Smoking. I do it because I love it.

[Dendio]

Smoke weed instead, it's healthier.

I have had people come back high off weed and paranoid about someone stealing their slice of bread...
I dont know if you consider that healthy but I dont.

 

[Spinozaad]

I smoke every once in a while. Usually when I'm really drunk. I can't get the 'alcohol + cigarette' combination out of my system. I smoke weed as well.

Oh, and I like to smoke a pipe every once in a while.

As for my rationale. I like it. Generally, and amusingly seeing all the militant responses, I consider smokers to be more pleasant people. Of course, this is not to say that non-smokers are pricks, but I hardly know antisocial, smoking douchebags. This is, perhaps, because of being stigmatized or whatever. A common enemy always unites the ranks, eh?

 

[antidonkey]

Smoking. I miss it. I quit a little over a month ago. I smoked because I enjoyed it. Not sure why I quit as I lacked motivation to do so which made it harder than it has been in the past. I just wish I would stay not smoking. Usually after a year or 2 I'll pick it up again. Damn it...I wish I had one now. Sigh. I guess I'll have to avoid the smokers at work now less I cave and bum one.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

They think they know because anti-smoking groups have been shouting it for so long and using dodgy science to back up their claims.

Yes, funny how comparing particles suspended in air to particles that have settled into a residue makes the latter look so much more toxic.

 

[Private Custard]

I enjoy smoking. I don't plan on living long enough for cancer to get me anyway.

I have a bad feeling about Suicidy over here.

Not at all. Well, not yet anyway.

I don't plan on getting old though!

 

[Superbeast]

Ignoring the fact that, as anyone who isn't in extreme denial about being a dick to those around them knows, second hand smoke is actually more damaging than actually smoking,

Got a source for that buddy?

It just doesn't make sense scientifically. Particularly as the tar particles, containing most carcinogens, are trapped in the lungs when you inhale, and the concentration of inhaled smoke is far higher than exhaled smoke, particularly outdoors.

public smokers are just damned inconsiderate. I do not choose to smoke. When you spark up a cigarette at the bus stop, I have to sit there and breathe your smoke or leave and lose my place in the queue or even miss my bus if nobody else hails it.

I always make a point of standing downwind of people when I'm smoking, particularly if there's kids about. So you won't be breathing in my smoke.

People who *****, when smoke isn't going anywhere near them, are damned inconsiderate

If it's raining then I have to go and get soaked if I want to get away. It's the same with people who smoke in shop or pub doorways. I should not have to walk through a cloud of your poison (if you think the term is too harsh then you're an idiot who has no idea what you're actually smoking) just to go about my day.

Well, here in the UK pubs have external smoking areas - which aren't usually near the door.

And yes, I know what I'm smoking - I've studied Biochemistry to a Degree level for frak's sake.

Basically, if you smoke at home with the windows closed or in completely deserted places outdoors then fine, that's ok. If you smoke near another living human being that isn't also smoking, then you're a selfish piece of crap. If you smoke in places where the smoke takes a while to disperse and where other people may have to walk through it during that time, then, yep, selfish piece of crap.

Given the rate of dispersal of smoke, then second-hand smoke out of doors is actually fairly harmless - much less so than car exhaust fumes.

Do you ***** that drivers are extremely inconsiderate for driving down a road that you have to walk down?

Thanks for calling me a selfish piece of crap, knowing nothing about me. Man, you anti-smoking crusade people can be dicks at times.

If I was a cocaine user and went around randomly jabbing my needle into other people, everyone would go nuts about it, smokers included.

So you are comparing smokers to coke addicts now? Big difference - one is legal (and you don't inject coke anyway, cocaine solutions can be extremely damaging).

As it stands, forcing passive smoke upon others is the same thing. No, it's worse, it'd be like walking around injecting some kind of souped up uber-coke into people, due to the whole 'passive smoking is more dangerous' thing.

No, it's not worse. The two are totally different (one being instantly fatal in most cases).

Passive smoke isn't *that* dangerous out-of-doors. Car exhaust is far worse (given the various densities and rates of dispersal) - it's when you smoke inside that second-hand smoke becomes a serious issue.

Please, come back with valid points other than "second hand smoke is worse than actually smoking", "it's the same as injecting other people with cocaine", and "you're a selfish piece of crap".

 

[PunchClockVillain]

I hate these laws. Even before I started buying smokes weekly, I was pissed when Fort Wayne, Indiana passed a law against smoking in bars, clubs, and restaurants. In the end though It turned out to be a good thing because as much as I enjoy it, I wanna fucking breathe as well. It's nice not having the air caked with smoke.

So you hate these laws because it makes it easier you to breathe and you enjoy not having a haze of smoke in the bars? Sorry, you lost me. Or do you hate these laws on principle and enjoy them in practice?

I remember when the law was first passed. Girls from the strip clubs had to stand outside. People driving by got a bit of a show and complained.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, idiots. Eventually they all just put up smoking areas outside or inside the building.

As long as the girls are obeying the public decency laws, I don't see any reason people should be complaining. If you're going to complain about stuff you see driving by a strip club, you really shouldn't be driving by a strip club in the first place.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

I'm not addicted though... I love nicotine rush.

Doesn't really fit, if I'm going to be honest...

 

[AngloDoom]

Maybe I'm wrong, but that 'nicotine rush' thing isn't a 'rush'. It's alleviating the symptoms of cold-turkey.

Put bluntly, it's getting rid of the craving. You're addicted. It's like getting stung by a jellyfish and then pissing on it. You feel nice, but it sure as hell doesn't mean you're getting a piss-rush.

 

[Liberaliter]

Smoke weed instead, it's healthier.

I have had people come back high off weed and paranoid about someone stealing their slice of bread...
I dont know if you consider that healthy but I dont.

Well it kind of is, look up a documentary called 'The Union', really informative.

 

[BluenetteDiviner]

i've been smoking since i was 13, and i am ashamed to say that i'm addicted... i smoke 3-5 cigarettes a day and i go nuts if i go without one for more than 3 days...

:/ bad times...

 

[Eldarion]

Don't smoke, never did.

I hate it being around people who smoke, and as such, I hold my breath as long as possible.

I could care less if you did it privately though. Your lungs you want to destroy, man. Just, don't destroy mine.

Same here. My sinuses are very sensitive to smoke, even when it's dispersed outdoors. I try my best to avoid smokers in public, but it's really hard when so many here at Uni blatantly ignore the '25ft from buildings' rule.

Yhea me too, I have a few breathing conditions and smoke bothers me a lot. Coughing, watery eyes, vomiting, the works.

Don't do it in public places guys. Please.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

For some reason, the fact that someone smokes doesn't really bother me. Its when they run around smelling like disgusting, cheap cigarettes and get the smell all over the place that annoys me.
I must agree that it is a bad idea, though; its best never to start.

Though when I dream, I am often a smoker. o.0
Personally, getting even a waft of smoke gets me into a coughing/sneezing fit.

You have the smoking dream too?! Seriously it weirds me out, im glad im not the only one.

I dont really see the point, if you have smoked for more than a year then you are 100% addicted if you know it or not. You might not feel it now you stick to your routine but stop for a week. Do it. I dare you. Then you will see. No one is "immune" to nicotine to my knowlage, cite me if im wrong. In a public place where loads of people are crammed in i hate it. You know your being a douche but you do it anyway cus your addicted. In your own home i dont care. Its your life, be happy. Also in the street its ok, i oly have to endure 2 seconds of it, not a big deal.

 

[UberNoodle]

Who would want a censored internet?

Let those that chose to partake in smoking smoke. It makes us stronger because we are able to see a different perspective.

Certainly, but let those that don't want to be affected by the smoke, not be affected.
Not smoking doesn't hurt a soul.

Why not just let those that "don't want to be affected by smoking" go to separate smoke-free pubs and restaurants? Why force those of us who do want to smoke to have to go outside, everywhere?

And what about the staff? One could say, 'well get another job' but by the same token, it is not as easy as that. What it comes down to is that smokers are free to do so, but non-smokers are free to NOT do so. It IS unpleasant, sickening and does carry health risks for passive smokers (I get an allergic reaction sometimes). Now, when it comes to 'fairness', which option is perhaps asking entirely too much from a society where smokers are in the minority?

So because smokers are in the minority, it isn't fair to let them have some pubs where they are allowed to smoke? Surely the fair thing to do would be to let staff who do smoke/do not mind second hand smoke (a phenomenon so overstated as to beggar belief, but that's another debate) work for a pub landlord who has the same opinion, to let smokers into their pub and allow them to smoke there. By all means have all the non-smoking pubs you want, but why prevent me from being allowed to smoke in ANY pub?

That would be a wonderful world, where such workers would gladly sign away their workplace health and safety. But I am not taking away your right to smoke. You are free to do so but I really don't see any viable defense for doing it in public spaces. We all have various rights to do various things but we can't always do them wherever and whenever we like. The real issue here are smokers smoking when really, courtesy for others should inform them not to. But if you can find such a pub as you mentioned, then enjoy it, but Public Liability Law would have a field day with such conditions.

And I don't agree that passive smoking is 'overstated beyond belief'. Perhaps only a smoker would think such a thing. No offense, but similarly, I can't see how there can be any 'acceptable' level of passive smoking, just like any other activity that adversly affects the people around you. I know that this introduces the possiblity hypocrisy (ie, what about the rights of smokers?) but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[randomrob]

Well that's fine. If you want to smoke then that's your decision. I don't understand people's objection to smokers. if you don't want to smoke fine (i don't) but you shouldn't try to force your lifestyle choices on other people.

 

[CrysisMcGee]

When I was a little girl, I loved the feeling of soft human flesh between my teeth, & i tell you I got scolded for it worse than you ever did for your weed & cigarettes, & not a day goes by where I don't wich I could just chomp down on somebody's soft chewy arm.

Well okay then. Starting the zombie thing a little early?

 

[freakymojo]

couldnt care less if you do it privatly, highly against it in public. i dont smoke and i dont plan on it lost both my farther and my uncle to lung cancer, none of them were adicts, i know smoking doesnt=instant cancer, but its undeniable that its dangerous for your health and if you dont ever start you dont ever have to fight it to stop smoking or(in a worst case scenario)suffer a long and painful death from cancer.

 

[UberNoodle]

I always make a point of standing downwind of people when I'm smoking, particularly if there's kids about. So you won't be breathing in my smoke.

People who *****, when smoke isn't going anywhere near them, are damned inconsiderate.

Given the rate of dispersal of smoke, then second-hand smoke out of doors is actually fairly harmless - much less so than car exhaust fumes.

Do you ***** that drivers are extremely inconsiderate for driving down a road that you have to walk down?

Thanks for calling me a selfish piece of crap, knowing nothing about me. Man, you anti-smoking crusade people can be dicks at times.

I can understand your anger at those posts but look at this way: that cars eject fumes is a fact of life, and one that can't be avoided. Certainly, anyone that drives a car that spurts out excess pollution is breaking the law, hence a potential ticket from the police. If such a car drove past, most people would be annoyed because the driver would certainly know about the problem yet doesn't mind inflicting that excess on other people.

Regardless of whether or not these fumes are worse than cigarette smoke, is beside the point. That kind of pattern never ends. It doesn't matter how one may be able justify smoke with 'rates of dispersal' and so on, it is still seen as an imposition on the people nearby, and it isn't at all like driving a car.

In terms of being 'downwind', unless one is smoking into a considerable breeze, that never really works. When poeple are upset it's because the smoke is trully bothering them. It might not be bothering them as much as if the smoke came from 'up wind', but the fact remains that the imposition is there. And in return there is an imposition on you.

So what is a smoker to do? He or she can say that they have a right to smoke right there, and continue doing so. Alternatively, he or she can accept the imposition and go elsewhere. The other people's breathing doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and I know that there is also a reciprocal imposition on the smoker, but what's one to do then?

I always hear about 'rights' and people tend to think that they entitle them to impose on others. Well really, they don't. A smoker being made to move can look at it as being 'the bigger man' or however he or she wants to see it, but in order for both parties' rights to be upheld, a compromise is required.

If the zone is in is not a smoking zone, then short of the other group holding their breath, I think smokers have to accept that most people will expect them to move. That's the way it is and I don't disagree. It is like any activity that imposes adversly on others, but in some ways more so. I accept that there is a degree of hypocrisy in that, and definiately it comes down to context.