Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Pot smokers shouldn't smoke in public areas because then people will be getting free contact highs. Where is your capitalist spirit?

 

[Flanh Flah]

But you can stand next to someone drinking a beer and be unaffected. You can stand in a crowded room of people drinking beer and be unaffected.

The term 'second hand smoke' has a pretty specific usage... referring to the inhalation of various compounds produced from smoking by people other than the smoker. There is no 'second-hand drinking' because the activity of drinking does not produce chemical compounds that can be encountered by just being in the same room. Trying to expand the term 'second hand' to cover such secondary effects as car crashes pretty much makes the term meaningless. (Not that such secondary effects should be ignored, but don't label it 'second hand')

Fair point. However, people are made to breathe many foul exhausts: cars, intestinal gas, perfumes etc. Vehicle exhaust is a necessity, but what if someone is out for a joyride? My answer is... I don't care, I'm not enough of a busybody to manufacture the "proper" righteous indignation.

 

[kid meatball]

Fair point. However, people are made to breathe many foul exhausts: cars, intestinal gas, perfumes etc. Vehicle exhaust is a necessity, but what if someone is out for a joyride? My answer is... I don't care, I'm not enough of a busybody to manufacture the "proper" righteous indignation.

Back when I was a smoker, I did a bit of a back of the napkin calculation. I sat on a patio (that still allowed smoking) and counted the cars that passed a busy intersection maybe 15m away. I haven't got any of the hard numbers but I basically multiplied the number of cars passing in all directions during the time it takes me to smoke a cigarette by a short distance comprised of the intersection, something like 50m, then compared it to the average fuel economy in Canadian cars at the time, somewhere around 8l/100km. My argument was, sitting at a patio near a busy intersection, what is worse, me smoking or the 6 or 7 litres of gas being burned a short distance away?

Given that there is no such thing as a catalytic converter or wind

 

[SezMe]

Legalization is almost certainly the product of an existing widespread accepted belief that there is little potential harm.

I disagree. The predominant argument for legalization (in the USA) is the incredibly bad unintended consequences of the war on drugs.

 

[jimbob]

There is a complication with the word 'private' in a lot of these contexts. Businesses have a private owner, but they are usually considered a publicly accessed location. They are also usually a 'workplace' which means there is a justification for legislating the environment of the employees. Specifying limitations to the contract such that they can't sign their health away.

Private 'clubs' are differentiated from businesses that are 'open to the public'.

This interpretation is universal, not specific for cigarette legislation.

And I disagree with much of this. A business owner should make such decisions himself. No smoking for the staff while working in a restaurant seems to have sufficient public health consequences to warrant a law. Otherwise, a property owner should describe the conduct that is acceptable on his property, business concern or not. A sign that says "Warning, we smoke here" makes more sense than a distinction between "public" and "private" club. In each case, clients make informed decisions.

Are you actually disagreeing with this? If I'm reading your post correctly, you think that sufficiently strong public health reasons should trump private decisions.

To me, the key part of Blutoski's post is the following:

" They are also usually a 'workplace' which means there is a justification for legislating the environment of the employees. Specifying limitations to the contract such that they can't sign their health away."

To me this says that employees should be protected from being put into a situation where they might have to sign their health away in order to progress in their job.

I'd consider that principle to be more important than a public health argument, where there is an argument that if the person damaging their health is capable of informed consent about the risks and hazards, then to a certain extent the decision should be their's.

 

[Cain]

You have to look at it from the owner's perspective: "If employees can force themselves to laugh at my dumbest jokes, then they can learn to tolerate carcinogens."

 

[elgarak]

I have a hard time feeling sorry for smokers when their actions emit toxic fumes.

I have a fairly sensitive breathing tract that gets irritated easily with some irritants. Tobacco smoke first among them. I have been to the beach with smokers present there. The volume of air they keep fumigating is staggeringly large.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I have a hard time feeling sorry for smokers when their actions emit toxic fumes.

I have a fairly sensitive breathing tract that gets irritated easily with some irritants. Tobacco smoke first among them. I have been to the beach with smokers present there. The volume of air they keep fumigating is staggeringly large.

I can sympathize, I'm asthmatic and an evening in a smokey pub meant two or three days impaired breathing and puffing inhalers.

As others have pointed out, my experience was always that when going out as a group consisting of smokers and non-smokers the smokers would always insist that we sat in the smoking section, even if they were a minority they usually outnumbered the number of non smokers who cared enough to argue about it, especially as smoke is no respecter of restaurant sections and there usually wasn't THAT much of a difference and anyway the expectation was that going out meant being in a smokey atmosphere. Between my asthma and my wife's dislike of smoke (I actually don't mind the smell itself that much) we pretty much stopped going to pubs prior to the smoking ban, these days we're regular pub goers again.

 

[ABC10]

Pot smokers shouldn't smoke in public areas because then people will be getting free contact highs. Where is your capitalist spirit?

Smoke in public areas? Is that allowed even if it is tobacco or pot? I think I am liking this pot smoking helping us tobacco smokers to loosen Regs. This is okay. What is Starbucks gonna say about this?

 

[Morrigan]

No one says "Ewww you drink?" or "Ewww you eat fast food?" but you'll hear "Ewww smokers"

Unhealthy lifestyle choices should generally be treated equally.

Not if one particular lifestyle choice actually impacts others, then they shouldn't

It doesn't have to even be in person. Someone can post about alcohol and beer on Facebook. No one will mention cutting down. Someone can post this bacon filled sandwich as what they are currently eating. Again nothing.

A smoker will get told online that they should quit.

So even if that person in no way has put any kind of second hand smoke in your vicinity, people still say that person should quit.

...Because even if they are not currently in the vicinity of second hand smoke, second hand smoke still exists.

 

[GlennB]

.... if the person damaging their health is capable of informed consent about the risks and hazards, then to a certain extent the decision should be their's.

(quote trimmed to the relevant part, imo, and unattributed in case it's seen as misrepresentation)

Filling your car with gas gives you a decent blast of benzene-rich fumes.

A pump-jockey might do that 50 times per shift, and also gets a goodly dose of exhaust fumes for much of the shift.

It's legal to elect to do that job, while I doubt 1 in a 100 of the people doing the job even knows it poses a health risk. If choosing to work in a smoking environment does pose a health risk then, given the ample publicity surrounding that risk, that choice is much better informed.

In short, the ignorant pump-jockey is the one who needs protection, not the barman who decides to work in the 'smoking allowed' bar.

 

[jimbob]

(quote trimmed to the relevant part, imo, and unattributed in case it's seen as misrepresentation)

Filling your car with gas gives you a decent blast of benzene-rich fumes.

A pump-jockey might do that 50 times per shift, and also gets a goodly dose of exhaust fumes for much of the shift.

It's legal to elect to do that job, while I doubt 1 in a 100 of the people doing the job even knows it poses a health risk. If choosing to work in a smoking environment does pose a health risk then, given the ample publicity surrounding that risk, that choice is much better informed.

In short, the ignorant pump-jockey is the one who needs protection, not the barman who decides to work in the 'smoking allowed' bar.

Depending on the increase in risk from the benzene exposure, I'd say that the pump jockey does need protection. That doesn't mean that that the barman doesn't though.

I work in an industry that has a lot of unpleasant chemical (and some radiological) hazards. HF is one obvious nasty.

The demise of scotchguard is an example of a situation where a possible problem was identified and the company acted to remove it by removing its product.

In my industry, the most famous recent case that springs to mind is Samsung being linked to workers cancers in a Korean court

Workplace exposure to asbestos is another example where a risk wasn't appreciated by the employees at the time. I also think that it is shocking how the single-fibre defence has prevented compensation from being payed to people who were exposed to asbestos from more than one employer*.

In other words - I'd say that inadequate protection of employees because it is common practice in industry is not morally justifiable, and luckily it doesn't seem to be legally justifiable.






*the idea being that a single fibre is sufficient to cause mesothelioma so instad of compensation being paid by the employers in proportion to the exposure, only one is liable and as it can't be determined which one, none need pay.

 

[AlBell]

I disagree. The predominant argument for legalization (in the USA) is the incredibly bad unintended consequences of the war on drugs.

IMO the bad consequences for minorities were fully intended. ymmv

 

[SezMe]

Possibly, AlBell. Possibly.

 

[This is The End]

IMO the bad consequences for minorities were fully intended. ymmv

I wouldn't feel boxed in to make that claim.

After all, we are just around 50 years from desegregation, and "only" 150 years from away from full on slavery.

Of course, many of the people that used to be racists now just hate all poor people equally!! (Even when they themselves are often "poor".) That isn't to say that there aren't still large numbers of racists in the USA...

 

[GlennB]

Depending on the increase in risk from the benzene exposure, I'd say that the pump jockey does need protection. That doesn't mean that that the barman doesn't though.

Agreed. But what would happen if a health alarm were raised over the benzene threat to pump jockeys? I imagine that benzene levels would be measured at the workplace, as would frequency and length of exposure, excretion rate of benzene in the body might come into it and, basically, the benzene exposure would be compared to established 'safe exposure level' guidelines. I'm not seeing that with 2HS; I'm seeing "There is no safe level of exposure to 2HS" and that, to me, is where stigmatising kicks in - a conditional truth is being applied mindlessly across the board as if it's an absolute truth.

*the idea being that a single fibre is sufficient to cause mesothelioma so instad of compensation being paid by the employers in proportion to the exposure, only one is liable and as it can't be determined which one, none need pay.

That's amazing. If, say, it became possible to sue tobacco manufacturs for actual harm experienced, the parallel would seem to be that none pays because smokers inevitably switch brands now and then?

 

[jimbob]

That's amazing. If, say, it became possible to sue tobacco manufacturs for actual harm experienced, the parallel would seem to be that none pays because smokers inevitably switch brands now and then?

Ah wiki says it's more complicated than that; I had misremembered the news story.

It looks as if the issue is when some employers have become insolvent. Which is key as one pof the largest cases involves Federal Mogul which has filed for Chapter 11 in the US - partly due to the cost of compensation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_Act_2006

Section 3 reverses the common law on allocation of damages in various mesothelioma claims arising from unlawful exposure to asbestos. In 2002, the House of Lords had controversially ruled that, where several parties had unlawfully exposed the claimant to asbestos and risk of pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, all were liable for his injury, even though the claimant could not prove which individual party had provided the asbestos fibers that cause the disease.[8] However, in Barker v. Corus UK Ltd[9] the House of Lords held that the parties who contributed to the risk were severally but not jointly liable. This meant that a single defendant could only be held liable for a fraction of any damages proportional to the exposure for which they were responsible and that a claimant could only recover all their damages if they succeeded in actions against all such contributors. Section 3 reverses the House of Lords decision by making all such parties jointly and severally liable for the damage so that a claimant could recover the totality of their damages, even from a subgroup of potential defendants.[10]

Section 3 is "treated as having always had effect" (s.16(3)) and also extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland (s.17).

It is a scandal that mesothelioma deaths outnumber road accident deaths in the UK and that it isn't higher on the political radar.

ETA - or maybe I didn't...

PDF here http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Liability/Mesothelioma%20Compensation.pdf

In the now famous case of Fairchild –v- Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002
UKHL], the claimant had worked for three different employers, all of whom admitted negligently exposing him to asbestos dust. He subsequently developed mesothelioma and brought a claim seeking damages as against all three employers in the High Court.

As the medical experts in that case could not state during which period of employment
Mr Fairchild had inhaled the asbestos fibres that caused his illness to develop, his claim
failed, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

 

[Mudcat]

Since they don't face the ostracization and alienation that pot smokers do, no I don't believe smokers are unfairly stigmatized.

 

[Manopolus]

Do you think it should also be forbidden to smoke cigarettes outside?

Where in the hell else can I smoke? Places that do this might as well stop pussy-footing around and ban it altogether. There's no point to making it illegal to smoke everywhere and still try to pretend that you can still smoke without breaking some law or other. That makes no sense. If they want to ban them altogether, the proper first step is to ban selling them... not to restrict smokers to the point where they can't legally smoke anywhere (which will be summarily ignored, and rightly so).

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced on the second-hand smoke angle... other than when the "victims" are in an area which lacks proper ventilation. If you accidentally get a whiff of my smoking while passing by, it is quite unlikely to kill you, and is less annoying than someone that farts in an elevator, which isn't exactly against the law.

 

[Flanh Flah]

Where in the hell else can I smoke? Places that do this might as well stop pussy-footing around and ban it altogether. There's no point to making it illegal to smoke everywhere and still try to pretend that you can still smoke without breaking some law or other. That makes no sense. If they want to ban them altogether, the proper first step is to ban selling them... not to restrict smokers to the point where they can't legally smoke anywhere (which will be summarily ignored, and rightly so).

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced on the second-hand smoke angle... other than when the "victims" are in an area which lacks proper ventilation. If you accidentally get a whiff of my smoking while passing by, it is quite unlikely to kill you, and is less annoying than someone that farts in an elevator, which isn't exactly against the law.

The busybodies are more concerned with moral superiority than with the health of someone who chooses to work in a saloon.