The Real Motivation Behind Park And Beach Smoking Bans

[The Straight Story]

...

According to the authors, three justifications are routinely offered for banning smoking in these setting:

To protect nonsmokers from secondhand tobacco smoke;
To protect wildlife from pollution;
And to shield children from the bad example of smoking.

Bayer and Bachynski examined the evidence for each of these justifications and found that it was slim to non-existent. They point out that bans on smoking in these venues have tended to be the result of efforts by local environmentalists and anti-smoking activists, whereas national organizations like the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association , and the American Cancer Society have not voiced their support. Even more tellingly, the former editor of Tobacco Control, the leading journal in this area, characterized the evidence for harm from exposure to outdoor smoke as “flimsy.”

If these bans are not supported by scientific evidence, what then is their function and the logic underlying their rapid proliferation? Bayer and Bachynski conclude they are part of a concerted effort to “de-normalize” smoking– to increasingly restrict the places in which smoking can take place and thereby progressively make it less feasible and less socially acceptable – more “weird,” as Bayer put it in an interview with PBS. The authors comment that “de-normalization” is a euphemism for “stigmatization.”

Previously Bayer has made the case that early on, in the 1970s, even before there were any studies linking secondhand tobacco smoke to a slightly increased risk of fatal diseases, the anti-smoking movement fastened on the strategy of emphasizing the potential harm of cigarette smoke to the non-smoking by-stander. This was a clever strategy, because, as Bayer points out, it deftly side-stepped the charge of paternalism and the “nanny state,” implicit in health officials exhorting smokers to quit for their own good. The argument that, by smoking, smokers were harming non-smokers proved to be an enormously effective strategy for justifying the imposing of restrictions on smoking.

As smoking has become less socially acceptable, it has gone from being viewed as merely a dirty and unhealthy habit to being seen in moral and even existential terms as revolting and disgusting, as tainted with evil and pollution. In the words of two scholars quoted by the authors, smoking – and I would add, exposure to even a whiff of tobacco smoke — has been transformed into something “so harmful that it defiles others.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2013/07/22/the-real-motivation-behind-park-and-beach-smoking-bans/

[HERVEPA]

1. Banned because, among other things, the smell stinks

and because it's outdoors does not mean other people don't have to smell it.

[Trajan]

15. it is my understanding

that you stink ... what is that awful cologne you wear? ... Eau De Arrogance?

I'm pretty sure THAT stinky stuff needs to be banned ...

[Shankapotomus]

127. Is this how you win over

non smokers? Good luck with that.

[Trajan]

148. It is how I might dismiss ridiculous arguments

Nature does the rest ..t

[HiPointDem]

77. people's sweaty bodies stink too, & their nasty suntan lotions. also their nasty car exhaust,

the charcoal briquette fires they make to roast their filthy hot dogs & burgers.

[customerserviceguy]

126. Show me someone

who got cancer from secondhand BO, and your first example is appropriate.

Let's face it, pretty soon the only places where people will be able to smoke are the places they can have sex.

[HiPointDem]

134. you didn't say anything about cancer, you said it stinks.

as for cancer from second-hand smoke, i doubt it in any case that doesn't involve being living in the same house with a smoker who smokes in the house constantly.

and don't show me the 'research' -- it's crap.

you don't get cancer from breathing a whiff of a cigarette while walking down a street.

[customerserviceguy]

183. I didn't say anything about stinking

You have me confused with another poster. And if you think that the research on second hand smoke is crap, then there's just no way to reason with you.

Like I said, this habit is going into the closet.

[Thegonagle]

181. Not in MY house!

[notadmblnd]

133. You don't have to worry about me smoking on your beach.

Now why don't you take a nice dip in the water that the guy over there just took a shit in. Oh, and that little kid over there, she just pissed in it.

Have a nice smoke free day at the beach.

[Logical]

2. Many smokers still just throw butts on the ground. Idiots. n-t

[Zorra]

3. Yes. It's thoughtless, inconsiderate, and disgusting. This alone is enough reason to ban

smoking on beaches and in parks.

There are billions cigarette butts on the ground in the US at this moment.

[jberryhill]

52. Along with chewing gum

Looked at a sidewalk lately?

[mindwalker_i]

76. And dog shit

I hate that too.

[HiPointDem]

78. dog shit is huge.

[DJ13]

82. That depends on the size of the dog

[HiPointDem]

86. true, & unfortunately, this belongs to the neighbor...

[DJ13]

106. Holy Sh*T

That must poop like an elephant!

[HiPointDem]

113. that's nothing. the other neighbor has this one:

[Zorra]

116. I live in the country. I never see chewing gum, and rarely see dog shit, on the roadside

when I walk along a road.

I do see scores of cigarette butts though.

I never see chewing gum or dogshit on the sidewalks in the little towns around here. But the gutters are always littered with cigarette butts.

[elehhhhna]

6. yep

using the sand as an ashtray. on literally some of the best beaches in the world. the ashes won't hurt it but the butts?!!! they're forever. not just americans, either. i've seen it many times.

[Silent3]

16. That pisses me off

Too many smokers, even among those who wouldn't throw other garbage on the ground, who wouldn't ever consider throwing their burger wrappers and empty drink cups out their car windows, act as if cigarette butts get some special exemption.

[Logical]

18. So true. People still throw them out the window. n-t

[Kolesar]

83. I hate them for that

I blow my horn at them when they drop one

[Mopar151]

153. Side effect of nicotine

Makes smokers beleive butts are invisible.

[LadyHawkAZ]

63. This. I'm an ex-smoker and I don't have a problem with the smoke

but I have a problem with assholes who just drop their butts wherever and leave them. Field-strip the damn thing and throw the butt in the next trash can you find, it's not that hard to do.

[Logical]

65. Great point. I know most smokers do this. Just a few are rude! n-t

[yardwork]

102. That's the reason that people ban smoking from beaches and parks.

I believe that the real estate and tourism groups are behind many of the bans on smoking on beaches. Nobody likes to see a bunch of old butts on the beach, coming and going with the tide.

[B Calm]

129. When my neighbor comes over here, he does the same thing.

I like my neighbor, but it still pisses me off. I have a three or four acre yard and I work my ass off keeping it looking nice. A little butt here and there go unnoticed by everyone but me.

[corkhead]

177. The world is their ashtray

somehow cigarette butts are not pollution

[surrealAmerican]

4. There are all manner of activities we ban in public settings for mainly aesthetic reasons.

This is one of them, although there are a few other issues in the case of smoking: mainly litter and the potential fire hazard.

[Iggo]

5. It stinks and they don't clean up after themselves.

Good enough for me.

[HiPointDem]

87. why focus on smokers? some smokers don't, just like some people generally.

[Iggo]

90. Because it stinks and they don't clean up after themselves.

[HiPointDem]

92. well, i do. and i'm certain i'm not the only one. plus i run a mile rather than smoke near people

like you.

i don't litter either. and i rarely drive.

i'd bet if i spent some time with you i could find some habit of yours i found annoying.

[Iggo]

93. I bet if most beach smokers were like you, there wouldn't be a problem.

[HiPointDem]

94. i bet not. if it's visible, someone will take offense. my friend tested that theory with one

of those vaping things.

[Mariana]

167. LOL, the trick there is to get a vaping thing

that doesn't even remotely resemble a cigarette. That way they don't "see" someone smoking.

[bemildred]

7. The resulting refuse does harm wildlife, and that is more than sufficient to ban it. nt

[HiPointDem]

81. except we don't ban all the plastic trash people leave laying about in public, especially at the

beach, which also harms wildlife.

or the roads & cars we use to get to the beach or park, which also harm wildlife.

so i guess our feelings about harm to wildlife are highly selective, indeed could be said to be driven by moral panic, since i'd guess the cars and roads do a great deal more harm than the cigarette butts of -- what is it now, 18% of the population? some of whom you won't find at the beach or parks, since smoking is concentrated in the lower economic classes.

[bemildred]

125. Actually, we do that, we do it lots.

The fact that many people are inconsiderate pigs, or that our businesses habitually add things soon-to-be-trash to "products" to sell them for higher prices, does not mean we don't have laws about litter. There are lots of laws about litter, and like all our laws they are selectively enforced. Which is a different issue.

The OP also reeks of well-compensated bias.

[HiPointDem]

137. we ban plastic products? then why do i see so many lying about? we have laws about litter,

so what?

we don't have laws banning the products so often found littered. including plastic.

[bemildred]

138. No we ban litter, like cigarette butts.

I used to smoke, I smoked 28 years, I have nothing at all against people smoking, I chew the gum, I LIKE nicotine, but I never liked the butts.

Plastic is a different issue, an old issue, but we can talk about much better regulation of plastics manufacture too, if you like?

[HiPointDem]

141. we ban the act of littering. it doesn't matter what the litter is. no one likes to sit in litter

when they go to the beach. yet people still litter.

[bemildred]

143. Right, and smoking is banned because smokers litter the butts about.

I suppose it's easier than telling people they cannot eat because they litter, so it is arguably unfair, but life is not fair, it starts out uneven and goes downhill from there.

Your or my right to smoke does not rise to being a right to annoy anybody or anything else while doing it.

And filter butts are a singularly obnoxious form of litter. They get eaten and kill things. They last forever.

[HiPointDem]

144. smoking isn't banned in parks and beaches, so i'm not sure what you're talking about.

littering is forbidden, whether it's butts, bags, or tampons.

yet people still litter.

[bemildred]

147. It is here (CA).

Not everywhere mind you, there are places you can smoke and places you can't. I think that's right actually, situational, like real life is.

Some people will always litter. And we know prohibition does not work, totalitarian methods cause more trouble than they are EVER worth.

We are not trying to eliminate litter, the idea is to have less litter, and better quality biodgradeable litter. There are not many things on the planet that SOMETHING will not eat, but butts make the cut. They re not food to anything.

Biologically sourced things like paper are more of an aesthetic issue, but plastic and butts pollute the biosphere long term.

[HiPointDem]

157. if california wanted to stop *litter* they'd pass a law making butts more biodegradable (which

they already are, in 1-15 years. they're made of aceylated cellulose, not an oil based plastic).

i'd bet they didn't ban plastic dinnerware.

[bemildred]

158. Yes, they should, no non-biodegradable plastic for mass production products.

Last edited Tue Jul 23, 2013, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

You cannot make it biodegradable in a reasonable time, you don't use it at all.

Maybe that would make it easier to not hassle smokers as much. I like that.

[Safetykitten]

8. And?

[The Straight Story]

11. From the article:

Bayer and Bachynski examined the evidence for each of these justifications and found that it was slim to non-existent. They point out that bans on smoking in these venues have tended to be the result of efforts by local environmentalists and anti-smoking activists, whereas national organizations like the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association , and the American Cancer Society have not voiced their support. Even more tellingly, the former editor of Tobacco Control, the leading journal in this area, characterized the evidence for harm from exposure to outdoor smoke as “flimsy.”


So basically people are just thinking it is the case because they want to shame others into submission to what they like.

Maybe we should not allow food at parks (litter), cars (they can smell and pollute to), cookouts (cooking meat might smell to people who don't like it), etc.

[Safetykitten]

13. I am sick of looking at drifts of heater butts in public places. Sue me.

[HiPointDem]

88. drifts?

i wonder why your ire is confined to cigarette butts if garbage is your actual concern?

i rarely see 'drifts' of butts anywhere. i see plastic more often.

[pnwmom]

39. Do you have a link to the quote from the former editor of Tobacco Control?

[dbackjon]

59. And what tobacco company paid for this laughable study??

[Cha]

128. lol

"It's the butts, stupid".. on Kaua'i our city council has been determining whether they should ban smoking at the state parks because of the litter butts that smokers leave behind.

Seems a lot of people can afford to smoke up their money and litter the beaches.

[Nye Bevan]

9. Even if it didn't cause cancer, it smells disgusting. That's the only justification needed.

I hate when I'm enjoying a pleasant day in the park or on the beach and some asshole is spewing fumes at me.

[Half-Century Man]

85. I'll try not to fart

or sweat etc

[Aristus]

10. Smokers: want these bans repealed? Two things:

1. Field strip your cigarette butt and throw it into the trash can. Every time. Every single time. I see a single cigarette butt on the ground, I'm blaming you!

2. DON'T F*****G EXHALE!!!

[bemildred]

12. +1. Smoke all you want, but clean up and don't annoy other people. nt

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. I quit 10 years ago and vowed I'd never go all nanny state on those who continue to smoke.

Beyond indoor restrictions which are generally defend-able, as long as they clean up after themselves and make some reasonable effort not to blow it right at me, I'm not imposing my preferences on them.

[OregonBlue]

20. Agreed. It's a "morals" thing for many people. Especially x-smokers.

[meow2u3]

34. Ex-smokers are the worst offenders

Most ex-smokers I know are so judgmental as to be insufferable. They have the underlying attitude of "If I can't smoke, no one else will."

[Gidney N Cloyd]

35. There's a lot of truth to that, which is why I promised myself when I quit to not be 'that guy.'

(Notice I didn't say 'nanny state' again?)

[L0oniX]

38. It's a matter of self defense. You have to turn against it with all your might to quit.

Your "They have the underlying attitude of "If I can't smoke, no one else will."" framing is total bull shit!

[meow2u3]

44. I'm talking about people I had known

Not every ex-smoker in general.

[Bake]

75. That's a huge AMEN right there, my friend!

Former smokers are without a doubt the worst, most obnoxious, most offensive, most in-your-face about it. I've seen them walk into designated smoking areas, which are clearly marked and well-known, just so they can act like a-holes.

Bake

[LanternWaste]

48. And a "rationalization" thing for us smokers.... doing our best to justify the absurd.

And a "rationalization" thing for us smokers.... doing our best to justify the absurd.

[HiPointDem]

91. i don't think so, actually. i think most smokers would agree that it's an unhealthy and somewhat

dirty habit. i certainly would.

what's annoying is moralists who go from there to attribute all sorts of moral failings to smokers universally (e.g. 'they don't clean up after themselves'), moralists who focus exclusively on cigarettes (like the people complaining about litter here, when there's plenty of other littering going on), people who complain about the smell but don't seem to care about other smells (including marijuana, which i'm sure does as much lung damage as tobacco, though pot smokers will swear up & down it doesn't)...people who find smoking ecologically offensive, but car exhaust is somehow 'necessary'....

in short, it's the hypocrisy & vehemence, such that you know part of their beef is the beef of a church lady.

[Deep13]

31. "Nanny state," is a way of belittiling those who complain while dodging the issue.

I'll take your attempt to change the subject as an admission that you have lost this argument.

[Eleanors38]

154. ^^^The core element of any prohibition is stimatization

of the person possessing the hated thing, behaving in the hated manner, being in the hated status.

Tobacco bans are building up to a full-blown prohibition model (we are familiar with those by now) with all the corruption, crime, expense, legal abuse and ineffectiveness attending all prohibitions.

Prohibition is America's most addictive social policy.

[bobclark86]

17. Well, let's see...

It kills more than 400,000 people a year in the U.S. Those deaths are entirely preventable.

The health care cost from those deaths, as well as other smoking-related illnesses/loss of productivity/etc., far outweigh the tax revenues, costing even small counties in my area millions of dollars a year.

Awww, poor widdle smoker is inconvenienced. You're breaking my heart by not being able to slowly kill yourself in front of children. What a goddamned Greek tragedy.

[joeglow3]

26. Actually, they save the taxpayer money due to their early death

But why bother with facts when we can make shit up.

If you were concerned with costs, you would be focusing your efforts on obesity.

[SheilaT]

32. I know there are studies that supposedly show that,

but I find it a bit difficult to believe.

It's not as though smokers all simply quietly die in their sleep at an earlier age than the non-smokers. It's been my observation that an awful lot of smokers have far more health problems over time than do non-smokers. All sorts of diseases, which are quite expensive to treat. It's that when they finally do die, they're finally no longer a drag on health care.

[joeglow3]

37. Most people incur a lot of medical costs at the end

Smokers collect less social security and save us years of additional medical costs.

[L0oniX]

43. Smokers are helping nonsmokers cut costs ...uhm ok

[SheilaT]

62. How about all the ones who wind up

going out on disability early because of their smoking-related disability?

I'm simply not convinced that smokers die soon enough to cost less than a healthy, if long-lived, non-smoker.

[Travis_0004]

80. So should we also ban McDonalds on beaches, and other things that are unhealthy?

[HiPointDem]

96. actually, sometimes they do. here are my dead relatives.

Never-smokers (& teetotalers): (5/9 with high medical)

A lived to be 100 & spent the last 10 years in a nursing home at state expense.
B died of cancer in 60s & had high medical bills last year of life.
C died of rare form of liver disease in 40s, high medical bills last year or so.
D died about 80, high medical bills because of osteoporosis (hip fractures and surgeries)
E died about 80, no particular illnesses.
F died in 40s of heart attack, healthy until then.
G died in 80s, no particular illnesses.
H died in 80s, no particular illnesses.
I died in 30s, genetic illness, high medical bills last month of life.

Smokers (& drinkers): (2/4 with high medical)

1. Died in 60's of heart attack, Smoked cigars & pipe since teens, one heart surgery.
2. Died in 60s of medical problems related to birth defect. Smoked but quit in late 40s. Drank moderately. High lifelong medical bills r/t birth defect.
3. Died in 80s, smoked and drank heavily until about 60s. No particular illnesses.
4. Died in 80s, smoked and drank moderately until about 50s-60s. No particular illnesses.


of course it's not a random sample, but enough to say that smokers (and drinkers) don't always have more medical problems or higher-than-average medical bills.

a lot of it is the luck of the draw, imo.

[kwassa]

101. You rationalize. The facts contradict you, but you probably knew this.

Anecdotes are not evidence, by the way.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/#children

Overview

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general.1,2
Smoking and Death

Smoking causes death.

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for more than 440,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3,4
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.3,5
If nobody smoked, one of every three cancer deaths in the United States would not happen.2
Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men1,2 and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1
An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1,2

Smoking and Increased Health Risks

Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of—

Coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times,1,6
Stroke by 2 to 4 times,1,7
Men developing lung cancer by 23 times,1
Women developing lung cancer by 13 times,1 and
Dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.1

Smoking and Cardiovascular Disease

Smoking causes coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.1
Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries) and puts smokers at risk of developing peripheral vascular disease (i.e., obstruction of the large arteries in the arms and legs that can cause a range of problems from pain to tissue loss or gangrene).1,2,7
Smoking causes abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., a swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body—the aorta—where it runs through the abdomen).1

Smoking and Respiratory Disease

Smoking causes lung cancer.1,2,3
Smoking causes lung diseases (e.g., emphysema, bronchitis, chronic airway obstruction) by damaging the airways and alveoli (i.e., small air sacs) of the lungs.1,2,3

Smoking and Cancer

Smoking causes the following cancers:1,2 (in alphabetical order)

Acute myeloid leukemia
Bladder cancer
Cancer of the cervix
Cancer of the esophagus
Kidney cancer
Cancer of the larynx (voice box)
Lung cancer
Cancer of the oral cavity (mouth)
Pancreatic cancer
Cancer of the pharynx (throat)
Stomach cancer

Smoking and Other Health Effects

Smoking has many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for—

Infertility
Preterm delivery
Stillbirth
Low birth weight
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,2,9


Smoking is associated with the following adverse health effects:1

Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked.
Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked.

[HiPointDem]

103. someone just gave you some facts; smokers die, on average, earlier. you rationalized them away.

the fact is, some people can smoke & drink & do drugs and not suffer much in the way of health effects.

edit: i just noticed you're not sheila t, so to you i will say: sheila's post was about the cost of health care, not about whether smokers ever get sick or not. as was my answer.

[kwassa]

178. the problem is, we non-smokers have to pay for the bad choices of smokers

in our health insurance costs.

Same with type 2 diabetes.

[HiPointDem]

182. you don't seem to have followed the conversation. no, actually, you don't. smokers are paying,

and then some.

Just starting with: taxes. Taxes. on average, are more than half the price of a pack of cigarettes.

In 2010, state & local cigarette tax revenue was over $17 BILLION dollars, and federal cigarette tax revenues were $15 BILLION. That makes $32 BILLION+, equal to about 13% of Medicare Hospital Insurance revenues for 2011.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

http://www.altria.com/About-Altria/Government-Affairs/programs-practices/Legislative-Issues/Pages/Excise-Taxes.aspx

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

and it's more now. in my state, about $2 a pack more since 2010.

Then there's the little matter of smokers having lower lifetime health care costs than non-smokers.

http://healthland.time.com/2009/08/04/does-prevention-really-cut-health-care-costs/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

If everyone quit smoking, your healthcare bill would be *exactly the same* as it is today.

Maybe more. And your taxes would be higher.

You know how they rig the numbers so that smokers cost more? They add in hypothetical 'productivity losses'. i.e. if I die early, my workplace loses money because of my hypothetical decreased productivity while i'm dying.

Published studies suggest that the increased lifetime health care costs from smoking-related illnesses in smokers are partially or fully offset by the higher medical costs that result from increased longevity in nonsmokers. However, lost productivity costs, which result from morbidity and early mortality among smokers, result in an overall net cost of smoking to society. Discounting rates of 3% to 5% do not substantively alter these results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9850036

That's not anything to do with *your* medical insurance, that's some kind of hypothetical loss to business & 'society'.

But personally, I could give a rip. I can hypothesize the same 'productivity loss' for drinkers, lazy asses, people who do the internet at work, etc.

[kwassa]

184. oh, what horseshit.

Quit smoking already.

This is a ludicrous thesis.

Figure costs-per-year, as opposed to costs-over-lifetime.

Those that live longer pay more into the system, too.

[HiPointDem]

185. smokers pay EVERYTHING non-smokers pay, PLUS $33 BILLION a year in extra taxes, PLUS

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 01:21 AM - Edit history (2)

more for various kinds of insurance, including health insurance. PLUS they live shorter lives (on average) so cost the system less overall than the 'normal' population, and more again than the upper middle class 'normals' who are most likely to be the smoking moralists.

What's ludicrous is the moral panic of non-smokers who insist they are fucking victims. and throw screeching temper tantrums when you call them on it.

Horseshit doesn't have citations.

what percent of smokers gets lung cancer? about 10%. copd? about 10-20%. emphysema? about 15-20%.

e.g.:

http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030313emphysemap2.asp

the moralists think all smokers get a mass of diseases and die after overusing the medical system all their miserable unhealthy lives. it's just not so, but don't try to tell the health moralists that.

[L0oniX]

42. Let me reframe: You are against Medicare because dying saves taxpayer money.

[LanternWaste]

49. I think one may be concerned with cost yet still hold human life to a higher priority

"they save the taxpayer money due to their early death..."

I think one may be concerned with cost yet still hold human life to a higher priority.
But I say that as I'm not trying to make a point or advertise how clever I pretend to be...

[bobclark86]

64. Yeah, and back in the '60s...

Tobacco companies produced ads saying cigarettes were good for people...

BTW, that's the same argument gun humpers use: "Well, more people die of (cancer/heart disease/etc), so why worry about guns?"

[eridani]

121. And you've just added more bullshit to the pile. Obese people cost less for the

--same reason smokers cost less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

[L0oniX]

46. If guns killed that many people every year ...uhm ...you know. n/t

[Half-Century Man]

89. Why do countries with a larger population of smokers (by ratio) have lower lung cancer rates?

ie Japan, Taiwan etc.

While cigarettes get blamed for all of it, they only represent a portion of the inhaled carcinogens. In the industrialized and farming areas of the US, there are greater numbers of lung disease than in the more undeveloped areas.

Ask my doctor. My COPD is partially due to smoking and partially due to aluminum dust, enamel dust, metal fumes,and hydraulic fluid mists. On my x-rays, CT scans...yeah factories.

[geek tragedy]

19. Who doesn't like to go to the beach or park and see cigarette butts everywhere? nt

[Eleanors38]

155. Pipe smoking us OK, then? nt

[geek tragedy]

160. Corn cob only. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

22. I smoked for thirty years...

I wish someone could have convinced years ago me how much those things fucking stink, indoors and outdoors.

[SheilaT]

33. In all respectfulness,

you either weren't listening or just blew off the comments.

We non-smokers have been saying for decades how awful it is, how smelly and nasty.

Sometimes us non-smokers are incredibly polite. I work on an information desk, and while I never say anything to those who come up and reek cigarette smoke, I would like to. But that would be even ruder than I'm willing to be.

[starroute]

23. Some of us are allergic enough that smokers limit where we can go

It seems that the older I get, the more sensitive I am to even a hint of cigarette smoke. A few days ago, I went outside to trim the ivy back from around the maple tree in my front yard, but at the same time the woman across the street started smoking a cigarette on her front steps and I had to retreat indoors. It isn't even the smell that's the problem -- it's the sudden rawness in my throat and eyes and the tightness in my chest that may last for several minutes after I get out of range.

In recent years, I've had to avoid parades and festivals where people will be smoking outdoors -- or else resign myself to hopping from spot to spot or standing well back behind the rest of the crowd. Smoke is often worse outdoors than in, because on a calm day it just hangs in the air, where in an air-conditioned mall it would quickly be whisked away.

And as for the people who attempt to belittle complaints about second-hand smoke: (1) That dry cough you hear isn't me "faking" it. It's the result of feeling a tickle in my chest and throat and responding with a cough, but there's no congestion there to cough up. (2) Yes, cologne is also a problem -- but at least it doesn't blow around like cigarette smoke, so as long as I stay several yards away from the offender, it doesn't bother me.

Any more questions?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

25. Actually cologne does blow around like cigarette smoke. I'm very allergic to a lot of it.

It's a chemical thing and people who wear it send up a cloud of particles. They leave a trail in rooms and hallways long after they've walked away. A few weeks ago I got double-whammy'd in our cafeteria by a two cologne wearers and fell over onto a table. I've gotten dizzy riding my bike on Sunday mornings when church ladies drove past me with their car windows down.
As a cologne sufferer and and ex-smoker I think I get the whole picture but I still wouldn't try to restrict either group from some reasonably cautious use of it outdoors.

[snappyturtle]

56. Colognes were one reason I quit accompanying my mother to

church.....gag me.

[joeglow3]

28. I have terrible grass allergies

Should I be able to dictate to my neighbors when they can mow their lawn?

[Deep13]

30. Maybe, in any case, the city can. nt

[LanternWaste]

50. I have few doubts you may even get one or two people to believe your allegation....

I have few doubts you may even get one or two people to believe your allegation....

[pnwmom]

41. That dry cough you mention is probably a form of asthma, which often takes that form.

It can also feel like tightness of the chest, without any wheezing.

Cigarette smoke is a physical "irritant" and is one of the "triggers" of asthma.

[snappyturtle]

57. I have asthma and oddly enough cigarette smoke never triggers it.

However, the detergent aisle in the grocery store is awful as are personal body colognes and sprays.....some candle scents and potpourris....and, and, and......

[pnwmom]

70. Yeah, everybody's different. I feel sorry for people who have trouble with perfumes.

They're so hard to avoid.

[Apophis]

104. Same here.

Thank you.

[TransitJohn]

186. There are no allergens in cigarette smoke. Eom

n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

188. You should consider wearing a mask.

In situations like these, one must consider the significance from both sides. The number of people who smoke vs. the number of people who are hyper allergic to smoke. The former vastly outpaces the latter.

It would seem absurd to try and ban smoking because you have an unusually high intolerance to cigarette smoke. Especially when it seems to be the case that distance does little to reduce the inflammation. How far as we suppose to keep smokers from you? Is this supposed to be codified into law?

[TwilightGardener]

24. I work outdoors, surrounded by smokers and tobacco chewers.

I still smell the smoke, have to move myself downwind, and the cig butts and disgusting spit everywhere make me want to stab someone. With smokers/chewers, I've learned that if you don't care about yourself and your immediate family, you also probably don't care about other people in general OR the surrounding environment. All that matters is your stupid fix.

[Warpy]

27. Maybe it's to keep parks and especially beaches

from looking like gigantic butt cans. I remember in my kidhood, going out onto a beach early in the morning and being able to see where smokers had been the previous day by the forest of butts sticking up out of the sand. It was disgusting and problematic to clean up, if anyone cared to clean it up. Mostly, they waited for storms to wash the nasty, smelly things out to sea.

Fewer people smoke now, so maybe it's not as disgusting. I haven't been to the beach in many years, thanks to Jebbie and his contractor friends walling them off in Florida.

[Deep13]

29. I don't want to breath tobacco smoke. I don't want butts on the beach.

There is no right to smoke. State beaches in RI and MA ban alcohol too. I'm sure they don't allow golfing or trap shooting either.

[roody]

36. Smoking bans have made many places

enjoyable. One reason I moved to Ca.

[Nye Bevan]

40. Shortly after CA's smoke ban, I went to a pool hall when I was visiting there.

It was so weird, but so great, to be in a non-smoky pool hall.

[pnwmom]

45. Whether inside or outside, a lungful of smoky air can be a trigger of asthma symptoms.

If there's enough smoke that you can smell it, there's more than enough to trigger asthma.

Whenever people are allowed to smoke in public areas, that means other people -- like asthmatics -- are having to avoid that area for reasons of health. Cancer isn't the only illness that second-hand smokers can develop. There are risks from short-term exposure, too.

[beevul]

47. This is what many have suspected about smoking bans like those mentioned, for a long time.

Of course, now that e-ciggs have taken off, the same cast of characters are trying like mad to contrive justification to ban them as well...

But then, they don't leave butts as a by-product, don't stink like ciggs do, and don't cause allergic reactions or trigger asthma attacks.

None of that gets in the way of the same full on anti-smoking fundamentalist zealotry that you occasionally point out, though.


Good on you for pointing it out, and please, continue to do so.

[eridani]

122. I don't have a problem with ecigs at all

I have a problem with cig butts scattered all over beaches, though.

[beevul]

165. I can totally understand that.

When I was smoking (over 6 months now without a cig and no cravings - thank god for e-ciggs) I used to pocket the butts, because I was painfully aware of how much of a mess they make.

[upaloopa]

51. I hate that smokers throw their butts on the ground

It's especially gross on a beach to see a pile of butts in the sand

[Blue_Tires]

53. solution: replace tobacco with reefer

thank me later...

[MrSlayer]

54. The smoke Nazis just want to ban it completely.

To hell with being an adult and making your own choices. To hell with freedom. They don't want you to smoke and that's it. Period. Done. Over.

[dbackjon]

60. You can smoke all you want

Just not in public. I don't want to breathe your fucking, nasty, polluted air you spew.


I want the freedom to breathe.


To hell with cigarette. And to hell with anyone that smokes them.

[MrSlayer]

68. I don't smoke.

But your attitude is shit.

I can't stand the Puritan, holier than thou attitude of the smoke Nazis.

To hell with all that think that way.

You may have an anger issue.

[dbackjon]

71. You obviously don't have Asthma

I can't stand the "fuck everyone else, who cares if what I do makes them sick" attitude.


You DO have empathy issues.

[MrSlayer]

73. Nonsense.

You think you're more important than everyone else.

[HiPointDem]

100. i'd have more sympathy if smoking weren't already illegal in almost every indoor venue.

if your asthma acts up because of tobacco smoke, luckily you can always just walk away, as i presume you do in the presence of flowers, campfires, car exhaust, and other things routinely encountered outdoors that might set it off.

[Go Vols]

118. I wonder how many states

ban smoking in indoor public areas.

Here you can smoke in a restaurant/bar if it bans people under 21 from entering.The law isn't really enforced where I live though.

[HiPointDem]

119. 28 states ban smoking in all public places, including bars. 6 additional states ban it in public,

but exempt bars.

that's 34 states.

"As of June 2013, 6 states have enacted smoking bans in particular places that do not fit in the other categories" & 10 don't ban except for gov't buildings, just require non-smoking sections.

so in fact the majority of states have pretty general smoking bans, and only 10 states have nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

[eridani]

123. Puritans are against pleasure

If some people find butt-free beaches more pleasurable, how are they Puritans? Looks like they are advocating pleasure.

[MrSlayer]

124. One man's pain is another's pleasure.

It's all very subjective. Many people find smoking pleasurable and the freedom to do so in an open air setting doubly so.

[HiPointDem]

135. smoking doesn't equate to enjoying trashy beaches. it doesn't equate to being a litterbug

either, anymore than using plastic bag equates to throwing them on beaches.

not all smokers toss their butts wherever they please.

[Dreamer Tatum]

61. I will welcome you to smoke around me

if you will agree to smell a similar concentration and duration of my farts.

No? That stinks?

Gee. Wonder what that's like.

[MrSlayer]

66. I don't smoke.

And if you were to be such a pig in my presence, you would certainly regret it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

67. Ooooooooh, tough guy. nt

[MrSlayer]

69. You certainly aren't.

A puff a smoke sends you into convulsions. Not exactly a sign of strength.

[Shankapotomus]

150. So what is your stance on people who

Last edited Tue Jul 23, 2013, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

don't want to be subjected to breathing in cigarette smoke? Too bad? Because even if your position is "a little smoke won't kill you, lighten up", that really isn't the point.

For instance, if you didn't want to consume any alcohol, it wouldn't be okay for me to hand you a drink spiked with rum or whatever alcohol. Even if it is just a little, that would be an intrusion upon you. In the same sense, subjecting someone to something they don't want to consume or have a specific issue with consuming, is an intrusion upon them.

Or do you not agree?

[MrSlayer]

164. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I can see indoor bans. I disagree with bans in bars but I'll even give you that. I completely disagree with bans in open air places. A beach, a park, a city street, any open public spot.

I don't think your alcohol comparison holds though. Giving someone alcohol without their knowledge can be dangerous. It's not the same as smoking at a distance.

[Shankapotomus]

166. Concerning the outdoors

That was precisely my dilemma. I used to work for a smoker. He would mostly smoke outdoors so as not to offend customers. My job involved both outdoor and indoor tasks. It was primarily the outdoor smoke that was unbearable. Very often my employer would stand around directing me outside with a cigarette in his hand. He was totally addicted and he never failed to have a cigarette in his hand when we hit the outdoors. I brought it up a few times but after awhile he would get visibly annoyed so I stopped.

I'm not making this up: There was so much smoke floating at my face, I was literally often having trouble getting clean enough oxygen for a decent breath... where I'd have to back away and cease my work to get fresh air. My father smoked cigars when I was younger so I know how to be tolerant of smokers. So it wasn't an anti-smoker reactionary thing with me. I just felt like with my employer it became a him or me thing. His only chance to smoke was outside with me and he wasn't going to give that up no matter what and I didn't feel it was my right to make him give it up and yet I have to say I felt I was intruded upon by all that smoke in my face all the time.

That's how I came to the conclusion that, yes, there has to be some regulation.

Luckily, I'm no longer at that job and wouldn't work anywhere that happened again.

[MrSlayer]

169. Under those circumstances I'd complain too.

I'm talking about a person just smoking twenty feet away from you on the beach with a breeze.

If anyone was doing what your boss was doing, they'd deserve whatever you thought appropriate to make it stop. That's just ignorant.

[Shankapotomus]

171. So

would you advocate a law or regulation to stop such scenarios between employer and employee?

[MrSlayer]

174. I might.

In a case such as the one you described it seems like a no-brainer. That's just obnoxious. No one should have to put up with that.

Where would the line be drawn between people that act like complete assholes and those that are respectful?

Could a distinction be made and how would it be enforced?

[HiPointDem]

99. pretty much. but they're cutting off their nose, because if that happens where will they

exercise their moral outrage on those they consider inferior?

probably fat people, is my guess.

[1monster]

55. To keep the dirty cigarette butts from being ubiquitous litter?

My son once did a school project where he and his group had to perform a community service. They decided to clean up the local skate park.

My son showed up (with his parents). The other kids in the group did not. So Mom and Dad helped Son clean up the park. Yeah, there were cans, bottles, candy wrappers, and such; but cigarette butts were every where. There were so many of them that even after two hours of the three of us picking them up, there were still some left.

What is it about nicotine that the addicts to it become the most disgusting dirty litters.

[dbackjon]

58. As someone that is very sensitive to smoke

Bans are welcome, and needed.


Pollute the air in your own home.

[War Horse]

72. But a lot of smokers

aren't even allowed to smoke in their own homes. Understandably so, in some cases. But where are people supposed to smoke? Nowhere?

(As a smoker I agree that it's an incredibly stupid thing to do, and that every smoker should quit, somehow, just for the record. But geez...)

[HiPointDem]

97. do you have the same trouble with campfires & weenie roasts? should those be banned too?

[dbackjon]

162. I do - and I avoid those areas

Never seen a campfire at a softball field, or in front of a store, or at the local walking trail.

[Eleanors38]

156. Is it OK to smoke in your home with children present?

Would you ban that, even if the children were the smoker's own? Would you allow the smoker to go outside in the alternative, and smoke in


public?

How would all this be enforced?

[dbackjon]

163. Would I allow my kids in a smokers home? Nope.

[Eleanors38]

180. And if others do not choose your course, should there be legal sanction?

[onenote]

74. LIARS!The American Cancer Society and American Lung Assn have voiced support for such bans

Last edited Tue Jul 23, 2013, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Which calls into question the credibility of the authors and whether they have a particular agenda.

A few examples found in just a few seconds of googling:

http://acscan.org/ovc_images/file/action/states/ny/NEW_YORKERS_DESERVE_SMOKEFREE_AIR.pdf

http://www.lung.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/whntwpix-city-council.html

Others who support the ban say that brief exposure to secondhand smoke - even in open-air areas - can pose health risks. Among the backers of the ban include the American Cancer Society who have expressed much enthusiasm over the possibility to make city parks and beaches smoke-free.

"With the health and well-being of so many New Yorkers at stake, it is absolutely critical that smoking be prohibited at parks and beaches without further delay," Scott T. Santarella, President and CEO of the American Lung Association in New York told PIX 11 News in a statement. "This bill will reduce pollution, save New Yorkers' lives and make our parks and beaches the healthy recreational areas that they were intended to be."

http://newbrunswicktoday.com/article/should-new-brunswick-ban-smoking-city-parks

A representative from the American Cancer Society and Tobacco Free for a Healthier New Jersey coalition presented the case for banning smoking in parks, saying it would be "advantageous" to the local community.


http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jul/18/stage-set-smoking-ban-most-parts-coronado/

Members of the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society urged the city to adopt a ban.
Former Mayor of Solana Beach and American Lung Association representative Joe Kellejian said personal rights are an issue for people who don't smoke and restaurant employees, not just smokers.

[Agnosticsherbet]

79. If you can't drop your speedos and crap in the sand, you shouldn't smoke there. n/t

[geckosfeet]

84. Ha ha. That is sad. I do NOT want smell that shit. Nor inhale it second hand.

The only to ensure that is to ban the source.

Secondhand Smoke (SHS) Facts
Tobacco-Related Mortality

I'll take the cdc data over your source any day.

More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined

Tobacco-Related Mortality

[brewens]

95. I'd think it was the cost of cleaning up butts on the ground that they would use. Even though

I'm generally pro-smoking, that pisses me off. I hate seeing them on the ground anywhere and when I smoked, I never did that.

[matt819]

98. How about the "it's disgusting" reason

I grew up near the beach something along the lines of a gazillion years ago (I believe I saw some dinosaurs). At the time, my mother smoked, and she'd put out her cigarettes in the sand, as would, oh, thousands of other smokers. Frankly, I've never been drawn in by the allure of a sandy beach, but I can tell you that the cigarette butts certainly did not enhance the experience. Maybe there are profound issues at play, a la stigmatization of smoking and smokers. Maybe not. But don't discount the disgusting factor.

[kestrel91316]

105. Fuck smokers. They have no right to pollute the commons.

[HiPointDem]

107. unlike car drivers, air travelers, electricity consumers, plastic consumers, coal consumers,

computer consumers, pharmaceutical consumers, housing consumers, etc etc ad infinitum?

what a stupid statement.

[kestrel91316]

108. Tobacco serves absolutely no useful purpose. It is the only product

that, when used precisely as intended, causes illness and/or death in virtually all of its users.

[HiPointDem]

110. it has as much useful purpose as many drugs. and it's a myth that it causes illness a/o death

in 'virtually all' of its users.

i'd add that people were using tobacco before they used cars, planes, plastic bags or other plastic items, etc.

so i'd suspect they found it useful.

[TransitJohn]

187. Use of tobacco is proven to increase some forms of measurable intelligence. Eom

n/t

[RedCappedBandit]

109. Litter:

http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/international-coastal-cleanup/top-10-items-found-1.html

[HiPointDem]

111. now do it by weight. then by area & volume.

[RedCappedBandit]

112. Seriously though, we should just ban plastic.

Really.

At least for use in disposables, anyway.

[HiPointDem]

114. i wouldn't mind. you could ban it for cigarette filters too, there are other alternatives.

but then the anti-tobacco zealots would have less to complain about, & would probably start picking on fat people who drink soda with high-fructose corn syrup in it.

oh, wait, they already do...

[RedCappedBandit]

115. The soda ban in NYC is the silliest, imo. nt

[HiPointDem]

117. it's really dumb. i suspect it puts extra money in the sodamakers' pockets, myself. if you want

to have a picnic, e.g., buying two small containers costs more than one big one.

and i think it uses more packaging material, too.


as for cigarette filters, they're made of acelyated cellulose -- cellulose fibers put through a chemical reaction. it's a non-oil-based plastic, similar process used to make old film and 'celluloid' items.

it bio-degrades in 1-15 years, depending on the particular process used.

pretty sure one tire biodegrades a lot slower.

here's a company trying to make biodegradable filters that sprout when you toss them. fun.

http://inhabitat.com/greenbutts-unveils-flower-sprouting-biodegradable-cigarette-filters/

[Pelican]

120. Ooh ooh.. I know.. Control of others...

*ding ding ding*

[SidDithers]

130. Poor, poor smokers...

prevented from letting your filthy habit pollute the air at the beach and the park.

Prevented from using the beach and the park as your ashtray.

Poor, poor smokers. How I weep for thee.



Sid

[The Straight Story]

132. ROFL man oh man, once again the points fly over your head

1. Littering is already illegal, (and just so you know sid, not just for smokers!)
2. If you think smoking pollutes, step into my garage and let me run a car for two hours while you are in there. I will step into another garage while someone smokes for two hours. Wonder which one is gonna do more harm?
3. It is, and has always been, not about smoking but about personal choices and freedoms. But then some want to ban abortions as well, and since I can't have one I suppose I won't speak up about that issue. Can't have a gay marriage cause I am straight, so why bother caring about those freedoms? I don't own a gun, so screw gun owners.

It is not poor smokers, it is poor citizens who have no problems removing choices from people that bothers me, apparently some people just love the idea. And when their choices are removed, don't ask me to vote for someone to increase them because I will just say 'well, it's best for you to have others make choices for you'

But as usual, you won't get it

[SidDithers]

140. ...

Sid

[Shankapotomus]

131. I have worked with an inconsiderate smoker

Cigarette smoke cannot be equated with pollution or BO or car exhaust. Cigarette smoke is over powering. It stays with you. I was practically gasping for air working around this person. And because he was my employer, it was difficult to object all the time, even though he said he wouldn't smoke around me. You give smokers an inch and they take a foot. That's the biggest FU to somebody - to smoke around them. I have to work and breath in an atmosphere that was never intended for human respiration? I have to risked cancer because you want to smoke?

Yea, I'm not buying a sympathy thread for smokers because you know they regard everybody else's need to have a semblance of breathable air as a huge downer and imposition on themselves.

[HiPointDem]

136. you were working in an enclosed space? the op is about parks and beaches.

[Shankapotomus]

139. Nope

Most of the time I was working outside with the smoker standing around directing. I wouldn't be surprised if second hand smokers received more of the smoke than the smokers because the smoke is being blow away by the smoker. It 's pretty difficult to function when you can't get enough clean oxygen into your lungs. Glad I no longer work there.

[HiPointDem]

142. i doubt it.

[Shankapotomus]

145. Then it was still enough to be too much. nt

[Quantess]

146. Smoking is bad for you.

You'll die a painful, slow death.

[Safetykitten]

149. OMG...is this still being discussed? People sticking cancer sticks in their mouth...

and wondering why people don't want to be around it or seeing the garbage from it?

[Ian David]

151. I'm still good with that. Fuck the smoking weirdos. n/t

[Ian David]

152. First they came for the smokers. Then they came for the public masturbators...

... and when they came for the outdoor shitters, there was nobody left to speak-up!

tag added, because some people aren't it-getters.

[HiPointDem]

159. yes, smoking = masturbating = shitting. you it-getter, you.

[NCTraveler]

161. Smoker here.

I really don't mind the beach bans. People such as myself will just throw their butt in the sand. It really is a littering problem. The people who claim it should be banned because of the smell or second hand smoke are nothing more than authoritarian assholes.

[HiPointDem]

191. and people such as myself won't. i also see people who just throw pop cans and plastic bags on the

beach, but i see no movement to ban those things because some people are litterbugs.

why don't you just properly dispose of your garbage?

[KamaAina]

168. Add e-cigarette bans to the list

there's no secondhand smoke, only vapor. And no butts, either.

Bans on them are basically just bans on consuming nicotine in public, i,e, nanny-state stuff.

[MicaelS]

170. I'm eager to see Marijuana legalized.

For no other reason than to see, hear and read the Marijuana smokers telling the anti-smokers to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

[The Straight Story]

172. Some smoking and personal choices (like abortions) are holy and sacred

and attack THOSE choices means you are not a certified liberal.

Attacking others choices to some seems mandatory.

Don't expect consistency, many liberals are no better than their RW counterparts when it comes to 'freedom'- they all want to use the government to control your personal choices.

They have put restrictions on bars (private places) and so forth and then wonder why folks on the right get away with putting restrictions on private things like abortions (hey, it is only after 20 weeks so you still have a choice, right? After all, at some point those babies are human and subject to being forced to be around 2nd hand things like what you eat, etc).

[MicaelS]

175. There are always people who want to control others.

It is the same mindset that seeks to limit what people can drink, or eat, or smoke in the name of "doing it for people's own good." Of which Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC would be the poster child for all of the above, including gun bans, plus mass stop and frisk of anyone who looks the slightest bit suspicious. Plus the NYPD's actions during Occupy. And that Bloomberg is beloved by many here speaks volumes.

[HiPointDem]

192. plenty of marijuana smokers are vehemently anti-tobacco. i've seen them here at du, complaining

how awful tobacco is, how terrible the smell & health effects, while swearing up & down that pot smells great & is nothing but healthy.

[MicaelS]

194. I believe you.

It never ceases to amaze me just how many Authoritarians there are on DU for the "sin" items; alcohol, tobacco, drugs, guns, gambling, pornography, prostitution. If "someone might get hurt" by something, then there is going to be someone here who wants to severely restrict it, or impose an de facto or de jure ban.

[djean111]

179. Ever step on a discarded, still-burning cigarette butt at the beach?

I have.
Little kids do.
Fuck that shit.
Every time I see a smoker just casually flick away their stinking butt into the sand, into the street, on to the sidewalk - I am disgusted and angry.

[apnu]

189. The real motivation is this: its what the local constituents want.

The Anti-smoking movement that really solidified bout 10 years ago has become, more or less, accepted by most people in most urban places. I can't speak for rural places, I'm not out there much. But the movement is one of the few modern examples of a truly bi-partisan effort. 10 years ago I smoked and over half the people I knew and worked with smoked. Now maybe 2% of them smoke and that number dwindles every day.

People have woken up to the fact that smoking gives us no benefit what so ever after your body becomes immune to the smoking buzz. And so they don't want it around them, even in outdoor places like the beach.

I'm an ex-smoker, as I said and I quit over 7 years ago after smoking for 13 years. I'm an avid cyclist and commute to work by bike. But the bike racks by my workplace are also the place where the outside ashtrays are. In my town there's a ban on how close you can be to an entrance and smoke. I regularly have to wade through a smog to lock my bike, while I'm winded from a hard ride. And let me tell you, that sucks. I don't want it anywhere near me and i don't want to have to fight my way through a cloud of smoke to get into a restaurant, store or my place of work.

Anyway, I agree that the science about outdoor smoke is dubious, but that's just an excuse used to give the public what it really wants. The anti-smoking lobby and the cancer groups are silent because, as far as they are concerned, if its working, don't mess with it. Why should the American Lung Association come out and attack a study that's helping them rid the world of smoking?

[ConcernedCanuk]

190. OK - let's get this - WEED is illegal, but environmentally friendly.

.
.
.

And - solves many health issues like glaucoma, pain, stress, and so on.

Problem with weed is, ya can grow in your back yard and one or two plants will fill your needs for a year,

and the government can't tax it.

Tax on cigarettes is over 400% - ergo government does not want to make them illegal - lose BILLIONS of dollars in taxes.

As to where smokers can and cannot smoke, - especially in public - many, if not most are inconsiderate of disposing of their butts.

So in some places, as in open spaces like a beach or a park - it's the mess left behind just flipping their butts wherever (we're still talking cigarettes here . .)

that is the real issue methinks.

CC

[HiPointDem]

193. pot isn't anymore environmentally friendly than tobacco. it depends on how it's grown. so

far as the plants themselves, neither is more environmentally friendly than the other.

and tobacco also has medicinal and other uses.