RAVING/HAPPY SH!T MEGATHREAD

Vacation season seems so close already! Can't wait to be on that plane to Japan! 

Given recent conditions, I think you have worse things in the air to worry about than someone puffing on the sidewalk.

The smoking rate of men, who are the primary smokers in this country, revealed this month showed the lowest ever at 38.1 percent.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181126000719

Awesome! Only 4 out of 10 Korean men are now smokers. It's going down!

That is good news! 

Something I've always wondered about though; why do others care if people smoke or not?  I can see if you're stuck inside a room with someone puffing away, or the mess on the ground from people throwing their butts all over etc etc. but I always wonder at those who (melodramatically) start coughing when they walk by someone who's smoking, or start waving their hands like they're being attacked by a swarm of bees when they see or smell smoke.  I see these acts more back in the States than I do here.  I agree smoking is gross, but I would never act the way some people do around smokers or treat someone with contempt because they do.

Cigarette smoke really does bother me. It smells terrible. Walking behind some douche who is smoking and leaving a trail of smoke behind them, sucks. A static smoker doesn't bother me as much, but it still smells like shit. Its an imposition on others around you. Just as much as some cretin who doesn't wash or use deodorant and stinks of BO.
What if I walked around with a spray can spraying out some awful toxic smell to people around me in public. I'd be viewed as an asshole. If you want to smoke, fine. But do it in private.

Something I've always wondered about though; why do others care if people smoke or not?

[...]

I agree smoking is gross, but I would never act the way some people do around smokers or treat someone with contempt because they do.

Because it's more than just gross, it's a health hazard. And if you (not "you" specifically, just "you" as in smokers in general) want to subject yourself to the risks that smoking exposes you to, fine, but others shouldn't have to deal with that, too. It's a selfish habit to expose others to secondhand smoke, and kids are especially susceptible to it. Babies in particular. There are people with severe allergies to it, too, and even a little exposure to it can make them ill. Plus, cancer runs in my family. I have three immediate family members who have all died from lung cancer that they got from smoking, and one person who got lung cancer from secondhand smoke (although they caught it soon enough with her and she's doing fine right now), so I personally want to avoid it as much as possible. I have absolutely no problems with waving my hands at the stench if they're going to be selfish enough to smoke where other people walk or mill about.

A close second reason would be that cigarette smoke really is just a wretched smell. It's heavy and sticks to hair and clothing, and I don't want to be walking around smelling like that. If it can make you wheeze, it's bad.

Like zola says, smoking out in public where others can't avoid it is the same thing as spraying hair spray or some other toxic chemical at people while they're walking by. It's just an inconsiderate, asshole thing to do.

Had a walk through with the landlady today. She thanked me for keeping the place so clean. I will get my full deposit back on Friday!

Makes me wonder how messy other people are.

 (Not really; I’ve been a landlord.)

Cigarette smoke really does bother me. It smells terrible. Walking behind some douche who is smoking and leaving a trail of smoke behind them, sucks. A static smoker doesn't bother me as much, but it still smells like shit. Its an imposition on others around you. Just as much as some cretin who doesn't wash or use deodorant and stinks of BO.
What if I walked around with a spray can spraying out some awful toxic smell to people around me in public. I'd be viewed as an asshole. If you want to smoke, fine. But do it in private.

First- I agree that smoking stinks and I don't smoke indoors because of it.
Second- Between the dust in the air and the sewer stink, smoke is whatever.

Because it's more than just gross, it's a health hazard. And if you (not "you" specifically, just "you" as in smokers in general) want to subject yourself to the risks that smoking exposes you to, fine, but others shouldn't have to deal with that, too.

Given all the crap we're exposed to, passing by someone's secondhand smoke on the sidewalk is diddly-poo in terms of health risks. Most of those secondhand smoke studies are cooked up to. The ones that show a real risk are like, kids who are exposed to two chain smoking parents who smoke indoors and have poor ventilation.

I mean there's probably as much crap put out by our smartphones and all the electronics we roll with. It's selective outrage based on personal disgust. Now, that's fine for rolling your eyes or even banning it in YOUR place of business or even public buildings. But it's no justification for banning it in bars, late night restaurants, clubs, casinos, VFW Halls, and other places where no one who is there gives a crap about being healthy.

Cigarette smoke really does bother me. It smells terrible. Walking behind some douche who is smoking and leaving a trail of smoke behind them, sucks. A static smoker doesn't bother me as much, but it still smells like shit. Its an imposition on others around you. Just as much as some cretin who doesn't wash or use deodorant and stinks of BO.
What if I walked around with a spray can spraying out some awful toxic smell to people around me in public. I'd be viewed as an asshole. If you want to smoke, fine. But do it in private.

First- I agree that smoking stinks and I don't smoke indoors because of it.
Second- Between the dust in the air and the sewer stink, smoke is whatever.

Because it's more than just gross, it's a health hazard. And if you (not "you" specifically, just "you" as in smokers in general) want to subject yourself to the risks that smoking exposes you to, fine, but others shouldn't have to deal with that, too.

Given all the crap we're exposed to, passing by someone's secondhand smoke on the sidewalk is diddly-poo in terms of health risks. Most of those secondhand smoke studies are cooked up to. The ones that show a real risk are like, kids who are exposed to two chain smoking parents who smoke indoors and have poor ventilation.

I mean there's probably as much crap put out by our smartphones and all the electronics we roll with. It's selective outrage based on personal disgust. Now, that's fine for rolling your eyes or even banning it in YOUR place of business or even public buildings. But it's no justification for banning it in bars, late night restaurants, clubs, casinos, VFW Halls, and other places where no one who is there gives a crap about being healthy.

Most of the pressure for those places has come from workers.

Back to the happy: I am glad that I can have a beer without needing a shower and doing laundry as soon as I get home.

Second hand smoke is breathing toxic cigarette fumes, but without a filter. So unhealthy. Pedestrians' lungs and immune systems are already weakened and taking a beating from air pollution, so they'd be smart to completely avoid any exposure to second or third hand smoke.

Second hand smoke is breathing toxic cigarette fumes, but without a filter. So unhealthy. Pedestrians' lungs and immune systems are already weakened and taking a beating from air pollution, so they'd be smart to completely avoid any exposure to second or third hand smoke.

You're breathing toxic fumes the moment you step outside in Korea. And if the fumes don't get you, electronics radiation or chemical food additives will.

It's about as dangerous as second hand cholesterol caused by grease from someone else's fries accidentally dripping on your steamed vegetables and TGIFriday's.

Given all the crap we're exposed to, passing by someone's secondhand smoke on the sidewalk is diddly-poo in terms of health risks. Most of those secondhand smoke studies are cooked up to. The ones that show a real risk are like, kids who are exposed to two chain smoking parents who smoke indoors and have poor ventilation.

I mean there's probably as much crap put out by our smartphones and all the electronics we roll with. It's selective outrage based on personal disgust. Now, that's fine for rolling your eyes or even banning it in YOUR place of business or even public buildings. But it's no justification for banning it in bars, late night restaurants, clubs, casinos, VFW Halls, and other places where no one who is there gives a crap about being healthy.

It actually makes a huge difference.

Plus, one is far more individually accountable. Just because the air is polluted doesn't mean you're allowed to be a dick to everyone else and start blowing smoke in their faces. And whatever radiation that electronics give off is nowhere near as problematic and fatal as cigarette smoke. Not even close.

People are just looking for excuses to get away with being able to do their dirty habit anywhere they want, regardless of how others personally feel about it, and they might have a case if it didn't affect others in any way... but it does.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to smoke. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to force everyone else to smoke with you. The dangers of secondhand smoke is very well documented and studied, and it's actually more toxic than firsthand smoke. It's not a myth. A lot of people don't know this, but there are more women in Korea getting lung cancer than men, even though the majority of them don't smoke. The reason? Because they're around chain-smoking husbands.

And while it's true that the people who are most affected by smokers are those who live with those smokers,  that doesn't give smokers the right to expose anyone else to it. Otherwise, you're pretty much saying it's okay for a person to go around punching random folks in the faces because (s)he beats the shit out of his/her family, and they get the brunt of that person's violence. It doesn't matter if exposure to something is small or large -- if it's toxic, if it's harmful in any way, people have the right to avoid as much exposure to it as possible. If you want to smoke, do it away from everyone else. No one else should have to avoid going out to places just because of someone else's dirty habit.

Air pollution is another problem that needs to be tackled. It's not something that excuses smoking or nullifies its negative contribution to poor health. Inconsiderate public smoking has been and continues to be a problem in areas that has very low and negligible amounts of air pollution. Again, one doesn't make the other okay.

Also, the banning of smoking from places like restaurants was for concerns over workers' personal health. This came about when cancer due to secondhand smoke was correlated. Lots of waitresses and such developed lung and throat cancer despite never having smoked themselves.

Cigarette smoke really does bother me. It smells terrible. Walking behind some douche who is smoking and leaving a trail of smoke behind them, sucks. A static smoker doesn't bother me as much, but it still smells like shit. Its an imposition on others around you. Just as much as some cretin who doesn't wash or use deodorant and stinks of BO.
What if I walked around with a spray can spraying out some awful toxic smell to people around me in public. I'd be viewed as an asshole. If you want to smoke, fine. But do it in private.

First- I agree that smoking stinks and I don't smoke indoors because of it.
Second- Between the dust in the air and the sewer stink, smoke is whatever.

Because it's more than just gross, it's a health hazard. And if you (not "you" specifically, just "you" as in smokers in general) want to subject yourself to the risks that smoking exposes you to, fine, but others shouldn't have to deal with that, too.

Given all the crap we're exposed to, passing by someone's secondhand smoke on the sidewalk is diddly-poo in terms of health risks. Most of those secondhand smoke studies are cooked up to. The ones that show a real risk are like, kids who are exposed to two chain smoking parents who smoke indoors and have poor ventilation.

Don't worry guys! Secondhand smoke is weakened when you live in Korea!

Given all the crap we're exposed to, passing by someone's secondhand smoke on the sidewalk is diddly-poo in terms of health risks. Most of those secondhand smoke studies are cooked up to. The ones that show a real risk are like, kids who are exposed to two chain smoking parents who smoke indoors and have poor ventilation.

I mean there's probably as much crap put out by our smartphones and all the electronics we roll with. It's selective outrage based on personal disgust. Now, that's fine for rolling your eyes or even banning it in YOUR place of business or even public buildings. But it's no justification for banning it in bars, late night restaurants, clubs, casinos, VFW Halls, and other places where no one who is there gives a crap about being healthy.

It actually makes a huge difference.

Plus, one is far more individually controllable. Just because the air is polluted doesn't mean you're allowed to be a dick to everyone else and start blowing smoke in their faces. And whatever radiation that electronics give off is nowhere near as problematic and fatal as cigarette smoke. Not even close.

People are just looking for excuses to get away with being able to do their dirty habit anywhere they want, regardless of how others personally feel about it, and they might have a case if it didn't affect others in any way... but it does.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to smoke. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to force everyone else to smoke with you. The dangers of secondhand smoke is very well documented and studied, and it's actually more toxic than firsthand smoke. It's not a myth. A lot of people don't know this, but there are more women in Korea getting lung cancer than men, even though the majority of them don't smoke. The reason? Because they're around chain-smoking husbands.

And while it's true that the people who are most affected by smokers are those who live with those smokers,  that doesn't give smokers the right to expose anyone else to it. Saying otherwise is like saying it's okay for someone go around punching random folks in the faces because he beats the shit out of his family and they get the brunt of it. It doesn't matter if exposure to something is small or large -- if it's toxic, people have the right to avoid as much exposure to it as possible. If you want to smoke, do it away from everyone else. No one else should have to avoid going out to places just because of someone else's dirty habit.

Air pollution is another problem that needs to be tackled. It's not something that excuses smoking or nullifies its negative contribution to poor health. Inconsiderate public smoking has been and continues to be a problem in areas that has very low and negligible amounts of air pollution. Again, one doesn't make the other okay.

Also, the banning of smoking from places like restaurants was for concerns over workers' personal health. This came about when cancer due to secondhand smoke was correlated. Lots of waitresses and such developed lung and throat cancer despite never having smoked themselves.

Source?

https://www.e-crt.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.4143/crt.2018.143 would drastically differ to your opinion


New cases   Total, 24,267   Men, 17,015   Women, 7,252   

Deaths, Total, 17,399           Men, 12,677    Women, 4,722   

Prevalent cases  Total, 69,931   Men, 43,987   Women, 25,944

It actually makes a huge difference.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to smoke. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to force everyone else to smoke with you. The dangers of secondhand smoke is very well documented and studied, and it's actually more toxic than firsthand smoke. It's not a myth.

We're talking people living indoors with other smokers, continuously exposed over years. Not you walking along the street and a puff of smoke blows by you.

People are just looking for excuses to get away with being able to do their dirty habit anywhere they want, regardless of how others personally feel about it, and they might have a case if it didn't affect others in any way... but it does.

No, it doesn't. Not when it comes to someone smoking on the side of the street and you getting the occasional whiff of it. Not to any degree that it overrides all the other pollutants and toxins one is exposed to.

that doesn't give smokers the right to expose anyone else to it. Otherwise, you're pretty much saying it's okay for a person to go around punching random folks in the faces because (s)he beats the shit out of his/her family, and they get the brunt of that person's violence.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the danger of second hand smoke exposure by someone on the sidewalk is so negligible relative to exposure to other risk factors as to be insignificant. And like I said, I agree with banning it in public buildings or at bus stops or within 10 meters of a subway entrance, etc.

if it's harmful in any way, people have the right to avoid as much exposure to it as possible.

Care to put that principle into legal practice? What it would turn into is pretty much everything being banned. I'm sure there's something that you're doing that someone could claim harms them because of exposure and demands that it be banned.

No one else should have to avoid going out to places just because of someone else's dirty habit.

No one forces you to go to a club with a cover charge or some bar at 11PM or a casino. VFW halls are exclusive to veterans and the government has even banned smoking there. Guys who fought in WWII or Vietnam and lost a leg and are in their final years can't even smoke and play cards with their buddies because some virtue-signaller who has never met them and would never set foot inside their club thinks they know better than them.

Seriously, the level of arrogance and condescension to ban smoking in VFW and American Legion halls is ridiculous.

. Inconsiderate public smoking has been and continues to be a problem in areas that has very low and negligible amounts of air pollution.

I'm potentially exposed to pathogens because someone's dumb dog decides to crap in public and no one wants to ban that. Maybe we should under this logic. Who cares that the risk is negligible? I have the right to not be exposed!

Also, the banning of smoking from places like restaurants was for concerns over workers' personal health.

Give me a break. Those workers are often smokers themselves. They smoke because they have to deal with asshole customers who are usually they types that enjoy telling people what to do and bossing them around and being hyper picky because their vegan crap wasn't prepared using fair-trade organic whatever and was slightly overcooked.

They didn't do it out of concern. They used them as a tool to push forward their own agenda. Did anyone bother checking with these workers before they started arguing on their behalf? Just a bunch of white-knighting.

Don't worry guys! Secondhand smoke is weakened when you live in Korea!

Yeah, it was that 2 second whiff of smoke that caused your cancer. Not constant exposure to air pollution, having a cellphone to your ear all the time, or that plate of processed chili cheese fries.

A lot of people don't know this, but there are more women in Korea getting lung cancer than men, even though the majority of them don't smoke. The reason? Because they're around chain-smoking husbands.

Source?

https://www.e-crt.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.4143/crt.2018.143 would drastically differ to your opinion


New cases   Total, 24,267   Men, 17,015   Women, 7,252   

Deaths, Total, 17,399           Men, 12,677    Women, 4,722   

Prevalent cases  Total, 69,931   Men, 43,987   Women, 25,944

Sorry, I misspoke and was going to fix it to clarify, but the site went 503 on me, and now you've captured my shame forever.

I meant to say that lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in women in Korea, even though the majority of those who developed lung cancer are and were never smokers, while it wasn't the leading cause of death from cancer for Korean men even though Korean men make up the majority of lung cancer cases in Korea. I got this from an article that I can't find at the moment because I'm apparently banned from those sites on this computer (even with a VPN?), so I can't confirm the info atm. 

Although, this particular article contradicts that last bit, too (the part about not being the leading cause of death from cancer for Korean men), so I'm wondering if what I read is either too old or was giving numbers based off of specific age groups instead. In that article, the leading cause of death from cancer for Korean men was stomach cancer.

We're talking people living indoors with other smokers, continuously exposed over years. Not you walking along the street and a puff of smoke blows by you.

The damage might be minimal, but there's still damage, and it's accountable. If one person can do it, then everyone can. That adds up when you're constantly passing people doing the same thing.

No, it doesn't. Not when it comes to someone smoking on the side of the street and you getting the occasional whiff of it. Not to any degree that it overrides all the other pollutants and toxins one is exposed to.

I didn't say it overrode any other toxins, only that other toxins don't suddenly negate it and make it okay, and people have the right to control that much at least. If it's not healthy, it's not healthy, and forcing another person to breathe it in, no matter how minimal, is selfish and rude.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the danger of second hand smoke exposure by someone on the sidewalk is so negligible relative to exposure to other risk factors as to be insignificant. And like I said, I agree with banning it in public buildings or at bus stops or within 10 meters of a subway entrance, etc.

We can agree for the most part here, but I'll point out again that if you make it okay for one person, you make it okay for all, and Korea has A LOT of sidewalk smokers. That adds up for people like myself who actively walk everywhere.

Outside of that, it's just ****** rude to expose people to toxins when it's well within your control to not do so. Again, minimal exposure to toxins doesn't suddenly make it okay to blow those toxins in others' faces.

Care to put that principle into legal practice? What it would turn into is pretty much everything being banned. I'm sure there's something that you're doing that someone could claim harms them because of exposure and demands that it be banned.

Except this is backed by science and fact. It isn't subjective. That's why many countries have actively banned the habit in so many places. It's not something that can be argued.

No one forces you to go to a club with a cover charge or some bar at 11PM or a casino. VFW halls are exclusive to veterans and the government has even banned smoking there. Guys who fought in WWII or Vietnam and lost a leg and are in their final years can't even smoke and play cards with their buddies because some virtue-signaller who has never met them and would never set foot inside their club thinks they know better than them.

So you're telling me that people can't enjoy themselves and do all of those things without smoking? And what about the many people who go to every single one of those places who don't smoke? And the people who work there?

People can have their vices, but there's a line. It's like you can swing your arms around as much as you want, but your right to swing your fists around ends at the tip of another man's nose. If you smoke, so does everyone else around you, even if they don't have a cigarette in their mouths.

Seriously, the level of arrogance and condescension to ban smoking in VFW and American Legion halls is ridiculous.

For some, it's virtual-signaling and condescension. For the majority, it's about having control over what goes into their own bodies. Again, this isn't some harmless, self-contained habit. I don't want it in my lungs if I don't have to have it there.

I'm potentially exposed to pathogens because someone's dumb dog decides to crap in public and no one wants to ban that. Maybe we should under this logic. Who cares that the risk is negligible? I have the right to not be exposed!

It's not practical to ban animal defecation. It can't be done. But people can clean up after their pets and properly dispose of their waste.

I'm just as much against shoving feces in people's faces as I am against smoking, btw. And even then, you're still more likely to get sick from breathing in the smoke than you are from having feces smeared on your face.

Again, this is about lines and what is pragmatic.

Give me a break. Those workers are often smokers themselves. They smoke because they have to deal with asshole customers who are usually they types that enjoy telling people what to do and bossing them around and being hyper picky because their vegan crap wasn't prepared using fair-trade organic whatever and was slightly overcooked.

1) Most of them aren't smokers.
2) The ones who are have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
3) Non-smokers have the right to protect their healths.
4) People's personal health > People's personal habits. If one directly affects the other, than all other points are moot.

They didn't do it out of concern. They used them as a tool to push forward their own agenda. Did anyone bother checking with these workers before they started arguing on their behalf? Just a bunch of white-knighting.

You're free to feel this way, no one can stop you, but it doesn't make your argument any stronger. The point remains that many workers have, in fact, developed cancer that was directly correlated with their exposure to cigarette smoke. No amount of political upending can change that.

I'm sorry I ever asked the question!!!  Seriously!  I didn't mean for this to become a huge debate.  It was just something I observe with non-smoker (the dramatics)  I honestly couldn't careless either way.  If someone wants to smoke, then be my guest. 

Seriously though.... this is supposed to be a MEGA HAPPY thread and my stupid ass question turned it into a debate.  Sorry!   

The damage might be minimal, but there's still damage, and it's accountable. If one person can do it, then everyone can. That adds up when you're constantly passing people doing the same thing.

That applies to barbecues as well. Should we ban outdoor grilling? You probably get more in 1 hour of sitting around a campfire or in a Korean BBQ charcoal restaurant than a lifetime of passing people.

I didn't say it overrode any other toxins, only that other toxins don't suddenly negate it and make it okay, and people have the right to control that much at least.

There comes a point where your concerns pass beyond reason and become obsession. This is one of those. The amount of money spent enforcing such an insignificant threat is in itself causing death. That money spent on THE DANGER of passing someone on the sidewalk could be spent on giving medical treatment to 12 people currently dealing with diseases and have a more positive effect. We don't live in a world of unlimited resources and concerns and starting a crusade to stop something that is such an insignificant danger is utterly irrational.

Outside of that, it's just ****** rude to expose people to toxins when it's well within your control to not do so.

How many toxins are you exposing people to with stuff you do for fun? Think long and hard about this and go into the full scale of what your "fun" means.

Except this is backed by science and fact. It isn't subjective

No it isn't. Studies involving children raised by smokers indoors are not applicable to people opposed to occasional passing cigarette smoke as pedestrians.

So you're telling me that people can't enjoy themselves and do all of those things without smoking? And what about the many people who go to every single one of those places who don't smoke? And the people who work there?

The bar is more fun if you can smoke there.

You're free to open up a non-smoking bar. Let us have a smoking bar. That seems fair, right? It's a private business. You don't have to come to our smoking bar. And the people who work there can be smokers too.

It's like you can swing your arms around as much as you want, but your right to swing your fists around ends at the tip of another man's nose

Just like no one forces you to step into a boxing ring, no one forces you to step into a bar with smoking.

If you want to talk outdoor smoking and use your standard for something that is such a negligible risk, then let's take it to the logical conclusion and find out what fun things you enjoy that we can ban. I'm sure we can find a good half dozen at least that are exposing people to dangerous things.

For the majority, it's about having control over what goes into their own bodies.

Yes, I have control over my own body to go into a private club or bar and smoke.

I don't want it in my lungs if I don't have to have it there.

Again, let's apply this standard to every single bit of entertainment in your life.

It's not practical to ban animal defecation. It can't be done. But people can clean up after their pets and properly dispose of their waste.

We could force pets indoors. I have a right not to be exposed to their pathogens.

Again, this is about lines and what is pragmatic.

Your smoking ban is not pragmatic. It's such a negligible risk relative to other factors, and the use of funds spent on it could be better spent elsewhere.

1) Most of them aren't smokers.
2) The ones who are have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
3) Non-smokers have the right to protect their healths.
 

You ever work in low-end food service? Bars and clubs? Much higher rates of smoking than some upscale restaurant. And I agree with smoking bans in restaurants until say, 10pm. I think the free market has made it clear that non-smoking is beneficial to places like Chipotle or Outback. But some greasy spoon whose primary clientele is drunks at 2AM?

And again, NO ONE FORCES YOU TO WORK OR PATRONIZE THOSE PLACES.

I just don't understand the mindset of someone who thinks they should be able to go into a private club and tell them to ban smoking.

4) People's personal health > People's personal habits. If one directly affects the other, than all other points are moot.

All other points are not moot. That's simplistic thinking that doesn't acknowledge the fact that we live in a cost-benefit world with limited resources and a respect for freedoms and choice. You can sue "health" to justify virtually anything, much like "national security" or any other concept the government uses to increase control over people.

Martin, stop derailing this thread with your incessant need to argue.

Martin, stop derailing this thread with your incessant need to argue.

It really wasn't his or Chingurtti's fault.  It was mine.  I asked a heated question.  I take full responsibility for this mess....