4 ms·
Abuse? Second hand smoking is a thing, it's the smokers who are doing the abuse, both to themselves and others.
by apta 7y ago
Abuse? Second hand smoking is a thing, it's the smokers who are doing the abuse, both to themselves and others.
- kristofferR 7y agoThis isn't about smoking, this about nicotine supplementation.
- JohnFen 7y agoSecond hand smoking can be addressed by prohibiting smoking on company premises, which is totally fair game. This is the company demanding to have a say in what their employees do on their own time, off of company property. That's abusive.
- apta 7y agoThis isn't sufficient. Smoking's effects lingers on the smoker for quite a while after they smoke. So even if they leave the company premise and come back, there's still the effect of third hand smoking. This was studied and shown to enter the HVAC system and even affect rooms where the smoker isn't sitting in. It's quite the dangerous, selfish, and disgusting habit.
- JohnFen 7y agoThe case that secondhand smoke (outside of enclosed places where the smoke accumulates) is harmful to nonallergic others is weak at best. The case that thirdhand smoke is harmful is essentially unsupportable.
- mfer 7y agoThis isn't a ban on smoking. It's a ban on nicotine. That includes gum and other forms of it. It's not just about cigarettes.
- perl4ever 7y agoYou know what else emits large amounts of toxic gases at U-haul? The rental trucks. Maybe they should eliminate ICE vehicles first. And then not hire anyone who owns one.
- zeveb 7y ago> Second hand smoking is a thing Second-hand smoking is no more a thing than pink fairies are a thing. It's junk science used to justify a moral panic — at its root, the same impulse behind drug laws, anti-homosexual laws and racist laws.
- loco5niner 7y agoBoth the American Cancer Society and the Center for Disease Control disagree: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-canc...
- perl4ever 7y agoI read the first link, and I don't like the presentation for two reasons - they define secondhand smoke as tobacco smoke, so by definition (e.g.) living in a house with a fireplace that's used all the time doesn't count. And grouping living with a smoker with all other incidental exposure does not seem legitimate to me. It's like saying because workers in a popcorn factory sometimes get a horrible lung disease from artificial butter, you are at significant risk because you eat it a few times a year. So I'm not saying there's anything out and out false there, but it is what I think of as (more or less) "fake news". My conclusion is that yes, it is bad for parents to be smokers, but if we're not going to take all children away from them for being unfit, then how much less should we go on a holy war against smokers in general for their impact on strangers? I'm old enough that I remember when nonsmoking sections in restaurants were right next to the smoking sections. It's nice to have it banned indoors, but that's the point at which we've gone far enough, and people who claimed there was a slippery slope turned out to be prophetic.
- loco5niner 7y agoIt seems logical to separate "wood-burning" smoke from tobacco smoke for research and policy purposes. Your popcorn factory example doesn't apply here at all. They are not saying "smokers have health problems, therefore second-hand smokers have problems". They are directly tying second hand smoke to the health problems. If you think this is "fake news", please refer to the reference section.