October 30, 2009 at 8:40 am

    Just checking back on this thread and SURPRISE,two post from the niece of my wife.
    Loved her first post.

  54. 54 flex Friday, October 30, 2009 at 8:47 am

    RealityBites Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 7:41 am
    The points she29p raises about addiction/non-addiction are ones that I’ve long pondered as well. It’s said that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Can we conclude from that that for some people heroin isn’t addictive at all?

    More addictive than heroin?
    Doubt that.
    While never had heroin, know some people who did.

  55. 55 Dr. Prole Friday, October 30, 2009 at 10:02 am

    The problem with cigarettes is that not only is nicotine a strongly addictive drug, but smoking becomes such an ingrained habit that to quit, for most people, is to fight it on two fronts. A pack-a-day smoker has 20 or so triggers each day telling them that it’s time to smoke. It’s very Pavlovian, really. Coffee brewing – time to smoke. Out of shower – time to smoke. Phone rings – time to smoke. Start car – time to smoke. You get my meaning. You have to almost completely rework your life so that those mundane things don’t prompt you to want to smoke anymore. For most, it takes time, patience, commitment, and nerves of steel, as well as a solid support system. For example, my sister called me every single day for a few months when I quit, just to check in and see if I was doing ok (and to hold me accountable). There are some great forums online as well where you can get support 24/7 from others who are quitting. For anyone who is interested in quitting, if you ask nicely for my email address I will be happy to elaborate on the comprehensive approach that I took to quit. I only had to do it twice, and now it’s been over 6 years since I last smoked a cigarette. My RRSP is fatter and happier because of it and so are my lungs, along with every tissue in my body.

    Here’s a little something that nobody mentions very often about quitting smoking – it improves your sex life in several ways!

    I had my doctor years ago tell me nicotine was more addictive than heroin. I’ll tend to believe him over anonymous strangers online (btw same goes for “second hand smoke is not harmful” and “I know better than YOU what caused YOUR respiratory illness”) . And before we get into the “well you don’t see smokers robbing people to get money for their drug”, I do, in fact, know of a family that let their kids go without new clothes for school, were continually late in paying rent, and had their car repossessed, but they ALWAYS had money for 2 adult pack-a-day smokers to have their fix. In Washington state at the time, that would be approximately $8 – $10 per day at least, so they smoked up their car payment, school clothes/supplies money, and then some each month. I’m pretty sure that if cigarettes were illegal, you’d see a lot more crime and child neglect around people funding and supplying their addiction – NOT that I want smoking illegal, far from it in fact. None of the government’s business if I want to engage in self-destructive behaviour as long as it’s not hurting anyone else.

  56. 56 RealityBites Friday, October 30, 2009 at 10:42 am

    The “more addictive than heroin” seems to come from a report issued by former US surgeon general C Everett Koop. I haven’t tried to track down what was meant by it. It may be as simple as people trying to quit heroin having a better success rate than those trying to quit smoking. However, I think the motivation is likely much stronger in those who try to quit heroin and most statistics are probably from people seeking treatment, not attempting it on their own.

    Another thing I saw in my minimal research answered my question – heroin, like cocaine, alcohol and tobacco, IS addicative. But not universally so. I just don’t want to test my own reaction.

    I am also one of those people who can have a cup of coffee straight before bed. I rarely do, since coffee takes time to prepare and drink, but last night I had a can of Diet Dr Pepper on my way to bed and that has about 40 mg of caffeine, about 2/3 the amount in a cup of brewed coffee.

  57. 57 Dr. Prole Friday, October 30, 2009 at 11:04 am

    RB, I can’t have any caffeine after about noon or I’m literally up every hour on the hour that night. Of course, I have an autoimmune disorder that affects my nervous system so that might account for my twitchiness in regards to caffeine. I do so love my morning coffee, which is currently Kicking Horse brand “Kick Ass” beans. I’m so glad I didn’t have to give it up when I quit smoking. And oh some days how I wish I could be one of those very rare non-addicted smokers, the ones who only smoke in social settings or whatever – but I’d still go outside far away from the non-smokers in order to partake, just like I always did. And I’d put my used cigarette butts back in the pack instead of on the ground. I only play a belligerent jerk online, not IRL.

    😉

  58. 58 David H. Paul Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 6:27 am

    It’s amazing to me that in an effort to protect people from themselves (impossible to do), we seem to get lost in hersay and argue about who said what and who did what, and we get hung up on which board or organization is doing what.

    Wouldn’t life be a whole lot better for everyone if we each just took 100% responibility for our own crap? Before you day “duh”, let me tell you that I believe that your issues here are my crap too. It’s mine as long as I have thoughts, emotions, opinions, and judgements about you or it. So, 100% responsibility means that I have to do something about your issues too.

    So, I’m going to choose to continue on my journey as a happy, successful nonsmoker (respnsibility for mine) and leave you all with four phrases: I Love You, I’m Sorry, Pleas Forgive Me, Thank You (my resonsibility for yours).

  59. 59 flex Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:50 am

    What could be and should be is not what it is.
    What originally started out as a reasonable effort to educate smokers about the appear ant health risk associated with smoking and provide reasonable protection to nonsmokers who did not wanted to be exposed to SHS, had turned into a witch hunt against smokers
    with the agenda to force as many smokers to quit as possible.
    Reasonable compromises were pushed aside and demonizing smokers became the agenda. Zealots do not educate, they do whatever it takes to convert. Being in denial is not a one way street.
    Addiction to whatever substance is not the only form of addiction.

  60. 60 Dr. Prole Monday, November 2, 2009 at 7:24 am

    I love it when people say there’s a “Witch Hunt” against smokers, forcing them to quit. Persecution High – it’s not just for Christians anymore!

  61. 61 deBeauxOs Monday, November 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Why are flex and sheep so hostile and so defensive?

    Have their respective brains been damaged by smoking cigarettes that contain, besides tobacco, many toxic additives?

  62. 62 flex Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 12:02 am

    “Dr. Prole Monday, November 2, 2009 at 7:24 am

    I love it when people say there’s a “Witch Hunt” against smokers, forcing them to quit. Persecution High – it’s not just for Christians anymore!”

    Nothing like making fun of people bringing up the extremists policies of “good doers” which have very real negative impact upon
    those who finds them self to be on the receiving end of it.
    Re attach Your patch and relax. Going by Your previous posts, You are hardly the type I was expecting to understand the real meaning of my posts.

    There are others who are aware and becoming more aware that the type of social and behavioral engineering policies used against smokers today can no longer defended on the grounds of ” protecting nonsmoker” from SHS.
    Many also becoming aware of the dangers of ” good doers ” can represent outside of the smoking agenda.

  63. 63 flex Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 12:30 am

    “RealityBites Friday, October 30, 2009 at 10:42 am

    The “more addictive than heroin” seems to come from a report issued by former US surgeon general C Everett Koop. I haven’t tried to track down what was meant by it. It may be as simple as people trying to quit heroin having a better success rate than those trying to quit smoking. However, I think the motivation is likely much stronger in those who try to quit heroin and most statistics are probably from people seeking treatment, not attempting it on their own.”

    The motivation factor is also the one I think the big difference.
    Can not recall a single smoker in my life who said to me that unlimited smoking have no negative health impact upon them.
    None. The poison is in the dose, however is something I heard from many of them, something I am also a firm believer.
    That factor alone will reduce the motivation to many of Us who smoke, because reducing the amount is not too difficult.
    Much like You, I never tried heroin but have some friends who described “a great rush” which would in my opinion would make that reducing the amount factor much more difficult to achieve and maintain.
    No such ” rush ” I ever experienced from smoking tobacco, not even when abstained from it for several days, which I done many times.

  64. 64 Dr. Prole Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 7:46 am

    Flex, I don’t need a patch anymore, thanks. It’s been over 6 years since I was a slave to a tobacco corporation. And I understood your point perfectly, really. I just think the whole “It’s a witch hunt! Extremists are persecuting me and my beloved yet completely unnecessary habit which is highly unpleasant to people who don’t partake in it” from those who need to sweep onto blogs and defend their product is a big eye-roller. As to the “good doers”, if you want to look at insidious behavior modification, my money is on Big Tobacco. They spend million$ to keep you and others purchasing their junk, year after year. It’s what keeps lobbyists rich.

    The science on second hand smoke has indeed been stretched beyond recognition, and nobody likes a zealot, which I’m not. I just don’t get too up-in-arms about smoking regulations, because I think it’s nice to be able to go to a restaurant and not smell it. I like that people can’t stand in front of my open business door and stink up my salon with cigarettes. I do think that pubs and bars should be able to have those rooms where people can go and smoke – that was a shame when they did away with that here. I definitely draw the line at the government dictating whether or not someone can smoke in their own home. And I would hate to see smoking actually banned, because I think we should be free to be as self-destructive in our own homes as we like as long as we aren’t hurting others. Plus, it would give organized crime another way to make money, and I’d have worry about crackheads AND buttheads breaking into my car for my spare change.

    deBeauxOs, I can’t speak for sheep and flex here, but back when I was a committed, hardcore smoker with no plans for quitting, I was hostile and defensive about it, too. For me personally it was because inwardly I was ashamed of myself for being so totally, almost hopelessly addicted to something that was so 1)bad for my health and that of my cat (cats of people who smoke around them have higher rates of lymphoma from licking the residue off their fur) and 2)potentially offensive and disgusting to others. See, that’s the other thing, methinks. Telling a smoker that their habit has a foul smell which I did in a very blunt way to someone upthread, well what can I say, the truth is hard to handle sometimes. First reaction to that tough love is usually not an introspective “Hmmm, you might be right. Could the people I love or like who have been kindly humoring me and tolerating my habit all this time actually be grossed out by it? Do I really smell bad (until I have a mint and wash my hands)?” It’s usually more like, “Fuck you! I have the right to smoke wherever I want, it’s not giving you an instantaneous heart attack so all second hand smoke science is a myth!” It’s understandable.

  65. 65 flex Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    “Dr. Prole Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 7:46 am

    No, You did not understood my point perfectly.
    Do agree however that the science on SHS is stretched.
    More like, it was manipulated to come to the desired conclusions which is a very dangerous precedent regardless of the subject in question.
    You may not see that to be as dangerous as I do but that will not going to cause me to be concerned any less about it.
    Just for the record, I do post on many other boards and on many different subjects such as global warming, national sovereignty,public debt, personal freedom, politics, health and sports and this is not the first, second or even third time visited and read articles on ” the unrepentant old hippie ” blog in the last 12 months although it is the first time posted here.

  66. 66 she29p Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 7:08 am

    Two post and She is gone. No. She is not.
    Explanation?
    18 months ago decided to get rid of my internet connection for the reason of spending way too much time on my computer.
    Worked. 40 hrs+ a month chopped to 12 hrs top. Saving some dough is a bonus. Problem solved.
    Go on the internet only when not at my home.
    Big family dinner at My Aunt place last night, stayed over.
    Woke before anybody else and swimming pool is not open yet, so indulge in net surfing.

    Dr. Prole, Dr. Prole, Dr, Prole –

    Did I hit a nerve?
    A nonsmoker. Not a smoker, not a x smoker, but a nonsmoker giving You an honest personal assessment about Your newest addiction to sniffing cat shit while even thinking about a smoker
    doing what You had so much difficulty giving up.
    I have some more honest personal assessment about You.
    Sunshine- your addiction disgusting to be around,smear catshit all over yourself it smells just as bad to us, people who dont smoke can smell you shitty habit, Sheep, i am not going to worry about it, shit in my face, stupid choice,not because any nagging on my part, slave to a,buttheads, i was ashamed of myself, grossed out by it, tough love,defensive,?
    Sunshine- Sometimes I am having difficulty separating a paid member of the anti smoking advocate full of good intention from an x smoker suffering from low self esteem who just found a new religion and get really ticked off when Her good intentions is found to be offensive by others.
    Sheep.
    Interesting.
    Got to be tough on You when a nonsmoker do not see things the same way as You do. One who willing to raise a voice must be really irritating. Smokers and x smokers can be labeled as addicts but a nonsmoker is difficult to preach to.
    Ironically,was still attempted by You.
    Had a good chuckle over that.
    Guess what sunshine?
    My once again lovable sister is happy, healthy, content and down to a max. of 6 cigarettes a day without any problems.
    She told me that Her target is 5 max and will stick to that.
    Sheep and tough love is words professional anti tobacco activists use most often. Most of them are also against banning the product because funding’s to their organizations would dry up real quickly and many paid activists would find them self to be without a paying job.
    Should not be a concern for You. Is it?

    deBeauxOs-

    Smoking cigarettes?
    Is intellectual retardation kept You from realizing my nonsmoker status?
    Moonshine- You were real quick to jump on that sheep label bandwagon sunshine attached to me.
    Defensive?

    David H Paul-

    I will also choose to continue on my journey as a happy, successful nonsmoker and will take liberty repeating the four phrase used by You:
    I Love You, I’m Sorry, Pleas Forgive Me, Thank You

    My motto is: Live and let live, this life is too short to worry about everything.

    Just used up close to half of my self imposed monthly computer use outside of my workplace.

  67. 67 MaryB Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 7:26 am

    Perhaps the answer would be regulations requiring all complex owners to provide “non-smoking” and “smoking” units. I realize it is not a perfect solution, but at least it would provide some separation, especially in duplexes and the like. In single unit apartment buildings it becomes more complex, but if landlords would take it upon themselves to define the entire complex as one that allows or disallows smoking, it would help. The responsibility needs to remain with the owners of the buildings and with the tenants within. It is not simply a matter of not caring for cigarette smoke, for some of us it is a real health issue. Some of our neighbors are willing and able to help out, some are not.

  68. 68 Dr. Prole Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:19 am

    She29p, hilarious, I WISH I got paid to be a non smoking activist! That’s a good one. I’m not even an activist, I just tend to react when people come around to a blog I am a longtime and regular reader/commentator on and go bonkers because, get this, most of us agree that the government has no place telling us what to do in our private homes?! Shrieking about “you can’t make me live my life like I have your disease I’ll smoke if I want and if you try to make me stop I’ll cook curry every night just to piss you off shrieeeeeeeek!” Yeesh, and I’m the rude and defensive one? I was just pointing out a fact, rudely to match her initial rudeness, that for lots of us who don’t smoke, it stinks and we prefer not to be around it. Curry, on the other hand, smells wonderful and is not likely to send someone into an asthma attack or anaphylactic shock. She seemed not to care that another person might be actually made literally physically ill by being exposed to her smoke, and I’m the horrible one for pointing it out? “What, you had to go to the hospital because of me? Too bad! I have freedoms, and now I’m going to cook something that I hope you think is disgusting in the hopes that it seeps into your home. ” Very compassionate.

    I’m terribly sorry to have started some kind of obsession with cat shit in you, you must have really taken a shine to that comparison since you can’t seem to stop graphically expanding on it.

    flex – yes, you caught me, I’m part of a big conspiracy of anti-smokers to take away your freedom and do social engineering. I’ve been brainwashed and manipulated to quit by Big Anti-Tobacco. Now THAT is a fuckin’ hoot. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tobacco_industry&quot; I’m not actively trying to take away your freedom to do anything. It’s the tobacco industry that’s trying to modify people’s behaviour, not me. I’m not even an activist! I didn’t even nag my husband to quit! But I’m sure glad he doesn’t wake up every morning sounding like he’s going to hoark up a lung anymore.

    You ever know anyone with emphysema from smoking (and being a bartender at the smokiest bar in town)? I have. It ain’t pretty. They say you can breathe in somewhat, but not out. And that sorry bastard kept smoking, O2 tank and all. Phillip Morris was thrilled, I’m sure – they sucked every last penny out of him before he passed.

    Mary B, that is an interesting idea. I know some hotels do that with designated smoking and non-smoking units. I wonder about legislating that, though. I generally don’t like the government interfering with people’s property or lives. I like JJ’s idea best – if your neighbor’s cigarette smoke is seeping into your place and making you sick, the first step should be to have a polite and neighborly conversation with them about it. Maybe they have an ounce of compassion and will then smoke near an open window so as to limit your exposure. Maybe they don’t, and they’ll try to drive you out with aromatic foods on top of it since you had the nerve to bring it up.

    Smoke ’em if you got ’em, folks. Or not. I’m done beating this dead horse.

  69. 69 flex Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 8:21 am

    Was this health agency or board was involved in the recent swine flu(forgot those numbers)vaccine fiasco where several children received either more than one injection or double dose of the vaccine?


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 631,187
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: