P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[baron]

I'd like to see a study of the effects of vehicle exhaust gases on lung disease...
We're not going to because those emissions are carcogenic and in greater supply than cigarette smoke.
And every-one is a commuter

There have been hundreds of studies, you just haven't looked. They conclude that vehicle emissions are, in general, harmful. That is why, in the UK at least, strict measures are being introduced to reduce the use of private vehicles and promote other forms of travel. Beyond that, what action would you suggest?

 

[fls]

I choose to go skiing for pleasure, which no doubt results in adrenaline and endorphins being produced in my body. They are produced even if I don't go skiing. Nicotine is not produced in anyone's body as far as I know.

The analogy I was trying to make was that both induce pleasurable physiologic responses - a major reason for many of our behaviours.

Are you playing devil's advocate with this statement? Ok, I'll bite:

So how many casual smokers do you know?

Only a few. People used to smoke casually until the tobacco companies purposely made their cigarettes highly addictive.

What is "casual smoking"? 1 a day, 5 a day, more / less?
Would "casual smoker" describe the vast majority of the people who smoke?

Personally, I've only known 2 people in my life who I'd class as casual smokers. All the others (the number of which have smoked is in the 10's) have habits of 10 or more a day.

There may be an official definition, but I'll say less than a lifetime total of 15-pack-years (so less than a third or quarter of a pack per day). Maybe some other criteria like no chain-smoking or eye-openers. I think the majority of people that smoke nowadays are those that are addicted - i.e. those that could be a casual smoker don't bother.

Nicotine isn't the point of smoking? Huh?

Teenagers don't take up cigarettes because they want nicotine - i.e. if you dispensed nicotine in the form of pills or inhalers, you wouldn't suddenly find groups of teenagers hanging outside the school doors puffing on inhalers. Nicotine may be why you become addicted, but you take up the activity for social reasons.

What does it matter why people take up smoking? People continue the activity because of their addiction to nicotine and operant conditioning. You could make exactly the same argument for any physically addictive drug

I think it is pretty obvious that a smoke filled room is going to be detrimental to a persons long term health if they have prolonged exposure. Some here want to argue the toss so I'm not going to get involved. With your expertise you are in a far better position to do that.

My argument is based on pragmatism. Since nicotine addiction is tolerated in our society, shouldn't it be made as safe as it reasonably can be? As a bonus, by making it safer, it would remove the effects smoking currently has on everyone else. Kind of like providing clean needles for heroin addicts but better.

The image of a group of nicotine junkies sat in a pub sucking up their dose from inhalers would probably remove much of the coolness that's been associated with smoking too.

The nicotine addiction comes after the activity is initiated. Yes, you can help the people who already have an addiction with safer delivery and withdrawal (nicotine has harmful effects so long-term use is not desirable). But the steady supply of new smokers will not take up nicotine inhalers - that will not satisfy the reason cigarette smoking is popular in the first place. And I doubt an inhaler will serve as a voluntary substitue. Read Deus ex Machina's descriptions. Lighting up a cigarette is a chance to enjoy a meaningful and pleasurable experience. Why would he want to give that up?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The analogy I was trying to make was that both induce pleasurable physiologic responses - a major reason for many of our behaviours.

One invokes the bodies natural reward system, the other is an artificial introduced drug. Not that similar to me at all.

Only a few. People used to smoke casually until the tobacco companies purposely made their cigarettes highly addictive.

When did they do that? Some of my grandparents smoked 30+ a day circa 1920.

There may be an official definition, but I'll say less than a lifetime total of 15-pack-years (so less than a third or quarter of a pack per day). Maybe some other criteria like no chain-smoking or eye-openers. I think the majority of people that smoke nowadays are those that are addicted - i.e. those that could be a casual smoker don't bother.

Something we almost agree on I'd say most reasonable people know how addictive cigarettes are and don't want to run the risk of becoming addicted.

Teenagers don't take up cigarettes because they want nicotine - i.e. if you dispensed nicotine in the form of pills or inhalers, you wouldn't suddenly find groups of teenagers hanging outside the school doors puffing on inhalers. Nicotine may be why you become addicted, but you take up the activity for social reasons.

So if you provided a drug in pill/liquid/powder form that gets you "high" teenagers wouldn't take/inject/sniff it? Do I really have to provide the evidence to refute that?

The nicotine addiction comes after the activity is initiated. Yes, you can help the people who already have an addiction with safer delivery and withdrawal (nicotine has harmful effects so long-term use is not desirable). But the steady supply of new smokers will not take up nicotine inhalers - that will not satisfy the reason cigarette smoking is popular in the first place. And I doubt an inhaler will serve as a voluntary substitue. Read Deus ex Machina's descriptions. Lighting up a cigarette is a chance to enjoy a meaningful and pleasurable experience. Why would he want to give that up?

Linda

Smoking is not a "meaningful" experience. It is a pleasurable experience because of our nervous system is hyper-sensitive to nicotine. It is also an operant conditioned habit. Smokers are like Skinner's rats, pressing the leaver for their reward. People who smoke more in social situations have simply associated the two activities.

The smart people who smoke on this forum are very good at making up excuses and complicated reasons about why they continue to smoke. But it's all b******t. Given that most of them are probably atheists too - this life is it for them - it is not reasonable for them to shorten it by years and run a much higher risk of having a miserable death.

Yes, I'd agree that given the choice of a cigarette or the more honest but less cool inhaler/pill/syringe, then most nicotine addicts would choose the cigarette. That's why, if a government anywhere in the world had the b***s they would have to legislate to force the tobacco companies to produce safer ways of peddling their drug. But it won’t happen, I know.

I'll be back in a week. I'm going to get "high" on the ski slopes of Austria

 

[luchog]

I'd like to see a study of the effects of vehicle exhaust gases on lung disease...

There are plenty of them out there.

We're not going to because those emissions are carcogenic and in greater supply than cigarette smoke.
And every-one is a commuter

Which is why various governments have mandated emissions-control systems that greatly reduce harmful hydrocarbon, particulate, and other emission; and require periodic testing to ensure that vehicles are meeting emissions-control standards. And why various governments are switching public transportation to lower-emission fuels.

And they've finally started restricting tobacco smoke exposure for the same reason.

 

[luchog]

Most people start because of peer pressure. It's cool, you feel older, your parents don't tell you what to do. In fact, studies show if one doesn't start smoking by about the age of 20 very few people go on to start smoking later.

According to what I've read, peer pressure, and exposure to tobacco smoke in the home are the two most common reason, covering darn near everyone who starts smoking.

 

[fls]

One invokes the bodies natural reward system, the other is an artificial introduced drug. Not that similar to me at all.

An artificially introduced drug that accesses the body's natural reward system.

When did they do that? Some of my grandparents smoked 30+ a day circa 1920.

The WHO testimoney of Jeffrey Wigand makes for interesting reading.

Addiction to cigarettes has always been a problem, but not all people are susceptible to addiction (another interesting area of research) and boosting nicotine does make it happen faster and more certainly. Also, the changing social conditions means that nowadays that we're used to encountering mostly those who are regular smokers.

I'm not really trying to argue that it's possible to have "good smoking" - a large group of people, that confine smoking to a casual activity, that obtain the social benefits without the adverse effects. I'm just pointing out that all use isn't necessarily detrimental.

Something we almost agree on I'd say most reasonable people know how addictive cigarettes are and don't want to run the risk of becoming addicted.

You know what's sad? That you think we mostly disagree just because I tend to point out (regardless of what "side" I'm on) both sides of the issue (i.e. whichever "side" I think is being ignored). Too contrarian, maybe.

So if you provided a drug in pill/liquid/powder form that gets you "high" teenagers wouldn't take/inject/sniff it? Do I really have to provide the evidence to refute that?

Here you are talking about something different - more like the reasons people use heroin or cocaine. Nicotine doesn't give the same kind of "high" (different reward system).

Smoking is not a "meaningful" experience. It is a pleasurable experience because of our nervous system is hyper-sensitive to nicotine. It is also an operant conditioned habit. Smokers are like Skinner's rats, pressing the leaver for their reward. People who smoke more in social situations have simply associated the two activities.

Yes, that it what I mean. The social association is relevant. I'm thinking of comparing it to having a beer at the pub with your friends. Associating the activity and the physiologic effects becomes strongly reinforced and it's hard to give up that package, even when on a day-to-day basis the reality doesn't match the picture (huddling outside in the cold vs. lounging with the cool kids).

The smart people who smoke on this forum are very good at making up excuses and complicated reasons about why they continue to smoke. But it's all b******t. Given that most of them are probably atheists too - this life is it for them - it is not reasonable for them to shorten it by years and run a much higher risk of having a miserable death.

I think they know that, too. But the remote future tends to be heavily discounted.

Yes, I'd agree that given the choice of a cigarette or the more honest but less cool inhaler/pill/syringe, then most nicotine addicts would choose the cigarette. That's why, if a government anywhere in the world had the b***s they would have to legislate to force the tobacco companies to produce safer ways of peddling their drug. But it won’t happen, I know.

You never know.

I'll be back in a week. I'm going to get "high" on the ski slopes of Austria

Break a leg? Or did I get that mixed-up with something else....

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What units?

http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=3011

Absolute neutrophil counts. Sorry, I was just trying to suggest a count where 500 was a typical cutoff in HIV rather than getting too specific. People know what white blood cells are more often than they know what an ANC is.

A normal absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is in the range of 1,500 to 8,000 cells per microliter. If the ANC is below 500 for an extended period of time, the risk of serious bacterial infection may increase significantly. A low neutrophil count is called neutropenia.

BTW, we don't usually discuss blood labs in 'liters' unless you are talking about total volume like blood loss. White counts are per cubic micrometer, or microliter, (a millionth of a liter).

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay.

 

[Clu]

I have heard alot of people -not only here- that talk about the individual's right to light up... what about the individuals right not to smoke? Being a non-smokin' Swede myself, I can say that now that smokes are banned from clubs and restaurants I really enjoy the clubbin' experience a hole lot more and there have been no decrease in people clubbin'.

Some of the good things are: no more stinky clothes, no burn marks by careless drunk people, and no makin' out with chimney wannabes...

 

[BillyJoe]

Clu,

I think smokers underestimate the effect their smoking has on non-smokers' enjoyment of life.
(My wife has no idea how her smoking detracts from the enjoyment I get from kissing her - and I would never tell her.)

 

[Clu]

Clu,

I think smokers underestimate the effect their smoking has on non-smokers' enjoyment of life.
(My wife has no idea how her smoking detracts from the enjoyment I get from kissing her - and I would never tell her.)

Jupp that's my take on the matter aswell... both the smoke thing and the wife thing

 

[blutoski]

Which is why various governments have mandated emissions-control systems that greatly reduce harmful hydrocarbon, particulate, and other emission; and require periodic testing to ensure that vehicles are meeting emissions-control standards. And why various governments are switching public transportation to lower-emission fuels.

And they've finally started restricting tobacco smoke exposure for the same reason.

I remember when the lead studies came out: lead was a fuel additive that reduced premature ignition (knocking), but it is expelled in the exhaust. It was identified as an important factor in child malformation in housing developments that were too close to highways. It was concluded that there was no safe exposure level, and phased out of fuel supplies by legislation.

There's a game theory problem called 'tragedy of the commons' that covers this: everybody figures that their personal contribution is irrelevant, because no matter how much they hold off on leaded gas, everybody else is going to use it. So, there's no rational individual benefit to using unleaded. The conclusion that intelligent people recognize is that a blanket mandate will enforce universal adherence for everybody, and the benefit is realized.

The problem is that there will always be what game theory refers to as 'cheaters' who create damage far beyond their proportional representation. A second problem exposed by game theory is that people value the present more than the future, so institutions are valuable for the establishment and disciplined enforcement of long-term planning. Societies that figure this out thrive, whereas societies that don't are doomed to become historical footnotes.

 

[blutoski]

This is confusing as well. We didn't test for viral loads in 91 that I'm aware of. I think you are mixing apples and oranges.

We did: we were developing new assay techniques for the purpose of monitoring patient response to drugs. Not just PCR: we were interested in the possibility of getting quantitative results from other tests. We were hoping to develop quick, reliable assays for HIV viral load. That was the purpose of our lab.

In 1991 one was considered to have AIDS if one's white blood cell count went BELOW 500. I think you have things mixed up. It's easy to do with those ol' memories.

Too true.

 

[luchog]

Look, I'm not unsympathetic. I just think there has to be a conceivable mechanism whereby you can go to a bar you like without being hampered by smoke, while at the same time I can go some other bar and have a ciggie with my pint. I acknowledge that not all places are like Washington state; in western Europe, non-smoking bars are rarer than hens' teeth. But why does a blanket ban have to be the only way to promote non-smoking establishments? Why couldn't government grant some kind of tax break to bars which adopt non-smoking policies? Or allow bars to purchase a license permitting smoking on the premises, the (sizeable) cost of which the bar owner could pass on to his customers?

In Washington State, the solution is actually quite simple: members-only clubs. One of the clubs I frequent is members-only, and thus gets around the ban quite easily. There are several other members-only clubs, cigar bars, and hookah lounges for smokers around town. The requirements are fairly simple, and don't significantly impact patronage (except maybe for one-time casual drop-ins). Some clubs were already doing the members-only thing prior to the ban, to avoid some of the more ridiculous strictures of the local liquor laws.

 

[CaptainManacles]

In Washington State, the solution is actually quite simple: members-only clubs. One of the clubs I frequent is members-only, and thus gets around the ban quite easily. There are several other members-only clubs, cigar bars, and hookah lounges for smokers around town. The requirements are fairly simple, and don't significantly impact patronage (except maybe for one-time casual drop-ins). Some clubs were already doing the members-only thing prior to the ban, to avoid some of the more ridiculous strictures of the local liquor laws.

Which, again, just goes to show the reasoning behind the ban is entirely bull. I can still hire someone whose sole job is to allow me and my friends to blow smoke in their face. And why should members only clubs be treated any different from pubs or bars? They're both privately only facilities that can include and exclude people as they like. Why is it that being inclusive by default makes you somehow more open to having your business run by public whim?

 

[Euromutt]

I have heard alot of people -not only here- that talk about the individual's right to light up... what about the individuals right not to smoke?

Urrrgh... have you actually bothered to read (and attempted to comprehend) what various smokers on this thread have been saying? Yes, we understand that a large number of non-smokers would prefer to not be exposed to our smoke, and that's fair enough. What I fail to understand is why the fairly reasonable objective of having a non-smoking nightlife can supposedly be achieved by nothing short of the total eradication of smoking from every bar in the province/state/country.

In Washington State, the solution is actually quite simple: members-only clubs. One of the clubs I frequent is members-only, and thus gets around the ban quite easily.

Are you sure? RCW 70.160.030 states "No person may smoke in a public place or in any place of employment." It looks to me like the only way your place can circumvent the ban is by being owner-operated, and thus not having employees, in addition to not being public.

 

[BillyJoe]

What I fail to understand is why the fairly reasonable objective of having a non-smoking nightlife can supposedly be achieved by nothing short of the total eradication of smoking from every bar in the province/state/country.

I think the objective is much wider than just protecting people who do not wish to inhale others' cigarette smoke. They want to discourage smokers from smoking because it can affect their health and increase health costs.

They could alternatively have banned the production and sale of cigarettes (and some still want that). See this as a (?reasonable) compromise.

 

[luchog]

Which, again, just goes to show the reasoning behind the ban is entirely bull. I can still hire someone whose sole job is to allow me and my friends to blow smoke in their face.

No, you can't. Members-only establishments cannot have regular employees. Any workers need to be volunteers, and are typically paid only in tips, and/or under the table. Some establishments may include cover charges as "tips", and distribute a percentage among the volunteer staff as well; or add an automatic "gratuity" to all products sold, for the same purpose. Since the employer is not paying payroll tax, the volunteer employees are treated as independent contractors, and responsible for their own taxes on tip income.

Are you sure? RCW 70.160.030 states "No person may smoke in a public place or in any place of employment." It looks to me like the only way your place can circumvent the ban is by being owner-operated, and thus not having employees, in addition to not being public.

Yes, I'm sure. I'm a member of one that existed many years before the smoking ban. See my reply to CM earlier in this post.

 

[luchog]

Urrrgh... have you actually bothered to read (and attempted to comprehend) what various smokers on this thread have been saying? Yes, we understand that a large number of non-smokers would prefer to not be exposed to our smoke, and that's fair enough. What I fail to understand is why the fairly reasonable objective of having a non-smoking nightlife can supposedly be achieved by nothing short of the total eradication of smoking from every bar in the province/state/country.

Because that really isn't the objective of most smoking bans. Bans are made on places of employment, and are there to protect employees, not patrons, from an unnecessarily hazardous work environment. There is no reason that employees in a bar or restaurant should receive any less protection than employees in, say, a fiberglass manufacturing plant, or a photo-processing lab. Tobacco smoke is a known environmental hazard, with well-documented harmful effects.

Talk about smoker's rights vs. patron's rights is a chimera, since the issue isn't about either one. It's about a safe work environment.

I think the objective is much wider than just protecting people who do not wish to inhale others' cigarette smoke. They want to discourage smokers from smoking because it can affect their health and increase health costs.

They could alternatively have banned the production and sale of cigarettes (and some still want that). See this as a (?reasonable) compromise.

No, that's demonstrably not true. Had it been about discouraging smokers per se, then tobacco would certainly have been banned. The issue is strictly about employee safety, and that is the only legitimate issue that such a ban could conceivably be based on. It's not even based on the potential for harm from PES in general, otherwise there would be a ban on smoking around children at all (being that PES has been determined to be primary or significant contributing factor to many childhood disorders, as well as SIDS).

 

[a_unique_person]

You can't ban tobacco any more than you can ban alcohol. Both are here to stay, but the management of them is the issue.