Reminder to anyone who still smokes: you smell like shit 100% to anyone you interact with.
And any place you still smoke in, whether your car or home, also smells like shit.
And to delivery drivers who smoke, the packages you deliver smell like shit, too!
Positive reinforcement works better for helping people quit :(
Especially when quitting smoking tanks a person’s dopamine levels. It takes weeks for the body to re-regulate production.
To anyone reading this who has quit/is quitting: congratulations! It’s tough, you have shown a force of willpower and should be proud of yourself.
Love, a fellow Canadian.
Edit:
As with other forms of punishment, aversive methods are generally less effective than positive approaches. It is more important to reward and praise desirable behaviors than to react negatively to unwanted ones. Encouraging a person’s ability to enjoy self-affirmation and self-pride will help them internalize healthy attributes and to become a person deserving of admiration…Shame doesn’t motivate prosocial behaviors; it fuels social withdrawal and low self-esteem.
Source: took some psych courses
&
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-nostalgia/201705/why-shaming-doesnt-workI’m not trying to convince someone to quit; that’s up to them to derive enough motivation to do so on their own.
I’m just pointing out that their disgusting habit affects everyone around them, if it’s not killing them through second-hand smoke.
I say this as someone who used to smoke 1–2 packs a day, and WISH that someone told me that I smelled as bad as I did. To me, smoking was never about impacting other people, so having known that, I would have at least been more mindful.
Positive reinforcement tends to work best, but people should never underestimate the power of “you smell like an old leather ashtray”
Positive reinforcement is the act of adding either a reward for good behavour or a punishment for bad behavior.
It seems like both of you are doing that.
That’s not quite what positive reinforcement is but im not sciency enough to understand it either lol
I’ll paste Wikipedias explanation:In the behavioral sciences, the terms “positive” and “negative” refer when used in their strict technical sense to the nature of the action performed by the conditioner rather than to the responding operant’s evaluation of that action and its consequence(s). “Positive” actions are those that add a factor, be it pleasant or unpleasant, to the environment, whereas “negative” actions are those that remove or withhold from the environment a factor of either type. In turn, the strict sense of “reinforcement” refers only to reward-based conditioning; the introduction of unpleasant factors and the removal or withholding of pleasant factors are instead referred to as “punishment”, which when used in its strict sense thus stands in contradistinction to “reinforcement”. Thus, “positive reinforcement” refers to the addition of a pleasant factor, “positive punishment” refers to the addition of an unpleasant factor, “negative reinforcement” refers to the removal or withholding of an unpleasant factor, and “negative punishment” refers to the removal or withholding of a pleasant factor.
This usage is at odds with some non-technical usages of the four term combinations, especially in the case of the term “negative reinforcement”, which is often used to denote what technical parlance would describe as “positive punishment” in that the non-technical usage interprets “reinforcement” as subsuming both reward and punishment and “negative” as referring to the responding operant’s evaluation of the factor being introduced. By contrast, technical parlance would use the term “negative reinforcement” to describe encouragement of a given behavior by creating a scenario in which an unpleasant factor is or will be present but engaging in the behavior results in either escaping from that factor or preventing its occurrence, as in Martin Seligman’s experiment involving dogs learning to avoid electric shocks.
(These paragraphs are one after the other but I can’t figure out proper formatting)
If you mean formatting as one quote, you are missing the
on the empty line.> Line 1 > > Line 2Will show as:
Line 1
Line 2
I see
Thanks!
Interesting. I’ve never made that distinction between reinforcement and punishment.
Positive punishment is different from positive reinforcement. Shame is a punishment
Adding a shame or punishment is “positive” in the sense of the words positive and negative reinforcement.
Positive is adding to as a response:
- yelling at
- giving a thing
- shocking them when exhibiting a behavior
Negative is removing from as a response
- taking a thing
- removing a negative stimulus
- no longer shocking them for exhibiting the behavior
Punishment for bad behaviour is negative reinforcement.
In a non-technical sense, yes.
In a clinical/technical/literal/how words work sense, no.
Just looked into this, and yeah, you’re right. TIL. It’s pretty counterintuitive imo and I don’t think being told it’s wrong from a “how words work sense” is helping anyone, but you are correct and I was incorrect.
It’s so nasty when you get delivery and the food reeks of cigarettes.
One time it smelled of coppertone sunscreen which was wild and also off putting but in very different ways.
I got a coffee from Dunkin Donuts once that had been prepared by someone who had some kind of topical menthol cream all over their hands. That was the second most disgusting thing I’ve put in my mouth.
I was born with a deviated septum, so I can’t smell much of anything, but cigarette is one thing I can smell… And I can confirm everything in your post.
My dad used to smoke. A lot. I once had to borrow his car for a week or so and couldn’t even drive it without flooding it with febreze and opening all the windows.
I used to have a co-worker who smoked so much that I (and others with more sensitive schnozzes) could tell if he’d been in a room in the past hour or more.
Even if you don’t care about your own health, you shouldn’t smoke for the sake of those around you.
Even more pleasant was being driven around in a car with dad smoking in the front seat while you’re behind him. Getting all that wind, smoke and ash in your face. Mmm. Or if it’s too cold he doesn’t wanna open the window really and basically just hotboxes me and my two brothers with nicotine. (This was 25+ years ago)
My eldest brother had asthma, so my parents were generally careful not to smoke around us. They had a dedicated room in the house for smoking so that the rest of the house would get less contaminated. Fortunately, this meant that they didn’t generally smoke in the car while driving us around. Also, my dad worked and/or commuted thirteen hours a day so I was mostly around my mom, who smoked a lot less.
The car borrowing I mentioned was years after my brother had moved across the country when my dad drove his car almost exclusively alone, so at least no one else (who wasn’t borrowing the car) was engulfed.
I’m sorry you had to suffer through that.
I agree but it is kinda nice being able to smell how stressed my boss is
For people too young to remember, a lot of people were against smoking bans. The argument was pretty simple: “Why not let the market decide? If you want to go to a bar with no smokers, go to one that doesn’t allow smoking.” This was persuasive to a lot of people.
But I recall that non-smoking bars were extremely rare and I would always end up smelling like smoke every time I went to the bar. The problem was basically that going to a non-smoking bar would exclude any friends that smoked, so bars that became non-smoking were limiting themselves to only those patrons who didn’t smoke themselves and had no one in their group who did.
In hindsight, it betrays a fundamental problem with the “let the market decide” argument: there are situations where a small number of consumers with uncommon preferences can end up altering the whole market such that the majority of consumers are forced into un-ideal purchases. In the case of smoking at bars, it was actually better to say “Hey you few people who smoke, you’re kinda fucking up everything and we do actually need big government to step in and stop you from doing that.”
Opposite of how people with allergies changed the market. Sure maybe a group of people are without allergies but a very large group are with various allergies. If you broke them down they’d be smaller groups but it made more sense to just accommodate. And you can’t really tell someone with an allergy to just stop having the allergy. Though some restaurants will deny it should be part of their culture or unheard of.
I liked the no-smoking in bars even when i smoked. But pulling an archived post with 13 points and 100 comments to display prominent opinion is pretty fun times.
I actually started with the Dennis Miller rant on it because that’s what I thought of first, but then I realized Dennis Miller sucks and I don’t want to make people sit through that so I searched for someone else arguing it…
Dennis Miller’s downfall was swift and prophetic.
Between the massive corporate wealth at stake and the millions of people literally addicted to the product, it’s hard now to imagine governments being able to ban them (and I lived through it).
And now we have vaping.
😭
Which the Aussie government banned, yet didn’t even touch cigarettes.
In smoking areas or outside only.
Lol I’m a school bus driver and a number of my colleagues vape on the fucking buses. They imagine they’re being super-secret about it - they’re somehow oblivious to the giant cloud of smoke each hit creates. Never underestimate the power of nicotine addiction to force people to relentlessly push the boundaries of where and when.
And airplanes. People used to smoke in airplanes.
Also it was a freaking huge industry to kill all the whales in the sea.
Once upon a time it was common to mine ice.
The world can be changed.
Would you believe that they had a smoking section on airplanes? That is, you could smoke in the back of the plane, but not forward of a certain row number.
Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
With how hvac works when setup correctly it actually does.
It still isn’t ideal and I’m very happy it isn’t a thing anymore.
a freaking huge industry to kill all the whales in the sea
One of the wildest aspects of this was that they did it from fucking rowboats. I’ve never understood why the whales didn’t just leisurely swim away from that bullshit.
Because they didn’t know how the harpoons worked until they had been harpooned.
Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.
– Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
Ah yes, the smoking section, and the second-hand-smoking section in restaurants
Yeah, I remember the tail end of this. Dedicated smoking rooms, or smoking carriages on trains. Or cafés and restaurants that would promote themselves as places where you could freely smoke.
Thankfully that’s all gone now.
Hear me out though:
Smoking train carriage…
…for weed
How about not smoking at all?
Smoking means you’re exposing a pair of very sensitive organs to air that is relatively densely saturated with burnt particulates for prolonged periods of time. It doesn’t matter what you’re smoking, it’ll always be bad.
Moreover, it’s not a very efficient delivery system, as a lot of the working “stuff” gets burned and rendered useless.
You want weed? Go make tea or edibles. Much better in every way.
When my lungs give out I’m getting gills.
Just want to add that the biggest objection that I have heard from coworkers and friends about making recreational Marijuanna legal is the smell. Walk around a downtown in any state it is legal for recreation in and the smell is everywhere.
Non-users don’t want to smell burning weed or tabacco as they go about their day.
Yeah. I guess I don’t really gaf that my neighbor smokes weed however I do hate that as a person who doesn’t smoke weed I can’t go into my garage or anywhere in my back yard without feeling smelling hardcore weed smell and my garage just accumulates it.
I live in a legal state. You get whiffs once in a while, which is more funny than it is annoying to me.
There are times when the smell lingers, and that’s pretty gross.
But other than that, it’s not as choking/poisonous as the cloud of cigarette and car fumes.
The car fumes are causing more cancer than the smoking. And is non majority directed at the user. We’ve known that for just as long as cigarettes being bad, yet people turned their head because they had good lobbying.
Gas powered cars are worse than cigarettes. We could have switched to majority electric cars in the 70s, and all the gas stations would have just been electric chargers and the tech growth for batteries would have happened 50 years ago.
Then again cars cause further damages to society than just fumes, but a lot of people don’t care about the layout of towns/cities and access and accept deaths from cars as par for the course.
How practical were electric cars in the 70s really though? I feel like the technology back then would have meant much shorter ranges, less performance, and also more environmental damage than even modern battery technologies cause in manufacturing.
Batteries already existed that could range up to 100 miles. This would have pushed companies into the battery evolution earlier, pushed industry away from shipping fuels (50% of all shipping overseas) across oceans, and created energy independence for regions around the world, depleting that as a mechanism of war. Also means public transit in form of trains and buses would have been hopefully pushed more as well.
Not very practical. There were a few city cars, but all they had were lead acid batteries. I believe the Electrek was one such car but by God is it an abomination.
I get whiffs of it walking downtown in a non-legal state.
I live in a city where it’s not legal an it smells loud enough now. I do think it should be legal, but I don’t really care for the smell.
I live in a state that legalized not too long ago, and I barely smell it. Almost never in public places. Sometimes, my older neighbor smokes in his garage but it’s not that strong. If it was, it still wouldn’t bother me.
Yeah I walk downtown in my favorite city now and it smells like losers. It’s a bummer.
deleted by creator
I remember cigarette smoke on airplanes.
And in my parent’s car!
Ugh, yeah, my parents too. My father smoked cigars and my mother cigarettes. I heard stories about how they drove me around as a baby in the trunk. The gasoline was leaded, the air tarred and there was no concern for car safety.
The trunk may have been safer! If the car had seat belts, its not like anyone wore them.
Just have a couple of drinks and it’ll loosen you up if you’re in an accident.
For me the one I remember the most was a grocery store clerk smoking when ringing up the food. We did away with both the smoking and the clerk now, haha
deleted by creator
I remember this happening, and the smell went from just dirty and grim to a little bit of body odour. Many people complained, because they didn’t want to smell people’s BO, whereas 90% of others were just happy to not have clothes that stunk, or to be able to not have a sore throat after being at a club.
With that said, vaping is so much more commonplace today than smoking was. I’ve been to a few gigs in the last month or two, and people just vape wherever they want. Pretty much every venue, shopping center, and indoor area says you shouldn’t vape, but it’s just not enforced at all.
I find vaping way less of an offensive smell than cigarettes. To me, cigarettes smell just gross.
I also don’t mind the smell of weed too much usually but maybe that’s just me.
Vaping doesn’t negatively affect anyone else’s health though so wanting to prohibit it is just trying to control. It’s like banning scotch because you hate the smell of peat
I’m going to reinforce this by saying: the primary ingredients in vape liquid are also commonly found in fog machines. Vape devices use methods not dissimilar to fog machines to produce the “vape” that people inhale.
I’ll also point out that with vaping, enforcement is generally the problem. A lot of governments have previously, currently are, or will be discussing some kind of bans that affect vaping in a massively negative way. 90% of the time they’re going to claim it’s for the good of the children because thing makes kids want to vape. If the law was actually enforced as it currently stands, they couldn’t get access to the products by any legal means.
The lack of enforcement goes further than just nobody stopping vaping in places you shouldn’t vape.
Could they at least stop putting these things in packaging that makes it look like candy? Same for weed gummies.
Where I am, that’s already a thing.
There’s mandates for packaging to make it less colorful/fancy.
That’s good.
I’d almost say to mandate it down to brown paper packaging with the name of the product, dosage, ingredient list, and anything else pertinent to know.
One thing that I find as important on packaging for vape liquid is the flavor profile of the liquid.
Some brands use unique naming for their e-liquid. As an example, one popular brand illusions vapor makes products like Nirvana, taste of gods, and the prophet. None of those product names tell you anything about what flavor they are (illusions is by far not the only one, just one that I’ve seen most shops carrying).
For those curious, Nirvana is mango/peach, taste of gods is pineapple/coconut/black current, and the prophet is dragon fruit/berry/guava.
The names are nonsense, but the packaging will generally illustrate the flavors, by depicting the thing they’re based on for the art on the product. Taking away the ability to have any art on the product, having a short description of the flavor profile can seriously help with selections when considering a new to you e-liquid.
Back in the day, before vaping was subject to the same restrictions about indoor use as cigarettes, testers were common. Shops would have relatively cheap vape pens and hand out single use tips for them (where you actually put your mouth), and fill them with 0 mg (no nicotine) versions of the e-liquid so people can just try it.
Since that’s almost entirely illegal now, and every vape shop I know of is trying to abide by whatever laws are in place, the practice has gone extinct. Tragically, this opened the door wide for disposable vapes, which I really do not like.
Where I am there’s also child resistant packaging laws, which is designed to make it harder for children to get access to the liquid inside the vape. This also fueled a disposable vape movement, since it’s easier to deny access to the liquid if you have zero ability to fill, refill, empty, or otherwise access the liquid in the device. Disposables are a gigantic waste of resources and the single worst way to vape IMO. Juul was better, bluntly.
I’ll get off my soap box. The point is, all those that are trying to be legit and legal about their use are going to be the ones suffering from additional legislation. Those doing illegal shit and giving this stuff to kids or whatever, don’t care what laws are in place and will continue to do whatever the fuck they want. More legislation isn’t the answer. Enforcing the laws we already have, is.
A couple years ago I was in I-Hop with the fam and this young woman came in reeking like a walking ashtray. It brought back a semi-nostalgic memory of people I used to know who smoked so much it was in their clothes, their hair, their furniture, etc. - it was part of them. I never minded the smoke itself, it was that rancid cigarette butt stench that I always hated.
Now it just smells like vape
Weed vape, but yeah.
Las Vegas and Reno casinos are still like that. I don’t go often, but the few times that I have I gave up any of my mild interest to gamble when I realized how much smoke there was indoors.
There are non smoking casinos
Potentially dodged not one but two bullets there.
Still true in some parts of the EU
