I must say it's an interesting mindset to have: but I still think you're underestimating what impact it will have on you.
I remember I had a chest infection as a child and I couldn't get enough breath to blow my nose and felt half a chest short of air. Not a pleasant experience and it was a fairly mild case and it was cleared up by a short hospital stay and medicine.
I guess it comes down to attitude about things: I won't say you're too addicted to even try giving up, but perhaps I'll say that you're too lazy and too "it won't really happen to me" to try and give up. Same thing applies to people eating hamburgers every day and ending up obese: eating fatty food is enjoyable, everyone likes a bit of grease. Difference is that some people know that it's bad for them and cut down or show restraint. They can give the same arguments as you: "oh I know I might die of heart disease and heart failure, but my grandfater was fat and he went quietly", "I know the risks but I choose to enjoy eating my 3 hamburgers and 2 hot dogs a day"
Perhaps you're of the viewpoint that all the education stuff on smoking is just propaganda and that's why you have decided that you know better and that it isn't as bad as all that. Perhaps you got the idea that a death from smoking is just a case of going to sleep. Generally when old people die they do just pass away in their sleep. The difference really is the quality of life up until that point and how much of a restriction their earlier choices have put on their life.
Similar to education choices when young have a lasting impact upon the rest of your life: you decide to drop out of school halfway through highschool then it will be rather difficult to become a rocket scientist. Sure it might have been fun bumming around and not having to do uni assignments, but that's a fairly short lived thing. Smoking cos you enjoy it and get to talk to random people at uni a bit easier is the short lived benefit, the longer term impact is that certain things are going to be off limits to you: scuba diving might be a bit more difficult, climbing a mountain, going for a jog (or hell.. having to run to catch a plane), playing with your kids and eventually the "act" of not needing a ventilator and chemotherapy etc etc..
So anyhow, yes there's choice.. I just don't think it's as forward a thinking one as it needs to be if that's your choice..
My apologies for assuming you were going to say that. It's usually put forward as a "right" of smokers to do whatever they like in their own home. Which in the context of what I was saying about babies and children not being able to choose was fair enough I thought, but again.. sorry if that offended you.
As for whether my comparing smoking to poisoning is a high or low argument, I think it's well known that cigarettes are pretty much purely a cancer producing nasty product. So sidestepping around the notion that cigarettes are a poison is pretty pointless really and avoids confronting what I think is a very valid point. Your friends' less than 6 and smoking outside but then inside after that still exposes kids that have no other choice than to put up with the passive smoking.
The learning right vs wrong: well I think it is generally regarded that it is regarded as hypocritical to say one thing and do another. It makes the position of parent/mentor/teacher much less effective if they have obvious shortcomings on the topic that they are trying to impart knowledge. Granted: there's the argument about being able to speak knowledgably about something because they're smokers, but generally kids are going to use the fact their parents smoke as an excuse and as "well you smoke, so why can't I" if the parent says they can't smoke.
What your smoking has to do with whether a child grows up to make their own mind up or not I'm not sure. That sounds like yet another excuse for you to keep on justifying smoking.:) Although there are a number of studies that show that children around passive smoking are more likely to have learning disabilities, poorer health etc, so perhaps that's a consideration if you truelly want to bring up the child to have the best chance in life? Disclaimer: I don't have kids by the way, so I'm not speaking from a parental position.
As for the last bit: well I point these things out because only a complete idiot would ignore the vast and conclusive evidence and still smoke. 20-30 cigarettes is a scary amount: I don't think that qualifies as "chosen very carefully". Addiction is not "chosen very carefully", it's a case of "don't have the will power to change". So I guess it comes down to should you feel bad about admitting defeat and letting addiction have control over you and your health.. That's entirely up to you. I'm in a situation where I haven't had to try and overcome all the tricks and chemicals the cigarette companies have put in cigarettes to get people addicted.
If you've chosen so carefully: have you gone to a hospital with dying lung cancer patients? Actually seen what you're most likely "in for"? Not many people would choose that if they are fully aware.
Anyhow, perhaps you're right: it's your choice, I just happen to feel that smoking is the result of a handful of nasty amoral companies who if they had any sort of conscience they'd stop selling cigarettes tomorrow and have done everything in their power scientifically/chemically/politically and socially to ensure that anyone who falls into their trap does NOT have a choice from that point onwards.
Would you say you had an easy choice in the matter to stop?
aah, what australia are you living in?:)
The anti smoking campaigns don't ever say "this will 100% give you cancer", they say imply "is likely" or "it may most likely" give you cancer.. They just present the fact that if you smoke you are much much more likely to get some nasty cancer. Is that lying? Maybe you don't know anyone who's died from smoking YET, but stick around long enough and you will. I have few friends that smoke, but those that do are a bit older (in their 30's/40's) and they're already sounding pretty rough (coughing, bit breathless when having to do much exercise). Another 10-15 years and they're going to be in serious trouble I think.
I think if you smoke long enough everyone will get cancer eventually, but perhaps something else will kill 'em first. Some are lucky and do live to be 100, but I wonder how long would they have lived had they not smoked? Some people have good genetics and are unlikely to get cancer though.. But I know a lot of oldies that had strokes and spend a lot of time on ventilators who smoked.. And it ain't pretty.
The "it may cause blindness" ads: I haven't seen that, but smoking (if you've looked into the medical side of it) makes just about anything you're suffering from worse: blood pressure, cancer, lung/liver/kidney function, blood circulation (the bit they don't talk about much.. but which results in horrible growths on people's skin when they get older), diabetes is exacerbated (which can cause blindness), and yes: vision is affected. So if you're predisposed to blindness, guess what will help speed things along a bit? They also say "smoking while pregnant will harm your baby", do you dispute this because there may be one baby in a million that isn't affected in some way?
But I agree with the comment about the ads on TV: I'm a non smoker and some of those were pretty hardcore, but then again, so were the AIDS ones back a while back (remember the ones with the grim reaper and the bed of needles one.. scared the shit out of me as a kid). If it was just banned there would be no need.. That would be a much more affective use of funds: ban cigarettes full stop. Would be fairly cheap really, no need to come up with ad campaigns and organising school programmes to educate kids, no worrying about definitions about what's non-smoking enclosed areas and what's smoking areas in pubs.. No more paying to empty ashtrays, false call outs due to smoking inside, housefires, cigarette butts.. etc..
aah.. wouldn't that be the easier option..
It's not so much that the children will end up smoking (although that's a major concern too), it is that in the case of babies and young children they're too young to know that smoking is damaging them.
What child is going to know that it's not ok for mum or dad to be smoking inside next to their crib or in the living room while they're watching TV. And before you start with the "it's my own home" stuff, it's NOT ok to smoke around babies and the like, any more than it is to feed 'em small amounts of arsenic in their food. Although the law doesn't regard the two as the same: they're both carcinogenic and known to damage health especially in the very young.
So while you may be "smoking for yourself", you're impacting others. That's the big issue that non smokers have with smokers generally, and in the case of the "think of the children" argument: the smokers obviously aren't thinking of the children if they smoke anywhere near them. Developing lungs, brain and body are much more likely to be impacted than a mature adults.
On the later topic of making their own decisions: we learn from our parents right or wrong. If mum and/or dad smoke, then what hope is there of you as parents being able to convince a child not to take up a habit that will result in a painful drawn out death, inability to exercise without gasping for breath and general ill health for years..
Firstly: the only one being selfish is the smoker in this case. The air was smoke free, and the smoker polluted it. There's nothing selfish about wanting the area to be smoke free so that all people not just smokers and smoke tolerant people can enjoy it. Smokers can put up with fresh air a lot more easily than non smokers can put up with smokey air.
The bit about "not liking how their clothes smell when they get back from a bar" is I think a PERFECTLY valid reason to dislike smoking in a place and to want the right to not having to come home stinking like an ashtray back. I hate being forced to have a shower before bed after having had a shower a few hours earlier, but stopping by a bar with smokers for a half hour on the way home to catch up with a friend. Given how much clothes and hair stink from the cigarettes: I think it's a fairly safe assumption that my lungs have absorbed quite a bit of crap from someone else's cigarettes (and I've never smoked a cigarette in my life)
Just because there is already other sources of pollution (cars, industrial pollution) does NOT mean that smoking is somehow excused. By that token we could say "oh, there's background radiation.. so you won't mind if we dump this radioactive waste next door".
Using SUV's as a way to excuse smoking?? Interesting approach.. What was that about selfish again?
You're forgetting the common practice of cigarette smokers: stubbing out cigarette butts on the ground all over the place. Just look at anywhere that smokers congregate and you'll see that they've ashed and butted up the place to a pretty dirty level. There's no such thing as a clean cigarette or a clean smoker (they all have to exhale after all).
Filthy, pointless, hamful habit. You're forgetting the workers that have to breathe in the smoke too you can probably thank the increase in smoking bans in public places for keeping the lawsuits low in future years when non-smoking bar staff turn around and sue their employers for cancer contracted through working in a pub.. That's the major reason smoking is being phased out everywhere in Australia at least (the concept of a "Safe working environment").
I've often wondered whether smokers would appreciate me spraying some nasty smelling toilet deoderiser in the air around them. The impact is the same: the nasty smell, probably sting their eyes a bit, they'd have to wash their clothes upon going home and they'd feel conscious of the fact that they stink outside the pub..
hear hear! As a certified software engineer it pisses me off when people who do nothing more than hack together code, who have never heard of the notion of a software process, UML, design, testing etc etc
The term engineer is usually hijaacked by people who wouldn't make it through first year of an engineering degree.
A Software engineer is an Engineer with a specialty of software.. Not some random person who writes software.
Fry: "that's it! I'm going to drink a hundred cups of coffee, starting now!"
Bender: "You been up all night fry.. cos you look greasy.. REAL greasy."
Fry: "I didn't sleep last night, not because of coffee, but because I couldn't stop thinking about coffee."
If you check out the average American news source... there is very little international coverage. Contrast this to news in Australia, Canada, the UK etc and you will see why it is easy for a US citizen to be unaware of the world around them. Hell, most news shown on TV seems to barely make it out of the state, let alone the US!
Fact is it doesn't make financial sense to cover the world events because 1) Americans don't know or care about most of the places that will pop up in news stories 2) It is much more lucrative to be focusing in on the murders and local news.
The world news you supposedly follow is most likely "US Iraqi conflict" and nothing more. Swap CNN for the BBC or the Sydney Morning Herald and you'll start to see a bit more of world news and events.
Slashdot Mirror
I must say it's an interesting mindset to have: but I still think you're underestimating what impact it will have on you.
I remember I had a chest infection as a child and I couldn't get enough breath to blow my nose and felt half a chest short of air. Not a pleasant experience and it was a fairly mild case and it was cleared up by a short hospital stay and medicine.
I guess it comes down to attitude about things: I won't say you're too addicted to even try giving up, but perhaps I'll say that you're too lazy and too "it won't really happen to me" to try and give up. Same thing applies to people eating hamburgers every day and ending up obese: eating fatty food is enjoyable, everyone likes a bit of grease. Difference is that some people know that it's bad for them and cut down or show restraint. They can give the same arguments as you: "oh I know I might die of heart disease and heart failure, but my grandfater was fat and he went quietly", "I know the risks but I choose to enjoy eating my 3 hamburgers and 2 hot dogs a day"
Perhaps you're of the viewpoint that all the education stuff on smoking is just propaganda and that's why you have decided that you know better and that it isn't as bad as all that. Perhaps you got the idea that a death from smoking is just a case of going to sleep. Generally when old people die they do just pass away in their sleep. The difference really is the quality of life up until that point and how much of a restriction their earlier choices have put on their life.
Similar to education choices when young have a lasting impact upon the rest of your life: you decide to drop out of school halfway through highschool then it will be rather difficult to become a rocket scientist. Sure it might have been fun bumming around and not having to do uni assignments, but that's a fairly short lived thing. Smoking cos you enjoy it and get to talk to random people at uni a bit easier is the short lived benefit, the longer term impact is that certain things are going to be off limits to you: scuba diving might be a bit more difficult, climbing a mountain, going for a jog (or hell.. having to run to catch a plane), playing with your kids and eventually the "act" of not needing a ventilator and chemotherapy etc etc..
So anyhow, yes there's choice.. I just don't think it's as forward a thinking one as it needs to be if that's your choice..
My apologies for assuming you were going to say that. It's usually put forward as a "right" of smokers to do whatever they like in their own home. Which in the context of what I was saying about babies and children not being able to choose was fair enough I thought, but again.. sorry if that offended you.
:) Although there are a number of studies that show that children around passive smoking are more likely to have learning disabilities, poorer health etc, so perhaps that's a consideration if you truelly want to bring up the child to have the best chance in life? Disclaimer: I don't have kids by the way, so I'm not speaking from a parental position.
As for whether my comparing smoking to poisoning is a high or low argument, I think it's well known that cigarettes are pretty much purely a cancer producing nasty product. So sidestepping around the notion that cigarettes are a poison is pretty pointless really and avoids confronting what I think is a very valid point. Your friends' less than 6 and smoking outside but then inside after that still exposes kids that have no other choice than to put up with the passive smoking.
The learning right vs wrong: well I think it is generally regarded that it is regarded as hypocritical to say one thing and do another. It makes the position of parent/mentor/teacher much less effective if they have obvious shortcomings on the topic that they are trying to impart knowledge. Granted: there's the argument about being able to speak knowledgably about something because they're smokers, but generally kids are going to use the fact their parents smoke as an excuse and as "well you smoke, so why can't I" if the parent says they can't smoke.
What your smoking has to do with whether a child grows up to make their own mind up or not I'm not sure. That sounds like yet another excuse for you to keep on justifying smoking.
As for the last bit: well I point these things out because only a complete idiot would ignore the vast and conclusive evidence and still smoke. 20-30 cigarettes is a scary amount: I don't think that qualifies as "chosen very carefully". Addiction is not "chosen very carefully", it's a case of "don't have the will power to change". So I guess it comes down to should you feel bad about admitting defeat and letting addiction have control over you and your health.. That's entirely up to you. I'm in a situation where I haven't had to try and overcome all the tricks and chemicals the cigarette companies have put in cigarettes to get people addicted.
If you've chosen so carefully: have you gone to a hospital with dying lung cancer patients? Actually seen what you're most likely "in for"? Not many people would choose that if they are fully aware.
Anyhow, perhaps you're right: it's your choice, I just happen to feel that smoking is the result of a handful of nasty amoral companies who if they had any sort of conscience they'd stop selling cigarettes tomorrow and have done everything in their power scientifically/chemically/politically and socially to ensure that anyone who falls into their trap does NOT have a choice from that point onwards.
Would you say you had an easy choice in the matter to stop?
aah, what australia are you living in? :)
The anti smoking campaigns don't ever say "this will 100% give you cancer", they say imply "is likely" or "it may most likely" give you cancer.. They just present the fact that if you smoke you are much much more likely to get some nasty cancer. Is that lying? Maybe you don't know anyone who's died from smoking YET, but stick around long enough and you will. I have few friends that smoke, but those that do are a bit older (in their 30's/40's) and they're already sounding pretty rough (coughing, bit breathless when having to do much exercise). Another 10-15 years and they're going to be in serious trouble I think.
I think if you smoke long enough everyone will get cancer eventually, but perhaps something else will kill 'em first. Some are lucky and do live to be 100, but I wonder how long would they have lived had they not smoked? Some people have good genetics and are unlikely to get cancer though.. But I know a lot of oldies that had strokes and spend a lot of time on ventilators who smoked.. And it ain't pretty.
The "it may cause blindness" ads: I haven't seen that, but smoking (if you've looked into the medical side of it) makes just about anything you're suffering from worse: blood pressure, cancer, lung/liver/kidney function, blood circulation (the bit they don't talk about much.. but which results in horrible growths on people's skin when they get older), diabetes is exacerbated (which can cause blindness), and yes: vision is affected. So if you're predisposed to blindness, guess what will help speed things along a bit? They also say "smoking while pregnant will harm your baby", do you dispute this because there may be one baby in a million that isn't affected in some way?
But I agree with the comment about the ads on TV: I'm a non smoker and some of those were pretty hardcore, but then again, so were the AIDS ones back a while back (remember the ones with the grim reaper and the bed of needles one.. scared the shit out of me as a kid). If it was just banned there would be no need.. That would be a much more affective use of funds: ban cigarettes full stop. Would be fairly cheap really, no need to come up with ad campaigns and organising school programmes to educate kids, no worrying about definitions about what's non-smoking enclosed areas and what's smoking areas in pubs.. No more paying to empty ashtrays, false call outs due to smoking inside, housefires, cigarette butts.. etc..
aah.. wouldn't that be the easier option..
It's not so much that the children will end up smoking (although that's a major concern too), it is that in the case of babies and young children they're too young to know that smoking is damaging them. What child is going to know that it's not ok for mum or dad to be smoking inside next to their crib or in the living room while they're watching TV. And before you start with the "it's my own home" stuff, it's NOT ok to smoke around babies and the like, any more than it is to feed 'em small amounts of arsenic in their food. Although the law doesn't regard the two as the same: they're both carcinogenic and known to damage health especially in the very young. So while you may be "smoking for yourself", you're impacting others. That's the big issue that non smokers have with smokers generally, and in the case of the "think of the children" argument: the smokers obviously aren't thinking of the children if they smoke anywhere near them. Developing lungs, brain and body are much more likely to be impacted than a mature adults. On the later topic of making their own decisions: we learn from our parents right or wrong. If mum and/or dad smoke, then what hope is there of you as parents being able to convince a child not to take up a habit that will result in a painful drawn out death, inability to exercise without gasping for breath and general ill health for years..
Firstly: the only one being selfish is the smoker in this case.
The air was smoke free, and the smoker polluted it. There's nothing selfish about wanting the area to be smoke free so that all people not just smokers and smoke tolerant people can enjoy it. Smokers can put up with fresh air a lot more easily than non smokers can put up with smokey air.
The bit about "not liking how their clothes smell when they get back from a bar" is I think a PERFECTLY valid reason to dislike smoking in a place and to want the right to not having to come home stinking like an ashtray back. I hate being forced to have a shower before bed after having had a shower a few hours earlier, but stopping by a bar with smokers for a half hour on the way home to catch up with a friend. Given how much clothes and hair stink from the cigarettes: I think it's a fairly safe assumption that my lungs have absorbed quite a bit of crap from someone else's cigarettes (and I've never smoked a cigarette in my life)
Just because there is already other sources of pollution (cars, industrial pollution) does NOT mean that smoking is somehow excused. By that token we could say "oh, there's background radiation.. so you won't mind if we dump this radioactive waste next door".
Using SUV's as a way to excuse smoking?? Interesting approach.. What was that about selfish again?
You're forgetting the common practice of cigarette smokers: stubbing out cigarette butts on the ground all over the place. Just look at anywhere that smokers congregate and you'll see that they've ashed and butted up the place to a pretty dirty level. There's no such thing as a clean cigarette or a clean smoker (they all have to exhale after all).
Filthy, pointless, hamful habit. You're forgetting the workers that have to breathe in the smoke too you can probably thank the increase in smoking bans in public places for keeping the lawsuits low in future years when non-smoking bar staff turn around and sue their employers for cancer contracted through working in a pub.. That's the major reason smoking is being phased out everywhere in Australia at least (the concept of a "Safe working environment").
I've often wondered whether smokers would appreciate me spraying some nasty smelling toilet deoderiser in the air around them. The impact is the same: the nasty smell, probably sting their eyes a bit, they'd have to wash their clothes upon going home and they'd feel conscious of the fact that they stink outside the pub..
hear hear! As a certified software engineer it pisses me off when people who do nothing more than hack together code, who have never heard of the notion of a software process, UML, design, testing etc etc The term engineer is usually hijaacked by people who wouldn't make it through first year of an engineering degree. A Software engineer is an Engineer with a specialty of software.. Not some random person who writes software.
Fry: "that's it! I'm going to drink a hundred cups of coffee, starting now!" Bender: "You been up all night fry.. cos you look greasy.. REAL greasy." Fry: "I didn't sleep last night, not because of coffee, but because I couldn't stop thinking about coffee."
Fosters? You mean that crap beer we make just for export..? (which no self respecting aussie would touch with a barge pole?)
If you check out the average American news source... there is very little international coverage. Contrast this to news in Australia, Canada, the UK etc and you will see why it is easy for a US citizen to be unaware of the world around them. Hell, most news shown on TV seems to barely make it out of the state, let alone the US!
Fact is it doesn't make financial sense to cover the world events because
1) Americans don't know or care about most of the places that will pop up in news stories
2) It is much more lucrative to be focusing in on the murders and local news.
The world news you supposedly follow is most likely "US Iraqi conflict" and nothing more.
Swap CNN for the BBC or the Sydney Morning Herald and you'll start to see a bit more of world news and events.