U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#51

Post by lsaferite » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 3:26 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #30

lsaferite wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there aren't a lot of those people around these days. How incredibly naive and/or myopic. There are PLENTY of people around who both smoke and are old enough that it was still 'cool.'

As far as I can see, the general negative health effects of smoking were well established in the 60s. Cigarettes sold in the US have had warnings about the negative health consequences since 1966. If you started before that showed up and still smoke today you'd be smoking for 50 years. I doubt there are PLENTY of people around who have been doing it that long.

It's only in the last 20 years or so that the tide has turned against smokers. I clearly remember smokers in restaurants as a teen. Sometime in the last 20 years smokers have gone from the norm to being the outliers in the US. But to think that those smokers are somehow dying out is silly. They are still around and quite bitter. Personally, I'm glad for the fresh air, but I can fully understand the sense of persecution the must feel.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#52

Post by Lawtonfogle » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 1:04 PM UTC

pizza wrote: post #43

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've long since considered getting stink spray, basically the concentrated aerosol version of what is in a stink bomb, and spraying it in any smoking areas. If you can pollute the air with second hand smoke, I can pollute the air with stink. For added effect, I would want the container to look like a cigarette.

By your own logic, you would be guilty of polluting the air.

Yes, and once it is made a crime, I would stop.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#53

Post by seanp2k2 » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #26

ta92929 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By certain places I meant New York City. Do a lot of people in NYC have "outdoors" on their own property? I suspect not. Do a lot of people in NYC even own their own homes? Because most rentals disallow smoking. So in order to smoke, you have to outright buy a house or condo. Yeah, that's a reasonable compromise.

What about the sidewalk? In any case, there are a lot of activities that are impractical in a large city. Try finding a place where you can have a bonfire in NYC, for example. Yet nobody is up in arms about that . Do you know why most rentals disallow smoking? Because smoking ruins properties. It's not some vendetta against smokers, it's a pure financial consideration. It's the same reason they don't want you taking…

You have to go to the curb to smoke in some cities now (I've seen it in the Bay, don't know the specifics).

While I don't disagree re: property destruction, they'll make you pay for any damage anyway, so it would probably make more sense as a choice. "$2000 carpet replacement + cleaning + re-painting fee for smoking in this apartment" would surely dissuade some, but if it was the actual cost of labor + materials to restore the apartment to pre-smoking conditions (including smell), I think that's reasonable. Having pets, they sure do make you pay for any bit of messed up carpet, so as long as it's not leaking through the floors / into the hallways / billowing out the windows, why not give people the choice to pay for what they're messing up instead of outright banning it?

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#54

Post by toothbrush » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 10:19 AM UTC

ta92929 wrote: post #17

mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

They're complaining because they see the general trend. When it's getting to the point where you don't just have to go outside, which is reasonable, or even go outside but avoid high traffic areas, but instead to go to this one specific spot outside, and there are people advocating banning smoking outdoors altogether it starts to get ridiculous. I find it a strange comparison to the marijuana legalization movement. E…

If i was king of the world, i would probably indeed be okay with banning smoking inside of public buildings (including bars, whatever), but i think it's really rather silly to ban smoking in open-air areas, like the pavement in front of a bar. I mean, who is complaining about the cars driving past, which in my personal and very humble opinion are much more bothersome than cigarette smoke.

There is an argument to be made that if and only if we ban cars in inner cities (which would be wonderful -- they're smelly, very dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists alike, and detrimental to the environment to boot), then i would be okay with also banning smoking outside. If you think it stinks, stand elsewhere, and i don't have data on this, but i imagine that the influence of cigarette smoke on climate change is vanishingly small compared to the thousands of kilograms of CO2 put out by cars on a continual basis.

But yeah, i happen to find drivers a lot more offensive than smokers.