Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[This is The End]

The original claimant must provide the evidence to support their claim.

Always wait for someone to say the opposite of what you want to say before you say it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Are you saying that the vapor from these things does not contain nicotine—the same nasty, harmful, addictive drug that is the main ingredient in cigarette smoke? I thought that was the point of these things, to be a new way to consume this drug. Or is it that you believe that a drug addict's right to consume his drug overrules the right of a non-addict to choose not to consume that drug?

The amount of nicotine in the expelled vapour would be negligable, and certainly not enough to affect a non-smoker nearby. No more than the alcohol vapour in a drinker's breath would affect a non-drinker nearby.

It seems clear enough to me that the vapor must contain enough nicotine to satisfy someone who is used to obtaining it by smoking a normal cigarette. As the mechanics of how that nicotine is taken in my the smoker aren't any different than with a normal cigarette, what basis is there to assume that the device and its user aren't putting about as much nicotine into the air as with a normal cigarette?

Nicotine is something I would not choose to take into my body. Someone who smokes a normal cigarette in my presence denies me this choice. It's not at all clear to me that someone using one of these devices isn't also denying me this choice, to the same degree. At least the cigarette also produces a foul stench, that warns me that I am at risk of being poisoned, and motivates me to avoid it as well as I can. The device of which we are speaking here doesn't even have the decency to provide me with any such warning.

 

[23_Tauri]

I could discuss the shortcomings of the data alleging a link between ETS and health, or talk about the history of the anti-smoking movement, but what has really shocked me about the last three pages is the level of breath-taking intolerance displayed by the anti-smokers. If any other section of society were spoken of and treated in this way there would rightly be outrage. In fact, half a century ago is was another section of society about whom such fanatical words were spoken, similarly in a climate where it was socially acceptable to do so.

Here’s an example of what I mean:

I don't care about studies. Smoking Blacks stinks, and ten feet away from a door isn't nearly far enough. 100 feet, I guess that would do if they were downwind. And when they came inside, they were made to sit in a separate room so I couldn't smell their smoker's Black’s b.o.

I live in the good ole Southern US where the smoking rate number of Blacks is higher than average. I defy you to step out the door of any building open to the public and walk ten feet and not see a discarded cigarette butt Black person. Stop at a red light and look toward the curb nearest your car; the ground is covered with cigarette butts Blacks. I have never seen that degree of problem with gum Whites.

Or…

I see nothing the least bit unreasonable about supposing that nonsmokers Whites ought to be able to get into the building where they work without having to pass through a group of smokers Blacks to do so.

OR:

I find the smell of smokers Blacks to be as offensive as the body odor of somebody that hasn't taken a bath in a week, and personally I would like to see the sale of cigarettes them banned from public places.

See how shockingly offensive these statements are now? None of you good people here on JREF would make these above statements, so why do you say these things about smokers?

Please understand that I’m not picking out anyone in particular but trying to illustrate my point that smokers have become the new pariahs. Nobody here is a racist and thank Aten that this scourge has been all but eradicated from our society. In the bad old days racism and segregation was justified (at least privately) on grounds such as non-Whites smelt bad, or that they spread disease, and other such despicable myths. I know some will retort that there’s ample evidence that ETS causes disease in non-smokers but with respect there just isn’t.

Smokers aren’t asking for special favours, only parity. We are asking that we can enjoy our tobacco in peace and quiet with other smokers, away from non-smokers in smoking only bars for example, or smoking rooms in offices (that’d cure the problem of us hanging around outside doorways) and not be hounded to the far edges of society like modern-day lepers.

How long will it be before we see vigilante groups with pointy white hats and pitch forks going around ridding their communities of those filthy nig... sorry, smokers?

I anticipate that some will respond to me by saying that people can’t help the colour of their skin but that they can give up smoking. But that misses the point, which is that to treat people differently just because they are different from you, and justify that treatment on spurious grounds, is not acceptable in a liberal society.

Smokers are human beings too.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I could discuss the shortcomings of the data alleging a link between ETS and health, or talk about the history of the anti-smoking movement, but what has really shocked me about the last three pages is the level of breath-taking intolerance displayed by the anti-smokers. If any other section of society were spoken of and treated in this way there would rightly be outrage. In fact, half a century ago is was another section of society about whom such fanatical words were spoken, similarly in a climate where it was socially acceptable to do so.

Here’s an example of what I mean:

I don't care about studies. Smoking Blacks stinks, and ten feet away from a door isn't nearly far enough. 100 feet, I guess that would do if they were downwind. And when they came inside, they were made to sit in a separate room so I couldn't smell their smoker's Black’s b.o.

I live in the good ole Southern US where the smoking rate number of Blacks is higher than average. I defy you to step out the door of any building open to the public and walk ten feet and not see a discarded cigarette butt Black person. Stop at a red light and look toward the curb nearest your car; the ground is covered with cigarette butts Blacks. I have never seen that degree of problem with gum Whites.​

Or…

I see nothing the least bit unreasonable about supposing that nonsmokers Whites ought to be able to get into the building where they work without having to pass through a group of smokers Blacks to do so.​

OR:

I find the smell of smokers Blacks to be as offensive as the body odor of somebody that hasn't taken a bath in a week, and personally I would like to see the sale of cigarettes them banned from public places.​

See how shockingly offensive these statements are now? None of you good people here on JREF would make these above statements, so why do you say these things about smokers?

Anyone who is black would be quite right to take offense at this. You've just compared a whole race of humanity to something that is harmful and filthy and just plain offensive.

And the simple truth is that tobacco smoke is harmful, it is filthy, and to anyone with a normal, undamaged sense of smell, it is highly offensive.

I won't presume to tell you that you cannot inflict this disgusting poison on yourself, but please keep it away from me. whatever right you might have to harm yourself in this manner does not include a right to inflict this harm on me as well. I choose not to poison myself in this manner, and I very much resent that you think you have a right to override my choice.

I anticipate that some will respond to me by saying that people can’t help the colour of their skin but that they can give up smoking. But that misses the point, which is that to treat people differently just because they are different from you, and justify that treatment on spurious grounds, is not acceptable in a liberal society.

Well, you've already implied that black people stink, and that I am no more justified in complaining about how foul you stink than I am in complaining about a black person, but that just isn't true. A black person, or a person of any race, can sit right next to me, and assuming he practices some moderate degree of hygiene his presence need not have any adverse effect on me.

Smokers stink. To anyone with a normal, undamaged sense of smell, anyone who smokes heavily, even if he isn't actively doing so at the time, has a very strong, nasty stench about him. I don't think most smokers have any idea just how foul they smell to most nonsmokers. That I really don't want you sitting next to me does not make me any kind of bigot any more than not wanting to sit next to a huge pile of dog crap makes me a bigot.

You choose to smoke. You choose to stink. And you choose to inflict this stench on other people who really would very much rather not be exposed to it.

I don't consider myself a liberal, but I think that any who do so consider themselves ought to take offense that you think a “liberal society” must necessarily be one in which your right to practice a foul, disgusting, harmful habit overrides the right of others in your presence to choose not to participate in this same habit.

 

[Cuddles]

In the UK, the limit (by law) is 8 metres from the entrance.

Are you sure? By coincidence, we just had an email at work about this - because people have been complaining about groups of smokers hanging around doorways forcing everyone else to walk through clouds of smoke - which said that you have to be at least 5m away from a building to smoke.

Edit: Actually, I just checked. It wasn't just the clouds of smoke that people have to walk through, there have also been complaints about smoke coming in through windows and getting sucked through the air conditioning. So even people are correct that no-one else wants to use the doors at the times you're smoking, which doesn't apply to many workplaces anyway, you can still be getting smoke on everyone inside.

 

[23_Tauri]

Something to back that up might be nice, something showing car exhaust isn't harmful perhaps? As someone who walks a lot i can tell you i notice high traffic days pretty easily off of the bat.

I'll back you up, sadhatter. The first lab experiments on ETS focused on carbon monoxide. The safe level for outdoor CO set by the US EPA is 9 parts per million (ppm). This is regularly exceeded in daily life on streets without anyone batting an eyelid. Readings on sidewalks in the USA showed CO concentrations of 61 ppm in heavy traffic, 20 ppm in moderate traffic and 6ppm in light traffic [1]. Even inside cars people are subjected to levels of 12 - 23ppm. Underground car parks had readings as high as 700ppm.

Compare this with smoky public buildings, where in 1979 the Surgeon General found concentrations of 3.4 ppm in a theatre, 2.7 ppm in an office where people smoked, 7 ppm on a train and 2 ppm on an aircraft[2], demonstrating that the levels of CO people are exposed to just by living in a town way exceed anything they might be exposed to as a result of being near smokers.

[1] Shephard, Roy, Carbon Monoxide, The Silent Killer, 1983 p 117
[2] Shephard, Roy, The Rise of Passive Smoking, 1982, pp 38-39

FYI, Roy Shephard was not a promoter of smoking but a carbon monoxide expert and anti-smoking campaigner. And yet he couldn't find evidence that smoking raised CO levels to any significant degree, or posed a threat to non-smokers.

 

[23_Tauri]

Well, you've already implied that black people stink, and that I am no more justified in complaining about how foul you stink than I am in complaining about a black person, but that just isn't true. A black person, or a person of any race, can sit right next to me, and assuming he practices some moderate degree of hygiene his presence need not have any adverse effect on me.

...which to me suggests that you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say with my post. Not once did I imply that people of other races stink, but actually said that saying such a thing was despicable myth. I also made it very clear that I realise full well that no-one here on JREF is a racist, but asked why it was acceptable to talk about smokers in a way that quite rightly would not be acceptable if we were talking about another group. I could have said "dog walkers" or "people with pink hair" but that wouldn't have made the point quite so succiently because there is no historical precedent of society being prejudiced against people with pink hair.

You choose to smoke. You choose to stink. And you choose to inflict this stench on other people who really would very much rather not be exposed to it.

Ok, can we have smoker-only bars staffed only by smokers then? And smoking rooms in office blocks again? That would keep us smelly folk out from under your nose. Problem solved.

I don't consider myself a liberal, but I think that any who do so consider themselves ought to take offense that you think a “liberal society” must necessarily be one in which your right to practice a foul, disgusting, harmful habit overrides the right of others in your presence to choose not to participate in this same habit.

People do all kinds of things in public that aren't very pleasant for by-standers. Like eating take away food, chewing gum, farting, picking their nose, allowing their children to run riot etc etc. But I'm ok with those things (well, not sure about the farting.... ). We need to learn to live together, to tolerate others, or give them their own spaces to indulge in their habits, hence my call for freedom of choice and smoker-only establishments.

 

[zooterkin]

Are you sure? By coincidence, we just had an email at work about this - because people have been complaining about groups of smokers hanging around doorways forcing everyone else to walk through clouds of smoke - which said that you have to be at least 5m away from a building to smoke.

No, not completely, I may be conflating company policy with the law. I'll see if I can find the details.

Certainly, our company policy is that smokers should stand at least 8 metres from the doors.

ETA: Yes, looks like the "standing away from the doors" part is not a legal requirement, according to this site, so it appears my company is doing more than the legal minimum in terms of banning smoking. Smoking is explicitly banned in the main outside dining area (a moot point at the moment!), and officially sanctioned in one specific garden area. Standing outside the front of the building is discouraged.

 

[linusrichard]

Then perhaps you should just look downwards sometimes?
Put exactly "chewing gum" +pavement into Google images and you'll see hundreds of photos like this:

[qimg]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCO38BHvuczSPaPBpM7q_1uDFaCvSXIHlaYINcMEjkSChKg4n0[/qimg]

And yet, when you put clean pavement into a GIS, you get hundreds of pictures like this:

It's almost as if it's a terrible way to prove a point.

And these guys agree.

 

[fls]

I wasn't being insulting, irony, just pointing to the fact that you wouldn't be able to find studies showing a link between ETS and asthmatics dying, because there aren't any.


So you'd already google'd and found no evidence, and yet still decided to post on here yesterday in post 35 "At least there's no real chance it would kill me, unlike with some asthmatics".


A google search. The top link goes to a news item about a meta-anaylsis that showed increased risk of meningococcal disease in children of smokers. As good sceptics we should all be very wary of anything that can only be shown through meta-analysis of data:

http://www.skepdic.com/metaanalysis.html


As I hope to illustrate in further posts, meta-analysis has been used by anti-smoking campaigners in an attempt to show links between ETS and disease and increased risk of death. That they have had to resort to such biased data manipulation demonstrates the weakness of any correlation, besides which there is no evidence of a mechanism as to how ETS could affect non-smokers' health.

I agree with you about meta-analysis. Substances which are in the Report on Carcinogens are backed by a range of investigations - in vitro and animal studies, controlled trials, observational studies, etc. If those same substances are placed into the air as a result of ETS instead of manufacturing processes, I would hardly want to depend upon a meta-analysis to presume that they were suddenly rendered harmless. Especially if that finding depends upon meta-analyses which purportedly overcome "biased data manipulation". Even if I didn't know anything about the battle, that sounds suspiciously like merely a different version of biased data manipulation.

And you have to be realistic. You have a strong incentive to be persuaded by pro-tobacco arguments and to find fault with expert opinion. But without that incentive, can you really expect others to buy into the idea that tobacco proponents are competent and scientists are not?

I predict a veritable indoor tornado of hot air coming my way shortly.

It sounds suspiciously like you may need one.

Linda

 

[fls]

I could discuss the shortcomings of the data alleging a link between ETS and health, or talk about the history of the anti-smoking movement, but what has really shocked me about the last three pages is the level of breath-taking intolerance displayed by the anti-smokers. If any other section of society were spoken of and treated in this way there would rightly be outrage. In fact, half a century ago is was another section of society about whom such fanatical words were spoken, similarly in a climate where it was socially acceptable to do so.

I agree. Health risks are used to mainstream intolerance, but the source of that intolerance seems to have little to do with those risks and more to do with individual distaste.

Linda

 

[Stray Cat]

And yet, when you put clean pavement into a GIS, you get hundreds of pictures like this:

http://www.minnehahacreek.org/image...cilTour021-TransitCenterDowntownMound_000.jpg

It's almost as if it's a terrible way to prove a point.

http://musosguide.com/public_html/musos.wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Pavement.jpg
And these guys agree.

Oooo I love a picture round...

*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[JoelKatz]

It seems clear enough to me that the vapor must contain enough nicotine to satisfy someone who is used to obtaining it by smoking a normal cigarette. As the mechanics of how that nicotine is taken in my the smoker aren't any different than with a normal cigarette, what basis is there to assume that the device and its user aren't putting about as much nicotine into the air as with a normal cigarette?

It really doesn't matter. The issues with second hand smoke have nothing to do with nicotine except to the crazies who think that "zOMG! A chemical! We must have *ZERO* of it!". In any event, the mechanics *are* different.

Nicotine is something I would not choose to take into my body. Someone who smokes a normal cigarette in my presence denies me this choice. It's not at all clear to me that someone using one of these devices isn't also denying me this choice, to the same degree. At least the cigarette also produces a foul stench, that warns me that I am at risk of being poisoned, and motivates me to avoid it as well as I can. The device of which we are speaking here doesn't even have the decency to provide me with any such warning.

And people who wear perfume force you to take that into their body. People who breathe force you to breathe in what they exhale. If you have any evidence that electronic cigarettes expose non-users to nicotine in ways that go beyond the ordinary exposure to the ordinary things people do, feel free to share.

The biggest problems with cigarette smoking are exposure to tar, triggering allergies, and the unpleasant smell. All of these are eliminated with electronic cigarettes. They do, however, leave the smoker exposed to nicotine.

To the OP's point, I agree with the ban on congregating in the doorway, but your employer should provide a place for employees to smoke on their breaks. If similar conduct is banned as unprofessional, then I see no reason electronic cigarettes shouldn't be as well. But I'm sympathetic to the claim that the ban is probably mindless and unjustified.

 

[23_Tauri]

I agree. Health risks are used to mainstream intolerance, but the source of that intolerance seems to have little to do with those risks and more to do with individual distaste.

Linda

I'm glad that you agree with me, Linda. Through my example above, (which some might consider a little extreme - I hope no one is offended and trust I didn't come across as such) I was trying to illustrate how levels of intolerance to things or people has little or nothing to do with facts, or risks as you put it, but our conditioning and individual dispositions.

No one who smokes is so in denial that they pretend there are no health risks to themselves, but I despair at how society appears to have jumped on ETS as the new Public Enemy No. 1, when I have looked at the data and found it somewhat lacking.

Now, you, me and Stray Cat have been here before so I don't intend to go over old ground, so I'll go and batten down the hatches in case that tornado blows through.

 

[23_Tauri]

Nicotine is something I would not choose to take into my body. Someone who smokes a normal cigarette in my presence denies me this choice. It's not at all clear to me that someone using one of these devices isn't also denying me this choice, to the same degree. At least the cigarette also produces a foul stench, that warns me that I am at risk of being poisoned, and motivates me to avoid it as well as I can. The device of which we are speaking here doesn't even have the decency to provide me with any such warning.

Some information on nicotine, seeing as you raise it as an issue, Bob.

Although, like every chemical in the universe, nicotine is lethal at high enough doses, it has never been linked to any disease nor is it carcinogenic. It raises blood pressure but in this respect it is no different from other everyday stimulants such as caffeine.

It is not clear whether the amounts of nicotine in the air around smokers is dangerous to others, or even if the amounts of nicotine in cigarettes pose a health risk to smokers. The EPA does have a safe level of nicotine in the air of 0.5mg.m-3. Even in smoky pubs and bars, e.g. in Ireland before the smoking ban, nicotine levels were never higher than 0.060 mg.m-3 (mean 0.035mg.m-3), much lower than the EPA's own safe level.

Of course I understand if you do not want to breathe in any nicotine particles as you go about your life, but I think you can be rest assured that any that you do breathe in as result of being in close proximity to a smoker is way below any level that might cause an effect on your central nervous system, let alone adversely affect your health.

However, as JoelKatz points out, this is no difference from me not wanting to breathe in other people's fart particles, or bad breath, or even car exhaust fumes, the latter for which there is at least some data to indicate it would be harmful to me over sufficient time in the amounts regularly experienced on city streets (which is more than can be said for nicotine).

 

[GlennB]

And yet, when you put clean pavement into a GIS, you get hundreds of pictures like this:

And your point is?

Meanwhile, Oxford Circus

Times Square:

Meanwhile some take the gum patches as opportunities for urban street art:

 

[Cainkane1]

Some anti smoking laws and rules go overboard. I remember reading where a neighbor sued a guy who smoked in his yard and won the lawsuit. Even if there is a cloud of smoke its probably harmless. People shouldn't smoke but they do and these people have rights also.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Tauri, I wouldn't bring race into this. Smoking is clearly a choice, you might get more traction comparing anti-smoker discrimination with anti-religious discrimination or something else people have control over. Actually I suppose whether or not people can "control" their beliefs is a big philosophical can of worms too.. Well my point is when you go analogy shopping don't just grab the first one you see.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, as an oncology practice employee, I just have to say that whether someone smokes or not is their business, and the business of their doctors and their doctors hardworking employees. Life is meant to be enjoyed, and for some people that means smoking, and for others that means cashing in on the health problems of others that result. Freedom of choice! Liberty! Bladder cancer! (It's sort of funny how everyone always assumes smoking can only lead to lung cancer. But try to act surprised, otherwise it'll spoil the whole consult.) The important thing is to have insurance, and/or cash money reserves, so that people might pay for their choices in enormous sums of money some of which will trickle my way. As Rumpole (a dedicated smoker) remarks, "There is no pleasure in life worth sacrificing for the sake of an extra five years in the Sunnyside Old People's home!". So please, exercise your right to choose, and choose to be future revenue. Freedom! Liberty! $$$$$!

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri, I wouldn't bring race into this. Smoking is clearly a choice, you might get more traction comparing anti-smoker discrimination with anti-religious discrimination or something else people have control over. Actually I suppose whether or not people can "control" their beliefs is a big philosophical can of worms too.. Well my point is when you go analogy shopping don't just grab the first one you see.

That's a fair point, Emperor. I only chose the race analogy because it is one that we can all relate too, and highlights how discrimination is rarely based on real evidence of something or someone being a danger to others, but on irrational factors. I appreciate that it may be less antagonistic to use a religious analogy, such as persecution against Catholics or Moslems, to make the same point.

Aside: can we control our religious beliefs? Absolutely, although the extent to which one has been conditioned in one's early years will of course play a part in how easy it is to change. I blame the parents......