Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: California Declares Secondhand Smoke A Pollutant

  1. #1
    President, Cowboys Nation MikeD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    In the 'burbs, west of D.C.
    Posts
    5,139

    California Declares Secondhand Smoke A Pollutant

    Clap, clap, clap...

    SACRAMENTO - California became the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant Thursday, citing its link to breast cancer. Experts said the decision may have more impact worldwide than it does in the largely smoke-free state.

    The decision by the California Air Resources Board puts environmental tobacco smoke in the same category as diesel exhaust, arsenic and benzene.

    Scientific studies in recent years have warned about the health impact from second-hand smoke and linked it to a wide array of ailments including heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, as well as breast cancer.

    “I think there is no question that this puts California way ahead,” said John Froines, chairman of the Air Resources Board’s Scientific Review Panel.

    “To actually have the major air pollution agency in the state of California to list ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) as a toxic air contaminant is going to have immense impact, we think, in terms of public education around other states,” he said. “It will clearly lead to regulatory changes within the state.”

    The unanimous decision relied on a September report that found a sharply increased risk of breast cancer in young women exposed to secondhand smoke. It also links drifting smoke to premature births, asthma and heart disease, other cancers, and numerous health problems in children.

    "If people are serious about breast cancer, they have to deal with secondhand smoke. That's what this is all about," said Dr. Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control, Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. He reviewed the science behind Thursday's decision. "This is a seminal, international document. It's impossible to underestimate what a big deal this is."

    Effects of passive smoke

    The report by scientists at California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment draws on more than 1,000 other studies of the effects of passive smoke. It blamed secondhand smoke for 4,000 deaths each year in California from lung cancer or heart disease alone.

    The most significant new finding is that young women exposed to secondhand smoke increase their risk of developing breast cancer between 68 percent and 120 percent. The disease kills about 40,000 women in the United States each year.

    That finding conflicts with a 2004 report by the U.S. Surgeon General. Sanford Barsky, a UC, Los Angeles, researcher writing on behalf of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company, told the board the report "either ignores mentioning or does not give the appropriate weight to studies which refute this association" between secondhand smoke and breast cancer.

    California scientists say their research is more current than the Surgeon General's report. The California report went through an exhaustive review that delayed its release for nearly a year but ensures it is based on sound research, said Dr. John Froines, director of UCLA's Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and head of the scientific review panel.

    R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said regardless of the dangers from passive smoke indoors, no research supports regulators' decision to declare it an air pollutant.

    "No studies exist that show that exposure outdoors leads to any increased risk of tobacco-associated illness," he said.

    Next, the air board must consider regulatory steps to reduce exposure, a process that could take years.

    "This is no longer some crazy, California, Left Coast way of thinking," said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of Berkeley-based Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. She cited smoking bans that have been enacted or are being considered across the nation and in other countries.

    Growing tobacco bans

    The decision in the California state capital kicks off a process that will likely take two or three years as officials study ways to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke.

    A spokeswoman for tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., declined to comment.

    In 1994, California became the first U.S. state to bar smoking in the workplace, and then followed up with bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Other American cities and states have since adopted similar prohibitions.

    Several California cities have enacted wider bans, such as San Francisco, which now prohibits smoking in city parks, and Los Angeles, which bars smoking at piers and beaches.

    The effect is likely to be greatest outside of California, which already bans smoking in or near most public buildings, including bars and restaurants. Much of the initial effort in California will focus on public education emphasizing the scientific findings and Thursday's air board decision, said Paul Knepprath, vice president for government relations at the American Lung Association of California.

    The association unsuccessfully pushed legislation in 2003 that would have banned smoking in motor vehicles containing young children, and could try for a similar law next year, Knepprath said.

    The association may also push for nonsmoking floors or wings in apartment buildings, much as hotels offer smoke-free areas, Knepprath said.

    "People live in apartments all across California who are exposed to secondhand smoke on a daily basis," Knepprath said. "It drifts from a common area or another apartment."

    Hallett said that could one day force regulations requiring separate ventilation systems for smoking and nonsmoking apartments.

  2. #2
    Rear Admiral Upper Half KIISQueen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,985
    WOW!!! It's about time!!!!!


  3. #3
    Rear Admiral Lower Half clutchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Yucaipa, CA
    Posts
    2,863
    I don't like smoking, but this is going a little too far. They put it in the same category as asbestos...

    pretty soon we're not going to be able to fart in public....

    where are the preempting of rights people?
    LK was treated unfairly

    thanks X

  4. #4
    Commander ramazank2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Costa Mesa, CA
    Posts
    1,295
    Where's the link?

  5. #5
    Picture of the Day Guru zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Sunny San Diego
    Posts
    8,756
    BBC has the story too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4652878.stm
    Del Mar is considering banning smoking at the beaches and in parks.
    I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz

  6. #6
    President, Cowboys Nation MikeD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    In the 'burbs, west of D.C.
    Posts
    5,139
    Quote Originally Posted by ramazank2
    Where's the link?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11048609/

    My bad...

  7. #7
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by KIISQueen
    WOW!!! It's about time!!!!!

    x10

  8. #8
    Now, is the smoke actualy polutant, or is it just a source of already known polutants?

  9. #9
    Lieutenant Commander doolittle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    910
    Instead of wasting money to find ways to punish smokers, why dont they make it agianst the law. i would much rather be in a closed garage with a smoker than a car with a running engine....

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by doolittle
    Instead of wasting money to find ways to punish smokers, why dont they make it agianst the law. i would much rather be in a closed garage with a smoker than a car with a running engine....
    Any politician who voted to illegalize smoking would immediatly lose 25% to 30% of his support base. That would definately prohibit his re-election.

    It all goes back to courtesy. One day it became "cool" to be rude about your smoking. Ignoring other people's complaints became the norm. Now it's come back to bite them. If people would just respect others and not make them brethe their smoke, it wouldn't be a problem.

  11. #11
    Commander ramazank2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Costa Mesa, CA
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimm
    Now, is the smoke actualy polutant, or is it just a source of already known polutants?
    Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), also known as second-hand smoke, is a complex mixture of chemicals generated during the burning and smoking of tobacco products to which non-smokers are exposed. Researchers have identified over 4,000 individual constituents in ETS, many of which are known or suspected human carcinogens and toxic agents. The potential adverse health effects from exposure to ETS warrants its nomination for identification as a toxic air contaminant.


    http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/ets.htm

  12. #12
    Chief of Naval Operations InfiniteNothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10,086
    Quote Originally Posted by clutchy
    I don't like smoking, but this is going a little too far. They put it in the same category as asbestos...

    pretty soon we're not going to be able to fart in public....

    where are the preempting of rights people?
    What category do you want them to put smoking in? There's pretty much two categories it can be in: toxic or not toxic. I'm pretty sure farting is fairly nontoxic. If you offended enough people though, the gov might be able to get ya for public nusiance.

  13. #13
    Chief News Editor & Master of His Domain LPMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,478
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by clutchy
    I don't like smoking, but this is going a little too far. They put it in the same category as asbestos...

    pretty soon we're not going to be able to fart in public....

    where are the preempting of rights people?
    Most people only worry about rights they care about, and get all feel goody about things they don't. Me, I try to care about all of them.

    So uh.....I guess it's just you and me.
    lpmiller
    Chief News Editor
    Nobel Prize Nominee
    Reverend in the Universal Life Church
    Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
    Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature

    "The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes

  14. #14
    Admiral kimchicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    in the middle of the pacific ocean
    Posts
    5,346
    Quote Originally Posted by zippyjuan
    BBC has the story too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4652878.stm
    Del Mar is considering banning smoking at the beaches and in parks.
    that's also to prevent all those cig butts from littering the ground. cuz there are A LOT. beach = one huge ashtray.
    "I pick my nose too but never eat it." - bachviet, 3/30/04

    if anyone wants to go scuba diving in oahu or wants to learn who to scuba dive in oahu, PM me.

  15. #15
    Commander RIVERWIDOW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    1,124
    I am really conflicted on this. My dad smoked for every day of my parents 50 year marriage. He is now dead and my mother has severe asthma and emphysema . She never smoked a day in her life. But I am not willing to tell someone that they cant do what they want with their own body. Because next they will be telling me lose weight or I'm banned from the beach or whatever. BUT on the other hand the cig butts are a definite problem. Its really a no-win situation, I think. If push came to shove I would say ban the smoking . I have grandkids to think of.
    My grandkids are cuter than yours !
    Rock on Chargers !

    Lets go Padres !! All the way in 2009

  16. #16
    Chief of Naval Operations InfiniteNothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10,086
    Quote Originally Posted by LPMiller
    Most people only worry about rights they care about, and get all feel goody about things they don't. Me, I try to care about all of them.

    So uh.....I guess it's just you and me.
    There are many rights that are reserved to the privacy of your own home (provided that home is properly ducted )

  17. #17
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    While I wholeheartedly am against smoking in general, being a doc, I've been known to occasionally partake in the coffin nails, moreso now than usual due to my recent terrible stressors. However, I hate the smell and second-hand smoke.

    I wonder if this applies to Eclipse cigs, which produce very little second-hand smoke. The "smoke" is basically water vapor with nicotine, as it doesn't actually burn the tobacco.

  18. #18
    Captain Mike_N_Ike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Houdini
    I wonder if this applies to Eclipse cigs, which produce very little second-hand smoke. The "smoke" is basically water vapor with nicotine, as it doesn't actually burn the tobacco.
    I would be willing to bet a dollar that it does. I don't know much about those cigs, but for all the work the state has gone through to make this happen - I'd be very surprised to see them concede on something like that.
    -Mike

  19. #19
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_N_Ike
    I would be willing to bet a dollar that it does. I don't know much about those cigs, but for all the work the state has gone through to make this happen - I'd be very surprised to see them concede on something like that.
    I'm sure it would apply as well, as they're basically indistinguishable from normal cigs, except they don't burn down and don't "smoke" when you're not puffing. Supposedly they have all the heart disease risk without the cancer/emphysema risk - the problem with 2nd hand smoke anyway-, though I haven't seen any independent studies confirming that and probably never will unless some medical researcher type is really interested.

  20. #20
    Commander YanksFanRy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Columbia, MO and Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    1,352
    Grimm I agree with you, but how do we make that happen? It shouldn't have to be a law that you can't smoke in a restaurant around kids and such, or in a park, or public places like this blowing smoke into other people's faces. But unfortunately, we have to force people to be considerate since they don't do it on their own.


    M-I-Z . . . Z-O-U!

  21. #21
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RIVERWIDOW
    I am really conflicted on this. My dad smoked for every day of my parents 50 year marriage. He is now dead and my mother has severe asthma and emphysema . She never smoked a day in her life. But I am not willing to tell someone that they cant do what they want with their own body. Because next they will be telling me lose weight or I'm banned from the beach or whatever. BUT on the other hand the cig butts are a definite problem. Its really a no-win situation, I think. If push came to shove I would say ban the smoking . I have grandkids to think of.
    You supposedly being overweight or whatever does not affect anyone's health but yours. People smoking in public affects other people's health.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •