Smoking

[Sniffs]

you dinglebrains can argue this forever. I'm just gonna roll with it. when they eventually outlaw everything including Caffeine, then I'll protest.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, any and all deaths attributable to passive smoking are "pure coincidences"?

I didn't say that. You keep adding meaning to my words. I am trying to choose my words carefully, which is why I used the term definitive.

I am saying that to assume the entire difference in numbers is attributal to a reduction in secondhand smoke is based on temporal coincidences. You can't look at a ban that passed in 2006 (I assume that is the ban you mean, since you didn't provide a link of any form) and deaths possibly attributed to secondhand smoke compared to similar deaths today and say they are directly related without ruling out every other possible environmental factor. The act of finding and then ruling out all the possible variables would take more time than there has been since the ban.

I can see I am wasting my time here.

You could have saved us both a ton of time with a link. I mean, I have tried finding this article, but as searching British Medical Journal and passive smoking on Google gives me 318,000 results or searching for passive smoking on the BMJ's own site gives me 85 results, I can't be sure I found it.

I did find this:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7619/549?grp=1

But I am sure isn't the same article you are referring to, because this study is only measuring mean cotinine concentrations in adult non-smokers after the ban, but I did find this quote to be intriguing.

However, to our knowledge, no data are yet available to relate a reduction of this magnitude in mean cotinine concentrations in adult non-smokers to actual improvements in health at a population level.

 

[Touring Mars]

You could have saved us both a ton of time with a link.

See Chapter 4 and associated references, although the rest of the report is revelant to the debate generally, from what I have read so far.

I apologise if I am reading you incorrectly, but it does appear to me that you are somewhat dismissive of the evidence and assuming that your reasoning is more convincing than that of the medical professionals who, apparently, strongly disagree with you. Saying stuff like:

I can only assume that, like the various studies in the US, it is all based on pure temporal coincidences

...it comes across like you are rubbishing the entire methodology and conclusions of these types of study, based on nothing more than your own assumption that they cannot be very meaningful or accurate. Perhaps you don't mean this, so I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting you.

Also, the paper you quoted also contains the following quotes:

Implementation of Scotland's smoke-free legislation has been accompanied within one year by a large reduction in exposure to secondhand smoke, which has been greatest in non-smokers living in non-smoking households.

Exposure to secondhand smoke has a causal association with the development of lung cancer, coronary heart disease, respiratory disease, and stroke in adult non-smokers.

A recent review concluded that there is evidence of a causal association between secondhand exposure to smoke and nasal sinus cancer; breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal women; and asthma induction and exacerbation in adults.

There is good evidence that long term secondhand smoke exposure is harmful to respiratory and cardiovascular health.

Implementation of smoke-free legislation in other countries has been associated with a rapid improvement in reported respiratory and sensory symptoms and lung function of bar workers, who as a group have high levels of exposure in the workplace.

Evidence is growing that even occasional exposure to secondhand smoke can have important and immediate cardiovascular effects that increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction. This suggests that the reductions in exposure to secondhand smoke of the order observed in Scotland may generate immediate health gains in the Scottish population as well as longer term reductions in morbidity and mortality related to secondhand smoke.

 

[mindwise]

But there is a big difference between smoking and drinking in the simplest regard that smoking forces those around the smoker to partake too. Drinking fundamentally doesn't. I agree that the behaviour of people who drink can ruin a night out for those who chose not to, but once again, there are laws against abusive or violent behaviour. But alcohol consumption itself only physically harms the drinker, and not the staff or the guy sitting at the next table. This is an important distinction.

I completely agree... and there's one reason why i think this criticism is not valid:

I wasn't aware that non-smokers were forced to sit in a room with a smoker. I have yet to run across these businesses that require people to be their customers and come inside the building with all these death-dealing smokers.

No one is forcing anyone into an alcohol serving bar either, so the two are on par i think.
But if you decide to voluntarily enter (with a group perhaps?) then that is a difference.

I am still a smoker myself, and boy am i happy the smoking cabins in our train system have long gone. it was always hell with the non smoking one crammed and the only place where one could sit, were the smoking cabins.... i'd rather stand then

I'm sure smoking in the workplace was covered already, but that's virtually non existent now... and that's good.
I don't even smoke in my own car with a non smoking passenger (unless they unasked claim i can light one up )

 

[FoolKiller]

See Chapter 4 and associated references, although the rest of the report is revelant to the debate generally, from what I have read so far.

Now I see where my confusion is:

You said:

A recent report in the journal Clinical Medicine showed that passive smoking accounted for over 12000 otherwise preventable deaths per annum in the UK alone

I assumed, based on your wording, that this was some new study that showed some form of public health change since the smoking ban took place.

Now that I open the report you linked me to I see this:

A report on passive smoking by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians, July 2005

I wasn't expecting a four year old report, written two years before the smoking ban took effect, when you said recent.

I apologise if I am reading you incorrectly, but it does appear to me that you are somewhat dismissive of the evidence and assuming that your reasoning is more convincing than that of the medical professionals who, apparently, strongly disagree with you. Saying stuff like:


...it comes across like you are rubbishing the entire methodology and conclusions of these types of study, based on nothing more than your own assumption that they cannot be very meaningful or accurate. Perhaps you don't mean this, so I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting you.

My thing is that I am looking for definitive evidence that the ban has saved X amount of lives (even if it is estimated after ruling out other possible variables), not the argument used to pass the ban, based on assumptions plugged into a formula (see section 4.2 for the formula, section 4.4 for the estimated number of deaths attributed to secondhand smoke). My main issue with their formula is that they calculate relative risk (see 4.2) based on the number of people exposed to passive smoking who died from the listed disease compared to the number of people not exposed to passive smoking. Were it not for the fact that their own data states that of the 12,200 deaths they estimate approximately 500 (minimum) were due to workplace exposure (see 4.9 fourth bullet point) I wouldn't have a major question regarding their formula. But since as much as 95% of their estimate were exposed in a non-workplace situation, I have to wonder if other variables due to their life choices could also play a part? That 95% is attributed to home exposure. It means that non-smokers are willing to live with (children having no choice) smokers who smoke inside the home. Does this mean that the adults in this situation may also have made other poor health choices, been exposed to other risks? Section 4.8 says no. Can we guarantee that a "non-smoking" spouse doesn't occasionally have one cigarette, significantly increasing health risks? I know people that call themselves non-smokers but who will smoke a cigarette or two socially throughout the year.

Really, this report makes a much stronger case for banning smoking in the home than in businesses.

While I do question the ability to account for all variables (although it is as close as you can get without doing so) I don't assume it is rubbish. Your wording presented it as a hard number. The report itself calls it an estimate, and I am asking to see what changes have occurred since the ban to justify it.

Of course, my follow up to that would be: Why do these people willingly choose to be exposed? I would have every right to demand that my wife stop adding cancer causing chemicals to my food, so why not if she is putting it into my air?

Also, the paper you quoted also contains the following quotes:

I do not doubt that secondhand smoke can have negative side effects. I grew up in a home with two smoking parents and a brother with asthma. I am a witness to the direct effects. My argument is that we do not have any definitive number to say how many people actually died due to secondhand smoke, just estimates calculated using assumptions.

My initial response was:

Wait they found a definitive way to prove that over 12000 people blatantly died from second-hand smoke, that otherwise would have lived?

The answer to that would be, no. It is an estimate based on a number derived after accepting other variables may be at work.

And assuming it is accurate it would mean that only approximately 500 lives were saved by this ban, not over 12,000. Factor in the research I linked, which shows that some smoking households moved smoking outdoors to reduce exposure and that number may be higher.

I can create an argument to attach a Breathalyzer test to the ignition system of every car that would save a similar number of lives.

 

[Touring Mars]

I see where the confusion was too, and I wasn't implying anything about the efficacy of smoking bans (although the report I linked to does cite evidence from Ireland where the smoking ban has had time to have some effect and for that effect to be investigated) but was concentrating on the rationale behind the idea of banning smoking in enclosed public spaces in the first place. However, since that report was written, newer studies are showing (like the one you cited) that the ban is having positive effects. Personally, I think it is a no-brainer that the smoking ban is going to have positive effects for non-smokers. Not only that, but many of the mooted negative effects of smoking bans - which were primarily economic arguments created by the tobacco industry themselves - have failed to materialize or have been shown to be without foundation.

You are right to say that workplace smoking is nowhere near the biggest issue, though, but it happens to be what we've been talking about for the last few days... So as far as the smoking ban in workplaces go, I suppose it comes down to whether or not you think that compromising the "right" of business owners to allow smoking in their premises is more important than the possibility that non-smokers are being put at unnecessary risk by respecting that right. The report does discuss this very issue and concludes that, in their opinion atleast, a ban is morally justified despite the rights argument.

As for banning smoking in the home, that's a different kettle of fish. And as for banning smoking altogether, that's an even bigger kettle of fish. Suffice it to say, however, that although these things are real issues that have real implications for health (in particular that of children exposed to secondhand smoke), I'm happy with the bans as they stand, which mean that non-smokers do not have to risk their own safety (by confronting a smoker) or their jobs (by confronting employers) to ensure that they can spend a normal working day without being forced to inhale cigarette smoke.

you dinglebrains can argue this forever.

Thanks for that contribution, Sniffs. I'll try not to take that as a personal attack or an abusive comment, but it's damned close...

 

[FoolKiller]

Not only that, but many of the mooted negative effects of smoking bans - which were primarily economic arguments created by the tobacco industry themselves - have failed to materialize or have been shown to be without foundation.

My father (forced to retire) and 1,400 other factory workers in Louisville, KY would disagree.

Lord only knows how many thousands of farms in Kentucky went under. Some managed to convert to soy beans, but not all could afford to switch over.

 

[Danoff]

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you think that compromising the "right" of business owners to allow smoking in their premises is more important than the possibility that non-smokers are being put at unnecessary risk by respecting that right.

Property rights vs. risk.

Respecting property rights always increases risk, but I don't see a viable choice in the matter. Human rights are not a luxury.

 

[Sureboss]

For me, there are parallels but also big differences between smoking and drinking in bars/restaurants. For one, there are already strict controls over the sale of alcohol in bars - age limits, time limits, the right of staff to deny service, consumers may not drink their own alcohol on licensed premises etc. etc. I fully support measures designed to make retailers more responsible too - like the abolition of happy hours, harsher penalties for shops and bars who supply alcohol to underage people, far more warnings about the health risks of alcohol etc.

But there is a big difference between smoking and drinking in the simplest regard that smoking forces those around the smoker to partake too. Drinking fundamentally doesn't. I agree that the behaviour of people who drink can ruin a night out for those who chose not to, but once again, there are laws against abusive or violent behaviour. But alcohol consumption itself only physically harms the drinker, and not the staff or the guy sitting at the next table. This is an important distinction.

The staff or the guy at the next table never get subjected to a violent drunk, then?

Think you've got that one wrong, TM.

 

[Touring Mars]

That wasn't the point I was making - there are laws that explicitly prohibit violence against bar staff and oblige customers, drunk or otherwise, to obey them. Similarly, smoking bans do not prevent people from smoking in bars, they only make it against the law. Ultimately, staff cannot stop individuals from doing whatever they want, be it smoking, being violent, or painting their bum purple and singing Feniculi Fenicula. But the law ensures that those who choose to behave this way are punished accordingly... (well, maybe not in the latter case). For me anyway, the question is why is that behaviour deemed unacceptable, and the answer is because that behaviour causes harm to others.

In terms of justification of the smoking ban, in my view it is not simply a case of "it infringes human rights, therefore it's bad" but "it's a small price to pay for the benefits it will bring". Let's face it, smokers are not being forced to stop smoking at all, only expected to keep it to themselves and limit the possibility that their habit harms others - atleast in public anyway. In the main, their rights are well protected, and very few people (in reality) have any complaints about the smoking ban. Whether or not the government are employing a double standard by not banning alcohol too is a moot point when discussing the merits of the smoking ban per se. However, as such comparisons are being drawn, I'd say that it should be kept in perspective and that problems pertaining to alcohol misuse ought to be dealt with separately and on its own merits.

 

[FoolKiller]

In terms of justification of the smoking ban, in my view it is not simply a case of "it infringes human rights, therefore it's bad" but "it's a small price to pay for the benefits it will bring".

Sacrificing rights is always a huge cost. There is nothing more valuable or more important in this world. Without rights we have nothing.

Let's face it, smokers are not being forced to stop smoking at all, only expected to keep it to themselves and limit the possibility that their habit harms others - atleast in public anyway. In the main, their rights are well protected, and very few people (in reality) have any complaints about the smoking ban.

You are correct, smokers still have the right to smoke. Business owners on the other hand are constantly having the rights of their ownership attacked and chipped away at. This same argument in regards to smoking has been applied to trans fats.

 

[Touring Mars]

Sacrificing rights is always a huge cost. There is nothing more valuable or more important in this world. Without rights we have nothing.

But rights are only half the story, as I am arguing here. If sacrificing the right to allow people to smoke in workplaces provides a direct and tangible health benefit to those who choose not to smoke, then the cost is atleast partially offset.

That report I cited earlier has a good example of how rights-based arguments are not necessarily the be-all and end-all... Banning smoking in petrol stations infringes the rights of smokers and of petrol station owners. But by virtue of the inherent danger of allowing naked flames in petrol stations, the greater good is served by the ban, and the "rights" of the smoker or business owner are (rightly) considered of secondary importance. Although an extreme example, it is an example of when a smoking ban is just plain common sense, and the benefits far outweigh the inconvenience. The report neatly summarises this point by saying that "just that one person has a certain right does not mean that person is ethically permitted to exercise it whenever and wherever he or she wants to".

 

[FoolKiller]

But rights are only half the story, as I am arguing here. If sacrificing the right to allow people to smoke in workplaces provides a direct and tangible health benefit to those who choose not to smoke, then the cost is atleast partially offset.

That report I cited earlier has a good example of how rights-based arguments are not necessarily the be-all and end-all... Banning smoking in petrol stations infringes the rights of smokers and of petrol station owners. But by virtue of the inherent danger of allowing naked flames in petrol stations, the greater good is served by the ban, and the "rights" of the smoker or business owner are (rightly) considered of secondary importance. Although an extreme example, it is an example of when a smoking ban is just plain common sense, and the benefits far outweigh the inconvenience. The report neatly summarises this point by saying that "just that one person has a certain right does not mean that person is ethically permitted to exercise it whenever and wherever he or she wants to".

The right of the business owner trumps the choice of anyone who chooses to enter that business.

 

[Touring Mars]

Business owners still have an ethical duty to behave responsibly and ensure the safety of their staff, as well as their customers. The rights of business owners do not "trump" the rights of their staff. In any case, this issue cannot simply be decided by consideration of the rights of business owners alone. If this argument has shown us anything at all, it is that there is more to it than that. Suffice it to say, if you're intent on describing this issue as solely one about the rights of business owners, then we're not going to get any further than this I'm afraid.

 

[FoolKiller]

Business owners still have an ethical duty to behave responsibly and ensure the safety of their staff, as well as their customers. The rights of business owners do not "trump" the rights of their staff. In any case, this issue cannot simply be decided by consideration of the rights of business owners alone. If this argument has shown us anything at all, it is that there is more to it than that. Suffice it to say, if you're intent on describing this issue as solely one about the rights of business owners, then we're not going to get any further than this I'm afraid.

The staff does not have a right to that job. They have that job purely by the consent of the business owner. If the staff decides that they do not enjoy the legal conditions of that job then the business owner has the right to let them go in favor of someone who will not create an uncomfortable and/or hostile work environment for everyone else.

And yes, I have let people go for negative attitudes creating problems in my department. If they don't like the legal way our owners run our business or I run my department then I do not want them here.

 

[orimarc]

*redas post title*

"Were cookin tonight, just keep on tokin'
Smokin', smokin'
I feel alright, mamma I'm not jokin, yeah."

Sorry, I had a Boston karaoke moment.

 

[Danoff]

For me anyway, the question is why is that behaviour deemed unacceptable, and the answer is because that behaviour causes harm to others.

Ok, your argument is rooted in human rights then. Your premise is that smoking is unacceptable because it violates the property rights of others (lungs = property here).

If that is the case, then we need a number of things. First we need to determine that passive pollution of air that you do not own, but which you are using, can represent a violation of your rights. Second we need to determine (proof) that this particular example of pollution does in fact cause harm. Third, we need to establish that there is no practical way around being exposed to this pollution - for example, supposing that there were a warning sign somewhere that indicated that the air within this building was polluted and that you should enter at your own risk. That would constitute a practical way for people to understand the risks and choose whether or not to engage in that particular activity. We could take this further and say that signs indicating that the air is not polluted would be sufficient. Something like "No Smoking" for example.

Since your argument is rooted in human rights, let's do away with this particular line of reasoning:

In terms of justification of the smoking ban, in my view it is not simply a case of "it infringes human rights, therefore it's bad" but "it's a small price to pay for the benefits it will bring".

My response will always be the same to this - rights are not a luxury.

 

[TrievelA7X]

You didn't. That's the point.

You said $1/hr isn't "a fair wage". I asked, a couple of times, why it can't be a fair wage if you do $1/hr of work. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

what's 1$ an hour worth of work?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

what's 1$ an hour worth of work?

Work that is worth $1/hour.

 

[Danoff]

what's 1$ an hour worth of work?

*insert random "yo momma" joke here*

 

[FoolKiller]

what's 1$ an hour worth of work?

Whatever an employee and an employer agree upon. Paid for work is a financial transaction, which requires the voluntary consent of both parties.

If you and I agree that you building a car for me is worth $1, then that is $1 worth of work. Similarly, we could agree that you picking up a piece of paper I accidentally dropped is worth $1 and it would be $1 worth of work.

To bring this all back on topic: An employer/employee relationship is one built on voluntary consent by both parties. If the employer chooses to allow customers to smoke the employee must voluntarily consent to those working conditions. If they do not then they will be out of a job and the employer will be short staffed. As it is a financial agreement based on voluntary consent, allowing smoking in a place of business violates no one's rights. By continuing to work and accept payment for that work the employee has consented to those working conditions.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Whatever an employee and an employer agree upon. Paid for work is a financial transaction, which requires the voluntary consent of both parties.

If you and I agree that you building a car for me is worth $1, then that is $1 worth of work. Similarly, we could agree that you picking up a piece of paper I accidentally dropped is worth $1 and it would be $1 worth of work.

To bring this all back on topic: An employer/employee relationship is one built on voluntary consent by both parties. If the employer chooses to allow customers to smoke the employee must voluntarily consent to those working conditions. If they do not then they will be out of a job and the employer will be short staffed. As it is a financial agreement based on voluntary consent, allowing smoking in a place of business violates no one's rights. By continuing to work and accept payment for that work the employee has consented to those working conditions.

It is on topic, it's a comparison.
And once again I say, a lack of a minimum wage would cause poverty to run amuck.
It's not that an employer shouldn't have to right to set their pay level at whatever they want, it's that workers should have the right to a fair wage.
And the government decided they do. 1$ an hour is not it. Quick quips of 1$ an hour of work is worth 1$ and takes one hour doesn't cut it. It's been decided that there is no amount of work (that takes an hour) is worth only 1$. Instead of looking at it as a minimum value for amount of work completed, look at it as a minimum value of time spent of human life. Look at it as though 1 hour of your life is worth 7.25$ an hour right now in America. Any work you do can be determined by the employer to be worth whatever amount they deem they can get people to do it for.

 

[Famine]

It is on topic, it's a comparison.
And once again I say, a lack of a minimum wage would cause poverty to run amuck.
It's not that an employer shouldn't have to right to set their pay level at whatever they want, it's that workers should have the right to a fair wage.
And the government decided they do. 1$ an hour is not it. Quick quips of 1$ an hour of work is worth 1$ and takes one hour doesn't cut it. It's been decided that there is no amount of work (that takes an hour) is worth only 1$. Instead of looking at it as a minimum value for amount of work completed, look at it as a minimum value of time spent of human life. Look at it as though 1 hour of your life is worth 7.25$ an hour right now in America. Any work you do can be determined by the employer to be worth whatever amount they deem they can get people to do it for.

And none of that has anything to do with your insistence that:

You see, in America ... We have the right to a fair wage.

You are completely ignoring any possibility that a fair wage can be $1/hr if the work is worth $1/hr. For some reason a "fair wage" has to be equal to or above an arbitrary amount set by politicians, rather than commensurate with the amount of work done.

Why is this? What does "fair" mean to you?

 

[Mark T]

I think we need to have a minimum wage so that the vulnerable are protected. I don't necessarily agree with the current minimum wage but I think there should be a minimum based on the basic living costs of the country.

If $1 is a fair wage, we need to establish what kind of work we would be willing to do for $1/£1 an hour (sports car test drivers and pornstars exempt).

 

[Touring Mars]

Ok, your argument is rooted in human rights then. Your premise is that smoking is unacceptable because it violates the property rights of others

Perhaps to some extent, but my central point is that the property rights of business owners are not the only rights issue at play, contrary to what you and FK seem to be suggesting. Other considerations include ethical issues, issues of public safety, employees rights, property rights of employees versus property rights of employers, not to mention what serves the greater good. My point is that although property rights of business owners are a consideration, they simply do not trump every other issue simply because you or anyone else thinks that property rights of business owners are more important.

First we need to determine that passive pollution of air that you do not own, but which you are using, can represent a violation of your rights.

I would say it does - if someone is pumping dangerous amounts of pollutant into a common source of air that you are obliged to breathe, then the polluter is directly responsible for specific health problems that may arise from that pollution. In the case of employers, they also bear some responsibility if they fail to take adequate measures to protect or alert their staff to the health risks involved in occupying their premises. Employees have a right to expect safe working conditions. Passive smoking is just one example, and perhaps one of the simplest to address - indeed most workplaces voluntarily banned smoking well before bans became the law in the UK.

Second we need to determine (proof) that this particular example of pollution does in fact cause harm.

This has been established beyond reasonable doubt, if you choose to read the scientific literature and not a tobacco-industry funded "study" - a study conducted in 1998 and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association sought to ask why studies on the health effects of passive smoking draw different conclusions (i.e. why did 30% of studies say passive smoking had no ill effects?), and it came to a somewhat shocking conclusion - that the outcome of the study depended mostly on the affiliation of the author to the tobacco industry. Of course, there are studies that show a likely or very likely causal link between passive smoking and ill health, and now that bans have had some time to take effect, studies are coming out that address the issue of whether smoking bans are having a positive effect on health, hence providing ethical/moral justification for their existence.

Third, we need to establish that there is no practical way around being exposed to this pollution

I don't agree - on the basis of achieving a reduction in the amount of an unnecessary and harmful to health pollutant, one only need establish that the most effective way of achieving this is a complete ban in enclosed public spaces and workplaces.

 

[Famine]

I think we need to have a minimum wage so that the vulnerable are protected. I don't necessarily agree with the current minimum wage but I think there should be a minimum based on the basic living costs of the country.

Though that's cyclical - if we give everyone a million pounds, no-one will actually be any richer.

Cost of living is affected by inflation. Pump more money into the economy in the form of artificially inflated wages and you increase inflation which increases cost of living...

because you or anyone else thinks that property rights of business owners are more important

It's not the case that the property rights of business owners are more important. It's the case that property rights are more important.

We sell ourselves for what we deem fair (unless it's below a certain threshold - then it's taken out of our hands ) and exchange our recompense for property. As soon as you say "oh, but this type of property isn't actually yours to do with what you will inside the same legal or moral framework as everything else" you establish precedent that what's yours isn't actually yours. It might seem like a bit of a leap to get from that to full-blown communism, but every journey begins with but a single step and all that jazz.


The only real, logical thing to do in the case of premises upon which one may experience environmental hazards which are accessible by the public is for the property owner to put signs up at the entrances (as publicly-owned sites are compelled to, even when not accessible by the public) alerting those who enter to the hazard so that they may make an informed choice as to whether they enter or not. In the case of such places who employ others, it should be written into a contract that employees may be exposed to such hazards and agree to this before they start work.

This respects property rights, the right to choose, the responsibilities of employers and the ability of employees to take legal action if exposed to environmental hazards they aren't contracted to.

I would say it does - if someone is pumping dangerous amounts of pollutant into a common source of air that you are obliged to breathe, then the polluter is directly responsible for specific health problems that may arise from that pollution.

From this, two questions naturally arise:

1. What is a "dangerous amount" of cigarette smoke? I'm not aware of this ever having been quantified.
2. If a "dangerous amount" turns out to be "any", can I sue or press charges for attempted murder against every smoker I've ever come into contact with?

 

[Touring Mars]

In the case of such places who employ others, it should be written into a contract that employees may be exposed to such hazards and agree to this before they start work.

This respects property rights, the right to choose, the responsibilities of employers and the ability of employees to take legal action if exposed to environmental hazards they aren't contracted to.

Although I agree that this approach is generally sensible, it doesn't detract from the fact that workplace smoking bans are more likely than not to have a net positive effect on the health of staff, whether they are aware of the risks posed to their health by passive smoking or not. As such, smoking bans in the workplace are likely to achieve a positive effect without any a priori knowledge or agreements made in advance from either employer or employee.

From this, two questions naturally arise:

1. What is a "dangerous amount" of cigarette smoke? I'm not aware of this ever having been quantified.
2. If a "dangerous amount" turns out to be "any", can I sue or press charges for attempted murder against every smoker I've ever come into contact with?

As you are no doubt well aware, it is difficult to establish what constitutes a 'dangerous amount' in absolute terms, since the health effects of any pollutant depends on several other factors other than just simple concentration i.e. constant exposure to low levels of certain pollutants can be worse than short-term exposure to high levels, etc. It is perhaps easier to ask what is a "safe amount" of cigarette smoke, and the answer is simply "as little as possible".

 

[Famine]

Although I agree that this approach is generally sensible, it doesn't detract from the fact that workplace smoking bans are more likely than not to have a net positive effect on the health of staff, whether they are aware of the risks posed to their health by passive smoking or not. As such, smoking bans in the workplace are likely to achieve a positive effect without any a priori knowledge or agreements made in advance from either employer or employee.

Indeed - but you could say the same of many other things. Just by replacing rights, freedoms, responsibilities and choices with several hundred millions of pounds of legislation and compliance, we could make some people a little healthier.

Incidentally, did this really only improve the health of 500 people a year in the UK (as I gleaned from scanning the posts dealing with the report)? You'd have a greater effect and a lower cost from implementing compulsory 'flu vaccination (though just as big a breach of personal freedoms).

As you are no doubt well aware, it is difficult to establish what constitutes a 'dangerous amount' in absolute terms, since the health effects of any pollutant depends on several other factors other than just simple concentration i.e. constant exposure to low levels of certain pollutants can be worse than short-term exposure to high levels, etc. It is perhaps easier to ask what is a "safe amount" of cigarette smoke, and the answer is simply "as little as possible".

But again, that applies to so many other things.

With other enviromental pollutants - such as that my local industries puther out and the prior example of radiation - you can say that "this" amount of exposure is detrimental, "that" amount is dangerous and "the other" amount is fatal. Accordingly businesses producing these are given a limit as to how much they can allow to leave their site and how much exposure their employees should have as a maximum (save in the case of industrial accidents, which are a whole different kettle of fish).

With cigarette smoke we have no detrimental/dangerous/fatal statistics. And rather than allow the businesses to behave responsibly, it's just banned. And people can still wander about in public waving it about!

But if we agree that cigarette smoke is detrimental to your health surely anyone who smokes around you wherever they are is committing an assault?

 

[Touring Mars]

Incidentally, did this really only improve the health of 500 people a year in the UK (as I gleaned from scanning the posts dealing with the report)?

No - that was an estimate (and a conservative one at that) of the number of deaths that could have been prevented by a ban on smoking in the workplace. As well as preventable deaths, other health benefits are also being recognised, specifically that smoking bans in workplaces encourage smokers to quit as well as exerting a positive effect on the health of non-smokers.

With cigarette smoke we have no detrimental/dangerous/fatal statistics.

I think you know as well as I do that it is an impossible ask to ascertain the precise amount of secondhand smoke required to cause any particular ailment in any particular individual, hence the burden of proof you are alluding to is unrealistic. But the fact remains that, across a population of people in a range of different environments, secondhand smoke can and does cause illness and even premature death in individuals who do not smoke (especially children in the home of smokers, for which there is compelling and ample evidence), and that recent studies (such as the ones I linked to in my previous post) suggest strongly that smoking bans in the workplace are helping to alleviate the problem.

But if we agree that cigarette smoke is detrimental to your health surely anyone who smokes around you wherever they are is committing an assault?

Due to nature of secondhand smoke exposure, and the fact that its effects are cumulative and depend on both the duration and extent of exposure, as well as the susceptibility of the individual being affected, it would be extremely difficult for an individual to press charges or sue any single person who smoked around them on the basis that their smoke was specifically to blame for an ailment. In other words, you could try, but you'd probably fail.

 

[Joey D]

I have no doubt second hand smoke contributes to respiratory issues, but then again a lot of things do. Look at LA in California, the air is so polluted there is always an orange glow over the city. Wouldn't that be far more detrimental to a person's health and well being then breathing in second hand smoke? Should we also ban factories? Automobiles? Anything else that produces pollution? I understand there is a health risk for other people associated with smoking but there are a ton of other things that are too.

And since some of you guys didn't like my ban alcohol if you ban smoking comparison, I'll offer you another one. Should be ban burnouts at drag strips? People that work there are exposed to harmful smoke daily and so are the people who visit the establishment. One can also argue that the drag strip is hurting the environment and the people in the vicinity that aren't associated with the race track.