That’s fine. You puke til your hearts content BUT where do you suggest smokers smoke UNTIL it is made an illegal drug?
We have left the room, we have left the building, other then the footpath where should we be…please take in to account that we are indulging in a perfectly legal but obnoxious ADDICTION.
Thanks for the response. Many have made a big stink (pun intended) of the phrase “any exposure increases serious health risks”. Since, as you point out, this report discusses a whole spectrum of exposures, risks, and detriments, I’m simply wondering what falls into those categories. To clarify by way of examples: I doubt anyone would argue that someone teetering on the brink of a heart attack might suffer increased risk of heart-related reactions via minor exposure to SHS. I also think that it is uncontested that high exposure (e.g., living with a smoker, say, 7-8 hours of exposure a day) increases risks of [fill in some disease]. But what does it mean in the average case? What level of exposure is dangerous? In what way?
I’m not sure how to put this, but I suppose my issue is of a “practical vs. theoretical” nature (or, perhaps, “absolute vs. relative”). That is, the universal “any exposure” is junk wording that cheapens the scientific conclusion (but makes for a great soundbite). So, I’m wondering what the conclusions really are; it’s (almost) never as simple as the talking points would lead us to believe.
Interesting. I do not doubt the reality of the potential danger, and I’m not particularly interested in being the sort of obnoxious jerk who subjects others to a disgusting and unnecessary hazard.
However, there is a big difference between being forced by circumstance to pass through a mass of smokers to enter a building you find it necessary or useful to proceed into, and deciding that nowhere whatsoever under any circumstances may someone do something that grosses you out and which you claim is a danger to your health.
IMO, Jackmaniii has demonstrated that he differs in no substantive way from Paul Cameron: “I shall handwave with statistics because I know better than you what you should do and not do, and if you don’t stop, Evil Things will happen.”
No, non-smokers should not have to deal with cigarette smoke to enter buildings, work in workplaces, eat in restaurants, etc. And permitting smoking everywhere with no regulations is a violation of their rights.
There is no legally defined “right to smoke.” Granted. But if nobody but me sees the parallels between prohibition of behavior by others considered obnoxious and dangerous by some, then the universe of civil discourse and the idea of freedom just shrunk perceptibly.
As already mentioned, it’s not legal to smoke where it’s illegal to smoke. I suggest you do it where you don’t inflict it on others. Congregating in the doorway most likely doesn’t qualify.
It 's legal except where prohibited. Many government buildings have signs specifying a particular distance away from the entrance smoking is pemitted.
I see you are using the same approach as TVeb: dismissing the Surgeon General’s report (and the large volume of research that forms its basis) without any attempt to refute its validity.
I’ll have to ask this again: Have you (or anyone else here who airily dismisses the evidence) ever bothered to take a good look at it? You can start here. For openers, have a look at the 11th study on the list, which concludes that secondhand smoke exposure causes cardiovascular effects nearly as bad as those seen in actual smokers (for instance, secondhand smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease by almost one-third).
If on the other hand you just want to take pot shots without contributing anything substantive, fine…just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
I think you’re not taking my point, Jackman.
I have no doubt that there is a significant health hazard to significant exposure to second-hand smoke, and that there is some health hazard to even minimal exposure.
And I have made it a definite point to make clear that I am not saying and have not said, “Just put up with it.”
What I am getting from you, though, is that someone smoking in his own backyard in Topeka Kansas is causing someone else in Seattle health dangers to the point that banning the Kansan from smoking anywhere under any precautions is the sole way to prevent the dangers to the guy in Seattle. And that a “fact sheet” someone made up which purports to summarize the statistics-laden report is somehow equivalent to the report itself. Or embedded in it despite Uncle Beer’s inability to find the text in the fact sheet anywhere in the report itself.
As usual, Heinlein had a prescient comment on this, one which I think is worth your reading. It’s in “If This Goes On…”
I am not interested in arguing statistics; clearly, there is a problem, and a danger. I suspect the “no safe level” is the same sort of handwaving that has occurred regarding radioactivity in people panicking about smoke detectors in brick houses in Denver.
There’s a point regarding personal liberties that I believe you are missing. See if you can change your focus enough to get it, and perhaps address it. Then maybe we can talk.
Well? What was it? 
As an OBTW, I loved that book as a kid. It’s probably time I read it again.
Regards
Testy
From where have you conjured up this strawman? Where have I said anything like this?
Despite the fact sheet’s being contained under the heading of the report, labeled with the same date as the report, and the explicit statement that the information in the fact sheet is taken directly from the report, you’re still raising this phony issue? Are you contesting the relevance and validity of the information in the fact sheet, or is this just another backhanded swipe at public health recommendations for which you have no logical counter?
What could possibly be your point in dredging this up again?
This indicates that your primary reason for not arguing statistics is that you “suspect” they are invalid, with no obligation to provide reasoning or documentation. Well, that’s sure convincing. :rolleyes:
This has already been addressed, voluminously. There is an established precedent in our society to implement regulations to protect the health and safety of workers and of the public in general. In the past these laws have been declared onerous/and or infringments on liberty, but we’ve come to recognize their value.
The impression I get from you is that you’re saying, “O.K., I accept that secondhand smoke is a hazard and that laws to protect us from exposure to it are necessary. But c’mon, we know this is all a bunch of hype, so better be really nice to the smokers.”
Talk about your mixed messages.
Of course civility is desirable. I expect both that smokers will civilly comply with the law, and that enforcement (fines or other penalties) will be imposed in a civil fashion.
Realize that we are past the alleged golden age where smoking was considered just an annoyance, and smokers happily :dubious: put out their cigs and stogies if asked to. Now we know about the health hazards and it’s no longer a matter of “oh would you please, kind sir.” (Based on the hostility level displayed by smokers in this thread, I tend to doubt the claim about how the great majority gladly extinguish their smokes on request - not that I think it’s the responsibility of non-smokers to risk confrontations in this manner).
This is the kind of thing I’m wondering about. I’m trying to understand just what they signify. Based on the abstract, that study specifically refers to smoking in bars. Conclusions are that there is a detectable exposure to SHS from a three-hour exposure time period. I don’t see anything about measured risks, probably because it wasn’t the focus of the study (although it may just not have been in the abstract).
So, constant exposure (perhaps, “immersion”) to SHS of three hours is enough to increase cotinine levels. What is the effect of an “8-fold increase” in continine levels? What is the change in risk (for whatever health matter you care to choose)? Again, I’m just asking for your indulgence, as it seems you’ve read (at least some of) the studies and I have not had time.
So, we’re to accept the logic that “the information contained in this fact sheet is taken directly from . . .” this fact sheet. Right? If the fact sheet is part of the report as you seem to be claiming, then the note at the bottom of it means its contents are self-sourced.
Digital Stimulus, the study I referred to is a review of multiple research studies on the subject of secondhand smoke (SHS) and cardiovascular disease. It does not specifically refer to bar smoking. It discusses in detail negative SHS effects on approximately a dozen different cardiovascular parameters, including responses that stimulate platelet activation, damage to the endothelial lining of blood vessels, effects on high density lipoproteins, arterial stiffness, infarct size etc. The authors’ conclusions support those reached time and again in the studies under review - SHS significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Exposures, risks, and detriments. A very elegant turn of phrase. I wish I had thought of one as elegant when composing my post, it would have saved me some typing and made it clearer I’m sure.
Unfortunately I’m not sure there is an answer to “the average case”. The biological reality is, none of us are average. You may react to SHS with increaed blood pressure and heart-related symptoms. My symptoms are generally respiratory. I also get headaches when I’m in a bar for any significant amount of time. My wife’s cousin had asthma which was complicated by her mother’s smoking habit. She was sensitive to far lower levels of smoke than you or I would probably be. On the other hand, my wife’s father had some quirk in his makeup which made him more resistant to smoking(he smoked all his life). He developed three different cancers and eventually died with, but not necessarially from(no autopsy was done) lung cancer. Until that time his lungs were relatively unaffected by smoking.
The risks of exposure also hinge on the background of the subject. Family history and genetic predisposition towards various cancers weigh in the analysis. The risks for each individual are, well, individual. In an “absolute vs. relative” kind of sense, it’s all relative, but then what isn’t?
The “you claim” bit is a lot stronger than you’re giving it credit for. The Surgeon General has issued a report pretty much like this one about the dangers of smoking and smoke every year for the past thirty-four years(beginning in 1972). That’s longer than I’ve been alive. It is damn near the median age of the entire population of the US.
The “grosses you out” bit is also a lot weaker than you seem to be implying. Smoking doesn’t gross me out. I understand smoking, I grew up around people who smoked. My father quit before I was born, but both of my brothers smoked(my younger brother started when he was 12), I smoked a bit myself for a while. Two of my sisters smoked. I have studied the effects of smoking from a biophysical standpoint and I’m not any more grossed out by it than I am grossed out by eating.
This isn’t about personal revulsion. This is about health effects. Measurable, quantifiable, and increasingly indisputable health effects from both smoking and exposure to second hand smoke.
Can you tell me if you think it is a “personal liberty” issue to regulate dumping the oil from a “do it yourself” oil change into the creek nearby? Why or why not?
Enjoy,
Steven
Heh. I started out baffled by non-sequitur attacks pro-smokers keep making in which they say essentially “why are you so concerned about smoking when hazardous auto emissions are in the same air”. My bafflement stemmed from the fact that the pro-smokers making that comment have no way of knowing that I am, or am not, concerned about other airborne hazards – they’re just making a dismissive strawman claim: “here is a ridiculous attitude, I attribute it to my opponent, therefore he is ridculous.”
I AM actively concerned about other airborne hazards. We’ve removed nonstick cookware from our home because of PTFE outgassing, although the science on its potential harm to humans is incomplete. I do the dishes in our household, and I scrub to do my part for air quality.
We are not able to buy a new car right now, but our next one will be a hybrid electric, unless an even better technology appears.
I have asked painters to desist from painting while the office was occupied, since the smell was giving people headaches.
I take public transportation to minimize my personal impact on air quality – and I do indeed worry about bus fumes and try to avoid them.
But I’ve realized that if I say these things, I’ll just be dismissed as being “weak-lunged”, fearful, delicate.
you see, it’s a two-pronged attack: If I don’t care about nontobacco air quality threats, I’m a hypocrite. If I do care, I’m a worrywart and weakling.
Hah-ha, you win either way with that argument! Or lose, depending on who’s reading.
Sailboat
I fully recognize and respect your efforts to minimize your exposure to unnecessary chemicals and other forms of air pollution.
My “vehicle emissions” argument somewhere upthread wasn’t aimed at those individuals who are opposed to smoke-filled bars or people who smoke at bus stops. It was aimed at the local or state governments who pass these smoking ordinances while seeming to ignore the fact that the vehicles they are driving are uninspected for emissions levels. The smoking bans in California make much more sense because those bans are coupled with statewide emissions controls. Smoking bans in New Mexico make much less sense overall because there is no such requirement for vehicles.
How can a governing body propose a ban on smoking based on the fact that it poses a significant health risk to even those who don’t smoke while not also proposing that vehicle emissions inspections also be required as a way to control pollution of the air and promote the health of the public in general?
Hmmf. Perhaps you meant some other “11th one on the list” (or I’m seeing a different list than you are). Could you supply the author and title? Thanks…
Of course, that’s granted. However, this is statistics we’re talking about, after all. Which means that the conditions and parameters must be specified. The “average case” is just shorthand, since I don’t know what the range of parameters might be. Specifically, as I said, I’m looking for the parameters that underlie the justification for “any exposure to SHS is a health risk”, as that’s the talking point that’s going to be bandied about.
I have to admit, I feel kinda guilty asking, as I should just do the reading myself. Thanks for bearing with me.
Barnoya J, Glantz SA.
Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke: nearly as large as smoking.
Circulation. 2005 May 24;111(20):2684-98. Review.
They’re MORE than welcome, as far as I’m concerned to say the Municipal Ordinance (ordinated? :)) distance of 40 feet from the doorway. It’s not as if they have No. Where. Else.
Oh HELL no, that would require actually breathing some of that putrid crap in. No, I see them from a distance take a nice deep breath of actual air, and dash past them into the building.
Thanks! But that sounds so stuffy! 