Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Just Can't Quit: How far will smoking bans go?
California became the first state to ban smoking in bars a decade ago. Since then, smoking bans have flourished in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, universities—you name it.
Recently, the Bay Area city of Belmont passed a law that targets people who smoke in their own homes.
Smoking is one of the worst things you can do to your body, but how dangerous is second-hand smoke? Are banners saving lives or battering science? Are they progressive champions or plunderers of property rights?
Citing the proliferation of privately enforced bans, reason.tv host Nick Gillespie says, "I actually like smoking bans; I just don't like it when the government does the banning."
Indeed, smoking bans have already set the stage for all sorts of other nanny state policies to save us from ourselves. The nannies have already barged through our front doors. Just how much farther will the banners go?
"Just Can't Quit" was written and produced by Ted Balaker.
For related articles and to embed this video on your own web site, go here.
As a bonus double-feature, click below to see 2002's Talking Butts: A Smoking Documentary, which was made with the help of reason's Paul Feine, Jesse Walker, Jacob Sullum, and Charles Paul Freund. The 25-minute film explores why people smoke and why attempts to regulate and punish smokers have unintended consequences. And it features a cameo by filmmaker John Waters that is absolutely unforgettable.
|11.12.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Aspartyl-phenylalanine-1-methyl ester:
We just want restaurants to be required to have a no smoking
section. Surely that is not unreasonable.
|11.12.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Surely that is not unreasonable.
I don't think it is. And I personally am delighted by the local
ban, even if I don't agree with it on principle.
But... 10 years ago people scoffed at a total restaurant and bar
ban, then car, then home... I think slippery slope arguments for
nanny state rules are entirely appropriate based on this and MADD's
neo-prohibitionism.
Maybe the scoffers should shut up and listen when we warn of the
new wave of food bans.
|11.12.08 @ 11:36AM|#
The thing that bothers me about the second-hand smoking bans is
that they are based on studies with very specific methodologies.
They apply specifically to either working or living in a closed
environment with a smoker for at least eight hours (work day) a
day. This then gets falsely extrapolated to mean that intermittent,
ephermeral exposure is as dangerous as sitting in a smoke filled
room all day.
I'll admit that I haven't kept up with the debate, so if there are
studies on intermittent exposure I haven't seen them. If anyone
else knows about some I would love to be brought up to date. I had
to argue the topic back in the 90's for a pollution resolution in
HS policy debate.
Pantsfan|11.12.08 @ 11:44AM|#
I point out this counter-argument every time I notice a smoking
ban thread:
No amount of second-hand smoke is safe.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html
Paul R|11.12.08 @ 11:51AM|#
The free market should decide smoking, not the goverment. it is simple free market economics. If people do not want to smoke, or be in a place with smoke, they will not patronize a buisness that allows it. that buisness fails and the market has corrected smoking without gov interference. just a simple explanation of how things should work, and how things will naturally play out if the goverment keeps its nanny ass out of our lives
|11.12.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Smoking has become the latest demonic craze. To a lot of people, smoking is TEH ULTIMAT EVUL and being exposed to one particle of smoke can kill you in an hour. It's pure hysteria and stupidity.
Elemenope|11.12.08 @ 11:53AM|#
I apologize for my apoplectic and aggressive
alliteration.
Ah, brutal.
Elemenope|11.12.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Smoking has become the latest demonic craze. To a lot of
people, smoking is TEH ULTIMAT EVUL and being exposed to one
particle of smoke can kill you in an hour. It's pure hysteria and
stupidity.
I've actually had customers refuse to book a room when they
discover that some rooms in the hotel (not even their own!) are
smoking rooms. As if the entire concept of smoking rooms offends
them.
|11.12.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Anyone who tells you that they fully support "choice," but yet
sees nothing wrong with guvmint smoking bans on private property,
is little more a lying or self-deluding cunt.
Feel free to tell them that for me.
|11.12.08 @ 12:01PM|#
I've actually had customers refuse to book a room when they
discover that some rooms in the hotel (not even their own!) are
smoking rooms
It's just one more artificial moral superiority construct.
Non-smokers look down on and feel superior to smokers, as if there
was a moral component to smoking. People sure do love their moral
superiority bullshit.
|11.12.08 @ 12:12PM|#
I banned smoking in my own body after reading "The Easy Way to
Quit Smoking" by Allen Carr. I had close to 15 years in the habit
and had tried all the standard ways to quit, enduring grinding
hours without smogs only to have some stress event to justify
smoking again, never mind being a complete and utter bastard the
first week.
Well, the book worked and I quit without patches, gum or anxiety. I
was not a jerk, nor did I every obsess over the number of hours
since my last smoke. The worst part was dreaming I had smoked -
followed by relief it was a dream.
I camped out a week later with four smokers and drank wine both
nights without smoking and have been quit now a little over 2 1/2
years.
I do not even remotely long for them to this day.
|11.12.08 @ 12:13PM|#
People sure do love their moral superiority
bullshit.
"Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?"
"Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea"
|11.12.08 @ 12:14PM|#
I apologize for my apoplectic and aggressive
alliteration.
Abject apology amiably accepted.
rhywun|11.12.08 @ 12:15PM|#
I point out this counter-argument every time I notice a smoking ban thread
As an example of facts-be-damned, over-the-top hysteria, right?
panfried|11.12.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Speaking of hotels.... I went to Montreal on business with a non smoking co-worker recently. Some how I ended up with a non smoking room right next to my co-worker. I informed the clerk I needed a smoking room. Rather than go through all the BS of switching my room he just handed me an ash tray, viola, instant smoking room... :) Needless to say my co-workers eyes nearly popped out of her head. I didn't smoke in the room, she was allergic to tobacco smoke and our rooms were connected by an interior door. I'm a light smoker so it was no big deal.
ed|11.12.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Nick Gillespie says, "I actually like smoking bans;
I just don't like it when the government does the
banning."
Problem is, most Americans view that approach as a difference
without a distinction. When they perceive something as a "good",
they care not whether compulsion is exercised in achieving it. They
sacrifice free will and freedom itself as a necessary consequence,
a collateral damage.
Pantsfan|11.12.08 @ 12:23PM|#
It may be over-the-top hysteria, but its the only answer you're going to get
Paul|11.12.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Just how much farther will the banners go?
Word, next thing you know, they'll ban smoking marijuana.
Oh wait...
|11.12.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Abject apology amiably accepted
Also accepting ample alliterative assonance as an ameliorative.
rhywun|11.12.08 @ 12:30PM|#
It may be over-the-top hysteria, but its the only answer you're going to get
Well, yes, because it's laying the foundation for eventual
criminalization. The messy truth isn't sufficient.
ChiSailor|11.12.08 @ 12:44PM|#
In passing, I would like to note that health is not the only cost that might be imposed on other people around a smoker. One of my biggest annoyances is having to both shower immediately after leaving a smoking bar and also only being able to wear a shirt, jacket, sweater, etc one time, even for only an hour, if I go to a bar with smoking because of the pervacive odor. having to pay to clean decent shirts or jackets or sweaters isn't cheap, and isn't otherwise necessary after a single use. Spending $5 to clean a dress jacket because some prick wants his nic-fix annoys me. that said, I wholly oppose banning smoking in someone's home. Bill them for damages if they start a fire and burn down the neighbors house in the process, but let them do what they like as long as it doesn't screw with my life.
Abdul|11.12.08 @ 12:48PM|#
$5 to clean a dress jacket because some prick wants his
nic-fix annoys me.
Just go to clothing-optional bars and clubs. Problem solved!
Drew Tatusko|11.12.08 @ 12:48PM|#
I really wish people were not stupid and would stop hurting
themselves. In fact, if you want to continue increasing your risk
of heart disease among numerous other problems by getting fat,
smoking like a chimney, and drinking like a fish, go for it. You
have to make the bed you sleep in.
However, I don't want to have to deal with that crap either. I hate
going to bars that are full of smoke. I can't enjoy my meal as well
when I know my hair is going to make my pillow smell like nicotene
if I don't shower before bed. Smoking is a right that screws up my
own liberty to enjoy life without it. Even a non-smoking section
bothers me and many others. Keep that crap to yourself, don't let
it get in my business.
Smoking, fat people, and alcoholics are a drain on the health care
system both financially and from a basic point of service
perspective. If people would take care of their bodies better, ER's
would be less over crowded, heath care costs to fund the stupid
would go down, and so on.
So do whatever in the privacy of your own home, but don't get in my
business with your short-sighted stupidity for not taking care of
yourself. Yes that sounds harsh, but the data in the health care
business is very clear.
|11.12.08 @ 12:50PM|#
I would like to note that health is not the only cost that
might be imposed on other people around a smoker.
Then, don't be around one.
Seriously.
rhywun|11.12.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Even back in my rabid anti-smoking days (circa 10 to 21 years old), I found it sufficient to hang my clothes outside for a few hours. I guess there are levels of rabidness I was unaware of.
|11.12.08 @ 12:53PM|#
So do whatever in the privacy of your own home, but don't
get in my business with your short-sighted stupidity for not taking
care of yourself.
Or, don't go where there is smoking allowed.
Look for the blue haze. It's a tip-off.
rhywun|11.12.08 @ 12:54PM|#
I hate going to bars that are full of smoke.
So move it outside, where it's even harder to avoid. Unintended
consequences suck, don't they.
Paul|11.12.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Yes that sounds harsh, but the data in the health care
business is very clear.
It's also very clear that eating trans-fats isn't particularly good
for you. What's next, a ban on them?
|11.12.08 @ 12:57PM|#
In passing, I would like to note that health is not the only
cost that might be imposed on other people around a smoker. One of
my biggest annoyances is having to both shower immediately after
leaving a smoking bar and also only being able to wear a shirt,
jacket, sweater, etc one time, even for only an hour, if I go to a
bar with smoking because of the pervacive odor. having to pay to
clean decent shirts or jackets or sweaters isn't cheap, and isn't
otherwise necessary after a single use. Spending $5 to clean a
dress jacket because some prick wants his nic-fix annoys me. that
said, I wholly oppose banning smoking in someone's home. Bill them
for damages if they start a fire and burn down the neighbors house
in the process, but let them do what they like as long as it
doesn't screw with my life.
I used to have a similar problem when I went swimming in septic
tanks. So what I've done is, pay close attention now crybaby,
I've stopped swimming in septic tanks! If it offends you,
take your business elsewhere you self absorbed little cunt.
|11.12.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Smoking, fat people, and alcoholics are a drain on the
health care system both financially and from a basic point of
service perspective.
Good thing that self-righteous asses live in hermetically-sealed
environments and have zero negative externalizations that they
off-load to other people.
Otherwise, they'd be really fucking obnoxious from their mount on
high.
stuartl|11.12.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Rather than go through all the BS of switching my room he
just handed me an ash tray, viola, instant smoking
room...
On a business trip I reserved a non-smoking hotel room, but when I
got there it reeked of smoke. I complained and got no satisfaction.
My company stopped doing business with the hotel. No govt
intervention required.
|11.12.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Uh...does the ban apply to the medical maryjane your supppose to be able to smoke in CA? Cause I need my maryjane for my arthiritis, glaucoma, and constipation.
|11.12.08 @ 1:14PM|#
I hate going to bars that are full of smoke.
You are stupider than I thought possible. I was waiting for the
next sentence about being forced to go to those bars, but it never
came.
|11.12.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"You are stupider than I thought possible."
Amazingly, I don't think you quoted the stupidest part of that
post:
"Smoking is a right that screws up my own liberty to enjoy life
without it."
It's hard to even know where to start with something that
stupid.
|11.12.08 @ 1:55PM|#
The anti-smoking industry has always had an issue reconciling the claim that tobacco use cuts life expectancy by 3?, 5?, 10? years, and then also claiming that "society" has to pick up the heath care costs of smokers. They can't have it both ways,. The only review of actual expenditures that I have seen is from the Dutch. They broadly categorized the population either being "thin and healthy", obese or a smoker. Not surprisingly to me,the thin and heathly cost the state most, follwed by the obese, then smokers. Study here: http://www.data-yard.net/science/cost/medical_cost_obesity.pdf
MMMM|11.12.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Even while the sensible thing to do was quit smoking anyway, for
30+ years, the righteous, indignant, and ignorant each bought into
anti-smoking hysteria and played right into the hands of filthy
lucres who made 100s of millions litigating this bullshit.
Meanwhile, tobacco companies drained their coffers to do what?
Their payouts to state treasuries did what for "the public"
exactly?
Californians especially are schizophrenic. It makes sense to ban
public consumption of coke, angel dust, and LSD, and harder drugs,
but why establish a free-market and public safe havens for the sale
and consumption of marijuana, but then ban tobacco across the
board?
I also enjoy watching libertarians argue against smoking bans but
wonder why they isolate this issue from drug law in general. This
is a fun debate, but you can't get away from death, dying, public
health, and public conduct.
Do you think that, in the best of all worlds, with a free market
for recreational drugs, that laws could be applied as evenly as
they are now for the federal war on drugs? I'd love to think so.
Perhaps Appalacia would turn blue again, if they were allowed to do
what they do best already and turn a tidy profit.
Moreover, while in a perfect world, drug abusers would be free to
kill themselves, why should the rest of us finance their decline?
Why wouldn't a large set of disincentives apply to drug abusers,
such as the loss of health or other benefits conferred at tax payer
expense? That's the problem. Too many addicts are morally inferior
to the "go it alone" libertarians on this blog and less likely to
stay at home and die quietly. They'd seek treatment at the county
hospital, or show up in ER coughing up blood.
For myself, I would prefer spending drug war money on startup costs
for public health care system and then finance it going forward
with profits from a heavily taxed recreational drug industry. We
all die, who cares why.
Christ on a Cracker|11.12.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Nick, buddy, pal. You just don't get it.
If we are not free to ban shit we don't like, then how can any of
us be considered truly "free".
MMMM|11.12.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Al from Alberta provided an argument before I posted. I'll follow that link and read up.
|11.12.08 @ 2:16PM|#
The only review of actual expenditures that I have seen is
from the Dutch.
Back in the tobacco litigation days, Big Tobacco studied the same
thing. They found that non-smokers cost the state more, on net,
than smokers. Longer lives = more Social Security checks. Also,
when you die from tobacco related illness, you tend to die
relatively fast and cheap.
|11.12.08 @ 2:18PM|#
I also enjoy watching libertarians argue against smoking
bans but wonder why they isolate this issue from drug law in
general.
New around here, MMMM?
Moreover, while in a perfect world, drug abusers would be free
to kill themselves, why should the rest of us finance their
decline?
We shouldn't. That's why the assumption of health care costs by the
public treasury is an abomination - it gives the state the right to
regulate choices you make that don't harm anyone else.
Mr. Average|11.12.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Smoking Bans apprently DO increase public health
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/12/smoking_ban_tied_to_a_gain_in_lives?mode=PF
Smoking ban tied to a gain in lives
Fatal heart attacks drop in Massachusetts
(excerpt)
Nearly 600 fewer Massachusetts residents have died from heart
attacks each year since legislators banned smoking in virtually all
restaurants, bars, and other workplaces four years ago, according
to a report to be released today that provides some of the
strongest evidence yet that such laws save lives.
The study, conducted by the state Department of Public Health and
the Harvard School of Public Health, shows that a steep decline in
heart attack deaths started as Boston and most of its neighbors
adopted bans. Enforcement of the statewide law beginning in
mid-2004 coincided with a further reduction, the study found. From
2003 to 2006, heart attack deaths in Massachusetts plummeted 30
percent, significantly accelerating what had been a more modest
long-term decline.
The report, obtained in advance by the Globe, found that the number
of heart attacks began dropping in communities with strong
antismoking laws years before the 2004 statewide law and that
similar reductions were achieved in other cities and towns only
after the state ban. By the end of 2006, the rate of decline in all
cities and towns had nearly converged. The authors said this
pattern showed that advances in treatment of heart attacks were not
responsible for the smaller number of deaths.
"This is the strongest study yet done of the effect of smoking bans
on heart attacks," said Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University
School of Public Health specialist in tobacco control who has been
a critic of some antismoking laws and of previous research
conducted by the state and Harvard. "You can no longer argue that
these declines would have occurred simply due to medical
treatment."
Zeb|11.12.08 @ 2:59PM|#
To all of the people who think you have a right not to be
exposed to smoke:
You do have just such a right! And you can exercise that right any
time you want to by avoiding places where people are smoking.
Paul|11.12.08 @ 4:21PM|#
On a business trip I reserved a non-smoking hotel room, but
when I got there it reeked of smoke.
That was probably the cigarette in your mouth.
Paul|11.12.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Uh...does the ban apply to the medical maryjane your
supppose to be able to smoke in CA?
Your smoking offends me. So it is banned.
Daniel Reeves|11.12.08 @ 6:41PM|#
Nearly 600 fewer Massachusetts residents have died from heart attacks each year since legislators banned smoking in virtually all restaurants, bars, and other workplaces four years ago, according to a report to be released today that provides some of the strongest evidence yet that such laws save lives.
I seriously doubt that four measly years of no smoking in public
places has made that significant a difference. It's a government
study, so it possibly fudges previous ongoing trends and fails to
control for any other variables, all to make a bullshit and untrue
point.
Daniel Reeves|11.12.08 @ 6:44PM|#
I'd also like to add that I'll only believe that such a ban, enacted for four measly years, will make a 600 death difference "each year" and greatly increase social utility and what not only if the study is done by a statistician or an economist and if I don't have a good reason to believe the person is highly biased.
Jewy Jewerman|11.13.08 @ 12:52AM|#
So the people of Oceania have more smoking rights than those in Belmont?
|11.13.08 @ 3:20AM|#
Mr Average wrot ... uh, cut and pasted from the Globe.
"This is the strongest study yet done of the effect of smoking bans
on heart attacks," said Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University
School of Public Health specialist in tobacco control..
"You can no longer argue that these declines would have occurred
simply due to medical treatment."
Before any ban advocates get excited about this, the article does
not mention mechanism.
It's not because of SHS exposure..
From Siegel's
The Rest of the story...
"The reason the Massachusetts study is good science (as opposed to
Helena et al.) is that it compares the trend in heart disease
deaths between Massachusetts communities with and without smoking
bans for an 11-year period. So the study establishes the trend in
heart disease deaths over time. The communities without smoking
bans serve as an internal control group.
HOWEVER, I should caution readers that what this study demonstrates
is that over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME, there is a decline in heart
disease deaths. It takes a number of years for this effect to be
observed. There is not a dramatic, immediate reduction in heart
attacks.
Moreover, the observed decline in heart attack mortality is likely
due to the sharp reduction in the number of smokers. It likely has
little to do with reduced secondhand smoke exposure."
That of course won't stop the 'spin' though.
|11.13.08 @ 7:08AM|#
AlfromAlberta
Yes it always amazes me how they manage to get away with this
There was a study done by the New England journal of medicine in
1997 that concluded that health care costs would rise by 8% if
everyone stopped smoking. this also didn't even include the other
increased social cost of not smoking, such as increased
pensions.
chinesebob|11.13.08 @ 7:18AM|#
Since we're so eager to ban perceived harmful side effects I
think that we should ban sidewalks that are next to streets. All of
the carbon dioxide from cars has to be as harmful if not more
harmful than second hand cigarette smoke.
Better yet, let's ban cars, buses, trucks, and factories because
they are harming the air we breathe in at a far greater rate than
the handful of cigarette smokers.
Let's not get discriminating here. If it produces smoke, then let's
ban it. That's the only way we can truly say we're eliminating the
risk to our health because medical studies show second hand smoke
is harmful.
SStahl|11.13.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Helen Lovejoy asked, "Will someone please think of the
children?"
See how viciously and unscrupulously antismokers have been using
children.
The Huffington Post (March 19, 2008)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-stier/sick-kids-misused-in-smok_b_92334.html
Quote from the article:
Turns out the truth doesn't matter. The New York City Health
Department is standing by TV ads that show children allegedly
sickened by exposure to second hand smoke. Only problem is, the
deathly-ill kids weren't actually known to be exposed to smoke.
They were just stock footage of diseased kids.
....
"If they were selling a commercial product, the FTC would surely
regulate this misleading ad," said Jef Richards, who is also
Professor of Advertising at University of Texas at Austin.
(NOTE: They ARE selling products--smoking cessation
products!)
**********
AOL News (March 17, 2008)
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/03/17/are-gross-out-anti-smoking-ads-necessary/
"This weekend, watching a spring training baseball game on TV, we
were accosted with another horrible anti-smoking TV ad. This one
showed sick children hooked up to machines in a hospital. We
covered our son's eyes, but not before he saw disturbing footage of
a very ill kid. Isn't daytime TV supposed to be safe from that kind
of thing?"
***********
For those who don't recall, from Multicenter Case-Control Study of
Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe,
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October
7, 1998:
Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure =
0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96).
(*) Note the implication of the results for CHILDREN. The authors
of this study stated that they could not prove yet could not rule
out a dose-response relationship for their adult studies, which had
insignificant results. The fact that the particular correlation
that did prove statistically significant was for CHILDREN does rule
out a dose-response relationship. (Any idiot who's ever walked down
the pharmacy aisle at Wal-Mart has seen Bayer, Tylenol and
Benadryl, among others, for children because children can only
handle the lower dosages.) IOW, the authors of the study
contradicted their results in their conclusions.
SStahl|11.13.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Mr Average wrote:
Smoking Bans apprently DO increase public health
[And cut and pasted from the Globe]
"This is the strongest study yet done of the effect of smoking bans
on heart attacks," said Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University
School of Public Health specialist in tobacco control..
"You can no longer argue that these declines would have occurred
simply due to medical treatment."
PicassoIII wrote:
Before any ban advocates get excited about this, the article does
not mention mechanism.
*********
Yet, we've all seen the economic damage from smoking bans--and not
only in the bar industry. How much has that economic damage harmed
public health. Don't even try to pretend that losing one's job or
business doesn't have a deleterious effect on one's health. How
much additional harm have antismoking attitudes, engendered largely
by smoking bans and fallacious advertisements, had on society in
terms of tearing families apart, giving antismokers a license to
physically assault smokers, turning good workers away from their
jobs (the obvious example was the researcher in chronic heart
disease, which has cost public health dearly), the nightmares given
to children subjected to gross antismoker ads (which tend to be
fallacious anyway), and so much more.
Interestingly, smoking bans also tend to be followed by marked
DECREASES in air quality. the aiurlines are the best example of
that. The idea is that banning the most innocuous thing in the air
can be used as an excuse to cut back on air vetilation and
filtration systems. Oops.
The harm done to public health from smoking bans is
undeniable.
Withdrawal from nicotine involves temporary cravings. Withdrawal
from smoking is a bit more tricky--except for the fella who read
Allen Carr's book. Withdrawal from freedom entails the abuse of
science, law and humanity.
LaceyUnderall|11.13.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Or, you can switch to the Electronic Cigarette. There are
warnings from the WHO that they don't know enough about these yet,
however, you can smoke them anywhere you want because they do not
produce 2nd hand smoke.
I am sure the psycho banners will try and stop them. However, as
many new generation smokers are, we do not smoke around our
children and are respectful of where we are, who is around us, and
our affects on others.
|11.13.08 @ 11:32AM|#
chinese bob wrote:
All of the carbon dioxide from cars has to be as harmful if not
more harmful than second hand cigarette smoke.
Better yet, let's ban cars, buses, trucks, and factories because
they are harming the air we breathe in at a far greater rate than
the handful of cigarette smokers.
Let's not get discriminating here. If it produces smoke, then let's
ban it. That's the only way we can truly say we're eliminating the
risk to our health because medical studies show second hand smoke
is harmful.
Careful, talk like that will make nanny statists think you can tie
smoking to global warming.
You do bring up a good point though, air pollution, LOCAL
particulate pollution can be a big deal. LA smog and SanDiego,
Oakland marine ports. Some numbers to ponder..
Particulate pollution
comparison.
Wood fire toxins.
It takes 17 cigs to equal the pollution of running a modern gas car
for an hour.
A car w/ no catalytic converter is 88cigs/hr.
It takes a whopping 900-1750 cigs to equal the pollution of a
single diesel truck (or piece of construction equipment or
generator or….).
Someone will of course counter that these things are necessary,
fine.
Does anyone NEED a fireplace? That's 750-1475 cigs worth.
How bout a charcoal grill, those are just as bad. Just to get that
flame broiled flavor so desired by aficionados gross polluters pump
~60 PACKS, 6 WHOLE CARTONS worth soot into the atmosphere. Pay
special attention to the second link, seems that even at the same
concentration wood fires are more hazardous. The pollution from a
single bonfire?
120,000 cigarettes
Not much of a tree hugger but i couldn't help but pretty much stop
using my fireplace when i saw these numbers living IN
chicago.
This is one of those things where you can almost justify a
'polluter pays' fee on firewood and charcoal in major metros.
And seriously, could we put a little more effort into
nuclear.
|11.13.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Oh second link is broken, and i'm feeling lazy.
Cut paste these :
http://www.civilprotection.gr/ecff/impacts_of_smoke.htm
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/cb/ceps/npsap/smoke.htm
|11.13.08 @ 1:22PM|#
The surgeon general link didn't link to a study, does anyone know to which study they are referring? I've seen arguments like this before but when you look at the methodologies of the studies, they are nonanalogous to the statements being made. I'm not trying to indict the surgeon general; I would just like to confirm the findings, so I don't make an out of date argument.
|11.13.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Paul:
you said "It's also very clear that eating trans-fats isn't
particularly good for you. What's next, a ban on them?"
Opps sorry, did that already in NYC
Nanny knows whats best for you, remember Mary Poppins, a spoonful
of sugar, I'm positive that the nanny state will have her on
charges soon for inflicting obesity on children.
|11.14.08 @ 9:21AM|#
I like how politicians don't even have to say things like, "Think of the children!" Instead, they can just shout "Children, children, children!" and get people to go along with policy changes.
|11.14.08 @ 4:02PM|#
I have smoked for 37 years. I am concerned about the cumulative
health effects of smoke, smog, pesticides, household chemicals, and
crap in our diets. We dont have the scientific capacity to measure
these complex chemical cocktails. I dont have a desire to smoke in
an enclosed area with the general public because I simply do not
know what impact it will have by itself or in conjunction with
other health hazards we are exposed to daily.
I am happy to surrender to any law that does not prohibit me from
smoking personally and suffering the consequences of my actions
without ANY possible harm to anyone else. I'd reserve my energy for
individual rights battles for things like the closing of Guantanamo
Bay and the right to trial for the people in this prison.
|11.14.08 @ 6:09PM|#
UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE.
Maybe the final 23 minutes repudiate the first two, but if they do
it with insufficient gusto you guys are going to burn in eternal
hell (even if there isn't one). The first two minutes of this
"documentary" are undoubtedly the most evil two minutes of footage
(produced in my lifetime) that I've ever viewed.
Absolutely UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE.
SStahl|11.18.08 @ 11:21AM|#
SKR wrote:
The surgeon general link didn't link to a study, does anyone
know to which study they are referring? I've seen arguments like
this before but when you look at the methodologies of the studies,
they are nonanalogous to the statements being made. I'm not trying
to indict the surgeon general; I would just like to confirm the
findings, so I don't make an out of date argument.
I don't know of any indictments or criminal charges. However, there
are several complaints to the Office of Research Integrity charging
scientific misconduct against ex-Surgeon General Carmona for the
2006 report. See http://wispofsmoke.net/ORI.html
|11.18.08 @ 8:09PM|#
There is no danger from second-hand smoke. The babyboom period
produced a billion kids exposed to SHS everywhere they went: in
homes, yards, playgrounds, shopping areas, grocery stores, in post
offices and banks; in cars, buses, planes, trains and taxis. There
were smokers in barber shops, beauty salons, drugstores, diners,
restaurants, hotels, hospitals, waiting rooms; lobbies, airports,
vacation spots; at summer camps, swimming pools, bowling alleys,
beaches, parks, and all the ball games - at adult gatherings,
meetings, church events, parties; smoke from their neighbors,
visitors, aunts, uncles, grandparents; from maids, babysitters,
older siblings - even coaches, teachers, scout leaders and den
mothers.
It was widespread exposure to second-hand-smoke, and it was every
day of their lives.
According to modern paranoia, none of these kids should have made
it past the crib. Actually they managed quite well, even got
through the massive drug scene of the 60s and 70s - with smokers
around them all the time, for decades.
So who's kidding whom?
One billion people in China, and children there are exposed to much
more smoking than you ever saw in America - and they don't die.
They don't get sick. There is no threat. There is no epidemic.
Because there are no ASHoles, no agendas, no money trails. No
Banzhafs, no Glantzes, or Carmonas; no vapid TV ads offering pills
for diahhroemic paramiestudapidalisis - none of these dreary
lifestyles that embrace fear, hypochondria and pharma.
American society isn't healthier, it gets sicker every day. It
stems from a time when Pharma discovered no more big epidemics
coming down the road: no diphtheria, cholera, flu, polio - gee how
to survive, sell Geritol? So they came up with a cool idea: what if
smokers eventually bought all their nicotine from us instead of
Phil Morris? Think of the huge profits! Let's call up the lawyers
& marketers and draft a future plan: first get Joe Senator to
put warnings on cigarette packs, bide our time, then go with plan
B. Slow process, just raise the bar an inch at a time, cultivate an
image: first make smokers look like addicts, then outcasts, lepers,
and finally like criminals and baby-killers.
I look for where the money's going. Because this isn't about
smoking. It never was about smoking.
Smoking has just become a tool in the hands of many.
***
|11.19.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Come on all you oatmeal-faced glasses-wearing moustachio'ed
dreary power-defficient confused 'Merican-like antis: respond to my
last post.
Give us the link to the site that proves that second-hand-smoke is
harmful. Forget Carmona's report, he's a bald-headed lying civil
servant with lots of military decorations taped to his shirt.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245