Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Disappearance of the Ashtray

clivethompson.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 668 posts

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#241

Post by romwell »

csomar wrote: post #229
chongli wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to ban smokers to ban smoking on a sub. Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so.

I think this is bad idea. Maybe have a special room for smoking? > Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so. Some people are legitimately addicted. I know for a fact that I am not (I can go for a month without smoking and I won't go crazy) but removing smoking or nicotine will be a major quality of life downgrade for me.

>Some people are legitimately addicted.

And some people aren't fit to serve on submarines.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#242

Post by deely3 »

MengerSponge wrote: post #236
brightlancer wrote: post #46

> Everyone had hard-smoking relatives who looked like absolute hell by their late 30s, were coughing up a lung in their 40s, and by their 50s were being hoisted by pallbearers. Smoking is a disgusting habit and I love working from home because I never have to step in an elevator with folks fresh from a smoke break, but it isn't nearly that fatal. I grew up when smoking was literally everywhere and the "hard-smoking"…

But 55 year olds died all the time from smoking: heart attacks and strokes are smoking deaths too

Are you sure? Heart attacks and strokes main outcome of smoking, not lungs diseases?

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#243

Post by PaulRobinson »

chongli wrote: post #208
csomar wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But subs get deployed for 6 months at a time. Unless they banned smokers from getting into subs??

You don't have to ban smokers to ban smoking on a sub. Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so.

As an ex-smoker, I'd ask you to consider it as about the most addictive thing going.

Think of something you really, really like doing. Something that calms or pleases you every time you do it. Like, playing a game, or reading a book, or eating your favourite food. Now imagine someone telling you that you don't have to do that, it's just a choice. Imagine being deprived of it and being guilt-tripped into it.

Sure you can wean yourself off it, but it'll take effort - uncomfortable, painful effort - and you might fail.

And meanwhile some idiot on the internet is saying it's all just a choice.

It is an addiction that was designed to be addictive by the manufacturers. It has never been a "mere choice". That first cigarette or two, maybe, but addiction is awful and horrible and doesn't deserve to be denigrated and reduced by flippancy.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#244

Post by chongli »

csomar wrote: post #229
chongli wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to ban smokers to ban smoking on a sub. Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so.

I think this is bad idea. Maybe have a special room for smoking? > Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so. Some people are legitimately addicted. I know for a fact that I am not (I can go for a month without smoking and I won't go crazy) but removing smoking or nicotine will be a major quality of life downgrade for me.

We’re talking about serving on a submarine, in the military. Quality of life takes a back seat to health and safety, performance, and the mission itself. Personal space and weight are extremely limited on board.

What you’re suggesting is that smokers be given special accommodation by having their own room for smoking. Furthermore, they would need to be provided with special equipment to filter the air to remove all of the smoke produced by their smoking, otherwise it would spread throughout the other compartments as soon as they open the door to leave the smoking room.

Is any of this reasonable? I don’t think it is. The only reasonable accommodation I can think of would be to allow smokers to bring a supply of nicotine gum or patches.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#245

Post by noduerme »

camillomiller wrote: post #88
Stratoscope wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking or non? Looks like you're about 25 years younger than me. When I was a kid, there was no such thing as a nonsmoking section. Of course you could smoke, anywhere! Us kids didn't get real tobacco cigarettes, but we always had candy cigarettes so we could "smoke" along with the grown-ups. https://www.google.com/search?q=candy+cigarette&tbm=isch One difference from today was that our candy cigarettes had brand na…

Smoking on planes is absolutely something I can't wrap my head around in any possible way. How the hell someone EVER thought it would be a good idea to let people smoke while packed inside a flying metal cylinder?

[flagged]

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#246

Post by noduerme »

htag wrote: post #222
bruce511 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to imagine flying passengers as being a "startup", but it really only dates from around the 60s. Today I know of people who can't fly at all (because they can't stop smoking long enough.) even short flights of a couple hours are out of reach. (I was once on a 2 hour flight that took 6 hours for reasons, and some of the passengers fairly sprinted in the destination airport to get to a smoking area at 1am) So…

I have heard of people using nicotine gum, patch, or lozenge for situations like this.

You can vape up your sleeve on a plane, but snus is the best way.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#247

Post by chongli »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #243
chongli wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to ban smokers to ban smoking on a sub. Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so.

As an ex-smoker, I'd ask you to consider it as about the most addictive thing going. Think of something you really, really like doing. Something that calms or pleases you every time you do it. Like, playing a game, or reading a book, or eating your favourite food. Now imagine someone telling you that you don't have to do that, it's just a choice. Imagine being deprived of it and being guilt-tripped into it. Sure you…

My father smoked for many years before quitting. I have two roommates that are smokers. The difference between him and them is that he wanted to quit, so he did. They continue to smoke because they do not want to quit. It’s as simple as that.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#248

Post by csomar »

chongli wrote: post #244
csomar wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is bad idea. Maybe have a special room for smoking? > Smokers don't have to smoke, they merely choose to do so. Some people are legitimately addicted. I know for a fact that I am not (I can go for a month without smoking and I won't go crazy) but removing smoking or nicotine will be a major quality of life downgrade for me.

We’re talking about serving on a submarine, in the military. Quality of life takes a back seat to health and safety, performance, and the mission itself. Personal space and weight are extremely limited on board. What you’re suggesting is that smokers be given special accommodation by having their own room for smoking. Furthermore, they would need to be provided with special equipment to filter the air to remove all o…

> The only reasonable accommodation I can think of would be to allow smokers to bring a supply of nicotine gum or patches.

Fair enough.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#249

Post by stonogo »

j33zusjuice wrote: post #199
gnicholas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's funny we still talk about plugging into a cigarette lighter, even though they haven't come with actual cigarette lighters in them for quite some time (at least here in California).

I haven’t seen one in a new car in more than ten years. I do not live in CA, though, I live in the US. I think they just stopped adding them all together. Why spend an extra $0.01 per car (or whatever it really costs) when most people don’t need or want the lighter?

I know at least Ford sells a 'smoker package' option, where one of the power points is occupied by a cigarette lighter and they include an ash tray that fits in a cupholder... for like $300. Smoking isn't a cheap hobby, I guess.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#250

Post by petre »

j33zusjuice wrote: post #175
petre wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country it went from bars filled with smoke to being banned in enclosed spaces. 3+ walls = enclosed space. Such a breath of fresh air, even the smokers were happy. The lady who made it into law was in politics for a mere legislature. Not a career politician.

Even the smokers? They were all throwing hissy fits in the US.

Yes, some of them. Everyone was fed up with the smoky places. Actually some bigger places were both smoking and non smoking before. I had a friend who was a smoker. He always chose the non-smoking part and then he moved to the non smoking part whenever he wanted to smoke. The previous law was useless as only places with over 60 square meters were required to have a non smoking part, so most bars were smaller and exclusively smoking.

In Serbia and North Macedonia, smoking is still allowed in hotel rooms. It's awful. I don't recall smoking in closed public spaces though. Most of them were open tavernas during the summer and smoking was allowed.

Post reply on HN