Second Hand smoking

Remove all ads!

I don't smoke. The crusade against smoking irritates me though in many respects. One cited justification for the crusade is the danger of second hand smoke. Here is a new study from the British Medical Journal:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

 

Ok... how about "Smoking is addictive, bad for your health, causes cancer, supports smugling, heavily annoys a LOT of people and promotes slave-like labor in these countries where they grow tobaco?" Good enough reasons to dissallow it IMHO.

 

Health is only part of it. When I go to a restaurant, I want to taste my food, not someone else's smoke. If I go to a club, I don't want to come home with my hair and clothes reeking of that stench. I'm sick of seeing cigarette butts all over the sidewalks - when were they declared to not be litter?

No one smokes in my house, and my standing rule is that if I ever find a single butt flicked into my garden they won't be allowed to smoke in the yard, either.

A smoker can't help but impose his/her habit on everyone in the area. Why should the non-smoking majority (at least in the US) put up with it? Cigarettes are just plain filthy and have no redeeming qualities. Maybe the real question is why they should be legal in the first place.

Note: My last sentence is NOT an invitation to lecture me on the economic, historic, and traditional aspects of tobacco. I've heard 'em all, and I'm not convinced.

 

Here is the thing. I understand if you're talking about a public place: subways, airports, etc.

However, the crusaders have gone well beyond public places. They've decided that Joe the private owner of the corner bar may not allow his customers to smoke.

You don't like smoke? Fine, don't go eat at restaraunts that allow smoking. They're privately owned and people don't put a gun to your head to go eat there. You act as if people are imposing something on you and in fact if you go to a privately owned, for example, bar and they allow smoking you're imposing it on yourself.

The fact is the public doesn't care enough to demand non-smoking bars or the economic incentive for them would produce them (they've been attempted and failed in NY as well as LA.) Same with eating out. The difference is there are non-smoking restaraunts because there is a demand for them.

That's why second hand smoking IS the key argument for crusaders. You're talking about more than convenience, you're talking about health. Problem is, the study above seems to deny the evidence of a causal link between health and second hand smoke.

So, it comes down to a matter of personal taste.

The key issue to me is: who the hell are you to tell a private owner of a private business that he may not allow customers who choose to go there and are in no way shape or form forced to go there that they may not smoke cigarettes particularly when you aren't forced to be around them if you don't want to be?

 

That's exactly what I do. An impact of that choice is that clubbing isn't an option for my social life. Fortunately, there are plenty of others.

A smoking ban was also implemented (or attempted, at any rate) in Portland, OR. The argument used at the time wasn't about the health and convenience of the non-smoking patrons (who, you correctly point out, have chosen to be where smoking is allowed) but about the employees who are being "forced" to work in a potentially unsafe environment.

 

I think smoking bans are reasonable even if the health issue proves to be a non-issue. You cannot
bring a dog into a restaurant, and really, if the dog stays down there isn't a health risk. It's a matter of consideration for your fellow customers. The odor may not be appropriate for any place where people gather, and that refers to dogs, smokes, etc.

I just don't buy the evidence that says 2nd hand smoke isn't a health hazard. It stings the eyes and burns the throat. If I choose to undergo that, good for me, but otherwise, I should have the choice to be in public without dealing with it.

 

Widely criticized? Not sure about that, but it has been criticized by the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Surgeon General. The "being funded by Tobacco" isn't the nuts and bolts of the criticisms but the study was partially funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research since 1997 which the ACS alleges is a wing of Philip Morris (I haven't seen evidence of this but it may be true, shrug.) This of course is an ad hominem which is a logical fallacy.

The real objections are not logical fallacies and go to the heart of the matter:
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

That said, a guy I know replied better than I could so I'll quote him, he's something of a stats guru:

EDIT - double quoted

 

In the great country of New Zealand there are laws inplace which prohibits stupid people (well all people but IMO any one who chooses to smoke must be stupit) smoking at all in public places with the exception of bars. Although at present the government are debating about weather or not to implace a law to prehibit smoking in bars.

 

This is pretty much what was mentioned above: the demonization of smokers.

And, I wanted to be nice, but please oh PLEASE tell me I'm not the only one who notices the irony of the quoted post about "stupit" smokers and about "weather" or not a law should "prehibit" smoking in bars.

 

Heh heh, Laches, you found some good irony there, no question!

On smoking, though, I just feel it's really inconsiderate for smokers to subject others to the fumes. I mean, the stuff stinks! I like it when restaurants have it banned, as I should be able to take my family out to dinner without smelling that stuff. I'd say, though, that extending it to bars and clubs is a little on the extreme side.

I've used this example before, and I realize it's extreme, but there would surely be a hue and cry if I brought a skunk into a restaurant where other people were trying to eat! Maybe no long term health effects go along with skunk smell, but it would sure put people off their feed.

 

I'm sorry about my previous post. I shouldn't of generalised by calling all smokers stupid. And i know I'm not good at spelling but someone has now pointed out to me the link to spellcheck.net so hopefully that should improve.

Let me rephrase what i said above.

In New Zealand there are laws inplace which prohibit people smoking in public places (excluding bars). This is great for non smokers like me. I personally hate the smell of smoke and can't stand to be near anyone who does smoke.

As said in the openning statement

If this study is correct doesn't this mean that there is still a health danger to non-smokers? I think that is as good reason as any for smoking to be band in public places.

@Rallymama
slightly

Yes, I do agree with this but someone pointed out a very good arguement to this, to me once. In New Zealand at least, I'm not to sure about any other
country, but smoking of several other substances are illigal...but these laws are not often enforced. Making cigaret smoking illigal might stop a few people smoking but not very many. The laws just wouldn't be enforced by anyone with real power to do so.

 

1)Depaara and others think smoking is rude in certain contexts. In certain contexts I would agree. However, saying it is rude is different from saying it should be illegal in private venues.

2)

a) Look at it in a different way. If your odds of winning the lotto are 1 in a billion with one ticket they are 2 in a billion if you buy two tickets. That's a 100% increase right? That's how the increased risk due to second hand smoke works in studies that purport to demonstrate a causal connection. The Surgeon General estimates for example an increased risk of at max 25%. So, to use the lottery example, instead of your odds being 1 in a billion of winning congratulations your odds are now 1.25 in a billion. The difference in odds are statistically meaningless because non-important influences could drastically effect the result simply by happenstance.

b) again, I'm not concerned about smoking in a public place.

This is just me, but I like to believe in freedom. I believe someone ought to be able to put into their own body what they'd like so long as they don't do direct harm to another in the process.

To say the real question is why it should be legal is scary to me. I think we should always begin with the belief that someone should have to show why it should be illegl not vice versa -- but maybe that's just me, shrug.

So, to me, if someone owns a private business and wants to let her patrons smoke - that's their business. No one is forced to go there. If you don't like the smoke - leave. I don't think you have a right though to force your personal dislike onto someone else though who owns a business because you want to eat there and force him to not allow his customers to do what he'd like.

 

I'm with Laches on the freedom issue. While I believe the presently prohibited drugs do pose a safety risk to society, outlawing something completely should be done very carefully -- if too many health nuts get political power, we could find meat, chocolate and cookies outlawed! They are totally right that these things probably do more bad than good, but I'd sooner live in a world without love than a world without steak (with all due respect to woever wrote the song).

 

Rightly or wrongly, I'm feeling a little defensive here. Go back and read my posts and you'll see that my passion is stirred by public smoking. I happen to agree with Laches' approach regarding private enterprise. The only element of that discussion I added was to mention the argument made by the pro-ban side in Oregon.

No, Laches, that's not just you. But why is it that pot is illegal and tobacco and alcohol aren't? My theory comes down to one word: TRADITION. Smoking and alcohol were well-established by the time pot became popular, and they mobilized their lobbies to prevent this newcomer from taking a chunk of the profits. To paraphrase something I said in the "Battle for Sorcerer's Place," the last thing big business ever wants is a level playing ground.

 

All Hail Rallymama

i myself was a smoker at one point and guess what happened? yup, you guessed it, cancer. i'm not sure exactly how it makes you feel because the treatments i recieve are much more painful than the symptoms ever were. i always smoked outside, away from my wife and kids, but to think i could've done this to one of them.....i shudder.

btw...@ Rallymama, guess what plant makes it possible for me to eat, sleep and not convulse violently every ten minutes?

 

@Greenlion: First, many good wishes for a speedy and thorough recovery!

And regarding marijuana, I pointed out in a different thread that *it* - unlike tobacco - at least has some beneficial medical applications...

 

I agree with Rallymama on tobacco. My own two cents consists of adding that it's strange to even consider allowing people to make use of their rights in a way that harms other people. My own view is irrelevant, but most people don't care if someone is addicted and can't wait till he gets home or not.

Unless it's labelled 'smoking allowed' place, of course, indoor smoking in public should be banned.

What I hate more than smoke in a closed space is people not washing themselves and walking all over and around. And the worst is that they can't legally be forced to start washing.

 

Chevy's got the right of it -- indoors, even at restaurants, if one person decides to smoke, he has made the decision for everyone. I have no problem with people smoking 19 packs a day as long as they do it in their own house. I have the right to choose not to smoke. I don't care how good the ventilation is indoors, it's still not enough. It comes down to basic consideration for my fellow man.