Should Smoking in Public Be Banned?

[ShanandBoc]

How can anyone say that cigarette smoke / 2nd hand smoke is not dangerous??? Have u checked out a list of their ingredients lately??

Most of us will get cancer? Id rather do all i can to try and prevent it anyway thanks! And us non smokers have the right to not breathe in toxic smoke and so do children

My dad died from throat cancer caused by years of smoking. He had tumors growing on the outside and inside of his neck. I have no doubt that if my Dad didnt smoke, he would still be with us. He died a terrible, slow painful death that i wouldnt wish on anyone!

 

[Nibblenic]

Then maybe my original suggestion of raising the legal age of smoking every year by a year isnt unreasonable.

How are 13 year olds getting hold of tabs anyway? Their parents maybe?

Yes when i was young more than a decade ago it was 16 and you could go buy them yourself at 13. However I.D laws are much stronger now and tabs are no longer pocket money prices. So where are these under age kids getting enough tobacco from to form an addiction.

Cos I have had ciggerette when i was young n it was clever. When i was in my late teens I used to smoke when i was mad. But I dont think ill have had more than 20 in my whole life. It isnt one tab and your addicted for life you have to build up a habbit

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

Second hand smoke is harmful there is research prooving that fact. Why is it some people refuse to accept that? X

 

[BlackBerry25]

It's for sure dangerous. The smell thing isn't a factor to me. People have to smell things they may not like all the time.

"What are the risks of tobacco smoke to nonsmokers?
Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoking, and passive smoking) is the combination of “sidestream” smoke (the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product) and “mainstream” smoke (the smoke exhaled by a smoker) (3, 4, 7, 8). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (4, 8, 9). Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (1, 3). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (7). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (3)."

Also, that children become addicted arguement sounded so ridiculous to me. Thats even more of a reason for it to be banned! No one picks up a smoking habit when they are an adult. So basically these companies are allowed to get children addicted.

 

[angelandbump]

How are 13 year olds getting hold of tabs anyway? Their parents maybe?

When i was at school the older girls/lads would steal them from their parents and sell them for 50p a fag. Then they would make enough money to pay the college students to go to in the local shop and buy them some more... I remember a girl in my tutor was made of money and her parents would give them to her to sell!

 

[Nibblenic]

 

[Laura2919]

I used to buy my fags from my local shop. Took my tie off tucked in my school shirt walked in and asked and I got served fags at 14!!! Now its harder to get served fags.

 

[lesleyann]

i used to get served in my school uniform and they asked my nan if i was old enough she said yes so she could send me to buy hers i was like 13

 

[katrina1987]

I am a smoker myself but I do try and take other people into consideration when smoking in public. I never smoke when I have LO with me in pushchair because I don't think its fair he inhales it, If I smoke in town I will duck out the way, behind a shop, carpark, alleyway to have a cigarette. The big question is should alcohol be banned? Cars, buses, bikes, anything that is poluting our air? I find its far worse when out in town a car/bike,bus going past spewing out its disgusting fumes making my son cough because of his bad chest. But you cannot ban transport! I will not have smoking arund my LO full stop it is my choice to smoke and not his. But I disagree but also agree. Its a hard one.

 

[ShanandBoc]

^ but didnt u smoke whilst pregnant? Sorry i just found ur comments rather odd considering?

 

[redpoppy]

The thing is that nicotine is one the THE MOST addictive substances known to man and the vast majority of smokers DO start when they are underage and therefore whether they "CHOOSE" to do it or not becomes strange territory. Issues of consent for children (which people are at 13, 14 etc.) is different to those of an adult. As I previously said, if there was a way of making it impossible for humans to start smoking before 21 that would be great as it would be a more informed choice and then harsh consequences woudl seem fairer.

I never did smoke when all my friends started at school. I remember me and my best friend just thinking it was ridiculous and not "cool" as everyone liked to make out. But many of our quite intelligent and lovely friends did start smoking at 13 and everys single one of them has attempted to quit at some poitn in their adult lives.

Of all the people I know who smoke EVERY SINGLE ONE has tried to quit and ONLY 2 have ever succeeded.

The fact of the matter is that just because an individual can or has the mental, emotional and physical character needed to quit doesn't mean everyone does. Some people are genetically and psychologically more inclined to addictions than others. Unless we make smoking illegal or AT LEAST somehow stop children from starting at such a young age it just seems excessive to me for people to expect 25% of our population to be so vilified.

I think the "oh the second hand smoke will kill us" theory is nonsense as the laws stand as the evidence in the prior article link showed. As for the smell, you can't legislate against smell. So both arguments fall quite flat. It ultimately to me is a case of mass hysteria. "oh no! If i walk within ten yards of a smoker I and my child will get cancer despite evidence showing that's simply not true!!!" It's just the general vilification of people choosing to do slow harm to themselves. Besides, most of us will get cancer and smoking wil have little to nothing to do with it.

Sure, because the Mayo Clinic is poor evidence?

Also, I don't see the National Cancer Institute agreeing with you.

Second hand smoke IS harmful. I can't believe that there are people out there who don't believe that.

From your own link:

Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoke, and passive smoke) is the combination of “sidestream” smoke (the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product) and “mainstream” smoke (the smoke exhaled by a smoker) (1–4).

People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings. In the United States, the source of most secondhand smoke is from cigarettes, followed by pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products (4).

The amount of smoke created by a tobacco product depends on the amount of tobacco available for burning. The amount of secondhand smoke emitted by smoking one large cigar is similar to that emitted by smoking an entire pack of cigarettes.

Secondhand smoke exposure can be measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other chemicals in tobacco smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke can also be tested by measuring the level of cotinine (a by-product of the breakdown of nicotine) in a nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other smoke-related chemicals have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.

I'm not saying second hand smoke is not dangerous in context to what I've said previously. I support the ban as it stands. How about reading my prior posts before getting condescending? This debate is about EXTENDING the ban to outside areas.

I was given an article earlier in the thread which referred to a study which tested that second hand smoke in outside situations is not really harmful even a few feet away from the source.

So if that's a fact why the outrage, the hysteria AND the way people have reacted to my post? ALl these things in my opinion are overreactions. What do you think?

 

[Tiff]

I know its for outside areas, and I'm all for it. People reacted to your post because you stated that second hand smoke causing harm is nonsense.

What is a fact? That one link said that it isn't harmful? You are willing to take that to the bank and discredit the many, many articles that state to stay away from people who are smoking outside as secondhand smoke can and will cause cancer?

You are right though, the levels outside differ to the levels inside. However that doesn't negate the fact that it is still dangerous.

 

[redpoppy]

I know its for outside areas, and I'm all for it. People reacted to your post because you stated that second hand smoke causing harm is nonsense.

What is a fact? That one link said that it isn't harmful? You are willing to take that to the bank and discredit the many, many articles that state to stay away from people who are smoking outside as secondhand smoke can and will cause cancer?

You are right though, the levels outside differ to the levels inside. However that doesn't negate the fact that it is still dangerous.

One scientific study not one link. And yes its dangerous if you stand around them but most humans with or without babies are mobile and aware enough of the dangers to not stand around waiting for the smoke to do damage. Use your body and mind to just simply go a few feet out of the way where the smell and the smoke become a non issue. It's not a confined space... it's outdoors. Even the links you provided didn't claim it is dangerous outside. Are there scientific studies that say it is because that would be a more interesting thing to look at than assumption. And how dangerous? As dangerous as crossing a road? As dangerous as driving in a car?

And the smoke not causing harm is in context of being outdoors. It's been clarified now.

 

[Tiff]

Not enough for me I'm afraid. Sorry, can you tell me who did the study? Thanks

As for my links not saying that it isn't dangerous:

Many state and local governments have passed laws prohibiting smoking in public facilities, such as schools, hospitals, airports, bus terminals, parks, and beaches, as well as private workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Some states have passed laws regulating smoking in multiunit housing and cars. More than half of the states have enacted statewide bans on workplace smoking.

To highlight the health risks from secondhand smoke, the National Cancer Institute, a component of the National Institutes of Health, holds meetings and conferences in states, counties, cities, or towns that are smoke free, unless specific circumstances justify an exception to this policy. More information is available at https://meetings.smokefree.gov/ on the Internet.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2020, a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda, includes the goal of reducing illness, disability, and death related to tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure. Currently, most Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke, and children are at greatest risk. For 2020, the goal is to reduce the proportion of people exposed to secondhand smoke by 10 percent. To assist with achieving this goal, Healthy People 2020 includes ideas for community interventions, such as encouraging the introduction of smoke-free policies in workplaces and other public areas.

That's in the National Cancer Institute link, Item #7

I did find this interesting though (this is from the Mayo Clinic Wesbite)

Breathing secondhand smoke for a short time can irritate your lungs and reduce the amount of oxygen in your blood. Prolonged or repeated exposure to secondhand smoke is all the more dangerous. And it isn't just the smoke that's a concern. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children.

I will honestly say that I have never before heard of Third Hand Smoke. I know that the smell does linger but never would have occured to me that it would pose some sort of issue! Because its the Mayo Clinic I'd be inclined to believe it, but I'd like to see more info about that if I'm honest.

 

[PeanutBean]

I knew about that Tiff though I don't think I've heard it referred to as third hand smoke before. In parenting articles I've often read about not handling babies/children for a certain length of time after smoking because of residual chemicals. I forget how long, not being a smoker.

 

[Nibblenic]

My HV/mindwife said at least 20 minutes after smoking but an hour is preferable I think that saw more aimed at newborns young babies though as they can move thier head away etc

 

[aob1013]

Second hand smoke isn't dangerous ... whatever next

 

[redpoppy]

Second hand smoke isn't dangerous ... whatever next

In open spaces according to a scientific study. I see I'm going to have to go and edit my post.

 

[Sarah10]

Haven't read all the thread, but the smoke is still there.. containing shit chemicals, hows it not dangerous?

 

[redpoppy]

Maybe reading the thread may put that question into a deeper context perhaps?

The study was quoted in the article huggermum put up a few pages ago.

As for the quotes in your thread Tiff.

Many state and local governments have passed laws prohibiting smoking in public facilities, such as schools, hospitals, airports, bus terminals, parks, and beaches, as well as private workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Some states have passed laws regulating smoking in multiunit housing and cars. More than half of the states have enacted statewide bans on workplace smoking.

To highlight the health risks from secondhand smoke, the National Cancer Institute, a component of the National Institutes of Health, holds meetings and conferences in states, counties, cities, or towns that are smoke free, unless specific circumstances justify an exception to this policy. More information is available at https://meetings.smokefree.gov/ on the Internet.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2020, a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda, includes the goal of reducing illness, disability, and death related to tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure. Currently, most Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke, and children are at greatest risk. For 2020, the goal is to reduce the proportion of people exposed to secondhand smoke by 10 percent. To assist with achieving this goal, Healthy People 2020 includes ideas for community interventions, such as encouraging the introduction of smoke-free policies in workplaces and other public areas.

It just suggests some goals and does not go to prove that open air second hand smoke does significant damage

Breathing secondhand smoke for a short time can irritate your lungs and reduce the amount of oxygen in your blood. Prolonged or repeated exposure to secondhand smoke is all the more dangerous. And it isn't just the smoke that's a concern. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children.

As for this, again it's not about walking past a smoker in the street or sitting a hundred yards from a smoker in the park. It's about smoking and then handling children.

And I'll repeat, I've never smoked and HATE the smell. It does cling and I moved to LA years ago when there was no ban here and used to count my lucky stars every time I came home from being out where my eyes did not sting and my clothes and hair did not smell as they had the ban in place a long time ago.

But that's never happened to me because I went for a walk through a doorway that had smokers hanging outside or because I walked behind someone who was smoking.

But I suppose I'm quite a liberal and inclusive person for the most part and find hysteria about these things a little excessive. I think drinking alcohol is very antisocial but I don't think it should be banned. The smell of alcohol is vile and it leads to people being drunken, leery, and sometimes violent. It also leads to people throwing up in the streets and falling over and repeating the same dull conversation again and again and again. I don't drink, but you know what? When I see a few people getting together in a park, within easy walking distance of me or my family in a park with a few drinks I don't go "AAARGH Open alcohol!" and think the worst. I'm just more libertarian and liberal and laid back about things. I strongly suspect people who get easily anxious and worrisome about things like this (or other things which are largely inconsequential and have no evidence to suggest their imminent danger) are more likely to suffer illnesses as I always feel stress and anxiety cause far more illnesses in humans than we are made actively aware of. Also, since anxieties are very easily past from mother to child I try and be as relaxed around LO as possible.

Anyway, I've presented my argument, I think the opposing argument is hysteria and lacks concrete evidence (regarding the concrete danger of second hand smoke in OPEN AIR areas) and I'm out of this debate. I've had one hell of a tough week and I don't really fancy this debate as I've never said this before and I LOVE a good debate but I have started to feel a little like I did at school when the cool girls made fun of my trainers. And I'm 22 years too old to feel like that. But thanks for taking me back ladies.