It's true that liberals have changed over the years in the way you describe. Some of us you know whats are vocal critics of the liberal trajectory, and not just the libertines among us. BTW, John Dean has a great chapter explaining how all this came about in Conservatives Without Conscience.

Yes, it's bullshit that we've come to this. But the people behind these decisions are more likely state health department commissioners, in full partnership with their legislature, who began with the goal of reducing health costs for Medicaid patients. According to my state commissioner, Medicaid users tend to be smokers, "obese", and over-utilize tax funded public health care. In Texas they are unapologetic with the anti-smoking push as but one example of alarming lifestyle initiatives that are designed to save the state money. I learned this as a legislative tracker, and think you too might find the poor and disabled were the original pilot population for the changes you're laying at the feet of dope-smoking liberals.

Most liberals I know are still you-know-whats and with a liberal smoker in the WH I expect conversation afoot.

Phillip:
Why don't you just fire up a joint and let it burn so your place with smell like a marijuana factory? Then smoke your ciagrettes. If anyone complains, you can tell the property manager you were just getting high.

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but would you be comfortable with someone working with aerosolized carcinogenic substances where you and your family live?

I mean, I can appreciate just how shitty it must be for cigarette smokers in the face of the new wave of no-smoking laws, but ultimately smokers chose to put toxic substances into their bodies, the non-smokers around them did not, and thus their rights not to be exposed to carcinogenic compounds trumps smokers rights to choose to put them into theirs', especially at home.

Is it hypocritical to allow marijuana and not cigarettes? Yes. Is it hypocritical that alcohol is legal, but marijuana is not? Yes. Is it hypocritical for prostitution to be a crime, but not pornography? Yes. Hypocrisy is not the main issue.

The issue is whether people who did not choose to put toxic substances into their bodies should be exposed to it by those who have made that choice.

Just my opinion, though. :)

Amen Philip! Fact is that government doesn't want people to really quit smoking; because there is way too much tax money involved in the tobacco business.
Nanny State just wants another whipping post for their way out there in orbit liberal agenda. Its ironic these are many of the same people pushing forced medication and other inhumanities on those with made up DSM diagnosis.

it's kind of crazy what it's come to... i agree, it seems to be a thinly veiled bias to the lower classes who are more prone to illness and smoking. and alcohol, so naturally the sin taxes are really hitting these people the hardest.

people who don't smoke say, well just quit then. it just does not seem right to me that bars & restaurants who want smokers have no choice in the matter. the same will happen with separate housing, no doubt.

i say just tell them you quit.

hey dguller, i think philip's point wasn't so much about health effects of smoking as it was the one kind of smoke is good another isn't thing. so can you explain how smoking bans shouldn't apply as well to marijuana? or is there scientific evidence that marijuana smoke in nontoxic?

Jones:

I would actually include a ban on marijuana, as well, in Philip's apartment, and explicitly stated earlier that it was hypocritical for his landlord to accept marijuana and reject cigarette use. That said, there is more evidence for the harmful effects of cigarette smoking than for marijuana use, but marijuana use is certainly not benign. That, and marijuana is illegal unless prescribed by a physician, which is another reason for its use to be prohibited by his landlord. :)

dguller, you'd make an awesome nanny state public health official since your rhetoric is out of touch with common sense. i've never found much in hte way of evidence one way or another on second-hand pot smoke, probably because it's kind of hard to research something that is illegal. be that as it may, since you hate smoke of all kinds, where is your call for a ban on philip driving a car ( i assume he has one), where is your call for a ban on trucks and airplanes, where is your call for a ban on cooking smoke and odors in apartment buildings?

Jones:

You make excellent points about the possibility of a slippery slope if the sole factor was toxic fumes, but fortunately there are other factors to consider including utility.

Automobiles and planes are essential for human transportation in the modern age, and cooking food is important for avoiding infection by eating raw, contaminated food. What is the essential utility and use of smoking cigarettes? I don't think there is any that is comparable to transportation and food.

Philip,
You should buy a little pot and fire a little from time to time.
Say to you landlord you changed to marijuana.
He would start thinking about all the troubles with the police he would have to face if he wanted to ban all of those who smoke pot in your building.
And you would also not be alone with the cigarettes.
You would be put in the frightening marijuana group.
The irony of it all is that you are working hard to prevent people to be sick in a much higher than the harms of cigarette.
Still the indoctrination of masses works! And how it works.
Statistics is an amazing weapon.

He is a "she".
I'm sorry!
Tell her...

PS: how appealing to teenagers smoking has become.

Light up a cigar. If they are going to define cigarette smoking in the contract then take the loophole. Hell, this is discrimination beyond belief and if people don't see a housing discrimination case here, then they don't get it.

It's not about the cigarettes, it's about control, and that landlord's wife should have had a bitch slap.

I will personally blow cigar smoke in her face, please let me. (not even kidding)

You'd think they would be more afraid of so-called dealers and street crime coming into their building saying pot is fine, what the fuck!?

I completely agree with smoking apartments and nonsmoking apartments in the same building, like hotels do; rather than evict a decent tenant who has paid them for 6 years! what shitheads, excuse my french!

Guller said:....."What is the essential utility and use of smoking cigarettes? I don't think there is any that is comparable to transportation and food."

(referring to the smoke/diesel that trucks and cars omit (how about trains)The utility of smoking cigarettes?

I've been inside 6 psych hospitals for extended periods of time as a visitor and it's safe to say just about ALL patients and staff smoke. It's the main "environmental outing" of the day; it's crucial for some patients; and most were dx schizophrenic or bipolar. There is an obvious connection with well-being and mental illness and smoking so to the point that there are several FDA studies re:the connection, because of course, pharma wants to cash in on it.

There is only one small reprieve for locked down psych patients in institutions; and that is their 1-3 smoke breaks a day. It's the one thing they have that gives them relief, I don't care what retort comes back from my comment, it will roll off my back into reality where some people talk and don't know what they talk about.

I must say one thing, directly to Guller: you appear to be completely out of touch with people.Your retorts are text book reading, and frankly it's getting old.

Your whole piece reminded of an entire thought process I was having just two days ago while standing out on my front porch.. Not a clue why it came up, but it was over this very topic..

And I don't smoke.

But I do recognize the ever increasing absurdity that the banning of smoking has become..

Where you said:

I cannot help but notice that the places in America where the anti-smoking jihad is the most intense is in big liberal cities--Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Boston

Watch also the other topics that are dictated similarly to the banning of smoking.. Absolute control-obsessed, and when they get it, they become vicious, not to mention "neener-neener'y" in its enforcement..

I don't now nor will I ever understand that particular mindset.. The only thing that helps my honest attempt to accept its existence is by thinking they are creations of their genetic souls, their environments, Life experiences, et al[l].....

Hm.

Cyber hugs from North Georgia.. :)

"you appear to be completely out of touch with people. Your retorts are text book reading,"

Thank you Stephany for saying this.

I have seem many psychiatrists not only as a patient but due to other people's problems.

One of the things that strikes me most is that while they are working they all are out of touch with people.
It's amazing and scary because they are dealing with people that need an extra connection with people.
I'm not anti-psychiatry but I wish they could at least show some respect.

Since I following this blog every time a psychiatrist comment it's the same.
They always fail to get in touch with people who are here.
Worse: they show the same arrogance we have to deal when we are at the other side of the table - the uncomfortable side that doesn't show diplomas hanging on the wall - feeling terrible and waiting for a little help.
I'm talking about psychiatrists but many people report the same in other medicine branches.
Unfortunately when we are sick we don't have enough time to think about what is being done.
We have to trust... blah blah blah....

blah blah....

clap clap clap....

Thank you!

in all fairness, there is a difference between marijuana and cigarettes (not to say that marijuana smoke isn't carcinogenic). a marijuana smoking session involves exhaling less smoke to get a buzz (i have never met a weed chain smoker) and the smell doesn't tend to linger like cigarettes. i've always found that the smell of weed will dissipate after an hour or two (especially with the windows open), but the smell of cigarettes will hang around for days, is incredibly hard to get rid of and the smell will migrate into neighboring apartments. even though i smoke, i find it very irritating when people in my no-smoking building smoke cigarettes and make my living areas smell. the only time neighboring apartments would be able to smell marijuana smoke would while the residents are currently smoking and not making an effort to reduce the smell.


that said, i think people should be free to respectfully smoke (ie. don't blow smoke on children) in open places and their private property. smoking in bars has been banned in my city and no smoking at all on the school campus which spans a large portion of the town (yet, fine in casinos for some unknown reason). now they've begun discussing banning smoking in open air pedestrian hang outs (where many homeless congregate) which is pushing it way too far. i can understand banning smoking inside to help the employees and people with sensitivities to smoke (like asthmatics), but i don't see who it benefits to remove smoking from public, city areas.

Stephany:

First, we do things differently in Ontario, Canada. If someone has been certified, then they are unable to leave the ward, including to smoke a cigarette. We provide them with a nicotine patch or gum instead. In some facilities, there are enclosed outdoor areas where involuntary patients may visit during the day for whatever reason, not just to smoke a cigarette.

Second, what textbook did I get my comment from? I actually thought of it all by myself, and didn't read it anywhere, but I'm sure other people have thought of it, as well.

Third, my point was that we accept many things in our life that can bring benefit, but can also bring harm, and we perform a risk-benefit analysis to decide whether to allow something or prohibit it. Yes, cigarettes, cars, trains, and planes all emit toxic fumes, but they differ in that cigarettes serve no useful purpose other than to supply cigarette companies with money, whereas cars, trains and planes are all essential to modern transportation.

You are correct that cigarettes can be useful in some limited cases, such as allowing psychiatric patients some relief from hospitalization during their outings, but does that justify the millions of people who have died from lung cancer and other diseases due to cigarette use? Is that an wise risk-benefit analysis?

Take care.

Ana:

I'm happy to read that you are not anti-psychiatry. I'd like to read what aspects of psychiatry you approve of since you do not reject the entire specialty in total. :)

Nothing personal dguller.
I just don't want to take the risk of seeing another:

regret, i am closing this thread.

I hope you understand
As a matter of fact I wish you could understand. I really wish.

Ana:

So, if you tell me what aspects of psychiatry you think are beneficial and helpful, then this thread will be closed? How exactly does THAT work?

This frosts my cupcakes plain and simple. i cannot think of too many things I despise more than Nanny states - cept perhaps Michael Vick? You've been there six years and no troubles..... Ugh! Get your cats to pee on their doorsteps!

Everyone in mental hospitals smoke, I picked up the habit from my last stay. It calms me down, gets rid of the voices, and sustains me at my most suicidal.

I thought the Bloomberg rules in Manhattan were bad- I guess Seattle is worse. In that Reason article NYC fared a few places better than Seattle.

Well, for what it is worth, they did bring back prohibition. Maybe with a smoking President the laws will go back to where they were back in the days when my great aunts and uncles smoked Luckies, Pall Malls, Tarlyteons, and what not .

Anyone know what happened to Johnny Smoke? These neighbors of yours Philip must be related to him. Minus the cool horse.

During my psych hospital stays the smoke breaks were the one bright spot in the day. It was the only chance during the day to go outside & sit in the sunshine, to shoot the breeze with a group of people, and just for a moment to feel human again.

I think it's a bit hypocritical for psychiatrists to be concerned about the risks of smoking while they're loading their patients up on drugs that cause obesity - thereby increasing patients' risks for developing diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, etc.

Susan,
Same here. Everyone smokes in mental hospitals.

Lisa:

Is it equally hypocritical for patients who smoke to complain about the risks of psychiatric medications?

dguller, would those be the same psych meds that doctors and pharma companies lie about the risks of taking versus cigs which no one lies about the risks of smoking? just curious.

Jones:

Yes, it does.

dguller,

No, I don't think it's hypocritical for psychiatric patients who smoke to be concerned about the health risks of psych medications. In fact, I would think they should be even more concerned (as should their psychiatrists). Obesity + smoking isn't a good combo, so it surprises me that these drugs are handed out so casually to those who smoke and/or are already overweight/obese, have hypertension, diabetes, etc.

As Jones pointed out who doesn't know the risks of smoking? However, I can't say I've ever had a physician discuss with me the health risks of antipsychotics or any other psychiatric med for that matter.

Lisa,

Oooo, I like that one...

Personally, although I don't smoke, I love smoking. I love the smell. Actually I do smoke occasionally. I have a tractor that I use to mow the weeds that otherwise pass as a lawn. And, when I do, I smoke a cigar and drink a scotch whilst mowing my overly fast growing lawn/weeds...

I live in a non-smoking building. I can often smell smoke coming from an adjacent apartment or rolling into my open window from the balcony below -- and no, the laws of physics being what they are, closing the window won't stop it, just make it less. But when I waken coughing and sneezing, and have to reach for my oxygen, I think my health should supercede the smoker's.

You really lose credibility for yourself, on any topic, with this type of argument.

You want to use your condition to your advantage, but if someone else used it to their advantage, you'd scream unfair. And it would be. In both instances.

Philip Dawdy responds: sounds like one of you folks needs to move.

Somehow I knew the psychiatrist would make this a mental health issue and gloriously tell us how they know best for everyone else; because they speak like a boring moronic text book on every mental health issue and our the better conscious of all related to human proceedings.

Of course followed by those damaged and entitled others that would chime in on how their self preservation and survival with regards to smoke free environments would supersede those of individual choice and rights even in a so called legal activity. Then as always, we go down the road of planes, trains, and automobiles. Legal verses illegal, blah, blah, blah, and so forth.

This isn't just a slippery slope of social masturbation clustered here as a heap of cattle dung issues we have on our filthy hands to grapple with followers of the self righteous indoctrinated pulpit.

We just need to have a real fix, to a real problem. So let’s ban humanity, all behavior associated with it, and get it over with.

Maybe next time; God (That Big old’ omnipotent creator) can/will choice to make us all perfect clones and void of free will entirely. Damn, then the Bible would read just like the DSM, and tell us all who is truly naughty and nice statically with some nice bastardized science to back up the nonsense.

So I have decided and declared against all reasonable rational and with great gusto of virtuosity that starting today Human Beings are banned from planet earth because they are no good slimy dirty obnoxious unhealthy polluters.

This ban includes each and every one of those pesky food consuming critters, those flatulence making bloviates, counting out each of the billions of selfish narcissistic oxygenic stealing vile creatures that should have never been given the gift of life in the first place.

We don't need to save the planet from those demon smokers; the planet will deal with them all in due time and rectify this abomination propagated upon our pristine universe.

Peace and Love be with you

Lisa:

First, you make good points about the absolute importance of warning patients about the possible adverse outcomes with using psychotropic medications. Anyone who fails to do so is engaging medical malpractice as far as I am concerned.

Second, a person is a hypocrite if their beliefs contradict their actions. That is why you are correct that psychiatrists are hypocritical if they decry the use of smoking as harmful, but are silent about the use of psychotropic medications as also harmful. There is a contradiction between their belief (“Patients should never put harmful substances into their bodies”) and their action (“I prescribe substances that can be harmful to my patients”).

I believe that this line of reasoning also applies to psychiatric patients who smoke. If someone smokes cigarettes, then they are knowingly putting something harmful into their bodies. For that same person to cry foul over putting other harmful substances into their bodies appears hypocritical to me, because there is a contradiction between the belief (“One should never put toxic substances into one’s body”) and the action (“I put a toxic substance into my body”).

Perhaps the issue is whether someone WILLINGLY CONSENTS to the ingestion of toxic substances. In that case, there is no hypocrisy on the part of patients who willingly smoke cigarettes knowing that they are toxic, and who criticize the lack of disclosure of the toxic and harmful aspects of psychotropic medications.

However, I would then argue that the charge of hypocrisy on the part of psychiatrists can also be dismissed, because the issue is also not simply about the ingestion of toxic substances, but whether there are potential benefits to taking medications that run the risk of harming patients. In other words, there is no contradiction between the belief (“Patients should never take substances that are potentially toxic AND have no demonstrable benefit of any kind”) and the action (“Telling patients not to ingest toxic substances without any evidence of beneficial effects”).

I suppose none of us are hypocrites in this particular issue. :)

Lisa,

You nicely illustrate a general problem in medicine. Physicians rarely place sufficient emphasis on safety/risk issues, imo. I believe a reason for this is related to an institutional bias towards treating diseases versus people. I'm also unconvinced that physicians take enough time to educate themselves - meaning not just relying on being detailed - to understand the implications of the prescriptions they write.

I'm in Seattle too, am an ex-smoker, and firmly opposed the restaurant/bar ban (even though its super gross to me now) on the grounds that the owner of the property could decide what does and does not go on in his bar. Note that this is the opposite of the "nanny state" many commenters are throwing out there - yet I fail to see how that bar owner and your landlord differ in this situation? Just as his pregnant waitress could have gotten another job in a cleaner environment, you can find another apartment or smoke on the balcony. Regardless of how "fair" it is, the difference between MJ smoke and cigarette smoke is HUGE - there is no comparison in permanent, long-lasting pervasive damage to property.