Smoking
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>I think making this much of a meal of it is a lot ruder than pulling a
>cigarette out, or not pulling a cigarette out. I'm a non-smoker, but I find
>this kind of pilpul profoundly alienating; someone who's this niggly and
>hypercritical about fine distinctions is _bound_ to eventually find
>something to object to in my behavior, probably having to do with my looking
>at them wrong on a Tuesday.
Possibly. I don't normally analyze others' actions to this level of
detail, but I think it's pretty clear that most of us have some kind of
automatic reaction to certain behavior patterns.
What's being missed to a certain extent in this discussion of smoking is
whether smoking in the presence of another person is, in and of itself,
considered a rude act. If it is, then asking in any way other than the
most polite is by extension also a rude act.
I've had enough bad experiences with rude smokers that now that I have
the weight of law and custom on *my* side, I'm quite happy to be vicious
to any smoker whom I consider to be even a tiny bit out of line. I
gloat every time I see a small group of smokers huddled together in
their misery, remembering all the days I've been sick.
I'll admit, though, that it isn't entirely the smokers' fault, but the
tobacco companies: I spent about six weeks in Israel a while back,
staying with my smoking aunt. Surprisingly enough, I wasn't sick much.
I decided it wasn't just continuous exposure, because I *did* get sick
near some other smokers. Therefore, *her* cigarettes didn't have many
of the additives the tobacco companies commonly add.
ObFandom: If any smokers come to a San Jose convention now, they'll need
to go either outside or to their room in order to smoke. Smoking is now
prohibited in virtually all indoor public areas.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"When you divide people into *us* and *them*, you automatically become
one of *them*." -- SS, via DG
P Nielsen Hayden
>What's being missed to a certain extent in this discussion of smoking is
>whether smoking in the presence of another person is, in and of itself,
>considered a rude act. If it is, then asking in any way other than the
>most polite is by extension also a rude act.
That doesn't follow, unless you consider "polite" and "impolite" to be
opposed absolutes.
>I've had enough bad experiences with rude smokers that now that I have
>the weight of law and custom on *my* side, I'm quite happy to be vicious
>to any smoker whom I consider to be even a tiny bit out of line.
In other words, you feel bad, so as far as you're concerned, you have a
license to be unfair. Even to people who have nothing to do with your past
experiences. It's hard to read your declaration any other way: you are
essentially saying that you allow no margin for honest error or
misunderstanding.
Everyone has limits to their patience, and we all act like this sometimes.
But it's unusual to see someone bragging that they're "happy" to behave this
way.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden: p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.panix.com/~pnh : http://www.tor.com : non-smoker
P Nielsen Hayden
After posting my other remarks to aa...@netcom.com, I noticed that person's
.sig:
>"When you divide people into *us* and *them*, you automatically become
>one of *them*." -- SS, via DG
No comment necessary, I rather think.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>After posting my other remarks to aa...@netcom.com, I noticed that person's
>.sig:
>
>>"When you divide people into *us* and *them*, you automatically become
>>one of *them*." -- SS, via DG
>
>No comment necessary, I rather think.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -- RE
I'm well-aware that my attitude on this issue contrasts with my
more-reasoned approach on most other matters. However, because smoking
is an action that harms me, I choose to take an activist (and somewhat
divisive) stand on this issue.
Bending this back to the original thread that Brett Glass started, I've
noticed that none of the people responding to the issue of smoking are
from the West Coast. Do you suppose there might be some cultural
difference involved?
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"When you divide people into *us* and *them*, you automatically become
Karen Cooper
>ObFandom: If any smokers come to a San Jose convention now, they'll need
>to go either outside or to their room in order to smoke. Smoking is now
>prohibited in virtually all indoor public areas.
Is that convention policy or state law? Can the concom ban smoking in,
say, the bar?
What, for the benefit of our friends who might want to make the trip out
west, do the California indoor smoking laws say?
Karen. [In Minnesota, smoking is banned except in authorized places.
Often that leaves the smoking section of a bar or restaurant and
nowhere else]
George Mealer
It's still OK in bars in some cities...I'm not certain about San Jose.
Smoking is banned in virtually all restaurants out here. Some citys
allow smoking in separately ventilated bars. However, since hotel
bars are frequently ventilated with the same system as the hotel
itself, they may prohibit smoking there.
BTW, Aahz...I'm from San Mateo. Though I'm not a smoker (I managed to
kick the nasty habit a couple of years ago), I do not like the public
attitude that has sprung up in the last few years. It is true that
many smokers are rude...just as it is true that many non-smokers are
rude. It's not a function of smoking, but rather that of the person
themself. I agree with the government banning smoking in TRULY public
places, but I tend to think that regulating this within a private
business (a la a restaurant) is outside the bounds of the influence
*I* would like our government to have. I would think that if the
public outcry for non-smoking restaurants were loud enough, the
business itself would just split into smoking and non-smoking
establishments...which is how I think it should be done, rather than
just banning it outright.
Geo
--
George Mealer
gme...@best.com
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Karen Cooper <keco...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) puffs:
>
>>ObFandom: If any smokers come to a San Jose convention now, they'll need
>>to go either outside or to their room in order to smoke. Smoking is now
>>prohibited in virtually all indoor public areas.
>
>Is that convention policy or state law? Can the concom ban smoking in,
>say, the bar?
>
>What, for the benefit of our friends who might want to make the trip out
>west, do the California indoor smoking laws say?
It's local law, which is why I explicitly stated "San Jose" rather than
"California". The "standard" San Jose con site is the Red Lion Inn, and
because the Red Lion has an open bar, smoking is prohibited in it.
I'm not sure what the current state laws are, and many (most?)
communities have stricter standards. With respect to coming out here
for a con, it's safest to assume that you need to go outside or to your
room in order to smoke. You should make sure to ask for a smoking room.
If that's too difficult for you, you should ask the concom about the
specific local rules.
Lynn Gold
Karen Cooper <keco...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) puffs:
>
>>ObFandom: If any smokers come to a San Jose convention now, they'll need
>>to go either outside or to their room in order to smoke. Smoking is now
>>prohibited in virtually all indoor public areas.
>
>Is that convention policy or state law? Can the concom ban smoking in,
>say, the bar?
It's The Law(tm).
>What, for the benefit of our friends who might want to make the trip out
>west, do the California indoor smoking laws say?
Smoking in indoor public places has been mostly outlawed in California.
The token exceptions, as far as I know, are bars, nightclubs, and maybe
ball parks or arenas.
If I go into a restaurant, I don't have to ask for "non-smoking" because
smoking sections got legislated out of existance. If you want to smoke,
you Go Outside.
Most people out here don't smoke. Those that do often wind up quitting
because they want to be able to hang out with their friends more easily.
Smokers often put up with social ostracization around here.
In northern California, smoking is generally viewed as "impolite" behavior.
It smells foul, the ashes sometimes fall and burn stuff you don't want
burned, and when you smoke, you're forcing the people in the room with you
to breathe your second-hand smoke. Many people are downright allergic to
tobacco smoke; I'm one of them. I once started turning blue (and almost
had to be hauled off to the hospital) during a visit with family back in
New Jersey when a bunch of my relatives lit up at the dinner table.
I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in their
own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!) or outdoors
where it can blow away from me. It's something I don't understand; I can't
understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would take up
the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to mention
how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T allergic to
it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
--Lynn
--
Lynn Gold "net.fogey" fi...@netcom.com,
Sr. Tech Writer, Oracle Corp (weekdays) l.g...@genie.geis.com,
KLIV & KARA News (fill-in) or lag...@us.oracle.com
Thought of the week:
"We may have our backs against the wall, but we won't give up; we'll do what
Britain has historically done when we have our backs against the wall:
turn around and keep fighting."
-- Prime Minister John Major, on his
Conservative Party's massive losses in
the recent round of local elections
Jim_...@transarc.com
> I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in their
> own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!) or outdoors
> where it can blow away from me. It's something I don't understand; I can't
> understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would take up
> the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to mention
> how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T allergic to
> it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
I don't smoke. However, I do engage in several other habits that are
bad for me. I eat fatty food. I don't have bran muffins for breakfast.
And I don't like aerobic exercise. And so on.
We are all going to die sometime. Yes, I probably could extend my life
by a couple of years by making my current life a bit harder or a bit
less interesting. But I don't like the tradeoff.
> Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
>
Yep, I've had several relatives (including my mother) who died that
way. But I can still understand why people don't just automatically
always do the healthiest things.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
David E Romm
In article <aahzD8K...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
Machine) wrote:
> I'm well-aware that my attitude on this issue contrasts with my
> more-reasoned approach on most other matters. However, because smoking
> is an action that harms me, I choose to take an activist (and somewhat
> divisive) stand on this issue.
In general, whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors is okay by
me; I can ignore them. It's what you do in public that I feel I have some
say in. I think it's possible to be an activist without being divisive.
> Bending this back to the original thread that Brett Glass started, I've
> noticed that none of the people responding to the issue of smoking are
> from the West Coast. Do you suppose there might be some cultural
> difference involved?
So far, the many if not most of responses are from the West Coast. As if
that had any bearing on the subject. You're being needlessly divisive.
Perhaps you're one of... them!
In article <qOkjlycz...@netcom.com>, abos...@netcom.com (Debbie
Notkin) wrote:
> Second of all, I don't like the strong moral tone that has crept into the
> smoking argument. As in, "We nonsmokers have stronger character, take better
> care of our bodies, and are more respectful of the people around us than
> you smokers, so we can decree what you do and don't deserve." As a fat
> woman, this sounds entirely too much like the oppression I fight every
> day (and I'm well aware that fear of fat is one of the major factors that
> keeps people--especially women--smoking). I am not in favor of moralistic
> positions setting public policy.
But... this is a moralitic position! Should we use this argument to settle
public policy? Or should health issues dominate? Hmmm... debating moral
situations or saving lives... what a choice...
---
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good
example."
-- Mark Twain
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>rules wrto smoking are probably established. You seem to be implying that
>smoking is only allowed in one's own hotel room and nowhere else in that
>building. Is this correct?
As far as I know, that's correct. Because consuites are normally in
hotel rooms, it's possible to have a smoking consuite.
>Also, I do not understand what you mean by "the Red Lion has an open bar
>[so] smoking is prohibited in it." What does "open bar" mean here?
Means that it's open, in the middle of the lobby, like many hotel
restaurants.
Joseph W. Casey
In a previous posting, (Jim_...@transarc.com) writes:
> fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>> I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in their
>> own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!) or outdoors
>> where it can blow away from me. It's something I don't understand; I can't
>> understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would take up
>> the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to mention
>> how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T allergic to
>> it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
>
> I don't smoke. However, I do engage in several other habits that are
> bad for me. I eat fatty food. I don't have bran muffins for breakfast.
> And I don't like aerobic exercise. And so on.
>
> We are all going to die sometime. Yes, I probably could extend my life
> by a couple of years by making my current life a bit harder or a bit
> less interesting. But I don't like the tradeoff.
>
>> Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
>>
>
> Yep, I've had several relatives (including my mother) who died that
> way. But I can still understand why people don't just automatically
> always do the healthiest things.
Further to this point. A friend of mine died a few years ago from lung
cancer. She never smoked a day in her life. I somehow doubt that this made
the cancer any less painful. I no longer smoke, however the attitudes I've
seen of late offend me. Locally the city council has made it illegal to
smoke in the baseball or football statiums, both of which are uncovered
and there fore out doors. More and more I am finding anti-smokers zealots are
becoming as offensive as televangilists (sp?).
BTW: Some one a piece back stated that it was against the law to smoke in
an "open bar". I woudl think the owner would be much more upset if you
were to smoke there when the bar was closed. ;-)
Joseph W. Casey
--
Major Makin vestai-Cheghjihtah-Kasara
may'ghom la', may' tengchaH Morath
ra'wI', Assault Squadron, Central Quadrant
Steel Fist Fleet KAG/KANADA
Lynn Gold
>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>> I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in their
>> own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!) or outdoors
>> where it can blow away from me. It's something I don't understand; I can't
>> understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would take up
>> the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to mention
>> how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T allergic to
>> it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
>
>I don't smoke. However, I do engage in several other habits that are
>bad for me. I eat fatty food. I don't have bran muffins for breakfast.
>And I don't like aerobic exercise. And so on.
Yeah, but fatty foods taste good. :-)
Seriously, there's a difference between actively harming yourself and
not going out of your way to do extra-healthy things.
>We are all going to die sometime. Yes, I probably could extend my life
>by a couple of years by making my current life a bit harder or a bit
>less interesting. But I don't like the tradeoff.
Again, it's a personal choice. I just said *I* don't understand why anyone
would smoke. I find the stuff unpleasant and don't understand why anyone
would want do to it.
>> Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
>>
>
>Yep, I've had several relatives (including my mother) who died that
>way. But I can still understand why people don't just automatically
>always do the healthiest things.
True (she says, knowing she's not going to exercise today).
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>Two reasons: first of all, I don't like to see people punished for being
>addicted to something. I was especially upset about the airplanes banning
>smoking, because *I* don't want to sit next to someone having a five-hour
>nicotine fit.
I don't want to sit even on opposite ends of a 747. I can still tell
when someone lights up.
When I was 7 years old, I threw a temper tantrum because my teacher put
a cup of coffee on my desk. I'm older now, though, and I restrict my
ire to those who actually attempt to harm me. I didn't mind the guy on
the plane next to me two weekends ago having a beer, even though I don't
like the way beer smells and I think drunk drivers should be shot.
>Second of all, I don't like the strong moral tone that has crept into the
>smoking argument. As in, "We nonsmokers have stronger character, take better
>care of our bodies, and are more respectful of the people around us than
>you smokers, so we can decree what you do and don't deserve." As a fat
>woman, this sounds entirely too much like the oppression I fight every
>day (and I'm well aware that fear of fat is one of the major factors that
>keeps people--especially women--smoking). I am not in favor of moralistic
>positions setting public policy.
Any moralism on my part comes from a neologism I coined called "Victim's
Paradise Syndrome". It's revenge for the days of illness I've spent at
the hands of smokers. I don't see how my attitude is in any way
comparable to the people who attack fat people, other than in tone.
>All that being said, I still think the nonsmoker, like Aahz and many other
>people I know, who is actively harmed by being around cigarette smoke, should
>have the final say on what happens in most public space. I just want to
>preserve some space, and some respect, for the smokers.
When smokers held the balance of power, many were known to make jokes
such as, "Why don't you just put on a breather mask and get your own air
supply?" I won't go that far except toward smokers who are rude to me,
but I have to confess I sometimes feel that way.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>I no longer smoke, however the attitudes I've
>seen of late offend me. Locally the city council has made it illegal to
>smoke in the baseball or football statiums, both of which are uncovered
>and there fore out doors. More and more I am finding anti-smokers zealots are
>becoming as offensive as televangilists (sp?).
I'd agree with you if you said anti-smokers are as offensive as MADD.
Look, if you're in an outdoor stadium, smoking 3 seats away from me,
it's *still* going to affect me.
Joseph W. Casey
> aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>>I've had enough bad experiences with rude smokers that now that I >have
> the weight of law and custom on *my* side, I'm quite happy to
>>be vicious to any smoker whom I consider to be even a tiny bit out >of
> line.
>
> dagos, wops, and even (Gasp!) chicks and queers, it must be nice to have
> at least one group you can be unconscionably nasty to. A free,
> publicly-approved target for all your most frightening spurts of bigotry
> and intolerance.
>
> If having bad experiences with rude people is the excuse, smokers have an
> even better excuse to respond to anti-smokers of any kind with an AK-47.
>
> Anyone who is happy to be viscious really needs to reconsider their
> priorities.
>
> Avedon
Hear, hear. As an ex-smoker I have had to put up with more outbursts of
mean-spirited rudeness than I care to remember. A few examples follow:
At a party in my home I decided that since a majority of the attendees did
not smoke I would only allow it in the back yard. I had a non-smoker come
into my backyard and announce that since she was there no smoking was
allowed. I pointed out that this was the smoking area and was greeted with
the statement that since my smoking could damage her health while she was
there it was very rude for me to smoke. I invited her to leave.
Sitting in the one smoking room of a five room consuite a con com member
walked in and stated that the room was now non-smoking as the con-com was
going to be using the room the next day for business meetings. When asked
why they didn't use one of the non-smoking rooms for the meeting I was
greeted with the explanation that smokers were less important than
non-smokers.
Sitting in the smoking section of a bar when a member of the con com
walked in a stated that since the bar would be used for part of the
evening for a con function it was now non-smoking. Fortunatley the
management set her straight.
And non-smokers say smokers are rude. BTW: I am an ex-smoker and was for
two of the three preceding events.
Joseph W. Casey
In a previous posting, Mean Green Dancing Machine (aa...@netcom.com) writes:
> In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
> Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>I no longer smoke, however the attitudes I've
>>seen of late offend me. Locally the city council has made it illegal to
>>smoke in the baseball or football statiums, both of which are uncovered
>>and there fore out doors. More and more I am finding anti-smokers zealots are
>>becoming as offensive as televangilists (sp?).
>
> I'd agree with you if you said anti-smokers are as offensive as MADD.
The major difference you are missing is that MADD is targeting people who
are acting in an illegal manner, driving drunk. Smoking is not illegal, no
matter how much you smoke.
>
> Look, if you're in an outdoor stadium, smoking 3 seats away from me,
> it's *still* going to affect me.
And the guy three seats away from me who is having a sauerkraut (sp?)
hotdog is going to kill my appitite and the woman sitting in front of me
who bathed in perfume is going to give me an asthmatic attack but it's
rude for me to attack them because of it.
Please check you double standard at the door.
Martin Schafer
>
>I'll admit, though, that it isn't entirely the smokers' fault, but the
>tobacco companies: I spent about six weeks in Israel a while back,
>staying with my smoking aunt. Surprisingly enough, I wasn't sick much.
>I decided it wasn't just continuous exposure, because I *did* get sick
>near some other smokers. Therefore, *her* cigarettes didn't have many
>of the additives the tobacco companies commonly add.
>
This is actually a fairly common experience. Many (note, I say many
not most or all) of the people who believe they are bothered by
tobacco smoke are actually bothered by the flame enhancers and other
additives in cigarettes. If you hate cigarettes, but don't mind
pipes, you probably fall into this category. American Spirits are
cigarettes without any additives, available at many tobacconists
or by mail order 1-800-332-5595.
I also find frustrating the FDA's efforts to block any third way
solution to the smoking problem. Nicotine gum and the patch both
require a perscription, and you and your doctor must at least pretend
that it's for the purpose of helping you quit smoking. The smokeless
cigarette (needed more developement work since most smokers thought
it tasted vile and gave them headaches) was banned.
Some of my best friends are smokers. Others are allergic or
intolerant of smoke. I find the choices I have to make from time
to time about who I get to be with to be increasingly maddening.
I don't see any real solution (other than the potential technological
ones which are years and a sea change of public policy away), but I
wish that people who snark from either side would just stop it. It
only increases the polarization of the issue.
Martin
Lynn Gold
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <qOkjlycz...@netcom.com>, Debbie Notkin <ki...@slip.net> wrote:
>>
>>Two reasons: first of all, I don't like to see people punished for being
>>addicted to something. I was especially upset about the airplanes banning
>>smoking, because *I* don't want to sit next to someone having a five-hour
>>nicotine fit.
>
>I don't want to sit even on opposite ends of a 747. I can still tell
>when someone lights up.
Agreed. They once had to give me oxygen on a flight because I got stuck
too close to the smoking section. It was VERY embarassing.
>>Second of all, I don't like the strong moral tone that has crept into the
>>smoking argument. As in, "We nonsmokers have stronger character, take better
>>care of our bodies, and are more respectful of the people around us than
>>you smokers, so we can decree what you do and don't deserve." As a fat
>>woman, this sounds entirely too much like the oppression I fight every
>>day (and I'm well aware that fear of fat is one of the major factors that
>>keeps people--especially women--smoking). I am not in favor of moralistic
>>positions setting public policy.
>
>Any moralism on my part comes from a neologism I coined called "Victim's
>Paradise Syndrome". It's revenge for the days of illness I've spent at
>the hands of smokers. I don't see how my attitude is in any way
>comparable to the people who attack fat people, other than in tone.
I don't agree with being rude because of someone's choice to smoke where
permitted. If I'm visiting the home of someone who smokes, I might
apologize as I walk away from them while they light up, all the while
explaining that it's nothing personal and that I've got this respiratory
problem. If, OTOH, someone lights up at MY place, they get read the Riot
Act.
If someone is severely obese, it doesn't make me wheeze and turn funny
colors. If someone chooses to consume alcohol, as long as they don't do
anything to anyone while under the influence (such as drive), I can still
breathe easily.
>>All that being said, I still think the nonsmoker, like Aahz and many other
>>people I know, who is actively harmed by being around cigarette smoke, should
>>have the final say on what happens in most public space. I just want to
>>preserve some space, and some respect, for the smokers.
>
>When smokers held the balance of power, many were known to make jokes
>such as, "Why don't you just put on a breather mask and get your own air
>supply?" I won't go that far except toward smokers who are rude to me,
>but I have to confess I sometimes feel that way.
Ya know, it's interesting to watch how smoking has fallen in and out of
favor in the last few decades. I've also noticed the midwest seems to have
fallen behind in the trend away from smoking. At one of the bid parties at
Minicon, a bid chair lamented about how he could get a hotel but didn't see
HOW he could possibly fill it because the hotel insisted on all the rooms
being non-smoking! (The bid chair and most of his bid committee smoked.)
The bid chair, however, was not from the location where his con was bidding
for, which is geographically closer to me than to him. I then explained
that in the area where he was bidding very few fen smoked.
Lynn Gold
>cancer. She never smoked a day in her life. I somehow doubt that this made
>seen of late offend me. Locally the city council has made it illegal to
>smoke in the baseball or football statiums, both of which are uncovered
>and there fore out doors. More and more I am finding anti-smokers zealots are
>becoming as offensive as televangilists (sp?).
Unfortunately, the smoke still wafts up into the stands (sigh). I know
because I've gotten sick from it. :-(
>BTW: Some one a piece back stated that it was against the law to smoke in
>an "open bar". I woudl think the owner would be much more upset if you
>were to smoke there when the bar was closed. ;-)
Groan....
When he says "open," he means "in the middle of the lobby area there's a
bar and a bunch of chairs anyone can sit in." Yes, because it's in an open
area, it's subject to open area laws.
Lynn Gold
>> I'd agree with you if you said anti-smokers are as offensive as MADD.
>
>The major difference you are missing is that MADD is targeting people who
>are acting in an illegal manner, driving drunk. Smoking is not illegal, no
>matter how much you smoke.
BZZZZZT. Try lighting up in a grocery store or restaurant out here
and you'll find out how "legal" it is.
>> Look, if you're in an outdoor stadium, smoking 3 seats away from me,
>> it's *still* going to affect me.
>
>And the guy three seats away from me who is having a sauerkraut (sp?)
>hotdog is going to kill my appitite and the woman sitting in front of me
>who bathed in perfume is going to give me an asthmatic attack but it's
>rude for me to attack them because of it.
1. I generally don't wear perfume for that reason.
2. Marin County has already passed anti-perfume legislation.
There's also the horrific story of some woman in NYC who got trapped
in an elevator with four other people. She got hot and started
spritzing herself with perfume. The other four people were sensitive
to the fumes.
By the time the rescue crews were able to get the elevator opened,
they found the one live woman with the four dead people she didn't
kill.
>Please check you double standard at the door.
There's a difference between killing an appetite and asphyxiating someone.
Avedon Carol
> It's something I don't understand; I can't
> understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would
> take up
> the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to
> mention
> how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T
> allergic to
> it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
>
> Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
Actually, the fact that you tend to gain weight when you quit was not
really known in the '60s, although there was some anecdotal evidence
(this used to be known as "old wives tales"). But by this same logic,
you could ask the same question about why anyone would ski, or live in a
city, or have a glass of wine, or any number of other things. Current
evidence, for example, is that nicotine reduces the occurrence and/or
symptoms of a number of fairly horrible diseases, including Alzheimer's -
when are you going to start wearing nicotine patches?
The point is, people who orient their lives around the possibility that
something could ultimately be harmful to them end up like those fabulous
neurotics who always wear a mask and gloves wherever they go, if they
still go out at all. I don't know anyone I consider worth my time who
doesn't have some sort of potentially self-destructive behaviour.
And lung cancer may not be a fun way to die, but there are plenty of
others that aren't either. Your chances of a horrible death or an
excrutiating old age are still pretty high - perhaps even higher if you
fail to get lung cancer first. The option of never having to suffer is
not on offer, whether you smoke or not. Some people get lucky and, we
are told, die peacefully in their sleep; but failure to smoke does not
seem to guarantee this. You can also still get lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases without ever being around cigarette smoke - but as a
non-smoker, your chances of being misdiagnosed as having something else
are higher than those of a smoker.
Either way, you are taking risks - wouldn't you prefer to have the option
of choosing which risks you will take based on what makes your own life
more worth living, rather than based on someone else's idea of what your
life _should_ be about?
Avedon
Lynn Gold
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Actually, the fact that you tend to gain weight when you quit was not
>really known in the '60s, although there was some anecdotal evidence
>(this used to be known as "old wives tales").
My experience in that one was anecdotal; I watched as many of my relatives
quit.
>But by this same logic, you could ask the same question about why anyone
>would ski, or live in a city, or have a glass of wine, or any number of
>other things.
While I could, I don't see the connection between doing something that, as
far as I can see, does nothing but make you stink and make many people not
want to hang around you. Again, I'm in northern California, where it's
considered "uncool" to smoke in the social circles in which I hang.
Wine has been shown to be beneficial to health if consumed in moderation.
Quite frankly, I don't understand what people see in skiing either, but I
don't turn funny colors and start wheezing when someone skis, and nobody I
know of gets dirty looks because they want to go ski.
>Current evidence, for example, is that nicotine reduces the occurrence
>and/or symptoms of a number of fairly horrible diseases, including
>Alzheimer's - when are you going to start wearing nicotine patches?
I don't see the connection. There's a difference between doing something
active to harm yourself vs. passively not doing something to help yourself.
>The point is, people who orient their lives around the possibility that
>something could ultimately be harmful to them end up like those fabulous
>neurotics who always wear a mask and gloves wherever they go, if they
>still go out at all. I don't know anyone I consider worth my time who
>doesn't have some sort of potentially self-destructive behaviour.
I know lots of people who don't engage in what I'd consider actively self-
destructive behavior.
>And lung cancer may not be a fun way to die, but there are plenty of
>others that aren't either. Your chances of a horrible death or an
>excrutiating old age are still pretty high - perhaps even higher if you
>fail to get lung cancer first.
I WISH. Forgive me, but I'd rather not go into my personal medical history
right now, especially as I'm being tested for some kind of "growth" as I
write this (it's not in my lungs as far as I know, though) and would rather
not think of the "C" word right now.
I am aware that smoking and death from lung cancer aren't always connected,
but my grandmother who died from it was a chain smoker. Yes, my experience
here is anecdotal, but it's MY experience.
>Either way, you are taking risks - wouldn't you prefer to have the option
>of choosing which risks you will take based on what makes your own life
>more worth living, rather than based on someone else's idea of what your
>life _should_ be about?
I'm not telling other people what to do with their private lives. I'm just
saying I don't understand a particular decision.
Krikket
>Quite frankly, I don't understand what people see in skiing either, but I
>don't turn funny colors and start wheezing when someone skis, and nobody I
>know of gets dirty looks because they want to go ski.
I've never let other people influence what I do, to a certain
extent. Hell, if I get dirty looks when I light up, I tend to blow
smoke in their direction, if I am in a smoking-approperiate place.
(Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
smoke. Sirty looks aren't polite. I return rudeness with rudeness. I
return politeness with politeness. And besides, only it's the exception
that someone is rude to me about it.)
>>Current evidence, for example, is that nicotine reduces the occurrence
>>and/or symptoms of a number of fairly horrible diseases, including
>>Alzheimer's - when are you going to start wearing nicotine patches?
It has been proven that smoking reduces the odds of a person getting a
rather nasty form of colon cancer. Unfortunately it increases the odds
of another kind of cancer with virtually identical symptoms...
--
Krikket kri...@mcs.com an6...@anon.penet.fi
Voice (708)665-9732 http://www.mcs.net/~krikket/home.html (WWW Page)
http://www.mcs.net/~krikket/html/tsd.html (The Straight Dope Archives)
First off, some second-rate third wheels consider the fourth estate to
*be* a fifth column, but my sixth sense tells me their idea of seventh
heaven would leave me behind the eighth ball in the ninth circle of hell.
Jim_...@transarc.com
>
> Hear, hear. As an ex-smoker I have had to put up with more outbursts of
> mean-spirited rudeness than I care to remember. A few examples follow:
>
> At a party in my home I decided that since a majority of the attendees did
> not smoke I would only allow it in the back yard. I had a non-smoker come
> into my backyard and announce that since she was there no smoking was
> allowed. I pointed out that this was the smoking area and was greeted with
> the statement that since my smoking could damage her health while she was
> there it was very rude for me to smoke. I invited her to leave.
I can agree with you that this, and the other examples (which I
deleted), are good examples of rudeness. But I think arguing in this
fashion is pointless. There are equally lots and lots of examples of
rude smokers who light up wherever they want. Both sides can site
instances of the other side being rude.
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <D8pL...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
> Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, the fact that you tend to gain weight when you quit was not
> >really known in the '60s, although there was some anecdotal evidence
> >(this used to be known as "old wives tales").
>
> My experience in that one was anecdotal; I watched as many of my relatives
> quit.
>
> >But by this same logic, you could ask the same question about why anyone
> >would ski, or live in a city, or have a glass of wine, or any number of
> >other things.
>
> While I could, I don't see the connection between doing something that, as
> far as I can see, does nothing but make you stink and make many people not
> want to hang around you.
Well, one could argue that skiing does nothing but makes you cold and
tired. And I certainly don't like hanging around skiiers when they
start talking skiing.
>Again, I'm in northern California, where it's
> considered "uncool" to smoke in the social circles in which I hang.
>
> Wine has been shown to be beneficial to health if consumed in
moderation.
But even if it wasn't, that would be beside the point. I like the
occasional beer (and an even more occasional glass of wine). Even if
someone told me that drinking beer could make me die a year earlier
than I otherwise would, I would still drink it.
> Quite frankly, I don't understand what people see in skiing either, but I
> don't turn funny colors and start wheezing when someone skis, and nobody I
> know of gets dirty looks because they want to go ski.
But you are talking two different issues. You started out by saying
you didn't understand why smokers smoke at all, when they know it can
harm them. You've now transitioned to why someone might not be around
someone who is smoking. I can understand the latter. I don't like
being in closed rooms with someone who is smoking. But I can
understand why someone might like doing something they enjoy, even if
it can harm them.
> >The point is, people who orient their lives around the possibility that
> >something could ultimately be harmful to them end up like those fabulous
> >neurotics who always wear a mask and gloves wherever they go, if they
> >still go out at all. I don't know anyone I consider worth my time who
> >doesn't have some sort of potentially self-destructive behaviour.
>
> I know lots of people who don't engage in what I'd consider actively self-
> destructive behavior.
Hmm. I can't think of any. It's all a matter of degree of course, and
I guess there are some who really don't do ANYTHING. But most folks I
know eat rich, buttery chocolate cake or french fries, occasionally
have more than one beer, go skiing or white water rafting, or
whatever.
Of course one could stay in the house for one's entire life and only
eat oat bran and soy products. But, Larry King summed it up in the one
good line he ever had in his life: "Eating natural food doesn't make
you live longer. It just seems that way."
Joseph W. Casey
> In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>>an "open bar". I woudl think the owner would be much more upset if you
>>were to smoke there when the bar was closed. ;-)
>
> Groan....
>
> When he says "open," he means "in the middle of the lobby area there's a
> bar and a bunch of chairs anyone can sit in." Yes, because it's in an open
> area, it's subject to open area laws.
I know, I've spent most of my adult carreer working in bars (were the
computer has a much better spell checker than this net) I just could not
resist the pun. ;-)
Joseph W. Casey
> In article <D8oM4...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>
>>> I'd agree with you if you said anti-smokers are as offensive as MADD.
>>
>>The major difference you are missing is that MADD is targeting people who
>>are acting in an illegal manner, driving drunk. Smoking is not illegal, no
>>matter how much you smoke.
>
> BZZZZZT. Try lighting up in a grocery store or restaurant out here
> and you'll find out how "legal" it is.
However, a lot of the places that have been made illegal just don't make
sense. I believe that if you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows
smoking you don't go. What many people seem to be demanding however is
that since _they_ don't smoke all restaurants must be non-smoking. This
bothers me as I always thought that the US was built on the freedom of the
individual.
>
>>> Look, if you're in an outdoor stadium, smoking 3 seats away from me,
>>> it's *still* going to affect me.
>>
>>And the guy three seats away from me who is having a sauerkraut (sp?)
>>hotdog is going to kill my appitite and the woman sitting in front of me
>>who bathed in perfume is going to give me an asthmatic attack but it's
>>rude for me to attack them because of it.
>
> 1. I generally don't wear perfume for that reason.
>
> 2. Marin County has already passed anti-perfume legislation.
>
It's about time!
Look, I have not trouble with not smoking on elevators, or in designated
places. However, when smoking is banned everywhere then I start to get
upset. I can also see it hurting a number of people in this area. For a
while city hall here banned smoking in bars. The locals went across the
river to Hull where smoking is allowed just about everywhere. At least six
bars were forced out of business and these were not small bars. If, as is
constantly claimed, there is a great hue and cry for non-smoking bars then
owners will find it more profitable to make there bars non-smoking. I
guess I'm someting of a libertarian on this point.
Lynn Gold
>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>
>tired. And I certainly don't like hanging around skiiers when they
>start talking skiing.
Again, skiiers can get really boring when they talk about skiing, but they
aren't engaging in something which, as far as I can tell, has absolutely
nothing pleasurable about it, at best stinks up the place, and at worst
makes people around them ill.
>> Wine has been shown to be beneficial to health if consumed in
>> moderation.
>
>But even if it wasn't, that would be beside the point. I like the
>occasional beer (and an even more occasional glass of wine). Even if
>someone told me that drinking beer could make me die a year earlier
>than I otherwise would, I would still drink it.
Again, that's a personal choice. I have yet to meet a smoker who said they
ENJOYED smoking, as opposed to many who do it because they got peer-
pressured into it when they were young.
Again, my experience is anecdotal. I also have friends who can't tell the
differnce between a fine cabernet sauvignon and rotting grape juice,
whereas I can and would MUCH rather have the former. :-)
>> Quite frankly, I don't understand what people see in skiing either, but I
>> don't turn funny colors and start wheezing when someone skis, and nobody I
>> know of gets dirty looks because they want to go ski.
>
>But you are talking two different issues. You started out by saying
>you didn't understand why smokers smoke at all, when they know it can
>harm them. You've now transitioned to why someone might not be around
>someone who is smoking. I can understand the latter. I don't like
>being in closed rooms with someone who is smoking. But I can
>understand why someone might like doing something they enjoy, even if
>it can harm them.
What I'm saying is I can't figure out how or why anyone could ENJOY
smoking, and that there seem to be, to me, only reasons to NOT smoke.
We're talking "personal choice" here.
The whole topic came up because we were discussing regional differences in
what's considered "rude." In northern California, smoking is generally
considered a "rude" thing to do, whereas in other parts of the country
(Minneapolis and Chicago seem to be this way) it's considered rude to ask
someone to NOT smoke.
>> I know lots of people who don't engage in what I'd consider actively
>> self-destructive behavior.
>
>Hmm. I can't think of any. It's all a matter of degree of course, and
>I guess there are some who really don't do ANYTHING. But most folks I
>know eat rich, buttery chocolate cake or french fries, occasionally
>have more than one beer, go skiing or white water rafting, or
>whatever.
Consuming beer and chocolate cake isn't necessarily destructive; you DO
need calories to survive. Skiing and white water rafting are forms of
exercise, which is supposedly a healthy activity. You don't need tar and
nicotine to survive unless you're addicted to them.
I consider the following to be "actively self-destructive activities:"
. Jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge without a bungee cord
. Swimming in a shark tank with chunks of raw meat tied to one's
reproductive organs
. Drinking a six-pack of beer in less than an hour and going for a drive
. Pulling an all-nighter and then operating a table saw when you can't see
straight
. Slamming one's hand onto a spike
. Frying bacon while stark naked
. Gouging your eyes out with knitting needles
. Eating massive quantities of a food to which you're violently allergic
. Drinking corn syrup if you're hypoglycemic
. Smoking
I know there are exceptions to the tobacco thing, but they're not many. I
have a friend who smokes for health reasons (some obscure lung thing), and
he HATES it. None of his circle of friends smoke, and he always has to go
off by himself to do his tobacco thing.
>Of course one could stay in the house for one's entire life and only
>eat oat bran and soy products. But, Larry King summed it up in the one
>good line he ever had in his life: "Eating natural food doesn't make
>you live longer. It just seems that way."
Who said anything about "oat bran" and "soy products?" *I* didn't!
OTOH, I once had some oat bran beer that was pretty good, and I could go
for some Ma Po Dofu (Szechuan tofu) right now.... ;-)
John Hall
>In article <ojiVIYeSM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
>>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>Again, skiiers can get really boring when they talk about skiing, but they
>aren't engaging in something which, as far as I can tell, has absolutely
>nothing pleasurable about it, at best stinks up the place, and at worst
>makes people around them ill.
Even though you find "absolutely nothing pleasurable about it", don't
assume smokers are always miserable, addicted slaves of the weed.
I smoked for eight years, pipes, cigars and cigarettes. It was *very*
pleasurable. I gave it up about seventeen years ago because I was concerned
about the health risks, and out of courtesy to others at my place of work.
>Again, that's a personal choice. I have yet to meet a smoker who said they
>ENJOYED smoking, as opposed to many who do it because they got peer-
>pressured into it when they were young.
As I said, I enjoyed smoking.
>What I'm saying is I can't figure out how or why anyone could ENJOY
>smoking, and that there seem to be, to me, only reasons to NOT smoke.
Well, I found plenty of reasons to smoke. Tobacco smoke tastes good to a
smoker, and once you get past the sameness of American cigarette brands, there
are all kinds of different tobaccos to enjoy. The effects of the nicotine and
other active substances on the body and brain are not all unpleasant. A pipeful
of Latakia while walking to class on a sunny winter morning keeps ones hands
warm, stimulates the brain and leaves one in a good mood. At least that was
my experience.
>We're talking "personal choice" here.
Absolutely.
>. . . You don't need tar and
>nicotine to survive unless you're addicted to them.
True. But someone who enjoys them might choose to partake of them,
even if they are not addicted to them.
Smoking is both risky and enjoyable. So are rock climbing, auto racing,
hoboing and many other activities. For all I know, someone might find
enjoyment in "jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge without a bungee cord".
In a free society, everyone can choose for themselves what activities,
risky or otherwise to engage in, as long as those activities don't unduly
hurt to others.
Notice the "unduly" weasel word I stuck in the last paragraph. That's because
you have to make a decision and draw a line somewhere. Otherwise, you get
into unending arguments along the lines of
"Even if you do it all by yourself in the middle of the
wilderness, _______________ really hurts your family because it may
make you die sooner, and it hurts us all because society will have to
pay for your medical bills"
Fill in the blank with: "Smoking", "Riding your bike without a helmet",
"juggling chainsaws", "skydiving", "eating butter", or whatever you like.
Deciding *where* to draw that line is the tough part.
John Hall
jo...@kodak.com
David E Romm
(Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
> However, a lot of the places that have been made illegal just don't make
> sense. I believe that if you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows
> smoking you don't go. What many people seem to be demanding however is
> that since _they_ don't smoke all restaurants must be non-smoking. This
> bothers me as I always thought that the US was built on the freedom of the
> individual.
Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
> Look, I have not trouble with not smoking on elevators, or in designated
> places. However, when smoking is banned everywhere then I start to get
> upset.
Fortunately for you , it isn't. What consenting adults do behind closed
doors is legal... except if it involves sex.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see
it tried on him personally." -- Abraham Lincoln
C. Baden
: Ya know, it's interesting to watch how smoking has fallen in and out of
: favor in the last few decades. I've also noticed the midwest seems to have
: fallen behind in the trend away from smoking. At one of the bid parties at
: Minicon, a bid chair lamented about how he could get a hotel but didn't see
: HOW he could possibly fill it because the hotel insisted on all the rooms
: being non-smoking! (The bid chair and most of his bid committee smoked.)
: The bid chair, however, was not from the location where his con was bidding
: for, which is geographically closer to me than to him. I then explained
: that in the area where he was bidding very few fen smoked.
A bid chair, chairing a bid for a location where he's not familiar with
the local custom. Hmmm. Bidding by remote-control. I've heard of this
before. Has it been very succesful in the past?
--
ha...@netcom.com - Home of Margarita Jell-O, an alcoholic use for lime
jello. Email me w/ "request margarita" as subject or message for recipe.
* L.A.con III * World Science Fiction Convention * lacon...@netcom.com
* Aug29-Sep02 '96, Anaheim CA * Ftp = ftp.netcom.com:/pub/la/lacon3-info/
**> L.A.Con III web page = http://sundry.hsc.usc.edu/lacon3/
* Alternate = ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/la/lacon3-info/www/lacon3.html
* Join for $90 * L.A.con III, c/o SCIFI P.O. Box 8442, Van Nuys CA 91409
* Rate goes up to $110 as of July 1, 1995; even more at the door. Join early!
David E Romm
> (Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
> go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
> smoke. Sirty looks aren't polite. I return rudeness with rudeness.
Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' theory of social intercourse.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others."
-- Groucho Marx
Joseph W. Casey
David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) writes:
> In article <D8qHM...@freenet.carleton.ca>, am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>
>> However, a lot of the places that have been made illegal just don't make
>> sense. I believe that if you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows
>> smoking you don't go. What many people seem to be demanding however is
>> that since _they_ don't smoke all restaurants must be non-smoking. This
>> bothers me as I always thought that the US was built on the freedom of the
>> individual.
>
> Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
> pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
> unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
However, if I chose to run a bar or a restaurant that caters to smokers
this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
business the way I see fit has been legislated away. My feeling is that if
you don't like the way I run a business your option is to take your business
elsewhere _not_ to demand that I change the way I do business. I'm going
to point out here again that I don't smoke. The demands made by
anti-smokers are becoming increasingly like those of the religious right.
We don't like something (smoking = rap music) so we demand that no one
be allowed to do it.
>> Look, I have not trouble with not smoking on elevators, or in designated
>> places. However, when smoking is banned everywhere then I start to get
>> upset.
>
> Fortunately for you , it isn't. What consenting adults do behind closed
> doors is legal... except if it involves sex.
However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
Seth Breidbart
David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>Fortunately for you , it isn't. What consenting adults do behind closed
>doors is legal... except if it involves sex.
Or drugs, or financial transactions, or talking about certain
proscribed subjects, or ...
Seth
Eugenia Horne
>In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>>from lung cancer. She never smoked a day in her life. I somehow doubt
>>that this made the cancer any less painful. I no longer smoke, however
>>the attitudes I've seen of late offend me. Locally the city council has
>>made it illegal to smoke in the baseball or football statiums, both of
>>which are uncovered and there fore out doors. More and more I am finding
>>anti-smokers zealots are becoming as offensive as televangilists (sp?).
>Unfortunately, the smoke still wafts up into the stands (sigh). I know
>because I've gotten sick from it. :-(
The only time I've gotten sick from someone smoking
something in the stands (it was Dodger Stadium), I
was informed that what was being smoked was marijuana.
[I'm not discounting others' experiences now...]
>"We may have our backs against the wall, but we won't give up; we'll
> do what Britain has historically done when we have our backs against the
> wall: turn around and keep fighting."
>
> -- Prime Minister John Major, on his
> Conservative Party's massive losses in
> the recent round of local elections
Does Mr. Major know Dan Quayle? Politics aside, the mental
picture this brings is hysterical.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Feelings of admiration and even love are not sinful - nor can you
prevent the impulses of one's nature - but it is your duty to avoid
the temptation in every way. - Prince Albert [via Queen Victoria]
Volt
: I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in their
: own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!) or outdoors
I have nothing against fat people. As long as they are fat in their
own home, or if they stand behind a screen or something.
: where it can blow away from me. It's something I don't understand; I can't
: understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would take up
: the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to mention
: how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T allergic to
: it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
I don't understand why they don't just go on a diet. The same for
those really skinny gross people. All you have to do is modify your
behavior and you'll be healthier. If everyone would just jog three
miles every day we'd all have stronger hearts and better circulation.
For those who can't detect sarcasm and hyperbole, this is it.
It's one thing to say "please don't smoke near me." to your friends.
It's just rude to ask it of strangers, but it can be carried off in
a polite fashion. For those with life threatening allergies it's rude
and stupid to go places where you are likely to encounter smoke without
the appropriate medication.
: Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
Besides, smug self righteous behavior is a very simple way
to alienate anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%
I don't smoke. But every time this question comes up, I'll
go stand with the smokers. They have the common decency to
respect what I choose to do with my life, and not give me a
sermon on how I should live. Part of what attracted me to fandom,
for the most part.
Volt
Free Hugs See ya all at disclave?
I'll be with magenta....
Lynn Gold
>>>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>
>assume smokers are always miserable, addicted slaves of the weed.
>
>I smoked for eight years, pipes, cigars and cigarettes. It was *very*
>pleasurable. I gave it up about seventeen years ago because I was concerned
>about the health risks, and out of courtesy to others at my place of work.
Then I'm corrected. I now know one (former) smoker who enjoyed it.
>>Again, that's a personal choice. I have yet to meet a smoker who said they
>>ENJOYED smoking, as opposed to many who do it because they got peer-
>>pressured into it when they were young.
>
>As I said, I enjoyed smoking.
>
>Smoking is both risky and enjoyable. So are rock climbing, auto racing,
>hoboing and many other activities. For all I know, someone might find
>enjoyment in "jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge without a bungee cord".
The San Francisco PD and the California Highway Patrol call it
"attempting to commit suicide." I'm serious about this. The CHP even
has a code for it.
>In a free society, everyone can choose for themselves what activities,
>risky or otherwise to engage in, as long as those activities don't unduly
>hurt to others.
>
>Notice the "unduly" weasel word I stuck in the last paragraph. That's because
>you have to make a decision and draw a line somewhere. Otherwise, you get
>into unending arguments along the lines of
>
> "Even if you do it all by yourself in the middle of the
> wilderness, _______________ really hurts your family because it may
> make you die sooner, and it hurts us all because society will have to
> pay for your medical bills"
>
>Fill in the blank with: "Smoking", "Riding your bike without a helmet",
>"juggling chainsaws", "skydiving", "eating butter", or whatever you like.
I agree re: the unending arguments.
>Deciding *where* to draw that line is the tough part.
I say doing anything that directly hurts someone else is going over
the line.
Lynn Gold
>Lynn Gold (fi...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in their
>: own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!) or outdoors
>
> I have nothing against fat people. As long as they are fat in their
>own home, or if they stand behind a screen or something.
Then close your eyes.
>: where it can blow away from me. It's something I don't understand; I can't
>: understand why anyone who came of "smoking age" after 1964 would take up
>: the habit when they "knew better" about its health damage, not to mention
>: how much it costs, the way it cuts your wind even if you AREN'T allergic to
>: it, and the way you tend to gain weight if you choose to quit.
>
> I don't understand why they don't just go on a diet. The same for
>those really skinny gross people. All you have to do is modify your
>behavior and you'll be healthier. If everyone would just jog three
>miles every day we'd all have stronger hearts and better circulation.
I was discussing personal choice. You're talking about a condition
that's largely been shown to be hereditary.
> For those who can't detect sarcasm and hyperbole, this is it.
>It's one thing to say "please don't smoke near me." to your friends.
>It's just rude to ask it of strangers, but it can be carried off in
>a polite fashion. For those with life threatening allergies it's rude
>and stupid to go places where you are likely to encounter smoke without
>the appropriate medication.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask someone to try to blow their smoke in
the opposite direction from the one in which you're standing if you
mutually agree you want to be in the same place.
It's also reasonable to ask this if you're in a situation where you
MUST eat (I'm hypoglycemic and have to eat every few hours) and the
only available eatery is one in which smoking is permitted and you
can't "just get away" from someone lighting up.
As for medications, I DO carry them. They help somewhat. If,
however, I'm in an enclosed place where there isn't supposed to be
smoking and it happens (often in spite of the law), I'm SOL.
>: Besides, lung cancer is a VERY painful way to die.
>
> Besides, smug self righteous behavior is a very simple way
>to alienate anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%
Excuse me, but you misread my post. I said *I* didn't understand why
anyone would want to smoke. I didn't say I was somehow "better" than
anyone who smoked. I just said it was a personal choice I didn't
understand.
> I don't smoke. But every time this question comes up, I'll
>go stand with the smokers. They have the common decency to
>respect what I choose to do with my life, and not give me a
>sermon on how I should live. Part of what attracted me to fandom,
>for the most part.
I've come across rabid smokers, rabid anti-smokers, and people who are
polite on both sides of the spectrum. I'll take non-rabid-anythings
over the rabid ones almost any day.
> Volt
>Free Hugs
Do you HONESTLY think I'd WANT one after the way you just attacked me?
Lynn Gold
>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) wrote:
>
>> There's also the horrific story of some woman in NYC who got trapped
>> in an elevator with four other people. She got hot and started
>> spritzing herself with perfume. The other four people were sensitive
>> to the fumes.
>>
>> By the time the rescue crews were able to get the elevator opened,
>> they found the one live woman with the four dead people she didn't
>> kill.
>
>sensitivities (though I love it), but I would sure like to see a reference
>on this one. It sounds like an urban legend to me. Wouldn't at least one of
>them have stopped her? Would four out of five people have been *that*
>sensitive to perfume? And how long *were* they stuck in that elevator.
It may very well be an urban legend; that's why I called it a "story"
rather than a "news item" and didn't provide sources. I've been trying to
look this one up since I'd heard it from a co-worker a few weeks ago.
Lynn Gold
>> In article <D8qHM...@freenet.carleton.ca>, am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>> (Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>>
>>> However, a lot of the places that have been made illegal just don't make
>>> sense. I believe that if you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows
>>> smoking you don't go. What many people seem to be demanding however is
>>> that since _they_ don't smoke all restaurants must be non-smoking. This
>>> bothers me as I always thought that the US was built on the freedom of the
>>> individual.
>>
>> Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
>> pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
>> unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
>
>However, if I chose to run a bar or a restaurant that caters to smokers
>this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
>business the way I see fit has been legislated away. My feeling is that if
>you don't like the way I run a business your option is to take your business
>elsewhere _not_ to demand that I change the way I do business.
What's happening is that non-smokers are getting into power and saying,
"Hey, WE'D like to be able to patronize these kinds of businesses, but the
owners of them are under the misguided impression they'll lose money if
they don't make their businesses uninhabitable to us, so why don't we do
something about it?"
I'm not casting judgement here; I'm just stating what I see going down.
>I'm going to point out here again that I don't smoke. The demands made by
>anti-smokers are becoming increasingly like those of the religious right.
>We don't like something (smoking = rap music) so we demand that no one
>be allowed to do it.
There are lots of "no playing music" signs on many buses and in many places
of business (the universal "not" circle over a silhouette of a boom box).
>>> Look, I have not trouble with not smoking on elevators, or in designated
>>> places. However, when smoking is banned everywhere then I start to get
>>> upset.
>>
>> Fortunately for you , it isn't. What consenting adults do behind closed
>> doors is legal... except if it involves sex.
>
>However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
>demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
>about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
If people learned to be polite and to pick up after themselves, there'd
probably be no such legislation. Buses in my county don't allow eating or
drinking. Do you think someone's eating or drinking affects how the bus
driver does his or her job? No! It's because too many people made messes
with their food and the waste products from said food on buses.
When people don't learn good manners, the government takes in and acts as a
larger parent.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>However, if I chose to run a bar or a restaurant that caters to smokers
>this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
>business the way I see fit has been legislated away.
This is true IFF you run a public business. Once you open up to the
public, your ability to do as you please gets restricted. Or are you
saying you don't believe in health regulations, for example?
One sushi bar near my house had a simple remedy: when the non-smoking
law went into effect, they put up a sign on the door saying, "Members
only". When I peered inside, I saw plenty of smokers.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"When you divide people into *us* and *them*, you automatically become
one of *them*." -- SS, via DG
Lynn Gold
>> In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>>>an "open bar". I woudl think the owner would be much more upset if you
>>>were to smoke there when the bar was closed. ;-)
>>
>> Groan....
>>
>> When he says "open," he means "in the middle of the lobby area there's a
>> bar and a bunch of chairs anyone can sit in." Yes, because it's in an open
>> area, it's subject to open area laws.
>
>I know, I've spent most of my adult carreer working in bars (were the
>computer has a much better spell checker than this net) I just could not
>resist the pun. ;-)
Of course, if you take this thread back to guitar playing, there's no
such thing as an "open bar" chord. :-)
--Lynn
(committing pun-upmanship ;-) )
Avedon Carol
> I've
> noticed that none of the people responding to the issue of smoking
> are
> from the West Coast. Do you suppose there might be some cultural
> difference involved?
> --
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Isn't the West Coast that place that has California in it? Where people
speak Mellow and if cops hit a guy 54 times, they didn't beat him up
enough? And Hollywood? Where 99% of white women are blonds with
straight noses, and an "ugly" woman is Brenda Vacarro without her make-up?
Avedon
Richard vine
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
> In article <3pcr2r$g...@Mars.mcs.com>,
> kri...@MCS.COM (Krikket) wrote:
>
> > (Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
> > go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
> > smoke. Sirty looks aren't polite. I return rudeness with rudeness.
>
> Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' theory of social intercourse.
>
No, actually. It is the old "do unto others as you would have them
do unto you" argument. If they are rude to a smoker then it is
acceptable for a smoker to be rude back at them.
And (to make things clear) I am a smoker who NEVER smokes in
no-smoking areas, who ALWAYS asks "do you mind if I smoke, and I
will not be offended if you say yes", and who NEVER smokes near
children even if I'm outdoors.
/Richard V.
====================================================================
The views expressed are mine. The blame for them belongs to society.
===================xkk...@stf.eua.ericsson.se======================
MIKE BLAKE
On 05/18/95 Volt mentioned on the matter of "Re: Smoking":
> Lynn Gold wrote:
> I have nothing personal against smokers or against anyone smoking in
> their own home (yes, I've seen anti-smokers get nasty on THAT one!)
> or outdoors where it can blow away from me.
Volt> I have nothing against fat people. As long as they are fat
Volt> in their own home, or if they stand behind a screen or
Volt> something.
But even as sarcasm, this analogy doesn't work. Unless I missed
those medical studies on the dangers of second hand fat! ;->
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Jim_...@transarc.com
> There are lots of "no playing music" signs on many buses and in many places
> of business (the universal "not" circle over a silhouette of a boom
box).
That's fine for the public streets. But what if they ban the playing
of music in bars? (Actually, I'd probably like that. I tend to look
for bars that are rather quiet, because I don't like loud music. Given
my choice between someone smoking two tables away and music loud
enough to make my teeth hurt, I'll take the smoking.)
Joseph W. Casey
> In article <D8s44...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>>> In article <D8qHM...@freenet.carleton.ca>, am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>>> (Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, a lot of the places that have been made illegal just don't make
>>>> sense. I believe that if you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows
>>>> smoking you don't go. What many people seem to be demanding however is
>>>> that since _they_ don't smoke all restaurants must be non-smoking. This
>>>> bothers me as I always thought that the US was built on the freedom of the
>>>> individual.
>>>
>>> Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
>>> pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
>>> unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
>>
>>this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
>>you don't like the way I run a business your option is to take your business
>>elsewhere _not_ to demand that I change the way I do business.
>
> What's happening is that non-smokers are getting into power and saying,
> "Hey, WE'D like to be able to patronize these kinds of businesses, but the
> owners of them are under the misguided impression they'll lose money if
> they don't make their businesses uninhabitable to us, so why don't we do
> something about it?"
Why is it that every business must be available to everyone? If I wish to
cater to a clientel that consists of smokers why should I not be able to?
> I'm not casting judgement here; I'm just stating what I see going down.
>
>>I'm going to point out here again that I don't smoke. The demands made by
>>anti-smokers are becoming increasingly like those of the religious right.
>>We don't like something (smoking = rap music) so we demand that no one
>>be allowed to do it.
>
> There are lots of "no playing music" signs on many buses and in many places
> of business (the universal "not" circle over a silhouette of a boom box).
Never seen one.
What I see here is an unnecessary regulation of private property. In
several tv shows and novels, don't have most of the titles to hand but
Tekwar springs to mind, smoking, even in the privacy of your own home, has
been made illegal. I can see this happening. Many things that people do
are self distructive and Big Brother is watching.
>>>> Look, I have not trouble with not smoking on elevators, or in designated
>>>> places. However, when smoking is banned everywhere then I start to get
>>>> upset.
>>>
>>> Fortunately for you , it isn't. What consenting adults do behind closed
>>> doors is legal... except if it involves sex.
>>
>>However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
>>demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
>>about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
>
> If people learned to be polite and to pick up after themselves, there'd
> probably be no such legislation.
Mayhaps the government, both yours and mine, should start enforceing the
laws that already exist, such as fines for littering
Buses in my county don't allow eating or
> drinking. Do you think someone's eating or drinking affects how the bus
> driver does his or her job? No! It's because too many people made messes
> with their food and the waste products from said food on buses.
However, the transit cops up here do enforce littering laws. It doesn't
take that many $53.75 (don't ask) fines to get people to realize that
littering is already against the law.
> When people don't learn good manners, the government takes in and acts as a
> larger parent.
I'll stick with the parents I was born with, don't need any extra
interference in my life.
Please note that any ire is directed at the laws not at anyone on this
newsgroup, so far.
Joseph W. Casey
> In article <D8qH2...@freenet.carleton.ca>,>>> In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>>>>an "open bar". I woudl think the owner would be much more upset if you
>>>>were to smoke there when the bar was closed. ;-)
>>>
>>> Groan....
>>>
>>> When he says "open," he means "in the middle of the lobby area there's a
>>> bar and a bunch of chairs anyone can sit in." Yes, because it's in an open
>>> area, it's subject to open area laws.
>>
>>I know, I've spent most of my adult carreer working in bars (were the
>>computer has a much better spell checker than this net) I just could not
>>resist the pun. ;-)
>
> Of course, if you take this thread back to guitar playing, there's no
> such thing as an "open bar" chord. :-)
>
> --Lynn
> (committing pun-upmanship ;-) )
That's two. You keep this up and we may both end up barred from this
newsgroup. Besides if you take this thread back to far the whole fabric of
the converstion may start to unravel.
Seth Breidbart
>I've never let other people influence what I do, to a certain
>extent. Hell, if I get dirty looks when I light up, I tend to blow
>smoke in their direction, if I am in a smoking-approperiate place.
And if someone does that to me, I'll sneeze in that direction, if I am
in a sneezing-appropriate place. (If you intentionally act so as to
make me sneeze, you bear the consequences.)
>It has been proven that smoking reduces the odds of a person getting a
>rather nasty form of colon cancer. Unfortunately it increases the odds
>of another kind of cancer with virtually identical symptoms...
I wouldn't be surprised if smoking reduces the lifetime odds of a
person getting hit by a truck. (Guess why)
Seth
Lynn Gold
Say, aren't you from that part of the world that has places like England
and the country formerly known as Yugoslavia? Don't you have people
killing each other over the right to rule their government? Where ethnic
cleansing goes on every day? Where people speak English with these funny
accents where they forget how to pronounce the letter "H" and they keep
sticking the letter "U" into words where it doesn't belong?
--Lynn
(sarcasm mode off)
Pam Wells
Why? I didn't know they were in captivity....
--
Pam Wells
Lynn Gold
Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>Why is it that every business must be available to everyone? If I wish to
>cater to a clientel that consists of smokers why should I not be able to?
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't be allowed to do so.
On a related note, CNN's been running a piece about a survey done in eight
Texas communities where no-smoking restaurant ordinances went into effect.
The restaurants in all eight communities noticed a slight UPSURGE in
business because more non-smokers were going out to eat.
It's sad when people have to use legislation to force an idea that's so
obvious. If more restaurants had catered exclusively to non-smokers, IMHO
the legislation wouldn't have been made in the first place.
>>>I'm going to point out here again that I don't smoke. The demands made by
>>>anti-smokers are becoming increasingly like those of the religious right.
>>>We don't like something (smoking = rap music) so we demand that no one
>>>be allowed to do it.
>>
>> There are lots of "no playing music" signs on many buses and in many places
>> of business (the universal "not" circle over a silhouette of a boom box).
>
>Never seen one.
Come to northern California. Ride a Santa Clara County Transit bus.
You'll see them.
>What I see here is an unnecessary regulation of private property. In
>several tv shows and novels, don't have most of the titles to hand but
>Tekwar springs to mind, smoking, even in the privacy of your own home, has
>been made illegal. I can see this happening. Many things that people do
>are self distructive and Big Brother is watching.
It's already going on. Look at sodomy laws in Georgia. :-(
>>>However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
>>>demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
>>>about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
>>
>> If people learned to be polite and to pick up after themselves, there'd
>> probably be no such legislation.
>
>Mayhaps the government, both yours and mine, should start enforceing the
>laws that already exist, such as fines for littering
Agreed.
>> Buses in my county don't allow eating or
>> drinking. Do you think someone's eating or drinking affects how the bus
>> driver does his or her job? No! It's because too many people made messes
>> with their food and the waste products from said food on buses.
>
>However, the transit cops up here do enforce littering laws. It doesn't
>take that many $53.75 (don't ask) fines to get people to realize that
>littering is already against the law.
Good point.
>> When people don't learn good manners, the government takes in and acts
>> as a larger parent.
>
>I'll stick with the parents I was born with, don't need any extra
>interference in my life.
There are times when I've found the government to be far more lenient. :-)
>Please note that any ire is directed at the laws not at anyone on this
>newsgroup, so far.
Likewise, although to tell the truth, I enjoy the "no smoking in
restaurants" laws because it means *I* can eat anywhere without having to
worry about where I put my asthma medicine.
--Lynn
Lynn Gold
>> In article <D8qH2...@freenet.carleton.ca>,>>>Lynn Gold (fi...@netcom.com) writes:
>>>> In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>>>>>an "open bar". I woudl think the owner would be much more upset if you
>>>>>were to smoke there when the bar was closed. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Groan....
>>>>
>>>> When he says "open," he means "in the middle of the lobby area
>>>> there's a bar and a bunch of chairs anyone can sit in." Yes, because
>>>
>>>I know, I've spent most of my adult carreer working in bars (were the
>>>computer has a much better spell checker than this net) I just could not
>>>resist the pun. ;-)
>>
>> Of course, if you take this thread back to guitar playing, there's no
>> such thing as an "open bar" chord. :-)
>>
>> --Lynn
>> (committing pun-upmanship ;-) )
>
>That's two. You keep this up and we may both end up barred from this
>newsgroup. Besides if you take this thread back to far the whole fabric of
>the converstion may start to unravel.
Sew what? It seams to me there's a pattern here.
dmand
Richard vine <xkk...@eua.ericsson.se> wrote:
>In article 180595...@host-95.dialup.winternet.com,
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
>> In article <3pcr2r$g...@Mars.mcs.com>,
>> kri...@MCS.COM (Krikket) wrote:
>>
>> > (Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
>> > go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
>> > smoke. Sirty looks aren't polite. I return rudeness with rudeness.
>>
>> Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' theory of social intercourse.
>>
>
>No, actually. It is the old "do unto others as you would have them
>do unto you" argument. If they are rude to a smoker then it is
>acceptable for a smoker to be rude back at them.
No, actually. That is the old "eye for an eye" argument. The golden
rule, do unto others.. means I will treat others with honesty and respect
regardless of how they choose to treat me. This does not mean I will let
people walk all over me, but I will not lower my standards simply because
someone else chooses to be rude.
debi (wishing my ethics and my actions were always in perfect harmony!)
Lynn Gold
"I'm hooked; besides, I do what paisleys," she said with knitted brows...
Lynn Gold
Krikket
>In article <3pcr2r$g...@Mars.mcs.com>, kri...@MCS.COM (Krikket) wrote:
>> (Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
>> go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
>> smoke. Dirty looks aren't polite. I return rudeness with rudeness.
>Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' theory of social intercourse.
Naaah. I just figure why bother going out of my way to be overtly
pleasant to someone who is being excessively rude to me, if I'm on my
own time? (Side note: My attitude on the job is radiclly different.
It has to be. I work in Customer Service!)
Also, as a clarifyer: My "rudeness" isn't all that rude comparitively.
Last time I tried to be intentionally rude to someone (at her request) I
ended up being forgiven because I was too much of a nice guy. (Another
person in the room (who's favorite expression is "That's a fucked up as
a baseball bat!" mentioned that I was trying to use that baseball bat
again...)
And finally, on the other hand, sometimes the non-smoking but does go to
far, and I lose it. Not often, but it has happened. I've never reached
the screaming point, but there has been a time or three in the last 10
years where I go out of my way to not smoke around certain people
indoors. When I finally do step outside for a smoke, I get yelled at...
So I look over through clenched teeth and explain in very small one
sylable words that I feel that the person is out of line. (But I have
never taken it any farther than that.)
And you can hardly call that truly polite.
A more typical responce: A couple months ago I bought a new car. I
picked up some friends for a play. We sat around and talked before we
went, and it was clear to all parties present that I was a heavy smoker,
but didn't where requested not to, generally speaking. It was known (or
so I would assume since I had the cig and lighter in hand as we went to
the car) that I was about to light up. When I got in my car with the
already lit cigerette, one of the people had the gall to exclaim "but
you're smoking in THE CAR!". I jut looked over at him oddly, while
another person (who knew me much longer) laughed and said, "Yeah? So?
It's *HIS* car!" (This was right after a conversation where we decided
to take my car rather than another because I did just buy it...) By
then he was turning rathe red, but I asked anyways if he's rather we
wait before going so I could finish the smoke outside...
I imagine my tone of voice was probably a "laughing at" nature (since in
all honesty that's what I was doing after hearing the question), so I
couldn't consider that truly nice either.
But I don't light up in no smoking areas. (By default I consider all
homes other than mine (and maybe mine soon, the way things are looking
with the person I live with) to be no smoking, unless I am told
otherwise. (I may ask, but I politely accept a no.) When asked to not
smoke somewhere in a public area, my reaction will depend on the
situation.
If it's a militant non smoker, who is acting for the sake of imposing
hir will and breaking my own (usually this is subjective, but I have had
people tell me flat out that's what is going on) I'll usually respond by
blowing smoke in hir face.
If it's because of allergies or some other medical reason, it's out in a
flash.
If I'm generally confused ot suprised by the reaction (most of the time
this will be the case), I'll respond with a quizical look on my face.
(raised eyebrow, and the works.) If no answer is forthcomming, I'll
politely ask.
Depending on their reacton, mine will vary. But I give an honest
reaction, even if it's a (through gritted teeth) "Okay." and when asked
why I'm reacting like that I'll say, "The words that come to mind are
not fit for public consumption."
Once again, not exactly polite, and by my standards, rather rude...
(Oh... No I'm not quite as hard on defining rudeness in others as I am
in myself. But generally, I do treat people as they treat me.)
--
Krikket kri...@mcs.com an6...@anon.penet.fi
Voice (708)665-9732 http://www.mcs.net/~krikket/home.html (WWW Page)
http://www.mcs.net/~krikket/html/tsd.html (The Straight Dope Archives)
First off, some second-rate third wheels consider the fourth estate to
*be* a fifth column, but my sixth sense tells me their idea of seventh
heaven would leave me behind the eighth ball in the ninth circle of hell.
David E Romm
(Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>
> David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) writes:
> > Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
> > pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
> > unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
>
> However, if I chose to run a bar or a restaurant that caters to smokers
> this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
> business the way I see fit has been legislated away.
Remember that 'legislated away' directly translates (in this case) to 'most
of the people want it'. This is a democracy, and smoking is a health
issue.
> My feeling is that if
> you don't like the way I run a business your option is to take your business
> elsewhere _not_ to demand that I change the way I do business. I'm going
> to point out here again that I don't smoke. The demands made by
> anti-smokers are becoming increasingly like those of the religious right.
> We don't like something (smoking = rap music) so we demand that no one
> be allowed to do it.
So, presumably, you'd be in favor of allowing pornography in restaurants,
and letting people shoot up heroin at the table by the door. (I won't go
as far as suggesting rap music...)
> However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
> demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
> about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
You haven't proven that 'over governed' part yet. So far, what has been
proven in this argument is that people have a healthy concept of
self-preservation.
[from a later post]
> Why is it that every business must be available to everyone? If I wish to
> cater to a clientel that consists of smokers why should I not be able to?
This is what we mean by a 'public' business. Live with it.
> What I see here is an unnecessary regulation of private property. In
> several tv shows and novels, don't have most of the titles to hand but
> Tekwar springs to mind, smoking, even in the privacy of your own home, has
> been made illegal. I can see this happening. Many things that people do
> are self distructive and Big Brother is watching.
No, Reagan left office years ago. And your speculation about the direction
anti-smoking laws might take is valid, but is only speculation at this
point. There are lots of places where one can smoke tobacco. But you
still can't smoke something comparatively harmless as marijuana. Go fig.
> Mayhaps the government, both yours and mine, should start enforceing the
> laws that already exist, such as fines for littering
Laws against smoking in public places are already on the books.
Presumably, then, you support enforcing them.
> > When people don't learn good manners, the government takes in and acts as a
> > larger parent.
>
> I'll stick with the parents I was born with, don't need any extra
> interference in my life.
Didn't your parents tell you not to smoke? And if you do, not to smoke
around people who object? Where are your family values?
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your
temper." -- Robert Frost
David E Romm
("Avedon Carol") wrote:
> Either way, you are taking risks - wouldn't you prefer to have the option
> of choosing which risks you will take based on what makes your own life
> more worth living, rather than based on someone else's idea of what your
> life _should_ be about?
Hmm... so you're equating smoking with draft dodging...
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering!"
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
David E Romm
(Richard vine) wrote:
> In article 180595...@host-95.dialup.winternet.com,
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
> > In article <3pcr2r$g...@Mars.mcs.com>,
> > kri...@MCS.COM (Krikket) wrote:
> >
> > > (Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
> > > go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
> > > smoke. Sirty looks aren't polite. I return rudeness with rudeness.
> >
> > Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' theory of social intercourse.
> >
> No, actually. It is the old "do unto others as you would have them
> do unto you" argument. If they are rude to a smoker then it is
> acceptable for a smoker to be rude back at them.
Ah. Another reason to prefer the Jewish version of the Golden Rule, "Do
not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you."
Still, I think that using the Bible to justify rudeness stretches things
quite a bit. What about the 'turn the other cheek' part?
> And (to make things clear) I am a smoker who NEVER smokes in
> no-smoking areas, who ALWAYS asks "do you mind if I smoke, and I
> will not be offended if you say yes", and who NEVER smokes near
> children even if I'm outdoors.
Awfully noble of you, my good chap.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see
it tried on him personally." -- Abraham Lincoln
Krikket
>Remember that 'legislated away' directly translates (in this case) to 'most
>of the people want it'. This is a democracy, and smoking is a health
>issue.
One *MAJOR* flaw in this logic... A democracy is not designed to
preserve the rights of the majority. It is designed to protect the
rights of the MINORITIES. When the majority forces itself upon the
minorities, the system is being abused.
>So, presumably, you'd be in favor of allowing pornography in restaurants,
>and letting people shoot up heroin at the table by the door. (I won't go
>as far as suggesting rap music...)
Yes.
>> However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
>> demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
>> about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
>You haven't proven that 'over governed' part yet. So far, what has been
>proven in this argument is that people have a healthy concept of
>self-preservation.
Please prove this point beyond all reasonable doubt. There have been
too many people in places like the Health Dept. that have admitted to
ignoring some test results and using other test results -- that they
know are bad -- to help whip up a anti-smoking craze within the US.
Why? Because it's such a bad behavior, it's acceptable to play dirty...
>[from a later post]
>> Why is it that every business must be available to everyone? If I wish to
>> cater to a clientel that consists of smokers why should I not be able to?
>This is what we mean by a 'public' business. Live with it.
Does this mean that you won't answer the question put in front of you?
And why should I live with it? Why shouldn't I fight back?
>No, Reagan left office years ago. And your speculation about the direction
>anti-smoking laws might take is valid, but is only speculation at this
>point. There are lots of places where one can smoke tobacco. But you
>still can't smoke something comparatively harmless as marijuana. Go fig.
The Reagan years were only towards the beggining of the "Big Brother is
watching you" attitude in Goverment. It isn't over yet. Bush was just
as bad, although Clinton is a little better. Although the President I
like the best -- that I have direct memory of -- was Carter. (Keep in
mind I was born in 1970...) And he has said he would't ru for President
again because he can do more good for the world acting as an independant
than by putting the restrictions upon himself that come with the
Presidential office...
>> Mayhaps the government, both yours and mine, should start enforceing the
>> laws that already exist, such as fines for littering
>Laws against smoking in public places are already on the books.
>Presumably, then, you support enforcing them.
I believe in working within the system, yes. That does *NOT* mean that
I support the enforcement of all the laws. But I do not take it upon
myself to ignore the laws either. I believe in fighting bak and
changing them. And removing the out-of-date laws from the books.
One law that I believe that was bas to pass, but was done so to clarify
the laws already on the books...
One of the Southern states (Georgia? Missisippi? I forget...) Had an
anti-sodomy law on it's books. An arrest was made recently. The
defendant was declared not guilty. The defendants lawer had pointed out
that, by definition, sodomy is not a voluntary act, and proved that what
was done was voluntary. So the law was changed to make "voluntary
sodomy" illegal.
That doesn't make the law right, though...
>> I'll stick with the parents I was born with, don't need any extra
>> interference in my life.
>Didn't your parents tell you not to smoke? And if you do, not to smoke
>around people who object? Where are your family values?
As for question 1> that's done of you damn business.
As for question 2> I already answered that in another post.
As for question 3> Alive and well, thank you very much. But should one
always listen to one's family, and live by the family values they were
raised on? What about (as an example, the situation a friend of mine is
in) the person who is confined to a wheelchair, and yet still gets
molested and raped by her father, cousin, and uncle on a regular basis?
And who's family won't "allow" her to move out of the house, even though
she is 25?
Keep in mind that keeping herself safe is breaking those same family
values that you appear to argue for...
--
Krikket kri...@mcs.com an6...@anon.penet.fi
Voice (708)665-9732 http://www.mcs.net/~krikket/home.html (WWW Page)
http://www.mcs.net/~krikket/html/tsd.html (The Straight Dope Archives)
First Job of Government: Protect people from govermment.
Second Job of Government: Protect people from each other
It must *never* be the job of government to protect people from themselves.
Krikket
>> Either way, you are taking risks - wouldn't you prefer to have the option
>> of choosing which risks you will take based on what makes your own life
>> more worth living, rather than based on someone else's idea of what your
>> life _should_ be about?
>Hmm... so you're equating smoking with draft dodging...
I didn't see *THAT* argument origionally, and it's not one that I've
heard of before either. But yes, the logic holds. (Or at least upon
first glance upon the subject.) So yes, smoking in this society does
have some similarities to draft dodging...
Joseph W. Casey
"But not a pearl of wisdom that one could pin their hopes on." He stated
sticking to his weave.
Woof, that was a bad one.
JWC
Joseph W. Casey
> (Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>
>>
>
>> > Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
>> > pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
>> > unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
>>
>> However, if I chose to run a bar or a restaurant that caters to smokers
>> this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
>> business the way I see fit has been legislated away.
>
> of the people want it'. This is a democracy, and smoking is a health
> issue.
And if the majority of people decide that science fiction is bad for
people to read as it gives unrealistic expectations of the future are you
going to cheerfully accept that. Does the fact that the majority of people
in some southern towns don't like some books make book burning acceptable.
After all this is a democracy.
>
>> My feeling is that if
>> you don't like the way I run a business your option is to take your business
>> elsewhere _not_ to demand that I change the way I do business. I'm going
>> to point out here again that I don't smoke. The demands made by
>> anti-smokers are becoming increasingly like those of the religious right.
>> We don't like something (smoking = rap music) so we demand that no one
>> be allowed to do it.
>
> So, presumably, you'd be in favor of allowing pornography in restaurants,
> and letting people shoot up heroin at the table by the door. (I won't go
> as far as suggesting rap music...)
Some of the art I hve seen in restaurants could be easily classed as
pornography.
>
>> However, it has gotten to the point that there is a group up here that is
>> demanding that smoking be made illegal in public parks. Psi, what is it
>> about the human animal that makes it demand to be over governed?
>
> You haven't proven that 'over governed' part yet. So far, what has been
> proven in this argument is that people have a healthy concept of
> self-preservation.
>
When I have seen governments in both your country and mine legislate what
colour homeowners could paint the garage door. I believe the point is made!
> [from a later post]
>
>> Why is it that every business must be available to everyone? If I wish to
>> cater to a clientel that consists of smokers why should I not be able to?
>
> This is what we mean by a 'public' business. Live with it.
>
It's my business. If you want a say in running it put up some of the capital.
>> What I see here is an unnecessary regulation of private property. In
>> several tv shows and novels, don't have most of the titles to hand but
>> Tekwar springs to mind, smoking, even in the privacy of your own home, has
>> been made illegal. I can see this happening. Many things that people do
>> are self distructive and Big Brother is watching.
>
> No, Reagan left office years ago. And your speculation about the direction
> anti-smoking laws might take is valid, but is only speculation at this
> point. There are lots of places where one can smoke tobacco. But you
> still can't smoke something comparatively harmless as marijuana. Go fig.
>
As if good old boy George or Billary Clinton are any better. FWI: Studies
have shown that marijuana contains more tar than tobacco.
>> Mayhaps the government, both yours and mine, should start enforceing the
>> laws that already exist, such as fines for littering
>
> Laws against smoking in public places are already on the books.
> Presumably, then, you support enforcing them.
>
NO, but then I've been fighting them since before they were on the books
>> > When people don't learn good manners, the government takes in and acts as a
>> > larger parent.
>>
>> I'll stick with the parents I was born with, don't need any extra
>> interference in my life.
>
> Didn't your parents tell you not to smoke? And if you do, not to smoke
> around people who object? Where are your family values?
1) both my parents smoke. 2) when they asked politely yes. 3) what do you
want the award for best use of a cliche?
In case you have missed it before I'll threepeat it here. I don't smoke. I
quite over four years ago. I however dislike useless laws.
As the old saying goes, question authority.
Joseph W. Casey
Seth Breidbart
>I've never let other people influence what I do, to a certain
>extent. Hell, if I get dirty looks when I light up, I tend to blow
>smoke in their direction, if I am in a smoking-approperiate place.
>(Yes, I am a militant smoker. Although I am polite about it and try to
>go out of my way to those people who are polite about asking me to not
>smoke. Sirty looks aren't polite.
So if someone is rude by giving you a dirty look, your response is to
be rude by committing assault with a deadly weapon? There are degrees
of rudeness; an appropriate response to a dirty look is turning your
back, or at most making an insulting comment.
Seth
Joseph W. Casey
JWC
Avedon Carol
> it's *still* going to affect me.
> --
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Did I miss the part where you explain that you have asthma? (Seriously;
I just can't remember.)
Avedon Carol
> tell
> when someone lights up.
...
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Be that as it may, the air quality on a smoking flight is currently much
better than that on a non-smoking flight, since the airlines will keep
the air circulation up as long as they know you can see and smell the
smoke, but they reduce it when the tell-tale smoke is missing, because
most people aren't smart enough to complain.
Avedon
SJ. Brewster
: There's also the horrific story of some woman in NYC who got trapped
: in an elevator with four other people. She got hot and started
: spritzing herself with perfume. The other four people were sensitive
: to the fumes.
: By the time the rescue crews were able to get the elevator opened,
: they found the one live woman with the four dead people she didn't
: kill.
UL?
--
Steve.B...@Bristol.ac.uk ! Room 4.9, Department of Mathematics,
-------------------------------! University of Bristol,
Andthey'reallmadeoftickytacky ! City and County of Bristol, United Kingdom,
Andtheyalllookjustthesame. ! BS8 1TW. Tel: 0117 928 7990.
Seth Breidbart
likely I'd have heard the story when/if it actually happened, but...)
In article <figmoD8...@netcom.com>, Lynn Gold <fi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>There's also the horrific story of some woman in NYC who got trapped
>in an elevator with four other people. She got hot and started
>spritzing herself with perfume. The other four people were sensitive
>to the fumes.
>
>By the time the rescue crews were able to get the elevator opened,
>they found the one live woman with the four dead people she didn't
>kill.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't want to sit even on opposite ends of a 747. I can still
>> tell
>> when someone lights up.
>Be that as it may, the air quality on a smoking flight is currently much
>better than that on a non-smoking flight, since the airlines will keep
>the air circulation up as long as they know you can see and smell the
>smoke, but they reduce it when the tell-tale smoke is missing, because
>most people aren't smart enough to complain.
That depends on just how you define "air quality", and the relative
impairment to same cause by various pollutants. In my opinion, the
air quality on a typical cross-country flight (nonsmoking) is better
than the air quality on a typical NYC/London flight (smoking).
Seth
Krikket
>> No, actually. It is the old "do unto others as you would have them
>> do unto you" argument. If they are rude to a smoker then it is
>> acceptable for a smoker to be rude back at them.
>Ah. Another reason to prefer the Jewish version of the Golden Rule, "Do
>not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you."
>Still, I think that using the Bible to justify rudeness stretches things
>quite a bit. What about the 'turn the other cheek' part?
Who's Christian? Not I...
Lynn Gold
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't want to sit even on opposite ends of a 747. I can still
>> tell when someone lights up.
>> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
>
>Be that as it may, the air quality on a smoking flight is currently much
>better than that on a non-smoking flight, since the airlines will keep
>the air circulation up as long as they know you can see and smell the
>smoke, but they reduce it when the tell-tale smoke is missing, because
>most people aren't smart enough to complain.
I disagree. The ventilation systems are the same as they were before,
only there isn't tobacco smoke going through them.
Lynn Gold
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <figmoD8...@netcom.com> fi...@netcom.com "Lynn Gold" writes:
>
>>Say, aren't you from that part of the world that has places like England
>>and the country formerly known as Yugoslavia?
>
In which case, I'm "from" the east coast of the U.S.; I just live in
California.
>>Don't you have people
>>killing each other over the right to rule their government? Where ethnic
>>cleansing goes on every day?
>
>Sounds like America, yes...
You're mistaking Disney World for the rest of the country. (1/2 :-) )
>>Where people speak English with these funny
>>accents
>
>Definitely America...
"'Fraid not." You folks also drive on the wrong side of the street. :-)
>>where they forget how to pronounce the letter "H"
>
>Yes, the letter 'H' at the start of 'Herbs'; it always sounds uncultured
>to British people when Americans say 'Erbs'...
But you say "Ello" and "Is Majesty." :-)
Besides, "Herb" is someone's name.
>>and they keep
>>sticking the letter "U" into words where it doesn't belong?
>
>Better than sticking their guns into other people's countries where they
>don't belong...
Such as "EnGUNd" and "YuGUNdslavia?" :-)
>[sarcasm mode off]
>
>(Lynn, you know me, I'm not getting at you, but I couldn't resist
>filking your message...)
I know. ;-)
Lynn Gold
>ro...@winternet.com says ( Sat, 20 May 1995 10:13:20 -0600 )...
>
>>> No, actually. It is the old "do unto others as you would have them
>>> do unto you" argument. If they are rude to a smoker then it is
>>> acceptable for a smoker to be rude back at them.
>>
>>Ah. Another reason to prefer the Jewish version of the Golden Rule,
>"Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you."
>
>others that which is hateful to you." Do I have it wrong?
I thought the former rule was Christian. *I* didn't learn it in
Hebrew school except when we learned about Christianity.
Lynn Gold
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) wrote:
>
>> While I could, I don't see the connection between doing something
>> that, as far as I can see, does nothing but make you stink and make
>> many people not want to hang around you. Again, I'm in northern
>> California, where it's considered "uncool" to smoke in the social
>> circles in which I hang.
>
>But it wasn't like that in 1964, was it?
I didn't live in California till 1981. Even in the crowd in which I
hung in NYC, smoking was "uncool." Really.
>In the 1970s, before all this anti-smoking stuff started, smokers and
>non-smokers alike used to tell me how *good* I smelled - obviously,
>that smell wasn't always considerered "stinky".
Times have changed.
>As to making people "not want to hang around you," well, that
>wasn't exactly a fact in evidence until the last ten years, either. As a
>matter of fact, I can well remember when AWA members rented a nice,
>comfortable suite at a Worldcon (was that Phoenix?) and Susan Wood
>declared it non-smoking, and we all had a wonderful hall party outside
>the door while the room remained empty - because everyone wanted to hang
>out with the smokers.
Before my (fannish) time.
I come from the era in which the Long Island Railroad had to increase
the number of non-smoking cars because they found people would rather
stand and crowd like sardines in a non-smoking car than sit in the
many empty seats in the smoking cars (we're talking 1980-ish).
>I like the part about it being considered "uncool" to smoke. (Did a
>_fan_ actually write that?)
YES -- and I'm sure Aahz will back me up on this one.
I've received MANY a party invitation out here that said, "No Smoking
allowed" or "smoking on back patio only."
Aahz, I'm sure, will also vouch for this one.
>Well, yes, I've always been a dedicated follower of fashion and wouldn't
>think of letting matters of my own personal style, taste, opinion or
>conscience interfere with my long-standing quest to be the Perfect
>Fashion Victim. My propensity for comformity is well known, and,
>fortunately, prevented me from ever having anything to do with such
>unacceptable behaviours as: wearing trousers in the days when all women
>wore dresses/skirts; having breasts in middle-class circles where breasts
>are a recognized indicator of low IQ; opposing the death penalty any time
>in the last 15 years when we all know that killing people is the best way
>to convince people that killing people is wrong; saying "fuck" even
>though I'm female - and saying "cunt" as if it's something good, rather
>than an insult; gaining weight; not bragging about my cat (or even having
>one); voting for Democrats; failing to make coffee for all the men; and
>reading science fiction, or having anything to do with those naff,
>poorly-dressed, overweight sci-fi fans.
Huh?
I don't see the connection between your perception of what is and
isn't "cool" with reality.
"Coolness" is a VERY floating kind of thing that varies from crowd to
crowd. In some crowds you'll get ostracized if you don't drink alcohol,
whereas in other crowds you'll be made to feel out of place if you do.
The one thing I've found common amongst the crowds I hang with out here
is that smoking is considered VERY uncool amongst them and is at most
tolerated by some folks (those with the "patio" rule).
Lynn Gold
>
>"But not a pearl of wisdom that one could pin their hopes on." He stated
>sticking to his weave.
I'm feeling a bit crochety tonight so I won't rib you too much.
>Woof, that was a bad one.
HOWL....
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <D8s44...@freenet.carleton.ca>, am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>
> >
> > David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) writes:
>
> > > Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried to
> > > pull off and failed. Basically, it comes down to this: My right to breath
> > > unpolluted air is greater than your right to pollute it.
> >
> > However, if I chose to run a bar or a restaurant that caters to smokers
> > this is in many places illegal. That is stupid. My right to run my
> > business the way I see fit has been legislated away.
>
> Remember that 'legislated away' directly translates (in this case) to 'most
> of the people want it'. This is a democracy, and smoking is a health
> issue.
Yes, it's a health issue. And I can certainly agree with laws that
require all restaurants to have a no-smoking area. I also think the
default, for small restaurants, should be non-smoking. But I don't see
why large restaurants, that have multiple rooms, should have to be
completely non-smoking. If smokers are in a separate room, then it's
hardly a health issue for the non-smokers.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>Yes, it's a health issue. And I can certainly agree with laws that
>require all restaurants to have a no-smoking area. I also think the
>default, for small restaurants, should be non-smoking. But I don't see
>why large restaurants, that have multiple rooms, should have to be
>completely non-smoking. If smokers are in a separate room, then it's
>hardly a health issue for the non-smokers.
You've obviously never encountered a building with poor ventilation.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"When you divide people into *us* and *them*, you automatically become
one of *them*." -- SS, via DG
Chris Croughton
>However, I do not think being a smoker makes me fair game for rudeness. If I'm
>smoking in the wrong place, I should be stopped. I think the polite response
>would be to approach me assuming I'm a decent human being who has made a
>mistake. If I'm not, you'll find out soon enough, won't you?
I have no argument with that. On a bus a few months ago a person got
on, sat beside me and lit up. I politely reminded him that it is not
allowed (on any London buses) and he apologised and put it out. I'm not
sure that I believed his explanation of "I forgot it wasn't permitted" -
there are rather large notices and no smoking signs on all the windows -
but I saw no reason to call him on it.
I've only found a few smokers who become belligerent when pointed out
politely that it's not allowed, and they have been the type who would
get upset at any criticism. Most seem to be quite reasonable, and as
you say treating people as being essentially decent doesn't hurt. If
they prove otherwise, *then* it's time to pull out the Uzi <g>...
>Besides, speaking as someone who has done a lot of con security work,
>politeness just plain works better.
Tactical nukes work as well, but are bad for repeat business...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Chris Croughton
sch...@walleye.network.com "Martin Schafer" writes:
>This is actually a fairly common experience. Many (note, I say many
>not most or all) of the people who believe they are bothered by
>tobacco smoke are actually bothered by the flame enhancers and other
>additives in cigarettes. If you hate cigarettes, but don't mind
>pipes, you probably fall into this category. American Spirits are
>cigarettes without any additives, available at many tobacconists
>or by mail order 1-800-332-5595.
I certainly fall into that category. With some cigars I actually find
it quite pleasant (in the same way as I like incense in church - yes,
that's smoke too and some people have problems with that). Others -
well, my grandmother used to describe some tobacco as "smoking sailor's
socks", and I think she was not far wrong.
Incidentally, there is something else in favour of pipes rather than
cigarettes. They are much less prone to scattering hot ash over things.
As someone who has both been burned by cigarette ash and has had
property damaged by it (both by carelessness rather than intent), I
would much rather be around a pipe smoker than one with a cigarette.
>I also find frustrating the FDA's efforts to block any third way
>solution to the smoking problem. Nicotine gum and the patch both
>require a perscription, and you and your doctor must at least pretend
>that it's for the purpose of helping you quit smoking. The smokeless
>cigarette (needed more developement work since most smokers thought
>it tasted vile and gave them headaches) was banned.
I don't think that the nicotine gum and patch are prescription only in
Britain. I could be wrong, but there are certainly lots of
advertisements for them...
Chris Croughton
>Say, aren't you from that part of the world that has places like England
>and the country formerly known as Yugoslavia?
I believe Avedon is 'from' America, she just lives in England...
>Don't you have people
>killing each other over the right to rule their government? Where ethnic
>cleansing goes on every day?
Sounds like America, yes...
>Where people speak English with these funny
>accents
Definitely America...
>where they forget how to pronounce the letter "H"
Yes, the letter 'H' at the start of 'Herbs'; it always sounds uncultured
to British people when Americans say 'Erbs'...
>and they keep
>sticking the letter "U" into words where it doesn't belong?
Better than sticking their guns into other people's countries where they
don't belong...
[sarcasm mode off]
(Lynn, you know me, I'm not getting at you, but I couldn't resist
filking your message...)
***********************************************************************
Chris Croughton
am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA "Joseph W. Casey" writes:
>And if the majority of people decide that science fiction is bad for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He's mentioned "science fiction" on *this* newsgroup! Kick him out!
Don't prople realise this is alt.smoking.flamewars?
Avedon Carol
> While I could, I don't see the connection between doing something
> that, as
> far as I can see, does nothing but make you stink and make many
> people not
> want to hang around you. Again, I'm in northern California, where
> it's
> considered "uncool" to smoke in the social circles in which I hang.
But it wasn't like that in 1964, was it? In the 1970s, before all this
anti-smoking stuff started, smokers and non-smokers alike used to tell me
how *good* I smelled - obviously, that smell wasn't always considerered
"stinky". As to making people "not want to hang around you," well, that
wasn't exactly a fact in evidence until the last ten years, either. As a
matter of fact, I can well remember when AWA members rented a nice,
comfortable suite at a Worldcon (was that Phoenix?) and Susan Wood
declared it non-smoking, and we all had a wonderful hall party outside
the door while the room remained empty - because everyone wanted to hang
out with the smokers.
I like the part about it being considered "uncool" to smoke. (Did a
_fan_ actually write that?)
Well, yes, I've always been a dedicated follower of fashion and wouldn't
think of letting matters of my own personal style, taste, opinion or
conscience interfere with my long-standing quest to be the Perfect
Fashion Victim. My propensity for comformity is well known, and,
fortunately, prevented me from ever having anything to do with such
unacceptable behaviours as: wearing trousers in the days when all women
wore dresses/skirts; having breasts in middle-class circles where breasts
are a recognized indicator of low IQ; opposing the death penalty any time
in the last 15 years when we all know that killing people is the best way
to convince people that killing people is wrong; saying "fuck" even
though I'm female - and saying "cunt" as if it's something good, rather
than an insult; gaining weight; not bragging about my cat (or even having
one); voting for Democrats; failing to make coffee for all the men; and
reading science fiction, or having anything to do with those naff,
poorly-dressed, overweight sci-fi fans.
Avedon
Avedon Carol
> eat oat bran and soy products. But, Larry King summed it up in the
> one
> good line he ever had in his life: "Eating natural food doesn't make
> you live longer. It just seems that way."
>
> ******************************************************************
> Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
And anyway, you're just staying in your house with all those nasty mites
that will make you sick!
Avedon
Jane E. Hawkins
>
>In article <D8qHM...@freenet.carleton.ca>, am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>(Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>
>> However, a lot of the places that have been made illegal just don't
make
>> sense. I believe that if you don't want to go to a restaurant that
allows
>> smoking you don't go. What many people seem to be demanding however
is
>> that since _they_ don't smoke all restaurants must be non-smoking.
This
>> bothers me as I always thought that the US was built on the freedom
of the
>> individual.
>
>Oh stuff and nonesense. This is the same argument that polluters tried
to
>pull off and failed.
Oh stuff and nonsense yourself. A smelter's smokestack that
periodically puts every asthmatic for thirty miles around into the ER is
a completely different kind of problem than someone lighting a
cigarette. If I light up right next to an asthmatic, the effect on
that person might be the same. However, the scope of the problem
demands different ways of dealing with it.
If I wanted to open a restaurant and declare it entirely a smoking
place, who would be hurt? Maybe me, if I lost the business of all
non-smokers and couldn't break even on the nicotine breathers. However,
as long as I post things clearly, I don't see how I would be treading on
anyone's rights.
You couldn't eat in my restaurant. It would make you sick. Would that
be a big loss in your life? Wouldn't you just sneer at my malodorous
place and go somewhere else?
Yet, there are many cities in the US where it would be *illegal* for me
to open such a restaurant. I think that is carrying restrictions on
smoking too far. It's the same kind of thinking that results in
legislation about sex acts between consenting adults.
I can't go to places that have loud music because my tinnitus makes it
very painful. So bad, in fact, that if I push it too hard I'll get sick
and my ears will hurt for days. Would you support me if I tried to pass
laws against music that exceeds certain decibal levels? *I* wouldn't
support me on that one! Yet, I like dancing and you just can't hardly
find a dance place that doesn't have the music really cranked.
One of the many things I like about small cons is that if they have a
dance at all, they usually can't afford the kinds of speaker that do in
my eardrums. I can dance for hours!
Mind you, I'm not objecting in the least to places that choose to ban
smoking. One of the best beer'n'burger places in town has, and I like
it. It means I can go drinking with Kate.
I also think that if a restaurant pretends to have a non-smoking area
but has no air-space separation, that's a nasty cheat of *both* smokers
and non-smokers. I don't *want* to inflict my smoke on folks who have
chosen to avoid it. I resent being told I can chose not to, and then
finding out I've been seated next to someone who's slowly turning green.
Jane
__________________________________________________________________
Jane E. Hawkins, jh...@oz.net
"Things will get better, despite our efforts to improve them."
_________________________________________________________________
Jane E. Hawkins
>> No, actually. It is the old "do unto others as you would have them
>> do unto you" argument. If they are rude to a smoker then it is
>> acceptable for a smoker to be rude back at them.
>
>Ah. Another reason to prefer the Jewish version of the Golden Rule,
"Do
>not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you."
Nit and a request for information: I thought that was "Do not unto
others that which is hateful to you." Do I have it wrong?
Jane
Jane E. Hawkins
A bunch of stuff I wouldn't have bothered saying if I hadn't accidently
deactivated threading on my newsreader and thus failed to notice that
all my points had been made, and re-made, and so on.
Next, I figure out how to actually cancel a posted article. There's on
option for it on the menu so there must be a way, but it is greyed out
so I obviously haven't yet found that way.
JJSchalles
this alt.smoking.flamewars thread, which I am lacking the earlier parts
of.
Get the bizarre additives and the beserk ownership of the tobacco
companies out of the picture and then maybe we can talk about what is
really happening.
My $.02 worth: the only thing that pisses me off more than a smoker in an
elevator is a smoker in a bank-machine vestibule. There are some places
where smoking is simply never appropriate, never, ever, and I usually
assume that the idiotic smokers who violate these small poorly ventilated
spaces probably have other severe sociopathic tendencies in their
personalities as well. I bet they even make right turns on red without
stopping (or looking) first too.
When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
Joseph W. Casey
It's nice to hear that you won't be krewl, or spin me a yarn.
>
>>Woof, that was a bad one.
>
> HOWL....
Better than a bark of laughter!
Joe
Avedon Carol
> Again, that's a personal choice. I have yet to meet a smoker who
> said they
> ENJOYED smoking, as opposed to many who do it because they got peer-
> pressured into it when they were young.
Have you asked? Would they dare say yes? Do you associate with them?
Personally, I dig the hell out of smoking.
I've always liked the smell of cigarette smoke, even before I'd ever
smoked. And I've always found the smell of places where no one smokes to
be kind of chemical and unpleasant. Walking down a city street (like
London, the airless city) being assaulted by diesel fumes and car farts
and what have you, that waft of tobacco smoke that curls toward you from
someone walking by is like - yes! - a breath of fresh air. I've always
liked the smell of bonfires, campfires, hearth fires - burning leaves,
burning wood (and burning marshmallows), too. Cigarette smoke also
provides a pleasant mask for all those nasty smells in the environment
like chemcial cleaners and such in restaurants (don't you hate being the
first people to show up when the place opens for dinner and being
chloroxed out?). Complaints about the smell and presumed toxicity of
cigarettes from people who walk around in cities and/or drive _cars_, for
chrissakes, strike me as pretty hilarious, actually. Smells! There is a
smorgasboard of horrible smells out there - can't you tell?
Avedon Carol
> Remember that 'legislated away' directly translates (in this case)
> to 'most
> of the people want it'. This is a democracy, and smoking is a
> health
> issue.
"Most of the people want it" translates as tyranny by the majority unless
there are checks for personal choices. That's what the Bill of Rights
is for. In this case, the fact that "the majority" may want to go to
bars where there is no smoking should not necessitate that there are _no_
bars that allow smoking. On the other hand, if the marjority of people
_who_go_to_bars_ want to smoke in them, you're doing no one any favours
by banning smoking in all bars. No one's stopping you from opening a bar
that doesn't allow smoking.
Andy Trembley
> I don't understand why they don't just go on a diet. The same for
>those really skinny gross people. All you have to do is modify your
>behavior and you'll be healthier. If everyone would just jog three
>miles every day we'd all have stronger hearts and better circulation.
>
> For those who can't detect sarcasm and hyperbole, this is it.
>It's one thing to say "please don't smoke near me." to your friends.
>It's just rude to ask it of strangers, but it can be carried off in
>a polite fashion. For those with life threatening allergies it's rude
>and stupid to go places where you are likely to encounter smoke without
>the appropriate medication.
Geee....
Let me get this straight (so to say...)
It's OK to go around spray-painting the inside of people's lungs against
their will in the name of personal freedom.
Oh, and btw, I *do* smoke occasionally (big stinky cigars, clove cigarettes)
and personally find secondhand/sidestream smoke revolting, which is why I do
it outdoors, or in designated smoking areas, where I don't have to inflict
the byproducts of my vice (you've got to cultivate some vices, otherwise how
would you know what your virtues are?) on those who don't wish it.
Also, some allergies don't respond to medication.
Save your bitchy responses for an issue more deserving.
--
Andy Trembley hitchhiker on the road to Dharmapalooza
Computing Techniques, Inc. On assignment at Allen-Bradley
attr...@mkelan5.remnet.ab.com TwinkCode forthcoming...
Lee Rudolph
>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) drops into r.a.sf.f out of nowhere:
Nowhere, Moeware; he's the Brother from Another Planet.
Lee "ask Dan" Rudolph
David E Romm
[whole bunches of snips and extraneous argumentation ignored]
In article <3pk829$7...@PEAK.ORG>, d...@PEAK.ORG (dmand) wrote:
> but I will not lower my standards simply because
> someone else chooses to be rude.
And since various smokers have described how rude they are, for whatever
reason, I will agree, and I will not lower my standards. (But I'll lower
then into this thread...)
In article <3pl3hu$2...@Mars.mcs.com>, kri...@MCS.COM (Krikket) wrote:
> David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
> >Remember that 'legislated away' directly translates (in this case) to 'most
> >of the people want it'. This is a democracy, and smoking is a health
> >issue.
>
> One *MAJOR* flaw in this logic... A democracy is not designed to
> preserve the rights of the majority. It is designed to protect the
> rights of the MINORITIES. When the majority forces itself upon the
> minorities, the system is being abused.
So all traffic laws are an abuse of the system? You seem to have a poor
idea of how governments work. A democracy is designed to acheive consensus
and resolve conflicts peaceably. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect
minorities. But a) you are not prevented from smoking, you are only
prevented from harming another. b) smoking isn't covered in the Bill of
Rights.
> >So, presumably, you'd be in favor of allowing pornography in restaurants,
> >and letting people shoot up heroin at the table by the door. (I won't go
> >as far as suggesting rap music...)
>
> Yes.
Fine, but if you order the g'ak I don't want to sit next to you.
> >You haven't proven that 'over governed' part yet. So far, what has been
> >proven in this argument is that people have a healthy concept of
> >self-preservation.
>
> Please prove this point beyond all reasonable doubt.
No, you have to prove that it isn't harmful. Something that makes even a
healthy person cough and wheeze is fairly obviously not good for you, and
studies have backed this up. (And Avedon's been trying to prove that
smoking is GOOD for you, sheesh.) And now that tobacco company executives
are starting to come out and admit that they were lying and covering up
evidence of how bad their product is, you're in the hole even bigger.
In article <D8w9G...@freenet.carleton.ca>, am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
> David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) writes:
> > You haven't proven that 'over governed' part yet. So far, what has been
> > proven in this argument is that people have a healthy concept of
> > self-preservation.
> >
> When I have seen governments in both your country and mine legislate what
> colour homeowners could paint the garage door. I believe the point is made!
Since they could smoke while painting their garage door, the point is
made... on this subject, for me.
> > Didn't your parents tell you not to smoke? And if you do, not to smoke
> > around people who object? Where are your family values?
>
> 1) both my parents smoke. 2) when they asked politely yes.
My grandfather died due to complications of smoking (long before I was
born). My father was a smoker, who quit when the studies started coming
out in the 60s, started again, then quit again as a good example for the
kids. Neither I nor my siblings smoke, and this is at least in part due to
my mother and father's example.
> 3) what do you want the award for best use of a cliche?
Sure. What the heck.
In article <3ppaf9$3...@emerald.oz.net>, jh...@oz.net (Jane E. Hawkins)
wrote:
> If I wanted to open a restaurant and declare it entirely a smoking
> place, who would be hurt?
Anyone who wanted to work in the restaurant, aside from whatever patrons
chose to frequent your establishment
[another post]
> >Ah. Another reason to prefer the Jewish version of the Golden Rule,
> "Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you."
>
> Nit and a request for information: I thought that was "Do not unto
> others that which is hateful to you." Do I have it wrong?
I've heard several variants, including that one. Whatever the phrasing,
the gist of the Golden Rule is clear.
In article <D902F...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Avedon Carol") wrote:
> fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) wrote:
>
> > Again, that's a personal choice. I have yet to meet a smoker who
> > said they
> > ENJOYED smoking, as opposed to many who do it because they got peer-
> > pressured into it when they were young.
>
> Have you asked? Would they dare say yes? Do you associate with them?
> Personally, I dig the hell out of smoking.
>
Everyone who I've ever asked (or was told the story about) tells of peer
pressure. No one has ever said that they spent months researching tobacco
and independently came to the conclusion that smoking was good for them so
they started lighting up right away. Yes, I associate with many of these
people, sometimes when they're smoking. Just because you smoke doesn't
make you a bad person (you'll be pleased to know.)
[a later post]
> "Most of the people want it" translates as tyranny by the majority unless
> there are checks for personal choices. That's what the Bill of Rights
> is for. In this case, the fact that "the majority" may want to go to
> bars where there is no smoking should not necessitate that there are _no_
> bars that allow smoking. On the other hand, if the marjority of people
> _who_go_to_bars_ want to smoke in them, you're doing no one any favours
> by banning smoking in all bars. No one's stopping you from opening a bar
> that doesn't allow smoking.
I covered this somewhat above. There ARE checks for personal choices. You
can smoke in your own home (while watching the Snuff Channel...) and in
numerous places, including most bars. I don't know how England (or other
states) work, but here in MN, most bars have a big sign on the front door
saying "entire bar is a smoking area". One of the reasons I don't hang out
in bars, despite the pinball. So democracy works, and the Bill of Rights
protections are assured. Hooray!
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily
Tomlin
Nancy Lebovitz
Gail Gurman <ggu...@danube.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>A Jew-hater once mocked Hillel by asking if he could teach the whole
>Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel replied, "What is hateful to
>yourself, do not to another. That is the whole Torah; all the rest is
>commentary."
Further nitpick: I thought that the beliefs of the guy asking the question
were unspecified. I always assumed thhat he was just an annoying person.
Ob sf-fandom: Fans like to get weird little facts sorted out.
Ob connection to the thread: The guy was probably either a militant
smoker or a militant anti-smoker.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
NEW EDITION of the calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <8jk8g9KSM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, it's a health issue. And I can certainly agree with laws that
> >require all restaurants to have a no-smoking area. I also think the
> >default, for small restaurants, should be non-smoking. But I don't see
> >why large restaurants, that have multiple rooms, should have to be
> >completely non-smoking. If smokers are in a separate room, then it's
> >hardly a health issue for the non-smokers.
>
> You've obviously never encountered a building with poor ventilation.
I have. But many places have good ventilation. Why can't those places
provide both smoking and non-smoking rooms.
Also, second hand smoke is a health threat if I have to breath it in
any large quantity. It can set off my allergies at a somewhat lower
concetration than that. But it is not a health hazard to 99% of the
population at the "I can smell the faint odor of tobacco in the air if
I breath in deeply enough" level.
Joseph W. Casey
> In article <D8zzG...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Careful, If you drop your point you might end up in a frame!
>
>>>>Woof, that was a bad one.
>>>
>>> HOWL....
>>
>>Better than a bark of laughter!
>
> A-HEM!
Only at the bottom of my pants, thanks.
JWC
Nigel E. Richardson
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Avedon Carol" writes:
> Cigarette smoke also
> provides a pleasant mask for all those nasty smells in the environment
> like chemcial cleaners and such in restaurants (don't you hate being the
> first people to show up when the place opens for dinner and being
> chloroxed out?).
Ah, I see - so people don't smoke because they're addicts who can't
live without their fix but because they're selflessly making the world
a sweeter smelling place for everyone else!
Live and learn, eh?
Nigel