Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

The Surgeon General is a political figure. Don't kid yourself.

I took a class with, and speak with regularly, one of the nation's foremost experts in public health. Keep reading Time magazine to get your science, I'll stick to peer-reviewed journals.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about drunk drivers. The mere act of driving to a bar, even when sober, entails risk. You seem to want to eliminate risk even when it's a minor one. Second-hand smoke is a minor risk to patrons, and probably less of a risk than driving to the bar in the first place. Life is full of risks, and this one is pretty low on the scale, especially for patrons. Employees have a stronger argument, but their safety seems to be of little concern in your analysis. In truth, despite your citing of this article, it looks like your primary concern is your own comfort.

 

I agree with texxx. Your right to smoke ends at my right to health.

 

I don't understand why people think there is an inherent, god given right to smoke in a bar as opposed to a plane or a stadium or an office (bars, by the way, are certain people's offices too).

Smoking bans have been in effect for a long time. Aside from the health questions, it's simply a matter of convenience to not have to deal with smoke and ash and watery eyes and coughing, and to not be reeking of cigarrette smoke if you want a beer or 12. For the smokers, they take it outside and smoke their cigarrettes. It's worked out fine for the last four years here and in California. I don't see what the issue is.

You have to go to the bathroom to urinate, you have to go outside to smoke. Both of them are things people do in bars, but for health & sanitation and decency and convenience of others, people are required to do them in private.

What's the issue again?

 

I agree with both of you on that. Why does everyone insist on framing this as an all or nothing thing? Can I just have one bar to smoke in, with other smokers and a smoking staff? Would that impact your health or comfort?

texxx:

If I got some of your positions wrong, I'm sorry. I might have mixed you up some with Jorge there, which I think you can understand. Please let me know if I got any of them right as I believe I did and as even one of those puts the lie to the idea that you care about public health here and not just your own preferences.

Also, I have to laugh when a serial slanderer like you (I really, really don't hate Americans OR love terrorists) cries about someone misrepresenting his positions.

 

Sam,

I have to think you're being willfully dense here. It doesn't make it right, but smoking and drinking have been associated for a very long time. You might as well ask what the difference between a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a peanut butter and ham one is. I am not aware of any serious person still arguing for the right to smoke on a plane or anyone who has ever argued for the right to pee at the bar.

But you're right. It isn't in any way an inherent right. It's a privilege I would like and others would like, in some way that would not harm or inconvenience non-smokers.

Why is it a big deal? Because smokers are addicted to smoking. And many barflies are smokers. Assuming that I am willing and happy to have a ban on all but one or two bars, even in a city as large as NYC, what's the big deal with granting me, and so many others that want it, that favor?

 

No, because as stated before every bar would want to be that one.

 

That's a totally legitimate issue and one for which I don't have an answer. Can we agree, in the abstract, that it would be an okay thing to pursue if that issue could be worked out?

 

I would have to see what the resolution would be prior to agreeing. I'm not saying it is impossible but highly unlikely.

 

Here is what some of the Minneapolis bars are doing to accomodate smokers:

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/517491.html

 

Absolutely, if you find the answer let Austin know what it is.

 

Funny, when there is such a demand for it.

 

Smoking and drinking have been associated...by smokers, who apparently constitute a minority of drinkers. But is it a rational association? I don't think so. One can enjoy a drink, or a smoke, or both, or neither. But it's not peanut butter and jelly. In addition, you can still enjoy both by going outside. There's no problem with that. I mean, drinking and vomiting are also associated, as is drinking and screwing - hence condom machines in bars, but you can't do those in the bar.

After public smoking bans go into effect for a period of years, you will not hear people groaning about it either (despite much groaning in NYC, the ban passed several years ago is hear to say and isn't even up for debate anymore). The same amount of b****ing and moaning happened with regard to planes as well I'm sure. But over time, people became conditioned to expect that as the natural order of things, just as urinating in a bar would be considered unacceptable by us today, whereas our ancestors in the Middle Ages would probably have thought little of grabbing a chamber pot (or not) and whizzing in the tavern centuries ago.

if there is one or two smoker bars then I don't have a problem with it. However the ban should be strictly enforced and no other licenses should be granted in order to prevent the inevitable race to the bottom scenario.

 

I really don't understand why you'd need to see the resolution before answering the question philosophically. It is currently law in at least most of the places with smoking bans that if more than 50% of your revenues come from tobacco products you can allow smoking indoors. There are also several, legal hookah bars in NY where staff and patrons are exposed to second hand smoke. If the government is willing to allow smoking in places that sell a lot of tobacco, I have a hard time believing that the public health concerns are sacrosanct. So I ask, why 50%? Why not 40 or 20? And if cigarettes are okay to sell (and tax the hell out of), why can I smoke one in a tobacco store but not have one public place in which I can have a beer while I smoke?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract

And then there's the WHO report that was supressed upon completion because it didn't yield the results they wanted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract

The 16% increase (not statistically significant in the study), even if it were true... think about it. What's the non-smoker's percentage chance of getting lung cancer. A 16% increase... means nothing.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm

A decent article easy to read, explain this better than I can.

http://www.data-yard.net/2/17/417.htm

An article regarding publication bias (i.e. the media is full of S as usual)

 

First, if you say you can enjoy one, both or neither, you're obviously not a serious smoker. That's good. But, for me, New York bars suck now. And I used to love them. Now I'm either having a beer and wishing I had a cigarette or having a smoke and wishing I had a beer (and also, for part of the year, freezing my ass off). To a serious smoker, it's not nothing. I am addicted and when I am experiencing very real withdrawal symptoms I have a bad time. My withdrawal ought not to have precedent over others' health and comfort though -- I just wish there was some small effort to consider the smoker's situation too. There isn't now. There is only (understandable) backlash against smokers.

But again, I agree with the ban in principle. My only problem with it (apart from inconvenience, and whatever about that) is that it is comprehensive. A few bars in NY have outdoor patios with heaters. That's a great solution as far as I'm concerned, though the demand is so much greater than the supply that it's often impossible to get a place on them.

 

One of the articles was talking about child exposure. Nice spin. Care to explain how that invalidates the fact that SHS is not harmful?

They aren't from this century because that's when the major studies were done. The Surgeon General doesn't have up to date information, he has biased propaganda, bought and paid for.