It should be ilegal to smoke on the street.

Great Debates
161

The obese guy who has had a few too many Big Macs interferes with me. They take up more than their seat on a plane or on the trains or buses I ride. I couldn’t get around the fat lady who needed a scooter-thing to get around in while I was in the grocery store. I waited patiently, saying nothing but ya know…she was annoying me. Especially when she backed up and knocked over a table filled with bottles because apparently she couldn’t look behind her.

They can be fat in their home or invent a fat people transportation system and get their food delivered. I’m not calling for a ban on Big Macs though because I am reasonable about this stuff.

:rolleyes:

162

Obesity is actually a fairly large (no pun intended! :D) health problem as well.

Didn’t some airlines start charging extra if you couldn’t fit in one seat?

But alas, still just the ongoing attempt at plying the bad analogy. Maybe someday obese people will start keeling over, crushing innocent victims beneath them to become a real threat to society, like 2nd hand smoke.

163

Again…

Cite that secondhand smoke outside from a cigarette is a real threat to society.

An obese person could be a hazard in an emergency situation where getting out of a vehicle (plane, bus, train, whatever) quickly is important.

I noted earlier that smokers do not really cost society much if anything moneywise. Indeed it was suggested they are overall a net benefit. There is not a sin tax on Big Macs though so the obese person and their health problems would be a net drag on society.

According to the CDC 19.8% of the US are current smokers as of 2007 (cite) and that number was down from a year earlier.

My point here is not to pick on obese people but to pick on the notions of these rabid anti-smokers who are throwing out bullshit arguments when really their problems is they do not like it and it annoys them. Bullshit at least till they can cite the dangers they suffer from a puff of smoke from a cigarette wafting their way outside while they stand at a bus stop with a string of buses belching diesel exhaust in their face in addition to the 10 cars near them spewing exhaust as well.

As has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread legislating on the basis of “it annoys you” is a terrible way to go about things and can lead to some pretty undesirable results.

164

[moderating]
And I call for a glance at the top of the page, where it says this isn’t the Pit.
[/moderating]

165

Before you start feeling all special there, I quit smoking too. As a grown up, I just don’t feel any childish need to dictate to those who haven’t quit. I smoked a pack a day or more for 40 plus years.

Maybe you still need to grow up some. :dubious:

166

:rolleyes: You want to allow the continued unrestricted use of a carcinogenic substance released indiscriminately into the air, that adversely affects the health of all the unwilling people in the vicinity of the smoker, and you think that my statement is the most selfish thing you’ve ever heard? Please.

The self-delusion of smokers is truly amazing.

And all of the so-called consequences of an underground cigarette economy are dreamed up in your head. Besides, I said nothing about driving cigarette sales underground, only driving the act of smoking itself away from public spaces.

I have no issue with designated places for smokers, like an indoor smoker’s lounge–preferably with filters to keep the smoke inside. I have no issue with a person smoking in their own car or in their own house (provided no children are present). I have no issue with public outdoor designated smoking areas, so long as they are well separated from those of us who don’t wish to inhale second-hand smoke. I have no issue with outdoor smoking on private property, again, so long as it doesn’t affect the neighbors or passers-by on the public street.

I do have an issue with a person walking down the sidewalk, lit cigarette in hand, emitting second-hand smoke indiscriminately.

We currently have restrictions on public consumption of alcohol. In most jurisdictions, you cannot drink alcohol while walking down a public sidewalk. I would have no problem with a similar restriction on smoking in public.

Like it or not–I’m confident that such restrictions are forthcoming in my lifetime. I predict that the Long Island law is but the first of many similar restrictions.

167

For fuck’s sake…

Been said numerous times before, will say it again.

Cite!

Pot, meet kettle. :rolleyes:

168

One does not excuse the other.

Restrictions on air pollution (including those on bus diesel exhaust and car exhaust) have been getting increasingly strict since the first Air Pollution Control Act was passed back in 1955, followed by the various Clean Air Acts passed regularly since then. Why do you think that all new automobiles are required to have very expensive emissions-control systems?

The exhaust from automobiles and buses is much cleaner than it was from 50 years ago, and this is due to increasingly strict air pollution laws.

The mandate of all of the Clean Air Acts has been for the EPA to “develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health.” Like it or not, second-hand cigarette smoke falls into that category. The only reason that outdoor smoking has largely escaped notice until now is because of the former ubiquity and acceptance of smoking, and because there were larger “fish to fry,” like the exhaust from cars and buses, for example.

It is only in the last few years that second-hand smoke, even outdoors, is being recognized as a threat to human health. The restrictions on smoking in public that will surely come have absolutely nothing to do with “annoying smells.”

169

You actually need a cite that second-hand smoke is a danger to human health? :rolleyes:

170

First Google hit for “second-hand smoke”:

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

171

Cites on the dangers of outdoor second-hand smoke:

http://www.repace.com/pdf/OTS_FACT_SHEET.pdf

172

None of which cite the increased risk.

162% greater? Greater than what? No smoke? 162% more than zero is zero.

I cited earlier the dangers of air pollution which is mostly caused by cars. When you are sitting at an outdoor cafe the cars are FAR and away your major health risk from air pollution.

If you sit downwind of a cigarette certainly it is not “healthy” for you but how often does that happen? How long do you stand in the line of smoke breathing it?

Humans have an ability to repair themselves. Air has all sorts of contaminants that are not “good” for you. Dust, pollen and so on. That once a week (if that), hell once a day, puff of smoke that drifts your way is about the least of your worries health wise as regards air pollution.

Come back with a cite that tells us how much sooner you will drop dead because a smoker was in your vicinity while outside.

173

My cites certainly state that there is overwhelming evidence for increased risk to human health due to second-hand smoke and good preliminary evidence for increased risk due to outdoor tobacco smoke, as opposed to the absence of the same. Try reading for comprehension.

You (rather imperiously) demanded a cite for my statement that second-hand smoke is “adversely affects the health of all the unwilling people in the vicinity of the smoker.” I provided that.

From the article: “The study, thought to be the first to assess levels of a nicotine byproduct known as cotinine in nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors, found levels up to 162 percent greater than in the control group.” The control group was not exposed to outdoor tobacco smoke, but realize that the concentration of any measured chemical pollutant (such as the nicotine byproduct in question) will never be zero. This is basic environmental science.

So what? All this means is that we need to continue to look at a cars, not that we should ignore everything else. Besides, as the emission controls on cars become more effective, other sources of air pollution will increase in importance, like outdoor tobacco smoke. In this manner, environmental regulations are somewhat like a “whack-a-mole” game, something you of all people should appreciate. :wink: You can’t win the game if you only whack one mole.

Ah, so now you finally admit that breathing in second-hand smoke is not healthy, but seek to justify ignoring it by minimizing the number of times that someone is exposed to it. :rolleyes:

Quite a long time if I’m having a meal at an outdoor cafe, even longer if I’m a server at the cafe. Or waiting for a bus, or just walking down an urban street. As for how often it happens, for me, it happens to me on multiple occasions every day I go to work in the city.

Dust and pollen are not carcinogens.

I can’t walk down an urban street, or go on a walk around the city park at lunch, without being continually exposed to outdoor second-hand tobacco smoke. Besides, you can keep trying to minimize my supposed exposure to second-hand smoke, but you yourself admit that it’s not healthy, so why should selfish people be able to inflict their second-hand smoke on me?

:rolleyes: Environmental health science works in probabilities. Nobody will ever be able to state “how much sooner you will drop dead” when exposed to any hazardous substance, unless you are talking about concentrations in the vicinity of a lethal dose.

174

FINALLY! CITES! After only four pages of them being constantly asked for! Now lets take a look at what they say.

From the third cite:
“The study, thought to be the first to assess levels of a nicotine byproduct known as cotinine in nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors, found levels up to 162 percent greater than in the control group.”

Cotinine is a marker for exposure, used because it lasts in the body longer than nicotine does thus is an easier to find indicator. A smoker typically has levels up to 3000 percent higher than non-smokers not exposed to second hand smoke. A non-smoker exposed to second hand smoke indoors, at a restaurant before indoor smoking bans for example, has cotinine levels of 500 to 1000 percent higher. So while 162% sounds scary, it is far less than it sounds like.

It should be noted that even a control group with no exposure will have up to 10ng of cotinine. So while 162% sounds horrible, we’re talking the difference between 16ng and 10ng here. Six nanograms is pretty small and rather close to the possibility of insignificance or measuring error.
Lets move on and look at the first link:
“However, during smoking, OTS levels outdoors may be as high as SHS indoors”

Well, if your other link is to be believed, no, it doesn’t. So your cite for supporting the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke can’t even agree on what levels of smoke you’re exposed to. Hardly an indication of conclusive proof outdoor smoking causes harm.
As for the second cite:
“We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns,”

How many non-smokers who find cigarette smoke repulsive stay within a few feet of a smoker outdoors? Also note, again, the claim it is comparable on average to indoor levels is directly contradicted by your third cite. Since the other cite provided real numbers instead of ‘comparable, on average…’ vagueness, I’m inclined to believe that other study.

It goes on to say
"“For example, if you’re at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers.”

How many non-smokers who hate cigarette smoke sit a foot and a half from a smoker for an hour? Really now, for those who don’t like cigarette smoke, are you seriously going to sit that close while a smoker puffs away when you’re outdoors and have the option of moving away?

The second cite also mentions a 2006 Surgeon Generals report. I looked up that report. In fact, here is the reports executive summary. It says “people are exposed to secondhand smoke at home, in the workplace, and in other public places such as bars, restaurants, and recreation venues”. In other words, your second cite references a report about indoor exposure rather than outdoor exposure which is what we’re talking about.

The other two studies I accept. While there are issues between their conclusions, as I mentioned, that can be a honest difference in the studies. But this one? It’s assumptions have nothing at all to do with the situations this thread has been talking about. People are complaining about passing a smoker while on a stroll, and you’re citing a study about sitting 18 inches from a smoker for an hour as proof? This study appears to be pretty obviously biased by using unrealistic scenarios and misrepresenting other reports it references.
Since you have provided cites, and honestly, thank you for that, I’d like a cite on what the health effects of outdoor second hand smoke exposure is. We have studies showing 300ng of cotinine is a high risk, that’s smokers themselves. We have studies showing 50 to 100ng of cotinine is a risk, that’s indoor second hand smoke exposure. We know up to 10ng is not a risk, that’s the control group. So please, show me where 16 ng, something numerically far closer to the control group than it is to previously studied exposed groups, is a significant increased health risk.

175

That sure is a lot of words to say “hell if I know”, isn’t it :dubious:

176

make it illegal to drive and you might just have something.

177

Again, if this thread were about smoking on sidewalks in the business district of New York City, this is fine. But it isn’t. When I walk down most of the sidewalks in this town (other than the main street), there usually isn’t another person within a block of me. If someone walks by smoking every five minutes, it’s really not that big a deal unless they’re obnoxious twits that take a drag and exhale right in my face as they pass by.

Lest you be tempted to tell me that my small-town Rocky Mountain experience is atypical, I’d say the same was true of the residential areas of San Jose, CA, which had a population of over a million when I lived there. I could walk the dog for a half hour without ever coming within five feet of anyone. Outlawing smoking on sidewalks everywhere would just be a control-freak overreaction.

One such law was just implemented in the town I live in. It’s a completely ridiculous blue law, like the ones most places are getting rid of. It solves absolutely nothing. It’s just a way to legislate morality because the sight of someone drinking is bothersome to some people. Shall we go back to outlawing alcohol sales on Sunday, too?

178

Driving provides a benefit to society. We as a society have decided that the risks to human health and safety along with the environmental impacts from driving automobiles are offset by the benefit provided. We have also gone to great efforts to reduce the risks from driving by requiring various environmental and safety devices that are required to be installed on all new automobiles, from safety bumpers to seatbelts to airbags to emission controls.

What benefit to society does smoking in public provide?

179

Fine–let’s start by banning smoking on crowded city streets.

You apparently don’t mind that a smoker walks by smoking every five minutes in your uncrowded town. I and my asthmatic son do mind.

(Actually, alcohol sales on Sunday are still illegal here in Connecticut, at the behest of the liquor store owners, who don’t want to have to staff their stores 7 days a week.)

My point was not that the prohibition on public drinking is necessarily good public policy, merely that there is precedent for prohibitions on public behavior that are otherwise legal. Personally, I have no problem with drinking in public. A person drinking in public does not harm me, whereas a person smoking in public does harm me.

Before this thread, I never really thought about the possibility of banning smoking in public. I have just put up with holding my breath as I walk by the dozen smokers blocking the entrance to my office building, or dodging the dozens of smokers in and around the bus stops here in the downtown area.

Then I thought back to our recent family trip to Walt Disney World, where the smokers are confined (even outside) to designated areas. It was so nice being able to walk down a crowded walkway without worrying about my son getting poked in the eye by a lit cigarette or me getting a faceful of exhaled smoke.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think it would be good public policy to implement a smoking ban on all public streets. It may be more of a pipe dream, but if this first major restriction is implemented successfully, all public smoking might successfully be banned. And as the number of smokers continues to decrease, I also think that it is likely that some or all of this will happen in my lifetime.

180

Studies like this use fairly rigorous statistical techniques to determine if the data is valid or not. Without access to the full report, including the associated QA/QC analysis, you have no basis to state that the data is or is not insignificant or constitutes measuring error.

In any event, if you read the whole article, the 162% was just the average increase noted. The maximum value observed, however, was 0.959 ng/mL, which correlates to an increase of nearly 1300%.

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.

That’s speaking like a scientist, though. The writing is on the wall. It’s clear to me that there is some adverse health impact due to outdoor tobacco smoke. Nevertheless, continued studies like these are needed to quantify the risks to human health to justify changes in public policy, like bans on smoking in public.

It depends. Is the non-smoker a server in an outdoor cafe? Is the non-smoker a subordinate of the smoker on a construction job site? I can think of lots of examples where a non-smoker cannot avoid a smoker’s second-hand smoke outside.

Now you just sound like you’re cherry-picking and ignoring things that you don’t want to hear. Realize that these cites are merely news articles summarizing the results of some recent preliminary studies. Without the study in front of us, we don’t know whether or not this particular study was a quantitative study or not. It certainly implies that it was quantitative.

As I noted above, people don’t always have the option of moving away. Heck, I think of my own dance with smokers on construction job sites, always trying to stay upwind of their second-hand smoke. God help me if there’s two smokers. :rolleyes:

You’re welcome! :slight_smile:

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