Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

[jimbob]

I favor the owner of such private properties deciding what otherwise legal conduct is acceptable on his premises. I favor allowing patrons to choose whether or not to patronize such establishments.

The problem with that is if someone feels that they need the job and work in such an establishment and thus get exposed to whatever the health risks are. I'd imagine that if someone in such an establishment later developed a lung disease it would be interesting as far as compensation claims. The insurance premium might kill such an idea even where it would be legal.

 

[jimbob]

Cigarettes have a laundry list of negatives and only one positive: they make the smoker look cool. Just wear a scarf and stand in front of a fan.

Luckily there is a local counter-advertisement to that in our village, he's less like James Dean and more like Mr Twit


Singlehandedly he undermines any number of "cigarettes are cool" messages.

 

[blutoski]

I was looking this up not too long ago because I have considered that smokers dying younger save the medical system a lot of money. The theory being that as you get older you use the medical system more and more.
I found this article on Forbes which came up with these numbers.

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

These are similar to numbers I read... the problem is that we can't just focus on raw health costs. Depending on the region, the state may experience economic losses if a person's impacted health reduces their productivity. This is the economic 'opportunity cost' I itemized in my previous post. Estimates are about $1800/yr lost productivity over a smoker's career, plus economic lost productivity should they die with potential work years unfilled. The estimate also does not include anybody who has gone on permanent disability or quit their job due to disability that can be deemed to have 'probably' been caused by smoking. (most calculations weigh estimates based on national level numbers: ie: if 60% of lung cancer is caused by smoking, then probably 60% of employees on permanent disability from lung cancer are 'caused by' smoking)

Another complication is defining 'smoker' - a cigarette a week? Three packs a day? How many years? Very different impacts, very important to compare apples with apples.

Plus: there's a 20-year lag on the health consequences, so population comparison may have to compare today's health costs with whether a person was a smoker 20 years ago - not whether they're a smoker today.

I find these calculations complicated and have never really seen them done well.

Unrelated, but I had to mention it: I've never found Forbes Magazine to be a reliable source for any topic that involved government regulation.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm glad that there is no smoking in bars and restaurants and on public transport. When I was a relatively enthusiastic smoker I still didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke on my clothes so a trip to a restaurant, bar or even in the smoking compartment of a train would result in a full wash and/or dry cleaning.

These days when I go to Germany I find it strange to see people smoking indoors and I'm not happy about the smell.

I've always found it rather curious... Currently the city I live in has a no-smoking bylaw for restaurants.

Prior to that, smokers made up only a small fraction of our population (around 1/4). Yet there were very few if any restaurants in the area that were completely non-smoking.

You would figure that there would have been more restaurants willing to cater to the majority.

 

[GlennB]

Where "stigmatising" kicks in, imo, is where regulations/laws are introduced or enforced that are designed to make the miscreant feel bad rather than achieve a desirable outcome for the innocent person.

Smoking pubs and clubs? If the ventilation system doesn't bother neighbours, then of course. The staff and patrons, knowing the score, are there by choice and they suffer any consequences.

Smoking cinemas? At a stretch perhaps, maybe one auditorium in a multiplex, but mostly you'd expect large spaces to be available to all.

Smoking trains? There used to be a carriage at the tail-end of UK trains for smokers that non-smokers had no need to visit, but I suppose a really crowded train might see non-smokers forced in there in order to get a seat. So, no, not on trains.

In the underpass right outside part of Gatwick Airport, where endless busses, cabs and cars are belching fumes? Natch. Except the p.a. soon tells you "THIS IS NOT A SMOKING ZONE. PLEASE MOVE TO THE BUS STOP AREA 50 YARDS TO YOUR LEFT". Now that is some serious irrationality that's designed purely to punish rather than actually help anybody.

 

[jimbob]

Where "stigmatising" kicks in, imo, is where regulations/laws are introduced or enforced that are designed to make the miscreant feel bad rather than achieve a desirable outcome for the innocent person.

Smoking pubs and clubs? If the ventilation system doesn't bother neighbours, then of course. The staff and patrons, knowing the score, are there by choice and they suffer any consequences.

Smoking cinemas? At a stretch perhaps, maybe one auditorium in a multiplex, but mostly you'd expect large spaces to be available to all.

Smoking trains? There used to be a carriage at the tail-end of UK trains for smokers that non-smokers had no need to visit, but I suppose a really crowded train might see non-smokers forced in there in order to get a seat. So, no, not on trains.

In the underpass right outside part of Gatwick Airport, where endless busses, cabs and cars are belching fumes? Natch. Except the p.a. soon tells you "THIS IS NOT A SMOKING ZONE. PLEASE MOVE TO THE BUS STOP AREA 50 YARDS TO YOUR LEFT". Now that is some serious irrationality that's designed purely to punish rather than actually help anybody.

The highlighted bit might be wrong.

The most famous example that I know of was Roy Castle

 

[Darat]

The cigarette making companies sell nicotine knowing that their customers are very likely to become addicts. These customers persistently buy more as a consequence of that addiction. It works well, because nicotine is a highly addictive substance.

So the answer to your question is an emphatic" no", particularly when the inhalation of smoke containing nicotine also contains tar and other bad toxic contaminants that play havoc with the delicate lining and cleansing mechanisms of the lungs.

Just had a thought would it be possible to remove the nicotine from cigarettes? If so then I would say that is a way to tackle the last 20%, make the manufacturers remove the drug.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Oh, and I recall a Brit guy got busted after a new law was passed banning smoking in company vehicles. It was his company iirc

Not sure why that would be relevant?

 

[Zelenius]

They are not stigmatized enough. I think there should be an anti-smoking version of "Stand Your Ground". If a person smoking a cigarette or cigar invades your space(on the street, or in a public place) , it should be legal to punch them in the face. They are assaulting everyone nearby with their cancer-causing second hand smoke. However, it doesn't apply if you go into their space when they are smoking.

 

[Darat]

I've always found it rather curious... Currently the city I live in has a no-smoking bylaw for restaurants.

Prior to that, smokers made up only a small fraction of our population (around 1/4). Yet there were very few if any restaurants in the area that were completely non-smoking.

You would figure that there would have been more restaurants willing to cater to the majority.

Because non-smokers were brought up in a culture that said smoking was fine, even asking to sit in a non-smoking section of a restaurant if half a dozen of you were non-smokers and one was a smoker would be considered being rude to the smoker! Why should they have to suffer?

SusanB-M1's post summed it up (I hope she wont mind me mentioning that she is a lady of more mature age than many of us and lived through the changes.)

The answer to the OP could only be yes if we were still ignorant of the dangers of smoking. In my lifetime, the pendulum has swung from a position where smokers had to be deferred to, ash trays supplied and no objection raised to the horrible smell, etc, to a position where they are most definitely the ones who must defer to the non-smokers. Are they stigmatised? No!

 

[Darat]

Where "stigmatising" kicks in, imo, is where regulations/laws are introduced or enforced that are designed to make the miscreant feel bad rather than achieve a desirable outcome for the innocent person.

Smoking pubs and clubs? If the ventilation system doesn't bother neighbours, then of course. The staff and patrons, knowing the score, are there by choice and they suffer any consequences.

Smoking cinemas? At a stretch perhaps, maybe one auditorium in a multiplex, but mostly you'd expect large spaces to be available to all.

Smoking trains? There used to be a carriage at the tail-end of UK trains for smokers that non-smokers had no need to visit, but I suppose a really crowded train might see non-smokers forced in there in order to get a seat. So, no, not on trains.

...snip...

Isn't that missing the point that none of the above are not available to smokers, a smoker can go to the cinema, they can go on trains and so on.

 

[Polaris]

"You don't want to sell me your death sticks. You are going to go home and do something useful with your life. Before you go, bring me a 6 pack..."

"Cancer merchant! Cancer merchant! Cancer merchant!"

 

[jimbob]

Because non-smokers were brought up in a culture that said smoking was fine, even asking to sit in a non-smoking section of a restaurant if half a dozen of you were non-smokers and one was a smoker would be considered being rude to the smoker! Why should they have to suffer?

SusanB-M1's post summed it up (I hope she wont mind me mentioning that she is a lady of more mature age than many of us and lived through the changes.)

Yes, going to the pub used to be pretty unpleasant. And non-smoking sections were often small parts that still stank of cigarette smoke.

 

[Darat]

Yes, going to the pub used to be pretty unpleasant. And non-smoking sections were often small parts that still stank of cigarette smoke.

Yeah "non smoking" sections were as useless as a chocolate fire-guard. I remember being in restaurants and being sat in the "non smoking section", the smoking section would start at the table next to ours!

 

[catsmate]

A friend in Vancouver tells me that cigarettes are increasingly restricted in Canada, and especially so in Vancouver.

Apparently:



According to a poster on another thread, something very similar is true in Australia.

And it looks likely to be the same in the UK soon as well.

And Ireland.

Although I don't smoke anymore, Japan seems to be either one of the last holdouts of liberty, or a backward pre-modern smoke-pit<snip>

But one thing I have noticed is that whereas the right-wing used to be all religious and high and mighty about people's behaviour, it now seems to be more of a left-wing thing to preach the sins of smoking. So much so that these right-wing publications are now saying that anti-smoking prejudice has become a stigma.

Probably down to the realisation of the effects on others; it's not about personal liberty it's about inflicting their disgusting addiction and its deleterious consequences on others.

This one from the Revolutionary Communist Party-turned right-wing libertarians sp!ked, calls it a war on smoking in the UK. This one from the New Republic also says there is a "war on smoking" and says that it has gone too far.

Are smokers suffering to the same extent as homosexuals?

What does everyone else think?

Ban on circumstance exposing others to unwanted secondary smoke.

I favor the owner of such private properties deciding what otherwise legal conduct is acceptable on his premises. I favor allowing patrons to choose whether or not to patronize such establishments.

Should the patrons of such establishments (and the owners) be required to contribute to the additional burden of health care for the staff exposed to secondary smoke?

My company's property is smoke free, including the parking lot. While I've seen plenty of evidence that people are smoking in their cars, officially they are supposed to leave company property before lighting up.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons for banning it even in your own car may be to reduce cigarette litter.

In Ireland it's illegal to smoke in a company vehicle. And it will soo be illegal to smoke in any vehicle in which there are children.

 

[blutoski]

I've always found it rather curious... Currently the city I live in has a no-smoking bylaw for restaurants.

Prior to that, smokers made up only a small fraction of our population (around 1/4). Yet there were very few if any restaurants in the area that were completely non-smoking.

You would figure that there would have been more restaurants willing to cater to the majority.

I've never owned a restaurant, but I worked in them for years and some of my friends own restaurants... I have watched the politics of smoking shift in this city (Vancouver) for probably the last 30-40 years of real awareness.

Restaurants have an interesting interaction with the legislation.

1) there was a period when "that's just the way it is" prevailed - with no nonsmoking pubs out there, how would they know it would be a better experience?
2) the restaurants are serving 'parties' - if one of the party is a smoker, the rest are usually willing to suck it up instead of tell him to stay at home, so most parties end up asking for a smoking section
3) the definition of smoker is not very straightforward... many of the 'nonsmokers' I know have a cigarette once in awhile, meaning when they go to a pub once a week
4) profitability - smokers may be a minority but they punch above their weight in profitability - they drink more and tip more
5) attitude - food industry staff are mostly smokers, even today, and they associate nonsmoking with fringe prudes. i remember sometime around 1989 when I was at a silver service restaurant and a woman complained about there being no nonsmoking section. the manager came out and told her she could lick his ball sack. it has taken a long time for the industry to grasp that people who are sensitive to smoke aren't crackpot troublemakers inventing one more thing to complain about

restaurants don't have great institutional memory. a restaurant that strikes out as a 'nonsmoking' restaurant is just as likely to fail as any other, because restaurants fail for a million reasons. prejudice has clouded post mortem analyses, such that any nonsmoking restaurant that failed in Vancouver in the 1980s for any reason whatsoever was held up as a case study in 'nonsmoking restaurants fail'.

 

[blutoski]

Yeah "non smoking" sections were as useless as a chocolate fire-guard. I remember being in restaurants and being sat in the "non smoking section", the smoking section would start at the table next to ours!

This was the conclusion in Vancouver as well. We had I think 15-20 years of regulation to provide both smoking/nonsmoking sections in restaurants over a minimum seating capacity, and it never worked. Seating plans are too dynamic and even expensive ventilation solutions rarely cooperated.

I think the restaurant lobby shot themselves in the foot a bit, as they counselled their members to sabotage the program. They were hoping the whole idea would go away, but when they proved smoking sections were unworkable, the legislation shifted to banning smoking entirely. A bit of irony there.

 

[AlBell]

They are not stigmatized enough. I think there should be an anti-smoking version of "Stand Your Ground". If a person smoking a cigarette or cigar invades your space(on the street, or in a public place) , it should be legal to punch them in the face. They are assaulting everyone nearby with their cancer-causing second hand smoke. However, it doesn't apply if you go into their space when they are smoking.

And you can hope the nicoctine has taken the edge off their temper and that they aren't packing a gun.

I think people with ideas like that one of yours should be stigmatized; a nice prison term does take one off the voter rolls so that's a plus.

Have you considered carrying a water pistol? That should on use get you punched in the face.

 

[Dessi]

Just had a thought would it be possible to remove the nicotine from cigarettes? If so then I would say that is a way to tackle the last 20%, make the manufacturers remove the drug.

I believe this would work very well.

Anecdote alert: a close friend of mine picked up smoking socially, mostly at bars. Over time, one or two cigarettes at the bar turned into a regular smoking habit. He tried to quit smoking, but failed year after year after year.

Recently, he tried again and found it very easy to quit, almost effortless. It was too easy. Then it occurred to him: he started hosting hookah parties on a regular basis, smoking his hookah everyday, so he replaced a cigarette habit with a hookah habit. No surprise quitting cigarettes was so easy.

A few months ago he purchased some nicotine-free hookah tobacco. It doesn't give him the same rush, but just being able to inhale the smoke helped him ease off nicotine entirely. He's been nicotine-free for weeks now.

 

[GlennB]

Isn't that missing the point that none of the above are not available to smokers, a smoker can go to the cinema, they can go on trains and so on.

They can't go to the 'smoking pub or club' afaik.