Smoking outside in Vietnam to be banned by May 2013
92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=retroboy4;36428949]No one should have to deal with getting sprayed with carcinogenic fumes, sounds a lot like something called cars to me. Should we ban cars? They kill people too.[/QUOTE]
We've passed a shitton of laws regulating how much toxic fumes they may release, many municipalities are declaring rules for how long you may leave your car running, and we have tolls for taxing the release of these fumes in certain areas and even car-free districts. So yeah, we're now getting the same thing for humans, about damn time. The car-free central district wasn't helping me breathe better when the douche in the bus stop kept puffing.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36428956]The video cites the studies in the description!
[url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ph/youre_entitled_to_arguments_but_not_that]And besides, don't you think this is a rather unreasonable demand for evidence?[/url][/QUOTE]
1st source: "The OR
for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI
1.01–1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23 (95% CI
1.01–1.51). After exclusion of proxy interviews, the OR for
ever exposure from the workplace was 1.16 (95% CI 0.99–
1.36) and for long-term exposure was 1.27 (95% CI 1.03–
1.57)."
These are long term and confined exposure. This is not just sitting at a park with someone smoking a couple meters away.
2nd source:
"and colleagues used data from the National Human Activity
Pattern Survey to assess the contribution of the home and other
indoor environments to SHS exposures (87)"
Indoor.
Anyways...wanna get me what I asked for?
[editline]21st June 2012[/editline]
You can't make an empirical claim without empirical proof dude. You can't just say smoking in public places causes cancer but have no proof for it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429110]Anyways...wanna get me what I asked for?[/QUOTE]
No, because I've realized that you're making an unreasonable demand for evidence. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to convince you of something which is trivial to derive from the given data.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36429067]We've passed a shitton of laws regulating how much toxic fumes they may release, many municipalities are declaring rules for how long you may leave your car running, and we have tolls for taxing the release of these fumes in certain areas and even car-free districts. So yeah, we're now getting the same thing for humans, about damn time. The car-free central district wasn't helping me breathe better when the douche in the bus stop kept puffing.[/QUOTE]
Oh well excuse me, I forgot that they tax the release of fumes. You've completely changed my outlook on outdoor smoking. Not really, just because they regulate and tax the emissions on cars doesn't mean they don't release toxic fumes. Also I think you're forgetting that they tax cigarettes as well.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36429135]No, because I've realized that you're making an unreasonable demand for evidence. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to convince you of something which is trivial to derive from the given data.[/QUOTE]
Then you can't prove your point of view, you have no argument. Thank you, come again.
Ban shit on public property, not outside or on private property.
If any of you seriously think walking by or standing by someone smoking in public will give you lung cancer let alone harm you in anyway you are retarded. I don't think you realise how much 2nd hand smoke you need to consume on a regular basis to have any negative health effects
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428885]
I don't have to prove a negative.[/quote]
[quote]
Scientific literacy, you should learn it.[/QUOTE]
LOL
Basically you're just making idiotic claims and when someone actually provides proof (which I did in post #38), you simply change your premise. And when people disprove that claim you will simply change your premise again and it goes on and on. Only uninformed people go round demanding proof whenever his claims gets disputed, informed people continue with the debate, explaining why the other party is wrong.
And yes, if you make a claim you have to prove it, regardless if it is a negative claim or not. It's an annoying and common misconception that you don't need to prove anything just because your claim was a negative. That's simply not true.
Honestly, I want your reasoning why inhaling carcenogenic particles outdoors isn't harmful (as opposed to NOT smoking carcenogenic particles). It doesn't even need to be proof, it can be a regular hypothesis, I just want some reasoning WHY inhaling carcenogenic particles anywhere would ever be harmless.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36429181]If any of you seriously think walking by or standing by someone smoking in public will give you lung cancer let alone harm you in anyway you are retarded. I don't think you realise how much 2nd hand smoke you need to consume on a regular basis to have any negative health effects[/QUOTE]
I agree completely, and I want to go back to my previous point about being near a campfire. Or what about petrochemical facilities? People near a fire or a factory are inhaling much higher levels of carcinogens.
[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36428945]
2. Yeah right, just give all those scientists the middle finger, you obviously know better.
[/QUOTE]
May I see any kind of proof behind that statement? Even prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke (passive smoking) is not enough to cause a physical addiction.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36429184]LOL
Basically you're just making idiotic claims and when someone actually provides proof (which I did in post #38), you simply change your premise. And when people disprove that claim you will simply change your premise again and it goes on and on. Only uninformed people go round demanding proof whenever his claims gets disputed, informed people continue with the debate, explaining why the other party is wrong.
And yes, if you make a claim you have to prove it, regardless if it is a negative claim or not. It's an annoying and common misconception that you don't need to prove anything just because your claim was a negative. That's simply not true.
Honestly, I want your reasoning why inhaling carcenogenic particles outdoors isn't harmful (as opposed to NOT smoking carcenogenic particles). It doesn't even need to be proof, it can be a regular hypothesis, I just want some reasoning WHY inhaling carcenogenic particles anywhere would ever be harmless.[/QUOTE]
Ok, it isn't necessarily harmless. However, when you smoke outside, the smoke diffuses into the air and spreads out very quickly. You can't even really smell a cigarette blown in your direction from a couple meters away unless they are making a lot of smoke.
It might contribute to air pollution, but it isn't a significant cause of health problems by itself.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36429181]If any of you seriously think walking by or standing by someone smoking in public will give you lung cancer let alone harm you in anyway you are retarded. I don't think you realise how much 2nd hand smoke you need to consume on a regular basis to have any negative health effects[/QUOTE]
I don't think you realise how densely populated big cites in Vietnam are.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429225]Ok, it isn't necessarily harmless. However, when you smoke outside, the smoke diffuses into the air and spreads out very quickly. You can't even really smell a cigarette blown in your direction from a couple meters away unless they are making a lot of smoke.
It might contribute to air pollution, but it isn't a significant cause of health problems by itself.[/QUOTE]
If you are a smoker you are a lot more immune to smoke than non-smokers, and I don't think most smokers realise that. I can feel cigarette smoke from several meters away.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429148]Then you can't prove your point of view, you have no argument. Thank you, come again.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm sorry that isn't how this works, you see. "Public spaces" and "Enclosed spaces" are not ontologically distinct entities, the same laws of physics work in both. The only relevant differences are thus:
1) People may be further apart, on average, in public spaces than enclosed spaces
2) There is more air turbulence and wind which could spread smoke and particulates further around
One would provisionally assume that these factors would mitigate the dangerous effects of passive smoking in public areas compared to confined areas. However, we do not know to what degree this would be so, or what other factors could contribute.
The only position consistent with the evidence and logic is to start from the stated dangers of indoor passive smoke, and revise downwards according to your priors. This is distinct from starting at square one and demanding that evidence be given for this supposedly completely different reference class.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36429251]No, I'm sorry that isn't how this works, you see. "Public spaces" and "Enclosed spaces" are not ontologically distinct entities, the same laws of physics work in both. The only relevant differences are thus:
1) People may be further apart, on average, in public spaces than enclosed spaces
2) There is more air turbulence and wind which could spread smoke and particulates further around
One would provisionally assume that these factors would mitigate the dangerous effects of passive smoking in public areas compared to confined areas. However, we do not know to what degree this would be so, or what other factors could contribute.
The only position consistent with the evidence and logic is to start from the stated dangers of indoor passive smoke, and revise downwards according to your priors. This is distinct from starting at square one and demanding that evidence be given for this supposedly completely different reference class.[/QUOTE]
So smoking anywhere on the world is harmful to someone across the world because you haven't shown how much the air mitigates the harmful effects of the smoke?
You don't take logic into consideration?
Not to strawman you, but where is the line drawn when you can logically say that the effects of smoking is negligible, and what evidence do you base it on?
[QUOTE=retroboy4;36429197]I agree completely, and I want to go back to my previous point about being near a campfire. Or what about petrochemical facilities? People near a fire or a factory are inhaling much higher levels of carcinogens.[/QUOTE]
I'd wager most people are near to a smoker a lot more often than around a bonfire. Secondly, other sources of toxic gasses can usually be justified to some extent. Cars release CO2 but they improve society by helping people get around, power plants pollute the environment but considering the electricity it provides some pollution may be deemed acceptable. Smoking has no such justifications however, the air pollution it causes is 100% detrimental in all thinkable ways and it really has no reason to exist.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429312]Not to strawman you, but where is the line drawn when you can logically say that the effects of smoking is negligible, and what evidence do you base it on?[/QUOTE]
I would draw it at the point where the particles have diffused enough that it has negligible impact on the lungs of whoever may breathe it, and the evidence I base it on is the well-understood behavior of gases. In other words, risk increases as distance from the smoker decreases, and also as the number of smokers increases.
That's what I mean by revising downwards according to priors.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that a single person smoking on a street corner is dangerous per se, but in crowded city centres with hundreds or thousands of smokers, those residual particulates and smoke are going to stack up.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36429399]I would draw it at the point where the particles have diffused enough that it has negligible impact on the lungs of whoever may breathe it, and the evidence I base it on is the well-understood behavior of gases. In other words, risk increases as distance from the smoker decreases, and also as the number of smokers increases.
That's what I mean by revising downwards according to priors.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that a single person smoking on a street corner is dangerous per se, but in crowded city centres with hundreds or thousands of smokers, those residual particulates and smoke are going to stack up.[/QUOTE]
But there are other major problems when you have people crowded so densely. I personally have no idea how crowded Vietnamese cities are.
Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised to see that cigarette smoke is a small amount of air pollution in these cities. There are so many other factories and cars that basically "out smoke" the smokers.
Maybe instead of working on getting rid of tobacco smoke, they could work towards spreading these cities out more, and decreasing pollution from other sources as well. I don't know how realistic that is, though. Depends wholly on the city and region.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36427697]Secondhand smoke is a choice. You totally have the choice to be near a smoker or not. Also, it isn't like it is going to hurt you.
But no, we gotta ban things because you are too much of a child to tolerate anything that goes contrary to your tiny, ignorant world view.[/QUOTE]
And smokers have a choice to smoke near people or not.
You start smoking it becomes your responsibility to smoke away from other people.
Saying shit like "You can just move away" is incredibly disrespectful and stupid. What if you're old and can't move much, you're sitting at a bus stop and some prick starts smoking next to you? I see a lot of this shit almost everyday.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429524]But there are other major problems when you have people crowded so densely. I personally have no idea how crowded Vietnamese cities are.
Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised to see that cigarette smoke is a small amount of air pollution in these cities. There are so many other factories and cars that basically "out smoke" the smokers.
Maybe instead of working on getting rid of tobacco smoke, they could work towards spreading these cities out more, and decreasing pollution from other sources as well. I don't know how realistic that is, though. Depends wholly on the city and region.[/QUOTE]
Great, we're basically in agreement:
If banning smoking outdoors produces measurable decreases in lung cancer and other ailments that passive smoking causes, then we support banning smoking outdoors, and vice versa.
Also, if these cities are as crowded as I am picturing it, the smoking ban is completely unenforceable. It really doesn't do much. The only time I could see a smoking ban like this be enforceable is in a situation where the smoking ban wouldn't be needed anyways(because the amount of smokers is negligible to begin with).
Hell, we have a smoking ban in Washington State. You have to be 25 ft from any entrance or window of a business. I have seen this enforced a grand total of ONE time, by a security guard for an apartment building who got chewed out by his supervisor for "breaking the law" for allowing someone to smoke outside the door.
Other than that, I have seen people smoke right in front of entrances. It is not enforced, and is not an effective law.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429593]Also, if these cities are as crowded as I am picturing it, the smoking ban is completely unenforceable. It really doesn't do much. The only time I could see a smoking ban like this be enforceable is in a situation where the smoking ban wouldn't be needed anyways(because the amount of smokers is negligible to begin with).
Hell, we have a smoking ban in Washington State. You have to be 25 ft from any entrance or window of a business. I have seen this enforced a grand total of ONE time, by a security guard for an apartment building who got chewed out by his supervisor for "breaking the law" for allowing someone to smoke outside the door.
Other than that, I have seen people smoke right in front of entrances. It is not enforced, and is not an effective law.[/QUOTE]
smoking should still be ostracised for the generally harmful effects it causes nonetheless
[QUOTE=Ylsid;36429648]smoking should still be ostracised for the generally harmful effects it causes nonetheless[/QUOTE]
That's neither here nor there. If you want to talk about the philosophical arguments about smoking and shit, that's fine. However, I'm talking about effectiveness in these laws to actually improve public health.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36429718]That's neither here nor there. If you want to talk about the philosophical arguments about smoking and shit, that's fine. However, I'm talking about effectiveness in these laws to actually improve public health.[/QUOTE]
He has a point though. Look at how the social status of smokers has plummeted over the decades due to awareness campaigns of the dangers of smoking. It's socially unacceptable to do it around nonsmokers nowadays. It's an empirically effective tactic for reducing smoking alongside topdown bans on smoking in enclosed spaces.
Smoking kills.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36428159]How does a child have a choice to stay away from their smoker parents?[/QUOTE]
As far as I know it's not banned in personal households, so really this doesn't help them in that regard. Actually it won't help them at all. This would be even worse for kids, in a way, as the parents aren't allowed to go outside and smoke, and must do it inside, meaning the kid would have to be outside or else breathe it in. There's pros and cons to this, it's not a simple fix.
[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36428945]1. Sweat isn't nocive, period. Not saying it's great, I think we should fine smelly people in public transportations.[/QUOTE]
grrr a natural bodily function! we should fine people for it!
think about what you're saying. really hard.
So now if you smoke you need to do it inside, even if children are around. basically the second-hand smoke argument backfires on itself?
[editline]e[/editline]
or am I just retarded and missing something
[QUOTE=Character;36435415]So now if you smoke you need to do it inside, even if children are around. basically the second-hand smoke argument backfires on itself?
[editline]e[/editline]
or am I just retarded and missing something[/QUOTE]
What you wrote was pretty dumb, so idk, do you feel retarded?
[QUOTE=Character;36435415]So now if you smoke you need to do it inside, even if children are around. basically the second-hand smoke argument backfires on itself?
[editline]e[/editline]
or am I just retarded and missing something[/QUOTE]
The article says smoking in public, so I'm assuming if you're on your front lawn or whatnot, you could go ahead and smoke. At least, I'm taking this as if it was enacted in the US.
Banning smoking in public is no problem for me. I have a problem when people ban smoking on private property, however.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;36427827]It's also the smoker's choice to start smoking in the first place.
I smoke and before I started I knew quite clearly the ill effects of smoking. Maybe not the smartest decision but it was still mine to make and it's best I deal with the consequences.[/QUOTE]
But you're not the only one that deals with the consequences. Second hand smoke is fucking nasty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.