• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

Cainkane1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about NYC's proposed "no smoking outside" law? The law states you cannot smoke anywhere outside in NYC. It would have to be self regulated as NYPD is too busy with murderers and rapists to chase smokers puffing on 51st Ave. It has as much chance as the "no salt law" but jeez, isolate the cigs, offer new ways to quit like the e-cigs, not stigmatize the smokers. That won't get them to quit. Stigma will just generate anger as I'm beginning to see in this thread... :(

I'm a non-smoker BTW.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not to mention that they can be very toxic—potentially fatal—to a small child who picks one up and swallows it.
Click to expand...


Here are some other things that are toxic to children and the number of incidents of poisoning by exposure to them. Admittedly the data is very old (1998) but it serves to illustrate your inability to see straight on the issue of smokers and smoking. To give relevance to the figures; in the year 1998 there were 8000 reports of cigarette butt ingestion by children under 6 (7,911 unintentional - don't ask me!)

Thermometers: 8,406
Deodorizers (air fresheners, those for diaper pails, etc.): 15,434
Alcohols: 16,950
Rodenticides: 17,590
Analgesics (pediatric formulation): 27,686
Arts/crafts/office supplies 29,848
Ibuprofen 31,635
Vitamins 39,296
Topical preparations ( acne preparations, calamine, etc.): 63,439
Cold and cough preparations: 64,137
Plants 83,823
Cleaning substances (household): 126,284
Cosmetics/personal care products: 157,086

That should give you an idea of how tobacco products rank. 0.00658%, or one out of every 152 exposures. Zero deaths and it appears not too many serious outcomes either. In fact, there are very few deaths in these 1.2 million exposures.

I don't have any problem with these people pointing out that tobacco products are a potential source of poisoning, but come on, pens/ink exposures were higher: 10,754.
Click to expand...

Get rid of the cleaning substances - THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
I don't have any problem with these people pointing out that tobacco products are a potential source of poisoning, but come on, pens/ink exposures were higher: 10,754.
Click to expand...
So I was more on the money than I thought when I pointed the finger of blame for child deaths at Biros! :D

Think of the children - ban writing! :mad:
 
Cactus Wren said:
No, it's just tedious and annoying and wasn't particularly witty or amusing even the first time.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself, but I thought this was hilarious:

Stray Cat said:
Ah, sorry about that Bluesjnr, we used to have a punchline room were I could use punchlines well out of the way of other people, but because of recent legislation based upon studies showing that some people don't like other people using punchlines regardless of actual circumstances, my punchline using habit is now even more likely to be a problem for other people.
Of course I wouldn't want to inflict my punchlines on to non punchline users and completely respect their decision not to use punchlines, but somehow the respect isn't mutual.
It won't be long before I can't even use punchlines in my own house. :)
Click to expand...

But maybe you don't do irony where you come from. Whatever, you do Cactus Wren, I advise you not to go over to the Quit Smoking thread, you may a blow a gasket when you see the level of jolly-japes over there. :jaw-dropp
 
23_Tauri said:
No, but by the reaction of some of those on this thread, I'm sure if enough people were to club together and go and buy a cross giant wooden cigarette they would be enough volunteers ..... ;)


But we do have a situation whereby some companies now don't employ smokers, even though they could accommodate them without being unfair to non-smokers, e.g. making smokers 'clock out' when they go on cig breaks, or provide smoking rooms so that smokers didn't have to share doorway space with non-smokers. But the law in many countries now doesn't allow for the latter, even if an individual company boss wanted to provide a smoking room.

And people will say, "but you can stop smoking, you can't change the colour of your skin" which is true, but it betrays the underlying crusade of the anti-smoking movement: to stamp out smoking totally and not tolerate a single smoker. The only reason the anti-smoking movement says it 'accommodates' smokers now is because it hasn't achieved it's end game, which is the total abolition of smoking.
Click to expand...

Where I live, Landlords disallow smoking tenants in many dwellings. If you or someone is suspected of smoking, your hit with a thousand dollar fine. That's ANYWHERE on the property. No public spaces allow smoking inside. Some bars and restaurants allow the dirty sticks on the patios (last I heard). There has developed a fellowship among smokers. As another social outcast (I'm obese) I am sympathetic to them. They know they need to quit, they want to quit for the most part.
 
fls said:
On the other side of the issue, proponents want it left open for employers to choose to make accommodations. I think this is reasonable, but I'm not going to push for it. I am a doctor after all. :) (Although, if I wanted to be logical about it, turning a blind eye to ubiquitous tobacco use would be a far easier way to ensure doctors' job security than embroiling themselves in these vast, elaborate pharmaceutical conspiracies which are susceptible to discovery by failed con artists and ex-B-movie starlets.)

Linda
Click to expand...

With the aging American population and the inverting of the US demographics I don't think your job security is in any danger. Even the healthiest patients will start to creak (joints) and organs will need attention.
 
23_Tauri said:
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). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I realize now that addressing the issue about whether we can confidently describe a lower limit of exposure made it look like the next step was for me to suggest that because we cannot, it is reasonable to slavishly avoid any exposure.

That is not the case. I agree (and if you look at the committee reports I mentioned earlier, you can see that this is not how the issue is treated) that it is foolish to proceed as though we can or want to remove every trace of risk from our lives. I agree that on balance, even though we cannot definitely state that casual exposure to second-hand smoke won't cause cancer, we can reasonably expect that this is the case. It fails to exceed a reasonable threshold for concern. If this were only about exposing patrons in bars or walking through a cloud of smoke on your way into a building (or through a park, I suppose), it would be unreasonable to pretend that you are putting someone at risk. For me, this is about consistency in our protection of vulnerable populations to chronic exposures (occupational health and safety (and child welfare which isn't relevant to the pub discussion)).

Note: I don't think you are questioning whether SHS contains carcinogens, but rather whether it can ever add up to a dose which ever actually causes cancer, given that one needs a substantial dose of cigarettes as a smoker before your own risk is increased, right?

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.
Click to expand...

Well, you are right. It's not about air quality. It's about air quality leading to death, disease and disability. All you need to answer is to what extent it is reasonable to kill off service workers in order to preserve think-tanks of booze-addled tobacco addicts.

;)

Linda
 
Nosi said:
With the aging American population and the inverting of the US demographics I don't think your job security is in any danger. Even the healthiest patients will start to creak (joints) and organs will need attention.
Click to expand...

Well, it was meant as a joke referencing alt-med and anti-vax proponents. But since it appears that participants in smoking threads don't also haunt SMT threads, it seems to have fallen pretty flat. :)

Linda
 
Nosi said:
Where I live, Landlords disallow smoking tenants in many dwellings. If you or someone is suspected of smoking, your hit with a thousand dollar fine. That's ANYWHERE on the property. No public spaces allow smoking inside. Some bars and restaurants allow the dirty sticks on the patios (last I heard). There has developed a fellowship among smokers. As another social outcast (I'm obese) I am sympathetic to them. They know they need to quit, they want to quit for the most part.
Click to expand...
Thank you Nosi. It's nice to know that some people who don't smoke have sympathy with how smokers are being treated. Imagine how you would feel if you were reported to the authorities if someone suspected you of eating high-calorie snacks in your apartment. All in the name of 'the health of the nation'.... and 'it's for your own good' :rolleyes:

As a society, we have become too accepting of allowing the state into the private realm, IMO.

As for quitting, figures show that about a quarter of all smokers in the UK attempt to quit in any given year. Although they might feel peer pressure to do so, I don't think one should conclude that the majority want to quit. What many non-smokers sometimes forget is that smokers smoke because they enjoy it, and not just because (or only because) they can't stop. I'm a light smoker of what GlennB calls 'prison roll-ups' (with liquorice papers :) ) and I don't feel a need to quit, and nor do I want to.
 
23_Tauri said:
...snip...

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.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Yet for folks like me it has made pubs much more convivial and social. ETA: And it's especially made dining out much more pleasant - being asked "non-smoking or smoking" for a table was really just saying "Do you want a lot of smoke or a bit less smoke with your meal sir?"
 
Last edited:
fls said:
Note: I don't think you are questioning whether SHS contains carcinogens, but rather whether it can ever add up to a dose which ever actually causes cancer, given that one needs a substantial dose of cigarettes as a smoker before your own risk is increased, right?
Click to expand...
Right

Warning: the above link will take you to a pro-tobacco lobby group website. Do not inhale or we may have to tax you.

fls said:
Well, you are right. It's not about air quality. It's about air quality leading to death, disease and disability.
Click to expand...
But does it? See above link.

fls said:
All you need to answer is to what extent it is reasonable to kill off service workers in order to preserve think-tanks of booze-addled tobacco addicts.
Click to expand...
:D I'm glad, that in all of this, you never lose your sense of humour on this forum, Linda. Vive la révolution!
 
Looking back on all this, I'm fascinated how the whole mindset towards smoking has become. When I was growing up, smoking was still considered socially acceptable. Indeed, my mother chose the hospital she did in Brooklyn to give birth to me in 1965 because it was one of the few remaining ones that allowed smoking just before the woman was brought into the delivery room. Someone earlier brought up how previous generations would've never given a second thought to the effects of second-hand smoke, much less first-hand smoke. Now, try and smoke in an office, a restaurant, on a train or plane, or even a person's home and you won't die of lung cancer but probably of brow-beating from everyone else around you. I'm not a smoker, but this shift in the mindset concerning smoking starting with the Surgeon General's 1962 report is nothing short of seismic. I'll be curious to see in the next 10 years how much of an inroad e-cigs make and what their health benefits may or may not be.

Michael
 
fls said:
All you need to answer is to what extent it is reasonable to kill off service workers in order to preserve think-tanks of booze-addled tobacco addicts.

;)

Linda
Click to expand...
How many dead service workers killed by second-hand tobacco smoke do your best meta-analyses reveal?
 
AlBell said:
How many dead service workers killed by second-hand tobacco smoke do your best meta-analyses reveal?
Click to expand...
Don't think anyone's looked dead service workers, but in the studies of lung cancer in women married to smoking partners (who, arguably, will be exposed to tobacco smoker for longer periods than service workers) the answer is....

Of the 64 epidemiological papers that studied the effect of secondhand smoke on nonsmoking wives, 9 found a statistically significant positive association, 3 found a statistically significant negative association and the remaining 52 found no statistically significant association either way. (my emphasis)
Click to expand...
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/pdfs/passivesmokinglungcancer.pdf

I'll leave you to reach your own conclusions regarding the evidence for a link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. :)
 
Last edited:
shandyjan said:
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.......
Click to expand...

They came for the smokers, and nobody stood up to them.
They came for the drinkers, none cast a second glance.
They came for the obese, no one cared.
They came for me, none was left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom