h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Which goes to show ya that anti-smoking zealots - despite any self-defined 'moral superiority' - can be just as inconsiderate as morons who light up in non-smoking areas."

I, for one, am not arguing any 'moral superiority', nor am I suggesting that all smokers are thoughtless amoral prats. Instead, I'm merely expressing my anger that *some* smokers *are* like that, and that's what's causing the problem. I don't feel 'above' smokers, just as they should not feel 'above' me, I just hate breathing smoke!

I don't know why you're taking offense, as I'm not complaining about you. Yo?

I wasn't taking offense - just trying to point out that there's room for improvement on both sides. When people feel threatened - and I am speaking in huge, broad strokes here, no specfics - they tend to get defensive about their 'space' and their 'rights'. I try to be considerate of others when I smoke, (I don't think I'm the only one), and I would hope non-smokers would be considerate enough to recognize that and allow me to kill myself in a manner that doesn't bother them.

You will find no argument from me that it is a filthy, invasive, expensive habit, and one I wish I'd never gotten hooked on. I would think the solution would be to have 'separate but equal' smoking and non-smoking places, and not try to mix the two. That never works.

Of course, the very best idea would be for no one to get started smoking in the first place.

Mina! Lentilla, you are very responsible- speshly about the not walking business. (If someone got burned by one of those oblivious fools who strolls about with a light at child-face height, what would be the course of action? I wonder...)

Didn't they ban it in public in California, and the number of smokers decreased dramatically? If that's all there is to it (but it was a v. little article I read) it suggests that making smoking unacceptable to this extent lessens the likelihood of people starting. (btw it's an addiction, not a 'habit'- and generally harder to come off than heroin.)
Anyway, for me, I'd rather have no one smoke in public. That would be my personal preference. I hate smoking possibly most of all. And whatever the truth is about passive smoking risks, it makes my throat hurt and my eyes water to b*****y, and the smell in concentration makes me ill. 'Concentration' is not merely being in a roomful, but the example above of sitting next to a smoker in a bus queue. I try not to breathe near them, but I've toyed with the idea of saying (when in bad mood) "Excuse me, but I have a violent allergy to cigarette smoke. It causes me to die," and have a 'comedy' fit. Fun! But I doubt a total public ban would be workable.
However, the measures some places go to are pathetic. In the lounge area at the arts centre there is 1 table for smokers. the room is about 3 table lengths. That is supposed to keep 2/3 of the room smoke-free? Smoke is stopped by an invisible barrier? Likely! I hate having to go there and have several people's stale fumes all over me for the rest of the day. Since they (generally) have a diminished sense of smell, they either don't notice or don't care... stale smoke is far worse than fresh, also. Ugh.
However, if someone is smoking near me, I try and go elsewhere. If it's outdoors, I can easily cross the road. If indoors, another room. Some smokers might- and do, apparently- find this 'rude', if I'm with them socially. But it's simply me avoiding nastiness. And as for 'intolerence', i.e. anyone who doesn't like smoking is a bigot- intolerence refers only to irrational feelings about something like colour, gender etc. Wishing to avoid something you hate for a reason is not being intolerent.
BTW, I have a similar problem with coffee. I am allergic to it, it causes migraines and sickness and not only from drinking it. (I could never get near enough anyway.) I only have to be in the same room as a cup and I feel really queasy (speshly on trains.) It would be joyous to have coffee-free areas in restaurants, public transport etc, i.e. a place where we deficient freaks (for that's it, isn't it? It's not normal, it's a health problem, an anomaly. could go to be free of the bean. However, I'd rather hold my breath and breathe thru my hair than seriously suggest a scheme like that.

"...and generally harder to come off than heroin"

Rubbish! Where did you "learn" this? Have you read about people trying to kick heroin? It's a lot worse than "getting irritable".

Isdninja - actually, after looking at 7Rob7's post, I decided that he put it much better than I could. I'm no egotist either, but I felt obliged to respond. It rubs me the wrong way when somebody decides to be morally superior about a personal choice. This isn't a pissing contest!

"So does your personal freedom dictate that you can irritate and poison people just because you feel like it? Whenever someone smokes near me, I can't breathe properly because I'm afraid of inhaling it."

Does your personal freedom include being civil to people? With that kind of attitude, I would expect you to berate anybody with body odor, bad breath or bad gas. Goodness. I really don't see what the problem is - unless the restaurants in your area don't have a non-smoking/smoking section. If you had read all of my post, you would have seen that I do not smoke in a bus line (queue) or in restaurants - in my city, you can't smoke in a restaurant near non-smokers, unless they've sat in the smoking section. When I'm outside, I avoid groups of people if I want a smoke. Most smokers I know are pretty courteous, and follow the same rules of behavior. What kind of places are you going where people stand around you and blow smoke at you?

"Maybe you ignorant fools should stop smoking so I wouldn't have to."

Cities have all sorts of toxic chemicals floating in the air, most of which have nothing to do with smokers and their puny little lungs. Carbon and unburnt petrochemicals are a big problem. Most power plants run on coal or gas to produce electricity, and shoot petrochemicals in the air. Then there's the cars, puffing out big clouds of carbon monoxide. If you drive a car or use electricity, you're contributing more to the toxicity of the air than my lungs alone ever have.

"The fact that they smoke in public clearly indicates that they are selfish and unconcerned with other people."

What you actually mean is that they didn't check with *you* personally before deciding to smoke a cigarette. Center of the universe, huh? Like Rob said, if it bothers you, ask them to step away. If they refused, then you'd have a right to yell at them.

Duff - Yes, it is a little disconcerting to see all the smokers gather in one room for fifteen minutes and 'get their fix.' It's no more disconcerting than watching all the businessmen buy two or three little bottles of Crown Royal and dose themselves into unconsciousness for the flight. Because of restrictions, all the smokers end up smoking their cigarettes, all at once - either in the little smoking room or at the door outside the terminal. If there was a smoking section in the plane, people would feel a lot less pressured to light up the second they got off. That's unlikely to happen, though. I would like it if the smoking room was better ventilated.

I completely agree that the smoker is solely responsible for making sure that non-smokers don't have to put up with the smoke. They shouldn't have to - they don't smoke for a reason!

Peet - when I visit with my non-smoking friends, sometimes we meet at our house, sometimes theirs, sometimes at a restaurant or bar. You've made the concession to your friends to visit their house - have they ever visited yours? When I'm in a non-smoker's house, I prefer to smoke outside. You're right about Febreeze - it'll mask it, but it won't get rid of the smell. I would recommend throwing the sweater in a plastic grocery bag and tying the handles together until it's time for washing. But cigarette smoke is still not as nasty as *peeing* on somebody!

I have to say that I find smoking a disgusting habbit, although it doesn't make someone evil
but like cars it does pollute the air we all breath, causes cancer and heart disease and many other health problems (I am actually in favour of people walking, cycling or at a push sharing vehicles so that the most people as possible can get somewhere without polluting beyond due need)
heres something I would like to ask all smokers to try, next time you have a lit cigarette take a drag through a piece of tissue and see exacaly what your putting into your lungs every time you suck, and what you can be putting into someone elses lungs.
so in brief here's smoking in 3 points:
1. smoking is legal
2. Smoking is profitable
3. Smoking Kills

hey 2 out of 3 aint bad

and there is the problem of the cigarette butt and the litter this causes (especially at the beach, the last thing I wanted to do when i was 5 was to be building a sand castle only to find my very own buried treasure in the form of a mountain of used cigarettes.)

Z Phantom

Lentilla, some smoking friends visit my house, but they know well enough not to light up there. The two chain-smokers rarely if ever visit my house, possibly as the result an incident at the housewarming of my previous house when I screamed at them in front of their friends for walking in and instantly lighting up in the room where I was going to be sleeping, despite the fact that I had tolerantly set aside another, larger and much more well ventilated room for people who wanted to smoke. It never crossed their minds to ask before lighting up, and it's that sort of attitude which eventually led to my making my last flat totally non-smoking, as is the case with this one. I was sick of the way that smokers assume that if there's one room they are allowed to light up in, it's OK for them to carry their lit cigarette around the house so long as they hold it behind their back. So far, in my experience, there appears to be a 100% correlation between this degree of stupidity and repeated tobacco consumption.

"But cigarette smoke is still not as nasty as *peeing* on somebody!"

Don't worry, Lentilla, I wouldn't pee on a smoker - even if they were on fire.

(Pssst! Hey, Peet - talk nice or Lentilla won't wanna join the MUG at A690653! Who else will I burn a butt with on the balcony at meetings?)

Hello
Yes, I am a life long non-smoker and no, I don't believe I have some form of moral high ground.

However, I think smoking should be banned from public for very practical reasons. It means I have trouble breathing.

When I am stood in a bus queue, unable to go anywhere, and people start lighting up around me as they can't cope with a bus journey without smoking, I get annoyed. Not only because it makes me feel ill and makes it hard for me to breath, but because they don't care if babies or other sensitive groups are there as well. I think it is selfish and unnecessary, and unfortunately the only way to stop the selfish people is through a ban.

[stands back awaiting backlash]

Researcher PSG

Yup. It's the irresponsible smokers that make life hard for those of us who try to be considerate!

Peet - if I'm on fire, I don't care what you throw on me - as long as it will put the fire out!

re. heroin/smoking.
It is a more addictive substance, in that tolerence (and consequently addiction) to nicotine can develop in a matter of hours. Whereas alcohol takes weeks, and heroin can be used safely for months without becoming a habit. Many people can use it non-addictively (not 'safely, understand) by taking it other than intravenously. Whereas there are very few people who smoke for fun, rather than because they have to. Obligatory stats: someone who smokes more than one cigarette has only a 15% chance of remaining a non-smoker. Hence, harder to give up. I was referring to its addictive properties more than a comparison between slight irritability and cold turkey.
Those who can smoke for fun, good for them. Along with the original users of tobacco, who used it for religious purposes (as always), and thus got far more interesting effects from it.

Well, I must be some sort of superhuman! I've smoked tobbacco on countless occassions and still find no need to smoke on any sort of regular basis. Man, I must have come from Krypton or something!

That or the "scientific evidence" is so much bulls*it, designed to scaremonger

Hmmm... You can't count the occasions, but that's OK because it isn't "regular"...

"so much bulls*it" - indeed.

OK, will it help if I say I haven't smoked a cigarette in over 2 months? That "not regular" enough for ya?

I'm a pharmacologist and I would say that nicotine is *far* more addictive than heroin. For example many people are given heroin or morphine in hospital for pain relief, often for fairly long periods. Strangely, most of these people do not develop an opiate habit upon leaving hospital even if they experienced withdrawl. sure those taking heroin for a high are more likly to get addicted, but this may take a period of weeks/months and the drug is initially taken for the high.

Nicotine is a rapid addiction and quickly alters some paths brain functioning. Withdrawl from nicotine impairs cognitive functions, "normal" cognitive function is obtained by consuming more nicotine (or bearing it, and giving up) so once addicted you have to get nicotine funtion "normally" (nicotine will not improve cognitive function in people not addicted to it), not to get high. Therefore the addiction to nicotine is very subtle and is not associated with euphoria so in many ways is harder to kick than heroin (although less painful.

If a non smoker thinks this is rubbish try nicotine supplements for a while then withdraw (I SERIOSLY SUGGEST YOU DONT DO THIS).

But then again addiction is very subjective, some people may find giving up smoking easy and some people may rapidly develop a heroin addiction.

And let's not forget about the psychological addiction, as well. Smokers (at least, this smoker) develop patterns of smoking that include habitual times and places (after a meal, walking home from the store/work, etc.); company (X is a smoker and so I smoke when I'm with X); and activities (the cliched 'after sex' cigarette.) The "toys" and "fiddliables" of the habit - lighters, cigarette cases, tapping the filter to tamp down the tobacco, gazing into the eyes of the person lighting your cigarette - these little parts of the ritual can be just as frightening to contemplate giving up as dreading the physical 'cold turkey.'

None of this is to justify continued smoking, just a little more info on what 'quitting' entails. And this doesn't even begin to explore the (fairly) recent finding that there is a genetically-linked pre-disposition to chemical addiction. Scoff if you want, but the theory holds in my family. My parents were addicted to both tobacco and alcohol, and their children have various sets of addictions of their own. Once I get up the nerve to try to stop smoking, I'll let you know if I think it's a factor.

Before anyone suggests it: my daily nicotine intake is lower than the lightest "patch" on the market, so I would be upping my dosage if I tried them. Yep, that proves it - its sucks to be me.

-77

You can always cut the patches in half, and save money at the same time!

"And let's not forget about the psychological addiction, as well."

Can I just go off on a (small) tangent here?

One of the things that I heard of coming out of the USA (thankfully hasn't surfaced over here) was people going to "therapists" frightened out of their wits by their "addictions". On further reading of the article, it became plain that these "addictions" were things they simply enjoyed on a regular basis (everything from chocolate to sex). I was annoyed with them and the quacks who had talked them into it (I suspect mostly TV therapists and self-help book authors, I'd hope no serious therapists would peddle this rubbish)

Now, nicotine is addictive, I think there's ample proof of that (although I won't hear for a second that it's "worse than heroin"), but I think your talk of your "addiction" extending to playing with your lighter is worrying. It sounds too much like what I've detailed above. Those "little habits" are just that, habits. I bite my nails, have since I was a kid. I don't like doing it, but I would never say it was an "addiction"

Besides, you can play with a lighter and not smoke

As for your point about a "genetic link", well the juries still out on that for me. My problem with it is that our genetics tends to be our base animal things (temper, etc) but human's (as far as I know) invented using mood and mind altering chemicals at the end of our evolution, so how we can have "addictive" genes seems a mystery to me. Mind you, I heard some sh*t about a "gene for homelessness" once, so if that can be touted as science, so can anything.

...'I won't hear for a second that it's "worse than heroin")'...

That depends on your definition of "worse". During my early years living in digs, I shared a room with both a smoker and a junkie (not at the same time). The smoker's habit was by far the more disgusting of the two, as it impinged on me whether he was there or not. Also, while worst the the junkie would do was occasionally ask me to give him a spare insulin syringe, the smoker thought it was socially acceptable to borrow money from my small change pile without asking me when he didn't have the full price of a "hit" on him. Another example of my observation that regular nicotine intake seems to lower the IQ.

Smoking, for the vast majority, is an addiction (tho it may not be for you, aren't you the lucky one.) You don't have to put it in "" (said in sarcastic tone of voice, waggling fingers etc.) since it's a fact not an opinion.
Heroin can be used (as opposed to abused- a subtlety usually ignored, at any rate by the media) non-addictively at least. It has medical value. It seems more likely that the lifestyle associated with its abuse is what kills you, not the drug itself (aside from impurities, problems with dosage etc.) Whereas nicotine is not used for anything much apart from smoking and insecticides, is an extremely toxic poison, and difficult to use safely even when taken in its government-controlled, sanitised, amounts-stated-on-packet etc. state. Not to mention being unspeakably foul.
How's that 'better'?