Total Motorcycle Community Forums

The only thing I smoke is hookah. Flavored tobacco, plain and simple. I also tend to have to smoke secondhand because I work as a bouncer, drives me up the wall when people can't figure out how to blow their smoke downwind of someone else...
Wrider

if you cut down on your smoking, you might be able to afford high speed internet

Until a little over a year ago I could only get dial up (It was available inside city limits only---I live out of city limit by 50 feet) As of last year I can get High speed cheaper than AOL dial up was, This could also be the same for Buzzz

sv-wolf wrote:

Skier wrote: 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.

Hi ski

LOL. I think you are trying to be a bit slippery here. You didn't use the word 'skewed' to refer to my sensitivity to smoke, you used it to refer to my views on smoking:

Skier wrote:Sounds to me your views have been skewed by a hypersensitivity to smoke

That's a big difference.
(In any case, you can only apply the word 'skewed' to an allergy if you are prepared to wrench its meaning.)

The terminology you use is loaded and unequivocally demonstrates the historical prejudice against non-smokers. I've never heard a smoker argue that his own views on the new anti-smoking laws were 'skewed' because of his attachment to tobacco.

'Skewed' is not a neutral term no-matter how you seek to skew it.

And it's not sufficient to say that you personally respect those who don't want to breathe in other people's smoke (no matter how even-handed that view is). Until very recently, society as a rule hasn't taken that position and to suggest that a non-smoker should depend on the hit-and-miss goodwill of individual smokers to give him clean air is just not good enough.

Although things are improving, the idea that smokers in general might even be aware of the needs of non-smokers inspires deep confidence - I don't think.

Cheers

Richard

P.S. How was the film? I've been wanting to see it.

You are right, I did mess up on keeping things straight, although not in a conscious attempt at being "slippery." I'll still say your views on smoking differ from a majority of the populous because you are more sensitive to it than most and have experienced a lot of smokers that do not respect your right to breathe smoke free air. Perhaps it's my view that is out of whack: I hate seeing smokers hovering well inside the 25' distance from a business entrance, forcing non-smokers to walk by them and encounter smoke. Any smoker I hang out with is incredibly courteous about their habit. If you don't like the smell or can't stand it, we all go through great lengths to accommodate this.

This leads me to internet rage with militant non-smokers bitching about jerkface smokers. Their experience doesn't match the majority of smokers I see! Then again, it doesn't make a good story if the person doesn't know the person they work with is a smoker. It's only good if they can "dog" about smoke breaks every hour and the terrible smell of the coworker.

You claim society hasn't been too keen on rights for non-smokers, but that's not what I've seen. This is why I really dislike the government forcefully pushing things through. You can't enforce courtesy.

As for the flick, it was great. Ledger's performance wasn't Oscar worthy but he nailed the role.

Skier wrote:You are right, I did mess up on keeping things straight, although not in a conscious attempt at being "slippery."

Cheers, Ski, I do accept that. I am aware that I was being just a tad provocative with that one.

Skier wrote:I'll still say your views on smoking differ from a majority of the populous because you are more sensitive to it than most and have experienced a lot of smokers that do not respect your right to breathe smoke free air. Perhaps it's my view that is out of whack: I hate seeing smokers hovering well inside the 25' distance from a business entrance, forcing non-smokers to walk by them and encounter smoke. Any smoker I hang out with is incredibly courteous about their habit. If you don't like the smell or can't stand it, we all go through great lengths to accommodate this.

Personally, I don't think my overall attitudes are very different from those of many non-smokers who are not allergic. My needs are no doubt greater than theirs - being in contact with tobacco smoke is more than just an inconvenience or an irritation/anxiety to me - but my views don't differ much in kind. Nor can I imagine I come into contact with more thoughtless smokers than any one else.

In fact, I regard my views as being relatively moderate, given the circumstances. If I fly off the handle once in a while, I would generally put that down to not being a perfectly thoughtful and rational being 24/7. Most of us need to blow once in a while.

Skier wrote:[You claim society hasn't been too keen on rights for non-smokers, but that's not what I've seen. This is why I really dislike the government forcefully pushing things through. You can't enforce courtesy.

I guess you didn't grow up in the 1960s and 70s. My frame of reference is perhaps a little longer than yours. Back then, if you were a non-smoker that was just tough. Nobody was even particularly aware of what you might be experiencing. Smokers paid your concerns scant attention and would get aggressive or offended if you complained. In the post-war decades, it was accepted that smoking was what 'everyone' did and anyone who didn't was just an uptight, oddball.

Back then, too, everyone smoked in cinemas, theatres, restaurants, at work, at home at the dinner table, in front of the telly, everywhere without giving it a thought. There were no air extraction units. The world was full of overflowing ashtrays, nicotine stains, cigarette burns (on everything) and stink. Yuk.

(I remember in one of my first jobs - on a building site - by 11.00 I couldn't see clearly across the 12 ft by 12 ft cabin in which I was supposed to work.)

As to more recent attitudes, I agree with you. Smokers in general have become a lot more thoughtful about the needs of non-smokers. In the UK, smokers are now very much in the minority - 30% of the population and declining. I think that has made a huge difference to attitudes.

Skier wrote:[As for the flick, it was great. Ledger's performance wasn't Oscar worthy but he nailed the role.

Brilliant I might go and see it tonight if it is on locally. I could do with a distraction from all this.

Cheers.

Yes, I am a youngin and didn't grow up then. Perhaps that's why I view some of the activities you describe as socially acceptable as unacceptable: my generation was hit hard with anti-smoking advertising and propaganda.

blues2cruise wrote:BuzZz...if you cut down on your smoking, you might be able to afford high speed internet.

You forget I don't live in downtown Vancouver, Blues. Or downtown anywhere. I live in BFN. There is no highspeed internet here. Not through phone lines, not through cable(no cable), not through wireless(my cell phone don't even get a signal in town).... I could get it through the satellite.... for $500 in equipment, $200 installation and $100/month access fee...... I can do a whole lotta bitchin for almost 2 grand a year.

I am seriously thinking of finding a new job and moving to a slightly bigger Hole in the Universe. Maybe back to Wainwright, I liked that town...... no reason to stay here now that the Missus did a runner......

sv-wolf wrote:

Hi Buzz

...... I did the cold turkey thing. I gave up smoking, coffee, chocolate and potatoes all in one go - I'd suddenly become allergic to all of them. That was one hell of a year.

Wow, I think that might have been the end for me. I gave up coffee years ago, but smoking, taters, and chocolate.. all at once.... that would have killed me or everyone around me. Potatoes?... man, that sucks!

sv-wolf wrote:
Yeah sure I totally agree, no-one has the right not to be offended, but that includes smokers when non-smokers finally get to assert their rights to go to places like clubs and pubs without coming home stinking of someone else's smoke or with an increased risk of contracting some horrible disease. It's not just about being offended - there are real consequences to this for people.

Tis true, and I am just as guilty of being offended as those who tempt fate with me on the street. The only difference is I fly off the handle without any moral indignation or legal threats, so that probably makes me worse. But if I'm cranky enough to take the time to get into it with someone over this, any reasonable justification probably won't factor into it anyways.

the last time I quit smoking was 7 years back. I had smoked on and off from the time i was 14 until 29 and until the last time i quit I had difficulty quitting.

I don't know what made the last time easy (I quit cold turkey) but i just did it. none of this " in the morning i'm quitting" or "after this pack of smokes i'm quitting" i just looked at my smoke said ""fudge" it, i quit". I didn't try to kill anyone, i didn't chew out anyone on the phone (internet tech support at the time), i didn't break anything, i did gain a bit of weight (it was amazing to taste food!), i didn't snap at my room mates. I just did it. one thing of note was my ex broke up with me the day before i quit, but not over smoking. When i quit i was smoking a pack a day of john player special.

As for smoking in public... well I disagree that it should be allowed where people work, including bars, clubs, restaurants. even those "smoking" rooms. unless the patrons want to clean up after themselves and serve themselves (and that includes mopping the floors and wiping the tables) and can't see that happening. easier to kick them out side when they want to have a puff. smoking is not a right, it wouldn't be government regulated and restricted to those over 18 if it was. Now I don't want to see smoking banned (not that it would be feasible, just look at prohibition and the war on drugs), but I don't want it in my face.

Buzzz if you really seriously want to quit smoking look at hypnotherapy. I know a number of people that have tried it and it has not failed any of them. It's not cheap, but the money you save on smokes would pay for it over time. Otherwise cold turkey is the most effective method out there. but if you do cold turkey, you need to take up an activity that keeps your hands busy.

Lisa wrote:........
Buzzz if you really seriously want to quit smoking look at hypnotherapy. I know a number of people that have tried it and it has not failed any of them. It's not cheap, but the money you save on smokes would pay for it over time. Otherwise cold turkey is the most effective method out there. but if you do cold turkey, you need to take up an activity that keeps your hands busy.

I tried the 'group' hypnosis thing years ago...... didn't work obviously. Maybe some private sessions might help, but my lack of faith in the whole hypno-thing probably won't help my chances.

Find something to keep my hands busy, eh..... not sure friction blisters down there are really gonna help......but I'm willing to give it a shot.

BuzZz wrote: I tried the 'group' hypnosis thing years ago...... didn't work obviously. Maybe some private sessions might help, but my lack of faith in the whole hypno-thing probably won't help my chances.

Find something to keep my hands busy, eh..... not sure friction blisters down there are really gonna help......but I'm willing to give it a shot.

I don't know how well group sessions work... everyone i know has done private lessons... and you probably have to want to quit... as for keeping your hands busy... video games work, specially ones with no pause feature.