<p>What makes me laugh are the smokers who use perfume. Why bother? The cigarette stench will still be there, and trying to cover one stench with another stench just doesn’t work. Sort of like spraying one of those sickeningly sweet flowery air fresheners after an especially pungent poop. All you get is the smell of flowery poop–NOT an improvement!</p>
<p>^ As unflattering an analogy as that is, it’s completely true. Frankly, I don’t feel like Febreze really works… I know they say it does more than e.g. Lysol or whatever, but I don’t smell it.</p>
<p>The fallacy about smokers costing less because they die younger is not including the cost to care for them while they die–to them and caregivers who have to tend to them when they are unable to care for themselves. I have seen folks with emphysema, chronic bronchitis and cancer; it is very painful to watch them gasp for breath and have revolving door visits to hospitals & ER (much subsidized by us taxpayers & insureds). I have also seen folks who have gotten these from 2nd-hand smoke but have not seen folks get these conditions from inhaling noxious scents in subways or other public places.</p>
<p>
I haven’t heard that one before. Would a smoker really find it ‘rude’ of an old friend to not smoke around them? That makes no sense at all. </p>
<p>I’m with you on the perfume stench, I don’t like that either, but most perfume wearers don’t pour it on so it’s not detectable unless one is very close but a smoker can be detected much further away. If a smoker goes upstairs at work after smoking outside and I follow along a few minutes later I can smell the smoke in the stairwell since it was all in their clothes, hair, etc.</p>
<p>
Not me - I specifically stated you perspective is important assuming you’re at or near college age which you sound to be. If I’m wrong about that guess please enlighten me if you feel like it. The relevance is in your perspective which some posters and the OP on this thread are trying to comprehend since as you can see from all of the posts, most of us find the decision to take up smoking in college illogical or simply very poor decision making but then smoking isn’t the only poor choice some college students make given drug and excessive alcohol use among a number of them.</p>
<p>There are also studies that show emphysetamous changes in the LUNGS of folks who breathe second hand smoke!</p>
<p>Re: cigarette secondhand smoke versus pollution</p>
<p>Here is a study comparing particulate matter pollution from cigarettes versus car exhaust in an enclosed garage:</p>
<p>[Smoking</a> Worse Than Exhaust for Air Pollution](<a href=“http://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20040823/smoking-worse-than-exhaust-for-air-pollution]Smoking”>COPD: Symptoms, Causes, Types, Diagnosis, Treatment)
<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747905/.../v013p00219.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747905/.../v013p00219.pdf</a>
[Particulate</a> matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective – Invernizzi et al. 13 (3): 219 – Tobacco Control](<a href=“http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/3/219.abstract]Particulate”>Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective)</p>
<p>Aegrisomnia, smoking causes harm to those around the smoker as well as to the smoker. Second hand smoke studies show that clearly. Yes, it is stupid to smoke given the numbers that very clearly show the damage smoking is likely to do. For those who see it first hand in their own families, it is even stupider. </p>
<p>But smokers still continue to smoke and they have their rights. I insist on mine and will not tolerate smokers where it is against the law, or on my property, as it is my right. You can consider me and anyone stupid for feeling this way, as it is your right, and I can consider you stupid for smoking and thinking about those who are against it the way you do. </p>
<p>I’ve seen several people die of lung cancer and COPD which were most likely caused by their cigarette smoking, and it was very ugly and painful. Sometimes things like that happen that are out of our control but to steer yourself that lottery basket is stupid when it is avoidable. These family members had genetics on their side for much longer and healthier lives, and they had to throw the smoking cards into the mix. Though I am sorry that they got lung disease, it is right out there that what happened was most likely avoidable.</p>
<p>Regardless of what you think, the law is siding with the non smokers rights not to be polluted by smokers’ smoke, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.</p>
<p>Everyone costs money as they die whether at 55 or 85. Even nonsmokers get heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and all the rest of the costly diseases. We get to die of something that gets treated first in most cases. One just comes later in life. Those that die younger don’t collect SS and other benefits freeing up $$$ for those what get older. </p>
<p>I’m not for smoking but I think the $$$ argument is unproven.</p>
<p>They’ve already done studies regarding the Economic impact of smoking.</p>
<p>The savings in SS is actually much smaller than the healthcare cost of providing services to smokers who have health issues.</p>
<p>[Annual</a> Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs — United States, 1995–1999](<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm]Annual”>Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs --- United States, 1995--1999)</p>
<p>Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs — United States, 1995–1999</p>
<p>During 1995–1999, the average annual mortality-related productivity losses attributable to smoking for adults were $81.9 billion (Table 2). In 1998, smoking-attributable personal health-care medical expenditures were $75.5 billion.</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that smokers have more health issues, therefore they are far less productive. Which is something you keep ignoring.</p>
<p>This is specially interesting:</p>
<p>During 1995–1999, a total of 442,398 persons in the United States died prematurely each year as a result of smoking. This number, which is higher than previous SAM estimates (1), reflects the inclusion of 35,053 secondhand smoking-attributable heart disease deaths and slightly higher smoking-related RRs for cancers, respiratory diseases, and infant conditions. The number of smoking-attributable deaths would have been greater if smoking prevalence among men, women, and pregnant women had not declined since the early 1990s.</p>
<p>So far, I think the most reasonable compromise is for smokers to feel like dogmatic antismokers are sanctimonious jerks, and for nonsmokers to feel like idiot smokers are hopeless morons. I’m fine not infringing on your rights, even if you jerks make it so I have to do it in my own home… Legally, that is. I have no problem breaking unjust laws.</p>