Smoking

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Mean Green Dancing Machine

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
In article <3orq8u$6...@panix2.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@tor.com> wrote:
>
>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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:

>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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to

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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
In article <3p5a1f$1...@panix2.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@tor.com> wrote:
>
>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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
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?

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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
keco...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Karen Cooper) wrote:

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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
In article <kecooper....@maroon.tc.umn.edu>,

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

unread,
May 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/14/95
to
In article <kecooper....@maroon.tc.umn.edu>,
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

unread,
May 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/15/95
to
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.


******************************************************************
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

unread,
May 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/15/95
to
Two responses for the price of one!

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

unread,
May 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/15/95
to
In article <kecooper....@maroon.tc.umn.edu>,
Karen Cooper <keco...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>If the standard San jose con site is the Red Lion Inn, the specific local
>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

unread,
May 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/15/95
to

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

unread,
May 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/15/95
to
In article <cjhp6h_SM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
>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

unread,
May 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/16/95
to
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.

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

unread,
May 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/16/95
to
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.

Look, if you're in an outdoor stadium, smoking 3 seats away from me,
it's *still* going to affect me.

Joseph W. Casey

unread,
May 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/16/95
to
In a previous posting, "Avedon Carol" (ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk) writes:

> 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.
>
> The phrase "Get the nigger" comes to mind... In lieu of blacks, kikes,
> 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

unread,
May 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/16/95
to

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

unread,
May 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/16/95
to
In article <aahzD8K...@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
In article <aahzD8o...@netcom.com>,

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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>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?).

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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
In article <D8oM4...@freenet.carleton.ca>,

Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>In a previous posting, Mean Green Dancing Machine (aa...@netcom.com) writes:

>> 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) wrote:

> 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
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. 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
Lynn Gold (fi...@netcom.com) wrote:

>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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Joseph W. Casey) writes:
>
> 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
> 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
Lynn Gold (fi...@netcom.com) writes:
> In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,

> Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>>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.

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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
Lynn Gold (fi...@netcom.com) writes:
> In article <D8oM4...@freenet.carleton.ca>,

> Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>In a previous posting, Mean Green Dancing Machine (aa...@netcom.com) writes:
>
>>> 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
In article <ojiVIYeSM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>
>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, 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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
In article I...@netcom.com, fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>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

unread,
May 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/17/95
to
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.

> 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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
Lynn Gold (fi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
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.

--
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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to

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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <romm-170...@host-74.dialup.winternet.com>,

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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <figmoD8...@netcom.com>, Lynn Gold <fi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <D8Mpy...@freenet.carleton.ca>,

>Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>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?).

>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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
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.

: 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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <3pdpir$q...@thetimes.pixel.kodak.com>,

John Hall <jo...@kodak.com> wrote:
>In article I...@netcom.com, fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>>In article <ojiVIYeSM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
>>>fi...@netcom.com (Lynn Gold) writes:
>
>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.

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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <3pge9p$5...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Volt <vo...@magenta.com> wrote:
>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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <2Ibklycz...@netcom.com>, Debbie Notkin <ki...@slip.net> wrote:

>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.
>
>I don't wear perfume, partly because of the people I know with environmental
>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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <D8s44...@freenet.carleton.ca>,

Joseph W. Casey <am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>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.

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

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <D8s44...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
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