Smoking Question

[jsc1953]

@Jackmannii

Just to reverse field a moment back to GQ territory - is there some locality that has banned smoking in the park for health reasons? Otherwise, your example has severely limited real-world application.

San Francisco, CA; although when I went looking for a cite , the only rationale mentioned in the article was litter, not health.

[Sailboat]

@jsc1953

The problem isn’t that second-hand smoke isn’t harmful; of course it is. It’s a question of degree. And it’s not like there are no opposing considerations – society has to balance public health vs individual liberties. There should be a compelling reason why public officials should ban a practice that is otherwise legal.

Let’s put it in stark extremes: let’s say that the presence of a smoker in an outdoor environment (for example, sitting on a park bench) is scientifically determined (for sake of argument) to cause someone walking by the bench to experience a .0000000001% increased cancer risk. Reasonable people would say: Individual Liberties wins this round; anti-smokers need to go find another battle.

And I say, I have an indivdual liberty to breathe air as clean as we can get it.

That at most ties a smoker’s “individual liberty” to smoke. IMHO the cancer, emphysema, asthma, and allergy risks then go on to break that tie in my favor. Before tobacco was discovered we were all born breathing tobacco-free air.

Air as clean as I can get it, and certainly free of purely voluntary, recreational noxious gas, should be an inalienable right.

Before anyone complains about vehicle pollution, I take public transportation to work every day, ride a bike, walk to stores, and drive as little as I can get away with.

Sailboat

[mks57]

@Sailboat

And I say, I have an indivdual liberty to breathe air as clean as we can get it.

That at most ties a smoker’s “individual liberty” to smoke. IMHO the cancer, emphysema, asthma, and allergy risks then go on to break that tie in my favor. Before tobacco was discovered we were all born breathing tobacco-free air.

Air as clean as I can get it, and certainly free of purely voluntary, recreational noxious gas, should be an inalienable right.

So you’ll sign up for my movement to ban wood-burning fireplaces and charcoal-fueled grills? Not to mention any recreational use of internal combustion engines?

Wood burning is a major source of outdoor air pollution.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=23354

[Askance]

@OldGuy

I have little tolerance for smoke and barely more for most smokers, but I’ll dispute that claim. I can’t believe without a cite that there is more smoking related litter than fast food container litter.

More than triple (by number) according to this table - note the site is sponsored by Philip Morris USA. And on the same site, two more reasons why smoking outdoors is harmful to others than the smoker:

Not only does cigarette litter ruin even the most picturesque setting, but the toxic residue in cigarette filters is damaging to the environment, and littered butts cause numerous fires every year, some of them fatal.

@chowder

Also, you’re talking out of your arse when you state that half of all litter comes from smokers

Cigarette butts are the most common type of litter on earth.
Cigarettes account for over 40% of street litter.
Smoking related litter is the most common type of litter found on Scotland’s streets.
Cigarettes are the most littered item in America.
cigarette butts – 49% of Australia’s litter by number

[jackelope]

Here’s an academic, heavily cited and footnoted article that may (or may not) be enlightening: “The Case Against Smoking Bans,” by Thomas A. Lambert. From page 17:

The contrary view (i.e., that [environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS] poses major health risks) is deeply ingrained in public discourse, thanks largely to a 1993 EPA study purporting to show that inhalation of ETS causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year. The findings of that study, however, have been severely undermined since its publication. A congressional inquiry into the methods the EPA used in the study, which concluded that ETS is a Class A (known human) carcinogen, found that

The process at every turn [was] characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. . . . [T]hose irregularities include[d] conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document.The congressional inquiry further concluded that “the Agency ha[d] deliberately abused and manipulated the scientific data in order to reach a
predetermined, politically motivated result.”

Granted, there’s some weasel-wording in there: “Largely,” “causes major health risks,” etc. Nonetheless, it’s an interesting article, rebutting one-by-one most of the arguments in favor of smoking bans. It’s not airtight; his market-failure arguments are a little weak, for one thing. But it’s certainly thought-provoking, and led one of my law classes into a heated two-hour debate.

Link; go to the bottom of that page for PDF download links.

Edit: That article deals with bans on indoor smoking, not outdoor. But since this thread has wandered a bit, I figured it was germane enough to post.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

What I don’t understand is all the fuss about second hand smoke outside. I don’t know the percentage of population that smokes, but I think it’s pretty small. Does anyone really think there is going to be that much harm walking through a small huddle of smokers in front of a building on your way inside compared to some very real threats due to air quality?

Well, just an anecdote, not real data…sometimes, when I walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke, I’ll have an asthma attack, or a migraine will start. Tobacco smoke is one of my triggers. On occasion I’ve had to go get a breathing treatment because of this. Apparently this is a trigger for other people too. Fortunately, I live in an area where the air quality is pretty good for a big city.

[Jackmannii]

@jackelope

Here’s an academic, heavily cited and footnoted article that may (or may not) be enlightening: “The Case Against Smoking Bans,” by Thomas A. Lambert.

The article you cite comes from a Missouri law review journal and is not a scientific review. It critiques a single study which some Congressmen thought was politicized (insert irony meter reading here).

The scientific consensus on risks of secondhand smoke exposure do not rely on a single 1993 study. From the Surgeon General’s 2006 report linked to previously:

"The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers’ comments. "

If you look at the part of the SG’s report that deals with cardiovascular risks associated with secondhand smoke, there are more than 60 scientific references in that section alone.

Thus, the SG’s report and the conclusions of experts in this field rely on a broad range of carefully considered evidence. The challenge now is to use this evidence to protect the public in reasonable and effective ways.

[Shodan]

@Jackmannii

The problem here is that we are not talking about single particles from Outer Mongolia, but clouds of secondhand smoke in the same or the next room.

Actually, we were talking about outdoor smoking.

Or for that matter, in heavily trafficked, poorly ventilated areas "outdoors’.

“Outdoors” means “poorly ventilated”? Bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you think?

The SG’s report about no safe exposure level being found is factual.

So my thirty zillion example is valid, then - the exposure to one particle is not safe.

It should be a wakeup call to the smoking advocates who complain about “well, it’s not that big a risk - no big deal - why aren’t you willing to breathe our smoke if it’s not that much of a hazard…aw c’mon…wheedle wheedle wheedle”

Sorry, no.

Which is the basic tactic of the anti-smoking busybodies - no level of risk is acceptable. And when you try to discuss reasonable levels, they change the subject.

:shrugs:

Some topics can’t be discussed in GQ.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jackmannii]

@Jackmannii

The problem here is that we are not talking about single particles from Outer Mongolia, but clouds of secondhand smoke in the same or the next room.

@Shodan

Actually, we were talking about outdoor smoking.

Indeed I was. Instead of selectively editing, why not reproduce the entire quote (bolding added)?

@Jackmannii

The problem here is that we are not talking about single particles from Outer Mongolia, but clouds of secondhand smoke in the same or the next room. Or for that matter, in heavily trafficked, poorly ventilated areas "outdoors’

.

@Shodan

“Outdoors” means “poorly ventilated”? Bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you think?

Is there a reading comprehension problem here? We have previously brought up examples of “outdoor” venues where secondhand smoke can accumulate, i.e. around building entrances where many smokers congregate and stadiums.

@Shodan

So my thirty zillion example is valid, then - the exposure to one particle is not safe. Which is the basic tactic of the anti-smoking busybodies - no level of risk is acceptable.

Once you demonstrate where you’ve derived this highly scientific-sounding “thirty zillion” number we can talk about what significance it may have on the subject of outdoor smoking and health-related laws.

@Shodan

Some topics can’t be discussed in GQ.

They can, if we remember that the forum is for dealing with factual questions.

What has not been demonstrated so far in this thread is that there is any movement to ban smoking in parks or other wide-open spaces for health reasons. Until then, it seems like some are wasting effort trying to batter down a strawman.

[jsc1953]

@Jackmannii

What has not been demonstrated so far in this thread is that there is any movement to ban smoking in parks or other wide-open spaces for health reasons. Until then, it seems like some are wasting effort trying to batter down a strawman.

Why is smoking forbidden in baseball stadiums (AT&T Park in SF, for instance), if not for health reasons? It’s certainly not for litter–after a game, there would be 10 peanut shells for every cigarette butt.

And it’s not a wide-open space, but here is a proposed ban on smoking inside private residences, which probably represents the extreme edge of nanny-statism.

[Jackmannii]

@jsc1953

Why is smoking forbidden in baseball stadiums (AT&T Park in SF, for instance), if not for health reasons? It’s certainly not for litter–after a game, there would be 10 peanut shells for every cigarette butt.

From my post immediately before this one:

@Jackmannii

We have previously brought up examples of “outdoor” venues where secondhand smoke can accumulate, i.e. around building entrances where many smokers congregate and stadiums.

@jsc1953

And it’s not a wide-open space, but here is a proposed ban on smoking inside private residences, which probably represents the extreme edge of nanny-statism.

Do you think that noise ordinances affecting multi-unit dwellings (which is the type of “private residence” alluded to in your link) are an example of “nanny-statism”? If it’s reasonable to permit legal sanctions against a noisy tenant, is it reasonable to have a law covering instances where secondhand smoke from heavy smokers infiltrates surrounding apartments?

[jsc1953]

Sound can permeate from unit to unit and can be readily (ie, with a decibel meter) be shown to be a nuisance. Whether or not the same can be said of cigarette smoke is, more or less, the whole topic of this thread.

(And I don’t see any reason to put quotes around “outdoor” and “private residence”. A stadium *is * outdoors. An apartment *is * a private residence.)

[Eleusis]

@Kimstu

As a fellow non-guy, I assure you that you are getting fecal bacteria on your hands even if you use toilet paper. As Cecil’s essay on the subject pointed out, the skin on your entire pelvic region and upper thighs is “crawling with germs known as coliform bacteria”. When we non-guys pull down and pull up our underwear, we’re touching our pelvic area with our hands. When we reach down to wipe, we’re touching the skin of our inner thighs with our hands. Even if we’re not putting our fingers directly on our girl-bits (and why would you consider that to be “ew”, by the way? ), we’re getting fecal bacteria on our hands when we adjust our clothes and clean ourselves before and after urination or defecation.

I’m sorry Kimstu, Cecil notwithstanding, but I think that that is total and utter bullshit.

I’m not your fellow “non-guy”, but when I pull up or down my pants and underwear, I do it from the furthest left/right extremes, as in the area that’s considered my “waist”. Even then I never touch my “pelvic area with my hands”, and even if it did, it would be with my thumbnails.

I know the women’s bathrooms are supposedly inherently nastier and dirtier than men’s (from universal anecdotes from women), but seriously, certainly not ALL women are that careless and dirty?

I, for one, do NOT get fecal matter on my hands when I take shit, any more than I get it on my face.
p.s.

Even if we’re not putting our fingers directly on our girl-bits (and why would you consider that to be “ew”, by the way? ), we’re getting fecal bacteria on our hands when we adjust our clothes and clean ourselves before and after urination or defecation.

Seriously? Why ew? If every time you pee, you get shit all over hands, that’s a definite “EWWWW”. I don’t. In fact I can pee standing up without ever even touching my own skin.

[Autolycus]

While we’re on the subject, is there any set of data that shows just exactly how harmful smoking is to a smoker PER cigarette. I smoke, but I smoke at most four individual cigarettes per week. I know it’s not healthy, but it’s my life and I’ll do what I want, dag nabbit.