Smoking ban and friendships

windowgazer

Want to get people's thoughts on this:
Since the smoking ban came into effect whenever we go out as a group we invariably get split up. Initially the smokers pop out in 1s or 2s, then later they go on smoking missions in groups.. by the end of the night, all the smokers are camped outside and the non-smokers are inside. This has caused friction and a few misunderstandings among groups I've been out with and its getting me down! Any solutions? Should all the nonsmokers (and recovering smokers) shift ass and join the others outside? Should the smokers remember to pop back in a little more often?
Finally, anyone else share this experience, got any examples to share?
I am generally content with the ban, it has helped me give up and I feel much better the next day (no smelly clothes, rough throat etc), this is my only complaint.

RuggieBear

Good post....i've been seeing this happening with my friends over the last year too. in the end the majority (the non smokers) browbeat the others into staying put but there is still abit of resentment there.

Branoic

Yeah, good observations. I've got three rather seperate groups of friends. My "home" friends, my work friends, and my ex-college friends. I'm lucky in that none of my home friends, who are my closest, smoke. Of my work friends, there's so many of us that different groups going to different places has very little impact. The only thing I've noticed is that with my former college friends, a lot of them smoke, and they tend to set up camp outside. I've only gone out with them twice now since the ban came into effect cos to be honest I couldn't be arsed sitting outside when I don't smoke. I think the ban is a fantastic thing, and I love the clean fresh air in the pubs and nightclubs. I'm not gonna exchange the warmth of inside for the cold of outside.

_blank_

With my friends, most of us smoke, and we usually take it in turns to go out smoking. Usually in 2's or 3's, then head back in, and let the next group head out.

I have not experienced this "setting up camp" outside at all.

Another group of friends, I am the only smoker, and one of the lads usually accompanies me out for a smoke, sometimes he just stays put though.

Static M.e.

Different groups of friends have differnt rules \ habits

But generally what happens is someone says anyone poping out for a smoke and then either half the table goes out or one person joins them or whatever. But they wouldnt leave a person on their own while they all went out someone would inevitably stay behind and keep the other person company.

No one seems to mind really, I know what you mean about everyone all ending up in one big smoking group outside but they are trying to have a good laugh too on there night out, besides some times the fun outside is way better than inside, if all the lads want to stay outside and drink I am more than happy to do so aswell.

I love the Ban, I think its Brillant !! when it really hit me though was on a stag in Copenhagen I had to leave a pub actaully leave it because the smoke inside was so bad, it was horrible and its not like im not use to smoking, all my friends smoke but it was just so god awfull. Its great to walk into pubs now that arent all smokey. Even my friends who smoke love it too, agreed its sometime's annoying when its a **** day outside and you dont have decent smoking shelter, but all of them are smoking way less and are really noticing it so they are all happy about that.

Personally I would do what ever enables you to have a better night, sometimes I go out side, sometimes I stay in <shrug> I hve fun either way to be honest

kenmc

none of my friends smoke so it's not an issue whatsoever.
lovin the ban. missed the ban when abroad though. ick.

DrIndy

On a note of consolation, the warm summer nights are on the way and everyone can just stay outside without being too cold....

Sleepy

It's pretty much determined my friends' choice of night clubs for the last year or so. We always go to places with nice heated beer gardens and set up camp outside.

Abdiel

Have noticed it quite a bit alright. Happened in Sin E last Saturday, load of us outside smoking and eventually just stayed out there, while a few others stayed inside most of the night, popping out occasionally to see if we were still there. To be honest outside was the best place to be not because all the "good people" were there as David Brent might say but just because it was too hot and packed inside. I think a lot of smokers find it easier as well as at least they can smoke if they want rather than being inside where they definitely cant.
It has led to a few incidents alright of smokers being accused of desserting the non-smokers - but that accusation can go both ways.

The last few times I've been in pubs in town and gone out for a smoke usually come back to find some women sitting in our seats - jackets, pints nothing seems to stop them, just get the usual "Oh we thought you were gone". So eventually we just say fookit and when we go outside next time usually end up staying out there - depends on the pub as well though. When drinking in the local and there's no danger of people robbing your seats or something, its a very orderly affair everyone on one cig per pint, usually while waiting on pints and so it's no big deal - doesnt be too packed either usually so you dont have to face that battle back through the pub after having a smoke.

seamus

I haven't experienced this camping outside thing either. The vast majority of pubs don't supply a beer garden type of place, so invariably the smokers have to come inside to drink (most places rightly won't allow you outside the door with a drink in your hand).

Wibbs

In my circles if there's a group of people and half of them are smokers the usual thing is for the group to decamp outside. The smokers can have a smoke in peace and the non smokers don't have to suffer the bodily odours, cleaning products and stale beer that can be quite bad in some places(especially nightclubs). has anyone else found this?(and I'm a smoker with a diminished sense of smell). I've even heard non smokers comment that the craic can be better outside. More flirting opportunities too

Mostly I do see a trend towards entertaining at home as the drink is much much cheaper, smoking is not an issue and if you want food it's cheaper than the rip off prices in pubs. The pubs are losing money and the off licenses are making a fortune.

As far as going abroad, I found the lack of gov nannying refreshing and if the pub was well ventilated the smoke was a non issue. It may surprise some that as someone who enjoys a smoke with a pint(the horror, the horror :rolleyes: ) I found a lot of Irish pubs pre ban to have levels of smoke that were very uncomfortable for me.

Tiffany

I find it annoying if there's, e.g., 3 of us in the bar and the other two go out for a smoke and i'm left there on my own looking like a twat for about 10 minutes. And I can't join them outside because our seats will be taken. (Not to mention, about 100 people ask if the seats are taken).

dearg_doom

Tiffany wrote:

I find it annoying if there's, e.g., 3 of us in the bar and the other two go out for a smoke and i'm left there on my own looking like a twat for about 10 minutes. And I can't join them outside because our seats will be taken. (Not to mention, about 100 people ask if the seats are taken).

I'm sure there'd be someone right beside ye if the place is packed...

Why not talk to them for a couple of minutes, don't worry they won't eat you/expect you to sleep with them!

LegacyUser

yep, i've had this too, not v nice.

feel like a fekin seat minder.

Tiffany wrote:

I find it annoying if there's, e.g., 3 of us in the bar and the other two go out for a smoke and i'm left there on my own looking like a twat for about 10 minutes. And I can't join them outside because our seats will be taken. (Not to mention, about 100 people ask if the seats are taken).

KdjaCL

Handy all pubs i drink in let us smoke inside in seperate rooms from main bar and lounge very cool.

Tho seat minders are pissy bastards when told to start smoking or stfu


kdjac

the_syco

In the Sugarclub, @ Boardstock2, there was about 10 of us in the smoking area, and there was usually only about 5 or less of us smoking. We were mainly talking and drinking.

Giblet

True, at Boardstock I went to the smoking area even though I don't smoke. Can hear better

Tiffany

dearg_doom wrote:

I'm sure there'd be someone right beside ye if the place is packed...

Why not talk to them for a couple of minutes, don't worry they won't eat you/expect you to sleep with them!

My mommy told me never to talk to strangers.

Agent Smith

i smoke, and what we doi grab a table outside, and if we cant, then the smokers nip outside, and the non smokers stay put.


it was weird when i was in london in november....

Tusky

Yup, its very anoying and can often 'almost' wreck a night out. Its really hard to have a chat when people are constantly getting up and leaving, coming back (or not coming back ) and changing seats constantly. I usually end up outside with the smokers.

rubadub

KdjaC wrote:

Handy all pubs i drink in let us smoke inside in seperate rooms from main bar and lounge very cool.

Where are these pubs. I was in a small little "old mans" pub the other week and a guy lit up, there was a lynch mob after him instantly screaming at him "put that out you fuking kunt!" etc. I was shocked at the response, first time I have seen somebody light up.
I too am a "seat minder" but would rather be left sitting on my own for 5mins than go back to the old days of suffering physical abuse/poisoning for hours. More and more people are smoking cannabis outside the pubs since it is easier to get away with.

Wibbs

Do you not think the terms physical abuse/poisoning are a tad overwrought? Fair enough if you don't like the smell on your clothes the next day(never liked it myself), but as has been pointed out by many commentators, the risks from passive smoking are of such statistical insignificance as to be dubious science at best and a PC propaganda at worst.

Check this link out; http://www.data-yard.net/11/aus.htm It's a long read but worth it just to put the risks in context and remember this is the risk from primary smoking.

Another interesting link well worth a read; http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm
It examines the methodology of the original study which showed a link between disease and smoking. One interesting point is that it seemed to show pipe and cigar smokers actually lived longer than non smokers. It's funny that was ignored by the zealots. :rolleyes:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/execsumm.html An interesting study by a respected researcher on the overlooked connection between medical radiation and lung cancer/heart disease where smoking is only one of the co-factors.

Now that the accepted evils of tobacco are in the public mind more researchers are free to examine the benefits of nicotine for diseases like alzheimers, parkinsons and ulcerative colitis. Diseases that smokers are less prone too.

Sorry for the rant guys, but one of the reasons I did some research on this was because of a guy I knew who was diagnosed with lung cancer at 42. When he told the doctors treating him that he was a lifetime non smoker, they in so many words basically accused him of lying. On the ward where he was being treated(in London) he found quite a number of lifetime non smokers, but the doctors just repeated the accepted dogma which angered and frustrated him. Luckily they got it early and he's in remission.

http://www.data-yard.net/10/chitri/lucachic.htm. One of the points raised in this article is that 20% of lung cancer patients are non smokers, 50% are ex smokers which leaves only 30% current smokers. You could almost argue that never smoking or continuing to smoke would be the best options statistically. You would be wrong, but it shows how shaky some of this tobacco related research can be.

Basically I'm saying, don't believe everything you read/hear.

rubadub

Wibbs wrote:

Do you not think the terms physical abuse/poisoning are a tad overwrought?

No, not really, it is what it is, if somebody sprayed a toxic gas in a pub it would be described similarly. Thats what smoke fundamentally is but many people never really step back and look at it that way.

Wibbs wrote:

Basically I'm saying, don't believe everything you read/hear.

Don't worry I rarely do. The second I read your comment on cigar smokers living longer I just thought "yeah they are all loaded" then read the link and thats what they mentioned too. Then it said they didn't include pipe smokers who gave up due to illness! but of course do not mention if the illness was smoking related... :rolleyes:

I don't care what any statistics/reports say, I no longer wake up with a cough or sore eyes from a night out in the pub. I wonder if the people writing these reports would let their children smoke, "smoke up, or you won't grow up to be a big man" "no dessert till you finish your johnnie blue"

RAFALUTION

I think the smoking ban is a disgrace. I think that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do. If people enjoy smoking whilst they have a alcoholic drink then they should be allowed. I think there should be at least a smoking room because they will get pneumonia standing in the cold.

Static M.e.

I think that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do.

So many things wrong with this statement.

Smoking is bad mkay ! people are trying to help you

dahamsta

rubadub wrote:

would rather be left sitting on my own for 5mins than go back to the old days of suffering physical abuse/poisoning for hours

I'd say you're left sitting on your own for more than five minutes...

Wibbs

rubadub said

if somebody sprayed a toxic gas in a pub it would be described similarly

Again an overwrought statement. Everything is toxic given enough of a dosage. You can even die of water poisoning. Carbon dioxide, you know that stuff you breathe out all the time? Toxic in high enough concentrations. Do you eat smoked, fried or barbequed food? Well be afraid, they're chock full of carcinogens. Fruit and veg can be contaminated with low levels of toxic chemicals. Even the water you drink has chlorine in it. A highly toxic substance. Farmed salmon? don't even go there and we're told by dieticians to eat more of it. It's all down to acceptable risk not silly scaremongering.

The second I read your comment on cigar smokers living longer I just thought "yeah they are all loaded" then read the link and thats what they mentioned too.

All things being equal the poor die younger regardless of the effects of smoking. So you agree that smoking isn't the death sentence it's purported to be then?

Then it said they didn't include pipe smokers who gave up due to illness! but of course do not mention if the illness was smoking related.

The nature of their illness(if that was the reason for quitting) would have been conjecture on the part of the researchers anyway. The fact is that they still lived longer on average than non smokers regardless.

As for letting their kids smoke. I don't think they'd let their kids drink either. Do you suggest banning alcohol? A drug that kills more people at a younger age than smoking does. A drug that has caused more misery to society in general than smoking ever has.

That's the problem. If you look beyond the hype on both sides of the argument and read these reports(and others), you would see that logic has gone out the window when it comes to passive smoke and tobacco in general.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/news/berlau.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/news/prma.html

I don't care what any statistics/reports say

That about sums up your position on the matter.

is_that_so

Wibbs wrote:

Do you not think the terms physical abuse/poisoning are a tad overwrought? Fair enough if you don't like the smell on your clothes the next day(never liked it myself), but as has been pointed out by many commentators, the risks from passive smoking are of such statistical insignificance as to be dubious science at best and a PC propaganda at worst.

Check this link out; http://www.data-yard.net/11/aus.htm It's a long read but worth it just to put the risks in context and remember this is the risk from primary smoking.

Another interesting link well worth a read; http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm
It examines the methodology of the original study which showed a link between disease and smoking. One interesting point is that it seemed to show pipe and cigar smokers actually lived longer than non smokers. It's funny that was ignored by the zealots. :rolleyes:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/execsumm.html An interesting study by a respected researcher on the overlooked connection between medical radiation and lung cancer/heart disease where smoking is only one of the co-factors.

Now that the accepted evils of tobacco are in the public mind more researchers are free to examine the benefits of nicotine for diseases like alzheimers, parkinsons and ulcerative colitis. Diseases that smokers are less prone too.

Sorry for the rant guys, but one of the reasons I did some research on this was because of a guy I knew who was diagnosed with lung cancer at 42. When he told the doctors treating him that he was a lifetime non smoker, they in so many words basically accused him of lying. On the ward where he was being treated(in London) he found quite a number of lifetime non smokers, but the doctors just repeated the accepted dogma which angered and frustrated him. Luckily they got it early and he's in remission.

http://www.data-yard.net/10/chitri/lucachic.htm. One of the points raised in this article is that 20% of lung cancer patients are non smokers, 50% are ex smokers which leaves only 30% current smokers. You could almost argue that never smoking or continuing to smoke would be the best options statistically. You would be wrong, but it shows how shaky some of this tobacco related research can be.

Basically I'm saying, don't believe everything you read/hear.

Off topic I know but I felt a need to comment.

Good to see people's opinions honestly expressed, but do you hold the same position on alcohol and our appalling abuse of it?
Far more damage is done inside the pub that is carried into hospitals , homes and RTA statistics. To be consistent on health risks acknowledge them all.
I have always found the attitude to smoking more than a touch hypocritical.

Wibbs

Yea is_that_so, I do(3rd last paragraph in last post). Good point too BTW. Alcohol, diet, lack of exercise and other atmospheric poisons are equally if not more valid areas to attack. Every hippy I know drives a diesel and they pump out many noxious poisons that have been implicated by some in lung cancer, asthma and other conditions.

Smoking is just another scapegoat, another easy answer for difficult questions whose real answers are far more complicated than some gov. health warning.

A classic one in the run up to the smoking ban was various doctors citing smoking as one of the causes of asthma. Now I know that smoke may irritate the mucus membranes and cause or increase the severity of an attack, but cause it in the first place? Forty years ago when more people smoked, in more places, asthma was a much rarer disease.

Why do the Japanese who have among the highest rates of smoking in the world, yet live the longest and have very low levels of lung cancer? In Europe the Greeks have a higher smoking rate than us yet again live longer with less lung cancer.

Why has the incidence of lung cancer remained stable while the rate of smoking has declined?

Here's a challenge. Find me a link that gives us the name of one person who has died as a result of passive smoking. Actual cause of death(peer reviewed) now, not conjecture. When we're told 1000s of people are dying from it every year, I'm sure it won't be too difficult to find just one name.

StupidLikeAFox

You are my hero Wibbs

Wibbs

Cheers ColHol. I'm just sick and tired of health zealots taking every bit of fun out of people's lives by claiming they know best and using dubious science to back up their pet theories.

Hitler was one of the first who tried to bring in a smoking ban. Irritating joyless git that he was.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

Where he failed m martin and his zealots succeeded.

GeorgeBailey

Wibbs wrote:

Cheers ColHol. I'm just sick and tired of health zealots taking every bit of fun out of people's lives by claiming they know best and using dubious science to back up their pet theories.

Hitler was one of the first who tried to bring in a smoking ban. Irritating joyless git that he was.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

Where he failed m martin and his zealots succeeded.

This old argument again eh!
Once again, the difference between drink and alcohol is that by merely drinking alcohol you aren't affecting someone else's health. With smoking, you are.
To OP, yes I have noticed the same thing. Night starts off ok but the smokers stay outside longer and longer as time goes by.

seamus

Despite your fantastic and well-versed posts Wibbs, they're irrelevant to the issue of the smoking ban.

dahamsta

Can't agree with that seamus. They're irrelevant to the thread topic, but then so was the "physical abuse/poisoning" crap rubadub was spouting. Bloody good posts either way, at least Wibbs came up with a reasonable argument, instead of the usual FUD (many) non-smokers perpetuate.

adam

Wibbs

It's a fair cop seamus. I say all this with my hands held high in surrender which makes it damn tricky to type I can tell ya...

As dahamsta said I was just responding to rubadub's histrionic statements about poison gas etc.

This old argument again eh!
Once again, the difference between drink and alcohol is that by merely drinking alcohol you aren't affecting someone else's health. With smoking, you are

Well I would contend that the evidence is pretty much nil for tobacco. "Passive" alcohol abuse on the other hand is responsible for random violence, road deaths, family destruction and general social mayhem way beyond what the demon weed is responsible for. Check out your local casualty dept. tonight and you'll find plenty of victims of both primary and passive alcohol. Then try and find me one person in there that's a victim of passive smoke.

A brief trawl through history will often show that accepted wisdom is all too readily accepted and all too rarely wisdom.

PS To the OP's question, I usually stay inside unless the passive farting gets too much. Only then will I go outside for fresh air and a nice cigar(NOT the ones you get in pubs either)

Cabaal

kenmc wrote:

none of my friends smoke so it's not an issue whatsoever.
lovin the ban. missed the ban when abroad though. ick.

I especially like when its raining in Ireland on a Saturday night since the smoking ban

dahamsta

Cabaal wrote:

I especially like when its raining in Ireland on a Saturday night since the smoking ban

Why non-smokers get a bad name.

Cabaal

dahamsta wrote:

Why non-smokers get a bad name.

Their was a in their
ie: takin the piss

dahamsta

I realise that. Unfortunately the people that say things like that usualy don't understand how much of a joke it is.

adam

Xcom2

What really pisses me off is when I go outside to have a smoke and all the best seats(beside the heaters)are taken by non smokers.There may be 2 smokers and there 15 mates come with them.They just park their asses beside the heater.
I have found that just walking in near the heater and lighting up usually clears me a space to sit down.If anyone gives you any grief just tell them to piss off back inside.

X

rubadub

Xcom2 wrote:

What really pisses me off is when I go outside to have a smoke and all the best seats(beside the heaters)are taken by non smokers.There may be 2 smokers and there 15 mates come with them.They just park their asses beside the heater.
I have found that just walking in near the heater and lighting up usually clears me a space to sit down.If anyone gives you any grief just tell them to piss off back inside.

X

conversely it could be said...
What really pisses me off is when I go into a pub to have a drink and all the best seats are taken by smokers who are outside.There may be 2 non-smokers and there 15 smoking mates come with them.They just park their asses outside beside the heater while the non-smokers hold all the seats inside.

I had said I too am a "seat minder" but would rather be left sitting on my own for 5mins than go back to the old days of suffering physical abuse/poisoning for hours. This seems to upset a few people. Look up any toxicology books and go and ask the gardai about what constitutes physical abuse and poisoning.
I am certainly not a health fanatic, eat unhealthily, use both illegal & legal drugs. I drink like a fish but I would love to see it banned, I have said this in many threads. I would like the hypocritical legal drug users (abusers?) to wake up and see what they are doing, I would love to see a business man who condemns cannabis smokers having to go down a back alley buying booze from a drug dealer.
I would like to see ALL drugs legalised, but if there was a referendum for legalising cannabis I don't think it would be voted in. However I think there would be more of a chance it booze and/or cigarettes were made illegal for a year or 2 since the alcohol and nicotine "abusers" may feel more compassion with other drug users. If they had to go through the same fear of the law/contamination/dealers/stigma/unemployment while consuming their drug of choice they may think twice before demonising users of their non-preffered drugs

Wibbs

......back to the old days of suffering physical abuse/poisoning for hours. This seems to upset a few people

Quite possibly because it can be argued that you're wrong. Repeating the same statement ad nauseum doesn't make it right. Repeat "the sky is green" for an hour, then look out the window.

Look up any toxicology books and go and ask the gardai about what constitutes physical abuse and poisoning.

May I suggest you look up toxicology books and read the pertinent chapter on dosage. As for asking the gardai, I for one have great respect for the boyos in blue but I think you may be able to find better council on the effects of poisoning and public health than the gardai. Traffic accidents yes. Toxicology no.

Now the statement

....use both illegal & legal drugs. I drink like a fish but I would love to see it banned

followed by

I would like to see ALL drugs legalised

does not a cogent argument make.

So we have established you eat unhealthily, drink like a fish and use illegal and legal drugs and you reckon sitting beside a smoker is doing you damage? I'm sorry, have you even heard of, or understand the concept of acceptable risk?

rubadub

Wibbs wrote:

Quite possibly because it can be argued that you're wrong. Repeating the same statement ad nauseum doesn't make it right. Repeat "the sky is green" for an hour, then look out the window.

Repeatedly telling me that passive smoking is harmless does not stop me waking up with a cough and sore eyes if I spend the night in a smoky environment. I am not too worried about the cancer effects, seems plenty of things give you cancer and as I said I am not particularly health concious but I do not go out of my way to inhale toxic gases.

Wibbs wrote:

May I suggest you look up toxicology books and read the pertinent chapter on dosage.

Poison is poison, if it serves no purpose for me to ingest it I would like to be given the choice not to, no matter how small the dose. I ingest plenty of other poisons of my own free will and many against my will, I don't want another straw on the camel's back.

If somebody told me that the pints in non-smoking pub A had a poison in them that caused me the exact same physical damage (no matter how minute) as the toxic gases sitting in smoky pub B. I would go to pub A and wake up without sore eyes, a cough or smelly clothes.

Wibbs wrote:

As for asking the gardai, I for one have great respect for the boyos in blue but I think you may be able to find better council on the effects of poisoning and public health than the gardai. Traffic accidents yes. Toxicology no.

Again, I am simply pointing out the fundamental nature of what is happening. If nobody had ever smoked before, ever, and a guy came into a pub or workplace and started inhaling and exhaling burning plant materials causing people to cough (doesn't matter if it causes cancer etc) they would be arrested for public order offences. Just like if I went about spraying tobasco sauce in a crowded pub with an atomiser even though it is legal to buy in any supermarket.

Wibbs wrote:

Now the statement followed by does not a cogent argument make.

You should get a job as a journalist for the sun. You have a talent for editing and creating great out of context quotes which take the true meaning and intention right out of somebodys comments, even though you fully understood them in the first place. Problem is, people can read my post and see what I really meant.

Wibbs wrote:

I'm sorry, have you even heard of, or understand the concept of acceptable risk?

Yes, I take a lot of considered risks but do not want to take any unnecessary ones which give me no enjoyment.

dahamsta

rubadub wrote:

If somebody told me that the pints in non-smoking pub A had a poison in them

The pints in a non-smoking pub have a poison in them. It's called "alcohol". And it's yummy.

Wibbs

You should get a job as a journalist for the sun.

A new career beckons. Ta for the tip. "RUBADUB TOBASCOED MY HAMSTER" says richard gere......

Poison is poison

Everything you ingest is technically a poison, from water to cyanide, but all I'm trying to point out is that the dosage defines the damage.

Problem is, people can read my post and see what I really meant.

Well TBH your 2nd last post had me head scratching quite a bit especially the concept that you "drink like a fish" yet would like to see it banned. Ehhhhhhhhh. Nope. Don't see it. You see my confusion and that's just one part of that paragraph.

Anyhoo. This has gone so far of topic one would require the services of the Hubble telescope to see the threads original point( I take some responsibilty here ). So I'll shuffle elsewhere and continue to ingest my fave poisons except for tobasco sauce as I could never stand the stuff. If someone put that in my food never mind sprayed it at me, I'd call an officer of the law in a heartbeat. we may agree on that at least.