Can you remember when you were allowed to smoke on planes?

[kentuck]

Then I think they changed it so that if the flight was less than two hours, there was no smoking.

Workplaces that had cafeterias had a smoking area and a non-smoking area. Finally, that disappeared and no one was permitted to smoke inside. There was a small space outside reserved for smokers.

I never smoked but I was never bothered that much by those that did. I would simply move or ask them to move the smoke over. I know there were a lot of health issues with second-hand smoke but somehow, I feel like this was the beginning of the diminishing of our rights.

Soon after, companies started giving piss tests to potential employees. That evolved to a policy where the company could test you for drugs at any time.

Little things like that never seemed to bother people very much. But gradually, I thought we were giving away our freedoms.

[Recursion]

1. The smoking is a question of balancing rights

In recent decades, the right of employees not to die from lung cancer has been seen to trump the right of patrons to smoke.

Drug tests are a different thing. I don't like them, but it's not clear to me why an employer shouldn't be able to require them if they want.

[Coyotl]

2. I was very ill from cigar smoke on a Chicago-Miami flight the night before Super Bowl.

I was horrible, over half the passengers were football jocks.

[Warpy]

3. I'm horribly allergic to it

and applauded every single restriction against smoking in confined spaces.

Set fire to those things outside and we'll get along just fine.

And no, I do not agree with a lot of the restrictions happening to outdoor smokers.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. No, you aren't

it's not possible to be allergic to tobacco smoke. Allergens are proteins (such as in pollen); there are no allergens in tobacco smoke, because the tobacco has been destroyed by combustion. "Irritation" is not the same thing as "allergy"; you probably have vasomotor rhinitis or some other sensitivity.

[Warpy]

66. It triggers bronchospasm.

Trying to breathe in an enclosed space with a smoker is exactly like trying to breathe underwater without a snorkel.

Try it sometime and you'll now how I feel.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. That doesn't make it an allergy.

[MurrayDelph]

85. Yes, but when you call it an intolerance

someone not familiar with it as a medical term just thinks it means that you're being tight-assed.

[Javaman]

103. +1 nt

[Warpy]

88. Read up on it, cowboy

and set fire to the damned things outdoors.

[Spider Jerusalem]

89. I have

it's still not an allergy; you can call it one, you're still wrong. Being patronising doesn't make you less wrong.

[KentuckyWoman]

92. Wow

Telling a medical professional you know their personal medical situation better than they do.

Not even sure I understand what purpose you think that serves. Surely you aren't suggesting smoke DOES NOT make anyone sick and/or Warpy is a liar.

[Spider Jerusalem]

94. I'm saying there's no such thing as an allergy to tobacco smoke.

Which there isn't.

Anyone who claims it is is ignorant; cigarette smoke may be an irritant (but then so may many other things), but it's *not* an allergen.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/allergy-basics/cigarette-allergy-symptoms.htm

[Katashi_itto]

96. I used to be a practicing respiratory therapist. We even called it an allergy

even though it technically wasn't. Why? Because it's the best descriptor of the problem.

[Javaman]

102. +1 nt

[FarCenter]

111. The Mayo Clinic seems to think that "nickel allergy" is a reall allergy

And nickel is not a protein.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nickel-allergy/DS00826/DSECTION=causes

[hunter]

131. I'm so tired of that tobacco industry bullshit.

I've got bad asthma, my lungs are always in some state of irritability even though I use inhaled steroids.

Cigarette smoke has sent me to the hospital more than once. I don't give a damn if, technically, it's not an "allergy." Allergy in this case is the common term, not the precise medical term.

No, I don't give a damn if you smoke or not. It's your life, your lungs.

Just don't smoke around me.

I can be quite belligerent about that and I'm probably bigger than you.

But most smokers are pretty polite. They put it out or go away when they are informed their smoke is bothering someone.

[Logical]

4. It was disgusting on a plane. Sick. n-t

[likesmountains 52]

5. I remember a flight from Hawaii to Denver in 1977. You could smoke in the rear of the plane.

it was also when you could be on a flight that was half, or more than half, empty. Everyone was reading "The Other Side Of Midnight". it was very popular among flight attendants at the time. I smoked, and read that whole book on that flight I think.
I also remember when you could smoke in hospitals....patients had ashtrays on their bedside tables.

[homegirl]

68. Questioned

Back in the days when new mothers stayed in the hospital for 5 to 7 days I was questioned by a social worker as to why I didn't socialize with the other mothers. When I responded "I don't smoke and the lounge and terrace are filled with smokers." That eased her worries about my mental condition.

But, flying was hell. I flew frequently from Scandinavia to the USA and the planes were blue with smoke after fellow passengers had visited the duty free shop.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Even when I used to smoke I couldn't stand it and always asked for the no smoking section.

Can I have the no spying section?

[Tx4obama]

7. Yes. Planes, hospitals (in rooms w/o oxygen), offices, grocery stores, etc.

They came after our smoking rights and not enough folks stood up for us

[Nye Bevan]

19. Nobody should be forced to inhale secondhand smoke as a condition of employment.

That includes flight attendants, waitstaff, barstaff, and workers in grocery stores.

And I really hate when people respond to this with "oh, they should just get another job". Like there are so many jobs out there.

[CreekDog]

79. let the record show

that i agree completely with you.

[frylock]

51. wow

just.... wow.

[CreekDog]

78. why should anybody stand up for you?

honestly, you see harming someone's health as subordinate to you enjoying a smoke that you could easily do outside.

in a hospital for Pete's sake, what is the matter with you?

why should a nurse taking care of your family member have a shorter life because you want one?

[Tx4obama]

83. Oh for pete's sake back at cha...

The OP was asking if folks remember how it was in the OLD days.

In the old days smokers smoked just about 'everywhere' except in hospital rooms that contained oxygen tanks.

Airplanes had ashtrays in the armrests, trains had 'smoking cars'.

Maybe it would be better if you read what folks actually type instead of what might be imagined.

[LondonReign2]

101. What you "actually typed" was

"They came after our smoking rights and not enough folks stood up for us"

[SCantiGOP]

119. One place you could never smoke

was in church. But I remember way back in the 50's seeing people smoking as they went down the aisles in a grocery store, and dropping the butts on the floor and stepping on them. When I first started attending conferences in the 70's, there would be small rooms with maybe 50 seats in them, and there would be an ashtray on every other seat. I don't know what people who had sensitivity to cigarette smoke did in those days.
Oh, and one other place you couldn't smoke, due to fire codes, was in a movie theater.

[hedgehog]

126. We coughed a lot!

[RebelOne]

134. You could smoke in a movie theater. I did in the '70s. n/t

[hunter]

140. I'd end up spending the night in the hospital.

Asthma medicines weren't as effective then, or had bad side effects, and smokers were everywhere.

That probably contributed to my reputation as a "loner." I avoided any place where people smoked as best I could.

Nobody in my extended family smokes. The older folks who did smoke are all dead, and for some of them it was a rather gruesome end, just like those people in the anti-smoking commercials, cancerous body parts chopped out of them, and/or emphysema.

I know what "not breathing" is like. It's worse than pain. Emphysema has got to be a horrible thing. When I can't breathe at least I know I'm going to die or it's going to get better.

Fortunately I haven't been to an E.R. for asthma for a long, long time.

[Apophis]

157. I won't stand up for you.

If you want to pollute your lungs and slowly kill yourself, that's fine. But once you smoke a cigarette in a public place and force me to inhale your cancer sticks, that's when I get pissed off.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. You're honestly mad that you have to walk outside the HOSPITAL to smoke???

Heavens, how oppressive this brave new world is.

[Tx4obama]

174. I did not say that. I wish folks would pay attention to the actual words typed and not make up stuff

[Warren DeMontague]

175. "They came after our smoking rights and not enough people stood up", frowny frown.

This, immediately after:

Yes. Planes, hospitals (in rooms w/o oxygen), offices, grocery stores, etc

If I'm misunderstanding that post, please, clarify.

[Tx4obama]

177. What was in my comment subject line was an extended list...

... commenting on what was in the OP subject line: 'planes'.

Just because I listed some of the places that I remember folks used to smoke doesn't mean I was ever mad about going outside at the hospital to smoke.

You've taken two separate sentences and lumped them both together and you came to an untrue conclusion about it being 'me' being mad about having to go outside at a hospital. I didn't even say IF I was a smoker back then.

[msongs]

8. there is no right to poison other people with toxic fumes. one is perfectly free to posion

one's self in the comfort of one's own environment.

[kentuck]

14. Although I agree with your opinion...

I think this was the beginning of an assault upon other freedoms that we had taken for granted. It just seemed that way to me, I guess?

[curlyred]

17. Perhaps

Smoking in planes bothered me, although my dad smoked and that smoke was OK with my little self. Now he doesn't smoke, I have no friends that smoke, and cigarette smoke bugs me a lot. Time and place, I guess.

[Bibliovore]

84. Also inurement

You were likely accustomed to a certain level of cigarette smoke from your father's smoking, but being in the enclosed (and typically dry) air of a plane for hours with multiple people smoking was likely above and beyond what your body had gotten used to. When he quit, your body was able to recover from that and your smoke threshold went way down. The same thing happened with me; my father quit smoking when I was 15. Now that I don't live with it and have much less exposure to it, I can recognize that cigarette smoke gives me migraines -- which explains why I had so many when I was growing up, and often had one after flying before smoking was banned on planes.

[robinlynne]

49. Tell that to trucks.

[CreekDog]

80. in my state they have been trying to clean up truck pollution

and now there are talking about dealing with airplane pollution.

and ship pollution.

[napi21]

59. You btter invest in a good gas mask then. There are such things as cars, buses,

trucks, smoke from restaurant kitchens.....
Sounds like you'd only be happy living in a remote area...all alone.

[Warren DeMontague]

172. And they are all outside, which is exactly where smokers belong too.

Your analogy would work if people were driving trucks and buses inside of restaurants.

[bunnies]

120. Our air, food & water are poisoned by corporations every single day.

And they are perfectly free to do so.

[HipChick]

9. 1999....flight to Cairo...I flew on Egypt Air ...you could smoke in the back of the plane.

It was a few weeks after the doomed Egypt Air plane crash..

[JaneyVee]

10. I'm so glad they stopped indoor smoking here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Smoking on planes was causing health problems for the flight attendants

who had to put up with it all day, every day. What about their rights?

A smoker's right to smoke ends where other people's noses begin.

[Ter]

128. Do they have rights if they choose a job that allows it?

For the record, I am against smoking on airplanes, but not because of workers. More because of passengers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

163. Yes, they do.

All employers have a legal obligation to provide a reasonably safe workplace. This is one of the reasons why almost all workplaces are now smoke-free. In the early '70s I had to work in an office next to people who smoked all the time, and it made me sick. I did not sign up for that aspect of the job; in those days you couldn't escape smoke anywhere except your own home.

And what have you got against workers?

[Mister Ed]

12. Smoking presents a serious flight hazard.

I think the freedom to smoke in-flight should definitely be left off the list of those freedoms we've gradually lost. It should never have been allowed by the FAA in the first place. Nothing could be much deadlier than on on-board fire. Ask Ricky Nelson.

[napi21]

61. You're absolutely correct. NOTHING is wowrse than an onboard fire, but....

just when have you ever heard of a fire on a plane started by a cigarette? Really, you're pushin' it.

[Mister Ed]

91. Rare, but not unheard of, to lose a plane to fire caused by cigarette.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19821224-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820

Small cabin fires, successfully extinguished, would of course be much more numerous and much less noteworthy than these events.

The chance of a cabin fire being started by a cigarette would be no greater or less than the chance of a house fire started by a cigarette. Which happens. Much harder to evacuate a plane at altitude, though, or to get the fire department to the scene quickly.

I ask you: why should those responsible for regulating air safety permit dozens of passengers in the cabin to light small fires? Even the very small, controlled fire of a cigarette? If they do, isn't it a statistical certainty that the result will eventually be a cabin fire on a flight?

[napi21]

190. That's like saying you should never permit natural gas to heat homes or

to cook with because you're intentionally starting a fire. Come on, there are a lot of dangerous things In an airplane. CIgarettes were eliminated bcause noisy whiners complained too much

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Incrementalism.

I do remember sitting in my parent's collage classes and there were ashtrays on the desks and about half the class was smoking at any given time.

[Aristus]

15. When I'm choking on the smoke from some hammerhead's cigarette,

doing a happy dance for joy in celebration of untrammeled civil rights is not the first thought on my mind...

I think those of us possessing courtesy and an occasional thought for the safety and comfort of others are much better off these days.

Cigarette smoke and the people who enjoy inflicting it on others will sooner or later go down to extinction in the tar pits they so richly deserve...

[uppityperson]

16. I am very glad the freedom to breath non-smoky air has been given to me in so many places. Seatbelts

Seatbelts are "giving away our freedoms" as are things like having food regulations to prevent diseases. It is a balance that has been going on forever and there are few absolute rights (guaranteed under every situation and time every time)

[Nye Bevan]

18. Yes, and it was horrible. (nt)

[Mojorabbit]

20. Yes, I flew to Portugal

Even though the smoking section was the back of the plane, half the front of the plane came to the back to smoke also. They served a lovely Merlot in real glass goblets and the dinner was a delicious Alcatra with roasted potatoes. Everyone was jovial and half lit. It was a great flight.

[nilram]

45. :)

[RebelOne]

135. I flew to Europe twice in the '80s and you could smoke.

I don't know that I could have lasted on a 10-hour flight without a cigarette.

[Skittles]

21. even though I smoked back then I never smoked on plane

that always just seemed wrong to me

[bluedigger]

22. I think I was still at the candy cigarette stage of my addiction back then.

[markiv]

23. yup, I remember my first business trip, in 1987

I lightly smoked back then (quit years ago)

I remember this lady next to me griping about smoke on planes (we were both in the smoking section, i never lit up anywhere public indoors, period) and i remember her turing toward me and asking 'do you smoke?' and wanting to tell her it was none of her f------ business, but was polite because I didnt want to make a bad impression with new coworkers a few rows up

i wished there was a no talking section on planes

[janlyn]

24. Yes, I do remember the days.

The idea of a trans-atlantic flight without my being able to smoke? It would be bad for everyone. Haven't been back to England to visit family since it was banned.
That being said, I have always been considerate of nonsmokers, I don't even smoke inside MY home. But when you ban smoking outdoors in an entire city??
To me that crosses the line. The line being where do your rights end and mine begin.

[Just Saying]

25. Yes!

I smoked in my 20s and occasionally "cheat" a little now.

I visited Italy in 2000. By then you couldn't smoke in most places in the US if not all. (Can't remember when the change happened.) They smoked everywhere! Inside stores, all restaurants, hotels even had those big floor ashtrays in the hallways (remember those?) and it took me back to my childhood.

Even as a former smoker, I can understand people who don't want to inhale dangerous 2nd hand smoke but I also feel that we should be free to do what we want with our own bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone else.

I don't think employers should have the right to drug testing without cause. Frankly, I don't want to work for people who need to violate my rights in that way.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. Separate smoking areas did not even come in until the late 70's - even in hospital cafeterias

In fact in 1978 there was a ballot initiative in California that would have only required separate smoking areas in restaurants and some work places and even that was soundly defeated - of course with the help of a few million dollars from the tobacco industry.

I quit smoking awhile ago. But other people smoking never bothers me very much. I think a lot of this bothering people claim over smoking is just plain "church lady" type moralizing. An excuse to be self-righteous and mess with others.

[sweetloukillbot]

73. I once had a couple sitting in the smoking section complain about my smoking.

When we (and the waiter) pointed out that they were in the smoking section. They said they only smoke after they eat.
I remember when cashiers smoked in grocery stores, and when I started in retail 20-odd years ago I worked in a mall - we couldn't smoke in the store, but we could in the actual mall, so we'd just step outside the storefront and puff away.
I quit 3 years ago - and since then I can't stand the smell of cheap cigarettes. Cigars don't bother me, but the smell of someone with a pack-a-day of generics habit really bugs me.

[Blue Owl]

27. But you gotta admit that post-mile-high club cigarette was extra satisfying

[Logical]

28. Gross! n-t

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. I won't mention his name - since that might be interpreted as unfairly calling someone out

But one of the strongest defenders of the surveillance state on this forum also strongly argued in a past discussion thread that people should not be allowed to smoke in the privacy of their own homes or in any public places. Do I see a trend in how people like that or at least this particular individual thinks about freedom?

[pnwmom]

30. What a crock. Smoking indoors is an assault on other people's lungs.

And restricting smoking is no more an assault on our civil liberties than restricting any other kind of assault.

If you were never personally bothered by cigarette smoke, then consider yourself lucky. I have asthma and I once had to work in an unventilated room with 10 or 12 chain smokers. I got pneumonia two years in a row. That's what the world was like before smoking laws were put into place.

Your argument, by the way, is made by the same people who are against laws for clean air and clean water. Laws that keep industries from dumping their toxic wastes into our environment. Are you against those laws, too, because they infringe on the rights of polluters?

[kentuck]

33. What is my "argument"?

???

[pnwmom]

34. That banning the release of toxic particulates into the air diminishes people's "rights."

That we give away our "freedom" when we submit to laws that restrict our "right" to pollute the air around us.

[kentuck]

39. No.

I said I thought it was the beginning of the diminishing of certain rights, even though I was not a smoker. I realized people's concerns about second-hand smoke. It was just an opinion about how we have lost some freedoms in the past, not whether it was awful that it happened.

[pnwmom]

43. It wasn't the beginning. The first law that said you can't punch someone in the face

was the beginning of the loss of our freedoms.

Smoking in a confined space is an assault on other people's lungs. But it wasn't until science had developed to a certain point that we understood what the effects of smoke were on a second-hand smoker's lungs. At one point cigarettes were even marketed as a product that promoted health. Once we knew better, we regulated them to protect non-smokers from being physically assaulted by the fumes.

[Javaman]

106. +1 nt

[Hissyspit]

38. Here's an argument:

"I feel like this was the beginning of the diminishing of our rights."

Not even close.

[calimary]

48. Agreed. I am GRATEFUL that those particular "rights" were curtailed!

My lungs, my eyes, my nose, my throat, and everything else about me too - ALL are grateful that those particular "rights" were curtailed.

[RedCappedBandit]

31. Second hand smoke is disgusting.

It's not about the "rights" of the smoker, IMO. It's about everyone else being forced to share in their drug addiction.

[HiPointDem]

32. yes. and in stores and business offices and lots of places. i actually find the crowded

conditions in planes today as irritating as tobacco smoke in the less crowded (& better air circulated) planes.

[donco]

35. This ole man

not only smoked and got drunk at 40,000 feet but smoked and got drunk on passenger trains.Thank god them days are over.

[noamnety]

36. OMG, that was awful.

Cigarette smoke triggers migraines in me, and then eventually the migraines trigger vomiting. One person's 5 or 10 minutes of fun would result in a solid 12 hours of misery for me. And the smoker would have no clue they'd had that effect on me or anyone else.

I haven't been around the ecigs but I imagine they're a good solution. Going around making other people violently ill wasn't a solution.

Since the smoking bans here, my migraines have dropped from once or twice a week to a few times a year. I feel like I got my life back.

[ohheckyeah]

37. OMG -

people couldn't wait to post all about the dreaded second hand smoke, totally missing the point of the OP.

So, giving up rights is fine to save people from second hand smoke, but not from terrorists. I guess everyone is afraid of something they need Big Brother to save them from, the fear is the absolute same, just a different thing to fear.

I think the actual beginning of giving up rights were DUI and license check points.

[Ms. Toad]

86. Wrong.

The overriding similarity is that the rights of one (whether person or government) stop when they impact me without my consent. I did not consent to breathing second hand smoke, and I did not consent to the government possessing and analyzing my phone meta data records.

[geek tragedy]

139. Spoken like a true Ron Paul supporter. Forget those environmental regulations

that save lives, that's just Big Brother.

We need to be able to pollute the air and kill others because FREEDOM.

[ohheckyeah]

142. Pathetic attempt

to smear someone who disagrees with you as a Ron Paul supporter. You know what you can do with your attempt, right?

[geek tragedy]

143. You just said that laws that save lives and protect the health of workers

is "Big Brother."

So, giving up rights is fine to save people from second hand smoke, but not from terrorists. I guess everyone is afraid of something they need Big Brother to save them from, the fear is the absolute same, just a different thing to fear.

That's exactly the insane crap spewed by libertarians.

News flash: it's not 'fear' that leads to these laws it's FUCKING MEDICAL SCIENCE.

Your right to be a selfish asshole does not extend to the point where in negatively hurts the health of others.

[ohheckyeah]

145. It is Big Brother if Big Brother is the government.

Do you have another nit to pick?

[geek tragedy]

146. You're equating laws based on medical science to protect human

health from the actions of others to Big Brother.

That's the psycho Ayn Rand view--that people have a god-given right to inflict harm on others, and that it's none of the gubmint's business.

And you dishonestly attribute it to 'fear' when in reality it's based on medical science.

I am not afraid of your second-hand cigarette smoke. It is objectively and indisputably bad for me to inhale. That is not fear, that is being rational.

People who want to play with their little cancer sticks need to do it away from those of us who don't want our lungs polluted.

[ohheckyeah]

147. yes, it is fear.

The U.S. was attacked on 9/11, so it is only rational to be afraid that another attack will happen at any moment, right?

Bye

[geek tragedy]

148. Idiotic comparison.

Completely, and totally idiotic, to the point it's probably dishonest.

We don't know whether another 9/11 will attack. We do KNOW that second-hand smoke kills.

Sorry I don't accept your Ayn Rand attitude towards smokers rights, to the point you sneer at the health problems they cause for nonsmokers. Very Republican of you.

[ohheckyeah]

149. Another pathetic attempt

Why is it you can't make a post without personal attacks? It's really sad.

Did you mistake me for someone who gives a shit what you accept and don't accept?

[geek tragedy]

152. Your position is textbook libertarianism.

Sorry you find that fact inconvenient on a liberal/progressive message board.

And, your argument that 'fear' drives health regulations on smoke is a lie. "Fear" is an emotion. There is hard, indisputable medical science that shows that second-hand smoke has serious health consequences.

The rational, logical policy approach is to minimize the extent to which smokers can subject others to second hand smoke. The emotionalistic position is to pretend that government is overstepping its bounds or that nonsmokers are being irrational in demanding that others not be allowed to pollute their lungs with carcinogens.

Also, your lack of regard of the health for those who work in bars is a classic libertarian/screw the worker position.

[rufus dog]

40. Come on Kentuck

Chew some Skoal or Copenhagen, don't subject others to your habit.

[kentuck]

93. Did you read my post?

I don't smoke or use nicotine in any manner. The post was not about smoking, per se.

[Cleita]

41. Actually I can. I can also remember when the airlines gave you a little pack of six cigarettes

with your meal. I can remember when I traveled 6 thousand miles on a prop plane every couple of years. That's how old I am, but I have been having to do air travel since I was two years old. First plane was a DC-3, 6 thousand miles. I don't remember thank god, but I think I originated screaming babies airlines. My mother told me that all I did was roll on the aisles screaming because my ears hurt so badly. I know the passengers then could smoke. I don't blame them. It must have been awful to put up with me. The DC-3 didn't have anything as luxurious as pressurized cabins as a matter-of-fact it was several DCs after that I do remember, awful ear aches and barfing as well, before pressurized cabins arrived. Passengers smoked and drank and I don't blame them having to put up with a miserable, barfy kid. It was jets though that finally made air travel somewhat comfortable. Before that it was really something to be endured.

Sorry I didn't mean to digress from your original point. It just brought back memories. Some freedom that we had in the past did need to go the way of the dinosaur, smoking in public was one of them. I do think that people should be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. I know there are those who will get all upset if someone is smoking in a room or apartment close to them. I think then they are just whining and wrong.

[SoCalDem]

110. I too, flew on "antique planes"..and also remember the piano bar in COACH on 747s

My kids thought I was having an alzheimer-moment when I told them.. but then I showed them pictures...and they were blown away when I told them about how I sat in the copilot seat of a Pan Am 747 after we left JFK, headed for Puerto Rico. We flew first class with actual linen table cloths, steak knives, real china dishes & crystal champagne glasses..and then up to the first class lounge with the pilots, when they let each one of us behind the curtain..(yes it was a curtain), and we all got to sit in the copilot seat..

those were the days....

and once on Air Jamaica, there was an in-air fashion show

On United between KC & Chicago, the hostesses had us take our poodle puppy out of her carrier & they hand fed her sausage bits & let her run up and down the aisle...(she was a good girl and did not have an accident)

I doubt that we will ever fly again.. the last time we flew was to Tahiti, and those flights were miserable...even with Tahiti as the destination

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. I can remember *being forced* to smoke in planes, in bars, at work and in the restaurant.

Good riddance to smokers freedom to compel my participation.

[vanlassie]

44. I think it was 1998 when we flew to Europe and my daughter age 12 and I were seated in the smoking

section at the back of the plane. A travel agent error. The rule was you had to be sitting in a smoking seat in order to smoke. So not only were we choking the entire time, we were continuously asked to change seats with people who wanted our seats long enough to suck down their ciggies. They didn't want to STAY in the smoking section, mind you. To smoggy, I assume. Worst. Flight. Ever.

I also remember when our dentist used to keep a cig burning over at the sink in the treatment room... That was in about 1960.

[calimary]

46. Yes, and I absolutely HATED it.

My mother chain-smoked and I hated that, too. Could NOT get away from it. Awful smell and it'd get on my clothes and my hair and I'd smell bad. I also struggled with contact lenses of all kinds, when I was a teenager, and never ever found lenses that fit comfortably. And any cigarette smoke that got in my face or my eyes was damn near torture.

I was SO happy to see cigarettes banned! Still thrilled about it! And HUGELY relieved!

[lonestarnot]

47. I am sick of overlords myself, but knowing what I know now, I would not smoke on a plane, not that I

wouldn't want to, but I wouldn't. But yeah, that's what happens when citizens sleep on the job, the breaks get taken away, then lunch, then salary cuts, then farm out, then hours cut, then no jobs.

[DontTreadOnMe]

50. I am 50 years old and can remember back in the 1980s smoking on planes

And then even after they banned smoking, many of the planes seats still had ashtrays - even though there was no smoking allowed.
It took many years for all those seats to be replaced.

But even worse was smoking on trains, especially a commuter train in the morning that was completely full.

You would get off the train and your clothes smelled like smoke.

[Booster]

52. have you ever noticed that smoking in a gambling casino doesn't seem to bother anybody

enough for them to move to the "no smoking" section - they don't think they can win in there. lol

[SheilaT]

69. Guess again.

I'm a nonsmoker and among the reasons I rarely go to casinos is the smoke. Yuck. And the two or three times I've been to a casino in the past few years the non-smoking sections have been as busy as the smoking ones.

[arely staircase]

53. yes. i smoked on a plane as late as 97-98

it was an international flight and they let us light up once out of US airspace. I could smoke in my State Government office as late as 95.

[MrSlayer]

54. Agreed. Little by little we're giving it all away.

The drug testing really annoys me. That's a total invasion of privacy and is basically an accusation.

The whole smoking thing is so overblown. I'm much more offended by body odor or stinking perfume than by somebody smoking. But I really don't have a problem with it being banned in restaurants. Smoking was something I liked to do not something I had to do. I could sit through a meal without smoking with no problem. I find it ridiculous that it's banned in bars.

Let's face it, people are scared little sheep that like to be led around and told what to do. They're conformists and easily manipulated. They like having their freedoms taken away.

[kentuck]

95. Thanks!

To someone who finally read the post.

[MrSlayer]

118. You're welcome. The smoke nazis have tunnel vision.

They're so eager to post their screed that they often ignore the context.

Try starting a thread called "I'll be doing some smoking this weekend" about barbecue and watch what happens. They can't help themselves.

It's sad really.

Have fun.

[CreekDog]

166. "Smoke nazis"??? And what are you? You want us to ignore medical science about smoking

in favor of a bunch of prattle you wrote that isn't smart enough to have been written for Hee Haw.

[MrSlayer]

181. Whatever.

Look at the numbers. You're afraid of something that might affect you decades down the line. There's no guarantee. It's just a boogeyman. You'll probably be dead from GMOs long before this second and third hand smoke nonsense.

[CreekDog]

182. do you wear your seatbelt?

yeah, whatever.

[MrSlayer]

185. Only to stop that incessant beeping.

Otherwise I'd probably use it sporadically.

[CreekDog]

186. Ah, you'd wear it sporadically, because wearing it sporadically makes you sporadically safer

[MrSlayer]

187. No, I just don't always remember to put it on.

Because it's not that big a deal to me. Besides, life is boring without a little bit of danger, a little risk. Hence roller coasters and bungee jumping and all.

If we were all safe and snug all the time it would be boring.

Anyway, have a good day. I'm done with this. We don't agree. No hards.

[CreekDog]

188. driving without a seat belt is more dangerous that riding a roller coaster

i'm sure you dont' know that given your comments dismissing the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke as well as questioning the effectiveness and need for laws which protect people from having to breathe secondhand smoke indoors in workplaces and places of business.

[CreekDog]

189. The problem with science is that you're smarter than all that bullshit

[ohheckyeah]

121. Exactly my point...

whether terrorists or second hand smoke, the fear is the same and people want Big Brother to save them.

[geek tragedy]

141. So, you think it's ridiculous to protect the health of people who work in bars

and would be forced to inhale cigarette smoke?

Sorry, I can't adopt the Ron Paul way of thinking on that.

[MrSlayer]

150. I think the risk is highly exaggerated.

And lots of bartenders and waitstaff smoke too. That's what you're supposed to do in a bar. Drink, smoke and curse. It's the opposite of a church.

But again, it doesn't really matter one way or the other to me personally. I just think it's dumb.

[geek tragedy]

154. Medical science disagrees with you.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/#estimates

People drank in bars for centuries before cigarettes were invented.

[MrSlayer]

158. Yeah, they just smoked pipes and cigars and rolled their own.

Medical science is correct that certain people are susceptible to certain things. Not everyone that smokes gets cancer, plenty of non smokers get it too. I just don't think it's necessary to accommodate every single person's genetic inferiority, whatever it might be.

Some people are just hardier than others.

[geek tragedy]

159. asdf

Not everyone that smokes gets cancer, plenty of non smokers get it too. I just don't think it's necessary to accommodate every single person's genetic inferiority, whatever it might be.

Holy shit, this may be the most downright psychopathic thing I've ever seen written in defense of 'smokers' rights'--that they should be allowed to kill other people with their smoke because otherwise we're accomodating genetically inferior people.

This is eugenicism gone wild.

[MrSlayer]

160. It's not a defense of smoker's rights.

It's a general statement about freedom.

I don't believe smokers are killing anyone except maybe themselves if they are genetically predisposed to cancer.

[geek tragedy]

161. Well, some people don't believe in evolution or global warming.

But the scientists say they're dead wrong.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

•Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 46,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.4
•Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25–30%

•Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%.1


•Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.4,5

So, about one Iraq war's worth of dead every month. But, whatevs, because FREEDOM.

[MrSlayer]

169. What percentage is that of 300 million?

What percentage of 300 million die in car wrecks? Industrial accidents? Other preventable deaths? And those are immediate deaths.

Seriously, it's not that many people, it's not that big a risk. Particularly when it's something that may or may not affect you 40 or 50 years down the line when you're probably going to be dying of something anyway. I do think it's worth it for freedom.

[geek tragedy]

173. That's what Bush said about Iraq. nt

[CreekDog]

165. plenty of nonsmokers breathe second hand smoke

often worse smoke than you are breathing.

and whenever you just blithely say something like, "medical science blah blah blah" and then post your own corn pone stupidity as a replacement for medical knowledge, where you also say something isn't dangerous because you knew this guy and that guy and this girl who did it and were fine...

there's a word for that.

bullshit.

[MrSlayer]

183. Again, whatever.

I didn't say it wasn't harmful or dangerous, just that it was harmful and dangerous to those that are genetically predisposed to get cancer or whatever. Pay attention.

[CreekDog]

184. so you're saying why bother since they are predisposed anyway?

gosh, that's worse than the crap you originally said.

[bhikkhu]

55. And restaurants, and offices, and parks...I hated it

cigarette smoke was one of the few things that would give me a splitting headache, even before we knew how bad second hand smoke was.

The freedom to make strangers sick by exposing them to your narcotics isn't one that I miss.

[Downwinder]

56. I can remember when they gave out sample cigarettes on the planes.

[napi21]

57. I sure do remember when you could smoke on airplanes. The first change was to move the smokers to

the back of the plane. Then there was no smoking at all.

I smoked at my desk for many, many years. In restaurants too. Then a bunch of whiners started bitching and we smokers were relegated to special areas. THEN the whiners still weren't happy and they forced the change to only outside! NOW...they don't even want you to smoke outside within visibility!

I'm retired now, and I smoke at my desk, at the table, anywhere inside or outside my house. If somebody doesn't like it, they don't have to visit!!

Yea, I'm still ticked off.

[homegirl]

71. smoke

I certainly wouldn't let you smoke at my dinner table. But to each his own poison. Just curious, have you developed signs of emphysema or is it already in full gallop?

[struggle4progress]

60. I think nonsmokers have every right to breath clean air

[DesertFlower]

62. i remember. i stopped smoking in

'83. now i find cigarette smoke disgusting. it gives me a headache and makes me dizzy. happy arizona has no smoking inside.

[LeftInTX]

63. Even my high school had a smoking area - LOL

When I was in college, they had ashtrays in class. It was cool to smoke in class. You could smoke on planes and in hospitals etc. With the exception of when the No Smoking sign was on, you could smoke anywhere on a plane. Hospitals allowed it if oxygen wasn't involved.

We traveled across the country on a greyhound bus before there were smoking areas. It was plain old gross.

I don't miss those days. Now I enjoy staying at no smoking motels/hotels.

[KansDem]

105. "Even my high school had a smoking area"

So did mine. It was called the "teachers' lounge."

[AnneD]

64. I remember.....

When you could smoke in High School...along the breeze way.

[Comrade Grumpy]

65. It was a Mexicana (or Aero Mexico?) flight out of JFK in about 1994.

Going to Mexico City, an international flight. I think it had already been banned on domestic flights. They had ashtrays built into the seats.

[Mira]

67. NO - it was the ascendance of the rights of those not addicted - not the diminishing of the rights

of those who are.

My history: I smoked 2 packs on a good day for over 30 years.
That meant in grocery stores - airplanes - funeral parlors of those being interned for having gotten cancer - and I could go on and on.
I watched and became part of the crowd I called "the new American Homeless" the displaced smokers.
They began to be seen on balconies, on back door stoops, and in smoking rooms with big glass walls in airports.

I now think employers who don't hire smokers, and who insist on piss tests, are not infringing on our rights.
I think they are protecting theirs. And their own freedom that allows them to protect their financial future from the drain of addicts of any kind, in their ass, and in their purse.

[uppityperson]

77. Exactly, thank you. My right to breath non-smoky air has been improved. However, I think

employers who don't hire smokers, and who insist on piss tests, ARE infringing on our rights. If you perform your job adequately, what you do on your own time (legally) should be no business of an employer.

[Mira]

99. Would be true if what you are doing to your health

had no ripple effect consequences. Job performance does suffer and absentee-ism is higher when addictions are present.

[snappyturtle]

107. What people say here seem to forget that there are other "tolerated"

activities that are proving to be just as detrimental to health as smoking. Obesity for example.
Diabetes, joint pain (baccks, knees, hips) are expensive to deal with and can keep a person from working at their full potential. Food can be addictive too. So, where does it end?

[Mira]

114. Valid points.

Ultimately, in my life, I had to do what was best for my personal situation, and hire the people who could contribute the best.
I have worked in my basement my entire self employed life. I have had a number of employees with me in an area where space and walkways were limited. I once could not hire a qualified person because she was too fat to navigate a number of the paths.
I have allowed mothers to bring small children, and once put up with one in a crib. I regret some of these decisions in retrospect, it was good for them, but a pain for the workers and customers. I have hired a person with an ankle bracelet, and one in NA rehab. And recovering members of AA.
My life experiences are that I have extended much to many.

This illustrates that what you are implying is correct. It really does not end.
I have come to believe that it may be called discrimination, but I have empathy with someone who chooses to be true first to the needs of the whole.

[snappyturtle]

115. It sounds as if you have given much thought to others. Kudos!

[uppityperson]

116. Should employers be able to dictate diet and exercise also? not

[SheilaT]

70. Lucky you if the smoke in confined spaces doesn't bother you at all.

For most of us non-smokers, it's beyond disgusting. Smokers almost never get it that they reek of cigarettes. They think if they go outside to have their cigarette and come back in that the odor isn't still on their breath and clinging to their clothes.

I for one am quite glad that smoking is banned almost everywhere indoors. If you think that this ban is the beginning of the diminishing or our rights, you must really be unhappy with drunk driving laws. And yes, I am not trying to claim that smoking impairs one the way alcohol does, but taking away your right to drink as much as you want and then drive is another diminishment of your rights.

Not all rights are or should be absolute.

[tblue]

72. As a nonsmoker with a hangover,

how coyld I not remember? I got to the airport late, and it was an airline without assigned seats, so I had no choice but to sit in the smoking section. Ugh!!!!!!!! I was SICK the whole dang way. Wanted to jump off the plane.

Was just talking about it to some young people. I am so glad it's outlawed!

[CreekDog]

75. smoking never bothered you?

would a doctor agree?

[No Vested Interest]

76. Last Dec. on a Costa cruise ship, with about 2/3 European passengers

smoking was (apparently) allowed most places on the ship. - Maybe not the Main dining room, at least not noticeably in the area I and family used.

But mostly certainly in the casual - buffet -dining area for breakfast, lunch & snacks. And more so in the casino, which luckily was not a hangout of mine, but through which I frequently had to pass to access another area.

The Europeans, mostly Italian, were quite unapologetic about puffing any time and any place. I understand, after all, it was their New Year's holiday and they were just relaxing as was their norm.

There were aspects of cruising with an Italian line that I liked, especially the price, following the accidents on two of their ships, but, for anyone contemplating traveling with European fellow passengers, be forewarned of the ever-present clouds of smoke.

Incidentally, I grew up in the age of universal smoking in the US; my nonsmoking parents gave me permission to smoke openly, if that was my desire. Perhaps that took the fun out of it for a teenager, for it never interested me, even though I likely missed out on bridge games in the college "smoker". And I was tolerant of the inevitable smoke, fumes and odor.
And now that smoking is fairly universally forbidden in public spaces, I'm not so tolerant of being around it -I find it noxious.

[Blue_In_AK]

81. Yes, I remember.

I first became aware of the UA's when I worked corrections back in the early '80s. The PTB's were thrilled that they finally had a way to pop the inmates that they KNEW were getting weed into the prison. Prison was also where I first heard about AIDS. I remember one of the inmates saying to me that they were the guinea pigs for "the Man" to try things out on before bringing the measures to the wider public. Sure enough, before I knew it, workplace UA's became commonplace and everyone knew about AIDS.

Now, we're all under constant surveillance with our phone calls being monitored just as if we were all criminals ... or at least potential criminals. Prophetic.



Ed. Yes, it's probably better for everyone's health that smoking cigarettes has been restricted in public places, but I certainly see your point about our "freedoms."

[SaveAmerica]

82. Stuck in the back of the plane with smoking parents - thought I'd choke

to death. Kids don't have rights.

[Ms. Toad]

87. My favorite encounter with a smoker on a plane

I was seated in the last row of the non-smoking section (like the smoke knows to stop at the back of my seat...) The person behind me started smoking up a storm as soon as permitted, so I aimed my vent as far back as possible and opened it wide open (as did my spouse seated beside me), in order to try to create an air barrier between me and the smoke.

The smoker had the nerve to complain to me about the air. I offered to turn it down and point it a bit forward if she would stop smoking. She refused, so she had to put up with an air bath for the entire flight. It wasn't really very effective to keep the smoke at bay (since it was coming from every seat behind me), but at least it was emotionally satisfying.

[applegrove]

90. I remember being able to smoke in

movie theaters. I had some friends who did a highschool exchange with french students. They were allowed to smoke in class in France.

[FSogol]

97. Remember when we had lead in all our paint? Because it was cheaper?

Good times. Screw everyone else, I want the freedom to have cheap paint.

Remember all the dangerous and unregulated products? Remember all the injuries and deaths? Remember the goddamn air polution in the 70s?

Protecting children and consumers with regulations impacts my freedom!

(if needed)

You might be happy to know that the air pollution from the 70s is returning. Just look at the asthma epidemic in our children. Whining about gubermint regulations that protect individuals is clearly straight out of the conservative playbook. I expect better from DUers.

[raccoon]

122. We also used to have lead in all our gasoline. nt

[FSogol]

124. Yup, good times. Cough, cough. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

179. What year was it when they restricted smoking on shorter flights?

I can't even remember when the hell that happened because it was so long ago.

[Major Hogwash]

180. 1988!!! Smoking restrictions for flights of 2 hours or less became the law in 1988!!

And was extended in 1990 to cover flights of 6 hours or less.

Man, I knew it was a long time ago, but I couldn't remember when.

[JM42]

98. Yes. The "No Smoking" light would come on until you hit like 20,000 or so.

But if I recall correctly, there was no smoking in the bathrooms.

[BadgerKid]

100. These days at restaurants I have to go inside

to avoid the smoke around restaurant entrances or patio areas. A complete 180 from years ago.

[cbayer]

104. The first time I flew I was 12 years old. Not only could you smoke,

but when you sat down, there was a "sample" pack of 5 cigarettes sitting on your tray.

When I first starting working in hospitals around 1977, we smoked in the nurses stations and patients could smoke in their rooms.

While I think the latitude given to smokers and smoking was too great and industry driven, I think we have swung way too far the other way.

One example is the restrictions put on patients with chronic and severe psychiatric disorders. While there is evidence that smoking provides many patients with some kind of relief, they are often completely prohibited from smoking when admitted to a hospital.

[CreekDog]

164. so you're saying that protecting the staff from smoking is not important as allowing cigarettes?

you act like the patient is there, in a vacuum, when in fact, they are in a facility with many sick people and loads of staff attending to everybody and open doors and so forth.

why should people in that hospital, and caregivers attending to that patient be allowed to emit 2nd hand smoke which staff trying to care for them must breathe?

you haven't thought this out.

[cbayer]

167. Huh? Where did I say that?

I fully support the bans on smoking indoors, particularly in health care facilities.

Even as a smoker, I thought it was outrageous that staff and patients could smoke indoors.

But for psychiatric patients, I think accommodations need to be made. Either access to outside areas or room with adequate ventilation to keep the smoke out of other areas.

I have thought it out quite well, thank you very much. Use of sedatives and restraints increase when psychiatric patients are denied the ability to smoke. There are reasonable compromises that can be made.

[Kolesar]

108. My hair smelled like smoke because of my smoke-stack coworker

Even after our company banned smoking and he had quit smoking, he would cough, cough, cough. He would make these grotesque gutteral sounds trying to expectorate something. He would clear his throat every 90 seconds.

He retired to a cheaper part of the country. Don't miss him

[Hell Hath No Fury]

109. I have alway thought that individual rights -

ended once actions began to impact others. From cigarettes to abortion to driving while intoxicated -- there is a modern history of saying you are not granted unrestricted right to engage in activity that can harm others. I think this is a good balance of individual rights.

With that said, I think that the vast majority of work-related drug screens completely violate that notion. I do remember them becoming popular back in the cocaine days, when coke use in a professional setting was not uncommon.

[truebrit71]

112. Yup, I sure do..

Back then I smoked, a lot, and I couldn't possibly imagine an eleven hour flight with no ciggies....Now, as an ex-smoker for the last three years, I think I would strangle anyone that lit up on the same plane as me...

[FarCenter]

113. I can remember when there was a 4-pack of cigarettes on every dinner tray

They were provided gratis by the tobacco companies to get you to try the brand.

Smoking never made sense. I never got hooked, because every time I tried it I got bronchitis.

[SmittynMo]

117. A lot of you missed the point entirely

I can piss and moan all day about the smoking issue. But you are missing the point. Every year, something else is taken from us as FREE Americans. I figure within the next 10 years, companies are going to tell me when I can/cannot take a dump.

[Dreamer Tatum]

123. Starting by bemoaning the "right" of some asshole to blow smoke all over me

in the most confined space possible is maybe not the smartest idea.

[geek tragedy]

138. That's libertarian horseshit. Why not let Dow chemical be "free" to dump shit in the river then? nt

[telclaven]

125. 1978 Flight to Germany

Was 9 years old. Sitting in the row immediately behind 'the smoking section'. Can still remember it. The inflight movie was "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I threw up a few times, coughed and weezed. Miserable flight.

[graham4anything]

127. I remember almost choking to death on all the fumes. Smoking kills. Thank God it was banned.

Second hand smokes kills worse than first hand, as innocent collateral damage are killed.

There should be ZERO cigarettes sold and bought.

Thank God for wellness.

And no one needs a 48 ounce soda and a refill and a big fat tub of popcorn. All in 90 minute movies.

On an airline, there was NO place to move.

[Lurker Deluxe]

129. I remember

Muse Air.

I was a construction grunt on HS vacation for the summer and worked with my father installing a new terminal at Hobby airport in South Houston for the new airline "Muse Air". It was a small company which "hopped" back and forth between Houston and Dallas for $50. There was no smoking allowed in their terminal, and no smoking allowed on any of their flights.

It had never been done before. Most said they would never make it, and they did not, but it was not because of their no smoking policy.

Still to this day I have one of the double pane argon filled smoked glass panels that we removed to install the terminal, I use it for a dining table.

So, the first few flights of my life were back and forth between here and Dallas and there was no smoking on the plane. It was years before I flew again but do not remember smoking being an issue.

[olddots]

130. Yes I do

I was a smoker but didn't smoke on planes , life was better for me then and it sucks for me now so I think of those years fondly . It's as simple as that .

[kestrel91316]

132. Smoking on an airplane imposed an unhealthy situation on unwilling bystanders.

Flight attendants used to be at high risk for lung cancer and other diseases due to secondhand smoke.

I don't look at the great leap forward in public health measures that the airline smoking ban constituted. as a bad thing in ANY way. It was a huge gain in rights for the majority. We got tired of a minority hurting us.

[geek tragedy]

144. According to the smoking libertarians, nonsmokers' rights are not relevant. nt

[Sheepshank]

133. like the assult on the freedom to drive how and when anyone wants...

...age restrictions, licenses, tests, red lights, intersections....hell even staying on one side of the road.

O-oohhh and another slippery slope of laws designed to restrict other behaviours like killing, stealing, property damage. Banking rules, renting rules, insurance rules, draining car oil into the storm drain rules, protecting watershed rules, dogs on leash rules, rules regarding raping, beatings, starving the elderly, pushing innocent bystanders onto the road, paying your restaurant bill,

Aren't all of these chipping away at the freedoms as delineated in the op?

[unblock]

136. false juxtaposition.

historically, this sort of argument usually points to the federal income tax as the flashpoint for ever-diminishing rights.

personally i find nothing special about the diminishing acceptance of smoking in terms of the greater trend of diminishing rights and freedoms and privacy. i do find the march of technology vastly more relevant; and in the case of rights in the workplace, the diminishing power of labor unions.

finally, a point of distinction: polluting the air others breathe, particularly if they would be greatly inconvenienced to avoid those areas, is not and never was a right. it was widely accepted as the norm, and was legally permitted, but not everything that is permitted is a "right". smoking on an airplane where other people then have no choice but to breathe it and perhaps suffer adverse effects such as migraines, allergic reactions, etc., is no more a right than is throwing your fists about on a crowded elevator where others might suffer adverse consequences from such gesticulation.

the line in both cases is when your actions harm others. you can wave your fists about in the privacy your own home or far away from others that might be harmed, and you could say that you have a "right" to do so (pursuit of happiness). but that right stops at someone else's nose, as the saying goes. similarly for smoking. arguably you have a "right" to smoke, up to the point it causes damage to others.


drug tests are rather different. again the march of technology has much to do with it. they would be given far more selectively if they weren't now so cheap and easy to administer. another factor there is the increasing power of (big) corporations. they are exerting control over their employee lives to an extent that wasn't possible for them when labor unions had more power.

[geek tragedy]

137. My right to avoid inhaling cancer fumes outweights someone else's right to emit them,

The same goes for service employees in bars and restaurants.

Sorry, big spenders, but you don't have a right to blow your smoke into other people's lung cells.

[WovenGems]

151. Never

I never brought enough to share with two hundred folks so I left the bag at home. I'm polite.

[krispos42]

153. I remember airplanes having built-in ashtrays in each seat

I don't think I actually remember anybody smoking on a plane, though.

[Butterbean]

155. Yep, I remember fidgeting with the ashtrays in the armrests when I was a kid.

I remember the smell of stale ashes that wafted up from some of them. It never bothered me much, since my mom smoked.

Now they're all welded shut on the older planes.

Lots of things have changed. I remember when the only "security" involved with getting on a plane meant walking through a metal detector. I also remember when they gave you the entire can of coke.

I'M SO OLD.

[Apophis]

156. Wanting a healthier public atmosphere = erosion of rights?

Okay then.

[onenote]

162. I think the erosion of our rights began in the early 1990s with laws requiring bike helmets

Or was it when the first seat belt laws were passed in the 1980s?

No, that's not it. Must have been in the 1970s, when the first motorcycle helmet laws were passed.

Wait, that's still too late. How about when the first laws against drinking and driving were passed in the early part of the 20th Century.

I've got it. The erosion of our rights began when the first laws against speeding were enacted. In 1757.

[felix_numinous]

168. You think that's surreal?

I can remember radiologists reading chest X-rays with nodules in them, dictating between puff of cigarette: " .. And a nodule on the right lower lobe consistent with metastasis..." And X-ray techs taking a puff of cigarette: " take in a deep breath...hold it" Even then that was a bizarre scene but hey it was the 70s.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. No, but I remember when other people were, and the rest of us couldn't fucking escape.

"Freedom" to make other people breathe that shit? Bleh.

[louis-t]

176. I remember smoking being allowed in the grocery store, the bank, buses...

THE GROCERY STORE!! I remember seeing butts on the floor. Funny how shocking that is now.

[Whisp]

178. Yes. How stupid was that.

This is the reason we need laws, because left to ourselves we would continue all sorts of other stupidities.