Smoking on public sidewalks banned.....

Oh, that link crashed my browser. What's the gist of it?

.......:...........

Oh my goodness. Can you imagine forgetting for 15 seconds at a cost of $1,000? That's one expensive cigarette!

I think it's in Edinburgh (Scotland) where they've banned it as well. I remember seeing something on the news a couple of years ago because they have people walking the streets to catch them with an instant fine

I think they have taken this to way to far. We should be more concerned about what poisons they are putting in our food and water. Hundreds of birds are falling out of the sky dead and it isn't from outside smokers.......

I agree. I quit smoking a couple years ago and don't like to be around people smoking, but this is taking things way to far IMO.

I wish they would be half as anal about animal abuse.

link

Just wait until drivers start complaining about people standing in the street and smoking, or people become outraged because they have to clean up butts in their front yards. I'm not being facetious - one local school had to repeal its smoking ban, and others never enforced theirs, for those reasons.

They were trying to pass a law here prohibiting smokers from smoking in their vehicles if children are in it too. (Not sure what ever came of it) It's a good one but its not like police can watch every single car all the time. Its as hard as catching drivers texting behind the wheel.
As a reformed smoker, I do see why people complain about the smoke. When you walk out of a building into a cloud of cigarette smoke, it isn't very pleasant. It's not fair for people with respiratory problems to have to breath it in when they are in public. Many smokers simply do not care where their smoke goes and who is bothered by it. Not to say ALL smokers are like that. I feel bad for people who were bothered by my smoking before I quit...although I did try to be courteous of those around me who didn't smoke.
Personally, I don't think there will ever be a happy medium between smokers and nonsmokers.

I grew up with a father who smoked and was frequently told to suck it up (more or less) when he smoked in the car. He's crack the window a bit, but then I'd freeze in the back seat (and still smell the smoke).

This was life for me. So when they started making all these crazy smoking rules, I thought it was a little much.

However, I'm glad they are restricting places people can smoke.

My boyfriend and I were waiting to go into a concert one day last spring. Outside the centre, there was a large parkette where we waited. We picked a spot. The guy sitting about a little bit away from us lit up a smoke. The smoke bothered us, so we moved somewhere else. Within two minutes, another group of people came and sat near us, and lit up. They really weren't the close to us (so likely did not realize the smoke would bother us), but the smell of smoke was still so strong that we had to move.

It's hard to get away from when people who smoke are allowed to do it wherever they want. If there are designated areas, I can avoid those.

I can thank MANY smokers in my life for CUTTING my life Expectancy roughly in half.... At 33 I have a disease that if you don t smoke and have a genetic predisposition would have begun at about age 65 I got it ( diagnosised) at 25 ... So personally I would like an outright ban on ALL public smoking... But I am VERY jaded

I agree, this is just another way for the city government to make money. Another stupid ban taking away our rights. I am a NON smoker and feel this law needs to be repealed.

I'm sorry to hear that Sharky I know when I'm directly behind a smoker walking, I do a fast sprint to get right in front of him/her (reverse the position) ... It might look a bit wacky but thankfully I've never had to explain myself e.g. "Sorry sir, I see you're smoking and I just wanna be in front of you." but I would explain it if asked. I do this at least once a week here in New York City, where there are lots of smokers.

I think your condition outweigh's peoples "right" to smoke in public - by far.

I think outdoor smoking sections would work, provided they are far enough away from the main public areas.

I love anti smoking laws.

<ex smoker>

To preface, I am not a smoker, and never will be.

Is smoke harmful to your lungs? Yes.

Is second-hand smoke indoors a tar-free very diluted version of that? Yes.

Now consider that people can directly inhale cigarette smoke first hand many many times a day for years before noticing significant health risks.

Then recognize that if you were to suck directly on a car's exhaust, you would die or become very ill within minutes to hours.

Guess what, dozens upon dozens of cars drive by you when you're on the sidewalk every day. You don't feel sick. Why? Because its DILUTED since you are outdoors.

Likewise, a smoker outside that you pass by is absolutely completely negligible exposure, and that isn't a matter of opinion.

Now, yes, cigarette smoke has an odor which car exhaust does not, but again, the odor is not an indicator of health risk, and so IMO this is complete bogus and an unwarranted infringement on personal freedoms. I don't like smoking, would never let my kids smoke, and would harass my sister or brother like crazy if they ever picked up the bad habit, but I have no right to decide what some stranger can and can't put into his body when in reality there is no true significant risk to myself.

You mean I don't have to breathe that crap in and have access to cleaner air? Smoking is not a wise health decision and I am glad others who have decided to be unhealthy aren't the ones deciding for me if I will have to smell it and be around it to ruin my health as well, as well as any future children I have, and even my pets.
I am for it!

Yes, but all we have are years. Me, I want as many years as possible. And there is a significant risk of this smoke, in any of its form, direct or indirect. This has been proven. Both personally in my life and in studies and research.
And frequent smokers obviously don't care too much about those risks on themselves or there would be no option other than quitting so why should they care about you? So they have a right to tell you how your air can smell and what chemicals and known cancer causing agents you must breathe in?

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

I underlined that last part.

I think we need to be careful about believing "statistics". As Ducman says, during a typical day of activity, most of us who live in cities are probably exposed to more vehicle fumes than second-hand smoke.

A good example of why we need to be careful is the recent issue where a British doctor had people believing that vaccines caused autism. That has been disproven and now there are many children out there who are not protected against common diseases and who knows how that will also affect their children in the future. That is sad! I don't personally jump on the bandwagon for everything I hear, read or see. I try to get informed but also use common sense.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't jumping on the bandwagon and that I was using common sense. I know people who never smoked who have died from lung cancer or lung disease. One was a retired marine. One was a cat, according to my neighbor's vet. I think taking that seriously is pretty common sense like.

Likening one British doctor's theory with the many studies on second hand smoke is not comparing apples to apples.

The vehicle fume argument is like saying one shouldn't worry about having dessert because they already had a big fatty dinner.

You are quoting an article that offers absolutely ZERO evidence of scientific studies used to substantiate their claims, and it is published by the "Tobacco Use Cessation Program" so can't possibly be a credible impartial source.
100% of the American population is exposed to industrial pollutants in the air. Quantity of exposure is what matters.
This makes absolutely no sense. 0% of cigarette smoke remains in any person, it is exhaled when they breath out. This is common sense and is already a huge flag as to the objectivity and scientific basis for this article.

Secondly, smoking a cigarette and inhaling cigarette smoke are not the same. Second hand smoke is greatly diluted as it is dispersed and tends to collect towards the ceiling, the free radical source is distant, and you are not inhaling any of the heavy tars which are one of the primary health concerns with cigarette and cigar smoking. I have a feeling they will not share what mechanisms they used to measure and calculate the intake, as they surely have none.
And what source are they using to verify these statistics? More importantly, I would like to know the basis for how physicians are determining that cause of death is second hand smoke, and how that data is compiled into a national database, and why this anti-tobacco group didn't feel the need to share these statistics. Heck, I would be happy if they could show a single individual where a doctor listed the cause of death as "second hand smoke".

And again, common sense. Cars drive past you on the sidewalk all day, but you aren't getting sick from the fumes. You are outdoors, it is massively diluted.

A few cigarettes have absolutely no measurable health risk, it is those that smoke packs a day for years that are of concern due to the addictive nature of nicotine. Here they are trying to equate (quite bogus IMO) about how many hours you would have to be a small smoke filled room to equate to smoking a few cigarettes first hand. But again, common sense, close your garage door and see how long you can keep an F150 running before you start noticing health effects.

So if you are standing on a sidewalk, and you're more concerned about the smoker that you walk past than the Ford F150 that just drove past you, you have your priorities backwards.

This is blatant fear mongering and FUD to try and justify a ban on smoking.

I hate smoking, and I don't like my clothes to stink like smoke. So an indoor smoking ban for public places (restaurants, airplanes, etc) is perfectly reasonable and I support it 100%. But this ban on outdoor smoking is a sham IMO.

They have a right to do whatever they want, as long as there isn't SIGNIFICANT impact on other people. For the reasons cited, there is no statistically significant risk, and the same argument can apply to a motorcycle riding past you on the sidewalk, which has a far greater impact on quantity of pollutants produced per hour and toxicity level.

And yes, smoking causes cancer.

Radiation also causes cancer, and you're exposed to it right now. Its not a problem though because, again, its about how much exposure. Minimal radiation is a non-issue, just as walking past some bloke smoking on a sidewalk.

I am guessing some of you are not educated in the fact that MOST ob/gyn offices will NOT employ smokers .. If they employ them they are NOT allowed to touch or hold ANY infants ... WHY?? and yes this even shocked me ... Third hand smoke.. the Residue on them even hours after a cigarette can and does cause health issues in a baby ...

Not hard to find info as every thing from the NYTimes to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/he...e.html?_r=1The Scientific American has written about it ... http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ird-hand-smoke

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35318118...th-addictions/

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thi...-smoke/MY00591

http://www.dailytech.com/Pollutant+T...ticle20430.htm

I of course missed it dealing with watching my MOTHER die from what I will in not the too distant future!For those who are thinking it is a bandwagon for not wanting second and third hand smoke I feel for your lack of knowledge or need for it to protect yourself and others ...

As for the car issue NOT all of us live in cities or have routine exposure to such in a day.... But those chemicals are In fact Heightened by guess what Cigarette smoke

The stats are often incorrect( to the too low end) as COPD is not even registered for those under 45 who have not smoked though it is a growing group

There are a cluster of SMOKING related diseases that are used as Cause of death...Many more slip through the cracks as these diseases cause other problems which can cause the ultimate cause of death...

You are misinformed.


This is from the University of Minnesota with data from the Mayo Clinic.


http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

When I walk past a smoker I smell like smoke the rest of the day. MY rights are being infringed upon. If I want to walk down the street I have no choice but to be exposed.

Smokers (and other people against the laws) think their rights are being infringed upon, but no one is telling them they are not allowed to smoke. They're just staying don't smoke here, smoke over there.

NO smoking inside, designated smoking areas only outside, is a reasonable compromise

It is a minor inconvenience for a smoker to smoke in an area where it won't impact other people. I'm not sure why so many aren't willing to minorly inconvenience themselves so as to spare other people possible health problems. If someone has tobacco-smoke induced asthma (and I do know some people with this), it could kill them. A smoker isn't going to die if they don't walk down the street puffing smoke all over, and find a place where the smoke won't bother anyone else.

Someone is going to walk past a smoker on the sidewalk and fall over dead? Cmon now. I can just picture birds dropping from the skies overhead.
Right, you're only telling them that they can't smoke inside, they can't smoke outside buildings, and now they can't even smoke half a block down the road.

But if they want to travel out into the woods or find a building with a designated smoke area (our building has none btw), by all means.
We established that already, and as stated it is clearly not anywhere remotely an impartial group, making various bogus claims.
This is clearly a program designed for the express purpose of stopping smoking and created by an anti-smoking crusader dentist.
My guess would be because of fear mongering FUD spread by the anti-smoking groups, smokers are not a protected group, and smokers waste valuable time by taking many breaks throughout the day which employers don't care for especially since it also increases their burden to the provided healthcare package. I have always been asked if I am a smoker for each employment I have had, which started in retail and is currently in IT. Any excuse will suffice.

Don't even get me started on third hand smoke. The reason it is nonsense is not because there isn't basis in fact, but because again it is about EXPOSURE LEVELS. I don't know how to put it any other way.

Ultra-violet light is dangerous. It causes damage right down to your DNA. But that doesn't mean that you have to go vampire and hide under a burka. It is only high levels that are of concern, the same with cig smoke.

Obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree, but I just hope those evangelists realize that taking away the freedoms of a minority group for what in reality is a mild annoyance only sets up a precedent to come and remove one of your freedoms as well.

That is the only reason I care.

Yes I do as Imho they are guilty of MURDERING me likely around age 35 and countless others ... YOUR lack of terribly substantial rebuttal = not actually having much knowledge in this arena and are merely spouting words...I have the freedom to live but do to smokers I do not have much of one left!
I will say it is a pleasure to go into ANY building in Washington state as the laws are in place for no smoking within 25 ft of any door and in all state buildings ... Smokers are more than welcome to smoke in their homes, cars or in designated areas ...

Yes, if a person is highly sensitive they could and HAVE dropped dead from smokers smoke... Many asthma attacks that are fatal have been triggered by smoke...

Yes, rays are harmful but most logical and educated folks take precautions... One cant take precautions for a person coming from anywhere smoking..

My issue here is simple, you are operating under a zero-threshold assumption (if a massive quantity of something is proven toxic, then even utterly minuscule amounts are still toxic), and that goes against everything I know and common sense.

I'll bow out, but I just want to ask one direct question:
Am I correct in understanding that you don't believe that there is ANY self level of tobacco smoke exposure, yet you DO believe that there are safe levels of other toxins exposure such as those commonly found in any city or from any vehicle driving by or idling near sidewalks?

I'm sorry you have to go through this with your health. I can only assume that you lived with smokers around you who did not smoke outside.

I smoked for 49 years and I do have COPD. I try to keep fit and eat right and my doctor says I am doing much better than a lot of his COPD patients. I'm lucky.

My grandfather smoked a pack of cigarettes a day (unfiltered) and lived to be 95 with no sign of lung incapacity.

As with everything, there are always those with a lower tolerance to many things but does that mean we should stop manufacturing things like peanut butter because so many people are allergic? What about dairy products - should we ban those because of allergies? Most people stay away from things that trigger allergies and I think that persons smoking outside have taken themselves away from those folks who are warm inside but many folks aren't satisfied with that - they want it all or nothing. I think that is unfair.

Like Ducman I honestly cannot believe that one would fall over dead from walking past someone who was smoking especially since one would hardly be up close and personal with them.

Sometimes the "rights" groups take things too far. Smokers have rights too.

And for the record, I haven't smoked in 2 years, don't miss it, never craved it while quitting which in itself is phenomenal since I smoked for 49 years. I was diagnosed with COPD and never smoked another cigarette and did it without any drugs.