3 ms·

I would say the difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k). At least in the country I currently live in,

by kleiba 4y ago

I would say the difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k). At least in the country I currently live in, anti-smoking measures were not introduced to protect smokers but to protect those around them. At least that was the official narrative.

chapium 4y ago
Getting hit by a drunk driver is a significant bystander effect.
barbazoo 4y ago
Alcohol abuse has a huge effect on other people. Just think of drunk driving and domestic abuse. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://pbinstitute.com/alcohol/domestic-violence/ https://pbinstitute.com/alcohol/domestic-violence/
- kleiba 4y ago
  Sure, but abolishing all alcohol because of possible consequences of too much alcohol is hard to sell. Even when talking about people getting really pissed, I would bet that more often than not nothing too bad happens to their environment.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    > he difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k) I don't think we were talking about abolishing alcohol. Parent claimed alcohol consumption does not have an effect on others which is objectively wrong.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The vast majority of problem drinking is done by like 10% of americans. I don't think a warning label is going to stop them when they already consume a HUGE amount of alcohol every week
WalterBright 4y ago
I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda. Even though I'm happy that airplanes/restaurants/offices are now free of smoke. I'm old enough to remember when every building stank of stale smoke.
- kleiba 4y ago
  Interesting. What made you think that? I was under the impression that passive smoking was pretty well studied.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    For one thing, the concentration has to be a thousand times less. For another, you're just not around it that much. For a third, how can one reliably measure the exposure? Far too many variables.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
      PM2.5 concentrations tend to be very high around smokers. I live next to one, and even though we're separated by a door and he smokes in his own apartment, the smoking frequently pushes air in my apartment above 200 µg/m³. (I have 3 years of data to prove it.) Since the outside air is typically even more dangerous here, I can't simply open a window and have to use air filters to combat this. https://0x0.st/s/6LnsVC92Wy4es4tLN9iF5w/ohKp.png https://0x0.st/s/6LnsVC92Wy4es4tLN9iF5w/ohKp.png
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        So the outside air is more dangerous than second hand smoke?
- davidgay 4y ago
  > I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda. I can personally confirm that standing by smokers / staying in smokers' houses is quite good for triggering asthma. So I suggest you tampen down your propaganda claims.
gedy 4y ago
Drinking has enormous external effects and I'd rather be around a chain smoker than a drunk.
- kleiba 4y ago
  Me, I'm the opposite.

by kleiba 4y ago

chapium 4y ago

Getting hit by a drunk driver is a significant bystander effect.

barbazoo 4y ago

Alcohol abuse has a huge effect on other people. Just think of drunk driving and domestic abuse. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://pbinstitute.com/alcohol/domestic-violence/ https://pbinstitute.com/alcohol/domestic-violence/

kleiba 4y ago
Sure, but abolishing all alcohol because of possible consequences of too much alcohol is hard to sell. Even when talking about people getting really pissed, I would bet that more often than not nothing too bad happens to their environment.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  > he difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k) I don't think we were talking about abolishing alcohol. Parent claimed alcohol consumption does not have an effect on others which is objectively wrong.
mrguyorama 4y ago
The vast majority of problem drinking is done by like 10% of americans. I don't think a warning label is going to stop them when they already consume a HUGE amount of alcohol every week

WalterBright 4y ago

I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda. Even though I'm happy that airplanes/restaurants/offices are now free of smoke. I'm old enough to remember when every building stank of stale smoke.

kleiba 4y ago
Interesting. What made you think that? I was under the impression that passive smoking was pretty well studied.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  For one thing, the concentration has to be a thousand times less. For another, you're just not around it that much. For a third, how can one reliably measure the exposure? Far too many variables.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
    PM2.5 concentrations tend to be very high around smokers. I live next to one, and even though we're separated by a door and he smokes in his own apartment, the smoking frequently pushes air in my apartment above 200 µg/m³. (I have 3 years of data to prove it.) Since the outside air is typically even more dangerous here, I can't simply open a window and have to use air filters to combat this. https://0x0.st/s/6LnsVC92Wy4es4tLN9iF5w/ohKp.png https://0x0.st/s/6LnsVC92Wy4es4tLN9iF5w/ohKp.png
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      So the outside air is more dangerous than second hand smoke?
davidgay 4y ago
> I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda. I can personally confirm that standing by smokers / staying in smokers' houses is quite good for triggering asthma. So I suggest you tampen down your propaganda claims.

gedy 4y ago

Drinking has enormous external effects and I'd rather be around a chain smoker than a drunk.

kleiba 4y ago
Me, I'm the opposite.