A Knight in Dragonland

12 responses so far ↓

• 1    mortonmalaise // Mar 28, 2008 at 11:46 am

  If the government wants to accommodate non-smokers by making a legal activity illegal in public buildings, then the government needs to accommodate smokers by providing a receptacle for the butts. We’d be more than happy to throw them in a garbage can, but then non-smokers will bitch about taxes going up because we need more firefighters to put out the burning garbage cans.

• 2    Knight in Dragonland // Mar 28, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  So it’s the fault of non-smokers if you start a fire by tossing a butt in a trash can, because it’s inconvenient for you to dispose of it anywhere else??? That’s exactly the kind of “logic” I’m talking about in this post, Morton. You’re the smoker. It’s YOUR responsibility to find a place to dispose of YOUR cigarette safely. The public shouldn’t have to accommodate you.

  You’re not entitled to inflict your habit on ANYONE ANYWHERE. Your “right” to smoke ends at the lungs of ANY non-smoker in your vicinity. Anything short of that is not only rude behavior, but chemical assault. It’s exactly the same as walking up to random people and punching them in the face. You don’t have the right to do that on ANY property … public or private.

• 3    Michael // Mar 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  I really think both sides need to be respectful. Some non-smokers believe they hold some moral high ground which requires they convince smokers to quit smoking. (Repeat – I said SOME) I agree that tobacco smoke is bothersome and it is rude to have it intentionally blown in your face, but it is nothing like being punched in the face. Smokers have already been ostracized and pushed outside … I think it is time we back off. We also need to back off on the rhetoric about second-hand smoke being more deadly than it is. Compared to the fumes from planes, trains, autos, etc. — outdoor tobacco smoke is minuscule. Most smokers and non-smokers are good, caring and polite people. We can’t let a few of the rude people on either side fan the flames.

• 4    tsheets // Mar 28, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  Not debating the use of public funds specifically, but, on the subject of ash trays…. When smoking in a bar/restaurant, ash trays were provided by the business. It would make sense for them to be provided outside now that smoking indoors is not allowed. The funny thing is, after the ban took place, I saw far fewer ash trays outside. So, they move all smokers outdoors, then take away the ash trays that were previously there. It certainly isn’t a stretch to imagine that many people will litter the area with cigarette butts. Not that it is right, but what did they think would happen?

  What *is* a stretch is for you to state that mortonmalaise is “blaming” non-smokers for a hypothetical fire started in a trash can from a cigarette butt. He didn’t place blame at all….just stated that the non-smokers would bitch about it if firefighters had to extinguish the fire. Which, is probably true.

• 5    Eric // Mar 28, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  “Your “right” to smoke ends at the lungs of ANY non-smoker in your vicinity.”

  Can we apply that to body odor and perfume as well? C’mon… Thats not realistic. As a non smoker, you have the right to stay home and avoid all contact with smokers, smelly or undesirable people! Just park close to the door and run into whatever business you are patronizing.

  As for the ashtrays… Half or your older counclemen and reps probably smoke… So, just heap some more tax on the ciggies… They keep buying them no matter what the price! That will pay for a few $300.00 ashtrays.

  Eric (Non-Smoker who is tired being legislated)

• 6    Knight in Dragonland // Mar 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Michael,
  Smoking around others is rude … someone doesn’t have to blow it in your face … and these rude people have been dictating the freedom of the majority for far too long, in my opinion.

  Also, the effects of second-hand smoke are hardly “minuscule.” The low end, conservative estimates indicate about 20,000 deaths per year. The high end estimates approach 60,000. That’s just in the United States.

  tsheets,
  So non-smokers shouldn’t bitch if a smoker starts a fire with his un-extinguished cig butt??? Color me a radical, but I think negligent arson is a perfectly reasonable thing to bitch about. Cigarettes are responsible for the majority of home fires and more than a few outdoor wild fires in this country.

  Eric,
  Body odor and perfume don’t cause thousands of deaths every year.

  I have the right to stay home? Seriously? That’s an argument? Why do I have to stay home to accommodate a smoker’s habit??? That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

• 7    Eric // Mar 28, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  Fine.. How about car pollution… Excessive tree pollen… Unknown particles floating around in that ADM stink… People who have a cough and don’t cover their mouth.

  There are a lot of things that can kill you floating about.

  Are you going to put a law in place for everyone of them?

• 8    Tim // Mar 28, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  I quit smoking just a little over 4 years ago. And when I was a smoker, I didn’t like smoking in places where families or children would be, or when I was in a situation where a non smoker couldn’t escape my smoke. I figured it just came down to decency. So while I empathize with smokers on some level, I can’t understand those “right to smoke” smokers who believe it’s their given right to blow smoke around my 2 year old, or smoke around my wife, whose father died of lung cancer when he was only 46. Smoke if that’s what floats your boat, but keep it away from my family is the way I feel. It would be nice if we could do it without legislation, just depend on people to control themselves a little bit.

• 9    Michael // Mar 28, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23540013_ITM

  http://www.lpconline.com/secondhand_smoke.html

  http://www.reason.com/news/show/35718.html

  http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html

• 10    Knight in Dragonland // Mar 29, 2008 at 8:05 am

  Eric … there ARE laws and government regulations controlling industrial and automotive emissions to protect human health, and the release of pollen into the air is hardly a voluntary act under human control. People that are ill did not volunteer to contract an infection, and their coughing is also involuntary. Not covering their mouth or washing their hands properly is rude and inconsiderate of the health of others … just like smoking … but that would be difficult to legislate. Sorry … none of your examples fly.

  Tim … I agree, it would have been nice to clear the air for everyone without legislation. Based on the flack I’m getting here and elsewhere about “smoker’s rights”, how the Smoke Free Illinois Act is Communist tyranny, and head-in-the-sand denial of the health consequences of secondhand smoke … that never would have happened.

  Michael … OK, the first link on your list talks about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer. I concede that link is weak, although probably still real. However, the lung cancer attribution to ETS-related mortality is 3,000 deaths per year, a small fraction of the total. Most environmental tobacco smoke deaths are attributed to cardiovascular disease (heart attack and stroke), and there the link is much stronger.

  Regarding the 2nd, 3rd & 4th links … all three go to articles about the SAME STUDY, a British Medical Journal report that looked at non-smoking spouses of smokers in California.

  One, it’s a single study. Many others do show a link. For some examples, start here.

  Two, the BMJ study made no attempt to measure exposure levels by a quantitative method like plasma or urine cotinine (a stable nicotine metabolite). In relationships where you have a non-smoker and a smoker living together, a good portion of the time, the non-smoker tells the smoker to take it outside. My grandmother made my cigar-smoking grandfather take it to the garage, and that was more than a decade before the 1968 Surgeon General’s report linking tobacco to human disease. This study did not account for that. It just looked at the number of packs per day smoked by the smoker … not where they were actually smoking them, and how much smoke their spouse was actually exposed to. This weakness renders the BMJ study meaningless.

  Just like the climate debate, deniers point to one or two supportive studies as the be-all and end-all of their arguments, while they ignore the massive MOUNTAIN of data that argues against their point. Secondhand smoke has PROVEN, MEASURED physiologic responses in test subjects. ETS makes arteries narrow, the interior lining of the blood vessels stickier, and platelets stickier. Those three things together are a BAD combination, especially in someone who already has coronary and/or carotid artery disease.

• 11    Knight in Dragonland // Mar 29, 2008 at 8:12 am

  Alright … this isn’t really a post about ETS and it’s health consequences or the Smoke Free Illinois Act itself. Those subjects have been debated already. This post is mainly about littering by smokers and what should be done about it. Let’s keep the comments on that topic, please.

• 12    Jessica // Sep 1, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  I think any pregnant woman should go to jail…makes me sick to see them smoking! I can’t even think of where to begin when I see a woman hurting her fetus that way

Leave a Comment