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

[televator]

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

Funny thing about nicotine dependency... suddenly everyone is a libertarian when the daily time frame in order for them to get their fix is reduced for good reasons. I'm not sure if that says more about libertarians or substance addicts...

Glad I don't smoke.

I'd also like to second the point about the smell. Seriously, you guys smell like a walking corpse. It's REALLY bad. It's been so bad for me that I've actually wanted to vomit after merely walking by some smokers at work. I'm not exaggerating.

 

[Gnug215]

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.

And you're a damned fine reader.

Seriously, way to pull out the massive sarcasm and make yourself look like a total fool when I on TWO occasions (as highlighted - Duvel already did one of them, and thanks for that.) made clear that outright banning wouldn't work, and that what society is already doing, which IS to eduacate while also dissuaiding in various ways, and also slowly limiting through incremental bans. This method HAS worked wonders as the number of smokers has dropped massively in recent years, at least here - with no apparent detrimental effects.

God, why do you smoking proponents always whip out the prohibition as if it's the exact same situation? AND as if everyone else doesn't know history.

So yeah, thanks. Thanks for misreading and misunderstanding my post on a central point, and then jumping on that and ONLY that. Complete with a juvenile picture, as if your point wasn't crystal clear already.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

Oh wow. Ad hominems. You must have something legitimate to say <3.

But, taken in part, I have only met 3-4 people in my life who absolutely cannot stand the stench of smoking. And I've met a good number of people from all over the world, so I take that into remark.
It may have something to do with common courtesy. I absolutely despise the overwhelming drenched stench of Axe Body Spray, but I'm not such an iridescent cunt to make the notion:
"Wow. This smell is overwhelmingly annoying and giving me a headache. Fuck this guy. We should ban all people from using Spray-on-Deodorant, and this wicked stench would go away. Everyone would benefit from this."

It's usually:
"Well, it's not like the man shit his pants and I know for a fact that I'll get used to it in, like, 7-9 minutes anyways. If I'm not talking to him still by then, I can suck it up for that long."

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

My counter to this would be something non-addictive that is smoked regularly despite being outlawed - and there is no possible way that the majority of those smoking it were around to be exposed to it in any positive light legally, or health-wise, in any form or fashion.
What's that? Weed? Nobody does that anymore!
:roll:

Perhaps this is, indeed, just a cultural thing or a personal preference. Which is why people would be a select and very vocal handful getting their panties in a knot over it.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

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

. I absolutely despise the overwhelming drenched stench of Axe Body Spray, but I'm not such an iridescent cunt to make the notion:
"Wow. This smell is overwhelmingly annoying and giving me a headache. Fuck this guy. We should ban all people from using Spray-on-Deodorant, and this wicked stench would go away. Everyone would benefit from this."

Except that Axe hasn't been linked to detrimental health effects.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

Except that Axe hasn't been linked to detrimental health effects.

It can offset major allergic reactions in people - that seems pretty detrimental to me. And in the short-term.
And Aerosol-based delivery systems have a good number of possible negative health side effects if you're not.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

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

Except that Axe hasn't been linked to detrimental health effects.

It can offset major allergic reactions in people - that seems pretty detrimental to me. And in the short-term.
And Aerosol-based delivery systems have a good number of possible negative health side effects if you're not.

I have yet to hear of people getting severe allergic reaction to other peoples deodorants. The article suggests that these health effects seem to come when you spray it on you. I take it that it is not normal in the US to randomly spray deodorant while at a restaurant. These health effects do not seem to apply to someone who is not in the vicinity when the deo is being applied. And I find the lack of sources disturbing. Why would you note site your sources. There is a comment denouncing the article as unreliable because they got some facts wrong. Are you just giving sources which supports your viewpoint instead of accurate sources?

I gave you a video where Penn and Teller admit that they second hand smoke danger was understated in the article because some reliable evidence was presented of the danger of second hand smoke after the episode was released. I have yet to hear you concede the fact that second hand smoke is indeed dangerous to others. Do you still believe that that second hand smoke is safe or not?

 

[bluejatheist]

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

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

Well then we seem to agree well enough, my idea of the best possible solution would be a scenario where there are separate places, rather than all or nothing. Outside of this I don't have anything to argue against you on.

Also I know that cheese shop example was silly and doesn't work for this.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

I have yet to hear you concede the fact that second hand smoke is indeed dangerous to others. Do you still believe that that second hand smoke is safe or not?

I haven't seen the studies myself and am only familiar with the EPA and the WHO's studies. I only pushed Penn and Teller's video initially because it did a well enough job about laying out a review of the two studies used by Cancer.org and the CDC - the same studies still being used today for some reason, though it's quite obvious that the numbers and findings in the EPA's studies were inflated and insignificant in comparison to non-secondhand-smoke exposure per 1,000,000 deaths. It was linked because, well, it was a debunking.
And the WHO's studies specifically stated that there was no conformable link between childhood exposure and an increased risk, and that adult exposure's elevation was only a small percent above standard deaths from lung cancer annually.

If I could be linked to the UK's study for review, as was spoken about in the video, I would like to take time and read it over.

As for right now, though, I had a teacher who had a student thrown out of her class because he violated her "no spray-on deodorant" rule, because she was highly prone to allergic reactions from it.

 

[Laurens]

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

I smoke socially on the odd occasion, and it doesn't bother me that I have to go outside. Regardless of whether or not second hand smoke is bad for people, its not very pleasant to be around cigarette smoke if you're a non-smoker, it stinks... I think it's fair enough that you're not allowed to smoke in public buildings for that reason alone.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

I smoke socially on the odd occasion, and it doesn't bother me that I have to go outside. Regardless of whether or not second hand smoke is bad for people, its not very pleasant to be around cigarette smoke if you're a non-smoker, it stinks... I think it's fair enough that you're not allowed to smoke in public buildings for that reason alone.

I don't mind not being able to smoke in public buildings - things that are used by the general public for official reasons that, most of the time, are not by choice.
Ex. Court House, DMV, Schools, Libraries (fire hazard as well on that one)

But for a privately-own, privately-run business where people can choose their venue - say "I like this restaurant - I can smoke there. I like this one, it has booze. I like this one, because the waitresses are topless. I like this one because it's inside an arcade."
If you don't appreciate and accept the ideas (and risks associated with) being around people who smoke, drink, and strip-joints then you really should just not go there. It's not like there's no other venues to eat at.

 

[Laurens]

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

I smoke socially on the odd occasion, and it doesn't bother me that I have to go outside. Regardless of whether or not second hand smoke is bad for people, its not very pleasant to be around cigarette smoke if you're a non-smoker, it stinks... I think it's fair enough that you're not allowed to smoke in public buildings for that reason alone.

I don't mind not being able to smoke in public buildings - things that are used by the general public for official reasons that, most of the time, are not by choice.
Ex. Court House, DMV, Schools, Libraries (fire hazard as well on that one)

But for a privately-own, privately-run business where people can choose their venue - say "I like this restaurant - I can smoke there. I like this one, it has booze. I like this one, because the waitresses are topless. I like this one because it's inside an arcade."
If you don't appreciate and accept the ideas (and risks associated with) being around people who smoke, drink, and strip-joints then you really should just not go there. It's not like there's no other venues to eat at.

What about in the workplace though.

Say you have a job in a company where the majority of the employees are smokers, yet a minority are non-smokers. They might be forced to put up with having smoke around them all day, and they're say in the matter would most likely be undermined by the majority. In this instance its not such a simple case of 'going somewhere else' because finding a new job isn't as simple as going to a different bar or restaurant.

Should the rights of those people be undermined, just because the bulk of the employees want to smoke at work?

EDIT:

Also what is the difference between a non-smoker saying "well you should just go outside to smoke" and you saying to a non-smoker "you should just go somewhere else if you don't want smoke in your face"?

 

[australopithecus]

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

Are we really having a discussion about whether being around carcinogenic smoke is bad for you or not?

Really?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

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

Are we really having a discussion about whether being around carcinogenic smoke is bad for you or not?

Yes.

Really?

Apparently so.

 

[Inferno]

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

I haven't seen the studies myself and am only familiar with the EPA and the WHO's studies.

That's funny, because in my second post I posted C0nc0rdance's video, in which he specifically mentions studies OTHER than those.

For example: SECONDHAND SMOKE EXPOSURE IN ADULTHOOD AND RISK OF LUNG CANCER AMONG NEVER SMOKERS: A POOLED ANALYSIS OF TWO LARGE STUDIES

Ah, but you might argue that this is from the International Union Against Cancer. Very well.

Here's another one: LUNG CANCER IN NEVER SMOKERS: CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS

Again, you might argue it's biased because it's from the American Association for Cancer Research. Well tough.

So there we have it, sufficient evidence that second hand smoking is very fucking bad indeed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, next topic: Should it be banned and if yes, where and how?

Yes, it should be banned. We don't allow people to drive drunk because they can harm other people. We don't allow people to operate heavy machinery while under the influence because they can harm other people. You might notice a trend here.

Why shouldn't we allow smoking, at least in certain areas? Because it harms other people.

Now, where should we ban it? Obviously not in smoking clubs or dedicated shisha bars or in your home or in specified smoking areas. That's either stupid or infringing on personal rights.
However, there are a few reasons why we should have smoking bans and they can inform on the locations as well. The list, in no particular order:

1. Fire protection

• Stopping pollution and littering

• Safety in traffic

• Protection of minors

• Protection from second-hand smoking

The first one is fairly clear: Absolute ban on smoking in areas that might pose a fire hazard.
Number three is clear: No smoking in cars, just as there's no mobile or hand-held microphones in cars. At least in Europe.
Number four is clear: No smoking in areas where children congregate in great numbers. Schools, kindergartens, playgrounds, etc. For example, the decree for the utilization of green spaces in Vienna states in paragraph 10: "Auf Kinderspielplätzen ist das Rauchen verboten." or "Smoking is prohibited on playgrounds."

Number two and number five aren't as clear, but I think one can argue thusly:
Smoking should be banned in places of cultural or historical value (castles, galleries, statues, monuments, etc.) as well as in places that should be kept clean.

Number five should be about the protection of people at work (no smoking in bars or restaurants specifically, and no smoking in the work-place, except if outdoors, generally).

And there we have it, really: No smoking in the work-place, not because of customers, but mainly because of the people who work there. It's a safety hazard.

And how? Well, I don't know a lot about law, so I'd say let's orientate on the Irish non-smoking law.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

I haven't seen the studies myself and am only familiar with the EPA and the WHO's studies.

That's funny, because in my second post I posted C0nc0rdance's video, in which he specifically mentions studies OTHER than those.

For example: SECONDHAND SMOKE EXPOSURE IN ADULTHOOD AND RISK OF LUNG CANCER AMONG NEVER SMOKERS: A POOLED ANALYSIS OF TWO LARGE STUDIES

Ah, but you might argue that this is from the International Union Against Cancer. Very well.

Here's another one: LUNG CANCER IN NEVER SMOKERS: CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS

Again, you might argue it's biased because it's from the American Association for Cancer Research. Well tough.

So there we have it, sufficient evidence that second hand smoking is very fucking bad indeed.

Quit acting as if I was giving those studies shit because the EPA and the WHO put them out, and not complete bunk in the numbers they presented, methods they used, and rallying up the percentages for their own gain.
If my odds are only I'll be one of 12.5out of every 1,000,000 deaths as opposed to not-secondhand-smoking being a meager 10 out of every 1,000,000 deaths as those studies thumped out... Is, well, garbage.
That means that the study suggested that 0.0000125 being 0.00001 is somehow an astoundingly horrific rise over your average non-secondhand-smoking group.
And the WHO's initial study said that as well.

I wasn't dicking it around because of the names of the sources. I was dicking it around because of bad science.

OK, next topic: Should it be banned and if yes, where and how?

Yes, it should be banned. We don't allow people to drive drunk because they can harm other people. We don't allow people to operate heavy machinery while under the influence because they can harm other people. You might notice a trend here.

*cough*
If you're on private property, you can do whatever you damned well please involving alcohol and driving - given that the owner is on the premises. [Sauce]
Aside from the fact that the numbers are significantly larger for Drinking and Driving incidents and deaths as the result of not being fully in control of one's motor functions and reactive time as opposed to, say, "man this stinks and I have a slight chance in the future from getting Lung Cancer if I breath this shit every day."

Treating Secondhand Smoke like Drinking and Driving is like treating someone making a racist remark to Hitler and the Holocaust - two instances that are totally disproportional in standards of harm done to others, effects on the human body, and how it affects those around us.

Why shouldn't we allow smoking, at least in certain areas? Because it harms other people.

*cough*
Public structures like Court Houses, DMVs, Libraries, Schools, and so on - where the people do not have any choice in the matter if they have to use it or not. But certainly not diners, bars, and other facilities owned privately and are widespread as far as the eye can see. Now please, tell me that if you hate a diner or bar for anything else shitty about it's service and atmosphere that you would have significant problems with going somewhere else.

The first one is fairly clear: Absolute ban on smoking in areas that might pose a fire hazard.

Libraries and Schools. And for the rest, smoking is banned simply because of a safety hazard for the company, and it already has extra outlined laws for gas-based containment and other applicable chemical substances.

Number three is clear: No smoking in cars, just as there's no mobile or hand-held microphones in cars. At least in Europe.

Any twat who can't light up a stogie with one hand is probably in no place to drive anyways. It's harder to open a bottle of water than it is to light up a cigarette, and I'm sure I've seen plenty more deaths from people fumbling with other things.
It should just be "no distracted driving" - it would be much easier to cover and, well, now the passengers can smoke if they'd like.

Number four is clear: No smoking in areas where children congregate in great numbers. Schools, kindergartens, playgrounds, etc. For example, the decree for the utilization of green spaces in Vienna states in paragraph 10: "Auf Kinderspielplätzen ist das Rauchen verboten." or "Smoking is prohibited on playgrounds."

Public property and around children.
Agreed.
Next.

Number two and number five aren't as clear, but I think one can argue thusly:
Smoking should be banned in places of cultural or historical value (castles, galleries, statues, monuments, etc.) as well as in places that should be kept clean.

Public Property.
Agreed.
Next.

Number five should be about the protection of people at work (no smoking in bars or restaurants specifically, and no smoking in the work-place, except if outdoors, generally).

And there we have it, really: No smoking in the work-place, not because of customers, but mainly because of the people who work there. It's a safety hazard.

Here's my absolute and only problem with this.
Anyone on the planet at any time can say:
"Oh no. I hate working at Taco Hell. Fuck this."
*quit*
And then go apply at any other diner or restaurant out there. The same for bar waiters and waitresses. It's definitely not a trade covered under "skilled labor" by any means or stretch of the word.
In any other place or position, I would absolutely 100% agree with you - businesses, malls, corporations, and so on - but pool halls? Casinos (iffy on this part - plenty of shit goes into casinos that could be considered significantly skilled labor)? Bars? Diners? Strip Clubs?
These are places that there are, arguably, plenty of and that I could throw a stone in any direction from the stoop of one and break the window on another?

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

What about in the workplace though.

Say you have a job in a company where the majority of the employees are smokers, yet a minority are non-smokers. They might be forced to put up with having smoke around them all day, and they're say in the matter would most likely be undermined by the majority. In this instance its not such a simple case of 'going somewhere else' because finding a new job isn't as simple as going to a different bar or restaurant.

Should the rights of those people be undermined, just because the bulk of the employees want to smoke at work?

I'd say that keeping other employees from smoking inside is quite alright - or at least place a separate smoke room for them to enjoy when they need a smoke break.

Also what is the difference between a non-smoker saying "well you should just go outside to smoke" and you saying to a non-smoker "you should just go somewhere else if you don't want smoke in your face"?

The ability of the owner of the establishment to place policy on his own property regarding the venue catered to. Like Bars or Strip Joints.

 

[Laurens]

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

What about in the workplace though.

Say you have a job in a company where the majority of the employees are smokers, yet a minority are non-smokers. They might be forced to put up with having smoke around them all day, and they're say in the matter would most likely be undermined by the majority. In this instance its not such a simple case of 'going somewhere else' because finding a new job isn't as simple as going to a different bar or restaurant.

Should the rights of those people be undermined, just because the bulk of the employees want to smoke at work?

I'd say that keeping other employees from smoking inside is quite alright - or at least place a separate smoke room for them to enjoy when they need a smoke break.

Also what is the difference between a non-smoker saying "well you should just go outside to smoke" and you saying to a non-smoker "you should just go somewhere else if you don't want smoke in your face"?

The ability of the owner of the establishment to place policy on his own property regarding the venue catered to. Like Bars or Strip Joints.

I guess the difference between places choosing to serve alcohol, or have naked ladies prancing around is that neither of these things are harmful to those who do not wish to partake. As others have demonstrated, cigarette smoke is harmful to people who aren't directly smoking themselves.

I'm all for freedom and liberty, however, I think there is a line to be drawn when your freedoms can cause harm to others. For that reason I don't mind having to take a short walk away from the bar to stand outside for a little while if I fancy a cigarette - I don't feel like my personal liberties have been crushed by having to do so.

I mean before the smoking ban in this country, all the bars I came across allowed people to smoke - so there is a very real chance that without the legislation, non-smokers would be left with nowhere to go. You might say "well they can just stay home if they don't like it", but who's to say that your liberty to smoke in a bar trumps the liberty of non-smokers to be able to go somewhere and not come home stinking like an ashtray. I think its a fair compromise to have to take a few moments outside - you still get to have as many cigarettes as you want, and non-smokers don't have to sit there breathing it in. I don't think there's much of a reason to be outraged. If you don't want to go outside, quit smoking, or stay home and smoke as much as you want...

 

[Inferno]

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

I wasn't dicking it around because of the names of the sources. I was dicking it around because of bad science.

I haven't actually seen any proof that they were bad science, except for P&T and if we're honest, they're not scientifically accurate all the time so we shouldn't trust them.
But never mind, now you have some good science to support the stance.

If you're on private property, you can do whatever you damned well please involving alcohol and driving - given that the owner is on the premises. [Sauce]

American law, couldn't give two fucks about it.
There are laws concerning when and where to wear a hard hat, there should be laws concerning where and when to smoke.

Aside from the fact that the numbers are significantly larger for Drinking and Driving incidents and deaths as the result of not being fully in control of one's motor functions and reactive time as opposed to, say, "man this stinks and I have a slight chance in the future from getting Lung Cancer if I breath this shit every day."

"Slight chance"? There I post two studies, one of them basically a meta-study, and you don't even read them? Here, let me do it for you:

More than 161,000 lung cancer deaths are projected to occur in the U.S. in 2008. Of these, an estimated 10-15% will be caused by factors other than active smoking, corresponding to 16,000-24,000 deaths annually. Thus lung cancer in never smokers would rank among the most common causes of cancer mortality in the U.S. if considered to be a separate category. Slightly more than half of the lung cancers caused by factors other than active smoking occur in never smokers.

Short version: About 86,500 people die of lung cancer caused by second hand smoking. That's not a "slight chance", that's pretty fucking much.

And the other one:

Recent systematic reviews identified an excess risk of lung cancer of the order of 24% in nonsmokers who lived with a smoker, which could not be explained by chance, potential biases or confounding.

The risk of lung cancer from people exposed to second hand smoke in the work place is only slightly smaller.
And even if it weren't to cause death, second hand smoking effects your health negatively, would you agree? Then there's no point in discussing this further, there should be smoking bans in place.

Treating Secondhand Smoke like Drinking and Driving is like treating someone making a racist remark to Hitler and the Holocaust - two instances that are totally disproportional in standards of harm done to others, effects on the human body, and how it affects those around us.

Do you smoke, by any chance? Because you're clearly not thinking rationally about this, the science is contrary to what you claim.

Public structures like Court Houses, DMVs, Libraries, Schools, and so on - where the people do not have any choice in the matter if they have to use it or not. But certainly not diners, bars, and other facilities owned privately and are widespread as far as the eye can see. Now please, tell me that if you hate a diner or bar for anything else shitty about it's service and atmosphere that you would have significant problems with going somewhere else.

You didn't read what I wrote carefully, because later on I go on to say that I don't really care about the customer that much (insignificant exposure at any one place, though it might add up) but rather about the person working there. You... address... that argument later on and so will I.
About your example: Actually, I don't go to diners/restaurants at all where you're allowed to smoke, even though that means I can't go to one of the best steak-places in Vienna, which is a shame cuz I love me some steak. But I do it because I'm disgusted by smoke while I eat. I don't mind it too much when I'm out for drinks, but while I eat? Die, smoker person, die. (And that includes my father.)

Libraries and Schools. And for the rest, smoking is banned simply because of a safety hazard for the company, and it already has extra outlined laws for gas-based containment and other applicable chemical substances.

I was also going for forests and fields that are dry, but yes, technically that's a sample of buildings where it poses a hazard.

Any twat who can't light up a stogie with one hand is probably in no place to drive anyways. It's harder to open a bottle of water than it is to light up a cigarette, and I'm sure I've seen plenty more deaths from people fumbling with other things.
It should just be "no distracted driving" - it would be much easier to cover and, well, now the passengers can smoke if they'd like.

You're right, it should be "no distracted driving". Since that's not what this discussion is about though, I went with "no smoking in a driving car". There are other factors involved, too: Smoke coming in your face and hurting your eyes, hot ashes or sparks landing on the drivers skin... Any number of things can distract you. Is it really so damn difficult to stop for 5min and take a smoking break? You do the same with peeing, you don't just piss in a bucket brought specifically for the occasion. Instead you stop and have a whiz, then step back in and drive on.

Here's my absolute and only problem with this.
Anyone on the planet at any time can say:
"Oh no. I hate working at Taco Hell. Fuck this."
*quit*
And then go apply at any other diner or restaurant out there. The same for bar waiters and waitresses. It's definitely not a trade covered under "skilled labor" by any means or stretch of the word.
In any other place or position, I would absolutely 100% agree with you - businesses, malls, corporations, and so on - but pool halls? Casinos (iffy on this part - plenty of shit goes into casinos that could be considered significantly skilled labor)? Bars? Diners? Strip Clubs?
These are places that there are, arguably, plenty of and that I could throw a stone in any direction from the stoop of one and break the window on another?

A couple of things wrong with this.
First, saying "fuck this" to your job. Do I really need to spell this out? It isn't that easy quitting a job just because your health is at stake, people probably wouldn't quit because of that. (That's because most people are dumb fucks...) If you're working in a bar as a waiter, chances are you're not that skilled a worker. Quitting your job is easy, but getting a new one? There are enough people looking for a job, if you're out you're out.

Second, "skilled labour"? So because they're not "skilled labour", you don't care about their health? Well, I'm an equal opportunity health-giver. They're workers, they should damn well be protected.

The rest is moot, because as I said I don't really care about the customer too much here.
Also, if smoking is banned in all restaurants/bars/etc., or if there is a tiny, uncomfortable smoking place, everybody has the same chance of being happy with a bar/restaurant again. It's good for smokers and non-smokers alike.

BTW, Ireland's Smoking Prohibition Regulation and its Public Health Tobacco Act.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

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

Hytegia, did you watch the video where Penn and Teller said that after the episode came out, studies were released where they told that second hand smoke does cause harm. Or did you ignore this because it does not fit with your opinion?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

Hytegia, did you watch the video where Penn and Teller said that after the episode came out, studies were released where they told that second hand smoke does cause harm. Or did you ignore this because it does not fit with your opinion?

*Facepalm*

I explicitly responded to this already.

I didn't use Penn and Teller as a source moreso than a decent argument and the way they dissected the EPA and WHO's papers. It isn't because I'm taking their expert opinion on health regulations as stage magicians as an authority figure. You don't have to be a doctor to do an excellent critical analysis.

I said that I was looking through the papers cited in that study that was brought up to them - of which I am still running numbers on my own and am reading in parts now that I've found the release. I simply remarked that the EPA and WHO's studies are total and complete bunk and there's no reason they should be used as the cited-source backing on the CDC and other organizations' pages.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

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

Hytegia, did you watch the video where Penn and Teller said that after the episode came out, studies were released where they told that second hand smoke does cause harm. Or did you ignore this because it does not fit with your opinion?

*Facepalm*

I explicitly responded to this already.

I didn't use Penn and Teller as a source moreso than a decent argument and the way they dissected the EPA and WHO's papers. It isn't because I'm taking their expert opinion on health regulations as stage magicians as an authority figure. You don't have to be a doctor to do an excellent critical analysis.

I said that I was looking through the papers cited in that study that was brought up to them - of which I am still running numbers on my own and am reading in parts now that I've found the release. I simply remarked that the EPA and WHO's studies are total and complete bunk and there's no reason they should be used as the cited-source backing on the CDC and other organizations' pages.

Except that new papers were released which did present credible evidence for the dangers of second hand smoke some of which have been posted in this thread. So you can either read those or keep you head up your ass.