what is the likelyhood that a person is actually alergic to tobacco smoke...or is it just a ruse to not letting you lit up in there presents?

quote:

Originally posted by Jemeyes:
what is the likelyhood that a person is actually alergic to tobacco smoke...or is it just a ruse to not letting you lit up in there presents?

Not sure. I suppose it's possible when you look at all the other things some people are allergic to: Foods, pets, etc.

If you're outdoors just stand downwind. If they still complain I'd say they're faking it.

If you're indoors and smoking's allowed I'd say they can't be too allergic just by the fact they're there.

To the best of my knowledge tobacco smoke is not an allergen per se. Smoke (any kind) and dust may be 'triggers' for people with some medical conditions such as asthma. In addition, some people with asthma have inhalent allergies to pollen, mites, animal dander, etc. To the best of my knowledge a true allergic reaction requires exposure to the specific protein in the allergenic substance - and I don't believe protein is a component of tobacco smoke.

Being highly sensitive to and reacting to a substance - it can happen with burned poison ivy - is not the same as an allergy.

When everything that bothers anyone (in any way) becomes an 'allergy' that only serves to trivialize the importance of taking precautions when dealing with true allergies.

Same thing 'addiction'. If the 'we're here to help you' elite don't like it but you do it or use it - that's addiction. If your 'thing' is Starbucks well that's just 'up-scale'.

We arrived at 1984 and have moved on from there. Sad.

The only people I know with an allergy to smoke have little idea of what an allergy is. For most their sinus cavities swell and close, it does not seem to have any impact on their lungs or breathing.

My intpretation is their allergy is a personal mental problem, not a true allergy.

My concern about the constant use of the term "allergy" to indicate everything from dislike to anaphylaxis is no different from my concern about the term "addition" being applied to anything at all a person chooses to do that (a) isn't politically correct, or (b) the actor wishes to escape responsibility for doing.

These are terms the anti's throw around in their 'we're right to denormalize' excuses.

People who support personal freedoms should be more exact and not fall into that trap.

If a person chooses to smoke, drink coffee, play video games all night before an exam, eat fast food...and so on...in almost all cases they do have the ability to choose not to do so if they do not wish to do so. They can "quit" without Big Pharma and the AG's. If they are "addicts" it is more about their psychology and decision making process than the particular substance or behavior to which the do-gooders ascribe an "addition".

Same thing allergies. Once dislike becomes an "allergy"....well I can think of a bunch of folks I'd claim to be "allergic" to - and my only "exposure" to the allergen is in the media!

Not trying to be a pain Bruce. I support the (at one time) common sense idea that people should be free to make personal choices about their lives and property.

I don't smoke. Doesn't bother me if others do.

i have some allergies

grass, dust, histamines and etc

but, i will tell you straight out

most all of the domestic cigarettes, that i have smelled, stink when smoked

i don't need any science to tell me that it's poison

and i don't want to be exposed to poison for no good reason

capisci?

Poor, poor pitiful you.

you got that wrong, too

just because i have a few allergies

doesn't mean they have me

i think you must be projecting your pitiful feelings

i'm not near poor

I am allergic to anything that produces pollen.

I am also allergic to cat dander.

I prefer to life in a green enviroment so I cope with the pollen as best I can.

I have six cats in the back yard that I feed twice daily.

I have not started a campaign to eliminate trees, grass, flowers, or cats because of my personal problems with each. My attraction to tobacco must be clouding my mind or it could be that I realise my limits and take care not to exceed them.

I use to think my allergies to pollen were in my mind as a reason to avoid cutting the grass, but a doctor gave me medication for it.

I have no problem with the cats as long as they stay outside and I pet them out there and keep them away from my mouth and nose. When I start itching I come inside.

I even cut the grass, there are laws about that too.

I am a 3rd generation smoker, my son is the fourth. No one in my bloodline has kelled over from a heart attack or lung cancer, a few have fallen on account of the "drink" though, but they got up again.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
I am allergic to...

I have not started a campaign to eliminate trees, grass, flowers, or cats because of my personal problems with each.

That reminds me of the time of the smoking ban in our city. Between the ban and a push to rescind it a year later. It might have been even later. Doesn't really matter I guess.

A nurse wrote in to the paper and stated she was allergic to latex and had to quit working at a clinic (or hospital) that used latex gloves. She found another place to work that used some substitute. I thought, "Bravo for you. Not some whiner."

Then some old fart (I think) wrote in somewhat responding to my sarcastic letter saying they should throw coffee drinkers to the curb too (secondhand coffee fumes-benzene etc.).

He apparently took what I said seriously and said anyone with perfume should be kicked out to the curb too. But I mean he was serious.

Then an old lady (don't ask me how I know how old they all are) wrote in saying she and someone else can't breathe around Easter lilies and wished churches would get rid of them faster after Easter.

Ah ****, I forgot what point I was trying to make. Oh well. Maybe another time. LOL

Hey, Squeezer, Now Menomonie has jumped onto the fascist bandwagon as well. Maybe you knew that. But, anyway, I give credit to ONE City Council member over there who said that "One tank of gas will create more pollution than a smoker will in a lifetime." At least he utilized some common sense. Whenever I deliver the paper over there to a restaurant called the Kernel, I see 80+ year-old women in there playing cards, drinking coffee, and smoking up a storm. Come September, that place will be hurting..........

quote:

Originally posted by Pat:
Hey, Squeezer, Now Menomonie has jumped onto the fascist bandwagon as well.

For the life of me I don't know why so many people on city councils are such petty little dictators.

Even if they believe all the SHS garbage, what is so friggin' hard about saying, "If an owner wants to allow smoking, so be it. You're adults. You can avoid it on your own without our help."

Every candidate has a personal agenda before announcing they are running for office. Each realises that in orderr to accomplish their agenda they have to help others to accomplish their's. If 75 to 80% of the population does not smoke then a smoking ban does not effect that percentage of their voters. It becomes easy for them to pass a smoking ban or a tobacco tax increase because the majority of their voters will NOT be effected.

If you negociate with fellow law makers it is a no brainer to support smoking legislation. Why burn bridges.

Popular press tells legislators what to say in responce to us. We don't have to smoke, afterall the legislator doesn't. Until the antis brought it up it wasn't even noticed, it was accepted. By repeating their message over and over the antis have created in the minds of the public that their has been an instance where smoking bothered them. It is now alright to complain.

Our petty dictator is a friend representing the views of the majority. Although they are worthless when it comes to what they should be doing, this is an easy way to show progress on something.

Smokers are the only ones who care about this legislation besides the antis and those businesses who miss us. Non-smokers only realise a change when we effect them. We will not patronize a non-smoking venue. We will not enter a store representing and anti smoking attitude. We are the minority that is hidden and rarely discussed. For the majority we cease to exist. At least we have not been in this situation since birth, we have existed in the past, but are we missed?

This does not relate to the above discussion but to it's title.

Have you noticed lately that the antis are no longer refering to actual research? They are pointing primarily to the Surgeon General's compolation and his statement that all discussion is closed on the subject.

I have started challenging newspapers to actually interview the expert quoted in their article about any one study contained in the surgeon genernal's report that actually includes participants or test subjects.

Once they have selected one they ask them how the participants where chosen, when was the study conducted, who paid for it, why was it conducted, what did the participants provide to the researchers, in what form. If a questionaire was used, what questions were asked, covering what period of time.

From there they should research the lifestyles of the public at that time.

Very few of these studies actually involved participants. Few of the participants are still alive because of the age of the study. Further the participants were asked about their early years of exposure, in many cases this involved thinking back 30 years or more.

For many of the participants they were remembering the 1920's and 30's forward. A lot has changed in the average person's life since then. There were more home without plumbing than there was with it. Many homes were heated with coal or wood fires. The great dust bowel was created in that time and the dust reached both coasts. Manufacturing was powered by coal and filled the air with soot. People had to wear scarves across their faces whenever outside in order to breathe. Hygene was not on the same level as today. People were short of money from the beginning of the depression until long after the second world war which effected what they ate. Pollution was everywhere, in the air, the water, and in open sewers spreading disease.

Many of these participants spent this time in homes heated with coal fires that covered the entire house in soot. Food was prepared over open flames from wood, coal, and animal wastes.

With all these factors it is a wonder that any of these people lived long enough to participate in these studies. If we believe what we are currently being told about tobacco smoke it is a wonder that humanity could have existed under these conditions.