Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[Limbero]

I'm generally very liberal about what people do to themselves and with their own property, but smoking creates a dilemma for me. On the one hand there's every individual's right to do whatever they want with their own body and possessions, on the other hand there's other people's rights to not be affected by it.

I've landed on what for me is the most reasonable conclusion, smoking should be banned in all public spaces, even outdoor ones, but smoking should still be very much allowed in people's own homes. Sure, it will affect people who move in later, but you can't tiptoe around every possible consequence, and the smell can be removed. Outdoor areas should be okay if there's nobody around.

The number of people who are believed to be killed every year by second hand smoke in the US is staggering: 35,000-40,000 (Wikipedia page on passive smoking, reference 54, JAMA article, I'm not allowed to post links). The figure is old, but still gives perspective.

Basically, I don't care if people kill themselves, but it's bad when they endanger others.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I'd like to propose an experiment to you. Sit on it Potsie.

Lighten up. Do you?

 

[Ausmerican]

When I'm at a party or something I find myself hanging out with the smokers because they are cooler.


......and I don't smoke.

Same. I also still go out at break with the smokers at college by force of habit and still go out when at resturants with friends that smoke. Never tempted though. For that matter I still have cigars laying around here. I guess I am a definite ex smoker. Ex but not anti.

 

[Ambrosia]

other people's rights to not be affected by it.

I completely agree that other people ought not to be affected by whether or not I choose to smoke. Why are smokers treated as outcasts these days though?

In the UK if I want to go and sit in a pub indoors and have a friendly conversation with fellow smokers, in an establishment staffed by smokers or people that don't care about working in a smoky environment. The law prevents me from doing this.

Why can't establishments apply for a smoking premises licence, they pay a fee to the council, install some decent smoke extraction/air conditioning to mitigate much of the smoky atmosphere, councils only hand out a small number of such licences per year. Everyones a winner. Because of some disputed science about the health risks smoking is banned everywhere that Joe public, or some worker who *chose* to work in that exact job might get the briefest whiff of tobacco smoke which is evil, and makes you smell, such a thing is not allowed.

Yes of course second hand smoke is bad for you. The question is how much is bad for you? the published science on second hand smoke is flawed to say the least. some of it is sponsored by tobacco companies, who have their own agenda to pursue, some of it is sponsored by anti-smoking groups and they skew their results toward their agenda.

If I'm stuck in a lift with a smoker then clearly I might as well light up myself as I'm going to be inhaling a ton of second hand carcinogens. If a guy standing next to me outside at a park is smoking I'm rarely going to inhale any significant amount of carcinogens.

The law is bonkers atm.

As far as smokers not contributing anything to society.

In the UK excise duty on tobacco products raised the treasury £8.2billion in 2008/09. ($13.4billion)

Thats not counting VAT, just the extra tobacco tax. That works out at roughly 5% of the years costs for the entire NHS.

 

[Limbero]

I completely agree that other people ought not to be affected by whether or not I choose to smoke. Why are smokers treated as outcasts these days though?

In the UK if I want to go and sit in a pub indoors and have a friendly conversation with fellow smokers, in an establishment staffed by smokers or people that don't care about working in a smoky environment. The law prevents me from doing this.

Why can't establishments apply for a smoking premises licence, they pay a fee to the council, install some decent smoke extraction/air conditioning to mitigate much of the smoky atmosphere, councils only hand out a small number of such licences per year. Everyones a winner. Because of some disputed science about the health risks smoking is banned everywhere that Joe public, or some worker who *chose* to work in that exact job might get the briefest whiff of tobacco smoke which is evil, and makes you smell, such a thing is not allowed.

More than reasonable, a pub is not public space, and the owner should be allowed to decide what rules he wants for his establishment.

Yes of course second hand smoke is bad for you. The question is how much is bad for you? the published science on second hand smoke is flawed to say the least. some of it is sponsored by tobacco companies, who have their own agenda to pursue, some of it is sponsored by anti-smoking groups and they skew their results toward their agenda.

Yes, but it's been established by organizations such as the WHO that there is a link between second hand smoke and cancer. I would love to see further research in how big the effect is, but the main point is that there is a link.

If I'm stuck in a lift with a smoker then clearly I might as well light up myself as I'm going to be inhaling a ton of second hand carcinogens. If a guy standing next to me outside at a park is smoking I'm rarely going to inhale any significant amount of carcinogens.

While perhaps not enough to cause any permanent harm, standing next to a smoker outside can still be mightily annoying and bothersome, and in my opinion, that's enough. Everyone should be able to move freely in public space.

The law is bonkers atm.

As far as smokers not contributing anything to society.

In the UK excise duty on tobacco products raised the treasury £8.2billion in 2008/09. ($13.4billion)

Thats not counting VAT, just the extra tobacco tax. That works out at roughly 5% of the years costs for the entire NHS.

Yes, that's something that was instated after the fact, to get smoking to contribute to society. Smoking in itself is not helpful to society.

I had to strip your link because of my post count.

 

[JFrankA]

More than reasonable, a pub is not public space, and the owner should be allowed to decide what rules he wants for his establishment.

I completely agree with this. Why should the government tell me what I can allow in my establishment? Fire codes and regulations, I get, but to out-and-out tell me that I can't allow something that is legal and people enjoy in my store? I don't get it.

Yes, but it's been established by organizations such as the WHO that there is a link between second hand smoke and cancer. I would love to see further research in how big the effect is, but the main point is that there is a link.

I am not disputing the findings, but I would like to know how much space the smoke and the test subjects were in during these experiments.

While perhaps not enough to cause any permanent harm, standing next to a smoker outside can still be mightily annoying and bothersome, and in my opinion, that's enough. Everyone should be able to move freely in public space.

I'm sorry, but "annoying and bothersome" doesn't cut it for me to ban a product. Especially when one is in public. Might as well ban buses and cars for the exact same reason. There are people who live next to train tracks and have to deal with the annoying and bothersome sound of the train going by. There are people who find sex shops in the city annoying and bothersome.

Yes, that's something that was instated after the fact, to get smoking to contribute to society. Smoking in itself is not helpful to society.

Try telling that to a smoker who calms down after having a cigarette. Try telling that to the people who work for the tobacco industry.

Besides, why does something have to be "helpful to society" to be legal? Gambling is legal, is that really helpful to society? How is World of Warcraft helpful to society? How is masturbation helpful to society?

We've established that smoking can be a social thing. (As evidenced by the smoker's area). It's a way that some people relax with, some people keep their weight down with it. How can that not be helpful to society?


ETA: By the way, I'm sure your post count will grow quickly. It did for me. And welcome to the forums.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
As far as smokers not contributing anything to society.

In the UK excise duty on tobacco products raised the treasury £8.2billion in 2008/09. ($13.4billion)

Thats not counting VAT, just the extra tobacco tax. That works out at roughly 5% of the years costs for the entire NHS.

How high would you estimate the follow-up costs of tobacco-related health damages for the NHS in the UK in said time frame?

 

[Ambrosia]

Yes, but it's been established by organizations such as the WHO that there is a link between second hand smoke and cancer. I would love to see further research in how big the effect is, but the main point is that there is a link.

There's a link between drinking water and fatality. That doesn't mean we should ban drinking water from public space. There is a link though!

The main point is that inhaling *some* tobacco smoke will not cause health problems. We don't know what the value of some is for "How much smoking will significantly impact on my health"

Smoking has two main reasons for killing you. i) smoking causes fatty deposits inside your arteries and veins and this means your heart has to work harder, which leads to heart attack and stroke eventually. ii) buildup of tar containing radioactive particles inside your lungs damages the interior of the lung and the bodies self repair mechanism eventually goes wrong in trying to fix the damage you're doing and it turns cancerous.

There a a bundle of other health problems you can get as well, but those are the big 2. All of the health issues are caused by a long term exposure to smoke, so it's a question of degree. A very little smoke might annoy you, but thats about as much damage as it'll ever do, and sorry but we shouldn't base the law on what is annoying to anyone.

Toddlers on public transport are annoying ....

in my opinion, that's enough. Everyone should be able to move freely in public space.

Cool lets ban all children from public spaces.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Besides, why does something have to be "helpful to society" to be legal? Gambling is legal, is that really helpful to society? How is World of Warcraft helpful to society? How is masturbation helpful to society?
...

The three examples you gave - the latter one especially looking like an orange in a bowl of apples - technically can be pursued in public without harming others. A public bathroom comes to mind.

 

[Cavemonster]

I completely agree with this. Why should the government tell me what I can allow in my establishment? Fire codes and regulations, I get, but to out-and-out tell me that I can't allow something that is legal and people enjoy in my store? I don't get it.

I think the relative issue here is the employees. If you allow this one situation where employees waive their right to be protected from a serious health risk, then you undermine workplace safety as a whole.

After all, if you can have a bar that only hires bartenders and waitresses who don't mind the smoke, then why can't you have an asbestos removal service site that only hires workers who will accept working in cheap, substandard safety gear?

The whole idea of protecting employees rides on the fact that if businesses are allowed to make exceptions, in a job market like we have now, then it's no longer an option. People are forced to accept unsafe conditions or be unemployed. I don't see any special quality of secondhand smoke that makes it any different from other special risks that we don't let employers foist on their employees.

 

[23_Tauri]

More than reasonable, a pub is not public space, and the owner should be allowed to decide what rules he wants for his establishment.

Tell that to the EU bureaucrats who imposed the smoking ban across Europe. Their argument is that it's a workplace and the state exists to protects workers. However, the ban also covers family run establishments who don't have any employees. So it's a nonsense.

Yes, but it's been established by organizations such as the WHO that there is a link between second hand smoke and cancer. I would love to see further research in how big the effect is, but the main point is that there is a link.

That link is tenuous at best. Out of 64 studies since 1981* on the correlation between living with a partner who smokes and cancer risk nine found a statistically significant positive association (that living with a partner who smokes increases the risk of lung cancer in the non-smoker), three found a statistically significant negative association (that living with the a partner who smokes decreases the risk of lung cancer in the non-smoker) and 52 found no statistically significant association either way.

*note: published since 1981, some of these studies are longitudinal studies going back some time, e.g. Hirrayama looked at a group of women from 1965 to 1979.

Here's the link:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=33

Note: Yes, it's from Chris Snowden's website (it's the appendix to his book) and I make no apologies for that. He is a well-known critic of the anti-smoking movement and an advocate for smokers' rights. But he doesn't work for the tobacco industry or any other vested interest organisation.

Now, if such dubious statistics result from looking at people who live for decades with a smoker, then what is the evidence that short term exposure to SHS, in a bar or pub for example, has any impact on lung cancer risk?

The bottom line is that it is far from proven that exposure to SHS on the level that most people would be exposed in public spaces has any impact on cancer rates.

The drive to demonise SHS has been manipulated for a century by the prohibitionists and it is their consistent and powerful lobbying that has impacted on public policy on tobacco today.

While perhaps not enough to cause any permanent harm, standing next to a smoker outside can still be mightily annoying and bothersome, and in my opinion, that's enough. Everyone should be able to move freely in public space.

Couldn't agree more. I feel that the line between accommodating smokers and protecting the rights of non-smokers was crossed a long time ago. I'm not advocating a return to the days of being able to freely smoke wherever and whenever, but the demonisation of smokers is causing unecessary division and polarisation into the pro's and anti's. That's not good.

Smoking in itself is not helpful to society.

Ok, but there's lots of things that people are allowed to do that are not "helpful to society". The fact is that tobacco smoking is pleasurable and it's legal. If adults want to consume a plant that is legal and has been consumed for millenia by our ancestors then why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

 

[23_Tauri]

As the issue of the health and safety of employees has been raised I thought it would be helpful to link to this thread from last year, where we discussed the various issues around passive smoking at some length:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171114

 

[jiggeryqua]

Are there any studies showing a correlation between the people who think that the tiniest whiff of SHS causes lung cancer and the people who insist 'minor' leaks of radioactivity are perfectly safe? Or is that just wishful thinking?

 

[Ambrosia]

I think the relative issue here is the employees. If you allow this one situation where employees waive their right to be protected from a serious health risk, then you undermine workplace safety as a whole.

What serious health risk? Where is the body of evidence that shows SHS to be a serious risk, and at what level is this smoke a serous risk?

Carbon monoxide is a serious risk to health. Millions upon millions of vehicles drive up and down high streets every day. All of them expelling carbon monoxide that wafts into the air surrounding millions of workers.

People are forced to accept unsafe conditions or be unemployed.

Rubbish. Noone is forced into taking a particular job.

I usually have a variation of this argument whenever one of my minions asks for a raise. We advertised for this position, and you asked us if you could work here, noone forced you into it.

 

[23_Tauri]

Are there any studies showing a correlation between the people who think that the tiniest whiff of SHS causes lung cancer and the people who insist 'minor' leaks of radioactivity are perfectly safe? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Surely the correlation would be between those who believe that "there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke" and those who believe that any level of radiation causes cancer. We could start by showing them this. Pity xkcd haven't done one for tobacco smoke particulates.

 

[mysteronyx]

This comes down to what kind of society you want. The United States is known for being the leader of the free world. The concerns about smoking basically fall into two categories: 1. It's dangerous health-wise and 2. It's a symbol of our freedom. To argue back and forth between 1 and 2 is silly unless both parties are on the same page about how society should be governed. To me, the person who supports 1 wants a much different society than the person who supports 2.
Specifically, 1 wants more government regulation, and 2 wants less. Neither party really disagrees with each others' premises. For example, 1 understands the benefits of smoking and the importance of freedom. Likewise, 2 understands the dangers of smoking and why some government regulation is needed. (at least, I hope both parties understand these things) Of course, they disagree with each others' conclusions.

Well, what is America about? I don't want to fall into a false dichotomy, but are we a country built on freedom or a country built on limiting choice? Considering that the OP made a very black-and-what claim (universal ban), I feel this dichotomy is appropriate to consider.

 

[JFrankA]

I think the relative issue here is the employees. If you allow this one situation where employees waive their right to be protected from a serious health risk, then you undermine workplace safety as a whole.

After all, if you can have a bar that only hires bartenders and waitresses who don't mind the smoke, then why can't you have an asbestos removal service site that only hires workers who will accept working in cheap, substandard safety gear?

The whole idea of protecting employees rides on the fact that if businesses are allowed to make exceptions, in a job market like we have now, then it's no longer an option. People are forced to accept unsafe conditions or be unemployed. I don't see any special quality of secondhand smoke that makes it any different from other special risks that we don't let employers foist on their employees.

I see your point, but I still don't agree. There are risks that people take for their jobs even with the best of protection - even asbestos removal services. Yeah, you get the best safety gear, but the job is still dangerous. Same with police, fire, military, coal miners, etc. An employer tries to make it as safe as possible for the employees, but being an employee of that profession, one still has to face risks.

 

[Cavemonster]

I see your point, but I still don't agree. There are risks that people take for their jobs even with the best of protection - even asbestos removal services. Yeah, you get the best safety gear, but the job is still dangerous. Same with police, fire, military, coal miners, etc. An employer tries to make it as safe as possible for the employees, but being an employee of that profession, one still has to face risks.

Yes, I agree with you that employees take on some risks, and there is always going to be something arbitrary about the cut off, but based on what we know about secondhand smoke, and the kind of prolonged exposure working in a place filled with smoke would bring, then allowing it would be inconsistent with our other workplace safety laws about toxins and carcinogens. Since we must be arbitrary to some degree, we must also be consistent once we have drawn the line, otherwise that line holds no weight.

The dangers of "police, fire, military, coal miners" are inseparable from their functions. their functions are so integra lo our society that more people would be harmed by not having them, more people would be harmed than are harmed in the course of these duties. The same cannot be said at all for smoking in bars.

Huge efforts are made to protect from the dangers of these professions. Bullet proof vests, extensive training, a fortunes worth of mine safety equipment and inspection.

If bars that wanted to allow smoking would make equal accommodation to minimize risk, that may start to be reasonable.

EDIT: Note, this is in response to already established laws about smoking in businesses. It would be absolutely crazy to try to ban smoking completely

 

[charles brough]

Passing a law prohibiting smoking would not stop it. Such a draconian measure would alienate the public and make smoking more popular among rebellous youths and most youths do tend to be rebellious (!) The experience we had in banning alcoholic drinks during Prohibition showed the consequences.

We cannot even effectively ban the use of narcotics. The consequences of trying are destructive enough that we are creating monstrous narcotic-smuggling gangs that have become so powerful they threaten the very soverenty of the people of Mexico.

It is time to show some judgement and realize that we have growing problems that cannot be solved by passing laws and, indeed, won't be solved at all, that they will grow increasingly worse as our civilization continues into its decline.

At some point, when it all becomes too desperate to tolerate any more, the people will look for and hence find a new world-wide and advanced belief system, a world-view that will be "the wave of the future" and enable us to build a new civilization, control population growth and drive us on to the colonizing of space.

 

[Tony]

It is a form of assault through poisons inflicted on your fellow man. It kills others slowly, but still kills them, ad kills the smoker itself. Assualt and suicide are already illegal so the precedent is already there.

It's not enough to publicly ban it, it should be probable cause for the law to enter your house take the cancer sticks from you. You know I'm right.

No.