I thought "I don't stink anymore" was being personally accountable enough for a reasonable person to not become offended by the inference that cigarette smoke stinks. If I wanted to be painfully honest I would say, "My daughter doesn't go to school stinking of smoke after giving me a hug anymore."
Sometimes, I like the smell of a freshly burning cigarette when I'm vaping with my friends in a designated outdoor smoking area too, but stale "third-hand"
smoke stinks and it is unrealistic to not acknowledge at least that.
When you say, "I don't stink anymore," the inference isn't just that cigarette smoke stinks . . . it's that smokers stink. When I was a smoker, I remember a former smoker saying much the same thing to me. Totally put me off.
But I do get what you're saying . . . sometimes the best way of telling somebody why we like something is by describing how it's preferable to something else.
Just because the hazards of secondhand smoke are horrendously overblown, it does not mean they are nonexistant. Although I agree that demonizing smokers is just plain wrong, I don't feel any compunction to back down from the truth of not only the hazards of smoke and smoking but the public nuisances including "stinky" stale smoke and "nasty" brown tobacco spit--issues that are resolved by switching to reduced harm tobacco products.
Stinky stale smoke and spitting are hardly "public nuisances."
I wonder who your audience is when you say these things. When I talk to smokers about vaping, I try very hard not to come across as preachy or superior . . . and implying someone stinks is a sure-fire way to get someone to shut down. Frankly, I don't talk with smokers about stale cigarette smoke odors. I do, however, mention that the odor of vapor doesn't seem to be as objectionable to non-smokers and that the vapor quickly dissipates.
As for second-hand smoke, don't even get me started. Yes, the dangers have been "horrendously overblown," and it was done so by folks who have been pushing the anti-smoking agenda, which has since morphed into anti-tobacco agenda, and, most recently, anti-nicotine agenda. But the truth is that most activists are afraid to talk about how the dangers of second-hand smoke have been "horrendously overblown," and, instead, we cater to the fear by talking about how we shouldn't be thrown into smoking areas with the smokers.
Frankly, my problem isn't being thrown into the smoking areas with the smokers . . . my problem is there are increasingly no areas for the smokers. But don't get me started on that . . . that is an entirely different rant.
Those are all examples of persecution (at least potentially) of smokers. That's different than telling the truth about the hazards of the smoke, which was the point I was trying to make. We are certainly on the same side as the smokers, but that doesn't mean we are promoting smoking as they do.
Do you really think that most smokers are "promoting" smoking? My perception isn't that smokers are out there recruiting, trying to get others to smoke. Rather, they're simply saying they want to be able to make the choice to smoke. And for those who might argue about the dangers of smoking to bystanders being justification for all of these smoking bans, I would suggest that that's a little naive. There is absolutely no scientific/health justification for banning smoking outdoors.
I completely agree. Personally, I suspect that these new labels will be more likely to attract underage smoking the way that Death Cigarettes were popular with rebellious teenagers, or perhaps the Pokemon set will want to "Collect 'Em All!". Nevertheless, the FSPTCA is already law so larger color warnings on cigarettes are inevitable so we should try to find labels that are the least abusive to smokers.
And this is where I disagree. I find them ALL objectionable. There is no "least abusive" amongst the bunch. Instead, I think we ought to be advocating for a legislative change on this issue. It really sticks in my craw that the government is pushing for this kind of nonsense in an effort to ensure that smokers understand the dangers of smoking . . . and yet they have totally misleading warnings on smokeless tobacco.
