62 replies to this topic

[Kevin Street]

Thing is, the smoking regulations tend to originate on a civic, county, or state level, while the air pollution laws come from a federal level. And Murphy's Law Of Government Action holds true here - the farther away government is from the actual problem, the less they do about it. That's why "no smoking" laws can be proposed and enacted quickly, but antipollution legislation takes years to grind through the rusty wheels of government.

Edited by Kevin Street, 28 April 2004 - 07:59 PM.

[Delvo]

Nevermind the medical stuff if you're not convinced of it. I don't believe, from watching these conversations, that that's the real motivator for the people who band smoking one place or another anyway. What is is that fact that it's just such a disgusting, gross thing to have imposed on them. It's an assault on the senses.

The fact that it is an assault on the senses isn't nearly so hard to prove as the medical stuff is, and there's already a tradition of and precedent for laws against other kinds of assaults on the senses.

[Taryn Wander'r]

^^ just like this!

That is *genuinely* stupid, though.

[Bad Wolf]

^ Yeah like laws against bad breath, perfume, cologne, kissing in public, cussing, drinking and...oh wait a minute...  

[Themis]

Admittedly it's easier for the allergic and the just plain unhappy with it to avoid smoke outside on someplace like a beach where you can move away. (As opposed to crowded doorways or bus stops in the rain as someone mentioned.)  In an outdoor restaurant, however, it's not so easy.  I can only visit Greece and France in the summer when I can eat in outdoor restaurants but as there doesn't seem to exist a nonsmoking French or Greek person, being outside doesn't always help and you can't keep moving the table.  Part of my objection to smoking outside is that 99.9999% of smokers toss those butts anywhere and that's not what I want to run my toes through on the sand.  If smokers would disposes of those remains in something, this legislation might not have happened.  I'm allergic to tobacco smoke and all for having non-smoking indoor areas.  (I'm not opposed to smoking establishments clearly labeling themselves as such but I'd hope they'd be in the minority and leave most places smoke free.)  But  I really think the trash aspect may be as much behind the beach legislation as any health issues.  I've walked on beaches littered with butts and been thoroughly disgusted.  So I'd say smokers brought it on themselves.  

Themis

[Delvo]

Actually I was thinking of laws against loud music, bright lights at night, cars/trucks tweeked to be powerful and loud being run as hard as possible right next to people's homes, ordinances about keeping the lawn and weeds cut, stuff like that... and those cases in which neighbors have managed to appeal to the local authorities to get someone to stop something on private property that makes a nasty smell throughout the neighborhood, or compel someone to remove excessive lawn and house decorations that make their property an "eyesore", because such things devalue the other properties around them and violate everybody else's right to enjoy his/her own property without such interference and intrusion.

[Anakam]

Nick, on Apr 28 2004, 10:05 PM, said:

A smoker damaging their own health is their business, but I recognize the harmful effects of second-hand smoking . . . Except outdoors on a Beach (and there's usually a breeze) I just don't see how anyone can reasonably get any significant amount of of second hand smoke.

Oh, I'm usually fine on a beach, at the zoo, etc, until someone comes by and blows out a stream of smoke as they walk past, sit down upwind of me and light up, or is walking in front of me and I can't see the cig and therefore don't move till I realize my lungs are cramping up.  Or.... well, I think I've summarized it reasonably well.

Quote

Chakotay:
Smoke where you like, dude, just so long as none of your stuff gets into the air I'm about to breath. I have rights too.

Word!

Quote

LORD of the SWORD:
As for Asthma and other allergies...Certain perfumes can also trigger asthma attacks...you going to ban perfume next?

Actually, some places (mostly doctor's office's so far) are requesting that people not wear perfume out of respect for those patients who are sensitive to it.... and I've asked my supervisor to wear less when I'm going to be working with her.

So, yeah, sorta.

From what I've read, most pollution problems are really a lack of interest in being healthful and far too much interest in staying cheap.  Yes, really.  Considering how much cigs usually cost, I'd say they're one of the few exceptions.

[Rhys]

Anakam, on Apr 28 2004, 11:01 PM, said:

Actually, some places (mostly doctor's office's so far) are requesting that people not wear perfume out of respect for those patients who are sensitive to it....

Yeah, the hospitals around here, and my gym, as well.

I have to agree about the litter aspect, too.  It infuriates me when I see someone toss a butt out a car window (all cars do have ashtrays...), and the piles of them on sidewalks everywhere...

Rhys

[Godeskian]

As a practicing asthmatic, who is totally unaffected by cigarette smoke I’d like to make a few observations.

‘Asthma’ is not a catchall phrase, different versions exist, with different severities, and different triggers. Talk to any 3 asthmatics, and odds are they will describe similar, but not identical symptoms, extremely variable effects (from a mild physical unease, to a life threatening fit that shuts downt he lungs ability to absorb oxygen) and trigger conditions ranging from temperature, to weight. So lumping it all together as ‘asthma’ does both smokers and asthmatics a disservice

If the temperature drops to sub-zero and the humidity is high, I garantuee you I’ll get an attack. On the other hand, if the temperature is hot, and it’s dry, not all the smoke from cigarettes or exhausts can do me in.

Having said that, I find cigarette smoking amongst the most disgusting habits mankind has, and the fact that it’s legal does nothing to change that. Smoke clings, to clothes, to people, and in areas long after a smoker has departed. What’s more, smokers by en large, don’t take non-smokers into consideration when lighting up in England. For instance recently I was at a covered busstop with a heavy wind from one direction, and a smoker came in, and lighted up

Did he go to the most downwind section of the covered busstop? Did he hell, he went right by the upwind door, and everyone else there then had to either smell his smoke, or move outside in the rain. He was a very typical example of an inconsiderate smoker.

I have many smokers as friends, heck, my father is a smoker, but smoking itself is revolting, irregardless of how I feel about the person. As far as smokers rights are concerned, their rights end at my personal space, and their ‘right’ to make my life miserable, ends at my personal space as well.

When I don’t smoke, I’m not fouling up the air, I’m not making their clothes or hair smell, and I’m not making them actively nauseus, unlike what they are doing to me.

[Lord Ravensburg]

Amen to all that Cyberhippie just said.

[Broph]

G1223, on Apr 28 2004, 04:15 PM, said:

But Sid the car will continue to push out carbon monoxide in doses higher than Bob the smoker will on the same street corner. IC engine will alwys be that way yet these "A  person  has smoked in this room in the last 5 years. I demand a smoke free enviroment" never seem to be screaming about bus that goes by pitching out it's cloud of smoke.

Carbon monoxide isn't the issue - it's the carcinogens that are created by cigarette smoke that cause the problems.

[Broph]

Rhys, on Apr 28 2004, 04:23 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that smokers are not allowed on the beach, only that they're not allowed to smoke while they are there.  There's no discrimination.

Thank you, thank you, thank you - exactly the same point I make on other message boards when discussing this subject.

[Broph]

G1223, on Apr 28 2004, 04:36 PM, said:

So the black plume  of smoke from the city bus that gets in people's faces as they wait for their particular  smoke belching bus is not going to casue them any health related problems but raoul the smoker who smoked outside on the sidewalk right by the busstand is going to cause the ashma attack from hell?

Do you actually live in a city and have you seen a bus in the last 10 years? I work in Boston, which uses 1) electric buses (some actually run on the trolley lines!), natural-gas burning buses and others that are some of the cleanest-burning vehicles out there. There are no black clouds of smoke.

1) Even when there is smoke from these vehicles, they're providing transportation. All a cigarette does is poison people.
2) By taking a bus, people are using fewer cars, which means less pollution overall.
3) On modern gasoline buses, the exhaust is generally at the top of the bus and the exhaust rises - it's rarely any nuissance to anyone who is walking in the vicinity.

[Delvo]

4) Cigarette smoke is inherently much more harmful (and stinky) than automobile exhaust.

[Broph]

gaius claudius, on Apr 28 2004, 04:42 PM, said:

I'm more concerned where regulators take away my right of choice in a free marketplace...i.e...if there's a restuarant or bar that allows smoking..then you don't have to patronize it (or work there)...let market forces decide.  If the owner of said establishment feels he is losing business becuase of having smokers he can ban them..his choice...and I can chose whether or not I want to go there...without any help from big brother.

That's great in theory, but it never works that way. For it to work, there would have to be non-smoking restaurants available as an alternative for non-smokers (and smokers who just want a decent meal) to visit. A new restaurant doesn't want to rock the boat and will generally try to allow smoking since a new business needs all the customers it can get.

So basically what you're telling me is that I have to put up with your smoke in order to enjoy the steak that Dave wants to sell me. Hardly sounds fair. If Jim-Bob at the next table is loud and obnoxious, you'd complain to the management - they'd tell him to quiet down or leave, right? Why should smoking be allowed, when it obviously bothers and even kills other patrons?

[Broph]

gaius claudius, on Apr 28 2004, 05:21 PM, said:

Proven where...what studies??  By Whom...its one of those..we all know it to be truisms that no one can track down the source of ...and no offense..but the example you give is purely anecdotal..how much smoke were they exposed too?? How often??..Did they have any other risk factors??

It's common sense. Cigarette smoke causes cancer in smokers. Second-hand smoke is made up of the same stuff - of course it's going to cause cancer in people who are exposed.

There are some people who just keep on pointing to smokers who don't get lung cancer and say "see - it doesn't cause lung cancer". Yes, the incidence of lung cancer among non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke is less than that of smokers, but it's certainly greater than that of non-smokers who aren't exposed.

[Broph]

gaius claudius, on Apr 28 2004, 05:48 PM, said:

Do you have a copy of this study...I tried looking it up on the net..it seems to be a technical journal quoting the same EPA study that was already discredited in another thread...

A single judge who was a former tobacco lobbyist had ruled against the study. Dozens of scientists (i.e. peer reveiw) have since validated the study. Whose opinion is more important?

[Broph]

gaius claudius, on Apr 28 2004, 05:48 PM, said:

Quote

PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.

You should have seen my living room after my mother died (a smoker who died of cancer, BTW). We rarely used the room - holiday and company, if you know what I mean. We literally wiped down the walls (wallpaper) and the light fixtures. The whole room was coated in this yellow stuff that was the result of cigarette smoke. As you can imagine, that same stuff now coats my lungs.

[Broph]

LORD of the SWORD, on Apr 28 2004, 11:21 PM, said:

In this case, the claim of second hand smoke as a defense for this ban is BS...It's outside, which is also known as the "Designated Smoking Section". You'll get more pollution from the cars and factories then you would from someone smoking a butt. Especially on the beach.

More pollution from cars and factories in the general atmosphere, but not where I'm walking. I walk about a mile to the train station when I leave work. I cross a couple of streets, but I'm not close enough to cars most of the time to get a whiff of their exhaust. Yet yesterday alone, I was walking behind 3 smokers and had to speed up and walk in front of them to avoid the smoke. I can be 15 feet away from these people outdoors and still get plenty of their smoke in my face.

[Broph]

LORD of the SWORD, on Apr 28 2004, 11:35 PM, said:

You could always take the train. And I'm fairly certain that if the government put half as much effort into curbing pollution from the factories, as they do in trying to make smoker's second class citizens...the pollution from factories would be almost nothing.

Actually, not everyone can take the train or the bus. Sometimes, when you want to go somewhere, you've got to get private transportation.

As far as second-class citizen, that's what many smokers think of non-smokers - they say "you don't like my smoke, then tough - go someplace else".