It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Banned in Homes-California Adopts 'Hitler's Policy'

page: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Hate to say this but you are clutching at straws. Woodfires don't stink and secondly there is no nicotine lungsteam involved in the process of burning wood. I like a little campfire and even a fire in a little ski chalet.




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Well dont know what else to tell you, smokers will be here, will continue to smoke, and until the state of this free country changes from being a free country to a dictatorship or socialist state and bans smoking, I and millions of others will continue to light up.

I would suggest moving if it is that much of a problem. I guarantee you those smokers are not going to move.

Cheers!!!!


I hear ya, smokers are not likely to move, this is what usually ends up happneing.

www.tcsg.org...



Case Law from Various Jurisdictions

Employing the legal approaches noted above, residents of multiple-person dwellings and office buildings have in some cases prevailed. The following summarizes some of the legal cases that have been decided in various jurisdictions around the country.

Fox Point Apt. v. Kippes,No. 92-6924,(Lackamas County (OR) Dist. Ct. 1992). The landlord moved a known smoker into the apartment below a nonsmoking tenant who began to suffer nausea,swollen membranes and respiratory problems as the cigarette smoke entered her apartment. The tenant sued the landlord,alleging that the landlord had breached its statutory duty to keep the premises habitable and the covenant of peaceful enjoyment which the common law implied in every rental agreement. The jury unanimously found a breach of habitability,reduced the plaintiff's rent by 50 percent and awarded the tenant medical costs.

Donath v. Dadah,et al.,No. 91-CV179 (Worcester Cty.,MA,Housing Court Dept. 1991). A tenant sued her landlord for nuisance,breach of warranty of habitability,breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment,negligence,battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in her home emanating from the second floor apartment of the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered asthma attacks,labored breathing,wheezing,prolonged coughing bouts,clogged sinuses and frequent vomiting due to the exposure to secondhand smoke in her home. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum of money. She moved out of the apartment shortly after filing the lawsuit.

Dworkin v. Paley, 638 N.E.2d 636,93 Ohio App. 3d 383, (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1994). A nonsmoking tenant,Mr. Dworkin,entered into a one-year lease with the landlord,Ms. Paley,to reside in a two-family dwelling. The lease was later renewed for an additional one-year term. During the second year,Paley,a smoker,moved into the dwelling unit below Dworkin's. Two weeks later,Dworkin informed Paley in writing that her smoking was annoying him and causing physical discomfort. Dworkin noted that the smoke came through the common heating and cooling systems shared by the two units. Within one month,Dworkin vacated the premises. Eight months later,he filed a lawsuit to terminate the lease and recover his security deposit from Paley. The legal action,alleging that Paley had breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the statutory duties imposed on landlords (including doing "whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition") was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal,concluding that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke could constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings,finding that a review of the affidavits presented "the existence of general issues of material fact concerning the amount of smoke or noxious odors being transmitted into appellant's rental unit."

Pentony v. Conrad et al.,NJ Super. Ct. (1994). The plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing their downstairs neighbors from smoking between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. (when the Pentonys would be home from work) in their apartment because the secondhand smoke seeped throughout the Pentonys' apartment. After a two-hour hearing,the judge ordered the apartment complex directors to try to resolve the dispute out of court. The neighbors settled their dispute,but the terms of the settlement remain confidential.


There is more of these cases, but more and more non smokers are turning to legal means of protecting themselves, and thus back to why these laws are getting passed, democracy for all.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by Harassment101
 


Harassment101: I totally hear you.

We used to live in an apartment in New York City and every morning when the guy in the apartment below us would wake up he would have his morning cigarette. We know this because our apartment would be filled with the smell of nicotine. We tried speaking to him about it, and he would deny he smoked indoors - except we saw him smoking one day when he opened the door, then he apologised and said it would never happen again, and he obviously tried not to smoke in his bedroom, but instead he would smoke in the bathroom , fumigating you off the toilet if that was his smoke break.

Other occasions he or any one of the smokers in the building would smoke directly outside our door, or in the elevator. Ever been in an elevator where someone had just smoked? It's pretty much like those smoking rooms at the airport. I start wheezing and coughing and it lasts for minutes.

Before anybody suggests I should worry about my twinkies I am 6' tall and weigh 130 lbs. Before anybody suggests it's all my cars fault - living in New York we never used a car, and a cab a hand full of times a year.



A lot of people don't seem to understand that it's not about a bad smell. This causing mild to very serious respiratory problems, headaches, nausia, and so many other problems.

Your attack lasted a few minutes, I know people who get attacks and they last longer, the problem is they don't have traditional ashma, it's the cigarettes, don't know why yet, but they are the source, and people don't understand this. Even with the stories and the law suits.

I think many smokers really do believe it's just the smell, if that was the case air freshener would fix this. What they don't understand is like the young woman that died suddenly, many people are having bad reations, even with those mild consentrations as they say, and the same thing is not happening with cars, or the outdoors.

I think people don't understand what cigarette smoke does to some people and the reactions it's capable of causing.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
FUN WITH LOGIC

(Bear with me, we'll be on topic before this is over).

Let's postulate a simple logic algorithm. If [A] is the primary cause of [B], then a decrease in [A] must result in a corresponding decrease of [B].

Not sure? Let's plug in real stuff and see how it works.

If [uncontrolled intersections] are the primary cause of [traffic accidents], then a decrease in [uncontrolled intersections] must result in a corresponding decrease of [traffic accidents] . So we put up some stop signs and traffic lights, reducing the number of uncontrolled intersections by 30%, and in the following months see a 25% reduction in traffic accidents. Didn't we just prove to ourselves that the uncontrolled intersections WERE a primary cause of traffic accidents?

Let's try another one.

If [stray dogs] are the primary cause of [dog bites], then a decrease in [stray dogs] must result in a corresponding decrease of [dog bites]. So we hire a dog catcher and decrease the number of stray dogs by 60%, but the number of dog bites only decreases by 10%. Oops. Guess we just effectively proved that stray dogs aren't the primary cause of dog bites. Didn't we?

Ok, now let's try something relevant.

If [smoking] is the primary cause of [cancer], then a decrease in (the number of people) [smoking] must result in a corresponding decrease of [cancer].

Well .. let's see.. from 1944 to 2006, the percentage of Americans smoking dropped from 45% to 21% .. a whopping 24% percent decrease. (Source) So, have we seen a corresponding decrease in cancer? The numbers were harder to find than I expected, but the answer is a resounding NO. Until the early 90's cancer incidence rates were still increasing, and in recent years they're making much ado of the slight (2%) decrease in cancer mortality rates (reflecting not how many new cases of cancer there were, but instead how many people died). A perusal of some of the stats featured HERE will show you that lung cancer rates actually "stabilized" or increased until just recently (2004).

So 54 years ago the decrease in the percentage of people smoking began to drop, but the incidence of cancer didn't start dropping until 4 years ago, and then only by 2% or less. Hmm.

So if [A] - smoking DECREASED (by 24%) over the past 54 years and [B]- cancer did NOT show anything like a corresponding decrease, then haven't we just effectively proven that smoking is NOT the primary cause of cancer? And we did it without any government funding, too. Man, we're good!


[edit on 31-1-2009 by Heike]



Perfectly sound reasoning.

Mathematics control the universe and are accurate in this matter rather obviously.

Unfortunately, this issue is merely another with which individuals choose to practice subjective(as opposed to objective) reasoning.

So, sadly, numbers, logic and rationale simply wont work. Subjective reasoners exhibit an emotional response to issues with which they disagree and science has never been able to sway them.

So many up in arms with such emotional energy over such a truly non-enforcable proposal!

Incredible.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Cant imagine how all the non smokers will deal with having to be next to a wood burning fire for cooking and staying warm when SHTF.


Please when the SHTF we are ATS members, we will all be rounded up first. But should the smell of burning wood in the camp happen, it would not be a problem. Those things do not cause the same trigger affect that cigarettes do. Don't know why.


All that smoke...worse smoke than cig smoke btw....getting into your clothes, your tent, oh yes the wonderful smell of wood burning smoke eminating from thousands of camp fires scattered all over the countryside...smoke being blown in your direction, into your open tent, into your face, into your "clean air" zone...


But it does not cause the same reaction, and that's the difference.




What ya gonna do...petition to ban everyone's camp fire because the smoke bothers you? Heh..who would you petition for a ban during a SHTF situation?!!!!



It doesn't bother me, but if it did, I could just move my tent.


Weak...very very weak body tolorances IMO. Chances are quite good the non smokers wont last very long in a SHTF situation. My bet is less than a week.




Cheers!!!!


Cheers!!!!


We are tough we have had to survive you smokers, it's the smokers who won't last in the camps. They will snitch people out for FEM_ cigarette's.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
So many up in arms with such emotional energy over such a truly non-enforcable proposal!

Incredible.


Don't expect it to be enforceable, but when a non smoker complains at least they will have the law on their side. It will also hopefully allow others to think about how their habit is contributing to the ill health of others.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Harassment101

You have explained this very well, I applaude you, but the fact remains, the information that I am coming across, is showing that smoke my come into multiple dwelling units regardless, please see some of my recent postings.


It's called 'disinformation'.

Physics does not bow to the will of politics. If a wall will not allow free air flow through it, then it will not start allowing free air flow through it because some activist or politician decided it should. I am amazed I even have to explain this! Please go back and re-read your posts, then reread my first one to you. Can you honestly not see the utter total complete impossibility of what you are claiming?

It's akin to claiming that someone who closed their window on the other side of town caused your heating bill to go up.

You have been spoon-fed this dis-information for so long, I am afraid you are beyond hope. I cannot open your eyes for you. Only you can do that. Read the stuff Heike has been posting... it contains physical facts, each one well-researched and accurate. You are simply choosing to ignore multiple facts and logical explanations because you believe someone's cigarette smoke on the opposite side of a wall is being attracted into your apartment by some mysterious force. A Genie, maybe?


Now, granting you the argument that you are experiencing health problems, do you really believe that stopping something not the cause of those problems will cause them to be alleviated? The only possible way to solve your problem is to find the cause and correct it. You mentioned that the heating was recently turned on, and that your problems recently developed. That is a probable causal link. Have you had your air vents checked?

I feel like I am screaming at the wind to change direction here... have you really been so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot see what is in front of your face?

I need two smokes for this one...

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I don't know if it's two cigarettes that you need, but you definitely need something- anybody have prozac/anti-psychotics?
All you are doing is saying everybody else is being manipulated by propaganda. Of course like all smokers there is no need for any of you to disprove the effects of smoking on innocent bystanders. There is no need for research, we are just delusional and weak. Our whining is the problem. This and other smoking threads are totally supported research showing the effects of smoking and yet nobody responds to any of that other than it's the bogeyman try to take away your smoking rights.

Give it up, either come with a valid response or enjoy your smoking quietly.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris

Woodfires don't stink


Gah, between you and Harrassment, my BS meter is gonna break any moment now...

A quick tale: I just finished building a new shop, a cute little building a mere 16' square. Winter hit before I could complete the heating system, so I tried to find another way to heat it temporarily. I have plenty of lumber scraps, quite a few of them mere slivers form detail work, and I have a ton of brush waiting to be burned in the outdoor pit, so I fashioned a makeshift wood burner out of some cinder blocks and an old steel funnel. It works great and produces plenty of heat. The problem is the smoke. I have actually had to stop working before until the smoke could clear away because I could not see what I was working on.

I can smoke (do smoke) all I want out there and it never gives me or anyone around me a pause. But let me use that heater for very long, and I am the only one who can take the smoke; everyone else has to leave. I even had a member of the fire department show up wondering where the smell was coming from.

My God, people, are you reading these posts after you post them?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You could write a book of modern fables. But I am glad to see you refuse address the issues on the table - the ones of effects of smoking on others. But it's pretty much what I expected - when in doubt just waffle on endlessly.

Do you have counter proof to our arguments or just anecdotal evidence?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Check your facts!

For every study that shows a negative effect of second-hand smoke, there are six that show no effect

The most famous of these studies was conducted by the World health organization (Boffetto et al) and another was funded by the American Cancer Society over a period of 40 years!

www.forces.org

I think it is time for smokers to demand that candles be banned, fireplaces be banned - afterall if smoke from cigarette (which has only 0.45 g of dried leaves) can negatively impact the neighbours through a solid wall - then these other sources of ignition should be oh so much worse.

Show me the case where the complaintant provided proof that smoke was leaking into their unit other than "I smell smoke".

As to how they are going to enforce this? I don't know about Belmont California but in Ontario Canada, a little known clause of the Ontario Smoke Free Act allows health inspectors the power to enter into your home to make inspection without a warrant.

As to who is funding the "grass roots" campaign to ban smoking in multi-unti residential apartments - why the government of course.

Anyone who would actually believe the slogans of anti-tobacco (the deadliest smoke is the smoke you can't see or smell) has no understanding of toxicology (the dose makes the poiston!

Anti-tobacco will never be satisfied with any amount of restrictions placed on smokers because it is not in their financial interests to be satisfied. The leaders are collecting six figure saleries for their "volunteer" work. There are 53,000 jobs in anti-tobacco in California alone.

And who most opposes the banning of tobacco altogether - why the very same people who make a living harassing smokers of course.

One of the leaders of the anti-tobacco movement - John Banzaff - is in fact sensing that smokers are charging up to fight back and that tobacco prohibition is coming to an end. Was he satisfied with the damage he had already wrought to all the civil rights of the population? Did he slow down for a moment? Absolutely NOT! He is now setting up the food industry for making people fat so that he can sue them.

Go to the ASH website and read all about it.

Make no mistake - anti-smokers who like to beat up smokers - you are next on the list with perfumes, fat, alcohol. And when all of this begins to intrude on your private life in a manner that you don't like - don't look to the smokers to help you.

We have had more than enough and would be most happy to sit back and Laugh!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris

come with a valid response


Valid response:

Public opinion against cigarettes did not surface to any appreciable extent until the 1980s. Prior to that time, there were no laws against smoking in certain places, and cigarettes were openly used in stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, government offices, buses, airplanes, etc.

In the 30 years after, there have been an increasing number of laws and regulations specifying where one can smoke. There have also been numerous anti-smoking public education campaigns, and numerous laws to prevent selling of tobacco to children and even advertising of tobacco where children might see it. The result, as is often touted by the anti-smoking activists, is that the number of smokers have drastically decreased.

Lung cancer, as pointed out by Heike, has not decreased in response to this decrease in smoking. Cancer in general has increased. Heart disease has not decreased. Instead, it has increased. Pollution (smog) still exists. And today, I am trying to talk sensibly to two individuals who apparently should be living in a protective bubble, as a single molecule of nicotine is deadly to them.


Are you aware of what nicotine really is even? It is a powerful tranquilizer, so powerful it is deadly in minute quantities in the blood stream. Stronger than Valium, stronger than Prozac. It relaxes muscles and calms emotions. Smokers get their 'fix' (yes, it is a 'fix') via inhalation, because the mucous membranes of the throat and lungs absorb a very limited amount of this tranquilizer. Nicotine is not absorbed in sufficient quantities via the digestive tract to produce the desired effect, as happens with Prozac or Valium. If it were, we would be just as happy to eat the cigarettes.

Tobacco is a cultivated plant, not some chemical concoction created in a laboratory environment. It exists in nature as a part of nature. Prozac and Valium cannot make this claim.

The leaves of the tobacco plant are harvested, dried, and cured with a mixture of chemicals to produce cigarettes. These chemicals, used to speed up the drying and curing process to increase profits, are the reason there are noxious chemicals in cigarette smoke. Pure tobacco emits nicotine, 'tar' (akin to soot in wood smoke, although less pronounced), and small amounts of CO2 and CO from the combustion of carbon compounds just like any carbonaceous combustion will do.

There is indeed an allergy to cigarette smoke, or more specifically to the tar emitted with it. This allergy affects approximately 0.1% of the population (that's 1 out of 1000), and is only pronounced in less than 10% of those cases. It can only be diagnosed accurately with an expensive and typically last-resort series of allergic tests, which cannot be analyzed at most laboratories. That's because there are so few people truly allergic that the demand for the testing is too low to support in most laboratory settings.

Nicotine in the bloodstream relaxes striated muscle cells and acts in the brain as a neuro-transmitter for pleasure, although it is nowhere near as efficient as the actual neuro-transmitter it mimics. It tends to reduce sporadic and sudden mental activity shifts, thereby producing a calming effect on the individual. It has been tested in the treatment of epilepsy, although I have not been able to find any information on results of those tests.

Due to its calming effect, nicotine has an indirect effect on the levels of Cortizone in the bloodstream. Cortizone is a fairly recent discovery and has been linked to production during times of stress and has the effect of increasing body mass and decreasing metabolism rates. This explains why a majority of smokers tend to gain weight after quitting.

There are two types of smokers: heavy smokers tend to attempt to maintain a steady level of nicotine in their bloodstream, and typically smoke more than a pack a day. Occasional smokers have spikes in their blood nicotine levels that appear to be used to combat stress on a case-by-case basis or for a burst of pleasure. Of the two types, occasional; smokers have little trouble stopping (with sufficient willpower, of course), while there are sometimes serious (potentially fatal) effects on heavy smokers should they be forced to quit smoking suddenly.

Nicotine is extremely addictive, reported to be more so than heroin. Unlike heroin, alcohol, or other drugs, nicotine does not impair the judgment or motor ability of the user.

I know what I am talking about. Now, do you have anything more to add? Something I perhaps left out? Or are you just spouting opinion based propaganda?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harassment101


Please when the SHTF we are ATS members, we will all be rounded up first. But should the smell of burning wood in the camp happen, it would not be a problem. Those things do not cause the same trigger affect that cigarettes do. Don't know why.


Really. Whatever man...your consistant whining here is really becoming pointless. As I said, until they change this country into a Nazi style socialist state, which will NEVER happen, I and millions of others who smoke will continue to do so, no matter what you post here or what other non smokers tout. Get used to that fact. You dont have to get used to our smoke, just get used to the fact that we are here, will be here, and intend to STAY here, with a cig in one hand and a drink in the other.


Originally posted by Harassment101
We are tough we have had to survive you smokers, it's the smokers who won't last in the camps. They will snitch people out for FEM_ cigarette's.


With all the whining..I wonder about that.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hey Red! How ya doin'? Long time no see. Great post a while back. You know, if you and I ever end up on opposing sides of an issue, it'll be EPIC.


 


When I was a very young child, I didn't like meat. My grandparents didn't force me to eat it and gave me milk instead. After I went to live with my mother who DID force me to eat meat, I began throwing up every time she forced me to eat it. Several months and several doctors later, she caught me making myself throw up. I think she wanted to kill me - in fact I KNOW she wanted to kill me.

Speaking of my mother, she was allergic to raw tomatoes. Just the smell of a fresh cut tomato could make her feel ill. But, you know what, that part of it was psychosomatic. She WAS allergic to tomatoes, but her reaction to the odor (although real enough to her to trigger real nausea and and urge to vomit) was all in her head.

I have talked to people who have similar responses to a number of odors for various reasons, unpleasant experiences in their past. I can (and have, since I used to be a vet tech) equably eat lunch next to a parvo puppy, but the smell of plumeria brings on my gag reflex for reasons I don't want to get into.

By the way, I live out in the country on 10 acres. Around here smoking is banned in all public places and my place of employment has a state contract that requires the entire campus (all 168 acres) to be non-smoking. I smoke in my house, I smoke in my truck, and sometimes I smoke in the great outdoors. But MY cigarette smoke is affecting no one except me and my husband, who smokes more than I do. Just so you know.

 


Anyway, on the one side we have people who say that cigarette smoke makes them sick, and have unpleasant physical symptoms to prove it.

On the other side we have physics and natural law which says that it is not possible for such insignificant amounts of carbon monoxide to affect a person in that way.

A dilemma.

First off, Harassment, I think you should get a carbon monoxide tester and just see what the levels of CO in your apartment are. CO can cause exactly the symptoms you're describing (nausea, headaches, dizziness, etc.) at concentrations of 9 ppm and up in "sensitive" people. If you are being poisoned by CO, you need to know, and the source (which could be many things but is not your neighbors' smoke) needs to be found and fixed.

Secondly, we both have 'rights' to the privacy and sovereignty of our own homes. You should not be affected by what other people do in their own abode, and other people should be free to do whatever they want inside their abode without it affecting you or anyone else. I personally think that nonsmoking apartment complexes (and smoking ones) would be a good solution, but such things should be decided by the property owner and/or the tenants, not the government. Just as the owner of a bar or restaurant should be able to decide to be smoking or non-smoking rather than it being mandated by law. Why is it so unacceptable for non-smokers to simply NOT GO TO establishments which are smoking and clearly advertised as such?
You shouldn't have to live with loud noise, bad odors, or smoke from your neighbor's apartment, but on the other hand your neighbor should be able to smoke inside his own home. In many places it's the only refuge left to smokers.

Thirdly, people have lots of nasty and disgusting habits, and people enjoy do things that others find repulsive. I own a horse and love to ride it, but some people find this to be morally repulsive enslavement and abuse of an animal. Lots of folks around here like to hunt deer, but we all know how some people feel about that. Some people pick their nose and eat the boogers. Nasty, filthy habit unless you're one that does it. So how about we get over the characterization of smoking as "evil"? It's not any more "evil" than excessive alcohol consumption, eating too much and then making yourself throw up (purging bulimia), and lots of other things that people do. And if you think that alcoholism and bulimia don't affect anyone except the person who does it, try going to an Al-Anon meeting or an O-Anon meeting sometime. No one is an island; everything we do affects someone. Smoking is an activity that some people enjoy and choose to indulge in, and all the ranting about the "evils" of it and the recent trend for making it a scary public health issue ARE propaganda. It's a thing that some people do and some people don't approve of. Get over it. Repeatedly calling all smokers "addicts" and evoking all of the negative connotations of that word is likewise unfair and unnecessary. Calling most smokers (including me) addicts is guaranteed to put us on the angry defensive and bring out our worst side. In other words, it's just as much baiting and provoking as using racial epithets or or calling homosexuals "sick." By YOUR definition, everyone who needs a cup of coffee in the morning, or can't get through the day without a couple of sodas, or has to have a candy bar for the sugar rush to get through the afternoon slump, is an addict, too. Likewise anyone who takes a prescription medication is by definition an addict.

So now we're pretty much down to the nitty gritty. Some people enjoy smoking, and some people find the odor of cigarette smoke offensive. And long-term exposure to moderate or heavy concentrations of "second hand smoke" probably does have some negative health effects, but that isn't the issue at hand.

On the one side, you claim a right that people should have to stop smoking (or not smoke in their apartment) because it affects your health. On the other side, people should be able to engage in an activity they enjoy in their own home, especially since that may be about the only place left they CAN do it.

If you were complaining about your neighbor playing the drums, or cooking cabbage on a daily basis, or burning incense to the point that unpleasant odors got into your apartment, would it be any different? OH YES, you say, because none of those things "ruin anyone's health." (Actually loud noise can have permanent negative effects on hearing, but that's another topic).

So the core issue. Cigarette smoke is different from everything else and dangerous because even the tiny amounts that waft from a neighboring apartment into yours are making you sick. Bringing up physics and logic only makes you angry because, in spite of all the numbers and facts, you KNOW it's making you sick, and no FACTS are going to change your symptoms or take away your discomfort.

Have I got this all right so far?

Remember my mother who was nauseated by the smell of fresh cut tomatoes? Any doctor will tell you that she couldn't possibly be getting enough molecules of tomato to cause an allergic reaction just from the smell, but her nausea was real enough. Real, yes, but psychosomatic. The smell of tomatoes wasn't making her physically sick, it was causing a psychological reaction that in turn caused her to feel ill.

I think the same is true of your reaction to the slightest odor of cigarette smoke. You've been telling yourself - convincing yourself - for so long that the least hint of cigarette smoke (but not any other smoke, or pollution - another clue) brings on physical symptoms. Maybe a head doctor could help you with this, or maybe not; I don't really know.

But this is the only "solution" I can find for the paradox that it's physically impossible for trace amounts of cigarette smoke to be causing your symptoms. That, or there is a source of CO in your apartment that's making you sick, but since CO is odorless and tasteless, you blame it on the cigarette smoke because you can SMELL that.

Nor is your situation unique or without precedent. If the source of the problem were something other than "evil" cigarette smoke, perhaps we could see more clearly.

Rachel lives in an apartment with her beloved small dog, but is allergic to cats. Susie moves in next door with a cat, and cat dander begins to get into Rachel's apartment and make her sick. Is the onus on Susie to get rid of her cat because Rachel's allergic? Nope.

Matt lives out in the country and is allergic to bee stings. Ralph, a beekeeper, moves in next door with his hives. Can Matt make Ralph get rid of his bees? Nope.

Lucy is highly allergic to the fumes given off by Teflon cookware, so all of hers is stainless steel and cast iron. Her new neighbor uses Teflon, and a flaw in the ventilation system causes PTFE's to get into Lucy's apartment and make her sick. Can Lucy make her neighbor stop using Teflon, or move out? Nope.

The only difference between these scenarios and yours is that cats, bees, and Teflon are not popular villains. It IS the propaganda and the demonization of tobacco that is making you - or anyone else - think that you have "rights" to make someone else not smoke in their own home because it's affecting you.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I live near this town, it is in the San Fransisco bay area. What we have around here is a full on nanny state. You also can not burn a fire in your own fire place because it is said to have a negitive affect on public health by impacting air quality. You also can not talk on the cell phone while driving. Anything you can think of to boss people around in thier own homes, it is done in California. It really makes me upset. Belmonts law is kind of funny too. There are some limited places you can smoke, but for the most part what the city has is compleet proabition of smoking tabaco.

Also it should be noted that although this story may be new here this law is now over one year old.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Boston Tea Party

I know full well what you are saying is true. But I still have not understood one thing. Perhaps you can answer it for me?

I have seen Cal. It's beautiful! Majestic! Awesome! But I could never in a million years live out there. Whenever I went, the only thing on my mind was getting the Hades outta there ASAP. I had to go for my job (truck driver). But why do you and others still live there?

No offense intended, but it actually seems masochistic to me, to put oneself into such a mass of idiocy and confusion... and then to stay there...

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Hate to say this but you are clutching at straws. Woodfires don't stink and secondly there is no nicotine lungsteam involved in the process of burning wood. I like a little campfire and even a fire in a little ski chalet.


Well this shows how often you have been camping or sat around an open wood fire, or even a bbq pit.

True wood fires dont contain nicotine...that wasnt the point. The point was that if you had to be around a smoky fire, you wouldnt last 5 minutes if you cant stand smoke from a smoker that wouldnt even compare to the consistant level of smoke from a wood fire.

Dont any of you non smokers have anything better to do than to moan and groan about something you will never be able to change?

Give it up while your WAY behind.



Cheers!!!!

(lights up)



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


They'll never give up because we made the first mistake of stepping out of the restaurants in the first place. Once we gave them an inch they wanted the whole damn mile. Now we have to smoke in glass cages like we're some kind of exhibit or lower lass citizens.

Now they want EVERY doorway, they want every available space. They think that they get to own the outside.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Lets not leave out the "HEALTH ADDICTS". And I will bet anything that ther are more of those addicts than smoker addicts.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

They'll never give up because we made the first mistake of stepping out of the restaurants in the first place. Once we gave them an inch they wanted the whole damn mile. Now we have to smoke in glass cages like we're some kind of exhibit or lower lass citizens.

Now they want EVERY doorway, they want every available space. They think that they get to own the outside.


Ya it seems no matter what is given up for them, it is not good enough.

Well all I can say to them is cry in one hand and pour water in the other and see which one fills up first.

Basically my friend they are unable to see others enjoying something they dispise and that just jerks their chain to no end. They see us enjoying freedom of choice and for some odd reason, dispite all the efforts made to accomodate their cry baby whishes, they are just like babies, never satisfied and in constant need of attention...not to mention a diaper change.

They can have their space in their zone..but when it comes to my zone, my home and my vehicle and where I am standing at in the great outdoors, well I suppose I could bring along an extra diaper or two to accomodate them once more.




Cheers!!!!




top topics



 
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join