Connection between Firearms and Smoking

[kd7nqb]

More and more cities, local townships and in particular city parks are getting tougher on Smokers. Many of these places also have harsh restrictions on CCW. I am wondering if in your experience you see that jurisdictions that are strict on CCW are also strict on smokers?


Also on a less related note do you think gun owners or more specifically ones who CCW are smokers at a higher rate than the general public. My reason for this is that both groups have high rates of ex-military individuals and higher proportions of men. As well as age, CCW folks tend to be older. Many of these seem to fall in the same demographics as smokers.


Any ideas?

 

[Buck Nekkid]

Pard, interesting speculation. Here I sit with a Lucky burnin' up in the ashtray while I'm cleanin' my CZ RAMI .40.

 

[Geronimo45]

A lot of the silly smoking bans seem to stem from a nanny-statish philosophy. Government's gotta take care of you, 'cause you're too dumb to do it yourself. That kind of philosophy is very likely to spill over into evil-bunny-puppy-and-cop-killing 'assault weapons' and CC - why do you need a dangerous weapon that can shoot through seven walls? Only cops need guns, 'cause they'll protect you. A BG'd just take the gun from you, anyway, if you tried to pull a gun on him. So their thinking goes.

I'm not a smoker, doubt that I ever will be. Still oppose idiotic and useless legislation on principle.

 

[skinnyguy]

I'm in Utah. Smokers here are pretty much treated like outhouse filler. NO smoking in any public building, they just started including bars as public buildings, within 25 ft. of doorways, and in the county I live in, no tobacco consumption anywhere on school district owned property 24/7/365. Forgot, last year, they also banned smoking in an outdoor walking-only street full of shops and displays in Salt Lake City.

Our gun laws here are really quite good though. Pretty much anyone who can "legally" purchase a handgun is allowed CCP after going through a required course. I can't remember if there are any particular "evil" guns that are banned, but I don't think anything is banned here that isn't under a federal ban.

 

[coxhw]

Look a Alaska. Had a friend go there last year and said you couldn't smoke anywhere. He didn't say anything about guns. He's not as hung up on them nasty kill'in machines as I am. To get back to the question, I smoked for over 25 years, exmilitary, and male. Had guns then but since I quit Smoking& Dipping. got more guns now. I too don't think the govt. needs to tell me how I should live or what my pleasures should be.

 

[boredelmo]

Smoker here.

 

[Cosmoline]

It is odd up here in that respect. Alaska has followed the pattern set in much of the Pacific NW and put a series of draconian anti-smoking laws in place. Most of the impetus comes from a desire to stop spending money on health problems allegedly related to smoking, but there's a bluehaired streak at the core of the movement. The Anchorage City Council passed a law last year that would make smoking virtually impossible in all areas of the city. Anywhere within a wide radius of where someone--anyone--worked would be off limits to smokers. There's been a significant backlash and the thing is up for repeal thanks to a petition drive. The vote is coming up on April 3.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/smoking/

If it doesn't get quashed your's truly expects to be getting himself a ticket and challenging the law in court. It really is one of the most poorly drafted pieces of dren ever to come spewing out of the august halls of government.

It's particularly ironic to think that the councilmen are trying so hard to make us all good little puritans when I bike down the roads of Los Anchorage and get to inhale the exhaust of the many motor vehicles here. Exhaust which won't kill you after 20 years of taking it into your lungs, but only after about three minutes. It's a vastly more lethal smoke than anything from a pipe, and comes out in much greater quantities. It's going to be hilarious to see all the MD's who've prostituted themselves to the anti smoking zealots backtrack when lung cancer rates mysteriously fail to decline. As it is they're trumpeting the fall in DEATH rates, which is a result of much better treatment and early detection. We have all been lied to--and it's a lie much greater than anything out of big tobacco.

You want to know what the great decline in lung cancer amounts to, after long years of beating down anyone who lights up?

0.7% since 1991. That's it. That's the great drop.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm

 

[velojym]

It's not about the guns, or the cigarettes. It's about control, and who owns you. These areas are the domain of the nanny staters (as Geronimo so aptly put it) who can't stand the idea that individuals can actually control their own lives. I don't smoke, never have, hate the nasty crap. I'll always side with the smokers, however (except in my private property), as the goobermint has ZERO right to arbitrarily control individual behavior. It isn't legally their job.
Everywhere they've tried to control anything, it's brought about some disastrous consequences, from Prohibition to Gun Control to the idiotic War on Drugs.

 

[antipop]

It's not about the guns, or the cigarettes. It's about control, and who owns you. These areas are the domain of the nanny staters (as Geronimo so aptly put it) who can't stand the idea that individuals can actually control their own lives. I don't smoke, never have, hate the nasty crap. I'll always side with the smokers, however (except in my private property), as the goobermint has ZERO right to arbitrarily control individual behavior. It isn't legally their job.
Everywhere they've tried to control anything, it's brought about some disastrous consequences, from Prohibition to Gun Control to the idiotic War on Drugs.

BLAM velojym for the win. Anything you, as a person, want to partake of- firearms, drugs, other sets of genitalia- is completely up to you, and thus shouldn't be taken away. Not that they're not taken away, but we already know that. :tinfoilhat:

 

[MilsurpShooter]

No smoking in restauraunts, subways or pretty much inside any building but your own home. Trying to pass a law where you can't smoke on the sidewalks and only in "designated" smoking areas... Don't you love New York? (not a smoker)

 

[Dr. Dickie]

I have noticed a higher incident of smokers among shooters (anecdotal, so you know what that is worth). I wonder if some of that isn't the anti-nanny state frame of mind.
Ex-smoker here. Though even though it has been 10+ years, if I found out that I only had a couple of months left, the first thing I would do is start smoking again.

 

[dfaugh]

Very interesting observation....While there are notable exceptions (as mentioned), I believe there is a correlation.

It's not a direct "cause and effect" of course...except in the senese that places that suffer from "over-government" (regulation) are more likely to have both. "Nanny-state" in action, as someone else mentioned.

 

[qajaq59]

It's not about the guns, or the cigarettes. It's about control, and who owns you.

I'd say this gentleman pretty well wrapped it up.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Interesting. I've tried to point out for years that gun owners who support anti-smoking measures will find themselves without guns. It's not just about smoking either. It's about seat belts, trans fats, and whatever else someone does that you think affects your health or health care costs.

That's the red flag, by the way. Whenever I see anyone advocate control of human behavior as a way to reduce "health care costs" or as a "public health issue," the warning siren goes off loudly. It signals an upcoming purge.

Everyone needs to watch the propaganda films Joseph Goebbels produced to prepare the German people for Nazi extermination of undesirables. I have in mind the movies in which Jews are compared to rats and other vermin who are parasites on society, and movies in which people with mental and physical disabilities are depicted as those with lives unworthy of life. They are burdens to society. We all share the cost of tolerating them. We can reduce that cost by eliminating them. So we will.

There used to be a time when people who were irritated by other people's behaviors had the options of tolerating those behaviors or withdrawing from them. No longer. Now, when there are enough of us who dislike anything that other people do, we have the right to control or prohibit it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Somewhere down the road we will have a society in which no one is allowed to do anything that's objectionable to a significant number of people. We will all march in step with the majority. Long before then, though, you will not have guns. You probably won't have SUVs, vans, or pickup trucks either, unless you can justify them. You won't have fast foods, sugar, red meat, leather, or loud music. You will still have opinions, but they will be only the opinions approved as not being dangerous to public health or safety. And you won't even remember earlier times.

 

[DAdams]

Dr. That's too funny...my sister-in-law and I were getting in and enjoying some fresh second smoke (out-of-doors of course) the other day and said the same thing.

if I found out that I only had a couple of months left, the first thing I would do is start smoking again.

:banghead: caffiene, nicotine, alcohol and pass the ammunition. When I was younger I had a sex addiction too but fortunately time seems to take care of that one.

 

[October]

I am wondering if in your experience you see that jurisdictions that are strict on CCW are also strict on smokers?

Just the opposite here. The Ohio legislature recently passed legislation that expanded CCW and other gun rights. Last November, we voted to severely restrict where smoking was allowed in the state.

As it is they're trumpeting the fall in DEATH rates, which is a result of much better treatment and early detection. We have all been lied to--and it's a lie much greater than anything out of big tobacco.

You want to know what the great decline in lung cancer amounts to, after long years of beating down anyone who lights up?

0.7% since 1991. That's it. That's the great drop.

I don’t like it when the anti-gun crowd uses incorrect (or misquotes, depending upon your viewpoint) data, and I think it is equally bad when it occurs elsewhere. Take the example above. According the website listed above, 0.7% is not the change in death rate of lung cancer, as Cosmoline implies – it is the change in incidence of lung cancer. The change in death rate from lung cancer was actually 0.9% over a different time period. Furthermore, the 0.7% figure is an annual change from 1991 to 2003, not the change over the entire time period.

 

[jeep-2]

velojym
It's not about the guns, or the cigarettes. It's about control and who owns you
this would make a nice bumper sticker

 

[zoom6zoom]

Secondhand gunsmoke never killed anybody!

 

[scurtis_34471]

Smoking is different. I am a firm believer that my rights stop only where someone else's begin. That should be the universal standard. As a non-smoker, I don't appreciate gagging on second-hand smoke. I don't have a problem with laws governing smoking on public property that have the intent of protecting non-smokers from unwanted second-hand smoke.

The problem I have with the anti-smoking laws is that they are now being imposed on private property, such as restaurants, bars and even privately-owned vehicles. It seems to me that smoking policy should be left to the property owner and customers can decide for themselves whether or not they want to eat/drink/shop in a place where there is smoke.

 

[armoredman]

As a 20 year smoker, I try very hard to be considerate of other people who do not smoke. As I have explained to less considerate smokers, that's they way we keep our ability to smoke. AZ just passed it's first draconian law, (which I fully expect to see challenged and discarded), which prohibits smoking in public places.
There are two types of people who may be legally, publically, discriminated against - smokers and gun owners.

 

[hagar]

That's the major reason I left New York state for AZ back in 1989. Not smoking, or guns (I had a handgun permit, still valid). It wasn't the cold and snow either, although it was a factor. I was just sick and tired of being told what to do.

Dont walk here. No swimming without a lifeguard. Stay on the trail. Dont feed the animals. No trespassing. No hunting. No fishing off the bridge. Pay toll now.

It was refreshing to see signs in AZ: Trail is not maintained beyond this point. Suitable for 4x4 vehicles only. Proceed at own risk!

 

[TonyB]

Once at an IDPA match,I watched a guy shoot an entire stage with a cigarette hanging from his mouth....I will say he got the"coolest looking guy"award..and I don't even smoke,but he did look cool.Something about an older guy,shooting a 1911 and smoking a Camel at the same time,that's very American.

 

[Henry Bowman]

As stated above, it's about control. The motivations (of the banners) are parallel. The implementation is not, however. I have never seen a statute that bans the mere possession of tobacco products. Banning smoking in public places is more like banning shooting in public places, not possession.

 

[average_shooter]

Does it count if I don't smoke regularly but enjoy the occasional cigar?

Of course, with friends getting married and having kids the cigars are being smoked more frequently lately...

 

[HKUSP45C]

As a non-smoker, I don't appreciate gagging on second-hand smoke.

One could reasonably (and easily) argue that you "gagging" is not an infringement of your rights any more than me "gagging" when I see someone throw up in public is one on mine.

I don't know where Americans got the idea that somewhere, codified in stone blessed by the creator, was a right not to be at all bothered by the outside world.

I'm a very considerate smoker. If I weren't, I still wouldn't be violating your rights.

Houston, who some would argue is a bastion of gun ownership (and they'd be wrong), has a new non-smoking ordinance for reasturaunts in the city limits. The eatery/bar owners wailed in outrage at the loss of their property rights but the City Council did it anyway. How's that for "Land of the Free?"

Reminds me of strippers being told to wear clothes because the children in the bar shouldn't have to see that kind of thing.

My last note on the subject: If you leave your bedroom in the course of your day you stand some probability of being at some level of discomfort at some point. This is not societies fault, it's also certainly not societies problem. You have the hang up, STAY HOME. (Note: This part of the post directed to society as a general whole not the person I was responding to)