Friday, August 20, 2010
Further proof of why we shouldn't have smoking in public areas
I still see and hear, once in a while, someone complain that they can't smoke in public. Last week, someone wrote in to The Kansas City Star, sarcastically ripping our smoking bans, saying life will be perfect one of these days, if we just keep passing laws similar to this one. And to this I say, you need to read the following scientific information on what smoking does to us, just released this morning:
Scientists led by Dr. Ronald Crystal at Weill Cornell Medical College documented changes in genetic activity among nonsmokers triggered by exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke. Public-health bans on smoking have been fueled by strong population-based data that links exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and a higher incidence of lung diseases such as emphysema and even lung cancer, but do not establish a biological cause for the correlation. Now, for the first time, researchers can point to one possible cause: the passive recipient's genes are actually being affected.
The results suggest that the genetic changes among the low-exposure volunteers, some of whose exposure is exclusively secondhand, mimicked those of smokers and represent the first molecular steps toward later lung disease.
...the latest findings should reinforce public-health messages about the dangers of cigarette smoke, even if it is secondhand, says Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. "When you look at the biology, there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke," he says. "This [study] adds an important piece of evidence that inhaling secondhand smoke is deleterious and does things to the airway that are not good."
Okay? Got that? It's bad enough your cigarettes make us stink. We could live with that. And the scientific data told us years ago that secondhand smoke does cause cancer, even though you may not want to believe it. But here is further proof of just what you, smoking in public, in restaurants and so on, does to us--all of us. Could we get over this now?
Link to original post:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201210300;_ylt=AiwAHJetTqWiLcUjXzd7otHpCcB_;_ylu=X3oDMTM1dTVqMjI1BGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMDA4MjAvMDg1OTkyMDEyMTAzMDAEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM4BHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDc2Vjb25kaGFuZGNp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Although I think the risks of second hand smoke are overstated, they do exist. What I cannot accept is that second hand smoke is more dangerous than, say indoor automobile exhaust, lead from an indoor gun range, or hydrofluoric acid fumes--so dangerous that no amount of mitigation short of a complete ban is sufficient.
Tobacco smoke should be treated just like any other workplace hazard. Exposure limits set based on unbiased scientific data and reasonable rather than zero risk. If employers allow smoke, they must take action to ensure that involuntary exposure is below the limits, including monitoring if necessary.
It is possible to allow smoking without causing significant exposure to non-smokers. It is likely that the costs involved will cause many employers to ban smoking--but if they are able to keep the exposure of nonsmokers low enough, they should fall under the same rules and regulations as an auto mechanic, gun range or factory.
A blanket ban is little different than a ban on morning after pills. Freedom is not just being free to do the things you approve of, it is being free to do things that you or I think are stupid.
Okay, sure, people can be free to smoke.
Just not indoors, in an area they don't control (work places, offices, restaurants, etc.) so we all have to get exposed to it. Then their freedom would impinge on our health. That would just be freedom for them, not the rest of us. If they want to kill themselves at home or in their car, more power to them. Just not my lungs.
I--and scientists, too, to boot--disagree that "It is possible to allow smoking without causing significant exposure to non-smokers", at least in public. It's like that saying that allowing smoking in restaurants in "smoking areas" is like allowing peeing in pools, in their own space. It doesn't work. It doesn't protect the rest of us who don't smoke and who don't want to be exposed to the smoke--and possible cancer.
And it isn't just the stupid factor here, it's a health factor. Stupid, though I don't want to be exposed to, either, I can live with. This, the possibility to the point of likelihood, of cancer, we can't live with. At least we can't for long.
mr
What evidence do you have that it is impossible to manage secondhand smoke? "We tried a rope around the smoker's tables, that didn't work, so that proves nothing will".
It may not be practical to reduce second hand smoke exposure to reasonable limits, but it is absolutely possible--unless your idea of "reasonable limits" is "detectable by the most sensitive methods possible". The same methods used by a gun range to reduce lead exposure would certainly work--airlock doors, suction ventilation with a mandatory amount of airflow from the firing position to the target area. Keep staff upwind and there is less exposure than someone across the street with a cigarette.
It is reasonable to argue about exactly where the exposure limits should be set-but to insist that no mitigation no matter how extreme is enough shows that the argument is ideological rather than factual or scientific.
Holy cow.
Untrue. Patently untrue--a couple things on a couple different issues.
"airlock doors, suction ventilation with a mandatory amount of airflow from the firing position to the target area. Keep staff upwind and there is less exposure than someone across the street with a cigarette"?
What restaurant, for instance, can or would put this into effect just so some people could smoke cigarettes? It isn't economically feasible.
What would possibly make sense is allowing a business to declare itself a smoking bar or restaurant, if they so chose, maybe, and then let all the patrons and employees who work there do so by their choice. THAT seems fair and reasonable. Most of us would stay away and the ones that wanted it could go there. Then, if it works, it works in a free market way. Fine.
Who said "that no mitigation no matter how extreme is enough"? I sure didn't. Consequently, my argument isn't ideological at all. I'm absolutely not just taking a stand to take a stand. It's based on scientific data as all this shows--including this new source--smoking and even 2nd hand smoke causes cancer.
mr
My example of mitigation was extreme, but it would work. True, hardly anyone would go to those lengths, but it is likely that a much cheaper solution would become available.
Who said "that no mitigation no matter how extreme is enough"? I sure didn't.
We need a language in common then. You said:
I--and scientists, too, to boot--disagree that "It is possible to allow smoking without causing significant exposure to non-smokers", at least in public
In my version of English, "not possible" and "no mitigation no matter how extreme" mean basically the same thing in this context.
If you allowed businesses to choose by merely posting a sign, then we would be exactly where we were before the ban, except with extra signs. I'm not objecting mind you, but I think setting reasonable standards would be better for the employees.
Post a Comment