Second Hand Smoke is too bad for you

[Monty]

So says the Surgeon General. From that link (bolding mine):

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

1. I put this in the Pit because it's going to end up here, no doubt.

2. I found out about the report from this article in the Austin American-Statesman (requires free registration). From that article:

"The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

3. You folks that say there's no danger from secondhand smoke are now proven wrong.

[cerberus]

I find that in these matters the full account is preferable to incompentent yammerings from the fourth estate.

A Direct Link to Dr. Carmona's Report

[cerberus]

Make that incompetent yammerings ... there's only one R in yammer, right?

[Monty]

cerberus: The first link I provided is from the HHS. I'd say they're not incomptent nor are they the fourth estate.

[kambuckta]

Originally Posted by Monty

3. You folks that say there's no danger from secondhand smoke are now proven wrong.

Who's said that?

[yBeayf]

I'd say they're not incomptent nor are they the fourth estate.

Well, they're certainly not the fourth estate...

[cerberus]

d'Oh! I missed the first link.

The page is rather complete. I like the 50 or so years of SG reports on smoking.

I also like the phrase Involuntary Smoking: that's exactly what it is.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

Who's said that?

I think it's generally smokers responding to whiny bitches who can't walk past a smoker in any setting, anywhere in the world, without acting like they just met the Boston Strangler. *cough* *hack* *dirty look*

The smokers, forced from the building to smoke outside, in the rain, snow and bitter cold, are made pariahs because people who are allowed in the building have to walk past them, sucking in their deadly second hand smoke for 3 seconds. Now, smoking opponents will drive smokers further into the underground because second hand smoke isn't just smelly anymore, it's dangerous! Look for a new round of laws that make smoking the most difficult legal activity to partake in this side of shooting a firearm.

[chrisk]

Well, I'm going to add my usual smoking-related complaint here... smokers at bus stops. Yes, I understand that for some people with a serious smoking problem, taking a long trip on a smoke-free intercity bus is enough of a stretch that they want to get a puff in first, but... I do get upset when people smoke right there at the stop, or in the line-up waiting for the bus. It forces non-smokers to decide whether to breathe their fumes or back away, thus effectively giving up our place in line. This may sound harsh, but deep down I feel that if anyone should have to give up their place, it should be the smokers.

[yojimbo]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I think it's generally smokers responding to whiny bitches who can't walk past a smoker in any setting, anywhere in the world, without acting like they just met the Boston Strangler. *cough* *hack* *dirty look*

I've gotten that in a fucking smoking area in a beer garden in a pub.

I'm outside, smoking where I should be and still this fucking cunt moaned at me. Generally I'm what you call a conscientious smoker but some people just need to fuck right off.

As to the OP. I always thought that 2nd hand smoke wasn't great so it's no surprise
.

[cerberus]

Well, here's the message from the NonSmoking Public...

Ready?

If we have to share the air with you, then we do not want to breathe your fucking exhaust fumes

Got it?

It's analogous to you not wanting us to sprinkle our shit onto your food and drink, not even a tiny little bit, say the tiny amount of shit equivalent to three seconds' worth of breathing your respiratory shit/exhaust. Oh, and our sprinkle/shit? We added a few carcinogens and other and sundry poisons, just really small doses, don't trouble your pretty little head about it. Just shut the fuck up and eat our shit, the shit we sprinkle in your food. 'Cos, see? We're more important than you!

It's just like that, yes?

There's second hand smoke; but no second hand cheeseburger; no second hand heroin...

If you must indulge/suffer your self-destructive activity, then do it with your own fucking air.

Having said that, part of the problem are the rocket scientists that decide to put the smoking areas near the entrances/exits, hence placing the exhaust clouds in the path of everyone entering or leaving the building.

Then again, I can hold my breath for a loooooong time now.

[kambuckta]

Originally Posted by cerberus

Well, here's the message from the NonSmoking Public...

Ready?

If we have to share the air with you, then we do not want to breathe your fucking exhaust fumes

Got it?

It's analogous to you not wanting us to sprinkle our shit onto your food and drink, not even a tiny little bit, say the tiny amount of shit equivalent to three seconds' worth of breathing your respiratory shit/exhaust. Oh, and our sprinkle/shit? We added a few carcinogens and other and sundry poisons, just really small doses, don't trouble your pretty little head about it. Just shut the fuck up and eat our shit, the shit we sprinkle in your food. 'Cos, see? We're more important than you!

It's just like that, yes?

There's second hand smoke; but no second hand cheeseburger; no second hand heroin...

If you must indulge/suffer your self-destructive activity, then do it with your own fucking air.

Having said that, part of the problem are the rocket scientists that decide to put the smoking areas near the entrances/exits, hence placing the exhaust clouds in the path of everyone entering or leaving the building.

Then again, I can hold my breath for a loooooong time now.

Meh. Fuck off.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

Meh. Fuck off.

Meh. Don't take a last, long drag right before you get on the bus, toss that butt on the ground as if the world is your ashtray(and don't even try to convince me most smokers don't do this-I have yet to see a bus stop smoker who doesn't), then exhale that crap out on the tightly packed passengers. You don't do this? Fine and dandy, but you know damn well that you are the rare exception.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

Meh. Fuck off.

No you. Way over there. Far away from people who do not want to breathe your nasty poisonous exhalations. Maybe I'll just give you a blast of bug spray from this little aerosol can every time you blow your smoke on me. Fair enough?

Originally Posted by Cheeseteak

Now, smoking opponents will drive smokers further into the underground because second hand smoke isn't just smelly anymore, it's dangerous! Look for a new round of laws that make smoking the most difficult legal activity to partake in this side of shooting a firearm.

Is it legal to shoot a firearm at someone who is not an immediate threat to you? Why should it be legal for you to poison the air I breathe?

[SteveG1]

At this point, I don't really give a damn what some report says. Everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has an asshole. You don't want to smell mys smoke? Then stay the hell away. It's a big world out there. I'm sure you can find someplace else to be, other than right next to me. If I was there first, you can move your ass away.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

At this point, I don't really give a damn what some report says. Everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has an asshole. You don't want to smell mys smoke? Then stay the hell away. It's a big world out there. I'm sure you can find someplace else to be, other than right next to me. If I was there first, you can move your ass away.

Well, that's a start. Would you then agree that if you were not "there first," you would not light up? Would you also agree that anyone's opinion is as valid as peer reviewed medical research?

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Is it legal to shoot a firearm at someone who is not an immediate threat to you? Why should it be legal for you to poison the air I breathe?

If you're going to keep it legal to buy tobacco, then the rules around using it should at least be reasonable. It's an addictive drug, we've known this forever, so demanding that people stop using it for 12 hours when they're not in their homes is ridiculous. We've already made it illegal to smoke in most public enclosed spaces, the only place left is the open air. You make it illegal to smoke in the open air, then we're talking the 12 hour law, which is not a workable solution.

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Well, that's a start. Would you then agree that if you were not "there first," you would not light up? Would you also agree that anyone's opinion is as valid as peer reviewed medical research?

I really don't care whether you like smelling my smoke or not. I do move away from non-smokers when I smoke, but I'm not going to run away and hide in a corner just to keep you smoke free.

If you are going to die by inhaling my smoke, then by that thinking... I'll be dead first.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Well, that's a start. Would you then agree that if you were not "there first," you would not light up? Would you also agree that anyone's opinion is as valid as peer reviewed medical research?

At one time, the answer would have been yes to not lighting up. But anymore, I'm not so sure. Attitude has everything to do with it. If they ask politely, fine. If they are assholes, I light up. As for valid opinions, hell no. Everyone has a right to an opinion. I have the right to ignore their opinion. Besides, there have been cases where "valid medical research" or "valid scientific reserch" was later discovered to be skewed to reach a foregone conclusion, or totally false, or was contradicted by some other "valid research". It's simple. I won't smoke near you, if you are polite, or if I know already that you object. If you are a jerk about it, then you can "smell what the Rock is cooking". A little courtesy goes a long way.

[jjimm]

I support the smoking bans. I bend over backwards to be conscientious. I go outside to smoke unless I've sought permission from those around me. I stay away from non-smokers. I take my butts home with me, in my pocket if needs be.

Help me to help you stay away from my smoke, but don't fucking bitch if you happen to be exposed from dozens of metres away, for half a second, diluted by the vastness of the atmosphere. So "there is no risk-free exposure". I'd imagine the same is true of any other airborne pollution, and especially car exhausts.

Yeah, some smokers are inconsiderate bastards, but then again some non-smokers are whining little drama queens.

[Jackmannii]

There's nothing terribly new here. Secondhand smoke, in addition to making things unpleasant for non-smokers, causes or worsens serious diseases and increases the likelihood of fatalities in non-smokers. As the heavy majority in the U.S. (and increasingly so, around the world), they will use this latest report to make their personal space a little safer, and more power to them.

Originally Posted by jjimm

I support the smoking bans. I bend over backwards to be conscientious.

I've always thought how marvelous it is that the SDMB's acknowledged smokers are this way...considerate, thoughtful, non-littering etc. Just like smokers in general.

Unless they're not paying attention. Or having a bad day. Or seizing on some tone or glance from non-smokers that they can use to take offense at and justify their antisocial behavior.

Which is why we need anti-smoking laws and serious enforcement.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

I've always thought how marvelous it is that the SDMB's acknowledged smokers are this way...considerate, thoughtful, non-littering etc. Just like smokers in general.

Cast aspertions as ye may. I stand by my claim. Ever since I got busted (by a dog warden) for throwing a butt out of my car window, and absorbed the data about second-hand smoke, I've taken a long look at how I used behave while smoking, and have mended my ways.

Or seizing on some tone or glance from non-smokers that they can use to take offense at and justify their antisocial behavior.

I'm only talking about the thankfully small number of people who shout, or make very obvious hand-flapping gestures out of proportion to their exposure. None of which would make me try to "justify" anything. Now if only we can get the inconsiderate smokers to be a vanishing minority too. Which is why I urge activist non-smokers to concentrate their ire on the really bad ones, not to exaggerate the effects of those trying to reform.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Which is why we need anti-smoking laws and serious enforcement.

Just what we need. More "nanny government". Maybe we need anti-jerk laws to lock up loud and obnoxious morons who feel some overpowering urge to stand right next to someone who is smoking. Just. Move. Away. From. Them.

[CandidGamera]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

At one time, the answer would have been yes to not lighting up. But anymore, I'm not so sure. Attitude has everything to do with it. If they ask politely, fine. If they are assholes, I light up. As for valid opinions, hell no. Everyone has a right to an opinion. I have the right to ignore their opinion. Besides, there have been cases where "valid medical research" or "valid scientific reserch" was later discovered to be skewed to reach a foregone conclusion, or totally false, or was contradicted by some other "valid research". It's simple. I won't smoke near you, if you are polite, or if I know already that you object. If you are a jerk about it, then you can "smell what the Rock is cooking". A little courtesy goes a long way.

Yeah, I rarely bash anybody with the two by four I carry around, unless they're an asshole.

Smoking near someone to punish them for their attitude is pretty much the same thing as punching them in the jaw for it. It's gauche. It's assault.

I'm so terribly sorry that you have to put up with the contempt of a portion of your fellow human beings. Poisoning them is not a measured response, though.

[UncleBeer]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Which is why we need anti-smoking laws and serious enforcement.

Then y'all could at least be honest about your intentions and encourage legislation that completely outlaws the sale of tobacco for smoking. Anything else makes you a hypocritical fuck. It's death by a thousand cuts; just like the dickheads who wanna take away my guns. And I say this as an ex-smoker; a group of people who're generally the most sanctimonious of this particular boquet of assholes.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by UncleBeer

Then y'all could at least be honest about your intentions and encourage legislation that completely outlaws the sale of tobacco for smoking. Anything else makes you a hypocritical fuck. It's death by a thousand cuts; just like the dickheads who wanna take away my guns. And I say this as an ex-smoker; a group of people who're generally the most sanctimonious of this particular boquet of assholes.

I knew this line of "logic" would pop up sooner or later. While there is a (questionable by some) right to keep and bear arms, there is no such right to smoke.

[Happy Clam]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Just what we need. More "nanny government". Maybe we need anti-jerk laws to lock up loud and obnoxious morons who feel some overpowering urge to stand right next to someone who is smoking. Just. Move. Away. From. Them.

What about when this isn't an option, such as at a bus stop? Or, for that matter, why should the person who isn't smoking be forced to move when it is the smoker who is intiating the passive smoking (ok, the link proves passive smoking is bad, but "poisoning" is hyperbole).

[UncleBeer]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I knew this line of "logic" would pop up sooner or later. While there is a (questionable by some) right to keep and bear arms, there is no such right to smoke.

Great. Then there's nothing stopping y'all from outlawing the sale of tobacco for smoking. Right?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by UncleBeer

Great. Then there's nothing stopping y'all from outlawing the sale of tobacco for smoking. Right?

The crap is poison. Can you give me any reason, besides addiction and obscene profit, why it shouldn't be outlawed?

[Cluricaun]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. I wonder how many of the non-smokers also use things like Sweet'N Low or Equal, or maybe have had some food cooked on a grill lately, or maybe inhaled some of those bus exhaust fumes.

It almost seems that Americans now insist on some Howard Hughesian bubble around them that’s germ free and odor free and smoke free and touch free and that the rest of the world needs to have some legal compulsion to not only respect that space, but to immediately grovel and beg forgiveness for any slight against that space no matter how real or imagined it might be.

The world we live in is a scary, dirty and often dangerous space. If the most you have to worry about is cigarette smoke then be thankful.

[Happy Clam]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

The crap is poison. Can you give me any reason, besides addiction and obscene profit, why it shouldn't be outlawed?

Liberty, perhaps?

If we assume that we are criminalizing use in any enviroment where someone else is going to be exposed to passive smoke, and that the only person who is going to be effected is the smoker themselves- they can go ahead and knock themselves out. After all, we don't ban bungee jumping or mountain climbing, although those are very dangerous past-times. It is a principle going back to J.S. Mill that the only grounds for forbidding an act is if it harms someone else. Smoking (when considered in a vacuum...insert obligatory joke here) harms only the smoker, who has made a choice to do so. Or are you in favour of banning suicide as well?

I'm fully in favour of restricting the circumstances under which someone can be exposed to passive smoke, however.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

The crap is poison. Can you give me any reason, besides addiction and obscene profit, why it shouldn't be outlawed?

People should be allowed to ingest as much poison as they want.

They shouldn't be allowed to force me to ingest poison I don't want.

There are unavoidable sources, but smoking isn't one of them.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by UncleBeer

Then y'all could at least be honest about your intentions and encourage legislation that completely outlaws the sale of tobacco for smoking. Anything else makes you a hypocritical fuck.

What a great idea, except that Prohibition doesn't work. It just spawns smuggling and corruption.

So smoking will continue to be regulated and taxed.

I have no "intention" to get smoking banned anyway. People have the right to pursue activities that are self-destructive. They just don't have the right to take me and other non-smokers down with them.

If you want to argue that governments should devote a heftier portion of their tax revenues from smoking to health initiatives, smoking cessation programs, litter control and protecting non-smokers, I'm with you.

[LionelHutz405]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

The crap is poison. Can you give me any reason, besides addiction and obscene profit, why it shouldn't be outlawed?

Because outlawing it wouldn’t have any affect on its use. Just like prohibition didn’t put an end to drinking. An addict isn’t going to quit just because it’s now illegal. They will just switch to illegal sources for their smokes. At least some of the obscene profit can go towards providing health care. If it was illegal, none of it would.

[George Kaplin]

"I now realize I smoke for simply one reason, and that is spite. I hate you non-smokers with all of my little black fucking heart. You obnoxious, self-righteous, whining little fucks. My biggest fear, if I quit smoking, is that I'll become one of you."

Bill Hicks

[UncleBeer]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

The crap is poison. Can you give me any reason, besides addiction and obscene profit, why it shouldn't be outlawed?

I don't have one. At least one to which you (and many others) probably won't find objections. So, again, what's stopping you guys from introducing legislation banning smoking tobacco? Has that been done? I'm not aware of any such legislation being introduced.

[CandidGamera]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

People should be allowed to ingest as much poison as they want.

They shouldn't be allowed to force me to ingest poison I don't want.

There are unavoidable sources, but smoking isn't one of them.

Bingo. I think tobacco is silly, wasteful, impractical, and of no value whatsoever and I tend to think just a little bit less of those who choose to use it. But I have no intention of supporting legislation to ban it outright because of the reasoning presented by jsgoddess. If you want to slowly kill yourself over the course of twenty years, go right ahead. But when your smoking infiltrates a single molecule of carcinogenic material into my lungs, you've crossed a line.

My tolerance for being slowly poisoned varies with the degree to which I like the person doing the poisoning, of course. I make sure to stand upwind of my father if we're both outside and he's puffing away on a cigarette though.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by LionelHutz405

Because outlawing it wouldn’t have any affect on its use. Just like prohibition didn’t put an end to drinking.

Bullshit. Put tobacco on the same criminal level as marijuana. Do you think you could get enough marijuana to support a pack a day habit without going broke? Think you could smoke 20 joints a day without getting caught?

There's also a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol/marijuana. You can't get drunk or high on tobacco*, so why would someone bother to break the law to smoke it?

Yes, in the short term there will be continuing use because people are addicted, but in the mid-long term making it illegal will kill the tobacco industry.

*Well, maybe you can, but I doubt the high is anything like the other two.

[yBeayf]

To be honest, this is one of the reasons I've switched to using snuff almost exclusively. While the poor, mistreated smokers (and I don't mean that sarcastically) are huddling out in the street, I can be merrily snuffing away indoors, out of the sun and the rain and the heat. And taking a pinch of snuff is so quick and unobtrusive, if you weren't watching carefully you might never even know I was doing it.

The day they outlaw snuffing (which, unlike smoking, *truly* doesn't affect anybody but the person doing it) is the day I start bombing government offices.

[Seven]

Great. I can see where this report is going.

Now when I walk down the street I'll have obese Americans telling me how I'm killing them because they can smell cigarette smoke. Of course it will take them a moment to get the words out between bites of McBurger and Crispy Creme.

I don't know how serious to take a report like this from a fear-based Government. The CDC website has three headlines on their main page; Secondhand smoke, Firework Injuries and *gasp* Pandemic Flu.

This coming from a crack department that did nothing about AIDS for years.

What next? A report on how drinking is bad for you because it kills brain cells? How the toxins in household cleaners are really bad for you?

[kayT]

People in places like LA who complain about second hand smoke from the driver's seat of their Hummer are very amusing to me.

[davenportavenger]

Originally Posted by Cluricaun

I'm kind of torn on this issue. I wonder how many of the non-smokers also use things like Sweet'N Low or Equal, or maybe have had some food cooked on a grill lately, or maybe inhaled some of those bus exhaust fumes.

It almost seems that Americans now insist on some Howard Hughesian bubble around them that’s germ free and odor free and smoke free and touch free and that the rest of the world needs to have some legal compulsion to not only respect that space, but to immediately grovel and beg forgiveness for any slight against that space no matter how real or imagined it might be.

The world we live in is a scary, dirty and often dangerous space. If the most you have to worry about is cigarette smoke then be thankful.

Fuck yeah. Screw those sanctimonious non-smokers who will chastise me as they scatter their SUV fumes in my face. Or who will spray their anti-germ sprays, which make me cough and smell nasty, in the name of "health." I make way less pollution than a car or an aerosol can. I don't doubt that there are health problems associated with secondhand smoke, but guess what? There are health problems associated with everything. Everything!

And if you don't like it, then don't leave your house or use any chemicals at all. And don't drive your car, especially not around me, a non-driver who does not relish getting a lungful of smoke that is far more toxic than my piddling cigarettes. And don't dare use your anti-stink Oust sprays around me, do you know what's in those aerosol cans? Carcinogens! And you're forcing me to be exposed to them, without my consent. Mountain fresh, my ass.

[Hampshire]

Know why smokers get dirty looks from others even when they're smoking where they are allowed to?

Cause you stink!!

Same reason the lady that puts on too much perfume gets dirty looks. Same reason that the guy with horrendous body odor who hasn't showered in days gets dirty looks. Same reason the guy with garlic/onion breath gets dirty looks.

Sure none of them are doing anything illegal. But when your in my space and you STINK, I'm gonna give you a dirty look.

[Caricci]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I think it's generally smokers responding to whiny bitches who can't walk past a smoker in any setting, anywhere in the world, without acting like they just met the Boston Strangler. *cough* *hack* *dirty look*


Look for a new round of laws that make smoking the most difficult legal activity to partake in this side of shooting a firearm.

Oh, yeah, that would be me. Even with my own mother.

And I look forward to those laws with eager anticipation.

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

The crap is poison. Can you give me any reason, besides addiction and obscene profit, why it shouldn't be outlawed?

Because people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't actively harm others, even if it is dangerous and harmful to themselves. Being overweight is dangerous, and causes much more disease and harm than second-hand smoke. Are you going to next lobby the government to force people to be physically fit?

I have no problems with making restaurants, air planes, malls and other such places non-smoking. I think it's asinine to go so far as to make smoking illegal.

[davenportavenger]

Originally Posted by Hampshire

Sure none of them are doing anything illegal. But when your in my space and you STINK, I'm gonna give you a dirty look.

Cars stink too.

[Hampshire]

Originally Posted by davenportavenger

Cars stink too.

Yep, and if I'm sitting at an outside eating area and someone backs their car up to it and lets it run while I'm eating I'll give them a dirty look too.

[Cluricaun]

Originally Posted by Hampshire

Yep, and if I'm sitting at an outside eating area and someone backs their car up to it and lets it run while I'm eating I'll give them a dirty look too.

Give them a dirty look? Sure, go ahead I would too. Attempt to legislate that people can’t operate their legal vehicles close to where you’re having a sandwich and we’re talking a little bit crazy.

[Uvula Donor]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Bullshit. Put tobacco on the same criminal level as marijuana. Do you think you could get enough marijuana to support a pack a day habit without going broke? Think you could smoke 20 joints a day without getting caught?

There's also a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol/marijuana. You can't get drunk or high on tobacco*, so why would someone bother to break the law to smoke it?

Yes, in the short term there will be continuing use because people are addicted, but in the mid-long term making it illegal will kill the tobacco industry.

*Well, maybe you can, but I doubt the high is anything like the other two.

You're absolutely right. Marijuana's been illegal for decades. Heroin, too. Cocaine, too. And it's worked: The trade in those substances has been absolutely crushed by prohibition, and the "industries" supplying them have totally collapsed. Why, if it weren't for illustrations in textbooks and some museum exhibits, no one today would even know what a marijuana leaf looks like.

Fucking idiot.

[yBeayf]

There's also a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol/marijuana. You can't get drunk or high on tobacco*, so why would someone bother to break the law to smoke it?

You can't get high on normal, measured, regular use of small doses of tobacco, much like various native peoples in South America chew on coca leaves all day long without getting high. Taking large amounts of tobacco at once can certainly induce altered states of consciousness, and it was used as an entheogen by native peoples. If tobacco is outlawed, I guarantee you'll start seeing people using it as a recreational drug and overdosing on the stuff.