I've never heard of second hand Crispy Cream. Sounds tasty.
I've never heard of second hand Crispy Cream. Sounds tasty.
aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.
Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other.
That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
Appleseed wrote: I've never heard of second hand Crispy Cream. Sounds tasty.
Secondhand Krispy Kreme is far more disgusting than secondhand smoke, and far more common in the USA. Ex:
In reply to irish44j:
Hey! Real men have curves!
You guys are all off topic. This post is obviously supposed to be about Lucas electrics and their ability to release smoke for us. Please get this post back on track!
In reply to irish44j:
I'd rather see that all day everyday than put up with the stench of a smoker.
Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock wrote: In reply to irish44j: I'd rather see that all day everyday than put up with the stench of a smoker.
whatever floats your boat
I have been addicted to most of the usual stuff of my generation; booze, weed, cigarettes, tortilla chips. I've kicked them all but the cigs were the hardest. (I know weed isn't addictive).
My wife was a heavy smoker but in deference to me, she smoke only in the kitchen. Every spring I would have to wash the kitchen down. I think that watching this a few times helped her to quit.
Unfortunately it was too late.
Wall-e wrote: My aunt died of emphysema and I cleaned her car so her kids could sell it. There was enough tar holding the heater vents closed I could have paved a driveway.
My stepdad's mom would smoke two packs a night in her bedroom.
They were cleaning her room out (she was going into assisted living - she'd been living with her eldest son, who had recently passed) and my mom took an old sepia-tone photo of my stepdad as a kid off of the wall. The brown walls were white underneath. When she put the photo down, she bumped the glass with her finger. It wasn't sepia tone, the glass was just heavily glazed over with a layer of cigarette smoke goo.
KyAllroad wrote: Heavy smokers don't see how disgusting their walls get, nor can they smell the reek.
I wasn't a heavy smoker, but I never noticed the smell until about a year after I quit.
This is probably why most people who quit become militant anti-smokers, I figure. It's STRONG. I wonder if there is some sort of post-exposure sensitivity at play as well. Like that time I got a lungful of coolant steam, and for years after I would get sick at the merest whiff of coolant.
Harvey wrote: Yeah, those people outside shivering in the cold during the winter next to my office building while sucking on a butt look super cool.
"We're not out here to smoke. We're inclement weather enthusiasts."
My dad was a heavy smoker for 50 years. Every year he'd get tremendously ill and blame allergies. Or the weather. Or small children with shiney lips. Or whatever. But the fact was he smoked in one room of the house and the smell was enough to make your eyes water. Whenever I stayed there I'd have to wash everything in my suitcase when I left.
Eventually he moved from Mass to Fla and was able to smoke outside year round. The corner of the porch where he sat and smoked (3years) still smells of stale smoke and he died over two years ago.
That said his truck (now mine) smelled of smoke when I got it but a good scrubbing and lots of febreeze has made it much better. Worse was cas piss. Cat piss smells worse than stale cigarette smoke.
irish44j wrote:Harvey wrote: It's a testament to how addictive cigarettes are that people still smoke given how there are no positive aspects to it and a gigantic list of negatives.Lot of self-righteousness here from people on a forum that idolizes vehicles that are a major contributor to poor air quality in the world. And I'm not even talking about you guys that have VW diesels....or gutted cats on your race carsPeople do lots of things that have no visible positive aspects. Because the positive is the "doing" of something itself for the sake of personal enjoyment. Eating a Krispy Kreme. Taking a shot of Jameson. Taking that 40mph highway exit at 70. Smoking a cigar. Picking up hookers on a Saturday night (no, wait, forget I said that one!). YMMV.
Smoking a cigar once in a while is different from a regular cigarette smoker. Most of the enjoyment of cigarette smoking wears off after the initial usage pattern sets in, then you're just smoking to build back up to a base level of acceptability. Whatever enjoyment people think they're getting out of cigarette smoking is just the addictive craving being satisfied.
YMMV on regular cigarette smoking is total horseE36 M3. People's mileage does not vary. It's all bad and pretending it isn't at this point is just being willfully ignorant.
irish44j wrote:aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker.
The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.
Harvey wrote:irish44j wrote:Smoking a cigar once in a while is different from a regular cigarette smoker. Most of the enjoyment of cigarette smoking wears off after the initial usage pattern sets in, then you're just smoking to build back up to a base level of acceptability. Whatever enjoyment people think they're getting out of cigarette smoking is just the addictive craving being satisfied. YMMV on regular cigarette smoking is total horseE36 M3. People's mileage does not vary. It's all bad and pretending it isn't at this point is just being willfully ignorant.Harvey wrote: It's a testament to how addictive cigarettes are that people still smoke given how there are no positive aspects to it and a gigantic list of negatives.Lot of self-righteousness here from people on a forum that idolizes vehicles that are a major contributor to poor air quality in the world. And I'm not even talking about you guys that have VW diesels....or gutted cats on your race cars
The YMMV part was in reference to people doing things that they enjoy, regardless of the negative aspects of those activities. Nobody is "pretending" that smoking isn't unhealthy.
Harvey wrote:irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for pleasure (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?)
In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you).
But if you do happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.
irish44j wrote:Harvey wrote:The YMMV part was in reference to people doing things that they enjoy, regardless of the negative aspects of those activities. Nobody is "pretending" that smoking isn't unhealthy.irish44j wrote:Smoking a cigar once in a while is different from a regular cigarette smoker. Most of the enjoyment of cigarette smoking wears off after the initial usage pattern sets in, then you're just smoking to build back up to a base level of acceptability. Whatever enjoyment people think they're getting out of cigarette smoking is just the addictive craving being satisfied. YMMV on regular cigarette smoking is total horseE36 M3. People's mileage does not vary. It's all bad and pretending it isn't at this point is just being willfully ignorant.Harvey wrote: It's a testament to how addictive cigarettes are that people still smoke given how there are no positive aspects to it and a gigantic list of negatives.Lot of self-righteousness here from people on a forum that idolizes vehicles that are a major contributor to poor air quality in the world. And I'm not even talking about you guys that have VW diesels....or gutted cats on your race cars
Sugar, alcohol, both are addictive substances and have effects on public health, but at the very least you can point to the fact that the people abusing those substances aren't creating a toxic environment around them by consuming them. That's really what my OP was about, the fact that smokers leave toxins in their environment that stick around long after they are gone which can do a lot of harm to people.
irish44j wrote:Harvey wrote:Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for *pleasure* (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?) In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you). But if you *do* happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
It's kind of sad to see how defensive you're getting over cigarette smoking. It's not as if it's worth defending.
The companies that make the things are pretty horrid and have gone out of their way to make cigarettes as addicting as possible. They are generally considered to be even worse for you now than they were back in the 60s because of the design changes the companies made to them over the years to add to their addictiveness. In other countries without any regulations the companies setup shops to hand out individual cigarettes to kids coming out of schools.
If cars were comparable to cigarettes they would pollute even more than they did back in the 60s.
This isn't a knock on anyone personally and neither was the comment you originally quoted. The quote was remarking on how addicting cigarettes are to the point where people justify doing it even though there is no redeeming value. I'm not saying you're an inconsiderate person. I mean, it's a really hard habit to break.
Harvey wrote:irish44j wrote:It's kind of sad to see how defensive you're getting over cigarette smoking. It's not as if it's worth defending. The companies that make the things are pretty horrid and have gone out of their way to make cigarettes as addicting as possible. They are generally considered to be even worse for you now than they were back in the 60s because of the design changes the companies made to them over the years to add to their addictiveness. In other countries without any regulations the companies setup shops to hand out individual cigarettes to kids coming out of schools. If cars were comparable to cigarettes they would pollute even more than they did back in the 60s.Harvey wrote:Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for *pleasure* (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?) In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you). But if you *do* happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
lol...you think I'm defending smoking? Smoking is indefensible by any measure. Except to say that people all do things that are bad for themselves (and for others) to various degrees for various reasons.
I'm defensive over the hypocrisy of this anti-smoking pile-on in what (last I checked) is a motorsports forum. If we were on "Grassroots Live Healthy" forum, I could see it. But here we are on a forum where all of us (myself included) willfully and gratuitously pollute the atmosphere for the sake our our own pleasure driving, racing, etc. And no matter how clean "modern vehicles" are, we could all be driving 100hp ULEV cars to save the earth - but this forum is full of people who want or have 300, 400, 500hp in their daily driver cars (or their daily-driver large SUVs/pickups) and love old diesel tow rigs.
You may say "well, that's not the same thing." But in my opinion, it's exactly the same thing.
What I also take offense to is that I'm at home on a Saturday night with nothing better to do than argue on the internet.
irish44j wrote:Harvey wrote:lol...you think I'm defending smoking? Smoking is indefensible by any measure. I'm defensive over the hypocrisy of this anti-smoking pile-on in what (last I checked) is a motorsports forum. If we were on "Grassroots Live Healthy" forum, I could see it. But here we are on a forum where all of us (myself included) willfully and gratuitously pollute the atmosphere for the sake our our own *pleasure* driving, racing, etc. And no matter how clean "modern vehicles" are, we could all be driving 100hp ULEV cars to save the earth - but this forum is full of people who want or have 300, 400, 500hp in their daily driver cars (or their daily-driver large SUVs/pickups) and love old diesel tow rigs. What I also take offense to is that I'm at home on a Saturday night with nothing better to do than argue on the internet.irish44j wrote:It's kind of sad to see how defensive you're getting over cigarette smoking. It's not as if it's worth defending. The companies that make the things are pretty horrid and have gone out of their way to make cigarettes as addicting as possible. They are generally considered to be even worse for you now than they were back in the 60s because of the design changes the companies made to them over the years to add to their addictiveness. In other countries without any regulations the companies setup shops to hand out individual cigarettes to kids coming out of schools. If cars were comparable to cigarettes they would pollute even more than they did back in the 60s.Harvey wrote:Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for *pleasure* (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?) In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you). But if you *do* happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
The question is, why do you even care if people have an anti-smoking pile on?
Harvey wrote:irish44j wrote:The question is, why do you even care if people have an anti-smoking pile on?Harvey wrote:lol...you think I'm defending smoking? Smoking is indefensible by any measure. I'm defensive over the hypocrisy of this anti-smoking pile-on in what (last I checked) is a motorsports forum. If we were on "Grassroots Live Healthy" forum, I could see it. But here we are on a forum where all of us (myself included) willfully and gratuitously pollute the atmosphere for the sake our our own *pleasure* driving, racing, etc. And no matter how clean "modern vehicles" are, we could all be driving 100hp ULEV cars to save the earth - but this forum is full of people who want or have 300, 400, 500hp in their daily driver cars (or their daily-driver large SUVs/pickups) and love old diesel tow rigs. What I also take offense to is that I'm at home on a Saturday night with nothing better to do than argue on the internet.irish44j wrote:It's kind of sad to see how defensive you're getting over cigarette smoking. It's not as if it's worth defending. The companies that make the things are pretty horrid and have gone out of their way to make cigarettes as addicting as possible. They are generally considered to be even worse for you now than they were back in the 60s because of the design changes the companies made to them over the years to add to their addictiveness. In other countries without any regulations the companies setup shops to hand out individual cigarettes to kids coming out of schools. If cars were comparable to cigarettes they would pollute even more than they did back in the 60s.Harvey wrote:Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for *pleasure* (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?) In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you). But if you *do* happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
Primarily because I clicked on this thread thinking it was going to be some kind of joke about VW diesels or something like that (this being a motorsports forum), and then was dismayed that it wasn't. Then got sucked into debating because I enjoy it and am bored at the moment.
That, and I've always wanted to tell someone not to drive by my house but instead ride over on his high horse - only because of the funny mental picture it presents.
For the record, I don't disagree with any of your points. I just think the discussion in general has a holier-than-thou bent to it (as smoking discussions by non-smokers always do). Also I spend my days worrying about high-power military weapons and how to prevent them from raining destruction on the planet, so toxins in the air strike me as the least of my concerns. ;)
irish44j wrote:Harvey wrote:Primarily because I clicked on this thread thinking it was going to be some kind of joke about VW diesels or something like that (this being a motorsports forum), and then was dismayed that it wasn't. Then got sucked into debating because I enjoy it and am bored at the moment. That, and I've always wanted to tell someone not to drive by my house but instead ride over on his high horse - only because of the funny mental picture it presents. For the record, I don't disagree with any of your points. I just think the discussion in general has a holier-than-thou bent to it (as smoking discussions by non-smokers always do). Also I spend my days worrying about high-power military weapons and how to prevent them from raining destruction on the planet, so toxins in the air strike me as the least of my concerns. ;)irish44j wrote:The question is, why do you even care if people have an anti-smoking pile on?Harvey wrote:lol...you think I'm defending smoking? Smoking is indefensible by any measure. I'm defensive over the hypocrisy of this anti-smoking pile-on in what (last I checked) is a motorsports forum. If we were on "Grassroots Live Healthy" forum, I could see it. But here we are on a forum where all of us (myself included) willfully and gratuitously pollute the atmosphere for the sake our our own *pleasure* driving, racing, etc. And no matter how clean "modern vehicles" are, we could all be driving 100hp ULEV cars to save the earth - but this forum is full of people who want or have 300, 400, 500hp in their daily driver cars (or their daily-driver large SUVs/pickups) and love old diesel tow rigs. What I also take offense to is that I'm at home on a Saturday night with nothing better to do than argue on the internet.irish44j wrote:It's kind of sad to see how defensive you're getting over cigarette smoking. It's not as if it's worth defending. The companies that make the things are pretty horrid and have gone out of their way to make cigarettes as addicting as possible. They are generally considered to be even worse for you now than they were back in the 60s because of the design changes the companies made to them over the years to add to their addictiveness. In other countries without any regulations the companies setup shops to hand out individual cigarettes to kids coming out of schools. If cars were comparable to cigarettes they would pollute even more than they did back in the 60s.Harvey wrote:Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for *pleasure* (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?) In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you). But if you *do* happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
You know what's worse than 3rd hand smoke? 8th hand quoting.
irish44j wrote:Harvey wrote:Primarily because I clicked on this thread thinking it was going to be some kind of joke about VW diesels or something like that (this being a motorsports forum), and then was dismayed that it wasn't. Then got sucked into debating because I enjoy it and am bored at the moment. That, and I've always wanted to tell someone not to drive by my house but instead ride over on his high horse - only because of the funny mental picture it presents. For the record, I don't disagree with any of your points. I just think the discussion in general has a holier-than-thou bent to it (as smoking discussions by non-smokers always do).irish44j wrote:The question is, why do you even care if people have an anti-smoking pile on?Harvey wrote:lol...you think I'm defending smoking? Smoking is indefensible by any measure. I'm defensive over the hypocrisy of this anti-smoking pile-on in what (last I checked) is a motorsports forum. If we were on "Grassroots Live Healthy" forum, I could see it. But here we are on a forum where all of us (myself included) willfully and gratuitously pollute the atmosphere for the sake our our own *pleasure* driving, racing, etc. And no matter how clean "modern vehicles" are, we could all be driving 100hp ULEV cars to save the earth - but this forum is full of people who want or have 300, 400, 500hp in their daily driver cars (or their daily-driver large SUVs/pickups) and love old diesel tow rigs. What I also take offense to is that I'm at home on a Saturday night with nothing better to do than argue on the internet.irish44j wrote:It's kind of sad to see how defensive you're getting over cigarette smoking. It's not as if it's worth defending. The companies that make the things are pretty horrid and have gone out of their way to make cigarettes as addicting as possible. They are generally considered to be even worse for you now than they were back in the 60s because of the design changes the companies made to them over the years to add to their addictiveness. In other countries without any regulations the companies setup shops to hand out individual cigarettes to kids coming out of schools. If cars were comparable to cigarettes they would pollute even more than they did back in the 60s.Harvey wrote:Ok, sure. And so are drivers of fossil-fueled vehicles. Especially those who drive for *pleasure* (we can agree that driving for basic transportation is an acceptable tradeoff, yes?) In any case, I haven't had a smoke since mid-week, but now that I realize that I'm just an inconsiderate person in general I think I'm going to see if I have any in my garage so I can go drop some toxins in my driveway. Just warning you so you don't drive by my house for at least the next 10 minutes (the breeze will disperse it pretty quickly and I won't try to hug you). But if you *do* happen to drive by (with your windows up, of course), be sure to turn your engine off and coast, so your exhaust toxins don't have a negative effect on me. In fact, if you need to come to my general geographic area, I'd prefer you don't drive at all. Perhaps you can just ride your high horse...that should be mostly free of harmful emissions.irish44j wrote:Except you can't be considerate if you're a smoker and you have to be in close proximity to people. Unless you bathe, change your clothes and brush your teeth you reek of smoke to anyone that isn't a smoker. The whole point of the article is that smokers, whether considerate or not, are leaving toxins wherever they go.aussiesmg wrote: I really hate how smokers demand the right to smoke, but ignore the fact that they force everyone around them to also smoke, then act so indignant when they are told to remove themselves from the area where they are affecting other people. Taking a shot, or eating a donut does not affect those around you. However too many of both can.Inconsiderate people are inconsiderate people and shiny happy people are shiny happy people. Being a smoker has nothing to do with whether someone is one or the other. That's like saying "I hate people who drive cars, because they always drive below the speed limit in the left lane and won't move out of my way when I want to go faster."
As I said in one of my earlier posts, which you might have missed because I edited it while you were in the process of replying, this isn't anything personal about people that smoke. I have too many friends that are smokers that have tried to quit and failed and I know enough about the mechanisms of addiction and how potent and well designed a product it is to accuse someone of a personal failing for being a smoker. Certainly you can't blame someone for not understanding how addictive it is prior to getting into it. The smoking thing gets people early and keeps them hooked and when you're hooked you have to do, let's say some hard rationalizing, to keep using a product that you know is terrible for you and for the people around you.
Mostly I just posted this because people should understand what they are getting into when they are around smokers and where smokers have been and this thirdhand smoke thing was new to me. I get though that when you've got the habit that seeing people repetitively describe how awful it is (and the myriad different ways it is awful) is bound to be grating.
It's sort of impossible to get into any discussion of smoking without people having a visceral reaction to it.
I still remember my father choosing to take the first class seat upgrade in the upstairs smoking section of the 747 on a long flight from the east coast to Hawaii back in the 80s and having to endure a guy chain smoking for about 12 hours straight.
I just dislocated my thumb scrolling down the last few posts.
My 1978 FJ-40 was driven on a mail-route by a smoker.
It's was that factory bright blue inside and out. Well, the interior metal (there's a lot in an FJ) was pure green.
My girlfriend at the time went to work with heavy duty cleaners for hours.
This was 20 years ago and my parents just saw her at the grocery store alive and well thank God!
You'll need to log in to post.
