General Opinions on Smoking: Rights, Risks Etc

Discussion Open Forum
1

[quote=“Traveller”]If DB really is that sensitive to smoke then sorry, but Taiwan is not the place to be based in.

Pointing out that Taipei is a polluted atmosphere, not just from smoking is highly appropriate for those who suffer from breathing related issues. [/quote]

I really hate being sucked into this debate… but…

[quote][url=http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9791778.htm]Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a study that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.

That study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine…[/url][/quote]

2

[quote=“Traveller”][quote=“Kea”]Several smokers have added insults and been aggressive through this thread. Traveller has made many uncalled for comments, here is one example:

To me this smacks of the common saying in TW, “If you don’t like it leave! THis is the way we do it in TW!” Actually, TW is great if you don’t smoke, maybe Traveller needs to change perspectives a little. You can even go hiking in fresh morning air and smoke at the same time! (eh mate-you know I’m talking about you H :laughing: :smiley: )

There are many other examples, but lets move on. Some tolerance from the smokers may be in order.[/quote]

Since when is pointing out obvious facts an uncalled for comment / personal insult. Pointing out that Taipei is a polluted atmosphere, not just from smoking is highly appropriate for those who suffer from breathing related issues. There are times when I really wonder what people understand as they read a post etc.

As for changing my perspectives, none I can assure are in need of change, I do however object to people trying to enforce HH should become non smoking events only, perhaps the change is required on the non smoking side.[/quote]

Well, sorry, but you initially said Taiwan-and I was saying that it’s not polluted by smoke in many areas. Hence the change of perspective by getting out and enjoying Yamingshan, Wulai, Maokung, Yangmei mountains & cafes.

I agree about the air in Taipei, and have previously noted on this Forum that the dust out of Taipei where I live now is not black and thick-wheras it used to be when I lived in the middle of Taipei. Still, I know that polluted city air wouldn’t drive me to smoke. Taipei is a very interesting city in many other aspects-if one looks past the negatives.

3

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Traveller”]If DB really is that sensitive to smoke then sorry, but Taiwan is not the place to be based in.

Pointing out that Taipei is a polluted atmosphere, not just from smoking is highly appropriate for those who suffer from breathing related issues. [/quote]

I really hate being sucked into this debate… but…

[quote][url=http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9791778.htm]Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a study that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.

That study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine…[/url][/quote][/quote]

And your point is what ?

Does that study take place in a bowl city similar to Taipei, if not then the results mean what ?

No one is questioning the negative aspects of smoking, so again what is the message of your post.

4

[quote=“Traveller”][quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Traveller”]If DB really is that sensitive to smoke then sorry, but Taiwan is not the place to be based in.

Pointing out that Taipei is a polluted atmosphere, not just from smoking is highly appropriate for those who suffer from breathing related issues. [/quote]

I really hate being sucked into this debate… but…

[quote][url=http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9791778.htm]Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a study that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.

That study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine…[/url][/quote][/quote]

And your point is what ?

Does that study take place in a bowl city similar to Taipei, if not then the results mean what ?

No one is questioning the negative aspects of smoking, so again what is the message of your post.[/quote]

The point is that even in city environments with high levels of air pollution, the air outside is not nearly as polluted as the air inside, where smoking is permitted.

True, the research was not conducted in Taipei, which does have an especially bad problem with air pollution caused by both the landscape and the industry/automobiles… but, I think we can glean from the study that smoking in enclosed environments makes for a particularly unhealthy environment.

5

I’ve mostly stayed out of this debate because it has the potential to turn ugly and because I have many dear friends who do smoke and because usually smoke does not bother me that much. However, I will make the following several points:

1. While I do accept that smoking is an individual’s choice and right, and that right should not be taken away from him/her, I also have a low level of tolerance for the infringement of the legitimate rights of others.

2. So, there are competing rights at issue. The right of the non-smoker to breathe reasonably clean air vs. the right of the smoker to breathe smoke and smoke-filled air.

There isn’t much to say regarding the right of the non-smoker to breathe reasonably clean air. This is a reasonable right, is it not? I think we can all agree on that, no?

However, we should look at the right of the smoker to breathe smoke and smoke-filled air. Individually, yes, the smoker has the right, IMO, to breathe smoke and smoke-filled air. But, does he have the right to pollute the air that he shares with the non-smoker and thus deprive the non-smoker of his right to breathe reasonably clean air? I think not.

Some smokers assert that the non-smoker’s demand to his right to breathe reasonably clean air infringes the smoker’s right to breathe smoke and smoke-filled air. I think this is a difficult assertion for smokers to maintain.

Take for example, the pub setting. Have both the non-smoker and smoker the right to visit the pub? I think yes. As such, should the respective right of either the non-smoker or the smoker prevail? There is no question that the non-smoker will be placed at risk of at least annoyance and at worst serious health problems (even if only temporary) if the smoker’s right prevails. If, on the other hand, the non-smoker’s right prevails, the smoker will be at risk of suffering the (real) annoyance that accompanies an inability to smoke for a certain period of time. However, the smoker will not suffer any risk to his health by being unable to smoke for a brief period of time. And what are the options available to each party? If the smoker’s right prevails, the non-smoker can either leave the smoke-filled pub, breathe smoke, or hold his breath. If the non-smoker’s right prevails, the smoker can either leave the clean-air pub, breathe clean air, or hold his breath. I don’t think either party should have to leave the pub (its for drinking!) and I don’t think either party should have to hold his breath. Thus, which is more unnatural/unfair… the smoker being forced to breathe clean air or the non-smoker being forced to breathe smoke-filled air?

I think the right of the non-smoker should prevail over the right of the smoker in places where both the non-smoker and smoker have an equally legitimate right to visit.

3. Now, many smokers (and even non-smokers) will contend that banning smoking from pubs and restaurants unfairly harms the business owner. I think this is often true. Nonetheless, I think it is not a valid argument. I know many people disagree with me on this point, but, I look at the issue as analogous somewhat to the situation that is dealt with by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)… sort of… :s Generally, when a business owner opens his place of business to the public, he must adhere to many rules and regulations that exist for the purpose of protecting the safety and health of his patrons (such as food preparation and handling requirements as well as basic structural safety installations such as fire detectors/sprinkler systems and or clearly marked and unobstructed fire escapes/exits). The ADA further requires that (some) businesses which open their doors to the public also take measures to make their places of business friendly to patrons with special physical needs/limitations. There are many people who are at least annoyed by smoke and many others who are seriously adversely affected by smoke. If such people who do not well tolerate smoke have an equal right to visit such businesses, why should smoking patrons be permitted to engage in behavior that adversely affects the non-smoking patrons? That is, why should the smokers’ rights prevail over the non-smokers’ rights?

That is the only issue, IMO, that should be addressed. Bringing in the business owner’s concern re his business is relevant only to the business owner and his ability to earn a profit from his venture… but, it is not relevant to the issue of whose rights, the non-smokers’ or the smokers’, should prevail.

If smoking were banned inside all pubs and restaurants, would smokers cease going to pubs and restaurants? Perhaps some would. I think most would continue to go and would exit the premises to smoke, if necessary.

OK… let the flaming/smoking begin. I’m already ducking! :slight_smile:

6

A smokers right to smoke ends exactly where it interferes with someone else’s right to breath clean air. For the sake of being friendly most non smokers don’t push this point too stridently but smokers are in the wrong right from the get go. This much is obvious.

7

I think even the most ardent of smokers would have trouble trying to disagree with that. In fact i am not aware of any that try to argue the opposite, certainly not on this board.

8

No need to duck TM, you come as standard with a hard hat i thought. :laughing:

Whilst pubs and bars etc do not have a completely separate section for either smoking or non smoking then it really makes little difference. Of course the owner could section an area off, but all that does is stop people sitting or standing in that area whilst smoking, it does not stop the air from becoming smoky in that area. It may reduce the problem, but it does not eliminate the problem, and for people like Dragonbones that is the option he is after.

Most, though i accept not all smokers, are quite aware of the arguments back and forth on this, and are prepared to be considerate to the non smokers, until such time as a non smoker starts trying to lay down the law, then unfortunately both sides tend to entrench themsleves in their positions and not move.

Most smokers last night at the happy hour were prepared to step outside until the time when Alleycat requested us to come in so as not to disturb the neighbours.

Until such time as Taiwan makes bars and club etc by law non smoking, which i think we will all have to accept is a long way off if ever, then this issue will remain, and there is no real answer to it. For one side or the other to prevail then the rights of the losers have been infringed.

9

I don’t believe that any Forumosa smokers were debating this. We are, by and large, mature and intelligent people who are aware of the issues. As someone who has been a smoker, on and off, for nearly 20 years, I think I’m very aware not only of the health issues regarding myself but also those involving passive/secondary smoking. The same goes for the smokers I was with at the HH last night…

[quote=“seeker4”]I think we were trying to persuade you on an issue of health and community.[/quote]Do you think that using the HH as a tool for protest was the right thing to do? As I have already stated, we smokers were more than willing to accomodate your wishes…

So, pray tell, what has all this actually accomplished?

10

A good point. I question whether anyone has a right to smoke. Where would this right come from? Simply from the fact that the behavior has not been made illegal?

A couple things come to mind:

  1. Even if there were competing rights, there would be a logical hierarchy among those rights. A person’s right, no, absolute life-supporting need to breathe, would certainly trump anyone’s right to engage in an optional, recreational activity.

  2. Many things that aren’t right or acceptable or suitable in public aren’t illegal. Some things that were, at one point legal, later became illegal, and vice versa. My point is that legality is not where this issue starts. It starts in common sense and concern for others. I’ll give you an example.

Let’s say that I have a habit. One that others disagreed with and found disgusting. I like to walk around carrying dog shit in my hand. Well, it’s my hand, so what’s the big deal? Everywhere I go, I always have a nice fresh pile in my palm, cupped, facing up for everyone to admire and share in. Well, then I go to a restaurant. The guy sitting right next to me can smell it. He becomes irritated, loses his appetite, and can’t finish his meal. He and his date are forced to leave. Then later, I go to a cafe for some coffee. The lady behind me isn’t paying any attention to me at all. She’s minding her own business and having a nice time with her companions. I turn around and carefully wipe some of the dog shit on her blouse and in her hair. And then I return to what I’m doing at my table as if nothing had happened. The lady starts to smell it, realizes what happened and hits the roof. She is really angry now. Her hair stinks and her clothes stink. And her experience at the cafe has just been ruined. She says to me, in an offended way, “Hey, you shouldn’t do that! It stinks, it bothers me, and it ruins my ability to go out in public!” I say to her, “Hey look lady, I have a right to do what I want. If you don’t want to smell like dog shit, then go to some other cafe!”

So, walking around with dog shit in my hand, smelling up all establishments that I enter, and gently wiping it on people has not been specifically outlawed. However, there is none among us who would not object to this and say it is wrong. By comparison, the effects from smoking in public are exactly the same, with one exception – smoking is worse. In the case of smoking, it actually physically endangers other people in the vicinity and causes them to become ill. Sometimes slightly. Sometimes much worse. Scientifically proven.

No one in their right mind would defend the dog shit guy. Why are people clinging so irrationally to this fabricated “right” to smoke? Why is that behavior being defended as if it were any less objectively offensive or problematic than the dog shit habit?

I truly believe that if sincere consideration of this issue were to take place, there would be no issue.

You know, it is really, really hard for me to have patience with this issue anymore. Smoking is one of the most inane, pervasive, insidiously harmful things that human beings have ever engaged in. I’m so tired of having conversations about it as if the smoking contingent actually has a valid issue to weigh and consider. The level of selfishness and disregard for others displayed by anyone smoking in public, regardless of where they smoke, is truly astounding.

What smokers want is not natural, and it’s harmful to everything in the environment, including themselves.

What clean air people want is already the natural state and it’s good for everyone and everything, including the smokers.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Seeker4

P.S. - I’m sure other parts of my life need some attention now, so I’d better swear off of this for awhile.

11

A good point. I question whether anyone has a right to smoke. Where would this right come from? Simply from the fact that the behavior has not been made illegal? [/quote]

On that basis then, where is the right to have children, the right to drink, to drive, to do many of the the things we enjoy. Even more to the point, where did the right you expect to breath non smoky air come from, where is that right enshrined on paper.

I truly believe that if sincere consideration of this issue were to take place, there would be no issue.

[color=red]You know, it is really, really hard for me to have patience with this issue anymore. Smoking is one of the most inane, pervasive, insidiously harmful things that human beings have ever engaged in. I’m so tired of having conversations about it as if the smoking contingent actually has a valid issue to weigh and consider. The level of selfishness and disregard for others displayed by anyone smoking in public, regardless of where they smoke, is truly astounding. [/color]

What smokers want is not natural, and it’s harmful to everything in the environment, including themselves.

What clean air people want is already the natural state and it’s good for everyone and everything, including the smokers.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Seeker4

P.S. - I’m sure other parts of my life need some attention now, so I’d better swear off of this for awhile.[/quote]

and the bit i have highlighted in red just goes to prove that you have no consideration for the opposing camp, unlike most smokers that do.

However you do not have the right, at least not yet in Taiwan, to demand smoke free pubs etc, and the more people like you push it in the manner above, then the more entrenched becomes the opposing view.

A little give and take on both sides is the answer, but for some that is obviously asking to much.

Seeker4, just dont come asking me for consideration when you are unwilling or incapable of providing the same.

12

Smokers aren’t “deserving” of any consideration at all if their smoking constitutes a heath hazard to other people. They have an unfortunate addiction that is deserving perhaps of a bit of compassion, but consideration? Nah. Personally I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it at the pub for the simple reason that I don’t go to the pub very often and when I do go I want to have a relaxed, friendly time. If I had to live or work with a smoker though it would be an entirely different story. Cigarette smoke stinks up my clothes, burns my eyes, gives me a headache and chokes my lungs. How the hell could any sensible person ask another to tolerate that? Unbelievable.

13

I am not a smoker and have never been able to understand what pleasure anyone can possibly derive from such a disgusting habit, but I do appreciate that we all get our kicks in different ways. I really believe that we shouldn’t judge others by where they find their pleasures, and I also do have some understanding of one important aspect of this debate - the fact that cigarettes are addictive.

I have my addiction, and although I know intellectually that it’s not good for me I still keep at it. I don’t take kindly to people telling me not to indulge, so I really don’t want to be the one lecturing smokers about what they should or shouldn’t do.

But there is something that the smoking lobby seems not to grasp, and that is just how much some people really passionately hate tobacco smoke. If you are repeatedly, continuously explosed to something then often you develop a tolerance for it that makes it hard to understand the impact on people who have chosen a cleaner, healthier lifestyle. So let me be blunt.

Smoking is disgusting, really fucking disgusting. I went home last night revulsed at the way I smelt, with my eyes stinging and my skin itching. The stench is just vile and I really resent having to go home and leap into the shower before I do anything. Of course some smartarse may want to joke about the fact that I didn’t go home alone, so a shower may be a good thing, but actually I would prefer to be able to bury my face in a girl’s hair without wanting to puke and take a shower at my leisure.

But it seems that your own senses are too deadened by the effects of years of abuse to understand the simple pleasure of coming home and making love with a sweet smelling girl. Well that’s your choice, but it’s not mine.

And this is the problem. I can understand your attachment to your habit because it’s not much different from my attachment to mine. But my habit doesn’t directly impact the people around me and not one smoker I have ever spoken to seems to really understand the way that non-smokers feel about the impact smoke has on them. It seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend, so you say things like “go somewhere else” as if that’s the answer.

And where should we go to enjoy our innocent pleasures? Do you think that there would be a single non-smoking venue in the universe if nobody ever turned around and insisted on clean air? There is nowhere else for me to go. I can give up going out, have no place to meet my friends, submit to people telling me to fuck off because they don’t understand a simple and reasonbable wish, OR I can be the one to turn around and say “No, you fuck off and don’t come back until you’re prepared to stop forcing me to share your drug addiction.”

None of the above is intended to be directly critical of the many smokers I know and am friends with. This includes Traveller, who is a decent and usually a considerate guy. But I really do want you all to understand the depth of feeling that you don’t seem to comprehend. Smoking is not defensible, and not a necessary part of a night out. Telling people that they have to put up with it in pubs, or else not go out, is just asking for a fight.

Your non-attendance at any forumosa event would be a bonus for me and many others. You are the most offensive and insensitive person I know. No ‘prick’ or ‘whiner’ is demanding that you smoke outside. YOU are demanding that other people participate in your disgusting and poisonous habit. You are not being told that you can’t hang out with your friends, you are being told that your friends do not want to deal with your smoke any longer. Don’t you have any respect for your friends’ wishes? Apparently not.

14

I unbashedly love to smoke. LOVE IT and unrepentive about it.
My problem with the non smokers, is the excessive need to tell me how ‘wrong’ I am for having my vice. But I am an adult who empowers herself to make choices,even if they are not ones that empower me. I am also willing to be responsible for the impact those choices have on those around me. And I am CERTAIN that others are also, until that finger wagging comes out. But I noticed post after post, this need to remind us how foul we are, how foul the habit is,etc. This is something you do with unruly teens who have thick heads. And if you’ve ever talked to teens you see that the constant nagging never seems to get your point across. :s Point is, stop nagging us about our behaviour. Make your request, and allow us the space to fulfill your request.

15

CANCER.

This is the main point of the smokers debate, surely? Loretta made some very good points, and inadvertantly showed off about his lady, but surely we must get into the passive smoking issue. I have stated my feelings, but i will re-cap them to prevent any bad feelings. If I am at a restaurant to eat then I dont want to be sat anywhere near smokers, that is because all I can taste is ‘marlboro margherita.’ And that clearly wasnt what I ordered. If I am in a pub, where smoking is acceptable to me then puff your nut off.

The point I think smokers should concede on in this argument is that far far more important than the stench, sore eyes, red throat etc is the fact that you are exposing other people to poisonous noxious gasses that are carcenogenic. Isn’t passive smoking more harmful than smoking? I am sure I have heard that before. Your habit is actively killing your nearest and dearest. If you stood at the bar and shot smack into your arm Im sure people would only consider the damage you did to yourself. But as you are enganging in an activity that kills others then shouldn’t you be more considerate. Clean air in the natural state of things after all.

I propose a [color=red]more suitable location [/color]for the next happy hour. Somewhere that has a smoking section and a non-smoking section, and that people who wish to move between the two do so at their own pleasure, abiding by the rules of each section. Q.E.D. non?

16

The last time I went in for a check-up the doctor asked me “How many cigarettes do you smoke a day?” I answered none. It seems that my lungs have a good deal of scar tissue due to JUST living in Taiwan…and probably from riding a bike more than most. I’ve been here 7 years…and I already have a smokers cough. I can’t imagine how bad it would be if I was stupid enough to smoke on top of it.

I had a friend who developed some kind of breathing problem while he was here. After moving back to Canada it took him over a year for his lungs to get back to normal enough for him to get a job…he lost a year of his life in effect.

17

[quote=“Namahottie”]I noticed post after post, this need to remind us how foul we are, how foul the habit is,etc. This is something you do with unruly teens who have thick heads.[/quote]I agree. Smokers are like thick-headed teenagers. I can relate. I smoked for almost 20 years and had absolutely no idea how I smelt, because I was used to living in that cloud of stink and couldn’t possibly percieve what the outside of that bubble smelt like, or even that there was an outside.
Once I was out of the bubble I had to hang my head in shame that I’d thoughtlessly imposed that on everyone around me. Every disapproving glance and remark came back to haunt me. :blush:

You seem like a smart person, so I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.

18

People, for those of you who dont like the smoke, then why go to pubs and bars etc if it disturbs you that much.

You have the choice, if you decide to attend a function where you know that it is not non smoking then dont come here and bitch and whine about it.

Loretta, i dont seem to recall you having to much of a problem sat in Carnegies on weekend lunches when those around were smoking, why the vehemence now.

It is quite obvious that the self professed non smokers in this thread have no intention of being considerate despite that being their request, nay their demand, all i have to say to you guys is “what goes around comes around”.

What is really peeing me off is the incessant habit that all ardent non smokers have, and what namahotte complained of as well, is their need to berate ad infinitum the downsides of my habit. I chose to smoke, if you dont like it, then dont come to places where smoking is allowed, QED

TomHill, i dont think a single smoker here does not acknowledge the effects smoking can have, nor do any try to belittle those effects.

19

[quote=“hsiadogah”][quote=“Namahottie”]I noticed post after post, this need to remind us how foul we are, how foul the habit is,etc. This is something you do with unruly teens who have thick heads.[/quote]I agree. Smokers are like thick-headed teenagers. I can relate. I smoked for almost 20 years and had absolutely no idea how I smelt, because I was used to living in that cloud of stink and couldn’t possibly percieve what the outside of that bubble smelt like, or even that there was an outside.
Once I was out of the bubble I had to hang my head in shame that I’d thoughtlessly imposed that on everyone around me. Every disapproving glance and remark came back to haunt me. :blush:

You seem like a smart person, so I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.[/quote]

So sayeth the gospel according to the righteous ex smoker.

Why is it that normally the most ardent people against any habit are those that have been converted from it in the first place.

20

Now in an act of total beligerance, someone kindly point me to the global governing statute or law that lays down the right to breath fresh air.

If not available, then i suggest you non smokers keep quiet about your rights, as you do not have such a right.