With a town in California looking to keep people from smoking in their own homes, this blast from the past has a particularly poignant oddity:
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I don't smoke and I don't live in either town. If I did live in one of them, though, I'd be sorely tempted to light up a cigarette on a balcony (or wherever) and see what happens. Do the police really have nothing better to do than respond to 9-1-1 calls to the effect "My neighbor is smoking?" What are they going to do when they get there? Produce a search warrant to look for evidence? Write a ticket? Fine, see you in court. How do they plan to win there? "Did you see the defendant smoking?" "No, I smelled the smoke coming from the direction of his apartment." (Alternatively, "I saw her smoking!" "Were you smoking?" "Of course not, I don't smoke.") And that's enough to convict you? Someone with a sense of humor could tie these two cities up in municipal court with such cases for a long, long time. That could prove expensive for them as well.
The rise of the conventional wisdom of deadly second-hand smoke-- which is, to put it mildly, of questionable scientific value-- was really an act of genius on the part of the anti-smoking crowd. There's only so much outrage that they could muster over what people do to their own bodies. But when you create the notion that something is harmful to other people, there's no end to the outrage you can gin up. Even when it makes no sense (it'll come through the walls!)
Liberal fascists.
The rise of the conventional wisdom of deadly second-hand smoke-- which is, to put it mildly, of questionable scientific value-- was really an act of genius on the part of the anti-smoking crowd.
"Questionable scientific value"? What have you been smoking?
There's only so much outrage that they could muster over what people do to their own bodies.
You mean like tattoos, clothing, piercings, makeup, growth or removal of hair, sleep patterns, cigarette use, alcohol preference, eating times and habits, etc.? Interestingly, people are quite free to do all kinds of things with their bodies -- except when those things compromise their ability to perform a certain type of work in an employment contract, or cause specific problems or harm to others.
So it's not like certain restrictions are without precedent. Try getting drunk on the street as compared to your private residence, for example.
But when you create the notion that something is harmful to other people, there's no end to the outrage you can gin up. Even when it makes no sense (it'll come through the walls!)
It does come through the walls, or at least it does in woodframe units and/or units that share common flues for ventilation fans. Cigarette smoke is one of the most penetrating odors this side of having one of my species die in the crawlspace. And in multiple-unit dwellings (which is what this ordinance targets), there are plenty of precedents for limiting noise disturbances, odor and sanitation problems, use of common areas and balconies, etc.
Mind you, I'm not sold on the idea that a city can ban smoking in private residences by fiat; it seems like an overextension of power. I would prefer to see that one sort itself out in the (privately and mutually signed) leasing agreements. Nonetheless, a multiple-unit dwelling is not a personal castle in which one may do absolutely anything; smoking does create nuisance and potential health issues for other residents, and therefore, fair and reasonable grounds exist to restrict it.
this: http://www.esmagazine.com/CDA/
should help those get a handle on: "It does come through the walls, or at least it does in woodframe units and/or units that share common flues for ventilation fans. Cigarette smoke is one of the most penetrating odors this side of having one of my species die in the crawlspace. And in multiple-unit dwellings (which is what this ordinance targets), there are plenty of precedents for limiting noise disturbances, odor and sanitation problems, use of common areas and balconies, etc."
hard to believe, but 'Environment' affects us..
Freddie,
I travel a lot for my job. Without fail everytime a hotel is full and I end up stuck in a smoking room I am sick after the first day, miserable by the second and sick for 2 weeks if I stay 3 days or more.
It may be anectdotal, but its certainly true for me. Being in a heavily smoked in environment really messes me up and surely must others because I'm very healthy and active with no notable medical history.
Maybe its the smoke in the pillows, maybe in the air filter? Maybe in the walls? (least likely in my opinion.
But it does have a serious affect on people who weren't event in the environment when the smoking was taking place.
Notice how quickly everyone is to make scientific arguments without scientific evidence.
Listen: there has never been a more egregious example of science being corrupted by politics than second hand smoke. If you read through the literature on the subject, you see time and time again that studies which purported to show a scientific link between second hand smoke and ill health effects were later discredited due to bad methodology or, more disturbingly, outright falsification. It happens time and again. Studies that show a link are discredited, studies that demonstrate no link are buried by the people who ran them. In 1987 the World Health Organization began what remains the largest human health study in the history of science. It took them ten years, it cost millions of dollars. Medical information was obtain from more than 75,000 people from across the world. After all of that investment, there was no press conference to release the findings. Reporters dug into the story to find out why. The reason was simple; the study did not produce the effects the WHO intended. The study found no evidence to support the claim that second hand smoke causes serious health consequences.
You are all making scientific claims. Scientific claims require scientific corroboration. You have none.
Freddie, the only person who is making astounding claims without evidence is you. Those who wish to generate significant quantities of fine-particulate smoke laced with a number of toxic substances bear the responsibility to show that this behavior is not harmful to others in proximity who do not also engage in the activity and do not have the option of leaving -- not pretend that the pariticpating parties have some sort of right to indulge it without consequence. This also would apply to incense use and food spoilage, incidentally, since these can also create beyond-unit health effects in multiple unit dwellings, ranging from unpleasantness to allergies to, occasionally, something more serious.
The fact that some may have embellished or falsified data in the pursuit of the proof in no way sets aside that repsonsibility, when it has been very well established that the activity frequently can have serious adverse health effects on the primary party.
The anti-smoking movement is a national disgrace. Period.
Allow me to side with Freddie here. I got into this debate with a friend in the public health field when Belmont first enacted their ban on smoking in apartments and condos. She sent me tons of links to various studies and papers trying to prove to me how dangerous second-hand smoke is, even when only encountered as an odor through walls. Interestingly enough, not a single one actually proved that. Instead they consisted of abstracts that vastly overstated the actual findings hidden deep in the text. It was simply a case of hoping that no one is willing to actually read beyond the first page of hyperbolic nonsense.
It was simply a case of hoping that no one is willing to actually read beyond the first page of hyperbolic nonsense.
Speaking as someone who actually lives in an apartment with smokers nearby, has cleaned and serviced both stereo and computer equipment that came from smoking households, and and has a roommate who is sensitive to airborne allergens (particularly molds and smoke), I have to wonder who, exactly, needs a study to reach these conclusions.
There are many things that are unpleasant that aren't not harmful.
That said I think second-hand smoke is harmful. I'm just not sure how harmful it is and I think there is some degree of uncertainty.
Banning smoking in people's own houses sounds pretty stupid though. I'm not convinced that the amount of cigarette smoke that could go through a wall would be enough to cause more harm than any other pollutant from out of one's home. Or at least I'd need evidence of such. Anecdotal stories of "it made me sick" could be because of an allergy or other.
Here's something from JAMA on second-hand smoke.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94
JAMA? Who cares? They are neither objective nor disinterested, though they pretend to be. Most researchers on ETS are committed to hanging a spurious moral superiority onto their personal preferences. Were we to restrict every activity that incurred the minuscule risks they seek to exaggerate, almost no activity would be legal.
Professional intellectuals usually cozy up to government power; they know free people don't value their services as highly as the intellectuals do. Given this reality, there are no experts, so there is no reason to cower when a tyrant is referred to as such.