Should tobacco be illegal?

[CAnnoneer]

How can so many here be against any government intrusion in to private life think one way about something as deadly as guns and want to intrude on others lives and use some lame excuse.

Second-hand smoking kills. Second-hand legal gunowning does not.

[Sergeant Bob]

Fact Sheet
Secondhand Smoke
(updated September 2006)
Definition of Secondhand Smoke

    * Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1
    * Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure

    * Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2
    * Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 2530% and their lung cancer risk by 2030%.2
    * Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2
    * Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2
    * Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2
    * There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2

Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure

    * Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2
    * From 198891 to 200102, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3
    * Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3
    * More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2
    * Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2
    * Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 311 yearsor almost 22 million childrenare exposed to secondhand smoke.2
    * About 25% of children aged 311 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2
    * The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,70069,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4
    * Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,50015,000 hospitalizations, annually.5


Smokingstinks.com

[gunsmith]

When I was a newly minted ex smoker, I was in a non smoking
part of a restaurant and the guy next to me lit up.
I said "we're in a non smoking section" He said "the waitress gave me an ashtray"
I gave him the evil eye and said  "yeah? the waitress gave me a knife"
He moved to the other section

Smoking sections are useless though, its like have part of a pool you're allowed to pee in.

In principle, I think it should be up to the owner of bar etc to decide if it
is smoke free, but I wanted ciggs to be illegal when dad was alive, just to prove to him they're as addictive as heroin, and he would break the law to score some if they were illegal.

Dad died of cancer very young.

[Sergeant Bob]

In principle, I think it should be up to the owner of bar etc to decide if it
is smoke free, but I wanted ciggs to be illegal when dad was alive, just to prove to him they're as addictive as heroin, and he would break the law to score some if they were illegal.

So true. I know a lot people who would rather die (and have come pretty close to doing just that) than quit smoking.

[RevDisk]

And, furthermore, what restrictions on it's usage should apply, if any?

Should one be allowed to smoke in a restaurant?  An often argument is that it is like "peeing in a swimming pool".  What about in your car?

General thoughts?

No, tobacco should not be illegal.  Nor will it ever be made illegal.  There's too much money involved, between the producers and consumers.  If anything, they'll just keep bumping up the taxes to squeeze more money out of smokers.

Alcohol is absolutely FAIR more dangerous.  It would make a heck of a lot more sense to ban alcohol.  It's quite rare for a smoker to be medically incapable of functionally operating a vehicle due to nicotine.  A small amount of alcohol does render a driver's reflexes.  Of course, we already tried to prohibit alcohol, and look at the wonderful bounties THAT charlie foxtrot caused.

I have no problems with a property owner banning smoking of their own accord on their own property.  Unilaterally banning it via government action, I do have a problem with.  Banning smoking in my own car or house?  I fail to see the sense in that.  My car puts out far more emissions than even the nastiest cigar I've ever smoked. 


But I suspose all of that is more or less irrelevant.  By what authority would they have to ban smoking?  Usually the only answers I get are either "It's bad for you" or "It's for your own good!"  Well, no kidding.  I've never met a single person who thought smoking was good for them.   As for legislating for my "own good", indeed, the most evil acts ever committed by human beings are generally for "their own good."   

[Firethorn]

On every drug discussion that has come up the typical argument has run "well X is even worse and we don't regulate X so why should we regulate Y?"
It is an idiotic argument.

That may be the typical argument that you see, but most of the ones I've seen are along the point of:  The Banning of Y isn't working and is imposing costs A, B, and C, which are worse than simply allowing people to use Y.

I have started asking "yes, X is bad.  But is your solution to make it even worse?"  Some things can and should be regulated.  The fact that not everything can or should be regulated doesn't negate the need to regulate some things.

There's a world of difference between regulating something and banning it.

Smoking sections are useless though, its like have part of a pool you're allowed to pee in.

The local Arbies has a separate glass enclosed section of their building for the smokers, that they now can't smoke in since the universal ban came into effect.  That's much better than 'useless'.  I've also seen some funky things you can do with fancy air handling systems, filters, and some creative modeling for air flow.  IE the smoke goes straight up into the air system to be filtered, it doesn't hang around.

I think that if it was really about safety they'd come up with some sort of air quality test - not blanket bans like are going up left and right.  So it's about control by non-smoker types much like the prohibitionists back in the day.

[Strings]

There's also the issue of cost...

 when the smoking ban hit Appleton, it made a mockery of those establishments that had spent thousands of dollars installing high end air filtration systems, to make life more pleasant in the non-smoking section (many less than a year prior).

 Banning anything is nothing more than exercising control over others. Personally, I'd rather others have as little control as possible over any aspect of my life...

[grampster]

Eh, we won't be here, but in another 100 years you'll need permission to leave your house because walking on the ground will be regulated.

We need a constitutional amendment that makes ALL laws that involve spending money or that regulate personal behavior sunset in 7 years and not re-instituted except by a 90% majority.

[LAK]

Did someone say "cancer" somewhere on this thread?

How many american indians died from smoking tobacco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century? Pure tobacco in pipes with no filters? They must have been dropping like flies. Lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer, mouth cancer. Must have been real carnage.

---------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[CAnnoneer]

Did someone say "cancer" somewhere on this thread?

How many american indians died from smoking tobacco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century? Pure tobacco in pipes with no filters? They must have been dropping like flies. Lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer, mouth cancer. Must have been real carnage.

They did not live long enough to develop cancer.

For the most part, a healthy young body can offset the genetic damage from carcinogens. But as the body grows older, its regenerative capabilities are progressively diminished. That is why environmentally/behaviorally caused cancer usually sets in later in life. If the average life expectancy of American Indians was 35-40 years, most would not develop cancer before they die from other causes. Finally, AFAIK pipe-smoking was more of a ritualistic than daily activity with the Indians. A shared pipe once a week cannot be compared to several cigars or packs of cigarettes a day today.

Incidentally, genetic predisposition to cancer often kicks in later in life as well. The simple reason is that the type that kicks in early would not allow many carriers to procreate and pass it on. Previously, it would not be noticed, because before the 19c., people simply did not live that long - infectious diseases and exposure would do their work. Modern medicine largely took care of those and now people live incredibly long by comparison, so the genetic predisposition has the time to kick in.

[Ex-MA Hole]

For full disclosure, I am a Cigar and Pipe smoker, but not cigarattes.

I do not agree that it should be up to the government to make it legal or illegal.  I think it should be up to the individual shop owner.

If they, THE OWNER, allows smoking, and you don't like it, you have the right to go somewhere else. 
Conversely, if they, THE OWNER, does NOT allow smoking, and you don't like it, you have the right to go somewhere else.

We'd end up with some non-moking establishments, some smoking establishments, some middle of the road with non-smoking sections.  Everyone would be happy, no?

In my inane mind, it would be like someone coming to my gun club and indicating that they don't like guns, and the government shuts my gun club down.

[LAK]

They did not live long enough to develop cancer.

Are you trying to say that they did not live past 40, 50, 60 and older? Says who?

While many in particular tribes in particular geopgraphical locations may have perished early in life through starvation, diseases, conflicts etc - this was by no means universal.

Rather than sweeping claims like that - which is not true based on general history reading - I would like to know if anyone has any references to works written by people who have written about the subject if it exists.

We have sweeping claims by the modern medical institutions that "smoking tobacco causes lung cancer". Even as a lay person I can challenge that because they have not conducted studies using control groups that smoke pure tobacco only as opposed to factory processed tobacco, paper and filter material of unspecified chemical makeup - including combusted products - and their effect.

Additionally, they have not established even control groups with factory processed tobacco products isolated from other things that may cause cancer.

I keep hearing and reading things coming from the modern med establishment - the ones that are joined at the hip to the pharmaceutical industry who seem to like to market treatments more than cures - that "[this or that] causes cancer"; but where are their control groups?

I have known and know - as do just about everyone else I know - a good many very old people who have smoked heavily most of their lives. Half a century and I still have not known firsthand, or by aquaintance, anyone who has even contracted lung cancer - let alone through smoking. And I know, have known alot of people who smoke/d.

I smoke cigarettes, cigars and pipe. If I could afford a mid to premium cigar or two a day I would probably leave cigarettes behind; but I am not going to do it because some empty shirts and skirts say so.

[CAnnoneer]

LAK, you do not need my permission to smoke. Similarly, I do not need to convince you tobacco causes cancer. All I am saying is if you do smoke, it is reasonable that you do so someplace where you do not make the same decision for others as well.

[Sergeant Bob]

I have known and know - as do just about everyone else I know - a good many very old people who have smoked heavily most of their lives. Half a century and I still have not known firsthand, or by aquaintance, anyone who has even contracted lung cancer - let alone through smoking. And I know, have known alot of people who smoke/d.

Well, there you have it! Definitive proof that smoking does not cause cancer. Its just a conspiracy by the government, researchers, modern medical institutions and Big Pharma to bilk us out of our money, all because they didn't do tests using Indian tobacco.

I'm gonna run right down the the tobacco store and get me a couple cartons of smokes! Might help me cough up some of this mucus I have from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that I thought was caused by 35 years of smoking.
Then I can call my cousins, my former neighbors and a few other people I know that their loved ones lung cancer was just a BIG Pharma plot to sell drugs to them.

Smoke'm if ya got'em!

[Firethorn]

Are you trying to say that they did not live past 40, 50, 60 and older? Says who?

The proportion that did was tiny, resulting in that 'lung cancer', indeed the primary killers today of cancer, heart attack, and stroke were tiny proportions of the death rate.

We have sweeping claims by the modern medical institutions that "smoking tobacco causes lung cancer". Even as a lay person I can challenge that because they have not conducted studies using control groups that smoke pure tobacco only as opposed to factory processed tobacco, paper and filter material of unspecified chemical makeup - including combusted products - and their effect.

I believe that sufficient studies have been done to show that smoking increases the odds* of various cancers, primarily lung.  I think cigarettes are the main target because more people smoke them than pipes or cigars.  Those are more of an 'occasional' enjoyment, not an hourly dose.

Even chewing tobacco has been linked to mouth & throat cancer.  The link between occasional second hand smoke hasn't been proved sufficiently to me to argue about banning smoking from all buildings - though some clean air standards in commercial buildings might not be a bad idea.   Heck, living within a couple miles of a coal power plant is worse than the occasional second hand smoke.  Of course, if I had my way I'd be building nuclear plants to replace the coal ones, but there you go.

Does it really matter if it's the tobacco, processing, or the paper that causes it?  On second thought - it does.  If it's the processing or the paper, it's a very easy fix.  However, I believe that at least some studies have looked into pipes, cigars, and even water bong tobacco smoking and found that cancer rates still increase.

The general gist I've gotten is that breathing smoke is bad for you.  (duh!)

*Smoking doesn't cause cancer, it simply increases the odds of it occuring.  Non-smokers still get lung cancer, some smokers don't.  Smoking is a very good indication for it, though.  

[LAK]

All I am saying is if you do smoke, it is reasonable that you do so someplace where you do not make the same decision for others as well.
There is no place on earth you can lit a cigarette; and "not [be making that] decision for others as well."

So it is a ridiculous idea, outside allowing private property owners and businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking on their property or inside their places of business.
Otherwise I can just as easily say that I do not want to breathe the solvents and other chemicals from the varnish someone sloshes on the exterior woodwork of their house next to mine, or the dust particles blowing my way from a cement yard two miles down the road.

[LAK]

Firethorn

I believe that sufficient studies have been done to show that smoking increases the odds* of various cancers, primarily lung

Really? Which study or studies in particular are you going to believe?

I actually heard some tripe awhile back on a videotape extract from one of those TV "news" stories that some new study had suggested that small amounts of mercury was good for people. That's interesting.

There are studies emerging  - now from "credible" institutions - that fluoride is really bad news. The ADA even suggested in 2006 that infants under a certain age not be given water containing fluoride. Yet I see something in supermarkets called "Nursury water" intended for infants - distilled water with fluoride added.

Cancer rates have skyrocketed since right around the time of WW2. Tobacco smoking be it cigarettes, cigars or pipe has been around a long time. If you want to use timelines, there is a very good correlation between the rise in cancers of all types along with many other ailments and the consumption of refined sugar.

Sgt BoB,

Ever worked with cement? Around an airport where tons of jet fuel is pumped and burned? A metal foundry? Anything containing solvents; paints, resins, asphalt etc? Anywhere wood is sanded? How about the others you speak of; how about them?

[Firethorn]

Cancer rates have skyrocketed since right around the time of WW2. Tobacco smoking be it cigarettes, cigars or pipe has been around a long time. If you want to use timelines, there is a very good correlation between the rise in cancers of all types along with many other ailments and the consumption of refined sugar.

For one, we've taken on, what, another 20 years of life expectency from back then?

Life expectancy chart.

If you were born in 1940, you could be expected to live ~60 years.
If you were born in 1980, your expected lifespan is 74 years.

Guess when heart disease, strokes, heart attacks start showing up?

Refined sugar isn't a good thing, corn syrup is worse, but neither is too bad in moderation.  Then again, the same can be said for smoking and just about anything else.

As for smoking causing cancer - there is a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer later in life.  People who don't smoke or hang around those that do are least at risk, people who quit smoking show a lower tendency to get cancer the longer they've quit.  Active smokers are the most at risk.

Some of this might be social status, genetic predisposition linking tendency to smoke and tendency to get lung cancer, etc... Still, analysis of cigarette smoke has shown many cancer causing substances - where these properties have been verified in lab tests.

As for your comment to Sgt Bob, I mentioned coal plants in my post.  There are many places with less than optimal air standards.  Thus my comment - don't necessarily forbid smoking in buildings by government fiat*, instead tighten up air standards.  There's plenty of other nasty chemicals out there that aren't from cigarettes.

As for the flouride thing, it's up in the air.  There's a chance that they might eventually stop flouridation if it's proven unsafe, but I haven't found any peer-reviewed articles, which I'm fairly sure would show up if it was really that serious.  It should be fairly easy to track it's metabolization in the body as well.

Personally, I'd rather keep it out of the water and simply brush with a flouride toothbrush, rinse with a flouride mouthwash, and get the gel at cleanings.  That's targeted application, rather than a shotgun approach with putting it in the water.  As for the infant water - well, there's no telling how much research went into it.  Heck, it might even be the local tap water of the factory run through a couple filters.  You want scary?  They put it in the baby food when I was an infant.  I have a mild case of fluorosis as a result. 

*Thought the government banning them in their own buildings is fine.

[CAnnoneer]

There is no place on earth you can lit a cigarette; and "not [be making that] decision for others as well."

Do you also defecate on your kitchen table? If not, then clearly not all locations are born equal. 

Bottom line: you are the addict. And I am the sod silly enough to expect rationality out of one. Therein the need for laws that protect my healthy lungs from your failures of character. 

[Paddy]

Here are the medical consequences of tobacco use, from the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

What are the medical consequences of tobacco use?

Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 440,000 U.S. citizens each yearmore than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fire, and AIDS combined15. Since 1964, more than 12 million Americans have died prematurely from smoking, and another 25 million U.S. smokers alive today will most likely die of a smoking-related illness7.

Cigarette smoking harms every organ in the body. It has been conclusively linked to leukemia, cataracts, and pneumonia, and accounts for about one-third of all cancer deaths14. The overall rates of death from cancer are twice as high among smokers as nonsmokers, with heavy smokers having rates that are four times greater than those of nonsmokers17. Foremost among the cancers caused by tobacco use is lung cancercigarette smoking has been linked to about 90 percent of all lung cancer cases, the number-one cancer killer of both men and women18. Smoking is also associated with cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, cervix, kidney, ureter, and bladder7.

In addition to cancer, smoking causes lung diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and it has been found to exacerbate asthma symptoms in adults and children. More than 90 percent of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases are attributable to cigarette smoking. It has also been well documented that smoking substantially increases the risk of heart disease, including stroke, heart attack, vascular disease, and aneurysm7. It is estimated that smoking accounts for approximately 21 percent of deaths from coronary heart disease each year16.

Exposure to high doses of nicotine, such as those found in some insecticide sprays, can be extremely toxic as well, causing vomiting, tremors, convulsions, and death19. In fact, one drop of pure nicotine can kill a person. Nicotine poisoning has been reported from accidental ingestion of insecticides by adults and ingestion of tobacco products by children and pets. Death usually results in a few minutes from respiratory failure caused by paralysis.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/nicotine/Nicotine3.html#consequences

[Tecumseh]

I am still in awe about how some people will deny the fact that smoking is really a bad vice in regards to health.  Not to mention that it may cause the crime rate to go up, according to Rabbi's logic from the marijuana thread. So perhaps we are better off outlawing it. 

[LAK]

Firethorn

If you were born in 1940, you could be expected to live ~60 years.
If you were born in 1980, your expected lifespan is 74 years.

Guess when heart disease, strokes, heart attacks start showing up?

Three of the oldest recorded people were born in the 1860s, 70s and 80s.

No one has addressed the control issues for the basis of these "studies" that show smoking causes cancer or "kills people". Where is the control data for them? The hard evidence that prcludes me or anyone else from saying that most of these people with cancer, lung diseases, cataracts, leukemia, and a thousand and one new "syndromes" etc did not get sick from exposure to chemical solvents, the ingestion of a plethora of harmful particulates, consumption of refined sugar, and a thousand and one food additives?

Show me the proof.   

[Sergeant Bob]

Show me the proof.   

Nah, you don't need us to show you proof. Maybe you figure it out for yourself when you're taking off your O2 mask to puff on a butt.

[Perd Hapley]

How is the workplace unavoidable? 

Clearly, there are many workplaces in the world. For most people, the workplace involves common premises with a ranging number of coworkers. If the smoker is allowed to smoke on the premises, then the coworkers cannot avoid second-hand smoking because they have to remain in the premises to conduct their professional functions.

You miss the point.  If your employer requires that you expose yourself to second-hand smoke, either work things out with him, or find a more reasonable employer.  You don't have a right to any job you want, or to demand clean air on someone else's property. 

[Nitrogen]

Yes.  You should get teh death penalty for using it.

Oh, wait...

Seriously, no.
Personally I hate the smell of smoke, and on one hand I'm glad it's banned in so many places, but I sure as hell wouldn't complain if smokers did something about it to get those bans repealed.