10
   

smoking and discontents

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 11:50 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

well, my comments are really not about smoking but rather about inane regulation, ie Steve McQueen (failing all accepted cancer treatments) decided to try some apricot pit remedy banned in california and maybe in the USA at large. So, he went routinely to mexico to buy this "medication" all of which had no impact on anyone else. I believe his rights were violated. someone who chooses to smoke in their own yard/property has the right to do so. I believe this is an example of why I'm a liberal instead of a democrat. (similar to "banning " ads for medications. Democrats seem to favor regulating behavior above and beyond the welfare of society (mostly on the basis of "I don't approve therefor I want a law against it"

My post was in response to something osso said. I didn't read the rest of this thread, yet. I don't agree with regulations that stop one from smoking, at home or otherwise. It's like anything else. We have the right to do anything we choose, so long as we do no harm to others. My personal dislike of tobacco should be no barometer.

By the way, my take on McQueen - he had already gone too far to be saved by any treatment out there, by the time he gave up on the establishment's treatments. He esentially died while still under 'accepted' protocols.
0 Replies
 
simonaderson
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:51 am
@ossobuco,
hi................................
A condition where the lining between the alveoli in the lungs is destroyed.
This is a dramatically reduces the surface area available for the diffusion of oxygen into the blood and carbon dioxide out of the blood.
This leaves the sufferer breathless, tired and with a lack of energy.
thanks
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 06:08 am
As long as cigs are legal these laws are stupid.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:01 am
Quote:
"The public is going to just think of us as these zealots who want to ban smoking everywhere," he said. "It's going to make it even harder to pass legitimate smoking regulations in states that don't currently have them."

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation counted more than 450 municipalities with policies of smoke-free parks and more than 200 with smokeless beaches, including Los Angeles.

And there are signs that anti-smoking ordinances could get tougher in the future, with some communities extending bans into private homes, especially apartment buildings where secondhand smoke can permeate into other units.


"The public is going to just think of us as these zealots who want to ban smoking everywhere," he said. "It's going to make it even harder to pass legitimate smoking regulations in states that don't currently have them."

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation counted more than 450 municipalities with policies of smoke-free parks and more than 200 with smokeless beaches, including Los Angeles.

And there are signs that anti-smoking ordinances could get tougher in the future, with some communities extending bans into private homes, especially apartment buildings where secondhand smoke can permeate into other units.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022001538_2.html?hpid=sec-health

This is another indication that it is time to take a hatchet to government.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 03:18 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
yes I suppose David you would support senseless regulations (such as gun controls) amazing,
here I am supporting Helen's belief in personanal rights while taking offense at David's support
of BBB's style on nanny government.
I 'm a big believer in self-defense.
That includes defense from gas warfare,
also including getting STUNK OUT.

If u show how someone HAS the personal right
to stink out his fellow citizens, THEN, I will go over to your position.
I re-iterate that if the offensive air borne substance REMAINS
on the smoker's real estate, then his nabors have no right to interfere.

Do u allege that homeowners have the right to burn rubber tires in their yards ?





David
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 03:29 pm
A doctor, who specialized in allergies, told me a person cannot be allergic to smoke. Allergens are caused by protiens, which smoke does not have. However, smoke can irritate lungs, throats and so on.
If these rules prevail, will perfume/cologne be next?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 03:36 pm
@Ceili,
Quote:
If these rules prevail, will perfume/cologne be next?
Something will, there is always the next step when the dominance/submission dynamic becomes static. I dont know about you Canucks, but Americans have had about enough of being ordered around by our government.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 04:18 pm
People whine with good reason about smog in Los Angeles, though it is much better now than in the late forties and fifties (I was there then too; stats I've read back me up on that, or at least did when I read them.) I was a lucky kid and later adult in that I lived quite near the ocean, 26 years in Venice, about ten blks from the ocean, and a bunch more years before that at about 30 blocks from the ocean. We had the breezes/winds blowing inland for most of the year, thus pollution tended to travel way inland. Except, except, except, under Santa Ana conditions, where all the dreck went westward.. the beach would suddenly be full of styrofoam coffee cups, etc.

Apropo of being able to smoke in my front yard, should I wish - there is air and there are breezes. Given bus diesel and car exhausts, random tb filled spittle, leaf blowers to drive you nuts, pollutants in the bay, garbage in my food stuffs, a cigarette or two don't rank high on my registry. As the proscription in Santa Monica stands, if it stands, one would have to stand at the curb (i.e., by the flow of exhaust spewing traffic) to catch a smoke.

Then there's the policing - I'm just picturing that.

That said, I've had many friends with COPD or with asthma that do react to smoke. Simple courtesy says to watch your smoking manners.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 04:45 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

A doctor, who specialized in allergies, told me a person cannot be allergic to smoke. Allergens are caused by protiens, which smoke does not have. However, smoke can irritate lungs, throats and so on.
If these rules prevail, will perfume/cologne be next?


I can attest to that. I used to smoke a pack a day, but quit more than 15 years ago. Since that time, I've had bacterial lung infections and once scorched my lungs with cleaning chemicals to the point that I needed urgent medical help with breathing.

I am now very sensitive to any kind of smoke in the air whether it is from cigarettes, fireplaces or grass fires. When the dusty winds start blowing around here, or when the air is full of pollen, I notice that I wheeze more. I can't take strong vapors from cleaning fluids anymore either, especially Pinesol and Formula 409.

When I'm not around that kind of stuff, my breathing is fine. I don't expect others to curtail their habits, I just try not to be anywhere near the source of the irritant so I can breathe easier.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 05:00 pm
@Butrflynet,
Even I, once an inveterate smoker extraordinaire, had to leave a group of friends because of the smoke once, maybe because of asthma developed in the first place for other reasons making my lungs sensitive.

A lot of people seem to react to perfumery. I'm unaware of it, because of my lifelong lame sense of smell. Interesting question by Ceili.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 05:23 pm
@Butrflynet,
If you spray that Formula 409 overhead and inhale the mist, you are going to react, regardless of the state of your lungs. Darn stuff does work pretty well, though.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 05:32 pm
@roger,
I used it to clean out the shower in my apartment in Sacramento. Had all the windows open and the ceiling exhaust fan going, also wore one of those white painter's masks.

It still got to my lungs rather badly.

Now I can't even be near Pinesol fumes in hot water. I'm okay if it is cold water, but the steam from hot water seems to help it permeate my lungs quicker.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 06:24 pm
@Butrflynet,
And if you are ever offered a hot slice of hot gooseberry pie, either let it cool or don't inhale. Not every irritant is an allergy.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 06:40 pm
@roger,
Sure. But if you already have asthmatic lungs an irritant can shut you down. I hadn't had asthma in year, and was walking down the street with business partner in northern california one winter day and went into asthma tharn from the cold. She passed me her inhaler, and the episode passed. Whereupon I went to the doctors and got my own inhaler.

Back in the old days when I had allergic rhinitis, going in and out of an air conditioned place could set my nose fountain sneeze mobile running on FAST.

We know irritants aren't all allergies. They can shut you down anyway.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 07:02 pm
I know this isn't addressing the main purpose of this thread, but it's something I often wonder about...

If all tobacco use ended, I wonder how many lives would be effected in a positive way?

All the people that will never get cancer, lung disease, heart disease etc., or have to deal with someone who does. Not to mention how many more won't have to be disgusted and offended.

I'd say millions within a very short time (for the first part alone)

Sure we can develop those health problems with having never smoked, but it's not nearly as likely. If one did develope those diseases, at least you would know you did not contribute to it in that way.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 07:36 pm
I smoked for years, until the unrelenting coolness it lent me was finally too much to take.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 09:13 pm
@Gargamel,
http://blog.perfectspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/pregnant-woman-smoking-worried-about-noise.jpg
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:23 pm
@chai2,
I know, she's smoking Camel Filters! Everyone knows pregnant women should switch to Lights, or even Light 100s.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:26 pm
@Gargamel,
I thought menthols were good for the breast milk.

minty fresh baby breath...
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:28 pm
@Rockhead,
Oh, I'm all for menthols after the baby is born five weeks early.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How to inspire students to quit smoking? - Discussion by dagmaraka
Kicking the habit - Discussion by Cliff Hanger
Back when smoking was allowed on the plane - Discussion by inretrospective
How Does Smoking Harm The Environment? - Discussion by pearltasty
Smoking in movies: think of the children! - Discussion by joefromchicago
Do you smoke cigarettes? - Question by chai2
Does smoking really cause Erectile Dysfunction? - Question by Jennifer Malone
Lung Cancer News - Discussion by ossobucotemp
The Positive Side To Smoking - Question by mark noble
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 07:57:25