Smokers need not apply

[Stray Cat]

So what? You can get utterly hammered without it affecting anyone either. The difference is you can drink without there being any possibility of that causing harm to anyone else. You can't say that for smoking.

Yes I can.
It is possible to smoke in public without it harming anyone else.

See, I just said it. And I mean it and you know it is true.

Potentially, but potentially not.

Potentially when you've been drinking your judgment is affected enough for you not to realise what effect your having on other people... regardless of if you're actually drunk or not. I've met so many drunk people who will swear blind they are not drunk.

Except they quite clearly can. Millions upon millions upon millions of people do that every single day. I've never seen a smoker who could smoke a cigarette without putting poisonous chemicals in the air.

But we're catering to the lowest common denominator here... Some drinkers are not responsible so let's punish them all.

I've never met anyone who drives a car that doesn't put poisonous chemicals in the air either... let's make cars illegal.

It's already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs here.

I would imagine it's illegal in all countries. My point is that 'imagined' harm is no harm at all.

What's your point?

My point is that you think it should be illegal to be drunk in public.
I'm saying it already is, but no one enforces the law... Because drinking is still socially acceptable even though it causes just as many health a social issues as smoking.

Why?

Because you don't see that smoking in public can be achieved without having any effect on non smokers and maintain that drinking alcohol without having any effect on third parties is entirely achievable... when it isn't not.

That becomes far too difficult to manage. I'm for keeping it simple.

As long as it's supporting something that your baseless prejudice agrees with.
Managing drunks is difficult (ask any police force in any area of the UK). Let's keep it simple and ban drinking.

Thankfully we live in democracies.

You know the difference between governments and civil servants right?

I think you missed the point. The problem is they're a violent wife-beating a-hole. Alcohol doesn't turn loving gentle husbands into monsters, no matter how much you drink.

Denial.

Yes some are ********, but to claim that alcohol doesn't make some people violent whilst claiming that video games do make people more violent just makes your PoV sound even more silly.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

These people need to teach the governments how to stretch a dollar! A few billion in collected tax revenues and they have bought off very large organizations including millions of people. While still pouring that tax revenue into general funds.

 

[23_Tauri]

What's the "anti-smoking establishment" and how are they managing to control the opinions of the WHO, the governments of 168 nations, and countless scientific and medical research institutes?

There is a long history of prohibition movements in the West, both alcohol and tobacco, and these groups have had enormous influence on government policy over time. But, however 'consensus opinions' come about, it is up to the individual to not take anyone's word at face value, not even institutions like the CDC and WHO, but to search out the data for themselves and see how strong is the evidence for SHS being a danger to health.

Interestingly, I've just been following the link provided by The Fallen Serpent, which is a fairly standard "passive smoking is bad for you" piece on the pages on the National Cancer Institute. There's a list of references at the foot of that page, one of which is to the now-famous 2006 Surgeon General's Report 'The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General'. This report is available on the website of the CDC, along with a database of studies on which the report's findings are based. I've just been searching that database, and curiously despite it containing over 900 key articles on passive smoking, there is no sign of the Enstrom and Kabat study published in the BMJ in May 2003. Why is this study not listed?

Could this possibly be because Enstrom and Kabat found that exposure to ETS, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure? Surely the CDC wouldn't indulge in the File Drawer Effect when reviewing and publishing all the research on passive smoking?

 

[gumboot]

Yes I can.
It is possible to smoke in public without it harming anyone else.

See, I just said it. And I mean it and you know it is true.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

Potentially when you've been drinking your judgment is affected enough for you not to realise what effect your having on other people... regardless of if you're actually drunk or not. I've met so many drunk people who will swear blind they are not drunk.

Drinking != Being Drunk.

But we're catering to the lowest common denominator here... Some drinkers are not responsible so let's punish them all.

It's not about responsibility, it's about harm. Drinking isn't harmful. Being drunk is harmful. You restrict the thing that's harmful.

I've never met anyone who drives a car that doesn't put poisonous chemicals in the air either... let's make cars illegal.

Cars perform a vital function of use to us. Drunkeness and smoking and drug use serve no purpose whatsoever other than personal pleasure. And I have met people who drive cars that don't put poisonous chemicals in the air, but never mind.

I would imagine it's illegal in all countries. My point is that 'imagined' harm is no harm at all.

You have a strange definition of "imagined".

My point is that you think it should be illegal to be drunk in public. I'm saying it already is, but no one enforces the law... Because drinking is still socially acceptable even though it causes just as many health a social issues as smoking.

Drinking != Being Drunk, and the reason it's not enforced has more to do with the fact that police have more important things to do, I suspect. Not to mention it is enforced, just not often prosecuted.

Being drunk in public isn't even strictly illegal here and yet police still arrest people for it and lock them up.

Because you don't see that smoking in public can be achieved without having any effect on non smokers and maintain that drinking alcohol without having any effect on third parties is entirely achievable... when it isn't not.

It's about guarantee. I can see perfectly that a smoker can smoke in public without having an effect on non-smokers. But a smoker can't guarantee that. A drinker can.

As long as it's supporting something that your baseless prejudice agrees with.

It's not a baseless prejudice. The scientific consensus is that it's harmful.

Managing drunks is difficult (ask any police force in any area of the UK). Let's keep it simple and ban drinking.

No, that doesn't follow. Managing drunks is difficult, so you ban drunks.

You know the difference between governments and civil servants right?

I know what "government" is and I know what a "civil servant" is, if that's what you mean.

Denial.

Yes some are ********, but to claim that alcohol doesn't make some people violent

It doesn't "make" them violent. They're already violent.

whilst claiming that video games do make people more violent just makes your PoV sound even more silly.

My God. It's not enough that I have had to deal with this ignorant and mindless strawman in one thread, but now it's going to follow me around? I've never said video games make people more violent. Pathetic.

 

[jimbob]

I can think of some industries where smoking is an issue.

For example, the particulates from a smoker's lungs can cause yield problems in silicon chip production for a surprising length of time after smoking.

 

[gumboot]

Could this possibly be because Enstrom and Kabat found that exposure to ETS, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure?

Could be that. Or alternatively... (from Wikipedia, but there's ample links to primary sources)

The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.

...

Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."

In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."

The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research, a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented."

 

[23_Tauri]

Shall I tell you why Enstrom had to accept money from the tobacco companies in order to complete his study of 35,561 non-smoking Californian women, a prospective study that had been running for decades? The project had been funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), a Californian anti-smoking group. With most of the data collected by 1997 it became apparent that it was showing that there was no evidence for a link between secondhand smoke and disease. Facing the prospect of a study that was to absolve SHS, the TRDRP withdrew its funding. No one from within the medical community was prepared to fund a study that was going to show no correlation between SHS exposure and disease, which is why Enstrom reluctantly accepted money from the Center for Indoor Air Reserach so that he could finish his long term work.

As the mouthpiece for anti-smoking groups, the American Cancer Society was horrified when the BMJ published the study, which showed a statistically insignificant negative association between SHS exposure and cancer.

Now, we can argue the toss about this study and that study, what level of significance, but when we look at all the data collected over the years, there is no consensus in terms of what the evidence shows.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

So what? You can get utterly hammered without it affecting anyone either. The difference is you can drink without there being any possibility of that causing harm to anyone else. You can't say that for smoking.

Yes I can.
It is possible to smoke in public without it harming anyone else.

Learn to remember what you said.

Drinking != Being Drunk.

Smoking in a public place != Harming someone else

It's not about responsibility, it's about harm. Drinking isn't harmful. Being drunk is harmful. You restrict the thing that's harmful.

Drinking isn't harmful?
Wow!

Cars perform a vital function of use to us.

What about when I get in my car to drive to a public outdoor space just to smoke a cigarette? What vital function is my car providing then?

Drunkeness and smoking and drug use serve no purpose whatsoever other than personal pleasure.

So we'll just ban car usage for personal pleasure?

And I have met people who drive cars that don't put poisonous chemicals in the air, but never mind.

What magic stuff do they run on then?
Electricity.... generated by power stations that spew out poisonous chemicals by any chance?

You have a strange definition of "imagined".

No, it's the same as everyone else's. ie: Something that hasn't actually happened.

Drinking != Being Drunk, and the reason it's not enforced has more to do with the fact that police have more important things to do, I suspect.

Ah right so the fact that police force's main concern in town centers is policing weekend drunks leads them to conclude that arresting weekend drunks isn't a good use of their resources... so they let people break the law.

Not to mention it is enforced, just not often prosecuted.

No, if it was enforced, I wouldn't come across large groups of drunken idiots in town centers on a weekend.

Being drunk in public isn't even strictly illegal here and yet police still arrest people for it and lock them up.

Where's here?

It's about guarantee. I can see perfectly that a smoker can smoke in public without having an effect on non-smokers. But a smoker can't guarantee that. A drinker can.

And that's the hypocrisy.
Smoking does not affect ones judgment or perception in any way. Drinking alcohol has a cumulative effect on perception and judgment so no one who drinks alcohol can 100% guarantee that they will not have an effect on another person because the judgment of someone who's judgment has been affected by alcohol isn't worth jack.

It's not a baseless prejudice. The scientific consensus is that it's harmful.

Realising that we've got so far away from the topic, but I was still trying to keep broadly to the issue of smoking at home in one's own time is not harmful in any way what-so-ever to anyone at any potential workplace.
But even broadening it out, your prejudice against smoking in public is baseless, it is pandering to your perceived lowest common denominator (the smoker who doesn't show non smokers any consideration). And there is no scientific evidence that someone smoking outdoors is affecting anyone's health, further once the cigarette is finished, it leaves no adverse effect on the smoker that will cloud his judgment and potentially lead him to cause harm to a third party.

No, that doesn't follow. Managing drunks is difficult, so you ban drunks.

Hypocrisy again. Managing inconsiderate smokers who don't ensure that non smokers are not affected by their smoke is the problem, so ban inconsiderate smokers.
Of course that wouldn't work in the same way that banning drunks wouldn't work.
So in your preferred "keep it simple", let's just introduce a blanket ban, heck people can still get drunk at home if they want to, and they can still drink without getting drunk at home to. As long as they don't leave their house after they have been drinking I'm OK with that.

I know what "government" is and I know what a "civil servant" is, if that's what you mean.

Then you'll understand that smoking legislation doesn't actually come from the people we democratically vote for.

It doesn't "make" them violent. They're already violent.

Smoking doesn't give you cancer, it only increases the risk of you developing cancer...

My God. It's not enough that I have had to deal with this ignorant and mindless strawman in one thread, but now it's going to follow me around? I've never said video games make people more violent. Pathetic.

Wriggle out of it how ever you want. Your implication was that playing violent video games increased a person's chances of acting out violence in a real world situation. And yet the undeniable proof that people who have been drinking are more likely to commit violent crime escapes you.

 

[Stray Cat]

I can think of some industries where smoking is an issue.

For example, the particulates from a smoker's lungs can cause yield problems in silicon chip production for a surprising length of time after smoking.

If that were a legitimate reason (and I'm not saying it isn't), then that would be the only real justifiable reason anyone has managed to offer so far.
This would be entirely because the person would not be able to do the job required of them in the same way that a person with one leg wouldn't be able to play Tarzan in a movie*.


*Obscure Peter Cook & Dudley Moore comedy sketch reference

 

[Trakar]

...So, how do you define 'short term'?...

It would certainly be different for different individuals, but in general, you can tie it to the length of time it takes for physical tolerances to develop to recreational dosages. Frequency of use really isn't a good solid measure of addiction expression, as many addicts can maintain functionality and some measure of control over when they use for extended periods of time, limiting their use to holidays/special occassions, weekends, nights etc., at least when other issues in their lives are normal and without undue stress.

 

[Trakar]

Sorry I missed this one earlier.

Tauri is not a 'short term' smoker. She's a relatively long time occasional smoker.

If you can show me a functioning heroin addict who has had their habit for seven or eight years, you may have a point with the post of yours I responded to.

Over a year of functionality would be rare for any heroin addict, but there are documented incidents of addicts with long-term exemplary work-histories decade(s) in length. Regardless, I'm not trying to say that no one should be allowed to smoke (whatever they wish) in situations where they are not reasonably impacting others. But there is a big difference between saying that I accept responsibility for my actions and choices and thinking that my actions and choices have no consequences. To me, the single largest "warning sign" in Tauri's statement was "...There are plenty of folk, like myself, who haven't been smoking all their lives and only took up smoking later in life because they realised they enjoyed the effects of nicotine... the last thing I want to do is give up. I smoke because I enjoy it...." I don't know any smoker who gave up smoking because they disliked the effects of nicotine. They give it up when the physical impacts or concerns about those impacts outweigh their physical and psychological desire to smoke.

 

[23_Tauri]

It would certainly be different for different individuals, but in general, you can tie it to the length of time it takes for physical tolerances to develop to recreational dosages. Frequency of use really isn't a good solid measure of addiction expression, as many addicts can maintain functionality and some measure of control over when they use for extended periods of time, limiting their use to holidays/special occassions, weekends, nights etc., at least when other issues in their lives are normal and without undue stress.

That's a very curious definition, if you don't mind me saying. Oerhaps I am misunderstanding, if so then please correct me. So if someone uses a drug on special occasions, I'm thinking of club goers who might take ecstasy maybe two or three times a year, as a special treat, does that classify them as an addict?

They take it because they enjoy the effects of the drug, but know that it takes several days to recover, therefore taking it frequently can lead to absenteeism from work and depressive episodes. They look forward to their high but go in for delayed gratification based on knowledge the dis-benefits of greater use.

Would you class this as addiction?

 

[23_Tauri]

.......But there is a big difference between saying that I accept responsibility for my actions and choices and thinking that my actions and choices have no consequences. To me, the single largest "warning sign" in Tauri's statement was "...There are plenty of folk, like myself, who haven't been smoking all their lives and only took up smoking later in life because they realised they enjoyed the effects of nicotine... the last thing I want to do is give up. I smoke because I enjoy it...." I don't know any smoker who gave up smoking because they disliked the effects of nicotine. They give it up when the physical impacts or concerns about those impacts outweigh their physical and psychological desire to smoke.

Fair point and I agree (underlined). At the time I wrote that post I wasn't thinking that people stop smoking because they dislike the positive feedback mechanisms one gets from nicotine, but challenge the erroneous view held by some non-smokers that I only continue to smoke because I am fending off the withdrawal symptoms that come from not having a cigarette for a certain period of time. I think there is a difference between having a take a substance in order to maintain a internal steady state, i.e. to stop physiological or psychological cravings, and taking a substance because it is going to make you feel intoxicated for a short time. That distinction might be lost on some, but I think you may understand what I am getting at?

If you don't mind me asking, are you a professional in this field?

 

[GlennB]

So what? You can get utterly hammered without it affecting anyone either. The difference is you can drink without there being any possibility of that causing harm to anyone else. You can't say that for smoking.

I utterly fail to understand that statement. Perhaps it's me? It seems to suggest that if I walk around the garden for a smoke then someone apart from me might be harmed.

Can you explain?

 

[jimbob]

Over a year of functionality would be rare for any heroin addict,

Although opium addiction wasn't too much of a problem for many members of the UK upper classes in the Victorian period.

A colleague, talking about this subject reported a quote that "you wouldn't have the most dynamic personality but otherwise it wouldn't be too bad".


Can anyone else substantiate or refute the statement that I have heard that opiate addiction wasn't uncommon in UK doctors before it became illegal?

 

[23_Tauri]

I utterly fail to understand that statement. Perhaps it's me? It seems to suggest that if I walk around the garden for a smoke then someone apart from me might be harmed.

Can you explain?

[satire alert on]There might be child somewhere in the neighbourhood, GlennB! How do you know your noxious, filthy, stinking cloud of child abuse will dissipate to a safe level before it hits the delicate membranes on the inside of a toddlers' nose, threatening its very ability to breathe? Didn't you know that there is no safe level of second hand smoke? It must be true, someone employed by the US government said so!*

Can't you just think of the children?! [/satire alert off]


*although he lost his job soon after he said that.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop using a gas lawn mower as well. Why do I have to suffer the toxic effects so you can have a trim lawn?

 

[Trakar]

Fair point and I agree (underlined). At the time I wrote that post I wasn't thinking that people stop smoking because they dislike the positive feedback mechanisms one gets from nicotine, but challenge the erroneous view held by some non-smokers that I only continue to smoke because I am fending off the withdrawal symptoms that come from not having a cigarette for a certain period of time. I think there is a difference between having a take a substance in order to maintain a internal steady state, i.e. to stop physiological or psychological cravings, and taking a substance because it is going to make you feel intoxicated for a short time. That distinction might be lost on some, but I think you may understand what I am getting at?

If you don't mind me asking, are you a professional in this field?

First to last, NO. I have some training and education in the medical and mental health fields and due to those, some experience as a unit substance abuse officer/counsellor, but nothing that I (or anyone else should) consider as professional qualifications in this field.

To me, your sense is not necessarily wrong, the problem, in my own personal experience, comes mostly in the self-assessing of our own motivations. Cravings and desires can be insiduous in how they frame and guide our thoughts and considerations to allow their fulfillment. Physical dependencies vary greatly in their role in addiction related to the type of addiction being experienced. With cigarettes, the addiction is generally more psychological than physiological though there are physiological impacts that many smokers come to enjoy and seek out.

Not everyone who occassionally smokes is addicted to nicotine, but a person can have addiction issues and only smoke occassionally.

 

[GlennB]

[satire alert on]There might be child somewhere in the neighbourhood, GlennB! How do you know your noxious, filthy, stinking cloud of child abuse will dissipate to a safe level before it hits the delicate membranes on the inside of a toddlers' nose, threatening its very ability to breathe? Didn't you know that there is no safe level of second hand smoke? It must be true, someone employed by the US government said so!*

Can't you just think of the children?! [/satire alert off]


*although he lost his job soon after he said that.

Well I'll be buggered. I didn't know that. Unfortunately it also means we'll have to sue our neighbours for burning their tree prunings and having bbq's.

Merely staying alive from day to day is getting much too complicated <sigh>.

eta: can job applicants be tested for having had a recent bonfire or bbq and therefore denied employment before they wreck the health of the western world? I think they should. Can't be too careful.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

eta: can job applicants be tested for having had a recent bonfire or bbq and therefore denied employment before they wreck the health of the western world? I think they should. Can't be too careful.

In the USA where the actual smoking ban for employment actually exists, yes you could. Of course, you could also have that same smokers only requirement. So it is even handed even if all of these concepts are over the top for most any industry.

BTW, as for the semiconductor industry the issue of smoke breathing/clothing particulates is well known. A few companies have tried a no smoking at all while at work policy and it just was not worth the effort. Too many irritable employees did not outweigh the very small benefit in less particulate in the breath/clothing. Its only an issue on the really heavy chain smokers. Basically, if you can smell something on the production floor that is coming from someone else it is damaging product. This applies to make up, perfume, flatulence, cigarettes, chewing gum, food, deodorant, sweat ect. The clean room suits and masks we wear generally accounts for most of this, but a few people can build up very powerful (highly particulate) smells that can make their presence consistently known on the work floor. Such people usually get banished to areas it might not matter, or get fired for small excuses. Or usually, it just gets ignored unless massive product damage gets noticed by someone high up. In a mature line a few people breaking the rule on odors should have a very small impact. It also helps that in some places you wear different clothes under the clean room suits than you wear on your breaks. I have seen a few heavy smokers pick up the habit of brushing their teeth after their breaks too.