Should smoking in all the public places (indoors and outdoors) be banned?

[Ryan_m_b]

You asked me to provide a study which supports the assertion that outdoor smoking is a serious public health concern. As the author said:

The author says "our study suggests that there is a reason to be concerned" not that it is a public health concern. See the difference? They are pointing out that their study shows that close proximity to smokers even outdoors exposes one to significant levels of second hand smoke. However they acknowledge that this isn't enough to claim that there is a solid public health argument for banning smoking in all public areas because they have not established whether or not the majority of people are in close proximity to outdoor smokers for significant lengths of time as they go about their business. Do you see the difference?

Of course, a concern and a policy action requirement are different things. And the said concern gains even more credibility when examining the outdoor second hand smoking health effects on children:
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/1/61.short

Are you reading these links?

Further research of the common belief that outdoor smoking is sufficient to protect infants from health effects due to ETS exposure is warranted.

A preliminary study (especially a questionnaire) is not sufficient to suggest an outdoor smoking ban. It's sufficient for advocating more research but we should begin the debate once extensive research with definitive results has been completed.

 

[Dembadon]

In your opinion, should smoking in all the public places, including streets, parks and even rivers be banned? In my opinion, it should. Not only have smoking bans been proven to be highly effective in reducing the overall mortality rate and the incidence of various diseases (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/smoking-bans-heart-attacks-strokes/1664193/), but they could also potentially prevent second-hand smoking, which causes close to 50,000 deaths per year (Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/us/new.york.smoking.ban_1_smoking-on-public-beaches-smoking-ban-secondhand-smoke?_s=PM:US ).

Not only do I think that those who smoke should be protected from the negative effects of smoking, but I also think that those who don't smoke and yet are forced to suffer from the consequences of the second-hand smoking should be protected as well. I don't want to suffer an increased risk of various cancers, respiratory disease and heart disease because some people are far too selfish and individualistic.

Then you'd have no problems with someone coming and smoking on your front lawn? It's not indoors, and since they can't do it in public places, private property is pretty much the only other option. You are essentially suggesting all but a complete ban on smoking for densely populated areas, since it's nearly impossible for someone working in, let's say, NYC, to find a place that isn't public to have their smoke break.

I can understand the indoor request, but the outdoor request is unreasonable.

 

[Cinitiator]

The author says "our study suggests that there is a reason to be concerned" not that it is a public health concern. See the difference? They are pointing out that their study shows that close proximity to smokers even outdoors exposes one to significant levels of second hand smoke. However they acknowledge that this isn't enough to claim that there is a solid public health argument for banning smoking in all public areas because they have not established whether or not the majority of people are in close proximity to outdoor smokers for significant lengths of time as they go about their business. Do you see the difference?

Isn't there's a difference between a public health concern and a public health policy? The author of the study in question analyzed its applications, and suggested that it's a concern, but that the evidence presented in the study isn't enough to have a policy effect.

However, despite a lack of outdoor smoking effect studies, there are still some, and namely on its effects on children:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3476743.stm (this is another study - I cited the wrong once in the previous post)

"This study shows that despite parents smoking outside for the sake of their children's health, inadvertent exposure still occurs.

"There really is no substitute for giving up smoking altogether - its a win-win situation for the whole family."

This evidence alone is enough to ban outdoor smoking. However, one must always update their views on such policy as new evidence arises.

 

[surajt88]

If this adds anything to the discussion, back here in India, smoking IS banned in public places. As a chain smoker used to smoking in public places, I'd say the system has completely failed as, myself included, people continue to smoke in public.

 

[rootX]

It's the worst thing that can happen when you walk behind a person who is smoking if you don't like all smoke air. Generally, I move faster to overpass them but sometimes it's just too hard.

It would be pleasant to ban smoking in public. I don't like people blowing smoke air at the faces of other people.

 

[Cinitiator]

It's the worst thing that can happen when you walk behind a person who is smoking if you don't like all smoke air. Generally, I move faster to overpass them but sometimes it's just too hard.

It would be pleasant to ban smoking in public. I don't like people blowing smoke air at the faces of other people.

My point exactly. I'm tired of the smoke getting blown in my face during various outdoor activities which I want to participate in. Avoiding such smoke is often very hard to impossible without leaving the activity in such cases.

 

[rootX]

My point exactly. I'm tired of the smoke getting blown in my face during various outdoor activities which I want to participate in. Avoiding such smoke is often very hard to impossible without leaving the activity in such cases.

Sometimes, I also come across people who continue to smoke as they are talking. I always try to keep the conversation short and run out of there. It's not as much of a health concern as is how social is smoke while talking to someone. It's relative and personally, I don't find it very social to talk to non-smokers while you smoke.

I don't even know what smokers think when they shower people behind them with all that air while walking on a busy street!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Isn't there's a difference between a public health concern and a public health policy? The author of the study in question analyzed its applications, and suggested that it's a concern, but that the evidence presented in the study isn't enough to have a policy effect.

However, despite a lack of outdoor smoking effect studies, there are still some, and namely on its effects on children:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3476743.stm (this is another study - I cited the wrong once in the previous post)


This evidence alone is enough to ban outdoor smoking. However, one must always update their views on such policy as new evidence arises.

You are still missing the point. It seems established that being in close proximity to a smoker outdoors exposes one to significant levels of second hand smoke. However it has not been established whether or not this happens regularly to the majority of people to the extent that it is a significant threat to public health. I don't know how much simpler I can put that.

A public health concern is when there is something that poses a significant threat to public health. It has not been demonstrated that outdoor smoking does, it merely has been demonstrated that if you are in close proximity to smokers over a long period of time there is a risk but 99.99% of the time out in public this is not the case.

EDIT: I think the most succinct way I can phrase my point is "given that close proximity to smokers is known to cause significant exposure to second hand smoke what is the lifelong health impact for an average non-smoker going about public spaces". If cohort studies were done in countries with a ban vs without we might find that infrequent, short exposure to outdoor second hand smoke has a negligible effect on life expectancy and health. Or we might find a significant effect. Without data indicating the latter I don't see any medical argument for a ban on public space smoking (with anexception for public places that become crowded by design e.g. public transport stops).

 

[Averagesupernova]

I find it amusing that all this is in the name of protecting people from second hand smoke. Although I don't live in such a place I can imagine that there are places in densely populated cities which would force people living in apartments to smoke inside exposing their family to even more second hand smoke. A ban on smoking outdoors in public is next thing to banning smoking period.

 

[skeptic2]

It seems amazing to me that if one is in close proximity to a smoker outdoors that one cannot remove himself from that close proximity without a lot of difficulty.

When one cannot remove himself easily, why can't one ask the smoker politely if he or she could hold off smoking while you are near?

 

[mege]

Why all the worries about public health? Why not ban smoking on the basis that it's a public nuisance?

All sorts of loud noises and unsightly things are banned in communities. What makes smoking different?

(NB - I'm not advocating for a total smoking ban, but I think too much is focused on the public health concern part as the ONLY justification for a smoking ban of any sort.)

 

[Kholdstare]

I had been a regular smoker for 8 years before I had quit altogether. Now I only smoke in very rare special occasions. I did not quit for cautions and warnings. I knew them but did not pay much attention when I used to smoke. I quit because I did not like the flavor of the smoke regularly (I got quite used to it). I dislike the overbearing effort to make people quit smoking forcibly, although I think smoking should be moderated.

I think if smoking becomes big problem, there should be public smoking zones, only where people can smoke together outside. Bars should not ban smoking, as if someone has the ability to overcome the stench of alcohols, he should not be complaining about smoke. In indoor its a personal matter.

 

[Cinitiator]

You are still missing the point. It seems established that being in close proximity to a smoker outdoors exposes one to significant levels of second hand smoke. However it has not been established whether or not this happens regularly to the majority of people to the extent that it is a significant threat to public health. I don't know how much simpler I can put that.

A public health concern is when there is something that poses a significant threat to public health. It has not been demonstrated that outdoor smoking does, it merely has been demonstrated that if you are in close proximity to smokers over a long period of time there is a risk but 99.99% of the time out in public this is not the case.

EDIT: I think the most succinct way I can phrase my point is "given that close proximity to smokers is known to cause significant exposure to second hand smoke what is the lifelong health impact for an average non-smoker going about public spaces". If cohort studies were done in countries with a ban vs without we might find that infrequent, short exposure to outdoor second hand smoke has a negligible effect on life expectancy and health. Or we might find a significant effect. Without data indicating the latter I don't see any medical argument for a ban on public space smoking (with anexception for public places that become crowded by design e.g. public transport stops).

Evidence isn't all black and white. If it has been demonstrated that outdoor smoking does cause rather significant levels of smoke to be inhaled, and if it has been proven that the cigarette smoke tends to cause various health disorders, one could make inferences based on the evidence up to date. And these inferences are enough for a ban - better safe than sorry.

However, even stronger evidence and more testing are all required in the long term.

 

[Cinitiator]

And not to mention, second hand smoke is hardly the reason for smoking to be banned outside. The main reason is the fact that it harms the smoker. The fact is, some people tend to abuse their freedoms and cause harm to themselves and others. Harm which ought to be stopped.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You are still somehow missing the point. Can you just answer whether or not you understand what I mean when I talk about the frequency of close proximity to smokers outdoors and why it matters?

As for banning anything that could harm an individual I don't agree at all. So long as that individual is of sound mind and is aware of the risks I think it is way beyond the mandate of government to stop them doing it. If we start using the premise that if it harms an individual it has to be banned we might as well ban alcohol, extreme sports, fast food etcetera. What is so morally wrong about an individual who is well aware of the risks of an activity choosin to partake in it if it does not harm others? What gives anyone else the right to stop them?

 

[Vanadium 50]

. The main reason is the fact that it harms the smoker. The fact is, some people tend to abuse their freedoms and cause harm to themselves and others. Harm which ought to be stopped.

You're right. People should not be allowed to make bad decisions. In fact, I believe the State should decide where you live, where you work, what you eat, who your spouse is and how many children you have. Otherwise, people might make bad decisions.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The main reason is the fact that it harms the smoker.

It's not that it harms the smoker. It's that the smoker is addicted and can't stop. Take out the nicotine and we're all good.

 

[russ_watters]

As for banning anything that could harm an individual I don't agree at all. So long as that individual is of sound mind and is aware of the risks I think it is way beyond the mandate of government to stop them doing it. If we start using the premise that if it harms an individual it has to be banned we might as well ban alcohol, extreme sports, fast food etcetera. What is so morally wrong about an individual who is well aware of the risks of an activity choosin to partake in it if it does not harm others? What gives anyone else the right to stop them?

Shared-cost heathcare.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Shared-cost heathcare.

Unless something is crippling healthcare costs I don't see a reason to ban it (instead tax it as much as practical to mitigate said costs). Not to mention that the point of a socialised health care system is that it helps everyone regardless of their circumstances.

 

[russ_watters]

Smokers pay insurance, social security taxes, income taxes, and cigarette taxes throughout their working age and then they die, right about at retirement age. They are not a big burden on social security and Medicare. Smokers are the optimal aged citizen from the perspective of the government. Social security and Medicare wouldn't be in near the bind they are in if everyone died at 65 the way smokers tend to do.

I'm sure the SS part is true, but I doubt the Medicare part is unless no attempt is made to treat the cancer.

 

[Cinitiator]

You are still somehow missing the point. Can you just answer whether or not you understand what I mean when I talk about the frequency of close proximity to smokers outdoors and why it matters?

As for banning anything that could harm an individual I don't agree at all. So long as that individual is of sound mind and is aware of the risks I think it is way beyond the mandate of government to stop them doing it. If we start using the premise that if it harms an individual it has to be banned we might as well ban alcohol, extreme sports, fast food etcetera. What is so morally wrong about an individual who is well aware of the risks of an activity choosin to partake in it if it does not harm others? What gives anyone else the right to stop them?

"Can you just answer whether or not you understand what I mean when I talk about the frequency of close proximity to smokers outdoors and why it matters?" - Yes. The frequency of close proximity to the smoker is often observed in the real world situations. And outdoor smoking should be banned even before such studies will be carried out, as the evidence up to date is enough to do so. As I've already said, evidence isn't black and white. If one can make logical deductions from the evidence up to date with a mild degree of certainty, and the said degree of certainty provides us with the evidence that there might be a big risk associated with the conclusions of our reasoning, then some action ought to be taken. Of course, this doesn't mean that further studies shouldn't be carried out. Of course they should be - this will give more credibility to the evidence up to date.

For example, if medical studies have been carried out on the effects of cardioversion, and the effects have been proven to be positive in a given set of environments, this means that we can make logical deductions from the said data in order to extrapolate it to different environments in the conditions of an absence of evidence in a different set of environments. And given the logically deduced probable risks of not using cardioversion in various environments and individuals, the procedure should be carried out.

You're right. People should not be allowed to make bad decisions. In fact, I believe the State should decide where you live, where you work, what you eat, who your spouse is and how many children you have. Otherwise, people might make bad decisions.

That's a straw man and a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[russ_watters]

Unless something is crippling healthcare costs I don't see a reason to ban it (instead tax it as much as practical to mitigate said costs). Not to mention that the point of a socialised health care system is that it helps everyone regardless of their circumstances.

Do cigarette taxes get used to pay healthcare costs? Is the tax calculated for that? I always thought cigarette taxes were just made arbitrarily high as a deterrent?

Also, I didn't say "socialized" (I was considering it...). Normal insurance is shared-cost too. Still, isn't it self contradictory say that it is wrong for government to coerce action while simultaneously saying it is fine to force others to pay for one's bad decisions? Why do you not consider that harming others? I get the feeling that people who favor socialized whatever think that simply declaring it socialized changes the moral picture. I don't see that it does.

How about seat belt laws?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"Can you just answer whether or not you understand what I mean when I talk about the frequency of close proximity to smokers outdoors and why it matters?" - Yes. The frequency of close proximity to the smoker is often observed in the real world situations. And outdoor smoking should be banned even before such studies will be carried out, as the evidence up to date is enough to do so. As I've already said, evidence isn't black and white. If one can make logical deductions from the evidence up to date with a mild degree of certainty, and the said degree of certainty provides us with the evidence that there might be a big risk associated with the conclusions of our reasoning, then some action ought to be taken. Of course, this doesn't mean that further studies shouldn't be carried out. Of course they should be - this will give more credibility to the evidence up to date.

For example, if medical studies have been carried out on the effects of cardioversion, and the effects have been proven to be positive in a given set of environments, this means that we can make logical deductions from the said data in order to extrapolate it to different environments in the conditions of an absence of evidence in a different set of environments. And given the logically deduced probable risks of not using cardioversion in various environments and individuals, the procedure should be carried out.

So you admit that it isn't established whether or not frequency to outdoor smoke is enough to make it a health concern but you're willing to assume it is? It isn't logical what you're doing, it's irrational to suit your beliefs that people shouldn't smoke.

Do cigarette taxes get used to pay healthcare costs? Is the tax calculated for that? I always thought cigarette taxes were just made arbitrarily high as a deterrent?

Also, I didn't say "socialized" (I was considering it...). Normal insurance is shared-cost too. Still, isn't it self contradictory say that it is wrong for government to coerce action while simultaneously saying it is fine to force others to pay for one's bad decisions? Why do you not consider that harming others?

How about seat belt laws?

I admit I was being overzealous in my response that if an adult is in full possession of the facts blah blah because this thread has gone on for 4 pages now and hasn't gone anywhere. It's immensely frustrating. I agree that there are circumstances when certain things, like seat belt usage, should be legally enforced. I don't agree that smoking is one of those things and with regards to socialised healthcare fixing people from bad decisions that they were fully aware of is quite rare. Honestly Russ we both know we have differing views on this, is there any point in having a discussion on it?

 

[Cinitiator]

As for banning anything that could harm an individual I don't agree at all. So long as that individual is of sound mind and is aware of the risks I think it is way beyond the mandate of government to stop them doing it. If we start using the premise that if it harms an individual it has to be banned we might as well ban alcohol, extreme sports, fast food etcetera. What is so morally wrong about an individual who is well aware of the risks of an activity choosin to partake in it if it does not harm others? What gives anyone else the right to stop them?

The problem is, even individuals who are of sound mind can make logical errors, and fail to interpret the risks in question and their implications under the conditions of nicotine addiction. The state should intervene in order to help rehabilitate those who are frequent tobacco smokers.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The problem is, even individuals who are of sound mind can make logical errors, and fail to interpret the risks in question and their implications under the conditions of nicotine addiction. The state should intervene in order to help rehabilitate those who are frequent tobacco smokers.

That's true but you've failed to take into account that this isn't purely a matter of logic but one of values. You might value all the consequences of smoking lower than the benefits but that doesn't mean everyone will. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of free treatment for giving up smoking but don't try to argue that smokers are illogical or irrational.

 

[Cinitiator]

So you admit that it isn't established whether or not frequency to outdoor smoke is enough to make it a health concern but you're willing to assume it is? It isn't logical what you're doing, it's irrational to suit your beliefs that people shouldn't smoke.

That's a straw man fallacy. This isn't what I said at all. I'm not willing to assume it is. I'm not even willing to use terms such as "is". I simply interpret the questions in terms of the degrees of certainty with the evidence gathered up to date. Certain logical deductions with varying degrees of certainty can be made if the premises are empirical, but if the evidence on the conclusion is lacking. As I've already said, there's no reason to think of empirical evidence as having only two conditions. As it doesn't, due to the fact that inductive reasoning has to be used in a world where attaining perfect information is impossible.

 

[Cinitiator]

That's true but you've failed to take into account that this isn't purely a matter of logic but one of values. You might value all the consequences of smoking lower than the benefits but that doesn't mean everyone will. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of free treatment for giving up smoking but don't try to argue that smokers are illogical or irrational.

In no way am I trying to argue that they are. However, the conditions of nicotine addiction, by their definition, hinder the self-retention and cost-benefit analysis mechanisms in regards to the source of the said nicotine.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's a straw man fallacy. This isn't what I said at all. I'm not willing to assume it is. I'm not even willing to use terms such as "is". I simply interpret the questions in terms of the degrees of certainty with the evidence gathered up to date. Certain logical deductions with varying degrees of certainty can be made if the premises are empirical, but if the evidence on the conclusion is lacking. As I've already said, there's no reason to think of empirical evidence as having only two conditions. As it doesn't, due to the fact that inductive reasoning has to be used in a world where attaining perfect information is impossible.

There is no degree of certainty because there is no evidence at all to suggest that frequency of close proximity to smokers outside means that the short term exposures add up to significant health risks.

Funny that you call straw man before presenting one. Nowhere did I suggest perfect information or black and white evidence, I'm simply pointing out you do not have enough to meet a good degree of certainty to back up your claim.

 

[Cinitiator]

There is no degree of certainty because there is no evidence at all to suggest that frequency of close proximity to smokers outside means that the short term exposures add up to significant health risks.

Funny that you call straw man before presenting one. Nowhere did I suggest perfect information or black and white evidence, I'm simply pointing out you do not have enough to meet a good degree of certainty to back up your claim.

There are degrees of certainty as there are empirical premises. Such as, the levels of nicotine accumulated by the victims of the second-hand outdoor smoking. There's also the empirical premise of the effects of cigarette smoke. These, as well as other premises add up to a medium to low degree of certainty on the harm of second-hand outdoor smoking. However, the risks of such consequences are so high that they make up for the lacking evidence with regards to policy making. The risks plays as an additive factor. However, in no way does the risk relate to the degree of truth of the conclusion - as I've already said, it serves as an "additive factor".

Here's a more concrete example to illustrate my point:
If getting ran over by a car has been proven to cause rather frequent death in all the areas where such accidents have already happened, one can make inferences and extrapolate the effects of getting ran over by a car to other locations. The reason one can do that is due to a set of empirical premises giving the conclusion a rather high degree of certainty.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There are degrees of certainty as there are empirical premises. Such as, the levels of nicotine accumulated by the victims of the second-hand outdoor smoking. There's also the empirical premise of the effects of cigarette smoke. These, as well as other premises add up to a medium to low degree of certainty on the harm of second-hand outdoor smoking. However, the risks of such consequences are so high that they make up for the lacking evidence.

You are missing a huge chunk of evidence. The frequency in which this occurs. The studies posted in this thread show that close proximity to an outdoor smoker for hours per day is significant (akin to second hand smoke indoors with a live-in smoker) but you cannot infer from that that outdoor smoking is a significant risk to public health if you do not know whether or not that proximity and time scale is the norm.

If you want an example it would be like saying that evidence suggests that 10 hours per day in close proximity to people wearing cravats is a risk to health then banning cravats even though there is rarely-never any circumstance wherein someone is in such close proximity for so long.

Here's a more concrete example to illustrate my point:
If getting ran over by a car has been proven to cause rather frequent death in all the areas where such accidents have already happened, one can make inferences and extrapolate the effects of getting ran over by a car to other locations. The reason one can do that is due to a set of empirical premises giving the conclusion a rather high degree of certainty.

You can do that because we know that car use is fairly homogeneous. This is not the case with what we are discussing because the data we have is from a situation that we do not know is very typical or highly atypical.

 

[russ_watters]

You entered the thread before I did, Ryan. I don't seehow the fact that you know I disagree means I shouldn't express it.

 

[Cinitiator]

You are missing a huge chunk of evidence. The frequency in which this occurs. The studies posted in this thread show that close proximity to an outdoor smoker for hours per day is significant (akin to second hand smoke indoors with a live-in smoker) but you cannot infer from that that outdoor smoking is a significant risk to public health if you do not know whether or not that proximity and time scale is the norm.

If you want an example it would be like saying that evidence suggests that 10 hours per day in close proximity to people wearing cravats is a risk to health then banning cravats even though there is rarely-never any circumstance wherein someone is in such close proximity for so long.

You can do that because we know that car use is fairly homogeneous. This is not the case with what we are discussing because the data we have is from a situation that we do not know is very typical or highly atypical.

Even without the frequency of occurrence statistics, certain low-to-medium credibility deductions can be made. Also, there are population density, infrastructural statistics and urban planning statistics which add up and can play a role of a premise for such a statistic.

For example, if we know the smoking population, and if we know the outdoor places where smoking has a very high chance of occurring, and if we know that such places are often population-dense, we can still make low-to-medium risk deductions.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I couldn't care less of smoking harmed the smoker. They have all the right to systematically destroy their lungs if they want. What does annoy me is when they get that disgusting smoke in my face. I don't want to have any contact with that barbaric act but I have no choice when people are free to smoke in public.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even without the frequency of occurrence statistics, certain low-to-medium credibility deductions can be made. Also, there are population density, infrastructural statistics and urban planning statistics which add up and can play a role of a premise for such a statistic.

For example, if we know the smoking population, and if we know the outdoor places where smoking has a very high chance of occurring, and if we know that such places are often population-dense, we can still make low-to-medium risk deductions.

So if asked you can provide all this data that you claim you have?

 

[Cinitiator]

I couldn't care less of smoking harmed the smoker. They have all the right to systematically destroy their lungs if they want. What does annoy me is when they get that disgusting smoke in my face. I don't want to have any contact with that barbaric act but I have no choice when people are free to smoke in public.

This also is a big factor for my support for banning outdoor public smoking. The effects of cigarette smoke on my eyes (irritation) as well as on my otolaryngological system (coughing, irritation) have also been observed. This often happens when I simply pass by, or when I'm in a given tight outdoor public place.