Second Hand Smoke is too bad for you

[eleanorigby]

Not to open up yet another can of worms, but what of the lost time at work by smokers?

I work with a few nurses who smoke. Guess who has to watch their pts and field calls from their docs while they are out at the butt hut? The butt hut which will be removed and banned as of Nov 2006? We are health care workers and as such, it has been posited to us that we must act as role models to our pt population. I for one am sick of covering for folks who get multiple breaks to feed their addiction, while I barely have time to pee. Nursing doesn’t work like an office–there is no way (often) to plan your job activities-it happens in real time. And if the smoker isn’t on the floor, then I must answer the call. It sucks.

The whole role model thing brings up all manner of individual freedom issues for me, but the concept is sound. There is a certain tragic irony to watch the oncology nurses all go out and share a smoke, I must say.

I actually don’t mind the smell of non-menthol cigs from across a room or patio (I prefer the patio, of course)–I just don’t want to be in a bar and smothered with it, so badly that my clothes stink.

[yBeayf]

Not to open up yet another can of worms, but what of the lost time at work by smokers?

This, surprisingly enough, I think is a real issue. Nobody has a right to smoke on their employer’s dime; if the employer says “no smoke breaks”, them’s the rules. If the nurses you describe are indeed neglecting their duties to go smoke, it’s probably a sound decision on the part of the employer to eliminate smoke breaks.

There’s a big difference between an employer prohibiting behavior he thinks lowers productivity, and an employer being forbidden by law to allow patrons of his business to consume a particular substance while on his premises.

Out of curiosity, would nurses at your workplace be allowed to use snus or Oliver Twists while working? Both are forms of smokeless tobacco that are held in the mouth and do not require spitting.

[Seven]

@eleanorigby

Not to open up yet another can of worms, but what of the lost time at work by smokers?

I work 7am to 4pm. I get one hour lunch and two 15 minute breaks just like everyone else. My two 15 minute breaks are dedicated to smoking a cigarette - which really only takes me about 10 minutes.

Of course I’m not playing internet games and surfing myspace all day like 3 or 4 of the non-smokers at the office. I work my 8 hours.

Just because someone smokes doesn’t mean they have a shitty work ethic.

[Mince]

@Polycarp

You know, I skimmed through this thread with an eerie sense of deja viewing it for the first time. And I was right. Change the names, the cast of characters, and the specific referents for the points made, and it’s the same topic, from GD and other Pit threads, on, oh, the morality of homosexuality, gay marriage,

As others have said, let’s use a little perspective. Homosexual lovers and gay marriage impacts nobody but the participants.

It’s between people with a laissez faire attitude and those who believe their preferred way to do or eschew things should be mandatory on all.

All I want is to eschew smoke in my face when I enter a bar.

But them take the alternative view. I have been in the one room designated for smoking in an eleven-story office building, vented separately by fans to the outside (to an area where people do not congregate and where motor vehicles idle), accessible only through a double set of doors providing an airlock of sorts

Perfect. This is a beautiful solution which I don’t think anyone could argue against. Unfortunately, this is not the case in most bars, absent a no-smoking policy.

and had people come in and criticize because people were smoking there, in the one place set aside for them to smoke. I have sat on a bench in the designated smoking area outside an airline terminal, at the extreme northeast end of the terminal quite literally a quarter mile from the main entrance – for kicks, I paced it off – and had people walk up there and criticize me and others for smoking there.

These are the types of people whom you describe above. That is not rational thinking. In no way do I represent them in any of my arguments. Smokers should have designated smoking areas in almost any public building, just not the entire building.

(1) two small bars closed down, having had their profit margin destroyed by reduced clientele and no convenient location to make a designated outside smoking area

I don’t get this. Do smokers stop drinking because they can’t smoke in bars? Do they stop going to movies? Stop flying? Stop going to hospitals? I don’t think the California dram shop industry has collapsed since their institution of a public smoking ban.

[yBeayf]

All I want is to eschew smoke in my face when I enter a bar.

THEN DON’T GO TO A FUCKING BAR THAT ALLOWS SMOKING.

[saoirse]

@YaWanna

Interestingly, US media reports have stated that bar revenues have not been substantially hurt in Washington (state, for you non-PNWerners) by the smoking ban in bars. I have not seen hard data, but if I’m not mistaken, then it should be easy enough to google up or whatever.

I think what they said is that the industry as a whole is making the same money. The bars that did not cater to idiot twentysomethings trying to hook up have been laid waste.

BTW, I don’t think any smokers have said that they hate all non-smokers. I do, but as an ex-smoker that puts me in a difficult position. I always feel like the freshman in the high school smoking lounge.

[Mtgman]

Poly as someone who hangs around GD a fair bit, and has read his fair share of threads, I think you’re off base with comparisons to gay rights, abortion, etc. The issue at question here is specifically environmental tobacco smoke(second-hand smoke if you prefer). The Surgeon General’s report had a very interesting phrase in it, “Involuntary smoking”. This is the facet which makes it different from all the other issues. The actions of smokers, in workplaces and other confined areas, and even to some extent in public, open-air places, convert non-smokers into “involuntary smokers”. There is nothing a gay couple can do to turn those around them into “involuntarially gay people”. A woman having an abortion doesn’t take along a buddy and make her have an abortion too. This is the fundamental difference.

Smoking, to me, is more akin to pollution than anything else. It takes a common resource, like the waterways, or landfills, and puts stuff in it which is hazardous to the health of others. This level of hazard can be controlled somewhat, in certain types of structures or venues, but the fact remains, the tragedy of the commons is that we all have to share them.

So here’s the view from a guy who considers himself a realist. Smokers are going to continue to be marginalized. Non-Smokers in dozens of nations, hundreds of cities, and thousands of other legal districts have spoken. They refuse to allow a minority of the population to continue to pollute the common resource unfettered. They’re using their political power to create and enforce those fetters. And in a democratic country, when there’s a lot more of them(non-smokers) than there is of you(smokers), you(smokers) get screwed. Don’t think you can win this one, don’t think the non-smokers are going to stop pushing to have smoking restricted further. That has not been the trend pretty much anywhere and it certainly isn’t the aggregate trend. Smokers aren’t going to convince non-smokers to get over it and there is no hope they’re going to ignore it when every time they turn on the TV there is a new report on how smoking increases your risk of getting anal probed by aliens.

The only recourse which would allow smokers to keep anything at all like the level of freedom to enjoy cigs whenever and wherever they want, as they have in the past, is to have smokers designated as a protected class. I hope you realize what the odds are of that happening.

So here’s my suggestion. Take what you can, and negotiate. Self-segregate, so you end up with SOMEWHERE to smoke, or you’re going to lose everything. Try to get some bars labeled “smoking clubs” where you have to have a membership(which comes with associated waivers and legal ass-covering) to enter. In my area there are blue laws restricting liquor purchase and consumption. You want to buy a margarita to go with your dinner? You have to be a member of the resturant’s private club. There is an umbrella club called “unicard” where you can get a free membership and just show your card at any “unicard” establishment to get a drink. Establish something similar for smoking. Have members-only bars and clubs where someone has to proactively sign up to enter the smoking atmosphere. They can’t claim to be “involuntary smokers” then.

Want to be able to smoke all night? Go to one of those places and maybe some of your buddies will come with you occasionally. Want to hang out at the hottest place? Leave your cigs at home, or step out(and well away from the walk-through areas) for your smoke.

But here’s reality. Smokers are a small, and rapidly dwindling, minority. About half(probably at least half) of you hate yourselves for smoking so you’ll never stand up for “smoker’s rights” and significant numbers are dropping like flies from various smoking-related diseases. Smokers are fucked, period. Want to continue? Carve out some places while you can before the full bans come down, because they ARE coming.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@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.

No, this is inacurate, too.

I have a friend who has had a bowel resection due to medical problems, uses a colostomy bag, and whose asshole has been surgically removed.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Mince

All I want is to eschew smoke in my face when I enter a bar.

So go to a bar that is non-smoking. What, exactly, is so fucking hard about that?

@Mince

These are the types of people whom you describe above. That is not rational thinking. In no way do I represent them in any of my arguments. Smokers should have designated smoking areas in almost any public building, just not the entire building.

Emphasis mine.

I don’t know where you live, but I can’t think of a single public building in the DC Metro area that allows smoking throughout the entire building, unless you’re talking about bars, in which case you can see my earlier answer.

[tdn]

@Jackmannii

Before you go further with this folie a deux with Beer, consider that (as I quoted previously), the information on the fact sheet, according to the Surgeon General, is taken directly from the report.

Oh, the information on the fact sheet. Now I get it. You’re right and we’re all wrong. You were wrong the first forty six times you said it, but the mere act of repeating yourself for the forty seventh time has suddenly added the sting of truth to your falsehood.

Putz.

Tell me, in your own words, and not repeating for the fucking forty eighth time “the information on the fact sheet” how smoke that has dissapated to zero parts per million is just as poisonous as smoke in an enclosed space. And this time, don’t hide behing the fucking Attorney General. Try using some original thought for once.

[Lord_Ashtar]

But, tdn, it’s in the fact sheet!

[Mtgman]

@tdn

Tell me, in your own words, and not repeating for the fucking forty eighth time “the information on the fact sheet” how smoke that has dissapated to zero parts per million is just as poisonous as smoke in an enclosed space. And this time, don’t hide behing the fucking Attorney General. Try using some original thought for once.

The Surgeon General, and the Surgeon General’s office, is a legitimate authority on medical matters. Unless Jackmanni is misrepresenting the report, your beef is with the Surgeon General and his office. You want to know the mechanism by which second-hand smoke in open-air places affects non-smokers? Read the report or ask the Surgeon General’s office. Their contact info is freely available. Demanding personalized explainations from Jackmanni when it is his citation you have an issue with is missing the point.

Also, you are misstating his claim. I used a search function and I never found the text string “zero parts per million” in any of Jackmanni’s posts in this thread. Therefore he could not have made the equivelance you are asking him to support.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Jackmannii]

Here I was readying an answer to tdn’s inattentiveness-based rant and I see Steven has basically taken care of things for me (thanks).

I had referred (and linked) to the fact sheet earlier, to refute a claim that the Surgeon General’s report only addressed secondhand smoke risks in the home and workplace. The fact sheet (which refers to exposures in schools, day care centers and patronized businesses) does not specifically mention exposures outdoors (and I did not claim that it did). It does note that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke exposure and that people should take steps to keep secondhand smoke away from them and their children.

How the “Attorney General” got dragged into this, I have no idea.

Steven phrased his points well. Smokers can continue to fight these bitter, rear guard losing battles over good science, or they can try to preserve a little space for the interests of their small and shrinking minority. The idea of private clubs would be fine for the patrons - I have questions, though, about whether government can agree to suspend health regulations for the class of employees who’d work in these clubs.*

*“No one has to work there” is no better an argument in this case than it would be for any occupation for which we can readily take steps to reduce or eliminate worker hazards.

[Sailboat]

@davenportavenger

If you are so delicate, go live in a bubble. The outside world is too harsh for you.

Again, why are stray fumes from cars okay but a tiny bit of smoke wafting underneath the door of an employees-only lounge is not? Polycarp’s gay analogy is super apt.

Look, you twit.

I specifically said that that did not “invalidate everything [Polycarp said]”. I specifically kept value statements out of my post.

And here you come with a personal attack.

I know it’s the Pit, so you can make all the comments you want implying that my quoting the Surgeon General’s report in response rto a highly specific point Tthat I believe was overlooked means I am weak and delicate.

It’s a terrible argument to make, and it makes you look like an embittered, vituperative loser – so I’d recommend against it – but you are permitted to do so.

Enjoy.

Oh, and if you wonder why nonsmokers are taking offense, it’s because we’re used to this kind of shoddy, off-target, personal nastiness coming at us from a subset of smokers.

Sailboat

[tdn]

@Mtgman

The Surgeon General, and the Surgeon General’s office, is a legitimate authority on medical matters. Unless Jackmanni is misrepresenting the report,

He is, and that is exactly the point.

Also, you are misstating his claim. I used a search function and I never found the text string “zero parts per million” in any of Jackmanni’s posts in this thread. Therefore he could not have made the equivelance you are asking him to support.

No, that string is no in there, I brought it up myself. But the point is, the SG primarily addresses enclosed spaces, and only briefly touches on outdoor spaces with the meaningless “No amount is safe.” The thing is, there is a vast difference, a point that Jackmanni seems not to get.

[tdn]

@Jackmannii

The fact sheet (which refers to exposures in schools, day care centers and patronized businesses) does not specifically mention exposures outdoors (and I did not claim that it did).

Ah, OK. Nevermind, then.

[/QUOTE]
How the “Attorney General” got dragged into this, I have no idea.
[/QUOTE]

I meant the Surgeon General. Sorry, must have been the smoke in my eyes.

[YaWanna]

@saoirse

IBTW, I don’t think any smokers have said that they hate all non-smokers. I do, but as an ex-smoker that puts me in a difficult position. I always feel like the freshman in the high school smoking lounge.

“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 (I lifted this quote from someone a few pages back, sorry I can’t remember who, nor do I know who this Bill Hicks character is.)

@jjimm

Fuck this shit, I’m moving to Eastern Europe where I can blow my cigarette smoke in the faces of disabled baby orphans with impunity. You fascists.

@yBeayf

Why not try just not breathing? If you do it right, we’ll have one less anti-smoking whiner to listen to.

Excuse me if I took these out of context or failed to recognize that they were using hyperbole for effect, or even that they were overreacting for a moment. As a matter of fact, I myself overreacted a bit with my “FU” comment before.

But - am I reading you right? Because it looks like you’re saying that, while you don’t think anyone had said they hate nonsmokers as of yet, you do. If so, would you please explain why? I am genuinely trying to understand. Is it because you hate everyone in general, or do you specifically hate people who, for whatever reason, choose not to smoke? Does this make any sense at all to you, or is it purely emotional?

[Mtgman]

@Jacmannii

The idea of private clubs would be fine for the patrons - I have questions, though, about whether government can agree to suspend health regulations for the class of employees who’d work in these clubs.*

*“No one has to work there” is no better an argument in this case than it would be for any occupation for which we can readily take steps to reduce or eliminate worker hazards.

I was thinking about that a bit and I’m not sure it is a solution, but how do other industries where exposure to environmental hazards deal with it? Plastics manufacture is rife with fumes and other hazards, how do they protect those workers? Ventilation is obviously a big part, air purifiers, filters, etc. Maybe even dust masks? I’m not sure I’d like to go to a club where the waitress wears a face mask, but if I had to choose between that and not being able to get my nicotine hit I might be able to get over it.

Probably the best thing to do would be to have chains designate certain of their resturants/bars as “smoking clubs” and allow staff to freely transfer between locations. Maybe offer higher pay for those who choose to work in the smoking clubs but have them rotate out after six months or so? It is a real quandry, but we’re talking about 21% or so of the adult population. That’s a huge number of people to just write off of participation in society. Giving them back the level of freedom they have had in the past presents a public health hazard, so that’s pretty much out. But I’m not unsympathetic to them, they’re still humans and members of society. They just have to be refrained from unintentionally harming others when exercising their habits. Most of them probably started before the dangers of SHS were known, and now they’re addicted. I don’t think we can write them off as antisocial or malicious, so we need to find a solution which maintains respect for both parties.

The non-smoker deserves to have their air unpolluted, and the smoker deserves not to be treated like a sociopath. With the ingeneuity which made the US what it is, I think we can find a compromise. At least as long as everyone remembers that “compromise” is defined as “a solution no one is happy with.”

Enjoy,
Steven

[Der_Trihs]

@UncleBeer

Just much smoke are you running into in the parking lot and on the sidewalk?

Enough to make me gag, and my nose and eyes burn.

@UncleBeer

The few particles of tobacco smoke you’re gonna inhale in the middle of a crowded city probably ain’t any worse for you than the tons of automobile exhaust.

If I can smell it and feel it, there’s far more than a “few particles”; I’m not a bloodhound.

@yBeayf

Indeed. I would add that it’s the right (morally speaking, and ideally legally, too) for business owners to allow smoking or not on their premises. Nobody is forced to patronize a business.

Please. If it’s the only business that sells what you need, of course you are forced. Even if there are others, but they are hours away, you are still being forced, except in the most technical of senses. Why should I be forced to breathe smoke just to buy something ? Would it be OK if Safeway employees sprayed lead dust on me every time I walked in the door ?

@davenportavenger

Polycarp’s gay analogy is super apt.

How ?! The fact that someone is gay has zero effect on me. I can’t smell it, I can’t catch it, and it won’t clog up my lungs, either. Being the lone straight in a crowd of a million gays would have less effect on me than 10 seconds walking past someone smoking; that’s how irrelevant someone’s homosexualiity is to anybody else.

@yBeayf

THEN DON’T GO TO A FUCKING BAR THAT ALLOWS SMOKING.

And what about the people who work there, and can’t find another job ? Should lung cancer be considered a just punishment for poverty ?

@Lord Ashtar

So go to a bar that is non-smoking. What, exactly, is so fucking hard about that?

The standard complaint is that without the anti-smoking laws, there weren’t any.

As for me, I put people who smoke where non smokers are exposed to it in the same catagory as people who drive drunk, or celebrate New Years by firing guns in the air; their bad habits put others in danger, and should be stopped. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, go ahead and kill yourself; just stop trying to take other people with you.

[RogueRacer]

I will confess that I skipped the last two pages of posts. I really don’t want to reply to anything specifically anyway. I just want to get something off my chest that I’ve been saving for the last 20 or so years of my 30 some year life.

All of you smokers can form a line and kiss my ass. Fuck you, you fucking fucks! This includes some of my very good friends who smoke. It includes my relatives. It definitely includes some ex-girlfriends. Fuck all of you!

I’m not saying I’m perfect. It’s not that I don’t understand addictions. I managed to overcome my caffeine addiction. The battle with my sugar/fat/grease/salt addiction is still ongoing, but as of my last checkup, my blood pressure and cholestoral where still good. Oh, I have a race car that I’ve ran on leaded fuel. Bad me. I’m being serious. Pollution is not good. It’s easy to ignore. You can’t see immediate effects. Smoking may be the same for many of you. You can’t see others’ lungs blackening with yours. You can’t see the carcinogens collecting.

I should also say thank you to some good friends who have stopped smoking. Some of the smokers even get somewhat of a thanks for at least trying to be polite. Don’t expect it until you’ve had your turn in the line though.

Whew! It sucked carrying that around for so long.