Third Hand smoke

[Gorgon]

You get a significant cancer increase from particle emissions when living in an area with heavy traffic. Yes, people need to get around, but you can lower those emissions as long as you are willing to make some sacrifices.

 

The comparison between non smoker and smoker vis a vis cyclist and car commuter is entirely valid, and remember there is nothing you as an individual can do to escape particle pollution short of moving to the countryside, that's not true of second hand smoking.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Gorgon

[Orogun01]

And also on recent news living gives you cancer. So if you are afraid of getting cancer you know what you have to do.

Rule of good health, all things in moderation even those that are good for your health. Trying to protect yourself from every smoke emission is like Monk trying to fight all of the world's bacteria.

[Purkake]

Smokers vs non-smokers

 

Round one

 

Fight!

[Hurlshort]

How the flying **** is that a justification for the damage they are doing to others?

 

Right.. because the fact that coal-power plants in Australia are pumping out unimaginable amounts of pollution to satisfy your AC units, computers and whatever cheap polluting electronic you have - is sooo much cleaner than cigarettes. How do you justify polluting the air I breathe just because you want ice in your water?

 

Again, the car and other general smog pollution argument has a flaw in that they serve an important function in our society. I'm not a fan of car exhaust either, but I put up with it because everybody benefits from them.

 

I think it's a fair argument - why not drive a hybrid car? Why choose the SUV or 4 wheeler unless it has an actual purpose. Why not promote clean energy instead of building more coal or gas plants? If it's so important to have clean air that you are stabbing at smokers, why not do something that really makes a difference?

 

Society does make steps towards cleaner technology. It has to be cost effective, of course. If you ruin the economy while trying to save the environment, then you are just creating more problems.

 

Again, all these things you folks keep throwing out serve an actual purpose to society, even the BBQ.

 

Wood burning fireplaces are a good example, most of the cities in our area no longer allow you to build them. All new construction has to choose a different alternative, such as gas fireplaces. We also have save the air days where you are not allowed to use wood burning fireplaces, and there are restrictions on the wood you can burn. The idea is that eventually everyone will simply move towards a different heat source that does not have such an environmental impact.

 

I would like the same thing to happen with smoking. Move away from the habit because it is simply unhealthy. Change the whole culture around it so people do not even start. I'm not talking about making it illegal or shooting anyone who smokes, that wouldn't even work.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Smoking is bad; don't compare it to cars, because cars are important. Cigs aren't.

 

Also, are you saying that an asthmatic and unathletic nerd should use bicycles in Florida? 'Cause if you are, then you have no soul.

[Humodour]

This is a flap about bugger all. Second hand smoke, third hand smoke, grow a pair of balls. At the point where second hand smoke - at the rate you are ever likely to be exposed these days - is a problem you have life issues which need addressing. Death by car crash, war, famine, clinical dpression, by all means worry about them.

 

 

Way to a) ignore science, and b) blame the victim.

[Humodour]

How the flying **** is that a justification for the damage they are doing to others?

 

Right.. because the fact that coal-power plants in Australia are pumping out unimaginable amounts of pollution to satisfy your AC units, computers and whatever cheap polluting electronic you have - is sooo much cleaner than cigarettes. How do you justify polluting the air I breathe just because you want ice in your water?

 

Oh wow, this is nice. "Two wrongs make a right!" Excellent logic mate. Let's divert the topic to energy instead! And just for reference, there's a good ****ing reason I vote Green: I largely hate fossil fuels. Your sentence shows an ignorant lack of understanding of the patterns of dispersion and health impacts of fossil fuel pollution, too.

 

Why not try replying again without being disingenuous?

 

Edit: This is a matter of civil rights and freedoms. Smokers should be allowed to smoke all they want in private, with the consent of those around them. But trying to argue that the health impacts of second hand smoke are fake or minimal as a defence of smoking around others is blindingly stupid and selfish.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Krezack

[Asol]

The problem with comparing smoking to cars or obesity is it does not work at all. I don't go outside and drive around in circles in my car to relax, I also don't drive my car into the house and just leave the engine running while my children are sleeping. The car gets me to work and serves a valuable purpose to society.

 

We need food to survive, so again that is a lousy comparison. I do fully support schools teaching good nutrition and physical activity in order to combat bad eating habits that people are raised with, but children don't die just because their parents eat too much.

 

I have asthma as well. I am one of three children. My mother smoked when she was pregnant with me, but not my two siblings. My siblings have never had an issue with asthma. It is super lame that I have to deal with an inhaler for the rest of my life because of a bad habit.

 

My big problem is you still have a ton of people who start smoking every day. What is that about? It just seems like the drawbacks outweigh the benefits tremendously. I just don't get it.

 

Children are obviously highly likely to share dietary habits with their providers and child obesity is a pretty visible occurrance while smoking is in comparative decline, food and diet issues will continue to overtake it as well as processed foods are getting worse not better... Highly processed foods and the number of dietary items that are simply trash are a bigger threat to general health of the youth. Processed sugars and sweeteners will beat down your liver virtually as if you had been an alcoholic.

 

The think of the kids arguement is not sympathetic its a distraction when most issues eclipse second hand smoke. In contrast to real monsters like debting, consumerism and environmental issues a typical person protecting their children from second hand smoke ammounts little more than boogeyman scaring, basicly ritual pretend.. Smoking is just a rabble rouser.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Asol

[Tigranes]

Krezack. One part Aussie, one part gamer, ALL RAGE

 

I guess the whole thing is a question of degrees - you already stop people smoking in public places because of second hand smoke, and it's really quite a given in society now that second hand smoke is 'unnecessary harm' to others. But third hand smoke? Do we really need to go that far? I think that's why we're getting the whole car thing.

 

Really what Hurlshot's been repeating makes the most sense to me. The culture of smoking - what social forces can be exerted to slowly erode its hold on society? Just look at the representation on films, for one - drinking is still the 'cool thing to do', but we see just as many representations of excessive drinking ruining lives and not being cool, now. We really never see instances of 'uncool smoking' or people getting ill through smoking in media narratives, even though it is just as realistic. I'm not saying it has to be deliberate or, god forbid, a quota, but if you can write people getting checked into alcoholics anonymous or having trouble with it in your TV scripts, why not someone who gets cancer through smoking? It's interesting how it just doesn't come up.

[LadyCrimson]

I really want to figure out why people even start smoking and figure out how we can change the entire culture of it. I mean, we used to store toothpaste in lead tubes, but when the health concerns came out, people stopped using them. It just seems like a completely insane habit to ever pick up. It's bad for you, it's bad for people near you, and it's even bad for the people that come in after you've left. What is the appeal there?

People don't become addicted to toothpaste.

 

It's an interesting question tho. Hubby & I have pondered the nature of addiction off and on over the years, since we're both fairly obsessive people. Maybe I'm wrong, but (outside of the obvious addictive aspect of nicotine) it seems a bit like asking why some people can drink a 1st beer or four, think it's "cool" but are then never interested in drinking regularly or socially, vs. those who drink a beer and decide they really like it and become a 6-pack a night drinker for the rest of their lives. There's no one answer, but many maybes.

 

--some people may be more psychologically or physically easily addicted to anything, a variation of some kind of impulse/obsessive control.

--I think many who 1st start smoking tend to be on the younger side, and youth has a tendency to feel that bad things happen to others (I can quit anytime/before it gets bad, trying it once won't hurt, I'll just drive really slow, 20 years is forever, etc) as well as more influenced by peer/social pressure, & of course, rebellious curiosity

--there are studies that show smoking can/does affect certain brain workings, that, while not a "high", one can get used to (like the subtle affects of a cup of coffee, perhaps) and makes it that much harder to stop (edit: or perhaps makes it more unconsciously appealing to continue, for some, because of the 1st possibility above). Some people probably more so than others.

--and yes, culture/media doesn't help. At this point in time, I certainly think movies/TV could do away with characters smoking, unless the smoking is a central aspect of their character development or to show/define a period culture, perhaps.

Edited February 10, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Orogun01]

Also, are you saying that an asthmatic and unathletic nerd should use bicycles in Florida? 'Cause if you are, then you have no soul.

Amen to that brother.

[Hell Kitty]

This is a flap about bugger all. Second hand smoke, third hand smoke, grow a pair of balls.

 

So if you have a problem with smoking, you're not a real man? You're ridiculous.

[Slowtrain]

Disclaimer: I'm really anti-smoking, by the way. I don't even like it when a smoker is driving in front of me and I catch a whiff, I find it more obnoxious than one of those big buses. It is definitely one of my pet peeves.

 

 

Smoking is totally gross and makes me sick when I have to smell it, but big buses and trucks with bad exhaust are much much worse. Its not even close.

[Hurlshort]

Disclaimer: I'm really anti-smoking, by the way. I don't even like it when a smoker is driving in front of me and I catch a whiff, I find it more obnoxious than one of those big buses. It is definitely one of my pet peeves.

 

 

Smoking is totally gross and makes me sick when I have to smell it, but big buses and trucks with bad exhaust are much much worse. Its not even close.

 

That's kind of what I was saying, I was establishing that my perspective on smoking is fairly extreme. Despite that, I'm still trying to listen to the alternative arguments, I'm just not finding the attempts at deflection to be all that strong.

 

The numbers on smoking have stalled in the last 10 years. They are no longer on the decline, they have been stuck at about 25% for awhile now.

 

Did you know that the tobacco companies are also the ones that produce most of the stop smoking aids? Apparently they make an absolute killing off that stuff.

[Rosbjerg]

Oh wow, this is nice. "Two wrongs make a right!" Excellent logic mate. Let's divert the topic to energy instead! And just for reference, there's a good ****ing reason I vote Green: I largely hate fossil fuels. Your sentence shows an ignorant lack of understanding of the patterns of dispersion and health impacts of fossil fuel pollution, too.

 

Why not try replying again without being disingenuous?

 

Edit: This is a matter of civil rights and freedoms. Smokers should be allowed to smoke all they want in private, with the consent of those around them. But trying to argue that the health impacts of second hand smoke are fake or minimal as a defence of smoking around others is blindingly stupid and selfish.

 

No two wrongs don't make a right, but smokers are just an easy target and a great way to shift the blame. I see this (third hand smoking) as having become nothing more than society wanting to feel better about themselves by "making a difference" and "saving the kids", while real, much more serious and a lot harder problems are ignored out of complacency. I don't blame the cars, industry or the rampant consumerism, mostly because that would be hypocritical, but I get a little pissed when people start blaming me. I make sure that my impact is as small as possible and that even with cigarettes I have a lesser impact on air pollution than the majority. Just because you find my habit gross what right do you have to pollute more than I do, when you have an alternative too? How is my addiction worse than what you are doing?

 

And coal plants are serious polluters and pose very serious health problems, look it up some time - here is one article from a random search.

[LadyCrimson]

What Rosbjerg said.

And imo, well said.

[LostStraw]

Oh wow, this is nice. "Two wrongs make a right!" Excellent logic mate. Let's divert the topic to energy instead! And just for reference, there's a good ****ing reason I vote Green: I largely hate fossil fuels. Your sentence shows an ignorant lack of understanding of the patterns of dispersion and health impacts of fossil fuel pollution, too.

 

Why not try replying again without being disingenuous?

 

Edit: This is a matter of civil rights and freedoms. Smokers should be allowed to smoke all they want in private, with the consent of those around them. But trying to argue that the health impacts of second hand smoke are fake or minimal as a defence of smoking around others is blindingly stupid and selfish.

 

No two wrongs don't make a right, but smokers are just an easy target and a great way to shift the blame. I see this (third hand smoking) as having become nothing more than society wanting to feel better about themselves by "making a difference" and "saving the kids", while real, much more serious and a lot harder problems are ignored out of complacency. I don't blame the cars, industry or the rampant consumerism, mostly because that would be hypocritical, but I get a little pissed when people start blaming me. I make sure that my impact is as small as possible and that even with cigarettes I have a lesser impact on air pollution than the majority. Just because you find my habit gross what right do you have to pollute more than I do, when you have an alternative too? How is my addiction worse than what you are doing?

 

And coal plants are serious polluters and pose very serious health problems, look it up some time - here is one article from a random search.

Wait.. who's shifting the blame for what? The only arguments I've seen shifting the blame are those shifting the blame away from smoking. No one in this thread who has been outspoken against smoking has claimed these other pollutants to be a good thing, only that they're a current necessity for our societies to function. It's almost as if the anti-anti-smoking crowd's only real argument is to try turning the discussion into a different argument entirely. No, I don't like coal plants -- No, I don't think people should drive gas guzzling cars when they have no need to -- Yes, I believe in a good public transportation system -- but all those topics are their own discussion and don't in any serious way relate to smoking or the negative health effects that others suffer from it. Like I posted earlier.. I don't care what or where you smoke as long as you're not doing it to the detriment of others.

[LadyCrimson]

Wait.. who's shifting the blame for what? The only arguments I've seen shifting the blame are those shifting the blame away from smoking. No one in this thread who has been outspoken against smoking has claimed these other pollutants to be a good thing, only that they're a current necessity for our societies to function. It's almost as if the anti-anti-smoking crowd's only real argument is to try turning the discussion into a different argument entirely. No, I don't like coal plants -- No, I don't think people should drive gas guzzling cars when they have no need to -- Yes, I believe in a good public transportation system -- but all those topics are their own discussion and don't in any serious way relate to smoking or the negative health effects that others suffer from it. Like I posted earlier.. I don't care what or where you smoke as long as you're not doing it to the detriment of others.

Speaking only for myself: I've never met a smoker who argued that smoking is good for their health or anyone else's, and I doubt any anti-anti-smoking attitude is ever about that. What I object to is the degree to which anti-smoking culture is moving towards, which is easily seen in the average anti-smoking thread..the bilious comments about smokers themselves (which has nothing to do with actual health issues either, btw) and such. There is, imo, a difference between reasonable precautions and unreasonable persecution.

 

Even if you say you're not for banning/making smoking illegal altogether, that's what the current anti-smoking culture seems to be heading for...not outright, but by bits & pieces via so many laws that it may as well be. It's the non-guilt way of taking a choice away.

 

Should a law be passed that says I cannot smoke in the house I live in and pay for, on the notion that this 3rd hand smoke may be potentially harmful to some future owner? Should we ban smoking in one's open backyard because the occasional bit o' smoke might stray into a neighbor's window? That to me would be extremely unreasonable and becomes, in my eyes, a case of paranoid persecution. BBQ smoke strays into people's windows. So do many other pollutants.

 

Should there be a law that says I can't drive a car, ever, because my exhaust, combined with all the others, may potentially cause all kinds of widespread health or environmental issues for future generations? Could be wrong, but I think most would likely say "of course not, don't be silly."

 

It's not about shifting blame...by trying to point out examples of other bad habits that we all have (whether useful to us or not), that may contribute to harming others in some round about way, it's about trying to show that there's a line where persecution for one single lifestyle choice is no longer reasonable, it's just...over-wrought paranoia...imo.

Edited February 10, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[213374U]

Gotta agree with Wals... there are much bigger health concerns than this.

 

 

Also, are you saying that an asthmatic and unathletic nerd should use bicycles in Florida? 'Cause if you are, then you have no soul.

"No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training... what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." - Socrates

 

Used to have some bad asthma episodes myself, for the record.

[LadyCrimson]

A separate train of thought occurred to me, related to one of Hurlshot's questions.

In terms of number of smokers/new smokers seeming to drop and then drop no further...it's possible that the longer and harder the anti-smoking paranoia lasts, the more some will rebel against it. I'm not saying it's intelligent or reasonable to rebel against the movement by actually taking up smoking, but well, that's humanity for you sometimes.

 

...example, I know several non-smokers that with every new anti-smoking law in various cities (no smoking in cars, no smoking on the sidewalk etc), they roll their eyes and exclaim they may start taking up smoking themselves on principle protest. So far (thankfully) none of them have actually done so. But the attitude is there.

Edited February 10, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[LostStraw]

Should a law be passed that says I cannot smoke in the house I live in and pay for, on the notion that this 3rd hand smoke may be potentially harmful to some future owner?

Are kids present in the household with the smokers? As for future owners of the house, they have a say in whether to buy it or not so I don't see that as an issuet.

 

Should we ban smoking in one's open backyard because the occasional bit o' smoke might stray into a neighbor's window? That to me would be extremely unreasonable and becomes, in my eyes, a case of paranoid persecution. BBQ smoke strays into people's windows. So do many other pollutants.

Does your neighbor have health problems related to smoke? If so it would be nice to let them know before starting up a BBQ or lighting cigarette outside so they can take measures to keep from having to breathe it in. A lot of it is about courtesy to those around oneself. A person smoking outside the apartment or outside the entrances to buildings causes a lot more problems for my wife than the cars driving down the road -- it sure would be nice if they paid attention to the large signs that asked them to stand at least 20 feet away from the building.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think I understand better where your coming from now.

[Walsingham]

This is a flap about bugger all. Second hand smoke, third hand smoke, grow a pair of balls.

 

So if you have a problem with smoking, you're not a real man? You're ridiculous.

 

I admit I was... exuberant with the joys of fine wine last night, but I stand by the spirit of my objection. Yes, I do say that the risk represented by passive smoking is miniscule compared with risks we accept every day. Surely I don't have to list chapter and verse for all the other risks in life generated 'unnecessarily'. What about dog and cat ownership, when the faeces and parasites upon those animals spread diseases? The car issue has already been mentioned.

 

This is important in two ways:

 

1) Interference creep. Given the nature of legal precedent there is a real risk that having established the significance of risks at this level and in this way other activities we all enjoy will be targetted.

 

2) We are all either people who are suffering from stress and depression or know people who are. Every one of these pointless flaps is another straw on the camel. As a culture we HAVE to escape the constant vigilance overload.

 

2b) Most people routinely ignore important issues because they are distracted by the plethora of false alarms which they scramble to meet. Meaning that when we get genuine problems we are paralysed in frenzied dissipation.

 

 

~~~

 

If you wish to convince me otherwise feel free to do so, by producing (respectively)

 

1) Evidence that these risks are significant compared with other routine activities

2) Evidence that mentioning something like this does not evoke a significant stress response, and

2b) ideally that several such comments produces inaction towards any of them

[Hell Kitty]

The reason discussions like this end up talking about things like pollution in general is because there is no real way to defend smoking. It has a negative effect on the health of both the smoker and those around them. In the absence of any sort of argument for smoking that doesn't paint the arguer as selfish, then the only thing you've got left is to try to shift focus away from smoking, onto... something else. And don't kid yourself folks, it absolutely is an attempt at deflection. Shifting focus from one issue to another does nothing to address the original issue.

 

Just because there are problems bigger than x, does mean folks aren't going to want to do something about x. There is nothing wrong with an organization or individual choosing to focus on a specific issue, and pointing out the existence of other issues you believe to be worse is a poor criticism of that focus.

 

The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

 

The study claims the effects of smoking are worse than previously thought, but it's not even suggesting a change in laws or behavior, so what exactly are you saying is ridiculous?

 

you can't even smoke cigarette outside without people looking at you like you just pulled out a gun. It's getting ridiculous.

 

If you're out in public and you do something that people think is disgusting, is it really so shocking that they would look at you with disgust?

 

I remember trying a cigarette in high school, thinking it was disgusting and wondering why anyone would ever want to do it enough to get addicted to it, but I've also spent far too much time around smokers without it bothering me, so I don't really care either way. Militant anti-smokers or whiny anti-anti-smokers, you're all as ridiculous as each other. "I lit up and they looked at me funny!" Heaven forbid.

 

In terms of number of smokers/new smokers seeming to drop and then drop no further...it's possible that the longer and harder the anti-smoking paranoia lasts, the more some will rebel against it.

 

What constitutes anti-smoking paranoia? When does something stop being a legitimate gripe and start becoming paranoia? Is the banning on asbestos, for example, the result of paranoia or a response to a real health threat?

[213374U]

Just because there are problems bigger than x, does mean folks aren't going to want to do something about x. There is nothing wrong with an organization or individual choosing to focus on a specific issue, and pointing out the existence of other issues you believe to be worse is a poor criticism of that focus.

Er, wasted effort? Diminishing returns? Hypocrisy?

 

The point isn't that this gets attention, it's the disproportionate amount of attention it gets, compared to its real importance. Its importance is in turn established by comparison with the impact that this and other problems have.

 

Because it's pretty silly to focus on the effect that smear on the walls can have on children if those children won't live long enough to develop a tumor because the unhealthy living habits they learned from their parents causes a stroke before 40 (yup, smoking doesn't help with this, either). Cardiovascular disease is the #1 cause of death in developed countries. Just sayin'

 

I'm in neither camp myself. I don't smoke, but the biggest problem smokers cause me is the foul smell that clothes get when people around smoke heavily. But I'll have to get around to washing my clothes all the same...

[Rosbjerg]

The reason discussions like this end up talking about things like pollution in general is because there is no real way to defend smoking. It has a negative effect on the health of both the smoker and those around them. In the absence of any sort of argument for smoking that doesn't paint the arguer as selfish, then the only thing you've got left is to try to shift focus away from smoking, onto... something else. And don't kid yourself folks, it absolutely is an attempt at deflection. Shifting focus from one issue to another does nothing to address the original issue.

 

Just because there are problems bigger than x, does mean folks aren't going to want to do something about x. There is nothing wrong with an organization or individual choosing to focus on a specific issue, and pointing out the existence of other issues you believe to be worse is a poor criticism of that focus.

 

Fair points and you are absolutely right - it's deflective argumentation.. I can't argue that smoking is good for me, I know it's not. I can't argue that smoking is good for my surroundings, I know it's not. I however try to minimize the exposure to people around me, I try my very best to not smoke around non-smokers. I just really hate the constant hate, especially because I feel the vast majority of haters don't have the right to claim the high ground.