Dear Smokers,
I just wanted to let you know how I feel about your habit. I'm perfectly OK with your decision to 'enjoy' inhaling a stick of burning toxins. I do not want to take away any freedom you have over your own body. You have every right to treat your body how you want to. This is America you have your Freedom.
When gases such as, carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein, are released from an industrial factory they are usually released through a smokestack. The smokestack sends these gases higher into the atmosphere so they can dissipate without causing harm to the surrounding area.
It is strange to realize that each described gases here is also by-product of cigarette smoking. It is harmful to people to breathe in these gases. Now while a smoker has a right to indulge him/herself in harmful gases shouldn't a non-smoker have a right to not breathe these gases?
Isn't this a conundrum? We have two conflicting rights, the right to smoke and the right to not smoke. Well, as you may have guessed, I do have a solution. Like industries that emit harmful gases smokers also need a smokestack. A simple yet elegant and attractive snorkel. This snorkel would not be for breathing but for exhaling. The process is quite plain when a smoker takes a drag he or she then exhales through a snorkel that releases the gases harmlessly above the heads of every one else around.
Sources cited: Factsheet no:8
I say Smokers are gross because they don't care about their own health. But I agree with Austin, STOP vilating my own rights to not smoke. I want to meet my neices, nephews and grandchildren one day. So if you smoke, do it in your own space where it will not affect me. Or go buy yourself a snorkel if you have to.
ReplyDeleteI like your snorkel idea. You should patent it and call it a smorkel.
ReplyDeleteSorry dude, but you are a little confused about what it is that smokestacks do. The smokestacks are high up not because they are designed to release dangerous gasses high into the atmosphere, but simply to prevent low visibility gasses and slight irritants to cloud up the space in which people need to see and work.
ReplyDeleteThe other point is that there is quite a bit of controversy that second-hand smoke, after being so efficiently filtered by the first-hand smoker's lungs, does anything to the surrounding people. Therefore lets not jump to conclusions right away about your rights being violated.
Furthermore, what you are describing here is a right for convenience or inconvenience. Meaning it is quite easier for you to avoid inhaling smoke then for the smoker to exhale smoke since the reality is that there are more non-smokers than there are smokers. Since laws are created to protect the rights of the minorities, the right to smoke somewhat supersedes the right to not smoke, but that of course is depends on the actual health effects of second-hand smoke, which, as pointed out before, are still in the study phase.
Good luck with the smorkel idea and don't let your limited knowledge get in the way of your everyday self-righteousness.
I'm sorry to tell you "anonymous" that you are sadly mistaken. Laws are not written for the rights of minorities. Laws are written to protect people.
ReplyDeleteYou are also seriously mistaken when you claim that their is a debate about the health risks of second hand smoke. To even suggest, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, second hand smoke is not overall bad for your health shows you mental deficiency
BUT- Whether or not there are health risks involved in second hand smoke doesn't matter. Smoke is an eye irritant and it smells bad.
Just as freedom of speech is balanced by the right to remain silent, the right to smoke is balanced by a fundamental right to not smoke.
Furthermore, don't let cancer get in the way of your absolute stupidity.
It doesn't seem very balanced since smokers, of which I am not one by the way, are more and more shunned by our society. More and more places do not allow smoking anywhere near their facilities. Pretty soon (already in some places) to be designated a smoker is to be designated a person with less mental capacity.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious what your actual solution is to this problem. What do you recommend we do? Place all the smokers in a designated area to smoke so they can kill each other? Sounds like more of a concentration camp to me then a free society.
My already prodigious faith in Anon has been renewed. Thank you for standing up for the minority.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't allowed to defend ourselves because we so obviously are lesser beings than those who don't smoke. We can't have an opinion on what we try to enjoy by ourselves, but catch flak for constantly. All we want to do is enjoy our smoke without being called a murderer or ignorant. I'm perfectly aware of what's in a cigarette, and that in no way stops me from enjoying it.
I come home after a stressful day, and I want something I can enjoy and relax with. What would you suggest, Austin?
All this talk about smoking makes me want one. Maybe I'll exhale on a baby just for you, Austin.
I really don't care if you smoke in your own house. As long as we are in agreement that; it is NOT debatable that smoking DOES cause harm to the smoker AND everyone around the smoker. That IS the problem. And here is a big surprise... I don't know what the solution is!
ReplyDeleteThe victim mentality in this comment thread is ridiculous. The real victim is NOT the smoker it is the person is afflicted by secondhand smoke.
If you want to relax with a cigarette go ahead. Just don't force me to relax with it (and breathing smoke on babies is the same as poisoning babies... both BAD things)
Who the hell knowingly blows smoke on a baby? I smoke and I wouldn't blow smoke into a babies face, or anyone else's face for that matter.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah you got us mate, ohoho yup. Perfect definition for all us smokers. Come join in with our second-hand-smoke-passing-baby- poisoning-cancer-inducing-S.R'.U. meetings, you'll have blast, what with all the baby killing we get up to. Oh yeah, and the masses of discussions we all have about 'violating peoples rights to not smoke'. If you think about it YOUR violating your own rights by inhaling it in the first place. Its not a hard thing to avoid someone who's smoking, its a rather big place out there in the open world. Since smoking is now banned in public buildings in most places its quite hard to be trapped in a situation where the only air you can get into your lungs is smoke infested poison.
Here's something from my point of view showing how silly your argument (or point) is. I don't drive a car, if I need to get anywhere unfortunately I have to use public transport or ride there myself on a peddle bike. Now, if I'm peddling somewhere, obviously I HAVE to by law stick to the roads. What else is their on the roads? Cars. Annnd what comes out of most car exhausts? Bravo! Toxic gases that damage my lungs/general health when I inhale it. Why should I have to inhale all that crap when I'm riding about. I'm not a driver, so then by your way of thinking I should then have the right to not have to inhale all that crap. But I have to inhale all that crap don't I? -- and I have to get back to work. But yeah, put that in your pipe and try not to inhale!
-dan
@DAN: please read the comment above mine that says: "All this talk about smoking makes me want one. Maybe I'll exhale on a baby just for you, Austin." I didn't mean to suggest that any smokers actually blow smoke on babies.
ReplyDelete"Its not a hard thing to avoid someone who's smoking, its a rather big place out there in the open world." -Not if someone is standing in a doorway or on a sidewalk.
"Now, if I'm peddling somewhere, obviously I HAVE to by law stick to the roads." -Not true
"I smoke and I wouldn't blow smoke into a babies face, or anyone else's face for that matter." -Thank you so so so much. I sincerely appreciate that.
Damn this Austin kid needs to chill the fuck out.
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, don't let cancer get in the way of your absolute stupidity."
That's some bullshit right there my friend.
Non smokers should pay smokers if they inhale 2nd hand smoke. Sigarettes are expensible enough without those guys using up our smoke.
ReplyDelete