Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

People should be made to quit smoking?

Announcements Posted on
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Article showing increase in particulate matter at building entrances:

    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...41277.abstract


    Article showing relationship between particulate matter and second-hand risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3226505/

    (Hint: they're strongly linked)

    Attachment 162716
    So the solution to increased particulate matter at building entrances is to ban all smokers? Not, you know, move the smokers away from entrances?
    Also, this only applies to high concentrations of smokers, not if you walked past one smoker in the street.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    So the solution to increased particulate matter at building entrances is to ban all smokers? Not, you know, move the smokers away from entrances?
    Also, this only applies to high concentrations of smokers, not if you walked past one smoker in the street.
    First of all, they've plotted data from PM2.5 = 0mg: the data absolutely applies to the output of PM2.5 = 12-14mg per each cigarette. Supply some data supportive of your point instead of attempting to be dismissive on a blanket basis - reading the original data would be a bonus too.

    Your suggestions are interesting - it raises the question, where do you draw the imaginary line? Ban smoking in buildings and the majority of smokers move to the immediate external space; i.e, the next available legal point. The thing is, I don't know where 'not outside a building' is. Quite frankly, if I had my way and the world would comply with me (slim chance I know), I'd ban smoking outside of the home and associated plot of land. Now that's just a pipe dream (running a thought experiment, if you will) and it's not likely to happen in the immediate future.

    For me, it comes down to the right to clean air vs the right to use the space argument. I find that it's almost a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario - the smoking individual reaps the benefit ('buzz,' image, craving satisfaction, etc) while depositing the negatives (chemical-based/smell-based air pollution being the major one) into the public domain.

    I've started contemplating fighting fire with fire to an extent - spraying foul-smelling vapours into smoking shelters and smoking congregations 'because I can' and 'it's my right' and 'I'm using my body to do so.' Not sure some people would get the intent though.

    As a quick final observation, it's always fascinating to see the same arguments trotted out again - 'x is more dangerous than smoking, ignore smoking and focus on x' is a prevalent line of thought. Of course exhaust fumes aren't the best to breathe in and I'd rather not hang around behind cars too much, but it's interesting to look at data. Using particulate matter (the damaging stuff that really gets into the lungs) as a marker, second-hand smoke produces up to ten times more PM (of different diameters) than exhaust smoke:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15333875

    I'll make a couple of points about that paper to conclude. Firstly, it was conducted in a closed garage space and so the data perhaps don't match the 'real life' picture of the street corner perfectly (that said, I'd imagine it would be tricky to engineer a ten-fold increase that doesn't actually exist). Secondly, it was based solely on an idling engine and that definitely doesn't match real life - that said, the researchers used a 2.0L TDCi ecodiesel engine which perhaps gives a lower PM readout than your average city car engine.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    People should be made to quit smoking?


    No worries, they all stop eventually.
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Article showing increase in particulate matter at building entrances:

    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...41277.abstract


    Article showing relationship between particulate matter and second-hand risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3226505/

    (Hint: they're strongly linked)

    Attachment 162716
    Are you really trying to compare a study showing the effects of long-term exposure from smoking to a study showing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter by doorways occupied by smokers to show something at all meaningful?

    How much exactly do you think walking through a few doors that are sometimes occupied by smokers causing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter will increase your daily exposure by? (Hint: I don't think its plotted on your chart)
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Are you really trying to compare a study showing the effects of long-term exposure from smoking to a study showing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter by doorways occupied by smokers to show something at all meaningful?

    How much exactly do you think walking through a few doors that are sometimes occupied by smokers causing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter will increase your daily exposure by? (Hint: I don't think its plotted on your chart)
    It's interesting that you're limiting yourself to attempting to trivialise my efforts to provide sources and data while in no way contributing any meaningful information. How do you think that makes you look to a scientific (even a pseudoscientific) community?

    (Hint: it's not a particularly good look)

    I thought I had made a reasonably clear divison between 'I think' and 'data says that' in my original post. I should admit that I don't know where you're getting 'smokers causing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter' from - if it's from PM2.5 then you are, I'm afraid, slightly misguided (2.5 refers to a micrometre diameter instead of a concentration increase).

    But I'm going to try to answer that question, in an 'I think' way, anyway. I think that you are, in classic debating fashion, trying to scale the problem down: why do we have to assess daily exposure; why can't we assess annual exposure or extrapolate exposure over a life expectancy? So, to answer your question. I don't think my daily exposure is increased hugely over a single day. But multiply 'a small bit' by 365 and then multiply that by 80 - that's a big increase in intake for me with no benefit forthcoming.

    Actually, I think I'll try to answer that question more firmly. This is based on numbers in the third paper that I posted (and it's a rough calculation which could be picked apart reasonably easily):

    Tidal volume (lung volume cycled per normal resting breath) = 0.5L
    Normal respiratory rate = 15/min
    (Let's say you're in the smoking field for 10 seconds a pop, three times a day) = 30s total daily exposure
    Total number of breaths in smoking field per day = 15/min x 30s = 7.5 breaths
    Total lung volume cycled in smoking field per day = 7.5 x 500ml = 3.75L

    This is where it might get a little sketchy:

    Volume of garage in third paper = 60m3 = 60000L
    Mean PM2.5 from cigarettes in the hour after lighting = 319mg

    Let's say that you breathe 3.75L of PM2.5 at a concentration of 319mg/60000L = 0.02mg exposure in 30 seconds

    (Second hint: that graph was plotted from 0mg - it's on there)

    And, as a fairly straightforward ending statement, that's an extra 0.02mg in 30 seconds that I don't want and I don't need.
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    It's interesting that you're limiting yourself to attempting to trivialise my efforts to provide sources and data while in no way contributing any meaningful information. How do you think that makes you look to a scientific (even a pseudoscientific) community?

    (Hint: it's not a particularly good look)
    :rofl:

    (Original post by Entangled)
    I thought I had made a reasonably clear divison between 'I think' and 'data says that' in my original post. I should admit that I don't know where you're getting 'smokers causing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter' from - if it's from PM2.5 then you are, I'm afraid, slightly misguided (2.5 refers to a micrometre diameter instead of a concentration increase).
    The average level of PM2.5 with ≥5 lit cigarettes was 2.5 times greater than the average background level.
    (Original post by Entangled)
    But I'm going to try to answer that question, in an 'I think' way, anyway. I think that you are, in classic debating fashion, trying to scale the problem down: why do we have to assess daily exposure; why can't we assess annual exposure or extrapolate exposure over a life expectancy? So, to answer your question. I don't think my daily exposure is increased hugely over a single day. But multiply 'a small bit' by 365 and then multiply that by 80 - that's a big increase in intake for me with no benefit forthcoming.
    A year a day a lifetime it really doesn't change the fact that your increase in exposure to particulate matter will be a tiny tiny fraction more than that from normal exposure to background particulate matter. If you have anything at all that shows this to be of any harm then I'm all ears.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    :rofl:
    You've summed up my point quite nicely.


    (Original post by n00)
    A year a day a lifetime it really doesn't change the fact that your increase in exposure to particulate matter will be a tiny tiny fraction more than that from normal exposure to background particulate matter. If you have anything at all that shows this to be of any harm then I'm all ears.
    I'll refer you back to my second source. And given that you're conversing on a purely anecdotal basis, I'm starting to assume that you have nothing valuable to contribute. Find me some hard data that passive smoking isn't harmful and then we can have a proper two-way interaction on the topic.

    And I'm starting to wonder if you are actually reading the things I'm directing you to. From the second source:

    Based on the key prospective cohort studies cited above, the range of average ambient PM2.5 concentrations is approximately 5–30 μg/m3, resulting in estimated daily dose of PM2.5 from ambient air pollution potentially ranging from 0.09 to 0.54 mg.

    So, based on the 0.02mg that we worked out earlier, 3.7-22.2% of the daily PM2.5 dose can be inhaled in 30 seconds. That's potentially almost a quarter of daily intake. In thirty seconds. It would be wise at this point to stop blindly dismissing these points and to contribute something of statistical value - lest I dismiss you as someone purely concerned with image and peer pressure as opposed to data.
    • 24 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    The one thing that always gets me about the anti smoking brigade (ASB) is that they make out like smokers are constantly around them all the time...

    I mean... really... I smoke, but aside from when I'm smoking I'd say the amount of time I spend breathing in second hand smoke to be so minimal... easily < 1% (14.4 minutes) of my day... I'm just not sure that all the fuss kicked up by the ASB is worth it... is that < 1% of your day really so uncomfortable? Have you nothing else to worry about?
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    I'll refer you back to my second source. And given that you're conversing on a purely anecdotal basis, I'm starting to assume that you have nothing valuable to contribute. Find me some hard data that passive smoking isn't harmful and then we can have a proper two-way interaction on the topic.

    And I'm starting to wonder if you are actually reading the things I'm directing you to. From the second source:

    Based on the key prospective cohort studies cited above, the range of average ambient PM2.5 concentrations is approximately 5–30 μg/m3, resulting in estimated daily dose of PM2.5 from ambient air pollution potentially ranging from 0.09 to 0.54 mg.

    So, based on the 0.02mg that we worked out earlier, 3.7-22.2% of the daily PM2.5 dose can be inhaled in 30 seconds. That's potentially almost a quarter of daily intake. In thirty seconds. It would be wise at this point to stop blindly dismissing these points and to contribute something of statistical value - lest I dismiss you as someone purely concerned with image and peer pressure as opposed to data.
    If the average background concentration of PM2.5 is 5μg/m3 leading to a daily dose of 0.09mg i get an increase of 0.000046875mg after 30 seconds spent in a door at 2.5 times average background PM2.5 .
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    If the average background concentration of PM2.5 is 5μg/m3 leading to a daily dose of 0.09mg i get an increase of 0.00003125mg after 30 seconds spent in a door at 2.5 times average background PM2.5 .
    (Original post by Entangled)
    I should admit that I don't know where you're getting 'smokers causing a 2.5 times increase in particulate matter' from - if it's from PM2.5 then you are, I'm afraid, slightly misguided (2.5 refers to a micrometre diameter instead of a concentration increase).
    I'm trying to fathom how you are putting these figures together - dividing daily dose by 24 and then 60 and then 2 is crude at best. You're simply working out how much of a background daily dose you inhale in thirty seconds - which is fine, but you're not calculating anything to do with cigarette smoke specifically.

    Granted, neither of us will come up with the steadfast correct answer (natural variations in breathing, using a restricted set of figures, etc). Actually, when I start to think about it, my calculation shows PM2.5 in 30 seconds from cigarette smoke, whereas your calculation shows background daily PM2.5 dose in 30 seconds. The answer, therefore, is probably nearer:

    0.0199 - 0.00003125 = 0.01986875mg

    But that in itself is a little bit sketchy - the paper with the 60m3 garage (that I made rough calculations based upon) adjusted measurements for background dose.

    But I beg your pardon, thirty seconds in the smoking field, by my calculation, could yield up to 22.076% of daily background dose, rather than the 22.2% previously mentioned.
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    but you're not calculating anything to do with cigarette smoke specifically.
    Course i am. The 2.5 times increase.

    The average level of PM2.5 with ≥5 lit cigarettes was 2.5 times greater than the average background level.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Course i am. The 2.5 times increase.
    Sorry, I'm with you now on that first paper. Concentrations as high as 496 μg/m3 leads me calculate (on the basis of the 3.75L lung cycle in 30 seconds) that 1.86μg is inhaled in that 30 seconds. I think it is probably best that we take this value closer to the mark (I worked things out before based on a closed garage - a building entrance sounds much more relevant).

    That yields something a little less extreme - somewhere in the region of 0.344-2.07% of background daily dose inhaled from cigarette smoke in 30 seconds. Of course, I plucked a 30 seconds daily exposure out of thin air - at 0.688-4.14% per minute the data can be applied to whatever timescale is reasonable.

    Still though, all of this exposure and I still don't get any of the 'positives' from smoking. An abstract thought, but if smoking didn't produce any smoke (like the smoking cessation aids and things, I suppose) I wouldn't care less. It wouldn't be my problem. At the same time though, smoking without smoke deprives the whole affair of theatre - I'd bet that fewer people would take it up (especially in the teenage years) because the image element would disappear to an extent.

    But my invitation still stands. Now that we've picked over some of the data I've offered up, I'd love to see some of the data you've been reading which supports passive smoking.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I hate smoking and don't do it myself but forcing people to quit is too far. Where do we draw the line? Do we force fat people to starve themselves? Do we force alcoholics to attend AA?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam')
    I hate smoking and don't do it myself but forcing people to quit is too far. Where do we draw the line? Do we force fat people to starve themselves? Do we force alcoholics to attend AA?
    I agree. Each new law sacrifices a little individual liberty for the hope of an improvement in collective security. The issue is not how bad smoking is for you - that's a medical problem more than a social one; it's how much it impacts on other people.

    If people want to damage their own bodies, by all means, they have a right to do so, and I wouldn't want it to be any other way cause that's the (perhaps unfortunate) consequence of a democratic society. But you can only justify banning smoking in circumstances where it affects other people to a significant enough level.

    Of course you then have to define significant, which is always fun, as well as when others are affected - it's by no means an easy issue, but even though you might think people have made the wrong choice in smoking, it is their choice to make.

    "I may not agree with what you say, but by God I'll defend your right to say it"
    Voltaire
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah they should.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If you've got the right to kill a ****ing unborn baby, you've got the right to smoke lol!

    That's all there is to it.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t0ffee)
    If you've got the right to kill a ****ing unborn baby, you've got the right to smoke lol!

    That's all there is to it.
    how on earth are the two even slightly related
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    how on earth are the two even slightly related
    Both are related to inflicting damage on you and other people's bodies.

    Both are related to autonomy over your body against the autonomy of others.

    etc etc etc
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I smoke, that's my choice. You can't make someone quit, again, it's their choice.

    There would be uproar if the governemnt MADE people quit, as it lays down a path for the government to make people do other things. For example in the US, there is back lash over Obama making it a legal requirement to buy health insurance, as people are worried that they could make things such as 'having to buy american cars' also law.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    a) No empirical evidence to prove that second hand smoking causes cancer/kills.

    b) Something like 3/4 of a cig is tax

    c) Don't condone it but tolerate it, this is the attitude we should all have.

    d) man up and stop being so alarmist, let people do what they want to with their own body

    inb4: bunch of butthurt kids neg me

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 16, 2012
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.