Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[fls]

Because H&S departments weren't doing their job properly?

In a way, but it is obviously a different problem than ordinary occupational exposures.

Governments make money from tobacco taxes (see figures quoted).
A smoker's reported shorter life expectancy means they are less drain on pensions and old age related support and services on the whole.

That's a good example of altruism (costly punishment) then (like the example I gave earlier for doctors).

But it's regularly used as an excuse.

Because it's true. The reason for blanket laws was because of the ubiquitous impact on air quality.

Linda

 

[mikeyx]

What bothers me is that there are many other personal habits that have just as many bad effects on other people that are not treated like this. The worst offender i find, is chewing gum.

A smoke nazi will loudly proclaim " look at all the cigarette butts everywhere, that should be reason enough to ban it." while not mentioning that it is literally impossible to go in darn near any busy building without encountering a wad of gum stuck to the floor, a desk, a wall, a urinal etc. How many of us have moved the wrong way in a theater, only to have a hand, or other body part touch someones chewed wad of candy and food particles.

A cigarette butt may look unpleasant and need to be removed, but when is the last time you had to spend 10 minutes scraping one off your shoe? Or had to spend a night re cleaning a pair of pants because some jerk left it on a seat?

A smoke nazi will scream " look at how this effects people who have to pass by, i don't want to smell cigarette smoke. " , while ignoring the cud chewing call center floor ( used to work at a call center as well.). Do gum chewers really think it is pleasant to hear the smacks, pops, cracks, sucks and splorts that come with chewing gum?

A smoke nazi will scream about the unprofessional look of a group of smokers, while completely ignoring that anyone, anywhere looks like they have an iq of about 40 chewing a wad of gum.

A smoke nazi will compare a whiff of smoke outdoors to every foul smell from poop to agent orange. While ignoring the sickly sweet rotting meat smell produced by people who overdo it with the spearmint gum.

But the smoke nazi will look at me and say " well of course these things happen, but it is simply people who are being jerks, not everyone who chews gum will do these things. It would be silly to ask people to chew gum out doors." and the smoke nazi will have no idea of the hypocrisy of the statement.

Should we smoke outside? Kinda, i have no issue with it. Should we have to smoke in the middle of a field with no awning , or walls ( the law around where i am.), hell no. Until every personal habit that is a raging annoyance to those who don't do it is treated this way, it is simple posturing by various agencies to set up laws to hassle the smokers.

smoke nazi? Please. Its a vile habit that slowly kills others indirectly. Your sensitivities be damned, smoke way awy from your building in the driving rain and cry me a river.

 

[Arus808]

None of the anti-smoking brigade here have addressed my proposed solution, which is to give employers the legal right to provide an indoor smoking room, as the law previously allowed.

I forget which airport I was in when I traveled last year, and they had a "smoking room". That STENCH that emanated from that room was so overwhelming that I nearly gagged when I passed by it as I was going toward my gate.

No, indoor smoking rooms ARE NOT a solution. In fact, since it would be indoor, anytime someone opens a door that room, that concentrated AIR WOULD still spread throughout the office.

And indoor smoking rooms, provide a much more dangerous environment. What happens if someone doesn't put out their cigarette correctly? or places it down somewhere and forgets about it?

The issue of smokers congregating around entrances to buildings has only arisen because they now have to stand outside. If we had a smoking room we would be out of your air space in no time at all.

No it wouldn't. I know what indoor smoking rooms are, as we have them in our Japan offices. They are not a solution and actually do not get the people out "our air space". All yo uare doing is concentrating the stench into a confined room. It won't prevent the stench from reaching the rest of the office.

 

[23_Tauri]

I asked earlier for a justification as to why some employees should be exempt from protection. And I think the argument for employer-only establishments can be justifiable. In general, we do let people make stupid decisions for themselves.

Hurrah! I wish the policy makers in my country took advice from you, because it would make a very big difference to the smallest public houses in the UK if family-run establishments were exempted from the ban on smoking in indoor public spaces.

We do not let them make stupid decisions for others, especially vulnerable others. An employer isn't subject to coercion in the way that an employee would be. Realistically, I see no reason to expect that an employee wouldn't be fed the same misinformation that you have accepted in support of your position. And it really isn't fair that in this case, an employee is expected to be an expert in public health in order to have their needs met, whereas in any other occupation, they can be wholly ignorant and still obtain the benefit of health.

It will probably depend upon a large cadre of food/beverage service employees campaigning against health to be persuasive (i.e. that it isn't driven by self-serving employers and misinformation).

Linda

Yes, I understand this, and accept that it is reasonable. There is the issue as to whether it should apply to employees who already smoke, because if they are smoking anyway then they have already chosen to compromise their health. But I guess what you're saying is that that is their personal responsibility and not that of their employer.

 

[AlBell]

And yet I have, with no ill effects.

Keeping doing so; something may happen to you.

Your point being...?

Michael

It's dangerous. Probably there will be a scientific study on the dangers involved and regulations will be proposed. Concealed carry seems to work.

 

[shandyjan]

I also support the full littering fine for anyone who throws a cigarette on the ground, you know the whole "Don't mess with Texas" thing, and wish that the motorcycle cops who patrol the streets near here would pull people over for that instead of speeding.

Now that hit me with force, the word stupid came to mind.
When was the last time a cig butt killed a pedestrian? Carry on speeding, never mind.

 

[shandyjan]

They came for the smokers, and nobody stood up to them.
They came for the car drivers..too many fumes going into schools, work buildings, park your car out of town and take a bus in.......

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Why yes, smokers are a historically oppressed group, and I have this mangled re-write of a famous poem to show it!

 

[Stray Cat]

And indoor smoking rooms, provide a much more dangerous environment. What happens if someone doesn't put out their cigarette correctly? or places it down somewhere and forgets about it?

I guess that would depend if the smoking room doubled up as the petrol storage room or where the company keeps the explosives as well... if not I guess the worst that could happen would be the cigarette went out.


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

 

[Arus808]

I guess that would depend if the smoking room doubled up as the petrol storage room or where the company keeps the explosives as well... if not I guess the worst that could happen would be the cigarette went out.

I know you're trying to be "smart" but this same issue applies to why many offices do not allow indoor space heaters as well as toaster ovens.

the potential as a fire hazard within doors (what if the cigarette fell onto the floor?)

 

[Stray Cat]

I know you're trying to be "smart" but this same issue applies to why many offices do not allow indoor space heaters as well as toaster ovens.

the potential as a fire hazard within doors (what if the cigarette fell onto the floor?)

In buildings specially designed for a purpose where fire may be a hazard, they can make stuff out of fire proof stuff.

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

 

[coalesce]

Keeping doing so; something may happen to you.


It's dangerous. Probably there will be a scientific study on the dangers involved and regulations will be proposed. Concealed carry seems to work.

And yet something may not happen.

I'm not naive. Leave the house and something bad is bound to happen sooner or later. I've been mugged twice—once on the subway (in Brooklyn, not Harlem) and once on 29th Street and 2nd Avenue in Manhattan. Both times by black guys. My house in Brooklyn was also robbed twice: once by white Bible salesman (no lie!) that my third floor tenant let in and never bothered to see if and when they left, and once by a former classmate of mine: a nice, white Irish-German boy who I went to Catholic school with. The only reason why I'm here typing this and not in prison for finding him and killing him is because he left my two cats alone. My TV, portable CD player and camera I could replace; Shemp and Murray (the two cats in my avatar) I could not.

Why did you single out Harlem? Why not say the Upper East Side or Turtle Bay or Murray Hill or Noho or Carroll Gardens or Sunnyside or Astoria or Jackson Heights or Flushing? Why Harlem?

Michael

 

[coalesce]

In buildings specially designed for a purpose where fire may be a hazard, they can make stuff out of fire proof stuff.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Smoking-Room.jpg[/qimg]


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

Looks like the place I would expect to find Wile E. Coyote at work.

Michael

 

[Stray Cat]

Looks like the place I would expect to find Wile E. Coyote at work.

Michael

I'm sure he'll have done some business with this company though, just to comply with health and safety regs.

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

 

[Modified]

Now that hit me with force, the word stupid came to mind.
When was the last time a cig butt killed a pedestrian? Carry on speeding, never mind.

They cause a lot of wildfires leading to a lot of property damage. We have brush fires almost every year here because of people tossing cigarettes out of cars on the freeway.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Now that hit me with force, the word stupid came to mind.
When was the last time a cig butt killed a pedestrian? Carry on speeding, never mind.

They cause a lot of wildfires leading to a lot of property damage. We have brush fires almost every year here because of people tossing cigarettes out of cars on the freeway.

Not to mention that they can be very toxic—potentially fatal—to a small child who picks one up and swallows it.

 

[23_Tauri]

The paper specifically measured respirable particles, which are particles small enough to get into the lungs and bloodstream and cause health problems due to sort of mechanical/local effects, which includes chronic bronchitis and cancer. Of course there are many, many more substances in second-hand smoke, many of which are carcinogens. Many of those substances, such as carbon monoxide, can also be fairly easily measured to determine whether they are sufficient to pose a health risk. Now, because second-hand smoke tends to fail the respirable particles test, the rest don't really matter. But conversely, just because second-hand smoke passes some of the tests, doesn't mean that it is safe. Even if it passed the tests for CO, nicotine, respirable particles, formaldehyde, benzene, etc. you still have to deal with the problem that there are many other carcinogens present - some of which we've identified and some where we have a decent idea about safety thresholds, but some that we haven't. We can't simply use ignorance to set safety levels ("what you don't know won't hurt you") because we already know that cigarette smoke causes cancer. This is, it's not a case of assuming everything is harmful until proven otherwise, but of dealing with something which is proven harmful. We can try to use epidemiological studies to get some idea about the dose which is associated with harm. And even if you want to argue about whether we are confident that the studies are adequate to prove a specific level of harm, it is unarguable that they do not prove that typical doses are safe.

However, most of this is moot, since indoor smoking usually fails at least one of the more straightforward standards anyway.

Well, if you are truly ignorant of this process, you could spend some time reviewing the reports from various boards charged with health and safety. I gave a link earlier to the Report on Carcinogens. If you click on any of the substances, you can read through the summary which answers those questions (and much more) for each substance, as well as providing references to the available research. You can usually find reports from similar departments in other countries. The results are much the same, since the same information will be used.

I will go back and loook at your link, thank you Linda.

I've taken a while to reply to this one because I think we're getting to the heart of why ultimately you and I diverge on the issue. You have a better understanding of the epidemiology and clinical research than I, you being a doctor . I can read your links and the current, consensus view of the medical establishment on the risks of SHS and read websites that explain to me why SHS is not a significant health risk. We can then argue the toss until the cows come home about where it is or whether it isn't.

But....

How much risk are we prepared to accept in our daily lives in order to have the society we want? Even if you can convince me that SHS can cause cancer (and I'm not convinced) the risk will always be way smaller than the risk from direct smoking. And people do have the choice as to whether to go into a pub that allows smoking (remember last year I argued the case for both smoking and non-smoking pubs in Britain) so it's not like smokers want to "force others to breathe their smoke" (sic).

For me, and other campaigners for an amendment to the smoking ban, the perceived small risk to health of SHS is the price to pay for maintaining the conviviality and sociability of pubs, which has been lost since the introduction of the ban. With smokers getting up to go outside every 15-30 minutes for a smoke the relaxed atmosphere conducive to more protracted and philosophical repartée is gone.

If one's only concern is 'the health of the nation' because you're an interfering, nu Labour health minister (god forbid!) then you don't care about these things. But I do, and many other people in small communities across the UK and Ireland do too.

I understand that because you're a doctor then health is going to be your main concern from a professional PoV. But, as Stray Cat said in an earlier post, it's not about air quality. It's about a way of life, and people's businesses, and the music industry. Political movements were born in the dark, smoky corners of English pubs. If the traditional drinkers' pub disappears and is replaced by corporate, 'family-friendly' (ugh) places which are the antithesis of the British boozer then it will be a very, sad day indeed. The common people will be disempowered.

No, that's not it. It should be obvious that the information we have on a single substance is much more exact than what we have on dozens to hundreds of substances which are present in second-hand smoke which vary widely according growing, manufacturing, and presentation conditions. The information we have is simply inadequate to tell us what the risk-free level of exposure is for that particular conglomeration of substances....snipped for brevity.....

So do we ban motor racing because vehicle exhaust fumes produce a cocktail of carcinogens that track-side spectators breathe in whilst watching their favourite sport?

 

[23_Tauri]

They cause a lot of wildfires leading to a lot of property damage. We have brush fires almost every year here because of people tossing cigarettes out of cars on the freeway.

So what are you saying? That you actually want to make tobacco illegal? Because, as I said in an earlier post, the last time your country tried prohibition it worked so well, didn't it?

Not to mention that they can be very toxic—potentially fatal—to a small child who picks one up and swallows it.

But you guys can carry a loaded, lethal weapon on your person that can kill someone at 50 yards. Oh, but that's ok, because that's called liberty and constitutional rights.

A biro is toxic to a small child who swallows it. So is animal dung. A child that is of the age to be picking objects up out of the dirt and stuffing them in its mouth is still of the age where it should be supervised by an adult. And anyway, do you see any smokers asking for the right to smoke in a child's playground? Urrr... nope.

 

[23_Tauri]

Now that hit me with force, the word stupid came to mind.
When was the last time a cig butt killed a pedestrian? Carry on speeding, never mind.

It's the 'throw everything at it and see if anything sticks' technique, shandyjan.

As for cigarettes being a fire risk being a justification for making smoking illegal so that people can't throw butts out of their cars, if we go down that route then society should make all activities that carry a fire risk but aren't vital to life illegal. So let's start with:

fireworks
curling tonges
electric blankets
baby monitors
matches
fire breathing street performers (sorry, Roxane)

....

 

[bluesjnr]

I know. Any logical person can see that.

I was just wondering what his/her response would be.

Michael

If he's consistent, it will be that you should tell them they stink and see what happens. Or something.

If he's consistent he should tell you "that is 'cos you is black".