<p>I don’t smoke, and I would never date a smoker. </p>
<p>As everyone else has said, it smells awful, I wouldn’t want the secondhand smoke, and if they don’t respect themselves enough to quite smoking, will they really respect me?</p>
<p>You don’t have to drive. You can take the bus, and make smarter transportation choices (hybrid, bike when necessary, car pool). Driving a high-emissions car is no better a choice than taking up smoking if we look at the consequences for the individual and people around this individual. And, while second-hand smoke affects people in the immediate vicinity, issues of air pollution and greenhouse gas emission affect us all.</p>
<p>UofR, probably not. No respect here. Just as people that can’t quit over-eating won’t respect you. Or what about the people that never exercize? The people that procastrinate? The people that have a tad bit too much sugar? No respect for themselves, or their fellow man, I say!</p>
<p>frrrph: Not a bad point regarding cars, except for a couple of things.</p>
<p>1) Car exhaust is a byproduct of the service that cars are delivering - fast, flexible and convenient transportation. Cigarette smoke IS the service.</p>
<p>2) Cigarettes are smoked in places and ways that end up exposing third parties to much higher concentrations of harmful carcinogens etc. than cars almost ever could. I’d be as ****ed off as you if someone started up a car and idled it inside, but people don’t do that much, do they? Many more smokers are apt to smoke indoors or in crowded public places. I think almost no one would have a problem if the smoke from all the cigarettes smoked dissipated as easily and at such low concentrations of car fumes - but it doesn’t. Even more poignantly, the smoke coming from the lit end of a cigarette is perhaps more harmful than that being inhaled by the smoker, making the effect on other people doubly bad.</p>
<p>The point I made at the beginning is the important one. People don’t get ****ed at car owners because they recognize that people aren’t running cars for the sole purpose of polluting. They want convenient quick transportation, and cars provide that. The pollution is an unfortunate byproduct. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are designed for the sole purpose of delivering the harmful product, and so people are much less forgiving of the secondhand effects of cigarettes.</p>
<p>firewalker: I agree, I hate paternalism. But that doesn’t mean every paternalistic person is wrong.</p>
<p>I agree, but 1) isn’t relevant to the point I was making. Also, smoking fulfills a social service similar to alcohol (it is much, much more dangerous though - as I’m sure everyone here already knows, but it can’t be repeated enough).</p>
<p>As for 2), I am not talking about individual and direct consequences but rather the long-term effects of global warming on the environment and thus, humans today and tomorrow.</p>
<p>You are right as far as transportation obviously being more important than a personal experience of nicotine rush. However, the point still stands that driving a high-emission car is a very bad personal choice harming everyone, not just the individual driver (something that a responsible smoker can avoid by smoking in the right places). There is really no excuse not to buy a hybrid with today’s rebates, high fuel efficiency, long durability, etc.</p>
<p>As for the paternalism debate (if it is about what I think it is), in principle I believe smoking should be banned in public places. Without economically feasible smoking cessation programs that could help me and others quit, however, I don’t see any realistic ways of enforcing that law: and let’s not forget that alcohol has been banned from public places as well, which doesn’t stop alcohol consumption itself. </p>
<p>It’s an issue of social mores, and I promise you, those won’t change with this SMOKERS=BAD mentality. Admit it or not, but being a badass and the cultural values associated with the cigarette is what drives kids to start smoking in the first place. And once you’re there – it’s extremely, extremely hard to quit. The physical withdrawal is very real and on par with other drugs more commonly recognized as addictive.</p>
<p>Not everyone has public transportation available to them or can rely on carpools…or can afford to go out and buy the hottest new hybrid…and riding a bike certainly isn’t an option for people that have to travel more than a couple of miles. </p>
<p>Believe me, I love public transportation in cities for the simple fact that parking is horrid and it’s just easier to hop on a bus or train and get to where ever you need to be without worrying about traffic and streets and blah blah…but I grew up in a very rural area and my university is in a fairly rural area as well, so it’s just not an option. And sorry, but I’m just not going to ride a bike 15 miles into the nearest town or 30 miles into the nearest town that actually has stuff to do.</p>
<p>Nobody needs to smoke until they start the habit up, though…and even then, they can quit. As difficult as it might be for some (I wouldn’t know…never been addicted to anything), smoking is not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>True, but that situation would be the exception. And hybrids are far cheaper than gasoline-dependent cars in the long run. You can get a used hybrid now that the new models have come out for less than $18,000, rising gas prices will not hit your wallet, and then there are federal and often even state tax deductions to be made. The idea that hybrids are more expensive than regular cars is pure myth: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg;
<p>Sorry for derailing the topic. I feel very strongly about our dependency on oil, and certainly if people want to bash me for personal choices made a long time ago I do my best to handle responsibly today I can counter with some criticism I find much much more important.</p>
<p>It’s a sensitive issue for smokers simply because nobody wants a flock of people competing with each other to explain precisely why you have no self-control, respect for others, or need to keep smoking. The exact same condemnation can be leveled against people with disorders that keeps them stuck in unhealthy behavior that harms their surroundings or society in general. Once you start smoking, and usually you start very young and sometimes, surrounded by people that treat it as no more of a big deal than eating coffee cake - it becomes a physical addiction. You can’t just “kick it”. You can try, and many of us do - but it’s no easier to quit smoking because someone tells you it makes you a weak and bad person than it is for people with, say, alcoholism. Controversial? No. Nicotine addiction is incredibly powerful. </p>
<p>Driving an environment-hostile car when you have other options is NOT more difficult than ridding oneself of a long-standing nicotine addiction. What’s worse, people are so stuck in criticizing other people’s individual choices that no attention is being directed towards accepted behaviors that have a great, destructive, impact on all of us, that are never criticized on a moral basis. I guess we feel we have a right to lecture smokers, whereas harmful car usage is considered a valid choice we have to let be.</p>
<p>I want to make smoking less common with the help of public policy. Education, quitting programs, bans in many places, I support all of this. I rarely hear anyone supporting strict regulation of gasoline-fueled cars on the basis of their adverse effects on other people, though.</p>
<p>If you can dish it, why can’t I?</p>
<p>I’m all for new technologies to reduce emissions and get us off our dependency on oil, don’t get me wrong…I’m just saying that smoking and driving aren’t really all that comparable in my eyes. Even though I do agree that pollution is a big problem…especially since after spending a month in Dallas when I was a little kid I had to use an inhaler and nose spray for a year because of the awful congestion the smog caused (thankfully my lungs aren’t anywhere close to being that sensitive now). </p>
<p>Anyway, it’s certainly very rude for someone to go up to another person and rip some aspect of them apart. Hopefully everyone can agree that they really have no business doing such a thing…if not…well…I guess that sucks, but there are “justifications” in their minds for doing such a thing. </p>
<p>Obesity has been mentioned here as something just as harmful to your health as smoking, so I’ll go with that. You don’t really see many people going up to parents of obese children scolding them for not being more aware of their child’s health (which I personally find to be on the same level of exposing your children to tons of second hand smoke) because, honestly, there’s no connection to the observer’s health involved so it’s easier to let go. Many people take second hand smoke as a personal attack on their health, though, because they’ve chosen not to smoke but still are exposed to some of the harmful chemicals.</p>
<p>There’s also far less taboo in the media about it. At this point there is a large tendency to shift blame to the fast food industry or some sort of genetic disposition…but when it comes down to it, kids eat what their parents put in front of them. Sure they can get junk elsewhere, but that isn’t enough to cause obesity. There are tons of health problems linked to this, but people continue to shove greasy crap down their (and their children’s) throats. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that people should start yelling at parents of obese children by any means…just saying that as wrong as it may be for people to harass smokers, there are reasons that they feel justify such actions that don’t clearly exist in similarly harmful situations.</p>
<p>::edit::</p>
<p>And for the record, I believe that the obesity problem in the US is a far greater issue than smoking. Kids don’t get the choice of what eating habits they are taught, so it’s a vicious cycle that will most likely be passed down to their children as well. I think it’s disgusting when I see kids less than half my age with larger waists than mine…that just shouldn’t happen.</p>
<p>I understand if you want to ban it in public places; smoking affects non-smokers in public places. But taking it any further than that is the government overreaching.</p>
<p>As for cigarettes’ “addictive” qualities, I’ve never experienced them. I can go for months between smoking; I haven’t touched one since a little after I came back home.</p>
<p>katho, I’m still not talking about the direct air pollution, but about greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>The reasons that smoking is so shunned in our societies is because it’s just not understood.
You can’t expect people who don’t do drugs to understand the people who do…
The same principle applies here, non-smokers are right when they say that smoking is " offensive". But the truth is, some people do it anyway.</p>
<p>If you’re so against it you should write to your congressman, or the tobacco companies. But don’t harass the people who smoke,we are NOT the problem.
Some people like it, and some don’t, I myself hate drinking.
It tastes like moose ****, and the only reason that I would touch the stuff is to get drunk ( which I don’t normally ever do ).</p>
<p>The same person who smokes cigarettes might be against the drug scene, or abortion. Or a pro-choice person may be against smoking.</p>
<p>We need to understand eachother’s differences and accept it, because these things aren’t going to go away.</p>
<p>So when people say " ewww smoking" they can most certainly say it, they’re entitled to their opinions, but you can’t harass people.</p>
<p>“The reasons that smoking is so shunned in our societies is because it’s just not understood.”</p>
<p>ROFLMAO god bless stupidity its always great for laughs.</p>
<p>Anyways if you smoke flavored cigs, cigars, or weed then I wouldn’t care but the smell of regular cig smoke makes my head hurt and it becomes hard for me to breath.</p>
<p>greylizzie: Do you actually believe what you just wrote?</p>
<p>Allow me to shed some light.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s because it’s perfectly understood. People understand perfectly that smokers are severely impacting their own health and the health of those around them for no long-term positive impact, and that in the great majority of cases this behavior is caused by both a physical and psychological addiction to cigarettes and the nicotine they contain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re somewhat right here. In fact, though this may sound weird, I’ve considered getting addicted to nicotine, for the sole reason that I want to see what being addicted to something is like. (no joke) However, I decided that it wasn’t worth the side-effects of inhaling carcinogens every day, and nicotine patches cost a lot. As for your second point… well, what is the point? Saying that people do it despite it being bad is so obvious as to be totally inane.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends. People like frrrph, who admit their addiction, and freely admit that it is not a good thing, I don’t have any problem with at all. It’s not a great thing to be addicted, but when you admit that I don’t see any problems.</p>
<p>What I have a problem with are the following things.</p>
<p>1) Smokers who deny that smoking is harmful, or who make up spurious straw man arguments like “Yeah, well tomorrow you could get hit by a bus” to justify smoking.</p>
<p>2) People who smoke close to other people, or who smoke indoors, or who are inconsiderate about blowing their smoke and so forth.</p>
<p>3) People who glorify smoking as “cool” or “hip” or any crap like that.</p>
<p>Also, please don’t try to misdirect to the tobacco companies. Things that are their fault are:</p>
<p>1) False advertising of the addictiveness of cigarettes.</p>
<p>2) Refusal to work constructively to reduce addictiveness.</p>
<p>3) Too much advertising, especially aimed at kids, and especially in the developing world.</p>
<p>Everything else is the smoker’s responsibility. Yes, quitting is hard. That doesn’t mean that failing to quit is not the smoker’s fault - it is extremely understandable (nicotine is HIGHLY addictive and tough to quit), but quitting is not impossible, and if someone fails to do it it’s not like it was preordained that they should forever be addicted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? That is a really bad analogy. Firstly, if I have a drink and you’re nearby, assuming it doesn’t smell terrible (most alcoholic drinks smell so mildly from further than say 6 inches that you wouldn’t notice), and assuming I don’t get drunk or go crazy or spill the drink on you, you’re not being affected by my drinking. However, if you stand near me and smoke a cigarette, I’m being affected. You might think alcohol tastes like ***, but since if I drink it you’re not being forced to drink some kind of secondhand alcohol, it’s not comparable to cigarettes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True enough, but people aren’t harassing you because you smoke. People are harassing you because you smoke and are a smoking apologist. Notice how people really aren’t giving frrrph any crap - because his post was very logical, clear, and very honest in how he depicted smoking. Yours are very different from that, containing far more half-truths, outright lies, and general crap about smoking. Does it really surprise you that people vehemently disagree?</p>
<p>funny how someone wil ask a question and when they get answers, get all huffy</p>
<p>places to smoke are getting fewer and fewer and that is a good thing</p>
<p>and many many many more people find smoking disgusting than those who find it charming and classy</p>
<p>an believe it or not, I HAVE done lots to stop smoking in parks, at the beach, etc, espcially the garbage smokers leave behind, thinking the world is their personal ashtray, nice finding butts everywhere because smokers are to lazy to deal with their litter</p>
<p>most smokers are litterbugs and don’t care at all about the mess they leave, as evidenced by the butts all over the sidewalks</p>
<p>classy group</p>
<p>most, or some?</p>
<p>I can appreciate your points. But the original post I put on was : “is smoking a turnoff”. I did not put this up to start arguments. But 1of42, considering the post you put up, and how long it was, and how much analyzing you did, I think you need to get a life.</p>
<p>This is an online forum, not a war room…
You may have good arguments, but you’re detracting from the whole purpose of this post.</p>
<p>yes smoking is a turnoff and here are some reasons why:</p>
<p>You can always pick a regular smoker out of a crowd, not just by the stench but by his or her skin quality as well. Smokers have 10 times more wrinkles than nonsmokers. In fact, one study found that smokers with prominent wrinkles are five times more likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases like emphysema and bronchitis than non-smokers.</p>
<p>8) It has long been known that male smokers generally have a lower sperm count, but new studies indicate genetic mutations of the sperm may also be to blame for infertility. Male smokers are also at a higher risk of becoming impotent. Women smokers may also have a harder time getting pregnant.</p>
<p>The more a person smokes, the greater the risk of premature wrinkling. Smokers in their 40s often have as many facial wrinkles as non-smokers in their 60s</p>
<p>and if smokers could actually smell themselves, they would know they smell bad, but as their noses are damaged, they are clueless until they quit and they can smell again</p>
<p>greylizzie89: Sorry for taking a while to respond to your post… I just got back from - wait, could it be!? - a party. Funny how that works. What was it that I needed to get again? A life? Hint: that post took me 10 minutes to write while I was waiting for a cab. On the other hand, you’ve been at this thread for 4 days now. Pot, kettle, black.</p>
<p>cgmom: I’m 100% with you on the littering thing, too. I find it mind-boggling that many smokers seem to automatically think they can just drop their cigarettes wherever they find convenient. It’s littering just like throwing out any other garbage is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Meh…different reasons, same goal. I may not be on some global warming crusade, but if a lot of the things I’m concerned with are fixed, I’m sure it’d benefit your cause as well. I tend to be more detail oriented, anyway.</p>
<p>I guess you showed me guys… You’ve really got me in all directions.
I’m sorry to have troubled you with my posts. But the whole reason I put this up was to ask a question. You know what it was.</p>
<p>Being as intelligent as you are, you should have just answered the post. But I guess it makes you feel bigger about yourselves when you dis me. This is an online forum, no one cares if you “pwned” me on it. If you want an argument come say it to my face.</p>