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

[Pangloss]

This topic is about second-hand smoke, not a complete ban of smoking.

 

I don't know about "complete", but the surgeon general is explicitly warning about the issue of smoking in the home, because of the impact on children, who take the greatest risk second-hand smoke.

[ecoli]

I don't know about "complete", but the surgeon general is explicitly warning about the issue of smoking in the home, because of the impact on children, who take the greatest risk second-hand smoke.

 

A warn and a ban aren't the same thing. Theyve had Surgeon General's warning labels on cigarettes for years.

[KLB]

Is allowing smoking a right given to businesses or an individual right? It makes a difference, after all. If it's an individual right to smoke in public places, then the businesses should not be our concern.

 

As I pointed out above, there is no inherent right to smoke. The right to smoke is a lie created by the tobacco industry. In many areas of the country you are not allowed to consume alcohol in public places or businesses unless the business has a liquor license. Even then there is no right guaranteeing that a person who wants to open a bar will get a liquor license. The local or state government can regulate what businesses are allowed to serve alcohol and can dictate whether the consumption of alcohol is permitted in public places. The same goes for cigarettes. If a city or state wanted to ban smoking in all public spaces (indoor or outdoors) they could do this and there would be no constitutional defense smokers could use to fight such a ban in the courts.

 

I'll go one step further. According to the American Heart Association (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4731), only 23% of American's over the age of 18 years smoke. This means in that by trying to demand that smoking still be allowed in public places like bars, less than 1/4 of the population is subjecting 3/4 of the population to their unhealthy habits.

 

This isn't a matter of civil rights; this isn't a matter of personal choice. This is a matter of public health and whether or not an addiction of a small minority can put the health of the majority at risk.

 

In the past the tobacco industry and smokers tried to cast doubt on the health risks smokers pose to non-smokers via second hand smoke. The surgeon general's report was to be absolutely definitive to put an end to that debate so that our country can move forward and decide how to address this public health threat. My personal hope is that within the next ten years all fifty states will have enacted public smoking bans along the lines of Maine's.

[Pangloss]

Try taking one step back instead. That's like saying there's no inherent right to ride roller coasters or eat tuna fish sandwiches. Is that a conspiracy by Disney and Star Fish? Come on.

 

Here's another one: There's no explicit right to privacy in the constitution either.

 

I agree that if there's a public health risk than it shouldn't be allowed -- that's common sense. But the proof is required BEFORE the prevention. That's ALSO common sense -- not a vast right-wing conspiracy.

[KLB]

Try taking one step back instead. That's like saying there's no inherent right to ride roller coasters or eat tuna fish sandwiches. Is that a conspiracy by Disney and Star Fish? Come on.

My point was that government can decide to regulate these types of activities and that those who keep claiming they have a right to smoke in public are... well... blowing smoke. No one ever claims we have a "right" to ride a roller coaster or eat a tuna fish sandwich will except in jest.

 

I do constantly hear smokers claiming that they have a "right" to smoke where they want, which just isn't true, but the tobacco industry tried to convince us that smokers did have this right. I'm sure with enough digging I could provide the proof that the tobacco industry did this, but it would take a while (don't tempt me because when I find it I'll expect you to read it and then report on it to everyone else).

 

Here's another one: There's no explicit right to privacy in the constitution either.

But it is a right that has been building up via legal precedents over many years based on the fourth amendment

 

I agree that if there's a public health risk than it shouldn't be allowed -- that's common sense. But the proof is required BEFORE the prevention. That's ALSO common sense -- not a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Well we now have forty-two years of surgeon generals from different political persuasions generating some 29 reports on the health hazards of smoking and over twenty years of scientific reports building up that second hand smoke is also hazardous to everyone's health. There is also a brand new almost 700 page report on this subject. There are hundreds if not thousands of scientific reports on the health risks related to cigarette smoke both primary and second hand. I can't help it if you won't read all of these reports to see that smoking is a public health concern, but the PROOF IS overwhelming. I personally don't think Einstein's theory of relativity has undergone as much scrutiny as the issue of whether or not cigarette smoke is harmful to smokers and those subjected to second hand smoke.

 

Besides it doesn't matter how much "scientific proof" there is, smoking is a really dirty stinky habit that makes everyone's clothes stink, and ruins the taste of food and drink. For non-smokers second hand smoke irritates the eyes, makes breathing hard for asthmatics, makes us feel miserable and is basically unbearable. In my early twenties I missed out on huge parts of normal social life because I could not physiologically take being subjected to the levels of second hand smoke one would find in bars and night clubs. Smoking is a bad habit practiced by less than 25% of the population that does make others miserable. If the 75% of the population that does not smoke decides that they are tired of putting up with being made miserable by second hand smoke then they can work to get as many public smoking bans enacted as they want. This is a democracy and on issues like this it is majority rule.

 

Banning smoking is not a right or left issue. It is an issue between smokers making life miserable for everyone else and threatening the health of everyone else and everyone else saying enough is enough. I simply think the surgeon general's report will give the majority the ammunition they think they need to do what has needed to be done for a very long time.

[swansont]

Try taking one step back instead. That's like saying there's no inherent right to ride roller coasters or eat tuna fish sandwiches. Is that a conspiracy by Disney and Star Fish? Come on.

 

Here's another one: There's no explicit right to privacy in the constitution either.

 

I agree that if there's a public health risk than it shouldn't be allowed -- that's common sense. But the proof is required BEFORE the prevention. That's ALSO common sense -- not a vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

 

As the saying goes, your right to stretch your arms ends at my nose. Even if there were no evidence of cancer, the mere annoyance would have to be considered. Noise statutes, for example, are in place. The point about second-hand smoke is that it removes my choice when in a place accessible to the public. The evidence that it causes cancer just adds a public-health dimension to the argument.

[swansont]

Try taking one step back instead. That's like saying there's no inherent right to ride roller coasters or eat tuna fish sandwiches. Is that a conspiracy by Disney and Star Fish? Come on.

 

Here's another one: There's no explicit right to privacy in the constitution either.

 

 

But it's not about what rights are delineated, it's about what the government is allowed to do, and prevent the people from doing. If tuna fish were found to cause disease, then the government would have the duty to prevent its sale, and it does inspect food. The government does inspect and regulate roller coasters. And if someone were forcing me to eat tuna or ride a coaster against my will, the government would be getting onvolved in that, too.

 

(personally, I have no problem with the government making it illegal to cook fish in a microwave in a public place. Yecch.)

[Pangloss]

There are many things that happen in public places that sully my clothes and clog my nostrils. Are we going to ban all those things as well? Why not simply go elsewhere? This just smacks of the will of the majority trumping the rights of the individual, something that's supposed to be explicitly protected in our society. I don't think the anti-smoking crowd would be happy allowing smoking even if there were zero health risk AND no impact on non-smokers at all.

 

I disagree with KLB's implication that smokers believe they have a right to put their smoke in your face. That ship sailed years ago -- smokers today are clearly well aware of the current social situation, and are generally willing to go to great lengths to avoid confrontation. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but I believe they understand that it's their habit, not yours.

[Edtharan]

I find the smell of smoke very offesive (I have been know to vomit at the smell of cigerette smoke - I am allergic to it). But if I was to make a less offesive odur (say breaking wind in public places) it would be frowned on. If smokers claim the right to produce such offensive oduers (and this is beside the debate over weather second hand smoke causes desease or not) then I also claim the right to make ofensive odures.

 

Maybe all the nonsmokers should start a "Baked Beans" stance against smokers. When ever smokers polute the air with their smoke we should "Let Loose" and take a page out of their books and say that it is our right to do so. It is only natural and there has been no scientific link with Second Hand Farts and deseases, so they shouldn't complain.

 

Actually what I said above about the Baked Beans stance is just to encourage thought in those that do smoke and don't care of the effect on others. The fact that they smoke in public places and the odure of cigerette smoke is very offesive (and carries a long way) and they take no thought as to the effect it has on nonsmokers.

 

They talk about thier Rights to smoke and their Freedom to choose to smoke where they like and even make statements that baning smoking from all public places is a slippery slope to totaitarian government regualtions on what we can or can not do. But what about My fredom not to loose my lunch because they whant to polute my air with their smoke. What about my right to have the freedom to go to nightclubs and bars without having to only go to smoke free ones.

 

Their push for their rights will inevitably crush my rights.

 

If people choose to smoke they should be allowed to. But not where it will effect others.

[KLB]

I don't think the anti-smoking crowd would be happy allowing smoking even if there were zero health risk AND no impact on non-smokers at all.

What's your point? The fact remains, that there is conclusive documented proof of the health risk posed by Cigarettes. It is the fact that there is over forty years of research showing the health risks of smoking along with the fact that breathing second hand smoke causes immediate (acute) health discomfort for many non-smokers (asthma, tightness of breath, irritated eyes, upset sinuses, etc.). Non-smokers are not so aggressive against public smoking simply because it "smells" bad. They are aggressive against public smoking because of the concern they have for their own health.

 

I disagree with KLB's implication that smokers believe they have a right to put their smoke in your face.

You obviously haven't been a non-smoker dealing with people who ignore non-smoking areas and vehemently declaring that they have a right to smoke where ever they please.

[Pangloss]

Non-smokers are not so aggressive against public smoking simply because it "smells" bad. They are aggressive against public smoking because of the concern they have for their own health.

 

Obviously I disagree' date=' but even if that's so then it's obvious that opposition to public smoking predates any kind of proof that [i']second-hand[/i] smoke is harmful.

 

It's not so much the opposition to smoke that bothers me, as it is the witch-hunt atmosphere that surrounds the issue. Even if it turns out that the fears were right all along, that doesn't excuse the way presumptions and political correctness have dominated the public debate. I have a problem with society's rules vacilating with the winds of popular opinion. And so should you.

 

At any rate, I've promised to read the relevant material before commenting further on whether or not second-hand smoking is actually dangerous, and I've not forgotten that pledge. I've learned from this thread already, and I've no problem with keeping an open mind about the issue until I've become more educated on the science involved.

 

I just think it's a shame that more people don't do that. These decisions should be based on science and the presumption of freedom, not "ew gross, that should be banned".

[john5746]

I just think it's a shame that more people don't do that. These decisions should be based on science and the presumption of freedom, not "ew gross, that should be banned".

 

I think you are confusing this with the flag burning issue.

 

While it may not be science, it would seem to be common sense that unfiltered smoke would be harmful to people. The question would be what concentrations, etc. If that could be determined, the next issue would be how to control the concentration levels, etc. The obvious answer is to ban it as much as possible, since smoking serves no useful benefit to anyone. So while people may have jumped to conclusions, it was with more than "ew gross"

[Pangloss]

Should everything that's annoying and serves no useful purpose be banned, regardless of its relevancy to health matters?

 

Golf is harmful both to players and to bystanders, and arguably serves no useful purpose. General aviation (flying small aircraft) is more dangerous than automobile traffic, poses a threat to the general public, and arguably serves no useful purpose (and is a heck of a lot harder to get away from). I could go on.

 

Are these items next on the agenda? Or will people wake up at some point and remember that freedom means "freedom TO..." not just "freedom FROM..."?

[ecoli]

Should everything that's annoying and serves no useful purpose be banned' date=' regardless of its relevancy to health matters?

 

Golf is harmful both to players and to bystanders, and arguably serves no useful purpose. General aviation (flying small aircraft) is more dangerous than automobile traffic, poses a threat to the general public, and arguably serves no useful purpose (and is a heck of a lot harder to get away from). I could go on. [/quote']

 

The chances of getting hit in the head with a golfball, or having a plane fall on top of you are VERY low, so to legislate such a thing would be pointless.

 

The Surgeon general has shown that second hand smoke is dangerous (I'm wondering why there is still debate about this) and you only have to visit a public place that still allows smoking to see that second hand smoke is a common health risk that can be avoided.

 

I do think that banning smoking out of doors is excessive, though it may be a good idea in enclosed places.

[Edtharan]

Should everything that's annoying and serves no useful purpose be banned, regardless of its relevancy to health matters?

you know that is a bit of a strawman. There are many things that are anoying and not dangerous (like loud music at night) that are banned. So one could turn your argument around and ask why they are banned and not smoking?

 

You are applying blinkered sight to your position. Things are banned that are annoying, and is usually based on how annoying they are. Smoking, to non smokers can be more anoying that loud music at night, more offesive the people breaking wind, etc. These are not acceptable and have banns, but you don't stand up for the rights of people to play loud music at night because it does not have any medical effect on people.

 

Are these items next on the agenda? Or will people wake up at some point and remember that freedom means "freedom TO..." not just "freedom FROM..."?

One can not say that one can't ban something because it is annoying, as there are many things that have been banned. This Slippery Slope" argument is completely unfounded or we would already be living in a "1984"esqe world.

 

Remember this is not a proposed ban of all smokeing, but baning smokeing where it causes a negative impact (wither health or annoyance) on others. Smoking in places where it won't cause an negative impact on nonsmokers is posable today. It just means a small extra effort on the part of smokers and respect for people that don't smoke.

 

Non smokers do respect the rights of smokers to smoke, but many smokers don't seem to reciprocate this respect, and choose to smoke where it negatively effects us non smokers.

 

If you want rights, you also have to accept the responsabilities that come with them. I would say that it is the responsability of smokers to respect the rights of nonsmokers to not have to put up with secondhand smoke, weather it is dangerous or not.

 

It is also the responsabiltiy of nonsmokers to allow areas for smokers to have a smoke if they choose. I gladly accept this responsability and if I have friends over who do smoke I make sure that there are places where they can do so without effecting those that don't.

 

Here in Australia, there are places that smokers can go to smoke (in bars there are ventilated rooms, etc), but they are usually a bit out of the way (otherwise they would be in the main thoruogh fare wher ethe nonsmokers are), but they are almost never used. The smokers will usually make a token effort and stand outside the main doors of any building, where we have to walk. This is the smokers showing little respect or acceptance of responsability.

 

The fact that smokers don't show this respect means that laws have to be made. And even then, they complain that their rights are being troden on, etc. They are already treding on my rights.

[Dak]

hmm... it seems that car fumes carry similar risks as second-hand-smoke does. yet, no-one is suggesting restricting where/how much you can drive you car. and, if they did, i'm sure 'they're treading on my rights' would come up.

 

Dont get me wrong, i'm actually all for an out-right ban on smoking (its more addictive and dangerouse than heroin), but there is alot of hypoxracy in this area, i feel. 'you can't smoke in certain places because it's moderately damaging to me' is fine, but 'you cant drive as much as you do cos it's moderately damaging to me' is, in the majority of cases, not met with the same 'lets ban it' attitude.

[Jim]

Obviously I disagree' date=' but even if that's so then it's obvious that opposition to public smoking predates any kind of proof that [i']second-hand[/i] smoke is harmful.

 

It's not so much the opposition to smoke that bothers me, as it is the witch-hunt atmosphere that surrounds the issue. Even if it turns out that the fears were right all along, that doesn't excuse the way presumptions and political correctness have dominated the public debate. I have a problem with society's rules vacilating with the winds of popular opinion. And so should you.

 

At any rate, I've promised to read the relevant material before commenting further on whether or not second-hand smoking is actually dangerous, and I've not forgotten that pledge. I've learned from this thread already, and I've no problem with keeping an open mind about the issue until I've become more educated on the science involved.

 

I just think it's a shame that more people don't do that. These decisions should be based on science and the presumption of freedom, not "ew gross, that should be banned".

 

Is it appropriate for society to ban potentially dangerous and obnoxious conduct from public gathering places? Let's suppose that for reasons unknown a sizable minority of the public developed the habit imbibing freshly squeezed garbage juice. Not satisfied to drink this noxious brew in their own homes, the garbage drinkers want to come to public restaurants and drink it next to others.

 

They argue that restaurant owners have the right to ban them from the premises but that drinking garbage juice only hurts themselves and that the majority should not be able to eliminate the choice. Non-drinkers don't have to come to restaurants which allow or serve garbage juice.

 

It will take years to get hard science on the danger of second hand bacteria from the public consumption of garbage juice.

 

This may sound flippant but I actually do not know what I think about this hypothetical.

[Pangloss]

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, 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.

[ecoli]

What are you talking about Pangloss? I was just pointing out that your comparisions are too extreme to compare to cigarette smoke. The chances of encountering second hand smoke is many many times greater then getting hit in the head with a golf ball, despite the fact that they are both annoyances.

 

You can't make that comparision.

[swansont]

Should everything that's annoying and serves no useful purpose be banned' date=' regardless of its relevancy to health matters?

 

Golf is harmful both to players and to bystanders, and arguably serves no useful purpose. General aviation (flying small aircraft) is more dangerous than automobile traffic, poses a threat to the general public, and arguably serves no useful purpose (and is a heck of a lot harder to get away from). I could go on.

[/quote']

 

 

People accept the risks of golf and flying when they participate in those activities. Further, flying small aircraft is already regulated by the government; not just anyone can grab the stick and go up into the wild blue yonder.

 

However, if someone not on the golf course starts whacking golf balls at me, I am going to complain about it, as it is dangerous (and annoying).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

hmm... it seems that car fumes carry similar risks as second-hand-smoke does. yet, no-one is suggesting restricting where/how much you can drive you car. and, if they did, i'm sure 'they're treading on my rights' would come up.

There are already emissions regulations imposed on all new cars being produced. Compare sitting in a traffic jam now with sitting in a traffic jam 40 years ago in a car with no catalytic converter (which would stink terribly).

[bascule]

hmm... it seems that car fumes carry similar risks as second-hand-smoke does.

 

You should read the Martell paper I linked earlier in the thread. Cigarette smoke is radioactive.

[Pangloss]

People accept the risks of golf and flying when they participate in those activities. Further' date=' flying small aircraft is already regulated by the government; not just anyone can grab the stick and go up into the wild blue yonder.

 

However, if someone not on the golf course starts whacking golf balls at me, I am going to complain about it, as it is dangerous (and annoying).[/quote']

 

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.

[Pangloss]

What are you talking about Pangloss? I was just pointing out that your comparisions are too extreme to compare to cigarette smoke. The chances of encountering second hand smoke is many many times greater then getting hit in the head with a golf ball' date=' despite the fact that they are both annoyances.

 

You can't make that comparision.[/quote']

 

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, 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.

 

I certainly understand the notion that in public areas non-smokers have the same rights as smokers -- of course they do. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is why non-smokers feel they have the right to prevent smokers from smoking in ALL public areas, that ALL of them should be clean and smoke-free, regardless of whether all of the people in that area at a given moment may happen to want to smoke. They're enforcing their personal preference on another group.

 

That's not a relative determination of freedoms. No, that's the will of the majority enforcing its opinion over the rights of a minority. Mob rule.

 

Even if smoking turns out to be as dangerous as the surgeon general has now stated factually (remember that, because if he's wrong then he's not only guilty of being in error, but also of subverting the scientific process and undermining the credibility of science), there will remain the issue of why people can't do it anyway. We let people ride motorcycles without helmets so long as they carry appropriate accident/injury insurance (in my state, anyway). It should be the same deal with smoking.

 

And if that's the case, then they should have a right to smoke SOMEWHERE, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of non-smokers. That means:

 

1) Not blocking entranceways.

2) No smoking around children.

3) No smoking in public areas that lack adequate ventilation.

4) Smokers should be able to provide financially for their own medical care.

 

In short, non-smokers should always have the ability of going about their normal lives without encountering, even casually, this kind of smoke. I have no problem with that at all.

 

Ultimately what I have a problem with is saying that smokers cannot smoke in any public area at any time even if it's an area that non-smokers can easily and readily avoid.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

You need to re-read swansont's post.