Any Smokers Sick of Being Lectured?

[Livvers]

I don't think making cigarettes illegal would cut down very much on smokers. Yeah, it WOULD cut down, but plenty of people would still do it. Think of how many people smoke pot, regardless of its legality.

Anyways, I agree with what you said, Nicolette.

 

[Dodongo]

Maybe they should just start a campaign to convert regular smokers to pot smokers. That would make everyone healthier and happier.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm going to admit that I skipped most of this thread after my first post, which was initially ridiculed. I was busy coming up with some numbers and facts to back up what I said. So, in classic GoldShadow Interesting Facts style, here is my anti-smoking argument:

CLAIM #1:
Much more tax revenue is lost due to smoking deaths than is made up for by the excise tax on smoking.

EVIDENCE: I’m going to use numbers for the United States, but this trend holds true in just about every country according to all sources I found. Let’s start here:

According to the CDC, in 2000 the average tax per pack of cigarettes was $0.76 (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/cigtax.htm
). According to the Federal Trade Commission, 398.3 billion cigarettes were sold in 2001 in the US; at 20 cigarettes/pack, this means 19.915 billion packs were sold. At an average tax of 76 cents per pack, the government made about $151,354,000 in cigarette excise taxes. (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/06/2001cigrpt.shtm)

Also according to the CDC, about 440,000 persons die per year of a cigarette smoking-attributable illness, resulting in 5.6 million years of potential life lost (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5235a4.htm).

The average life expectancy according to the CDC is 77.8 years (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm).

And finally, according to this BBC article which references a 50-year long study, the decrease in life expectancy for smokers is ~10 years on average (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826127.stm).

I chose to examine the loss in income tax due to smoking deaths; to do so, I looked up data on the amount of income tax paid by age group (on average of course), data that can be found on the National Bureau of Economic Research web page; the data is from about 1996, so it’s pretty close to the 2000 data on cigarette taxes. (http://www.nber.org/~taxsim/byage/)

Now, putting this all together:
Average life expectancy is 77.8 years. Using the income tax data from the NBER, assuming that the average smokers lives to about 68 years old but the average person lives to 78, we can calculate the average income tax lost by a single smoker by multiplying the age groups times the number of years:

Income tax age 68-70 = (2 years)($25100)= $50200
Income tax age 70-75 = (5 years)($13200)= $66000
Income tax age 75-78 = (3 years)($6632)= $19896

Adding these all together, we get $50200+$66000+$19896 = $136096 lost per smoker on average. Multiply by 440,000 smokers dead per year, and that’s $59,882,240,000 lost in lifetime income taxes.

In other words, in one year, smokers paid about $151 MILLION in cigarette excise taxes, but lifetime potential income tax that was lost due to premature death of smokers was almost $60 BILLION, or about $6 BILLION/YEAR.

Additionally, according to a study of the economic effects of smoking in various countries published in Salud pública de México (a Mexican journal on public health):

“…that tobacco consumption leads to high health care costs, involves a cost to employers due to productivity losses and worker disability, and represents a high social cost resulting from the occurrence of premature deaths in the society.”

It also concludes that, total cost due to health problems, lost productivity, second hand smoke, etc for men: $220,000 and for women: $106,000. (http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?...0036-36342006000700023&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en)

And according to a similar public health study by a Scandinavian journal:
“The estimated total cost for Sweden 2001 was US 804 million dollars; COPD and cancer of the lung accounted for 43%. Healthcare cost accounted for 26% of the total cost. The estimated costs per smoker were US 3,200 dollars in the USA 1998; 1,600 in Canada 1991; 1,100 in Germany 1996; 600 in Sweden 2001; and 300 in Sweden 1980 (all in 2001 US dollar prices)”

Citation:
Scandinavian journal of public health [1403-4948] Bolin yr.2007 vol.35 iss.2 pg.187 -96
Smoking, healthcare cost, and loss of productivity in Sweden 2001.

 

[GoldShadow]

CLAIM #2: The money spent by hospitals on tobacco- and smoking-related problems could be better spent elsewhere.

Refer to Understanding Health Policy by Bodenheimer and Grumbach, 4th edition

The issue isn’t as simple as “insurance pays for it, so it doesn’t waste hospital money”. I’m going to give a little primer on health insurance, so that it’s easier to understand why this wastes hospital money.

There are a number of ways insurance money gets to the healthcare provider in order to provide services. One way is called a 2-tiered capitated system; insurance pays the doctor’s office a certain amount per year for each patient that goes to that doctor’s office. Insurance also has a pool of money set aside called a “referral pool”. Every time that doctor refers a patient to another specialist, the specialist’s services are paid for by the referral pool. At the end of the year, whatever’s left over in the referral pool goes to the doctor and the doctor’s office to spend how they’d like.
With smokers, there will inevitably be more referrals; to pulmonologists, to cardiologists, to respiratory specialists, to radiologists, to oncologists, and to hematologists; more referrals = less money left over in the referral pool = less that goes to the doctor’s office for higher salaries or better equipment.

Another example is an HMO like Kaiser-Permanente (https://www.kaiserpermanente.org/) , which in many places actually owns entire hospitals; thus, it sets the annual budget for the entire hospital and pays for all insured members services at that hospital within that budget. This means that there’s very little “wiggle room”; if there are smokers requiring certain procedures, such as bypass operations and certain types of radiation and chemotherapy, that money cannot be allocated elsewhere; it can’t be used to, say, increase funding for a cervical cancer program or new scanning equipment. Or an anti-smoking program will take money away from other programs.

Another way smokers can hurt the system is that, with some types of insurance, the insurance pays up to a certain amount and then the hospital, or a combo of hospital + patient, have to pay the rest. So if an insurance company pays an annual amount to a hospital for one patient, regardless of number of visits, then the marginal cost per visit to the hospital is going to be much larger for the average smoker (since the smoker will, on average, be hospitalized more than a non-smoker). In other words, insurance will pay for a certain amount, but smokers are more likely to go past that limit; the risk falls on the hospital.

In emergency departments, which are required to treat all regardless of insurance, the burden falls on the hospital for patients without insurance. Patients without insurance are likely to be low-income; low-income or low-education is strongly correlated with smoking (http://www.springerlink.com/content/91qp026334717724/) . Thus, the portion of the population that smokes most is most likely to not have insurance and is most likely to be hospitalized for smoking-related problems, costing EDs millions of dollars every year.

And since late stage diagnosis of smoking-related cancer is more likely in the uninsured, hospitals have to pick up the tab for chemotherapy, tumor removal, and radiation therapy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/acs/20080221/hl_acs/late_stage_diagnosis_more_likely_among_uninsured)

According to a study by an ER physician, in 1998, between just 2 hospital emergency departments,10% of total hospital charges were due to smoking-related illness. What were total hospital charges? $296,962,685; in other words, about $30 million dollars, 10% of total hospital charges, were due to smoking-related admissions. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=adf5c88ebec2bd3470b31779bf35f2f2)

(http://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757(02)30058-5/abstract)

 

[GoldShadow]

OTHER STUFF

Some British newspapers recently suggested that the British NHS (National Health Service) ban smokers from receiving certain procedures to treat smoking-related problems due to the waste of money and impact on others:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Don't-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy,-say-doctors.html

http://healthcare-economist.com/200...dical-procedures-for-smokers-and-the-elderly/

Smoking cost to hospitals in Canada:
http://www.cqct.qc.ca/Documents_docs/DOCU_2004/ETUD_04_01_15_GroupeDAnalyseCoutTabacENG.PDF

Study says that smokers are much more likely to miss work (absenteeism), decreasing productivity. Additionally, the building of smokers’ lounges and smoking areas also requires a lot of money. There is also a decrease in productivity due to decreased stamina and the need to take smoking breaks; doesn’t seem like much but it adds up. Smokers also raise the average insurance premiums for all, resulting in a net insurance premium increase. The total cost to employers due to absenteeism was found to be $752,656,004 per year in Canada. The total cost to employers due to lost productivity was found to be $2,992,330,295. The increase in life insurance premiums due to smokers was $252,561,260. The cost of building smoking areas was $156,164,568.

The total cost of smokers in Canada in one year is about $4,154,000,000; over 4 billion dollars.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm going to take my chances with a quadruple post infraction.

If anybody would like to argue with me from here on out, please put forth the evidence and the proof.

 

[HAT]

Claim 1- Okay. Smokers cost the government tax money. Boo hoo.

Claim 2- Okay. Smokers cost hospitals money. So do alcoholics. So do people with STDs. ETC. It costs money, so it should be banned? I think not.

Claim 3- Smoking areas cost money. ..I don't need an argument for this one. And smokers are more likely to be absent from work? Chill the **** out, you didn't even give me a number. Don't throw out statistics that are negative and hope to win an argument.

In America, there's no reason to ban cigarettes.

 

[GoldShadow]

Claim 1- Okay. Smokers cost the government tax money. Boo hoo.

Claim 2- Okay. Smokers cost hospitals money. So do alcoholics. So do people with STDs. ETC. It costs money, so it should be banned? I think not.

Claim 3- Smoking areas cost money. ..I don't need an argument for this one. And smokers are more likely to be absent from work? Chill the **** out, you didn't even give me a number. Don't throw out statistics that are negative and hope to win an argument.

In America, there's no reason to ban cigarettes.

All the numbers are in the links provided. Feel free to peruse the studies I listed, they have everything in there. On the other hand, you haven't provided anything. Don't throw out nothing at all and hope to win an argument.

Cigarettes are an easily preventable, unnecessary, unhelpful product; in addition, they cost a lot of money that could be better spent. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to ban everything that costs money; but smoking is an expensive habit that has essentially no purpose. It costs the government billions; billions that could be spent toward education, the FDA, infrastructure, defense, and countless other things.


Look, I'm not saying that you should all quit smoking because I said so. I wish you would, but that's not what I'm asking; it would be stupid.

I am asking that smokers acknowledge that smoking is a very costly habit; not just to them, but to society as a whole.



edit: also, I'm not trying to insult or attack you or anyone else personally, I'm trying to have a rational argument; could you stop insulting me?

 

[HAT]

All the numbers are in the links provided. Feel free to peruse the studies I listed, they have everything in there. On the other hand, you haven't provided anything. Don't throw out nothing at all and hope to win an argument.

Cigarettes are an easily preventable, unnecessary, unhelpful product; in addition, they cost a lot of money that could be better spent. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to ban everything that costs money; but smoking is an expensive habit that has essentially no purpose. It costs the government billions; billions that could be spent toward education, the FDA, infrastructure, defense, and countless other things.


Look, I'm not saying that you should all quit smoking because I said so. I wish you would, but that's not what I'm asking; it would be stupid.

I am asking that smokers acknowledge that smoking is a very costly habit; not just to them, but to society as a whole.



edit: also, I'm not trying to insult or attack you or anyone else personally, I'm trying to have a rational argument; could you stop insulting me?

lol this is a smash forum. talking **** is a necessity.

there are indeed a lot of things that cost the world money and really have no purpose. but cigarettes make me happier, and they make others happier too, i'm sure.

the point is, if it has no purpose, and causes damage, then it has no reason to exist, right? well you could say the same thing about everything in existence. i haven't any studies or statistics, but i do have the logic necessary to argue with you.

why should people stop smoking? why should people stop fighting? why should people stop drinking?

there isn't anything in this world that doesn't have a price. to make one person happy, you have to **** over another. it's a fact of life.

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

lol this is a smash forum. talking **** is a necessity.

there are indeed a lot of things that cost the world money and really have no purpose. but cigarettes make me happier, and they make others happier too, i'm sure.

the point is, if it has no purpose, and causes damage, then it has no reason to exist, right? well you could say the same thing about everything in existence. i haven't any studies or statistics, but i do have the logic necessary to argue with you.

why should people stop smoking? why should people stop fighting? why should people stop drinking?

there isn't anything in this world that doesn't have a price. to make one person happy, you have to **** over another. it's a fact of life.

There are a lot of other things one can do to make themselves happy. In fact I would rather you snort coke or chew tobacco than smoke cigarettes.

Why Not ??

Goldshadow is just showing that there's effectively no argument for smoking other than it makes me happy and it's my choice. However, the argument against benefits everyone, even those smokers that may be restricted by it. It's an entirely selfish habit and while any intention is to some degree selfish, there is no selfless aspect to smoking.........

 

[derek.haines]

Cigarettes are an easily preventable, unnecessary, unhelpful product;

So are hamburgers, but nobody is throwing the book at fast food eaters. You don't need a special section at the mall to enjoy a things of french fries, but they likely do more damage to your health. Alot of things that are unhelpful are also unneccessary and easily preventable, but just because we can prevent them does not mean that we should. It's a matter of freedom--LIBERTY, that little idea that our nation was founded on and the rest of the world seeks to follow in one way or another.

 

[Reyairia]

For those who compare fast food to cigarette smoking.
They both suck, and they're both unhealthy, and they both shorten your lifespan. One doesn't excuse the other, but one is more socially acceptable for now. That's the only difference. I agree that it's absolutely hypocritical that an obese person would lecture you on smoking but using that as an excuse to keep going is just as silly.

 

[Mini Mic]

In economics terms smoking produces a negative externality as a result of second hand smoke thus the social cost is greater than the private cost. Speaking from a strictly economical point of view we should tax cigarette companies into the ground.

 

[GhostAnime]

second-hand smoke isnt as bad as everybody says it is. you have a choice of walking away and its only serious if you breathe in it deliberately.

It's an entirely selfish habit and while any intention is to some degree selfish, there is no selfless aspect to smoking.........

that makes gaming a selfish habit. that makes watching tv a selfish habit. just because theyre doing it for themselves doesnt mean theyre selfish.

 

[Reyairia]

second-hand smoke isnt as bad as everybody says it is. you have a choice of walking away and its only serious if you breathe in it deliberately.

First of all, yes, second hand smoke is pretty bad. Just because it doesn't cause an immediate heart attack does not mean it isn't bad.
Secondly, you can't walk away if the smoker in question is a spouse, child or parent.

 

[GhostAnime]

taken by a recent debate thread.

you do make a fair point with living with family members but they can still be asked to smoke outside.

 

[Reyairia]

taken by a recent debate thread.

Interesting, as I'd like to know who funded such research, considering several cigarette companies are still pulling the old "correlation does not mean causation" card.
However, I am sure that a smoking parent heightens the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html
And yes, that is .gov.

you do make a fair point with living with family members but they can still be asked to smoke outside.

And what if they refuse to smoke outside of their own homes?

 

[GhostAnime]

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.htmlAnd yes, that is .gov.

good read. the only people id worry about are the ones who have asthma, high blood pressure and whatnot. as for the people who arent like that, holding your breath or breathing in the smell of it once is hardly an inconvenience when they probably breathe in a ton of other type of smoke like grills.

[And what if they refuse to smoke outside of their own homes?

this isnt a problem with smoking; this is a problem with the person.

 

[Reyairia]

good read. the only people id worry about are the ones who have asthma, high blood pressure and whatnot. as for the people who arent like that, holding your breath or breathing in the smell of it once is hardly an inconvenience when they probably breathe in a ton of other type of smoke like grills.

a) Yes, but you can never tell who has high blood pressure or asthma just by looking at them.

b) I don't think you read it all properly;

Allow me to expand on the first major conclusion. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard for all people: it is harmful to both children and adults, and to both women and men. It is harmful to nonsmokers whether they are exposed in their homes, their vehicles, their workplaces, or in enclosedpublic places. We have found that certain populations are especially susceptible to the health effects of secondhand smoke, including infants and children, pregnant women, older persons, and persons with pre-existing respiratory conditions and heart disease.

ALL people, not those with health risks, but everyone.

c) Does grill smoke have at least 250 chemicals that are toxic or carcinogenic?

 

[GhostAnime]

yes. im aware of that. i read that part, and i still believe that a few puffs of the smell isnt going to suddenly cut the average person's life short.

 

[Reyairia]

yes. im aware of that. i read that part, and i still believe that a few puffs of the smell isnt going to suddenly cut the average person's life short.

No, but it's still harmful, and that's enough in my opinion.

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

second-hand smoke isnt as bad as everybody says it is. you have a choice of walking away and its only serious if you breathe in it deliberately.

that makes gaming a selfish habit. that makes watching tv a selfish habit. just because they're doing it for themselves doesnt mean they're selfish.

Actually yes it does..........you're assuming it solely connotes bad things. Some of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century were made out of selfish intention. I'm not just saying that being selfish is bad. I am however saying that in being selfish and costing society, there is no reason to maintain any right to smoke.

eg. It would be very selfish of me to steal all that I want or need in this world. However, society dictates certain repercussions and thus any act of theft is not only frowned upon but punished accordingly. Spewing talk about liberty and the values this nation were founded upon is bull. You know why ? Reason being that in defining legality the nation has already restricted and infringed upon personal "freedoms." Sure you can do anything anytime, but there are serious consequences for committing certain acts.

Smoking, as GoldShadow has illustrated, is akin to stealing from society.




Also, to whomever made the fast food analogy.
Counter-Argument : Do humans require some sort of food/liquid/calorific substance as a basic necessity? Asking the same of smoking, it's completely frivolous.

 

[GhostAnime]

smoking akin to stealing? what are smokers stealing?

Counter-Argument : Do humans require some sort of food/liquid/calorific substance as a basic necessity? Asking the same of smoking, it's completely frivolous.

do you require to come to this forum? its completely frivoluos!

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

Lol true.......so why even reply to my completely frivolous statement. Perfectly reversible argument !


Did you read Goldshadow's post ?

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I come from Canada eh?

Smoking has a whole different level of issues surrounding it here, mainly in the fact that we all pay taxes into a health care system. Its mandatory, but in return, anyone can show up to a hospital and receive care. Could be as simple as a common cold, could be as serious as a heat transplant. Its all covered. Its a pretty nice tradeoff.

However, smokers do literally destroy that system. A smoker is purposely and willingly making themselves sicker, faster, and more often. You know how many people get cancer from smoking? You have any idea how many people have respiratory related diseases from it? They cost thousands of dollars to cure, per person. They bog down the system at a much higher rate than the average Canadian.

The tax revenue collected from cigarettes is often the counterargument to this. Every smoker will bravely say "I pay taxes just like you, and I pay taxes on my Cigs, I've earned my right to get health-care down the road".

But have they really? Even if they were to place $1000 dollars a year into the system, and smoked for 50 years without any smoking related issues, they'd still only have 50 000 dollars of offset. One extremely treatable and early caught case of cancer can cost that much to cure. But, if you get caught with a brutal, surgery bound, year off work to fight cancer case, by the time you actually factor the disability you'll receive combined with the cost to the system, you'll be WELL over the tax revenue you gave to the country.

And thats only cancer... what about the HUGE other set of health risks? What about CHRONIC disease that costs thousands PER YEAR? They definitely won't have paid enough into the system to cover that.

I applaud the Ontario government that is actively trying to end smoking anywhere it can. Its against the law to smoke in any building thats not residential. I would imagine that soon, the only place you will be able to smoke in privately owned home. Many apartment complexes are banning smoking on a building by building basis.

All shops in Ontario no longer allowed to have any tobacco related product on display. They have to be covered underneath a counter, out of site. That will get rid of the last form of advertisement allowed in Ontario. Some officials in parliament are even trying to push banning smoking in cars while children are present. Seems extreme, but has some sound merits. Kids aren't as likely to know the effects of second hand, and are FAR less likely to ask you put it out.

It's all good in Canada's case. That much less money comes out of the health care system for people who genuinely get sick. In the United States though, its a whole different story. xD

 

[Tope]

Nicotine doesn't really have any true negative side effects, except for the addiction.

The smoking is the part that sucks.


Also, quitting smoking is a *****.

 

[JFox]

Gold shadow, I commend you on all of the research you provided us with to back up your facts. Most of us would have said "**** it, thats gonna take too much time" and went to another thread. You've convinced me that your right about how much money cigarettes are costing this country...

However, as much as I admire your effort, its really not the topic of this thread. I know I provoked your response, and I thank you for sharing, but it doesn't make me any less right about the topic at hand here. It seems that everyone has wandered into an entirely different direction.


This thread is NOT a debate on "should America allow smoking". Its a DISCUSSION on why the persecution of smokers is rude and senseless. It is easy to make hundreds of points on why smoking is bad for this country, including economic as well as health risks. But that doesn't change the fact that you are being rude.

Smokers are fully aware of the health risks, and they don't really care about the losses the government will take. We spend trillions of dollars every year, the 6 billion isn't enough to change their mind.

The point is many fat people are happy being fat, and many are not. But you certainly don't throw facts in their face about how they are contributing to a pandemic that causes them to die early, or that they are costing our government 6 billion dollars a year.

Same goes for smokers, they deserve the same respect. Many people are happy being a smoker, many people are not. Many have tried numerous times to quit, its not easy. Many of them made the choice when they were very young and they regret it. And some don't regret it. Regardless, you DON'T go up to them and tell them how unhealthy a lifestyle they live. Every smoker knows the health risks, and you are just being rude. I would say that the smoker has the same right to flip out at you as the person who is overweight.

To each their own. They're not hurting you, let them be.

 

[GhostAnime]

Did you read Goldshadow's post ?

i took one look at "most smokers act like this" and stopped.

now tell me what smokers are exactly stealing that makes you equate them to people who ACTUALLY break the law.

 

[pockyD]

smokers r jokers

 

[JFox]

OH! Goldshadow I found a flaw in point #1 of your argument (which should probably not be continued, but w/e.)

Smokers that die at the age of 68 are already retired. Thus by dying, they are actually saving the government money because they are not collecting retirement money. So by 68 you wouldnt be working anyways, meaning the federal income tax of 6 billion is not even something we should be considering for someone of that age!

Point 2 seems less solid than point 1. I'll get on that later...

 

[pockyD]

ok i read the first post (and not really anything past that because it's too long and i'm guessing redundant)

Unless you are living with a smoker, cigarettes no longer affect anyone but the smoker.

........ what?

i'm personally not one to lecture smokers, but i do absolutely hate smoke and i will move way from them if possible (that includes awkwardly jogging past the smoker in front of me just so i can be upwind of him)

i have found that most smokers are considerate enough to not smoke near you if you request that of them

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

Smoking and Athleticism are polar opposites.

........so off-topic


This thread is getting boring....smokers can do wtever the **** they want with a cigarette as long as it ain't anywhere within a 25 foot radius of me and/or, generally, others that despise the habit.

As for the actual argument of senselessly pestering the smokers....ignore those who do, because I know that's what I do to you. Take your own advice and just move on.

Agreed to disagree.

 

[Firus]

Yeah, I agree. Teach the Elementary Schoolers and Middle Schoolers that it's bad. By High School, people are going to have their minds made either way and teaching them isn't doing anything. In college and adulthood, you definitely shouldn't be lecturing them.

I don't smoke, nor does anyone I know. However, my grandpa and grandma used to smoke. My mom said that my grandpa was a 3-packs-a-day kind of guy. My mom doesn't have any sort of lung disease, nor do either of my mom's siblings. Now, statistics say that secondhand smoke does cause diseases, and thus I cannot actually argue this realistically, but I'm inclined to believe that that's not completely true.

I don't appreciate smoke, though. I mean, I actually don't mind the smell of cigarettes too much, but it's still a little disruptive. Marijuana...GOD, I don't see how anyone smokes that, I can't even smell it. It smells like crap.
But I digress. I'm not necessarily a fan of smoking, but I don't see reason to lecture.

 

[JFox]

OH! Goldshadow I found a flaw in point #1 of your argument (which should probably not be continued, but w/e.)

Smokers that die at the age of 68 are already retired. Thus by dying, they are actually saving the government money because they are not collecting retirement money. So by 68 you wouldnt be working anyways, meaning the federal income tax of 6 billion is not even something we should be considering for someone of that age!

GoldShadow, where you at to back up your facts?

 

[pockyD]

GoldShadow, where you at to back up your facts?

can you explain this one first

Unless you are living with a smoker, cigarettes no longer affect anyone but the smoker.

 

[Marie_54]

I moved to a new apartment recently and 2 of our neighbors love to smoke... My dad and I have asthma so it gets pretty annoying... The parents of the guy who smokes the most say that they constantly lecture him and he doesn't give a crap.

Everytime we get home and it stinks on the front entrance my mom starts coughing really loudly near the neighbor's door to annoy them...

 

[Mini Mic]

Some smoke wench blew smoke in my face today, I was tempted to break her in half.

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

LOL smoke wench

 

[Yuna]

I would never lecture someone just for smoking unless they were a close friend of mine and I really care about their health (but it's not like I'd harass him, I'd just ask him why he started and why he doesn't stop).

But if you smoke near me, any of my friends or kids that just don't know that smoke is bad, I'll be right there to give you a verbal ***-kicking. And just three days ago, some woman was smoking at a bus stop and just threw the cigarette on the ground and boarded the bus. I had to stomp it out.

 

[Dodongo]

That's the first time I've noticed Yuna posting in the pool room in over a year.