Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Science?

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Alright.
Now, you can say that this topic is a loaded gun on this forum - mainly due to the fact that the idea of smoking wherever you should be able to seems to be something of an American mindset and routine that is relatively disgruntled by the UK/Europeans on the board.

First off, it needs to be stated - this is not about how smoking is "bad for me/persons doing it in general." Yes, smoking is bad for the person doing it. So is drinking and an assortment of other activities. Whoop de doo.

The point of this topic is to decide if the concept of Second-Hand Smoking bans are politically driven, and if the evidence is sufficient to essentially toss out people's right to choose the places in which they decide to partake in dining/business (if it is unhealthy, then why can't businesses who don't want smoking make their places specifically non-smoking? and businesses that allow smoking state that their business is smoking - if you don't like it, then don't go there?)

I was filing through one of my more favorite series - Bullshit! hosted by Penn and Teller - in an earlier episode made in the early 2000s regarding when the smoking bans started generally taking place in America. But they did bring forth a few professionals, and attack the topic in a very debunk-worthy style.
They brought in professionals, cited papers and decisions, and compared it to what the people spinning "Bullshit" were doing.

A note - Penn uses the phrase "Bullshit!" because, legally, calling someone a fraud or a con is grounds for being sued. But there's no legal stopping block that can keep them from saying "you're full of shit." And, well, the show is on Cable so they can damned well do what they please.



So, opinions? Thoughts? Let's make a discussion out of this.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

A very quick fact-check on just a few (mostly government) sites shows the following:

• At least 69 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to cause cancer.

• Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers.

• Secondhand smoke has also been associated with heart disease in adults and sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, and asthma attacks in children.

• There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

That's the short version. The longer versions (plus citations) can be found here:
Cancer.gov

CDC

The conclusion for me is quite clear: Complete smoking ban in all public buildings (restaurants, bars, train stations, etc.) but obviously you can't stop people smoking in the streets. Everything else is unfair to the thousands dying of the effects of this. By the way, the number of cars should be reduced as much as possible too, they have almost as large if not a larger effect than smoking.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie


The episode is outdated. Here Penn and Teller correct themselves seeing that after they released the episode you show, there was enough evidence that second hand smoke was detrimental.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

P&T Bullshit admittedly film their series with a bias and frequently have poor choices for representatives of a topic, typically the craziest people representing a side they don't like and having some political commentator come in to talk about a scientific issue instead of a scientist. Also they seem to draw many guests from that libertarian think tank they're a part of, so even if 9/10 of their shows hits the nail on the head, they aren't reliable for much beyond entertainment and they admit it. Especially when it comes to more scientific matters like this could be.

Also if you like listening to Penn discuss things and share stories, check out Penn's Sunday School if you have't already, it's on iTunes and etc.

Anyways, cigarette smoke is cigarette smoke, we know it causes increased risks of various illnesses when inhaled directly habitually, so being in a room with a considerable amount of dispersed tobacco smoke will likely lead to similar risks if you spend enough time there. (I think bartenders and such in smoking-legal bars even get health coverage benefits for it) Either way I'd rather let the business decide and the government not have any say in it beyond requiring a sign saying "Warning, people smoke in this here place" for the slow ones of society. Of course there's no smoking in a public court house or something, but private businesses are private.

It seems quite illogical, smoking not allowed in, say, a business that sells a product that damages the liver over time, because it'd be unhealthy. If the government wants people to be healthy then it should focus on proper education, and then the people can know what is healthy and choose for themselves.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

That's the short version. The longer versions (plus citations) can be found here:
Cancer.gov

CDC

Those two sources cite the EPA's study, which does have a fair amount of selection bias and poorly-credited study results.
For example, the studies cited from the EPA shows that 12.5 out of 1,000,000 people exposed to second-hand smoking (at a 1:80,000 margin cited in the paper) in contrast to 10 out of 1,000,000 people that weren't exposed to second-hand smoking (at a 1:100,000 margin in the paper) died of lung cancer.

It's a barely-significant rise that, out of 1,000,000 deaths only 12.5 of those can be linked to Lung Cancer, as opposed to 10 of those who are just naturally-occurring lung cancer.

But that was the EPA study. After further looking through what was brought up to teller in the video, and a separate source from that, that though the EPA basically bunked their studies initially that there are significant reasons to link Second-Hand Smoking to Lung Cancer.

======================

Quite alright.

Now, why should it be banned in privately-owned businesses?
I enjoy the policy they have in most places in Alabama regarding it - it's either all-smoking allowed, or non-smoking allowed. If it's not explicitly non-smoking, it's implied that it is smoking-friendly. The exceptions are blunt in some areas, leaving provision for State Buildings, Local Government Buildings, and Public Grade-Schools (but even then, it's clearly posted).

The reasoning behind this is that, if you absolutely despise the act of people smoking in the restaurant/business/etc. then you treat it like you would any other business practice that you don't enjoy and, well, go somewhere else or not use that place. Just like if someone at a restaurant did something you didn't agree with in any other situation.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

That's the short version. The longer versions (plus citations) can be found here:
Cancer.gov

CDC

Those two sources cite the EPA's study, which does have a fair amount of selection bias and poorly-credited study results.
For example, the studies cited from the EPA shows that 12.5 out of 1,000,000 people exposed to second-hand smoking (at a 1:80,000 margin cited in the paper) in contrast to 10 out of 1,000,000 people that weren't exposed to second-hand smoking (at a 1:100,000 margin in the paper) died of lung cancer.

It's a barely-significant rise that, out of 1,000,000 deaths only 12.5 of those can be linked to Lung Cancer, as opposed to 10 of those who are just naturally-occurring lung cancer.

But that was the EPA study. After further looking through what was brought up to teller in the video, and a separate source from that, that though the EPA basically bunked their studies initially that there are significant reasons to link Second-Hand Smoking to Lung Cancer.

======================

Quite alright.

Now, why should it be banned in privately-owned businesses?
I enjoy the policy they have in most places in Alabama regarding it - it's either all-smoking allowed, or non-smoking allowed. If it's not explicitly non-smoking, it's implied that it is smoking-friendly. The exceptions are blunt in some areas, leaving provision for State Buildings, Local Government Buildings, and Public Grade-Schools (but even then, it's clearly posted).

The reasoning behind this is that, if you absolutely despise the act of people smoking in the restaurant/business/etc. then you treat it like you would any other business practice that you don't enjoy and, well, go somewhere else or not use that place. Just like if someone at a restaurant did something you didn't agree with in any other situation.

People have the right to work in places that are smoke free. It is not always possible to work somewhere else because where you work might be the only one in the area. If you don't like being in a smoky area, going somewhere else is not an option. The discomfort of not smoking at work is a lot smaller than the discomfort of people smoking at work. People have the right to a clean work environment so smoking should really be banned at work.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

People have a right to be made aware of unsafe working conditions before they decide whether to take the job or not. People also have a right to not go into a building with smoke in it if they don't want to. Also take note that most businesses maintained segregated areas for smoking and non smoking. Also, boo hoo.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

Your smoking smells really fucking terrible. Don't smoke near or around me, because you smell like fucking shit. Take your wretched odor someplace else other than the restaurant/bar where I'm trying to enjoy a filth-free environment.

It is sort of like the global warming thing, where even if you dismiss the climate change you still can't make a case that all the pollution is at all acceptable. In the same way, even if you reject the health risks of second-hand smoke, you can't make a case that someone who reeks as bad as you do should be allowed to spread his stink onto other people. To paraphrase a famous quotation: "Your right to produce noxious chemical clouds end just where the other man's nose begins."

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

Your stripping looks really fucking terrible. Don't strip near or around me, because you look like fucking shit. Take your wretched stripping someplace else other than the restaurant/bar where I'm trying to enjoy a filth-free environment.

With some edits to make a point, in green


And hence we have strip bars/restaurants and non strip bars/restaurants.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

Your stripping looks really fucking terrible. Don't strip near or around me, because you look like fucking shit. Take your wretched stripping someplace else other than the restaurant/bar where I'm trying to enjoy a filth-free environment.

With some edits to make a point, in green


And hence we have strip bars/restaurants and non strip bars/restaurants.

Stripping, or loud music, but smoking is worse because the smell follows you home. I can avert my eyes and not watch you jiggle your seven chins at me while you bounce your belly off your knees, but I sort of have to keep breathing.

 

[bluejatheist]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

Stripping, or loud music, but smoking is worse because the smell follows you home. I can avert my eyes and not watch you jiggle your seven chins at me while you bounce your belly off your knees, but I sort of have to keep breathing.

Fair enough
I imagine it depends on the strip bar, whether a smell follows you home or not.

Health risk aside, the smell is fine for some and unbearable for others. Should we not allow cheese shops to put their cheese out because it reeks for some people?

If the owner of a venue decides that they're fine with smoking and there's a sign that says so, it's your own fault for going there.

If it's a venue with the opposite scenario, then indeed, screw the smoker for being out of line.

And if there's a venue where there's a separate room for smokers that is well ventilated, what's the problem?

 

[Inferno]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

I'm about to fall asleep, had a rough day and I'm not in the mood for writing lengthy posts defending any position. Just throwing this out there, especially in the general direction of Hytegia:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

Fair enough
I imagine it depends on the strip bar, whether a smell follows you home or not.

Health risk aside, the smell is fine for some and unbearable for others. Should we not allow cheese shops to put their cheese out because it reeks for some people?

If the owner of a venue decides that they're fine with smoking and there's a sign that says so, it's your own fault for going there.

If it's a venue with the opposite scenario, then indeed, screw the smoker for being out of line.

And if there's a venue where there's a separate room for smokers that is well ventilated, what's the problem?

If there's a truly separate section, especially if it is an outside section, I really don't care.

As far as the rest, my feeling is that smoking is an optional thing done in addition to whatever else the place is for, and therefore has a secondary position of importance, which invalidates the cheese shop analogy, or any other analogy that compares the primary purpose of a place to a secondary activity that might or might not happen. Restaurants are for eating and enjoying themselves, and someone not smoking a cigarette at the table doesn't prevent them from eating their food or enjoying themselves. If they need to smoke so many cigarettes that it interferes with their good time, tough shit. I don't consider an alcoholic's withdrawal to be sufficiently my problem that they should be allowed to get shitfaced at the library.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

If they need to smoke so many cigarettes that it interferes with their good time, tough shit. I don't consider an alcoholic's withdrawal to be sufficiently my problem that they should be allowed to get shitfaced at the library.

I don't recall the last time I thought "social venue to go out with friends and hang out" and then my next idea was "the library!"

And someone who can't distinguish the difference between something that just smells off and a toxin that impairs immediate bodily functions and decision making is either bullshitting, or just plain idiotic. And libraries are public property - it's well enough a crime to be impaired in such manners in a public venue over a private one... Like a business.
Which is the point of the thread.

If you go to a restaurant and don't like what they serve nor the conditions there, what do you do?
Go somewhere else.

"I DON'T LIKE SMOKERS"

That's jolly good. Go eat at Filly's Burger Shack instead of Big Kahuna Burger.
Businesses should have the right to treat their property well with legal substances.

Take a bar, for example: The can serve alcoholic beverages if you're over 21 - and you can't tell me that someone going to a bar should have any right to complain about people drinking alcohol and getting drunk when it is well in your right to leave the establishment.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

The discussion about smoking and second-hand smoke is, well, bullshit.

Why?

Because one side is talking about the "liberty to do what you want" and the other side is mostly talking about how "it's bad for you!"

Fuck all that crap.

We in society do not have the liberty to do whatever we want, so the smoking side can just shut the hell up about that.

And the other side has to shut up about acting concerned about the health of the smoker.

The fact is that smoking been "invented" today, that crap would have been banned 70 ways till Sunday.

The only reason it's not is because, well, too many people do it (have done it) already, and there are large corporate (and then by extention, societal - a lot of people would lose jobs and shit) interests at stake.
And well, a lot of people are addicted as hell, so banning it would be impractical, counterproductive and well, stupid.

So, it's both politics and science. The politics says it can't be banned outright right now. The science is in, saying that it's all bad.

What will happen is that society will slowly move away from it, slowly imposing more bans, and more people will quit, and more people will frown upon it. That's how things like this are done, and SHOULD be done, because going cold turkey on something like this wouldn't work.

But yeah, that shit smells like fucking decrepit toe-nails on fire, so get it out of my face. And yeah, smoking will clog up the health system and cost us all a lot of money, so it would be really cool if everyone stopped like right away.

Seriously, though. The smell. The immense stench. You smokers have no fucking clue. As ex-smokers, once they've had their olfactory sense restored. The fact that it slightly increases my risk of getting cancer on top of it is just a bonus slap to my face.


Edit: Oh, and the thing about allowing businesses to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking. Yeah, it doesn't work, and the libertarians can shove this one up their smoking pipes. It just doesn't work, and if you can't find any reasons why, then you're too fucking attached to your lovely little economic ideology.
And before you start asking for evidence or papers to back up my claim, then let me refer you to fucking reality, which has had many years in many countries to try this one out - which is a lot more than can be said about the usually-really-idiotic solutions suggested to various societal problems by libertarians.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

What that episode of Bullshit really highlight is the difference in culture of Europe and USA. In the episode, smokers cry about infringement of freedom. I remember a new bit on the smoking ban which was going to be implemented in the UK and people said that this would be a good reason to quit.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

The discussion about [drinking liquor] is, well, bullshit.

Why?

Because one side is talking about the "liberty to do what you want" and the other side is mostly talking about how "it's bad for you!"

Fuck all that crap.

We in society do not have the liberty to do whatever we want, so the [side that decides to drink alcohol] can just shut the hell up about that.

And the other side has to shut up about acting concerned about the health of the [person consuming liquor].

The fact is that [drinking liquor] been "invented" today, that crap would have been banned 70 ways till Sunday.

The only reason it's not is because, well, too many people do it (have done it) already, and there are large corporate (and then by extention, societal - a lot of people would lose jobs and shit) interests at stake.
And well, a lot of people are addicted as hell, so banning it would be impractical, counterproductive and well, stupid.

So, it's both politics and science. The politics says it can't be banned outright right now [for human consumption]. The science is in, saying that it's all bad.

What will happen is that society will slowly move away from it, slowly imposing more bans, and more people will quit, and more people will frown upon it. That's how things like this are done, and SHOULD be done, because going cold turkey on something like this wouldn't work.

But yeah, that shit smells like [I could light your breath on fire], so get it out of my face. And yeah, [drinking liquor] will clog up the health system and cost us all a lot of money, so it would be really cool if everyone stopped like right away.

Seriously, though. The smell. The immense stench. You [drinkers] have no fucking clue. As [non-drinkers], once they've had their olfactory sense restored. The fact that it slightly increases my risk of getting [punched in the face with a belligerent alcoholic isn't helping either].


Edit: Oh, and the thing about allowing businesses to decide for themselves whether or not to allow [drinking]. Yeah, it doesn't work, and the libertarians can [pour that one in their shot-glasses]. It just doesn't work, and if you can't find any reasons why, then you're too fucking attached to your lovely little economic ideology.
And before you start asking for evidence or papers to back up my claim, then let me refer you to fucking reality, which has had many years in many countries to try this one out - which is a lot more than can be said about the usually-really-idiotic solutions suggested to various societal problems by libertarians.

>Edited for context.
See: Prohibition

Yes.
Banning or limiting drugs in any form or fashion, even when used to ween the populace, works wonders with absolutely no detriments to society at large over the act of simply educating people about the risks of such substances and leaving the decisions open for themselves.
You are a damned fine historian, sir.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

The discussion about smoking and second-hand smoke is, well, bullshit.

Why?

Because one side is talking about the "liberty to do what you want" and the other side is mostly talking about how "it's bad for you!"

Fuck all that crap.

We in society do not have the liberty to do whatever we want, so the smoking side can just shut the hell up about that.

And the other side has to shut up about acting concerned about the health of the smoker.

The fact is that smoking been "invented" today, that crap would have been banned 70 ways till Sunday.

The only reason it's not is because, well, too many people do it (have done it) already, and there are large corporate (and then by extention, societal - a lot of people would lose jobs and shit) interests at stake.
And well, a lot of people are addicted as hell, so banning it would be impractical, counterproductive and well, stupid.

So, it's both politics and science. The politics says it can't be banned outright right now. The science is in, saying that it's all bad.

What will happen is that society will slowly move away from it, slowly imposing more bans, and more people will quit, and more people will frown upon it. That's how things like this are done, and SHOULD be done, because going cold turkey on something like this wouldn't work.

But yeah, that shit smells like fucking decrepit toe-nails on fire, so get it out of my face. And yeah, smoking will clog up the health system and cost us all a lot of money, so it would be really cool if everyone stopped like right away.

Seriously, though. The smell. The immense stench. You smokers have no fucking clue. As ex-smokers, once they've had their olfactory sense restored. The fact that it slightly increases my risk of getting cancer on top of it is just a bonus slap to my face.


Edit: Oh, and the thing about allowing businesses to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking. Yeah, it doesn't work, and the libertarians can shove this one up their smoking pipes. It just doesn't work, and if you can't find any reasons why, then you're too fucking attached to your lovely little economic ideology.
And before you start asking for evidence or papers to back up my claim, then let me refer you to fucking reality, which has had many years in many countries to try this one out - which is a lot more than can be said about the usually-really-idiotic solutions suggested to various societal problems by libertarians.

Highlighted this for you Hytegia because that is the important part. Prohibition in the US was cold turkey so it failed. If we slowly stopped people from smoking, we might kick the habit entirely.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

I don't recall the last time I thought "social venue to go out with friends and hang out" and then my next idea was "the library!"

Public smoke-free place where you're not welcome.

And someone who can't distinguish the difference between something that just smells off and a toxin that impairs immediate bodily functions and decision making is either bullshitting, or just plain idiotic. And libraries are public property - it's well enough a crime to be impaired in such manners in a public venue over a private one... Like a business.
Which is the point of the thread.

You smell so bad your brain has stopped working. Take three showers and try again.

If you go to a restaurant and don't like what they serve nor the conditions there, what do you do?
Go somewhere else.

Or complain that one of their customers has shit their own pants, pissed themselves, or smokes... because all three are really the same thing.

"I DON'T LIKE SMOKERS"

No, I don't like inconsiderate assholes. Smokers who don't insist on smoking where I have to smell them are just fine by me. I used to smoke. I probably started smoking when you were still shitting yourself. I always smoked outside when someone asked me to, and didn't force my smoking on other people because I wasn't a giant asshole.

That's jolly good. Go eat at Filly's Burger Shack instead of Big Kahuna Burger.
Businesses should have the right to treat their property well with legal substances.

Take a bar, for example: The can serve alcoholic beverages if you're over 21 - and you can't tell me that someone going to a bar should have any right to complain about people drinking alcohol and getting drunk when it is well in your right to leave the establishment.

Rotting salmon are legal. Someone should start carrying rotten salmon in backpacks and following you around whenever go out to eat and drink, so you can see how your childish, immature behavior affects everyone else. You should suck down the stench of decomposing seafood everywhere you go, so you might understand how fucking stupid your calls for "freedom" really are. Hey, salmon is legal, right??

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Second-Hand Smoking and Public Health - Politics or Scie

)O( Hytegia )O(,

I know this is hard for you, because you're Pig Pen from the Snoopy comic strip. Get over it. We all feel sorry for you because you walk in a cloud of your own filth, but you should clean yourself up rather than claim that being a filthy bastard is a right and a privilege.

Stop smoking and scrub your nasty ass down! :lol: