The PC thing would be to jump on this bandwagon but I'm not going to do it. My "boyfriend" (don't have a better word than that one which feels juvenile) rule is: Love me, put up with my critters (if they don't like you, I won't), my clutter (but no filth because I hate bugs), and my in-the-house smoke. Oh, and "if momma ain't happy..."

Eggs are bad, all bad; butter is bad, all bad; sugar is bad, all bad... Turns out not quite so, as with nearly all things that have been declared "all bad", and that many of the "safe" substitutes are far more dangerous. I'll take a smoker over an EX-smoker any day. Smokers are compulsive and addicts; we don't quit, we find new compulsions and addictions - often far worse than smoking. I don't believe those smokers who said they'd be willing to "try" to quit will make much of an effort; less so that they'll be successful.

Personally, I'm far more concerned about sick house/building syndrome than SHS so I tend to keep windows open and fans going nearly year round but then I worry about air pollution, yeah, that industrial stuff that's far more harmful than SHS to us all.  Then there's water pollution. food quality, ...  I have a long list before anyone gets to gripe at me for my cigs which WERE all natural until the Feds mandated that new crud so they won't stay lit!

And this is actually another "tax" post.  Although we smokers actually cost less in health care (we die early and generally want less end of life care [partly because we can't smoke in medical facilities and home care isn't actually available for most things even if one can afford it]), we are taxed out the wazoo to support everything from health care, to education, to rescuing idiots who go climbing alone in very dangerous terrains or sailing with no experience whatsoever and right into storms, to lifeflighting DWI drivers, to... The list goes on and on.  Where did your state's Tobacco Settlement money go?  You can bet the vast majority did NOT go to non-smoking education!

I wonder when I can get my tobacco patch planted! (Not that I have strong feelings on this one :)

PJBoosinger August 11th, 2009 10:37:30 AM

PJB: Cocaine is all natural, too. ;-)

Dr. Patty Khuly August 11th, 2009 10:45:40 AM

Both my So. Cal. parents smoked so heavily in the house that if I needed a breather I could pop in at the local pool hall. Between that and the indigenous air of the LA basin I was raised to think you couldn't trust air that you couldn't see.

Now that I live above 5000 feet, I have replaced those childhood comforts with BBQ and campfires and the carbon monoxide from the gassification unit on my truck, which is intended to allow me to be the last one standing when the rest of you run out of liquified dinosaurs.

I have a built-in fix for the SHS. All my air is filtered through the old asbestos shingles.

It seems that I am addicted to all natural air, and whenever I try to quit I go through terrible withdrawals.

They have always warned about the long term effects of certain things:

"Don't M_____ or you'll go blind"

"Don't eat lead-based paint chips or it will stunt your development"

"Alcohol causes memory loss."

I am finally of an age when the long term effects of stuff can no longer threaten me. I don't have enough years left to worry long term.  So I can eat all the lead-based paint chips I want...

If only I could remember why I wanted to,  and I could see to find them.

Bob Jones August 11th, 2009 11:12:53 AM

I lived with smokers the first 20 years of my life, but I have become progressively more sensitive to it as I got older, to the point that a visit to my mother's smoked-in house is debilitating to me, leaving me wheezing afterward. I can't iamgine how it must impact pets, which have much keener senses than we do. My husband can't kick the habit, but he smokes outside, and washes his hands afterward.

I was at my vet's office a few months back with my kitten and the vet tech assisting had obvously just come back in from a smoke break and not washed her hands, leaving the tiny kitten reeking after she held him. My vet looked mortified when I caught him after the tech left the room and told him that I didn't find it acceptable for his techs to be leaving the remains of their smoking on my already-sick kitten, and I would appreciate it if she would wash her hands between her smoke break and handling my cats in the future.

I think that's what is so difficult about smoking. Unlike drinking , pills, or other drugs, the effects of it spread to others around the smoker, often in ways that the smoker doesn't even realize.

Feline August 11th, 2009 11:20:29 AM

I read that living in a house with smokers is a cause of oral cancer in cats.

I think it is dismissive of your pets health to simply say: "Oh, everything's bad for you!  Therefore, I'm not listening."  It's not about you.  It's about the dependents who live with you.

In my childhood, I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment with my mother, who smoked, and my father was frequently there, he also smoked.  I had pneumonia repeatedly, and was diagnosed with vague immune system dysfunction that has yet to really be labelled or defined, but persists to this day, with different manifestations.  No one -- not even the doctors -- ever made the connection between my inhalation of second hand smoke and my pneumonias and  dysfunctional immune system.  It was the 60s.  They were just figuring out how bad smoke is, so I guess I can cut my parents a break (although, duh, it's pretty logical that inhaling particulates would be BAD.)  I feel CERTAIN that 2nd hand smoke contributed to my childhood pneumonias and helped throw my developing immune system off kilter.  I'm sure it has a genetic component too, but many systemic problems are a bad synergy between environment and genetics -- without the environmental trigger, your genetic weakness might never become a problem.  

Isn't it interesting that when my mom stopped smoking when I was 12 years old, my health got much better?

The only other person in the family who had issues with recurrent pneumonia in childhood is another individual who has a smoker as a parent.  The woman doesn't go outside with her cigarrettes.  Her child had pneumonias.

Why would our pets be any different?  If it can affect us, it certainly can affect their small bodies.

I agree with Feline -- smoking is not like drinking oro even drugs.  When you knowingly expose others to smoke -- especially those who CANNOT remove themselves, like children, pets or the elderly and disabled -- it is more like driving drunk with others in the back seat.  Morally, you are hurting them.  You are allowing your addiction to endanger the lives of those you claim to love.

Stefani August 11th, 2009 11:37:23 AM

Almost daily we see cats with asthma, oftentimes the cats, their carriers and their bedding reek of cigarette smoke. We have a framed article on the effects of second hand smoke in our waiting room. My own personal experience was when a cat I bred was returned to me, after living 10 years in a home with 2 smokers...3 months later he was diagnosed with inoperable nasal cancer. That kitty survived HCM (Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy) only to succumb to cancer, which no one can tell me was not related to his smoke exposure.

I would also avoid "toxic" people...who shall remain unnamed, but pets don't have the choice to avoid exposure when owners aren't about to change. We also have 2 smokers on staff and will have to forward this article to my vets, to bring something to their attention that they may have inadvertently missed, as they do come in smelling of smoke and then see patients.

Teri and the cats of Furrydance August 11th, 2009 12:31:36 PM

'Sorry these are sort of disjointed points, but I can't think of good transitional statements.

Second hand smoke definitely is a problem for others, and it's selfish of smokers to say "Too bad, you're making money off of my addiction, now shut up and leave me alone."  For at least 200 years, smokers sickened others, and nothing was done about it because overall life expectancy was lower - yes, because of lots of other causes, but let's not think that no deaths were caused by SHS just because there wasn't a scientifically tested corollary effect shown and a name for it.  'Modern day' smokers might consider it completely unfair, but there IS a medical cost to others from what you do, and you just got on the merry-go-round of tobacco at the wrong time - which isn't anyone else's fault but yours.  We all pay more money for safety features (seatbelts, air bags) and insurance to cover damage from accidents - but the people driving cars that can do more damage, pay more money.   

I also had (have) lung function deficiencies and while there MIGHT have been another reason, the fact that I grew up in a home where a parent smoked 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day did have a huge impact.  Even when I was young, thin, and in pretty good shape as a teenager, I could never run very fast or very far without whezing and chest pain.  I didn't have asthma, and I never personally smoked (and never did), as some of the 'cool' kids did.  Of course, most of those kids smoked, maybe, 2-3 cigarettes a day (and mostly only around others, often not smoking at all when alone), so they were actually exposed to less lung damage than I was.  And they were able to outdo me in most sports, go figure.

Exam rooms are generally small, and even with circulating air, going in to help with a pet that lives with smokers is not fun.  Of course, it's the people and their clothes that really stink up the room, and not being able to say anything is really tough.  Today, I'm going to help an older lady with her rambunctious dog (nails and earcleaning), and I'll be coming straight home for a shower afterwards.  Thank goodness she's a sweet, funny lady in every other respect, and I really like her dog.

KateH August 11th, 2009 01:04:51 PM

One of the (many) things I noticed when I quit smoking three years ago and moved to a non-smoking house was the absence of brown, sticky, smelly crud on walls, ceilings, dishes, leather furniture, windows, books, computers, appliances, blinds, etc. I'm not sure if I truly didn't see it for 25 years or just repressed what I saw but its absence is truly awesome. And if it was that bad on my stuff I can just imagine how nasty it was on - and in - my dogs.

My dogs didn't have a choice about my smoking - I did it to them knowing full well that there was nothing good about it and, in a ll likelihood, what I was doing to them was downright bad. Did I care about that? Of course I did - but I was too selfish to do anything about it for 9 years.  Shame on me.

I lost both of my parents last year - my Dad to emphysema, my Mom to lung cancer.  Yes - they had each been smokers for decades....  I also lost my heart dog, Mike, last year.  No, he didn't smoke. But I did for most of his life. Would he have lived longer had I not smoked around him? I don't know. But what a stupid, stupid risk to take....

Miki August 11th, 2009 01:38:27 PM

Miki - congrats on quitting.  That's not an easy task.

PJB - I don't agree that quitting leads to other addictions.  Perhaps it does in some cases, but I've known people who quit and didn't become addicted to something else.  Or maybe they did, but maybe it was good - like an addiction to running marathons.  Running is quite the successful deterrent of a relapse.  Try running 13 miles after smoking half a pack, or heck, after smoking one.  : )

Posey August 11th, 2009 01:46:56 PM

Boosinger has a point. The original study that showed how evil second hand smoke was turned out to be bogus medicine. Everyone knows it - you can find information on it, articles, etc everywhere. It's just that most people don't like the smell of smoke, so they don't mind villifying those that do smoke with bad evidence based on faulty medicine. It's just another attempt by society to control other people.

Oh, and PS: I don't smoke, hate the smell of it...but I still don't like taking away other people's freedoms.

Load of crap August 11th, 2009 01:59:18 PM

Even if one study "turned out to be bogus medicine" which likely just means the study didn't have double blind controls, does NOT mean that SHS doesn't exist and doesn't cause problems.  Anyone who says things like that is trying too hard to justify their own prejudices, in exactly the same way they are accusing others of doing.  And no, "everyone" does NOT know that it's bad evidence when there is so much real evidence showing the harm SHS does.  Please remember, those who are defending smoking as not being a problem, that nicotine is toxic insecticide (the plants have it to protect against insect depredation), and formaldyhye (found in cigarettes) isn't an innocous additive either.  Since I think I've heard PJ stating, loudly, how bad flea medicines are for her dogs and herself, the defense of smoking she makes is...odd.

KateH August 11th, 2009 02:42:02 PM

"Cocaine is all natural, too"  Not after the dealers "cut" it.  Of course, where you are Dr. K, you might have access to something more pristine than we can get here in Houston :)  Legalize it, mandatory labeling of ingredients, sales tax it!  (Shoot, one of my doctors recommended I move to California; try chain smoking pot instead of cigs for pain!)

"I think that's what is so difficult about smoking. Unlike drinking , pills, or other drugs, the effects of it spread to others around the smoker, often in ways that the smoker doesn't even realize."  I'll try to remember that the next time I get on an elevator or am stuck in a medical office with those who bath in clingy chemicals (including the medical staff) before I'm trapped with them and their chemicals suffocating me.  If I can't smoke, why do the rest of you get to poison me and every asthmatic within range in public?

I'm on the flip side of that dysfunctional immune system.  Cig smoke fine; modern mass aerosolized chemicals send me into asthmatic attacks.  But just wait, they're going to tax those lovely additives in soft drinks and lots of other stuff in the name of a "fat" tax.  I'm sure they'll get to a heavy duty perfume tax eventually - as soon as someone studies its detrimental effects on children.  Whatever will Glade Plug-Ins do then?  But I'm pretty sure they're going after coffee before that one.  And all of these before alcohol.  Most in this country very much favor dictating to others and taking basic freedoms!!!

Aw heck, let's just get it done and bring back prohibition with a single reasonably comprehensive list and then we can add on the few stragglers we find after that.

PJBoosinger August 11th, 2009 02:57:40 PM

First, yes, hence my careful choice of cigarette brand that isn't coming out of the chemical fields of North Carolina.  Second, only odd if you buy that all cigs are created equal AND that the ones I smoke, generally NOT in an enclosed space, are more hazardous than those flea products which are directly applied to both the animals and, through application and by transference, to me; while my SHS is not the same as the dog's actually smoking.  I seem to recall some incidences of pretty quick death from those studies on the flea products.  How many years of second hand smoke before serious health problems, let alone death (and that's without getting into the other flaws of the studies and there are many such as confounding factors)?  Life is about choices, balancing.  Personally, I'd rather focus on the big offenders out there, usually corporate; and not get caught up in their attempts to divide and conquer us over the second hand cigs v. second hand perfume battle.

PJBoosinger August 11th, 2009 03:08:44 PM

On trading addictions... "Or maybe they did, but maybe it was good -like an addiction to running marathons."  Yeah, my son regularly trades between athletics and smoking, a true fanatic for whichever one is on his plate this week.  Yeah, athletics is a "good" addition, that's why there's a whole field of practice devoted to "Sports Medicine".  Running may deter relapse to smoking (no, actually it doesn't; I know plenty of closet smokers who run, even in marathons) and, of course, sports and running come with few or no risks - NOT especially if one becomes compulsive about them and over trains :)

PJBoosinger August 11th, 2009 03:35:13 PM

I grew up with parents that smoked, so 2/3 of us siblings are smokers---me being one of them. My first Scottie died of lung tumors, you wouldn't believe how bad & guilty I felt. Upon necropsy, it was discovered that a fibrosarcoma she had removed years earlier between her shoulder blades was the cause of this cancer. This was mid-80's.

I still smoked in the house until 1996, when I moved and now only smoke outside, Obviously, I wish that I never smoked at all. Oddly my Dad, nearing 80, never wishes that & does not even consider quitting, though my Mom quit at age 52.

I wouldn't dream today of subjecting my pets to second-hand smoke, even though none of my previous pets suffered smoke-related disease.

BBBlog: Does the USPS get it?? YOU BET WE DO!! ----The USPS Proposes a Ban on Cockfighting Publications

Barbara A. Albright/NH August 11th, 2009 03:47:33 PM

Stefani, I'm talking about making choices and living with them.  I make them for my household and we live with them.  Other than the cigarettes, my home is now nearly chemical free.  Love to compare my house's chemical load to that of the average home and, make no mistake, there is a cumulative effect.  Just because the chemical effects, individually and cumulative, on humans and pets haven't been studied well, doesn't mean they don't exist.  If you dismiss them, you are the one justifying, not I.

My teen boyfriend's mother's dog used to stand in the bathroom with her every morning and inhale her hairspray being liberally applied.  Hairspray was the big chemical in their house; virtually no others.  Want to guess what the dog died from and how fast?  1  Beyond that, I think these guys have already hashed this out very nicely 2 (sorry, I didn't name that thread but...)

PJB (Human Canary in the Mine of the World) August 11th, 2009 03:55:44 PM

PJB, I never said that there are not cumulative toxic effects from many things in our environment.  I don't doubt that is true.  I don't use hairspray so that never occured to me -- there are all kinds of other things.  Heck, I'm not so sure I trust the microwave.  But second hand cigarette smoke for pets?? HUGE NO BRAINER, sorry.  Saying we shouldn't stop smoking indoors to protect our pets because there is also a Glad plug in whose vapors have god-only-knows-what toxic effect is a little like saying: I might as well drive drunk with my kids in the back because we don't have any passenger airbags, and SOMETHINGS gonna get them sooner or later.

FWIW, I recently switched to vinegar and baking soda and got rid of the simple green.  Feel free to tell me what horrors are caused by inhaling diluted vinegar vapors, but even if you convince me of it, I won't be taking up smoking.

Stefani August 11th, 2009 04:24:18 PM

From PJB: "Running may deter relapse to smoking (no, actually it doesn't; I know plenty of closet smokers who run, even in marathons) and, of course, sports and running come with few or no risks - NOT especially if one becomes compulsive about them and over trains :)"

PJB, it's clear that you're going to argue your point, and that's your choice.  I just don't buy it.  You can keep throwing up examples (runners who smoke, overuse injury, etc.), and I can keep throwing up examples to counter.  Rather than continue incessantly, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Posey August 11th, 2009 04:26:20 PM

LOL.  Yes, I should give it a rest.  I can't help but add . . 

There have been cases where spinach was found to be contaminated with salmonella.  Therefore, don't dare tell me a diet higher in vegetables is good for me.  I am going to stick to my diet of potato chips, and don't talk to me about diabetes.

Stefani August 11th, 2009 04:45:49 PM

Stefani - that's pretty funny.

Following that line of logic...  There have also been studies that indicate high amounts of exercise (such as training for a marathon) result in free radical oxygenation, which is the same chemical reaction linked to smoking linked to cancer.  So, you could argure that exercise is as likely to cause cancer as smoking.  : )

[I apologize if I don't have that quite right.  It's been about 10 years since I took organic chemistry; so, my memory is a little faulty.]

Posey August 11th, 2009 04:57:52 PM

Wow! Smokers sure are defensive.

Bottom line: it's unhealthy, will probably kill you, definitely harms you and others around you.

I quite for good a long while back; everyone else can too.

Robert August 11th, 2009 05:00:33 PM

When I was a very small child, both my parents smoked. Then the first Surgeon General's report on smoking came out, and my mother, who was a pretty light smoker to begin with, quit. My father, the chain smoker, didn't.

Nobody believed me when I told them cigarette smoke made my chest feel tight, that it made me feel sick, that it was causing my coughs, that cough medicine didn't do anything to relieve my coughs. Being the adults, they knew, as you know, that I just didn't like the smell of smoke, that I was being over-dramatic and self-absorbed--and of course that I just didn't like the taste of the cough medicine.

I was in my mid-twenties when my asthma was finally diagnosed.

Some days, I can stand short periods of time in the immediate vicinity of someone smoking, as long as we are outside and they are downwind of me. Other days, standing near a smoker who smoked a cigarette three hours ago, but is not smoking at that moment, is enough to trigger an attack.

I can't spend any time at all in a smoking room in a hotel, and I can't ride in a smoker's car. It's impossible for me; I have an attack.

You're quite right, PJ, that the smoke your pets inhale is not the same as if they were smoking themselves--at least, assuming you're smoking filtered cigarettes. Most of the smoke that goes into your lungs is filtered to remove some of the poisons; what your pets and anyone else in your immediate vicinity is UNfiltered smoke, with every single poison still present in full measure.

So, you want to believe that this is no more threat to your pets than an excess of perfume on someone else is. Who told you inhaling smoke--any smoke--was not harmful? Why is it, do you think, that firefighters and people who were inside buildings when they started burning, are so often hospitalized for smoke inhalation?

How many people every year are hospitalized for excessive perfume on someone else in the elevator? (Yes, I'm sure you can come up with at least one example. A few anecdotal cases don't refute the point, and you'd cry foul if opposing counsel tried it on you.)

Smoke inhalation is harmful, it is dangerous, and smokers routinely impose their choice to do so recreationally on others, and then whine when the non-smokers push back.

Oh, and my father, the chain smoker? When he was forty-seven, and I was sixteen, I held him in my arms while he had the heart attack that killed him, and my mother was on the phone trying to get the ambulance to come back, because they had come earlier, and told my father that he just had a hernia and should see the doctor in the morning. Forty-seven, in a family in which death at eighty was considered untimely. Sympathy with smokers doesn't inspire me to go easy on the smoking; it encourages me to be even more hardline. It's a drug addiction. And like any other drug addiction, it's killing you.

And it's not doing your pets any good, either.

Lis August 11th, 2009 06:19:54 PM

I am child of a mother who smoked and still smokes.  My father smoked intermittently and died when he was 56.  It was from urinary cancer but the doctors did say they are starting to link it more to smoking (argue away...)  He didn't even get to see me graduate from vet school.....still hurts to think about since he was the reason I became a vet. 

I have BIG arguements with my mother on this subject and as with most issues there are always two sides.  For every report that could be found to say SHS was not a bad thing for others I bet her I could find one that was.....and I did every time.  Whose to ultimately say who is right??  I fall on the side who says that it is bad for others...now that I have lived out of the smoking environment for so long that it is near impossible for me to be in smoke for long at all.  I don't even like it when I can smell it from someone smoking in a car next to me!! 

I won't say that people aren't entitled to smoke - I believe it is their right....but it is my right not to have to breath it in.  Sure there are lots of other things that can cause harm....I don't think that there is much of anything that can't do some harm.  In regards to this post I think it is not fair to an animal to live in the midst of a smoke filled house.  They can't choose but I do think the effects are very harmful and as an owner/guardian it would be prudent to not expose them to it. 

JC August 11th, 2009 07:47:06 PM

smoking is a nasty disgusting habit. I grew up with two of them. I was chronically ill with bronchitis and asthma. Took me years of living away frm my parents to get a decent lung xray and not need an inhaler.

My mother's dog died about 8 years ago from cancer in her lungs. Even if she sends us a box for some reason, it needs to sit outside and air out.

sorry smokers....lived with them....and I am all for banning cigarettes. Out of all the nasty habits out there...this one makes the top of my list.

LorriM August 11th, 2009 08:56:49 PM

JC - interesting.  My father died at 65 and I believe it was due to long-term complications from bladder cancer.  He smoked all his adult life, and I later learned that bladder cancer is highly correlated with smoking.

As far as letting our habits effect our pets -- wonder how people would feel if I picked up a bottle of wine on the way home, and for every glass I drank, I made my cats all drink a shot glass full. Y'all would read me out, and rightly so.

Stefani August 11th, 2009 09:03:04 PM

I smoke... have for, well.. too long now.

Been trying to quit (have had a little success recently, although not enough to totally kick the habit).

USED to smoke in the house.  However, in 2001 my dog was diagnosed with epilepsy and turned out to be sensitive to a myriad of chemicals.

As such, we now allow ZERO smoking in the house.  We also clean with natural cleansers, avoid anything that puts a chemical into the air, and have cleaned half the house of carpet.  The only reason the upstairs remains is we simply haven't put the money and effort together to clean it out yet. 

We also do our best to refrain from smoking in the car if the dogs are in there.  We do occasionally, but only on long trips - and only since my epi pup passed away last year.

Kim August 11th, 2009 11:35:56 PM

I believe smoking is one of the most extreme manifestations of selfishness. It is all about them and their lack of self control. Yea, they die early (like my Dad at 63) leaving families grieving and my children who never knew their grandfather.  I still remember at age 11, going to the allergist and hearing my mother tell the MD that she was not going to quit smoking, even if it contributed to my allergy/asthma.

Hobson August 12th, 2009 03:49:19 PM

Carpets!  There's one of the worst inventions ever.  Tufted carpets are the worst, especially since they are made from waste chemicals!  And then there's that nasty chemical pad.  Neither of which can be cleaned and, when one attempts to do so with any wet/steam process, one only ends up driving all the everything down into them along with creating a perfect warm damp environment in and below the carpet for ickies to grow!

It's more selfish to smoke in one's own house, affecting primarily one's self than to be so dictatorial as to tell everyone else not to smoke.  Interesting.  Yes, I'll admit that smoking affects others so do most things any of us do in life.  Somehow I never thought my mother was put on this earth to be "mother" and that alone; all things to be done for me and in my "best interests".  Somehow I was deluded into thinking my ancestors had some rights to their own lives too and that we lived in a trade off situation.  I guess my ancestors should have chosen to have no offspring at all if they didn't want to conform to this modern concept that parents should be sacrificial lambs to the needs and even mere wants of their offspring.  Gee, I wonder why we smokers are defensive?  Perhaps it's because it's so easy and PC to attack us while basically ignoring the far bigger issues affecting health, home, and other matters.

How about a little self control, or discretion, or even logic from the frothing anti-smokers?  Where's my Peyote?

PJBoosinger August 12th, 2009 04:10:11 PM

Hobson, That doesn't sound like you!  Smoking is a horrid, once acceptable, addiction just like any other affecting health, society, and relationships. But it least it isn't mind-altering & usually doesn't lead to stealing, either.

Lot's of vices fit that category---fortunately most youngsters no longer take up cigarettes.

Barb A./NH August 12th, 2009 05:06:07 PM

It has a drastic effect on the health of others --- That's the problem.  It's not about attacking YOU the smoker.  Its about protecting WE the nonsmokers. If it didn't affect us, most nonsmokers wouldn't care.  (Except for being sad and worried about you when we love you and know you will be dying early  . .. we can't help dreading that day.) People don't get off on controlling others just for the sake of it (most don't, anyway).  This is about being able to protect yourself from harm.  And as far as pets go, it's about recognizing that you are choosing to do them harm when you force them to inhale 2nd hand smoke.

There are many laws that regulate, to some extent, personal behavior which could pose a danger to others.  That's both the downside and the upside of being in a society.  To keep us from living those lives that one of our founding fathers called "short, nasty and brutish." (History buffs, who sais that?) Pets have no recourse, so it is entirely our choice, for the most part, whether we chose to modify our behavior to negate environmental factors that affect them.

It is a choice with known consequences.

Stefani August 12th, 2009 07:05:31 PM

That's both the downside and the upside of being in a society. To keep us from living those lives that one of our founding fathers called "short, nasty and brutish." (History buffs, who sais that?)

Thomas Hobbes. He said that life in the state of nature was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Not actually one of the founding fathers, but a philosopher that most of them had read.

Lis August 12th, 2009 08:09:58 PM

The 2 most pervasive personal vices/addictions in our society are smoking and alchoholism.  All of us are affected whether it is with SHS or DWI.  We would not object so much if it wasn't in our faces and forced upon us to deal with.  Adults have choices, children and pets do not.  In the middle of the national health care debate, I would bet that the smoking rate for the uninsured is much higher than for the insured.  I cannot name the study, but remember reading that smoking rates are inverse to education level.  When the cigarette tax was recently increased in my state, opponents cited this study as an argument against " a tax on the poor".

Hobson August 12th, 2009 08:40:36 PM

Hobson---Darn good point & give me the "smoker" any day of the week over the alcoholic!

I really don't see SHS as much of an issue, since all public places are non-smoking , work places, offices, etc. And as I stated, I smoke outside only whether 10 below or 100 degrees F.

My sibling does not expose his children, never has. In the 50-60's , everyone smoked: teachers, doctors, and had ashtrays nearby or "smoking lounges" for the teachers! (while we would sneek puffs in the bathrooms).

It is a habit I wish I never had and an addiction I'm not willing to part with, at least now.

Barb A./NH August 12th, 2009 09:38:09 PM

Oh please, everything we do or don't do affects others to some degree.  Smokers are merely an easy target.  And THE most pervasive personal vice in American society today (in this context) is gross over eating (and, arguably, over feeding of pets) and fat people cost the health system far, far more than smokers AND there's a study that says fat is contagious!  (Hey, I don't want to confine fat people to home but could we ban them from elevators?  Really, keep them at a distance so I don't catch "fat" and, besides, the stairs would be good for them.)  Sadly, the majority DO like dictating to others, they just don't like admitting it and want to bootstrap it with feather-bedded arguments and excuses for doing so.  Our founding fathers knew that and it was the reason for there being a Bill of Rights and constitutional protections for each of us to have certain rights regardless of their effect on others.  Beyond that, the founders expected us to do a balancing act and specifically disapproved of the majority dictating to the minority "just 'cause" it's the opinion or even the scientific "fact" of the day.

True, children and pets don't get choices.  So, let's raise the standard for parenting and care taking so high that the majority of children land in orphanages and pets go to the death chambers.  These are so much better options than living with SHS, right?  How about we start testing for the genes for alcoholism and sterilize those people before they give birth to the next generation of alcoholics?  Shoot, why not, we have a history of doing it to blacks and those with low intelligence.  Let's bring it back and include smokers too.  What the heck, PETA says we're all selfish to "own" pets anyway so that must make those who provide pets with medical care, boarding, grooming, etc., etc. the most selfish of all being they make their living off the selfish pet owners and do so mostly for material gain.

Well, with a wee bit of luck, none of you will get 20, 40, or more years down the road and discover through hindsight that you've done irreparable harm to your children or pets which, from your perspective at the time through foresight, you didn't think would harm.  I also hope none of you have my families genes where the choice is smoking or fat and those who've tried to quit smoking end up fat and smoking.  I'm sure it's a lack of will power or self control; no genetic component in there at all.  Always lovely to know that there's a medical professional who at least says it out loud and who, I'm sure, has no personal vices.  And do hope that no one says to you "but there were 'signs' so you should have known better".  Good luck with that :)  WOW, would I love to use that "you should have known" standard for vet care instead of whatever the current acceptable minimum practice level is.  I mean, if we're going to be demand perfection and perfect foresight...

PJBoosinger August 13th, 2009 04:05:43 AM

Luckily, like Kim, there are lots of owners out there who WILL quit for their pets sake, if not their own.  Something good being done does not care who it is for - just improves that balance of the universe a bit.

Dr. Tony Johnson August 13th, 2009 07:54:44 AM

I understand the concept of personal rights but your right to do as you please cannot always trump other's rights to their health and safety.  Ii agree that obesity should be lumped in with smoking as a top vice in this country. Obese people don't  directly harm folks as do drunks and smokers.  The worst thing an obese person can do to me is sit next to me on coach on a long  airline flight.  

Hobson August 13th, 2009 11:02:27 AM

The 2 most pervasive personal vices/addictions in our society are smoking and alchoholism. All of us are affected whether it is with SHS or DWI.

The person who sits beside me at dinner with alcoholic beverage as his beverage of choice for the evening. The smoker sitting beside me smoking a ciggie does affect me, in ways that despite PJ's scepticism could send me to the hospital that night--even if it's his only cigarette of the day. For me, this is a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol as vices.

Oh please, everything we do or don't do affects others to some degree. Smokers are merely an easy target.

Because what smokers do is unusually intrusive on other people whose choice is NOT to partake.

And THE most pervasive personal vice in American society today (in this context) is gross over eating (and, arguably, over feeding of pets) and fat people cost the health system far, far more than smokers AND there's a study that says fat is contagious! (Hey, I don't want to confine fat people to home but could we ban them from elevators? Really, keep them at a distance so I don't catch "fat" and, besides, the stairs would be good for them.)

In order to be affected by someone else's over-eating, you have to make a choice. There's an effect to having fat people around, and people who are eating too much, but it's far less direct than PJ smokes a ciggie near me---->I inhale unfiltered cigarette smoke. People don't usually eat in elevators--and if they do, they don't shove food down your throat.

In fact, PJ, if anyone does shove food down your throat against your will, you should call the police, because that's assault.

But you shoving cigarette smoke down my throat and lungs, for some reason, that's not legally considered assault.

Sadly, the majority DO like dictating to others, they just don't like admitting it and want to bootstrap it with feather-bedded arguments and excuses for doing so. Our founding fathers knew that and it was the reason for there being a Bill of Rights and constitutional protections for each of us to have certain rights regardless of their effect on others. Beyond that, the founders expected us to do a balancing act and specifically disapproved of the majority dictating to the minority "just 'cause" it's the opinion or even the scientific "fact" of the day.

If you believe the Founding Fathers were blythely indifferent to people doing things that had actual negative effects on other people's lives and property, you need to do a bit more reading. Honestly.

And tobaccon smoke has been making me actually, physically ill since long before anyone believed that second-hand smoke was even possibly a problem. I was told that I was lying, that I just didn't like the smell, that I needed to be less--what was that word?--selfish! Yes, that's it! They told me I had to be less selfish!

True, children and pets don't get choices. So, let's raise the standard for parenting and care taking so high that the majority of children land in orphanages and pets go to the death chambers. These are so much better options than living with SHS, right? How about we start testing for the genes for alcoholism and sterilize those people before they give birth to the next generation of alcoholics? Shoot, why not, we have a history of doing it to blacks and those with low intelligence. Let's bring it back and include smokers too. What the heck, PETA says we're all selfish to "own" pets anyway so that must make those who provide pets with medical care, boarding, grooming, etc., etc. the most selfish of all being they make their living off the selfish pet owners and do so mostly for material gain.

BZZZZT! Red herring alert!

This choices are not "seize PJ's kids and pets and send them to orphanages and high-kill shelters" or "Tell PJ there's no problem at all with smoking anywhere, anytime, no matter who's around."

The attempt to equate telling you that yes, smoking really is bad and it isn't something society looks upon with indifference, and the forced sterilization of blacks and those identified as "morons", is truly sad and pathetic. That's your drug addiction speaking, PJ, it really is.

And no, truly, cricitcizing your choice to smoke around your pets, is not the same thing as wanting to eliminate all domestic animals from existence.

But I bet you'd find, if we really had the ability to do so, if the technology advances that far, that many people would choose not to pass on to their children genes that would increase their risks of obesity or of substance abuse of any kind.

Well, with a wee bit of luck, none of you will get 20, 40, or more years down the road and discover through hindsight that you've done irreparable harm to your children or pets which, from your perspective at the time through foresight, you didn't think would harm.

Oh, I'm already confident, about at least one former pet, that choices we made were not correct, and not what I'd do now, given the same situation. You make the best choices you can with what you know--but you don't subsequently reject new information that would have caused you to choose differently, just to--what? Avoid feeling guilty about having made a mistake?

I also hope none of you have my families genes where the choice is smoking or fat and those who've tried to quit smoking end up fat and smoking. I'm sure it's a lack of will power or self control; no genetic component in there at all. Always lovely to know that there's a medical professional who at least says it out loud and who, I'm sure, has no personal vices. And do hope that no one says to you "but there were 'signs' so you should have known better". Good luck with that :) WOW, would I love to use that "you should have known" standard for vet care instead of whatever the current acceptable minimum practice level is. I mean, if we're going to be demand perfection and perfect foresight...

There are vanishingly few cases where obesity or substance abuse is wholly genetic and truly, utterly beyond the control of the individual. OTOH, "will power" is a recipe for failure in beating the problem. Far more sophisticated and effective methods exist now.

And no one is saying that at twelve you should have known everything you know now about smoking, and that you are morally responsible for not having, at that time, made what you now know to be the correct choice.

What we're saying is that, NOW, you are an adult, and able to make an informed choice to smoke or not to smoke, and if you choose to continue smoking, to have the courtesy to other adults, and the responsibility towards children and animals, to minimize the impact of your smoking on them.

Lis August 13th, 2009 11:26:43 AM

"And no one is saying that at twelve you should have known everything you know now"..."What we're saying is that, NOW, you are an adult, and able to make an informed choice" this reminds me of hearing a friend's grandfather yelling about "stupid new laws" that made it a crime to pour used motor oil down his backyard sewer drain. The words "It wasn't a problem when I was growing up, and I'm going to keep doing it until I die" chilled and sickened me.

I guess, since PJ is looking for reasons why her smoking isn't as bad as other things going on that affect other's people's health, since she probably hasn't poured motor oil into the water system, we should be glad she's only smoking at home.

KateH August 13th, 2009 01:47:33 PM

I'm sure motor oil is so much worse than the drugs from humans and animals that end up back in the environment through human and animal waste.  Yeah, sure, uh huh, whatever.

I've become fully aware that some on here think pets have over-riding rights so I'm going to ignore those people because: 1) Pets don't have any such rights (even children have few such rights); and 2) I might be persuaded to quit smoking but I won't be bullied into it and, so long as the bullying keeps up, there are many of us who will refuse to quit as a matter of principle.  I do love how this particular group loves to simply ignore that many pets would be homeless/euthanized if your demands to for perfect pet owners were made law.  As I said, yeah, that would be so much better than living a less than perfect life.  Those who want to blithely dismiss the rights of others are what chill and sicken me.

PJBoosinger August 13th, 2009 06:20:24 PM

Hobson: Ok, that does sound more like you....the dreaded 3 across plane seats, I hate being in the middle even with skinny-minny's !

PJB: I won't be bullied into quitting either, but sure do live with that annoyance, from a reformed-smoker (the worst!)

Barb A./NH August 13th, 2009 07:30:44 PM

I'm sure motor oil is so much worse than the drugs from humans and animals that end up back in the environment through human and animal waste. Yeah, sure, uh huh, whatever.

What gets back into the environment through human and animal waste is not something we've found a way to reliably prevent. Dumping motor oil into the water system, or for that matter, your unused pills and medications when you reach the end of the treatment and have some left over, is something we can prevent, simply by making the mature, informed choice not to do that anymore.

I've become fully aware that some on here think pets have over-riding rights so I'm going to ignore those people because: 1) Pets don't have any such rights (even children have few such rights); and 2) I might be persuaded to quit smoking but I won't be bullied into it and, so long as the bullying keeps up, there are many of us who will refuse to quit as a matter of principle. I do love how this particular group loves to simply ignore that many pets would be homeless/euthanized if your demands to for perfect pet owners were made law. As I said, yeah, that would be so much better than living a less than perfect life. Those who want to blithely dismiss the rights of others are what chill and sicken me.

You don't get it, PJ. I don't really care whether you smoke or not. I'm quite certain it would be better for you if you stopped, but that's your choice to make. And I'm not proposing and wouldn't support any laws to make you not smoke, in any area that doesn't affect--in a direct rather than an indirect manner--people outside your immediate household.

This doesn't prevent me from telling you that I believe it's a very bad idea for you to smoke around your pets or any children you might have who are young enough that they can't ask you to stop or choose to leave if they object. And no, it's not an infringement on your rights for me to tell you something you don't want to hear.

Lis August 13th, 2009 08:52:23 PM

So, PJ, it still comes down to you stating that because OTHER things cause problems, it's silly for anyone to care about things YOU don't find as bad, such as SHS and motor oil contaminating the water we all drink?

"Motor oil that is not properly disposed of and finds its way into either surface or ground water, can cause significant damage at low concentrations. One part per million (1ppm) can make water unsafe to drink; 35 ppm can produce a visible oil slick that damages aquatic life, including fish and shellfish; and 50 ppm can foul a wastewater treatment plant." From the NJ Dept. of Watershed Management.

Just because other contaminants are there doesn't mean motor oil shouldn't be kept out of sewers too- and it makes absolutely no sense to make it seem like it's not a problem.  I also don't care if you smoke and I wouldn't go out of my way to care if you had clean drinking water either, except that there might be, oh, other eings around who need to use the air and water too. 

KateH August 13th, 2009 09:10:39 PM

KateH, I never said any such thing.  I've argued all along it's a matter of prioritizing and looking at the entirety.  Don't read me being devil's advocate by being as absurd as what I'm responding to as anything other than just that.  The very next blog is about keeping the risk of Swine Flu in perspective and, yet, when it comes to smoking, there's no such call for perspective; just a social mandate to rail the smokers into submission and quitting regardless of how much or how little their smoking actually affects others.

PJBoosinger August 13th, 2009 11:16:17 PM

For most of my life, it was the accepted position of society in general that it was incredibly rude for a non-smoker to ask a smoker not to smoke, even in the non-smoker's own home or car. Even when non-smoking sections in restaurants started to appear, they were a)quite small, b)in the least desirable part of the restaurant, c)often placed so that the effects of airflow pulled cigarette smoke out of the smoking section and into the non-smoking section. The idea of a divider between them was a joke; it was perfectly possible to be seated at a table in the "non-smoking section" and be sitting right next to a table full of smokers.

I was considered unreasonable and a bit anti-social because i wouldn't agree to eat in a restaurant that had no non-smoking section, or where the smoke was pulled into the "non-smoking" section, or to sit at a table right next to a table where someone was smoking.

Even after my asthma was finally diagnosed, even after I'd had a couple of land-in-the-hospital serious attacks, I was assumed to be lying when I said it actually made me sick and triggered my attacks.

Smoking on the subway was illegal, just like on elevators, but when someone lit up a cigarette on a subway car, to point out, however mildly, the "no smoking" signs, was to become the target of verbal abuse. I was accused of being a drug addict--I must be a drug addict, you see, to be ant-tobacco--and on one occasion my life was threatened.

I was lectured about my lack of hospitality because I woudn't put out ashtrays and anyone who attempted to light up in my own home was told the cigarette had to be put away, or they had to take it outside. In my own home, I was presumed not to have the right to say, "No smoking."

And then in the mid-eighties, suddenly I wasn't the only non-smoker speaking up. People started to notice that smokers were a minority--and that this minority was dictating to the rest of us. Efforts to promote courtesy did not work; smokers remained steadfast in their position that, since smoking was legal, they had the right to do it anywhere, anytime, with absolute disregard of the effect on anyone around them. Anyone who said that they had a bad physical reaction to cigarette smoke was lying--and if they weren't, the solution was for them to stay away from bars, restaurants, workplaces where smoking was allowed (all of them), etc.

And since asking politely wasn't working, and was in fact only making smokers more belligerant about their "right" to smoke anywhere, anytime, including in the private homes of non-smokers, then we started passing laws. In self-defense.

Smokers are reaping what they sowed.

(And no, PJ, you haven't been arguing that it's a matter of prioritizing. You've been ridiculing and condemning the idea that anyone would tell you it's a bad idea to smoke around your pets, when there are fat people in the world, and that KateH would be appalled at her friend's grandfather pouring motor oil into the sewer system when humans and pets inevitably and unavoidably excrete the remains of medications. You're standing four-square for your right to do whatever the heck you please without criticism, regardless of the effects on anyone else, including your nearest and dearest.)

Lis August 14th, 2009 09:03:33 AM

Thank you, Lis.  That's what I wanted to say, and at least you understood it.

KateH August 14th, 2009 09:46:23 AM

http://www.longineswatches.org/Piaget/]Piaget watch for sale

replica watch March 11th, 2010 03:26:38 PM

url=http://www.dearwatches.com/rolex-watches-rolex-datejust-c-72_2.html 

replica watch March 11th, 2010 03:28:53 PM

<A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/">cheap replica watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us">cheap fake watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/">watches replica</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/">replica watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/Breguet/">Breguet watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rolex/DateJust/">replica Rolex Datejust</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/Breguet/">Breguet watch for sale</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/Graham/">replica Graham</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rolex/Submariner/">replica Rolex Submariner</A><BR><A href="http://www.iwcwatches.us/Patek-Philippe/">Patek Philippe watches</A><BR>

cheap fake watches March 12th, 2010 10:55:34 AM