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

641–650 of 668 posts

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#641

Post by nibbleshifter »

ornornor wrote: post #638
nibbleshifter wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is your problem. If the terrace is clearly marked as a smoking area, complaining about people smoking in the smoking area is irrational behavior. As for bringing infants to bars... Well. Restaurants is one thing, but bringing infants (or any children) to bars is just antisocial behavior. Where I live its not permitted for minors to be in the bar after 9pm, but many people think it should be much, much earlier cu…

Hard disagree. You’re free to do as you please as long as it doesn’t impact others. Annexing patios and terraces for smokers use very much impacts non smokers. And it’s not like I can sidestep the problem because maybe I would also like to enjoy a meal or drink outdoors without smoking, and if I don’t I still have to walk through a toxic cloud to get into the venue. Never mind being pretty much in the smoking section…

I guess the question remains: where should a venue locate its smoking area?

An enclosed, ventilated space is mostly prohibited due to the law being an ass.

> it’s their prerogative and mostly their problem except for the huge societal financial burden to treat them afterwards

In the UK at least, smokers tend to pay in more as tax on their cigarette habit than they cost the state in pensions and healthcare, thanks to dying early. They literally are the opposite of a burden.

Regarding children in bars: I'm European myself, and the social acceptability of having your child in a bar has been waning for quite some time.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#642

Post by oblio »

mcv wrote: post #405
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…

Man, chocolate cigarettes. I remember those. Bizarre to think back to that. I'd never consider giving them to my children, but despite the fact that my parents didn't smoke and didn't want us to smoke, I still got these on occasion. And as a young kid, I definitely thought they were cool. But as I got a bit older, certainly as a teenager, when almost all of my friends started to smoke, I've always considered smoking…

Yeah, just make cool looking flower pots and vases. Those can be cool and useful aaaand safe.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#643

Post by oblio »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #611
bruce511 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, commercial flight goes back before the 60s. And sure there were the flying boats and so on. But that era of commercial flight was very limited, it was expensive, there were very limited schedules and so on. Today I can get a flight to pretty much anywhere in the world, with maybe a day's lead time, and perhaps 36 hours of travel. Anywhere. In the world. So, I think we can say air travel is no longer in "startup"…

You're confusing "air travel" with "jet travel". Jet travel was obviously a startup in the 60s.

No, he's right. Air travel was a luxury thing and super expensive until the 60s.

Only a very small percentage of the population in rich countries would do it.

Now people from Cambodia can fly for a large amount of money for them, but still, they are able to. In the past they just wouldn't be able to afford any kind of flight. Or even worse, they just wouldn't have flights or a publicly accessible airport.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#644

Post by Sander_Marechal »

Marsymars wrote: post #592
telesilla wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carr's book is underrated by smokers who haven't read it and loved by ex-smokers who have.

Is it worth reading for non-smokers?

Probably, if you have loved ones that smoke. It explains the mindset of smokers.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#645

Post by oblio »

MrFantastic wrote: post #487
michaelhoney wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could smoke on the Hindenberg . Yes. On a dirigible held aloft by hydrogen, they had a smoking room:( https://www.airships.net/hindenburg-smoking-room/ .

Hindenberg got a bad rap. It just happened to look scary and was caught on film. 1/3 of the Hindenberg passengers survived the crash. Way better survival rate than plane crashes.

Worse than that, they couldn't use Helium due to a US ban. I mean, I know why the US did it, but it wasn't the Hindenburg's designer's fault.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#646

Post by nibbleshifter »

ornornor wrote: post #639
LtWorf wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they risk the alcool license. In the bus stops nobody cares. In general, smokers aren't the most empathetic kind of people.

So why couldn’t this be done outside Sweden? AFAIK most countries require licensing for selling alcohol which some authority overviews and can withdraw when some laws are broken (serving alcohol to minors etc). Why wouldn’t it be possible to also lose your license if you allow smoking where it’s not permitted?

> Why wouldn’t it be possible to also lose your license if you allow smoking where it’s not permitted?

This already happens to the extent that it is enforceable.

If a venue allow smoking inside where not permitted, or in an area deemed 'inside' (too sheltered, whatever), the venue gets fined or can have its licence suspended or even fully withdrawn.

The law also makes some provision for common sense.

The venues ability to control smoking ends at the boundary (the door). So the venue isn't responsible if someone smokes outside the door on the footpath - its not their problem.

Designating the outdoor areas as smoking areas is an acceptable compromise. Venues lacking in smoking areas tend to be unviable financially.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#647

Post by oblio »

bambax wrote: post #333
camillomiller wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think an accident ever occurred because of smoking in the cabin? (Possibly one because of smoking in the lavatory, and I'm not even sure). For smokers, going 4, 6 or 9 hours without smoking is just unthinkable; I know it was for me. So glad I quit (a very long time ago), but I don't know how smokers deal with it today.

Someone posted a link:

https://greekreporter.com/2022/04/30/2016-egyptair-plane-cra...

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#648

Post by oblio »

nine_k wrote: post #406
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nicotine high is a very pleasant headspace. I only smoked occasionally in college and grad school for a few years and off-and-on afterword socially for a few more years but I miss the scintillating conversations and the headspace nicotine put you in. More pronounced than caffeine but not so stimulating as a stronger stimulant. Some of my most interesting conversations happened over a cigarette.

AFAICT nicotine is the lesser evil. It's addictve, and somehow toxic, but not hugely. What makes cigarettes so vile is the actual smoke. The tars, the CO, the nitrous mess that's needed to keep the cigarette from extinguishing. The filter helps, but not a lot. A cigarette without any nicotine would still damage health a lot. Fortunately, the addicts, and those who want the nicotine high, have the option of vaping now…

It's not just the smoke. Otherwise chewing tobacco and inhaling it wouldn't cause cancers for the mouth and nose.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#649

Post by dns_snek »

yencabulator wrote: post #628
dns_snek wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing new choices with consequences of previous ones. Taking up smoking when you're fully aware that your job prohibits you from smoking is a choice and you're right - "It's an addiction" would be a poor excuse. Quoting the context from a few replies ago: > 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. Being asked to quit an addiction on de…

Do you "get asked" to serve on a submarine, or do you apply to serve on a submarine? What next, are you going to obligate the military to provide all the alcohol and hard drugs any addict may desire in the next 6 months? There's so many reasons you get disqualified from serving in certain positions in military. Being addicted is just one of them.

Please don't shift the goal posts, the argument I was responding to said that continuing to smoke is merely a choice. I'm not arguing that smoking should be allowed on submarines or anything of the sort, just dispelling this one specific falsehood that attempts to paint addicts as lazy or otherwise inferior just because they can't wake up one day and quit their addictive behavior.

Re: The Disappearance of the Ashtray

#650

Post by leokennis »

lelanthran wrote: post #607
leokennis wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you stop smoking around other people ;-)

> Sure, if you stop smoking around other people ;-) Maybe english is not your first language, but you did read what I wrote, right? You did read my post saying that I get annoyed at people who go up to lone smokers and then complain? You know what that means, right? It literally means "I don't smoke around other people!" I'm afraid I am unable to simplify it any further.

My point is if you are the user/owner of a device capable of killing (huge car, cigarettes) there’s a big responsibility on you to prevent harm on others.

There’s always a grey area, but generally I’d say in a public space it’s the smoker who should actively move to avoid non-smokers.

Post reply on HN