|
Toughest smoking ban yet passed in US (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Groundhog Boy |
Why beat around the bush anymore? If they're going to make it virtually impossible to smoke a cigarette even outdoors in California, just ban them. While they're at it, start banning all the other that negatively affects my health. Start with Arnold Schwarzenegger's smog emitting Hummer SUVs.
I used to smoke quite a bit more in college when I lived in upstate New York than I do in NYC now, but I noticed that my breathing is far worse now that i have to breathe the smog and airborne particles of the city. My office is maybe 4-5 blocks from Ground Zero and if I leave my office window open during the day for a few days straight and there's any paperwork on my desk close to the window or on the ledge, it's covered with a thick film of dust (some of it's actually granular, not just powder). IMO, inhaling that all day is far more damaging to my lungs (and god knows what the composition is considering what was in the WTC towers)
BTW, on weekdays, I have 3-4 cigarettes/day, with a few more on weekends when I'm out at clubs until dawn. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well it's not exactly the same with the flip-sided argument. By exercising a complete public ban on smoking, smokers essentially have no choice at all. |
I'll agree with you a little there. I think that a complete public ban is almost impossible for smokers. They should at least be able to smoke if no one is around. After all if a smoker smokes in the woods and no one's around to smell it, did the smoker really emit second-hand smoke?
| quote: | | Whereas people who do smoke do have choices when it comes to avoiding smokers. For one, there are non-smoking sections of restaurants. Then there are smokeless bars. |
This is true, but in the case that nearly ALL bars and clubs are smoking in the majority of the states, it gets really irritating when you want to go out but everywhere you want to go is a smoking environment.
| quote: | | If people care so much about their health and factor in their concern to the places they go to than the demand for these places should increase and more proprietor’s would happily open smoke free establishments. My point is that non-smoking trends should be driven by consumers (and there’s no reason why it couldn’t be) not imposed on us by legislators. |
I think non-smoking trends are driven by consumers. At least in Washington state, a state-wide smoking ban was passed by about 65% of the voters. This included a ban from all public buildings and 25 feet from public buildings too. (The 25 feet rule is hardly enforced, but it gives the non-smokers the right away in case they bring up the issue).
| quote: | | It should be the proprietor's choice as to whether his establishment should be smoke-friendly or smoke free. If people don’t mind the smoke environment than they’ll keep coming back. If people hate the smoke environment than they can go to smoke free places. If they hate it but still go back to the smokers place than I guess they don’t really care that much about their health or are willing to make that tradeoff for whatever reason. |
I'll provide an illustration to help bring up my point:
I hate cigarette smoke (for obvious reasons everyone knows by now). But I love trance. I went to Spundae on Saturday and danced to Markus Schulz (who I thought spun such a great set). However, there were people left and right smoking (even though they weren't supposed to). It irritated my throat and guess what? I feel slightly sick still (it should go away in a couple of days). Here's the story in logic form:
1. I hate smoke
2. I love trance
3. I am in an environment that is smoke and is trance
I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance!
I easily resolve my dissonance by weighting my love for trance more than my hatred for smoke, leading me to go back to this venue despite these dirty little bastards half-secretly smoking inside.
So, if someone still goes to a bar/club/restaurant despite it's smoking environment, their attendance is not passive acceptance towards smoking. If they hate the smoke but are in a smoking environment, it doesn't mean that they are okay with it. They can still hate the smoke, but be present because of many other reasons (they want to date, want to , want to drink, like the food, want to stay up late, like the music, enjoy dancing, all of their friends are there, want to meet people around the same age, having a meeting, etc.) All of these other reasons still bring non-smokers to smoking events because the weight those reasons have more importance and value to them.
So, you can still be in an environment you hate, but love for other reasons.
| quote: | | If enough people hate smoke friendly places than there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a huge market for smoke free places. |
There is a huge market for smoke free places. It's the majority of the people who are non-smokers.
And you and I are on the exact same page when it comes to car pollution. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| I haven't heard of any U.S. statistics on the topic, but many studies have concluded a direct correlation on auto exhaust polluted stagnant summer air & industrial pollution and the rate of lung cancer there being the highest in Canada. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Finally you said something that made me smile. :) |
:p I saw the screening for "Notorious Cho" in Berkley back when I used to live in the Bay Area. Margaret Cho's a riot. You should check out her new movie "Bam Bam and Celeste". |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Is it not a little retarded to ban smoking in cities when there are thousands of vehicles that pass by you except they emit the same thing only 100x more |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Is it not a little retarded to ban smoking in cities when there are thousands of vehicles that pass by you except they emit the same thing only 100x more |
It's also a little retarded to impliment noise bans in cities where it's okay to mess up your hearing in clubs that blast music at around 100-120dBs.
If you want to gather info about and start a new thread about car pollution, then feel free. But the lack of a car pollution ban isn't AT ALL justifying whether a smoking ban is retarded. But since you want to draw a comparison: while the majority of Americans are non-smokers, the majority of Americans find it difficult to be a non-drivers (and large corporations own the patents to most electric/alternative cars that they're not producing). So it's more realistic to get someone to stop smoking in most places than to replace a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar industry that has become just about the only means of reliable transportation in most of America.
And back on topic:
Smoking ban in New York. Cool, right? Try walking outside in Manhattan. Nearly everyone smokes outside and smelling it second-hand is nearly unavoidable. If you've been there and experienced the crowds, you know exactly what I mean. I'd be ecstatic if they passed a smoking ban outside there. :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
I think non-smoking trends are driven by consumers. At least in Washington state, a state-wide smoking ban was passed by about 65% of the voters. This included a ban from all public buildings and 25 feet from public buildings too. (The 25 feet rule is hardly enforced, but it gives the non-smokers the right away in case they bring up the issue).
|
I'm all for banning smoking in public buildings, public transportation, and public goods in general. It's an undue burden to force the public to choose not to take public transportation or work in public buildings. This in my mind is perfectly justifiable yet not the same as establishments such as bars, restaurants, or clubs where consumers have a choice to enjoy or find a place that provides a balance of health and entertainment to suit their needs.
| quote: |
I'll provide an illustration to help bring up my point:
I hate cigarette smoke (for obvious reasons everyone knows by now). But I love trance. I went to Spundae on Saturday and danced to Markus Schulz (who I thought spun such a great set). However, there were people left and right smoking (even though they weren't supposed to). It irritated my throat and guess what? I feel slightly sick still (it should go away in a couple of days). Here's the story in logic form:
1. I hate smoke
2. I love trance
3. I am in an environment that is smoke and is trance
I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance!
I easily resolve my dissonance by weighting my love for trance more than my hatred for smoke, leading me to go back to this venue despite these dirty little bastards half-secretly smoking inside.
So, if someone still goes to a bar/club/restaurant despite it's smoking environment, their attendance is not passive acceptance towards smoking. If they hate the smoke but are in a smoking environment, it doesn't mean that they are okay with it. They can still hate the smoke, but be present because of many other reasons (they want to date, want to , want to drink, like the food, want to stay up late, like the music, enjoy dancing, all of their friends are there, want to meet people around the same age, having a meeting, etc.) All of these other reasons still bring non-smokers to smoking events because the weight those reasons have more importance and value to them.
So, you can still be in an environment you hate, but love for other reasons.
|
Well it's not really cognitive dissonance imo to still go to clubs while you hate the smoke. Smoking is detestable to me personally. What I was trying to emphasize is that despite your perfectly justifiable hatred for smoke and your concern for you health, you excercised the choice to prioritize and justify your continual patronage of such places over any health or irritation related concerns. In other words, you don't care THAT much about your health that you're going to let it get in the way of your lifestyle. What if I have a problem with how loud clubs are playing music? I think it's clear that it's damaging our hearing to a certain extent. Can I lobby for legislation to limit the loudness of club music because, despite the fact that I have a choice to not go to a club or that particular club, I'm going to do it anyway because all other factors are appealing towards me? Granted this is a somewhat ludicrous analogy but the principle of the issue is similar.
| quote: |
There is a huge market for smoke free places. It's the majority of the people who are non-smokers.
And you and I are on the exact same page when it comes to car pollution. |
Well then, you should get into the smoke-free club business ... you would make a killing :).
Unfortunately I'm due to be at the airport in 6 hours so any reply will have to be in pm format in about a week's time (unless the thread is still alive).
Cheers. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well it's not really cognitive dissonance imo to still go to clubs while you hate the smoke. Smoking is detestable to me personally. What I was trying to emphasize is that despite your perfectly justifiable hatred for smoke and your concern for you health, you excercised the choice to prioritize and justify your continual patronage of such places over any health or irritation related concerns. In other words, you don't care THAT much about your health that you're going to let it get in the way of your lifestyle. What if I have a problem with how loud clubs are playing music? I think it's clear that it's damaging our hearing to a certain extent. Can I lobby for legislation to limit the loudness of club music because, despite the fact that I have a choice to not go to a club or that particular club, I'm going to do it anyway because all other factors are appealing towards me? Granted this is a somewhat ludicrous analogy but the principle of the issue is similar. |
It actually is cognitive dissonance.
1. I love trance
2. I hate smoke
3. I am in an environment that is both trance and smoke.
To resolve the dissonance I can learn to tolarate the smoke (as you've explained), learn to not like trance so much, or justify being around both (as I've explained).
With loudness, you can easily put in ear-plugs. But with smoke, you can't put in nose plugs. Big difference. ;)
| quote: | | Well then, you should get into the smoke-free club business ... you would make a killing :). |
Yo have no idea. I want to be the guy to flash some ID to the inside smoker and say, "come with me," and then scare them with the whole "this has been banned for 7 years now" followed by a fine if they still don't seem to get it.
See ya next week Occrider. :) |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
Here's a good article from the New York Times. I think it finds a lot of common ground from the discussions in this thread.
| quote: |
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: March 21, 2006
Dr. David A. Karnofsky was a brilliant oncologist working hard at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to provide the best possible therapies for cancer patients. My mother, who died of ovarian cancer in 1958, was one of them. And while he could not save her, we were ever so grateful for the caring way he treated her.
Skip to next paragraph
More Personal Health Columns Then, in 1969, Dr. Karnofsky, a 55-year-old nonsmoker, died of lung cancer, caused perhaps by his work with nitrogen mustard in World War II. Now another very caring American, Dana Reeve, also a nonsmoker, has been taken by the same disease. She was only 44 and had devoted 9 of her last 10 years to aiding her paralyzed husband, Christopher Reeve, and raising awareness and support for victims of spinal cord injuries like the one he suffered in a horseback-riding accident.
It's Not Just Smoking
Although lung cancer is inextricably linked to smoking in the public mind (and in the minds of most doctors), each year tens of thousands of people who never smoked get this challenging cancer. They are often the subject of much head shaking. What could have caused their cancer?
Why, for example, did Ms. Reeve get lung cancer? Could it have been the stress associated with her husband's accident? Could it have been her exposure years earlier to secondhand smoke in nightclubs where she once performed? Could it have been an errant gene that suddenly allowed lung cells to run amok?
"Lung cancer is so closely linked up with smoking that doctors and the public are surprised when it turns up in nonsmokers," said Dr. Peter B. Bach, pulmonologist and epidemiologist at Sloan-Kettering in New York. "But they shouldn't be surprised. There are about 180,000 cases of lung cancer a year and 150,000 deaths. If 80 percent or so stem from smoking, that leaves about 36,000 cases and 30,000 deaths a year that are not related to smoking.
"That puts non-smoking-related lung cancer in the same league with colorectal, prostate and breast cancer. If we wiped out smoking, lung cancer would still be the No. 3 cancer killer of Americans."
But factors other than smoking that are known to raise lung cancer risk. Following are some of them.
SECONDHAND SMOKE Chronic exposure to secondary smoke in the home or workplace can raise the risk by 20 to 30 percent. Recent bans on smoking on the job, in public buildings and in people's homes are expected to reduce this cause.
EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS Exposed workers are seven times as likely to die of lung cancer, and those who smoke face a risk of developing lung cancer that is 50 to 90 times as great as that in people in general. Asbestos harms when it is released into the air people breathe, usually as a result of deterioration, demolition or renovation of buildings.
INDOOR RADON Homes built over soil with natural uranium deposits can accumulate high levels of radon indoors, doubling or tripling the lung cancer risk of longtime residents.
OTHER WORKPLACE CARCINOGENS These include radioactive ores like uranium; inhaled chemicals like vinyl chloride, beryllium, mustard gas, nickel chromates, arsenic and chloromethyl ethers; fuels like gasoline; and diesel exhaust.
SCARRED AND IRRADIATED LUNGS People with repeated lung infections — bronchitis and pneumonia — have an elevated risk, as do those treated with chest radiation for cancers like Hodgkin's disease and regionally spread breast cancer.
AIR POLLUTION The risk may rise slightly among susceptible people living in cities with a serious pollution problem.
POOR DIET Though the evidence is far from definitive, a diet deficient in fruits and vegetables may raise the risk of lung cancer.
GENETICS The role that genetics plays in lung cancer risk is expected to grow as scientists continue to unravel genetic factors involved in cancer development. For lung cancer in nonsmokers, there is an increased likelihood of finding an abnormal version of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein. People with a strong family history of lung cancer may share a genetic susceptibility and can develop the disease even if they smoke only a little or not at all.
While women account for an increasing proportion of lung cancers in people who, like Ms. Reeve, never smoked, this statistic may reflect the fact that historically there are more women nonsmokers, not that women are at greater risk, Dr. Bach explained.
But, according to Dr. Jeffrey Port, thoracic surgeon at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell hospital, a gender factor may be involved; receptors for estrogen have been found on lung cancer cells that could make women more susceptible than men to environmental insults.
Detection and Treatment
Ms. Reeve's fate was sealed almost from the moment of diagnosis. Although she had had a persistent cough for a year before her cancer was found, by the time lung cancer causes symptoms, it is usually too far advanced to cure. While there has been some progress in treating even advanced lung cancer, the main hope for long-term survival now lies in detection while the cancer is still small and confined to the lung in which it arose.
Lung cancer is likely to be the last thing people with symptoms like a persistent cough or shortness of breath think of if they have never smoked or lived with smokers. Even doctors tend not to suspect this disease in a nonsmoker.
More Personal Health Columns My friend Frank, then 71 and a nonsmoker, was sent for a complete cardiac work-up when he complained to his doctor about shortness of breath. Only when his heart checked out healthy did the doctor think to order tests that revealed a diffuse lung cancer that claimed Frank's life in three months.
There are two broad categories of lung cancer — small cell, which is almost entirely due to smoking, and nonsmall cell, which afflicts both smokers and nonsmokers. Nonsmall cell lung cancer, in turn, is divided into two main categories: adenocarcinomas, which predominate in former smokers and nonsmokers, and squamous cell carcinomas.
"Both adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas behave similarly," Dr. Bach said. "They're all bad."
Yet another type of lung cancer — bronchiolar carcinoma — is becoming more common among women who never smoked, though no one knows why, said Dr. W. Michael Alberts, president of the American College of Chest Physicians. This cancer tends to occur in several sites or in a diffuse form with no solid mass.
There are no reliable early detection methods to screen people for lung cancer that would find it before it causes symptoms and while it is still confined to the site where it arose. Sputum tests to find cancer cells and chest X-rays failed to save lives. The latest test — a spiral CT scan — is under study in a national randomized trial among 50,000 smokers and former smokers.
But even if this test increases survival in smokers, it will probably not be useful for screening the general population, since it generates far too many false findings that require further testing.
Most helpful, both for smokers and nonsmokers, will be sputum tests that detect genetic changes, protein markers or volatile organic chemicals characteristic of lung cancer cells, Dr. Bach said.
Meanwhile, the best way to reduce lung cancer deaths over all — and save 400,000 lives a year — is to keep everyone from smoking.
|
|
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
I haven't heard of any U.S. statistics on the topic, but many studies have concluded a direct correlation on auto exhaust polluted stagnant summer air & industrial pollution and the rate of lung cancer there being the highest in Canada. |
Oh yeah! - I forgot to mention the location Windsor - Essex County, Ontario. I guess it would be harder to do such a study in the U.S. because in the summer air pollution tends to cover very large areas due to the prevailing winds, even remote areas of the Appalation Mountains now experience severe summer smog ( what alot of people call "haze" is smog, because un condensed water vapor is invisible ) from pollution drifting downwind from industrial cities of the Midwest. Just like California, the stagnent summer air patterns in the Mid Atlantic cause the Mid Atlantic Region to be covered in toxic smog for most of the summmer season.
I still think smoking is asking for trouble. Being that the air is already bad, why punish your lungs even more. At least you have some control over air quality indoors, if everyone else doesn't care about the environment outdoors. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I don't know if this has been posted, but I found this to be ironic.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/22/D8GH0PV02.html
The two places in the United States with the strictest anti-smoking laws (New York City & California) also have the most polluted air. I don't think you can blame those numbers on second-hand smoke. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think it goes too far in my opinion. If a proprietar of a club, bar, or whatever, wants to allow their clientele to engage in a ty habit such as smoking than that's their choice. If I take offense to such a policy than I can excercise my free choice to not go to said club, restuarant, bar whatever. Just because it happens to be a cool place and I'm inconvenienced by it's policies doesn't allow me to excercise superirority of my inconveniences over others. Does my inconvenience of cigarrette smoke trump the smokers incovenience of being unable to smoke? Can I not simply excercise prudent judgement and not GO to that establishment? If the place is so popular than people clearly could care less about your own personal inconviences, so why are you trying to impose your lifestyle on others?
And if you want to take this argument down to an issue of health, I don't have a car, so why should I tolerate all the you all spew into the air from all your driving which is clearly detrimental to my health (Even IF it's the most environmentally health concious car technologically possible) Would you drivers care to pay a tax to cover the cost of your irresponsible behaviour to my health (or can I ban your driving in metropolitan areas) because it's an inconvienence and a health detriment in any way whatsoever? |
I completely agree. And jumping on a bandwagon that I don't completely understand:
+1
And to Jake Benson, you are making an arguement out of the fact that you are allergic to second-hand smoke and that it inconviences you.
These two arguements tie into each other since it seems your allergy is only mild. Banning smoking or relagating it to only certian areas is, to use the semantics of the day, discriminating based on lifestyle choice. One person has "chosen" to smoke while you have not and by making it harder and more expensive to smoke you are forcing your "choice lifestyle" onto the other person. Telling a person that the have to practice their "habit" away from nonsmokers is the same as telling a black person they can't use the "white" drinking fountian.
The inate difference in my comparison is that being black is not detrimental to a nearby white persons health, while smoking near a nonsmoker is. Thus a ban on public, enclosed places is understandable to a degree. Banning smoking in a generic resturaunt is fine as long as it is legal to open a "smoking" resturaunt.
It has become trendy to oppose smoking. This is fine, however legislating against it, i.e. raising taxes on cigarettes and banning/regulating it for the sole purpose of "opposing it" or "trying to cut down on smokers" is just the government sticking its nose in my private life and restricting my freedoms.
If I were to find others being gay an inconvience to me and decided to pass laws that forced open acts of homosexuality to be restricted to only certian areas, how would you feel Jake Benson?
How do you think smokers feel? And, other than health, what is the difference? |
|
|
|
|
