Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

[Caper]

I think e-cigarette smokers are unfairly stigmatized.

 

[Flanh Flah]

Exactly. Some anti-smoking advocates need to examine their motives more honestly.

 

[blutoski]

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

What I meant was that the distinguishing element that has brought mj legalization lightyears ahead of heroin legalization is that it is regarded as essentially safe.

 

[GlennB]

What I meant was that the distinguishing element that has brought mj legalization lightyears ahead of heroin legalization is that it is regarded as essentially safe.

It probably is (though heroin can be extremely safe), but I can only guess that it's regarded as safe by disregarding the fact that herbal mj is dry plant material that's burned and inhaled, and that (often) it's cut with tobacco for smoking.

By the standards applied to straight tobacco it is inherently dangerous for the same reasons tobacco is considered inherently dangerous.

 

[SezMe]

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

Exactly. Some anti-smoking advocates need to examine their motives more honestly.

Wow. Judgmental much? Maybe you could identify some of these morally superior "busybodies".

 

[Manopolus]

It probably is (though heroin can be extremely safe), but I can only guess that it's regarded as safe by disregarding the fact that herbal mj is dry plant material that's burned and inhaled, and that (often) it's cut with tobacco for smoking.
By the standards applied to straight tobacco it is inherently dangerous for the same reasons tobacco is considered inherently dangerous.

It isn't here in the United States. Mention the idea to anyone that smokes weed (whether they smoke cigarettes or not) around here and they'll look at you like you're high or something.



Straight pot and tobacco aren't generally inhaled in quite the same fashion.

 

[Puppycow]

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, as here people can smoke in bars, restaurants and on (some) train platforms, on most roads, in cars, at the gym, in football stadiums, in parks and in schools. Also, cigarettes are prominently on display in shops and in ubiquitous vending machines on the streets which also often have ashtrays beside them so that you can smoke by the roadside. There are warnings on the packet, but instead of people with rotten teeth falling out, no hair, holes in their necks, fingers and toes falling off and post-mortem lungs, they tend to warn that smoking may not be entirely beneficial to one's health and it may be a good idea if you did not smoke too many if at all possible.

I don't know about Osaka, but it is increasingly restricted here in the Tokyo/Yokohama area. Pretty much all train platforms no longer allow it, lots of restaurants have gone smoke-free (but not all). Lots of public spaces such as sidewalks are smoke-free with fines for violators. The cigarette vending machines now require a Taspo RFID card to use. They won't work without the card, which is supposed to verify the age. It's a pain in the butt to get one. And the tax rates on them are a fair bit higher than 10 years ago, although still not up to the levels seen in the US or Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Japan
According to a graph here, smoking rates are down about 12% since 1995, from roughly 37% to 25%. Almost a third less smokers.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know about Osaka, but it is increasingly restricted here in the Tokyo/Yokohama area. Pretty much all train platforms no longer allow it, lots of restaurants have gone smoke-free (but not all). Lots of public spaces such as sidewalks are smoke-free with fines for violators. The cigarette vending machines now require a Taspo RFID card to use. They won't work without the card, which is supposed to verify the age. It's a pain in the butt to get one. And the tax rates on them are a fair bit higher than 10 years ago, although still not up to the levels seen in the US or Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Japan
According to a graph here, smoking rates are down about 12% since 1995, from roughly 37% to 25%. Almost a third less smokers.

There are some streets in Osaka where it is now prohibited to smoke. The Midosuji which runs from Umeda down to Namba is one place where I think the fine is currently 1000 yen. There are other streets, I think, where the fine is 10,000 yen. Still, there are not many places like that. I expect that within a few years smoking restrictions will increase a lot.

As for train platforms, most of the time there are designated areas for smoking, with most of those areas enclosed. And many platforms have no provision for smoking.

 

[blutoski]

It probably is (though heroin can be extremely safe), but I can only guess that it's regarded as safe by disregarding the fact that herbal mj is dry plant material that's burned and inhaled, and that (often) it's cut with tobacco for smoking.

By the standards applied to straight tobacco it is inherently dangerous for the same reasons tobacco is considered inherently dangerous.

I think there's the additional risk created by the psychoactive effects, which makes it more like alcohol in my opinion. On metrics of social and economic impact "per use" it's much lower than cocaine, heroin... it's hard to compare an illicit drug like mj with a legal drug like tobacco in terms of social an economic impact "overall" because the increase in use is very speculative.

That's all I was really getting at: it's high on the list for legalization because the general attitude is that it's pretty harmless, whereas, heroin, cocaine, and other opioids are considered more destructive all things being equal.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Spliffs are heavier? Not arguing with you here, just wondering what you mean.

It's common for cigarette smokers to smoke 2-3 packs a day. I don't know anyone that smokes 40-60 joints in a day, let alone on a daily basis.

eta: meanwhile some (most?) joints include tobacco. Don't get me started about how my pristine 22-year old lungs ended up preverted by the demon nicotine

As has Manopolus mentioned, that's not at all true in the US. Mixing marijuana and tobacco is a weird European thing.

 

[catsmate]

Out of interest, would most people agree with the same rules applying to smoking marijuana as well?

Yes. It's the smoke that's the hazard so what is being smoked isn't that important.

How stinky is weed ?

I'd apply the same rules to eating fried food in a confined space too. Many workplaces ban the consumption of hot food at desks because the smell may be offensive.

It's generally far worse than tobacco, stink wise.

I lived for a time in a flat where the prevailing wind wafted in the fumes from the extractor system of a Chinese takeaway that also did fish & chips etc. Even never opening a window didn't solve the problem of pervasive stinkiness. And heaven knows how much formaldehyde I was breathing in.

There's a restaurant in Dublin that has their extractor fans positioned to stink up the car park opposite and the street between them. Legal action is ongoing.

Why not? Are not many of the health hazards the same?

Pretty much. Though given that cannabis is psychoactive I also support legislation (similar to alcohol) restricting it's use by drivers, machinery operators et cetera.

I assume that the same restrictions will apply because a lit spliff could also be a fire hazard, and because discarded roaches are also litter, and of course because people will passively smoke intoxicating fumes.

Agreed.

I think the specialized shops/cafes and bars will have to be a no-go as the point about banning smoking indoors was to protect people who will work on the premises.

You could have exterior smoking areas, with appropriate dissipation measures, and no human service.

Yes, so presumably the restrictions will have to be stricter. Aside from blood and urine tests, can the police test for marijuana in any way similar to breathalizer tests?

There are field tests using saliva. However due to the lipid soluble nature of most cannabinoids can be detected for far longer than alcohol.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's common for cigarette smokers to smoke 2-3 packs a day. ....

...

Really?

Back in the 60's & 70's ( I was a smoker then .... ) when smoking was much more acceptable socially , a pack a day was considered a heavy smoker,..

I would really be surprised if there are a lot of 3 pack a day smokers in New York, where the cost can be $15+ a pack..

 

[GlennB]

It's common for cigarette smokers to smoke 2-3 packs a day. I don't know anyone that smokes 40-60 joints in a day, let alone on a daily basis.

Well, the study mentioned a higher rate of 'muck' from the mj, but I take your point about being highly unlikely to smoke that much dope. Also I was picturing 'cig-like joints', but that would be a bit daft (in UK terms) because a pure joint would tend to have much less bulk. But .....

As has Manopolus mentioned, that's not at all true in the US. Mixing marijuana and tobacco is a weird European thing.

Right. I hasten to add that my dabbling in illegal drugs such as mj fizzled out decades ago, apart from once about 10 years back. Then I shared a smallish joint with a friend but it was the modern high-strength grass. Nearly took my head off, and I had a deep desire not to feel that way for too much longer and curled up under a piano

I couldn't really picture rolling a pure j of that stuff thin enough to avoid that effect. So, do US potheads roll 'em really skinny or do they smoke a mllder weed with a fair bulk? Or use pipes?

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

As far as I know, while they may be annoying, intestinal gas and perfumes probably don't have a carcinogenic effect in the amount people would be exposed to. (There may be issues with some that have hypersensitive allergic reactions to perfumes, but those people probably already have to be cautions about just about everything.)

As for cars and people producing dangerous chemicals while 'joyriding', I think there is an issue of practicality... a general "indoor smoking ban" can be relatively simple to implement. Attempting to implement any sort of "no releasing dangerous chemicals due to joyriding" would be infinitely harder to implement (even if it would lead to cleaner air).

 

[Flanh Flah]

Wow. Judgmental much? Maybe you could identify some of these morally superior "busybodies".

People who want to ban tobacco, are against e-cigs, won't allow veterans to smoke in their own clubs etc. You could identify them too with a little effort.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Someone else already addressed that issue in an earlier post...

Just like coal miners and others doing "dangerous" jobs, exposure to risk is a necessity for the job. (i.e. there's no real substitute for the pump-jockey's exposure to Benzene-rich fumes, because filling a gas tank with a more harmless substance will not allow the car to function.)

On the other hand, there is nothing that necessitates exposure to cigarette smoke during the preparation or distribution of food. In fact, exposure to cigarette smoke would probably hamper those activities.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

Has anyone ever done any sort of analysis to measure toxins from cars on a typical restaurant patio vs. those produced by smoking?

I have done some googling and did find a reference, but it was measuring the amount of CO produced (it found that most cars produced it in far lower cncentrations than cigarette smoke. Nothing about other chemicals though.)

http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf

I suspect that the fact that risks from car exhausts would be much less than for cigarettes (either indoors or on a patio) for a couple of reasons:
- Even though a patio might be close to a street, there will likely be at least a couple of meters separation; compare that to a smoker who might be sitting only a few feet from a non-smoker.
- Even on a windless day, the cars themselves would be causing a disturbance in the air, enhancing dispersal; compare that to a smoker, who's likely just sitting there.

 

[GlennB]

Someone else already addressed that issue in an earlier post...

Just like coal miners and others doing "dangerous" jobs, exposure to risk is a necessity for the job. (i.e. there's no real substitute for the pump-jockey's exposure to Benzene-rich fumes, because filling a gas tank with a more harmless substance will not allow the car to function.)

My point is that the pump-jockey or miner recognises the risk (we hope) and chooses to accept it. The bartender in a 'we smoke here' bar knows the risks and doesn't have to work there. That is, I'm defining 'bar keeping in a smoking bar' as a specific job. And I'd bet there are plenty of barmen that would just love to be able to smoke at work.

Maybe a better example - sometimes racing cars crash and wheels and other parts fly off, injuring or killing spectators. Motor racing, and watching it, are strictly optional activities that are not essential to the smooth functioning of society, and those partaking choose to accept the risks.

 

[blutoski]

It's common for cigarette smokers to smoke 2-3 packs a day. I don't know anyone that smokes 40-60 joints in a day, let alone on a daily basis.

I think future-facing forecasts are also complicated by the fact that legalization of mj will imply commercial modifications of the product. Comparisons should not be made between industrially produced "engineered to maximize the number of cigarettes you smoke" tobacco and "roll your own" mj. Legalization will put an entire industry to bear on building products designed to maximize profit by - among other things - maximizing volume consumed per customer (ARPU).

A second obvious change will be that commercial mj products will likely be filtered, plus additives to make inhalation more comfortable, with a side effect of reducing health impacts a bit.

Point is: I think it's very difficult to forecast 'the effects' of legalization on health, except for the obvious: it will increase use.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Really?

Back in the 60's & 70's ( I was a smoker then .... ) when smoking was much more acceptable socially , a pack a day was considered a heavy smoker,..

I would really be surprised if there are a lot of 3 pack a day smokers in New York, where the cost can be $15+ a pack..

"Common" was a poor choice of words. Most of the more casual smokers I know have quit, so an unusually high percentage of the smokers I know now are of the hardcore chainsmoker variety.