P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[SquishyDave]

http://www.cancersa.org.au/i-cms?page=1.6.36.368.188



There are plenty of studies on this issue.

Thanks AUP. But I want to know if semi regular breathing in of others smoke is bad news FOR ME, apart from being annoying.

Coz I'm not a kid, (with luck I won't have any) and I'm not living with a smoker (with luck I never will). What about regular party/pub goers? This is the crux of the issue I think behind banning smoking in public places. It's a useful study, but doesn't help the whole banning in pubs thing.

Of course all this just academic to me as smoking is already banned everywhere in Canberra, except if you have a certain type of ventilation.

 

[Euromutt]

Quoted by AUP:

Conclusions of the 1997 NHMRC report The health effects of passive smoking
[...]
As very little Australian data exists describing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke outside the home, [...]

"Very little data" on ETS exposure outside the home, okay...

[...] it estimates the risk of illness from exposure to ETS at home for people who have never smoked.

And the conclusion to ETS exposure inside the home are estimates.
It follows, then, that the conclusions are based on inadequate data and estimates. Call me old-fashioned, but that hardly strikes me as a very strong basis for formulating public policy. It doesn't exactly help that the provided link results in a 404 error.

Look, obviously there were studies around prior to the 1992 EPA meta-study indicating that ETS exposure had detrimental effects; those would be the studies on which the EPA's conclusions were based. But, as previously noted, the main criticism of the EPA meta-study was that the data had been "cherry-picked," relying only on studies whose conclusions supported the EPA's pre-determined conclusion. Logically, then, it follows that there must also have been other studies around at the time which came up with contrary findings. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service noted that, of the 30 studies the EPA incorporated into its analysis, "six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."

I'm sure you can dig up "plenty of studies" indicating ETS is harmful, but when there are four times as many studies contradicting those findings (in that they conclude the data does not prove a correlation, let alone a causal relationship), it's dishonest to claim that the science is solidly on your side.

Hmm. I know not, but I suspect that there are laws regarding use beyond underage laws (i.e., heroin use is illegal)

I think you'll find that it's possession, not use, of certain controlled substances which is illegal. Moreover, tobacco is definitely not one of those substances. Have you ever had occasion to closely examine a store-bought pack of cigarettes? You'll find that, in the USA and most other western countries, the pack bears an excise tax stamp from the state or national government; that government's imprimatur, indicating that the sale and possession of that pack of cigarettes is legal (and that the government has taken its cut of the filthy lucre).

If I spend the night among cigarette smoke, I wake up wheezy and congested the next day. There are issues beyond the epidemiological here. [...] There's also the smell and the irritant factor.

No doubt. But if it bothers you that much, perhaps you shouldn't be frequenting establishments which permit smoking on the premises.

To me, this is like farting in someone's face and then saying they shouldn't be upset because it won't harm their health.

Actually, from my perspective, it's like you shoving your face up my arse and then complaining because it smells of fart. Look, if I came into a club where you were listening to a band you happen to like, and I demanded that they turn down the volume or, better yet, stop playing all together because the noise might damage my hearing, how would you react? You'd probably tell me that if I didn't like it, I could [rule 8] off, and rightly so.
To take it a step further, imagine that I and a bunch of like-minded people, none of whom ever even visit the establishments you frequent, managed to get a law passed banning any noise over x decibels, on the basis that it might damage the hearing of the employees (and the science supporting that is probably a damn sight stronger than it is regarding ETS), even though the employees themselves aren't particularly concerned. Does that strike you as reasonable?

 

[jimtron]

With regard to asthma and other respiratory issues...
tobbacco smoke is not the danger, smoke is. Leaves, lumber, tires, tobbacco, a casserole left in the oven, methane, etc. are all bad.

Do you think that patrons should be allowed to burn leaves and tires in bars and restaurants? I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

[Euromutt]

Incidentally, it might serve to make my previous post more clear if I explain where I'm coming from. As my sidebar says, I live in Washington state. Last November, a ballot initiative was passed banning smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and the like, and it went into effect on December 8th.
Prior to Initiative 901 being passed, 85% of the establishments affected were already non-smoking. In my area, this included a number of bars, and their number was clearly on the rise even before 901 was proposed. The hot new bar around the corner from my house was non-smoking from the start, and another one nearby closed for renovations and went non-smoking when it reopened. So it's not like you couldn't go for a night out without avoiding ETS.

Washington state also has the most restrictive liquor laws in the Union. Alcohol servers are legally obliged to stop serving alcohol to any customer who is likely approaching the BAC (blood alcohol content) limit, even if that person is demonstrably not going to be operating a motor vehicle in the immediate future (e.g. there is designated driver, the customer lives one block away, whatever), and both an alcohol server and the establishment where he works can be held liable for damages caused by a customer who is DUI after drinking in that establishment. Because of this and other factors, relatively few people are willing to work as alcohol servers, and anyone who is can find employment almost anywhere he pleases. (I don't work as a bartender, but I took the course to get a state alcohol server's permit so I could tend bar at an event at the place where I do volunteer work.) So if an alcohol server doesn't want to work in a smoking environment, he has that option.

The issue isn't "does second hand smoke cause cancer," the issue is "do bartenders who can't be around second hand smoke deserve to be gaurenteed a working environment".

Let's not prevaricate about the bush; the latter concern is merely a fig leaf. The "workers' protection" argument was seized upon by the anti-smoking lobby because there was no way anyone could make a case that the power of the state should be applied to prevent people from smoking in bars just because non-smokers didn't like it. If you don't want to drink (an entirely voluntary behavior) around smokers, stay home, or find a non-smoking establishment, or get enough fellow non-smokers together and petition the management to convert the place to a smoke-free environment; if you're so desperate not to wreck your lungs while you're wrecking your liver, there are certain options open to you.

If this were really about protecting the wellbeing of alcohol servers, all these studies purportedly showing a causal link between ETS and cardio-pulmonry disorders would be secondary to an actual survey of bar staff asking "do you want to be guaranteed a smoke-free work environment?" If there's ever been such a study, I've never heard of it. Besides, if anyone were really concerned about bar staff's wellbeing, where are the people lobbying for volume restrictions on music and customer conversation, mandatory 50% gratuities, and what have you?

 

[ReFLeX]

That particular episode of BULL*** was bull****. The boys made a number of factual errors, and their conclusions did not logically follow from their presentation. At best, the episode was sloppy.

I kind of suspected as much, but I like to give fellow skeptics the benefit of the doubt. This kind of thing is what happens when you have a political agenda, I suppose.

...I'm definitely staying away from pool halls in Québec, then.

 

[Godmode]

If we lived in a world where second hand smoke was the only pollution, it would probably be a significant danger. The fact is you will get exposed to more danger from walking down or even living on a busy road then you will get from someone lighting up next to you.

Smoking is just the new thing to hate. There are bigger issues to worry about.

 

[kalen]

I don't think second-hand smokers get much of an exposure. For example, do you know anybody who got hooked on second-hand smoke?

 

[Spidey13]

I just want them to pay me back for all the free nicotine they get from me.

 

[ysabella]

Well, and nicotine helps suppress some forms of colitis. And health insurance so far isn't helping to pay for it, from what I read. So do people with colitis go to smoky bars and inhale deeply?

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

As an Asthmatic, and a rather severe one, I can attest that secondhand smoke definitely causes symptoms. My eyes swell, my chest tightens and my nose runs. None of this is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for what YOU are doing to YOUR body. Look at it this way, if someone was releasing arsenic and lead fumes next to you, wouldn't you want a different table?

Do I even need to go over the futility of putting the smoking section on the TOP floor of an establishment?

Then again, to quote comedian Auggie Smith:
"Mr Bartender man, I am over there trying to GET DRUNK with a woman I barely know so we DRIVE home and have unprotected sex, and this guy is blowing SMOKE in my face..."


I believe in non-smoking sections that actually have WALLS, and smoke eaters in the smoking section to ensure the airflow is going in a sane direction. I don't think it is too much to ask. Bars are very hard, because if I am going to be drinking...well....taking antihistamines is out of the question. I'm afraid they get very little of my cash. There is a bar in the area that has an open-air section in the summer. Very nice.

 

[ysabella]

None of this is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for what YOU are doing to YOUR body.

Right, but who is forcing you to be in there, instead of in a non-smoking establishment?
I don't like smoke either, but I think laws are going a little far.

 

[clarsct]

Gotta eat somewhere, ys.

Why should I be confined for what others are doing. I am doing nothing. I am being imposed upon by what others are doing. Your rights extend ONLY to the point that you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Infringe upon me not.

IF it is your house, I may, indeed, get up and leave. But in public, I ought to be able to go where I want and do what I want, so long as I do not intrude upon others. We do have noise ordinances in most cities. It is the same issue. Imagine if everyone in the restaurant had a portible radio, but no headphone. Now imagine all of them were full blast. (I have yet to see a volume control on a cigarette.) How long before you get a headache? Should they be able to do this? Or does it infringe upon you? Are you against noise ordinances, as well?

 

[Loon]

Legally, it's a tough call for me. I love being able to walk into a restaurant and know there will be no smoke there to stink up the place. It suits me just fine. On the other hand, I don't think restaurants should be forced to be entirely nonsmoking (though well ventilated non-smoking probably should be a requirement)

 

[CaptainManacles]

Gotta eat somewhere, ys.

Why should I be confined for what others are doing. I am doing nothing. I am being imposed upon by what others are doing. Your rights extend ONLY to the point that you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Infringe upon me not.

IF it is your house, I may, indeed, get up and leave. But in public, I ought to be able to go where I want and do what I want, so long as I do not intrude upon others. We do have noise ordinances in most cities. It is the same issue. Imagine if everyone in the restaurant had a portible radio, but no headphone. Now imagine all of them were full blast. (I have yet to see a volume control on a cigarette.) How long before you get a headache? Should they be able to do this? Or does it infringe upon you? Are you against noise ordinances, as well?

Uh, last time I checked, you don't have a undeniable right to patronize someone else's establishment. They have a right to allow or disallow service to you, and weather or not you can be on the premises. As an extension to that, they can also define the terms by which you are granted permision into their establishment, for example, if you are going to eat there, you have to put up with smokers. Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street. If you didn't like it, you would have to leave. Actually, I don't understand how you could come up with an example that so perfectly illustrates the opposite conclusion, go to any bar and I'm certain that the noise level inside the bar is beyond noise ordinance standards, and it's probably bad for your health and the health of the workers. Try to call the cops on them and see what happens.

Basically, if someone breaks into your house and starts smoking, you can involve law enforcement. But you have no place to violate the rights of a business owner and tell him that he has to give you a smoke free environment to eat food, any more then I could demand a smoke free environment to eat food in your house. A business is no more public then your front yard.

 

[kmortis]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

As an Asthmatic, and a rather severe one, I can attest that secondhand smoke definitely causes symptoms. My eyes swell, my chest tightens and my nose runs. None of this is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for what YOU are doing to YOUR body. Look at it this way, if someone was releasing arsenic and lead fumes next to you, wouldn't you want a different table?

Do I even need to go over the futility of putting the smoking section on the TOP floor of an establishment?

Then again, to quote comedian Auggie Smith:
"Mr Bartender man, I am over there trying to GET DRUNK with a woman I barely know so we DRIVE home and have unprotected sex, and this guy is blowing SMOKE in my face..."


I believe in non-smoking sections that actually have WALLS, and smoke eaters in the smoking section to ensure the airflow is going in a sane direction. I don't think it is too much to ask. Bars are very hard, because if I am going to be drinking...well....taking antihistamines is out of the question. I'm afraid they get very little of my cash. There is a bar in the area that has an open-air section in the summer. Very nice.

One little comment from a parent of an asthmatic, it's not that it's CIGARETTE smoke, it's that it's smoke. IT wouldn't matter if it were cigarette, cigar, campfire, or a housefire smoke. It's the particular matter (IIRC) that does the damage, not just that it's cigarette.

I agree that the division of smoking and non- should be better, but I also don't think that the government has the right to impose unfunded mandates upon business; they do, but I don't agree with it.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think second-hand smokers get much of an exposure. For example, do you know anybody who got hooked on second-hand smoke?

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the research is finding.

 

[kmortis]

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the research is finding.

And the research is finding that workers in a smoke filled environment are getting the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year. So, again, it's not that they're cigarettes that makes them harmful, it's that it's smoke.

 

[Marc L]

At TAM3, someone questioned P&T on the second hand smoke show. Apparently, the questioner had send info P&T about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Penn said he had looked at the information agreed that second hand smoke did actually pose a real threat. Unfortuately, B*llsh!it doesn't have the budget to redo shows, or spend time correcting them in new shows. I haven't seen the details, Penn and the questioner didn't go into it, since it was a Q&A session.

That sucks. I realize they don't have the budget to redo shows, but there has to be a way for them to give corrections-if only on their website. Otherwise it looks like they're giving false information, which can only hurt their credibility.

Marc

 

[Beerina]

2) They assumed (or spoke as if) the only concieveable reason to avoid secondhand smoke was the risk of lung cancer, ignoring heart disease, other lung diseases, smell and sensitivity.

It is, of course, the last two that are the real political drivers behind this. Indeed, people who are hypersensitive to it (even allowing for the placebo effect) are just tools used by those with a political agenda because they hate cigarette smoke.

In science, one doesn't question the researcher, only the research. In politics, it's the other way around if you want to get anywhere in understanding.

 

[clarsct]

Uh, last time I checked, you don't have a undeniable right to patronize someone else's establishment. They have a right to allow or disallow service to you, and weather or not you can be on the premises. As an extension to that, they can also define the terms by which you are granted permision into their establishment, for example, if you are going to eat there, you have to put up with smokers. Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street. If you didn't like it, you would have to leave. Actually, I don't understand how you could come up with an example that so perfectly illustrates the opposite conclusion, go to any bar and I'm certain that the noise level inside the bar is beyond noise ordinance standards, and it's probably bad for your health and the health of the workers. Try to call the cops on them and see what happens.

Basically, if someone breaks into your house and starts smoking, you can involve law enforcement. But you have no place to violate the rights of a business owner and tell him that he has to give you a smoke free environment to eat food, any more then I could demand a smoke free environment to eat food in your house. A business is no more public then your front yard.

On the other hand, I do not have the right to dump oil in my front yard, nor do I have the right to burn trash in my front yard, either. If I turn my boombox up to an unacceptable level, the cops might indeed be called and will tell me to turn it down. I could be cited for disturbing the peace.

So, apparently, even on private property, the owner can be called upon to give up certain amounts of rights, because it is considered harmful, or even undesirable, to those around him/her.

kmortis: Yes, smoke is bad for you. It is worse for asthmatics. I don't care where the smoke comes from. If the guy next to me in the restaurant is setting his napkins on fire, it would probably affect me similarly, and I would ask to be seated elsewhere. I fail to see the relevance.

Notice I did not say all smoking ought to be banned, but rather that I would prefer to have a smoke free environment available. I do not think it is too much to ask. If you want to smoke, smoke. I care not. But I do not wish to smell of it, nor have my health put at risk. (For me, remember, it IS a risk, after all.) By your argument, Cpt Manacles, a businessman would have to make no concessions for a handicapped individual, either. They have no right to be there.