It should be ilegal to smoke on the street.

[godix]

Until recently, the emphasis of studies like these has been the risks of indoor second-hand smoke. The risks of outdoor tobacco smoke are a new topic, as the articles indicate. It is therefore not surprising that the conclusions reached will vary somewhat. Indeed, none of the articles indicate that there is “conclusive proof outdoor smoking causes harm,” only that there is good preliminary evidence that outdoor tobacco smoke does appear to have some effect on non-smokers exposed to it.

Exactly the point. At the moment, there is no proof outdoor second hand smoke causes harm. Which means every single post in this thread about health can be discarded as wrong and lacking proof. Which leaves no better reason for a ban than because some people find it annoying. In a free society, restricting someones freedom to do something should require a bit more than ‘I don’t like it’.

Is the non-smoker a server in an outdoor cafe?

You have servers that sit 18 inches away for an hour? Man, that’s a whole new level of friendly service. I’m usually lucky if I can just get their attention long enough to get a refill.

Is the non-smoker a subordinate of the smoker on a construction job site?

Construction workers are constantly within 18 inches of each other for hours at a time while on the job? That jackhammer must be REALLY crowded.

I’m sure studies like this are in the works. If I come across any, I will post them.

Thank you. Because if there is a study that shows conclusive levels of harm, then we can move to the next logical step of the argument. I don’t dismiss the possibility it does cause harm, but as long as that can not be proven that should pretty much kill any possible ban.

However, I wonder if the statement that the level of cotinine observed in the control group is “not a risk” is a true statement, or merely reflects the background level of nicotine in our environment, similar to the background amount of lead present in people’s blood years ago before lead was removed from gasoline.

The assumption is at the 0 to 10ng level it is not due to second hand (or first hand) smoke at all. There are other sources of nicotine. Over 60 plants besides tobacco contain nicotine, and in some nations insecticides contain it. So perhaps rather than ‘not a risk’ I should have said ‘not a risk caused by cigarette smoke’, which is what our topic is.

[SteveG1]

@godix

Exactly the point. At the moment, there is no proof outdoor second hand smoke causes harm. Which means every single post in this thread about health can be discarded as wrong and lacking proof. Which leaves no better reason for a ban than because some people find it annoying. In a free society, restricting someones freedom to do something should require a bit more than ‘I don’t like it’…

Thank you. Because if there is a study that shows conclusive levels of harm, then we can move to the next logical step of the argument. I don’t dismiss the possibility it does cause harm, but as long as that can not be proven that should pretty much kill any possible ban.

I think the above bears repeating. I expect it will be either waved away, ignored, or whatever else fits the “agenda”.

[robby]

@godix

Exactly the point. At the moment, there is no proof outdoor second hand smoke causes harm. Which means every single post in this thread about health can be discarded as wrong and lacking proof.

:rolleyes: Oh, for crying out loud. Give you an inch and you’ll take a mile, I guess.

Saying that something has not yet been conclusively proved is not the same thing as saying that there is “no proof” and is “wrong.”

There is ample evidence in the cited studies above that outdoor tobacco smoke exposes non-smokers in close proximity (defined in the Stanford study as “within a few feet,” not necessarily 18 inches) to harmful levels of the airborne pollutants typically found in secondhand smoke. We know that indoor secondhand smoke is harmful. To draw the conclusion that there is “no proof outdoor second hand smoke causes harm” and that “every single post in this thread about health can be discarded as wrong and lacking proof” is ridiculous.

@godix

Which leaves no better reason for a ban than because some people find it annoying. In a free society, restricting someones freedom to do something should require a bit more than ‘I don’t like it’.

The researchers in the Standford study actually address that point when they state: "We are not aware of any claim of a natural right for a person to generate toxic air pollution in the breathing space of others, especially when the pollution-generating activities are for recreational purposes only. "

Similar to the adage that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins,” I believe that the right of a smoker to pollute the air stops where my nose and mouth begin.

[robby]

By the way, here’s a more in-depth summary of the Stanford study:

http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/outdoor-tobacco-smoke

The study also addressed several of the other erroneous comments made in this thread, including Whack-a-Mole’s repeated comments that vehicular emissions are far worse than tobacco smoke:

Question: Isn’t air pollution from vehicles and power plants more serious?

Answer: Some critics try to diminish the impact of outdoor air pollution from smoking by saying that air pollution from other combustion sources (for example, cars, trucks, and power plants) is much worse. This argument is flawed.

In fact, when no smokers were present, we consistently measured background air pollution levels that were practically zero. We found the air in typical urban locations in California, even near roadways, to be generally quite clean compared to air in the vicinity of smokers.

It is important to remember that one’s proximity to a source of air pollution is most important. Unless you are standing near a smokestack or right at a tailpipe, the air pollution from cars and power plants mixes in the atmosphere and becomes very diluted before it reaches your lungs. In contrast, a cigarette, while it has much smaller emissions than a power plant or car, is more likely to be very close to people and, therefore, to expose them to concentrated levels.

To put things in perspective, we typically measured background air pollution (from all distant sources) to be less than 10 or 20 micrograms per cubic meter of air. In contrast, we sometimes measured air pollution near a cigarette to be over 1000 micrograms.

[robby]

http://ash.org/outdoors.pdf

REASONS FOR BANNING SMOKING IN CERTAIN PUBLIC OUTDOOR AREAS

1. Careful scientific studies – based upon both highly accurate mathematical modeling techniques
   as well as actual real-life measurements – have shown that concentrations of secondhand tobacco
   smoke in many outdoor areas are often as high or higher than in some indoor areas [1] and that the
   risks posed by such outdoor exposure, while small to most individuals, are well beyond generally
   accepted norms when large numbers of people are involuntarily exposed.[2] Indeed, for these very
   reasons, the State of California – in a report summarizing much of this evidence – was preparing
   and has now declared OUTDOOR tobacco smoke as a “toxic air pollutant.”[3]

2. Drifting tobacco smoke, even outdoors, can trigger asthmatic attacks,[4] bronchial infections, and
   other serious health problems in nonsmokers.[5] This is especially true for the almost 100 million
   Americans who have asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, emphysema, and other breathing-related
   conditions which make them especially susceptible to secondhand tobacco smoke.[6]

3. Even for people without such respiratory conditions, breathing drifting tobacco smoke for even
   brief periods can be deadly. For example, the Centers for Disease Controls [CDC] has warned that
   breathing drifting tobacco smoke for as little as 30 minutes ( less than the time one might be exposed
   outdoors on a beach, sitting on a park bench, listening to a concert in a park, etc.) can raise a
   nonsmoker’s risk of suffering a fatal heart attack to that of a smoker [7]. The danger is even greater
   for those who are already at an elevated risk for coronary problems: e.g., men over 40 and
   postmenopausal women, anyone who is obese, has diabetes, a personal or family history of heart or
   circulatory conditions, gets insufficient exercise, has high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.[8]

…5. Society recognizes that people have a right not to be involuntarily exposed to known carcinogenic
substances, even if only to small amounts and for brief periods. That’s why, for example, extensive
and very expensive precautions are taken when asbestos is removed from buildings. This insures
that people outside are not exposed even to minute amounts as they pass by. Similarly, we would
not tolerate someone who filed down old brake drums in a playground, thereby releasing even tiny
amounts of asbestos into the air. Secondhand tobacco smoke is officially classified by the federal
government as a “known human carcinogen” – exactly the same category as asbestos.[11]

6. Even aside from health hazards, being forced to breathe tobacco smoke is annoying and irritating
   to most people,[12] especially the almost 100 million Americans who have chronic conditions like
   asthma and bronchitis which make them especially susceptible to tobacco smoke,[13] and young
   children who are also especially sensitive.[14] It should be noted that many activities are banned in
   public places simply because they are annoying or irritating, even if they do not pose a health hazard.
   [15] Common example are playing loud music on portable radios or boom boxes, engaging in
   sexually provocative activity, using profanity, dressing in inappropriately scanty attire, drinking
   alcoholic beverages, etc.

…8. The reason for banning smoke around building entrances is simple. People should not be forced
to be exposed to known carcinogenic substances for even the briefest periods of time, and because
even brief exposure can also be annoying and irritating to many people, nonsmokers should not be
forced to “run a gauntlet” of smokers gathered around [17] the exits and entrances to their workplaces,
or other buildings which they are likely to frequent.

…SUMMARY
More than 350 jurisdictions have successfully prohibited smoking in outdoor areas – such as
beaches, parks, playgrounds, near building entrances, while waiting in lines, etc. – without legal
challenges, problems of enforcement, loss of patronage or taxes, etc. Such bans appear to be so
successful that more jurisdictions are sure to be added. Indeed, as smoking is being banned in an
ever growing number of indoor areas, people are beginning to expect freedom from these toxic
fumes, and to expect air unpolluted by tobacco smoke wherever they may congregate. [32]
Very strong recent evidence of this trend is the overwhelming vote by the citizens of the State of
Washington to ban smoking not only in all bars and restaurant, but to also require that building
entrances be smokefree, and to prohibit smoking within 25 feet of doorways, windows, and
ventilation ducts of smokefree establishments. This vote comes on the heels of a poll by the New
York State Health Department which showed that the public support for banning smoking in many
outdoor areas is even stronger than similar support for a 2003 bill banning indoor smoking.[33]

[robby]

@godix

Exactly the point. At the moment, there is no proof outdoor second hand smoke causes harm. Which means every single post in this thread about health can be discarded as wrong and lacking proof…

@SteveG1

I think the above bears repeating. I expect it will be either waved away, ignored, or whatever else fits the “agenda”.

You know what you two sound like? You sound just like the tobacco companies who maintained for decades that smoking had not been proven to be injurious to health, that there was no proof that smoking caused cancer, and that cigarettes were perfectly safe. :rolleyes:

[SteveG1]

@robby

You know what you two sound like? You sound just like the tobacco companies who maintained for decades that smoking had not been proven to be injurious to health, that there was no proof that smoking caused cancer, and that cigarettes were perfectly safe. :rolleyes:

Uh huh. So give us a reliable scientific cite with proof that second hand smoke in the outdoors is dangerous. Anything less is worthless.

[robby]

@SteveG1

Uh huh. So give us a reliable scientific cite with proof that second hand smoke in the outdoors is dangerous. Anything less is worthless.

You didn’t actually read any of the cites provided, did you? :rolleyes:

I have provided cites indicating that outdoor secondhand smoke is harmful in close proximity (a few feet) to a smoker, especially downwind of a smoker. The levels of harmful pollutants increase with decreasing distance to the smoker, and also increase with increasing number of smokers in the immediate vicinity.

[robby]

@SteveG1

…Anything less is worthless.

Oh, right, because that’s how scientific research works, right? :rolleyes: Anything less than immediate, conclusive proof is worthless?

[godix]

@robby

Saying that something has not yet been conclusively proved is not the same thing as saying that there is “no proof” and is “wrong.”

If someone makes a definite statement of fact based on something that is not conclusively proven, then yes, it is wrong. There are indications it may be true, but without conclusive proof a factual definite statement can’t be made.

There is ample evidence in the cited studies above that outdoor tobacco smoke exposes non-smokers in close proximity (defined in the Stanford study as “within a few feet,” not necessarily 18 inches) to harmful levels of the airborne pollutants typically found in secondhand smoke. We know that indoor secondhand smoke is harmful. To draw the conclusion that there is “no proof outdoor second hand smoke causes harm” and that “every single post in this thread about health can be discarded as wrong and lacking proof” is ridiculous.

Except your own cites show there are contradictory results on if outdoor exposure rises to the level on indoor exposure. Which means the chain of logic you’re building here breaks down on the very first step because of lack of proof.

"We are not aware of any claim of a natural right for a person to generate toxic air pollution in the breathing space of others, especially when the pollution-generating activities are for recreational purposes only. "

I can’t fart?

Don’t bother replying to that, I’m not serious.

Similar to the adage that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins,” I believe that the right of a smoker to pollute the air stops where my nose and mouth begin.

Show me the study that conclusively shows cigarette smoke in an outdoor setting qualifies as ‘pollution’ and MAYBE I would agree with you. Although, society has already deemed certain levels of pollution are acceptable.

http://ash.org/outdoors.pdf

A PDF of talking points from "Americas first antismoking & nonsmoker’s rights organization’ isn’t going to present fair or non-biased debate points. ESPECIALLY when it says ‘Careful scientific studies – based upon both highly accurate mathematical modeling techniques as well as actual real-life measurements – have shown that concentrations of secondhand tobacco smoke in many outdoor areas are often as high or higher than in some indoor areas’ when we’ve already gone over how one of your cites of a careful scientific study actually shows significantly lower concentrations on average.

[robby]

@godix

If someone makes a definite statement of fact based on something that is not conclusively proven, then yes, it is wrong.

If I were to say that the Earth is spherical, I would be wrong, because the Earth is not actually perfectly spherical. (It’s more accurate to describe the Earth as an oblate spheroid.) However, my being wrong about my statement regarding the spherical Earth does not mean that the Earth is flat.

There’s a classic Asimov essay you should read sometime (if you haven’t already) called The Relativity of Wrong.

There are different degrees of wrongness. Besides, what has not been conclusively determined is the simply the degree of harm that outdoor tobacco smoke causes. There is ample evidence that dangerous levels of pollutants have been measured within a few feet of a person smoking outside, and there is overwhelming evidence that these pollutants found in second-hand smoke are harmful. I don’t need to wait for a study telling me exactly how many cancer deaths can be attributed to outdoor tobacco smoke to know that it’s harmful.

As I alluded to earlier, this is exactly the same strategy that tobacco companies employed for decades to resist restrictions and warnings on smoking in general. They demanded studies proving that smoking was harmful, then when studies were produced, they attacked the studies, demanded further proof, attempted to move the goalposts, etc.

@godix

…Except your own cites show there are contradictory results on if outdoor exposure rises to the level on indoor exposure.

We know that the levels of second-hand smoke typically found indoors is harmful. Even if the levels of outdoor tobacco smoke don’t rise to this level (which may or may not be the case) does not mean that the levels of pollutants typically found in outdoor tobacco smoke is safe.

@godix

…Show me the study that conclusively shows cigarette smoke in an outdoor setting qualifies as ‘pollution’ and MAYBE I would agree with you.

Now you’re just being silly. Of course it’s pollution. The cited studies conclusively show that hazardous pollutants are present in secondhand smoke, whether it is produced indoors or outdoors. And there is no known safe levels for these carcinogens.

@godix

…Although, society has already deemed certain levels of pollution are acceptable.

Actually, history has shown that society has gotten increasing strict with respect to what level of pollution is considered acceptable.

@godix

…A PDF of talking points from "Americas first antismoking & nonsmoker’s rights organization’ isn’t going to present fair or non-biased debate points.

I don’t care whether the talking points are biased or not. I’m biased on this subject, as are you.

@godix

…ESPECIALLY when it says ‘Careful scientific studies – based upon both highly accurate mathematical modeling techniques as well as actual real-life measurements – have shown that concentrations of secondhand tobacco smoke in many outdoor areas are often as high or higher than in some indoor areas’ when we’ve already gone over how one of your cites of a careful scientific study actually shows significantly lower concentrations on average.

“On average” is a slippery slope. The cited studies do indeed show that at a distance from a typical smoker (> 6 feet), there is little measurable impact on a non-smoker.

However, the same studies indeed show that levels of pollutants can be as high as that found indoors in close proximity to a smoker, especially if the non-smoker is downwind of the smoker, if there is little wind present, if barriers such as fences are present (as in a backyard area of a house), or if there is more than one smoker present.

[godix]

I’m not going to keep going back and forth in a point by point. Instead, let me see if I can summarize the issue for me.

Smoking outdoors definitely releases smoke, which is known to be a health issue. However, it is an open question on if this causes any real health effects in an outdoors setting. Due to the limited distances involved, the brief exposure times in most situations (IE walking past where you’re by them for just a few few seconds instead of the hour mentioned in one cite), smoke does dissipate quickly outside, and that outdoors a person can more easily avoid it/move away than in an indoors setting, previous studies of secondhand smoke just do not apply to an outdoor situation.

Note: We’re not talking the extreme of some smoking asshole following you around for an hour puffing in your face, nor are we talking the extreme of a nonsmoking zealot going to designated smoking areas and bitching about how much smoke there is (yes, it does happen). Assholes are assholes and no law will prevent that, but I’m talking about normal situations where neither side is trying to offend or be offended.

My point is that because of this, outdoor smoking doesn’t rise to the level of banning. It’s an annoyance, similar to many other annoyances or minor harm that are permitted because we are fundamentally a free society. For example, loud sounds are can cause hearing damage, yet we allow people to play their car radios loud enough you can hear as you walk by. Perfumes and colognes can cause allergic reactions or asthma attacks, yet that is legal. Until there is evidence to reasonably prove outdoor smoking rises above the level potential harm or annoyance society allows, it should not be banned. If future studies show outdoor smoking does cause significant harm, then the premise changes and banning may be the correct thing to do. If future studies show outdoor smoking does not cause significant harm, then all talk of banning should be viewed as grumpy people whining about something they don’t like. But for now, with what scant evidence we have on outdoor smoking, at worst it should be limited similar to how there are noise ordinances on car sound systems, and currently it actually is limited.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@godix

Smoking outdoors definitely releases smoke, which is known to be a health issue. However, it is an open question on if this causes any real health effects in an outdoors setting. Due to the limited distances involved, the brief exposure times in most situations (IE walking past where you’re by them for just a few few seconds instead of the hour mentioned in one cite), smoke does dissipate quickly outside, and that outdoors a person can more easily avoid it/move away than in an indoors setting, previous studies of secondhand smoke just do not apply to an outdoor situation.

Since godix pretty much summed up my thoughts there no need for me to rehash them.

I will say I did an entirely unscientific test on my way to work today. I live in Chicago and work in the Loop (main business district) so I have plenty of opportunity to walk by lots of people.

I looked for smokers. I saw two. One was standing outside his building and another a woman rounded a corner at the same time I did with a cigarette in her hand.

In neither case did I detect a whiff of smoke.

What I did notice, almost constantly, was the smell of diesel exhaust from the numerous buses passing by.

Even if one were to send a puff of smoke my way it would have been a temporary thing and I’d have to try to get so much as one breath-full of smoke from them before moving out of the way.

Although I have had puffs of smoke drift my way in the past while outside it is frankly so infrequent and transitory I cannot for the life of me remember even one specific incident.

[Nadir]

Why does a smoker have the right to increase my continine level by even 1ng?

What about non-smoker’s rights to zero added toxic carcinogen level?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Nadir

Why does a smoker have the right to increase my continine level by even 1ng?

What about non-smoker’s rights to zero added toxic carcinogen level?

Do you always need to drive wherever you go? Could you ever ride a bike instead? Do you have to take your SO out to a movie when you could stay at home? Everytime you start your car you are adding to the air pollution I breathe.

I want a law denying you the ability to drive anywhere except places you absolutely must for work plus one trip a week to the supermarket for food. Road trip with the family? Forget it. Flight to the Caribbean for some R&R? No way, needless pollution. Also, get rid of your power mower and go back to a push mower. No leaf blowers, use a rake. No snow blowers if you use them where you live, you can use a shovel. No power tools of any sort when you could use manual tools. No BBQs either. Use your oven.

I can’t have you needlessly adding even 1ng of pollution to the air I breathe if it can possibly be avoided.

[Nadir]

You could try answering the question. The nonsensical nature of your driving analogy has already been repeatedly pointed out.

What gives smokers the right to poison the atmosphere? What benefit does that provide them or anyone else?

I know it’s difficult, but please try to stay on point. :smack:

[godix]

@Nadir

What benefit does that provide them or anyone else?

Pleasure. Without proof outdoor smoking is a health risk to others, what reason do is there ban smokers pleasure?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Nadir

You could try answering the question. The nonsensical nature of your driving analogy has already been repeatedly pointed out.

What gives smokers the right to poison the atmosphere? What benefit does that provide them or anyone else?

I know it’s difficult, but please try to stay on point. :smack:

Actually you have been dodging the point.

I cited earlier how air pollution is a serious health risk and that the vast majority of it comes from exhaust from cars and trucks.

If you are driving to the movie theater you do not need to be driving. You are just doing it because it is something you want to do. You could stay home and watch TV. Heck, maybe you are taking your SO out for a nice Sunday drive to enjoy nice Spring weather or something. How is that fundamentally different from someone wanting a cigarette? You doing what you want is polluting the environment.

Driving a car is far more polluting than a cigarette. When you are driving for things you do not have to do then you are far worse than any smoker. As such I think your driving should be restricted.

[Nadir]

OK, I’ll go first, since you seem afraid to answer the question…

@Whack-a-Mole

Do you always need to drive wherever you go? Could you ever ride a bike instead? Do you have to take your SO out to a movie when you could stay at home?

I drive mostly. Walk for recreation, and yes do ride a bike sometimes too, weather permitting. But as as was mentioned as far as driving is concerned, pretty much everybody does it. Rides a bus, diesel locomotive-powered train, jet aircraft, whatever - literally just about EVERYBODY. And we all agree on the need to do it - to get to work or wherever we are going on business or pleasure, accepting the implications and feeling deeply guilty about our unavoidable impact on the environment. :dubious:

OTOH, a small minority of induhviduials insist on smoking in public. Pretty much everybody else (the vast majority in this case) thinks this is pretty obnoxious and uncalled for. So this inane comparison of motorized transportation to smoking in public is basically idiotic. They are unrelated, non-similar issues in every respect except for being sources of pollution. Which of course I remind you again, EVERYBODY (with a basic understanding of the topic) believes is bad. Continuing to suggest people polluting with cars as a justification for the sanctity of public smoking is not only disingenuous but demonstrates your clear inability to accept the reality of the issue.

So to rephrase, you may now attempt to answer my question: What gives smokers the right to smoke in the proximity of others in public places that do not with to be subjected to it?

[Nadir]

@godix

Pleasure. Without proof …

Maybe you’d like to volunteer to participate in a new study?

We don’t need no stinkin’ proof. The stinkin’ smoke is all the proof we need.