No more smoking in France

[Makalakumu]

That is a very different situation. If a place of business such a resturaunt allows smoking it it, one simply doesn't have to patronize it. The actions you are talking about are taking place near where people live and are also bad for the environment.

Jeff

Actually, its not really that different. See my post to Cruentus. The crux of this situation, Jeff, is that this is a "pollution" issue. Have you ever wondered what would happen if OSHA stepped in and applied the protective measures to the harmful chemicals that are spread throughout the workplace from 2nd hand smoke?

People would have to wear face masks and eye protection from the particulate pollution alone. The does not take into account the levels of chemicals that are in the air...and if people actually knew about THAT it would really surprise people.

For example, when I was in college I borrowed a Benzene PPM meter and went down to my local watering holes to measure the levels of this carcinogenic substance. In every establishment that allowed smoking, the levels were above the government's reccomendations. In a few really smoky places, the levels were three times above the limit. When I finished this simple study, I wrote an article in our school paper about it.

Another thing I want to point out is that ventilation systems do not help. Both MN and WI are considering statewide smoking bans and both states have commissioned studies on the pollutants and on the various measures taken by business owners to curb the effect of these pollutants. These studies showed that no measure reduce the levels to what would be considere safe by any metric.

The end result of these studies is that both governers in each state, Democrat Jim Doyle and Republican Tim Pawlenty, have pledged to sign statewide smoking ban legislation.

The bottom line is that the science and the reasoning behind the universal smoking bans is strong enough that people on both sides of the political spectrum are convinced. Even staunch conservatives in my home state are saying that the "propertie rights" argument just doesn't hold any water in the light of all these findings.

In many ways, I am heartened by these findings because it shows that science can sometimes triumph over ideology...and that is mostly a good thing.

 

[Cruentus]

Many people have to deal with a variety of situations. The amount of people who have no choice but to work in an area filled with 2nd hand smoke would surprise you. In an economically depressed area with , often these are the only well paying jobs. This also occurs in areas that have an economy based on tourism.

I'm sorry, but that is mythology. Name one place where this is the case, and where you can prove that the majority of jobs available within the same income bracket require one to work in a 2nd hand smoke filled area. Go ahead, name one.

See the Surgeon General's Warning.

Name one instance where second hand smoke was a cause of damage to a persons body where the result was health problems or death. And no, you can't count people who are allergic to smoke.

Go ahead, name one.

This statement is heavy with the undercurrents of Privilege. See what I wrote above and try to imagine some of those situations.

Dude, stop it. I have worked so many different jobs that it would make your head spin. Your statements are just not rooted in reality. I challange you to come up with some ounce of proof to back them up.

This should be both interesting and hilarious....

 

[Cruentus]

In many ways, I am heartened by these findings because it shows that science can sometimes triumph over ideology...and that is mostly a good thing.

I would love to see the "science" that supports the idea that we need to have statewide smoking bans. That would be spectacular. I will be waiting to eat my words I am sure.

Hey, if we buy that, then I have some "scientific" websites that prove that evolution is not real, and that man and dinasours used to hang out together about 7,000 years ago. :lol2:

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm sorry, but that is mythology. Name one place where this is the case, and where you can prove that the majority of jobs available within the same income bracket require one to work in a 2nd hand smoke filled area. Go ahead, name one.

For someone with a High School education, Superior, Wisconsin. Besides, it shouldn't matter. Pollution on a worksite is pollution on a worksite. What's the difference between Benzene emitted by a generator and benzene emitted by a cigarette?

Nothing.

Name one instance where second hand smoke was a cause of damage to a persons body where the result was health problems or death. And no, you can't count people who are allergic to smoke.

Go ahead, name one.

You have to be kidding. Google it just once. Ninja Please...

Dude, stop it. I have worked so many different jobs that it would make your head spin. Your statements are just not rooted in reality. I challange you to come up with some ounce of proof to back them up.

This should be both interesting and hilarious...

You know what, I don't know anything about you, but I just cannot believe that one person can be so ignorant of all the research that has been done on this topic. I mean, seriously, this has been studied extensively for over 40 years.

This isn't some conspiracy, dude. However, if you really want a dose in some reality, you'll get it...

See Below

 

[Makalakumu]

I would love to see the "science" that supports the idea that we need to have statewide smoking bans. That would be spectacular. I will be waiting to eat my words I am sure.

Hey, if we buy that, then I have some "scientific" websites that prove that evolution is not real, and that man and dinasours used to hang out together about 7,000 years ago. :lol2:

Wow, just wow. If you are going to compare organizations that studie the effects of smoking on people to "creationists" then you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Anyway, read it if you want, I'm sure its not going to make any difference, but at least other people can see some of what I'm talking about...

2004 Surgeon Generals Report on the Health Effects of Smoking

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/sgr/sgr_2004/sgranimation/flash/index.html

Research, Data, and Reports

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/data.htm

Second Hand Smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/ets.htm

I don't know if you know it, but you've just experienced total pwnage. Like I said above, this is pollution like any other. I've personally measured it in various establishments and it was only a matter of time before it was regulated in all public places. The only thing that kept in unregulated for so long was the powerful smoking lobby and all of the lies and propaganda they've disseminated over the years.

This research puts all of that to rest.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Contact with 2nd hand smoke retarded the healing of my eyes after LASIK. Contact with it now causes my eyes to dry, and causes vision issues that last days.
I'm not allergic to it.

 

[kid]

I am still struggleing with quiting. eventually I will though.

I never smoked in my house, it stinks and sets into everything.

If I wanted a smoke I went outside, i live in minnesota that means even on the coldest days i was outside bundled up burning one.

If I was at a bar I asked the people next to me if they mind if i smoked.

If a person was eating next to me I would never light up, it ruins the taste of food.

If I could step outside to smoke in -15 degree F to have on you can to. If you can't step out in that weather to have one you shouldn't be smoking.

A joke I heard a while back. Q: Do you smoke after sex? A: yeah! Q: You should get that checked out.

Mark

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Dude, you have gotta be ******** me. How could such control on ones freedom's be a good thing? I guess it is O.K.; until it is your behavior that is being controlled, huh?

How is being forbidden to smoke in a restaurant or workplace controlling your freedom?
So......someone that worked in the hospitality industry for 30 years dies of emphysema or lung cancer.....never smoked a day in their life.
I suppose smoking in a car with the windows rolled up and your kids sitting in the back is totally fine.......2nd hand smoke does nothing to developing lungs.

I happened to be a smoker at the time of the ban........and I still thought it was a smart move.
I worked and performed in clubs for over 10 years, and I can still remember the feeling of waking up the next day thinking my lungs were almost ripped out by the nicotine gremlins.

I like being able to take my kids out to a restaurant sans the free nicotine sampler plate.

I'm not against smoking.......Hell, I loved smoking.......but I love living more, and I love my kids even more than that...........

 

[Carol]

Moderator Note

Attention All Users:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.


- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -

 

[Cruentus]

This thread is hilarious. It really is. I somehow got "pwned' by some links to junk science reports? ok.... :idunno:

UpNorth (and everyone else I guess),

1st off, there is a "conspiracy," if one wished to call it that. The fact is that the majority of people out there are non-smokers. There are enough of these people who are selfish enough to inflate statistics to serve their agenda of erradicating smoking from the planet. This issue is very politically driven, as politicians can be venerated by the public for "cracking down" on smokers, rather then questioned as to why they aren't doing more productive things. It's a non-issue that can distract voters from the real problems.

The only real reason why government websites and government sponsered organizations tout the "dangers" of second hand smoke is because it is popular. And that is about the only reason, besides money interests and so forth.

I would like to refer you to a decent website that explains some if these things in laymens terms. We can start with statistics:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid2.html

When they come up with these stats regarding second hand smoke, they use all sorts of biases to get the results that they are looking for. When they say "67,000 deaths occur from second hand smoke in a year," they are estimating these numbers by taking a sample size, finding out how many people died from "smoking related diseases" (heart problems, lung disease, etc.), find out how many of those people have been "around" SHS, and from that they determine what percentage people die from SHS. Then they multiply that number to fit the population.

The problem with this should be obvious to any logical person. Correlation does not equal causation. If I ate bananas the other day, and developed a foot fungus today, does that mean that bananas cause foot fungus? Even if I did a study by taking a sample of people who have foot fungus, find out how many of them ate bananas before the time of the fungus, and come up with a statistical correlation, would that then prove that foot fungus is caused by bananas?

Of course not. Yet, this is how the media will find junk science every week to back up why "broccoli could make your balls shrink....news at eleven!" You could make a correlation with just about anything.

And this is what they do to back up outragous claims against SHS. And people aren't realizing that correlation does not equal causation.

Why don't you read how the famous '93 EPA report that supposedly proved the health risks of SHS was conducted?
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

The studies to back up these claims are junk science, garbage studies. Plain and simple.

Studies by places like Oak Ridge National Labratories that actually hooked up monitors to people who live or work in "smokey" environments with a significant amount of SHS (bars, factories, etc.) demonstrate consistantly that if one were to work in such a place year round, the amount of SHS damage would equate to about 6 cigarrettes per year.

The fact is, unlike actual smoking which is a health hazard, second hand smoke in smokey environments are not direct enough to do any significant damage to ones health. Most of the smoke rises and disipates in the air, dispite maybe an unpleasent smell.

But, if you still can't wrap your head around this, then do the "name 3 test." If 67,000 people per year are dying from second hand smoke, that would equal over a 1/2 a million people who died from it in a decade. That is a lot of people. So, we should all be able to name at least 3 people who have died from SHS, right? I mean, we can name people who died from actual smoking based on causation and correlation, so how about SHS?

The fact is, you can't name 3 people where it is proven that the cause of death is second hand smoke. Again, cause, not correlation. Here is a nice article on the topic:

http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

Yet, despite all this, we are ignoring one major fact that totally debunks any need for a government sponsered smoking ban. And that is that because smoking is relatively unpopular and not done by the majority, there are enough places to go where smoking is not allowed in the establishment if you don't want to be around it. Plain and simple. If you had a surgury or have allergies or what have you, and you are adversly affected by SHS, then you have only yourself to blame for that, in my opinion.

Personal choice is a factor here. It is both selfish and oppressive to want to take away peoples choices just because you find something unfavorable. If you can't see that not allowing a business owner decide what kind of workplace they want to have (smoking or non, etc.) is an infringment on freedom, then you don't know what it means to be free.

But, that is fine. Some of you who don't want to utilize critical thinking would rather believe the junk science because it supports your agenda. Well, then I can find a link to a website that "proves" that 9-11 was caused by remote control planes piloted by the Bush administration, too.

People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...

 

[BlackCatBonz]

"This site will not only make you an expert on the subject of SHS, but also leave you well equipped to deal with anyone using numbers to support health claim."

that is a quote from the davehitt site........now everyone who reads it will be an expert.......awesome, i gots mad skillz

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, the blurred vision, breathing difficulties, not to mention the stink aren't real concerns? ok.

Heres what one company adds to their weed
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/p...edients_in_cigarettes/tobacco_ingredients.asp


Toxicology

The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg can be a lethal dosage for adult human beings.Okamoto M., Kita T., Okuda H., Tanaka T., Nakashima T. (1994). "Effects of aging on acute toxicity of nicotine in rats". Pharmacol Toxicol. 75 (1): 1-6. This makes it an extremely deadly poison. It is more toxic than many other alkaloids such as cocaine, which has a lethal dose of 1000 mg.[citation needed]
The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties. Its teratogenic properties have not yet been adequately researched, and while the likelihood of birth defects caused by nicotine is believed to be very small or nonexistent, nicotine replacement product manufacturers recommend consultation with a physician before using a nicotine patch or nicotine gum while pregnant or nursing. However, nicotine and the increased acetylcholineic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine creates a more favourable environment for cancer to develop. Thus nicotine plays an indirect role in carcinogenesis. It is also important to note that its addictive properties are often the primary motivating factor for tobacco smoking, contributing to the proliferation of cancer.
At least one study has concluded that exposure to nicotine alone, not simply as a component of cigarette smoke, could be responsible for some of the neuropathological changes observed in infants dying from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).[7]
It has been noted that the majority of people diagnosed with schizophrenia smoke tobacco. Estimates for the number of schizophrenics that smoke range from 75% to 90%. It was recently argued that the increased level of smoking in schizophrenia may be due to a desire to self-medicate with nicotine. [8] [9] More recent research has found the reverse, that it is a risk factor without long-term benefit, used only for its short term effects. [10]However, research on nicotine as administered through a patch or gum is ongoing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

1. ^ Machaalani et al. (2005) "Effects of postnatal nicotine exposure on apoptotic markers in the developing piglet brain"
2. ^ Schizophr. Res. 2002
3. ^ Am. J. Psychiatry 1995
4. ^ Br. J. Psychiatry 2005

So, believe what you want. But it just seems rather smart NOT to inhale a known neurotoxin, as well as allow it to coat your skin and seep in through absorption. Not to mention, I'd rather not reek the way smokers do.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Dave Hitt is an asswipe.
why should i have to name 3 people that have died from 2nd hand smoke?
isn't naming one enough?
most smokers will do anything to justify the habit and make light of statistics that call it deadly.
heck, i know a woman and her husband that run a tobacco farm and they think that the evidence that states smoking causes cancer is all BS.

my grandmother lived to be 96.....smoked for sixty years.....died from old age.
ok.....smoking cant hurt you, there is the evidence.

 

[Makalakumu]

This thread is hilarious. It really is. I somehow got "pwned' by some links to junk science reports? ok.... :idunno:

So, the CDC is doing junk science? This claim is really laughable considering all of the things that the CDC studies. I'm sure you would have no problem with all of the other "science" they are doing, like the studies on AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, and other infectious diseases. Somehow, smoking is the target for you claim however. Why is that?

1st off, there is a "conspiracy," if one wished to call it that.

Right, because the chemicals in ciggarette smoke are just an illusion. The fact that the amounts of these chemicals exceed federal regulations for workplaces is nothing but lies. Check this out...

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

All of these chemicals are present in 2nd hand smoke. Many of which are present in very high levels when many people are smoking in enclosed spaces. I HAVE MEASURED THIS MYSELF.

The fact is that the majority of people out there are non-smokers. There are enough of these people who are selfish enough to inflate statistics to serve their agenda of erradicating smoking from the planet. This issue is very politically driven, as politicians can be venerated by the public for "cracking down" on smokers, rather then questioned as to why they aren't doing more productive things. It's a non-issue that can distract voters from the real problems.

The only real reason why government websites and government sponsered organizations tout the "dangers" of second hand smoke is because it is popular. And that is about the only reason, besides money interests and so forth.

No. The reason why governments across the world are cracking down on smoking is because it is provabley dangerous. All of this has been studied by scientists for over 40 years and the data is quite compelling if one is not trying to protect their addiction.

France, New Zealand, and all of the other states that are considering smoking bans are doing nothing more then applying the current pollution regulation to the chemicals in cigarette smoke. For all practical purposes, this is a pollution issue.

I would like to refer you to a decent website that explains some if these things in laymens terms. We can start with statistics:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid2.html

When they come up with these stats regarding second hand smoke, they use all sorts of biases to get the results that they are looking for. When they say "67,000 deaths occur from second hand smoke in a year," they are estimating these numbers by taking a sample size, finding out how many people died from "smoking related diseases" (heart problems, lung disease, etc.), find out how many of those people have been "around" SHS, and from that they determine what percentage people die from SHS. Then they multiply that number to fit the population.

This is a blatent distortion of how these studies are really done. A good friend of mine is a professor of Health and Statistics at Purdue University. Estimations like the one described above are only the first step in doing a health study. Estimations like this determine whether or not something needs to be studied. The next step gathers actual qualitative and quantitative data on people who REALLY have gotten sick or died because of 2nd hand smoke. If this data does not match the estimation presented, then the models are off or perhaps the premise is incorrect.

In all of the current studies, the match between the model and the observed results have correllated to a very high degree. The website you presented ignores all of this. The people who are writing that stuff are either completely ignorant of the methodology in social sciences or they are intentionally misleading the readers in order to advance an agenda.

The bottom line is that THAT site is ******** and anyone with even one statistical methods class can tell you that.

The problem with this should be obvious to any logical person. Correlation does not equal causation. If I ate bananas the other day, and developed a foot fungus today, does that mean that bananas cause foot fungus? Even if I did a study by taking a sample of people who have foot fungus, find out how many of them ate bananas before the time of the fungus, and come up with a statistical correlation, would that then prove that foot fungus is caused by bananas?

Of course not. Yet, this is how the media will find junk science every week to back up why "broccoli could make your balls shrink....news at eleven!" You could make a correlation with just about anything.

This is a classic strawman. The writer has no clue how actual social science is done. I suggest you actually take a look at the studies that have been performed. I think you'll be surprised at just how long people have been collecting data on this. Some of the logitudinal studies on this subject go back 35 years! If I remember correctly, smoking was very popular back then...which kinda blows the whole "smoking is unpopular and we are being oppressed!" hypothesis right out of the water...

Studies by places like Oak Ridge National Labratories that actually hooked up monitors to people who live or work in "smokey" environments with a significant amount of SHS (bars, factories, etc.) demonstrate consistantly that if one were to work in such a place year round, the amount of SHS damage would equate to about 6 cigarrettes per year.

There are so many factors that determine how much SHS that one will actually inhale that it doesn't surprise me that a study or two shows lower or higher levels. This is why people do meta analysis on the collective studies. These not only look at the results produced, but they also look at how the studies was performed. A study that has a flawed methodology or is designed so that it produces low results can easily be identified.

I'll give you my experience with this. When I did my little study, I measured 10 random places inside each establishment I visited. These places ranged from next to windows, in the bathrooms, to right at the bar. Then I averaged the data I recorded. Depending on the ventilation, the architecture of the building and the amount of smokers (which was all noted), I measured levels that ranged from just past to three times the Federal Guidelines for pollution on a worksite.

These guidelines exist because exposure to the chemicals in question has been proven to be dangerous. If SHS has been shown to surpass federal guidelines for these chemicals, then why shouldn't it be regulated like any other pollutant?

But, if you still can't wrap your head around this, then do the "name 3 test." If 67,000 people per year are dying from second hand smoke, that would equal over a 1/2 a million people who died from it in a decade. That is a lot of people. So, we should all be able to name at least 3 people who have died from SHS, right? I mean, we can name people who died from actual smoking based on causation and correlation, so how about SHS?

This is a gross simplification of statistics in this case and it totally ignores a number of factors that are really important. Here is another way of looking at this. There are 300,000,000 million people in this country. If 67,000 people die from 2nd hand smoke per year, how many are you really going to see? Of course this is grossly simplified, but the point is poignant.
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

Yet, despite all this, we are ignoring one major fact that totally debunks any need for a government sponsered smoking ban. And that is that because smoking is relatively unpopular and not done by the majority, there are enough places to go where smoking is not allowed in the establishment if you don't want to be around it. Plain and simple. If you had a surgury or have allergies or what have you, and you are adversly affected by SHS, then you have only yourself to blame for that, in my opinion.

Or maybe people have been convinced by the data that exists and they are totally sick and tired of paying the collective price for peoples bad decisions. In countries that have socialized medicine, this is a really big deal because people's tax money is being wasted by people who intentionally harm their bodies as well as the bodies of others. In our country, the costs harder to discern because we use private insurance. However, there is a collective and noticable trend upward.

Personal choice is a factor here. It is both selfish and oppressive to want to take away peoples choices just because you find something unfavorable. If you can't see that not allowing a business owner decide what kind of workplace they want to have (smoking or non, etc.) is an infringment on freedom, then you don't know what it means to be free.

But, that is fine. Some of you who don't want to utilize critical thinking would rather believe the junk science because it supports your agenda. Well, then I can find a link to a website that "proves" that 9-11 was caused by remote control planes piloted by the Bush administration, too.

People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...

Or maybe we just have a guy who is trying to protect an addiction? There are 599 chemicals in cigarettes that are highly addictive. The end result is that smoking is on par with heroin and cocaine when it comes to addictive power. Look, you can call all of this stuff a "conspiracy" if you wish, but I have to wonder if your accusation that we all just trying to pursue our own selfish agendas can just as easily be applied right back on you.

 

[Kacey]

People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...

People believe this site, too... and go out of their way to avoid death by dihydrogen monoxide poisoning (an actual possibility) - that doesn't make your site "the one true word", or second-hand smoke safe just because somewhere on the 'net you found a site (or many sites) that says so, or any more than it makes dihydrogen monoxide a common poison, despite it being a common substance.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

So, the CDC is doing junk science? This claim is really laughable considering all of the things that the CDC studies. I'm sure you would have no problem with all of the other "science" they are doing, like the studies on AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, and other infectious diseases. Somehow, smoking is the target for you claim however. Why is that?

I can name one instance of the CDC doing "junk science". Back a few years ago, they were telling us the handgun violence was an "epidemic". Last time I checked, using a handgun, even unlawfully, isn't a disease.

Jeff

 

[BlackCatBonz]

ep·i·dem·ic [ èppi démmik ]
noun (plural ep·i·dem·ics)
Definition:
1. fast-spreading disease: an outbreak of a disease that spreads more quickly and more extensively among a group of people than would normally be expected

2. rapid development: a rapid and extensive development or growth, usually of something unpleasant
an epidemic of civil unrest and rioting

adjective
Definition: spreading unusually quickly and extensively: spreading more quickly and more extensively than would usually be expected

As you can see, that is a perfectly acceptable use for the word.

 

[Cruentus]

Mayham on the board! Mayham on the board! Call the Cavelry!!
:jediduel: :biggun: :argue:


lol. OK, just letting you know that I am still "light" here. I don't want people to get too upset over the topic...

Since my opinion is so unpopular, warrenting a lot of responses, I will have to do this by the numbers:

1. First off, I a not a smoker, at least not really. I do enjoy a good cigar now and again, but I don't smoke cigarettes. Furthermore, although I enjoy a good cigar (which is a 1-3 times a month occurance), I don't like nor do I frequent "smoke filled" establishments. So no "selfish" motive here.

2. Still someone has yet to provide evidence of any reports of a death purely as a result of SHS. With all the loud typing going on, and all the supposed evidence on how SHS is this killer that must be stopped (and don't forget god save the children), I find this interesting.

I am not saying that "smoking" isn't bad for you. Of course it is. We have a lot of studies to back that one up. Some of you seem to think that I am claiming that smoking isn't a health risk; I am not. I am saying that smoking is a health risk.... to smokers. I am saying that the risks of SHS are negligable.

The evidence is out there to back this up, particularly because there isn't one cause of great illness or death from SHS alone. If this is such a great "pollutant" and risk that needs to be made illegal, then you would think that we would be able to find at least one case of death.

And if you understand SHS and are a logical human being, you would realize that it disipates in the air. Even in enclosed rooms with little ventalation, SHS makes up such a small % of the surrounding air that the harmful chemicals break down very quickly, making the results of those who breath the surrounding air non-detect. Remember, breathing isn't the same as putting a detection device in a smokey area.

We find this out when we actually monitor peoples bodies who are around SHS. People are throwing a lot of garbage in this thread about the chemicals in cigarettes and air measurement tests and so forth, but none of that matters. What matters when we discuss health is the effects these things have on the human body. When we monitor that, we are unable to detect any effects of SHS with significance. This is far different then when we monitor people who actually are putting the cigarette to their lips and inhaling.

But, this I am sure will sway none of you who have minds already selfishly (for some) made up. That is OK; but I am still waiting to see some proof here that none of you have been able to provide so far.

3.

So, believe what you want. But it just seems rather smart NOT to inhale a known neurotoxin, as well as allow it to coat your skin and seep in through absorption. Not to mention, I'd rather not reek the way smokers do.

Then you know what.... DON'T go to establishments that are laden with SHS.

With only about 20% of public places in any given local in North America being "smoking" establishments, and with a much smaller % of them being "smoke filled," YOU can choose to go somewhere else. This is the fact that those in support of "smoking bans" neglect.

I have more then 1 friend who is allergic to smoke. So, you know what is awesome? When we go out, we don't have to go to smoke filled places. If we do go to a place that allows smoking, we sit strategically, and it isn't a problem.

Personal choice is an amazing thing. It is too bad that so many people would rather be told what to do, and would rather that individual choices are removed.

4. I also get real tired of the same lard-assed people who might be driving their SUV's (or other gas guzzler) through the "Micky-D's" drive thru to get their hormone filled chicken nuggets and aspertime filled sodas one minute, and barking about how SHS (something that hasn't been proven to cause health risks) is so gross and unhealthy the next. Well, look in the mirror before you talk!

I am sort of tounge and cheek and not pointing fingers to individuals here of course, but if the stats regarding obesity and fast food consumption are reflective of the sample size of people who are reading this thread, then the above description fits a good % of you.

The point is that many of you who crybaby about second hand smoke exhibit far more unhealthy and polluting behaviors that, unlike SHS, have actually been proven to be risky. I think that many of you have worse things that you should be worrying about. Yet, if the government told you that you couldn't do your unhealthy behavior of choice, I would bet you would have a problem with that. Hmmm...makes you think...

5. Why is it, when companies decide to put garbage in things that we consume, our answer is to regulate the civil liberties of the individual? Could it be that the neo-cons are achieving their goals?

If we are going to pass laws at all, we should be passing laws to regulate companies who put poison in our products, not laws that try to regulate the behaviors of individual consumers. There are strong theories that adding some of these chemicals is done intentionally to make consumers more addicted to the product, even though the additives are harmful. Then, we wouldn't even be starting with cigarette companies if we had our heads in the right place. We should start with food companies, many of which all people consume and are harmed from.

See, this is very frightening to me in a way. Supporting a smoking ban is akin to supporting regulation of all sorts of personal behaviors that could be "harmful." Soon enough, we'll all be swiping ID cards to get grocery rations to control obesity, and candybars will be on the black market.

Sounds outragous, because it is. Yet, we continue to lose our rights as as individuals every year with little complaint or action. So... we should be "outraged" rather then saying to ourselves, "It'll never go that far..."

We need to stop trying to regulate every bit of individual behavior. Let people do what they want. If we are concerned with poisons in our products, then we should work to regulate those, inform, and boycott these products rather cashing in our individual rights just so we can selfishly control our neighbors.

6. The health care issue exactly points to what I have been illustrating here regarding a slippery slope to an oppressive society. If France is so concerned about smoking because of the HC system, then where will it go next? "I'm sorry lady, your national ID card states that you have met your food rations for the week."

I am not against a form of national HC, as I agree that those of us who do not have such a system are in crisis. But it has to be done in a minimalist way where there is still some sort of market competition involved.

Because full nationalization now gives grounds for governments to start regulating any and all individual behaviors that might be a "health risk" and a burden to the "collective populus."

If this doesn't seem Orwelling to any of you, then maybe you have come down with a case of the pinko. Yall should get that one checked out... :rofl:

7. Maybe off topic a little, but when upnorth said, "ninja please," I laughed out loud. That was pretty funny and awesome. :ninja: :lol:

8. I say a lot of things in here "tongue and cheek" knowing that my opinion is the minority, and that I won't be very convincing to most of you. But I do think that there are some serious problems here. It is serious that many of you will fail to see my point regarding losing civil liberties. It is even more serious that many more of you will see the point, but will be willing to overlook it anyway for the sake of some sort of collective ideal.

It makes me both worried and sad that the old american ideals of freedom and individualism are almost gone. Well, I'll keep fightin' for them til I die, because that is all I can do.

Peace....

:supcool:

 

[Cruentus]

I can name one instance of the CDC doing "junk science". Back a few years ago, they were telling us the handgun violence was an "epidemic". Last time I checked, using a handgun, even unlawfully, isn't a disease.

Jeff

Hi Jeff. You are correct.

CDC, like many large organizations, has both a mix of good science and junk science. You provide a great example of "junk" that can be put out there, even if the organization is considered credible. Clearly when many people do scientific studies, the testers have an agenda, and they stack the data and method to fit it. This happens in all facets of the scientific community, meaning that we all need to really think critically when we look at studies that are done.

Not everyone is willing to look at studies based on individual merits, unfortunatily. It is much more "fun" to illogically "appeal to authority" instead, I guess... :idunno:

 

[Kacey]

You don't like over-regulation - that's fine. I don't particulalrly like it either. However, the people most at risk from second-hand smoke are children - the group least able to avoid situations involving second-hand smoke, especially if the smoke is a parent. From that perspective, I see little difference between laws against lead-based paint and laws against smoking in public places. I have a concern about laws regulating what people can do in their own homes or vehicles, which is why I don't support laws against smoking around children - however, I do support education in the potential risks; from that perspective, I also support education about the risks of drinking while pregnant.

Smoking during pregnancy, like drinking, has been linked to low birth weight in newborns, which in turn is linked to a series of other health problems. This is where education becomes important. The problem with passing laws of this nature is twofold: the problem of enforcement, and the problem with the invasion of privacy, as I would suspect that such laws would expand, not contract, and eventually at least attempt to encompass any setting where children are present. This creates a serious moral conundrum: the value of privacy for parents vs. the potential health problems for the child(ren) present in the home.

It is, admittedly, more difficult to determine a causal relationship between environmental carcinogens and/or pathogens compared with substances ingested directly. Nonetheless, comparisons between large populations of people who were, and were not, exposed to second-hand smoke as children show greater risk for a variety of illnesses; however, given the number of other risk-causing behaviors that are statistically more prevalent among smokers, it is difficult to determine exactly which environmental factor is the primary causal factor. Even so, I do not smoke, and if I did, I would not smoke around anyone's children, and would suggest - strongly - that others do not do so as well. It is an avoidable risk, and I see no reason not to encourage people to avoid such risks, as clearly as I would encourage them not to drink and drive. Nothing may happen - but why risk it?

Some other studies on the risks of secondhand smoke:

Children and Secondhand Smoke

Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke Causes Respiratory Symptoms In Healthy Adults

Tobacco smoking

Cigarette Smoke & Kids' Health

These are several articles garnered from a google search... but go on, believe what you like - it won't affect me. For myself and my friends, I will avoid the risk, and seek to educate others to do so as well, on behalf of those who cannot avoid it themselves - but not legislative action.