Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

[blutoski]

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.

I think we can wind back and take a bird's eye view of the question... if adverse reactions are an indicator of intensity (which I think is a reasonable assumption), then it's clear that the concentration of irritants in an enclosed smoke-filled environment are comparable to only the worst environmental pollution. Levels that haven't existed in the West for decades.

It was relatively easy politically to pass EPA (or here it's Environment Canada) regulations to curb industrial and vehicle emissions. At this point, we're at a more politically difficult moment where we're trying to regulate air quality in privately owned environments.

 

[blutoski]

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.)

Not just carcinogenic effects, though... the concern is about general health problems associated with chronic smoke inhalation. e.g.: emphysema. It doesn't just irritate pre-existing conditions: it appears to be a risk factor for getting it in the first place.

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).

I agree: practicality is part of the 'reasonableness' test for any proposal. There are people who are obsessed with only passing laws that are 100% perfect and consistent with every other law, but I think this is extraordinarily rigid thinking. The expression in business is: "don't throw out good because it's not better; don't throw out better just because it's not best"

We invest a huge effort in reducing vehicle emissions, from manufacturer's standards to (in BC) annual testing and refusal to license vehicles that exceed limits, to anti-idling laws. No, we don't screen 'reason for driving' at this point - sounds like more work than it's worth considering there are already global strategies in place that are relatively effective.

 

[blutoski]

My point is that the pump-jockey or miner recognises the risk (we hope) and chooses to accept it.

I think the quibble is: "what risk?" - miners have spent generations ratcheting up the safety of their occupation to the current level of risk. They do not just sign away their rights and not care about risk. They have hammered out a compromise among themselves, the employers, and the occupational regulator.

I also think it's an unreasonable comparison: as mentioned in a previous post, the most obvious disanalogy that comes to mind is that smoking is not a 'side effect' of serving beverages. It is entirely ancillary to the service being provided and can be eliminated without impacting production.

In other industries, the effort has been to eliminate unnecessary risks. This is an unnecessary risk that is easy to eliminate in food service.

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.

I think that's true, but so what?
If I wanted to go to work with a block of plutonium, I can't do that.
Bummer for me, but I'm not king of the world.

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.

These examples are not very comparable though. Working in an unsafe environment is not the same as being a spectator in an unsafe environment. This is the West, and it's 2014.

 

[GlennB]

I think the quibble is: "what risk?" - miners have spent generations ratcheting up the safety of their occupation to the current level of risk. They do not just sign away their rights and not care about risk. They have hammered out a compromise among themselves, the employers, and the occupational regulator.

Might not bartenders be allowed the right to demand certain air-replacement rates, say, in places where they're willing to work? Or maybe those standards could be established, up front, by the law-makers?

These examples are not very comparable though. Working in an unsafe environment is not the same as being a spectator in an unsafe environment. This is the West, and it's 2014.

Are hotdog sellers prevented, by law, from plying their trade among the motorsport spectators because there's a theoretically calculable health risk to them? Nah, they can choose to take the miniscule risk they'll have their heads knocked off by flying debris.

 

[blutoski]

Might not bartenders be allowed the right to demand certain air-replacement rates, say, in places where they're willing to work? Or maybe those standards could be established, up front, by the law-makers?

I didn't understand the question.
Do you mean a ventilation solution instead of a smoke-free environment?
Historically, this has been the first attempt in most regions that I'm aware of, and it proved ineffective, so the current stage is fully nonsmoking venues.

Are hotdog sellers prevented, by law, from plying their trade among the motorsport spectators because there's a theoretically calculable health risk to them? Nah, they can choose to take the miniscule risk they'll have their heads knocked off by flying debris.

I don't know. I don't know enough about the safety discussions that have taken place between venue employees and the administrators.

But it probably doesn't matter: these things are incremental, and effective pressure tends to address the most bang-for-buck first. eg: smoking in venues harms millions of people a year. Car tires, maybe one or two a decade. I'd put the latter as a much lower priority for now. Skeptics warn against the fallacy of availability (rare but 'exciting', risks getting undue attention).

Also, I detect that philosophical rigidity that I was mentioning earlier: a rule must be totally consistent in princple or it has to be scrapped? Everybody deserves a safe job or nobody deserves a safe job? Do you not value 'better'?

 

[Segnosaur]

Might not bartenders be allowed the right to demand certain air-replacement rates, say, in places where they're willing to work? Or maybe those standards could be established, up front, by the law-makers?

I think there are 2 problems with trying to establish such standards for "air replacement rates"

- From a practical point of view, its probably a bigger hassle to implement. Lets say someone did calculate an airflow that would provide a 'safe' environment... trying to enforce companies to follow such rules would be a headache. (Regular tests to make sure fans are working properly and that air flow isn't blocked, some sort of test to show that yes, air IS getting cleared and there are no pockets of stale air., etc.) On the other hand, a smoking ban is comparatively easy to implement and enforce... either someone is smoking or they are not. (I'm not saying its impossible to come up with such standards, just that it would be tricky.)

- It might give an unfair competitive advantage to certain restaurants (at least for a short time when the law is first implemented)... A restaurant in a stand-alone building might be able to set up a ventilation system much easier than some restaurant stuck in the middle of a large office complex.

 

[Flanh Flah]

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

I forgot to add that I very harshly judge others who seek to infantilize grown up adults.

 

[GlennB]

But it probably doesn't matter: these things are incremental, and effective pressure tends to address the most bang-for-buck first. eg: smoking in venues harms millions of people a year. Car tires, maybe one or two a decade.

Physically harms "millions of people a year", non-smokers? Seriously? Or do you mean 'bothers'? Do you mean the smokers themselves, in which case what does the venue have to do with it?

If the former, I'd love to see a cite for that figure, given the WHO study I mentioned upthread. Reminder - 76,000 women studied (smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers) and among never-smokers living with smoking partners it took 20 years of *living* with a smoker to achieve a statistically significant increased health risk.

Case in point about 'stigma' just earlier this evening - We're just catching up with "The Sopranos" in the B house. In series ii, disk 4, Tony Soprano's therapist (X, I forget her name) is eating in a restaurant with her son. It's a smoking venue. X gets stroppy about a woman smoking at the next table, son asks her to cool it, but X says "But she's the one with a lethal weapon!!"

Well, bollocks, frankly. X could eat 3 times a day in such a place for the rest of her life and have neglibible added health risk. 'The woman' was inconsiderate and selfish, it's true, but "lethal weapon"? Gimme a break. X was taking advantage of the demonisation of smoking in order to make a cheap debating point in order to get her way.

 

[jimbob]

Physically harms "millions of people a year", non-smokers? Seriously? Or do you mean 'bothers'? Do you mean the smokers themselves, in which case what does the venue have to do with it?

If the former, I'd love to see a cite for that figure, given the WHO study I mentioned upthread. Reminder - 76,000 women studied (smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers) and among never-smokers living with smoking partners it took 20 years of *living* with a smoker to achieve a statistically significant increased health risk.

Case in point about 'stigma' just earlier this evening - We're just catching up with "The Sopranos" in the B house. In series ii, disk 4, Tony Soprano's therapist (X, I forget her name) is eating in a restaurant with her son. It's a smoking venue. X gets stroppy about a woman smoking at the next table, son asks her to cool it, but X says "But she's the one with a lethal weapon!!"

Well, bollocks, frankly. X could eat 3 times a day in such a place for the rest of her life and have neglibible added health risk. 'The woman' was inconsiderate and selfish, it's true, but "lethal weapon"? Gimme a break. X was taking advantage of the demonisation of smoking in order to make a cheap debating point in order to get her way.

Worldwide it probably is millions.

The study you posted upthread was for cancer. Respiratory and circulatory illnesses seem to be far more important as far as secondary smoke is concerned.

<snip>

Heart attacks fell after the smoking ban in Scotland

The number of people being taken to hospital with heart attacks in Scotland has fallen significantly since the smoking ban was introduced, the most detailed study into the impact of the measure has revealed.

Researchers found a 17% drop in the number of people admitted for heart attacks in the year since the ban came into force, compared with an average 3% reduction a year over the previous decade. The reduction was most marked among non-smokers, with a 20% fall, compared with a 14% drop among smokers.

and this for asthma

The introduction of smoke-free legislation in England was immediately followed by a fall in the number of children admitted to hospital with asthma symptoms, a new study has found.

NHS statistics analysed by researchers at Imperial College London show a 12.3 per cent fall in admissions for childhood asthma in the first year after the law on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces came into effect in July 2007. The researchers found that asthma admissions continued to fall in subsequent years, suggesting that the benefits of the legislation were sustained over time.

Asthma affects one in every 11 children in the UK. Before the law was implemented, hospital admissions for children suffering a severe asthma attack were increasing by 2.2 per cent per year, peaking at 26,969 admissions in 2006/2007. The trend reversed immediately after the law came into effect, with lower admission rates among boys and girls of all ages. There were similar reductions among children in wealthy and poor neighbourhoods, both in cities and in rural areas.

<snip>

So in Scotland that is 17 perent fall in heart attacks (from about 8,000 a year) and larger amongst non-smokers than smokers. On top of this there is a fall in asthma-related admissions to hospital in England (my sums make it about 3,000 fall in hospital admissions for Asthma). Many more will suffer health consequences but not require hospital admission.

 

[Polaris]

I forgot to add that I very harshly judge others who seek to infantilize grown up adults.

You may want to avoid the gun control threads, then.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

That seems a bit of a rose-coloured view of the job market. It's not like people end up at jobs with no benefits because they choose to. Well, obviously there is choice, but not a free one.

 

[blutoski]

Physically harms "millions of people a year", non-smokers? Seriously? Or do you mean 'bothers'? Do you mean the smokers themselves, in which case what does the venue have to do with it?

If the former, I'd love to see a cite for that figure, given the WHO study I mentioned upthread. Reminder - 76,000 women studied (smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers) and among never-smokers living with smoking partners it took 20 years of *living* with a smoker to achieve a statistically significant increased health risk.

That WHO study was specifically concentrating on cancer because its risk impact from passive smoking is unclear. Many other health risks are not disputed. We're not talking 'citation' here - there's an entire body of literature on asthma, emphysema and other conditions that can be acutely aggravated by pollution, including passive smoke.

I've mentioned this in several posts.

 

[GlennB]

That seems a bit of a rose-coloured view of the job market. It's not like people end up at jobs with no benefits because they choose to. Well, obviously there is choice, but not a free one.

Many take on jobs without knowing the risks. A bartender in a smoking bar knows the risks, these days. The person working in a kitchen that runs on gas, probably not. The pump-jockey, probably not.

Gas stoves produce a certain amount of formaldehyde, the very stuff that sometimes appears on the health warnings on my rolling tobacco pouches. The dose received just by being the (gas) cook of a family dinner compares to the expected daily dose of formadehyde from passive smoking for that bartender. If he's smoking on the job, probably not. His choice.

And this is where demonisation kicks in. Formaldehyde! Oh no! That's they stuff they use to pickle bodies! And never mind that every time you cook on gas you're getting a modest dose of it. We won't mention that.

Key words, sound-bites, extrapolated studies....

 

[blutoski]

Many take on jobs without knowing the risks. A bartender in a smoking bar knows the risks, these days. The person working in a kitchen that runs on gas, probably not. The pump-jockey, probably not.

Gas stoves produce a certain amount of formaldehyde, the very stuff that sometimes appears on the health warnings on my rolling tobacco pouches. The dose received just by being the (gas) cook of a family dinner compares to the expected daily dose of formadehyde from passive smoking for that bartender. If he's smoking on the job, probably not. His choice.

And this is where demonisation kicks in. Formaldehyde! Oh no! That's they stuff they use to pickle bodies! And never mind that every time you cook on gas you're getting a modest dose of it. We won't mention that.

Key words, sound-bites, extrapolated studies....

I'm thinking more that it's about avoidable risks. Cooking without using a stove sounds like a showstopper, and the reasonable effort to reduce harm to the cooking staff is to establish bylaws about venting. You've probably seen commercial kitchens have those big vents, they need to be code, they get inspected, yaddah-yaddah.

I'm sort of repeating myself at this point, but it's pretty clear to me that smoking isn't a really necessary element of dining out. Even still, every region I'm aware of tried ventilation first, and the blanket smoking bans are are introduced once ventilation is demonstrated to be impractical.

 

[Flanh Flah]

You may want to avoid the gun control threads, then.

I bypass them as if they were a dung-covered plague on wheels.

 

[GlennB]

I'm thinking more that it's about avoidable risks. Cooking without using a stove sounds like a showstopper, and the reasonable effort to reduce harm to the cooking staff is to establish bylaws about venting. You've probably seen commercial kitchens have those big vents, they need to be code, they get inspected, yaddah-yaddah.

I'm sort of repeating myself at this point, but it's pretty clear to me that smoking isn't a really necessary element of dining out. Even still, every region I'm aware of tried ventilation first, and the blanket smoking bans are are introduced once ventilation is demonstrated to be impractical.

We're talking at cross-purposes somewhat. I'm not suggesting that social venues be sanitised so that smokers and non-smokers can share them - I accept that many non-smokers will still hate the smell. I'm suggesting that there be such a thing as a 'smoking bar' (say) where informed people can choose to go and accept whatever added marginal risk might be present. Then ensure good ventilation in those places. Hell, even I found some of the New Year's Eve gatherings at our pub pretty oppressive with the amount of smoke in the place.

Meanwhile I'm also objecting to what is scarcely better than a plain lie when people are warned about the toxic chemicals contained in cig smoke. If I were to slap labels on bags of potatoes saying "This product contains arsenic" it might technically be true but would be nothing more than irrational scare-mongering. "Demonisation by scary jargon" and gross exaggeration, in other words, leading to scenes like the one I witnessed in our (non-smoking) village hall where a terrified kid of about 8 was clinging to his Mum because someone was smoking in the doorway. Turned out he'd been taught to be very afraid of cig smoke.

 

[blutoski]

We're talking at cross-purposes somewhat. I'm not suggesting that social venues be sanitised so that smokers and non-smokers can share them - I accept that many non-smokers will still hate the smell. I'm suggesting that there be such a thing as a 'smoking bar' (say) where informed people can choose to go and accept whatever added marginal risk might be present. Then ensure good ventilation in those places. Hell, even I found some of the New Year's Eve gatherings at our pub pretty oppressive with the amount of smoke in the place.

The problem remains with employee protection, though. There are two moving parts. Just as an example, my father's private golf club can refuse to hire women golf pros, but can't violate health codes. Employee's can't sign away their health for something that is just not necessary to conduct the work.

Meanwhile I'm also objecting to what is scarcely better than a plain lie when people are warned about the toxic chemicals contained in cig smoke. If I were to slap labels on bags of potatoes saying "This product contains arsenic" it might technically be true but would be nothing more than irrational scare-mongering. "Demonisation by scary jargon" and gross exaggeration, in other words, leading to scenes like the one I witnessed in our (non-smoking) village hall where a terrified kid of about 8 was clinging to his Mum because someone was smoking in the doorway. Turned out he'd been taught to be very afraid of cig smoke.

I agree with this, but this is not what created the current laws. Shunning and exaggerated toxin stories went nowhere until the medical research could prove there was actual harm. We're in the situation now where there is newly learned information that is sufficient to shift the risk/benefit analysis.

Yes there have always been prudes, but they're never convinced anybody of anything. They're just easy targets for passive smoke harm denialists.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

Yes.

I grew up the era when it seems that everyone, besides my mom, smoked. This demonization of the last few decades forgets the following point:

Smokers are people.

No, I don't smoke anymore, which makes my wife happy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

"Stigmatized" and "Demonized" seem like over the top descriptions for the reality of the situation. Other than the specific activity of smoking, which in an enclosed space has negative effects on other people within that space, smokers are free to use the same services and facilities as anyone else. If you came into my pub with a music player blasting out gangsta rap (even at volumes that weren't potentially hearing damaging) you'd be asked to turn it off and leave and if necessary ejected, just as if you lit up. Are gangsta rap listeners "stigmatized" because other people want the option not to participate in their hobby?

 

[GlennB]

"Stigmatized" and "Demonized" seem like over the top descriptions for the reality of the situation. Other than the specific activity of smoking, which in an enclosed space has negative effects on other people within that space, smokers are free to use the same services and facilities as anyone else. If you came into my pub with a music player blasting out gangsta rap (even at volumes that weren't potentially hearing damaging) you'd be asked to turn it off and leave and if necessary ejected, just as if you lit up. Are gangsta rap listeners "stigmatized" because other people want the option not to participate in their hobby?

Slightly different. Nobody is claiming "There is no safe level of exposure to gangsta rap" or that "Gangsta rap contains rhythms that can damage the health". Meanwhile it's prefectly legal for a proprietor to play gangsta rap in his pub if he so chooses.