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

[swansont]

Thanks, you're right, I misread. But where have I ever suggested that the non-smoker should be the one to leave an area designated for non-smoking?

 

 

It wasn't your post to which I was responding, although your "We ban music at night because it disturbs people who can't do anything about it, like go elsewhere." does suggest that a nonsmoker can move away from smoke if he doesn't like it. (And, as I had previously posted, there was no caveat that it was a designated nonsmoking area in my example)

 

But what I quoted was Saryctos, "Don't like the smoke, get away."

 

I wanted to point out that this did not cover all of the situations.

[KLB]

(shrug) Nonsense. Do you deny making the following statement:

 

That is clearly an ideological argument' date=' and it indicates your personal ideology and directly addresses how you feel about this issue with respect to that ideology. [/quote']

Yes I made those statements, but they are not ideology they are economic realities. For some people in order to feed one's family one has to take jobs that they know will harm their health. I choice made under this kind of duress is no choice at all. There is nothing ideological about it. Coal mining is an example of this. Simply look at the statements made by coal minors any time there is a major mining accident.

 

Waiting tables isn't the most glamorous job in the world. What percentage of the people who wait tables would do it if they could get a better job? I was a waiter in my younger years because it was the only job I could get and the job seriously sucked. I had to make a living and I had to eat, so I took the job. It was in a smoky bar and restaurant but I had no choice but to take the job. I had looked for a couple of months for a job and there just weren't any to be had except for waiting tables. My choice was very simple, I could either take a job in a cigarette smoke filled environment or I could go hungry and end up being evicted because I couldn't pay my rent. I would not call this a real choice.

 

To claim that someone has a choice in the jobs they take isn't always true and for these types of jobs it often times isn't true at all.

 

You know, I've been trying to point it out for several pages now that we agree more than disagree, but you're so busy holding me up as an example of the entire opposition to smoking that you can't see it.

I don't see you pointing very many instances where we agree. What I see is you simply shifting your argument to try and attack public smoking bans from new positions.

 

(At least you're not alone, the good Cap'n actually thinks I must be a smoker!) If you really want a "for once and for all" on this, then how about helping me find some common ground here?

The one point of common ground I think I have seen you acknowledge is that if second hand smoke has been proven to be a health hazard then maybe it should be banned in public buildings. In turn; however, you seemed to doubt that the evidence provided to you constituted proof.

 

There is little place for compromise when it comes to banning smoking in public buildings or even claiming that one has some kind of inherent right to smoke in public places. Either smoking is banned in public buildings or it isn't, there isn't much middle ground on this issue. Maine's model for banning smoking in public buildings may be one of the better model for the next decade or so. Basically smoking is banned in all public buildings and businesses with there being an exception for recognized private clubs where the membership can vote whether to allow smoking or not. Smoking is also banned on the school grounds of elementary, middle and high schools and is banned in many children's play grounds.

 

Smoking can not be banned entirely because there are so many people who are addicted to it. The practice of smoking itself, however, can be limited in public spaces to where it will have little to no impact on the health of non-smoking bystanders. Maybe in time as the percentage of the population that smokes declines because of smokers dying off and young people not picking up the addiction, smoking will become a non-issue. For now, however, it is time for non-smokers to take a stand and declare that they are no longer going to put up with being subjected to second hand smoke in any public buildings.

 

For those who think that non-smokers can avoid cigarette smoke think about this. For most of my life I have been subjected to cigarette smoke in public places against my will. Even today I have to hold my breath for that last fifty feet from the parking lot to the front doors of malls, restaurants and bars because of a throng of smokers blatantly ignoring signs placed by business owners asking patrons not to smoke within fifty feet of their entrance.

[Pangloss]

Yes I made those statements' date=' but they are not ideology they are economic realities. For some people in order to feed one's family one has to take jobs that they know will harm their health. I choice made under this kind of duress is no choice at all. There is nothing ideological about it. Coal mining is an example of this. Simply look at the statements made by coal minors any time there is a major mining accident.

 

Waiting tables isn't the most glamorous job in the world. What percentage of the people who wait tables would do it if they could get a better job? I was a waiter in my younger years because it was the only job I could get and the job seriously sucked. I had to make a living and I had to eat, so I took the job. It was in a smoky bar and restaurant but I had no choice but to take the job. I had looked for a couple of months for a job and there just weren't any to be had except for waiting tables. My choice was very simple, I could either take a job in a cigarette smoke filled environment or I could go hungry and end up being evicted because I couldn't pay my rent. I would not call this a real choice.

 

To claim that someone has a choice in the jobs they take isn't always true and for these types of jobs it often times isn't true at all.[/quote']

 

Wow. That sure sounds like an ideological argument to me, especially given that you're not a waiter anymore (why is that, hmm?).

 

Here's my ideological counterargument (which, if you were posting this, you would call "economic realities"): We're a country with 95% employment, so high we don't even bother to count structural unemployment anymore, with educational opportunities available to everyone and utilized to the point where Sallie Mae is starting to look like the biggest scam in the country, where interstate travel allows anyone to move anywhere at any time without any restrictions, and home ownership is through the roof.

 

So few people are actually "trapped" in this country that we don't even know how to count them. The Census Bureau can only tell us how many live "below the poverty line", a highly politicized population that owns, on AVERAGE, 2 cars, a house, a DVD player, a computer, a job and health insurance!

 

Sure, there are some people who are trapped by unusual circumstances, and we should lend them a helping hand. By all means, help 'em out. But -- and this is the key -- not at the expense of someone else's freedoms. Rights are the same for everyone. Not just the crowd that happens to garner the most sympathy. This is the "land of opportunity", not the "land of pandering to the lowest common denominator".

 

When people talk about businesses being forced to comply with a law, what they often fail to understand is that those businesses are owned and run by people. Take it from someone who has built a career out of consulting for small businesses -- the vast majority of them have put ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING into that business. Some might even say they're... "trapped", but of course most of them don't have time for that sort of nonsense, nor the inclination to beg.

 

Those rights you so casually dismiss just because someone else is suffering are not so easily dismissed by everyone. And that's where I stand on it. Nor do I shy away from calling that an "ideology".

 

 

There is little place for compromise when it comes to banning smoking in public buildings or even claiming that one has some kind of inherent right to smoke in public places. Either smoking is banned in public buildings or it isn't, there isn't much middle ground on this issue.

 

Sure, if you are unwilling to consider that there are different types of "public buildings", and refuse any further discussion of the issue.

 

 

Maine's model for banning smoking in public buildings may be one of the better model for the next decade or so. Basically smoking is banned in all public buildings and businesses with there being an exception for recognized private clubs where the membership can vote whether to allow smoking or not. Smoking is also banned on the school grounds of elementary, middle and high schools and is banned in many children's play grounds.

 

That sounds perfectly fine to me. How come you're not screaming about the trapped single moms who have to work in those "private clubs"?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have a distinct feeling that this thread is going in circles, and likely will continue to do so.

[bascule]

Anyone agree with my viewpoint:

 

1. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer

2. The primary carcinogens in cigarettes responsible for lung cancer (i.e. polonium-210, lead-210, nitrosamine) are all results of the industrial production of tobacco, chemical fertilizers, and flue curing, and are therefore preventable via regulation

3. The government is not regulating any of these chemicals

4. Before the government begins banning smoking from public areas, it should ensure that smokers are receiving the safest product possible

5. Non-smokers don't give a shit about the health of smokers. They would rather ban smoking from public areas than enlist the government's aid in ensuring the smokers receive the safest product possible, which would potentially mitigate smoking-derived lung cancers

 

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking

 

Note: I am now a non-smoker (i.e. ex-smoker) but retain concern for the health of smokers, especially since I have a number of friends who smoke. I've also written my senators with these concerns. Haven't received a reply yet, and sadly, I expect a form letter.

[KLB]

Wow. That sure sounds like an ideological argument to me, especially given that you're not a waiter anymore (why is that, hmm?).

Why aren't I a waiter anymore? Hmm.... Lets think about this for a moment. Maybe its because that was about 15 years ago, I was finally able to get a better education that allowed me to get better jobs and I really sucked as a waiter. This fact does not invalidate my argument that for some people they really don't have a real choice whether or not to wait tables. It doesn't matter whether or not they wait tables for a short period of their life like I did or never get a better education and were stuck in such a job for their career, the fact of the matter is that for many people they don't have a real choice whether or not to wait tables, they are simply thankful to have a job.

 

Here's my ideological counterargument (which, if you were posting this, you would call "economic realities"): We're a country with 95% employment, so high we don't even bother to count structural unemployment anymore, with educational opportunities available to everyone and utilized to the point where Sallie Mae is starting to look like the biggest scam in the country, where interstate travel allows anyone to move anywhere at any time without any restrictions, and home ownership is through the roof.

You are so full of your self on your "ideological trip" and as for your "educational opportunities" this is wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the warm and fuzzy everyone has an opportunity to better themselves, there is a harsh reality that large segments of our society will never have any means of getting a better education and the primary education system failed them. Try being a white male in your mid twenties and try to find scholarships to go back to college. Oh, gee I'm sorry you're not a preferred group for scholarships.

 

Try being a poor single mother of three, whose father ran out and left them. Oh, I'm sorry you're too busy trying to put food on the table and helping your children their homework to get a better education. Oh and if you're that poor mother, the odds are you're car is a piece of crap and couldn't get you very far on that wonderful interstate, and once you do get there, what are you going to do? Wait tables because that is the only skill you have.

 

Look Pangloss I'm very sarcastic with you on this one because I've known too many people who live in "ivory" houses and refuse to acknowledge that many people in this country have none of the great opportunities this country supposedly affords through no fault of their own. Very often in life people end up in spending their life in jobs like waiting tables at their local dinner because there really are no other realistic opportunities for them in life. They can be very good hard working people who simply did not have an opportunity to get a higher education. Also your unemployement percentages don't take into account regional disparties.

 

Now, beyond the discussion of whether or not people have a choice to take these jobs; earlier I shattered your whole "they knew the risks and could do something else" argument with my asbestos and shipyard workers comparison, which you never replied to. Might I remind you that you stated:

Because they don't have to work there' date=' and they knew about the danger when they went to work there in the first place.

 

No it's not, because they knew the danger when they went to work there. They made a choice. [/quote']

Based on this argument we should have no health and safety regulations what so ever regarding asbestos because ship yard workers should know about the risks regarding asbestos, and they can choose to work elsewhere. I'll remind you that as is shown in the article I linked to, mankind has known about the hazards associated with asbestos for around 2,000 years.

 

Health and safety regulations are not based on the premise that an employee can or can not choose to take a different job. They are based on the premise of creating a safe work environment for ALL employees where the employee is as protected against occupational injury and diseases as possible. It has been documented beyond a shadow of a doubt that inhaling second hand smoke does pose serious health risks. As such bar and restaurant workers should either be required to always wear a respirator in cigarette smoke filled environments or cigarette smoking should be banned from ALL places of employment. Very simply, the exposure limits set for the hazardous chemicals in cigarette smoke should be enforced in bars and restaurants the same way they are regulated in any facility where employees may be exposed to unacceptably high levels of hazardous chemicals.

 

Rights are the same for everyone.

Then smoking should be banned in all public settings because smokers infringe on people's right to breathe clean air. I will state again people DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RIGHT TO SMOKE and in the process cause harm to others. No right... none... nada...

 

In fact by every measure we use for any other consumer product, smoking and the production of cigarettes in general should be completely banned by the CPSC, the FDA, OSHA and the EPA. The CPSC should ban cigarettes because they are the only consumer product on the market that if used as intended result in the death of the consumer. OSHA should ban cigarettes in all places of employment because cigarette smoke has been proven to cause lung disease and lung cancer and thus poses a severe occupational risk. The EPA should ban the burning of cigarettes because the burning of cigarettes release between 2,000 – 4,000 hazardous chemicals into the air, some of which are radioactive, others that are known marine pollutants and 60 some are known carcinogens. The FDA should regulate cigarettes as a drug and require them to go through the same drug safety testing standards as all prescription drugs because cigarettes were engineered by the tobacco companies to be highly addictive. Of course the FDA would then be forced to ban cigarettes because their health risks way out weighs any potential benefits.

 

Not just the crowd that happens to garner the most sympathy.[/b'] This is the "land of opportunity", not the "land of pandering to the lowest common denominator".

Get over the PC BS. This is nothing more than a diversion from the real issue and it bears absolutely no relevance to the discussion of banning cigarette smoking in public places.

 

Those rights you so casually dismiss just because someone else is suffering are not so easily dismissed by everyone.

Again, NO ONE has the right to partake in an activity in a public setting that has been proven to cause physical harm to those around them.

 

And that's where I stand on it. Nor do I shy away from calling that an "ideology".

The only ideologues in this thread are those who are trying to claim they have some kind of right to smoke in public settings even though such activity would cause physical harm to those around them and those who keep trying to label people who are support a ban on public smoking as liberals and socialists.

 

That sounds perfectly fine to me. How come you're not screaming about the trapped single moms who have to work in those "private clubs"?

Honestly.... I look at kids trapped in the home of smokers and would like to say that cigarettes should be banned entirely. I just realize that right now this is not realistic as there are just too many people addicted to tobacco and we need to give them some means of addressing that addiction otherwise we'll have a bigger mess on our hands (ala illegal drugs).

 

I do think smoking should be banned in "members only" clubs as well but am willing to concede this point as long as the majority of the entire membership votes to support smoking. I'd stipulate that any club that does allow smoking would have to vote no less than once a year via secret ballet as to continue to allow smoking or not.

 

As far as employees go, I think from an occupational health and safety issue, it is pretty clear that they couldn't allow smoking and have employees in positions that required them to come into contact with cigarette smoke. The private club exemption to the smoking ban should not be designed to protect large membership clubs that need employees (e.g. country clubs); it should be used to protect small clubs that rely on the membership to provide their own services.

 

From a political standpoint, I look at it being easier to pass public smoking bans if there is an exception for private member's only clubs.

 

Anyone agree with my viewpoint:

 

1. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer

Agreed.

 

2. The primary carcinogens in cigarettes responsible for lung cancer (i.e. polonium-210' date=' lead-210, nitrosamine) are all results of the industrial production of tobacco, chemical fertilizers, and flue curing, and are therefore preventable via regulation[/quote']

Actually there are about 60 chemicals in cigarette smoke that are known carcinogens beyond the radioactive elements you list, see the links I have provided earlier.

 

3. The government is not regulating any of these chemicals

Actually many of these chemicals are very heavily regulated in the work environment. Look at the chemicals I provided links to. Most of that data I provide for each chemical is regulatory data. Of particular interest for this discussion are the NIOSH Guide entries. Like I keep saying if we simply regulated cigarette smoke using the same exposure limit criteria we apply to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, cigarette smoking would have been completely banned in all places that employed people by now. When one looks at it this way, it really doesn't make sense why OSHA hasn't stepped in and forced this issue years ago.

 

4. Before the government begins banning smoking from public areas, it should ensure that smokers are receiving the safest product possible

Nice idea but the tobacco companies couldn't figure out how to make a safe cigarette and they had the greatest incentive to accomplish this task.

5. Non-smokers don't give a shit about the health of smokers. They would rather ban smoking from public areas than enlist the government's aid in ensuring the smokers receive the safest product possible, which would potentially mitigate smoking-derived lung cancers

While one might be able to address the pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use issue while growing the crops, the fact remains that there will still be harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke and there is no way to make a safe cigarette. Really if we want to help smokers then we need to give them a nicotine delivery replacement for cigarettes as it is really the nicotine smokers are addicted to.

 

It is kind of hard to care about someone's health when they don't care enough about their own health to try and make an effort to quit. For those who do try to quit, I think we should do what we can as individuals and a society should try to help them succeed with this effort.

 

Please see: [url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking[/url]

The .GOV links to federal and state websites as well are a much better source of information on this than Wikipedia.

 

Note: I am now a non-smoker (i.e. ex-smoker) but retain concern for the health of smokers, especially since I have a number of friends who smoke. I've also written my senators with these concerns. Haven't received a reply yet, and sadly, I expect a form letter.

For me the issue of smokers is a very frustrating issue. I can understand that older smokers may have been drawn into smoking blindly and I understand that children of smokers are very likely to smoke. What I don't understand is when young people who should know better take up smoking. This is just willful ignorance and a willful lack of concern for one's own health. Of course one could argue that if parents hadn't lied to them about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.; kids might have believed them when parents told them that smoking was harmful to their health.

 

I've never smoked in my life, well except for second hand smoke. So I can not appreciate how hard it is to quit, but I do think this really is the only way to overcome the health risks associated with smoking.

 

Really we need to have an objective of becoming a completely non-smoking society within the next few decades. We should also work on making current smokers the last generations of people that smoke. I don't know that this can be legislated, but becoming smoke free society is a good objective.

[Pangloss]

Cap'n's right, we're going around in circles now, so I think I'm done here. I thought you might be able to help me find some common ground, but you seem to be too annoyed with me to go there. No biggie, it happens to the best of us, and I apologize if I contributed to that. I'm happy to let you have the last word on the subject, and I think you've done an excellent job making your case in general. You have a very thoughtful approach to posting which I think is interesting (when you're not annoyed!).

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I look forward to reading the materials that were posted for me, which I greatly appreciate. Thanks all.

[Saryctos]

I wanted to point out that this did not cover all of the situations.

oh I see =)

[KLB]

Cap'n's right, we're going around in circles now, so I think I'm done here. I thought you might be able to help me find some common ground, but you seem to be too annoyed with me to go there.

 

Actually it was a very interesting discussion and you helped sharpen my stance on this issue the next time I end up in a real world discussion on this. I may have gotten annoyed, but I'll get over it. I never hold grudges from stuff like this. I do agree that we are going in circles, which is probably whay we are all getting fustrated. It also goes to show how there is no middle ground to be had on this subject.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I look forward to reading the materials that were posted for me, which I greatly appreciate. Thanks all.

If anybody comes across a complete list or at least an extended list of chemicals in cigarette smoke I'd be interested in seeing it.