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.

 

For Some Smokers, Even Home Is Off Limits

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by spliff4020
so morbidly obese people have the right to tell others not to harm them?

That analogy is irrelevant and has zero pertinance to this topic
nobody is harming obese people other than themselves


Actually it is a relevant point and has a lot of pertinence to the subject.

The main reason given for the increased taxes on cigarettes was to help cover the cost of health care so that non-smokers aren't forced to pay for medical care to smokers. For the sake of consistency, those who are obese should be forced to pay their own health care as well, through a 65% tax on doughnuts and other fattening and unhealthy foods.

Bag of potato chips costs $1.69 now? Tomorrow they cost $6.50, and they go up every year by a dollar or two.


Originally posted by spliff4020
And smoke in my house is going to kill you in yours?


Originally posted by ModernAcademiasome places have centralized AC
so possible yes, your smoking may affect other people's air


It's too bad that non-smokers are subjected to tobacco filled air in this case, but the health risks are so minimal as to make it inconsequential.


Originally posted by spliff4020
You really believe that nonsense? Sitting in a traffic jam with trucks belching filth from the tailpipes is ok, so long as I don't smoke in my car? wow....


Originally posted by ModernAcademiathis economy is transportation-driven.

you may have a point with that but you are still trying to justify one bad with another

that's like saying, ya I force my nephew to smoke cigarettes but his other uncles forces him to drink alcohol


He does have a point. That point being that this is all one big money grab and to think it has anything to do with health is you drinking the kool-aid.

Smoking in your house, car on the street etc. is not going to result in you going to jail or rehab ... It's going to result in a ticket.

What is at the heart of this discussion is air pollution. A cigarette has such a minuscule amount of air pollutiion compared to many other non-finable pollutants that to those of us with our eyes open, the amount of attention it gets is laughable.

Ive already stated that if the issue here was health, the government would ban tobacco and nicotine outright. They haven't.

It's about money. They cash grab on smokers today, and no one but smokers are standing up to say anything about it because the uninformed bash us down and make us feel incredibly guilty for poisoning and killing innocent people and their babies.

Sow e don't say anything and just take the punishment, as the tree-hugger bleeding hearts would crucify us, the government has create a split in the population here.

That's all fine. Smokers are just the first. When they come after the obese, maybe people will stand up for them. But I doubt it.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
What you are referencing between the lines in your post are drugs and prohibition models. Smoking cigarettes are a totally different animal, as they do not get you high.


Cigarettes represent a higher level of addiction than marijuana
you don't get high off it, but people are still addicted to it

people smoke a pack of day

and forget indian reservations, with the economy and people starving local people in every county will be making home-made cigarettes.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This just in. It is now illegal to pick your nose between the hours of 7:30AM and 9:46 PM. Nor shall it be lawful to bite your fingernails on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays. Penalties for violating the Anti-Oral manicuring and Nasal Excavation Act of 2009 may include but are not limited to: Fine in an amount equal to 2.7 % of the violators taxable yearly income. Failure to pay fine may result in criminal charges and imprisonment.

The use of colognes and perfumes shall be limited to a single, sealed room within ones private residence, provided the residence is owned rather than leased, and does not share walls with another residence. Only unscented deodorants and antiperspirants shall be allowed outside of private residences. Penalties for violating the Unscented Deodorant and Antiperspirant Act of 2009 may include but are not limited to: Fine in an amount equal to 3.4 % of the violators taxable yearly income. Failure to pay fine may result in criminal charges and imprisonment.

Outdoor grilling shall only be legally allowed when ambient temperatures are between 71.4 and 80.8 degrees, with wind speeds not exceeding 0.047 mph. LPG and Natural Gas are the only acceptable fuels for grilling. Charcoal or wood burning is strictly prohibited. A maximum of 1.036 fluid ounces of basting sauce or marinate is allowed per 4 persons. Penalties for violating the Smokeless Outdoor Food Preparation Act of 2009 may include but are not limited to: Fine in an amount equal to 1.9 % of the violators taxable yearly income. Failure to pay fine may result in criminal charges and imprisonment.


Originally posted by Enrikez
What you are referencing between the lines in your post are drugs and prohibition models. Smoking cigarettes are a totally different animal, as they do not get you high.



You're not a smoker are you...

When compared to the low experienced when a smoker goes an extended period of time without a "fix", they get you quite "high".

It's an addiction, and one of the strongest known at that. You're confusing the desire for inebriation with the brains requirement to satisfy a chemical addiction.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
The main reason given for the increased taxes on cigarettes was to help cover the cost of health care so that non-smokers aren't forced to pay for medical care to smokers. For the sake of consistency, those who are obese should be forced to pay their own health care as well, through a 65% tax on doughnuts and other fattening and unhealthy foods.

We aren't talking about healthcare costs here
we are talking about the right to clean air in people's homes
and landlords not allowing smokers


Originally posted by Enrikez
What is at the heart of this discussion is air pollution. A cigarette has such a minuscule amount of air pollutiion compared to many other non-finable pollutants that to those of us with our eyes open, the amount of attention it gets is laughable.

I don't disagree with this point
But cigarettes are only good if you are the one smoking it

I myself smoke and the smell doesn't bother me
however, if someone else smokes that smell is NASTYYY
2nd hand smoke stinkssss

yes cigarettes aren't the bigest cause of air pollution, there are bigger fish to fry
but that doesn't mean that defending cigarettes is the right path to take

how many people die of lung cancer because of cigarettes and how many die of lung cancer thanks to exhaust fumes?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Enrikez
What you are referencing between the lines in your post are drugs and prohibition models. Smoking cigarettes are a totally different animal, as they do not get you high.


Cigarettes represent a higher level of addiction than marijuana
you don't get high off it, but people are still addicted to it

people smoke a pack of day

and forget indian reservations, with the economy and people starving local people in every county will be making home-made cigarettes.



You are not well informed. Marijuana is not addictive.

Not having nicotine available to you is not that big of a deal. Being addicted to heroin and going through withdrawal is incredibly debilitating.

I don't really understand your 'black market' argument. Isn't the point from your perspective to limit the amount of air pollution you breathe in? And isn't your target cigarette smoke in the air?

Let me ask a simple question of logic:

Do you get more people smoking if they are forced to make their own illegal cigarettes or do you get less people smoking?

It sounds like you are trying to say that more people would smoke if it was made illegal. That is a false presumption. The only reason I can think of that you would want to keep the manufacture and sale of cigarettes as a legal enterprise is because you are addicted to the taxation of it.

Are you scared that your taxes will increase if the government bans the manufacture and sale of cigarettes?

If the government made cigarettes illegal, you wouldn't have to worry about a million laws prohibiting their use in 99% of places both public and private, they would be banned from those places automatically. See, you get what you want. So why do we disagree?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
how many people die of lung cancer because of cigarettes and how many die of lung cancer thanks to exhaust fumes?


Glad you said that. I would like to point out though, that exactly ZERO people die of lung cancer because of cigarettes.

People die of lung cancer (among others) because of their choice to smoke cigarettes.

That choice is what is important to defend.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
Not having nicotine available to you is not that big of a deal.


OK, now we know you're not a smoker.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by Enrikez
What you are referencing between the lines in your post are drugs and prohibition models. Smoking cigarettes are a totally different animal, as they do not get you high.



You're not a smoker are you...

When compared to the low experienced when a smoker goes an extended period of time without a "fix", they get you quite "high".

It's an addiction, and one of the strongest known at that. You're confusing the desire for inebriation with the brains requirement to satisfy a chemical addiction.



I agree with the part of your post I am not responding to and I starred you for it.

If you read my posts in this thread you would know that the first thing I said was that I am a smoker.

The addiction is a strong one. The withdrawal is mild.

You have never been addicted to heroin or alcohol, have you?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
The main reason given for the increased taxes on cigarettes was to help cover the cost of health care so that non-smokers aren't forced to pay for medical care to smokers. For the sake of consistency, those who are obese should be forced to pay their own health care as well, through a 65% tax on doughnuts and other fattening and unhealthy foods.




Originally posted by ModernAcademiaWe aren't talking about healthcare costs here
we are talking about the right to clean air in people's homes
and landlords not allowing smokers


You are creating a straw man here. The real issue is money and how to fine smokers. I have already proven that the issue of smoking is not a health issue, as if it was the sale and manufacture of cigarettes would be prohibited.


Originally posted by Enrikez
What is at the heart of this discussion is air pollution. A cigarette has such a minuscule amount of air pollutiion compared to many other non-finable pollutants that to those of us with our eyes open, the amount of attention it gets is laughable.


Originally posted by ModernAcademiaI don't disagree with this point
But cigarettes are only good if you are the one smoking it

I myself smoke and the smell doesn't bother me
however, if someone else smokes that smell is NASTYYY
2nd hand smoke stinkssss

yes cigarettes aren't the bigest cause of air pollution, there are bigger fish to fry
but that doesn't mean that defending cigarettes is the right path to take

how many people die of lung cancer because of cigarettes and how many die of lung cancer thanks to exhaust fumes?


First, I am not defending cigarettes. I am calling for them to be made illegal. You are defending their sale, while advocating for more and more laws to prohibit their use while still being able to make extra money off of smokers through taxation and new fines.

I would love to know how many people die of second hand smoke compared to car exhaust. However, it's a statistic that will never be reliable even if it were ever made.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
how many people die of lung cancer because of cigarettes and how many die of lung cancer thanks to exhaust fumes?


no-one knows. there are plenty of people that get lung cancer and never smoke. exhaust fumes contain carcinogenic compounds so it must contribute to lung cancer rates but you can't link it that conclusively, there isn't a special type of lung cancer for smokers.

given the concentrations of carcinogens, light to moderate second hand smoke is going to be better for you than the fumes in a heavy traffic jam or on a heavily trafficked street.

[edit on 17/11/09 by pieman]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by Enrikez
Not having nicotine available to you is not that big of a deal.


OK, now we know you're not a smoker.


I spend $300 per month on cigarettes.

EDIT TO ADD

Your post also lets me know that you have never been addicted to alcohol or heroin.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Gawd! I hope living here in the depths of Alabama serves me well enough that I never have to worry about that kind of tyranny.

I mean... tobacco cops???

Land of the tended...
And the home, of the, policed



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
EDIT TO ADD

Your post also lets me know that you have never been addicted to alcohol or heroin.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]


I am not ashamed to admit that after six years of heavy abuse, 3 outpatient programs and 2 inpatient programs, I have not used methamphetamine in 1,493 days (had my 4 year anniversary just over a month ago).

It seems we were both wrong on our initial judgments of one another. My apologies, and a reiteration of lessons learned long ago.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well all this anti-smoking madness that seems to have started about 5 years ago ties in with all the bio engineered plagues that have been let loose lately.

I've been reading on quite a few sites, that smokers somehow have some sort of film on their lungs that offers protection from the virus inserting itself directly into the lining of the lungs.

Don't know if it's true, but it's funny how when it comes to listing those who are most at risk of complications from the flu, smokers weren't high on the list, if mentioned at all. So maybe there is something to it?

So if put into perspective with the new flu/plague pandemic and the fact that they have been making it harder for people to smoke, well there just MIGHT be a correlation between the two.
Especially for those who believe that it's a depopulation progamme. Can't have anyone escaping the net now can we?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by Enrikez
EDIT TO ADD

Your post also lets me know that you have never been addicted to alcohol or heroin.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Enrikez]


I am not ashamed to admit that after six years of heavy abuse, 3 outpatient programs and 2 inpatient programs, I have not used methamphetamine in 1,493 days (had my 4 year anniversary just over a month ago).

It seems we were both wrong on our initial judgments of one another. My apologies, and a reiteration of lessons learned long ago.


I am extremely happy to hear of your success in kicking your habit! Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

I admit, I was also wrong. Lesson learned hopefully not to be repeated too often in the future



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
You are not well informed. Marijuana is not addictive.

Don't be so quick there bud
cigarettes is physically addictive
marijuana is psychologically addictive
do ur homework!


Originally posted by Enrikez
Not having nicotine available to you is not that big of a deal.

IT IS a big deal for smokers!
I see smokers go crazyyy when they don't have one.


Originally posted by Enrikez
Let me ask a simple question of logic:

Do you get more people smoking if they are forced to make their own illegal cigarettes or do you get less people smoking?


It's hard to tell
But I can say that because marijuana is illegal more people smoke it, perhaps because it's very available to a different market segment - kids.


Originally posted by Enrikez
If the government made cigarettes illegal, you wouldn't have to worry about a million laws prohibiting their use in 99% of places both public and private, they would be banned from those places automatically. See, you get what you want. So why do we disagree?

again we come into the different market segment
kids don't smoke cigarette much, only marijuana
so they don't go to bars much since they'll get carded.

you go to many appartment buildings and the place stinks like marijuana
streets, even downtown, everywhere you often smell it not only in the burbs

that combined with adults already smoking cigarettes is a huge number
put it this way my friend
zillions of people smoke cigarettes, there's way too much money to be made for 100 people within a 5mile radius NOT to make home made cigarettes and sell them



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Why can't they treat smoking like what they do for pets? I would be willing to pay an extra few bucks a month to be able to smoke in my apartment ( if I lived in one). If you're a landlord, make your building a smoking building and the extra cost per month would cover any cleaning costs from nicotine/smell, etc.

I am a smoker and I can see what nicotine does to the walls, the smell, etc.

If you are a non-smoker, simply rent from a non-smoking apartment building.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


I heard a rumour that the equipment that ambulance and paramedics use to detect chemicals were being triggered by cigarette smoke when they entered drinking establishments.Something like traces of polonium were on the walls of pubs/clubs.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
remember ATS rules guys
no talk of substance abuse!



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Here we go again...

As ATS's resident chimney, I of course have a few examples of ignorance to deny on this. I'd like to start with the concept of 'second hand smoke'.

According to popular myth, second hand smoke is responsible for a plethora of health ailments. Now, should this be true, it would follow that the amount of second hand smoke that one is exposed to would correlate to an observable trend in the amount of such health concerns experienced. However, this is not supported by even the very claims of those who advocate the removal of second hand smoke.

Firstly, the claim I continue to hear is that second hand smoke is more hazardous for those around the smoker than for the smoker themselves. This can be disproved simply and logically. The source of the second hand smoke is in the hand or mouth of the smoker; thus the concentration of second hand smoke is higher at that source, at the smoker themselves. It then follows that the closer one is to the smoker, the more concentration of second hand smoke one receives.

Following this thought to its conclusion, it would only make sense that the smoker, at the 'epicenter' of second hand smoke emission, would be the one most affected by it.

Oh, but the smoker is inhaling filtered smoke, you say? Certainly, most of us do (although a few still smoke unfiltered cigarettes). But the hole in this argument is that all intake of air, even for the worst chain-smoker, does not enter the lungs through that tube of tobacco. Indeed, what is inhaled directly from the cigarette itself is a small fraction of the total amount of respiratory intake. In simpler terms, we breathe the same air, at a higher concentration of second hand smoke as others around us, at a more constant rate, since we are the source.

But, now you say, second hand smoke has been proven to cause health problems. Very well; let us accept that position for the sake of argument.

If it is proven that second hand smoke is the cause of a myriad of health problems, then it would logically follow that the one closest to the source, the same one who is around the source than anyone else, would exhibit the most severe problems. There is, indeed, a minor correlation to this. Smokers do tend to have a slightly higher incidence of lung cancer than non-smokers. However, smokers do not always get lung cancer. Many live out full, long lives with precious few health problems. On the other hand many people who have never smoked, and have little if any exposure to second hand smoke, also get lung cancer. This indicates that while there may be some connection, it cannot be said that "cigarette smoke is the cause of lung cancer".

It has also been stated, even by health professions (in my personal presence), that second hand smoke is more dangerous to non-smokers than it is to smokers. This indicates that one of two things are happening:
  • Cigarette smoke somehow, with no benefit of intelligence, is able to seek out the lungs of those who have decided not to smoke and tends to congregate there as opposed to in the lungs of those that do smoke, or...

  • prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke at higher concentrations tends to actually prevent the incidence of health problems. meaning that cigarette smoke behaves the opposite of any other known pollutant or gaseous material, or...

  • The claims made are flawed in themselves.

The first is ludicrous. The second is questionable at best (even I do not consider a smoke as a health-promoting activity, save as in one possible way which I will not mention in this post). Therefore, the last possibility must be the correct one. The assumptions of second hand smoke being in itself a major health concern are flawed. I'll grant that a lot of people don't like the smell of it.



Now, let us speak to the fact that so many people seem to be sensitive to tobacco smoke. This does seem to be an accurate observation. However, it would seem that as time goes on, more and more people are becoming sensitive to such. Why would this be? Well, perhaps a few links would be appropriate here:

In the development of both asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there is a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors. A possible explanation is the "hygiene hypothesis“. This suggests that increased hygiene and the resulting lack of exposure to various microorganisms in early life affect the immune system so that individuals’ ability to fight off certain diseases is weakened and they are more susceptible to autoimmune diseases
Source: enhiscms.rivm.nl...


In another study, babies born by Cesarean birth may be more likely to develop a food allergy due to lack of exposure to the bacteria in the birth canal. This delay in the colonization of bacteria in the baby's intestine is thought to increase allergies. In one study in Sweden that incuded 2800 children there was a 7 fold increase in the number of food allergies with C-section births.
Source: www.babyzone.com...


A study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that children who had early exposure to pets and livestock were less likely to develop allergy-related diseases later in life, suggesting that early exposure to potential allergens bolstered the children's immune systems against those substances [Platts-Mills. Paradoxical Effect of Domestic Animals on Asthma and Allergic Sensitization. JAMA, 2002].

The JAMA study also found that children in large families suffered fewer illnesses than children in smaller families, suggesting that larger families exposed children to more germs, which increased their immunity to common infections.
Source: autoimmunedisease.suite101.com...

It would seem that by segregating ourselves from certain 'contaminants' at early ages, we weaken our own immune systems response to such contaminants. True, the studies above do not specifically address cigarette smoke; however the principle is the same. If one does not exercise one's immunity when it is developing, one's immunity will not function as strong as if it were exercised.

In other words, the reason so many people are adverse affected by cigarette smoke may well be that they were not allowed exposure to it at an early age.

An argument can then be made that, regardless of the reason for this weakness, people still must be protected. I agree... to a point.

There are people who are allergic to peanuts. Should peanuts be removed from all aspects of society?

There are those who are allergic to dairy products (lactose intolerance), Should dairy be outlawed?

There are those who have severe allergies to cats. Should people be forbidden from owning cats, because the dander produced might affect a visitor?

While it behooves any society to aid those in need, no society can tailor itself completely to those who are infirm. This is unfair to those who do not share the infirmity. If someone is allergic to cats, to continue with one of my examples above, it is their responsibility to limit contact with cats, not the responsibility of the public at large to remove cats from any possible contact with them.

I should also mention as an aside, that actual medical allergies to cigarette smoke are rare (although they do exist in less than 1% of society). What is commonly referred to as an allergy to cigarette smoke by most is simple sensitivity. Cat dander, on the other hand, is a fairly common allergen.

So, here is what we have: inaccurate (to use a mild term) reports on the health effects of second hand smoke, self-induced sensitivity to such, and social attempts to shift the responsibility for such sensitivity from those who are sensitive to those who are not, ignoring the possibility that such sensitivity, while extant, is (intentionally or unintentionally) self-inflicted.

Now this shift in responsibility is moving from a concern over all public locations to private locations as well. At what point does this become insufferable to those who wish to continue their use of tobacco? At what point do those who wish to continue simply stand up and say "NO MORE!"? Even more disturbing: at what point in time does the shift in responsibility affect YOU: your vices, your preferences, your choices. Make no mistake: it will happen, and it is in fact happening right now. Trans-fats, proposed taxes on soft drinks, outright bans on soft drinks in schools, social attitudes turning against fast foods, continual battles against the consumption of meat, and even concerns over such innocuous substances as caffeine (coffee) are already noticeable.

Are you prepared to live in a world where others determine your daily routine? Are you prepared to have others whom you do not even know to control your every decision?

It would seem many are. I, however, am not. Excuse me; I need a smoke.

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join