No Smoking Law

Never understood why some people get upset when people talk on their cell phones in public places. What's the difference between that and talking to a person standing beside them. Same noise.

I don't think it's the actual talking, if they are talking in a normal conversational voice. Many people talk much more loudly on a cell...perhaps they have a bad reception or are hearing impaired and believe that they must increase their own volume to be heard. But I also don't think that anyone is doing it intentionally to be annoying...they're just unaware that they're doing it.

so... like... a lot of ya'll smoke then... do U?

I doubt that. I get the impression that Cheenagringo and I do but not the others (Raqueteer does and so does Canuck Bob)

Like Cheenagringo, I respect others' rights to breathe all the other pollutants in the air but not the smoke that I produce.

I smoke because I have far fewer seizures when I do...interesting the connection between brain synapses and nicotine...the medication is far worse for me than smoking is and I made the decision about 20 years ago to have a shorter but better quality life.

I think this issue is about tolerance for one another. Smoking areas or stepping outside should have been good enough. IMHO Just because people would gather outside the door and smoke and one might have to pass by quickly I don’t believe any harm was done. (one could hold their breath, if they felt the need)

I don’t smoke and for me cologne and scented soaps are far worse because I’m allergic. Have you ever sat on a plane where someone bathed in the stuff? They should have sniff-alyzers set up before boarding. It seems the older we get and the nose capability diminishes the more one puts on the cologne.

One of the original functions of perfume was to conceal or overcome body odor in societies where the custom of bathing regularly hadn't taken hold. Nowadays, perfumes are designed to attract the opposite sex (or possibly insects). I've heard that its use may be counter-productive.
Whatever.........but gawd, it's awful when you're stuck in a small space with someone who overdid it, especially with the "genuine imitation" of the expensive stuff!

The matter of cell phones and any number of other things: It's not about the phone conversation taking place: it's about the self-absorbed oblivion to others; like blocking the store aisles while talking, grabbing more than ones' share of parking space, letting kids/pets annoy others in a restaurant and much, much more..

One of the travel deal newsletters that I subscribe to had an article today titled: "Five Things You Shouldn't Wear on a Plane". Besides the obvious, offensive clothing, tight or uncomfortable shoes, tight clothing, warm weather clothing; they brought up the issue of perfume or cologne. They offered up a novel idea: freshly bathed and fresh clean clothes!

As for the cell phone issue - it is a given that many people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time! Talking on a cell phone falls into the chewing gum category since the world rotation stops while they talk on their cell phone. People give no thought to standing off to the side and out of the way while they deal with that all important phone call. We have all experienced people talking on a cell phone while driving and it is often very evident that they are off in a "zone" that doesn't include paying attention to their driving.

Big News, smoking helps brain function and stops brain cell death. Could smokers be smarter than you think?

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031012195753data_trunc_sys.shtml

Great news. May I suggest pure nicotine ingestion, perhaps in the form of a brownie?
That would shut up all those pesky non-smokers in the diner, too. Perfect solution.

gringal wrote:

The matter of cell phones and any number of other things: It's not about the phone conversation taking place: it's about the self-absorbed oblivion to others; like blocking the store aisles while talking, grabbing more than ones' share of parking space, letting kids/pets annoy others in a restaurant and much, much more..

That goes on wherever you will find yourself. Just as common in Safeway as Trader Joe's.

The scandal of antismoking legislation.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234216-The-Scientific-Scandal-of-Antismoking

excerpt:

So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

another:

Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several - eg smoking, diet and exercise - should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments. In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result.

This is sounding like a crusade. I never get in discussions with crusaders, no matter what the topic.
I'll leave any rebuttals to others.

Is someone cooking fish? Why is there a strong smell of fish?

There's nothing fishy going on Rolly.

Sometimes medicine and research and approved medicines have to backtrack because they made errors of judgement.

Remember the "daily asprin regimen" touted as the holy grail in protecting from heart attacks and stroke? Well, you may go blind from that regimen (4%) due to wet macular degeneration of the eyes.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/224340/20111004/amd-age-related-macular-degeneration-blindness-vision-loss-aspirin-netherlands-institute-for-neurosc.htm

Smoking is also recommended for those who suffer from Crohn's Disease.

My mum was the only one of nine who never smoked in her life...all the others lived well into their 90's and were sharp until they day they passed. Mum died of Alzheimer's at the age of 82...or I could say that she "died" at age 75.

It's not a crusade...just statin' that broad sweeping generalizations don't take into account genetics or environment.

BTW Gringal...a patch nicotine system doesn't provide the same relief...aaaannnddd, even I can't eat 20 brownies a day. ;)

raqueteer wrote:The scandal of antismoking legislation.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234216-The-Scientific-Scandal-of-Antismoking

excerpt:

So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

another:

Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several - eg smoking, diet and exercise - should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments. In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result.

So, I guess I can go back to smoking again, well, I have to tell you, I don't think I will. Although the above research results may suggest that I could, and still live as long as I expect to, I don't know if I could live the way I would like to if I couldn't walk. The decision to quit more than ten years ago, was motivated by the frequent trips to a physiotherapist because I had numbness in my lower extremities, and the occasional giving out of my legs causing me to stumble, all though very infrequent, it still caused me worry.

It then, so happened that there was a period when I entered into a long weekend, broke, therefore preferring eating to smoking, I was four days without a smoke, and upon waking on the fourth day, found that there was no numbness in my legs. upon confessing this to a Chinese doctor at work who was unable to practice in Canada, suggested that my blood was beginning to flow through my body better, because smoking caused blood vessels and veins to constrict and reduce the flow of blood throughout the body, which she confirmed.

So, since I no longer cough when waking up in the morning, or growl or whatever that sound was when clearing my throat, and never again experiencing any numbness anywhere on my body, except when Tequila is involved, I think I will continue to be, "A Born Again Non-Smoker" but hey for those who do "if you got em smoke em" . I do have to admit I did really enjoy a smoke with a good cup of coffee in the morning, or when imbibing a glass of Rum and Coke, Thanks the gods that I can still do that.

Oops, so sorry for the long diatribe...

@SnowDaddy,
excellent post. It is true that smoking is a vasoconstrictor. Rum and Tequila on the other hand are vasodilators.
That was not a long diatribe, it was a well thought out and intelligent response to the proposition that smoking might not be all that bad for you. In your case, you had personal evidence that cigarettes were doing some harm, therefore made a smart choice. One size does not fit all here. I, on the other hand have no coughing and no problem with my legs. Therefore will continue to smoke.

@ferret, also an excellent post, could not have said it better myself. In my family, my great grandfather was a chain smoker and drank a fairly hefty number of scotch whiskeys per day. He lived to 97, and pegged out after winning a game of cards with his housekeeper. Great way to go.

The point here is that science does not have all the answers, and one should not automatically believe everything you hear. Smoking is a personal choice and we smokers do not appreciate having it turned into an agenda and a witch hunt.

That wasn't a diatribe, Snowdaddy. That was a testimonial.

Ya gotta watch that tequila........after enough shots, you won't feel nothing, nowhere.

If I can`t smoke mah dope, and the twitchy little junkie over there can`t smoke his crack in an establishment.... I see no reason why ya`ll should be allowed to smoke yer tabacco...

just say`n is all...

Hockables, last time I looked cigarettes were legal, and sold at pretty much every corner store.

Just sayin'

don't make it right or wrong... I wuz talking about fair...

and who choses to make pot illegal? are they right or wrong?

what about medicinal purposes? ... is there a right or wrong...

why can't even governments within a single country come to a consensus...

oh... I stand corrected ... they are reaching a consensus on one thing... no smoking in the * @4# restaurant

hockables wrote: don't make it right or wrong... I wuz talking about fair...

and who choses to make pot illegal? are they right or wrong?

what about medicinal purposes? ... is there a right or wrong...

why can't even governments within a single country come to a consensus...

oh... I stand corrected ... they are reaching a consensus on one thing... no smoking in the * @4# restaurant

100% in agreement with you there. I too think that pot should be legal for medicinal purposes. However, those who make the rules think otherwise. Ours not to reason why.
As far as 4 goes, they can stick a fork in it. Never liked the place anyhow.

hockables wrote:so... like... a lot of ya'll smoke then... do U?

I never smoked - but I have asthma. I asked the lung specialist when I was in the hospital how I got asthma - never worked around chemicals or smoked - he looked at my questionaire and said - your parents both smoked didn't they? He said that exposure was the most likely cause. They smoked until the kitchen was blue and for 19 years that was the air I breathed. 2 1/2 packs each parent per day. I thought all kitchens had gimy brown walls - until I got my own home - no grimy brown walls anywhere. It was the cigarette smoke - my father washed the kitchen walls every year. Now I can't be near any smoker - I have to leave a restaurant if anyone near me starts smoking.

Disclaimer: My post has absolutely nothing to do with Simpsca personally but it does lead to a potentially interesting discussion.

First, lets disclaim or ignore what all of the "Nanny"countries like the US and various EU nations have done. At what point does a permanent or temporary medical condition or a permanent or temporary physical condition, dictate how society in general, government and/or businesses accommodate issues of a select few dictate accommodation to one's special needs or requirements?

Traditionally, Mexico hasn't been all than accommodating towards special needs but are things changing? Whether we are talking about special parking places, ramps for the handicapped, sidewalks that can be walked on, lifts or elevators to second floor restaurants, special sections in restaurants away from the fumes of the kitchen or smokers in outdoor areas, accommodation to service dogs - it all can make for an interesting discussion.

The owner of "The Thirsty Turtle" is quoted by another poster on TOB.

Daniel has ignored the non smoking issue saying the "non smokers can be outside" .

TOB organized their "meet and greet" party at the Turtle on the 12th. How jolly.

arbon wrote:The owner of "The Thirsty Turtle" is quoted by another poster on TOB.

Daniel has ignored the non smoking issue saying the "non smokers can be outside" .

Someone should report him and watch his face as he gets fined $ 20,000. pesos. He'll change his tune then.