Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Skier wrote:ofblong: We have these nifty gadgets called exhaust fans. Keeps a lot of that evil smoke vented outside to the atmosphere.

I'd really like to see business owners have a choice for being a smoking or non smoking establishment. We'd have those who don't care for smoke/are physically affected by it in the non-smoking businesses and those of us who enjoy poisoning our bodies can do so without fake coughing or other ridiculous behavior some anti-smokers love to employ.

Everyone wins but the government!

So the government makes sure they are seen as the power and not the people.

I dont care how many exhaust fans you use someone who is (to put it in not so correct terms) allergic to cig smoke is not going to be able to go into that building. Am I saying you shouldnt be able to have a "place of zen" no not in any way. I will say that the mississippi government was (not sure if it still is) trying to ban fat people from going into restaurants. But what do you consider to be fat? If they have a little bit of a belly do you turn them away?

Skier wrote:

sv-wolf wrote:The idea that my views 'have been skewed' as a result of a 'hypersensitivity' is just a way of avoiding real engagement with the problem and I resent its implications. My views emerge directly out of my experience within the community and out my right to assert and exercise my needs as a member of that community. There is nothing skewed about them. They just view the situation from a different vantage point to your own.

From your earlier post, it sounded as if you ran across a lot of smokers that weren't willing to listen to you or respect your right to breathe smoke-free air. Around here those folks are likely to be unaccepted by smokers and non-smokers alike.

Hi skier

My point here is that by referring to my views as 'skewed', (that is angled from what is normal, acceptable or reasonable) you are using language which implicitly marginalises them. Now, you may not intend that, but that is the effect. That kind of argument is not owned by any one person but is deeply embedded in the language and the culture. You hear people using it unconsciously over and over again - especially in majority/minority conflicts.

To clarify this, my views on smoking do not result from my experience of a minority (or even a majority) of insensitive and thoughtless smokers: they result from my experience of smokers as a whole, whether thoughtful or not. This is not an attack on individual smokers. It's an assertion of my needs within a culture where, until recently, smoking was the norm and generally held to be acceptable. The non-smoker had to fit in wherever he could and his needs were generally ignored.

Skier wrote:
I wasn't trying to make light of your physical reaction to smoking; I wanted to make the distinction you are more sensitive to it than others.

No, I appreciate that, but let's use those words in another context. "Smokers are often hypersensitive to criticsm because their views on smoking are skewed by their addiction to their drug." I was annoyed, not by your intentions (which I didn't know) but by the implications of what you said.

Skier wrote:

sv-wolf wrote: And I have no wish to deny your right to smoke if you want to, though I certainly have no regrets about the banning of smoking in public places here in the UK and in much of the rest of Europe.

You present a two-faced argument. You don't want to deny my rights to smoke yet are perfectly fine with letting someone else deny those rights in most places.

I have two anwers to this. For years, I had to fit around the convenience of smokers who were perfectly happy to fill cafes restaurants, cinemas, theatres, concert halls, and pubs with their smoke. That meant, in the main, that I was excluded from all those places. At a personal level, I regard the current ban on smoking in public places as a perfectly just redress. Now smokers have to accept the inconvenince I experienced for years while I get the opportunity to enjoy the social life they once (and still do!) have.

If smokers want to smoke in places where they do not impose their smoke on others, then I would support that most strongly. I do not see anything two-faced in this.

My second answer would be this, that I was not trying to make an argument. I was trying as honestly as I could to give my thoughts and explain my feelings on the matter. Feelings are, by their very nature irrational - non-rational - but they are a real part of our lives and need to be included in the discussion. As in any situation where there is a conflict of interest, only when people understand each other at every level can there be a wholly satisfactory resolution.

( I have as much competitive ego as anyone else in our competitive culture but I am deeply aware that getting into conflicts never gets anywhere and I try to aim at something different. I don't always succeed, but I try.)

Skier wrote:Public smoking bans aren't offensive to me, but the government stepping in to privately owned businesses and controlling what happens in there angers me.

That's interesting. Not quite sure what you mean here. Which privately owned business are you talking about? Tobacco companies? Public places of entertainment? I don't have much respect for the notion of private ownership, but it seems clear to me that the government controls the behaviour of some business sectors to protect the interests of private ownership as a whole.

In the case of smoking bans, it is so-called private enterprise which bears the financial burden when someone dies young of smoking-related diseases, both through the huge loss of investment which has been made in educating working people for the purpose of exploitating them in the profit-making process and also through the cost of healthcare bills. Needless to say, this is not the reason I am happy with the recent wave of smoking bans in public places .

I always liked the smell of most pipe tobacco and some cigars (kinda like incense I like the cherry ones) Just can't go the taste.

Place I used to work went smoke free, It was terrible. All the die hard smokers were always outside getting a smoke, not at their work station. However the worst effect of being smoke free was the health effects. (about 50% of smokers switched to chewing tobacco, spitting on the floors and dumping their used chew in all the urinals and drinking fountains, at least the smokers had, and used, ashtrays)

Why not let people smoke, if you let people spit tobacco dribble all over the floor. Which is the greatest health risk?

ofblong wrote:

Skier wrote:ofblong: We have these nifty gadgets called exhaust fans. Keeps a lot of that evil smoke vented outside to the atmosphere.

I'd really like to see business owners have a choice for being a smoking or non smoking establishment. We'd have those who don't care for smoke/are physically affected by it in the non-smoking businesses and those of us who enjoy poisoning our bodies can do so without fake coughing or other ridiculous behavior some anti-smokers love to employ.

Everyone wins but the government!

So the government makes sure they are seen as the power and not the people.

I dont care how many exhaust fans you use someone who is (to put it in not so correct terms) allergic to cig smoke is not going to be able to go into that building. Am I saying you shouldnt be able to have a "place of zen" no not in any way. I will say that the mississippi government was (not sure if it still is) trying to ban fat people from going into restaurants. But what do you consider to be fat? If they have a little bit of a belly do you turn them away?

I should have made this more clear: a room sectioned off with glass doors with an exhaust fan. Smokers stay inside, smoke gets evicted via TECHNOLOGY and the non-smokers don't have to deal with the smoke.

I fully understand your response if I meant just fans in a big, open area that mixed smokers and non smokers. It would take a lot of convincing to show me the non-smokers were happy in that environment.

sv-wolf: let me start by saying your physical sensitivity to smoke is above normal - that certainly fits the definition of skewed. If you find the term tries to pigeonhole you, let me know what you would prefer for your body's exaggerated-compared-to-the-majority-of-humans response.

I'll be back to hit your points later - off to see the Dark Knight and hang out with friends.

well I have no problem with a "seperate" closed off room in that case skier . As for sensitivity I would say I am more sensitive than someone who didnt grow up around a smoker.

I've never personally smoked. I just never felt the urge to do so. My dad smokes cigarettes. While I prefer the smell of cigar smoke or pipe smoke (definitely pipe smoke), I still don't find the cigarette smoke as being particularly objectionable.

As to why I like the smell of certain types of tobacco smoke such as pipe smoke, I can't really explain it. Sometimes I'll meander around a tobacconist shop just to get a whif of the different "flavored" pipe tobacco available.

They're trying to ban tobacco in resturants, bars (including cigar bars) and many other privately owned businesses. I'm rather opposed to this, because I am of the opinion the government should keep its' hands off of what happens at private businesses (to the greatest extent possible). I believe in capitalism, and as such, feel that if enough people refuse to visit a place because it allows smoking for example, and make it known to that business just why they're not patronizing it, they'll find a way to get you back as a customer.

A local establishment nearby (which I frequent enough to take out a membership) installed a "smoking room". It is a glassed off corner with an open door and an amazing ventilation system. This ventilation system works so well that I can sit a couple of tables away from that room and not smell a thing. The smoke in that room goes straight outside to where the vent goes. They spent a lot of $$$ to install that room, but it was worth it because the regular section of the room is always packed. Anyone wants a smoke they can go to the glass room.
Their business picked up after they made that room.

Now our stupid government is trying to ban smoking rooms. That I disagree with.
It all has to do with WCB. Now called WorkSafe BC. They want a healthy working environment for people so they are limiting the smoking so the servers don't get affected......WCB is saying this, not me......

Aside from feeding people's addictions, does tobacco have any other earthly value?

Aside from feeding people's addictions, does tobacco have any other earthly value?

Yes, pleasure. Cigars and pipes especially can be very enjoyable. Cigarettes not so much. Those, I think, are geared more toward the addicts. Not very good quality tobacco and a paper wrapping just don't cut it for pleasurable smoking. Though some are better then others. (Camels) But a good cigar can't be beat. If you like that sort of thing.

Besides that, if you are having a hard time going number two then a smoke will help clear everything up. At least that was my experience.

Might as well start a thread on what sauce goes with the babies you like to eat.......

However, on this subject...... I smoke. Alot. 2 packs a day. More if you're pissing me off. That's 2 1/2 packs of them dinky little Merican packs.

Smoking is indefensible. It is a dirty, disgusting, unhealthy, expensive, annoying addiction. And it is an addiction. If your smoking is a habit, you ain't trying hard enough.

Again, seriously, the problem is those of us who are hooked on this nicotine shiit. It's not that most/many (i ain't getting into that whole thing here. some people defend their 'right' to mangle their own privates) of us wouldn't like to quit, we can't 'just stop smoking'. It is a long, painful and traumatic ordeal, and the fact that during this process we want to kick your f@^!%$ face in for smiling makes it hard on everyone.

Tobacco, along with alcohol, exists in it's own governmental circular vortex of confusion. They want to please the non-smoking/non-drinking 'moral' majority, they want healthcare costs to decrease, and they want to look like they really give a shiit about us peons. But they also need the outrageous taxes they charge for these products. So they continue to marginalize a captive source of money.

All that said, I totally understand why non-smokers don't want to deal with smoke. I try not to inflict them with mine. I don't even really want a sealed, exhausted room to smoke it when I go out. I do expect access to outside so I can leave the presence of those who are 'clean'. And if I stink to you when I come back in, get you gone from my presence.

I can relate to the hypersensitive people too. I get vicious, crippling migraines and one of the few triggers I can identify is perfume or scented products. Especially the muskier notes. So I don't go into banks, department stores, the fruitier areas of malls, drug stores, grocery stores at certain times of day, bars, anyplace 'ladies of a certain age' are likely to be unless I absolutely have to. That is a little more inconvenient than not being able to go to dinner to me, but there is nothing that can be done about it. I bet my favorite body part that they ain't about to make perfume illegal or segregated because it negatively impacts my life.

So I understand banning smoking in the workplace and around kids. Makes sense. But if you cluck your tongue and make a face at me as I walk by on the street, you have a 50/50 chance of being reduced to tears by a world-class bread waving a smoke around violently and saying disturbing things in a threatening manner. Depending on how my day has been so far.....

I'm mostly pissed that so far they haven't come up with a shot that can break the addiction. Little blue pills to give 80 year old men wood, little pink pills to let some woman drop 20 pounds she doesn't need to lose, those they spend the money to develop.... but I don't have the willpower, personal integrity, moral fiber, or whatever the un-addicted say it is I need to quit. Hell, I would take being thrown in room and forced into a coma for a month to break the addiction, if I could afford a month off work and the price of the hospital stay. The habit I can deal with, the wanting to snap your head off to see if there is a smoke in there cravings are a little harder.


How do you like me now?



Laying blame is pointless. The problem is here and trying to decide who's fault it is won't solve anything. Gum and patches are a poor substitute for a butt and won't help many of us. Drinking a glass of water or taking deep breaths will only lead to bloodshed. We need an affective option.

Those who have managed to quit through willpower or substitutes have my respect. Good on ya. I know wasn't easy. I wish I was one of you. But I'm not. I am fully onboard with you folks, right up until that small segment of reformed smokers starts preaching at me. That don't help me and may harm you.

And BTW, I have tried to quit in the past. It hasn't worked that well.....











Now, for a little distraction, it's contest time.

~~~~ How many cigarettes did I smoke while typing this? ~~~~


Prize to be determined by me and dependent on the answers I get and my reaction to them.

BuzZz....I am not a reformed smoker. I am a never have smoked.

And.....when people pass me on the street who are smoking, I just hold my breath and keep silent. No finger wagging or tongue clucking.

Now....if there are smokers standing in an obvious no smoking area.....let me at 'em.

There are other quit smoking products....ask your doctor. There are injections available. It's supposed to be a one time injection....maybe for you it might be a dozen.....

There are products other the the patch or the gum. If you really are interested, your doctor will have information.