Anti-smoking battle moves outdoors; bans increase

[slimvictor]

Er...that's not really what I was arguing. Rather, people wracked with self-loathing, or even those apathetic in caring for themselves, seem to take on a variety of approaches to interacting with the outside world and regarding those around them. Some are considerate to others, some are not.

ebola

Yes, I understood that. Some are considerate, certainly.
Two of my good friends have smoked for years, and they are lovely people.
My aunt was a pretty wonderful woman, and died of lung cancer after smoking for 40+ years.
What I said was "it is no surprise when they fail to respect other people"
I probably should have said "if" instead of "when", to be clear, since I meant "those times I have experienced this" rather than "it happens invariably".
I hope that clears things up. Please let me know what you think.

Yes. Just because exposure to something is toxic at a certain dosage/level does not mean it will be harmful at a clinically significant at a lower level or diluted. I could list examples all day. 1 minute of sunshine vs 3 hours, eating an apple vs eating a kilo of apple seeds. a teaspoon of soy sauce vs a whole bottle of soy sauce, a beer vs a bottle of vodka.

Your hypothesis; extended exposure to large amounts of concentrated cigarette smoke is unhealthy hence short exposure to tiny amounts in the air is also unhealthy = a whole lot of something is unhealthy thus a very small amount is also likely to be unhealthy.

Common sense and an extensive amount of evidence would seem to contradict that.

Well, you neglect to include information on what we know about second- and even third-hand smoke.
For instance, did you know that a study led by researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that thirdhand smoke causes significant genetic damage in human cells? You can read about the study here.

The Mayo Clinic has this to say about thirdhand smoke:

Studies show that thirdhand smoke clings to hair, skin, clothes, furniture, drapes, walls, bedding, carpets, dust, vehicles and other surfaces, even long after smoking has stopped. Infants, children and nonsmoking adults may be at risk of tobacco-related health problems when they inhale, ingest or touch substances containing thirdhand smoke. Thirdhand smoke is a relatively new concept, and researchers are still studying its possible dangers.

Thirdhand smoke residue builds up on surfaces over time and resists normal cleaning. Thirdhand smoke can't be eliminated by airing out rooms, opening windows, using fans or air conditioners, or confining smoking to only certain areas of a home. Thirdhand smoke remains long after smoking has stopped.

source

Considering all of this, the hypothesis that outdoor secondhand smoke causes adverse health effects in a non-trivial proportion of humans makes far more sense.
Additionally, my experiences in life knowing at least 50 people who have also had strong reactions to outdoor secondhand smoke, like I do, makes me think that the hypothesis is quite reasonable.

I used to be biased against smokers for the reasons I have described in this thread.
However, I grew out of that in my 20s. I realized that smokers are just people who make a choice that I consider poor, and that I make many choices that other people might consider poor (and even I myself, with reasonable frequency, think about my previous choices with some sense of chagrin). Once I began considering them "people (who smoke cigarettes)", rather than "smokers" (which I still use as shorthand sometimes), I could no longer hold any grudge. I was small hearted once, but grew bigger in this way. We are all brothers and sisters here on Spaceship Earth. So, when I argue these points with y'all, I do it as an exercise in communication, rather than a fight or contest.

 

[ebola?]

Please let me know what you think.

Sounds fair.

ebola