The Smoking Thing: Why Americans Dread Visiting Serbia

/ 04.11.2007. u 01:11

Komentari: 82
Čitanost: 7240
/
Preporuke: 2
/

According to The Economist's 2008 World Rankings Book, the average Serb (man, woman, and child) smokes 5.8 cigs per day, ranking them as the Top 9 Most Smoking Countries on Earth. That's a lot of smoking.

Greece comes in at #1 with 8.4 cigs per day; Macedonia is #2 at 7.1 cigs per day, Russia is #3 at 6.8, and Slovenia kicks Serbian smoker ass at #5 with 6.2 cigs per day. Bosnia is below at #13 (5.2 per day) and Croatia is not ranked on the list. Yet oddly, Croatia has by far the highest cancer deaths rate of the region at 167 deaths per 100,000 population. (Serbia spends a far higher percent of the GDP on public healthcare, so that may make the difference.)

OK, one might be tempted to make jokes about the confluence of the Orthodox Church and smoking, or the whole Slavic + Balkans and smoking thing.

Actually because I'm American and as everyone knows, Americans are all about money, I will say that I'm awfully tempted to do the math. That is ~8 million Serbs times 5.8 cigs per day times the average cost per cig... Frankly no one who smokes that much can tell me they are seriously poor. You may be stupid and/or smelly, but you certainly have some money in your pocket.

I say this as a former 20-year smoker. I like most of my generation in the US quit. Only 22% of Americans smoke and the rest are often former smokers who have the nastiness of converts when it comes to dealing with the still-smoking masses. Blech! Phew! Icky, icky-poo!

In fact the ONLY thing I worried about before moving to Sombor Serbia for this Summer and part of the fall was the smoke. Would I be unable to enjoy society, cafes and private get-togethers because of unremitting smoke? I'd heard and read on blogs online many horror stories - mainly about Belgrade.

Turns out it's not so bad in Sombor where we had many friends and relatives who did not smoke. Yeah, in one of the smokingest countries in the world I met a lot of non-smokers, and I wasn't expecting or seeking them out.

So I was lucky. But such is the prejudice against smoking here in the US, and yes I do agree with this cultural anti-smoking bent, that if I had to spend much time in Belgrade I would be worried about it. And I bet it's something the tourist board never considered....

Most shocking moment in Sombor: Seeing ash trays on display at an office supply store. Whoa - 1980s flash back!

So what's your take on smoking in Serbia? Does it stop you from enjoying the country, restaurants or society as you'd like to? Or do you just wish whining anti-smokers would shut up already?

postavite na |

Komentari (82)

Sakrij replike | Pošaljite komentar

Komentare je moguće postavljati samo u prvih 7 dana, nakon čega se blog automatski zaključava

okapoaniolz 02:24 04.11.2007

Smrt bivsim pusacima

Pusenje ili zdravlje, odlucite sami?

Pusenje, naravno.

p.s.
ako me neko ko nikad nije pusio zamoli da ugasim cigaretu, uvek cu to da uradim, ali bivsi pusaci (cast izuzecima) treba da vise na grani samo zbog kolicine agresije koju usmeravaju prema pusacima.

Unfuckable 02:29 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

okapoaniolz
Pusenje ili zdravlje, odlucite sami?

Pusenje, naravno.

p.s.
ako me neko ko nikad nije pusio zamoli da ugasim cigaretu, uvek cu to da uradim, ali bivsi pusaci (cast izuzecima) treba da vise na grani samo zbog kolicine agresije koju usmeravaju prema pusacima.

pooshimo jer voulimo...

Mungos 03:16 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Rosemary Bailey Brown
Greece comes in at #1 with 8.4 cigs per day; Macedonia is #2 at 7.1 cigs per day, Russia is #3 at 6.8, and Slovenia kicks Serbian smoker ass at #5 with 6.2 cigs per day. Bosnia is below at #13 (5.2 per day) and Croatia is not ranked on the list.

That only shows who are the most soul and cool people on the Earth.(I am very serious about that)

Rosemary Bailey Brown
Yet oddly, Croatia has by far the highest cancer deaths rate of the region at 167 deaths per 100,000 population

Did anybody ever had published studies about highly cancerous effect of the gasoline, especially leaded one? Just as a comparison, staying at the corner of an intersection with a moderately frequent traffic, waiting for the "green" to cross the street, SMOKES ABOUT 200 CIGARETTES! (+ other poisons that are not contained in the cigarettes)

Radojcic
Jamaica on that list?

Weed doesn't count, 'bro!:)

Unfuckable
Pusenje ili zdravlje, odlucite sami? Pusenje, naravno.

Lizanje, brate!

Mungos, The Realistic Smoker

Unfuckable 04:21 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Pusenje ili zdravlje, odlucite sami? Pusenje, naravno.
Lizanje, brate!

Mungos, The Realistic Smoker

/quote]

ma ja sam napisao pooshimo jer voulimo...
al može i leessagne, why not ?
...nije mi palo na pamet....pamet.....

marumi 06:11 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Pusenje ili zdravlje, odlucite sami?

Ne nepusaci ili bivsi pusaci, vec pusaci su agresivni. Sinoc na jednom rodjendanu umalo da se svi pogusimo. Pusaci nisu gasili cigarete iako je bilo pristuno vise nepusaca. Meni se povracalo od odvratnog smrada i bukvalno mi je pripala muka. Tek bivsi pusaci mogu da razumeju i jedne i druge jer znaju razliku izmedju perioda kada su pusili i sada kada mogu normalno da disu. Da nije agresivnih pusaca, naravno.

Milan M. Ćirković 06:46 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Mungos

Did anybody ever had published studies about highly cancerous effect of
the gasoline, especially leaded one?

But as far as I know leaded gasoline has been prohibited long ago (in 70s or so) and for much more serious reason than the cancer rate - the danger of lead poisoning and induced disorders including several heavy mental illnesses being much higher per unit time than the danger of cancer... That is one of the rare examples where concern for public health did outweigh any private and corporate savings achieved with the leaded gas.

Srki 07:39 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Milan M. Ćirković
Mungos

But as far as I know leaded gasoline has been prohibited long ago (in 70s or so) and for much more serious reason than the cancer rate - the danger of lead poisoning and induced disorders including several heavy mental illnesses being much higher per unit time than the danger of cancer... That is one of the rare examples where concern for public health did outweigh any private and corporate savings achieved with the leaded gas.

That explains some things in Serbia ;-).

Milan Rakić 08:31 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Mungos
Rosemary Bailey Brown
Greece comes in at #1 with 8.4 cigs per day; Macedonia is #2 at 7.1 cigs per day, Russia is #3 at 6.8, and Slovenia kicks Serbian smoker ass at #5 with 6.2 cigs per day. Bosnia is below at #13 (5.2 per day) and Croatia is not ranked on the list.

That only shows who are the most soul and cool people on the Earth.(I am very serious about that)

If smoking is your hallmark of being cool then you have odd merits. If the government would have a much stronger and louder anti-smoking campaign the view on that would change, however, with the current smoking-lobby in Serbia, one can just forget it.

Mungos

Rosemary Bailey Brown
Yet oddly, Croatia has by far the highest cancer deaths rate of the region at 167 deaths per 100,000 population

Did anybody ever had published studies about highly cancerous effect of the gasoline, especially leaded one? Just as a comparison, staying at the corner of an intersection with a moderately frequent traffic, waiting for the "green" to cross the street, SMOKES ABOUT 200 CIGARETTES! (+ other poisons that are not contained in the cigarettes)

Well, in western Europe you can ONLY buy unleaded and Eco-Diesel, as for Serbia, you know the drill.

Mungos

Radojcic
Jamaica on that list?

Weed doesn't count, 'bro!:)

What a revelation of an answer.

Mungos

Unfuckable
Pusenje ili zdravlje, odlucite sami? Pusenje, naravno.

Lizanje, brate!

To get serious, no one in Serbia thinks of the non-smokers and small children. If I get guests and ask them not to smoke (or go outside) because of my 16 months old son, they get offended and proudly state that "they will not visit people at which place they cannot smoke". I cannot go outside and have a coffee because every bar is a Mecca for smokers, and god-forbid you ask the person next to you to respect your presence and non-smoking stand, most probably they would start a fight with you right away. We are fare away from becoming a state where health prevails and respect for other persons, and that is brilliantly described in the post cancer, further below. I think this answers the question "Smoking or health".

Mungos 09:44 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Milan M. Ćirković
Mungos

Did anybody ever had published studies about highly cancerous effect of
the gasoline, especially leaded one?

But as far as I know leaded gasoline has been prohibited long ago (in 70s or so) and for much more serious reason than the cancer rate - the danger of lead poisoning and induced disorders including several heavy mental illnesses being much higher per unit time than the danger of cancer... That is one of the rare examples where concern for public health did outweigh any private and corporate savings achieved with the leaded gas.

Milan, it seems you have missed the point. I would appreciate if you could read mine post again.
Anyway, I didn't think of the leaded gasoline, exclusively, but about gasoline in general. In addition, an ingredient MTBE in unleaded gasoline, which substitutes Tethra-ethil-lead, has exactly the same effect! Even worse, evaporates more or less easily from unburned gasoline.
Years ago I was reading some studies, preformed by independent scientists, because NOBODY wanted to finance such things officially (WHY?) and findings are just stunning!

Finally, anti-smoking campaign had started after the death of the ex-US Vice-president's Al Gore sister, from the lung cancer. (Just to note that Gore's family was one of the biggest tobacco-producers in the state of Tennessee and US, as well.)

Why the tobacco business is still so profitable and tobacco industry is one of the top ones?

Mungos, The Concerned of Bullshiters

P.S. I like that "heavy mental illness":))))))))

Rosemary Bailey Brown 13:26 04.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Jamaica is not on the list, neither is anywhere in North or South America. (Yes I know Mexico City is one of the most polluted places on earth, but not apparently from over-smoking.) And isn't that ironic, given where tobacco came from in the first place?

ugly 07:17 05.11.2007

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Finally, anti-smoking campaign had started after the death of the ex-US Vice-president's Al Gore sister, from the lung cancer.

This is not quite simple as that. Minnesota enacted the first smoking ban in US seven years before Gore's sister died. California did it in mid 80's, but majority of other stated waited till the 21st century.

Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily throw Gore (which I personally dislike) into the equation, since there is no clear evidence that the two events are somehow related.

Brunehilda 11:28 20.05.2008

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Ne, dragi moj. Smrt svim nedokazanim pušačima koji smatraju da je njihovo pravo na trovanje i sebe i drugih veće od prava nepušača i bivših pušaća da ne budu trovani i osuđeni da se guše u neizdrživom smradu cigarete i pikavaca.

Ja, kao bivši 20-godišnji pušač, kažem BLJAK i još uvek ne mogu da shvatim samu sebe kako sam mogla uopšte da uvlačim taj odvratni smrdljivi dim u svoja pluća. Najviše se ljutim pre svega na SAMU SEBE, a pušače žalim jer nisu svesni da ubijaju lagano i neprimetno, ajd što same sebe, to je njihov izbor, nego i svoju okolinu gde uglavnom najviše deca istih stradaju, ni kriva ni dužna.

Kamo lepe sreće da ovah tipično srpski mentalitet i komentar : "Bivši pušači su najgori" što pre nestane i da pušači shvate da koliko god oni imaju pravo da odaberu da sebe truju, drugi imaju još veće pravo da odaberu da ne budu trovani, gušeni u smradu cigarete samo zato što pušać želi da vrši svoje lagano samoubistvo za koje misli da je gle, zadovoljstvo! Međutim, mislim da, što se toga tiče, Srbija najmanje 40 godina kaska za ostalim evropskim zemljama, a za USA, neću ni da pominjem, dele ih svetlosne godine...

Meni lično, i to oduvek a ne samo od kad sam prestala da pušim, to je bio najveći problem pri mojim posetama rodne grude. Neverovatno je koliko su ljudi u Srbiji NESVESNI svoje fatalne greške i sa koliko puno drčnosti traže i brane svoje pravo na ubijanje sebe i drugih, i kako svoje pravo na cigaretu uzimaju kao neko prirodno pravo, i ne pada im na pamet da li možda ipak nekom mogu da smetaju. Jedna mala anegdota.

Pre neku godinu, kad sam bila u poseti svojoj porodici i prijateljima u Srbiji, dogovorih se sa jednom prijateljicom da odemo na ručak. Dok smo tako nas dve ručkale i čavrljale, javila se još jedna prijateljica i rekla da će doći do restorana. Nakon izvesnog vremena, da druga ulazi u restoran, prilazi našem stolu za kojim nas dve još uvek jedemo, seda i mrtva ladna vadi cigarete i pali duvajući dim u naše zabezeknute face (zabezeknutija sam bila ja, nego ova druga, što je valjda normalno) a ja ne mogu prosto da poverujem onome što vidim... To se na zapadu vidi kao prvoklasna nekultura i samoživost, dok se u Srbiji vidi kao nešto sasvim normalno i ne dao ti bog da prigovoriš, jer ćeš odmah biti žigosan kao "taj dosadni bivši pušač, šta se tu sad folira a pušio je tolike godine... " Neverovatno!

Brunehilda 11:45 20.05.2008

Re: Smrt bivsim pusacima

Srki

Milan M. Ćirković

Mungos

But as far as I know leaded gasoline has been prohibited long ago (in 70s or so) and for much more serious reason than the cancer rate - the danger of lead poisoning and induced disorders including several heavy mental illnesses being much higher per unit time than the danger of cancer... That is one of the rare examples where concern for public health did outweigh any private and corporate savings achieved with the leaded gas.

That explains some things in Serbia ;-).

Oooo, yes, indeeed! :)

Radojicic 02:24 04.11.2007

Where is

Greece comes in at #1 with 8.4 cigs per day; Macedonia is #2 at 7.1 cigs per day, Russia is #3 at 6.8, and Slovenia kicks Serbian smoker ass at #5 with 6.2 cigs per day. Bosnia is below at #13 (5.2 per day) and Croatia is not ranked on the list. Yet oddly, Croatia has by far the highest cancer deaths rate of the region at 167 deaths per 100,000 population. (Serbia spends a far higher percent of the GDP on public healthcare, so that may make the difference.)

Jamaica on that list?

Srki 07:37 04.11.2007

cancer

"Yet oddly, Croatia has by far the highest cancer deaths rate of the region at 167 deaths per 100,000 population. (Serbia spends a far higher percent of the GDP on public health care, so that may make the difference.)"

Yet another crooked reasoning of yours, like one about Serbian programmers in California...Why are you doing this? Are you misinformed, or evil minded, or just plain dumb?

Serbia is maybe spending larger percent of GDP, but it is more likely because people are of generally poor health and prevention functions by principle "Dear God save me from getting sick" - other then children immunizations it doesn't exist as a category. I guess everybody is too busy with Kosovo, RS, tycoons, Cuba etc. And hating Americans, and EU too!

And the health care system is like all those bankrupted former socialistic companies - it is rotten and sucks big time ! And if the government doesn't put money there, they strike! It is totally backwards and inefficient. Most of "doctors" are very incompetent, the others are just plain jerks, with perhaps very few exceptions...

I just got my mom out of hospital in Belgrade, for post-hearth attack treatment. It is very scary and sad what she had to go through. After she survived the attack, they told her that she is alright and she can wait with coronarography, and there is no available spots anyway, waiting list is about 1 year long, unless you bribe, which means kick out of list some poor soul, because you have money and someone else doesn't. Fair enough! Then, when they called her out of blue, after 4 months, they found on the examination that she had one of the main hearth arteries 100% blocked and another one 95%!. So basically, she was with one leg in grave and they let her walk away. For 4 months!
Then they sent her home after supposedly successful angioplasty and forgot to tell her if she is supposed to stay in bed, or she can walk. They gave her 11 different prescription drugs, but no one bothered to write her down when to take them, so she had to call friends (medical tech) to ask. Calling hospital is practically out of question - phones are always busy, and you can only talk to some nervous nurse that will give you her opinion, why to bother doctors with that?,... She suffered some serious side effects and when she complained to her doctor, he told her that is bullshit, these are all good medicine and she is hypochondriac. Until she read the label on one of the drugs she was getting, describing all the side effects she was experiencing. In a normal country, we would have enough material to sue the damn bastards, to spend their lives in jail! But not in Serbia...In other words, if you end up stuck with doctors in Serbia, you are more or less in God's hands...

Speaking of smoking, I talked to my US friends after visiting Belgrade (somehow they got really sick there, I believe from potable water, or some crap in the food - last year even I got ill, America spoiled me ;-)) and they were complaining not that much about smoking (perhaps because I didn't take them even close to nightclubs, where they would probably suffocate or got killed in some gang-related incident ), but about the air pollution in general, that comes mainly from leaded gas used in vehicles, and from some third-world leftover industry that still operates in downtown. Luckily, they didn't have to see Panchevo...

I hate to say this, because my mom was a smoker for 40 years - they are totally selfish and hypocritical, and if there is one thing I admire US for, it is the proper treatment smokers get here - as you know, if you smoke here, everybody takes you as a mentally ill person, or a redneck at least...Not to mention how you are gonna get health insurance if you enjoyed tobacco products for last ten years...

So, if someone decides to move to Serbia, despite all the everyday life crap, be aware you are gonna have to breed on your gills, until you get sick. And then you'll have chance to experience the inferno of Serbian health care...As I said last time, good luck, and don't sayl you were not warned

Rosemary Bailey Brown 13:33 04.11.2007

Re: cancer

Yes, unleaded gas is far worse for you than smoking, according to health journals. However, I (stupidly) never worried about that before I came to Serbia for the simple reason I didn't know it existed and even if I had, I had no experience of it to make a judgement. If you tell my US friends, "I have to go somewhere where many people smoke indoors" they will all look horrified and feel sorry for you. If you tell my US friends, "I have to go somewhere where cars are old and use unleaded gas." They will look confused and not really care because they have no idea of the smell or implications. It just doesn't come up in life here, but nearly everyone's been trapped with a smoker at some time in their life and hated it....

Mungos 09:54 04.11.2007

Why Americans Dread Visiting Serbia?

Let me finally answer on that question:
- According to mine experience, here in the US, most of the Americans think that there is still fighting in Serbia ("Yugoslavia"

. Just to add that the most still don't have clue where Serbia really is, especially not about smoking habits!:)
- Even before, Americans were not visiting YU that much. Out of all of the US visitors, were mostly (again my personal experience) people of a certain profession which I am not going to discuss here.

Mongoose, The Realistic

Rosemary Bailey Brown 13:34 04.11.2007

Re: Why Americans Dread Visiting Serbia?

That's true - but if you have to come here because you married a Serb (act of fate), then the smoking dread begins...

Xenon 10:57 04.11.2007

ma baš si realističan...

...ubilo se...

Mungos, if that what you're doing (smoking) is so nice and harmless, tell me then why I start suffocating in every night-club in Belgrade and most of cafes. Why after only 15 minutes spent in such a place my girlfriend's eyes start to tear? I'm not overreacting or joking, those things really do happen. Nobody at my (and hers) home smokes, and I'm just not used to it - and I don't wan't to get used to it - because it's really bad thing to get used to. How would you feel if somebody would force you to get addicted (or at least get used to its unpleasant effects) to cocaine...

And why is such a large percentage of arrogant and "proud" (how can you be proud about doing something that kills you, your loved ones and people around you?) smokers like you one of the reasons I like this city less...

Mungos 11:24 04.11.2007

Re: ma baš si realističan...

Xenon
...ubilo se...

Mungos, if that what you're doing (smoking) is so nice and harmless, tell me then why I start suffocating in every night-club in Belgrade and most of cafes. Why after only 15 minutes spent in such a place my girlfriend's eyes start to tear? I'm not overreacting or joking, those things really do happen. Nobody at my (and hers) home smokes, and I'm just not used to it - and I don't wan't to get used to it - because it's really bad thing to get used to. How would you feel if somebody would force you to get addicted (or at least get used to its unpleasant effects) to cocaine...

And why is such a large percentage of arrogant and "proud" (how can you be proud about doing something that kills you, your loved ones and people around you?) smokers like you one of the reasons I like this city less...

I am afraid that I am not understood well! I am not pushing that smoking is harmless. I am just trying to put the things in the proper order: why nobody is talking about harmfulness of the gasoline, which is many times worse than tobacco?
My example: I have an asthma! And I smoke almost 25 years, about 1,5 (sometimes even 2) packs a day. In Belgrade, starting 1999. (after many years of pause) I wouldn't dare to move somewhere without the "pump". Living in Radnicka street - very frequent oneI was having extremely serious attacks. Since I came in the US where the cars must meet very strict gas-emition standards and there is no unleaded gasoline, I almost have no any problem, almost don't know where my "pump" is, year-round ! Why?
BTW, as a smoker-asthmatic, I am able to run long distances, to skate at full (very high) speed for almost two hours, 11 years ago I had set my personal record diving 18m deep, w/out equipment. Last year, while being drunk with some US Navy guys in one Irish pub, I responded to a challenge of one of the officers: not to breath for a full minute...I have endured almost 1:30 measured by precise marine chronometer. (I could have done even more, but I wanted to make some gig - tried to drink "Guiness" while keeping my nose blocked...:)))
So, I really don't understand....

Mongoose, The Endurable

Xenon 11:49 04.11.2007

Re: ma baš si realističan...

Gasoline is completely different matter! And it's not true that nobody's talking about it. And you're completely right, Belgrade is ovepolluted by gasoline. But that's not the topic of Rosemary's post, so I just don't see why would we talk about it here.

Also, one doesn't drive cars in closed areas. In people's homes, in offices, in cafes and restaurants and night-clubs, there's way more cigarette induced smoke than that of car pollution. Do we agree on this and do you understand? :)

About health, good for you, but I have an uncle with throat cancer and a 23 years old friend who coughs all the time. Your health is maybe fine, but I know many people whose health isn't fine due to effects of smoking - and guess what - most of them continue to smoke nonetheless!

Mungos 12:10 04.11.2007

Re: ma baš si realističan...

Xenon
Gasoline is completely different matter! And it's not true that nobody's talking about it. And you're completely right, Belgrade is ovepolluted by gasoline. But that's not the topic of Rosemary's post, so I just don't see why would we talk about it here.

Also, one doesn't drive cars in closed areas. In people's homes, in offices, in cafes and restaurants and night-clubs, there's way more cigarette induced smoke than that of car pollution. Do we agree on this and do you understand? :)

About health, good for you, but I have an uncle with throat cancer and a 23 years old friend who coughs all the time. Your health is maybe fine, but I know many people whose health isn't fine due to effects of smoking - and guess what - most of them continue to smoke nonetheless!

I am so sorry for your surrounding's problems.
Your point is OK, too!
Rosemaries point is smoking in Serbia, primarily, as a reason for which Americans are repulsed from us. I am just trying to say that it is not the worst evil...

Mongoose, The Sees More

plamenezore 16:16 04.11.2007

Re: ma baš si realističan...

My story is quite opposite of yours. I have lived in the city of Pancevo for the first 34 years of my life, after which I moved to Vancouver, Canada. For those that are not aware of the fact, Pancevo is one of the most polluted cities on this planet. I used to joke that smoking in Pancevo is beneficial to its inhabitants as it forms a protective coating of tar in your lungs, isolating the lung tissue from much worse air pollutants. Opposite of that, Vancouver area is a city with cleanest and most pleasant air in the world when it comes to heavily populated urban areas.

I used to smoke for 26 years (since I was 17), and paradoxically never had any breathing problems in Serbia. It is only when I moved to Vancouver that I started to cough heavily. Six months after the move I was diagnosed with asthma. I had to move away from strong tobacco types which I adored, to the mildest possible ones. Interestingly, whenever I went back to Serbia, I would regain proper breathing, and was able to smoke my favorite filterless strong brands such as Lucky Strike, Camel or Gauloises. At first I blamed it on Canadian tobacco. I thought they put something in their cigarettes I am oversensitive to. Alas, the experiment with smoking Canadian tobacco in Serbia produced no change. I was still OK there. It became obvious that there is something in the clean Vancouver's air that I am irritated by.

Nevertheless, I have enjoyed my portion of smoking and coughing for many years on until one night I ended up in one of the Vancouver's hospitals, heavily grasping for air. I quit! I admit - men are chicken. The first near-death experience and they quit. That would never happen to a real woman

Seriously, in North America, the most smokers are women, as they are much harder to quit for some reason.

The results improved gradually. At first, immediately after recovery, my breathing was heavier without cigarettes!? Please, be aware that it was coughing, rather than breathing I had problems with before the attack. I reckoned that it was due to the lack of CO2 I got used to over time, as that gas is known to calm down the alveoli swelling (that's why asthmatics breathe in a bag when the vicious circle of hyperventilation starts). Indeed, a few months after quitting, the situation much improved and I was able to breathe fully, with no coughing at all.

Clearly, my body could deal with either smoking or being subjected to the Vancouver's air irritant (whatever that is), but not with both at the same time.

My conclusion is that what matters is highly individual and substantially depends on the environment. For example, my children are perfectly OK in Vancouver, but when they go to Serbia during summer they are constantly on antihistamines. On winter, they are fine, which proves the pollution is not the major reason their eyes swell.

Mirko

Sofroniye 12:06 04.11.2007

Suggestion

Why don't you write an article about child molesting and then as part of it you may be tempted to make a joke about "confluence" of Catholic Church and child molestation especially in United States and Ireland? Now, that would be something to read. Or maybe "money laundering" ? I could give you a hint for a joke related to that case...Banco Ambrosiano...

jinks 12:29 04.11.2007

No offense,

but the smoke stench is one of the worst ever (especially when you find out that your jacket, clothes, hair, have picked it up, even after you manage to catch the breath of “fresh” air outside the chamber saturated with smoke fumes).

p.s.

living in one of the most air-contaminated streets here, so … sometimes, even the gasoline and diesel exhausts smell better.

Krugolina Borup 13:05 04.11.2007

smokers of the world - unite!

Rosemary, I truly love America, and I love American people. I find them some of the most generous people on Earth. But, when it comes to smoking... I find myself describing USA with very, very bad set of words, like: discrimination, infrigement of human rights, harassement and maltreatment. (If it's any comfort, UK is worse. Plus, they are nowhere near as generous.)

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for protecting non-smokers rights to fresh air, be it because they believe in this made-up and dreamed-up threat of passive smoking, or just pure stinking reasons. Non-smokers are entitled to fresh air, no question about it. It is their "human right". But, NOT BY CANCELING MY RIGHTS, mind you! However, that is exactly what this anti-smoking global campaign is all about: it is not about protecting non-smokers. It is about canceling the rights of smokers.

The problem can be solved in so many other ways! Let's just have places one can smoke in and places one can't smoke in. This is a non-smoking flight? Where's a smoking one? Oh, but no. That's not what non-smokers want. They want to sit WITH the smokers, enjoy their company, but WITHOUT smokers smoking! That is harrasement.

And, before anyone jumps in to say non-smokers are harresed by smokers, let me say I agree: in Serbia, they are. We should do something about it, and make some restaurants and bars exclusivly non-smoking. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM.

People quiting smoking over health concerns - it all just boils down to the society-induced, advertized and encouraged fear of death. Such a stupid thing to fall for, really. Death is inevitable. There's no guarantees. Two of my very good friends died very young - one with 28 years of age (killed in a car accident in USA, mind you, where he went to study at the MIT, after he got their scholarship), and another one was aged about 40 when electricity killed him in a bathtub, during his holiday in Montenegro. Both were non-smokers. I lived through 77 days of thinking wheter I'm gonna end up being a collateral damage of the bombing. And, now I should fear cigarette??? As I said - dying is inevitable. If the cards I've been dealt by God say it's going to be from smoking, then so be it. I've already outlived two non-smokers I know.

As for the Tourist Organization of Belgrade not thinking enough of the smoking in capital - I agree. They should actually advertize it. Best way to profit in the future will be from smoking tourism. Provided that we don't fall for the global anti-smoking conspiracy and discrimination, that is.

Rosemary Bailey Brown 13:48 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

I agree with you on the segregation - many restaurants, bars and hotels in the US have separate sections for the smokers vs non-smokers and I think that works out well. In some States all smoking in public places is illegal, but then it's a good make new friends if you are new in town, by going outside with the smokers.

I don't know the science of second hand smoke, but understand there is a controversy about it. However the tobacco lobby is so strong that they may have "created" the controversy.

I do, however, know that smoking causes far higher levels of cancer and medical costs associated with cancer can be very high. So when you smoke, you are COSTING your fellow tax payers money as they will someday have to pay for your associated medical bills in many countries. You're also diverting tax-funds from other needs.

But really, if the stink of a cig didn't linger for ages, then I probably would not mind. It's like a fart that stays in the air for hours and even days. Can you imagine living someplace where it smells like farts and everytime you come home you have to wash your hair and clothing of the long lasting fart smell?

You want to fart, do it in your own PRIVATE fart room. Not in a public place.

Srki 17:23 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Rosemary Bailey Brown

I don't know the science of second hand smoke, but understand there is a controversy about it. However the tobacco lobby is so strong that they may have "created" the controversy.

There is no controversy about passive smoking. Common, use your common sense if you are not educated or informed. If everybody agrees that smoke kills smoker, it is got to something with the smoke, right?!. Do you inhale the very same smoke that smoker's cigarette produces? Yes you do. Therefore you got the same crap in your lungs as the smoker one. So there is no space for arguing here!

The argument that Krugolina is similar to one against global warming...I think smokers, as basically ill persons,
have enough rights in any developed country - they don't get arrested for act of polluting the environment, and EPA still doesn't deal with them. However, in shitty countries like Serbia for example, they fully enjoy their Nazi habit, and even try to convince people around that what they are doing (poisoning everybody around) is exercising their civil liberties. Bullshit of epic proportions.

I can add one more thing - there is nothing as disgusting as kissing with a smoking girlfriend - I believe it tastes like a wet ashtray.

Krugolina Borup 19:52 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Rosemary:
I agree with you on the segregation - many restaurants, bars and hotels in the US have separate sections for the smokers vs non-smokers and I think that works out well.

I used to think USA is the most horrible when it comes to smoking bans... until I've spent 5 days in England around and during last weekend. It is utterly horrible. It is out or nowhere. USA ban depends much on the state we are talking about. Florida was quite ok, if something didn't change meantime.

But I understand California is quite strict. And I hear they are talking about introducing (or have already introduced?) bans even on some of the open spaces, like beaches. Would you happen to know if that is true?

Rosemary:
I don't know the science of second hand smoke, but understand there is a controversy about it. However the tobacco lobby is so strong that they may have "created" the controversy.

I read a study that followed HUGE sample (like, 200.000 or 300.000 people - married couples) for a LONG period of time (like 20 to 30 years), one being smoker, the other one passive smoker. Conclusion? Negative on passive smoking risks. Yes, it was financed by the tobacco producers. But, no one else has ever bothered to check this out, no one wants to invest in a study that they know or very strongly suspect will give a result they don't want. The study was published in the British Medical Journal, which is an authoritative publication. If they thought it was wrong, they would never have published it.

Then I read a study which concluded how mothers smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. They followed about 11.300 or thereabout children of mothers that smoked during pregnancy for 30 or so years. And, after 30 years, 28 (twentyeight) of them got type 2 diabetes. And that is the "statistically significant figure" to conclude that smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of geting it???? I am not impressed. And then that data gets manipulated by the media who take "may increase the risk" and turn it into "causes diabetes".

I don't think there's a controversy about it. I think there is a well though out campaign to "streighten out" the "crooked, smelly smokers". Like, a deliberate, planned thing. Why smokers and not people that drink alcohol... will be a mistery for me until I die.

Rosemary:
I do, however, know that smoking causes far higher levels of cancer and medical costs associated with cancer can be very high. So when you smoke, you are COSTING your fellow tax payers money as they will someday have to pay for your associated medical bills in many countries. You're also diverting tax-funds from other needs.

So, what? Money has to be spent somewhere. It is also spent on treating diseases induced by car pollution, but no one is trying to ban the driving. It is also spent on teating diseases induced by drinking alcohol, but no one is baning drinking in pubs and bars and restaurants.

BTW, UK health service, NHS, estimates that costs of treating the diseases induced by alcohol are 1.7 billion GBP per year. At the same time, those induced by smoking are between 1.4 and 1.7 GBP. In other words - LESS then in the case of alcohol.

As I said, you have to die of something. And rare are the ones that die healthy. So, we are all bound to take some of the costs from the tax payers money sooner or later. And the big question is: how much money will be spent on treating pneumonias that smokers are gonna catch up while smoking outside????

Rosemary:
But really, if the stink of a cig didn't linger for ages, then I probably would not mind. It's like a fart that stays in the air for hours and even days. Can you imagine living someplace where it smells like farts and everytime you come home you have to wash your hair and clothing of the long lasting fart smell?

Wouldn't really know. But, I get nauseus and dizzy and sick when next to a person wearing a parfume. It's such an individual thing, really.

Rosemary:
You want to fart, do it in your own PRIVATE fart room. Not in a public place.

Ok. Provided that those wearing parfumes, wear them in their PRIVATE parfume rooms. Not in a public place.

Krugolina Borup 20:09 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Srki
There is no controversy about passive smoking. Common, use your common sense if you are not educated or informed. If everybody agrees that smoke kills smoker, it is got to something with the smoke, right?!. Do you inhale the very same smoke that smoker's cigarette produces? Yes you do. Therefore you got the same crap in your lungs as the smoker one. So there is no space for arguing here!

Many interesting questions you raise here, Srki darling.

a) Everybody agrees that smoke kills smoker? Where did you get that one from? Smoking may (or may not) increase the risk of getting some forms of cancer. You can also be a life long nonsmoker and a life long passive nonsmoker - and still die of some form of cancer. You can also smoke all your life, and die of something not induced by smoking. Like, a bomb or car accident, for example. Or, of old age, even.

b) You get the same smoke in your lungs if you passivly inhale the smoke, as the smoke a smoker gets into his/her lungs? Wrong Srki, darling! Since you were the first one to raise the question of the level of "education and information" - go inform yourself before you open your mouth next time, please.

Srki:
The argument that Krugolina is similar to one against global warming...I think smokers, as basically ill persons, have enough rights in any developed country - they don't get arrested for act of polluting the environment, and EPA still doesn't deal with them. However, in shitty countries like Serbia for example, they fully enjoy their Nazi habit, and even try to convince people around that what they are doing (poisoning everybody around) is exercising their civil liberties. Bullshit of epic proportions.

Now, Srki darling, that is plane rude of you! Nevaspitanje of epic proportions! Or, maybe not. Maybe it is "a condition". Maybe you are actually projecting a lot of displaced anger onto the totaly wrong and unapropriate target. I wouldn't really know. Is there a psychologer in the house?

Rosemary:
I can add one more thing - there is nothing as disgusting as kissing with a smoking girlfriend - I believe it tastes like a wet ashtray.

Ah... so that's where it stems from... Tell me, Srki darling, did that smoking girlfriend of yours, actually dumped you or hurt you in any way, so now all girls that smoke suffer of your displaced anger towards her?? Projection, or what?

Ostaj mi dobro, zdravo i na svežem vazduhu!
Krugolina - the wanna-be-psychologer and the wet-ashtray kisser.

Nietzsches Aprentice 20:54 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Tell me, Srki darling, did that smoking girlfriend of yours, actually dumped you or hurt you in any way, so now all girls that smoke suffer of your displaced anger towards her?? Projection, or what?

How does this change the fact that it is pretty nasty when you kiss a smoking person?

Brooklyn 21:03 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

it is pretty nasty when you kiss a smoking person

i imagine it's like kissing an ashtray, unless he/she has bad teeth. than it must be worse.

Nietzsches Aprentice 21:11 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

then you wouldn't be kissing the person, now, would you :)?

Kazezoze 21:59 04.11.2007

The Picture

i imagine it's like kissing an ashtray,

I hold an image of the ashtray girl
As the cigarette burns on my chest
I wrote a poem that described her world
That put my friendship to the test
And late at night
Whilst on all fours
She used to watch me kiss the floor
What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with this picture?

Farewell the ashtray girl
Forbidden snowflake
Beware this troubled world
Watch out for earthquakes
Goodbye to open sores
To broken semaphore
We know we miss her
We miss her picture

Sometimes it's faded
Disintegrated
For fear of growing old
Sometimes it's faded
Assassinated
For fear of growing old

Farewell the ashtray girl
Angelic fruitcake
Beware this troubled world
Control your intake
Goodbye to open sores
Goodbye and furthermore
We know we miss her
We miss her picture

Sometimes it's faded
Disintegrated
For fear of growing old
Sometimes it's faded
Assassinated
For fear of growing old

Hang on
Though we try
It's gone
Hang on
Though we try
It's gone

Sometimes it's faded
Disintegrated
For fear of growing old
Sometimes it's faded
Assassinated
For fear of growing old
Can't stop growing old...

Can't stop growing old, Can't stop growing old, Can't stop growing old, Can't stop growing old, Can't stop growing old

Krugolina Borup 22:30 04.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Ničeov šegrt:
How does this change the fact that it is pretty nasty when you kiss a smoking person?

It doesn't do nothing for description of how it is when you kiss a smoking person. But it sure helps explain the agression with which Srki is elaborating about how he feels about smokers.

Brooklyn:
i imagine it's like kissing an ashtray, unless he/she has bad teeth. than it must be worse.

Boys, boys, boys... I really, really don't get you. Are you tied up on the bed or by the tree or something, and forcefully being kissed by smoking girls, who rape the insides of your non-smoking mouth with their smoking toungs, or what???? Smoking girls molesting you into kissing them??? I mean, really - if you don't like the way a smoking girl tastes during kissing - go get yourself a non-smoking girl to kiss. Problem solved!

But, somehow I suspect you would much rather reform and help mold the smoking one into what you would like her to be, right? Or, failing that - at least induce a feeling of being "dirty" into the girl. Sweet revange.

It all boils down to boy-girl stuff, in the end. Even smoking. Amazing.

Srki 00:27 05.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Krugolina Borup

Many interesting questions you raise here, Srki darling.

Sorry, Krugolina, It is very hard I would be your "darling", I don't like ashtray taste in my mouth, and cigarette stink on my cloth.

a) Everybody agrees that smoke kills smoker? Where did you get that one from? Smoking may (or may not) increase the risk of getting some forms of cancer. You can also be a life long nonsmoker and a life long passive nonsmoker - and still die of some form of cancer. You can also smoke all your life, and die of something not induced by smoking. Like, a bomb or car accident, for example. Or, of old age, even.

Are you dumb or you are pretending you are, to support your argument? I bet it is the second one, so I am not gonna walk you to wikipedia for some info on cigarette smoke analysis, you can do it yourself. But let's stick to your approach that medical doctors (and insurance agents) are full of shit and look at the statistics only. Am I wrong if I believe that you posses high-school knowledge in statistics and that you understand why the stochastic approach is used instead of deterministic? So, you understand that if some smoker do not get cancer while another 10 do, it doesn't mean that the assumption is wrong and should be abandoned, in particular not in favor of counter assumption. It doesn't mean it is right either, but it tells you undoubtedly what your odds are if you decide to gamble with your life, and lives of your close ones, to satisfy your sick desire.

Not all the humans are the same - some smokers will die in car accident, some non smokers will get lung cancer from radon in their basement. And they all contribute to the statistics. But way more of smokers is going to die as a consequence of smoking. To summarize, smoking DOES increase risk of the lung cancer death, among other things. Why? Because of the cigarette smoke ingredients, of which many are scientifically proven to be carcinogenic. And it will happen to both "active" smokers and "passive", because both inhale the same smoke. I think it is pointless to deny obvious facts to support your opinion, it just makes you look silly. Or you still believe that the Earth is flat plate, riding on turtle's back...

I guess you don't realize how poor is your argument that we all have to die of something, therefore we should let the smokers smoke. Who are you to decide in my name when and what I am going to get sick and die of? What about us who prefer of dying of aging, or falling of the mountain, or something else, instead of lung cancer or of hearth attack? It is so typical selfish smoker argument I heard so many times. They only see their ass and the institutional intervention to suppress them was the only viable option. That is why you have antismoking laws in any civilized country.

But let me ask you different question: if someone gets sick of let's say antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis. Would you let him walk on the streets, or you would rather see him quarantined?! Why, well, not everybody who gets in touch with him will necessarily develop symptoms of the decease, some of them will but maybe 15-20 years down the roadr. Why would you isolate him? He also has family, friends and he is a free citizen, so why would be he kept inside? Can you give me your honest answer, if you can, please?

b) You get the same smoke in your lungs if you passivly inhale the smoke, as the smoke a smoker gets into his/her lungs? Wrong Srki, darling! Since you were the first one to raise the question of the level of "education and information" - go inform yourself before you open your mouth next time, please.

What the f...?! Now you are playing dumb again, right? You are obviously refusing to use your common sense to prove your very shaky argument by calling me incompetent? Common, that is just plain stupid.

Now, Srki darling, that is plane rude of you! Nevaspitanje of epic proportions! Or, maybe not. Maybe it is "a condition". Maybe you are actually projecting a lot of displaced anger onto the totaly wrong and unapropriate target. I wouldn't really know. Is there a psychologer in the house?

Claptrap. Let's leave aside your psychological interpretation of my experiences, that is on the level of "Draga Ljiljo..." columns in daily journals.

Rosemary:
I can add one more thing - there is nothing as disgusting as kissing with a smoking girlfriend - I believe it tastes like a wet ashtray.

Ah... so that's where it stems from... Tell me, Srki darling, did that smoking girlfriend of yours, actually dumped you or hurt you in any way, so now all girls that smoke suffer of your displaced anger towards her?? Projection, or what?

Yeah, this shows strength of your arguments, so I'll stop here. I wish you all luck with smoking and I hope you'll be the lucky one that doesn't get cancer or stroke, that screws up the statistics, and that your loved ones also belong to the same statistical category. I'll stay away from people like you, as far as I can

DejanOz 02:25 05.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Krugolina Borup
Smoking may (or may not) increase the risk of getting some forms of cancer.

It does so, beyond any reasonable doubt, so what is your point here? It's all just nonsense.

ugly 08:00 05.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

It's all just nonsense.

It is more than just nonsense. It is an addiction, and addicts, as a rule, suffer from denial.

Looking at the big picture, however, let it be noted that the majority of Serbs have, sadly, perfected the art of denial on all levels of existence. Therefore, smoking becomes a minor issue. A side effect, if you will.

Krugolina Borup 11:36 05.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Srki:
Sorry, Krugolina, It is very hard I would be your "darling", I don't like ashtray taste in my mouth, and cigarette stink on my cloth.

Wow! Aint't we sure of our macho irressistibility! Time-out, Srki da...beep. Big misunderstanding here!

You see, Srki da...beep, when I face the amount of agression like yours, I have one of two choices: a) sink to your level, and reply in the same fashion; or b) clasify it as childish tantrum, and switch into the motherly mode. So, it's a motherly "da...beep", Srki, da...beep. In your previous post you have called me a criminal, a Nazi and a sick person. That is not nice, Srki da...beep. That requires some motherly love to be corrected (I don't believe in punishment as corrective method, you see).

Srki:
Are you dumb or you are pretending you are, to support your argument? I bet it is the second one,

Oh, I can feel a compliment in there...

)

Srki:
Am I wrong if I believe that you posses high-school knowledge in statistics and that you understand why the stochastic approach is used instead of deterministic?

Yes, you are wrong.

Srki:
So, you understand that if some smoker do not get cancer while another 10 do, it doesn't mean that the assumption is wrong and should be abandoned, in particular not in favor of counter assumption. It doesn't mean it is right either, but it tells you undoubtedly what your odds are if you decide to gamble with your life, and lives of your close ones, to satisfy your sick desire.

What I want to say is that I don't believe the figures that are being thrown around as the result of various researches, when it comes to anything, so smoking included, and especially when it comes to passive smoking. Let me give you an example of how careless medical profession can be with figures:

Some 20 or so years ago, UK decided to launch a campaign about drinking. The research they did show that it is ok for males to drink up to 21 units of alcohol a week, and for females, the figure was 14. The unit of alcohol was defined as: one glass of wine; one small beer; one shot of whisky or the like.

Soon after that, Danish government decides to copy the model. And they spend more then a decade and billions of DKK to advertize these limits... until they've found out that 1 unit of alcohol in UK is less in mililiters then in the rest of Europe... Like, one glass of wine in UK is 175 ml, while standard elsewhere (Denmark included) is 200. So, what they've been doing for more then a decade was PROMOTING ALCOHOLISM! With the tax payer's money.

If they can't convert properly, should I trust them to be able to count properly, too? And how many more of such research is being twisted without anyone knowing about it?

All I am saying is: don't buy directly what is being presented. Research researches and studies yourself, before forming an opinion.

Srki:
Not all the humans are the same - some smokers will die in car accident, some non smokers will get lung cancer from radon in their basement. And they all contribute to the statistics. But way more of smokers is going to die as a consequence of smoking.

Now, a question: what if a smoker dies of lung cancer, but induced from radon in their basement, not the smoking? How do they count it? As smoking or radon induced cancer? How do they discern which one was the culprit for lung cancer? I bet they go for their favorite choice: smoking. That's one of the reasons I don't trust those research figures.

Srki:
To summarize, smoking DOES increase risk of the lung cancer death, among other things.

Agree. It's the ratio between "smoking" and "other things" that I think is not being presented in the objective fashion.

Srki:
Why? Because of the cigarette smoke ingredients, of which many are scientifically proven to be carcinogenic. And it will happen to both "active" smokers and "passive", because both inhale the same smoke.

Disagree. I believe passive smoking risks have been blown way out of proportion, quite possibly totally made up. If the passive smoker dies of lung cancer induced by that basement thing, I'm sure they count it as a passive smoking death.

Statistics is like a religion. You either believe in it, or don't, or you are not sure, because you haven't been there to see it with your two own eyes.

Srki:
I think it is pointless to deny obvious facts to support your opinion, it just makes you look silly. Or you still believe that the Earth is flat plate, riding on turtle's back...

Ok, there goes another one. I'm not just a criminal, a Naci, a sick person.... I'm a silly criminal, silly Naci, and a silly sick person.

Srki:
I guess you don't realize how poor is your argument that we all have to die of something, therefore we should let the smokers smoke. Who are you to decide in my name when and what I am going to get sick and die of?

That is EXACTLY my question! Who are you to decide for me that I should not die of smoking?

Srki:
What about us who prefer of dying of aging, or falling of the mountain, or something else, instead of lung cancer or of hearth attack?

Be my guest, take your pick. Die whichever way you want.

Srki:
But let me ask you different question: if someone gets sick of let's say antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis. Would you let him walk on the streets, or you would rather see him quarantined?! Why, well, not everybody who gets in touch with him will necessarily develop symptoms of the decease, some of them will but maybe 15-20 years down the road. Why would you isolate him? He also has family, friends and he is a free citizen, so why would be he kept inside? Can you give me your honest answer, if you can, please?

No sweat, Srki da...beep.
You are comparing uncomparable things here: a contagious disease with the harmless smoking. I can agree that there is some viability in the scientific claims that smoking can increase the risk for catching up some diseases. But I do not buy the passive smoking health risks at all. And it is not like I'm talking about this without anything to back it up. There ARE studies that conclude passive smoking is harmless.

Srki:
Claptrap. Let's leave aside your psychological interpretation of my experiences, that is on the level of "Draga Ljiljo..." columns in daily journals

No, it's not. It's on the level of "Draga Saveta...".

Srki:
Yeah, this shows strength of your arguments, so I'll stop here. I wish you all luck with smoking and I hope you'll be the lucky one that doesn't get cancer or stroke, that screws up the statistics, and that your loved ones also belong to the same statistical category. I'll stay away from people like you, as far as I can

Thanks for good wishes. Likewise to you.
As for staying away... don't worry. Cigarette smoke does not travel through internet. So, sending you one big cyber motherly kiss. Smoke-free!!

Now, off from Oslo to Copenhagen. Long drive. So, back to discussion later this evening, or tomorrow morning.

Krugolina - The Silly Sick Nazi Criminal

Krugolina Borup 00:31 06.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

Krugolina (previously):
Smoking may (or may not) increase the risk of getting some forms of cancer.

DejanOz:
It does so, beyond any reasonable doubt, so what is your point here? It's all just nonsense.

No, it doesn't, at least not beyond any reasonable doubt.

But, for discussion purposes, let's say that it does. Let's say that smoking does increase the risk of getting some cancer. If that is the case, and if that is what research shows, why my pack of ciggies reads: "SMOKING KILLS!" instead of "Smoking does increase the risk of getting some forms of cancer"?

That is not just manipulation of the facts on the part of "authoritative body", be it government, pharmaceutical or medical mafia, or whoever is in charge of coming up with those campaigns. It is pure and simple lying. And if they lie about that, why should I trust them about other stuff, like counting in their research?

s56a 01:59 06.11.2007

Re: smokers of the world - unite!

You want to fart, do it in your own PRIVATE fart room. Not in a public place.

Farting is healthy, especially at my ripe age of 62! Only some inconvenient second hand side effects

I am surprised with Slovenia ranking but we should improve considerably as smoking was recently baned at all public places. Unleaded fuel only here. I choked for few days in Belgrade but then my Balkan imunity returned

Jaril 13:23 04.11.2007

Smoking

As a non-smoker I found a cafe/club in my city where people do not smoke cigarettes but marijuana which smoke is far less dreadful, or I don't notice it.

)

Jaril, The High

))

PS: I do not smoke neither - cigarettes or marijuana. And I visit cafes/clubs very rarely.

But I am patient about smokers.

Krugolina Borup 00:38 06.11.2007

Re: Smoking

Jaril:
I do not smoke neither - cigarettes or marijuana. And I visit cafes/clubs very rarely. But I am patient about smokers.

God bless you.

Taska Dana 15:05 04.11.2007

Pusenje

Moj drug koji zivi u Americi odlucio da odvede svoju maloletnu decu u zavicaj, tj u Srbiju. Kad su se vratili njegov petogodisnji sin je na pitanje radoznalaca kako se proveo u Srbiji izmedju ostalih prica o baki i deki izjavio da u Srbiji ljudi jedu svece.
Ha, ha, ha, utisak je bio zaista upecatljiv!
Purnjamo, purnjamo, cak i u spavacoj sobi gde spavaju i deca.

Nietzsches Aprentice 19:21 04.11.2007

...

After having spent about 18 years with parents who smoke(d), I kind of got used to being in constant contact with gray-blueish clouds on daily basis. Then I moved here to study and was pleasantly surprised by the lack thereof. Now I've become allergic to smoke and can't stand people smoking in my vicinity. Consequently, whenever I come back to Bgd I pick open or spaceous areas to hang out at in order to avoid smokers. I think that smoking ban should be enforced in Bgd as well. If for no other reason (and there is always at least two - health and money) than out of politeness towards people who haven't picked up the dreadful habit.

Krugolina Borup 20:33 04.11.2007

Re: ...

Ničeov šegrt:
I think that smoking ban should be enforced in Bgd as well. If for no other reason (and there is always at least two - health and money) than out of politeness towards people who haven't picked up the dreadful habit.

Would segregation of smokers and non-smokers be an acceptable solution for you, instead of the total ban? If not, why not? I would really, really, honestly like to learn more about non-smoker's way of thinking about the subject. Honestly, Niče, I would not like to be one haressing the non-smokers. But I am having trouble understanding some of the reasoning of non-smokers that are pro total ban. So, I think - if we talk more about it, if we try and explain ourselves to each other, maybe we can find a way to understand each other better... and maybe even find a solution that would fit everybody.

I am tired of my own agressive feelings because of the total bans. I don't want to feel agression towards non-smokers. I want us all to be happy. Do you think it's possible?

Xenon 21:05 04.11.2007

Re: ...

Ban in every public area, where possibility exists for presence of the people who will be bothered by smoke/smell/health issues of second-hand smoking. In closed areas, segregation would be fine, but I don't see how you can prevent smoke from going to non-smokers' area if non-smokers are vastly outnumbered, as they are in Belgrade.

Saying that there are no health risks involved in second-hand smoking is not understandable for me. I'm not a chemist or a pharmacist, but there are toxic substances in that smoke...

Mungos, I agree with you again, smoking is not the worst evil, but it is evil... and please, no need to be sorry

Nietzsches Aprentice 21:05 04.11.2007

Re: ...

Would segregation of smokers and non-smokers be an acceptable solution for you, instead of the total ban? If not, why not? I would really, really, honestly like to learn more about non-smoker's way of thinking about the subject. Honestly, Niče, I would not like to be one haressing the non-smokers. But I am having trouble understanding some of the reasoning of non-smokers that are pro total ban. So, I think - if we talk more about it, if we try and explain ourselves to each other, maybe we can find a way to understand each other better... and maybe even find a solution that would fit everybody.

I am tired of my own agressive feelings because of the total bans. I don't want to feel agression towards non-smokers. I want us all to be happy. Do you think it's possible?

Speaking generally, I doubt that everyone can ever be happy at the same time, but, relative to our discussion, I think that those who know how it is in the States can agree that people have gotten pretty much used to walking out of a club/cafe/bar/pub/lounge/restaurant/wherever-the-hell-ever-else for a smoke. No complaints on smokers' part, smoke-free environment for non-smokers. So, you see, segregation is fine with me - I get the inside of an establishment, you get the outside

Krugolina Borup 22:38 04.11.2007

Re: ...

Xenon:
Ban in every public area, where possibility exists for presence of the people who will be bothered by smoke/smell/health issues of second-hand smoking.

How about spliting things? Let's talk parks. One park for smokers only. Another one for non-smokers only. Problem solved. Would that be acceptable to you?

Xenon:
In closed areas, segregation would be fine, but I don't see how you can prevent smoke from going to non-smokers' area if non-smokers are vastly outnumbered, as they are in Belgrade.

Same thing: one restaurant for smokers only. One for nonsmokers only. Problem solved. Would that be acceptable to you?

Xenon:
Saying that there are no health risks involved in second-hand smoking is not understandable for me. I'm not a chemist or a pharmacist, but there are toxic substances in that smoke...

I'm not a chemist or a pharmacist, either. All I know is that I came across a scientific study that says: passive smoking risks - negative result.

Xenon:
Mungos, I agree with you again, smoking is not the worst evil, but it is evil

Yes, but the whole problem is that, although it is not the worst evil, it is being PRESENTED and TREATED as THE worst evil ever. Why? Why so much focus on smokers, and ignore the problems alcohol brings? Why? Why? Why?

Krugolina Borup 22:49 04.11.2007

Re: ...

Ničeov šegrt:
I think that those who know how it is in the States can agree that people have gotten pretty much used to walking out of a club/cafe/bar/pub/lounge/restaurant/wherever-the-hell-ever-else for a smoke. No complaints on smokers' part, smoke-free environment for non-smokers.

Been there, done that with the American smokers. Let me assure you they are not happy about it. What they are is ASHAMED. They have been convinced by society that they are the worst lepards out there, so they keep quiet and feel guilty for not being able to smoke. Tells you a lot about the power of propaganda. They are as hypnotized as majority in Serbia was during Milosevic time, by his government, about other things. But, totally, totally same thing and model of hypnosis.

Ničeov šegrt:
So, you see, segregation is fine with me - I get the inside of an establishment, you get the outside

That is pure nastiness from your side, my dear Niče! Such a superior tone in your voice. And lots and lots of revangeful feelings easily detectable in it, too. But, at least you are being witty and not openly agressive about it.

Nietzsches Aprentice 23:14 04.11.2007

Re: ...

I thank you for dignifying my malicious self with a reply, darling. Your story would have convinced me you were right, were it not for the fact that I live the States as we chat and that my experience shows that people don't really give much shit about whether they go outside or stay inside for a smoke. It may be a bit of an inconvenience but it does not make people feel insecure about their habit unless they have no backbone or they are questioning their habit themselves. You claim that smokers are a bunch of insecure people who are being chastised for being different. Bollocks.

Krugolina Borup 23:45 04.11.2007

Re: ...

Ničeov šegrt:
I thank you for dignifying my malicious self with a reply, darling.

Any time, luv, any time...

Ničeov šegrt:
Your story would have convinced me you were right, were it not for the fact that I live the States as we chat and that my experience shows that people don't really give much shit about whether they go outside or stay inside for a smoke.

We have been mingling with different Americans, then. Sure, I don't live there, but only occassionaly visit. Still, I am yet to meet an American smoker that is not feeling as a lepard and somehow guilty for not wanting, or being able to quit.

Ničeov šegrt
It may be a bit of an inconvenience but it does not make people feel insecure about their habit unless they have no backbone or they are questioning their habit themselves.

Yes, that would be the case in a perfect world, where everybody would hink with their own heads. Not the case, as I'm sure you will agree. Majority of people don't think with their own head, but with the head that is presented to them as acceptable. Smokers and non-smokers alike. If it were not so, we would never had as many people totaly convinced that smoking kills, never bothering to research the subject themselves, but instead just accepting what is being given to them as a fact.

Ničeov šegrt:
You claim that smokers are a bunch of insecure people who are being chastised for being different. Bollocks.

No, I don't. I claim that people in general - smokers as well as non smokers - tend to be prone to manipulation, especially if it comes from "the autoritative source". Like: the government. And, if the government says: from now on, smoking is out, non-smoking is in - people buy the fashion. And if they can't follow the fashion, for whatever reason - they feel bad. Those that can't quit smoking, feel guilty for being too weak to stop. Those not wanting to quit, feel guilty for not wanting to. That is my experience with the American smokers - whether it matches your experience or not. Maybe you are mingling with the upper class, me with the lower one. Who knows?

Nietzsches Aprentice 00:03 05.11.2007

Re: ...

No, I don't. I claim that people in general - smokers as well as non smokers - tend to be prone to manipulation, especially if it comes from "the autoritative source". Like: the government. And, if the government says: from now on, smoking is out, non-smoking is in - people buy the fashion. And if they can't follow the fashion, for whatever reason - they feel bad. Those that can't quit smoking, feel guilty for being too weak to stop. Those not wanting to quit, feel guilty for not wanting to. That is my experience with the American smokers - whether it matches your experience or not. Maybe you are mingling with the upper class, me with the lower one. Who knows?

I'm sorry, can you explain why a government would gang up on one specific industry, a very lucrative one as well, if it didn't profit from it somehow? What does "the authority" gain by marginalizing smoking? So that people would stop smoking and start buying billions of workout gadgets? I don't buy that. Yes, most people are idiots, but that doesn't mean that every government intervention is to the end of exploiting their idiocy.

Krugolina Borup 00:53 06.11.2007

Re: ...

Nietzsches Aprentice:
I'm sorry, can you explain why a government would gang up on one specific industry, a very lucrative one as well, if it didn't profit from it somehow? What does "the authority" gain by marginalizing smoking? So that people would stop smoking and start buying billions of workout gadgets? I don't buy that. Yes, most people are idiots, but that doesn't mean that every government intervention is to the end of exploiting their idiocy.

I don't know. YOU TELL ME. But, there has to be a reason. You can't deny the following:

a) There are worse risks for health then smoking that are even wider spread then smoking - like drinking. Drinking induced illnesses have higher medical costs then smoking induced ones.

b) No one is doing shit about the drinking problem. A short and mild campaign here and there, but nothing comparable to the restrictions smokers are subjected to. No one dreams of banning drinking in pubs.

c) Therefore, we must conclude smokers are singled out for some specific reason.

Why? My guess is as good as yours. For all we know, they might just be practicing how well their manipulation and power of hypnosis works.

Nietzsches Aprentice 03:16 06.11.2007

Re: ...

That's not an answer.

No one is doing shit about the drinking problem. A short and mild campaign here and there, but nothing comparable to the restrictions smokers are subjected to. No one dreams of banning drinking in pubs.

Rubbish. The easiest example is the fact that the legal age limit for boozing up is 21, and it's 18 for smoking. The more elaborate example would be what colleges do, by sending their students birthday cards asking them not to engage in binge drinking. Nothing about binge smoking there. Thirdly, every ad for alcohol I've seen had "drink responsibly" somewhere in it, therefore your argument is not consistent with reality. Fourthly, there is no such thing as moderate smoking whereas there is such thing as moderate drinking. Moderate drinking will not leave long term effects on one's body while long term smoking will, even if they only manifest as black lungs and nothing else. While I am an avid fan of the X-Files, saying that smokers are singled out for an unknown reason or, alternatively, because of some government experiment involving hypnosis goes well beyond what I'm able to imagine. It sounds mildly paranoid.

Krugolina Borup 10:16 06.11.2007

Re: ...

Ničeov šegrt:
Rubbish. The easiest example is the fact that the legal age limit for boozing up is 21, and it's 18 for smoking. The more elaborate example would be what colleges do, by sending their students birthday cards asking them not to engage in binge drinking. Nothing about binge smoking there. Thirdly, every ad for alcohol I've seen had "drink responsibly" somewhere in it, therefore your argument is not consistent with reality. Fourthly, there is no such thing as moderate smoking whereas there is such thing as moderate drinking. Moderate drinking will not leave long term effects on one's body while long term smoking will, even if they only manifest as black lungs and nothing else. While I am an avid fan of the X-Files, saying that smokers are singled out for an unknown reason or, alternatively, because of some government experiment involving hypnosis goes well beyond what I'm able to imagine. It sounds mildly paranoid.

You talking about States, right? Because, there's no age limit for boozing up over here. And no university sends you birthday cards. And adds for beer over here are promoting religious alcoholism ("I majstori imaju dušu!"

, without any "drink responsibly" cautions attached to it. But ciggie packs lie to you that "smoking kills", and you have the age limit for buying ciggies. Therefore, your argument is not consistent with reality here, though it might be describing the situation in the States.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind equivalent of what is done for drinking, applied to smoking. Put the age limit. Send me a birthday card warning me about possible health risks. Stick the "smoke responsibly" reminder on the ciggie packs (but don't lie that it kills!). All of it can go under "educational" effort of the authority. However, when it comes to regulations... I don't see anybody regulating drinking in public places the way smoking is regulated. And that is what I'm talking about.

As for what drinking and smoking do to our own bodies - you are again missing the point. We are not talking about that. I thought we agreed that we should be left to do to our bodies whatever we are inclined to (or are you against abortion, maybe?). I thought we are discussing whether, and to which point, should the authority be involved in regulating things that are bad for OTHER PEOPLE, those that might be hurt by our smoking or drinking or whatever. Passive smoking is, according to at least one study, harmless. Passive drinking is often fatal, and you need no study for that. All you need is your own eyes. I can smoke and drive and won't kill anyone. Not the case with drinking and driving. I will smoke and not get violent. Not the case with drinking. And those two don't need "overdrinking". A moderate one will quite often do.

As for health service costs, passive smoking and passive drinking victims that ask for medical help - well, do I need say more, or did we all see how "walking in the door" looks like first hand at least once in our lives?

RE: moderate smoking and moderate drinking. There DEFFINITELY is a difference between smoking less and smoking more. Look at any smoking study. When they interview smokers, they take care to note down how many ciggies a day they smoke. If it did not make any difference, they surely wouldn't bother doing that. What they don't do is - they are not researching the limit of ciggies that body can cope with per day or per week (while they do so for alcohol) and they are not campaigning about "responsible smoking" (as they do with alcohol).

Quite a few people have told me that their doctors told them how up to 5 to 10 ciggies a day is totally ok, something body can cope with and clean out. Now, how reliable that is, I have no idea. I don't trust doctors much, especially not the ones in Serbia. So, we need a study or research. Who is going to finance it? Surely not the pharmaceutical and medical mafia. And if tobacco industry does it, they will be accused of being biased. So, we are kept in the dark, again...

Now, as for the X files... I actually hate the show. As well as all SF and "dreamed up" movies. Give me a movie that has "based on the true life story" in it, and I'll watch it. But not the ones clouded in mistery and completely dreamed up. As passive smoking health risks are.

Krugolina Borup 10:51 06.11.2007

Re: ...

Addition:

Quick search of just a couple of studies available on the net seem to indicate that up to 15 ciggies a day is the limit of "responsible smoking".

Now, why isn't that published on my ciggie pack?

irvas 03:01 05.11.2007

smoking and political correctness

In fact the ONLY thing I worried about before moving to Sombor Serbia for this Summer and part of the fall was the smoke. Would I be unable to enjoy society, cafes and private get-togethers because of unremitting smoke? I'd heard and read on blogs online many horror stories - mainly about Belgrade.

so what if everyone smokes in serbia? all this anti-smoking campaign in western society is nothing but politics anyway. if the officials throughout western world are so concern about people's health, they should ban lots of things like: packed-with-sugar coca-cola drinks or binge drinking in pubs on Friday night…

how about fast-food chains, ha? a major cause of obesity that reaches almost epidemical proportions?

you could possibly organise the same aggressive campaign against those products. why not? everything in that campaign would be supported by healthcare statistics and gruesome pictures of fat asses and clogged artheries-just like anti-smoking campaign.

and now, after all this pollution and all this bullshit about new world order, globalisation or, however-you-wanna-call-it, fucked-up world, we discuss smoking as a major health issue. please, give me a break.

so to answer your question here: if you are really so concerned about negative effects of passive smoking on your purified lungs, please stay where you are. believe me, there is a way too much smoke in belgrade.

Ah, those primitive Serbs…

DejanOz 04:36 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

we discuss smoking as a major health issue

Smoking is a major health issue. What the heck is wrong with you?

FYI, there are significant campaigns going on against fast food and its advertising, sugary drinks availability at schools, etc. Alcoholic drinks are already heavily regulated (and taxed) in many western societies (much more so than in Serbia).

irvas 05:20 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

well let me draw it for you OZ:

you mentioned something about "significant campaigns against fastfood"etc... not as significant as anti-smoking campaign isn't it?

not to mention constant TV advertisement of mcdonalds, heineken beer, jack daniels bourbon, so living in australia (probably same as you) i have no idea what you're talking about.

alcoholic drinks regulated? well yes, they are regulated in a way that you can't sell/buy alcohol wherever you want.

ok, i have to agree with you in some point. serbia has no regulations about alcohol selling: anyone can buy booze. apart from that, people do drink a lot more here in australia than they do in serbia.

just got back from serbia and friday night in any bar in bg is nothing like friday night in average australian pub. at least i haven't seen people crawling on the streets of belgrade as they do over streets of melbourne on weekend mornings. you can’t deny this.

major health issue: did you know that smokers in australia have no say to elective surgery? no matter for how long and how much they’ve been paying their taxes and private insurances, smokers in australia are the last ones on hospitals surgery lists. Now you tell me dejan, is this discrimination or what? yeah right, is their choice to smoke isn’t it?

please read my previous comment carefully before you continue any further with this.

DejanOz 05:28 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

Oh, you've made yourself perfectly clear! Because the governments haven't done everything they possibly can to combat every potential health hazard that exists, that means that they should leave the smokers alone. And, why stop there? Maybe they should even encourage smoking, give substinance from the budget for cigarettes to be issued for free at schools and hospitals, and so on.

Go ahead, smoke if you will, I don't mind. Not the skin of my nose.

irvas 05:44 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

DejanOZ
And, why stop there? Maybe they should even encourage smoking, give substinance from the budget for cigarettes to be issued for free at schools and hospitals, and so on.

whatever mate.

try word "hypocrisy" in wikipedia. it might be helpful to understand contemporary politics.

DejanOz 06:00 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

irvas
try word "hypocrisy" in wikipedia. it might be helpful to understand contemporary politics.

Hypocrisy notwithstanding (and it will probably remain a mystery to me why would contemporary politics be any different from politics of any time in the past; if not more transparent than ever before - but that's just my feeling) - I will not be entering into a debate on whether smoking is a health hazard or not, any more than I'd accept a "discussion" on whether the Americans have been to the Moon, or is it all just a hoax and a giant conspiracy.

BTW. I happen to disagree with the health insurance providers for not covering the smokers' elective surgery. I also disagree with policies (or policy proposals) that in any way prohibit smoking when done in privacy (eg. smoking when alone in the car). But - having actually seen the dead smokers' lungs - I could never agree that it is not highly damaging to a person's health.

irvas 06:27 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

DejanOz
I will not be entering into a debate on whether smoking is a health hazard or not, any more than I'd accept a "discussion" on whether the Americans have been to the Moon, or is it all just a hoax and a giant conspiracy.BTW.

still missing the point dejan.

its not about how bad smoking is. of course is bad. no one could possibly deny this. the point is political involvement in anti-smoking propaganda with obvious reason: its bad for your health and we cannot pay medical bills just because people smoke. that's their official reason.

if fastfood and coke (not that one but the drink "coke"

is just as bad for your health, and i strongly believe it is, why don't we have a campaign against that crap too? why don't we have obese people on the bottom of hospital surgery lists? if me, as a non-smoker, used to feel affected in smoking pubs (please don't say that passive smoking is just as bad, its a bullshit ok, i doubt anyone believes in this nonsense) and now I'm happy because no one is allowed to smoke in pubs any more, why should i, as a healthy human being, have to watch all the obese people in malls and streets? same as smokers. we pushed them away from us, why don't we have a right to push away physically-challenged (or fat if you like) people? we don't like smoke and we don't like fat people. how about that?

well dejan, that's where the word "hypocrisy" comes from.

DejanOz 06:51 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

if fastfood and coke (not that one but the drink "coke" is just as bad for your health, and i strongly believe it is, why don't we have a campaign against that crap too?

As far as I am aware, there is some campaigning going on to limit advertising of fast food to kids. You'd probably be outraged, but I don't think that fast food is a health issue. People who limit their intake of food to recommended amounts and exercise shouldn't have any food-related problems (fast food or slow - I don't think that there is any real difference). If people overeat, than that's a different story. You can make yourself sick by drinking too much water (I've recently heard of at least one case where a person has actually died - not from drowning in it - but from actually drinking too much water).

And there is no such thing as "oversmoking". Smoking is bad. Full stop. Eating is good. Overeating is not. A different game altogether.

I don't want to post off topic, so I think it's better if we stick to smoking and leave the unjustly demonised fast food for some other topic. Before somebody posts a blog like that, you can peruse this little article.

Srki 07:26 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

its not about how bad smoking is. of course is bad. no one could possibly deny this.

I guess, Krugolina was trying to do that few comments above. Isn't that silly?! ;-)

I could agree with you about the CocaCola, and fast food and some other crap, but that is not as supported with studies of imminent risks, as smoking is. Even in fast food, there is no ingredients that are proven to be carcionegenic as in cigarettes smoke. CocaCola is there for over 40 years and still no one come up with a study showing that it is bad for your health. That is even the case with diet coke as far as I know. Yeah, you'll get fat if you drink it a lot, and you'll become caffeine addict, or you can damage your cells with too much aspartame, but you need to take a lot of it. But you won't die of cancer directly caused by it.

I also kind of disagree with DejanOz. I think fast food is more packed with fats and sugars then any food you can cook or get in average restaurant. He is right saying that if you eat less of it, you'll do better. So at least there is a choice. But if smokers are given ANY rights, like in Serbia for example, rest of us wouldn't have any choice...

I have a question for smokers. I understand they are addicts, same as junkies and their craving for nicotine is of organic nature. But why don't smokers as addicts decide to use nicotine pills, or injections, or patches for example, instead of careless poisoning everybody around? I never smoked, so I speculate on this : is It because they think it is sort of cool to suck the candle and produce the damn smoke? Does that give them some importance in their own eyes? Are they insecure about themselves? I am not sure and I don't claim anything, I'd like to know and understand...

irvas 07:35 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

DejanOz
there is no such thing as "oversmoking".

believe me there is such thing as oversmoking. it can't be the same when i smoke a few cigarettes per day or a few packets per day.

it doesn't matter any more. smoking is a thing of a past wether we like it or not. new generations of humans will not smoke and thats the whole point. they will find something to poson them selves and who knows what's that gonna be...

irvas 07:46 05.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

srki, don't even try to understand it. you're non-smoker and keep it that way.

btw, coca-cola drinks were just an example, maybe not a good one, sorry about that. i also gave an example with alcohol and binge drinking but i can't be bothered arguing any more on this issue.

to wrap it up: STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SMOKERS!!!

vidimo se ljudi

Krugolina Borup 00:59 06.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

DejanOz:
Alcoholic drinks are already heavily regulated (and taxed) in many western societies (much more so than in Serbia).

Oh, give me a break, please!!! When they ban drinking in pubs, then you can stand up and say that they are "heavily regulating" drinking!

FYI, in Serbia, if you are under 18, you can't buy ciggies. But, if you are under 18, it goes without saying that you can buy alcohol.

And, then, tell me that it does not prove the thesis that smokers are singled out for some reason. EVEN IN SERBIA!

Krugolina Borup 01:12 06.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

DejanOz:
Oh, you've made yourself perfectly clear! Because the governments haven't done everything they possibly can to combat every potential health hazard that exists, that means that they should leave the smokers alone.

No, it doesn't mean that. But it surely means that they should have prioritized and started with the problems that are worse than smoking. Like, drinking.

Plus, on the top of that, what government is doing isn't "combating the health hazard of smoking". What government is doing is: parenting us. If they were really convinced of the health hazards of smoking, they would have banned the production of ciggaretes.

DejanOz:
And, why stop there? Maybe they should even encourage smoking, give substinance from the budget for cigarettes to be issued for free at schools and hospitals, and so on.

No. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

What they should do is invest some money in the research of how to make ciggaretes helthier. Have some new laws of what tobacco industry can and can not put in the ciggaretes, when additives are concerned. Inform the public of the findings. Maybe invest in the research of how many ciggies a day is ok, and does not bring any risk. Promote the minimum level, and encourage people to maybe go down to those level. And then, they should BACK OFF, leaving people to chose their risks themselves. They should also regulate enough fresh air for non-smokers, but NOT BY CANCELING THE RIGHTS OF SMOKERS.

Government should educate, not regulate. Government is not supposed to be my parent.

Krugolina Borup 01:52 06.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

DejanOz:
its not about how bad smoking is. of course is bad. no one could possibly deny this

Srki:
I guess, Krugolina was trying to do that few comments above. Isn't that silly?! ;-)

Now, please, where did Krugolina say that? And then YOU ask ME whether I'm dumb or playing dumb?

To summarize what Krugolina argues:

- Krugolina does not believe in passive smoking health risks, because even the authority that argues that that risk exists, did allow at least one study with the opposite result to be published in the major medical journal.

- Krugolina's common sense tells her that smoking can't possibly be healthy, but Krugolina also has doubts of how unhealthy it really is, being inclined to think that the whole thing is presented as much worse then it is.

- Regardless of how unhealthy it is, however, Krugolina thinks everybody should be left to decide whether they want to take that risk or not. It is my body, my life, my death. Government should back off and go regulate a traffic or something... not me.

Srki:
I could agree with you about the CocaCola, and fast food and some other crap, but that is not as supported with studies of imminent risks, as smoking is.

And why isn't it supported by the studies? Because all the money is spent on studies about the smoking!

Srki:
CocaCola is there for over 40 years and still no one come up with a study showing that it is bad for your health.

Did anybody ever try? Did anyboy ever do a study? How many studies? How big a sample?

Srki:
Yeah, you'll get fat if you drink it a lot, and you'll become caffeine addict, or you can damage your cells with too much aspartame, but you need to take a lot of it. But you won't die of cancer directly caused by it.

Right. You won't die of cancer. You'll die of heart-attack.
Last time I read the statistics, heart diseases were number 1 killers, even worse then cancer.

Srki:
But if smokers are given ANY rights, like in Serbia for example, rest of us wouldn't have any choice...

If we change your "any" into "absolute", then your sentence reads as completely true. As we have seen so far. Therefore, I'm all for protecting non-smokers, and giving them the fresh air they need. But, I am against giving them ABSOLUTE rights, which is what you seem to argue here as the only possible solution.

Srki:
I have a question for smokers. I understand they are addicts, same as junkies and their craving for nicotine is of organic nature. But why don't smokers as addicts decide to use nicotine pills, or injections, or patches for example, instead of careless poisoning everybody around?

I'm a smoker, so let me answer that.

a) I would rather finance tobacco industry then pharmaceutical mafia, therefore ciggies, and not their products.

b) Will you stop that idiotic propaganda of inducing non-founded poisoning of others theory, pretty please? If second smoking really kills, by now "Srba bi ostalo taman toliko da svi stanu pod jednu šljivu".

Srki:
I never smoked, so I speculate on this : is It because they think it is sort of cool to suck the candle and produce the damn smoke? Does that give them some importance in their own eyes? Are they insecure about themselves? I am not sure and I don't claim anything, I'd like to know and understand...

Now, Srki da...beep, don't do that, please! I am the wanna-be-psychologer around here!

If you would like to truly know and understand anything in life, you have to do it yourself. But, I guess it is too much to ask from a life-time non-smoker, so maybe you should just give up on trying to understand, save yourself from cancer, and die of something else. May it be old age, I pray.

Srki 16:24 06.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

Krugolina Borup

Now, please, where did Krugolina say that? And then YOU ask ME whether I'm dumb or playing dumb?

To summarize what Krugolina argues:

- Krugolina does not believe in passive smoking health risks, because even the authority that argues that that risk exists, did allow at least one study with the opposite result to be published in the major medical journal.

- Krugolina's common sense tells her that smoking can't possibly be healthy, but Krugolina also has doubts of how unhealthy it really is, being inclined to think that the whole thing is presented as much worse then it is.

- Regardless of how unhealthy it is, however, Krugolina thinks everybody should be left to decide whether they want to take that risk or not. It is my body, my life, my death. Government should back off and go regulate a traffic or something... not me.

Sorry Krugolina, I guess I was wrong about you earlier. You seem to be dumb after all. So never mind all I said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer

Srdjan

Emir Halilovic 17:05 06.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

irvas
STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SMOKERS!!!

vidimo se ljudi

Newsflash: that boat has already sailed. I wish I took a picture of "the smoking cabin" in Munich airport--it makes one really feel satisfied that there are parts of the world where stinky addicts are really being put where they belong...

Krugolina Borup 20:46 06.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

Srki:
You seem to be dumb after all.

Emir Halilovic:
...it makes one really feel satisfied that there are parts of the world where stinky addicts are really being put where they belong...

Sure, that's the way to go: when you run out of arguments, resort to name calling.

Wishing you a pleasant, healthy life, boys. May God protect you from the other dangers of this world until you die of old age, while you spend your life worrying about them. Meantime, I'll enjoy life. While it lasts. For whatever period of time it lasts.

Krugolina - The Dumb Stinky Addict

irvas 04:28 07.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

oh yeah? how abot gays, ha? maybe we should put them where they belong as well?

final soulution?

now that's satisfaction isn't it emir?!

Krugolina Borup 07:41 07.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

Srki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer

Not good enough. A secondary source.
I go for the original studies, you see. Not for what others report about them.

Emir Halilovic 12:05 07.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

irvas

oh yeah? how abot gays, ha? maybe we should put them where they belong as well?

final soulution?

now that's satisfaction isn't it emir?!

For homework: apples and oranges-->Google it.

Let me make it clear--in my opinion, smokers belong with each other when they smoke. It's not about isolating smokers from non-smokers, it's about isolating non-smokers from cigarette smoke. It's pretty clear. Once you decide to chew tobacco, nicotine gum, wear nicotine patches etc.--no problem for me.

As for Munich, Germans are very practical and polite people, so instead of completely banning smoking in the terminal (which can be offending to addicts, ergo--not polite) or letting addicts smoke in specifically designated open spaces (which is, again, inefficient and impractical) they've decided to isolate them in specifically designated cubicles. Neat, isn't it?

Emir Halilovic 12:44 07.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

Krugolina Borup

Srki:
You seem to be dumb after all.

Emir Halilovic:
...it makes one really feel satisfied that there are parts of the world where stinky addicts are really being put where they belong...

Sure, that's the way to go: when you run out of arguments, resort to name calling.

Wishing you a pleasant, healthy life, boys. May God protect you from the other dangers of this world until you die of old age, while you spend your life worrying about them. Meantime, I'll enjoy life. While it lasts. For whatever period of time it lasts.

Krugolina - The Dumb Stinky Addict

It's not name calling, these are facts--to a non-smoker, smokers stink. Also, nicotine addiction is like any other addiction, therefore most smokers are addicts. Simple.

Other than that, I think your assumption that non-smokers do not smoke solely because it's unhealthy is simplistic. I don't smoke because I don't enjoy it, because it stinks, because I think being an addict is demeaning, and because smoking is unhealthy. In that order. Other people may give other reasons.

At your age, your attitude is understandable. I hope that you can explain your "enjoy life" attitude to people who are dying from lung cancer or have had their legs amputated due to smoking-related vascular problems.

Krugolina Borup 13:40 07.11.2007

Re: smoking and political correctness

Emir Halilovic:
It's not about isolating smokers from non-smokers, it's about isolating non-smokers from cigarette smoke. It's pretty clear. Once you decide to chew tobacco, nicotine gum, wear nicotine patches etc.--no problem for me.

Your proposed solution to the problem equals me proposing that non-smokers wear gas-masks. No, I'm affraid it is not non-smokers vs. smoke problem. It is non-smokers vs. smokers problem. It's a people problem. And it becomes especially visible when you, among others, start to glow over the demeaning and humiliating treatment that smokers are now getting. The satisfaction in your cyber voice, the superiority with which you throw insults at smokers (and not the smoke) - well, Emir, I just hope you never experience the same treatment for whatever reason by anyone in life. But, chances are: as you sow, so you shall reap. Probably at some other field, but nevertheless... I admire your courage to glow over anyone's misery. Even while smokers had absolute rights, they never glowed over the suffering of non-smokers.

Emir Halilovic:
At your age, your attitude is understandable. I hope that you can explain your "enjoy life" attitude to people who are dying from lung cancer or have had their legs amputated due to smoking-related vascular problems.

Very puzzling paragraph. First of, how would you know my age? Enlighten me, please. And tell me you are 80 and, oh, so wise.

As for MY "enjoy life" attitude - whatever would I need to explain it to others? It is my life, my enjoyment, my risk. Not theirs.

Emir Halilovic:
It's not name calling, these are facts--to a non-smoker, smokers stink. Also, nicotine addiction is like any other addiction, therefore most smokers are addicts. Simple.

Actually, it is not even the words you use, Emir. Personally, I don't mind being a stinky addict. I don't mind even smoking in cubicals - can be fun: thinking of starting a new hobby of collecting various animal ears I can draw from the purse and put on my head while in the cage. Must also record various animal roars to play on loud-speakers while in, to entertain the bored kids waiting for their delayed flight, if nothing else.

What it is, Emir, is your superior glowing over other people's misery. Non-smoking might be healthy. But that glowing... that deffinitely isn't.

ugly 07:53 05.11.2007

Why? Really...

You bring up valid points, but I found the title of your article misleading. Is it about smoking issues in Serbia or "Why Americans dread visiting Serbia"? I don't see a link between the two.

Yes, Serbs smoke way more than Americans, but where is the evidence that "Americans dread visiting Serbia"?

I tend to believe that Americans have little interest in visiting Serbia for a number of reasons which might be worthwhile exploring here (if anyone cares). I suspect that smoking would be at the very bottom of their list of reasons.

As you pointed out, Greece tops the list of the smoking European countries. Nevertheless, it remains one of the most popular destinations for American tourists. We have yet to see their tourist board sweat over smoking.

momocow 12:28 05.11.2007

chill

Part of the charm of belgrade IS the smoking! I love the smell, I love the decadence, after a few weeks maybe I'll pick up the habbit. Then stop when I go back home. When in rome, do as the romans. Mostly liberal pussies and hypochondriacs fear second hand smoke, humm, and the few asthmatics here and there...

Chill out and live a little, enjoy.

Brunehilda 11:53 20.05.2008

Re: chill

momocow
Part of the charm of belgrade IS the smoking! I love the smell, I love the decadence, after a few weeks maybe I'll pick up the habbit. Then stop when I go back home. When in rome, do as the romans. Mostly liberal pussies and hypochondriacs fear second hand smoke, humm, and the few asthmatics here and there...

Chill out and live a little, enjoy.

Oh, yes of course! That wonderful sensation of choking and loosing the air when you are in a bart where there is no ventilation or if there is one, it does not work, and your'e surrounded with the smelly smoke from all sides that enters your hair, your clothes, your lungs and your blood... And you have two choices: to stay there and accept the poisoning yopu are submitted for your friends sake and try to look as if everything is cool, or to refuse to sit in such an unpleasant place and to take a risk to be qualified as a "libaral pussy and hypochondriac".

Yeah, chill out, you stupid non-smokers... In your grave.

Sakrij replike | Pošaljite komentar

Rosemary Bailey Brown

RSS Feed Saznajte više o autoru

Blogovi autora

Svi blogovi

Arhiva

Kategorije aktivne u poslednjih 7 dana

Najaktivniji autori u poslednjih 15 dana

B92 / Info

Sprečen šverc mačeva i sablji

Dva pokušaja krijumčarenja antikvitetnih zbirki novca, markica i oružja sprečili su carinici na graničnom prelazu Horgoš,...

26.05.2012 / 06:52"Podeljena BiH sve se više cepa"
26.05.2012 / 06:41SPO traži da MUP ispita festival
26.05.2012 / 06:34Bez dogovora o klimatskim promenama

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / Sport

Pobeđen Peru, odluka u našim rukama

Ženska odbojkaška reprezentacija Srbije zadržala je izglede da se plasira na Olimpijske igre pobedom nad Peruom. Situacija...

26.05.2012 / 07:06Hrvati lako sa Estonijom
26.05.2012 / 07:02Rusi nerešeno sa Urugvajcima
26.05.2012 / 06:50Trofejni oproštaj Pepa Gvardiole

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / Kultura

Povratak grupe ”Srebrna krila”

Jedan od najpopularnijih bendova bivše Jugoslavije ”Srebrna krila” najavljuje povratak na muzičku scenu posle...

26.05.2012 / 01:35Počinju šetnje “tragom” pisaca
26.05.2012 / 00:08Druga Star Wars Konvencija u SKC-u
26.05.2012 / 00:06"Glasajte za mene"- prvi trejler

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / Biz

Turska - raj evropskih penzionera

Dugotrajna kriza evrozone pretvorila je Tursku u "evropsku Floridu", jer zapadnoevropski penzioneri masovno migriraju na...

26.05.2012 / 07:52Od nas manje plaćeni samo Makedonci
26.05.2012 / 07:48Agrobanka ostala bez dozvole za rad
26.05.2012 / 07:46Zašto je Robin Hud uplašio Engleze?

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / English

Democrats yet to decide on candidate for PM

The Democratic Party (DS) on Friday announced that it would negotiate to form a government with the coalition gathered around...

26.05.2012 / 03:56German chancellor "locates" Berlin in Russia
26.05.2012 / 03:32FIFA suspends its decision on Kosovo
26.05.2012 / 02:36"Berlusconi could be eying Italian presidency"

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / Automobili

Peugeot menja sistem oznaka modela

Počevši od najnovijeg modela 301, Peugeot uvodi nov sistem obeležavanja svojih vozila. Od sada, sve oznake automobila...

26.05.2012 / 00:28Renault Alpine A110-50
25.05.2012 / 22:27Bosch se proširuje u Srbiji
25.05.2012 / 20:47Ablendovanje je sloboda govora

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / Život

Vodolija (20. januar - 19. februar)

Saznajte kakav vam dan predviđaju zvezde za 26. 5. na polju posla, ljubavi i zdravlja. Astrolog: Ana Milošević...

26.05.2012 / 13:01Ribe (20. februar - 20. mart)
26.05.2012 / 13:04Strelac (23. novembar - 21. decembar)
26.05.2012 / 13:03Jarac (22. decembar - 19. januar)

Čitajte ostale članke...

B92 / Putovanja

Najlepše destinacije za Dan zaljubljenih

Dan zaljubljenih je doba godine kada trošite malo bogatstvo na cveće i romantične vikende; možda je najbolji način da...

11.02.2012 / 01:26Kako se životinje zabavljaju na snegu (FOTO)
11.02.2012 / 00:23Lez Ark: na francuski način
11.02.2012 / 00:03Obiđite Beograd na Dan turističkih vodiča

Čitajte ostale članke...

korisničko ime	šifra
			Zapamti me		(zaboravio sam šifru) ili Postanite korisnik