g8rguy, Yes, that’s exactly what I’d like to see. I’d agree to your suggestion of allowing restaurants to have two completely separate areas. I recall reading sometime ago that in California, the state studied whether it would be possible to allow smoking in bars if the bars had sufficient ventilation. IIRC, the conclusion was that you’d have to replace the roof with a giant fan to get a reasonable air quality if half the patrons were smoking.
I think we also need to clarify what we mean by “irritating and obnoxious but harmless.” I don’t think the line is all that clear. There’s a whole spectrum of “harm” ranging from instant death to momentary psychological annoyance. For example, I can say with certainty that regulating exposure to second hand smoke will eliminate some cancer cases. Would it be 1000 cases a year? 1 case a year? One case every 10 years? Does this “harm” justify regulation? I don’t know.
There are, however, other harms as well. Being exposed to concentrations of cigarette smoke can cause sore throat, itchy eyes, and increased dry cleaning bills. While this isn’t life-threatening, it is still physical and economic harm. Even just the smell itself can cause actual harm. Taste is all about smell. Eating a meal in a restaurant where people are smoking can be a much less enjoyable (but no less expensive) experience than eating in a non-smoking environment.
If it were just a matter of psychological annoyance at imagining other people smoking, I’d agree that people just ought to deal with it. But it is more complicated than that. I’m not convinced that outright banning is the best solution but I’m also not convinced that non-smokers who object to being in smoke-filled environments are just a bunch of whiny wusses.
You’ve obviously never been seated next to a baby with an ear ache on a 16 hour flight!
I can’t smell my next-door neighbors’ pot smoke, although I know they’re heavy marijuana users, but I’ve been listening to their baby shriek nonstop for three days now.
BTW, there is a carcinogenic risk from grilling and barbecuing. And it stinks. OUTLAW IT!
Hmm… That bar study is interesting; with allowing smoking in bars, did they mean separate smoking and nonsmoking sections or just a general sit anywhere, smokers mingling with nonsmokers sort of thing? If the latter, that’s obviously not a very fair test, obviously enough. And I would be cautious about applying the results to restaurants, where it’s likely that well under 50% of the patrons smoke (actually, I’d be a little surprised if 50% of bar patrons smoke, too).
As to “harmless,” I can’t really answer that question. In general, I think I’d have no problem with regulation that deals with medical harm, whereas things like “oh, we must regulate lest my dry cleaning bills grow excessively” are, to me, horrible reasons. In practice, I suspect that regulation that for reasons of public health mandated some maximal concentration of tobacco smoke in a nonsmoking section would take care of the rest as a convenient byproduct.
And don’t remind me about screaming babies! I have a long long flight to make on Friday (and will be Dopeless for two weeks! )and I attract screaming babies like flies to honey.
You must be thinking of Mr James Repace’s quotes. Repace has been known to use words that would take something of the effect of 700 mph (or insert any other big number) gale or hurricane force winds to completely clear a room from the toxins of SHS. Whether he meant to the last molecule or what is anybody’s guess.
Anyway, here’s the [California Department of Health Services site[//url] Repace’s site links to with several such reports listed, including his own.
It’s important to note that the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE) just approved a [url=http://www.ashrae.org/NEWS/2002_std62o.htm]ventilation standard](http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/html/Evaluation_Reports.htm) to provide new design guidance for controlling odor in indoor spaces where smoking occurs. They specifically state that this standard doesn’t address health concerns. This is primarily because the Anti-Smoking lobby doesn’t want Permissible Exposure Limits to be be set due to their “zero-tolerance” mantra.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was suing OSHA to come up with more restrictive PELs for secondhand smoke to assist them in pushing for complete bans. At ASH’s prodding, OSHA did start proceedings in 1994, but could not come up with anything definitive due to all the controversial “research” out there. ASH again proceeded through the courts to force OSHA to act, but then dropped the case when they realized that if OSHA found a permissible level, then that could hurt the bans they’ve already got enacted. Here’s ASH’s spin on the lawsuit.
What about the OP? It has nothing about whether smoking or not is bad for you, or whether second-hand smoke is unpleasant or not. It asks:
‘Have we been lied to…’
and the answer is yes. Not only about second-hand smoke, either. We are regularly lied to about the dangers of smoking as well. This does not mean that smoking is good, or bad - it just means that bad science, or straight lies, are regularly purveyed about it. And a lot of other things as well. This site waves the flag for good statistical science, and tries to expose bad - take a look:
ok, i haven’t read this whole thread yet, but it’s very interesting, and i will eventually read the whole thing. I’ve worked in factories for 17 years, breathing in any kind of carcinogenic vapors you can think of, all day. And now you’re telling me i can’t smoke a cigarette on my break, because that’s something to relieve my stress on break…hmmm…never mind that i was the one that produced the paint on your house or the processors in your computer, and other shit you need. anyway, sorry if smoke irritates ya.
In Ireland (yes, Ireland!) they are banning smoking in pubs in about two weeks’ time, right after St. Pat’s, if they can get their act together on the legislation this time.
I smoke like a chimney and am not looking forward to it. Although I can understand that people don’t like sitting in my smoke, I’d have to say that this is one of the things to goes with being in a pub; you go out, you have fun, you wake up with a sore head and smelling of smoke. You take a shower, some Alka-Seltzer and wash your clothes. How terrible is that? Not very, IMO. It’s part and parcel of a night in a pub. Healthwise, same story. You risk a bit of your lungs’ and liver’s health (or considerably more if you are the smoker rather than the passive smoker) in exchange for some fun. It’s a trade-off and one that most people are willing to make.
On the practical side. Why not have some non-smoking pubs, but allow smoking in others? I there are as many people objective to SHS, there must be a market for the the non-smoking venues. This way it does not remove people’s right to choose, even if they choose things you do not approve of. I can’t see why that wouldn’t work, apart from some bickering within mixed groups of smoking and non-smoking friends. If these pubs would stay empty, you’d have to wonder if the smoking ban had as much support as they say it did.
)and I attract screaming babies like flies to honey.