Is smelling cigarette butts a kind of second hand smoking?

Question by kataj: Is smelling cigarette butts a kind of second hand smoking?
My coworkers all smoke and throw the used butts in a trash can in our office.

There’s no smoke but I can smell the cigarettes a lot of times. Beyond the bad smell, will this cause any type of health issues? Like second hand smoke?

Best answer:

Answer by Myk
Good question, I would ask the professionals that question by posting on it’s a respiratory care practitioner forum for respiratory therapist.
Good luck to you

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

The world of smoking was changed forever with the introduction of the E Cig. It has been called nice things like “the next generation of smoking”. Manufacturers also claim it can help a person quit smoking, and still smoke.

The E Cig uses liquid nicotine cartridges and an electric vaporizer. A small battery inside the body of the E Cig heats a coil inside of it that turns the liquid nicotine into nicotine vapor. So smokers get the nicotine they crave, without all the harmful additions that came with smoking tobacco.

There are many obvious advantages to the E Cigarette.

Smoking tobacco can seriously damage the lungs and cause many other major health complications. The E Cig has no tobacco in it at all, so it doesn't contain the ingredients found in a traditional smoke that might harm or damage the lungs.

All that comes out of the E Cigarette is vapor that quickly disappears.

Many smokers find that smoking has become so habitual that they cannot function without a cigarette nearby. The E Cig can provide these people with a safer alternative than the pack a day habit that many smokers admit to.

As a smoking cessation device, the E Cig has many promising possibilities, as long as the person wants to quit, and can get the help they need.

Get your free E Cig Starter Kit here and start quitting today

ECigarette Starter Kits


  1. tgit23 says

    No – and despite the cries of the anti-smokers, secondhand smoke is not a health hazard.

    ————- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
    “Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”…. “No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

    “Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’”. (Wikipedia)

    —— Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
    William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA
    *The ruling shows by scientific definition that ETS is not a Class A carcinogen
    “There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA’s excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA’s purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

    “Group A classification in large part on a resulting relative risk of only 1.19, without adequately explaining why the Agency had required every other Group A carcinogen to exhibit a much higher relative risk, or why it had recently found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to classify other agents in Group A. All of the 15 chemicals or mixtures previously classified by ‘EPA as Group A carcinogens have higher relative risks than ETS.”(p. 76)

    IAQC (Indoor Air Quality Control) epidemiologist Dr. Kabat observed, “An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer.” E.L. Wynder & G.C. Kabat, Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer: A Critical Assessment, I.SAB.7.1 at 6 (JA ,216). (p. 76)

    ——– OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
    “OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

    CDC Study shows cigarette smoke is 25,000 times safer than OSHA air regulations

    Gov study shows waitresses in smoke filled bars are exposed to only a 5th of what the EPA considers hazardous:

    US Senate discusses health official’s inability to represent any REAL science

    CDC Studies show “smoking bans” have not improved everyone’s health as claimed.

    An Actual Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
    “Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”
    “Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
    of exposure.[JNatlCancerInst1998;90:1440–50…