5 ms·

While not AS addictive (to some) as nicotine, you really could argue the same for alcohol, couldn't you? In the US in 2018, what do you think is more directly a

by cronix 8y ago

While not AS addictive (to some) as nicotine, you really could argue the same for alcohol, couldn't you? In the US in 2018, what do you think is more directly and indirectly responsible for more societal harm: tobacco or alcohol?

cyphar 8y ago
Alcohol probably, but this would be mostly due to violence. Smoking has an area-of-effect that is purely based on how close you are to people smoking. Smoking in the center of cities on the street should be illegal (like it is in most of Australia), because it causes harm to complete strangers.
- pnloyd 8y ago
  The building I work in downtown always has half a dozen smokers on the sidewalk. Wish they would reserve a balcony or something for them because as an ex smoker smelling it is especially painful to me.
- eric_h 8y ago
  > Smoking in the center of cities on the street should be illegal (like it is in most of Australia), because it causes harm to complete strangers. I understand that secondhand smoke indoors is dangerous to others, but is there any real data on outdoor secondhand smoke? How does it compare to the liters of exhaust per minute from diesel engines in trucks passing by on those same streets? Perhaps more generally, at what ppm does second hand smoke start to have long term effects on unwitting participants, particularly compared to other major sources of toxins and their concentrations in an urban environment? [edit: to be clear I’m genuinely curious, not trying to dismiss it or whatabout it. I’ve always thought most second hand smoke issues could be solved with good ventilation (aimed at properly exhausting the smoke) and it seems to me that trace amounts from smokers you pass by on the street are a completely different situation from sitting next to someone smoking indoors]
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    It's a neurotic fear of pollution and poisoning that is constantly reinforced instead of dismissed. Once you've convinced people that smoking is the most dangerous thing in the world, and they know that people smoke in order to get nicotine, it follows that any inadvertent inhalation of cigarette smoke is extremely dangerous, and that nicotine is the most deadly poison. The data on close-quarters constant second-hand smoke (working in bars, having a partner that smokes) is sketchy, the idea that passing someone while walking outside and momentarily catching a whiff of smoke a couple of dozen times a day is a public health crisis that requires immediate worldwide prohibition is absurd, but common. It's also a convenient piece of do-nothing legislation for local politicians to campaign on.
    - eric_h 8y ago
      > The data on close-quarters constant second-hand smoke (working in bars, having a partner that smokes) is sketchy Okay, but the data on smoking is not sketchy at all, so it’s not a stretch to suggest that constant exposure to second hand smoke in a poorly ventilated environment is comparable to smoking. Unfortunately there’s no way to set up a classical controlled experiment to test that hypothesis ethically, so we have to make do with other experimental setups and data analysis. We do have studies that assess the affects of air pollution in cities, so surely we can come up with some way of extrapolating, no? > It's also a convenient piece of do-nothing legislation for local politicians to campaign on Sure - cigarette smoke does not smell good to non-smokers so it’s an easy win these days since most people don’t smoke. I’m just trying to come up with a way of legislating these things based on our best abilities to make conclusions based on data rather than feelings, but I feel as though the onslaught of information brought about by the internet is making it harder to disseminate the wheat while more disseminate the chaff. Not to mention all the ways one can make feelings look like data.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        There is a lot of evidence that second-hand smoking is harmful. [1] is a summary on this topic from 2006 and cites 194 papers. To describe the science on second-hand smoking to be anything other than solid is to simply lie about our knowledge on the health effects of smoking. To add to this, there is also significant evidence that SIDS is strongly correlated with parents who are smokers (and thus appears to be likely caused by smoking while pregnant, and second-hand smoke during infancy). [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/

by cronix 8y ago

cyphar 8y ago

Alcohol probably, but this would be mostly due to violence. Smoking has an area-of-effect that is purely based on how close you are to people smoking. Smoking in the center of cities on the street should be illegal (like it is in most of Australia), because it causes harm to complete strangers.

pnloyd 8y ago
The building I work in downtown always has half a dozen smokers on the sidewalk. Wish they would reserve a balcony or something for them because as an ex smoker smelling it is especially painful to me.
eric_h 8y ago
> Smoking in the center of cities on the street should be illegal (like it is in most of Australia), because it causes harm to complete strangers. I understand that secondhand smoke indoors is dangerous to others, but is there any real data on outdoor secondhand smoke? How does it compare to the liters of exhaust per minute from diesel engines in trucks passing by on those same streets? Perhaps more generally, at what ppm does second hand smoke start to have long term effects on unwitting participants, particularly compared to other major sources of toxins and their concentrations in an urban environment? [edit: to be clear I’m genuinely curious, not trying to dismiss it or whatabout it. I’ve always thought most second hand smoke issues could be solved with good ventilation (aimed at properly exhausting the smoke) and it seems to me that trace amounts from smokers you pass by on the street are a completely different situation from sitting next to someone smoking indoors]
- pessimizer 8y ago
  It's a neurotic fear of pollution and poisoning that is constantly reinforced instead of dismissed. Once you've convinced people that smoking is the most dangerous thing in the world, and they know that people smoke in order to get nicotine, it follows that any inadvertent inhalation of cigarette smoke is extremely dangerous, and that nicotine is the most deadly poison. The data on close-quarters constant second-hand smoke (working in bars, having a partner that smokes) is sketchy, the idea that passing someone while walking outside and momentarily catching a whiff of smoke a couple of dozen times a day is a public health crisis that requires immediate worldwide prohibition is absurd, but common. It's also a convenient piece of do-nothing legislation for local politicians to campaign on.
  - eric_h 8y ago
    > The data on close-quarters constant second-hand smoke (working in bars, having a partner that smokes) is sketchy Okay, but the data on smoking is not sketchy at all, so it’s not a stretch to suggest that constant exposure to second hand smoke in a poorly ventilated environment is comparable to smoking. Unfortunately there’s no way to set up a classical controlled experiment to test that hypothesis ethically, so we have to make do with other experimental setups and data analysis. We do have studies that assess the affects of air pollution in cities, so surely we can come up with some way of extrapolating, no? > It's also a convenient piece of do-nothing legislation for local politicians to campaign on Sure - cigarette smoke does not smell good to non-smokers so it’s an easy win these days since most people don’t smoke. I’m just trying to come up with a way of legislating these things based on our best abilities to make conclusions based on data rather than feelings, but I feel as though the onslaught of information brought about by the internet is making it harder to disseminate the wheat while more disseminate the chaff. Not to mention all the ways one can make feelings look like data.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      There is a lot of evidence that second-hand smoking is harmful. [1] is a summary on this topic from 2006 and cites 194 papers. To describe the science on second-hand smoking to be anything other than solid is to simply lie about our knowledge on the health effects of smoking. To add to this, there is also significant evidence that SIDS is strongly correlated with parents who are smokers (and thus appears to be likely caused by smoking while pregnant, and second-hand smoke during infancy). [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/