What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
119 Comments
- radicaldementia, on 10/11/2007, -10/+49"As it turned out, some smokers loved wearing the jacket, and wanted to wear it even when not smoking. However, as soon as it started to darken, that was the point at which there was a disconnect and they couldn't reconcile feeling pride in something that other people thought was 'gross'."
Has anyone told them that's what's happening to their real lungs? It's funny that people have more pride in a piece of clothing than they do for their own body. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -7/+34Not that I wouldn't wear that cool-looking jacket, but anti-smoking propaganda is really getting out of hand. To paraphrase Pj ORourke, there is only one basic human right, and that is to do whatever the hell we want. With that comes the only basic human duty, which is the duty to take the consequences.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20BTW i am an EX smoker. I quit for health reasons. But when people think they have the authority, based on a multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign, to tell me I can't enjoy a legal habit "in public," I begin to get pissed. Sure, you can't drink in public either, but they also banned smoking in bars. So basically, criminalize it or ***** off is my position.
- rajibaba, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Here's an awesome idea: how about a driver's jacket? It will have a tube that runs back to the tailpipe, and the more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons your vehicle emits, the dirtier the jacket becomes. That sounds great, I'd certainly wear one if I drove.
- NickSentowski, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13@4degrees
I'm not a smoker, however I am digging you down because of your cocky remark.
I am someone that supports the freedom of decision. If you do not care to be near smokers, stay away from them. In my town, smoking is banned inside of all public buildings. Supporters of this law are cheering in delight while sidewalks now become crowded with smokers.
My bigger pain yet is that the LAW has taken the decision out of the hands of the business owners. If a building is to be smoke-free, shouldn't that be the decision of the building's owner? Our law is written as a way to protect the employees from being "forced" into working in a smoke "infested" area, but don't the employees have the CHOICE to work there?
The whole argument just frustrates me. - Cerialthriller, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10im not going to carry around some ***** so other dont have to be bothered. It pretty ridiculous when you are at a bar and there are more people outside the bar then inside, and then the cops come and tell you that you have to go back inside where you can't smoke. So you cant have cigarettes inside the bar, and you cant have beer outside the bar WTF? I will bet that you come in contact with atleast 5 things everyday that is worse for you then cigarette smoke. That welding shop you walk passed on the way to work, that construction site, car exhaust, your furnace, cleaning chemicals for your kitchen and bathroom to name a few. I love the look on you people's faces when you walk past my porch when im smoking, like i shouldnt smoke on my own front porch because youll have to smell as you walk past.
- greenriver572, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10i'll be waiting to see people smoking blunts in this thing.
- NickSentowski, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I think it would be better if there were both smoking, and non-smoking bars in the neighborhood. It should be the owner's decision to ban smoking, not the government's.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12People are becomming about worthless these days. I do not smoke. I am highly against it however if you want to smoke you have the right to. I live in chicago and January 1st a complete smoking band of all bars and resteraunts go into affect. I tottally disagree with this. Bars are supposed to be a place to go have a good time drink some drinks and if you like smoke. I just think people are getting a little out of hands forcing there opinions on other people.
- darthsabbath, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8As I recall, the customers do not OWN the bar. If you want to go to a bar where smoking is not allowed, then complain to the bar owner. If enough people complain, then the bar owner will risk losing business if he doesn't ban smoking.
This issue isn't about smoker's rights. It's about the property rights of business owners. YOU do not have the right to go to their business. They have the right to ALLOW you in their business.
Anyone who uses the government to enforce their worldview over someone else's property is a scumbag *****. - xCaRpEnOCtemx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11I am a smoker and I am really tired of people giving me ***** about when I smoke in public places. I get treated like a leper because of something I choose to do and people sit around me at a coffee shop for example and then will complain when I light up. I am already outside sitting off to the side to try and not blow smoke in peoples face because that is rude but yet people feel the need to get on their high horse and make fake coughing noises. I AM SORRY BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT SIT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10whats with all the smoking nazis on the post. There is a thing called personal responsibility. If you want to smoke go ahead. If you dont want to be around smokers dont go to places they are likely to hang out ie bars.
- kidd3ckz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10rajibaba's comment upset me. my great great great great great uncle died in a car jacket accident.
- rajibaba, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@afreyt: Certainly you didn't just say "have a beer"? The horror! Have you seen what those things can do to your liver? When did bars become places to slowly kill yourself? Uhhh, yea
- XA04, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Great idea. However, serious contradiction. Smokers should have some device they can blow into to avoid blowing it in other peoples faces (probably wouldn't have a problem using it!) - but I don't think they would be happy about the image of their dirty lungs.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9allright guys I live on a highly traveled road. Cars go back and fourth on it all day. Im pretty sure they are releasing carcinogens that hurt me and also the enviroment. I think they should ban cars. If not all cars: Atleast the ones that are being driven right in front of my hosue.
- bufferoverflow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I used to be polite in the face of sometimes extreme rudeness. I'm not anymore. If asked and approached *politely* I will be generally happy to comply with a request. I used to do this all the time, in spite of looks of death and mean tones. Sitting next to someone at a bar or restaurant and they asked me to put it out, politely, and I always would, and generally go outside for any future ones. Years, and years, and years of abuse from utter ***** who don't get the basic concept of common courtesy when I'm trying to be polite has worn what tolerance I have down to a very very fine thing.
No one *ever* approaches a smoker politely anymore, and I see no need to reward a raging ***** with anything but the behavior of a raging *****. It seems the vast bulk of the vehement non-smoking people forgot that to expect common courtesy, you need to give common courtesy. Something that is *VERY* lacking amongst the anti-smoker lobby. I still stay away from entrances and travelled causeways, because that's the polite thing to do. I will ask, nicely if I may smoke in someone's home before lighting up, and since none of my roommates smoke, I smoke either outside or in my room when the weather is *****.
It's a simple approach to dealing with people. You're asking someone to make an accession to your tastes, be polite about it. You're generally going to be approaching *THEIR* space. But you'd be surprised what saying "Pardon me (sir/maam), would you mind doing X(move, put it out, etc.)? Smoking really bothers me" in a nice tone of voice w/o obviously contemptious body language can get you if it's a perfectly reasonable request. Don't expect me to comply if I'm camped out at a fairground for 10 hours longer than you to catch a public show, and there's no place to go. I'll do my best to keep people from being exposed, but comeon, why do you have to be a prick? Especially when you probably drive a car and pollute way more than I am. - fronkman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7hey otto:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11740032&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
peer reviewed medical research that 327 people die in New Zealand every year from second hand smoke. 327 people! still think your filthy habit doesn't hurt others?
to the guy asking about car emissions: yes, we should be passing incredibly strict laws to reduce car emissions to the absolute lowest level possible with the technology we have today.
to the guy who doesn't like people who are rude to him when he smokes in public: YOU STARTED IT! i have never seen someone come up to a person WHO ISN'T SMOKING YET and start yelling at them. if you play music too loud, smoke around other people, drive a vehicle that belches noxious pollution, throw litter and garbage on the ground then YOU ARE IMMATURE. you should not be surprised that you are being accosted by other people because you are behaving like a child.
we as Americans need to stop stomping around acting as though nothing we do has consequences or that the consequences don't apply to us. that sort of attitude is what takes our national debt from 4 trillion in 2000 to 8 trillion in 2007. what did we spend that money on? making sure everyone in the US has access to a college education? making sure everyone in the US has access to affordable, highly accessible, high quality health care? providing grants to researchers to develop vehicle technology that will allow us to stop using foreign oil? NO NO NO NO NO
we spent all of that money on guns, tanks, bombs, anti-nuclear weapon "star wars" programs (WHICH STILL DON'T WORK AFTER 25 YEARS OF RESEARCH), planes, ships and loads and loads of gas to power all of that st. all for a war we aren't winning, shouldn't be involved in and for one that we will be involved in for decades to come.
im sorry, but you are all incorrectly interpreting PJ O'rourke. the point of his statement is not that you SHOULD do everything and accept the consequences for it. the point is that the THOUGHT of the consequences should deter people from doing some things.
unforunately we are a country of fat, selfish retards and that will never happen. at least we are sinking fast and the pain won't be protracted.... - Otto, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15hoju: Nobody has ever died of second hand smoke. Nobody.
Go ahead, try to prove me wrong. Find *ONE SINGLE CASE* of a confirmed death that is directly attributable to second hand smoke. Just one. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -19/+24@swrostmore, in principle I agree...BUT cigarette smokers in public, quite franky, pollute the air. I rank them up with people who urinate in public. The smell is equivalent.
If you want to smoke...fine. Do it at home. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6persecute : to opress or harass
I'd say limiting/banning a legal activity, and harassing people who are legally enjoying said activity, qualifies as persecution. But maybe you have a different definition?
BTW I dont smoke. - dragonexe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6[[peanut gallery: Seeing as smoking is banned in buildings, and 15 feet from the entrance of buildings, its pretty easy for you to avoid hanging out near people who are smoking.]]
I've yet to see that rule actually followed, especially while I was in north dakota. I don't think the death penalty would have been enough to enforce the 15/20 foot rule when its 10 degrees below zero. - dodus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It's so hypocritical to listen to people bitch about the government taking away our rights except when it comes to their own pet peeves. Without personal responsibility, liberty doesn't work, and we might as well be living in an authoritarian state. I will say that all of the smokers I know are a lot more forgiving of the vices and habits of others that they personally don't approve of, in the interest of common freedom. Non-smoking advocates are just paying liberty lip service, it's like they don't really understand the concept.
- TRScheel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4 by nicksentowski 11 minutes ago
" I think it would be better if there were both smoking, and non-smoking bars in the neighborhood. It should be the owner's decision to ban smoking, not the government's."
Absolutely - bufferoverflow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Then only the most passive of people will ever acquiesce to your requests, and some people will respond by ramping it up and blowing smoke in your face. Deal with it, you're intolerant to the vices of others, expect people to be offended, insulted, pick up on that and react in kind. I know that's my reaction when I'm trying my damndest to be as far away from everyone as possible, when the wind shifts and some ass decides to make a huge deal about it as I'm moving. Or if I've moved to get away from a kid and happen to cross paths with one of you people.
I suggest you learn to deal with people, and perhaps empathize with them. - bufferoverflow, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@juicebag
Feel free to ***** open a non-smoking bar then, you douchebag. No, you won't do that, because you and 99.9% of all anti-smoking advocates are selfish, self-righteous douchebags who resent the fact that a lot of people smoke casually when drinking. There were very few non-smoking bars pre-ban, because, get this, no one wanted to go hang out with you *****.
If I, as an owner of an establishment, want to allow smoking, that's my business. Feel free not to show up. In fact, please don't. Stay the ***** away, come by, I'll have my bouncers instructed to hit you in the balls with a taser a few times you facist *****.
The ONLY even partially valid argument for banning smoking in public places, including private establishments is worker safety. Not your ***** personal selfish tastes. I have *YET* to see someone use this. And it's bunk anyway, since the bulk of restaurant workers smoke, and the bulk of them were OH SO GRATEFUL. Plus you know, high-temp cooking with oil puts off the same nasty carcinogens cigarettes do.
And outside!? Hell, you ever been to LA? One car = something like 20-30 non-stop chain smokers in terms of general air pollution... we don't ban those.
I can't wait to hop aboard a health craze and start taking away things you ***** enjoy. Already got trans-fats banned in NY, and that will hopefully include Peanut Butter! - Octanum, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"As it turned out, some smokers loved wearing the jacket, and wanted to wear it even when not smoking. However, as soon as it started to darken, that was the point at which there was a disconnect and they couldn't reconcile feeling pride in something that other people thought was 'gross'."
I really don't think that anyone would like to wear a lung jacket... - shableep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6so then... isn't "anti-smoking propaganda" the consequence of smoking in public?
- RickS2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I don't think this idea will take off.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This article/discussion is about how smoking outside is unacceptable. So even "polite smokers" who excuse themselves and go outside are being persecuted.
Your post was cute, but stupid. Its target audience on the whole will ignore it. - shableep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3you know, i kind of think of a smoker as a guy that likes to eat really nasty looking and horrible smelling food in public. it makes you sick to see it, but... as long as the guy is minding his own business with it and doesn't burp in my face, i'm cool with it.
- mattsinspace, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Oh, and memo to the jacket inventor, Target Market, The American Lung association...et al:
You cannot scare smokers into quitting. It's impossible. - Afreyt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
- hoju7887, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@Otto
What's the point? we're all adults here and can form our own opinions. Me putting up "facts" in the comments section isnt going to sway anyone, especially not you. - M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7So you all are going to complain about 2nd hand smoke, but [car] pollution is fine and dandy to breathe, right?
I don't hear any of you complain about the 1,000's of times more car pollution than 2nd hand cigarette smoke you breathe. Or do you? I could be wrong. - Otto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ElbridgeGerry:
You still failed to answer my actual question, despite all those links.
Find ONE confirmed case of a death directly attributable to secondhand smoke.
Just one. That's it.
Hey, you can find plenty for first-hand smoke, right? So what's the problem? - aaroncorsi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3For some of us those coughing noises aren't fake, and I hate it when I'm around my smoking friends and I can't stop coughing and they think I'm doing it on purpose so they give me dirty looks. Unfortunately smoke is a lung irritant, who would have thought?
- Wereling, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Ok, we get it. Smoking is bad, mmmkay?
You know, between this, the Truth ads, and Whadafuxup, I might START smoking just to spite anti-smoking nuts. - iomegaboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I've never met a smoker that acknowledged that second hand smoke pisses people off let along gave a *****, let alone would were a geeky jacket to prevent said second hand smoke.
- rajibaba, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@afreyt: my point wasn't to disprove the fact that smoking is unhealthy, or even that those exposed to it second-hand over a long period of time are affected. My point was that it is pretty hypocritical for people to spew such anger and hatred toward smokers when they pollute the environment themselves. As a smoker, I have no problem not smoking in restaurants, bars, or my workplace. Fine. But it is when people have all these issues even with people smoking outside that I think it gets ridiculous. I've been approached by people on the sidewalk saying "You know you need to be 25 feet from that door" (as if I don't already know) when I'm maybe 15-20 feet away. It is just beginning to go overboard.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3that was my first thought
- Aliarse, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9Most anti-smokers are hypocrites, and Ex-Smokers are the usually the worst of the lot.
I'll stop smoking near you in public, when people stop using cars, bikes, jets, etc etc, because i can guarantee those cause more damage than a bit of my cigarette smoke will ever do. - dodus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ Aliarse:
Here here. Am I the only ex-smoker who hasn't turned vehemently against my former brethren? Well, whatever you gotta do to justify why you quit I guess. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No, its the consequence of tobacco companies getting sued.
- Afreyt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I'll buy your first pack.
- Afreyt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Here on digg we don't let the facts get in the way of our outrage against people telling us we can't do what we want, where we want, when we want.
- Kolenka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@afreyt:
Most of the problem with cigarettes now isn't the tobacco... it is the additives to make the effect of the tobacco stronger on the smoker.
Pipe smoke doesn't bother me, cigar smoke bothers me (mostly because of the amount), these smaller-sized cigar-like things don't produce smoke that bugs me unless there is some flavor/scent additive that bugs me... but cigarette smoke is worse than all of these. I get headaches from cigarettes, and maybe the mild one from the mini-cigars depending on what is in it. Those additives are what make it hard to be around (for me anyways), not the fact that the guy is smoking, it is /what/ he is smoking. - rajibaba, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And if two wrongs don't make a right, it is hypocritical. It is easy to say that I don't have to smoke. While this is true, it is easier said than done. And someday I do hope to quit (several failed attempts in now). It is equally true that there are many people in this world that could get along fine without a vehicle if it were truly important to them (e.g. moving to an area where businesses are close, biking, etc.). Yet many of these people wouldn't consider it, but they sure do like to bitch about all the smokers out on the street.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@bufferoverflow I agree. The only real reason to ban smoking is workers health. "which is a great argument" But I f you don't like to smoke you shouldn't be hanging out in bars, The world shouldn't revolve around any one group. If you want to smoke "or allow smoking in the restaurant you own its your personal choice.
- aphexmandelbrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I really wish they had these the last time I was out smoking.
I blew out my smoke, and suddenly: everyone within a 500 foot radius dropped dead.
1000 feet from me, everyone contracted the cancer.
I felt pretty bad. Almost as bad as the time I blew smoke into the NICU vents. -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is