Anti-Smoking Laws

[MMATM]

Stop splitting hairs. I actually know a lot of people who smoke out of choice, not cuz of addiction. And as someone said earlier in the topic, you can find statistics to say anything you like. It doesn't mean it's true.

I'm not seeing any split hairs here. The quoted statistic is a statistic because it is supported by investigation. Not because some schmuck with a lab coat pulled it out of his ass to help win a debate. If 1000 people smoked one cigarette every day for a year, it can be safely expected that 980 of them, give or take a statistically insignificant number, would be addicted to cigarettes after that time.

Personality also has little to nothing to do with nicotine addiction. Nicotine is an alkaloid that elicits specific physiological reactions in the bodies of animals, including humans. The nicotine in tobacco, such as that smoked in a cigarette, comes in a small dose, which acts on the body as an addictive stimulant. The addiction stems from a physiological dependence on the chemical's presence rather than a psychological dependence like some other types of addiction (possibly including alcoholism). The only part of nicotine addiction that is affected by personality is withdrawal. An extremely strong-willed person can quit "cold turkey" and endure the withdrawal symptoms, whereas a normal person would have trouble doing so.

While I believe that you are not addicted to cigarettes, or nicotine in any form, I will say that the vast majority of people who smoke "regularly" as defined by one or more cigarettes a day, are already or will likely become addicted to them if they continue to smoke regularly.

As for being able to find statistics "to say anything you like", try finding some before you negate all statistics' validity. You won't find many studies indicating that cigarettes aren't addictive. It's not because the scientists who may have made the discovery that "nicotine addiction is a sham" covered it up, either. Scientific objectivity aside, a find like that would win them the Nobel prize.

And, to quote Dr. Perry Cox: "statistics mean nothing to the individual". Truer words have seldom been spoken. Some diseases (left untreated) have a 99.99% fatality rate (or worse), and yet people have survived them. To those few people, the statistics are not indicative of the truth. To the many millions who have died of said diseases, well... they are. For example, if you happen to know, say, exactly six people who have smoked "regularly" for over a year and all of them smoke entirely by choice (and none of them is really addicted and in denial), then congratulations, you are one of only about 64E-10% (less than 0.00000001%) of people who can claim to know six people who smoke, of whom none are addicted. Statistically possible? Most definitely yes. Likely? Most definitely not.

[Seshat]

Going down the highway is an example of real, actual harm to other people.

And many people in this thread have indicated that to them, their family and their friends, being in the presence of a smoker is real, actual harm.

you know certain places are goign to have smokers around. Therefore the burden to protect yourself is on you not the others
<snip>
You are not being forced to be there and can leave at anytime you want.

I have been surprised by the presence of a smoker many times. By the time I can smell the smoke, the damage is done: I'm going to have the itchy eyes and nose of a histamine reaction, and if I get enough smoke before I can get away, I'll have the runny nose and cough as well. In the past, you could have added body pain to that list. (That's from the presence of a single smoker, who happens to be upwind of me. From a group, I'll definitely get the nose and the cough.)

I used the phrase 'smoke-intolerant' to denote those of us who are medically affected by cigarette smoke; to distinguish us from people who just don't smoke.

Rahmota (I think) decided that the word 'intolerant' definitely applied. Personally, I think we're being very tolerant.

All we've asked in this thread is for smokers to stay out of some enclosed public spaces and the entrances to them.

We're willing to tolerate the histamine reactions, asthma attacks and other effects of other peoples' smoke. We're just asking you not to smoke where it's impossible for us to avoid it. We're accepting that you'll smoke outside, and that we'll unknowingly and unwittingly walk downwind of you and get affected sometimes.


We're willing to tolerate pain and discomfort so you can enjoy yourselves. I call that pretty tolerant. Wouldn't you?

[Difdi]

Do you use a stimulant to calm down? Do you use a depressant to cheer up? Congrats, you're an addict.

[ebonyknight]

Do you use a stimulant to calm down? Do you use a depressant to cheer up? Congrats, you're an addict.

True dat.

I could never rationalize calming down with a stim or cheering up with a depressant. Seems so counter intuitive, yet that's what they do.

[BlackIronCrown]

Do they do more harm than good in restricting individual liberties, or are they helping to protect the populace at large?

I don't believe that they're doing anyone a damn bit of good, especially since the FDA reports on second-hand smoke from the 90s were retracted by the organization as "inaccurate and drawing incorrect conclusions". Talk about a study that was NOT conducted properly.

Secondly, I see them as the modern-day Prohibition. If we're going to legislate that, we might as well ban alcohol again. And sugar. And caffeine. After all, these items are similar to tobacco - legal, but with the ability to cause harm. Why not just be fair and issue a blanket regulation?

[Greenday]

I don't believe that they're doing anyone a damn bit of good, especially since the FDA reports on second-hand smoke from the 90s were retracted by the organization as "inaccurate and drawing incorrect conclusions". Talk about a study that was NOT conducted properly.

Secondly, I see them as the modern-day Prohibition. If we're going to legislate that, we might as well ban alcohol again. And sugar. And caffeine. After all, these items are similar to tobacco - legal, but with the ability to cause harm. Why not just be fair and issue a blanket regulation?

That doesn't change the fact that second-hand smoke is still harmful. Whether they botch research or not, that won't change.

You know, I don't see it as modern-day Prohibition. Cigarettes are banned because they don't just harm the user. They harm everyone. If I down a pound of sugar, who else is going to suffer but me? Same goes with caffeine. I can't use that exact argument against drinking, but it's against the law to do certain things with alcohol that'd make it a problem for non-drinkers.

[DesignFox]

<snip> but it's against the law to do certain things with alcohol that'd make it a problem for non-drinkers.

And it's against the law to do certain things with cigarettes that are harmful to non-smokers.

[ebonyknight]

And it's against the law to do certain things with cigarettes that are harmful to non-smokers.

Was that a question or a statement? If it was a statement, what are the certain things?

[DesignFox]

The certain things in this case happen to be smoking inside public buildings where non-smokers are forced to inhale the second hand smoke. Or smoking in doorways to said buildings where non-smokers MUST walk to get inside.

The harm being that some people are highly allergic or asthmatic and have bad reactions to the fumes.

No one here, I think, is supporting a total ban. That's as ludicrous as prohibition was.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I should probably clarify that I'm from one of the so-called "nanny" states that has a smoking ban in effect. Frankly, I'm much happier now that we do. I can actually enjoy myself when I go out to eat, and I do so more frequently now that I don't have to suffer from itchy eyes, aching lungs, scratchy throat or come home stinking to high heaven which I have thick hair and it takes at least two showers to get rid of the smell....etc.

[BlackIronCrown]

That doesn't change the fact that second-hand smoke is still harmful. Whether they botch research or not, that won't change.

Since the FDA has retracted their papers, there are no current relevant studies on second-hand smoke and whether or not it is truly harmful. One may consider the meta-analyses performed by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, but the data provided has been argued by further studies done by Enstrom and Kabat (published in the British Medical Journal).

Oh wait, my bad. The studies retracted were NOT by the FDA. They were by the EPA. Correction there.

You know, I don't see it as modern-day Prohibition. Cigarettes are banned because they don't just harm the user. They harm everyone. If I down a pound of sugar, who else is going to suffer but me? Same goes with caffeine. I can't use that exact argument against drinking, but it's against the law to do certain things with alcohol that'd make it a problem for non-drinkers.

I could argue sugar and caffeine, but we'll leave that alone for the moment.
If cigarettes are so bad for the user AND everyone else, why not an outright ban on tobacco products and forcible shutting down of the tobacco companies with resultant burning of the American farmer's tobacco crops? Why should we treat it differently than marijuana or cocaine?

[Greenday]

Oh wait, my bad. The studies retracted were NOT by the FDA. They were by the EPA. Correction there.

And this negates that...how? And they EPA is definitely not the only group out there doing research. I know people who have done research themselves (and I'm not talking about googling it, I'm talking about people who do real research) and smoking is harmful to the smokers and those around smokers.

If cigarettes are so bad for the user AND everyone else, why not an outright ban on tobacco products and forcible shutting down of the tobacco companies with resultant burning of the American farmer's tobacco crops? Why should we treat it differently than marijuana or cocaine?

Why aren't cigarettes completely banned? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Cocaine can kill you in one go. It's a hard drug. Not quite as good a comparison IMO. I don't study marijuana so I can't tell you how it adversely affects society. I'll let you know when I take my toxicology class next semester. But as a majority, people are against cocaine. There are way too many people against weed to change laws on that. Cigarettes on the other hand are enjoyed by a vast amount of people so they won't be completely banned, but they will be restricted in order to not be quite so harmful to those who don't smoke.

[Seshat]

Since the FDA has retracted their papers, there are no current relevant studies on second-hand smoke and whether or not it is truly harmful.

Asthma attacks are truly harmful. Histamine reactions may or may not be harmful in the long term, but are definitely harmful in the short term.

Both are readily visible immediate reactions that the smoke intolerant have to cigarette smoke. You don't need a study to see those reactions.

All you need is to be having a smoke, see a smoke-intolerant person approaching who is breathing the exact same air (but without smoke) as they're about to breathe with smoke, and watch their reaction.

Feel absolutely free to gather a group of smoke-intolerant people (who are willing to be human lab rats), and divide them into the control and test groups. Put them in two rooms with the same air. Into one room's ventilation duct*, add the exhaled and side-stream smoke of a gradually increasing number of smokers, and observe the reactions.

* so they don't see the smoke, and thus you can eliminate 'placebo' type effects.

If they're genuinely smoke-intolerant, I'm very confident about the results. And you'd better have oxygen masks and skilled first-aid people available.

I'd love to see the test done twice, actually. One with the groups normally medicated, and one with antihistamine and asthma-preventative medications banned for a few days before the tests. (A pharmacist could probably tell you how long to ban them, so the groups are clear of them.)