Smoking

[AndySir]

http://vmj.sagepub.com/content/3/1/21.full.pdf

[Little John]

http://vmj.sagepub.com/content/3/1/21.full.pdf

This paper is stating the real and high risks of smoking and the measurable but far lower risks to passive smokers. This papers do not show a direct causal 100% certain relationship between a person who smokes (passively or otherwise) and the illness they will get. Because it can't. If I jump off a 1000 foot cliff, I will die. If I smoke 20 fags a day, I may die, or I may not. If I choose to work in a hazardous environment, I will probably not die from it, but I may. If an employer chooses to work in a environment designated for smokers, they will probably not die from it, but they may.

You whole argument is completely ludicrous. My parent's generation were more or less constantly exposed to second hand smoke. So, by your reckoning, how come they are not all dead? Indeed, for reasons everyone on here understands only too well, it may yet turn out that my parent's generation will be the longest lived in history.

Try again.

[Little John]

In addition to the weakness of your arguments regarding smoking in public places, I note you have not even gone near the issue of de selection from priority waiting lists for medical treatments. Presumably because you know only too well that there is absolutely no defence whatsoever (weak or otherwise) that could be mounted in support of such a scandalous injustice.

[clv101]

This papers do not show a direct causal 100% certain relationship between a person who smokes (passively or otherwise) and the illness they will get.

No one should ever be claiming or asking for "direct causal 100% certain relationship between" anything that's simply not the way the world tends to work.

[AndySir]

You didn't understand it. A direct quote from the conclusion: "There is no doubt that smoking damages the vasculature." The paper talks about the immediate damage to vascular tone from smoking and passive smoking and notes that this damage will self-repair if not exposed to the toxins for about 12 months. It then links this damage to various diseases.

Like I said, you have been conflating damage from smoking with lung cancer/heart disease. There is an immediate damage to smoking, from the effects noted in the paper above as well (shortish term - damage from nitrides lasts about a year) as from replacement of hemoglobin with carbon monoxide (v. short term - damage lasts about a day or so) as well as the long term health risks.

There's a dozen other studies like this that will all show just that damage, which is completely unavoidable and cannot be mitigated except by removing the toxin.

[Little John]

This papers do not show a direct causal 100% certain relationship between a person who smokes (passively or otherwise) and the illness they will get.

No one should ever be claiming or asking for "direct causal 100% certain relationship between" anything that's simply not the way the world tends to work.

Andysir is. I never claimed the world works that way.

[biffvernon]

I am really pleased that there is a smoking ban as I know that I can go almost anywhere i want and not come home stinking of fag smoke and waking up in the morning with a bedroom stinking of the fag smoke that is stuck to my clothes. Most unpleasant!

I don't see why anyone should have the right to submit me, and the majority of people who don't smoke, to such unpleasantness.

Oh ok, Ken wrote that. But what's a bit of plagiarism between friends?

And what about all the good agricultural land that's wasted on growing tobacco, and the pesticides sprayed onto the crop, (you don't see many fags marketed as 'organic') and the crime syndicates involved in the distribution outwith the tax regime. Let's face it, everybody involved in the whole tobacco industry is guilty in participation in the world's most destructive crime, causing the deaths of far more folk than all the wars put together. The atrocities of Syria pale into insignificance beside the havoc reeked by this foul trade.

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

6 million a year! Even Hitler didn't manage that rate.

Anyway, you get my drift?

[Little John]

You didn't understand it. A direct quote from the conclusion: "There is no doubt that smoking damages the vasculature." The paper talks about the immediate damage to vascular tone from smoking and passive smoking and notes that this damage will self-repair if not exposed to the toxins for about 12 months. It then links this damage to various diseases.

Like I said, you have been conflating damage from smoking with lung cancer/heart disease. There is an immediate damage to smoking, from the effects noted in the paper above as well (shortish term - damage from nitrides lasts about a year) as from replacement of hemoglobin with carbon monoxide (v. short term - damage lasts about a day or so) as well as the long term health risks.

There's a dozen other studies like this that will all show just that damage, which is completely unavoidable and cannot be mitigated except by removing the toxin.

You're dancing on the pedantic head of a pin now because your argument has no where left to go. so, any activity that can be shown to have short term toxic effects on the body should be banned should it?

Whilst there are numerous studies that show a large and measurable risk from smoking and a small but measurable risk of pathology from passive smoking, there is no research anywhere, that can show an unequivocal and direct one to one relationship between passive smoking and the definite outcome of a specific pathology is there?

Just admit it.

[Little John]

I am really pleased that there is a smoking ban as I know that I can go almost anywhere i want and not come home stinking of fag smoke and waking up in the morning with a bedroom stinking of the fag smoke that is stuck to my clothes. Most unpleasant!

I don't see why anyone should have the right to submit me, and the majority of people who don't smoke, to such unpleasantness.

Oh ok, Ken wrote that. But what's a bit of plagiarism between friends?

And what about all the good agricultural land that's wasted on growing tobacco, and the pesticides sprayed onto the crop, (you don't see many fags marketed as 'organic') and the crime syndicates involved in the distribution outwith the tax regime. Let's face it, everybody involved in the whole tobacco industry is guilty in participation in the world's most destructive crime, causing the deaths of far more folk than all the wars put together. The atrocities of Syria pale into insignificance beside the havoc reeked by this foul trade.

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

6 million a year! Even Hitler didn't manage that rate.

Anyway, you get my drift?

Putting aside your flippant disregard for the civil liberties of a whole swathe of your fellow citizens became you don't think their lack of liberties affects you (where've we heard you use that argument before?) and putting aside the fact that you have repeated the aunt sally argument that the lifting of the smoking ban would necessitate you or any other non smoker having to be subject to passive smoking, what are your views on the de-selection from priority waiting lists of smokers who have, by the way, contributed in smoking taxes alone a sum that exceeds the cost of their smoking related healthcare by at least a factor of two or, even possibly three?

[AndySir]

You're dancing on the pedantic head of a pin now because your argument has no where left to go. so, any activity that can be shown to have short term toxic effects on the body should be banned should it?

You mean should people be compelled to ingest toxins because they need a job?

[Little John]

You're dancing on the pedantic head of a pin now because your argument has no where left to go. so, any activity that can be shown to have short term toxic effects on the body should be banned should it?

You mean should people be compelled to ingest toxins because they need a job?

I note you are still steering well clear of the tricky tax versus healthcare issue.

Regarding the issue of choice to work in a given environment. It is true to say that in an economy where the only reasonable prospect of employment was in a potentially risky environment (no matter how low the risk) would indeed present a problem. However, that is an issue that is extremely difficult to micro manage and so the only strategy for policy makers is to ensure that there is enough choice of employment in the economy that it never becomes a significant issue on the ground. This is already true for existing toxic-environment workplaces and so smoking designated areas would not represent any kind of departure from the situation that currently pertains.

In any event, such passive smoking issues only really apply to circumstances of the serving of customers. This is a practical problem with practical solutions that, in free market, with the appropriate regulation surrounding design of said facilities would be solved by that market. These are not problems of principle. And yet, this is the best you can come up with in support of the current ban?

[biffvernon]

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

Maybe you missed that bit, so I'll repeat it.

[Little John]

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

Maybe you missed that bit, so I'll repeat it.

No, I didn't miss it. Quite apart from the contestable numbers, these number refer to the global figures and so have no bearing on any arrangements for non smokers that might be implemented in this country. Again, you are using the aunt sally argument of passive exposure to smoke in non regulated environments. I have repeatedly made it clear that any lifting of the public smoking ban would require that smokers were allocated designated areas that were environmentally segregated them from non smokers.

Regarding actual smokers themselves, if people smoke and smoking is risky and, consequently, those people die in larger numbers earlier than they might have done had they not smoked, that's their choice. It is also their right, given that they have paid for their smoking related healthcare costs several times over with their smoking taxes, to expect, at the very least, the same healthcare provision as their fellow non smoking citizens.

Now, perhaps you might like to address the points I made in my immediately previous post to you and/or Andysir. Or maybe you missed that bit?

[AndySir]

This is already true for existing toxic-environment workplaces and so smoking designated areas would not represent any kind of departure from the situation that currently pertains.

I can't think of an example of a workplace where ingesting toxins is permitted. Bringing things into line with other workplaces where toxins are present would suggest breathing and filtering equipment. Fancy having your pint served by a bloke in a hasmat suit?

As a smoker you should be aware that the damage I'm talking about is not academic - you feel short of breath when you've been in a smoky environment, you're energy levels go down, you get pains in your chest, throat and eyes... I'm fairly confident in saying that there is no workplace, no other toxin other than tobacco, where you could 'opt in' to that.

In any event, such passive smoking issues only really apply to circumstances of the serving of customers. This is a practical problem with practical solutions that, in free market, with the appropriate regulation surrounding design of said facilities would be solved by that market. These are not problems of principle. And yet, this is the best you can come up with in support of the current ban?

I'm not sure your 'just leave smoking drinkers unsupervised' idea will be welcomed by any landlord (or restaurant owner - self service buffet perhaps), but in any case cleaners, repairmen etc. also need to work in those areas. That goes for smoking rooms at work, too. Somebody needs to clean them, keep them maintained. Somebody who has to opt in to breathing in a harmful toxin.

Possibly the best solution is an area which is ventilated by natural airflow with a sufficiently large volume that the concentration of toxins becomes negligible. Like outside.

[Little John]

....As a smoker you should be aware that the damage I'm talking about is not academic - you feel short of breath when you've been in a smoky environment, you're energy levels go down, you get pains in your chest, throat and eyes....

Firstly, I am not a smoker.

Secondly, F--k me, it's a miracle there is a single one of my parent's generation still above ground given the obviously radioactive levels of toxins in the fag butts and ashtrays they used to have to clear up every morning....