Smokers beware--Washington state

[Dan Murphy]

Does anyone really believe that the police are going to waste their time on this except for the occaisional case to make a point? Just another law like jaywalking to make people feel better but that is generally ignored

Well, I have been in Boston, CA and FL, where there currently are laws, as well as individual towns here in the Chicago area (home rule), and the laws have always seemed followed by the patrons and proprietors. In those places, indoors, I saw, nor smelled, any smoke. I really don't think the police will be involved, more just the places themselves doing what they need to do. Works well.

 

[C.Ann]

Well, I have been in Boston, CA and FL, where there currently are laws, as well as individual towns here in the Chicago area (home rule), and the laws have always seemed followed by the patrons and proprietors. In those places, indoors, I saw, nor smelled, any smoke. I really don't think the police will be involved, more just the places themselves doing what they need to do. Works well.

-------------------------

I agree that the patrons - and most reasonable people - will abide by these new laws, but I think it's misleading of the lawmakers to imply that the police will strictly enforce these policies.. With serious crime rates being as high as they currently are, the police simply don't have the time or the manpower to run around collaring people for smoking 24 feet from a building entrance..

It looks great on paper though!

 

[stinkerbelle]

I would love the 25 foot rule. You go to the mall or a store and there are 5 people standing right outside the doors smoking. You have to walk right past them and their cloud of smoke to get into the building.

as a non-smoker now...I have to agree...it's pretty gross to have to walk through this "cloud" to get into a building. (I like to believe I was a considerate smoker in the past...I would walk away from a building's entrance to get my fix...)

Anywho...I was SHOCKED when I got off a plane in Atlanta on Saturday and saw a SMOKING LOUNGE INSIDE the airport! I could NOT believe it! (since everything in CT is basically smoke-free indoors).

 

[gigglesnort]

Really? They are so busted!

I named no names......

 

[C.Ann]

Anywho...I was SHOCKED when I got off a plane in Atlanta on Saturday and saw a SMOKING LOUNGE INSIDE the airport! I could NOT believe it! (since everything in CT is basically smoke-free indoors).

-----------------------

No way! I thought all airports were non-smoking now?

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Well, I have been in Boston, CA and FL, where there currently are laws, as well as individual towns here in the Chicago area (home rule), and the laws have always seemed followed by the patrons and proprietors. In those places, indoors, I saw, nor smelled, any smoke. I really don't think the police will be involved, more just the places themselves doing what they need to do. Works well.

Indoors is a different story than outside on a sidewalk

 

[robinb]

-----------------------

No way! I thought all airports were non-smoking now?

I just saw a smoking lounge at IAH in Houston. It was along one of the terminal walkways and outside so they smokers could get some air.

 

[cardaway]

Does anyone really believe that the police are going to waste their time on this except for the occaisional case to make a point? Just another law like jaywalking to make people feel better but that is generally ignored

In one the most problematic places, you bet. Owners and managers of restaurants will complain. Mall security will get involved.

Of course the people may leave before after being reminded of the law. Eforcement without the police, but still enforcement.

 

[disykat]

I agree. Business owners will discourage people from smoking in front of their establishments - probably starting with their own employees. Many businesses here already have started providing covered smoking areas for their employees that are located away from the main entrances. It has cut WAY down on the smoke around entrances. The law will just further encourage this. Most businesses want to be seen as being law abiding as well as trying to be "friendly" to their smoking customers and employees.

 

[stinkerbelle]

I just saw a smoking lounge at IAH in Houston. It was along one of the terminal walkways and outside so they smokers could get some air.

not this one in Atlanta...which shocked me...it was all inclosed.

the smell of smoke hit me right as I exited the gate...right across the hallway was the lounge...just so odd to see it.

of course, I remember being little (5 or 6 maybe?) and sitting next to my mom in the "smoking section" of the plane on our CT to CA trip. hehehe (could you imagine that today?)

 

[Kimberly]

Actually it's the opposite. There is no proof whatsoever that unless you are one of the few who are truly allergic to it that the very occaisional exposure to cigarette smoke, like walking through it at a building entrance has any health effects whatsoever. On the other hand if you hit a jaywalker and they go up on to your hood you can be badly hurt. Jaywalking is far more dangerous than smoking near a building entrance!

Which is why we have the "always yield to pedrestrians" when in a car. Instead of arguing my point, I'm going to post the adverse effects of secondhand smoke on the human body:

Second-hand Smoke Tied to Asthma Severity

Reuters Health

By David Douglas

Tuesday, October 18, 2005


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke appears to increase asthma severity and might even influence the risk of hospital admission, according to a new report.

"Our study showed that second-hand tobacco smoke can be harmful for adults with asthma," lead investigator Dr. Mark D. Eisner told Reuters Health. "These results provide further justification for banning smoking in public places."

Eisner of the University of California, San Francisco and colleagues note that most previous studies of asthma and passive smoking have relied on self-reported exposure.

In the present study, published in the journal Thorax, the researchers used nicotine badges to measure exposure. The badges trap ambient nicotine in a filter, and gas chromatography is subsequently used to evaluate the content. Hair was sampled for nicotine and its major metabolite cotinine to determine the levels of longer-term exposure.

The badges were used for seven days in 189 subjects who had had a recent asthma hospitalization. A similar group of 138 asthmatics submitted hair samples to determine exposure in the previous three months.

Asthma severity over these time periods was established by telephone interviews.

Most of the subjects were exposed to second-hand smoke, with estimates ranging from 60 percent to 83 percent. The highest levels of recent exposure as determined by the badge were related to greater asthma severity.

Those with the highest levels of nicotine exposure in the previous month appeared to be at greater risk of hospital admission.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. J. Britton of City Hospital, Nottingham, UK notes that the results are consistent with the "interpretation that individuals with higher levels of passive smoke exposure had more troublesome asthma."

However, "the findings on the risk of hospitalization were perhaps less convincing." This was due to the observational nature of the study and the low participation rate of eligible subjects.

Nevertheless, he concludes that "smoke exposure is likely to be bad for all people with asthma who would be well advised to avoid exposure, as indeed is the case for everyone else."

SOURCE: Thorax, October 2005.

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers

about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults

other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function

150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations

increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children

increases in the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and middle ear infections in young children

low birth weight in babies whose mothers are exposed to ETS
The 1986 US Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking reached 3 important conclusions about secondhand smoke:

Involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.

When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures.

Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Some studies have also suggested that ETS may be linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. The California Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that ETS causes breast cancer in younger, mainly premenopausal women. The US Surgeon General is currently reviewing the evidence on this link, and a report is expected in late 2006.

 

[Kimberly]

Another article from the American Cancer Society:

Where Is It a Problem?

There are 3 locations where you should be especially concerned about exposure to secondhand smoke:

Your workplace: Secondhand smoke meets the criteria to be classified as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in the workplace. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency, also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Because there are no known safe levels, they recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest possible levels.
Aside from protecting nonsmokers, workplace smoking restrictions may also encourage smokers who wish to quit or reduce their consumption of tobacco products.


Public places: Everyone is vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers. Although some businesses are reluctant to ban smoking, there is no credible evidence that going smoke-free is bad for business. Public places where children go are a special area of concern.

Your home: Making your home smoke-free is perhaps one of the most important things you can do for the health of your family. Any family member can develop health problems related to secondhand smoke. Children are especially sensitive. Think about it: we spend more time at home than anywhere else. A smoke-free home protects your family, your guests, and even your pets.

 

[yeartolate]

Does anyone really believe that the police are going to waste their time on this except for the occaisional case to make a point? Just another law like jaywalking to make people feel better but that is generally ignored

This is wholeheartedly untrue. I live in California and I have only seen a rare offender. The laws have made a real difference. In the begining I did not see police intervening, but I sure saw a fair amount of peer pressure halting the smoking.

I wouldn't assume the law will be ignored.

 

[DisneyJen0504]

Which is why we have the "always yield to pedrestrians" when in a car. Instead of arguing my point, I'm going to post the adverse effects of secondhand smoke on the human body:

Exactly!!
Thanks for posting the effects!!
Seems some people need to be reminded that just because you want to kill yourself by smoking doesn't mean I should suffer too.

 

[gigglesnort]

Exactly!!
Thanks for posting the effects!!
Seems some people need to be reminded that just because you want to kill yourself by smoking doesn't mean I should suffer too.

Yes, because all smokers want to kill themselves.

If they want to ban smoking here in Chicago, I'm all for it.

What i'm tired of is the people who sling insults at smokers, imply they are stupid, and sit on very high horses.

 

[princess momma]

Does anyone really believe that the police are going to waste their time on this except for the occaisional case to make a point? Just another law like jaywalking to make people feel better but that is generally ignored

I live near Madison, WI which recently banned smoking in bars and restaurants, and I know for a fact that they police the bars and write tickets on a regular basis. The tickets are written for each individual smoking in an establishment, and that could really add up. Definitely not ignored by the business owners or patrons in our case.

 

[princess momma]

Actually it's the opposite. There is no proof whatsoever that unless you are one of the few who are truly allergic to it that the very occaisional exposure to cigarette smoke, like walking through it at a building entrance has any health effects whatsoever. On the other hand if you hit a jaywalker and they go up on to your hood you can be badly hurt. Jaywalking is far more dangerous than smoking near a building entrance!

Are you completely ignorant or just in denial WebmasterAlex? Where do you get this information? I've graduated from a very prestigious college with a degree in nursing, and it seems I've learned exactly the opposite. Are they wrong and you're right? What a waste of my money, I guess.

 

[gigglesnort]

Are you completely ignorant or just in denial WebmasterAlex? Where do you get this information? I've graduated from a very prestigious college with a degree in nursing, and it seems I've learned exactly the opposite. Are they wrong and you're right? What a waste of my money, I guess.

so someone who isn't allergic to smoke (or has asthma) can walk thru a cloud of smoke and instantly get sick? Wow!

 

[princess momma]

so someone who isn't allergic to smoke (or has asthma) can walk thru a cloud of smoke and instantly get sick? Wow!

I don't believe I or anyone else said everyone would instantly get sick, though people with asthma definitely could trigger a life threatening attack walking through a cloud of smoke. Secondhand smoke contributes to SO MANY other disease processes, and it can take years for any of it to show up. Plead read the posts from Kimberly, they're very informative.

I don't care if people smoke, but why is it such a burdon to them to not harm other people by their bad habits?

 

[gigglesnort]

I don't believe I or anyone else said everyone would instantly get sick, though people with asthma definitely could trigger a life threatening attack walking through a cloud of smoke. Secondhand smoke contributes to SO MANY other disease processes, and it can take years for any of it to show up. Plead read the posts from Kimberly, they're very informative.

I don't care if people smoke, but why is it such a burdon to them to not harm other people by their bad habits?

I know the effects of second-hand smoke. I was referring to where it was stated you aren't going to get sick by occassionaly walking thru a cloud of smoke. You seemed to dispute that idea.