Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[DC]

IF ''THEY'' MAKE SMOKING ILLEGAL

it has BIG costs to society
new crime class to supply smokers is created
loss of tax moneys
cost of enforcement, jails , trials , rehab ect
and lots of unpredictable BS
like minors as sellers/runners = more dropouts
like more unemployed if ''drug tested" for nic

we need simple clear laws that respect individual's rights
not trying to fix everything by making new laws

second hand smoke is 99% woo

evidence?

 

[23_Tauri]

evidence?

Oh goody!

Let's start with the Osteen decision

Judge Osteen wrote:

"In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer."

(my emphasis)

 

[DC]

Oh goody!

Let's start with the Osteen decision

Judge Osteen wrote:
(my emphasis)

thanks.

 

[Limbero]

There are some pro-public-smoking people in here who are saying that the anti-public-smoking people are trying to infringe individual rights. That argument is ill-based. Since a majority of current research points toward SHS being dangerous to some degree there's actually more validity in saying that the public smokers are the ones infringing individual rights, the rights of the people that are harmed by the smoking.

No coin is one-sided, and the rights of all people have to be accounted for.

 

[23_Tauri]

There are some pro-public-smoking people in here who are saying that the anti-public-smoking people are trying to infringe individual rights. That argument is ill-based. Since a majority of current research points toward SHS being dangerous to some degree there's actually more validity in saying that the public smokers are the ones infringing individual rights, the rights of the people that are harmed by the smoking.

No coin is one-sided, and the rights of all people have to be accounted for.

1. I for one have never mentioned the word 'rights'. I don't think this is about 'rights', it's about tolerance of, adn accommodating, the habits of different people.

2. Please define "to some degree". To what degree would you need something to be demonstrated to be a health hazard in order for you to support curbs on how much of that substance should be allowed to be present in the atmosphere? What concentration of the various chemicals found in tobacco smoke are acceptable and what concentrations are not? What about if those same chemicals are found in the atmosphere but come from different sources other than tobacco smoke?

3. Please present the studies (not the CDC's or anyone else's biased reports of those studies) that demonstrate a proven, causative mechanism between SHS and cancer.

Thanks

 

[Limbero]

1. I for one have never mentioned the word 'rights'. I don't think this is about 'rights', it's about tolerance of, adn accommodating, the habits of different people.

2. Please define "to some degree". To what degree would you need something to be demonstrated to be a health hazard in order for you to support curbs on how much of that substance should be allowed to be present in the atmosphere? What concentration of the various chemicals found in tobacco smoke are acceptable and what concentrations are not? What about if those same chemicals are found in the atmosphere but come from different sources other than tobacco smoke?

3. Please present the studies (not the CDC's or anyone else's biased reports of those studies) that demonstrate a proven, causative mechanism between SHS and cancer.

Thanks

1. I wasn't talking about you.

2. I didn't post what I posted in favor of restrictive legislation. I simply pointed out that it's been shown time and time again that SHS can be harmful. I may have opinions on the solution to the problem, but that's not what I was arguing about. I don't give jack **** about other potential environmental dangers right now, we're discussing SHS and I don't see the relevance of how dangerous other things are, since we're not in a position of forced choice.

3. I never said cancer, you did, I don't like having words put into my mouth.

Here's a link that shows a clear link between SHS and reduced bloodflow. I really don't have time to hunt down all the sources, but Wikipedia provides what looks like a fair evaluation, and has a ton of sources to back it up with to boot. Feel free to look into it yourself, otherwise, I'll be back later and I'll dig up some more.

Oh, and if you're going to give me a rebuttal, please don't use studies funded by the tobacco industry.

 

[Ambrosia]

No coin is one-sided, and the rights of all people have to be accounted for.

If you want to argue that people havea 'right' to breath clean air, then most have waived that 'right' by virtue of living in an industrialised environment. There are all kinds of pollutants in the air we breathe. If you live in a city then you already breathe a lot of toxic particulants.

Everyone just lives with that without so much as a raised eyebrow for the most part.

Air pollution concentrations in London continued to exceed UK Air Quality Strategy Objective (AQS) and EU Limit Values during 2006 and 2007. Progress towards the attainment of these legislated values varies according to pollutant; successes in the control of CO and SO2 concentrations contrast with the less successful control of NO2, PM10 and O3.

[...]

Throughout north western Europe the PM10 decreases experienced during the 1990s have not continued this century, although considerable efforts have been made to abate emissions of PM10 and PM10 precursor pollutants in London, the UK and throughout Europe. It is unclear why such abatement measures are not yielding a reduction in measured PM10 concentrations. Worryingly there is evidence to suggest that PM10 concentrations arising from London’s emissions have increased.

Measurements of the oxidising potential of airborne particles have been used to determine the toxicity of PM in London. This work has shown toxicity in both the PM10 and PM2.5 fractions and importantly measurements have demonstrated additional toxicity in roadside PM10 when compared with that in background locations. Recent Defra funded research in London has looked at short-term health outcomes and changes in daily mean concentrations of different measurements of particle mass concentration and composition. Measurements of particle mass concentrations eg PM10 and PM2.5 were found to be associated with short-term increases in respiratory health effects while changes in particle number concentrations were associated with cardiovascular effects.

[link]

I agree with the smoking ban as is almost, the only change I'd like to see is for some social areas, pubs, clubs, bars to be able to apply for a "smoking licence" which would exempt them from the ban. I'd only ever want to see a small fraction of these places allowed to get such a licence, appropriate to the % of people that smoke. Smoking in public buildings, most workplaces, not good and should stay banned imo. I do not think that smoking should be outlawed in outdoor public space at all.

Penalise people harshly for dropping litter (cigarette ends). Penalise people for antisocial behaviour if they intentionally bother other non-smokers. Fine with that.

If there is good evidence that shows that non-smokers are at significantly higher risk of lung cancer/other smoking related illness because of SHS then show me some evidence and I might reconsider this.

Any civilised society ought to allow any adult to do anything they dam well want to, provided they don't harm another person while doing so, or if they do that person should be a consenting party. Part of that ought to mean that there should be places where like minded individuals can go to to socialise and enjoy whichever particular activity that is.

Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, porn, prostition, everything.

 

[Ambrosia]

Here's a link that shows a clear link between SHS and reduced bloodflow.

and the method they used to subject these 30 Japanese men to passive smoking was:

After baseline hemodynamics and echocardiographic assessment, all subjects spent 30 minutes in the smoking room of the hospital.

How many smokers were present in the smoking room? How ventilated was the smoking room? If we say that it takes an average of about 7 minutes to smoke a standard cigarette, how does 30 minutes in this room compare to smoking 4 cigarettes by yourself?

Noones arguing here that SHS is harmless. It's about as harmful as first hand smoke. How harmful it is to an individual depends on how much of it they inhale and how long they 'smoke'.

You'll get a lot more exposure to SHS by stting in a smoke filled room for 30 minutes than if say you walk down the street once a day following a smoker for 2 minutes. Or if a smoker lights up 10 metres away from you at a busstop and you occasionally get a whiff of tobacco smoke.

 

[Limbero]

Noones arguing here that SHS is harmless. It's about as harmful as first hand smoke. How harmful it is to an individual depends on how much of it they inhale and how long they 'smoke'.

From Tauri's post I got the impression that he thought cancer was the only possible harm caused by SHS, and that he disputed if it caused cancer. To me, that sounds like arguing that SHS is harmless. But alas, I digress.

I deliberately picked it because it is an extreme example. All I'm saying is that it's potentially harmful. How harmful it is is of course interesting, and that study is by no means an example of the average degree of harm caused by SHS.

 

[Aepervius]

Any civilised society ought to allow any adult to do anything they dam well want to, provided they don't harm another person while doing so, or if they do that person should be a consenting party. Part of that ought to mean that there should be places where like minded individuals can go to to socialise and enjoy whichever particular activity that is.

Except this is not the case in all western society I know of.

For example I cannot go in a bus and put my gansta-blaster up to volume 10 (even non harmful volume). If I do, the other guy in the bus can ask me to be thrown out, and if I do this in the street I can be fined for disturbing the public order (law on noise and neighborhood disturbance).

Cigarette is not different, they are simply another type of disturbance one fellow impose over the next. Many society have simply decided that the amount of disturbance you can do UNTO other people against their will has to be limited. Thus no smoking in some public places.

Frankly smoker can smoke any time they want outside, in their own home, and other places. There is no reason to blow the smoke into the faces of other people when they are together, jsut like there is no reason to accept that any restaurent's visitor (or in a train or in any other public places where smoking is prohibited) bring their own ghetto blaster, even if they put it at low volume.

After the law passed stopping smoking in public places, a lot of place which were terrible to go , started being better.

 

[Ambrosia]

I deliberately picked it because it is an extreme example. All I'm saying is that it's potentially harmful. How harmful it is is of course interesting, and that study is by no means an example of the average degree of harm caused by SHS.

How harmful is the eternal thorny question. It IS harmful, after all it's essentially the same smoke as first hand smoke, which is why I support the smoking ban for the majority of indoor public space.

The ban goes too far imo here by totally outlawing smoking in ALL indoor 'public' places, some provision ought to be made to allow smokers to socialise, indoors, with other smokers if they want to.

Most socialising establishments should remain smoke free, after all, most people don't smoke.

 

[Ambrosia]

Except this is not the case in all western society I know of.

Sadly it isn't the case anywhere, but I think it should be.

Coupled with that would be an individuals responsibility to show some respect to other people.

 

[kittynh]

I haven't read everything, but a disabled relative just got an apartment in a beautiful building run by the city for the elderly and disabled. NO SMOKING ALLOWED PERIOD. You will be kicked out! Now my relative has this fantastic low rent (1/3 of what an apartment like it would go for in the rest of the city) very safe, clean, beautiful apartment...and for the elderly that have similar apartments in this building it's wonderful. You have to be on the waiting list for this place for 5 years, it's well known as being a great place to live (right downtown so you can walk everywhere). But, if you are elderly and have been a smoker for 40 plus years, forget it. You can't suddenly just give it up. Not going to happen. Also if you are on the top floors, to get IN the elevator and go out into the cold and snow of a NH winter to smoke, forget it. So all the time you can hear fans going madly trying to blow out the smoke smell. Some of these people are in wheelchairs. Let them smoke.

 

[Aepervius]

How harmful is the eternal thorny question. It IS harmful, after all it's essentially the same smoke as first hand smoke, which is why I support the smoking ban for the majority of indoor public space.

The ban goes too far imo here by totally outlawing smoking in ALL indoor 'public' places, some provision ought to be made to allow smokers to socialise, indoors, with other smokers if they want to.

Most socialising establishments should remain smoke free, after all, most people don't smoke.

Sure that is called "doing it at home".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bottom line: Smokers are stupid.

I win the thread.

 

[Limbero]

If you want to argue that people havea 'right' to breath clean air, then most have waived that 'right' by virtue of living in an industrialised environment. There are all kinds of pollutants in the air we breathe. If you live in a city then you already breathe a lot of toxic particulants.

Everyone just lives with that without so much as a raised eyebrow for the most part.

[link]

I agree with the smoking ban as is almost, the only change I'd like to see is for some social areas, pubs, clubs, bars to be able to apply for a "smoking licence" which would exempt them from the ban. I'd only ever want to see a small fraction of these places allowed to get such a licence, appropriate to the % of people that smoke. Smoking in public buildings, most workplaces, not good and should stay banned imo. I do not think that smoking should be outlawed in outdoor public space at all.

Penalise people harshly for dropping litter (cigarette ends). Penalise people for antisocial behaviour if they intentionally bother other non-smokers. Fine with that.

If there is good evidence that shows that non-smokers are at significantly higher risk of lung cancer/other smoking related illness because of SHS then show me some evidence and I might reconsider this.

Any civilised society ought to allow any adult to do anything they dam well want to, provided they don't harm another person while doing so, or if they do that person should be a consenting party. Part of that ought to mean that there should be places where like minded individuals can go to to socialise and enjoy whichever particular activity that is.

Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, porn, prostition, everything.

I agree with you almost wholeheartedly. There is no reason to ban anything that doesn't harm others. There should be pubs where you can smoke,

The only points I disagree on are what you call waiving the right to breath as clean air as possible and smoking in outdoor public space.

The first I don't agree with, because just because the air is polluted that doesn't mean we should ban any attempt to make it cleaner, but I do agree that it's ridiculous to think that banning smoking alone will provide perfectly clean air. In my mind, it's a tiny part of a huge process, just like moving onto environmentally friendly cars and opting for nuclear and other types of power instead of coal and oil.

The second I haven't made up my mind on yet. If it isn't dangerous, I'm against a ban, but I still think it should be social convention not to light a cigarette when you're around a lot of non-smokers, because it can be mightily bothersome. I just think you're being a bit too certain of it not being dangerous, but admittedly, the research results are scattered and inconclusive.

I apologize beforehand if this is too ridiculous, it's just an example. Being bothered is not grounds for outlawing something, I'd just like smoking in outdoor public spaces to have the same social restrictions as public urination. If you really really have to, and you can do it without bothering anyone, go ahead, but show some respect and refrain from waving your dick/cigarette around in my face.

 

[Limbero]

I haven't read everything, but a disabled relative just got an apartment in a beautiful building run by the city for the elderly and disabled. NO SMOKING ALLOWED PERIOD. You will be kicked out! Now my relative has this fantastic low rent (1/3 of what an apartment like it would go for in the rest of the city) very safe, clean, beautiful apartment...and for the elderly that have similar apartments in this building it's wonderful. You have to be on the waiting list for this place for 5 years, it's well known as being a great place to live (right downtown so you can walk everywhere). But, if you are elderly and have been a smoker for 40 plus years, forget it. You can't suddenly just give it up. Not going to happen. Also if you are on the top floors, to get IN the elevator and go out into the cold and snow of a NH winter to smoke, forget it. So all the time you can hear fans going madly trying to blow out the smoke smell. Some of these people are in wheelchairs. Let them smoke.

1. You can in fact kick a smoking habit after that long. My grandfather gave up smoking in his early sixties after doing it for over 30 years.

2. If you let them smoke, that could cause problems for the next person who's going to live there.

I say they should provide apartments to smokers proportional to the percentage of smokers in the population.

 

[TragicMonkey]

2. If you let them smoke, that could cause problems for the next person who's going to live there.

An easy solution here would be requiring smokers to pay a deposit meant to go towards the cleaning and/or repainting costs of the residence when they leave. Years of smoking can discolor the walls and carpet, but those items can be replaced for the next resident. Most rental properties do this for pets already, why not smokers?

 

[Limbero]

An easy solution here would be requiring smokers to pay a deposit meant to go towards the cleaning and/or repainting costs of the residence when they leave. Years of smoking can discolor the walls and carpet, but those items can be replaced for the next resident. Most rental properties do this for pets already, why not smokers?

That sounds more than reasonable.

 

[23_Tauri]

1. I wasn't talking about you.

You said "some pro-public smoking people in here" and I clarified that I was not one of them. There is no need to be rude.

2. I didn't post what I posted in favor of restrictive legislation. I simply pointed out that it's been shown time and time again that SHS can be harmful.

And I asked you to provide evidence. I see you're relatively new here as a poster. You'll find we're pretty keen on evidence on JREF.

3. I never said cancer, you did, I don't like having words put into my mouth.

It is true, you didn't use the 'c' word, it was me. I aplogise if it looked like I was putting words in your mouth. But, you referred to people that were 'harmed' by others smoking. Cancer would constitute 'harm' if it could be proven, yes? If you didn't mean cancer when you used the word 'harm', what did you mean? Does that the fact that you don't like me putting the c word in your mouth as you put it mean that you accept that increased cancer risk is not a harm that can come from being exposed to SHS?

Here's a link that shows a clear link between SHS and reduced bloodflow.

Yes, reduced bloodflow. But for how long? Do you think temporarily reduced CFVR consitutes harm? What if such a reduction in CFRV didn't cause any long term changes and was just a short term effect?

If you read the results of that study, there's nothing that indicates that passive smoking causes long term harm to health. What the researchers found was that: "Passive smoking exposure significantly reduced mean (SD) CFVR in nonsmokers (4.4 [0.91] vs 3.4 [0.73], respectively; P<.001)." This tells us nothing about the potential for long term damage that could result in a higher risk of heart disease.

Even the authors themselves are cagey about expolating from the data, where they write in their conclusion:

This finding provides direct evidence that passive smoking may cause endothelial dysfunction of the coronary circulation in nonsmokers.

(my emphasis)

It tells us nothing about the level and frequency of SHS that people were exposed to in public bars and other places prior to smoking bans, and whether they constituted a risk to health of non-smokers.

I really don't have time to hunt down all the sources, but Wikipedia provides what looks like a fair evaluation, and has a ton of sources to back it up with to boot. Feel free to look into it yourself, otherwise, I'll be back later and I'll dig up some more.

Wackipedia as a source of accurate information. Ouch. But I agree the references can be useful.

Oh, and if you're going to give me a rebuttal, please don't use studies funded by the tobacco industry.

Judge Osteen was funded by the tobacco industry?