Are Cigarette Smokers Unfairly Stigmatized?

[kid meatball]

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

Your friend has most of it wrong, or is exaggerating the laws.

you cannot display cigarettes in canada.

This is true. Vendors must keep tobacco products hidden from view.

the cannot have anything but company name awful picture of dead people and giant warning on the packet.

50% of the package must be reserved for health canada warnings. Cigarette companies are also restricted from using terms like "light" or "mild" in their branding. Such terms are seen to try to lessen the harm caused by smoking.

you cannot smoke in your car in vancouver

if its got children in it. Seems pretty straight forward. Otherwise, smoking in your car is a bit of a dick move in BC, considering the high tree to everything else ratio. It's something like 50:1. Cigarette+car+driving in BC=forest fire if you want to do the math.

or in a park

because the city doesn't want the beautiful beaches to be ashtrays, and neither do the people who use the beaches. See: Park Board Smoking Regulation

or within 10 metres of any building.
the last one is crazy cause that puts you in the middle of the road and no one obeys it.

2.2 A person must not smoke: (e) within six metres measured on the ground from a point directly below any point of any opening into any building including any door or window that opens or any air intake;

don't smoke where people have to walk past you to get into a building, or where your smoke will waft inside. Again, this seems pretty straight forward. No one is asking smokers to stand in the middle of the road.

 

[angrysoba]

Thanks to blutoski and kid meatball for the corrections on the smoking laws. I have emailed my friend with the good news that things are not as dire as he thinks/or bad news that he cannot wallow in self-pity depending upon his motivation for feeling stigmatized.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nothing on that list has to do with stigmatization. It is all about smokers being inconvenienced..

 

[angrysoba]

And Ireland.

Yes, I should have pointed out that in Ireland the laws came in before they did anywhere in the UK:

Ireland was the first country to introduce fully smoke-free workplaces (March 2004). The Irish workplace smoke-free law was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from second-hand smoke and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. In Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. Many pubs introduced "outdoor" arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters). It was speculated by opponents that the smoke-free workplaces law would increase the amount of drinking and smoking in the home, but recent studies showed this was not the case.

The highlighted part is the bit that makes it difficult to neatly divide a private business from a public space, and why I thought that sarge's two early posts contradicted each other.

I have to admit that when it was first being proposed and was introduced I was hugely sceptical about the possibility of imposing a ban in Ireland. In my experience of Irish pubs they were routinely thick with smoke.

But the laws are almost universally observed, to the extent that according to one story (perhaps an urban legend) one publican got busted hosting an illegal lock-in when his customers went outside to smoke.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't think so. One of the changes over recent decades is that smoking is no longer cool or something the tough guys do. WARNING: Personal Anecdote. Where I live the percentage of smokers is quite small (10% ??). When I see someone smoking, I think, "What a dolt."

When I was growing up (60's & 70's), pretty much everyone*** smoked. My parents, who didn't, even kept several ash trays on hand for when friends came over. I've never (and will never) own an ash tray. Off the top of my head, I can only think of 1 close friend who smokes, and a few "acquaintances" who do. The tide has definitely shifted.


***Not literally "everyone", but lots of people, I would even say the majority. At least of my parent's social circle.

 

[Cain]

Your language betrays you: "What a dolt." Notice you don't say, "What a dork!" Smoking might be stupid, but it's really cool, and some things will always be cool: sunglasses, leather jackets (even though they suck), Steve McQueen...

 

[angrysoba]

Your language betrays you: "What a dolt." Notice you don't say, "What a dork!" Smoking might be stupid, but it's really cool, and some things will always be cool: sunglasses, leather jackets (even though they suck), Steve McQueen...

[qimg]http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/239490/600full-steve-mcqueen.jpg[/qimg]

Exactly! And Christopher Hitchens too.

There's a website on the Internet which also shows that some people are dead cool smokers!

 

[catsmate]

The highlighted bit might be wrong.

The most famous example that I know of was Roy Castle

That very same case popped into my head too.
Dedication

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.

There have been a few studies into nicotine-free tobacco; while this reduces the potential for addiction it doesn't reduce the health effects much. However it does seem to help reduce addiction.

Nicotine is highly addictive and is primarily responsible for the maintenance of cigarette smoking. In 1994, Benowitz and Henningfield proposed the idea of federal regulation of the nicotine content of cigarettes such that the nicotine content of cigarettes would be reduced over time, resulting in lower intake of nicotine and a lower level of nicotine dependence. When nicotine levels get very low, cigarettes would be much less addictive. As a result, fewer young people who experiment with cigarettes would become addicted adult smokers and previously addicted smokers would find it easier to quit smoking when they attempt to do so. The regulatory authority to promulgate such a public health strategy was provided by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Although it precludes ‘reducing nicotine to zero’, the act does not prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from setting standards for cigarette nicotine content that would prevent them from being capable of causing addiction. This paper reviews the assumptions implicit in a nicotine reduction strategy, examines the available data on the feasibility and safety of nicotine reduction, and discusses the public education, surveillance and support services that would be needed for the implementation of such a policy.

BMJ link.
However others disagree on the potential benefits.

When I was growing up (60's & 70's), pretty much everyone*** smoked. My parents, who didn't, even kept several ash trays on hand for when friends came over. I've never (and will never) own an ash tray. Off the top of my head, I can only think of 1 close friend who smokes, and a few "acquaintances" who do. The tide has definitely shifted.

I look forward to the day Antiques Roadshow identifies an ashtray.

 

[autumn1971]

One thing I don't understand about smokers is their wasteful attitude toward their drug of choice; nobody I know just lets a joint sit in the ashtray burning itself to a nub, or cuts a line of coke and snorts just the tiniest bit of it, letting the rest of the line blow away in the breeze. Nearly every one of my friends will light a cig and just let it burn down, taking two or three drags at most. Seems that the majority of cigarette smoke is never inhaled by the actual user.

 

[Ladewig]

In my lifetime, the pendulum has swung from a position where smokers had to be deferred to,

Indeed.
I, too, am old enough to remember the time when "mind if I smoke" was less of a sincere question and more of a polite way of saying "I'm going to smoke now, KTHANX."

 

[Ladewig]

I look forward to the day Antiques Roadshow identifies an ashtray.

And those fancy table lighters that always showed up in Perry Mason episodes.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

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

As has been alluded to above, I think it's because most people were friends with at least one smoker and that smoker would be catered to. Option of smoking vs non-smoking would result going to wherever smoking was allowed when going out as a group. The non-smokers would put up with the smoke because that's what they grew up with. But if no place allows smoking, the smoker will still go out. So it made sense for business to cater to the smoker.

Since smoking was banned in bars and restaurants here, it's made going out to a bar or restaurant so much more pleasurable. When it first rolled out, smokers were all mad about it and I knew quite a few people who were against it. Now, I can't think of anybody I know that is against it. Even the smokers I knew at the time came around to like it for a simple reason: even though it sucks to stand outside in crappy weather to smoke, they found they were saving themselves a lot of money because they would smoke less since they were reluctant to go outside to smoke. Several people I knew even used the ban as impetus to just quit smoking.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the bans were repealed. Would non-smokers, who are now used to non-smoking establishments as the standard, go to places where smoking is allowed?

 

[angrysoba]

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

 

[s4zando]

One thing I don't understand about smokers is their wasteful attitude toward their drug of choice; nobody I know just lets a joint sit in the ashtray burning itself to a nub, or cuts a line of coke and snorts just the tiniest bit of it, letting the rest of the line blow away in the breeze. Nearly every one of my friends will light a cig and just let it burn down, taking two or three drags at most. Seems that the majority of cigarette smoke is never inhaled by the actual user.

Cuz that ****'ll kill you.

 

[The Don]

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

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.

 

[angrysoba]

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.

No, I doubt that fried food odours cause health risks. Rather I am thinking of passive smoking.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

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

Pretty much. Though I don't currently think it's necessary to put images of lung disease and stuff on packages of marijuana.

But not smoking it in indoor public places? Certainly. Bans in outdoor public places? I dunno, my thing against smoking in outdoor public places is the cigarette buts left behind. I am am not sure if the same thing would happen with marijuana users.

Though I'm all for specialized shops/cafes/bars which cater specifically to marijuana users and/or smokers. But the number of those should be fairly limited. Maybe institute something like is done with liquor licenses - only a certain number are available and you need to meet certain requirements.

And you certainly shouldn't be smoking it in a car, that's driving under the influence.

 

[GlennB]

How stinky is weed ?

Can be very stinky.

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.

Yep, the smell of a hot cornish pasty can turn some stomachs

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.

 

[angrysoba]

Pretty much. Though I don't currently think it's necessary to put images of lung disease and stuff on packages of marijuana.

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

But not smoking it in indoor public places? Certainly. Bans in outdoor public places? I dunno, my thing against smoking in outdoor public places is the cigarette buts left behind. I am am not sure if the same thing would happen with marijuana users.

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.

Though I'm all for specialized shops/cafes/bars which cater specifically to marijuana users and/or smokers. But the number of those should be fairly limited. Maybe institute something like is done with liquor licenses - only a certain number are available and you need to meet certain requirements.

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.

And you certainly shouldn't be smoking it in a car, that's driving under the influence.

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?

 

[bonzombiekitty]

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

I don't know. Not sure if it's been settled yet. I don't know the science there, that's why I said I'm not currently convinced.

Though the major distinction being marijuana isn't chemically addictive like cigarettes are. So even if one joint is just as damaging as one cigarette, people smoke a lot more cigarettes than joints.

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.

We already have them here, at least for tobacco. There's places that specialize in tobacco sales (cigar shops) and you can smoke in there. When Philadelphia first implemented the smoking ban in bars, you could smoke in bars that didn't serve food (as a certain %age of total sales). I'm not sure if that's changed, but I can't think of any bar that I know of that allows smoking. So either the law has changed or non-smoking is the new standard.

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?

No idea how that would work. Marijuana can stay in your system for a while, long after any effects of it have worn off. Not sure if there's some way to test for how recently the marijuana was used. I would guess a field sobriety test of some sort could be used to test impairment.