Smokers, cigarette sellers fuming over tax that takes a pack up to at least $12.75

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know, I always find this argument hilarious. I'll tell you why. I am a smoker. I go out of my way to be considerate for the people around me who are non-smokers. I know not everyone is this way, but I am.

I am also, a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5 allergic to PERFUME. I get instant migraines, will vomit, have asthma attacks and the list goes on depending on the type of perfume some overly drenched woman feels she HAS to wear in PUBLIC. I am subjected to this at resturants, doctors office, my place of employment, (the list goes on)and no matter HOW nice you are when asking to move away from these people, or how politely you ask them not to wear X brand around you, they are ALWAYS rude about it and ALWAYS inform me it's their "right" to wear perfume regardless of the health effects it causes me.

How is this different?

It's not. You can use the argument that smoking effects everyone and perfume doesn't...but then not all people exposed to 2nd hand smoke get cancer either. Every single time I have to sit there and suffer through some woman wearing a god awful amount of perfume or god awful scent of perfume, I want nothing more than to light a cigarette and blow a big puff of smoke in her face.

It is different, mate. You are a single individual with an allergy to perfume. Beyond that, whether a perfume smells like fly spray or old fruit salads, it's not going to cause adverse risks to public health. Nor can you reasonably make a case that a person should not put on perfume when they get up on the offchance that they might run into you; no more than I can chew out my neighbour for cutting his grass. On some level - you just have to eat it (and like it).

Cigarette smoke isn't a matter of individual allergic reaction - it simply isn't healthy for ANYONE to be exposed to it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You know, I always find this argument hilarious. I'll tell you why. I am a smoker. I go out of my way to be considerate for the people around me who are non-smokers. I know not everyone is this way, but I am.

I am also, a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5 allergic to PERFUME. I get instant migraines, will vomit, have asthma attacks and the list goes on depending on the type of perfume some overly drenched woman feels she HAS to wear in PUBLIC. I am subjected to this at resturants, doctors office, my place of employment, (the list goes on)and no matter HOW nice you are when asking to move away from these people, or how politely you ask them not to wear X brand around you, they are ALWAYS rude about it and ALWAYS inform me it's their "right" to wear perfume regardless of the health effects it causes me.

How is this different?

It's not. You can use the argument that smoking effects everyone and perfume doesn't...but then not all people exposed to 2nd hand smoke get cancer either. Every single time I have to sit there and suffer through some woman wearing a god awful amount of perfume or god awful scent of perfume, I want nothing more than to light a cigarette and blow a big puff of smoke in her face.

Very good! I like this!!!!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It is different, mate. You are a single individual with an allergy to perfume. Beyond that, whether a perfume smells like fly spray or old fruit salads, it's not going to cause adverse risks to public health. Nor can you reasonably make a case that a person should not put on perfume when they get up on the offchance that they might run into you; no more than I can chew out my neighbour for cutting his grass. On some level - you just have to eat it (and like it).

Cigarette smoke isn't a matter of individual allergic reaction - it simply isn't healthy for ANYONE to be exposed to it.

Cigarette smoke is an individual things still... Might effect more individuals than perfume, but it's an individual thing. Some people can handle it, others cannot ( i mean health wise). Just like anything else out there.

For the record, a few cities in the country have actually banned the use of strong perfumes in office buildings because of people's reactions... in other areas large businesses have banned them as well..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point is that cigarette smoke is bad for everyones health. Whether individuals are able to tolerate it or not is irrelevant.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The point is that cigarette smoke is bad for everyones health. Whether individuals are able to tolerate it or not is irrelevant.

Perfume is bad as well. It gives me migraines. I know Kaiser bans the use of any scented product in its facilities, by staff, or patients.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The point is that cigarette smoke is bad for everyones health. Whether individuals are able to tolerate it or not is irrelevant.

Again, it's not bad for "everyone" - Some people's immune system/dna structure/genetics, etc. whatever you want to call it, allows them to handle it just fine.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, it's not bad for "everyone" - Some people's immune system/dna structure/genetics, etc. whatever you want to call it, allows them to handle it just fine.

Don't be ridiculous Paul

The chemicals in cigarette smoke are uniformly bad for human health. Whether or not everyone develops cancer or respiratory illness as a result of exposure to it is irrelevant.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Don't be ridiculous Paul

The chemicals in cigarette smoke are uniformly bad for human health. Whether or not everyone develops cancer or respiratory illness as a result of exposure to it is irrelevant.

And yet, some want to legalize marijuana in California and other states, which is even more carcinogenic than tobacco!

Edited July 3, 2010 by ##########

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet, some want to legalize marijuana in California and other states, and which is even more carcinogenic that tobacco!

So what?

[Nica_In_Love 98]

You know, I always find this argument hilarious. I'll tell you why. I am a smoker. I go out of my way to be considerate for the people around me who are non-smokers. I know not everyone is this way, but I am.

I am also, a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5 allergic to PERFUME. I get instant migraines, will vomit, have asthma attacks and the list goes on depending on the type of perfume some overly drenched woman feels she HAS to wear in PUBLIC. I am subjected to this at resturants, doctors office, my place of employment, (the list goes on)and no matter HOW nice you are when asking to move away from these people, or how politely you ask them not to wear X brand around you, they are ALWAYS rude about it and ALWAYS inform me it's their "right" to wear perfume regardless of the health effects it causes me.

How is this different?

It's not. You can use the argument that smoking effects everyone and perfume doesn't...but then not all people exposed to 2nd hand smoke get cancer either. Every single time I have to sit there and suffer through some woman wearing a god awful amount of perfume or god awful scent of perfume, I want nothing more than to light a cigarette and blow a big puff of smoke in her face.

How would people know you're allergic to perfumes? When I spray my perfume in the morning I can't guess I'm going to run into someone who is allergic to it and decide I will just NOT wear any perfume, because most human beings are NOT allergic to perfumes. I am really sorry you have that problem, but that doesn't give you the right to smoke in other people's faces.

[Nica_In_Love 98]

Disturbing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbCVR5AiVE

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Don't be ridiculous Paul

The chemicals in cigarette smoke are uniformly bad for human health. Whether or not everyone develops cancer or respiratory illness as a result of exposure to it is irrelevant.

You do realize you killed your own response right? Whether people get sick or not or whether it eventually effects them or not is very relevant lol...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's only relevant if you are a relativist.

I expect most people can understand that certain substances are toxic to human health and our exposure to them should be limited.

[Texanadian 10]

The government should lay off the sin taxes and start taxing a broader base of people. Let's say internet taxes. At $5/day in taxes, it should bring in quite a tidy sum of revenue. You don't have to use the internet. Might be hard to quit it. But you could if you really wanted to. Hey, they're running deficits. They need the money. Same with the child tax credit. It should simply be the child tax. No credit. You got kids? You pay more. Somebody has to pay for all that SCHIP and the schools are always looking for more money anyways.

It amazes me that people are all for free speech even when there are hateful groups. And against censorship even if it means things you don't like will be allowed. But bring up the topic of smoking and all freedoms go out the door. Why are people anti-freedom? I've even seen people complain about having to breath in 2nd hand smoke while they're sitting in their cars idling in drive-thru lanes at fast food restaurants. (smoking area for the restaurant being outside near the drive-thru lane)

Nobody has any "right" to go to a restaurant, bar, or mall and not breath in cigarette smoke. Everybody has a "preference" to go to a restaurant, bar, or mall and not breath in cigarette smoke. Major difference. Go into just about any bar or club late at night and you'll be subject to loud bands playing on stage. Loud enough that your ears ring for several hours afterwords. You have no right to tell the bar owner that they can't have loud bands playing. You only have a preference..........But in today's society, we tend to think that the majority's preference should be a right. This is no different from the racist segregation laws of the past. People demanded government not allow races to intermingle. That was the majority.

Something like 20% of the population in the US smokes today. It varies by state. About 14% in Utah up to 30% in Kentucky and Nevada. Restaurants should be able to institute their own no smoking rules independent of government. Want to eat out with the family? I bet you a restaurant that caters to non-smokers will do better than one that allows both. In another way, it means people have to wait in line longer for tables. In the old days, you had smoking and non smoking in restaurants. The non-smoking side would have a 15 minute wait. Or you could go sit in the smoking section right now. Today? You gotta wait. Conversely, bars that allow smokers to patronize the establishment tend to do better than non smoking bars. This doesn't mean a cloud of dense smoke inside. The bars that have large opening french doors to the patios, and high quality filtration and ventilation, will attract both smokers and non smokers alike. The ones that have the foggy ceilings will attract no non smokers and even smokers will pass them by.

But instead, we take the easy way out.. We kick the smokers outside to the patio or outside the front door. And then we complain that non-smokers can't enjoy sitting on the patio or walk by the front door without getting smoke in their general area. And it's outside for crying out loud! Well why is that? Who decided to make these people go to the patios and front doors in the first place?

[Texanadian 10]

The chemicals in cigarette smoke are uniformly bad for human health.

So what? Shouldn't people be allowed to choose for themselves how to treat their bodies? Some people go jogging at 4AM. Then go to the gym at 5AM. I prefer to sleep at that time of day. Some people are vegetarians. Some people love meat. Some people play in rock bands with no ear plugs. Other people work in silent libraries all day long. People work in factories that have questionable emissions. Others work in organic gardens. Heck, you can even buy organic cigarettes to really throw a monkey wrench in there. I don't think organic tobacco is really any better though as the leaves are caked in flies.

Some people ride a bicycle to work instead of drive. But again, some people ride their bicycles without a helmet.

The bottom line is that nobody wants to be told how to live their lives.