Cough cough

April 11, 2003 6:27 AM

1,200 people in the UK die each year due to passive smoking at work.
Following on from New York's tough stance on smokers, the UK is considering banning smoking in all restaurants in order to cut the number of deaths by passive smoking.
posted by Mwongozi (52 comments total)

I'll put out my last cigarette the day I see a government campaign against cars that go over the speed limit, which not only causes plenty of deaths and injuries, but is also illegal. And let's not get into the pollution aspect of it ....
posted by magullo at 6:47 AM on April 11, 2003

Time for you to stop smoking, then
posted by Mwongozi at 6:50 AM on April 11, 2003

It gets my vote. And the sooner the better, although I very much doubt this particular bill will come to anything. I have to say, Forest's slogan is gold, and I particularly like that their spokesman is a non-smoker. Nice to see an organisation that practices what it preaches.
posted by zygoticmynci at 6:54 AM on April 11, 2003

Smoking kills, for sure, but any statistic that claims x number of people die from second hand smoke is completely bogus. There is simply no way to gauge such a thing.

Not to mention: I would be willing to bet that more people die from disease caused by NYC traffic fumes than from second hand smoke.
posted by jpoulos at 6:57 AM on April 11, 2003

The link says that 3 million people are exposed to smoke at work. The only job I can think of where that would happen is pub and club work. Are there really 3 million bar people?
posted by Summer at 7:03 AM on April 11, 2003

Complete and utter tosh, bullshit and hypocrisy. The goverment purportedly trying to protect the delicate lungs of the passifists (passive smokers) decides to ban smoking in restaurants. How about a revolutionary idea just ban the bloody habit in the first place. I am a smoker and I must say it is risible the government increasing taxation upon cigarettes under the guises of trying to prevent the dissemination of the loathsome habit, when really the only motivational factor is naked greed
posted by johnnyboy at 7:06 AM on April 11, 2003

Mwongozi - I meant a forcible campaign like banning cars that go over the speed limit (which, once again, is illegal).

BTW, funny how the number of deaths in the UK attributed tyo second hand smoke and car accidents is exactly the same: 1,200.
posted by magullo at 7:14 AM on April 11, 2003

As a smoker I haven't got too big a problem with that. However try to ban it from clubs and pubs and I'll be strapping semtex to my chest.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:18 AM on April 11, 2003

The link says that 3 million people are exposed to smoke at work. The only job I can think of where that would happen is pub and club work. Are there really 3 million bar people?

How about workplaces where the only recreational area allows smoking, or places where people are cowed into allowing smoking after years of tradition?
posted by biffa at 7:22 AM on April 11, 2003

I have very delicate lungs and a disgustingly good sense of smell - smoking in restaurants really annoys me as it puts me right off my food. For that reason alone they should scrap it..
posted by Mossy at 7:25 AM on April 11, 2003

BTW, funny how the number of deaths in the UK attributed tyo second hand smoke and car accidents is exactly the same: 1,200.

Sadly, this is not true. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents say there were 3,162 motor trafiic accidents in 2000, and the DOT/BBC says this increased to 3,443 in 2001.
This link to report on how campaigns against speeding impact on driver behaviour might also be of interest.
posted by biffa at 7:32 AM on April 11, 2003

Utter BS! Deaths from poorly diagnosed addiction disorders or high fat diets are more worthy of a fpp! I'm a former smoker. No regrets!
posted by effer27 at 7:38 AM on April 11, 2003

They did this in California years ago, and I smoked then, and thought it was over the top. However, I've gotten really used to it, and now when I go to London, Paris, or New York, it bothers me to no end. You have no idea how nice it is to be able to go out and not have to come home and febreeze/wash everything you own because it reeks of smoke. Really, if you have to smoke it's no problem to go step outside. Smoking in restaurants in particular is disgusting. Sorry.
posted by akmonday at 7:50 AM on April 11, 2003

It appears that some folks still haven't gotten the news:

Public smoking ban slashes heart attacks
15:30 01 April 03

NewScientist.com news service

A six-month ban on smoking in all public places slashed the number of heart attacks in a US town by almost a half, a new study has revealed.

The researchers attribute the dramatic drop to the "near elimination" of harmful effects of "second-hand" smoke - passive smoking. A smoke-free environment also encourages smokers to reduce smoking or quit altogether, the team adds.

"This striking finding suggests that protecting people from toxins in second-hand smoke not only makes life more pleasant, it immediately starts saving lives,"
Glantz says. The researchers claim the study is the first to show that smoke-free policies rapidly reduce heart attacks, as well as having long-term benefits.


"This clearly shows the great need for controls on smoking in public places," says Amanda Sandford of UK pressure group Action on Smoking and Health. "Passive smoking is a killer. The public certainly underestimates the impact of passive smoking on the heart."

The study suggests that although second-hand smoke delivers only a small dose of harmful chemicals, it appears to have a very heavy impact on health. This paradox has puzzled scientists before, says Robert West, an expert on smoking cessation at St George's Medical School, London, "but there are now plausible mechanisms for this".

The risk of lung cancer rises steadily with the amount of tobacco a person smokes, he notes, but the risk of heart attack shows a non-linear relationship. Recent studies have shown "there is an immediate and acute effect of passive smoke exposure as a particulate pollutant," West told New Scientist.

</cough>
posted by NortonDC at 7:59 AM on April 11, 2003

Oh God, another bogus study designed solely to prop up a nanny law. We do not need any more protection from ourselves thank you very much. If someone is stupid enough to smoke, so be it. Let them pay the penalty. 1200 deaths from second hand smoke, what rot. Aside from when you are in a pub or smoke shop, you can usually avoid second hand smoke. If your room mate smokes, have them smoke outside.
posted by caddis at 8:02 AM on April 11, 2003

I don't need protection from myself, I need protection from you and your smoke.

Very different.
posted by NortonDC at 8:09 AM on April 11, 2003

"A six-month ban on smoking in all public places slashed the number of heart attacks in a US town by almost a half"

Isn't there already something wrong with that sentence?
posted by magullo at 8:14 AM on April 11, 2003

Yeah, it undermines your position.
posted by NortonDC at 8:28 AM on April 11, 2003

Easy to be protected from my smoke. I don't smoke.

If you want to protect yourself from other's smoke, at least in the US, just stay out of bars and relationships with smokers. There are few places besides bars and one's own home where smoking is still allowed. Really, smoking is no good for you, but neither is liquor, so staying away from bars shouldn't be a problem if you really value your health.
posted by caddis at 8:30 AM on April 11, 2003

Scientists, not English majors, my dear magullo.

caddis: I like live music. I don't like dying from heart attacks. So what about clubs?
posted by Ptrin at 8:33 AM on April 11, 2003

We have already banned:
driving without a seat belt,
riding a motorcycle without a helmet,
children riding a bicycle without a helmet.
All very stupid things to do, but should they be illegal?

Things certain do gooders would like to protect us from:
smoking,
drinking.

Where will it stop? How about making the following illegal:
mountain climbing,
hang gliding,
any X-game,
eating fatty foods,
not getting enough sleep,
not getting enough exercise (but if on a bike, only with a helmet).
posted by caddis at 8:39 AM on April 11, 2003

Ptrin, I think we ought to leave it up to the club manager as to whether smoking should be allowed in their club.
posted by caddis at 8:40 AM on April 11, 2003

I don't need protection from myself, I need protection from you and your smoke.

Uh huh. Sloganerrific. You also need protection from my exhaust fumes, wood fires, and devastating CO2 exhalations.

And speaking as someone who works on clinical trials, whoever ran the numbers on that New Scientist article is on crack.

With all that said, yeah, smoke isn't that great for anybody. But then again, neither is urban living. Unless you're living in a yurt in Nebraska, spare me the "virgin lungs" arguments.
posted by Skot at 8:48 AM on April 11, 2003

We have already banned:
driving without a seat belt,
riding a motorcycle without a helmet...

No, we haven't (at least not in America).

We have banned them on public roads. You're free to do them on private property, your own or anybody else's that consents.
posted by NortonDC at 8:48 AM on April 11, 2003

Alright, caddis. So lets also leave it up to the club manager whether or not individuals in the club are allowed to rape other individuals.

If you don't like being poked in the butt, don't go to a club!

And as a matter of fact, you're much less likely to get a heart attack from being raped than you are from second-hand smoke. So really, it would be much less ridiculous than allowing smoking.
posted by Ptrin at 8:50 AM on April 11, 2003

So lets also leave it up to the club manager whether or not individuals in the club are allowed to rape other individuals.

Gosh, what a great, totally inoffensive analogy. Try it out on a rape victim sometime.
posted by Skot at 9:01 AM on April 11, 2003

The smokers in this thread remind me of the Iraqi information minister. Now that I think about it, he'd make a great spokesman for any major tobacco company. And he's looking for a new job...
posted by MarkC at 9:02 AM on April 11, 2003

IOW, smoking is bad for you, but being raped ain't. Now I'm convinced, my dear Ptrin. Anybody up for the deed? 'cause I'm feeling nicotine cravings already ... I sure hope this rape thing is as thrilling as is sounds.

PS: My earlier comment about the study was not about its grammar. I think somebody has already mentioned a connection between clinical trials, crack and the aforementioned study.
posted by magullo at 9:03 AM on April 11, 2003

Ptrin, not a very good analogy. Quite few people would choose raping, but quite a few would willingly choose to breath second hand smoke for a short period in order to sit at a bar or listen to music in a club. But let's examine that music. Loud music in a club really is bad for your hearing - better add it to the list of banned activities. Getting back to smoking, if most patrons preferred that the club not allow smoking eventually managers would ban smoking.
posted by caddis at 9:06 AM on April 11, 2003

NortonDC:

Statistics like those quoted can show correlation, but very difficult to prove anything.

Furthermore, in the article, it says that the average number of patients admitted dropped to 4 per month from 7 per month. But what it doesn't tell us:

a.) What is the average per month from June to December - the time during which the experiment was conducted? Maybe less people are admitted to hospitals during that period of time.

b.) How many of those 4 are non-smokers? i.e. If prior to the experiment, 3 were non-smokers and 4 were smokers, and during the experiment, 3 were non-smokers and 1 was a smoker, then the experiment shows a correlation between smoking and heart attacks, but not passive smoking and heart attacks.

c.) What were the rates after the ban was lifted? Did it go back up?

Lastly, note the posting date of that article.

I don't smoke, and I don't like to go to smoke filled bars/clubs. But statistics are evil.
posted by mfli at 9:10 AM on April 11, 2003

Uh huh. Sloganerrific. You also need protection from my exhaust fumes, wood fires, and devastating CO2 exhalations.

Will people please stop comparing cigarette smoke to car exhaust fumes. Yes, breathing in carbon monoxide, and whatever other numerous gasses vehicles produce, is hazardous to one's health, but there are some pretty big, and obvious, differences:

1. People don't run their cars in restaurants and bars. At least, not on purpose.

2. Cars and other fossil burning vehicles serve a useful purpose. If all they did was turn petrol into carbon-monoxide then, yes, THEY WOULD BE BANNED!
posted by MarkC at 9:11 AM on April 11, 2003

MarkC -- You'll love this.

Caddis, ignoring your huge blunder, keep in mind that clubs are workplaces, and employers are responsible (i.e. "liable") for the protecting the health of their employees on the job.

And Skot, he wanted to try out the heart attack analogy on a heart attack victim, but he was, uh, unresponsive.
posted by NortonDC at 9:13 AM on April 11, 2003

you'll have to pry my cigarette from my cold dead hand.
posted by johnnyboy at 9:19 AM on April 11, 2003

MarkC - In that case, count me up as collateral damage and forget about it

"Cars and other fossil burning vehicles serve a useful purpose."

To clog highways with SUVs carrying a single occupant armed with the solid excuse that one day someone might need to move a couch? (Obviating the thrid party deaths due to speeding over the limit, which is outright illegal - how about imposing an obligatory speed limiting device on the manufacturers?)
posted by magullo at 9:19 AM on April 11, 2003

Can someone explain to me why that (statistical not scientific) study was done in some podunk town in Montana instead of perhaps trying to see what happened when smoking was banned in public places in perhaps a state like CA?

I'm pretty sure one of the few things I learned in my college stats class was that the bigger the sample the better.

BTW anyone see the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on showtime last week. It was all about this subject.
posted by bitdamaged at 9:30 AM on April 11, 2003

well, i am a smoker, but as a smoker i am always aware that my smoke might be getting in other people's faces. so yeah, i can see why non-smokers might want to ban it, because they don't get any pleasure from the smoke, it just annoys them. we, as smokers, can surely accomodate them? i mean, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. i doubt whether this bill will get passed, but then i wouldn't mind if it did get passed. as long as there were still bars where it was allowable to smoke, say, where all the staff were smokers. but then i wouldn't get to meet any non-smokers, it would be needless segregation. maybe i ought to stop smoking, but i like smoking. maybe we need to eliminate smoking from our society over successive generations. you know, i am a smoker but we needn't always react knee-jerk-style. maybe i am inflicting poison on my non-smoking friends. for which i am sorry. not that there aren't other causes of pollution, like cars and such. they've just been waiting inside a mountain, for the right moment, to come out and multiply and take over!!
posted by mokey at 9:36 AM on April 11, 2003

Oh I should also add that I was a smoker in CA before and after the ban and for those of you who have pending legislation about this my own personal experience was along the lines of akmondays that this really wasn't that bad and I actually came to appreciate it at restaurants particulary.


the caveat being of course it doesn't snow in SF.
posted by bitdamaged at 9:40 AM on April 11, 2003

I think it's very telling that the opponents of smoking bans here have also (in some cases) mocked highway safety laws: seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, etc. These laws are well known to have had huge impacts on public health expenditures. Remember, neither smokers nor people mangled in motorcycle accidents pay for the huge costs of their medical treatment out of their own earnings (not in the US and certainly not in the UK).

I lived in California for eight smoke-free years. Having grown up in a more smoke-permissive environment, I never noticed how much smoke I encountered week by week. Sure, it's a cancer risk, but even as a smell-annoyance and eye-irritant, only an ingrained culture of approving of this addiction allows us to tolerate it.

It's still a bit early for the west-coasters...I look forward to seeing what they have to say. You folks in the UK have no idea how much cigarette smoke you're breathing: you're used to it. When I travelled from California to London, I was quite aware of how many packs I was smoking over there second-hand. And I don't mean in pubs and clubs.
posted by Zurishaddai at 9:51 AM on April 11, 2003

And speaking as someone who works on clinical trials, whoever ran the numbers on that New Scientist article is on crack.

Then you should have no problem showing how the statistics are incorrect. Pray, do so. Perhaps you've done some peer-reviewed studies that show that passive smoke is beneficial, or benign?

The science is good that passive cigarette smoke is harmful, and there is evidence that this "passive" smoke (or sidestream smoke) may be more harmful than that inhaled by the smoker, which the EPA classifies as a class A carcinogen.

(Of course, even if it tobacco smoke were not harmful, exposure to cigarette smoke is extremely irritating to most nonsmokers. One would expect smokers to police themselves and take the lead in courtesy. And in any case, the burden of proof should have been on smokers and the tobacco industry to establish that smoking is harmless before nonsmokers were exposed to the byproducts of their addictions.)

And of course, good science about the harmful effects of a substance is unlikely to make headway into the rationalizations of those already addicted to that substance, or those who have an economic interest in the sale of that substance (although even tobacco company research has shown that environmental tobacco smoke is harmful....but they wouldn't let their customers know that, for some reason). It's that business thing, don't you know.

Think of the vexation if heroin addicts left the detritus of their addiction around restaurants....used needles for the kiddies to poke one another with, heroin residue on the flatware, hepatitis B tainted blood in your Denver omelette, etc etc. But cigarette addicts would somehow like us all to believe they are somehow so very different, and deserve special accomodation to practice their addiction wherever they choose. (Incidentally, polling data shows consistent overwhelming support for smoking bans in public places. Bans on passive smoke exposure are extremely popular here in California, and studies show economic benefit from the bans).

Much work is being done to reduce harmful exposure to carcinogens and harmful chemicals, from smog to environmental tobacco smoke. To argue that we shouldn't limit exposure of nonsmokers to passive smoking before we rid ourselves of all other potential carcinogens is as stupid as arguing we shouldn't prosecute assault before we rid our streets of jaywalkers.

As a smoker, it is your responsibility to insure your own addiction does not harm other people. When you light up in a restaurant, you are potentially putting children, unborn children, and those with respiratory disease at serious risk. Employees who must work constantly in smoke-filled environments are in particular danger.

Folks, quit smoking today. There are a number of less painful methods to kick the habit available now. It's tough, but it can be done. You'll be doing the right thing for yourself and those around you.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:17 AM on April 11, 2003

Having just moved from San Francisco to London and gotten a job at a stop-smoking charity (and working with another girl from SF who arrived a month before I did -- leading my smoky British friends to think that we're just rampaging Californians who want to change the rest of the world, when really we got the jobs randomly), I'm doubly aware of the differences between the cities. (and more aware of scary facts, like that smoking directly causes like 17,000 children's admissions to hospitals each year in the UK, and about how smoking causes weird stuff like gangrene -- a local 17-yo had to have her thumb amputated last year due the consequences of her heavy smoking habit) I really didn't realize how spoiled I am in terms of assuming clean air when I eat out and go dancing. Alongside the headaches and general suffocating feeling in pubs and clubs, there's the disgusting issue of neverending laundry (and let me tell you, these itty-bitty British washing machines are quite an incovenience). Some chainsmoking Germans here asked me if I didn't think that the California law was "rather hysterical." Um, NO. I had friends who smoked in CA, and they never whined about having to go outside, it was simply a fact of life. It's not like they didn't know that secondhand smoke sucks for everyone else. At any rate, I am certainly craving the ability to go out and enjoy myself without having to go out for oxygen every 5 seconds. I certainly hope Brits fall in line with us oh-so-fruity-and-nutty Californians.
posted by fotzepolitic at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2003

sorry fold it's not that easy.

The majority of the links you posted refer to a very controversial 1992 EPA study (which the CA laws were based on)

The report was actually overturned (as shoddy science) by a court ruling in 1998

Fox News Article
Cecil Adam's at the straight dope
posted by bitdamaged at 10:36 AM on April 11, 2003

NortonDC, you have identified the one legitimate reason to control smoking in clubs and bars, the employees. However, I would prefer controls over any outright ban, controls such as segregated smoking areas, ventilation in smoking areas etc. My point is that I believe that most of the anti-smoking groups are less concerned with the health of those employees than they are with banning smoking altogether.
posted by caddis at 11:03 AM on April 11, 2003

caddis, you've missed another point of mine:

****
We have already banned:
driving without a seat belt,
riding a motorcycle without a helmet...

No, we haven't (at least not in America).

We have banned them on public roads. You're free to do them on private property, your own or anybody else's that consents.
****

Nobody here is suggesting "banning smoking altogether."
posted by NortonDC at 11:12 AM on April 11, 2003

okay then, banning smoking in public areas.

i am fine with not smoking in restaurants, although the ban on smoking in bars is a pain in the ass. but if one of you self-righteous jerks tells me i can't have my cigarette on the street, i will put it out in your eye.
posted by pikachulolita at 11:27 AM on April 11, 2003

But cigarette addicts would somehow like us all to believe they are somehow so very different, and deserve special accomodation to practice their addiction wherever they choose.

I think you might be more persuasive if you didn't just make stuff up in support of your viewpoint.
posted by normy at 11:40 AM on April 11, 2003

NortonDC, I didn't miss it I just found it irrelevant. A ban on riding without a helmet on public streets functions as nearly a total ban. Anyway, I think there may still be a few states where, if you are stupid enough to try it, you can still ride legally without a helmet.

Perhaps nobody "here," or perhaps some folks "here" advocate a total ban. Nevertheless, groups such as ASH seek to end all smoking by making it too expensive, too inconvenient and too taboo to actually smoke, hence a functional ban. If they could pull it off, I bet they would favor banning tobacco altogether. Since they know that isn't popular, they will say they don't favor such a ban, yet seek every other means to effectively ban tobacco. With helmets it is even worse, riding without one is actually banned from just about anyplace one would care to do so.
posted by caddis at 11:55 AM on April 11, 2003

caddis--NortonDC, I didn't miss it I just found it irrelevant.

What this says is "It's not that I want to smoke, it's that I want to force other people to breathe my smoke."

Separately, helmet laws for public roads are legally justified because their is no right to ride on public roads. Beyond that, they're pretty indefensible. But even if there was a right to drive on public roads, seat belt laws would still be justified because they keep other drivers safer by keeping drivers at the controls during less serious accidents, allowing them to maintain control and keep accidents from getting worse.

So, really, the driving analogies are weak.
posted by NortonDC at 1:02 PM on April 11, 2003

I could care less about cigarettes, I want to ban perfume. Allergies to these non-functional toxins are common and in many cases severe. The wearing of perfumes is a pointless and selfish act, which places other people in danger, and prevents many people from enjoying a dinner out, or a night at the club.

I know this seems radical, but perhaps we could start with perfumed and non-perfumed sections of the restaurants until I find an author for my upcoming study entitled 'Perfume: The Smell Of Selfishness'.
posted by mosch at 2:39 PM on April 11, 2003

I used to smoke, and my position was the same then as it is now.

Make it illegal, or quit treating it differently than any other industry. Tobacco companies manufacture a legal product. Yet they are forced to (at least appear) to try and dissuade anyone from using that product. Not only that, they can be sued if people use their product in the manner it was intended. Their advertising options are increasingly limited, and on top of that they're are subjected to inane drivel such as painfully earnest MTV hipsters coming to grips with their questionable pubescence by "confronting" Phillip Morris security guards and janitors and other rot.

The automobile analogy is apt: it produces evil fumes that kill other people. As well as killing tons of them outright when used (if ineptly) as the product was intended. I guess the analogy would be complete if the actual cigarette could occasionally fly off some drunk's hand and cause innocent bystanders grievous bodily harm.

My point is: make it illegal, or quit yer bitchin'. I can see good, reasonable arguments to make tobacco illegal. Not as strong as the arguments to make alcohol illegal, but still. You're pestering the wrong people.
posted by umberto at 8:48 PM on April 11, 2003

And I won't even go into the fact that cats, which make me swell up and die, are allowed in the airplanes. I'd rather have a smoker than a cat person near me anytime. Smokers are usually at least vaguely aware that they smell bad. Cat people have no idea that the stale tang of cat urine follows them everywhere. I'm all for cat illegality.
posted by umberto at 8:52 PM on April 11, 2003

NannyFilter.
posted by RavinDave at 11:15 PM on April 11, 2003

Geez, it's been less than two weeks since we had this conversation last time. I think just about everything was said in that thread.

On preview, I just deleted a long comment. None of us are going to convince the other side of anything, I'm afraid.
posted by litlnemo at 7:00 AM on April 12, 2003