Why do non-smokers often display hostility towards smokers?

[Jasongreat]

Anyone who feels that its ok to not be courteous to certain people ought not be suprised when certain people are not courteous towards them.

So making your co-workers go outside in the winter to smoke is your idea of courteous. Install better ventilation problem solved. The thing that really kills me is when the government sued the tobacco companies and won, the reason was they were profiting off death but as soon as they won how much have taxes gone up on cigs. I would say they are being quite hypocritical. They also fund children's healthcare from those funds, what is going to happen when they get their wish and people quit smoking, will kids lose their healthcare?
Or the recent tax hike that affects all cigs. except menthols, are menthols safe? Do they really want to stop smoking or just profit off it?

For the record I am not a smoker, and I hate cig. smoke(yet I don't stop people from smoking in my vehicle if they so choose, but they are required to crack the window, ventilation is everything). But, even though I hate it, I love freedom more, there are many other options than punitive measures. If you take away someone elses right to be free through the majority, don't come whineing to me when a different majority comes to take rights away from you. And remember that government of the majority is just another name for mob rule, we weren't set up as a democracy, we were a constitutional republic, so the rights of the minority were protected from the majority by a little document called the constitution.

 

[27Thousand]

So making your co-workers go outside in the winter to smoke is your idea of courteous. Install better ventilation problem solved.

Something you may want to consider is the U.S. Surgeon General and The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, have "concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html

And remember that government of the majority is just another name for mob rule, we weren't set up as a democracy, we were a constitutional republic, so the rights of the minority were protected from the majority by a little document called the constitution.

Something to consider is many are going to point out that the government protects the majority all the time from things seen as public health issues that come from minorities.

 

[Jasongreat]

Something you may want to consider is the U.S. Surgeon General and The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, have "concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html



Something to consider is many are going to point out that the government protects the majority all the time from things seen as public health issues that come from minorities.

Could this be from the threat of second hand smoke, being so over stated. Before all these laws about smoking, Some bars you could go into, sit next to smokers all night go home and not smell like smoke, while other bars you came home and even your socks smelt like an ash-tray. They had similar layouts, what might have separated them, VENTILATION.

Why would the majority need protection from the minority, they've got the numbers. What we have now is a government that punishes the minority at the expense of the majority. You want to stop one drunken driver, you pull 100 cars into a checkpoint, the one that is drunk is caught, but 99 people had their fourth, and 5th ammendment rights violated. Or for an example a little closer to the discussion, you have an office with 100 smokers and 45 non-smokers(wasnt as far fetched 40 yrs ago), 55 refuse to smoke indoors if people object, 45 smoke indoors no matter who is around, to get the 45 to stop smoking indoors you make smoking indoors illegal. The 55 person majority lost their rights to smoke responsibly so you could get the 45 irresponsible smokers to not smoke indoors. Although there is 45 non- smokers who might thank you, you still took away the rights of 100 to save 45.

 

[Hootenanny]

Just FYI Hoot, it's different in the US. Smoking is not allowed inside many public buildings, at least in my state (New Jersey).

We have a similar situation in the UK with smoking being banned in all enclosed public spaces.

 

[Hootenanny]

Although there is 45 non- smokers who might thank you, you still took away the rights of 100 to save 45.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you here. What gives anyone the right to do something that adversely affects the health of others?

 

[27Thousand]

Could this be from the threat of second hand smoke, being so over stated. Before all these laws about smoking, Some bars you could go into, sit next to smokers all night go home and not smell like smoke, while other bars you came home and even your socks smelt like an ash-tray. They had similar layouts, what might have separated them, VENTILATION.

Over stated? And when the threat of second hand smoke regardless of ventilation being from the U.S. Surgeon General? And when it's also from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues?

 

[Zantra]

Statutory Ape still has it nailed. The back and forth keeps skimming the same basic concept- be polite. Everyone has stories of this person or that person being rude. Ignore them because they have their own issues.

Most smokers get that people are sensitive to smoke, and most non smokers get that smokers will smoke, in spite of it it all, and as long as we don't step on each other's toes, everyone can be happy. It's when one side or the other becomes indignant, self-righteous, or tries to impose their beliefs or habits on others that conflict arises.

Smoking is legal, so as long as somone doesn't infringe on someone else's personal space it's their right to smoke.by law, in certain circumstances. Advise, but don't impose.

Smokers have designated spots they can smoke in, and as long as they stay in those spots, they have every right to smoke, being aware of the dangers.

common courtesy folks- is it that difficult?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I really like my neighbors, but my daughter and I have been dropping "hints" like going outside when they smoke and start choking and coughing and saying quite loudly that the smoke is making us sick and that we have to go inside and close the windows and turn on the a/c because the cigarette smoke is making us ill. After doing this dozens of times, they still sit outside all year, even in freezing temps and smoke like chimneys. Any normal person would have taken the hint. We tried to be polite, it didn't work.

Most people don't actually consider that sort of "hint" to be very polite.

So making your co-workers go outside in the winter to smoke is your idea of courteous. Install better ventilation problem solved. The thing that really kills me is when the government sued the tobacco companies and won, the reason was they were profiting off death but as soon as they won how much have taxes gone up on cigs. I would say they are being quite hypocritical. They also fund children's healthcare from those funds, what is going to happen when they get their wish and people quit smoking, will kids lose their healthcare?
Or the recent tax hike that affects all cigs. except menthols, are menthols safe? Do they really want to stop smoking or just profit off it?

I think that in most instances not allowing people to smoke inside is probably the best solution. My Boss actually smokes in his office but it is not a normal work situation since none of the employees actually work in the office. Even if we did a pretty solid majority of us smoke too so it wouldn't really be an issue. I think perhaps if a company has enough smoking workers to justify creating an indoor smoking room that it should be allowed.

Oh and I am certainly not one to argue with you about some of these tax schemes. The last I heard quite a bit of the money that was supposed to be going to education was actually going elsewhere. And when there was a proposition here to repeal a tobacco tax the propaganda they used to fight it was "They're trying take money away from our children!"

And the thing you are thinking of with the menthols is not a tax I don't think, unless there is something else going around that I am unaware of. They are actually banning all flavoured tobaccos except for menthol. Kinda sucks since I smoke clove cigarettes. I'm going to wind up quiting. Of course I am sure most people will be happy about that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've had this same experience. It made me feel vulnerable...I had to say, that's over the line, seriously...please stop. Very uncomfortable but it really was effective.

I remember my first job doing security was actually as a pool monitor (not a life guard, I only yelled at people for breaking the rules) and I just remembered that I was rather embarrassed when a resident was smoking in the pool area and another asked me to tell them to stop. First I had to argue with the woman about whether or not I could actually make the other woman stop, I could only ask, and then I had to go over to the smoker and ask her if she would stop smoking after apparently the other woman had already annoyed her by making a point of coughing on her and such.

Its been a while now. I think on that occasion the smoker told me she wanted the other resident to come ask her politely and then she would think about it. I think on another occasion someone actually decided to stop when I asked.

 

[Bratticus]

Apparently it is. I think any issue can be resolved by courteous communication. Name calling, threats, telling people to go and kill themselves by whatever ones preferred suggestion is, or treating people that are not in concurrence with one's views as imbeciles or second hand citizens will resolve nothing. People stop listening to your arguments. You get hostile, they get hostile, and instead of politely resolving an issue to everyone's satisfaction, some will go out of their way to annoy you, because you annoyed them.

I am neither an advocate for smoking, nor non-smoking. I would like to see people get less hostile and start talking instead of shouting and finger-pointing. We style ourselves as an advanced species, but when things do not go our way, many act more like monkeys by posturing and shouting.

The words "I", "me" and "mine" do not further compromise. At least attempt to understand someone's reasons. Understanding can eliminate a lot of problems.

 

[Jame]

Because the group of non-smokers who ALSO raise their voice about it, instead of just going somewhere else, is greatly over represented by know-it-all's. I don't smoke and think it's really stupid to do so, but I still have many other harmful habits and would nonetheless say I'm an idiot, just human.

Informing them about the fact that worrying about things can be as unhealthy as the physiological danger itself might be a good reply.

 

[Jasongreat]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you here. What gives anyone the right to do something that adversely affects the health of others?

Are they forced to be in the same room, building etc; with me. They are the ones choosing to be in the same room with me, if you don't like smoke stay away. Besides I have no problem if the owner says you can't smoke in my buisiness, I would probably choose not to go to that buisiness, but that is something that would be handled locally instead of federally. On the other hand if they decided that they wanted to smoke in their buisiness, then the non-smokers would have to decide if they wanted to frequent that buisiness or take their money elsewhere. The buisiness could decide for themselves, it is their buisiness. Why do non-smokers feel entitled to be able to go anywhere they want and not smell smoke? I would stake my life on the fact that if their buisiness suffered because non-smokers refused to go there, the buisiness would set it up somehow so you could start frequenting their establishment again, they might even ban smoking, or at least separate smokers from non-smokers, but it would be the individual owners decision. The whole one size fits all argument is bogus.

 

[Jasongreat]

And the thing you are thinking of with the menthols is not a tax I don't think, unless there is something else going around that I am unaware of. They are actually banning all flavoured tobaccos except for menthol. Kinda sucks since I smoke clove cigarettes. I'm going to wind up quiting. Of course I am sure most people will be happy about that.

I like that, they are banning ALL flavored smokes, EXCEPT menthols. Why did they choose menthols as the exception? Could it be they would upset a core voting block? Profit doesn't always have to come in the form of money. Only in government does ALL have exceptions.
Clove cigs don't even have tobacco in them do they?

 

[Hootenanny]

Are they forced to be in the same room, building etc; with me. They are the ones choosing to be in the same room with me, if you don't like smoke stay away. Besides I have no problem if the owner says you can't smoke in my buisiness, I would probably choose not to go to that buisiness, but that is something that would be handled locally instead of federally. On the other hand if they decided that they wanted to smoke in their buisiness, then the non-smokers would have to decide if they wanted to frequent that buisiness or take their money elsewhere. The buisiness could decide for themselves, it is their buisiness. Why do non-smokers feel entitled to be able to go anywhere they want and not smell smoke? I would stake my life on the fact that if their buisiness suffered because non-smokers refused to go there, the buisiness would set it up somehow so you could start frequenting their establishment again, they might even ban smoking, or at least separate smokers from non-smokers, but it would be the individual owners decision. The whole one size fits all argument is bogus.

What happens if we both work in the same office? Would it be acceptable to you for a non-smoker to ask that you don't smoke inside?

 

[Jasongreat]

What happens if we both work in the same office? Would it be acceptable to you for a non-smoker to ask that you don't smoke inside?

First off I don't smoke, secondly that would be completely fine with me. There is a big difference though between politely asking me not to smoke in your presence, and having the government force me into it. Isnt it said every force has has an equal but opposite reaction?

 

[Hootenanny]

First off I don't smoke, secondly that would be completely fine with me. There is a big difference though between politely asking me not to smoke in your presence, and having the government force me into it. Isnt it said every force has has an equal but opposite reaction?

That is all well and good, but what if I feel too intimidated to ask? Or suppose the smoker refuses? Don't we need some form a legal procedure to ensure that everyone has the right not to work/play/relax without having to breath in tobacco smoke?

 

[rootX]

I like that, they are banning ALL flavored smokes, EXCEPT menthols. Why did they choose menthols as the exception? Could it be they would upset a core voting block? Profit doesn't always have to come in the form of money. Only in government does ALL have exceptions.
Clove cigs don't even have tobacco in them do they?

Nonsense.

 

[Jasongreat]

That is all well and good, but what if I feel too intimidated to ask? Or suppose the smoker refuses? Don't we need some form a legal procedure to ensure that everyone has the right not to work/play/relax without having to breath in tobacco smoke?

Why are you intimidated? Smokers arent mean(unless they can't smoke,LOL) Why should I have to be forced into something because you can't work up the guts to ask me politely not to smoke? Refusing is the smokers option, but I find most don't object, since they are the minority most places. If they are in the majority why should they have to? Why can't you work somewhere else, play somewhere else, relax somewhere else? You have to be in the smoke filled enviroment? If an employer wants to keep their non-smokers they will find a way for you to work without smoke. If where you play wants to keep your buisiness, they will find a way for you to play without smoke, and if you want to relax smoke free go where you can relax smoke free. The argument seems to be how can one person hurt another, they cant(but you have to prove the hurt not just reach a consensus that you might be hurt). I consider having my rights stolen being hurt, and I think I can find a lot more examples from history of people hurt by having their rights violated than I can find people that were actually hurt by second hand smoke.

 

[Hootenanny]

Why are you intimidated? Smokers arent mean(unless they can't smoke,LOL) Why should I have to be forced into something because you can't work up the guts to ask me politely not to smoke? Refusing is the smokers option, but I find most don't object, since they are the minority most places. If they are in the majority why should they have to? Why can't you work somewhere else, play somewhere else, relax somewhere else? You have to be in the smoke filled enviroment? If an employer wants to keep their non-smokers they will find a way for you to work without smoke. If where you play wants to keep your buisiness, they will find a way for you to play without smoke, and if you want to relax smoke free go where you can relax smoke free. The argument seems to be how can one person hurt another, they cant(but you have to prove the hurt not just reach a consensus that you might be hurt). I consider having my rights stolen being hurt, and I think I can find a lot more examples from history of people hurt by having their rights violated than I can find people that were actually hurt by second hand smoke.

Firstly I don't have a problem with asking smokers to stop smoking, I was merely consider a hypothetical situation where a non-smoker felt unable - for whatever reason - to ask a smoker to stop smoking. That's not such an unbelievable situation is it?

And don't bandy about the 'human rights' nonsense, we all accept some limitations to our human rights in the name of civility and sociality. For example, I'm not allowed to play loud music at 2am. This is a breach of my human rights, but that's fine because I understand it is socially unacceptable to make other people feel uncomfortable. Why is an exception made for smokers? Why is it acceptable for a smoker to make non-smokers feel uncomfortable and then expect them to leave if they don't like it? If I were your neighbour and was playing loud music at 2am, I wouldn't expect you to leave your house!

Let's turn this the other way round shall we. Why should a non-smoker have their human rights violated by not being able to work, relax or play where they like?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I like that, they are banning ALL flavored smokes, EXCEPT menthols. Why did they choose menthols as the exception? Could it be they would upset a core voting block? Profit doesn't always have to come in the form of money. Only in government does ALL have exceptions.
Clove cigs don't even have tobacco in them do they?

Cloves do actually have tobacco in them.

While from what I have read blacks are apparently a major demographic among menthol smokers I am pretty sure that the major reason for exempting menthol was due to the profits that American tobacco companies make off of them. Philip Morris was involved in the negotiations and promoting of the bill and menthol is the most widely used domestically produced flavoured tobacco product.

 

[Jasongreat]

Firstly I don't have a problem with asking smokers to stop smoking, I was merely consider a hypothetical situation where a non-smoker felt unable - for whatever reason - to ask a smoker to stop smoking. That's not such an unbelievable situation is it?

And don't bandy about the 'human rights' nonsense, we all accept some limitations to our human rights in the name of civility and sociality. For example, I'm not allowed to play loud music at 2am. This is a breach of my human rights, but that's fine because I understand it is socially unacceptable to make other people feel uncomfortable. Why is an exception made for smokers? Why is it acceptable for a smoker to make non-smokers feel uncomfortable and then expect them to leave if they don't like it? If I were your neighbour and was playing loud music at 2am, I wouldn't expect you to leave your house!

Let's turn this the other way round shall we. Why should a non-smoker have their human rights violated by not being able to work, relax or play where they like?

Why should we have to limit our rights to live in society? Isnt that the basis of society, in society you have rights, outside society the strong will survive at the expense of the weak(is that much differnent than the majority will survive at the expense of the minority).
Arent rights part of our social contract, I agree to allow you to do what you want(as long as what you want doesn't interfere with me doing what i want) and in turn you allow me to do what I want( as long as what I do doesn't interfere with what you want to do). Smoking doesn't interfere with you at all, it might be annoying, but it doesn't stop you from activities.
Non-smokers are NOT being stopped from being able to work/relax/ or play. You don't have a right to like where you work/play/relax, but you do have a right to leave and go find a job/play/relaxing spot you do like. I don't agree that loud music should be banned after a certain hour, what if you don't have neighbors? But I do believe it should be regulated locally neighbor to neighbor, if I don't like it ill ask politely to turn it down(you see, I only said down not off), you do turn it down great, you dont, well I go to court a present my case as to why I think you violated my rights, you get to present your case that you had the right to listen loudly. A jury of our piers gets to decide. If people actually had to go to court to prove their grievences, instead of arbitrarily saying this side has a grievence that side doesnt, I don't think they would get as worked up about the little things and they would start to concentrate on the big things.

 

[Bratticus]

If I were your neighbour and was playing loud music at 2am, I wouldn't expect you to leave your house!

Let's turn this the other way round shall we. Why should a non-smoker have their human rights violated by not being able to work, relax or play where they like?

On the other hand, a Colorado law says if you smoke you have to be 20 ft (or was that more) away from the residence you purchased and therefore own.

Do you really approve of the government telling you that you are not allowed to engage in a legal activity in the privacy of your own home?

I do believe there is also some law on the books about playing loud music in cars.

Think about what you are saying. If some group would hold the belief that no one should have sex on sundays... shall we invoke a law?

 

[Artman]

First of all, smoking has limitations placed on it so it is not a right, it is a privilege (like driving, there are age limitations, taxes, restrictions as to where it is and is not legal, etc.). Breathing is a right. If a privilege interferes with a right, the right takes precedence. For years this was turned on its head with smoking, as non-smokers had to suffer this addiction in public locations. Are some people still upset by this? You betcha!

By your own admission, it is difficult to come up with another habit that is legal and yet so harmful to both the user and those around them. Driving creates pollutants, but the benefits to society are numerous, drinking is more confined (driving drunk is illegal, public drunkenness is illegal, etc.) and restrictions are harsher including jail time for some infractions, drug abuse is illegal, sexual deviation is illegal, and so on. I would say you smokers are just lucky your addictive behavior is tolerated by society to the extent that it is. Now you want us to be nicer about it?

 

[Bratticus]

Not "nicer" artman, civilized.

 

[negitron]

First of all, smoking has limitations placed on it so it is not a right, it is a privilege (like driving, there are age limitations, taxes, restrictions as to where it is and is not legal, etc.).

This is not correct. Lots of rights have restrictions. The right to vote has an age limit and residency requirements and in some cases, convicted felons cannot vote. Free speech has restrictions; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded movied theater, for example. You have a right to smoke, within limits. A privilege can be suspended entirely as, for instance, if you accumulate too many points on yoru license or incur a DWI. The government currently cannot forbid someone from smoking entirely, ergo it is a right.

 

[Bratticus]

Speaking of laws... Maryland (and I am sure a few other states as well) has a law on the books that makes adultery illegal and a crime.

If we should enforce that law, a lot of people would be able to find jobs (and pay taxes).
They can build more jails to house the delinquents. They will need people to to the jobs of those who are jailed.

And don't tell me that adultery hurts no one... a great lot of cheated spouses would disagree with you.

 

[Jasongreat]

Speaking of laws... Maryland (and I am sure a few other states as well) has a law on the books that makes adultery illegal and a crime.

If we should enforce that law, a lot of people would be able to find jobs (and pay taxes).
They can build more jails to house the delinquents. They will need people to to the jobs of those who are jailed.

And don't tell me that adultery hurts no one... a great lot of cheated spouses would disagree with you.

So now we should enforce hurt feelings? How does adultery hurt their spouse physically?

 

[Bratticus]

So now we should enforce hurt feelings? How does adultery hurt their spouse physically?

Read what you quoted... it said should we enforce that law, not enforce hurt feelings.

I also believe that there are a host of medical professionals that can advise you on the effects of emotional distress on the human mind and body.

 

[Artman]

...The government currently cannot forbid someone from smoking entirely, ergo it is a right.

Not for lack of trying.

In 1997-98 there were 88 bills in congress to:

1. Reduce or otherwise control smoking and the use of tobacco products in general
2. Impose new or tougher controls on the production and sale of tobacco products
3. Fund new or continuing research into health concerns related to tobacco use

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa111398.htm"

Why did the vast majority of smoking reduction - tobacco control related legislation not become law? Some acts may have been bad laws, having Constitutional or other legal problems. Some may have been too expensive. Others were probably covered by other bills. Most just flat ran out of time. But, let's face it, some of these bills ran up against the tremendous influence of one America's oldest and largest industries - tobacco.

By the way, I worked with a guy for 14 years in the same room who smoked cigars all day. I was never anything but nice to him all the way up to and including the day he died of a heart attack in the office. Yeah, I wish he had quit. I liked him.

 

[Jasongreat]

First of all, smoking has limitations placed on it so it is not a right, it is a privilege (like driving, there are age limitations, taxes, restrictions as to where it is and is not legal, etc.). Breathing is a right. If a privilege interferes with a right, the right takes precedence. For years this was turned on its head with smoking, as non-smokers had to suffer this addiction in public locations. Are some people still upset by this? You betcha!

By your own admission, it is difficult to come up with another habit that is legal and yet so harmful to both the user and those around them. Driving creates pollutants, but the benefits to society are numerous, drinking is more confined (driving drunk is illegal, public drunkenness is illegal, etc.) and restrictions are harsher including jail time for some infractions, drug abuse is illegal, sexual deviation is illegal, and so on. I would say you smokers are just lucky your addictive behavior is tolerated by society to the extent that it is. Now you want us to be nicer about it?

First of all a lot of rights have limitations, like free speech, but its not less of a right, is it?

Secondly driving is a right(except for commercial purposes), having a drivers license is a privilege. The supreme court has held that opinion in numerous rulings(google driving is a right, click on #1 link, its not a peer reviewed journal but lists the cases so you can go to cornell law.com and read them for yourself). The states get by this by making you sign away certain rights in order to get the privilege of a D.L (They falsley tell students that driving is a privilege). In most cases this happens around the age of 16, How many legally binding documents can you sign at that age?(none unless it benefits the government).

Thirdly, DUI laws are unconstitutional, Whose rights got violated by someone having a few beers and driving down the road? Remember, I said got violated not could potenially hurt someone. If some one is drunk, and driving down the road, and runs over someone that is a crime it is called vehicular manslaughter, and it even applies for non-drinkers as well. Why make laws that only pertain to a small segment of society. Doesn't the constitution say the GENERAL welfare, that doesn't mean some people that means everybody.

 

[Jasongreat]

By the way, I worked with a guy for 14 years in the same room who smoked cigars all day. I was never anything but nice to him all the way up to and including the day he died of a heart attack in the office. Yeah, I wish he had quit. I liked him.

So no one that doesn't smoke has heart attacks? and Everyone that does smoke has one?
Could you not be simplifying his death, just a little?

 

[Artman]

So no one that doesn't smoke has heart attacks? and Everyone that does smoke has one?
Could you not be simplifying his death, just a little?

Yeah you're right. What's the chance that smoking contributed, right?

More to the point, who was more civilized, me who put up with his cigars without complaining for 14 years, or him for smoking in the same room as me, even though he knew I was an asthmatic?

Maybe if I had been a little assertive about his not smoking he may have cut down and lowered a major risk factor.

 

[Flat]

Reminds me of south park



(the sound is horrible. It gets slightly better later on).

 

[Jasongreat]

Yeah you're right. What's the chance that smoking contributed, right?

More to the point, who was more civilized, me who put up with his cigars without complaining for 14 years, or him for smoking in the same room as me, even though he knew I was an asthmatic?

Maybe if I had been a little assertive about his not smoking he may have cut down and lowered a major risk factor.

I never said smoking doesn't contribute, I said smoking doesn't cause. Well his smoking must of not been too bad if you chose to stay in the same room asthma and all.
And maybe if he didnt have other contributing factors he could have got away with smoking for years more.

 

[BobG]

On the other hand, a Colorado law says if you smoke you have to be 20 ft (or was that more) away from the residence you purchased and therefore own.

Do you really approve of the government telling you that you are not allowed to engage in a legal activity in the privacy of your own home?

Are you sure about this?

There are laws that restrict smoking in your own home if you're operating a daycare, but it's the business use of your home that causes smoking to be restricted. This would be better phrased as being prohibited from smoking in a business that you purchased and therefore own. You might be able to argue your point is technically not a lie, but I think your point is very misleading.

I don't believe there are any restrictions on smoking in a strictly private residence. Not only that, but residents in assisted living facilities are allowed to smoke in their own rooms, even though they share the building with non-smokers. The clear emphasis in Colorado's Clean Indoor Air Act is to exempt private residences, period. (The daycare restriction comes from interpretation of a different law about daycare facilities).