Media Lets the Surgeon General Get Away With "THE DEBATE IS OVER" on 2nd-hand Smoke

[KLB]

Exactly, it's relative/selective risk determination, i.e. today it's smoke, tomorrow it's general aviation and eventually it'll be golf. That's not science, it's political correctness. You've supported my point perfectly.

For claiming to be one who wants debating to be based on science, you sure seem bent on ignoring mountains of scientific evidence and try to argue your points using red herring comparisons.

 

I don't understand why you continue to try and peg the banning of public smoking with political correctness and refuse to avail yourself of around four decades of scientific studies about the hazards of cigarette smoke in general. I remember as a kid in school being shown slices of lungs from deceased smokers and non-smokers. It was very obvious to me as a kid that smoke was bad.

 

It doesn't take any major science study or illogical jump in logic to see that if cigarette smoke is hazardous to suck through the end of the cigarette butt that is filtered that it is still going to be hazardous no matter how it gets inhaled. Even the cigarette companies now acknowledge that there is NO safe level of smoking.

 

Public drinking by some doesn't normally pose a public health risk to bystanders, yet public drinking is banned in most places because it can create a public nuisance. Furthermore there are safe levels of drinking and moderate drinking might actually have health benefits. Our democracy hasn't collapsed because of banning public drinking and nobody argues against bans on public drinking as political correctness run amuck.

 

Why then are you and others like you still trying to defend public smoking when it is more of a public nuisance than public drinking, is a proven health risk to both smokers and those subjected to second hand smoke AND the fact that there is no safe level of smoking.

[ecoli]

Sure I can. Absolutely.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that second-hand cigarette smoke is every bit as dangerous as the surgeon general now claims it is' date=' there's still the requirement that we actually be EXPOSED to it. Put another way, at this exact moment, sitting here typing this post in, my relative danger is far greater from falling Cessnas and errant Slazingers than it is from second-hand smoke inhalation. Infinately greater, in fact. So your claim that "The chances of encountering second hand smoke is many many times greater" is actually quite ridiculous. [/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but you're going to have prove that one. You're saying that right now, assuming you are in a public place, because that's what we're talking about, the chances of somebody walk along smoking a cigarette is less then a cessna falling out of the sky and hitting you on the head?

 

Is this some sort of joke?

[Pangloss]

It's a reflection on the fact that there are no smokers around me at the moment, Ecoli. Why? Because I've chosen not to be around any.

[Pangloss]

I don't understand why you continue to try and peg the banning of public smoking with political correctness and refuse to avail yourself of around four decades of scientific studies about the hazards of cigarette smoke in general.

 

I'm not refusing to consider anything. I can't believe you're chastising me for not skimming over a vast amount of scientific material that I've never been exposed to before and then making a snap judgement on that material based on whether or not it happens to be the same as yours. That's science to you? Wow.

 

Kinda makes me wonder how much time YOU'VE spent reading the surgeon general's study. Oh but that's right' date=' you'd already made your determination. Interesting, considering the evidence was only released last week. Are you sure you're the one who's making a scientific judgement here?

 

I've promised to withhold judgement until I've read that material. I also happen to think there are peripheral issues which I can still discuss. I'm sorry you feel differently.

 

 

I remember as a kid in school being shown slices of lungs from deceased smokers and non-smokers. It was very obvious to me as a kid that smoke was bad.

 

So as a child you decided, without any scientific evidence whatsoever, that smoking was harmful to your health and should be banned. Got it.

 

No sign of any agenda there....

 

 

Why then are you and others like you still trying to defend public smoking when it is more of a public nuisance than public drinking, is a proven health risk to both smokers and those subjected to second hand smoke AND the fact that there is no safe level of smoking.

 

Because non-smokers aren't rooted to the ground like trees. And they have no more right to force everyone to adhere to their personal preference than smokers do.

 

If we can find public smoking areas that don't impinge on the right of non-smokers (entering a building, sitting in the only available rest area, ride in a closed airplane environment, etc -- all should indeed be smoke-free), then that's what we should do. Restaurants and bars are different -- the people who own them have a right to cater to smokers if they wish, and non-smokers have a right not to go there to eat.

[KLB]

I'm not refusing to consider anything. I can't believe you're chastising me for not skimming over a vast amount of scientific material that I've never been exposed to before and then making a snap judgement on that material based on whether or not it happens to be the same as yours. That's science to you?

For claiming to be a moderator I can't believe you are carrying on this line of discussion or accusing me of making snap judgments. You are labeling everything you don't want to believe as non-science and off handedly dismissing everyone who has disagreed with you in the thread. What you are doing is no better than the creationists dismissing evolution because it doesn't fit their beliefs.

 

I HAVE NOT MADE SNAP JUDGEMENTS ABOUT THE HEALTH RISKS OF CIGARETTE SMOKE. It is based on a life time of seeing more and more reports showing the health hazards of smoking. I'm no biochemist nor am I a physician, so sometimes I have to rely on the scientific process of peer reviews and summaries by scientists and physicians who understands these things more than me. I can not think of anyone more qualified than all of the surgeon generals since 1964 who have gone to great pains and effort to educate the public about the health risks associated with smoking. These are not liberal activists appointed by Democratic Presidents, they have been surgeon generals appointed by Presidents from both sides of the political divide. In the latest case the surgeon general was appointed by a president who can not be accused of being a liberal nor political correctness.

 

Furthermore I can look at the mix of chemicals in cigarette smoke and then fall back upon my training as a firefighter and hazardous materials specialist to know that cigarette smoke contains a deadly combination of chemicals that in any other setting would have very strict release and exposure limits. Just look at the chemicals I took pains to list earlier in this thread. Many of those chemicals have what amounts to a zero allowable exposure where in a workplace. If smoke with this mixtures of chemicals were to come from any source, other than cigarettes, employers would be required by federal regulations to provide respirators and/or other respiratory protection to their employees exposed to the smoke.

 

Just look at what is in cigarette smoke; it contains radioactive particles, chemicals used in the Nazi gas chambers, known carcinogens, etc. These are chemicals whose release is regulated in any form other than cigarettes. You act as if there is no science behind the claims that smoking is a serious health hazard, well let me tell you every federal work place health & safety regulation in the federal register is based humans being killed, seriously injured, maimed or being made cronically ill. If seeing humans die in gas chambers because of a chemical in cigarettes is not scientific proof that that chemical kills, than nothing is.

 

Kinda makes me wonder how much time YOU'VE spent reading the surgeon general's study. Oh but that's right, you'd already made your determination. Interesting, considering the evidence was only released last week. Are you sure you're the one who's making a scientific judgement here?

I don't need to read the report to tell me stuff I already knew based on the occupational health and safety training I had to go through simply to be able to carry out my occupational responsibilities. A simple understanding of how exposure limits are determined by the National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH) and knowing what the exposure limits of some of the 250 toxic and radio active compounds released by cigarette was more than enough information to know that it was not safe to be exposed to cigarette smoke in any manner.

 

I've promised to withhold judgement until I've read that material. I also happen to think there are peripheral issues which I can still discuss. I'm sorry you feel differently.

Honestly, given the known health risks associated with the compounds in cigarette smoke and given the fact that it is proven that smoking cigarettes themselves pose very serious health risks, we have our burden of proof mixed up here. Cigarettes are a drug delivery device and should be treated as such. This means that the burden of proof should not have been on proving that second hand smoke posed a public health risk. The burden of proof should have been the same for cigarette smoking as it is for any other product releasing such dangerous chemicals or any other drug delivery device. If the burden of proof for cigarettes were the same as it was/is for other products of this nature, it would be that cigarettes pose no public health risk. If any other drug had been found to pose as a high likelihood of the health risks cigarettes directly pose or pose via second hand smoke, they would have been pulled off the market decades ago.

 

The fact is that cigarettes have been given a burden of proof pass that no other drug or drug delivery device would have ever been given simply because it was not politically correct to ban what is a very dangerous substance and which has no safe dosage.

 

So as a child you decided, without any scientific evidence whatsoever, that smoking was harmful to your health and should be banned. Got it.

 

I take great exception to your claiming that studying lung tissue samples from smokers and non-smokers is not scientific. This experiment can be and has been conducted time and time again and the results are repeatable.

 

Because non-smokers aren't rooted to the ground like trees. And they have no more right to force everyone to adhere to their personal preference than smokers do.

This has nothing to do with rights, this is an issue of public health and as I pointed out above no other drug that has been shown to be as hazardous to human health as cigarettes has been allowed to stay on the market. By not banning cigarettes, but banning smoking in public buildings society is granting a special exception to cigarettes out of acknowledgement that there are millions of people who are addicted to cigarettes and that it is going to be awhile before all smokers have been able to kick the smoking habit or have died off.

 

If we can find public smoking areas that don't impinge on the right of non-smokers (entering a building, sitting in the only available rest area, ride in a closed airplane environment, etc -- all should indeed be smoke-free), then that's what we should do.

Restaurants and bars are different -- the people who own them have a right to cater to smokers if they wish, and non-smokers have a right not to go there to eat.

Society at large (via governments) can dictate to businesses how they are allowed to conduct business and society (via governments) can prohibit activities like smoking or public drinking if they pose a public nuisance or pose a possible public health risk. 75% of society is made up of non-smokers and if non-smokers are fed up with 25% of the population creating a public nuisance or public health risk, then it is within their right to ban smoking within public buildings.

 

I will also point out that most communities have fairly strict regulations regarding strip clubs but it is hard to argue that strip clubs pose a public health hazards.

 

Somebody tried to point out auto emissions as a public health risk and this is a prime example of society regulation via government. The emissions standards for automobiles continually become more restrictive and are leading us in the direction of zero permissible emissions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's a reflection on the fact that there are no smokers around me at the moment, Ecoli. Why? Because I've chosen not to be around any[/i'].

And often you can't make that choice because you're in a public place where people are smoking and you can't avoid them. Would you like to suggest that we stay out of public places where people smoke?

[Pangloss]

And often you can't make that choice because you're in a public place where people are smoking and you can't avoid them. Would you like to suggest that we stay out of public places where people smoke?

 

Didn't you just get through telling me to re-read someone else's post?

 

If we can find public smoking areas that don't impinge on the right of non-smokers (entering a building, sitting in the only available rest area, ride in a closed airplane environment, etc -- all should indeed be smoke-free), then that's what we should do. Restaurants and bars are different -- the people who own them have a right to cater to smokers if they wish, and non-smokers have a right not to go there to eat.

[john5746]

My last post was regarding a hypothetical posed by john5746, and should have been viewed in that light. He was supporting the position that smoking should be banned regardless of health risk[/i'], simply because it is annoying, which is something that I disagree with. So ecoli's and Edtharan's responses above are inappropriate to that hypothetical discussion. As I said, I've pledged to read further before commenting on the health risk of cigarette smoke, and I intend to do that. It's not fair to criticize someone's opinion on an incorrect basis. If ecoli and Edtharan care to reformulate their responses on an appropriate basis, I'd be happy to respond.

 

Actually, I was implying that it is common sense that unfiltered smoke would be dangerous, not just annoying. I was raised with two smoking parents and it was obvious to me that it damaged my health. Pollution kills. The question is how far to go. I quite agree with you that removing it from everywhere seems a bit excessive(if it is still lawful). It is better to go ahead and outlaw it for anyone below 18 and phase it out as that group gets older. If you think about it, kids of smoking parents are probably endangered more than any other group and don't have much control over the air they breath in the house.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Didn't you just get through telling me to re-read someone else's post?

That was not the post I quoted; in fact, the post you just quoted was made later in the thread than the one I was replying to. Ignoring that, however:

 

If we can find public smoking areas that don't impinge on the right of non-smokers (entering a building' date=' sitting in the only available rest area, ride in a closed airplane environment, etc -- all should indeed be smoke-free), then that's what we should do.[/quote']

Fine.

Restaurants and bars are different -- the people who own them have a right to cater to smokers if they wish, and non-smokers have a right not to go there to eat.

So regular people have to avoid going to what may be a good restaurant just to avoid the toxic fumes inside. That's like saying that restaurants have a right to let cockroaches invade their kitchens, because some people enjoy chile con cockroach. Those who don't like them can just go somewhere else, then?

[Pangloss]

Somebody tried to point out auto emissions as a public health risk and this is a prime example of society regulation via government. The emissions standards for automobiles continually become more restrictive and are leading us in the direction of zero permissible emissions.

 

 

Since smokers can be completely isolated from non-smokers, obviously I disagree. That analogy is inappropriate, because automotive exhaust affects general regions, regardless of an individual's specific location. The same cannot be said for smoking.

 

I think I have a valid point here, and I think the general tone of response I've gotten from this thread has been a revealing indicator of how politically correct this issue has become.

 

You go right on spouting statistics and taking people's rights away for actions that have zero impact on anybody but the fully-aware user. Just keep telling yourself it's all worth it because you're saving their life. What could possibly go wrong?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Since smokers can be completely isolated from non-smokers, obviously I disagree.

At some expense which many building owners cannot afford.

 

I think I have a valid point here, and I think the general tone of response I've gotten from this thread has been a revealing indicator of how politically correct this issue has become.

If you want to misconstrue me (and others) that way, feel free.

 

You go right on spouting statistics and taking people's rights away for actions that have zero impact on anybody but the fully-aware user.

And the people with lung cancer from second-hand smoke.

Just keep telling yourself it's all worth it because you're saving their life. What could possibly go wrong?

I would be tempted to label you as a smoker right there because of your reaction, but that would be doing what I just caught you doing: misconstruing people's posts and drawing conclusions.

[Pangloss]

At some expense which many building owners cannot afford.

 

So they don't do it. (shrug) Their (and here's the operative word) choice.

 

I would be tempted to label you as a smoker right there because of your reaction, but that would be doing what I just caught you doing: misconstruing people's posts and drawing conclusions.

 

But you didn't, because you knew that would have been wrong.

[Pangloss]

Actually, I was implying that it is common sense that unfiltered smoke would be dangerous, not just annoying. I was raised with two smoking parents and it was obvious to me that it damaged my health. Pollution kills. The question is how far to go. I quite agree with you that removing it from everywhere seems a bit excessive(if it is still lawful). It is better to go ahead and outlaw it for anyone below 18 and phase it out as that group gets older. If you think about it, kids of smoking parents are probably endangered more than any other group and don't have much control over the air they breath in the house.

 

I missed this in the flurry of posting above, but thanks for clarifying. That seems like a reasonable position to me.

 

I certainly agree that if smoking is dangerous then we should be doing something about parents who smoke in a house with children. It's ironic that due to the nature of how our society works that that's the LAST place where smoking would/will be stopped.

[Pangloss]

So regular people have to avoid going to what may be a good restaurant just to avoid the toxic fumes inside.

 

Yes. Absolutely. If a restaurant owner wants to cater to people who are killing themselves' date=' why the heck not?

 

What aspect of "free society" is so hard for people to understand? This is fundamentally no different than the born-agains getting a law passed forcing everyone to show up at church on Sunday.

 

 

That's like saying that restaurants have a right to let cockroaches invade their kitchens, because some people enjoy chile con cockroach. Those who don't like them can just go somewhere else, then?

 

Makes sense to me.

 

But because I KNOW that someone is going to misunderstand/misconstue that (because I'm the one being misunderstood/misconstrued in this thread, sir, not you), I'll note that that's different from public health regulation. The difference, again, being choice -- with FULL KNOWLEDGE of the risks.

[Edtharan]

He was supporting the position that smoking should be banned regardless of health risk, simply because it is annoying,

But there are many things that have been baned simply because they are annoying. So why not smokeing?

 

Loud music at night is annoying and it is banned. There have been no health risks associated with a neibour playeing loud music at night, so by your argument we should let people play music as loud as they want at night.

 

We do ban behaviours simply because they are annoying and it hasn't resulted in a loss of freedom or right or anything else. Banning smokeing in public places will not lead to a breakdown of democracy or your rights and frdoms.

 

Your slipry slope argument that if we ban smokeing because it is annoying is a strawman. These things do not happen. It has never happend in a democracy and it si just pure scarmongering to suport a flawed case.

[KLB]

Since smokers can be completely isolated from non-smokers, obviously I disagree. That analogy is inappropriate, because automotive exhaust affects general regions, regardless of an individual's specific location. The same cannot be said for smoking.

Given the way buildings are engineered, smokers CAN NOT BE ISOLATED from non-smokers without forcing smokers to smoke outside in designated outdoor smoking areas. The reason is that HVAC systems do not expel air to the outside, instead they recycle air to conserve energy (e.g. spend less money heating/cooling the air). The ONLY way that smokers could be able to smoke in a building without affecting other people in the same building is to have a sealed room that was kept at negative pressure in comparison to the rest of the building AND all of the air in the "smoking" room was expelled directly to the outside rather than being recirculated.

 

In regards of having a choice not to patronize a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, the State of Maine had a very compelling explanation why this is not feasible for many people. It is called needing to make a living to feed one's family. One of the primary reason the State of Maine banned smoking in these types of establishments along with other public spaces is because employees of those places do not have a choice to avoid these smoke filled environments. If one's skill is waiting tables, etc. and one doesn't have any other skills, then one has to work in a restaurant. This effectively removes that person's ability to choose whether or not to be in these types of environments. They either live with the smoke or go unemployed.

 

Furthermore the State of Maine felt that there was strong evidence that a bar tender, waitress, etc. that worked eight hour shifts in these smoke filled environments actually inhaled as much cigarette smoke as a chain smoker. As such if they attracted smoke related lung damage this could be considered an occupational disease. So the smoking ban wasn't just a matter of public health, but it was also a matter of occupational health and safety.

 

I think I have a valid point here, and I think the general tone of response I've gotten from this thread has been a revealing indicator of how politically correct this issue has become.

The only one trying to politicize this are those trying to defend public smoking, by declaring that smoking is some kind of right or by dismissing reports and people as trying to be politically correct. This isn't a political issue. It is an issue of public health and public health should not have to worry about the political restraints of what is popular. If something poses a public heath hazard, it should be regulated. Cigarette smoke has been proven in so many ways to pose a public health risk as such it should be regulated in a way to protect the public health.

You go right on spouting statistics and taking people's rights away for actions that have zero impact on anybody but the fully-aware user. Just keep telling yourself it's all worth it because you're saving their life. What could possibly go wrong?

I have no idea what your point is here, but it looks like to me you are simply trying to off handily dismiss scientific evidence provided to you from so many directions because it does not fit your political agenda. Look if you really want to prove that smoking should not be banned from public places as a public health risk, then provide some scientific proof that smoking and second hand smoke is not a public health risk. Oh and I want that proof to meet the same high standards that you seem to think 40 years of surgeon general reports, federal occupational health & safety regulation and NIOSH exposure limits don't meet.

 

Regardless of how hard you try to wrap this issue in individual rights and try to blast smoking bans as liberal political correctness run amuck, the fact remains that:

 

1) there is no individual right to smoke in public places;

 

2) the latest reports detailing the risk second hand smoke poses was brought forth by a surgeon general appointed by a conservative Republican President who could really care less about political correctness;

 

3) the latest surgeon general's report is the 29th report in over 40 years on the hazards associated to smoking;

 

4) the latest report is the accumulation of over 20 years of research and studies that have slowly built a definitive case that second hand smoke poses a public health risk;

 

5) it was the surgeon general C. Everett Koop, who was appointed by President Ronald Regan (the greatest of the conservative heroes) that started reporting on the health risks of second hand smoke back in the 1980s.

 

One would think that if this were really a left wing political correctness conspiracy to deny people their rights, that appointees by conservative right wing Presidents wouldn't be the ones leading the charge.

 

--Edit--

Left wing conspiracy comments are in regards to Pangloss's comments in post #29:

Another thing that always irks me about the left's support for smoking bans is that the left also ostensibly supports drug decriminalization. Why is it okay to ban smoking but allow the use of mind-altering drugs? The hypocrisy of this is outrageous.

[Pangloss]

Loud music at night is annoying and it is banned. There have been no health risks associated with a neibour playeing loud music at night' date=' so by your argument we should let people play music as loud as they want at night.[/quote']

 

Nope. We ban music at night because it disturbs people who can't do anything about it, like go elsewhere. When that's not the case, such as with musical venues and so forth, it's not only allowed, it's desired.

 

And that's not a slippery slope argument at all.

[Pangloss]

Given the way buildings are engineered, smokers CAN NOT BE ISOLATED from non-smokers without forcing smokers to smoke outside in designated outdoor smoking areas.

 

I think I've been very clear in drawing a distinction between bars/restaurants and office-type environments. I support restrictions on office complexes/buildings, because it's a restriction I can understand -- those are places of employment where there's no expectation of entertainment/relaxation, which is what smoking is for. Yes, I realize people work in bars and restaurants, but they can work at other bars and restaurants (and let's face it, except in states where there are restrictions already in place, they went to work there knowing about the smoke). It may not be a perfect solution, but in my view that's a reasonable compromise.

 

 

 

 

The only one trying to politicize this are those trying to defend public smoking, by declaring that smoking is some kind of right or by dismissing reports and people as trying to be politically correct. This isn't a political issue. It is an issue of public health and public health should not have to worry about the political restraints of what is popular. If something poses a public heath hazard, it should be regulated. Cigarette smoke has been proven in so many ways to pose a public health risk as such it should be regulated in a way to protect the public health.

 

And obviously I disagree. The phrase "if something poses a health hazard, it should be regulated" is disturbing to me, because it lacks the perspective of the user's knowledge and/or ability to avoid that danger. In situations where that's not possible (people can't know what they're dealing with, or make a choice about it), then yes, I agree.

[Edtharan]

Nope. We ban music at night because it disturbs people who can't do anything about it, like go elsewhere. When that's not the case, such as with musical venues and so forth, it's not only allowed, it's desired.

So are you saying that I should not go to public places, like shoping centers and such be cause that way I can avoid all the smokers that smoke around the entrances? Or that I should not go where there are smokers because I have to avoid them?

 

You can't avoid encountering smokers in public places. So by your statement above, we should ban smokeing in public places because it is annoying and if someone smokes in a public place the nonsmokers can't avoid it.

 

I just don't understand you resistance to it then.

 

If we can't avoid loud music and we can't avoid encountering smokers and both are annoying, then they should have the same standard applied to them.

[Saryctos]

Smoking bans should be at the choice of the establishment, not the government.

If certain public venues don't want to ban smoking they shouldn't be forced into losing a possibly key demographic to their business. You don't like a place that doesn't ban smoking? complain to the owner, not the government.

[swansont]

Exactly, it's relative/selective risk determination, i.e. today it's smoke, tomorrow it's general aviation and eventually it'll be golf. That's not science, it's political correctness. You've supported my point perfectly.

 

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy. Conclusions drawn from faulty logic are invalid.

 

Explain to me how I can choose to not breathe when someone is smoking near me.

[Saryctos]

Explain to me how I can choose to not breathe when someone is smoking [b']near me.[/b]

I think you have the solution within your problem. Don't like the smoke, get away. If people stop going where smoke is present, then let the market forces drive establishments to remove smoking for you.

[Dak]

^ As i see it, the problem is ability to chose.

 

Its pretty evident, at least from where i live, that, left to their own devices, most pubs will not include non-smoking areas. so, if a non-smoker descided to go to a pub, he cannot choose to go to a non-smoking pub, or a pub with a non-smoking area (or at least his choice will be severely limited).

 

On the other hand, if we ban smoking in pubs, smokers will no longer be able to choose to go to a smoking pub.

[Saryctos]

Owning a non-smoking pub doesn't seem feesible(from the example) as if they made just as much money they would be much more accessable in a competative market. Based on that generally same pattern in most sectors of smoking changes, how does a ban on smoking seem like anything a business would want? If however these bans are only for the public health, I really can't see a reason to agree with them other than if you are a non-smoker wishing to gain access to areas generally associated with smoking without having to pay for the difference. It seems as though the people are using this sort of legislature to bulldoze through smoker's rights in an effort for "equallity" while harming business' on their way through.

[swansont]

I think you have the solution within your problem. Don't like the smoke, get away. If people stop going where smoke is present, then let the market forces drive establishments to remove smoking for you.

 

If I find a smoke-free public place, and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?