Here are some of my personal views on passive smoking and smoking in public. I hope you enjoy reading it. Thank you.
Please note that some of my best friends have been smokers. It is appreciated smoking can be seen to be difficult to quit, the focus is on passive smoking. Passive smoking is also called involuntary smoking or secondhand smoking. ETS is an abbreviation for environmental smoke.
C J S Purdy was a 72 year old nonsmoker I knew who was playing chess in some very smoky clubrooms. Smokers were on either side of him. During the game the smoke caused him to have a coughing fit. The fit turned turned into a heart attack, and Cecil died. Should Cecil have had to put up with the smoke?
Cecil was one of Australia's leading chessplayers, the first first world correspondence champion and one of the world's leading chess writers.
Oscar Helms was a nonsmoking teacher of mine who died of lung cancer at 65. The smoke in the staff room was so thick that you could cut it with a knife.
Have they died in vain?
Back in the 60s and before, smokers pretty much smoked where they pleased. Children and infants were frequently exposed to smoke from strangers.
In 1958 it was well known that a strong link between smoking and lung cancer had been found. (In fact, 98% of lung cancer victims were cigarette smokers.) A link had been known as far back as the 1930s.
Despite (or perhaps because of) known health damage from smoking, young people were bombarded with advertising portraying smokers as popular, attractive, cool, masculine, rugged etc. A popular icon with a catchy tune was the Malborough man who died prematurely from smoking. Another one was the guy who later played "Crocodile Dundee".
Lollies called "fags" (which looked like cigarettes, packaged in boxes like cigarette boxes) and chocolate Camel cigarettes were sold to children. Many 10-12 year olds, especially boys, took up smoking in those days.
A few public places were exempt from smoking: hospitals, school classrooms, cinemas etc and trains had non-smoking sections.
Apart from these cases, the first restriction was mandatory health warnings on cigarette packets and the removal of advertising on radio and TV.
In the early 80s something extraordinary happened. The employees of Australia Post voted to ban smoking in the workplace. Up till then office workers were typically exposed to smoke. This was a catalyst for a similar ban in the Victoria Public Service and other places and it became increasingly rare for smoking to happen within offices.
Eventually smoking was banned in domestic flights. This was quite a challenge for beaurocracy. First they tried alternating smoking rows with non-smoking ones. Strangely, it did not work. Next they tried making central seats non-smoking and side seats smoking. Strangely, nonsmokers were still wheezing and coughing. Then they tried making the front half smoking and the back half non-smoking. An improvement, but all fairly useless until smoking was completely banned. This whole process took years.
Since July 1, 2001 smoking has been banned in Victorian restaurants and other eating places. Since then smoking has been in all shopping centres (up till now most shopping centres have disallowed it, but there has been a few exceptions).
Smoking is currently prevalent in pubs, nightclubs, bars and gaming centres. My preferred option is for abolition of smoking in these places as well. In the past decade smoking has been abolished from many public places in the US. In some parts of the US, smoking is banned from bars, so in this respect they are more enlightened than us.
Passive smoking is the exposure to the tobacco smoke of others (generally in an enclosed space).
There are different types of smoke:
In some ways (2) and (3) are more dangerous than (1). Sidestream smoke, which is created when a cigarette is left burning idly, produces roughly twice as much filth as normal cigarette smoke. The passive smoker cops all three.
Health damage to nonsmokers from passive smoking is well established. This is very different than the common view in the 60s etc. that smoking was merely annoying and caused discomfort, but could not harm another person. This involves a bit of highly irrational and magical thinking. Smoke doesn't distinguish between who is holding a cigarette and who isn't.
Passive smoking contributes to SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). One statistic I saw (in a book on SIDS)was that mothers who are heavy smokers are a staggering 4.5 times more likely to have SIDS happen than a nonsmoker. Mothers who don't smoke, but have a smoking husband have smaller babies at birth. This is with just one smoker, passive smoking may involve many more smokers in the same room.
Strictly speaking, a passive smoker is a smoker. My hunch is that passive smoking shortens average life expectancy several years, though I would like to see some careful statistical studies done on this.
Passive smoking also damages smokers. Of course, many smokers don't even notice passive smoking, but perhaps surprisingly, some smokers do not like smoke filled rooms. It is likely that a smoker who always smokes outdoors and never smokes passively is less damaged than a nonsmoker who works in a very smoky environment.
I know a smoker who welcomed restrictions on smoking because it helped make smokers aware that they were effecting others. All too often, they are oblivious of what they are doing to others (and themselves).
Passive smoking can make a person feel terrible. Smoke gets in the hair, the eyes, the breath and the eyes (smoke has been linked to eye damage and blindness) and even the clothes. This is a side to passive smoking which is often overlooked.
Short of being a victim of crime, passive smoking can be the most unpleasant thing in life. Passive smoking is a form of abuse.
Inflicting passive smoking on others is disrespectful. Disrespect is the root of all crime. Passive smoking is codependant behaviour, nonsmokers need to be more active in rejection of passive smoking.
Smoke can discolour fittings such as curtains, carpets can be stained with ash etc. Smokers sometimes litter with their butts etc. Businesses could reduce cleaning costs by removing smoking.
It is generally underestimated how much passive smokers smoke. Here are some results of a study from California University.
One hour in a non-smoking section of a restaurant, but where smoke wafts across, is equivalent to 1 or 2 per hour.
One hour in a car with windows wound up with someone smoking, is equivalent to 3 per hour.
One hour in a ventilated smoky room, is about 4 per hour.
Eight hours in a smoky workplace is equivalent to one pack (20 cigarettes).
I am developing a computer simulation which allows to user to explore the effects of passive smoking. The above are conservative estimates. A smoker may only take a few puffs in the 5 minutes it takes to smoke a cigarette. A non-smoker (or smoker) in a smoky room is likely to be inhaling far more smoke in the same period.
I believe being a small nonventilated room with a lot of smokers is worse than chain-smoking.
The bottom line is that as far as your body is concerned, there is not much difference between smoking actively and smoking passively.
In fact, passive smoking is so damaging it has confused the result of many studies.
Naively, passive smokers are usually considered to be the same as true nonsmokers.
In a study on breast cancer, it was found no difference between smokers and nonsmokers.
A later study, which took passive smoking into account, showed that passive smokers had a staggering more than triple occurrence of breast cancer than true nonsmokers.
Passive smokers were in the second highest risk group, after smokers.
Passive smoking greatly increases the chance of fatal heart disease or stroke.
Even a short time (under 10 minutes) of exposure is likely to cause arteriosclerosis.
Whats more, nonsmokers don't get the rush or thrill that the smokers are supposed to enjoy.
Pipe and cigar smokers typically seem less harmed by their habit than cigarette smokers. This is because they inhale much less deeply than a cigarette smoker, not because the smoke is less harmful. As far as passive smoking is concerned, pipe and cigar smoke is very harmful indeed. Smoke other than tobbacco smoke can also be harmful, I would even question the assumption that incense is harmless.
Since writing the previous paragraph, I have now found evidence that incense smoke contains carcigenics such as benzene, and also carbon monoxide. Try a search with Google on "incense smoke" +harmful, for example. All types of smoke are likely to be harmful.
Why have people put up with all this, and for so long?
There are other reasons.
What to do about it?
Respect yourself. Passive smoking is a violation of boundaries. A person can take individual responsibility as with any other form of abuse. Clear personal boundaries must be established. No unwanted passive smoking is acceptable. You don't need to apologise.
Establishing your boundaries does not violate the boundaries of a smoker.
Pay attention to what your body is telling you. Listen to the still small voice. We tend to learn to overrule our bodies with our minds. We have become insensitive.
If you are sensitive and are indoors and smell smoke, it won't be long before you feel yukky. It makes your hair, clothes and breath stink and you can feel it affecting your heart. Stand up and walk out. Make it clear to who you are with why you are leaving.
Some boundaries are very easy to set. Don't allow anyone to smoke in your house or car. Avoid smoky venues like bars or pubs.
It is tragic that ones social life should be constrained by smoke. Health comes first, and breathing is not enjoyable, regardless how stimulating your company might be.
Some are more difficult. The workplace.... If you work in a smoky office, and can't lobby sucessfully your right to clean air and good health, with management or a union, you need to leave, just like a spouse who is abused by their partner. Make it very clear thats why you are leaving.
This can be a problem, because you need to make a living and finding another job might be hard. This is unfair, and thats why everything must be done to prevent smoke exposure in the workplace. (Note that ventilation, though better than nothing, is completely inadequate.)
Even worse is an enclosed place like a plane. You cannot leave if you want to. Its not fair, so government intervention is desirable. Likewise, people in a prison, mental institution, school, hospital etc. can't usually walk away, so restrictions are essential.
Children don't usually have the freedom to walk away from smoke, people who force children to (passively) smoke are abusive. This is best seen as a separate issue though.
The passive smoker is addicted to putting the company of others before
health, addicted "to putting up with it" not to hurt the others feelings,
addicted to pretending smoke knows the difference between a smoker and a
nonsmoker.
Quit passive smoking and you will feel better.
If you are a smoker and share a house with people who don't smoke there are some things to be aware of. Firstly, you need to smoke outside. Smoking in a seperate room (even with doors closed) is not enough, the smoke will enter the rest of the building.
Smoking when other people are not there is insufficient also, the smoke can hang around for weeks. Even smoking outside will mean increasing nicotine levels in the other householders when you return inside and exhale smoke.
Workers in bars, pubs etc. are typically exposed to smoke, often high levels of it. At least one person has successfully sued an employer for damage from passive smoking. It is the view of many people that nobody should have to be exposed to tobacco smoke in their working environment. Hospitality (nonsmoking) workers tend to have higher rates of lung cancer, than workers anywhere else, even miners.
Similarly, a person should not have to choose between having a social life and putting up with foul tobacco smoke. For a long time it was difficult to find smokefree indoor venues. With restaurants now smokefree its slightly less difficult, but finding a smokefree pub --- not so easy.
There is a natural resistance to change. Also, people sometimes don't like being told what to do. Sometimes they will rationalise their resistance.
An argument sometimes brought up is that passive smoking is bad, but what about inhaling car fumes when in the street? What about it indeed. Its a different issue.
Smokers sometimes argue that we have a free society. Smoking is legal, so you should be able to smoke anyone. People are only free when people don't intrude on the freedom of others to breathe clean air.
While some smokers welcome smoking restrictions, others oppose it in a militant fashion. I am not against people smoking per se (just the imposition of their smoking on others). By all means have your smoker's rooms and clubs, smokers's plane flights etc. etc, but keep the nonsmokers out of there. Some smokers are angry (to the point of neurotic) people and smoking can be defiant angry behaviour. The bottom line is we are all on the same side.
Sometimes people argue with statistics and the credibility of studies. The view (from the tobbacco lobby) is that secondhand smoke is harmless (or neglible). Even if passive smoking was totally safe, its completely unacceptable. Why? Because it makes people feel terrible and that is enough.
Another argument raised is that if teenagers don't take up smoking they will take up hard drugs. This beauty came from the tobacco lobby... enough said.
The tobacco lobby and the people in their pay are concerned that restrictions on smoking will put a dent in their profits. They sometimes argue that smoking/passive smoking is harmless, knowing full well that is untrue. Anything said along these lines can be politely discounted. These people have helped more people die than Hitler or Stalin and have no credibility whatsoever.
The Tobacco lobby are the potential losers financially in the scenario that fewer people smoke. Maybe its time they diversified and produced something else instead. As a group they don't seem to display a lot of wisdom as regards public health, but very good at defending the status quo.
Tobacco kills almost 5,000 Victorians annually and evidence has shown that lung cancer, heart disease, underweight babies and respiratory problems in children can be traced to second hand smoke. Passive smoking is estimated to cause 1,600 deaths in Australia every year. Around 146 of these deaths are due to lung cancer, and ten times this number are from heart disease.
Exposure to passive smoking remains a significant occupational health and safety issue, particularly in the hospitality sector, where workers are exposed to second hand smoke on a daily basis. Research suggests that there is a 50 per cent higher lung cancer risk for both smoking and non-smoking bar tenders, compared with the general population. These reasons have compelled the Government to introduce further passive smoking reforms.
Extending the current smoking bans is an important health initiative that will further progress our tobacco control legislative agenda. Therefore, as you may be aware on the 16 January 2002, the Minister for Health announced the Government's intention to extend smoking bans to gaming areas and to introduce partial bans in bars, pubs and nightclubs from 1 September 2002. Extending the current smoke free laws is an important step in protecting the health of the Victorian community and hospitality workers.
At this stage the proposed tobacco reforms are limited to full smoking bans in gaming areas and partial smoking bans in bars, pubs and nightclubs. However, once these reforms are introduced, the Victorian Government intends to closely monitor and review their implementation to further inform the policy development process in regard to environmental smoke.
The partial ban dictates that venues with more than one room must have a nonsmoking room. About 10% of venues are single rooms (especially winebars) so the partial ban doesn't apply to them. Many venues already have an eating area, so the partial ban adds nothing. The nonsmoking room can be quite small, whereas the smoking area may be quite large and contain the dance floor etc., the reasons why one may go the venue in the first place.
The nonsmoking room does not need to be enclosed so they fill up with smoke from the smoking area. In some cases, all the air in the 'nonsmoking' area comes from the smoking area. Nonsmokers often need to go through the smoking areas to get to the nonsmoking area, which is likely to be full of smoke anyway.
It is important to note that AHA are very much a part of the tobacco lobby , and value power and profit above public health.
Some very recent good news is that the premiers of both NSW and Victoria have decided to disallow smoking in all public buildings by 1997. A wise decision which will have great benefit.
In a more enlightened society no smoker would voluntarily expose a nonsmoker to smoke. Until this happens, the trend towards barring smoking in all public places is quite appropriate.
Unfortunately in many parts of the World, there is a lot of ignorance about the effects of smoking. For example, I heard of a hospital in an Eastern European country where visitors could freely smoke. I once travelled with a foreign airlines in a plane with no smoking restrictions at all. Slowly, more and more people are becoming more educated in this area.
Science will continue to discover more and more harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Just think of it, the smoke is doing damage that hasn't been discovered yet.
There are many other points that could also be made.
In 2003 there was an episode on the cartoon series called "South Park". South Park is an adult cartoon series, which while being outrageous and sometimes gross can also be hilarious.
Butt Out is the story of some visitors to the school who are supposed to educate children about the dangers of smoking. Howerver, it incites curiosity in the children who end up trying smoking.
To avoid punishment, the children enlist the help of an anti-smoker. The anti-smoking lobby lies. After visiting a cigarette factory ("Big Tobacco") and discovering how nice the people working there and visiting a bar, one of the children murders the anti-smoker, who apparently is addicted to hamburgers.
The film ends with the cliched moral that people should take responsibility for their actions and no-one makes anyone else do anything.
Some militant smokers saw butt-out as one in the eye for the "anti-smokers" and logical proof that people should be allowed to smoke wherever they like.
There are a few difficulties with the logic in "butt out". In practice , children are easily manipulated by advertising and don't have the experience, inteligence etc to protect themselves from advertising.
The notion that people working are "really nice" people is irrelevant. Many serial killers are "really nice" people.
Butt Out misses he point completely. If smoking in public places didn't effect, harm , hurt, annoy, damage others in any way, there wouldn't be opposition.
People can do kinds of stupid things that may harm themselves. They may overeat or starve themselves stupid, engage in dangerous sports or whatever. The difference between these things and smoking, is that smoking often affects other people.
Cigarette manufacturers are well aware of the connection between smoking and the unconscious memory of the comfort of breastfeeding. Cigarettes and their filters somewhat have the colour of a nipple. Cigarettes are designed so that smoke created is white, like milk. When the smoker sucks on the cigarette, the warm white milk is inhaled. This piece of information was from a book called "Subliminal Seduction".
People who take up smoking, are on average weaned prematurely. They (unconsciously) crave the comfort of the breast.