LA Contemplates Further Smoking Restrictions
Los Angeles is considering making it even tougher to smoke legally in the city:
Lighting up on the outdoor patios of cafes and coffee shops may soon be a thing of the past in Los Angeles. The city’s arts and parks committee took a first step Wednesday toward a new ban on smoking on restaurant patios or within 10 feet of any outdoor establishment that serves food or beverages.
Bars with outdoor areas and other over-18 venues would be exempt.
I think the arguments presented on behalf of these kind of restrictions are often kind of confused and misguided. But what does make sense is the simple observation that the more you act to make smoking inconvenient and stigmatized, the more it (a) encourages smokers to quit, (b) encourages non-smokers to restrict their cigarette consumption, and (c) discourages new people from taking up smoking. I’m not sure I have a systematic theory of when paternalistic regulations to promote public health are good and when they go too far, but I think that’s a basically cogent rationale for policy.
Part (b) in particular I think tends to get underestimated. I quit smoking when DC stopped letting people smoke in bars. Many friends of mine didn’t quit. But it’s still striking that they smoke much less now that they need to step outside to light up than they used to when we would all sit around a table chain-smoking.
81 Responses to “LA Contemplates Further Smoking Restrictions”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 8th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I start to draw the line on government smoking bans when it changes from an attempt to improve the quality for non-smokers and becomes an attempt to just make smokers miserable. Bans on outdoor smoking start crossing this line, though there are exceptions.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
We’re getting dangerously close to making smoking illegal and relearning the lessons experiencing the mistakes of Prohibition and the Drug War some more.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
daveNYC - I’ll bite: what’s better in your view - tying coverage and premiums by a publicly-funded (and most privately-funded) health insurance program to evidence by a non-invasive breath or other test that you’re not smoking - or enforcing punitive policies, like an outdoor smoking ban, which will reduce the amount of smoking, but leave testing out of health insurance coverage/premiums? Because smoking imposes huge costs on the health care system, and improvements to IT record-keeping aren’t going to fix that problem.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Maybe they can forcibly install smokeless ashtray simulacra in smokers’ throats.
P.S. “I ordered a Zima, not emphysema!”
January 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
@3 - Yes with an if, no with a but. To quote Rev. Lovejoy.
I recognize that smoking costs the health care system money, and that the cost of one person’s bad habit gets spread around to everyone. What I don’t like is that once you start ‘de-socializing’ those costs, what is to stop the system from doing the same to drinkers or anyone else who does things that are unhealthy. At that point, is there any legal reason (we’re not considering the difficulty of enforcement) why an insurance company couldn’t charge more to steak lovers, fans of potato chips, french fry fanatics, people who have slept with more than one person or not used protection? All those activities have the potential impose costs on the health care system too.
Amsterdam seems to get by with both a functioning health care system and smokers.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Because smoking imposes huge costs on the health care system,
Somebody may have already researched this, but I assume the 20-odd extra years of life that you get from not smoking must also cost the health care system something. I mean, it’s worth it to come down on smoking anyway, because nobody wants to see people keel over in their mid-50s if it can be avoided. And it really is kind of gross. I’ve just always been suspicious of the economic angle.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m all for this when it effect other people, since it’s kind of hard not to breath in smoke, when someone in or around an establishment is smoking.
Smoking in public is fine. as long as your act isn’t inconveniencing others.
But I do draw the line with what the Boston city council has proposed; Banning all smoking in public establishments by 2010.
That induces the few cigar bars, and hookah bars around Boston, who’s sole purpose, is a place to buy, smoke, and socialize around tobacco products.
It’s one thing in a bar, since lots of patrons might not be smokers, and smoke is harmful. But in establishments that are around catering strictly to the sell and use of tobacco, it’s too far.
Their workers know where they’re applying for work, and their customers know what to expect. They’re already required to have expensive air filtration devices to remove smoke from the air, and they serve a nice little nice market that’s fun to visit every once and a while.
I find this government overstepping it’s bounds.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am
encourages non-smokers to restrict their cigarette consumption
I think you mean non-quitters, unless cigarettes are the new chewing tobacco.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I didn’t make it clear, but it should be said we have already banned it in Bars, Restaurants, and their patios, and I’m fine with that, since it does inconvenience those who go to an establishment and don’t smoke.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Just wait until universal health care coverage is passed. Paternalistic arguments regarding health will have much more substance and unfortunately the American individual will suffer. I can’t imagine trying to buy a hamburger in twenty years let alone a cigarette.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Bahrad,
If smokers get increased premiums on health care, do they get lower payroll taxes on social security because they are less likely to collect? According to Kip Viscusi’s research, society gains about 32 cents a pack due to increased income that is never cashed in. Besides, I thought that’s what cigarette taxes we for, to pay for the extra costs of smokers.
Disclosure: I am a former smoker.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
gordon, given that universal health care has been in effect for several decades in your own country and many others while still maintaining their ability to buy hamburgers and cigarettes, I am pretty sure that in 20 years, we Americans will still have access to such amenities.
I pretty much agree with MattY: while I have a lot of distaste for these ridiculous anti-smoking laws that come across as more of an effort to simply spite smokers than anything else, I have to admit that they do result in people smoking less.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Sounds like a good idea to me. It’s a law already in effect here in Vancouver, and it’s nice to be able to stop by for a cup of coffee without having to weave my way in through the gaggle of smokers huddling around the door. The thing that smokers don’t seem to realize is that they stink. Bad. When they huddle around a door like that, everyone who wants to walk in and out of the building not only gets to breath in a horribly toxic stench, but they walking in the middle of a group of smokers will get the smoke in their clothes and hair, and then they get to smell like a pile of burning dog hair for the rest of the day, even thought hey choose not to smoke.
I have a hard time having any sympathy for “smokers rights” when the right they want is to poison the air we all breathe, and make everyone and everything around them smell like a homeless mans ass.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
smoking imposes huge costs on the health care system
If you’re going to force me to quit smoking, I’m really going to have to insist all of you stop eating meat.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
This is fucking ridiculous. I have no problem with banning smoking indoors in restaurants and coffee shops (bars are a different matter, but we’ll let that go for now). But if you ban them outdoors, you’ve outlawed sitting down in a coffee shop for a cup of coffee and a cigarette. That’s one of the great little pleasures of life. If there’s someone at the table next to you and their tobacco smoke is bothering you, ask them to put it out or move.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Actually, it looks like the smoking laws in the Netherlands - along with much of western Europe - are fairly similar to those passed by states recently. Obviously they still have smokers, just like the US does.
So that’s not really a good example of a country that has good healthcare but doesn’t ban smoking, which is what I understood this to be.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Anti-restrictionists are forever asking why we don’t do the same to alcohol or fatty foods or other vices. The answer is simple: all other vices of the restrictable sort actually give the user pleasure. Cigarette smoking doesn’t provide any pleasure beyond that derived from quenching the addictive need for a cigarette. all arguments to the contrary–that cigarettes are sublime, as the book once put it–are false and the product of rationalization.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Thank you, Rich; that’s very insightful. All this time I was under the misconception that I enjoyed the physical act of inhaling smoke into my lungs, the taste of tobacco intermingling and coloring the flavors of beverages like coffee and whiskey, the calming effect of nicotine on a stressful day, the momentary respite of stepping out for five minutes and just chilling, and the social bonds and conversations I’m able to forge with other smokers. I realize now that all of this is in error.
I was wondering if you could help me out with some other areas of my life as well. For example: Lately I’ve been watching a lot of “The Office” on NBC. Do I actually enjoy this show, or am I just rationalizing my need to watch TV? I would appreciate your insight into these matters, as I am merely a child who is wholly incapable of forming opinions on the qualitative experience his own behaviors without guidance from adults such as yourself.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
You wonder what the private memos passed between city officials say about the revenue fines will generate. Government filling its trough is what these kinds of regulations are really about. Penalizing the unpopulars is the easiest kind of tax to pass.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Yeah… restrictions have done such an admirable job of curbing the smoking of marijuana.
Is anyone dim enough to think that people will not engage in an activity or indulge in a substance they desire just because some self-righteous putz with an agenda makes it harder for them? All you have to do is look at the successes of the Drug War, Prohibition and Cheech & Chong to know that that is one of the most baseless pipe dreams in history. Gimme a break.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Scythia: Sorry the truth hurts. Can’t help you with that.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
What daveNYC said in the first post.
I always suspected that the “second hand smoke” issue was largely trumped up in order to rationalize workplace and restaurant smoking bans. Now that smoking has been banned in essentially every place where that argument was available, the anti-smoking lobby simply drops the pretense.
Can’t we just raise taxes on the cancer sticks if they’re such a drain on society? I didn’t realize “annoying people into behaving correctly” was something that we were comfortable with the government engaging in. Maybe if we force all smokers to stand on one leg while they light up, we can force a few more to quit! At least conservatives have the balls to call for outright bans of stuff they don’t like.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Rich: I’m totally serious. Tell me what else I like and don’t like. I’m counting on you here to guide me out of the woods.
P.S. How long did you smoke for before you quit?
January 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
MTS - Check linus at 19. These bans are a tax. They’re unenforcable — I’ve been to Vancouver, and I smoked wherever I damn well pleased. I just did so knowing that I ran the risk of a ticket.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“Cigarette smoking doesn’t provide any pleasure beyond that derived from quenching the addictive need for a cigarette. “
Um, I think science has shown that cigarettes do light up pleasure centers in the brain, as any smoker will tell you, that first one in the morning is indeed pleasurable.
I’m smoking a I type this- I suppose someone will be offended somewhere, and think it a good idea to ban smoking whilst on the Internet. Cyber-hand smoke.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Yeah… restrictions have done such an admirable job of curbing the smoking of marijuana.
Actually, I’m sure they have. People still smoke pot, obviously. But not that many people smoke it, surely far fewer than smoke cigarettes. And those who do smoke it probably smoke it less often than they would if they could just light up a spliff outside Starbucks.
That’s not to say that pot should be illegal, necessarily.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
People shouldn’t have to smell other peoples stinking cigarettes. That’s all the justification this ban needs.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
scythia -
Well, I think it’s not a hard case to make that enforcing a tax through law enforcement ticketing is pretty inefficient and unfair (my radar detector managed to get me a 100% deduction in this year’s “speed tax”).
But the bans aren’t enforced against smokers, they’re enforced against businesses which allow smoking. New York City’s restaurant smoking ban has fines for businesses (including sanctions for repeat offenders such as revocation of their liquor license), but not individuals.
And, linus - these bans generate very little revenue. Most are enacted without the expectation they’ll need to be enforced at all. Since they target businesses, they assume there will be wide compliance. If you want to raise revenue you take something that has poor compliance, like following the speed limit, or parking in the correct place, and ramp up the enforcement on THAT. This is an anti-smoking jihad piece of legislation, not a budget crisis measure.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
You also wonder: even if smoking bans reduce smoking rates (maybe they do - I don’t know) do they also reduce restaurant business? You wonder if smokers don’t simply eat out less.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I have to agree with scythia. I don’t enjoy scotch and bourbon as much as I used to now that I no longer smoke. Though I will bust out a stogie for special occasions or special whiskey.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy my new improved sense of smell is great and I’m sure I’ll like the extra years added on, but there are some things that smoking really enhanced.
So far I’ve succeeded in not being on of “those” ex-smokers that decries something that I enjoyed for many years.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I’m late to responding, and this thread is probably dead, but for all those arguing that smoking takes off years of life and leads to less social security payouts and health care at end of life - the issue isn’t diminished life expectancy, it’s the dramatic increase in risks of chronic disease and cancer that lead to years at the end of life being spent under frequent ER and ICU care + frequent use of doctors, heavy use of prescription meds, etc.
As for the desocialization argument - that’s an important question and a valuable slippery slope when considering drinking and obesity, diet, etc. But it’s one we’ll have to face as chronic diseases increasingly drive costs. The problem is that health care has gotten so much better but not good enough - it’s in a zone where we can keep people alive, but with massive costs (and questionable quality of life). So now we are paying the price of behaviors in ways that weren’t relevant before when you just keeled over and died sooner in the process. So Amsterdam, etc. are only now facing a crisis - and interesting you’d pick the Netherlands, since one way they’re addressing problems is with permissive euthanasia laws, so you know there aren’t any easy answers!
Anyway, I’d much rather see us NOT go down the desocialization path, and rather address behaviors in different ways by restricting them at source rather than at the point of health care costs.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Oh, and also, this -
Cigarette smoking doesn’t provide any pleasure beyond that derived from quenching the addictive need for a cigarette.
is, as the kids say, retarded. And scientifically disproved to boot!
January 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
As a lifelong (okay, since I was 2 1/2) asthmatic, fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.
Linus, IIRC, they do not impact restaurant business significantly, even in ‘border areas’ where smokers might flee to another eatery.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Scythia and Deschamel: In the end it’s an empirical question, the brain’s pleasure centers and whatnot. But I will refer you back to the origins of your cigarette smoking. Was it pleasurable from the outset? If you’re like most smokers, it wasn’t: quite apart from the adaptation problems of getting used to inhaling smoke, you didn’t get any happy stuff from the brain. It was only after you became addicted to smoking that those centers responded–and the response is analytically (and, I would suspect, brain-chemically) indistinguishable from what I said above, that it’s only a pleasure derived from quenching the addictive needs.
Alcohol makes you drunk. Fatty foods provide that unami thing, and at very worst they’re a category of food, the importance of which is obvious. Smoking just doesn’t fit in, however difficult that is for addicted smokers to accept.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
even if smoking bans reduce smoking rates (maybe they do - I don’t know) do they also reduce restaurant business? You wonder if smokers don’t simply eat out less.
I don’t know if there are any studies on this or anything, but intuitively, it seems unlikely. Do smokers go to the movies less? To the mall less? Or any of the many other places you might spend an hour or two without being able to light up?
Maybe the answer is yes, who knows. But I kind of doubt it. I just don’t know many smokers who plan their day around smoking opportunities like that. Not that it’s never a consideration–many times, one restaurant will win out over another because “we can smoke there.” But if there were no smoking options at all, I think we’d probably still go out.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
linus - interestingly, this recent post on Calculated Risk describes the Restaurant Performance Index:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/restaurant-performance-index-at-record.html
it’s wobbled in the “expansion” range from 2002-2007, through the period when major cities were establishing anti-smoking laws. Also I haven’t seen a reputable study that shows reduction in restaurant business performance due to smoking restrictions. The fact is that the overall economy swamps out all other factors in driving restaurant performance, so any positive or negative impact from smoking laws would be at the margins and difficult to tease out in a statistically significant way (beware of multifactorial analyses that have to eliminate a variable that accounts for the vast majority of variance, since you run into just picking up noise).
January 8th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
People shouldn’t have to smell other peoples stinking cigarettes. That’s all the justification this ban needs.
Well, bro, along the same lines, I don’t want to smell your bacon frying, I don’t want to listen to you yak on your fucking cell phone, I don’t want to hear your car honking its horn or breathe its exhaust, I don’t want to suffer through your shitty music, I don’t want to be bombarded by your vapid and oft-pornographic advertisements, I don’t want to walk into a bar or restaurant and have to watch Fox News on loop, and from a standpoint of pure aesthetics, I don’t really even want to look at your ugly, out-of-shape ass.
But I deal with (and accept) all of these things and more, without complaint, because I’m civilized, and part of living in society is that you have to tolerate the behaviors and differences of those around you. If you don’t like it, move to the sticks, but if you want to be around other people, it comes with a cost.
I can understand that non-smokers don’t want to be in a smoke-filled environment, and so I’m okay with restaurant and even bar bans (though some places, like SF, allow for smoking in selected establishments, which I feel is right and exact.) But oh my god, you have to see and smell people smoking for five seconds when you’re walking around outside. Give me a break.
Don’t act like it’s only other people with the offensive behaviors, and your shit doesn’t stick — because it does, my friend. Although if you eat less meat, you make probably get it to smell better.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Sweeney - what do you think government-mandated seatbelt lights are for? Very few people are pulled over for a seatbelt violation without any other violation drawing notice (you’d have to be in an overcrowded car for anything but a bored officer to notice). The light is there to bug you into belting up.
Anyway, I think a pragmatic libertarian would rather see annoyance rather than mandated behavioral change through health care premium/coverage restrictions, for example, or through outright bans/prohibition on the posession or use of substances.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Actually, a decline in the popularity of smoking could cause very significant INCREASES in long-range per capita health care costs - which is ironic, but a serious mattter (i’m not being facetious). By far, the biggest cost drain on the health care system is people living into their 80s, 90s and beyond. Think about it: hip replacements, medications by the dozens, constant visits to specialists, etc. Hard core smokers who get sick and die young might place heavy burdens for a few years, but they end up being cheap in the long-term.
Low-to-moderate exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (or third-hand, ha!) poses a very low health risk, although higher levels of exposure are shown to be harmful.
Let’s be honest: smoking bans and sin taxes are legalized forms of extortion. The purpose: take away money from, or limt the rights of, an un-protected minority that engages in an activity that the majority finds to be a nuissance. Means: legislation supported by the direct or indirect power of the ballot box. Justification: make it up as you go along (burdens on the health care system, save the kids, etc.).
January 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
But I will refer you back to the origins of your cigarette smoking. Was it pleasurable from the outset?
Yes. That’s why I started, fool. Both on a chemical and gustatory level.
I don’t find it difficult to quit, either. I often go without cigs for months at a time. I start back up again not because of some long-buried addiction coming to light, but because I enjoy the act of smoking. Always have. Cigarettes, shisha, marijuana.
Again, Rich, since you claim to know so much about the relative pleasures of smoking, I’m going to have to inquire about your own experiences. When did you start smoking? How long did you smoke for? How difficult was it for you to quit. I assume you’re an ex-smoker and making these comments about pleasure from experience, because it would just be embarrassing if you were making these universalizing statements from a position of ignorance.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Those are end of life issues, not end of smoker’s life issues. When you’re close to dying, chronic disease is part of it. The danger of smoking is that it brings those about earlier in life than if one didn’t smoke.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Jones - the reason why I’m hanging out in the comments section is because I’ve seen the effect that smoking has on long-term health. One of the most commonly-held myths about smoking and health is what you say - a longer life means more health care in the future. That was true 30 years ago. But since the 1970s, advances in health care have meant that diseases that would have killed people quickly - heart disease, COPD-related mortality, cancer - can now be managed and turned into chronic or near-chronic conditions. But the cost of that is diminished quality of life and more to the point, frequent visits to the ER, long visits to the ICU, and many high cost surgical and diagnostic procedures. Among heavy smokers, there’s a substantial risk of starting to have these problems in their 50s, but there’s a good chance now that even a heavy smoker would survive into their 70s - decades of crappy quality of life AND massive health care costs.
Also, for long-term smokers who may not have had heavy use or avoided COPD and heart disease, underlying inflammatory damage means more complications for things like a broken hip - you get an infection that can’t resolve, for “some reason” you end up in the ICU and stay there longer than someone else - all this stuff is real.
Now, you can make broader points about sin taxes being extortion, and that health care is a right and not a commodity and can’t be made contingent on behavior. And it’s worthwhile having these debates. But it’s important to be honest about the fundamental physiological realities of smoking, and not peddle in myths that sound clever but are sadly not true.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Persia -
Yikes, let’s keep things civilized. I should clarify. “Second hand smoke” is not trumped up. It’s a serious problem for a lot of people, including those who live with smokers, or those with respiratory conditions like asthma.
What I meant to say was that for most proponents of smoking bans, the talk of “second hand smoke” was disingenuous. It allowed anti-smoking advocates to reframe the bans as smokers victimizing people like you, rather than as a paternalistic move to restrict an unhealthy behavior. My point is that, even though previous smoking bans were explicitly argued for from a “second hand smoke” reasoning, that was never the underlying motivation for those promoting the legislation.
Second hand smoke is a serious problem. People with asthma being unable to bartend in establishments that allowed smoking was not a serious problem. It was a flimsy rationalization to extend a workplace smoking ban into restaurants in order to curb smoking.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear in my original comment.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
scythia and Rich - you’re BOTH right. And it’s an individual variation… for some, the pleasure centers don’t light up. For others they do. Some see a relaxing effect, for others a stimulating effect, and for some it is just feeding an addiction. Some are more addicted than others. And there are even differences in terms of how people dose themselves (intensity of the drag, number of cigarettes) that correlate with how they’re “rewarded” by nicotine. I’m not a neuro guy, far from it, but from the literature I’ve sorted through in that area, there’s a ton of inter-individual variability and a lot we don’t know yet.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Scythia: I took up smoking for about two weeks twenty years ago, because I lived someplace where most people smoked and it was an insanely cheap habit. I got no pleasure out of it (save for fitting in, which seems to be part of its continuing allure for you) and had no problem stopping. I guess now you’ll take that last point as evidence that it’s not really addictive.
I find arguing with smokers as unrewarding as arguing with gun enthusiasts. In the end both groups enjoy some baseline level of constitutional protection: there’s no basis for seizing everyone’s guns and there’s no basis for stopping you from smoking in your own house or car. But beyond that I’m inclined to legislate for the common good, as imperfectly understood as it always is (and has to be, in a democratic society), without much regard for what you think.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Mo - you’re actually wrong. There are differences in life expectancy, but many smokers do live well into their 70s. And they spend a lot more of their time sick. After all, what matters is the # of years someone’s chronically ill, as far as quality of life & health care costs are concerned. I can’t stress this enough - what sucks about smoking isn’t that you’ll die in your 50s. What sucks is that you’ll die in your 70s, spend the last 15 years of your life hooked up to oxygen and in and out of the ER and ICU before a painful infection kills you, and your buddies who didn’t smoke will just have a heart attack in their sleep at 80.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
part of living in society is that you have to tolerate the behaviors and differences of those around you. If you don’t like it, move to the sticks, but if you want to be around other people, it comes with a cost.
This can’t be said enough. So much anti-smoking rhetoric just reveals a complete distaste for *other people*, for the choices they make, the way they look and smell, etc. I’m not talking about being in a smoke-filled bar, which is actually bad for you. I’m talking about people who object to the fact that they can smell someone else’s smoke at all, or even that they can see them smoking (sometimes — gasp — in the presence of children!) I know misanthropy is common, but there’s no reason to just take it all out on smokers.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Rich, I’m neither a “smoker” (I go through maybe a pack a month) nor a “gun enthusiast” (never owned one, don’t really care to.) But I enjoy smoking, and I enjoy shooting guns. There is one big similarity: sometimes (hell, often), things which are dangerous are fun and enjoyable. You can try to build a risk-free bubble around yourself, but don’t try to put the rest of the world inside.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Bahrad, I totally agree with what you’re saying, and appreciate your contributions to the thread. But could you address Mo’s contention @ 41?
Rich…
I guess now you’ll take that last point as evidence that it’s not really addictive.
What? I’m not an idiot, dude — of course smoking’s addictive. I’m just saying for me, I don’t find it to have that strong of a hold. Same goes for alcohol.
But irrespective of “am I into denying scientific reality,” I would never make such a statement because I’m not into generalizing my individual experiences into universal laws.
You had a bad experience with tobacco. That’s cool, a lot of people don’t like it…just like coffee, alcohol, sushi, broccoli, whatever. That doesn’t mean EVERYONE shares your tastes. And it doesn’t mean we’re all lying to ourselves while *you* are immersed in the true reality.
Wake up. Read the other comments in the thread. Do you see the other smokers mentioning the “paternalizing attitudes” of non-smokers? It’s people like YOU they’re talking about.
The year is 2009. We know the effects of tobacco smoke. We choose to partake with knowledge of the risks. That’s what’s up. Adults, free country, etc.
I find arguing with smokers as unrewarding as arguing with gun enthusiasts.
Then why are you trolling? I wouldn’t even be on this thread still if you didn’t keep insulting me. Like tobacco smoking, is talking shit to smokers purely an addictive reflex you have no control over?
But beyond that I’m inclined to legislate for the common good, as imperfectly understood as it always is (and has to be, in a democratic society), without much regard for what you think.
Check my comment @ 14. Outside of alcohol and tobacco, I lead a VERY healthy lifestyle, and it always amuses me when people think eschewing one socially-unacceptable vice makes them Jack Fucking LaLanne. Let’s talk about the “common good” of devoting millions of acres to cattle production. In the meantime, have another Big Mac; I’m gonna step outside to smoke.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Bahrad, are you an expert on the subject? What are your thoughts about the time spent smoking vs. health risks? I’ve been an off and on smoker for about 5 years, and was thinking of continuing for another five or so before taping off. (A lot of my smoking is lifestyle-based, and as my partying days wind down I’d like to have my smoking do the same.)
January 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
You’ll be able to buy a hamburger. It’ll be lean ground sirloin, real cheese, real veggies, dijon mustard, olive oil mayo, on a whole wheat bun. It’ll be delicious, but it’ll cost 20 dollars.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Righteous indignation, I find, is about as addictive as tobacco, as well as equally harmful.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I really believe a business ought to be able to make its own rules about smoking.
There are businesses that have really suffered for the smoking bans in bars and restaurants.
As a customer, you make the decision as to whether or not you wish to patronize an establishment with smoking indoors.
These things are best left to the “free market.”
(I’m being ironic here, but there is some truth to it.)
January 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@scythia - Not sure if I qualify as an expert, but I’ve done some work in the field - as a researcher though, not a doctor, but I’ve worked with them.
Anyway, the short answer is any amount of smoking does some level of irreversible damage. The longer answer is that it goes back to interindividual differences, partly genetic, partly based on other aspects of your lifestyle / environmental exposures. If you’re < 50, you’re probably safe in terms of quitting. What happens is that any loss of function (say, something observable like lung tissue histology) won’t recover, but it won’t get any worst, and it may look better over time (though that’s an arguable point).
Once you hit a certain point - for most people in their 50s, for others earlier, and this depends on smoking rate, etc. - you continue to lose function but just at a lower rate. That means you probably have some form of COPD, but hopefully not symptomatic, and you may have problems in the future but should be ok if you don’t smoke.
Of course, even if you’re already sick, you should quit - and a surprising number of COPD patients DO smoke. (COPD = emphysema and chronic bronchitis, by the way, not a lot of people are as familiar with that name.) That’s the problem with Mo & others’ contention that there is a lifespan duration component. You can live for a reasonable number of years, with oxygen, STILL SMOKING, and all that happens is you have lots of exacerbations, infections, and basically hospital visits. Crappy quality of life & massive costs to medicare, but you’re alive. Eventually you die, of course, but thanks to incredible advances in medicine and surgery, that point will be a lot longer off than you think.
Anyway, if you’re under 40 and a heavy smoker, you SHOULD be fine. But bear in mind that a lot depends on genetics, and if you’re partying in other ways, smoking can make things worse (like chronic liver inflammation leading to cirrhosis, for example) and THAT could be a problem in the future. You can think of it as a shelf that you keep loading up with books - eventually it starts to curve, but it holds up, and you can take off the books, but the bow is still there. But then in the future you throw some books on it, and it could snap without warning (say, you get an infection after going to the hospital with head trauma after an accident).
That’s actually the area I was working on before I got distracted by policy/legal questions arising from genetics and public health… we don’t have a ton of hard biological knowledge about what that process is that’s going on, which makes things worse long-term due to irreversible chronic inflammation - but it’s there when you look at clinical observations.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I really believe a business ought to be able to make its own rules about smoking.
In SF, there’s an exception to the smoking ban. I don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s something about the establishment being less than a certain size, and the employees taking a vote.
As a result, there’s about five bars in the City that allow smoking inside. And they’re awesome, and I’ve dropped a lot of cash there. Most people don’t have to deal with them, or even really know they exist.
This, I think, is a good balance. It’s probably better for me that most bars don’t allow smoking. But when I want the option, I have it.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Bharad - you made some compelling points about health care advancements prolonging the lives of elderly patients with chronic health problems caused by smoking, leading to heavier long-term - not just short-term - burdens on the health care system. For me to accept the conculsion that higher smoking rates = higher per capita health care costs, though, I would still need to see a comprehensive, unbiased analysis that crunches all of their numbers (without a specific agenda to advance).
As others have pointed out here, eventually everyone has to die of something. Few people just peacefully die in their sleep at age 90 with no prior warning.
Example: let’s say you have a heavy smoker who has 2 heart attacks in his early 70s (genetic pre-disposition aggravated by smoking); modern health care treatments keep him alive at a high cost for about a decade, but then he dies at age 82. On the other other hand, if he had never smoked, maybe he lives long enough to be treated for Alzheimers, or he has a stoke; he will still have to be treated for heart disease at some point (no getting around that), and ultimately he dies from cancer.
Your point about advances in health care cut both ways: they prolong the lives of patients dealing with expensive conditions regardless of whether those conditions are caused by smoking.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Anyway, if you’re under 40 and a heavy smoker, you SHOULD be fine.
*not* a heavy smoker, I assume you mean?
Sadly, I’ve been suffering from a chronic bronchitis for about three weeks now. It doesn’t seem to be permanent, but it does suck.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
[thanks for the knowledge btw]
January 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
While it’s clear that people do sometimes trump up “second-hand smoke” as an excuse to try to ban something they don’t like, it’s certainly no worse than smokers treating it like most Republicans treat global warming. I’m not a scientist, but the recent information I’ve seen seems to suggest pretty strongly that smoking bans have significantly reduced rates of heart attacks, which is what makes the issue different from hamburgers or alcohol (excluding drunk driving). Eating too much McDonalds might give ME a heart attack, but it’s not going to give YOU one, and that’s a pretty important difference.
I would agree that when it comes to banning it in outdoor areas, it’s much less clear that these arguments hold, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable for some cities (and/or states) to try it out and see what happens. Go, Federalism!
January 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I would agree that when it comes to banning it in outdoor areas, it’s much less clear that these arguments hold, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable for some cities (and/or states) to try it out and see what happens.
Lots of things smoke in LA. People are not the most prevalent. Think about this one for second.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Nobody likes a quitter Matt.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Really?
Most smokers did not make the decision to be smokers as adults. Ninety percent start before age 18. The average starting age is 13. About 2/3 of smokers want to quit and fail. While you may be an exception, the vast majority of smokers do not choose to enjoy a cigarette, they choose to allay the addiction they formed as a minor. This is contrary to most drug use. Most people use illegal drugs or alcohol out of choice, not addiction.
I don’t think this justifies punitive restrictions on smoking (I don’t understand what that is all about, but there are vindictive people in any group) but it does justify society impinging upon the entire cycle of the tobacco economy in order to reduce the number of involuntary addicts. If the people who sell you your drug of choice didn’t spend $15 billion dollars a year primarily directed at getting under age youth to start smoking, the rest of us probably wouldn’t care about your smoking.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Rarely does one commenter dominate both quantitatively and qualitatively in such an entertaining way as scythia did in this thread.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I just heard on the radio that traffic accident deaths are way down in my state, Illinois, and also across the country. Apparently, the high price of gas caused people to take fewer unnecessary trips and possibly drive slower to conserve fuel.
This is in some ways a better comparative policy parallel, because not only does fewer or slower drivers save on health costs, but it also makes my life safer through reduced accident incidence and a small decrease in emissions. Are we in favor of using gas taxes to keep prices very high, for this purpose (beyond Matt’s transit-oriented design goals)? Would we be in favor in restricting people’s ability to drive at certain times, in certain places, or for certain reasons?
January 8th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Businesses have employees. Employees are entitled to safe working environments. We don’t let coal mine owners decide what safety regulations they will obey. Many people think that patrons are the ones that anti-smoking laws are aimed at. They’re not.
One problem is that a little bit of second hand smoke probably doesn’t hurt. But it is hard to implement a “Very Little Smoking” rule.
Most outdoor smoking bans seem odd to me. My employer bans smoking within 25 feet of the door, but that was just because the door was crowded with people smoking.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Bahrad,
I understand your point that many smokers have their lives extended due to modern medicine. However, the same is true for non-smokers as well. Of my 4 grandparents, only on was in and out of hospitals less than my grandfather that smoked*. Do you have any research that supports your view that the end game for smokers (when combined with their net contributions to Medicare and SS) is more expensive than non-smokers? Even if smokers are somewhat more expensive at the end, you need to take into account payments they made into the entitlement system without withdrawing from.
I’m not saying smoking is a good idea. I question the assertion that smokers are a net financial drain BEFORE you account for cigarette taxes. After cigarette taxes, smokers put in a ton of money into the system.
FWIW, I find it interesting that both the state and city of New York make more per pack of cigarettes than the tobacco companies.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I believe there was an epidemiological study that came up with, on average, habitual smoking eliminating the last 5.5% of your life after you start, if you don’t quit. If you start at 13, and would otherwise expect to hit about 80, you’d instead hit 76-77.
Looking just at medicare, for someone who qualifies at 65 (by the time we start qualifying at 67, life expectancy will also be higher), the smoker gets medicare about 3/4 as long as the nonsmoker. Smokers cost only about 5% more per year. As far as medicare goes, smokers are a bargain.
However, if you look at medicaid it’s a different story. Restricting it to just adults, smokers cost about 19% more than non-smokers, and don’t make up for it by dying in significant numbers. By the time they’re dying they are in the “seniors” catagory. Private insurance probably comes close to matching medicaid behavior. It’s the smokers who live from 18-65 who really cost a lot of money.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Now that the new year is starting, the “new push” is returning to every state or community that has no ban, or a ban with ANY exemptions. Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and their Robert J. Wood Foundation and it’s many political action committees (charites) have endless funding to keep armies of lobbyists throughout the nation employed for years to come. Their instructions are to keep returning EVERY YEAR until ALL exemptions are gone. They made the print of their book smaller to keep people from reading it, but you can CTRL and scroll to enlarge it. Here it is. http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
January 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
the next thing you know they’ll outlaw huffing fumes in public
January 8th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Just once, I’d like to see someone say that all of the hemophiliacs who died of AIDS died of “secondhand male homosexual anal sex.”
March 12th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 16th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Are there any live demos?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Thanks for the review! viagra