70 replies to this topic

[Oaken]

lol wut? Is there even a county that big? Transfer?

PC or PCSO?

PC with Greater Manchester. I live in southport so it's going to be about 60 miles there and back plus whatever I do while working.

He means, by patrolling around the city in the car, they would travel around 100 miles. Not travelling from home to work.

I meant a combination of both .

[ArticTheTiger]

I've seen cops patrol on bikes and horses before though

[5w3rv0]

I Think that making a sort of partial ban is more acceptable. Places and rules applying to smokers such as sections where people are allowed to smoke and not allowed to smoke around non-smokers. I believe that people should be allowed to destroy there bodies if they want to but have no right to do so to others. If it were between a ban or no ban, I am in favor of a total ban.

[Eskimo]

I've seen cops patrol on bikes and horses before though

+rep for this.

I Think that making a sort of partial ban is more acceptable. Places and rules applying to smokers such as sections where people are allowed to smoke and not allowed to smoke around non-smokers. I believe that people should be allowed to destroy there bodies if they want to but have no right to do so to others. If it were between a ban or no ban, I am in favor of a total ban.

Separate is not equal.

[Bryan]

+rep for this.

Cops Patrol on Horses and Bicycles. That's not because they're trying to reduce emissions from their job, rather that their area of patrol is so limited that a horse/bicycle is put in use because a car is just not practical and it costs too much energy to walk around.

Separate is not equal.

When we start arguing equality, then your post may actually mean something. Unfortunately, that's nothing of the sort. Secondhand smoke is a side effect of smoking. Smoking is something that is not necessary in life. We've already given instances where people need cars to transport themselves to work, and you do nothing logical; rather, you just poke fun at the user and tell them to get in the modern age. To argue that cigarettes are needed is nothing more than illogical. In modern society, there is nothing beneficial to the user from smoking a cigarette that one can not get from another source. Unfortunately, there is not always an alternative to driving. If you live far away from society, and work even further, (as you say) 'just getting a different job' doesn't make sense financially for the person.

You posted earlier arguing that there were no conclusive studies that secondhand smoke harmed the user in any way. The carcinogens found in secondhand smoke contain higher concentrations of carcinogens than mainstream smoke because it is burned at a lower temperature. When you're inhaling a cigarette, it has oxygen added to it which fuels the cherry and makes it reach a higher temperature, it is also passed through a filter. However, secondhand users get to experience the joys of your cigarette directly from the tip. And, if that's not enough, they get the recycled leftovers your lungs decided they wanted to throw back out again.

Here are three reports put out by the U.S. Surgeon General that show adverse effects from secondhand smoke.
http://profiles.nlm..../D/_/nnbcmd.pdf
http://profiles.nlm..../W/_/nnbcdw.pdf
http://profiles.nlm..../M/_/nnbcpm.pdf

Also, if for some reason you believe that the Surgeon General is not a credible source, here are some other links to check out

* 10th Report on Carcinogens(2002). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Toxicology Program.
* Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking (Volume 83, June 2002). International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization).
* Protection from second-hand tobacco smoke in Ontario: a review of the evidence regarding best practices (May 2001). Ontario Tobacco Research Unit.
* Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe . (1998). International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization)
* Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (1998). United Kingdom, Department of Public Health
* Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (1997). California Environmental Protection Agency
* The health effects of passive smoking (1997). Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

While it's true that it's your body, and you should have free reign over such, the instant that it comes to harm non-users is where the government will generally draw the line. To say that smoking should be able to be done anywhere is near ignorant.

In case you were wondering, I do smoke. However, I'm also aware of what I do and how it effects those around me.

[Oaken]

+rep for this.

You are quite possible the most single minded person I have ever come across on the interwebs.

[jcrdude]

All right, Bryan... I'm not quoting your whole thing there, but I decided to actually open up the Surgeon General's report and actually leaf through it to get to the meat and potatoes of second hand smoke exposure (starts on Page 493 if you're playing along at home). I'm going to pull some key points from what I've been reading.

Many of the substances... are found in much higher concentrations in (secondhand) smoke than in mainstream smoke.

You've got me on this point.

They assumed that smokers would smoke four cigarettes per hour.

That's a pretty interesting assumption that's being made...

The CO level is determined more by the number of cigarettes being smoked at one time than by the cumulative number of cigarettes that have been smoked and that the CO level decreases rapidly once the smoking stops.

This is just an interesting point that I thought should be shared.

The level of smoking in these experimental conditions was generally far heavier

They admitted what I pointed out earlier... but then again, this whole report is VERY honest.

One must be careful when using the levels recorded... as measures of individual exposure because the CO levels were usually measured at points several feet from the nearest smoker.

Pointing out once again that the numbers within cannot be fully trusted.

(After exposure,) nonsmokers showed a small rise in nicotine excretion; however the amount excreted was still less than 1% of the amount excreted by smokers.

Nominal increase is an increase, but it is not exactly noteworthy either. Also remember the test conditions.

(In studies on benzo(a)pyrene) in the atmosphere of airplanes, only a fraction of a microgram per cubic meter were detected. The effect of chronic exposure to very low levels of this carcinogen has not been established for humans.

Just a reminder... we're testing, but we have no idea why.

The authors state that ... the nonsmoker (will be) inhaling air containing the same quantity of nitrosamine in 1 hour as there is in the mainstream smoke of 5 to 30 cigarettes. However, it is not clear that the absorbtion of nitrosamine from environmental conditions is equivalent to the absorption by smoking, and it is also not established that nitrosamines can act as carcinogens at these levels delivered by inhalation.

They like to let you know when the studies' authors don't know what's going on either.

Acrolein (et. al) ... may contribute to the eye irritation experienced in these conditions. Acrolein was the only substance that exceeded the threshold limit values even under conditions of very heavy smoke pollution.

This is one of the worst proven problems I've seen thus far.

The U.S. Department of Transportation studied the environment on two ventilated buses - one with simulated unrestricted smokin and another with simulated smoking limited to the rear 20 % of the seats. In one bus, (lit) cigarettes were placed at every other seat ... in the other bus, cigarettes were only placed in the rear 20% of the bus... 4/6 subjects seated in the bus reported eye irritation during the unrestricted smoking simulation. None of the six subjects, including those seated in the rear 20% of the bus, reported any eye irritation in the restricted smoking situation.

And really... this ties it up nicely. Segregating smokers (in the same enclosed, but aerated space) leads to a better experience for all.


I'll stop quoting that 1194 page behemoth now.

[Bryan]

XXX

Keep in mind those reports are rather old

[jcrdude]

Keep in mind those reports are rather old

Like from a time when smoking on busses and planes was allowed XD

ALTHOUGH! I really should not have let you off the hook that easily. If you're going to say

Here are three reports put out by the U.S. Surgeon General that show adverse effects from secondhand smoke.

And then drop some large, researched reports... You'd better believe that someone's going to look at it.

Saying that a fair and balanced scientific study is old is not a valid discreditation.

That document may, in fact, be THE MOST fair and balanced document in regards to smoking I have ever read. And it's certainly more fair and balanced than many of the people arguing this topic.

We all have our opinions, but the Surgeon General was not afraid to give the facts, and even point out faults in the studies they were presenting. You can bet that the people writing the document had an opinion, but they didn't let it cloud their results, regardless of the outcome.

I think all of us can learn a LITTLE something from them.

[ArticTheTiger]

when voting in this poll, I checked yes, no, and I don't care, doing absolutely nothing to the end result.

My father is a smoker, I think he should be able to smoke, however I am also experiencing the effects of passive smoking, which is less nice.

And I can promise that to smokers who are addicted, science isn't gonna make a difference. The smoking ban should be age restricted to get the newer generation of people who DON'T SMOKE YET to not start either, that's my opinion.

[sealonfire]

The ban is mainly to protect those who don't smoke and take in 2nd hand smoke.

Even though there are smoking areas designated in my country for smokers, there's a large number that smokes anywhere for convenience. Hence, laws(in the form of a ban or anything) are needed to curb this. Of course not everybody is inconsiderate but the number of incosiderate people is high enough to hand out such a ban. I not against smoking. You can smoke, but be considerate.

Whether the science is true or not, it doesn't matter. I've seen people who smoke and die early but there're people who smoke and are still alive at 80+. But since it is being reported to be harmful(and it is generally true that at the very least, the smoke makes people uncomfortable in some way), there is a need to protect people who don't smoke.

Edited by sealonfire, 23 October 2009 - 11:56 PM.

[Frizzle]

keep in mind this is the UK smoking ban and mainly effects pubs and clubs. If you complain about smoke in a club or pub then you're really not suited for that enviroment anyway, and the smoke will do less damage than the music fucking up your ears.

[DataTraveler]

I wish that our country will have this kind of law...
I hate smoker,it is annoy when a smoker sit beside you and release the smoke/gas out without concerning that you are going to inhale that poisonous gas

[Frizzle]

I wish that our country will have this kind of law...
I hate smoker,it is annoy when a smoker sit beside you and release the smoke/gas out without concerning that you are going to inhale that poisonous gas

Fucking move then.

[Oaken]

Fucking move then.

...you fucking move

[Eskimo]

Cops Patrol on Horses and Bicycles. That's not because they're trying to reduce emissions from their job, rather that their area of patrol is so limited that a horse/bicycle is put in use because a car is just not practical and it costs too much energy to walk around.

I won't even bother with this. All that matters is it's possible to avoid it and they don't.

When we start arguing equality, then your post may actually mean something. Unfortunately, that's nothing of the sort.

I'll take that to mean you believe nonsmokers are superior to smokers.

Smoking is something that is not necessary in life. We've already given instances where people need cars to transport themselves to work, and you do nothing logical; rather, you just poke fun at the user and tell them to get in the modern age. . . . If you live far away from society, and work even further, (as you say) 'just getting a different job' doesn't make sense financially for the person.

Your definition of "need" is different from mine. I don't think anything more can be said about this point. Finance shouldn't be your primary motivation for anything involving a moral argument.

To argue that cigarettes are needed is nothing more than illogical. In modern society, there is nothing beneficial to the user from smoking a cigarette that one can not get from another source.

I completely agree, but that isn't relevent. What is relevent is that you shouldn't pass legislation simply because it does nothing beneficial.

You posted earlier arguing that there were no conclusive studies that secondhand smoke harmed the user in any way. The carcinogens found in secondhand smoke ...

Here are three reports put out by the U.S. Surgeon General that show adverse effects from secondhand smoke.
http://profiles.nlm..../D/_/nnbcmd.pdf
http://profiles.nlm..../W/_/nnbcdw.pdf
http://profiles.nlm..../M/_/nnbcpm.pdf

Also, if for some reason you believe that the Surgeon General is not a credible source, here are some other links to check out

In the first study, 37 published epidemiologic studies were pooled in a meta-analysis to come up with a reported increase in lung cancer incidence of 24 percent (RR=1.24, 95 percent confidence interval 1.13 to 1.36). [Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ 1997; BMJ;315:973]. But just for a moment, we'll forget that the reported relative risk is very weak--i.e., the National Cancer Institute says increases in risk of less than 100 percent are too small to be relied on. We'll also forget that none of the studies had any reliable data on exposure to secondhand smoke--so who knows what any observed increase in lung cancer should really be attributed to. Of the 37 studies, only 7--less than 19 percent--reported statistically significant increases in lung cancer incidence. Exactly why should anyone believe a result supported by fewer than 1 in 5 studies? In the second study, 19 published epidemiologic studies were pooled in a meta-analysis to come up with a reported increase in heart disease incidence of 30 percent (RR=1.30, 95 percent confidence interval 1.22 to 1.38). [Law MR, Morris JK, and Wald NJ 1997; BMJ;315:980]. Once again, forget that the reported relative risk is very weak and is not based on reliable exposure data. Of the 19 studies, only 8--slightly more than 42 percent--reported statistically significant increases in heart disease incidence. What is so compelling about a result supported by fewer than 1 in 2 studies?

From the British Medical Journal using the results of the American Cancer Society's database:

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

No epidemiologic study has ever measured actual lifetime doses of ets, nor lifetime exposures to ets. No study has determined the recall bias of people with lung cancer. No study could guarantee that some self-declared nonsmokers were, or had been, smokers. No study could exclude that the lung cancers observed might have been caused by many known risks and thus not by ets. Most studies did not report differences of risk, and some implied a reduction of risk. Thus, the statistical analyses and the claimed lung cancer risks of ets are illusory.

US courts have found various studies to be misleading in that they only used evidence which supported their claims: http://www.tobacco.o...0717osteen.html

[TheNovakGirl]

I'm a smoker, and I like the ban. *shrug* That way I've got an excuse to sit outside even in the middle of winter and drag my friends with me as well, instead of going into over-crowded bars that terrify me. Call me selfish xD.

I've gotten so used to the ban by now - we've had it for roughly a year here - that when we visited Germany in May and sat in a restaurant, I felt so awkward smoking inside, and the foul air kind of wasn't nice, especially while we were eating - I swear, even the food started tasting like tobacco by the end of the meal. That was just blech.

[Bryan]

I won't even bother with this. All that matters is it's possible to avoid it and they don't.

How do you expect to catch criminal speeders without on a horse or bicycle? Why are we even talking about emissions in the first place?

I'll take that to mean you believe nonsmokers are superior to smokers.

This isn't an argument about equality, and there's absolutely no reason to try and twist words to do such. There are absolutely no words I use that could even be construed as implying that nonsmokers are superior to smokers, and the statement you made doesn't hold water. You can take it to mean that I do not believe smoking has anything to do with equality.

Your definition of "need" is different from mine. I don't think anything more can be said about this point. Finance shouldn't be your primary motivation for anything involving a moral argument.

My definition of 'need' is the same definition that is used in Merriam Websters:

A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted

I do not know why anything more can not be said when clearly it's nothing more than opinion and different word choice that you choose to carry on this argument. I'm far from using Finance to argue morality, the only reasoned I mentioned Finance is because there is no logical reason that a person would pass up a higher source of income just because they can not bike or walk to work. We argue about negative effects on secondhand smoke, not about the environment. If you would like to debate that, just start a new topic.

I completely agree, but that isn't relevent. What is relevent is that you shouldn't pass legislation simply because it does nothing beneficial.

I don't know how you obtain what is relevant or not from two sentences. We do not pass legislation simply because it does nothing beneficial, we pass legislation because there is scientific research backing the negative health effects on smoking. I've already told my views on the combustion levels. Please find something to dispute that.

From the British Medical Journal using the results of the American Cancer Society's database:





US courts have found various studies to be misleading in that they only used evidence which supported their claims: http://www.tobacco.o...0717osteen.html

Congrats, you've found experiments that were not done under the scientific method. You've found real people who work for bosses who form experiments to get certain outcomes. However, the last quote you posted I find pretty interesting, seems like that guy has made a living on manipulating the English language. Let me summarize the quote real quick, in a more casual vernacular.:

We have not had an experiment that has measured the amount of secondhand smoke someone gets in a lifetime, nor how much they are exposed to. Recall bias is a shot in the dark, I find it having very little to do with results. (Feel free to open a statistics book look up recall bias, it has more to do with opinion of the surveyed group than quantifiable fact) We can't prove that people who say they are nonsmokers had been smokers at some point in their life. MOST (Odd, Most? That means there are some) studies couldn't report a difference in health risks after exposure to secondhand smoke. Some implied (we've already seen that implications are not always drawn from fact) a reduction of risk. The statistics are skewed.

You still have yet to argue points about red-eye and discomfort. You have yet to argue points about difficulty of breathing. You have yet to argue points about smell.

You have agreed that there is absolutely nothing beneficial about a cigarette that cannot be replaced by something else. However, you have failed to dispute all negative points about cigarettes. The only thing you've done is post a couple of people finding faults with experiments involving lung cancer. For something with (as you agree) no benefits, and negative effects that have not been disputed, I see no reason as to why legislation should not be passed.

Edited by Bryan, 27 October 2009 - 12:45 PM.

[Eskimo]

<br />How do you expect to catch criminal speeders without on a horse or bicycle? Why are we even talking about emissions in the first place?<br />

Absolutely, but police aren't engaged in chases 8 hours a day. No reason an attempt at emission reduction shouldn't be made. Vehicle emissions are being discussed because both issues revolve around public health, however there seems to be a double standard. People care deeply about one, but not the other. If the all-mighty dollar is the reason, then obviously people aren't especially concerned about health.<br /><br /><br />

<br />This isn't an argument about equality, and there's absolutely no reason to try and twist words to do such. There are absolutely no words I use that could even be construed as implying that nonsmokers are superior to smokers, and the statement you made doesn't hold water. You can take it to mean that I do not believe smoking has anything to do with equality.<br />

Equality should always be checked when deciding laws. Every person should be treated the same under law. If a particular business owner decides it would be best to separate smokers and nonsmokers, fine, that's his/her choice, but under law, smokers and nonsmokers ought to be considered as equals and separate is not equal.<br /><br /><br />

<br />My definition of 'need' is the same definition that is used in Merriam Websters:<br />

I'm not going to argue semantics. There is a reason people would pass up a higher income: public health (which is what I interpreted as the primary issue in this discussion) is why. If there isn't room to discuss this, then there's no reason to discuss public-health issues concerning second-hand smoke as it's effects are better understood and agreed upon.<br /><br /><br />

<br />I don't know how you obtain what is relevant or not from two sentences. We do not pass legislation simply because it does nothing beneficial, we pass legislation because there is scientific research backing the negative health effects on smoking. I've already told my views on the combustion levels. Please find something to dispute that.<br />

There's scientific research alright, but the interpretations aren't agreed on. jcrboy's quotes regarding second-hand smoke say what should be.<br /><br /><br />

<br />Congrats, you've found experiments that were not done under the scientific method. You've found real people who work for bosses who form experiments to get certain outcomes. However, the last quote you posted I find pretty interesting, seems like that guy has made a living on manipulating the English language. Let me summarize the quote real quick, in a more casual vernacular.:<br />

I interpreted that quote as something to this effect: &quot;There is no baseline to make a comparison with. No control group means you can only trust the studies to a point.&quot;<br /><br /><br />

<br />You still have yet to argue points about red-eye and discomfort. You have yet to argue points about difficulty of breathing. You have yet to argue points about smell.<br />

I believe I did somewhere within this topic. Suck it up or go somewhere else. I grew up around smokers and it's not that bad. If it's REALlY an issue for you, there's probably an underlying cause like asthma or allergies that's being agitated by cigarette smoke. Of course that isn't to say it's not caused by cigarette smoke, who knows? However, it could just as easily be smog or a myriad of other things, and you should be able to prove cigarettes are the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt before you start passing laws.

[hahaman]

should the smoking ban be stopped

thinking of the elerly who like to go for an evening meal and made to sit in the cold winter breeze making them ill and possible lead to a faster death
think of the children that are affected by second-hand smoke
is it fair to force people to stop smoking when alchol kills more people!

why should the public coddle them for a choice they made? a choice that doesn't affect anything positively and just reduces their income and gives them health problems too

if u tell me to be more considerate to pregnant women, fine i'll be, they're reproducing, it's a sweet thing. if u tell me to be more considerate to the handicapped, fine, they didn't choose it and they of all people hate it the most and i lose nothing by helping a guy up a ramp.

u're telling me to be more considerate to smokers so they don't feel so tortured when smoking?! F* off! they can freeze outside for all I care if they care more for that cigarette than their warmth

quit smoking. don't kill half the world for your choices and don't whine when people don't care to cuddle and hug u while u make that choice, that choice the same people told u to stop making in the first place.


if the UK is banning smoking in establishments, then imho good riddance!

Absolutely, but police aren't engaged in chases 8 hours a day. No reason an attempt at emission reduction shouldn't be made. Vehicle emissions are being discussed because both issues revolve around public health, however there seems to be a double standard. People care deeply about one, but not the other. If the all-mighty dollar is the reason, then obviously people aren't especially concerned about health.<br /><br /><br /> Equality should always be checked when deciding laws. Every person should be treated the same under law. If a particular business owner decides it would be best to separate smokers and nonsmokers, fine, that's his/her choice, but under law, smokers and nonsmokers ought to be considered as equals and separate is not equal.<br /><br /><br /> I'm not going to argue semantics. There is a reason people would pass up a higher income: public health (which is what I interpreted as the primary issue in this discussion) is why. If there isn't room to discuss this, then there's no reason to discuss public-health issues concerning second-hand smoke as it's effects are better understood and agreed upon.<br /><br /><br /> There's scientific research alright, but the interpretations aren't agreed on. jcrboy's quotes regarding second-hand smoke say what should be.<br /><br /><br /> I interpreted that quote as something to this effect: &quot;There is no baseline to make a comparison with. No control group means you can only trust the studies to a point.&quot;<br /><br /><br /> I believe I did somewhere within this topic. Suck it up or go somewhere else. I grew up around smokers and it's not that bad. If it's REALlY an issue for you, there's probably an underlying cause like asthma or allergies that's being agitated by cigarette smoke. Of course that isn't to say it's not caused by cigarette smoke, who knows? However, it could just as easily be smog or a myriad of other things, and you should be able to prove cigarettes are the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt before you start passing laws.

u can say a lot of things but the main argument remains. Cigarettes do NOTHING positive for anyone, NOTHING aside from the initial kick from nicotine that people tend to adapt to after a few days and never feel it anymore, NOTHING beyond giving energy for comforting a withdrawal its addiction caused in the first place.

it's like i'm asking u to go out ur house and wallow in the mud and put some bugs on ur hair. it does nothing. it's pointless. if anything it just adds more problems and solves nothing. the only difference is it doesn't cause addiction, and thus "comfort" from addiction withdrawal when u take it again.

it's unnecessary, illogical, and most of all annoying

101 different arguments for, and all we need is 1 argument against that's infallible. all smokers should face the truth, face bloody reality. stop smoking and making a burden out of urself to society

[Winnie777]

As a non-smoker, I'll have to say that I'm for the ban. That said, I do understand that it is within every right of a human to choose whether they want to smoke or not. However, I believe that right rests on the fact that it is not doing harm to others. If you will allow me to make a bald metaphor (and no disrespect at all intended), I believe a smoker is like a serial killer IN THE SENSE THAT in both, the perpetrator is deriving pleasure from the activity while inflicting harm on others. It's just that the latter usually causes instant and more violent deaths, while the former is a slower and less violent one. But the basic principle remains the same - pleasuring oneself while inflicting harm on others.

On a similar note, smokers often take automobile exhaust as a defense and ask why people still drive when they are complaining about secondhand smoke. It is undeniable that exhaust is harmful to humans, but the cost of eliminating exhaust currently (aka, ban people from driving) will result in detrimental effects to the economy. However, our countries ARE doing something about it. For example, governments are promoting hybrid cars, giving tax breaks to people who take public transit, spending huge amounts of money on green power research, etc.
Similarly, banning smoking in public places is just another mechanism to protect humans from the harmful secondhand smokes. I personally have no problem with people smoking in their own home because it does not inflict harm on others, and like I said before, it is within every human's right to choose whether they smoke or not.

What I would like to see in the future is a kind of cigarette that does not contain harmful substances while still able to offer the same pleasure to smokers.
Then we wouldn't have to have these big arguments here
These are just my opinions and I don't wish to offend anyone. Smokers and non-smokers alike, I respect you all the same.