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.
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
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.
> 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.
Then you have a poorly configured bullshit detector. Second hand smoke was studied in depth, and plenty of children have ended up with health problems from their parent's smoking. It is only a "controversial" fact among people who refuse to give up smoking for the benefit of their families.
I've never smoked, and neither has anyone in my family except my mom who quit before I was born. I've never smoked marijuana, either, though I voted to legalize it.
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.
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.
Conclusions: Our overview of systematic reviews of observational epidemiological evidence suggests that passive smoking is significantly associated with an increasing risk of many diseases or health problems, especially diseases in children and cancers.
> 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.
Funny you're mentioning that. I've got a relative who counters onset of asthma by smoking, though with very light tobacco and long, thin filters, and on demand only.
I do similar things after eating, because I seem to have varying intolerances against the foods which are common now. Making my nose run, sometimes going to the eyes, giving me tears, over to coughing, and in more rare cases even constricting my throat. All that is going away instantly after a few draws of a selfmade small cigarette with long thin filter, exhaling the smoke through the nose.
Furthermore I don't wan't to lose the ability to smoke light weed from time to time, without coughing and spitting fits :-)
