We aren’t disagreeing, Jackman. Sorry if you took that as aimed at you or others campaigning in the manner you are – I tried to phrase it to denounce extremism at both ends.
As for the “smoking areas” issue, what I’m saying is that IMO it’s important to make the separations work. Designating the east 1/3 of a room as smoking and the west 2/3 as non-smoking does absolutely nothing for the non-smokers. Designing something with some separation and ensuring that a positive airflow from non-smoking to smoking area and then vented is present, does. IMO.
We must have different views on the term “significant”. We’re talking about policy making for thousands, tens of thousands, even millions(in large metropolitan areas). These “small” statistical differences WILL mean the difference between developing lung cancer and not developing lung cancer for dozens, hundreds, possibly even thousands of people over the course of a term or two in office.
In a population of 5 million, if ALL 5 MILLION where exposed to 2nd hand smoke for extended periods of time (such as spouses you cited in that study) you’d have 10 more people with lung cancer than a city of 5 million where no one smoked.
There is precisely one restaurant in my local area at which I’ll smoke–their “smoking section” is glassed in and behind a door, with a seperate A/C system. Funny how it gets them business.
Other than that, I kinda agree with restricting smoking to designated places–I only smoke at home, my friend’s homes with permission, and in my own car.
So, in a country the size of the US we’ve got about 3,000 cases of non-smokers coming down with lung cancer per year. If that’s within your moral tolerance, that’s fine. It’s not within mine, and I feel my duty, as a political power wielding member of a democracy, is to try to do something about it.
My quandry is how to do it without making pariahs of the addicts who are unintentionally, and often quite remorsefully, creating this situation.
If everyone in the whole US had smoke piping into their homes, I suppose you could make that argument. Look at my argument for what it was! An argument at the extremes! How many non-smokers are routinely exposed to secondhand smoke in the way that the spouse of a smoker is? The argument is so much more complicated than that, especially when you take into consideration that you’re stripping away someone else’s freedoms. Where does it stop? If people exposed to high amounts of lawnmore clippings develop slighly more allergies than those who aren’t do we regulate those? We don’t prevent people from playing video games in public, even tho they can cause epileptic siezures in a small amount of the population…
We’re not talking about artificial situations where smoke is piped into houses. We’re talking about real people who have contracted lung cancer from ETS in their homes and workplaces.
Show me a 40 year history of lawn clippings giving people terminal cancer. Show me 40 years of death from seizures caused by video games. The situations are not equivalant.
The EPA’s ‘estimate’ doesn’t jive with their own freaking numbers! 300,000,000 in the US. If you expose them all to significant amounts of second hand smoke, you’d have an increase of 750 people.
The numbers just don’t add up. I’m sorry, it pisses me off too, but to me it just looks like a bunch of scare-mongering by people who don’t like to be around smokers. And that pisses me off even more.
Once you’ve digested all the studies that went into the EPA estimates and established a valid refutation of their statistical analysis, it’ll have more weight then “it looks like this to me”.
And then you can work on this part of the EPA analysis: "Every year, an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 children under 18 months of age get pneumonia or bronchitis from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke. Secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma in children and worsens the condition of up to one million asthmatic children".
Following that, you can study the risk factors and fatality numbers associated with secondhand smoke exposure and sudden infant death syndrome. And heart disease. And in other populations exposed to secondhand smoke.
The risks* are not limited to cancer.
The risk of pissed-offedness secondary to toxins in tobacco smoke may deserve further study in smokers and nonsmokers alike.
I don’t dispute the effects it has on children (I’ve seen the asthma and broncitis first hand), but there’s nothing short of taking cigarettes away from their parents and grandparents to stop it from happening. Preventing smoking in bars, restaurants and open air parks won’t really affect wether or not a child is exposed to significant amounts of 2nd hand smoke.
Putting aside the workplace and children thing (and I agree that any parent who smokes around their young child should be strung up by the balls), wouldn’t you say that nonsmoking spouses of smokers make the decision to be exposed? Same with friends of smokers who willingly go to smoking bars on a semi-regular basis? How many of those deaths come from people who are only incidentally exposed at parks and bus stops and the occasional night out in the nonsmoking room of a restaurant? Any at all?
I feel for you, I really do. But here’s the thing: many people have medical conditions that prevent them from going to events they may otherwise want to go to. I have a problem with crowds. I’ve had to bow out of going to concerts and conventions where I know I will be in an enclosed space with many, many people, because if I do there is a chance that I will panic and make an ass of myself in front of my friends. I don’t have the right to institute a maximum persons-per-square-foot limitation on concert venues so I will feel comfortable enough to go, and I don’t know why smoking should be any different. A lot of people have things they can’t tolerate.
So do you favor a ban on contact sports? By your logic football players and boxers are being economically blackmailed into taking a beating because of the opportunity to make more money doing what they do rather than being out in the real world. Poor things.
No idea. 2,200 were estimated to have died from lung cancer contracted through ETS “in the workplace”. Lower levels of ETS? Occasional ETS? I don’t know. Is 2,200 deaths not a significant number from something 100% preventable which is not a side-effect of an activity necessary for a vital first-world society(like driving)?
If we’re talking personal opinions, I’ve aready gone on record as saying I think smoking-only establishments, private clubs, would be a good idea. Rotate staff so their exposure is limited, and make visitors get a membership which includes signing a waiver and explicit assumption of risks associated with being a member of a club which allows smoking.
There has been a sea change in attitudes towards smoking in the past 40 years. Smokers are not going to re-gain ground on this issue, so it’s just a question of if the rear-guard battles are worth fighting. With 40 years of Surgeon General level reports about the hazards of smoking along with countless independent and non-US governmental studies this subject has an enormous body of scientific evidence which points towards the same fact. Tobacco smoking is a public health risk.
I don’t foresee any reversals in this trend. I’d suggest smokers try to forge a compromise before too many more of them fall victim to the health hazards of their habits and their political clout diminishes even further.
If I thought it could be done I would ban the more brutal sports; it’s cockfighting for humans, one step above the Roman gladiators. Or if not ban them, pass rules that prevent permanent injuries.
Oh, you would prefer the free market be given reign ? Have you read history ? Without the government, the corporations and the wealthy will cheerfully grind their collective boots in your face.
actually no. I believe there’s a balance that exists without destroying personal freedoms. Regulate business. Leave people’s personal choices the fk alone.
Hey look, plural anecdotes. Those are always indisputable.
The feeling’s mutual, if you’ll stop with the inane accusations of conscious indirect pillaging then I’ll gladly do the same. If smokers are denied by law from accessing public health services, then by all means let’s drop the $2 a pack tax (except maybe a penny per carton to pay street sweepers to clean up litter like discarded cigarette butts and smokers who die in public areas).
You know why there’s never anybody in the non-smoking section? Because a non-smoking section in a bar is like a no-pissing zone in a swimming pool; nobody wants to be in a “sort-of” healthy area except the people who don’t mind being polluted. OTOH there are plenty of no-smoking bars in my own that are packed on a regular basis and they’re lovely places except that you have to run a smoky gauntlet on the sidewalk to get in the front door. Why are all these smokers loitering in front of my non-smoking bar, can’t their smoking bars stand on their own?
