General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTreated like a Queen FOR Smoking at Office Christmas Party
My husband's office Christmas party was last night at an exclusive Naples, Florida, restaurant. Ok, prepare to be the Leper for smoking. I am used to it. I went into the parking lot to smoke and a waiter happened to see me, asked why I was there, and led me by the hand to tables outside the restaurant. "The owner and her son of this restaurant smoke", he said. He clearned a table for me and brought me an ashtray.
While sitting there Maria (owner in her 70s) sat down with me. It was a cold night in Florida and she ordered staff to bring a heater to our table. We chatted about many things, on and off. Damn, this is NICE! I don't have to slink around in the darkness. I was the only person in the entire company or guests who smoked. Wellness stuff, ya know.
When I happened to mention to Maria that I really liked Veal Marsala, which was not on the set company menu for the night, she called her son over and told him to make it special for me at no charge. "Anything you want I can get you, she said". When our food was brought to the table, I got my special order. How did YOU get that? Well, MARIA said I could have it. Waiter came over to me at dessert and asked if I wanted any special desert or liquore, which I didn't even ask for. Sure, can I have.......... What the HELL, everyone else was asking. ROFL
Very, very nice to be treated this way, for a CHANGE. Thank you, Maria. Let the flaming begin, by the young health nuts.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I don't smoke, but I rather like a touch of freedom and non-persecution to go with my broccoli.
Ernest Partridge
(135 posts)Half a million Americans die prematurely each year from smoking related illnesses. Among them, a sizable number of non-smokers who are victimized by second-hand smoke.
In one generation, anti-smoking campaigns along with increasing social sanctions have cut the number of smokers in the US approximately in half, no doubt saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
Quite frankly, someone else's tobacco smoke makes me sick. Ditto millions of others. Dining out and airline travel used to be an ordeal. No longer.
Sure enough, telling a smoker that he can't smoke in a restaurant or on a plane is a restriction on his freedom. But allowing him to do so is an assault on others, affecting their health and comfort.
It's an timeless dilemma: "your rights end where my nose begins."
In this case, the non-smoker's right to comfort and good health -- his freedom from assault -- should prevail.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)So I am not creating air problems for anyone. It has just rubbed me the wrong way to see people demonized for smoking. I just wish corporate polluters would be held in such low regard as individuals with a bad habit.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Well people who eat junk food cause more deaths and health costs than smokers. Again, I don't smoke, but the treatment they get for a legal substance is horrible.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)No one has to worry about second-hand Cheetos, so the comparison is rather lame.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)It was, however, nowhere near approaching 'valid' or 'insightful'. Again, the problem with smoking in public is that it affects others. A 20 something in his basement eating Cheetos doesn't affect anyone else's health.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Good for you. You will remember this forever. Glad you had a wonderful experience. I don't smoke, but I do see how they are treated and it is horrible to treat fellow human beings this way.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)about someone doing something nice for another.
Lovely gesture.
In another century houses has "smoking rooms".
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Glad to see this.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As a smoker, I've never felt or seen that... or even pretended to out of a sense of duty to melodrama.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)I'm guessing smokers that feel 'hatred' towards them are probably assholes to begin with.
brewens
(13,623 posts)the most offensive smoker I know. No etiquette at all when smoking where it's allowed. At our Eagles Lodge there are three of four along with him that smoke non-stop and make it twice as bad as it should be. He also throws butts down wherever he happens to be. Ashtrays inside, one right outside the back door and one in his car and you still see his butts all over the parking lot. Who will scream the loudest when they bad smoking in public completely? When that happens in our town part of the reason will be the mess and expense of picking up butts everywhere.
I'm a cigar and pipe smoker but even though mine are completely biodegradable, I don't throw a cigar down or dump my pipe out where it will be noticeable. The cigars are large enough to trip someone anyway!
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)The only place I have ever seen real hatred of smokers is DU.. The vitriol on here gets crazy sometimes. But out in the real world I am careful that my habit doesn't bother anyone else and I almost never have any problems..
The only place I ever have issues is when I'm on a loading dock. You stand there with half a dozen 18 wheelers running, 4 or 5 forklifts spewing propane and man if you try to smoke the dockmaster will likely pull your head off for ruining his health...
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)The verdict because she smokes. Fuck. smoking. A disgusting addiction.
Response to roguevalley (Reply #159)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)of thought. Thank you for that. Considering my circumstances I should be allowed to disagree even if I amnot waiting with dread for the news about my sister in law. A couple of things anyway...
1. I said 'fuck smoking', not smokers.
2. Smoking is an addiction like meth, booze and overeating. I feel for addicts because food was once an addiction for me. Just because it is legal doesn't change a damn thing. Its a killing addiction.
3. My sister in law is facing really bad news. That should have been enough to leave me alone. This isn't some bullshit libertarian thing for me, smoking. I lost the following people to smoking:
Uncles: 5
aunts: 2
cousins: 3 that I am currently aware of
parents: my luminously beautiful dad
grandparents: my two grandpas
I HATE SMOKING! I earned the right to say so. I also have ALWAYS had the right to have smokers blow their poison somewhere other than at me. How is it that you can have the freedom to smoke and I can't have the SAME FREEDOM to not smoke? How does it feel to be the minority? Now you understand what it has been like for non-smokers for 500 YEARS. Now you know what it feels like when smokers turned on me when I asked them not to smoke around me MY WHOLE LIFE!
I am old. I remember seeing smokers in the grocery store. I will always HATE SMOKING! I lost my family to cigarettes and the companies who made them and lied. They continue to lie too. This isn't about freedom. No addict is ever free. You are a slave to companies that make a product that kills you if you smoke.
I am entitled to be free of smoke. My compassion is always extended to addicts even if their choice of poison is legal. If you have an opinion about this and can express it freely, so the same should I without fear of being slagged. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
I pray my sister in law isn't going to be added to my list. I HATE SMOKING! FUCK SMOKING!
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I'm sure you will get a great response. Call Ford, Chrysler, GM, Mercedes etc. Oh and all the petrol companies. And the pesticide companies...do I need to go on. You live in a polluted cancer crazy world. If you don't want to smoke fine, but please do not get on a high horse here. Enough.
BellaKos
(318 posts)First, please accept my condolences for the losses of your loved ones. And may I join with you in the hope that your sister-in-law is healthy.
In my family there are or were four grandparents, numerous great aunts and great uncles, fourteen pairs of aunts and uncles, thirty or so first cousins, four pairs of in-laws, a bunch of nieces and nephews, a brother, two half-sisters, a husband, daughter, and, of course, two parents.
I could make a similar list of loved ones who have died because of alcoholism. My alcoholic brother, who has never smoked in his life, nearly died at age 55 because of major heart attack. Ironically, the smokers among my clan haven't seemed to have had any ill effect from smoking. And some of whom have lived to nearly 90 and beyond.
So, from my perspective, I cannot blame smoking for the health problems that are in my family or that I have witnessed among my friends. But I do have a good reason to hate alcohol abuse.
And yes ...
Corporations, in general, are evil. And that includes the pharmaceutical industries.
Again, I hope that your sister-in-law is healthy.
Keep calm and carry on!
Hekate
(90,837 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Squinch
(51,021 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)100+ heat or negative temperatures, people would consider you a sadist. Possibly even a criminal.
Yet, that's what happens to smokers.
Why can't they have a vented room to the side?
So, yes, there is anti-smoking hate crimes.
Squinch
(51,021 posts)With no special building renovations to accommodate me!!!!
It's sadistic and criminal!!!!!
And hate-y!!!!
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They don't need to smoke. If they CHOOSE to smoke they're CHOOSING to stand outside. If they want to stay inside and be comfy and warm then they can choose to do that as well. Nobody needs to build a special vented room off to the side of every building. Go outside or don't smoke.
And there are vast numbers of people who work all goddamned day in 100+ temps and subzero temps and nobody is accusing them of being victims of "hate crimes."
A little perspective, dude.
weissmam
(905 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)I try to rub one out at work and they're always telling me to do that shit at home. Smokers should have the right to smoke wherever they want just as I should have the right to masturbate wherever I want. This is not the America I know and love.
Hate crimes, really? That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read here. And no one is forcing any smoker to stand outside. They just can't spew their smoke in everyone else's face in confined areas. I truly hope you're trying to be comedic with your post.
trof
(54,256 posts)No, we've been targeted for over two decades.
Even here on liberal DU.
I haven;t read the rest of the comments but I'm sure there are many tsk-tsking and telling horror stories about the devastating effects of smoking and second-hand and even third-hand smoke, etc.
We are the minority that it's OK, even laudable, to insult, put down, criticize, denigrate, and even legislate against.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Enjoyed every cigarette except for the first few when I didn't know how to smoke yet.
Enjoy Hockey Mom....
It's one of those pleasures I can't describe to someone who never smoked.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Have you noticed that you're being ignored by the Self-Righteous around here? Worse than Church Ladies.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)In fact, it was a relief to leave them to go outside and smoke with real people who needed a break from all the perfection inside the arena.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)you are outside smoking? I swear to God, I'm going to say something really mean and rude to the next one who does that.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)because you are very healthy....
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Yeah, your husband DID say you had bad breath, when we were in bed last night. He likes my smoky breath much better.
Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)The smoke get's into my passages and irritates them. So sorry that my physiological responses are so annoying to you.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)We're OUTSIDE smoking in the area where we have been told to smoke in. How about you just stay the hell out of our area? WE stay the hell out of yours!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)they even hate those of us who are trying to quit.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I read it in his bio. He wanted to do two things when he arrived here in Washington -- get Americans to quit smoking and to quit drinking. He was pretty successful with getting a start on the first, on the second -- not so much. Apparently, the liquor lobby has a lot more influence than the tobacco lobby.
So with this slight background in mind, whenever someone criticizes you for smoking, just tell them you don't inhale.
Sam
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)now you are the minority. it is the way things go as science advances and we find out that the companies lied about smoking all these years. if you want to continue to support that, fine. The rest of us don't. We have legit reasons and we will give them. if you want to denegrate that, fine. But you do so supporting the companies that lied about smoking when you do. Agree to disagree.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But if what they sold was tobacco and not crack tobacco (it is highly processed by the industry, they also add nicotine to the delivery system) it would have less health effects, including the addictive power.
I remember asking an exec of Marlboro why not try a natural line? You know like well, the Native Americans smoked? To his credit he was honest, not addictive enough. If you have ever been among people smoking tobacco, just dried, not processed, it even smells differently. I have, it is still part of Native American ceremonies.
It is, not shitting you, crack tobacco, like crack cocaine. The leaves of cocaine are pretty innocent when compared to the white powder sold in the streets of the US. Chemistry and all that.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Sorry, you are not the arbiter of truth. Much as you want it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Smokers are the new targets for hate, huh? Oh yes. You guys must have it so hard, what with the constant assaults, the burnings of your... what, smoking bars? Do you have those for people to burn down like they do gay clubs or synagogues or mosques or community centers? If you do, and they're getting burned, that's rough, yeah. And it's not like you can vote or run for office to change these things! Now that you're permitted housing anyway, you know; hard to vote without a district, even if you weren't barred from it! And man, growing up as a smoker! It starts in kindergarten and never lets up, does it? "Let me feel your hands, oh, they're so cold and different!" "Can you smile like normal people smile?" "I heard smokers have sideways hootchies; show me yours!" "Oh, you did very well on your paper, for someone with your... habits." It's hell, just a living hell, I'm sure. Enough to make you wish you'd not been form with a smoke hanging from your lip.
Ahem.
No. You are not "the new targets for hate." Every time - and I do mean every time - I see this claim, it is some entitled, privileged fuck who knows they have it good, and feels like they could have it better, if only they could convince everyone that they have it worse. Whatever disdain people hold for you probably stems less from your addiction, and more from your apparent belief that "No Smoking" is the new "Arbeit Macht Frei."
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There are people who are targets of hate. Entire groups of people who are abused, assaulted, violated, and maligned. men and women who have been murdered, been beaten, mutilated, and jailed simply because they are members of these groups and no other reason. Entire communities who have been driven from their homes on the basis of hatred against them, and who can't even turn to the law becuase the law is set against them as well.
For HockeyMom, or Th1onein, or whoever else, to claim that their smoking habit places them in this category, much less supplants these victims of hatred ("we're the new target of hate!" is in fact an effort to belittle and lessen the very real discrimination and hatred directed at numerous groups in the country and around the world. There's a poster claiming smokers are treated worse than lepers, for fuck's sake, when was the last time smokers were torn from their families and communities and thrown onto a deserted island to suffer and die alone? And why are we comparing a disease of privilege and choice, to a disease tied to poverty that no one chooses, anyway?
So yes, I am angry that a number of douchebags are pretending to be Anne Frank or Solomon Northup or Leonard Peltier or something, because they can't light up in someone else's place of business.
Squinch
(51,021 posts)I was a smoker for 25 years. I would never, even when I was smoking, have compared myself to the TRUE victims of hate crimes.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You are quite full of yourself.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So, that blows that theory.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)for buying a box of Benson and Hedges -- that shit happens all the time. Soon all the smoke shops will have their windows smashed in the Ultra Light Kristalnacht.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)you insist it deserves.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Welcome to Ignore.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's like the person saying it somehow thinks you will be crushed in the knowledge you are being ignored.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)mokawanis
(4,452 posts)it's now acceptable for anyone and everyone to treat smokers with contempt. I follow all the rules and only smoke where it's allowed. Anyone who asks for more than that is talking to the wrong person.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I don't feel the slightest bit oppressed for not being allowed to smoke it in public places.
Arkansas Granny
(31,533 posts)As long as you don't smoke in restricted areas, to each his own.
Full disclosure: former smoker.
840high
(17,196 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)My beef is with the militant among us who seem to think smokers aren't afforded any rights in the Constitution.
I am a polite smoker - when I smoke (I don't at work - too much hassle). I smoke outside at home (we have a covered porch during inclimate weather and a beautiful back deck that, in my opinion, is the best "room" in the house) and I always "field strip" my cigs and throw the butt away when I'm out and about.
I also wish there were more options for smokers. I can understand some not wanting to go where craploads of people are smoking inside and fogging up the joint, but there should be vented areas available for smokers so they don't have to be herded outside like lepers. Actually, I kind of like our state law that allows the owners of Over 21 establishments to make their own decision. No children will be going to those places and adults can make up their own damn minds whether they want to go to the Smoking or Non-Smoking establishment. They have a CHOICE.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Was the Veal Marsala good? Did they serve it with pasta or potatoes (I prefer pasta)?
And what did you have for dessert? You didn't finish the story!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I asked for pasta with it. Tiramisu and Espresso with Sambucca for dessert.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)And I hope you took your espresso to the comfortable patio for a postprandial smoke.
keroro gunsou
(2,223 posts)tiramisu.... /insert homer simpson slobber sounds here
Logical
(22,457 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Clouds of smoke everywhere, and the stench that got into my clothes by the end of the evening was absolutely horrible.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)smell and what it does to my sinuses and clothing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Not Me
(3,398 posts)I hated it. But it was their choice and I honestly believe they got some enjoyment from it.
We all make our choices.
I am glad that the original poster was not made to feel as a pariah at an event that was meant to be fun.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)You can smoke in restaurants and bars here that don't allow children.In Mo. last month and could smoke everywhere.
I remember having two broken arms and in the hospital in the early '80s,I would hit the buzzer and the nurse would come in,put a cig in my mouth and light it and set an ashtray on my chest,then come back and put it out.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You should know its still allowed in Over 21 places here in Tennessee.
Ironically, those are the most popular.
A lot of people who don't smoke regularly, smoke when they drink.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)and I do only/mostly go to places that bar kids and allow smoking.
xmas74
(29,676 posts)No statewide ban but several cities and towns have bans, including my town, and several more are in talks.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)In the early 90's, when I worked at an outpatient cancer treatment center in DFW, we'd often go the cafeteria at the hospital next door for lunch and sit in the smoking section.
Seems so... absurd now to imagine a smoking section inside a hospital, but we were pretty stupid in our dogma to smoke when and where we wanted to.
I was young at the time... obviously not a health nut still-- as I'm yet a pack a day smoker, but I recognize moderation and there is a time and a place for most things, and find rationalizing my addiction as something other than it is as more absurdity.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Within 20 minutes: Your blood pressure and pulse rate drops
Within eight hours: Carbon monoxide and oxygen levels in your blood returns to normal
Within 24 hours: Your chance of heart attack decreases
Within 48 hours: Your ability to smell and taste is better
Between two weeks and three months: Your circulation and lung function improves and walking becomes easier
Within one to nine months: Cilia grow again in the lungs, fatigue, coughing, sinus congestion and shortness of breath decrease
After just a year: Your risk of heart attack is less than that of smoker
After five years: Your odds of developing lung, throat, mouth and esophagus cancer drops by almost half
Between five and 15 years: Your stroke risk is reduced to that of a non-smoker
After 10 years: Your lung cancer death rate is similar to that of non-smokers
After 15 years: You have the same risk of heart disease as a non-smoker
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)My SIL smoked for 10 years from age 20 to 30 and then quit. At age 40 she got throat cancer. They blamed it on her smoking. Right. Do they tell you that? I am 65 and have smoked for over 40 years and I am still ALIVE. Wow. If I quit smoking, I will live FOREVER! No, thank you, at my age I am resgined to dying sooner rather than later, for WHATEVER reason.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)They are infinitely better for you and should satisfy your craving.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)They caused me to cough, and I have never coughed smoking cigarettes. I am 74 years old and have been smoking since I was 16.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)draw the vapor into your mouth, then inhale. If you inhale straight off the e cig it will give you a throat hit. I was a pack a day menthol smoker and they got me, too, until I figured it out.
Logical
(22,457 posts)pnwmom
(108,997 posts)from smoking-related cancers if you quit when you're young. But you don't eliminate the risk. Your SIL was one of the unlucky ones and you're one of the lucky ones -- so far.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I am 74 years old and have been smoking since I was 16. I know it will get me eventually, but I will die happy with my cigarette in my hand. When I was 44, a doctor told me that I had better quit smoking or I would die soon. That was 34 years ago and I am still here.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Many others won't, and hopefully those people won't try to use your lucky story as an excuse to slowly kill themselves.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)No telling how long my luck will hold out. I will be 75 next month, and I have outlived many friends and family members, some who smoked and some who didn't. A cousin died of lung cancer and had never smoked in his life.
pnwmom
(108,997 posts)That's what they believe happened to Dana Reeve, who was exposed as she sang in bars. Before the cigarette laws were put into place, people who worked in bars, restaurants, and airplanes were exposed to smoke for hours every day.
Even today some people live with spouses or parents who smoke in the house.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)A very good 85-year-old friend is in hospital struggling to swallow food and stay alive after a harrowing 50/50 operation three weeks ago.
Her stomach and half of her esophagus were removed. She was a smoker for 60 years, from the age of 15 to 75, when she finally kicked it.
Believe me, you don't want to go that way. Esophagal cancer may be the worst.
Like you, she seemed to think it couldn't happen to her--"because my blood panels are fine".
Now, the most frequent phrase out of her mouth, when she can manage to pronounce a few words: "It just snuck up on me--I was fine and then I was dying"...
BellaKos
(318 posts)But let's face it. At 85 anything can get you. And she's very fortunate to have lived as long as she has without any major health problems.
My aunt, for instance, was bed-ridden from complications due to a stroke for years before she died around that age. She never smoked, nor drank, and was careful about her diet. She also had breast cancer that came about during the years she was incapacitated. The family suspects that the cause of her stroke was that she fiddled with her medications in an effort to save money.
A few years after her death, her husband, my uncle, also died around that age because of an internal infection that wasn't caught in time. Of course, he was worn down for having been her primary care giver all those years she lay in bed at home. He had smoked early in his life.
My great aunt had no apparent health problems whatsoever and fell over in her yard one day at age 87. She was depressed, however, because she was very lonely and used to talk about the fact that she was "the only one left" -- meaning that all her peers were already dead. She smoked her entire adult life.
So please .... if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, then please don't leap to any conclusions about what causes a disease in an individual.
You can preach all you like -- and you have --- but let's face it. People get sick. People die. And people -- even doctors and scientists -- don't know everything.
That said, I offer my sympathies for the situation you've described. Watching a friend who is suffering is a gut-wrenching, emotionally draining experience. Please know that I do sympathize with you and, of course, hope for the best outcome for her.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)She seems to be rallying and getting slightly stronger--still a long road back, though.
Her surgeons confirmed that the her esophageal cancer was directly related to her 60-year smoking habit and parallel poor eating habits. She basically lived on cigs and espresso coffee.
The type of cancer and its location were clear markers.
Even with asthma and emphysema, she was a picture of solid health until this hit her out of the blue. Her own mother lived to be 96.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)85? Heck the MAJORITY of people don't live that long and even (shutter) MOST non-smokers don't even live that long. Your friend is dang lucky and should be thankful to have lived so long.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,376 posts)Median age of death for all women in England and Wales is now 85: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_292196.pdf (Table 1), so most female non-smokers probably do like beyond 85.
though in the USA it's about 83: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_studies/study120.pdf
To find the rough difference that smoking makes, if we look at British male doctors born 1900-1930 who had made it to 60, we find that the median age of death was about 84 for those who never smoked, and 76 for those who were still smoking: http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7455/1519 (Fig. 1); so there's a fair chance that over half of American non-smoking women live to 86 or above.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I highly doubt it. Plus to use Britain as an example is not even remotely right to compare to America. No way does over half the women in America live past 86.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,376 posts)and we can see that smoking can make a difference of 8 years in the median age. Therefore it's quite possible that non-smoking women have a median age of death of 86, and smokers of 80, if they were equal size groups.
A second study in the same journal issue found that lifetime smokers lose an average of about 10 years of life compared to people who never smoked. But, that same study found that people who quit between the ages of 25 and 34 gain an average of 10 years of life compared to those who continue to smoke. Even if you quit at 55 to 64, you still reap an extra four years, according to the study.
The same gains aren't seen by people who just reduce the amount of cigarettes they smoke, Thun noted. "The real benefit comes from quitting," he said. "You're never too old to quit."
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/01/23/womens-smoking-deaths-at-all-time-high-in-us
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)pnwmom
(108,997 posts)You are one of the lucky exceptions. So far.
So was my husband's uncle . . . till he got esophageal cancer, at about your age. It didn't kill him then, but he lost his voice to a little computerized voice box, that he had to use till he died of cancer ten years later.
He didn't die happily with a cigarette in his hand, by the way. The new voice box was the end of that. And neither did his wife, who died unhappily of lung cancer. She couldn't smoke with the oxygen tank she was constantly attached to.
They were alive, at least, to attend their son's wedding: with his implanted voice box and her oxygen tank. Fortunately, their son never became a smoker. But it sure hurt him to see what had happened to his parents.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Clearly profiting from all the non-smokers who come down with emphysema and lung cancer compared to the amount who smoke and develop it.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)with my lungs full of liquid and cancer. Those assholes.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)That sounds like a nice thing to do as well. Who are we to judge?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)or maybe meth
TacoD
(581 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)about 86% of smokers will not get cancer.
The 14% that do is 10x the non-smoking population of smokers.
And there is a population of that 14% that may have a genetic mutation that makes them about 2x as likely to get cancer than those without the mutation.
Chance probably does still play a role...with smoking increasing the chance of a mutation.
Some people have a higher chance of a bad mutation because of their genetics.
(similar to the brca genes increasing the risk for a type breast cancer)
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genes-smoking-and-lung-cancer-804
dionysus
(26,467 posts)and the general ability to not breathe well, to boot.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)depending on one's genetics the risk will go up or down.
In all cases, of course, there is a greater risk than not smoking at all.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)With all the other diseases there is still a genetic factor that will vary the risk.
There is always more risk than non-smoking.
Quality of life, at least in my opinion, is more important than length of life (although I'd like to live a long life of quality!)
That said, if one gets much enjoyment from something such as smoking, they have to weigh this in the quality of life equation, and it is different for each person.
A higher risk than smoking, obesity, etc..is stress.
but that would be another topic
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Couple years back he got bladder cancer, and they blamed it on his smoking.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I mean, besides your not understand how smoking works and may affect the body, and how that can come back to bite you many years after you quit?
And did they say "it was the smoking" or did they say "smoking likely contributed to it?"
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Then why quit?
If you're "doomed" if you ever smoked - ever, why risk gaining weight or stopping the pleasure of the dopamine hit?
I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against quitting?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The longer and more you smoke, the more likely you are to develop issues at some point.
I'm very much a proponent of quitting.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)when he was getting a life threatening surgery. I couldn't believe my ears when the 30ish nurse was lecturing him right before surgery. I waited until he was under anesthesia then railed into her, upbraiding her right and left relentlessly until other hospital staff dragged me away. My father's smoking, which was a totally accepted practice, certainly could be described as a character flaw. However, is the deathbed of a family member the place for such rhetoric? Smoke Nazis need to learn when to shut their fucking mouth. If I'm blowing smoke in your face you certainly have the right to slap me verbally and order me to put the cancer stick out. But if I'm on my own turf spare me the lectures, as I'm in better physical condition at 50 than most of the non-smokers around me and I have outlived a whole bunch of them.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)even after they've quit! Good grief, go read any thread about e-cigs and see how rotten some posters are to the people who have STOPPED smoking. There's some very serious hate going on with some of them.
I'm glad you tore into that nurse, because she was way out of line. I don't think my dad was given a hard time for having been a smoker decades ago.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)That's something you seem to have a really tough time with. Nobody says smoking will instantly kill you. It's about increasing the odds of something happening to you.
10 years of smoking does a lot of damage, damage that can come back to bit you in the ass even years after you quit. My dad now deals with seasonal asthma due to the 20 years he smoked when he was younger. I'll probably have some issues down the road from the 7 years I smoked.
Smoking is bad for your health and the health of those around you, and all the hand waving in the universe won't change that.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge is not wisdom.
I'm not mentioning this for the sake of any argument, I just thought that was kewl.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And while not every smoker gets cancer or heart disease or COPD or any of the other delightful things smokers often get, something like 90% of all lung cancers are from smoking. And yeah, I've known people who never smoked get lung cancer and die. Sucks, big time. Come to think of it, any kind of cancer, no matter what the cause, sucks big time.
But I noticed many years ago that smokers simply got minor illnesses more readily than smokers. Their colds seemed to last longer. And so on.
I never cease to be amazed at how defensive smokers are. I'm your age, both parents smoked. Dad died from it at age 60. Mom, after a false lung cancer scare, stopped smoking when she was about 50 and lived to be 82. And in good health right down to the end.
We do all die eventually, that's for sure. None of us get out of here alive. And we generally don't get to choose how we go.
klook
(12,170 posts)and I thank myself every day for giving up cigarettes.
Thank you for sharing the positive benefits of being an ex-smoker. Maybe it won't help this poster, but it could resonate with somebody else and trigger a new kind of craving -- the craving to improve their health.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)We went out last night and he had to park a mile or so away from our destination.
I was in very high heels and smoking. I walked the course without so much as a whimper - I walk several miles daily and eat healthy. He was huffing and puffing and red.
Who's more healthy?
P.S. I also have lowish to regular blood pressure. My only complaint is allergies, but I think that has more to do with where I live because, when I travel, they diminish.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That's more than my property taxes.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Whenever anyone mentions that "prohibitions never work," just point them to the almost universal adoption of smoking bans in a (relatively short) period. They have produced almost no problems at all, and massive benefits. They are a model of a successful prohibition. None of the claims of their opponents have come to pass at all. Anyone arguing against smoking bans in bars and restaurants ten years ago looks like an absolute fool today. their entire series of arguments were belied by reality. I'm glad they worked so well. I'm glad people had the courage to put them into place.
They finally got me to stop smoking, after 22 years. I stopped being a slave and sucker for southern Republican cigarette executives.
Logical
(22,457 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)and "house parties" (around here anyway) are now back in vogue.. Many people (smokers) who used to waste money at bars for sporting events, now order them on tv and have BYOB get-togethers..
Now, if we could only get congress/municipal/state legislatures to get heavy with big-time polluters ....cars/trucks/factories
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Where's the massive drop off in business predicted by the opponents of smoking bans?
Nowhere. It never happened, anywhere. It was bullshit.
Agreed that we need the same focus on other kinds of polluters. We've made good progress on car exhaust, and we need to really hit other people (and industries) making toxic the common air for their own selfish purposes.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)You will see smokers outside in the snow and below freezing temps. It is the same as with Prohibition. People will find ways.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The prohibition isn't against smoking. It's against smoking inside bars and restaurants. You want to present going outside as "finding a way," as if people who go outside are defying the prohibition! They're not. They're following the prohibition; they're following the law. Indeed, there is almost no defying of the prohibition against smoking in bars and restaurants - it's working nearly perfectly. Yes, you go outside. That's exactly where you should go to smoke. That's what the law says. I'm glad you're following the law and complying with the prohibition.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Most people do not want to light up with you indoors. Sorry.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Nowhere. It never happened, anywhere. It was bullshit.
Three restaurants in my small town of 10k tried no smoking when the law went into effect,within a month they changed back to smoking because alot/most of their patrons went to the two places that didn't enforce the ban/didn't allow children.
IrishAle
(62 posts)Go Vols: Your KDF icon makes me very homesick for the old days of Nashville radio.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I didn't know you had posted this when I posted my missive below!
BTW, I'm wearing an orange Tennessee sweatshirt at the moment.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)country that allow smoking in Over 21 establishments. My state is one of them.
And business DID drop for restaurants and other establishments that no longer could allow smoking. Before the ban, many people would stay at the restaurants after dinner and drink and smoke at the bar. After the ban, patrons moved to Over 21 clubs where they could smoke, so the restaurant missed out on all that high-dollar alcohol revenue. So, yes, it did happen. I can no longer find the article since it was published back in 2008, but it did happen. It wasn't bullshit and many restaurants opted to go "Over 21" on the weekends to side-step the law.
The most popular bars here are also those that allow smoking.
The reason "bars are still packed" in other parts of the country is, quite simply, that people still drink, BUT, if most of the rest of the country had options that a handful of states do regarding whether the OWNER wants to allow smoking or not in Over 21 clubs, I'm willing to bet that the smoking ones would be more popular, as they are here.
In fact, a quick search of local nightclubs who DO NOT allow smoking netted only two, plus a comedy club and, LOL, the local strip joint.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)We were told that if a full smoking ban were put into effect, people would shun the bars - they'd fail, oh woe!
Bullshit. It simply never materialized. Go the the bar areas in NYC, in Chicago. No smoking. Period. Not, oh, there's smoking here but not there: no smoking. The bars are packed. The restaurants are packed. There was no drop off.
The arguments of the pro-smoking contingent were plainly and simply false. The ban has hurt nobody.
It's telling that both people denying the success of these smoking bans end up referencing municipalities that allowed these 21 Club and similar loopholes. You simply have no leg to stand on when it comes to municipalities that put FULL smoking bans into place. They have been completely successful, and none of the negative consequences predicted by their opponents have materialized AT ALL. San Francisco. Los Angeles. New York. Chicago. (Notably, some of these even have some minor "cigar club" loopholes - taken up by almost nobody, because they don't need to). No smoking. No problem. The opponents were wrong.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)From what operatives here have witnessed, It's obvious that the smoking ban is failing on a number of levels. Numerous lounge and club owners are turning a blind eye to their smoking customers breaking the law as they realize that the likelihood of the City catching them in the act is almost zilch.
http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php
Demobrat
(8,995 posts)When the smoking ban passed he was terrified he would lose his business because nobody would go out anymore. Within weeks he was telling me story after story about people coming in who never did before because of the smoke - and how all his old regulars were still there - they just stepped outside to smoke without complaint.
His business is better than ever.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)For Maria after 50 years, NO. BTW, I am from NY and Maria is my Italy. SOUTHERN Republcians? Sorry, but as two OLD FARTS, WE both say, the hell with YOU.
22 years? lol We have children OLDER than that. Slave to who? HEALTH INDUSTRY.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)You're so mad you forgot how to read.
Like I said, slave to the southern Republican tobacco executives. Sad, really.
You're owned.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #29)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)former9thward
(32,082 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But please. Go on with your bad self, telling us how the health conspiracy is turning smokers into the new segregated class, and your treatment is measurable against Jim Crow.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Now, it's hard to imagine that there were ever "smoke filled rooms" where people had to WORK, never mind visit for a meal or a drink....
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Everyone did it -- and ground their butts out on the floor. So nasty.
If someone tried to smoke in my store now I'd probably deck them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Hekate
(90,837 posts)Ah the memories: my parents would flip their still-smoldering butts out the car windows, and at night they'd leave a pretty trail of red-gold sparks as they flew away down the freeway. They were polite: unlike some, they always ground out their butts on the floor or sidewalk when shopping in town, instead of leaving them still smoldering.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I love smoking bans.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)A ban against smoking in a bar does not prohibit a person from smoking or make the substance illegal. It is a regulation about where it can be consumed. It is not a prohibition.
All the same, the thrust of your post and the facts in it are good.
Regulation works. I support regulation, within reason when it is not de facto prohibition (say, for example, a "regulation" that tobacco can only be consumed above altitudes of 10,000 feet).
Prohibition does not work. I do not support prohibition.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)The owner and I were outside but at a table with a HEATER. If you non-smokers were outside there, you would not have had a heater!!!! LOL Would you get anything you wanted on the menu TOO?????? Would you even go to a restaurant where you SAW the onwer smoking? Probably not. Just seeing smoking will give you not only cancer, but a HEART ATTACK.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Have you ever seen old ladies coughing and wheezing while trundling around those oxygen cylinders that they have to be permanently hooked up to because their emphysema is so bad? If you are able to give up smoking, even at this time of your life, it will be one of the best things you ever did. At least consider giving e-cigs a try.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I could not have said it better.
Another asthma sufferer here, whose mom smoked while pregnant with me. I was born with pneumonia and had bronchial/pneumonia problems my whole childhood...and now athsma all my adult life (I've never smoked). Thanks to those smokers who understand what their secondhand smoke does to many people, and how many families have lost loved ones to cigarette smoke (first or secondhand).
I have no problem with anyone I don't care about smoking...but I have to admit I'm concerned about those I care about, whether it's an addiction to nicotine or drugs or alcohol. None of which are healthy for you at addiction levels.
But I do have a problem with smokers sharing their smoke with those who do not smoke. At least when you drink or do drugs, you aren't sharing it with anyone involuntarily.
Just wanted to add, I think what the restaurant owner did was very sweet. No one should be ostracized and that is not my intent in asking smokers to keep their smoke to approved areas only.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you should realize pneumonia is caused by fluid (amniotic in this case?) in the lungs, albeit seeing that unborn babies do 'breath' in the same manner as they do post birth it was most likely swallowed
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But I was definitely dealing with serious lung issues all through my childhood (up through high school), and my young years were spent in a home with two smokers who had no idea smoking was dangerous. So I was exposed to plenty of secondhand smoke.
Can't prove a thing, but there is a lot of evidence that children born to smokers and living with smokers have a higher incident of lung issues and asthma.
From everything I've read on-line, neonatal pneumonia is caused by infection, not swallowing fluid. You do know that pneumonia causes fluid in the lungs, right?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)sorry I wasn't more clear about that, moreover having had pre-congenital pneumonia can lend itself to similar problems through out childhood and even into adulthood, also I have experienced anecdotal evidence that some of the stats concerning smoking risks are being artificially enhanced one such incident took place while my son was an infant- he had an middle-ear infection common enough in infants (he was 11 months) took him in to the clinic he was being seen at all went as expected I was given a script for amoxicilllin 2 weeks standard stuff- then like an after thought the resident asked if there was a smoker in the home-I said yes and he asked for the script back and left the room, the one that was brought to me by the CMA working him was the same save the course of treatment was one week rather than 2 as in the original when I asked why she said something about "guidelines" -needless to say the ear-infection returned shortly after he finished the course of antibiotics, I found another Dr private clinic as opposed to public he was treated properly end of ear-infection not another childhood ear infection, but what came out some months after my initial visit was an announcement that children of smokers have more frequent middle-ear infections- remembering the first visit and mysterious script change I called the clinic and asked if they provided stats to the CDC and cancer society and guess what-they did
There is more where deaths from COPD are concerned too in a number of places when an elderly person dies of unknown causes and no autopsy is preformed even when evidenced that there is another cause-if they ever smoked or in some cases even lived with a smoker COPD is listed as cause of death even when the person was never diagnosed with it, my sister who works as county registrar in Indiana confirmed this, and the death of our mother form what appeared to be a cerebral accident of some sort also pointed to that COPD was listed as cause of death even though she had not smoked for years was never diagnosed with COPD and had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
I'm not saying that smoking is harmless by any means but the stats are IMO being exaggerated
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)having a smoker in the family (you?) means you have an agenda to read things that way. Just like I have an agenda, after writing a college paper on the dangers of cigarette smoke (and doing tons of research) to give me the idea that my health issues may have been exacerbated by my Mom's smoking.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the antismoking campaign has gotten so full of itself that almost anything can be claimed, evidence can be obtained via unscrupulous means and no one questions it, time for such practices to stop my child was endangered because a public clinic was looking to enrich itself, they made beaucoup $$$$ off of selling stats and unless those stats were what the buyers desired ........
pnwmom
(108,997 posts)on smoking related illnesses, by such methods as withholding correct prescriptions from babies and falsifying death certificates.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)if you need to make fatuous weird claims about a "a world-wide conspiracy" to fit your own belief systems then be my guest
pnwmom
(108,997 posts)that some of the stats concerning smoking risks are being artificially enhanced" unless you were implying that the two cases you claim are significant. And they couldn't be significant unless studies across the world were also being falsified in similar ways.
The results are consistent, everywhere. Smokers and second-hand smokers are at risk for serious smoking related illnesses.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)In the case of my Mother-my sister works as a county registrar in the same county-when I expressed surprise at the cause of death she told me point blank when there is a past history of smoking and no autopsy or other official cause of death listed COPD is a catch all reason stated on death certificates
in the case of son the hospital clinic he was being seen at is also one that provides stats for the studies, is this widespread honestly I do not know, however I do work in the medical field and this particular hospital has a reputation for being less than ethical in its dealings with patients-as I said its a public hospital
pnwmom
(108,997 posts)than private, for-profit hospitals.
"I do work in the medical field and this particular hospital has a reputation for being less than ethical in its dealings with patients-as I said its a public hospital"
Based on what? Your anecdotal evidence?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 07:11 AM - Edit history (2)
with both the public and quietly among those in the medical field in my area for being unethical another example drug testing pregnant women as part of prenatal care-they do not tell women that is what they're doing you get sent to the lab with orders for specific tests often patients do not know the specific tests that are being done- I learned this because I looked at my own chart when it was left in the room with me-the resident snatched it out of my hands when he came back and told me point blank I had no right to read it-when I disagreed he told me I had the right to specific entries upon written request but not to read it as a whole!
The results of these tests are again sold as stats however they can not be used as a guideline or in any way as part of the womens prenatal care unless there is a court order to do so-same at one point with HIV testing only then you were asked if they could do this but were told you would not be given the results-again stats
this is also a teaching hospital it works in conjunction with several other area hospitals including of course the university hospital residents rotate through the various hospitals as part of their training and notice in every case with this hospital I said resident as opposed to staff MD because the public hospital like many in larger urban areas is stretched to the limit the ratio of residents to staff MD's to patients is different than in private hospitals or university ones less staff MD's more patients in the public hospitals
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you keep inflating what I've said to suit your own purposes-not playing anymore if wish or need to believe I'm being dishonest go ahead, but give me a reason I would do this-I found the things I enumerated quite disturbing you wish to dismiss it seems
Skittles
(153,202 posts)that's the nicotine addiction speaking - it's a very powerful addiction
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)than smoke and get a heater.
JI7
(89,276 posts)otherwise people would not want to sit there and they would lose business if they didn't have enough space inside.
it seems like a common sense thing people who want to open a restaurant with outdoor seating would do.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)but if you set fire to that thing outdoors, we'll get along just fine.
I don't give a shit if anybody smokes. I just give a shit when it's indoors and around me. It's like trying to breathe underwater.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)raccoon
(31,126 posts)Where nonsmokers are trying to breathe.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)I'm a grownup. I can put up with nasty stinks.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)And a deadly one at that.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)You sitting there with a pack of ciggies, a bit of smoke curling out of your mouth, all dressed up for Christmas...
Tikki
1000words
(7,051 posts)Go ahead, smoke ... your choice. Just don't expect to be accommodated in an activity that is proven to be not only a killer, but a drain on public resources. Of course, just about everything can be argued as harmful to your health, and I'm sure numerous examples are forthcoming from the good people of DU, but most things haven't qualified for the dubious distinction of having to have a label specifically warning of its health risks.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)Adults are free to choose any self destructive behavior they want to. They just don't get to take unwilling people along with them.
Adults outgrew nannies a long time ago. I think putting a heat lamp outdoors in the smoking area would be a very nice thing for this particular restaurant to do.
I don't infantilize homeless people when I give them the odd dollar by telling them what they can spend it on. I don't infantilize smokers, either.
I just can't coexist with them in confined spaces.
LittleGirl
(8,291 posts)I'm glad to see that smokers aren't always treated like lepers. One of the many reasons I quit. Happy Holidays!
EC
(12,287 posts)I quit smoking a couple years ago, but I still go outside at restaurants to cool off and it is nice to meet people.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Response to HockeyMom (Original post)
Post removed
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Offered in the same spirit.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Too many nannies out there anyway - not enough nice. And nice, respectful of others circumstances and experiences, will change more behavior than judgmental ever will.
Just an aside from someone who smoked cigs for 42 years, I recently shelled out $75 for an e-cig (ego-cc from cignot.com, and some juice, though there are a LOT of choices out there. I have just learned to trust the women who run that site).
At first it didn't seem to be all that different, but I found that I had gotten too little nicotine in the e-juice. Went into another store where they sold me tobacco flavored 36 mg strength in a 30 ml bottle, and I mixed that with some Mango flavored 24 mg).
After that my pack laid on the table for a week, never even thought about it.
So I got a safer alternative and have ended the practice of sucking on carbon monoxide and the tars, and got a lower temp for the chemical that is in there. It is in a suspension of vegetable glycerin (kinda like the oil we cook with) and propylene glycol, which is in cosmetics food, is given you by your doctor to drink b4 a colonoscopy (shudder <G> . It's also used as pet-safe anti-freeze, so it is in the exhaust that many cars spew out into the air anyway (though most use the more harmful ethylene glycol and spew that out instead. I have already found that I can taper down the amount of nicotine, so I have a lcear path ahead.
Back in the early years b4 all the anti-smoking people decided that being jack-booted thugs about the whole thing was the proper way to address it, there was a lot of talk about finding safer alternatives, and that has been proposed by everyone from the American Cancer Society to Surgeon Generals. But a lot of people would rather see people die than start changing what they can, so we don't hear about it as much.
Good article here that addresses some of that - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/the-case-for-tolerating-e-cigarettes.html?_r=0
(Phooey on 'em, btw. It's about you, and they really, really don't care about anyone but themselves anyway. All that "it's about you, it's about the children, it's about..." junk is just a dodge. For the vast majority of them it's about there own ego that they care about the most).
In any event, I know you didn't ask, but it has been my experience that many smokers try and fail to quit (they don't tell you just how bad the rates are for the various programs - people making too much money). This is just something to tuck away in your thinking if you decide that you want to do something different.
Thank you for the post.
trof
(54,256 posts)Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)occasions has smoking been so strong as to bother me.
Bet the restaurant gets repeat business from you!
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)Smokers should be treated like lepers. Hell, they should be treated worse than lepers, because second hand smoke kills a lot more people than leprosy does.
I don't give me any shit about personal rights. Smoking has never been about personal rights, because smoking always negatively affects those around you. If you smoke while others are around, you are a selfish asshole.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And try not to choke on your own self-righteousness.
demwing
(16,916 posts)maybe it's just distaste for selfish behavior
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)I'm not being self-righteous, I'm looking at the damn fact. Smoking kills. It doesn't just kill the smoker, it kills those around the smoker as well. It should be treated as drunk driving.
Skittles
(153,202 posts)hounding and trashing people is not the best approach - but many smokers have quit due to the civil reminders and concerns they heard from their non-smoking friends and family.....the absolute WORST is those people who have never smoked and like to say how they just CANNOT understand how anyone could have EVER started smoking, how people who smoke are losers, etc - they have NO idea how addictions work or how to get people to stop smoking and come across as sanctimonious assholes
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)That might work, if the smoker knows how much damage they are doing to others. If they are annoyed by people treating them objectively better than they should be treated, they are not going to be convinced by kind words. Hell, I seriously doubt HockeyMom will be convinced to stop smoking if she developed lung cancer.
Skittles
(153,202 posts)that's the addiction talking, not logic
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)LOL! Really?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)What does that mean?
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)I meant to say, "AND don't give me any shit about personal rights."
Smoking isn't about personal rights. Smoking isn't a personal thing. When you smoke, you harm all of those around you.
If you think you have the right to harm all of those around you, then all of those around you have the right to harm you to make you stop.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Care to post your weight? Because if you answer NO to those questions you have NO right to criticize any other person unless they are smoking in your face in your house.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)Just because polluters harm us with pollution does not make it right for smokers to harm non-smokers by smoking in public places.
Body weight has nothing to do with the need to regulate public smoking for the safety of children and adult non-smokers.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #303)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)The world needs more nannies.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)... if you despise oppressed people?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Please cite where I said that. Thanks.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Try harder Paz.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Never mind eating meat, using batteries, electronics, plastics, etc, etc, etc.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)Logical fallacies are not a good argument. What you just committed is the Tu quoque fallacy. I could be a chain smoker and my argument would still be correct. If I were a chain smoker, I would have to admit I was part of the problem.
By the way, I don't drive, nor do I have a fireplace. Last year I didn't even turn the furnace on once during winter. (This year there was a three-day cold snap where it dropped to -14 Celsius, but it is off now.)
The things you talk about can be described as necessary. You need to eat, although you can be environmentally responsible with your choices. (I only buy locally grown chicken and occasionally pork, but never beef, for instance.) All the batteries a have are rechargeable, hell, my flashlight is wind-up. I bought my cell phone used, so not only
On the other hand, smoking is 100% optional. Well, until you are addicted. But you started out smoking for purely selfish reasons. You harmed those around your for purely selfish reasons. When you are addicted, you continue to harm those around you for purely selfish reasons.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)TV, electronics, etc, etc, etc. You can perfectly live without it. Buying second-hand doesn't erase the damage that was done to produce the product to start with. Do you use electricity? Have you checked what coal plants do to the air you breeze? Public transport is great but it still contributes to the pollution that affects us all. I can go on, and on, and on.
Smoker who smokes outside away from you is no worse than you are, unless you manage to leave such life that doesn't add to the general pollution that affects us all.
BTW, my original post had nothing to do with approving or condemning smoking, just pointing out to you that you yourself are guilty of the same offence you accuse a smoker of.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)Smoking is a right, but the right to clean air is a higher right because of the health issue.
Leprosy is (as I understand it) very hard to transmit. I presume you mean the metaphor of "treated like lepers" in the older uncompassionate sense and not with modern understanding of the disease.
homegirl
(1,434 posts)you and Maria can get a daily double special price on coffins. And for the record, nobody cares if you choose to kill yourself smoking. You are a big girl and can make your own choices. But you shouldn't put down those who choose a different lifestyle.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Yet YOU did. Try again.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)How many people who criticize smoking drink a bit more than they should? Or have a weakness for high-fat, high-sodium foods or sugary soft drinks? Or live a sedentary lifestyle, albeit perhaps not entirely by choice?
Full disclosure: I'm not a heavy smoker and never have been, except for pot, which certainly doesn't cause anywhere near the respiratory or cardiovascular issues cigarette smoking does. But I do have my own vices to say the least.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)And veal is just plain fucking evil, btw.
janlyn
(735 posts)I don't even smoke in my own home. It leaves nicotine on everything and it stinks. If I smoke outside I smell less like an ashtray and, I always wash my hands after. Also I don't want to bother non-smokers.
That being said, I do have an issue with people who have never smoked a day in their life, looking at us smokers while we stand outside in any kind of weather to get that fix and say " Just quit "
It is scientifically proven to be more addictive than heroin. And addicts can get rehab for just about anything other than tobacco!
I am not suggesting that non-smokers should put up with smoking from us but, simply understand that if it was so easy we would "Just quit ".
It just seems to me that alcoholics and drug users get more understanding of the severity of their addiction.
Logical
(22,457 posts)not impact me unless they are drunk and obnoxious. Then I would have an issue.
I don't know anyone who is rude to smokers.
And I know how hard quitting is. My mom smoked as she was dying of emphysema.
MerryBlooms
(11,773 posts)I had quit for 10 years then started again when my husband died. After smoking again for 8 years, I quit again when I remarried (we quit together), and now I'm smoke-free for almost 3 years. I used the lozenges, he used the patch-- I tried the patch, but had an allergic reaction. I'm not really a health nut, but honestly, if you have people in your life that want you to quit-- give it a try, out of respect and love for them and yourself. If you have a buddy to quit with, it's a little easier. End of lecture. Take care.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Yet you sound proud
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)Smoking has definitely become near to leprosy, as you point out. Ironically, we wouldn't treat lepers today the way we treat smokers. Funny, that.
-- Mal
Codeine
(25,586 posts)and nobody ever filled up a room with a stinking-ass cloud of leprosy, or littered the beach with chunks of their cast-off leper skin.
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)Tolerable argument, anyway. But why then, do you suppose, is drinking not even more abhorrent and universally condemned than smoking? I've rarely heard of a smoker killing four people while driving smoking, but it is rather frequent with drunks. But aside from a vocal minority, drinking is winked at, encouraged, and a viable excuse for misbehavior. And drinking is arguably as repellant as smoking, and creates as objectionable litter.
-- Mal
Codeine
(25,586 posts)However, a person can drink responsibly and have no impact on the roomful of people around them. Someone enjoying a glass of wine at dinner while seated next to me doesn't affect me in any way, while the same cannot be said for a smoker.
Nitram
(22,892 posts)Lepers don't ruin the smell and taste of a delicious meal.
Nitram
(22,892 posts)...and I'm not a health nut. But I do believe the scientific evidence on the health effects of passive smoke. I grew up with a father who smoked, and I experienced it. You portray yourself as such a sad victim.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Over 3 years on DU and THIS is what you post on. Where does the OP call herself a victim?
Nitram
(22,892 posts)Your reading comprehension apparently leaves something to be desired. The following SCREAMS victimhood:
"Very, very nice to be treated this way, for a CHANGE. Thank you, Maria. Let the flaming begin, by the young health nuts."
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)What a hoot, a couple hundred posts in and knows it all.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...(over 13 years ago now), is the social aspect. Particularly in the workplace, where the smokers are relegated to one or two outside doorways, and since the smokers come from all echelons in most companies, that's where you get in on all the gossip and underground news.
Oh well, nice story! Good for you. It's nice to turn the tables once in awhile. Although I'd still suggest you quit...
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)finding out what's going on in the rest of the company. And, you get to meet more people both at work and like the OP did with the restaurant owner.
Other than that, I'm glad I quit (just over 6 years). Chantix was a miracle drug for me.
Now if I could just lose the weight I gained. Note to younger smokers, especially females, try to quit before you get to 40 and for sure don't wait until after menopause like I did. Your metabolism slows down enough as it is, without throwing the exsmoker's weight gain into it.
Skittles
(153,202 posts)I quit smoking long ago but I find many smokers and ex-smokers much more pleasant to be around than the militant non-smokers
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I do have to say that a close friend of mine quit after many years. He said if smoking just shortened his life, he would have continued. But when he saw the, sometimes long drawn out, terrible deaths that some smokers suffered, he decided to quit.
And I am not very sympathetic of smokers having to take their smoke outside. I remember many years of having to take my young family to restaurants that were smoke bongs. I remember one time we asked for non-smoking and the waitress walked to a table in the smoking section and removed the temporary "smoking" sign that was sitting on the table. Also, I remember standing with a crowd of other non-smokers waiting for an opening in the small non-smoking section while the larger smoking section was half filled. Honest, I am not bitter. Just sayin.
(note: Santa is yellow)
Mira
(22,380 posts)Admit it, you'd rather be a happy adjusted non-smoker. Instead you're making a big deal about an unusual experience, afforded you by another person ostracized for the same reason, no matter what she says.
I'm not a health nut, nor am I young. But smoking cigarettes was the dumbest, most destructive thing I ever did to myself. And I knew it while I was doing it, and I suspect you know it as well.
If you are a person who can manage 5 or so cigarettes in a 24 hr. period, I take it back.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for themselves.
I'll believe the anti-smoking crowd cares about harm being done by a whiff of smoke, when they become anti AUTOMOBILES and ALCOHOL also.
Meantime they are best ignored imho.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Automobiles serve a useful purpose and can do so without doing serious harm to the drivers and those around them (especially hybrids). Alcohol, when used in moderation, can have demonstrable health benefits.
Smoking does not have either of these qualities going for it. And mind you, I'm not questioning a persons right to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes, but given how many such people eventually develop medical complications down the road that we, as a society, will end up paying for to some degree (and that they may spread those complications to other people around them through their smoking) I reserve the right to call them out on their bullshit when they try to hold up their smoking as some sort of anti-healthcare industry badge of honor.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)someone using their automobile irresponsibly causing the death of a loved one, I know first hand what a lethal weapon an automobile can be. I have never lost anyone due to someone having a cigarette. Our family has also experienced the loss of loved ones due to alcohol abuse, as have untold numbers of others, not to mention the other effects of alcohol, domestic abuse, economic disaster, legal problems that affect entire families.
But your comment is exhibit #1 of what I meant regarding the anti-smoking crowd. I know of no family that has suffered death, domestic abuse or economic problems due to smoking,
You just dismissed the horrific effects of alcohol abuse, it is estimated that one alcoholic adversely affects on average, six other people, including children, multiplying the devastation of alcohol in the lives of everyone associated with it.
Death by automobile averages approximately 25,000 human beings every year.
Thanks for dismissing all those precious lives and for proving my point an my reason for ignoring the anti-smoking crowd.
No smoker has ever killed another human being. If you drive a car you are contributing to the foul air we are all forced to breathe in every day. If you drink, or do drugs, or are addicted to prescription drugs, you are a threat to society. The least threat to society of all the personal choices people make, are smokers, by the numbers.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 07:57 AM - Edit history (2)
Never once did I dismiss automobile and alcohol related deaths, I simply pointed out that both of them are not good comparisons to smoking.
And don't even attempt to lecture me. Cancers related both to alcohol and smoking have killed more family members than I like to think about, and I've seen the deviation of alcohol abuse up close.
No smoker has ever killed anyone? I know for a fact that's incorrect. Ignoring smokers who've just directly murdered, I'm guessing you've never heard of the dangers of second hand smoke?
Nothing you said invalidated my point. Cars can and are regularly used safely, and many produce little to no air pollutio. And alcohol, when used in moderation, can have positive health benefits. Neither of these things can be said of cigarettes.
I suggest you try sticking with facts and not self righteous indignation.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)1) Just because you lost someone from a car crash, it has nothing, nothing, to do with the harm that smoking causes and the societal costs.
2) Automobiles have powerful important economic purposes. Smoking has none. The pleasure that it gives to a few people is not an economic purpose.
3) The economic benefit of automobile usage greatly (vastly) outweighs the economic loss due to automobile deaths and injuries. Similarly for airplane usage. Only a fool would even hint at banning automobiles by attempting to equate their usage with cigarette usage.
4) When you say you'll "believe the anti-smoking crowd cares about harm being done by a whiff of smoke, when they become anti automobiles and alcohol also" that makes as little sense (i.e. no sense) as saying "we'll believe the anti-automobile crowd cares about harm being done by a Sunday drive, when they become anti internet" because after all the internet harms many people in many ways (but on balance is enormously more useful than harmful).
5) Lots of smokers have killed other human beings. Just because you don't believe the science of second-hand smoke increasing death rates doesn't make your assertion true.
6) Just because you personally do not know in your limited experience of families where nutritious food and health care is sacrificed because the parent(s) needs to pay for their nicotine drug addiction doesn't mean that they doesn't exist.
7) Addiction to nicotine is a bigger threat and cost to society than addiction to all other drugs combined (with the exception of alcohol), including heroin, cocaine, meth, and prescription drug addictions. Simply read the studies that add up all the costs involved.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)actual facts, that second hand smoke has anything to do with lung cancer. Most sane people never believed their so-called 'claims' which they have never proven, so hopefully this will put an end to the insanity.
So, go right ahead and post your proof that smokers have 'killed other human beings'. We've seen it all over the years and none of it ever proved as a scientific fact that this was true.
And now we have the science proving it was all hogwash.
The rest of your post has been rendered irrelevant by the latest findings.
Dead is dead, it doesn't matter to loved ones how someone dies, but automobiles and alcohol and drugs, not to mention the foul air people are breathing every day, are the real killers of human beings. But pointing fingers elsewhere so we don't worry about all these other killers, WAS a nice distraction, until now.
Now the facts are in, and yes, the anti-smoking crowd doesn't care about lives, as proven by their very own comments, their dismissal of other proven causes of death, which the ONLY reason I mentioned them, and as expected, saw once again, how little actual lives matter to the anti-smoking crowd.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I ended up at the docs with a pretty nasty asthma attack. They had the debate about the ER. Thankfully it responded at the docs. The ER was down the door anyway.
So try to sell that hogwash to someone else.
As to your idea that it does not cause problems from second hand, again tell that to those who have gotten a variety of cancers due to it, not just lung cancer. I guess CDC is in the conspiracy. They have kept the data all these years.
Look, if you want to smoke, fine by me. Do it at your home, or away from me...pretty simple. I am not intruding in your rights to die slowly. I would like to keep my right to clean air and breath thank you very much.
Oh one more thing, ten year vs thirty is hardly equal in morbidity and mortality.
Oh and one last thing, you might want to correct the US Surgeon General on their misguided views
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/chapter7.pdf
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)People who have respiratory problems are likely to respond adversely to many things in the environment. Should everyone stop driving cars because of people, like someone I know, who cannot breathe in those fumes without choking?
Don't tell me to believe something that not only has never been proven, it has now been debunked.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the study you refer to is not REPLICATED, that is basic in science.
The study you refer to does not say ZERO RISK, it says LESS risk.
And the study you refer to goes against so much science it probably has a design error somewhere. We do know second hand smoke, from fifty plus years of epidemiological data does have an effect, a significant effect.
Now as I said, go ahead and smoke, just not around me, thank you very much.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)Post it, if you can. If it is the one I saw that was presented in June and published in December, then your conclusions are again illogical.
1) It only covers one disease: lung cancer. It does not cover heart disease, heart attacks, pulmonary diseases, or asthma.
2) It shows "low risk", not "no risk".
3) It is contradicted by many careful peer-reviewed studies that do show that second hand smoke (passive smoke) does kill.
4) The tobacco industry and the Cato Institute and conservative think tanks promote your line, with more evidence than you provide. You may have more luck searching there.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)you are referring to. I googled and came up with nothing but links to proof of the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Logical
(22,457 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)...creating a hazardous working condition.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Waiters don't smoke, they are always offended by the smell of smoke, and all smokers blow their smoke into people's faces.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Remember, this is Florida. When the tourists and snowbirds leave, business depends on LOCALS to keep their restaurants running, and not just NON-SMOKERS. She asked me where I lived and if I was a permanent resident. I was a potential YEAR ROUND customer. She did not care, and probably liked, that I was a smoker. If she treated me nice, I would come back and bring other local people with me.
If you own a business, do you SHUN smoking customers to the detriment of your business?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)In that respect I suppose we all "shun" them, but in reality nobody "shuns" smokers. Only paranoiacs and the delusional think that way.
roody
(10,849 posts)or the cruelty to calves?
Brigid
(17,621 posts)But I think I'll skip the veal marsala, the heater, and the rest of it in exchange for the benefits of not smoking.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)I do not understand the level of hatred people express toward smokers. I never minded the smell. To this dad, it reminds me of mom and dad.
The slef righteousness can be a little over the top sometimes.
Oh well, some things drive me nuts that nobody else understands.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I sometimes wonder if all the viciousness against smokers is starting to be a similar thing.
Smokers tend to be poor, minorities, etc. in higher proportions.
How much of the vicious anti-smoking rhetoric is coming from well-fed, privileged people who have an unexamined disdain for the underclass?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)As well as what the habit may eventually do to them. Because in the end, we, as a society, are flipping the bill for it.
Listen, if you want to smoke, fine, but don't try and bullshit me about how it isn't all "that bad" and how you know so and so who smoked a billion cigarettes and they lived to be 109385093218509285 years old! Denial of reality is just not acceptable in my book. Own what you are doing to yourself and others around you if you're going to do it.
I smoked for 7 years, and I never once tried to chalk it up as anything more than a disgusting habit that I got into at a low point in my life and that I was addicted to, both mentally and physically.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Yeah right.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But if you have nothing but love for an industry that did its best to get as many folks addicted to its product as humanly possible, as well as suppress information on the harm of that product for decades, then that's your prerogative.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)But that I know bullshit when I see it.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Or looking at screens with your own posts on them?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)behind a wall of caring.
You may be an atheist but you certainly learned the lessons of Christian hypocrisy quite well. Congratulations, and enjoy your evening.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And the only coward I see is the one who is lashing out with vehemence against an internet poster with one vitriol filled post after another, making one unsupported assertion after another.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Funny, because most of the pot smokers that I know happen to be white.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Cirque du So-What
(25,989 posts)that history extends no further than personal experiences? Dontcha know nuttin? Historical context? Meh!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And proto-drug czar Harry Anslinger targeted black jazz musicians as reefer vectors.
Support for marijuana legalization began growing when it started becoming a white, middle-class thing.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)I found something I didn't know about McCarthy while researching Anslinger.
Harry Anslinger later claimed that he had witnessed a scene that affected his life. When he was 12, he heard the screams of a morphine addict that were silenced only by a boy returning from a pharmacist to supply the addict with more morphine. Anslinger was appalled that the drug was so powerful and that children had ready access to such drugs. (However, the experience did not stop Anslinger, while acting as the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, from authorizing a druggist near the White House to fill a morphine prescription for an addicted Senator Joseph McCarthy) as part of an effort to help the Senator end his heroin addiction.
yellowwoodII
(616 posts)My father died of a smoking related illness.
I hate the tobacco industry and all that it stands for. We remember the way that they manipulated young people into smoking. Movie makers were paid to have their popular actors smoke. Glamorous, you know. They gave cartons of cigarettes to servicemen. They paid doctors to advertise "light" cigarettes.
Only young people start smoking. Once they get past a certain age, they aren't tempted.
It's pitiful.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)I could smell the smoke. At first most of the dinners didn't smoke, but one group showed up and sat near me that did smoke. I discreetly moved, the waitress was ok with me moving and made a comment about she wished people wouldn't smoke because it destroyed the taste of meals for many of her customers.
PrestonLocke
(217 posts)cry baby
(6,682 posts)Raine
(30,541 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am 70, and a disproportionate percentage of my friends who smoked or shared a house with a smoker are gone. Dead. And I miss them.
Smoking is not a good idea no matter how well Maria treated you. Better enjoy that meal while you can. The truth is that smoking very often reduces your lifespan.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)No flaming, but I have always hated cigarettes. I don't think that I could live with a smoker. The stench gets on everything, clothing, hair, furniture, etc. I was a happy person when they banned smoking in most public places.
Jasana
(490 posts)I'm the type who prefers quality over quantity... as long as my quality time doesn't hurt anyone else.
Response to HockeyMom (Original post)
russspeakeasy This message was self-deleted by its author.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
BellaKos
(318 posts)Alcohol is far worse than cigarettes. Not only is there a danger when impaired while driving or even bar hopping, but also alcoholism kills. I've seen the damage from alcohol consumption in my own family. The disease ranges from psychological dysfunction to brain damage and causes the more familiar physical conditions like liver impairment.
There are two types of people who become afflicted. The first is the one with a genetic predisposition to become addicted almost immediately. The other is the one who gradually becomes addicted after a number of years (varies) of "social drinking." Neither type considers drinking to be a problem. Both deny their impairment, regardless of degree.
And there are three stages of alcoholism. So, if you are the person who looks forward to "partying" on the weekend a little more than one who doesn''t drink, then you're probably in Stage One. (Think about your plans for New Year's Eve or the Super Bowl.) Stage Two -- You miss a Monday at work because of a hangover -- which gradually progresses to Stage Three when an intervention with immediate hospitalization at a Rehab facility is the only solution. Even then, the alcoholic will resist until he is shamed or forced to go -- or he winds up destitute on the streets.
Ironically, no studies about the damage alcoholism does to people (and their families) physically and psychologically or stats about the cost in regard to lost productivity, long-term health issues, or even the danger on the highways has been put forward to the public to the same *extent* as smoking. Consequently, non-smoking drinkers sit back in their bubbles of self-righteous delusion -- happily criticizing, denigrating, and shunning smokers. They are not apt to realize that their lifestyle of bourbon and steak or beer and barbeque is bound to cause infirmity in their old age. They, the self-righteous, don't realize that even statistics can't reveal the future, much less guarantee outcomes.
At the same time, I have not seen people damaged by smoking in my family. My grandfathers died at ages 87 and 93, respectively. Both smoked. One of my aunts also died at age 87 -- peacefully, with no overt health problems. She smoked Kents most of her life. Interestingly, another aunt died at age 87. She never smoked -- or drank -- or even ate the "wrong" foods. Maybe, an objective observer might say, as Lewis Black has said, that people are like snow-flakes. No two are alike. Or as a doctor from Greece told me once: Statistics are not meant to be applied en masse. And that's especially pertinent when prescribing medication. (Think about that.)
So ... I am of two minds. It would be more convenient, more socially acceptable, and less costly to quit smoking, but I enjoy it. It helps me think. On the other hand, if I didn't smoke, I might just start-- just to piss off The Smug" in this world. I would enjoy that, too.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)While on Oxygen and still smoking developed COPD and asthma.
Oh for sure he was going to beat the odds until, well...he did not.
I know many smokers and ex smokers with several grades of lung dysfunction. A couple with actual lung cancer. Try that BS somewhere else. And yes, alcoholism is not nice either. Both are addictions.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Nadinbrzeinski -- I'm fine with your anecdotal remarks that attribute various lung conditions to smoking. That's okay, but I do not accept your characterization of my observations as BS. My dad died of liver failure as a result of alcoholism at age 62, so what's your point?
The so-called "luck" that the smokers in my family experienced is not all that unusual, demonstrating that perhaps there are more factors involved with the science of disease than are apparent today. After all, just look at the news reports about margarine vs. butter, eggs, milk or recent reports about pharmaceuticals to see that medical conclusions *change* over time and quite dramatically. And by the way, the fourth leading cause of death in this country comes from the pharmaceutical industry. From your perspective, I suppose that warrants an all-out campaign against prescription drugs. Also, there is another little known fact to consider when analyzing the causes of lung disease. It is the fact that the most dangerous carcinogen of all that can be inhaled is a minute element in rocket fuel. The second most dangerous is in jet fuel.
Also, I want to make clear that alcohol abuse is widespread, universally prevalent, promoted in most social settings, and a genuinely dangerous practice. But unlike smoking, the dangers of alcohol abuse are not being publicized as a health threat. Nor is there any effort to educate the public about how easily one can drift from "social drinking" to alcohol abuse to alcoholism.
From my perspective ... I'm just sick and tired -- fed up -- with puritanical, judgmental, self-righteous, condescending, and smug attitudes about people's choices concerning their own private business. Whether it's coming from the Right or the Left, it's the same kind of thing.
Oh and ... word to the wise: Don't live downwind of an airport if you can help it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)with the CDC and the US Surgeon General who have epidemiological data that supports my informal observations going back 50 years at least.
As to airports, yes, well known and your point? Same for industrial areas. Both are supported by the same kind of research and data gathering you are poopoing.
I prefer science, not this crap.
Have a good day.
BellaKos
(318 posts)My oldest friend in the world just retired from the CDC. He's the one who told me about the dangerous element in rocket fuel and jet fuel twenty years ago. He also reviewed the original studies about smoking and concluded that they were not trustworthy. And upon the original faulty conclusions, all the rest is based.
He had already told me that many health studies were calibrated to suit the agenda of those behind the funding of said studies. Or, that studies usually *conformed* to that which was acceptable to the particular cohort of professional peers. In other words, unfortunately, science research today is confined within the parameters of monied interests or that which is politically acceptable.
I also have had conversations with a former family member who is a scientist at the CDC. He has worked on the AIDS virus beginning in the early 1980s. Guess what? All about AIDS is *not* public knowledge.
So, I guess I shoulda told you that I actually knew people who worked at the CDC and that there is plenty that they don't know and/or that they don't make public.
As for me, I'm quite at ease with the fact that I don't know everything. I believe in the old adage: "He who knows not that the knows not, knows not."
I prefer thoughtful consideration, healthy skepticism, and understanding to being an a$$ to people just because I disagree with their choices.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I knew it!!!!!!
And the planet earth is flat, and that Apollo 11 was a great stage effect in the Mojave desert. Next you will tell me that the cannals in Mars are real and the Hubble effect is not real either.
Chuckle.
BellaKos
(318 posts)I had the impression that you were some sort of fanatic who was so wedded to his hardened perspective that he allowed himself to be self-righteous, condescending, intolerant, mean-spirited, and just plain asinine to random posters whom he doesn't know from Adam's house cat.
But now I see that you're so warm-hearted in your attitude that "chuckles" just bubble up from the depths of your soul for no apparent reason atoll. Glad to know that.
Meanwhile. I'm tired this, aren't you? I can see that I'm being persistently misunderstood. And gawd forbid that you should learn something. I know you don't believe what I've said. Don't care. And I don't care that you cannot be persuaded to consider anything whatsoever outside of your own belief system.
(And there are many studies that show that even knowledge, scientifically vetted, is merely a belief system and that human beings aren't even capable of understanding the whole of life, the universe and everything. Pardon me. I digress. I had attempted to inform you of something that perhaps you hadn't known before. Gosh. Haven't I learned not to try that? Oh well.)
Meanwhile. it's been lots o' fun engaging you in the context of contradictory perspectives.
Keep calm and chuckle on. See ya'.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Have a good day
BellaKos
(318 posts)Something you and I can agree completely.
Also, I wanted to compliment you on your ability to comment without being asinine. See, you can do it! Congratulations.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)have a good life
BellaKos
(318 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)See you this Friday, where you can join hundreds in the Friday Holiday Poker tournament.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I'll keep my health and hang with the "uncool" kids inside.
Edit: If I saw the owner of the restaurant smoking outside while I was walking in, I would have turned around and left. That's just gross. I've done that when I saw waiters smoking outside before.
hurple
(1,306 posts)Are the ones that start out with, "I've never known of anyone being rude to a smoker" and then go on in the very next sentence to be rude to the OP.
You're right, there are some really horrible, rude, nasty people on here in regards to this subject.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,376 posts)"there are some really horrible, rude, nasty people on here" - like people who start a thread to call others 'nuts'?
small D democrat
(20 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I have not actually physically smoked in a year and a half - but in my heart I will always be a smoker.....
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I still smoke, still enjoy it but, for the sake of everyone's health, I don't mind stepping outside. I just wish every place would provide something to sit on. I have to walk with crutches and standing for more than a minute or so is incredibly painful for me so it would be nice to have something to sit on (no, I'm not going to quit). The anti-smoking people who used to post pictures of diseased lungs on any thread that mentioned smoking annoyed the piss out of me, reminded me of pro-lifers.
My other half keeps trying to get me to try e-cigarettes. I keep meaning to try them, it just slips my mind. And I'm a bit dubious of them because I actually enjoy smoking.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 05:37 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't really need E-cigarettes - but out of curiosity - when a coworker brought his little device to work - I thought I would just try it to see how it feels - it definitely gives the old nicotine rush just like a real cigarette - If one cannot quit smoking altogether - then maybe E-cigarettes are a good stepping stone.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)I've had people ask me when I'm going to quit using the e-cig. The answer is, probably never. I'm using nicotine-free liquids and have been for some time, so there's no active addiction to nicotine going on anymore. I just really enjoy it. I vape in public all the time and no one pays any attention. It's great.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)ROFL. Yeah, Bill O'Reilly can write a book about the "war on smokers" like the "war on Christmas".
I say that as an occasional smoker myself (the kind that bums one from a friend when I step outside with them when at a bar). But I am really glad about the smoking bans indoors. It's really nice not having my clothes smell like an ash tray after I get home. It's also nice to have to breathe it constantly.
Now, I agree some cities may be going too far in their restrictions (I believe if you want to stink up your own house - and you own the place, go ahead). But overall, it's nice to go to a bar or restaurant and not have to worry about where you are seated...
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)that having unprotected sex with the wrong person could kill me, lung cancer doesn't seem like such a big scary thing.
Having said that, I'm a recent convert to vaping. At first, I was using it as a supplement when in a place where smoking was prohibited. But it has its own inertia....I've cut down from nearly two packs a day to less than half a pack. I see the day coming when I will be vaping only, no "real" tobacco involved. I have already noticed the benefit of less tobacco in my diet, and at my age (59) it's a nice reward. Cheaper, too.
tblue37
(65,490 posts)when someone goes out of his/her way to be nice to someone else.
I don't smoke, and of course smoking is bad for you, and if course no one should have to breathe secondhand smoke. But most smokers would quit if they could, just aas most overweight people would like to diet successfully. If it were easy, everyone would be perfect. Just because smokers should not pollute the air of nonsmokers in enclosed spaces, that doesn't mean that nonsmokers should act like jerks toward smokers.
I am glad you ended up having a particularly lovely evening instead of having it spoiled by those who would treat you like a criminal.
TBF
(32,102 posts)but I am recc'ing this story because it is nice to see someone have a decent work Christmas party story. Ha! How often does that happen? Glad you had a good time!
marble falls
(57,275 posts)this was because of some blood in my urine and they were trying to figure out why that was. No kidney problems. No injury. My brother was a long distance runner and he had some blood in his urine as a result and some people do naturally have blood in their urine. Finally after an MRI they find a spot in my bladder.
And after a procedure to look in my bladder they find the cancer.
I worked for forty years in restaurants. One of the first things I learned was how to remove and replace ashtrays. I must have placed 10,000 or more ashtrays on tables. I never believed second hand smoking caused cancer. I never smoked tobacco but I always felt smokers were more generous than nonsmokers. Bladder cancer is a smokers cancer.
Its also a second hand smokers cancer. Thanks for the generous tip and thanks for the cancer. Go smoke in the parking, please.
mdbl
(4,976 posts)I smoked for 25 years - 2-3 packs a day. I smoked in the car, in restaurants, in my kids room, in my bedroom, in my bathroom in my garage. Had one hanging out of my mouth while doing heavy lifting work. Had one as soon as I awoke, and one right before going to bed. I met great people who were also smokers. We looked great, felt great and loved to smoke. After I quit, my realization was this: I was addicted. What does that mean? It means the my brain felt it needed the nicotine from cigarettes the same as it needed air, water and nourishment. My brain thought it needed nicotine to think. It made up every reason to light up it could think of. Addictions become an uncontrollable part of your personality. Addictions make you think you look great, feel great and work better while you are feeding them. Your brain can't tell the difference other than it needs you to feed that addiction to feel normal. Unfortunately, the brain goes into complete denial about the harm the cigarettes inflict on it's own body. It will kill you either way. The tar will deprive your body of oxygen slowly killing off organ function, or the nicotine could cause a cancer because it messes with your body's cell reproductions. It could happen fast, it could happen slow. It will happen. I love smokers and non smokers. I thank the non smokers for their tolerance of my smoking. I thank the smokers for their fellowship in my addiction. Eiher way, though, you are a slave to an addiction. When you come to terms with that, you at least can quit arguing about all the other particulars which are truly as meaningless as the tea party.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)were similarly rewarded at that restaurant.
Howler
(4,225 posts)How Wonderful! And I know all about the TREATMENT Too!
HelenWheels
(2,284 posts)Smoking has no right to be done indoors. If this woman sat next to me at that restaurant and smoked and got a free meal for polluting the air I would deserve a free meal for having to sit in that pollution. Ugh!
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)dinger130
(199 posts)She is now 93 and smokes over a pack a day. All these years she has spun the roulette wheel her and won. In her small hometown in Kentucky, there are a couple of restaurants where smoking is allowed. Of course, that is where she wants to go to eat out. Her diet is terrible. She lives mostly on junk food, and anything chocolate. Hates fruits and most vegetables, but her diet is high in dairy products. She has always kept her weight down though. I scratch my head.
Went to the doctor last week for her checkup, and her oxygen level was 99. He told her that if anyone tells her to quit smoking, tell them to go to hell.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)She would get an extra week. As we used to say with my dad in the last five in particular, let him enjoy if it it gives him pleasure. It ain't gonna do much more damage any how.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)who lived to be 97 and only quit smoking the last few months of his life when he was in a long-term care facility that didn't allow smoking. By the time he was in his 80's, we figured it was pointless to bother him about it.
He did suffer from smoking though - he lost circulation in one leg and had to have it amputated when he was 77 (while in a rehab facility he quit smoking for a year, then promptly started back up when he went home). He lived through several blood clots in his lungs that destroyed his lungs and landed him on oxygen 24/7 (likely he also had COPD in addition to that). He also had a heart attack in his late 80's. But by the time he was in his 90's he insisted on smoking and we just let him be. He even smoked on his oxygen (no one could convince him to turn it off so he could smoke) and blew up his face a few times. Which, oddly, rendered his face curiously wrinkle free which led my wrinkly and hilarious great aunt to remark that she found an alternative to a face lift...she was going to buy an oxygen tank and take up smoking...
My grandfather died from mild pneumonia in compromised lungs.
He was also an alcoholic into his 80's and obese. We wanted to donate his body to science to see if they could figure out his longevity gene. We do wonder how long he would've lived if he would've had a healthier lifestyle. I mean, how many people who start smoking at age 11 live to 97? At the very least, he'd have had a happier life...he hated his artificial limb and that's when he refused to keep travelling...his last 20 years could've been filled with a lot more and smoking too a lot away from him.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I just hope, for your sake, you never develop the asthma and COPD I saw my dad develop. Being short of breath, even with oxygen, I guess would be worth it. Yup, he had a pretty invisible attitude, none of that is gonna happen to me until it did.
polly7
(20,582 posts)No disrespect, but it's no ones's business but hers, really, as long as she's not subjecting others to it, and I'm one of those who thinks this really is a story more about compassion and empathy than anything else.
Glad to see you back, btw.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Since I lived it.
It is empathy and compassion, but also it is this attitude among addicts (to substance here) that this is not going to happen to them.
As to back, somewhat.
polly7
(20,582 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)He smoked his last the day he died. I guess an hour or so before he slipped quietly in his sleep, still hooked to the O2. He had to be reminded not to smoke while on Oxygen, a common accident among smokers on O2.
He was told thirty years before and forty as well, that it be good to quit. My brother, an MD by training, told him as well. He laughed. It was never, ever going to happen to him. What did doctors know anyway? Well, it did.
He did quit for seven months after open heart, triple cabbage, but it is so damn addictive...he was back on it.
The last five years, none told him anymore. He was too old, and quitting might add a few months. So we let him enjoy his cigs (and whiskey). But he had that same attitude, the "young health nuts" in the OP is that attitude.
polly7
(20,582 posts)probably the wisest phrasing to use, but I understand that a lot of smokers are subjected to some pretty horrible treatment. Being called 'disgusting', 'filthy', etc. is probably the reason some are a bit resentful. You've stated it well ...... it's an addiction. We seem to try to understand drug addictions, alcoholism ... with none of the same stigma as smoking.
I've worked in nursing homes where residents' only desire in life ........ honest to god, they've lost all family, friends, possessions, contact with the outside world as a result of being moved to the home - was to go out for a cigarette. It pissed me off to no end to see some of the RN's make them wait for hours before they'd dole out the resident's own locked up at the nurses' station, cigarette. In our health districts we don't get the volume of calls in rural areas to justify paying full time EMS, so we'd work in the home during the day and leave if called out. I vividly remember one man, who'd come in to the home with no family or support and who'd had a hell of a hard life, outside scouring the ashtrays for butts because he wasn't allowed his own cigs more than once an hour. We took him by ambulance to Regina that night, where he died. I always wondered just wtf it would have hurt to let him do the only thing left in his life he enjoyed. It still hurts to think of that ride up.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Stopped. Except for one. After he fell and broke his hip, and almost sent me to the ER with a bad asthma attack. (O2 sat was down to 79 at the docs, but responded to treatment or I would have been taken to the ER down the door, clinic was at the hospital). After that we confined his smoking to one place, once he could walk out, to the porch.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)bragging about smoking
poor thing-being an outcast for poisoning your body and the people around you
polly7
(20,582 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I personally find the words 'attention whore' harsh ... when someone was merely relating a story involving someone doing something kind.
Young health nuts - not nearly as nasty. imhfo.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)but the phrase fits
polly7
(20,582 posts)aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)Mail Message
At Sat Dec 14, 2013, 01:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
the phrase attention whore comes to mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4176693
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
OTT not necessary
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 14, 2013, 01:37 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh I think hockeymom can receive as good as she gets. She can handle herself.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Flaming she asks for, flaming she expects, flaming she gets -- if you'll pardon the expression.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Editorializing is, in this case, superfluous.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with alerter.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we can't "slut shame" or rag on the overweight, or dig into a lot of others for what they might do or be, smokers are still fair game.
The "but it hurts others" excuse doesn't work because damn near everything we do has an effect on others one way or another. Ragging on smokers is just another Puritanical way to feel superior to lesser people no matter how it's excused and rationalized.
No smoking rules are OK because it cleans the place up and makes it nicer, maybe even healthier, but smokers are still human beings, and little stories like this are pretty cool.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Some have warm wraps / blankets too.
ann---
(1,933 posts)People who ignore the health risks of smoking aren't the ones who deserve special treatment, especially when YOUR habit harms others who are in your presence while you harm yourself.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)"The easy way to stop smoking". This is a great book for smokers who love to smoke. This book encourages you to continue to smoke while you read it. Consider it veal marsala for your head.
http://www.amazon.com/Allen-Carrs-Easy-Stop-Smoking/dp/0615482155/
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It must've been, like, 1994 or 95, because it was the height of the "culture wars," we were invited to a benefit to raise money to hire a lobbyist to advocate for the arts in Washington. It was in someone's back yard. So after an hour or so of milling around, I needed some nicotine, and I sneaked around to the front steps of the house, sat down, and lit a cigarette--hiding, so no one at the event would see.
Lo and behold ... who comes and sits down next to me on the steps? Garrison Keillor. And he says how sorry he is that I have to sneak around like a criminal, and that he used to smoke, and would if he could ... but he can't because he has to protect his radio voice. He was so sweet and understanding ... even supportive! I smile still remembering how someone took pity on an evil smoker and tried to make her feel better.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)BellaKos
(318 posts)When social parameters are repeated often enough, it then becomes socially acceptable to denigrate those who do not conform to the prescribed behavior.
We can see this same mental defect among "Dittoheads" on the Far Right, but we can't see it among us tolerant, understanding, open-minded, truth-seeking liberals, can we? After all, our own mean-spirited condescension is for "their own good."
(Unfortunately, Group-Think is an ailment infecting both the Right and the Left -- and especially the White House Press Corps.)
It's just human nature that people get angry and allow themselves to lash out when their hardened perspectives are challenged.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)BellaKos
(318 posts)I expect applause, deference, and even an occasional "Bravo," each and every time I light up.
Seriously, all I would prefer is that self-righteous condescension be confined to one's own family and only at large family gatherings during the winter.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,376 posts)Because that's what the OP does. It calls people who recognise 60 years of health information about how smoking kills 'health nuts'. When you start a controversial OP, calling other DUers names, you have to expect something in return. Especially if you are ignoring 60 years of science.
BellaKos
(318 posts)I wouldn't exactly call the term, "health nut," something derogatory.
I guess what aggravates me is the judgmental and self-righteous attitude that I've seen directed at smokers on this thread. And that snugness is displayed elsewhere around here, too. That irritates me regardless of the topic at hand.
And I've battled Fundamental Christians on forums in the past when I've seen the same kind of thing. The conflict boils down to this: They tell me that I know nothing about the Bible and that I'm going to hell, in so many words. I tell them that I do indeed know about the Bible and they can kiss my a$$, in so many words. Their attitude is laced with self-righteous condescension and it drives me crazy.
The truth is that I see the same kind of attitude among the Left in regard to other subjects. Smoking, being one among many. Naturally, I'm apt to respond. Caint hep it.
From my perspective, smoking has not shown to be a factor in the general health of my huge clan. Whether it be my grandfather who smoked and lived to be 93, without any remarkable health issues, or a Great Aunt who died at 87, who was active until she fell over in her yard. The thoughtful response should be, "Wow. That's remarkable." And given this particular cohort that contradicts accepted science, a researcher would or should wonder if there could be other factors that contribute to disease and health or are mitigated by stress-management, environment, diet, genetics, or something that hasn't been thought about yet.
The thoughtless response, on the other hand, is what I've seen here, which is basically, "You smoke, therefore, you shall die a horrible and lingering death, so sayth the Lord of Conventional Wisdom." And delivered with a tinge of the most repulsive smugness imaginable.
And from experience, I am justified in leaping to the conclusion that all of those who plan on getting drunk on New Year's Eve are probably at Stage One alcoholism and therefore shall surely drift to Stage Two and perhaps even Stage Three. At which point, they will surely die a horrible and lingering death, so sayth the Lord of What I've Seen With My Own Eyes. But, you know, I don't do that.
So, it's that attitude of self-righteous condescension and narrow-mindedness that aggravates me. I really don't care if people smoke or even drink too much. Outcomes in health and in life are never as predictable as we would like. People should be aware of that, because it is the one fact that we can all depend upon. And democrats and liberals should be especially aware, because they profess to be the truth-seekers and the truth-tellers of this world and are remarkably apt to condemn anyone *else* they see as narrow-minded and wedded to a hardened perspective. Hypocrisy aggravates me, too. Caint hep it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,376 posts)because you say "a researcher would or should wonder if there could be other factors that contribute to disease and health or are mitigated by stress-management, environment, diet, genetics, or something that hasn't been thought about yet."
It has been incredibly heavily researched. In many countries, over many decades. Smoking causes lung cancer, and other cancers, and causes heart disease and bronchitis. This is one of the most obvious realities of medicine we have discovered since WW2. It's not inevitable; the figure I remember from years ago is that about a quarter of smokers die from it, but that may have been revised. More suffer health problems, such as heart attacks, that don't actually kill them. So, yes, it's quite possible for one person to know several smokers who didn't die from it. But no, your anecdotes don't mean any researcher should be rushing back to do yet more studies.
A product that addicts its users, and kills a significant percentage of them, and makes more ill, is not something to be celebrated, or even excused.
Again, I don't think you understand that alcohol has also been researched. It has dangers, but you can't go from "people I know have died from alcohol abuse" to "getting drunk at New Year's leads to ...". A lot of people get drunk at one New Year's or another; not that many end up alcoholics, comparatively. People aren't basing what they say about smoking just from their friends and family's health; they're using the statistics. And you should do the same for alcohol. Going against Conventional Wisdom doesn't automatically make you right, or righteous, even if you capitalise it.
BellaKos
(318 posts)I understand far more than I can convey here. But the simple logic is this: If smoking causes lung cancer, then it follows that everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. That is not true, because everyone does not get lung cancer, even those who have smoked for decades. Even major populations of smokers in France and Japan. From that alone -- that simple fact -- is it illogical to wonder if there are more factors involved in this health issue? That's all I was attempting to say.
Now about alcoholism. It is apparent that you know very little about it. Can you please accept the fact that I know far more than the average person about it? Not only have I lived with the effects of alcoholism in my family for decades, but also I've been reading about the subject for decades. And I'll tell you this: A person who *plans* to get drunk on New Year's Eve is, in fact, exhibiting an indicator of Stage One. And from there, it is easy to slip into Stage Two without even realizing it. Keep in mind, denial and psychological dysfunction are parts of the disease.
So, you and I agree on this, however:
"A product that addicts its users, and kills a significant percentage of them, and makes more ill, is not something to be celebrated, or even excused."
And yet, alcohol is celebrated in almost every social setting from New Year's Eve and Christmas parties to Memorial Day picnics to lunch with colleagues and so on. It is delusional to assume that alcohol abuse is not dangerous. And from my perspective, based on experience, observations, and general knowledge, more dangerous than smoking. Yet, people who drink are celebrated and encouraged, while smokers are shunned.
But the point of my comments were not to go against The Church of Conventional Wisdom, but rather to suggest that perhaps there's more to discover about these health issues. And I wanted to point out that the attitude of its devotees is just as condescending as those of Christian fundamentalists. My hope is that The Smug around here can see that quality of self-righteousness in themselves and realize how hypocritical it is chastise and condemn others who assert a different point of view.
But noooooo .... That won't happen, because, instead, I will be misunderstood again and accosted with more statistics and accused of being scientifically illiterate.
Response to HockeyMom (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Zorra
(27,670 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)so long as you don't blow it in my face and throw your butts everywhere.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Hekate
(90,837 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 04:43 AM - Edit history (1)
... which means that by now she has been smoking probably a pack a day for 26 years. The wrongheaded rebellion of a child has ended up being the stubborn addiction of an adult, and she defends it just like an addict.
My daughter smoked through all her pregnancies. She's had some significant issues with pregnancy .... and so did my late mother, who also smoked.
I inhaled second-hand smoke from my conception till my mid-to-late 20's when suddenly there was a sea-change in the culture and my friends volunteered to go outside to smoke. All through college and beyond I used to carry matches for my pals; I always had one ashtray in my apartment. When I moved at the age of 31 I realized I could leave those things behind.
Do you notice I'm not flaming you? Judging you? I'm not a "young health nut" -- I'm in my mid-60s. I didn't join any of the anti-smoking campaigns, but as an asthmatic I'm grateful for the change in the culture. I reserve my anger for Big Tobacco and the millions they spent luring children my daughter's age in with Joe Camel. One of my deepest fears is that I might outlive my daughter, as my friend outlived her sister.
End of sermon.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Watch the documentary, "Forks and Knives." It's on Netflix.
Then, you will realize that it's hopeless. Our Corporate Masters are out to kill us all, smoker and non-smoker alike.
But then again, you're not gonna' get out of here alive.
And HockeyMom. I salute you for being so brave -- recounting a pleasant restaurant experience in the presence of The Church of The Self-Righteous and The Fearful Whiners.
Happy Holidays and carry on!
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)pecwae
(8,021 posts)108 recs for a post in support of and applause for a health destroying addiction, public health nuisance and, by extension, a corporation making millions off enabling a costly habit that adds absolutely nothing to society. How bizarre.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)to smoke in restaurants/bars and work/school
its not like the smoke is good for them and they are being irrational. the smoke is legitimately not good for their health. (unlike the anti-vaccination nuts, who reject something that is good for them and for the world overall)
HipChick
(25,485 posts)I am a secret smoker, and slung off outside the hospital to have a cig..patients were out there smoking with their drips, breathing tanks and god knows what else...had to laugh..love dem Brits
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)because a coworker was APPLE shaped at 4"10 and 90 lbs. Lose weight?????? Even these "health experts" didn't dare say that. Go to a GYM and workout!!! This woman was 60 years old and lifted children in and out of wheelchairs to change their diapers all day. She needed MORE exercise? She told the company health coaches after her day at work, and her age, working out at gym WOULD give her a heart attack. At 5"1 and 100 lbs,I told them to suck an egg. You aren't measuring ME. BTW, your BMI is old hat and your WHR is a better indicator of if you will have a heart attack. Even at 90 lbs. Right.
It is not going to end with smoking; not for the overweight people, or otherwise. The health industry is a big business and feeds on FEAR to make their money by gullible people; smokers, diets, and otherwise.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)shoulder about something to do with modern medicine, you seem to hate the idea that it actually works to improve people's lives, and your posts seem to become increasingly unintelligible the longer you post.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)They self-insured and went on a "wellness kick". Hired 4" Health Coaches" to the tune of over $1M. Yes, part of that was to penalize smokers (blood tests for all employees), questionnaires, height/weight, and waist/ hip measurements. Your "coach" would even take your GROCERY SHOPPING! They told female employees that the AMA "recommends" having your first baby before age 30 or you risk health problems for both yourself and your baby. YOUNG, unmarried teachers were crying over this. I couldn't make this up if I tried. One of the questions on that questionnaires was "What sunscreen do you use?" I wrote down a ROOF and 4 WALLS. I HATE the sun and don't go outside unless it is absolutely necessary. Do I need sunscreen going to and from my car grocery shopping? This was totally INSANE. Come on, have a baby before age 30 as part of "Your Health, Your Choice"? They found any reason they could to get control, and penalized you monetarily if you didn't "Comply" (their words).
Yeah, it started before but I saw what this Wellness Crap can do, and it sent me over the edge.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)And enjoys doting on people she likes?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)I'm going to consider that a long shot at best.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Smoking gave us a chance to meet, but we did have other things in common. She was from Italy. I am of Italian heritiage. She was in her 70s. I am in my 60s. She lived in NJ for 30 years. I lived in NY for 58 years. We also talked quite a bit about cooking, obviously.
It went beyond smoking. She was a nice woman. As the owner of the restaurant, she certainly could have just kept to herself and not sat down with a customer to just talk.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Merry Christmas.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Funny how a thread on how you were treated nicely turned into the hate fest that everyone claims doesn't exist.
Here are some of the words used in this thread to describe smokers, who at this point aren't even allowed near anyone to smoke:
Assholes, Selfish, Disgusting, Slave, Sucker, Addict... and all of those things were said with great love because they just "love the sinner but hate the sin".
One day, I'm going to meet all these terrible smokers. You know, the ones who light up inside, who walk around blowing their smoke right in everyones face, who use their habit to hurt others. They must exist, this thread speaks of them often..
Have a great holiday HM!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I'd be embarrassed if I posted something like this. And then have it get over 350 posts.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Now you can go be embarrassed elsewhere...