Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

This thread makes me want to smoke. Secretly I've been hoping they outlaw cigarettes all together cuz I figure that might be the only way I'll ever quit. But all the banning sure has made me cut down, though. But I've been rolling my own since they raised taxes again and that's made me cut down even more cuz it's real hard to roll a cigarette while I'm driving or talking on the phone.

Orion said:

It's true that pre-disposition to cancer increases your chance of suffering uncontrolled cell mutation, but it's false that you need to have this pre-disposition to get cancer from smoking. There are many, many other factors involved that can result in cancer growth. Bottom line is... smokers lighting up near me are removing my choice to not be exposed to a carcinogen. That is unacceptable. If someone were shooting up near me or snorting coke, I would feel bad for them, but at least I wouldn't have to partake. If smokers want to contaminate the air then they can do it from the comfort of their own homes.

Click to expand...

That's the thing though. You don't recieve hardly any nicotine or any other carcinogens from SHS. Let's say you worked in a smoking restaurant or bar. You would recieve between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24hr period according to this article...

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds

Such a concentration would be even less in open air exposure and even more so if you're a non-smoker working in a non-smoking environment. Even if you used the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993 of 117 and 348 micrograms per cubic meter from the article, it still does not even come close to the The OSHA standard for RSP of 5k micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours. And mind you would get far less if you were just in there for the standard hour to eat breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

Also of note is in the 2002 NATA assesment of air toxins nicotine wasn't even mentioned in it as a risk. Arsenic was, however it was of the non-organic nature.

List of Air Toxics in the 2002 NATA Assessment

In otherwords your risk of getting cancer from SHS is negligible...especially in the open air of parks, sidewalks etc etc. You are more likely to get cancer from other sources such as air pollutants from cars. Something which you are exposed to as a non-smoker far more than a smokers cigarette smoke. And yet you don't see car drivers being persecuted like you do cigarette smokers. After all...they are "removing my choice to not be exposed to a carcinogen"...as you stated.

And just to put this into perspective...

1 microgram = 1 millionth of a gram
1 gram = 1 thousandth of a kilogram.
1 kilogram = equal to 1,000 grams or 2.2046 pounds

Do you seriously think that a smokers smoke is going to affect you in any meaningful way?

ludahai said:

You are intentionally misreading my words. If everyone follows the rules of the road, everyone can operate them safely. I am put in danger on my bicycle NOT because I don't follow the rules of the road, but because OTHERS don't follow the rules of the road. Fortunately, as I am a very good rider and very conscious of my environment and those around me, my impact on the rights of others is minimal as is the 'danger' I put myself in. BTW, any time you cross a street, you put yourself in danger from those who may violate the law and not yield at a crosswalk. Does that mean you should not cross the street?

Click to expand...

No I'm not "intentioinally" misreading your words. I get that you're talking about everyone following the rules etc etc. But that is really immaterial. Especially since you can get more cancer causing toxins in your body via cars without any accident on your part or their part together than you would via SHS.

ludahai said:

But it most certainly increases the risk, just as my getting regular exercise REDUCES the risk that I will develop many medical problems as I get older compared to sedentary obese people.

Click to expand...

The increase risk is negligable. Far more negligable than so many anti-smokers would, or want you to believe.

ludahai said:

You do not build up an immunity to the cancer causing agents in cigarettes...

Click to expand...

I was talking about poison..which is what arsenic is. A poison. Which is what I responded to. Now you're just moving the bar to include all "cancer causing agents".

Cancer isn't the biggest problem with SHS. It does many other things. It makes you feel ill, it gives you nasal and throat infections if exposed frequently, it ruins your clothes, etc.

It also can irritate your eyes.

And since smoking is stupid, by not doing it, you aren't really missing out. You'll thank everyone later.

It's arrogant to tell me what quantities of poison fumes will or won't affect me based on what some statistic says. A drug is a drug, whether it's tobacco or aspirin, and if a person is sensitive then they are bound to have reactions to mainstream doses.

Second hand smoke can cause cancer. Period.

Harry Guerrilla said:

If that's the case, I want a ban on fat people in revealing clothing, loud music, unleashed dogs, food, unsupervised children, etc.

The list is very long of **** that I want banned in the park.

Click to expand...

I want bans on flamboyant homosexual males out in public because it harms me and my children. :roll:

Orion said:

It's arrogant to tell me what quantities of poison fumes will or won't affect me based on what some statistic says. A drug is a drug, whether it's tobacco or aspirin, and if a person is sensitive then they are bound to have reactions to mainstream doses.

Second hand smoke can cause cancer. Period.

Click to expand...

Yes. You are right.

BAN AUTOMOBILES!

Kal'Stang said:

That's the thing though. You don't recieve hardly any nicotine or any other carcinogens from SHS. Let's say you worked in a smoking restaurant or bar. You would recieve between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24hr period according to this article...

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds


List of Air Toxics in the 2002 NATA Assessment

[edit for length]

Do you seriously think that a smokers smoke is going to affect you in any meaningful way?

Click to expand...

Okay, lets say you weren't a smoker, but you worked in a bar that was always filled with second hand smoke so thick you could hardly see and then you went home to your apartment and the neighbors second hand smoke kept coming up through vents and even under the door. You tried to put towels under the door and over the vents but the smoke still permeated the air. So you move and then a few months later you find out you have lung cancer and go through a years worth of chemo and have to shave off all your long beautiful hair.

Then the doctors say they think they got all the cancer and you think you're going to be okay, only to find out a month later that the cancer spread to your brain. So the doctors tell you have less than six months to live and you hope to live to see one more spring before you die, but the brain cancer causes you to pass out and you fall and break your neck the day before my flight across country to come see you. So the last time I get to see you is in your coffin and your mother made you wear that ugly turbon instead of a wig. You were so beautiful Robyn and I think of you almost everyday, I miss you so very much.

So don't tell me second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or effect me in any meaningful way.

Orion said:

It's arrogant to tell me what quantities of poison fumes will or won't affect me based on what some statistic says. A drug is a drug, whether it's tobacco or aspirin, and if a person is sensitive then they are bound to have reactions to mainstream doses.

Second hand smoke can cause cancer. Period.

Click to expand...

So it's arrogant to state the truth? Hmmm.....Anyways....

So can alot of other things. There are many more things that are in higher concentrations and is more likely to give you cancer. But you don't see them being persecuted like you do smokers. And THAT is the point of what I am saying. I am not saying that smoking can't give a person cancer. Or even SHS. I am saying that the likelyhood of SHS giving you cancer is unlikely when compared to all the other toxins that you are exposed to on a daily basis. The effects of SHS has been blown all out of porportion. So much so that I would call much of it lies.

Technocratic said:

Cancer isn't the biggest problem with SHS. It does many other things. It makes you feel ill, it gives you nasal and throat infections if exposed frequently, it ruins your clothes, etc.

It also can irritate your eyes.

And since smoking is stupid, by not doing it, you aren't really missing out. You'll thank everyone later.

Click to expand...

The same can be said of the many other toxins that you are exposed to on a daily basis. And yet smokers get persecuted far more. Why is that do you think?

Moot said:

Okay, lets say you weren't a smoker, but you worked in a bar that was always filled with second hand smoke so thick you could hardly see and then you went home to your apartment and the neighbors second hand smoke kept coming up through vents and even under the door. You tried to put towels under the door and over the vents but the smoke still permeated the air. So you move and then a few months later you find out you have lung cancer and go through a years worth of chemo and have to shave off all your long beautiful hair.

Then the doctors say they think they got all the cancer and you think you're going to be okay, only to find out a month later that the cancer spread to your brain. So the doctors tell you have less than six months to live and you hope to live to see one more spring before you die, but the brain cancer causes you to pass out and you fall and break your neck the day before my flight across country to come see you. So the last time I get to see you is in your coffin and your mother made you wear that ugly turbon instead of a wig. You were so beautiful Robyn and I think of you almost everyday, I miss you so very much.

So don't tell me second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or effect me in any meaningful way.

Click to expand...

Did the doctors give Robyn a test that explicitly said that it was from SHS? Or did he just tell you that it was more than likely caused by SHS? I've noticed that lately a lot of doctors have just been assuming that any lung cancer they have come across was caused by smoking/SHS from anyone that says they smoke or were around smokers.

Kal'Stang said:

CBS: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

Click to expand...

I've commented on this before, but can now reduce it to one word.

R E T A R D E D.

.

Kal'Stang said:

So it's arrogant to state the truth? Hmmm.....Anyways....

Click to expand...

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. Statistics don't determine health or medicine, and they don't override the truth of what I know about my own body. So take your pompous attitude and shove it. If you want to poison yourself do it at home.

Kal'Stang said:

So can alot of other things. There are many more things that are in higher concentrations and is more likely to give you cancer. But you don't see them being persecuted like you do smokers. And THAT is the point of what I am saying. I am not saying that smoking can't give a person cancer. Or even SHS. I am saying that the likelyhood of SHS giving you cancer is unlikely when compared to all the other toxins that you are exposed to on a daily basis. The effects of SHS has been blown all out of porportion. So much so that I would call much of it lies.

Click to expand...

Ideally I would not be exposed to other toxins either, like industrial pollution... but my government does not give us a choice, no matter how much we lobby them to force industry to become cleaner. Besides, I live in the pacific northwest which has significantly cleaner air quality than, say, central Canada. It's one of the reasons why I moved here. So pardon me if I don't want to get a dose of crap from some mouth breathing smoker that lights up near me.

You are basically trying to argue that because we are already exposed to other carcinogens, that one more won't make a difference. That's a really weak point. I think removing ANY health hazards we can from our surroundings is a benefit.

Kal'Stang said:

The same can be said of the many other toxins that you are exposed to on a daily basis. And yet smokers get persecuted far more. Why is that do you think?

Click to expand...

Because smoking, unlike many other environmental poisons, is a practical issue to deal with. Not everything else is as easy to remedy or has the same cost-benefit ratio. Moreover, some other environmental toxins are unfortunate consequences of necessary features of civilization. If you were to "ban" what causes them, society would collapse. Banning them is not of the same practicality. Not everything can be banned with the same consequences.

Restricting smokers from blowing smoke all over is okay, because smoking is already stupid and unnecessary. Completely avoidable problem without huge costs if you stop doing it.

Orion said:

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. Statistics don't determine health or medicine, and they don't override the truth of what I know about my own body. So take your pompous attitude and shove it. If you want to poison yourself do it at home.

Click to expand...

Statistics does determine alot of things. Including what should be worked on. Otherwise why have statistics in the first place? But hey, if you want to ignore the actual truth and the facts...well...they do say that ignorance is bliss. And if knowing the truth and the facts makes me arrogant...well, I can live with that. Out of curiosity though...do you consider yourself arrogant also for knowing what facts you do know?

Now, part of that WAS being arrogant and pompous..need more of an education on what being pompous and arrogant really is? I won't mind if you do....

Orion said:

Ideally I would not be exposed to other toxins either, like industrial pollution... but my government does not give us a choice, no matter how much we lobby them to force industry to become cleaner. Besides, I live in the pacific northwest which has significantly cleaner air quality than, say, central Canada. It's one of the reasons why I moved here. So pardon me if I don't want to get a dose of crap from some mouth breathing smoker that lights up near me.

Click to expand...

Hmm..imagine that, I live in the pacific NW also. Idaho to be exact. But guess what...we still have our share of pollutants. If I recall correctly the Puget Sound ranked 5th in the heaviest polluted areas in the US....

and I do.

Anyways, I don't want to smell chemicals in the air either...how about we ban you from using house cleaning supplies? Those chemicals can cause diseases also. After all, water would clean just as good as any chemical you use...you just need a little bit more elbow grease.

Orion said:

You are basically trying to argue that because we are already exposed to other carcinogens, that one more won't make a difference. That's a really weak point. I think removing ANY health hazards we can from our surroundings is a benefit.

Click to expand...

Good for you! Now, get rid of all your cleaning supplies...those are toxins also.

And no I am not arguing that at all. I've already stated what I am argueing. But I will state it more clearly for ya.

If you are going to argue against and try to ban smoking then you need to argue against and try to ban all the other toxin producing chemicals with equal venehmence. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical and selfish. Because there are far worse things in the air than cigarette smoke. If you want I'll even make a list of things that are not needed in society but are just creature comforts...and is the cause of lots of the pollutants that you say you are against.

Technocratic said:

Because smoking, unlike many other environmental poisons, is a practical issue to deal with. Not everything else is as easy to remedy or has the same cost-benefit ratio. Moreover, some other environmental toxins are unfortunate consequences of necessary features of civilization. If you were to "ban" what causes them, society would collapse. Banning them is not of the same practicality. Not everything can be banned with the same consequences.

Click to expand...

I would agree that there are toxins that are produced because the items that is produced are needed. However there are lots of other items which are not needed. I'll give you the same offer as I did Orion, should I make a list of items which are just creature comforts and not needed by society?

Technocratic said:

Restricting smokers from blowing smoke all over is okay, because smoking is already stupid and unnecessary. Completely avoidable problem without huge costs if you stop doing it.

Click to expand...

Stupid and unnecessary huh? Hmm...how many items are in your home which can be considered "stupid and unnecessary" and was the cause of toxins being put into the air?

Just because you think that it is stupid does not give you the right to take other peoples rights to smoke away.

It isn't only cancer. There are many health effects from ciggy smoke...

While more studies are needed, this just published study from Scotland should be paid attention to by all policymakers and advocates...

link

BOSTON (Reuters) – A 2006 public smoking ban in Scotland reduced the number of serious childhood asthma attacks by 18 percent per year, researchers reported on Wednesday.

Before the ban imposed in March 2006, the number of hospital admissions for asthma was rising by 5 percent a year among children under 15. The after-ban benefits were seen in both pre-school and school-age children.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Did the doctors give Robyn a test that explicitly said that it was from SHS? Or did he just tell you that it was more than likely caused by SHS? I've noticed that lately a lot of doctors have just been assuming that any lung cancer they have come across was caused by smoking/SHS from anyone that says they smoke or were around smokers.

Click to expand...

Well now lets see, no history of cancer in her family, in fact longevity ran her family. She was a non smoker, didn't do drugs, but worked for several years in a windowless bar in LA that was constantly filled with SHS and she lived in an apartment in Long Beach for several years with SHS constantly filtering up through the hallways and air vents. It was bad. But I wasn't there when the doctors gave her diagnosis, but she was pretty convinced it was the SHS and so am I. She wasn't bitter about it though, because that was the life she chose and she knew that life is full of risks. She just died too young that's all...and I miss her. Sad thing is, I also think my own SHS killed my cat, so I don't even smoke in my own house anymore and now I smoke on the patio or out in the garage.

Kal'Stang said:

Statistics does determine alot of things. Including what should be worked on. Otherwise why have statistics in the first place? But hey, if you want to ignore the actual truth and the facts...well...they do say that ignorance is bliss. And if knowing the truth and the facts makes me arrogant...well, I can live with that. Out of curiosity though...do you consider yourself arrogant also for knowing what facts you do know?

Now, part of that WAS being arrogant and pompous..need more of an education on what being pompous and arrogant really is? I won't mind if you do....

Click to expand...

It's pompous and arrogant to say SHS can't cause cancer when clearly it does, and the law agrees.

Kal'Stang said:

Hmm..imagine that, I live in the pacific NW also. Idaho to be exact. But guess what...we still have our share of pollutants. If I recall correctly the Puget Sound ranked 5th in the heaviest polluted areas in the US....

and I do.

Anyways, I don't want to smell chemicals in the air either...how about we ban you from using house cleaning supplies? Those chemicals can cause diseases also. After all, water would clean just as good as any chemical you use...you just need a little bit more elbow grease.



Good for you! Now, get rid of all your cleaning supplies...those are toxins also.

And no I am not arguing that at all. I've already stated what I am argueing. But I will state it more clearly for ya.

If you are going to argue against and try to ban smoking then you need to argue against and try to ban all the other toxin producing chemicals with equal venehmence. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical and selfish. Because there are far worse things in the air than cigarette smoke. If you want I'll even make a list of things that are not needed in society but are just creature comforts...and is the cause of lots of the pollutants that you say you are against.

Click to expand...

I don't use cleaning products. I use vinegar, baking soda, and water. Nothing else is needed.

You can't think of examples of things I do in parks that harm others sitting near me. Smokers do just that.

As i am sure, smokers are well known for disposing their cigarette butts properly. Face it smokers, the majority of you do not act in a responsible, respectful manner.

Quick question: Does anyone know how much NYC spends annually on cleaning up cigarette butts from the streets, drains, and sidewalks?

Goldenboy219 said:

As i am sure, smokers are well known for disposing their cigarette butts properly. Face it smokers, the majority of you do not act in a responsible, respectful manner.

Quick question: Does anyone know how much NYC spends annually on cleaning up cigarette butts from the streets, drains, and sidewalks?

Click to expand...

Probably as much as they spend cleaning up garbage along the roadways.

rivrrat said:

Probably as much as they spend cleaning up garbage along the roadways.

Click to expand...

Point being; smokers are irresponsible (not sure what garbage along the roadways has to do with this particular topic).

Goldenboy219 said:

Point being; smokers are irresponsible (not sure what garbage along the roadways has to do with this particular topic).

Click to expand...

No, the point is that SOME smokers are irresponsible just as SOME non-smokers are. So it's really irrelevant.

rivrrat said:

No, the point is that SOME smokers are irresponsible

Click to expand...

We are not here to discuss non smokers and their irresponsible activities. The fact of the matter is, the effects of smoking are nowhere near internalized to the smoking population; and their actions spillover into the lives of others. Cigarette butt litter is an issue.

just as SOME non-smokers are. So it's really irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Textbook red herring.

Goldenboy219 said:

Cigarette butt litter is an issue.

Click to expand...

LITTER is an issue. Period.

Textbook red herring.

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. You can't make a blanket statement saying that "smokers are irresponsible" based on the fact that SOME smokers toss their cig butts on the ground while ignoring the fact that SOME non-smokers litter just as much, if not more, than SOME smokers do. Trying to single smokers out as litterers and paint them in a bad light while ignoring the rest of the people that litter is just intellectually dishonest.

So, any "point" you had about some smokers littering and therefore they are evil is negated by the fact that a ****load of non-smokers litter too. Which makes them evil too. So both are evil. Big whooptie.

If you have an issue with littering, then deal with litterers - smokers or not. Don't attempt to villify only one subset of people for it while ignoring the rest.

rivrrat said:

LITTER is an issue. Period.

Click to expand...

So is acid rain, and smog. :roll:

Nope, not at all. You can't make a blanket statement saying that "smokers are irresponsible" based on the fact that SOME smokers toss their cig butts on the ground while ignoring the fact that SOME non-smokers litter just as much, if not more, than SOME smokers do. Trying to single smokers out as litterers and paint them in a bad light while ignoring the rest of the people that litter is just intellectually dishonest.

So, any "point" you had about some smokers littering and therefore they are evil is negated by the fact that a ****load of non-smokers litter too. Which makes them evil too. So both are evil. Big whooptie.

Click to expand...

And there you go on with your red herring. I made no reference to non smokers and their littering because it does not pertain to the proposed smoking ban, or bare any significance within this discussion. Cigarette butts do!

If you need to use a fallacy to make a point, there really is not reason to reply.