More anti-smoking measures, Philadelphia

[Doboji]

You realize that we already regulate things that generate an offensive odor and have done so for quite a long time, right?

Example?

 

[Zebo]

I agree with the first part, parents should never smoke in an enclosed area with children.

As to the work-related part.....If you are an employer, it is up to you (or whoever is in charge of managing/supervising) to ensure that everyone takes breaks and lunches appropriately. In MY experience, there are some smokers who take extra breaks, but if you actually cared about productivity you would monitor the work put out by each employee. There are many non-smokers where I work (and every where I have worked) that are not as productive as the smokers....even with the smokers taking extra breaks.

They cheat it's an addiction which has more power than a promise. After all how many times they promise to quit?

Policing them causes conflict and why should you have to waste your time playing baby sitter? I have better things to do like just about anything.

Smokers cause conflict with non smoker fellow employees and paying clients/customers who don't like smoke or smell of latent smoke. Why introduce a potential problem when you don't have to?

So many reasons not to hire smokers...

 

[xj0hnx]

lolz don't say that I got a lot of heat for saying I would not hire one either. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2156850

But that's our choice right? Just like it's a bar owners choice if he wants to allow smoking patrons or not.

Come on now, we all know you shouldn't be able to let people make their own choices, that doesn't fly with the totalitarians.

 

[fskimospy]

Whoops, put in the wrong URL first. Most states have nuisance odor control ordinances. For example: http://www.epa.gov/ne/topics/air/sips/ri/2003_RI_reg_17.pdf

 

[TechAZ]

They cheat it's an addiction which has more power than a promise. After all how many times they promise to quit?

Policing them causes conflict and why should you have to waste your time playing baby sitter? I have better things to do like just about anything.

Smokers cause conflict with non smoker fellow employees and paying clients/customers who don't like smoke or smell of latent smoke. Why introduce a potential problem when you don't have to?

So many reasons not to hire smokers...

If you can't police an employee who is taking extra breaks, then you are not a good manager/supervisor. A manager or supervisor has to play the role of baby sitter every day, even if there is not a single smoker working for you. If you don't know this, you've never been in the position to manage employees. I would argue that there are more reasons not to hire fat people or people over 50 than smokers due to productivity alone. I only have a couple smokers working for me, and none of them take extra breaks or lunches. I have 10x more headaches policing non-smokers who dont do as much work and take long lunches/breaks.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

My whole family smoked and it didn't cause me any issues.

"I fucked a girl with HIV and didn't catch it so it is clearly not an issue..."
I am telling you that it caused me a lot of issues. And studies show it causes a lot of issues. Maybe your mom smoked outside. Mine would smoke constantly, even in the car with the windows up. It caused damage.

So should all those fatties that like their double cheeseburgers.

I agree. Hey, what is your BMI? I hope it isn't over 25 because then that is YOU that your talking about.

 

[xj0hnx]

"I fucked a girl with HIV and didn't catch it so it is clearly not an issue..."
I am telling you that it caused me a lot of issues. And studies show it causes a lot of issues. Maybe your mom smoked outside. Mine would smoke constantly, even in the car with the windows up. It caused damage.

Right, your anecdotal story means as much as mine, and no, all the smoking was done inside, unless they happened to be outside, and my mother didn't smoke.

I agree. Hey, what is your BMI? I hope it isn't over 25 because then that is YOU that your talking about.

Nope, I'm quite healthy for a old broken smoker.

 

[shortylickens]

have you ever been overseas? anytime i come back to the hotel i need to take a shower because everyone smokes everywhere. hotel elevators, the lobby, bars, you name it.
one thing i love about coming back to philly is that people can't do that shit.

Iceland, Greece, Scotland, Israel, Spain, St Maarten, Bermuda, Egypt, Malta and a couple others I cant think of.

With regards to smoking, those people do not believe the government needs to regulate their way off life.
Oh, and they smoke like mad and still have higher life expectancies than the average American.


There is overwhelming evidence to show that Big Brother can NOT fix your life or make it better, only you can do that.
They fuck it up when they try and usually make more problems in the process.
See Also: Prohibition.

 

[CLite]

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/acspc-024113.pdf

Page 44, from reference 6 which is the CDC.

Secondhand smoke causes:
3,000 deaths from lungcancer per year
46,000 deaths from heart disease per year
Coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, and reduced lung function in adult non-smokers.

Luckily the country is changing for the better, 74% of the country protects workplaces and/or restaurants and/or bars therefore protecting the non-smoking patrons and workers from second hand effects which range from discomforting to impairing all the way to deadly.

You aren't allowed to randomly dump alcohol in people's mouths (even tiny droplits of alcohol), nor are you allowed to fill workplaces and public locations with SHS in 74% of the country (soon to be 100%).

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/acspc-024113.pdf

Page 44, from reference 6 which is the CDC.

Secondhand smoke causes:
3,000 deaths from lungcancer per year
46,000 deaths from heart disease per year
Coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, and reduced lung function in adult non-smokers.

Luckily the country is changing for the better, 74% of the country protects workplaces and/or restaurants and/or bars therefore protecting the non-smoking patrons and workers from second hand effects which range from discomforting to impairing all the way to deadly.

You aren't allowed to randomly dump alcohol in people's mouths (even tiny droplits of alcohol), nor are you allowed to fill workplaces and public locations with SHS in 74% of the country (soon to be 100%).

I'd like to see how they arrived at those figures.

 

[werepossum]

I'd like to see how they arrived at those figures.

Not unless you have coprophilia you wouldn't.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'd like to see how they arrived at those figures.

I'll give an extended answer which will also serve as a broader submission for this thread.

It's complete nonsense, and the CDC is not the real source of that information. They're citing an article they wrote which itself cites a meta-study, which is a kind of summary of numerous scientific studies. The meta-study was done by the EPA, published in 1993, and it's essentially a total sham.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with the science of studying second hand smoke. There are some biased studies funded by the tobacco industry and other biased studies funded by anti-tobacco groups. However, on the whole, the science is fine. It's the reporting and summary of the science that is the problem. The truth is, the large bulk of studies mainly focus on spouses of smokers, those with the most daily and consistent contact with SHS, and most conclude risk ratios that are at or near the borderline of statistical significance.

The EPA study in question took some 33 studies of SHS and statistically combined them in a meta-analysis. It ultimately jettisoned IIRC 22 studies and used only 11. The resulting conclusion was that regular, daily exposure to SHS increased the risk of lung cancer by 19%, meaning in epidemiological terms the "Relative Risk" was RR=1.19. The trouble is that in the field of epidemiology RR's of less than 2.0 are typically thrown out as not worthy of publication, not only because of statistical margins of error but because confounding variables (alternate causes that explain a correlation) are very difficult to weed out in these kinds of studies.

But here's the biggest problem: the 1.19 RR was statistically insignificant at the confidence level 95%, meaning that the bottom of the range of statistical error was *less than 1.0 RR*, or no risk at all. Accordingly, the EPA adjusted the confidence interval to 90% - considered a very poor CI in epidemiology - to narrow the error range and make the 1.19 *just barely* statistically significant.

Bear in mind that even if this number of marginal statistical significance is taken at face value, consider that the baseline chance of lung cancer in a non-smoker is extremely tiny, so increasing it by 19% doesn't amount to much added risk. Then follow the logic: if the spousal data is so marginal, what does that suggest about those with infrequent or semi-frequent contact in public places?

The number of cancer deaths per year "caused" by SHS I believe was either calculated in the EPA study itself or else extrapolated by someone else based on the EPA's 1.19 RR conclusion. It is not based on any documented cases. It's an abstract number arrived at by taking the 1.19 and multiplying by some population statistics.

This EPA meta-analysis BTW, is THE seminal piece of work that is used to support almost every proposed ban of smoking in the public areas, and has been now for 18 years running. Look for legislative minutes when these bills are discussed. It's always front and center.

- wolf

 

[xj0hnx]

Woolfe9999, that's about where I was headed with my post, I was hoping there'd be something of substance that maybe I missed, but alas ...it's a total sham.

 

[sportage]

SMoking is like watching porn. Yeah.. you can do it as long as you do it inside your own house. And if you get caught with child porn on your pc, and arrested, and taken to court, I do not want to pay your attorney fees to defend you.
With smoking, when you do get cancer, we all have to pay for your medical treatment thru higher healthcare costs for everyone.
So the bottom line? BAN ALL SMOKING!!!
It's going to cost everyone at some point...

 

[dali71]

My whole family smoked and it didn't cause me any issues.

Since it didn't bother you, then obviously no one else should have a problem. Got asthma? Sorry kid, tough shit, xj0hnx thinks that you're just a whiny little bitch for claiming to suffer.

 

[xj0hnx]

Since it didn't bother you, then obviously no one else should have a problem. Got asthma? Sorry kid, tough shit, xj0hnx thinks that you're just a whiny little bitch for claiming to suffer.

Pretty much. If you could read you'd see that post was in response to another anecdotal post, but I guess context is too much to ask for when you're talking to totalitarians.

 

[dali71]

Pretty much. If you could read you'd see that post was in response to another anecdotal post, but I guess context is too much to ask for when you're talking to totalitarians.

Sorry, I'm not a totalitarian. I fully support your freedom to smoke, as long as it doesn't impinge upon someone else's freedom to breath air that doesn't make them ill.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sorry, I'm not a totalitarian. I fully support your freedom to smoke, as long as it doesn't impinge upon someone else's freedom to breath air that doesn't make them ill.

If or when it is proven that said air actually does make them ill, then you'll have a valid point. However, anecdotal accounts are meaningless as scientific proof.

 

[dali71]

If or when it is proven that said air actually does make them ill, then you'll have a valid point. However, anecdotal accounts are meaningless as scientific proof.

Are you fucking kidding me? There's plenty of scientific proof that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Even Philip Morris conducted research that showed this.

Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke

Background: Exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer; however, there are little data in the open literature on the in vivo toxicology of fresh sidestream cigarette smoke to guide the debate about smoke-free workplaces and public places.

Objective: To investigate the unpublished in vivo research on sidestream cigarette smoke done by Philip Morris Tobacco Company during the 1980s at its Institut für Biologische Forschung (INBIFO).
Methods: Analysis of internal tobacco industry documents now available at the University of California San Francisco Legacy Tobacco Documents Library and other websites.

Results: Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke. Sidestream condensate is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate by dermal application. The gas/vapour phase of sidestream smoke is responsible for most of the sensory irritation and respiratory tract epithelium damage. Fresh sidestream smoke inhibits normal weight gain in developing animals. In a 21day exposure, fresh sidestream smoke can cause damage to the respiratory epithelium at concentrations of 2 µg/l TPM. Damage to the respiratory epithelium increases with longer exposures. The toxicity of whole sidestream smoke is higher than the sum of the toxicities of its major constituents.

Conclusion: Fresh sidestream smoke at concentrations commonly encountered indoors is well above a 2 µg/m3 reference concentration (the level at which acute effects are unlikely to occur), calculated from the results of the INBIFO studies, that defines acute toxicity to humans. Smoke-free public places and workplaces are the only practical way to protect the public health from the toxins in sidestream smoke.

 

[marincounty]

Smokers brought on this backlash themselves, by abusing their freedom to smoke anywhere and everywhere. Try and eat a nice dinner out somewhere and there is usually some asshole who will light up at the table. I agree that some of the anti-tobacco stuff is ridiculous, like all of the crazy taxes put on cigs. But I understand why, payback is a bitch.

 

[xj0hnx]

Smokers brought on this backlash themselves, by abusing their freedom to smoke anywhere and everywhere. Try and eat a nice dinner out somewhere and there is usually some asshole who will light up at the table. I agree that some of the anti-tobacco stuff is ridiculous, like all of the crazy taxes put on cigs. But I understand why, payback is a bitch.

The "asshole" was probably lighting up in a smoking section back when they existed, which was perfectly within his rights. Then you get people with comments like "I hate the smell, smokers should be killed", or "Put them in jail, it's stinky". You expect civility? lol.

 

[woolfe9999]

Are you fucking kidding me? There's plenty of scientific proof that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Even Philip Morris conducted research that showed this.

Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke

I'm curious if you actually read my lengthy post in response to xjohnx up thread. In it, I summarize the current state of research on that issue. I definitely dispute that outdoor contact with SHS is dangerous, and in fact, I dispute that sporadic indoor contact is dangerous. This thread is about an outdoor smoking ban which I oppose. There just isn't any evidence of the risk, and in fact the existing evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Spouses and children of smokers? There's some evidence, yes, and in most studies it barely reaches statistical significance. I suggest you go out and read an actual sampling of epidemiological studies.

 

[Zorkorist]

He'd rather be told he can't do something.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Or tell people, they can't do something.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

We've moved beyond smoking now, to fat people.

Let's discuss fat people.

-John