MovieChat Forums > Thank You for Smoking (2006) Discussion > Why don't people leave smoking alone?

Why don't people leave smoking alone?


I do not understand why we think it's our business to interfere with another person's choices, as long as they are over the legal age and of their own free will.
I do not smoke. I do not ever plan to start smoking. I think it is terrible for your health and extremely unattractive. I will try to teach my future kids the dangers of smoke. But ultimately, when they are 18, it is their choice.
I just don't see why we should be so concerned about other people making these choices. It is not like they don't know any better. Almost everyone knows that cigarrettes cause cancer. People who do it anyway are aware of the risks. Let them make their own decisions. It's their lives.

reply

The problem being that second-hand smoke has been such an over-hyped "hazard" that people jump on the opportunity to use that to control other people. That is what they have learned to do- find opportunities for control to change their world to their ideal environment.

They lost their "dream" in the 60's. So they've changed their MOD from acceptance to unacceptance and exploit whatever they can to trigger guilt and resentment over the "offending" action.

Now, I don't object to social pressures for change. I'm a strong advocate for it. What I object to is people using the government to bully individuals and their freedoms in order to get their way.



"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

the second hand smoke strikes again !!!!!! yeah people just jump on that when there really hasnt been any soild research to convince me it kills

reply

yeah people just jump on that when there really hasnt been any soild research to convince me it kills

..............

lmao I needed a good laugh. Thanks.


BobbyJay works for SAFETY:The Society forthe Advancement of Firearms & Effective Training for Youth

reply

R J Reynolds motto was "We don't smoke that sh#t, we sell it."

Sounds like your style. Grow up.

reply

'R J Reynolds motto was "We don't smoke that sh#t, we sell it." '

Cannabis?


It's that man again!!

reply

Than you haven't been looking for the research.

Real Steel - 9/10
Escape from the Planet of the Apes - 9/10

reply

Oh please, tell me what other report beyond the scant, unsupported term paper produced by some government hack. Something scientific, peer reviewed, not based on hysteria. I would really like to read it.

reply

I think viewers who thinks this is about smoking missed the whole point.

It was not about smoking. It was about using media to spin facts to fit agendas. About bringing up irrelevant or nonsensical argument into a debate. That if you're good at it, you can convince people to believe in rubbish.

In the scene where the main character explains to his kid what he does, using ice-cream flavors as a platform. Where he explained that debaters don't try to reason with their opponents with valid arguments, that they are there to persuade their audience to take sides, with whatever means. Plus other tips he gave. And the kid bringing up his parents divorce, which had nothing to do with whether he should be allowed to visit a cigarette company, but his tactics worked. It's obvious what this film is.

Smoking was just a subject that everyone is familiar and have heard both sides of the argument. If they had used hard political subjects, will muddle it into a political film ( which is kinda what's happening here in this thread ). And would spark the politics in the film instead of seeing it as what it really is. A farce, of modern media becoming a tool for anyone who has the power and money to market their politics, products.

It also ends with him moving to other areas to coach politicians and corporate heads. Which was to state, this type of ridiculous spinning is everywhere. And would apply even to events after this film. Much like how the investigation hearing of the financial meltdown, was a farce. Because nothing was addressed, everything was just distraction.

reply

[deleted]

Totally agree with your points. It was all about how our system can be manipulated by an argument, or a good dance with an argument so that the environment is conducive to the manipulators. It is not about who is morally right or wrong anymore but about who can entertain and sell the argument the best.

What I found interesting was that the smoke and mirrors were finally shown for what they were once Nick lied to himself that he would let his child smoke. Would you want your child smoking? Nick was bred to BS. He finally found his moral compass after the congressional meeting. I think that was a major point in the movie as well - "Would you want your child to do that?" If you are a parent of good standing morals, it will always come down to that very clear and precise question.

reply

2nd-hand smoke is not an "over-hyped hazard." It causes permanent and severe chronic breathing problems that, as in the case of my mother, have a big impact on quality and length of life.

The reason we non-smokers can't leave smokers alone is that they don't leave us alone. Their smoking not only affects our health and the health of our children, but it also costs us billions of dollars every year in health problems, higher insurance premiums. A substantial portion of our tax funds also has to go to helping people with health problems due to smoking.

So the realistic question is: "Why don't smokers leave the rest of us alone?"

My real name is Jeff

reply

the correlation between second hand smoke and permanent and severe breathing problems is weak at best. we are heavily polluting the world . if its dangerous enough to deplete the ozone layer and its in the air we breath then you have to believe it has an affect on our lungs and bodies. perhaps it is the reason the cancer rate is 8 times higher from now and 100 years ago

reply

the correlation between second hand smoke and permanent and severe breathing problems is weak at best. we are heavily polluting the world . if its dangerous enough to deplete the ozone layer and its in the air we breath then you have to believe it has an affect on our lungs and bodies. perhaps it is the reason the cancer rate is 8 times higher between now and 100 years ago

reply

I don't care if people smoke. As long as they don't smoke near me.
If you want to be respected, you have to show respect.
Not everyone around you is a smoker. You're fine with having cancer, I'm not. So don't throw your addiction in my face and make me unwillingly smoke your sh**, thank you.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

reply

I agree. If I handcuff you to a chair and then blow smoke at you, I am in the wrong and you have every right to be upset with me. But if I choose to light up, that's no sign of disrespect any more than if you choose to dab some perfume on yourself or eat popcorn while standing next to me. If you feel it's dangerous to you, then you really ought to move away from me, just as you would if one were lighting a match to see inside a gas can.



"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

But if I choose to light up, that's no sign of disrespect any more than if you choose to dab some perfume on yourself or eat popcorn while standing next to me. If you feel it's dangerous to you, then you really ought to move away from me, just as you would if one were lighting a match to see inside a gas can.

-----------------------------

It's these kinds of nonsensical arguments that make me laugh.
If you honestly think the effects of second hand smoke equal that of someone eating popcorn near you or wearing perfume then you're so out to lunch it's almost unbelievable. Second hand smoke can cause cancer.. listening to someone eating popcorn or smelling someone's perfume does not. No contest there.


BobbyJay works for SAFETY:The Society forthe Advancement of Firearms & Effective Training for Youth

reply

No. The effects on you are IRRELEVANT. It is an act that you are, in no way, being forced to participate. I am not comparing the dangers of second-hand smoke to perfume or popcorn. I am comparing the inconvenience of making a choice in your life and moving away from someone who is engaged in an activity that is unpleasurable or dangerous to you.
I don't give a rat's ass about how it affects you any more than I care about how you hate my aftershave. I choose to light up.

Hell, I can smear peanut butter all over my body and ride elevators all day long, not giving a rat's ass about your allergies. That is my freedom. I choose to wear peanut butter and your susceptibility to anaphylactic shock is none of my concern.

Freedom of movement. You have it. Use it. Run for your life, I say.



"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

That entire argument has proven that you're out to lunch. You have your views and as ****ed up as they are, there's obviously no getting through to you.

There's really no point in me continuing trying to talk sense into you so I'm going to block you.

Have a good life, whatever's left of it.


BobbyJay works for SAFETY:The Society forthe Advancement of Firearms & Effective Training for Youth

reply

To block understanding is the height of enlightenment these days, it seems.




"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

gabby_bm- where the aforementioned "understanding" is of just how ridiculous the opposing argument is, and the enlightenment is in choosing one's battles, you are entirely correct.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It can take up to 20, 30 or even 40 years for a smoker to get a tumor from smoking. Second hand smoke? You'd have to follow around a smoker 24/7 and then MAYBE, just maybe theres a teeny tiny chance you'd get lungcancer when you're 80 or something. Bunch of *beep* and oh yeah I don't smoke.

~Franky R.

reply

wiredmonk- you've presented some excellent scientific evidence to support your position. I am impressed. /sarcasm

reply

I agree that the anti-smoking hype has gone too far.

If someone wants to open a bar where like-minded people want to go and have a cigarette or cigar, what business does the government have in prohibiting such activity? It's beyond me. I don't have a problem with not smoking on planes, public transport, offices and so on but what is wrong with smoking sections in bars or nightclubs?

I wonder what will be next. Fast food? Sports cars? Hip hop?

reply

Tobacco fine. 4000+ chemicals added to cigarettes, not fine.

reply

Fair point, Burning-Monk!

reply

I'm just curious as to that 4000+ figure- is that added strictly to the tobacco or is that chemicals included in the whole cigarette and cigarette-manufacturing process? (paper/filter-paper manufacturing, filter, pesticides, fertilizer, etc.)

"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

I think it's mainly added to the tobacco but it may also be in the filter.
I am not sure the 4000 figure is correct, though. The problem is that it's very difficult to find reliable evidence: The 4000 figure comes from the anti-smoking lobby and if you believe their stories, then every person who has ever so much as touched a cigarette will die of cancer, which is, of course, nonsense.

Also, 4000 chemicals sounds pretty horrific but we are surrounded by chemicals: in our food, drinks, our clothes, our personal hygiene and other products ... Some chemicals occur naturally, others are harmless and are just added for colouring, smell, taste, texture, etc. And even if chemicals are potentially harmful, the question is: in what quantity? So the 4000 figure (or even the 60+ figure of chemicals in cigarette which are allegedly known to cause cancer) doesn't tell us much because we don't really know how these chemicals interact and what they do to our body.

Needless to say, of course: Smoking is bad for your health - whatever the exact amount of added chemicals.

reply

That sounds about right. However... smoking may be bad for my health, but often taking that break will keep me from killing other people. So it's kind of a wash.

"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

^^^^^this!!!

What's that, lord? Its okay to eat meat and beer and cheese? Alright I'll tell her

reply

Dana Reeve died from lung cancer because of second hand smoke!

reply

[deleted]

According to all of the news sources, she died from lung cancer. Also the fact that she performed in nightclubs and bars with smokers all around her.

reply

[deleted]

I wouldn't have problem with them if they don't smoke around me! I don't like it when smokers come near me in public and start smoking. I don't want to breath that crap! Smokers should leave us non-smokers alone and I will leave them alone.

reply

[deleted]

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off"


Welcome to life where danger lurks around every corner. It could be a smoker. It could be a kitty cat. It could be a brick tumbling down from the 18th floor. No one ever lay on their deathbed thinking, "well, at least I avoided lung cancer".




"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- Coming soon to Canada and on DVD!

reply

gabby- maybe not, but I'm gonna guess plenty of people exposed to a lot of 2nd hand smoke do lie on their deathbeds thinking just that.

reply

Roy Castle, British tap dancer and TV entertainer died of lung cancer in 1994. He was a non smoker and was a singer and musician who played in smokey bars and venues all his life. After his death his wife campaigned and eventually helped bring about the smoking ban in public places in 2006.

reply

Maybe he should have chosen not to work in smoke-filled bars and venues.






"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- NOW on DVD!

reply

gabby_bm on Mon Dec 12 2011 22:02:12 Maybe he should have chosen not to work in smoke-filled bars and venues.

No, a worker has the right to work in a safe environment. In law, this is the reason given in countries that have a smoking ban (well in Europe anyway). By the way, do you think a construction worker should leave his job if his site is unsafe?

reply

No, a worker has the right to work in a safe environment. In law, this is the reason given in countries that have a smoking ban (well in Europe anyway). By the way, do you think a construction worker should leave his job if his site is unsafe?

Uh....construction sites ARE unsafe. That's why they wear hard hats. Now if an employer had a policy of "no hard hats", I would definitely encourage that worker to leave the job. I DO think an employer should operate safely, of course. ANd many labor laws reflect this, not only for employee safety but the safety of society.
However, I also think there is a difference between worksite safety and worksite parameters.




"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- NOW on DVD!

reply

Or maybe he should have changed his genes so he didn't have a predisposition to cancer.

reply

Heres the problem. When people are on medicaid and other programs where taxpayers pay for citizens medical treatment, the fact that they screw up their lungs along w others' lungs thrrough second hand smoke, costs us money. I know you can make that argument for obese pple and other groups too, but the fact remains that we have to pay for the poor choices they make with their lives.

And yea you pple who are arguing second hand smoke doesnt harm pple are just ignorant. Plain and simple. You should vote Rick Perry since you guys will probably all agree that science is completely irrelevant. Global warming is probably a hoax too. Hell why did he even mandate the HPV shot, that thing probably doesnt help anyone. You pple are just unbelievable.

reply

[deleted]

So what's the price of freedom, exactly? Is it the cost of all those F-18's? The body armor of SWAT teams?

Maybe it's the cost of idiots drinking double moocha lattacinos while driving their car?

Could it be the cost of inhaling all the exhaust of cars or the perfumes of old ladies in church or the chemicals that clean the floors?

Perhaps it's the price of oil to make bicycle tires or the disposable diapers in our landfills. it could be the neighbor's cat pooping in my kids' sandbox or their dogs who run across the street forcing cars to stop abruptly causing neck injuries and risking lives.

It could be digital TV signals that pretty much rendered every old TV useless. It could be blister-packaging or plastic toys in every Happy Meal we choose to buy for our kids.

.
.
.
MAYBE freedom involves people doing what they choose to do and others sharing the planet with them, realizing that we all have the freedom to join in or walk away.

You talk about cost? I find oppression to be damned expensive. And I don't like my prices or taxes inflated to support it.






"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- Coming soon to Canada and on DVD!

reply

So now you do agree that smoking kills?
Otherwise how can non-smokers cost more to care for than smokers and the obese by living longer?
Are you a hypocritical shill or brainwashed junkie?

reply

[deleted]

You already tried to deny that second hand smoke hurts others (and it's rude too).
You or others compared smoking to car exhausts, well I've got news to you, you're not allowed to have a car running inside a room either, much less inside another person's room (yours is allowed if you're suicidal) because, guess what, its "smoke" (exhausts) hurts too. So does cigar smoke.
You can do it all you want to yourself, just not around me or others. It's that simple. Use cannabis too, I don't care. It should all be legal and taxed instead of crime controled. It should be regulated.

That study you linked says:
"...did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs."
So it's worthless.
In fact there was a scandal some years ago about East Block countries being counseled to let their population smoke to keep down health costs. And it was proven that that study was not only inhumaine, but also fraudulent. Guess what the Cigar lobby was once strong. It still is. They used to advertise some cigars as medical ffs. Look it up if you're too young.

The other point is that if people can live healthier and longer lives then we can increase the productivity limits (when you get pension for example). There's all sorts of things we can do, but you just want to die before you're 60...

The other common thing people do is complain about statistics. They say "smoking gives you lung cancer but my father lived to be 90 and died on a hunting accident". Or stuff like that. It's just stories to make the "bad" go away and feel good inside. The statistics are very real and obvious to anyone without bias.
My post isn't directed to you, but in general to all the pro smoking posters here.

Why is it so hard to understand that you got an addiction and we're treating you like an addict. We don't want to force you to stop smoking, we want to help you. But in the mean time you can only smoke alone, you cannot violate my personal freedoms by blowing smoke in my face or in my room/house. That includes public places too. Go to your room, or the park or the beach, though even in those places your smoke is bound to annoy some people who don't like to even smell it or have kids around. And it's their right to give you the "evil eye", don't feel self-righteous about it. You're not doing anything important, smoking isn't cool, only addicts see it that way. Confirmation Bias. Also a bit of Duning Kruger...

reply

Smokers pay allot more tax than you do, in Australia if a pack is $17 then about $14 or more is tax. So when a smoker gets sick they should be first in line and best looked after :-P

reply

In the UK the people that suffer from smoking related diseases are treated by the NHS which is paid for by the people of the United Kingdom, so yeah I think we have the right to get in people's faces about smoking. I was a smoker myself, I enjoyed smoking but I hated what it did to my health, my friends wouldn't come near me and you are basically just a dirty person.

To be quite honest you sound like a troll OP, you've never smoked and yet your posting this message, you truly have no idea how it affects people.

reply

Of course smoking and the inhalation of second-hand smoke is harmful. Mesothelioma, like any cancer, starts with a cause and an initiator. Asbestos may be the cause but inhaling second-hand smoke could be the initiator. So someone could get Mesothelioma from asbestos COMBINED WITH second-hand smoke, whereas asbestos alone may not cause it.

Also, a smoker should light up where there are no non-smokers. Don't expect non-smokers to move. The smoker should move. The only exception would be if the smoker was already smoking, THEN a non-smoker came near. THEN the non-smoker should move away.

reply

I think the main gripe arises because non-smokers came into smoking establishments and encouraged the government to strong-arm the rights and freedoms away from the smokers and business owners.

"Hey! I want to go into a smoking establishment and then complain about how I go home smelling like smoke, hacking out a lung! I know- let's get the government to bully their way into this guy's profitable business and make his customer base feel like outcasts, unwelcome and even slap them with a fine! THAT will make me feel better! After all, I shouldn't have to bust my ass making a decision for myself as to where I want to go have a beer. I should be able to go ANYPLACE I want- and the patrons and owner there should be catering to ME and MY preferences!"





Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!

reply

[deleted]

because almost all bars, clubs and discotheques - all good places to go out at night - are/used to be smoking establishments!


So? It's not a mandate to go bar-hopping, clubbing or even dining out. I can see taking smoking out of places where there are no alternatives- especially government buildings and hospitals. But one has a choice to go to a smoky club- or go into a dangerous cave or swim in a swamp.

Why oppress a hard-working business owner in order to appease a potential customer while alienating real and tangible customers who obviously don't mind and likely encourage the ambiance.

As the social dynamic changed, many restaurants and bars were going non-smoking on their own- and they were making a good profit until the government stepped in and ruined their niche market, making every bar and restaurant non-smoking.



Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!

reply

[deleted]

You just want me to go to those boards. You've done this several times already, and it's very trollish. Get over feeling stupid about the time travel thing already.

reply

oh, if only i could go back in time before i read either of your guys' posts and warn myself to not read the last two posts on this board...



Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!

reply

[deleted]

I live in Chicago and the fact that you can't smoke outdoors on a bar patio drives me nuts. People don't realize that smoking is just like drinking a beer. When you drink a beer and piss it out you are just pissing out the water from the beer the alcohol stays in your system. The same does with smoking when you inhale your body absorbs all the chemicals and you blow out carbon monoxide which is poisoinous but that what we breathe out all the time if anything the actually cigarette burning without being inhaled might me bad for someone around but its miniscule at best.

reply

You rather mean carbon dioxide. Huge difference.

http://www.korioi.net

reply

Wrong. The smoke itself is also harmful. And you're really talking about carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.

My real name is Jeff

reply

Why do I sound like a troll? Because I've never smoked? I've never driven drunk either, does that mean I should have no opinions on the subject?

Actually, my father smoked for years. He quit cold turkey about 10 years ago, thankfully. But that was his choice. He didn't blow smoke in my face and nobody had any problems with it.

My fiance smokes like a freight train. I've told him I don't like it. But guess what - that's his choice. I don't agree with his choice but I'm not going to physically force him to stop.

reply

tbh when you non or even worse, ex, smokers stop driving cars, stop using public transport, stop using any product made of plastic or steel, basically go and live in a cave for the benefit of your fellow man AND figure out a way to make up the tax shortfall that would hit the country and it's health service if smoking were to be eradicated overnight, then I may listen to you. Until then, whine on you crazy diamond (while I light up a cohiba and giggle at your herd mentality).

Peace

----
What kind of rat bastard psychotic would play that song, right now, at this moment?

reply

Reductio ad absurdum - not a good argument in favor of smoking in public. Also, the tax shortfall if smoking were eradicated would be tiny in comparison to all of the healthcare costs and the lost income of people made sick by smoking that would be saved - not to mention the value of the years of living added to the lives of millions of people.

My real name is Jeff

reply

[deleted]

I actually do what you suggest, I leave smokers alone. I stay very far away from them. When I have to pass near a smoker on the way out of a building, I let loose of that saved up fart for them. I figure it is in some small way 'payback.'

If smokers never had an impact on the rest of us, your rant might make sense. But smokers are for the most part very inconsiderate. They pollute the air and they pollute the environment. Look at the curb near almost any intersection with a traffic light, and see all the butts where smokers empty their ashtrays.

Our society has been pretty much a "polite" society, saving our belches, farts, foul-language rants, and the like for private places. Smokers should do the same.

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

I am not really a smoker nor am I a big supporter of it since as far as I am concerned it way of burning up money in smoke to the tobacco industries.

reply

they like the nicotine buzz. Helps them ease down when they are stressed.

reply

[deleted]

I suggest you all go and read Allen Carr.

reply