KMA-628

I think we are skining the same cat on this one:
My thinking is along the lines of #3 - I don't see second-hand smoke as having a "major effect"

However, it appears that you are thinking along the lines of #5 - Which would be accurate.

I equate significant with major.

As to the EPA study:
If that is peer-reviewed, than it just makes me question the peers.

My point is that there are other "dangers: in the air that pose more of a hazard to us than second-hand smoke that has already been filtered twice. While I agree that the smoke is annoying, I don't think it poses the risk that some would like to think. I remembering hearing that sitting in traffic was like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day--if that is true--that would make driving in traffic more dangerous than second-hand smoke

The problem is that my point is very difficult to prove or validate. The only people willing to fund a con study to second-hand smoke would be the tobacco industry themselves, and their data would be as hard to swallow for you as the EPA study is for me.

These studies set out to prove that second-hand smoke is deadly, before having any evidence.

I could do the same thing and prove that ketchup is deadly and should be banned.

I think people put too much weight behind studies like this. They are willing to accept the "facts" without looking at how the "facts" were attained.

If there wasn't so much doubt surround the very first study (the same study everyone wants to reference) than I wouldn't have any grounds for my opinion and I would walk away with my tail between my legs. I am not going to argue that a smoker is at significant risk for lung cancer because he/she smokes; the evidence is overwhelming and the methods used in attaining the evidence are not questionable. I am going to argue that a non-smoker is at significant risk for lunk cancer because of the small amount of time in their lives they are around second-hand smoke; the evidence is very questionable.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Yakk

Sure. But, that science also happens to line up with common sense.

We know air pollution kills, from many other studies. Second hand smoke is local air polution. It seems common sense that second hand smoke kills.

We know smoking kills. Second hand smoke is the same shit, most of it unfiltered.

We know smoke irritates your lungs. Things that our body is irritated by tend to cause harm.

In addition to all of the studies out there, there is common sense backing it. No, there won't be a 100% proof that second hand smoke causes death.

But, it seems there is a large scientific consensus. So, should we ban second hand smoke?

Well, lets examine the cost.

The economic harm seems minimal, and the economic benefits seem large. It seems to be an anti-social act that poisons people who aren't involved in it, so there is even a moral arguement.

Workplace safety is within the traditional bounds of government, so this isn't extending government authority into new areas.

If second hand smoke wasn't a form of assult, you would have a point.

By your reconing, bars should be able to declair themselves 'open brawl zones'. Employers should be able to demand that employees have sex with them to keep their jobs.

I mean, sex is legal. As is boxing.

The legality of the substance is fine. Feel free to consume the substance so long as you harm nobody else.

If you drink and drive, you are endangering other people. You should be thrown in jail and have some sense beaten into you.

If you smoke in an enclosed common area, you are endangering other people.

And guess what? Smoking won't be as legal tommorrow as it is today. If your morality is based off the letter of the law, then that should solve the conundrum for you. =p~

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

kutulu

Do they mention any of the 50 million causes of cancer or heart disease and show how they eliminate them as contributing factors? Smoking rates have drastically decreased over the last 10 years. Has there been a comprable decrease in lung cancer or heart disease during that time period?

raveneye

In other words it is extremely unlikely (less than 5%) that the observed damage could be explained by chance alone.

Stompy

Lots of logic in here is twisted.

I hear a lot of complaining about second hand smoke, but I don't hear one word about car exhaust. So it's okay to walk down the street and smell emissions from a car, but it's not okay for someone to sit next to you and smoke?

__________________
I love lamp.

Yakk

The tobacco industry disputed the risks of cancer from smoking for decades. They questioned the evidence.

For example:
Look, someone just questioned your "unquestionable" data that smoking kills!

If you want to believe the entire medical establishment is conspiring to make it seem as if second hand smoke is dangerous, that's your option.

We know that the tobacco industry has conspired to make it seem that smoking isn't dangerous.

Workers in the hospitality industry spend years upon years exposed to second hand smoke.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

raveneye

So how many people would you allow to die every year from SHS before you would be willing to ban it?

You're hung up on this one study. So completely ignore it. That's fine with me. It changes nothing. There is still objectively demonstrable scientific consensus that SHS causes increased risk of cancer, heart disease, lung disease. Even if you completely ignore that study.

In fact, this consensus existed for 20 years before that EPA study was published, as indicated by the Surgeon General's 1986 report.

SHS has certainly not been filtered twice. That's a complete misconception of yours. Much of SHS is completely unfiltered, namely smoke that is wafting off a butt lying in an ashtray. Where did you get the idea that SHS has been twice filtered?


And the tobacco industry used to make the same point about the effects of first hand smoke, saying the studies were biased and in reality there is no harm to first hand smoke whatsoever. Do you agree with that? You should, if you are going to be logically consistent. Every criticism you have made of the SHS studies can equally be made of the first hand smoke studies.

Simply because some studies can be criticized does nothing to eliminate the scientific consensus that both active and passive smoking are harmful to your health.

And if scientific consensus were determined by your one study, then you would have a point. But scientific consensus is not determined by any one study. So your point is irrelevant.

What evidence? You've questioned the evidence of one single study, and ignored the evidence of 100 other studies.

Your standards of convincing yourself that SHS is not significantly harmful are extremely low. In fact they are unreasonably low by any scientific standards.

mwb200

... get real. Have you tried to get smoke out of your clothes or hair, let alone your lungs?

raveneye

So I guess that means that no amount of citing peer-reviewed studies is going to change your opinion?

raveneye

(1) The methods are identical. How did you arrive at the conclusion that they are different?

(2) If you believe that active smoking creates significant risk for lung cancer then you should also believe that passive smoking creates significant risk for lung cancer

This is because passive smoking involves inhaling the same unfiltered smoke (from a smoking butt) that active smoking involves.

kutulu

What you fail to include, however, is that the passive smoker inhales considerably LESS than the person smoking. Ever heard of dispersion? The farther away you are from the source, the lower the concentration will be. After that, look at length of exposure to the smoke. Walking into a building you might pass a smoker standing 5-10 feet from the door. You are within a 20 foot radius of them for about 10 seconds. Compare that to someone who smokes the whole fucking cig. There is an astronomical difference.

It comes down to what they are calling second hand smoke exposure, how long the exposure time is, and how far away the probes are that measure the concentration of smoke are from the source. They never mention that, do they?

Exactly. They also operate their gas or charcoal grills and sit around the campfire. You don't hear about people getting all looney about that because they LIKE the way those things smell or they are odorless (and conveniently forget that those things are just as, if not more dangerous).

Charlatan

In Toronto there are strict idling laws... you are not allowed to idle your car for more than 3 minutes (the exceptions to this are in cases of extreme cold or heat where air conditioning or heating are a matter of survival).

You might also consider the emmision laws that were enacted in California as an attempt to curb auto emmisions.

As for grills (gas, charcoal or wood) you don't generally use them indoors. No one here has suggested that smoking be banned from outdoors. Nor is anyone suggesting that these things, including car exhaust isn't dangerous to our health. You are right, most people don't think about this and many people are dying from the pollution in our air.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

flstf

The point I was trying to make is that if you agree with the studies that show secondhand smoke is harmful and do not wish to expose yourself to it then all you have to do is not go into the establishment. Why should it bother you if the business owner wishes to permit his customers to enjoy tobacco products? No one is forcing you to go in.

I don't think "open brawl zones" applies here, although I have been in some taverns where one might think it does.

raveneye

Ever hear of more than one smoker being in a room at the same time?

Yakk

If you read my cost/benefit justification, you'll notice it fails for cars.

Even at that, car emissions standards have been getting tighter and tighter as years go on. Yes, cars pollute and kill, but we decided the benefits of cars outwiegh the cost in lives and stink.

Also note that cars are used outdoors, where they disperse into billions of tonnes of atmosphere (on the order of 10^14 tonnes of atmosphere).

And, say, spending 6 hours a night working in a smoke-filled nightclub, how would that compare?

It's allowing your patrons to harm each other and your employees. Be it with cancer of broken bones and concussions.

The likelyhood of there being harm is large. The cost of removing the harm is low. Government regulation along these lines is far from unprecidented.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

kutulu

What is that saying that the anti-smoking nazi's like to throw around when we talk about firing smokers? Oh yeah, get another job?

kutulu

Also note that the anit-smoking camps are not satisfied with taking indoor locations from the smokers. They want the outside patio, 50feet from the entrace to a building, outdoor public parks, etc. They quickly cite health reasons why we should ban outdoor smoking. Not full of shit at all. Really.

Yakk

Yes, some states leave worker/employee relationships pretty unregulated.

Other states do not.

Many states make it illegal to kill your workers, or provide them with unsafe working conditions.

Many states make it illegal to kill your customers/clients, or provide them with unsafe conditions.

There are other reasons to ban smoking, but I believe the one above is sufficient.

(Ie, ban smoking as an anti-social act for the same reason sex in the street is banned. It's rude. Legislating politeness has issues, so I consider that arguement for a smoking ban weak. The existance of bad reasons for a law doesn't matter if there is a good reason for the law.)

There are people who argue for that. Argue against it. This thread is about smoking in indoor public places.

At best, businesses/buildings should have the right to ban smoking near their entrances, if they want to. And I don't know if I'd go that far.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

filtherton

Get another job? How about get another filthy habit? Perhaps one that doesn't make your family and friends watch you kill yourself.

Even if second hand smoke weren't harmful, even if we were to pretend that all the other good arguments for banning indoor smoking don't exist, i don't like being around that shit. I don't care if someone has to step outside to smoke. Cry me a fucking river. Wait, don't, because i don't fucking care.

Here's an argument for indoor smoking bans that's unbeatable: People who support the bans are a majority(consisting of both smokers and nonsmokers) + Smoking isn't a civil right = No smoking in public places. Maybe its more of a theorem. In any case, the logic is impeccable.
Politics in action, my friends. Welcome to america, please extinguish your cigarettes before entering.

Fourtyrulz

Why shouldn't it be banned? No one should have to walk through a cloud of nicotene in order to leave a building. My university actually has signs posted, no smoking within ___ feet in front of the building.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Yakk

Because at that level it's only rudeness on the part of smokers, not serious harm. Yes, the smokers are stinking up everyone's hair, skin and clothing in order to satisfy their addiction, and doing it at a choke point, and not caring about the consequences to others. It isn't harm like making your waitress breathe smoke for 6 hours is harm -- it's only being extremely impolite and rude.

Legislating politeness seems going too far.

Allowing companies to insist their workers and clients are polite (allowing building owners to disallow smoking near building entrances) is another thing entirely.

You can hold your breath and walk quickly while passing through the noxious smoker's guantlet.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

matthew330

There were two definitive statements on the NIH website (which was only 3/4's of a page long, if the NIH only has 3/4's of a page to say about something - they haven't got much)

1. "3,000 people a year die from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke." I would LOVE to see the evidence for this. I worked almost exclusively on lung cancer for two years in one of the leading cancer centers in the country, never saw one lung cancer case not only CAUSED by second hand smoke, but even as a contributing factor. I've never spoken to a P.I. on a study, that has dictated a note confirming anything of the sort.


2. Of all these "peer reviewed" studies cited, even the NIH concedes (aside from all of the links, correlations, and associations) that they "don't know what amount, if any, exposure, is safe" . Well damn, this would be this easiest question to answer, no?. As many #'s as were thrown out in some of the studies cited, they were social studies, and as such not controlled. You cannot study the effects of a toxin on an individual, by social regional statistics. We are talking about a very specific toxin. Throw a couple of mice in a cage, feed them second hand smoke - there's your answer.

If after all these studies, the best anyone has come up with is association, indications, and links as KMA pointed out, these studies are faulty. ANY STUDY, whether the results supportive of your hypothosis, or not, the results should be published. A "don't know what amount is safe" sounds real real fishy, by know you ceratainly should have a general idea.

Anyway, my point still stands. None of you are risking your health by walking into a bar with smokers, walking outside your work building through a "gauntlet", etc, etc. By the way, non-smokers reaction to smokers is more like: walk real slow, make eye contact, and start this horrible hacking cough untill your at least 50 feet away.....even though i actually enjoy this reaction.

If you have a pre-disposing medical condition to any of the diseases SHS has been correlated with, you could have, with minimal effort avoided "lethal" contact with it back in the 1940's, much less in 2004.

And forty-rulz, if your gonna call me ignorant, don't play the martyr when i react.

matthew330

...worrying about the effects of second hand smoke, i would bet, is more detremental to ones health, than the second hand smoke itself.

matthew330

I refuse to be in agreement with Kutulu on any subject...fuck all that i've said, Second hand smoke will kill you within minutes. Ban it!!! I quit.

Yakk

No, it wouldn't be the easiest question to answer.

First, mice are not men. Infomation gained from mice is very uncertain when applied to humans.

This is a chronic exposure problem, not a single-instance of toxin problem.

Second, human trials are clearly unethical. They have reason to believe it kills. You don't kill your patients.

Your "point" is just an assertion of faith.

I don't worry about second hand smoke. I don't go into bars/restaurants where people smoke, and I don't live with smokers. Those smokers I know don't smoke indoors, or in high density in areas of forced traffic that I travel through. They are polite.

Kill yourself all you want. Just don't breath toxins into other people's lungs. It's a pretty simple ethical rule.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Kalnaur

I'm for banning smoking in all work and public places. All the smoke does for me is make my nose puff up and get all stuffy, my throat to itch, and my eyes to water. And no, smoke does not "harmlessly disapate" in the air. Dang smokers near the MAX, and school and doorways. . . .

Anyway, so, yeah I'm for smoking bans.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

matthew330

" I don't worry about second hand smoke. I don't go into bars/restaurants where people smoke, and I don't live with smokers. Those smokers I know don't smoke indoors, or in high density in areas of forced traffic that I travel through. They are polite."

Congratulations, your perfectly capable of avoiding your percieved, overexaggerated dangers of second hand smoke. Yet you'd still like to make laws restricting it even further. Why?

matthew330

First, mice are not men. Infomation gained from mice is very uncertain when applied to humans.

This is a chronic exposure problem, not a single-instance of toxin problem.

Second, human trials are clearly unethical. They have reason to believe it kills. You don't kill your patients.

Your "point" is just an assertion of faith.


As tempted as i am, i won't be rude about this (I only want to be rude because it's the easiest response). Trust me when i tell you, none of the above is correct.

EDIT: most of the above is incorrect, all of it is out of context.

raveneye

So do you also believe then that smoking cigarettes is not harmful?

Every criticism you have made above about research on secondhand smoke can be made, indeed has been made, about research on firsthand smoke.

And there are still many people who firmly believe that firsthand smoke has no dangers whatsoever, precisely for the reasons you cited.

So that seems to leave you with only two logically consistent positions: either both firsthand and secondhand smoke are harmless, or neither is harmless.

raveneye

This is the EPA study that took the accepted methodology for determining the number of deaths per year from active smoking, and applying that exact same methodology for determining the number of deaths per year from passive smoking.

So if you accept the fact that active smoking causes x number of deaths per year from lung cancer, you should also accept that passive smoking causes y(less than x) number of deaths per year from lung cancer.

The two results use exactly the same methodology, so it is logically inconsistent to accept one and attack the other.

raveneye

It is also true that they don't know what amount, if any, of cigarette smoking, is safe.

Does that then imply that cigarette smoking must be safe?

Fourtyrulz

I don't see why you would avoid being rude here, you've already shown yourself to be quite good at it.

I agree with Yakk that what it comes down to is smokers ignoring the evidence completely, just take a look at my signature. If the evidence interferes with and flatly contradicts your pre-chosen belief that's too bad. It seems we've gone to great lengths to prove whether or not second hand smoke is bad for you. All you have to do is break it down: Smoke is not good for human beings to breathe in. Smoking is not good for human beings. Second hand smoke is not good for human beings. You might as well light a section of the building on fire and inhale the fumes for an hour.

I couldn't imagine arguing that second smoke is not bad for you, it seems completely illogical to me.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

KMA-628

......was proven bogus in a court of law.....that's only been mentioned here a few times now.

Unless, our courts are suspect too????

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

double post

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

They do not use the same methodology.

I went through the brain damage last night of actually reading some of these second-hand smoke studies and here is the methodology:

1) We know inhaling "mainstream" tobacco smoke (MTS) and causes cancer, heart disease, etc.

2) We then assume that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke), is bad. We don't know how bad, we can only guess, but we are sure it is bad, but once again, we can't really measure how bad it is or at what level it is bad, if any level at all, we just know it is bad.

So, in other words, they have no clue how much "bad stuff" a non-smoker takes in when around ETS. However, since ETS is bad, we can assume that it does this.....the word assume comes up an awful lot in these studies.

That is not the same methodology at all.

Now, the one methodology that they do use consistently is to use, as a primary reference (every study I read did this) the EPA study that was struck down in court.

So.....

We have assumptions.

We have guesses.

We use faulty references.

And.....how again do we come to the conclusion that all of this is factual science?


Here is my favorite part: According to these studies, more people die from SHS exposure outside the home, than by exposure inside the home.

In other words, if you are a non-smoker and you live with a smoker, you have less of a chance (around 600 of the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS were from non-smokers living with smokers) of getting lung cancer than a person who gets exposure to ETS in public.

What??????

And it gets even better: Do you know why they say this? Because of tolerance. The studies said that the body has the ability to build up tolerance against carcinogens.

I mean, c'mon. This stuff is full of holes. And if a non-scientist can see it, why can't you.

If ETS or SHS is as bad as you want it to be, how in the hell could you buy the fact that being in public is more dangerous than living in a closed space, with a smoker.

Wanna know what I think?

No? Well, I'm gonna tell you anyway.

Something else is causing the cancer of these non-smokers and it ain't cigarette smoke.

But guess what, they have no way of knowing that.

This is junk science, pure and simple.


Nope, but it sure throws the whole SHS thing into doubt though, don't it.


Do you see the common theme here for the "science" of second-hand smoke?

Guesses, assumptions and a whole lot of "don't knows".

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Stompy

Is smoking harmful? Yes.

Is second hand smoke harmful? Sure, but no more harmful than you eating fast food, not exercising, drinking 20 cups of coffee a day, or getting drunk on a weekly basis.

If you're going out to bars so often that you're upset about second hand smoke, then maybe you should check your alcohol problem, haha. Unless, of course, you're going there to just hang out, but right.. chances are you're there drinking.

I honestly believe that people complain just for the sake of complaining.

Going out to the bar or whatever one or two nights a week and being around smoke for 30-60 minutes... it is very HIGHLY unlikely that you will get any health side-effects from it. That's being TOO paranoid.

__________________
I love lamp.

Yakk

And guess what? Smoking in restaurants/bars isn't allowed in my juristiction.

It's wonderful, let me tell you. And vile when I travel.

I don't want to make laws restricting it even further where I am. It's already restricted.

Feel free to read my reasoning why second hand smoke should be banned from workplaces.

You drink alchohol, with your own hands. Other people breathe smoke into you. Notice the difference.

And the workers who spend 5 hours/day in smoke-filled bars are getting much more exposure.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Ilow

This is the saddest little argument I've seen repeated over and over on this thread by smokers, this idea that we do other harmful things to ourselves so why single out smoking. Well, no matter how much I drink, I'm not going to give YOU cirrohsis of the liver, no matter how many times I supersize, your cholesterol will not rise, and no matter how many cups of coffee per day I consume, you will never become hypertensive because of it.
people who don't smoke are not "complaining for the sake of complaining" they are objecting to the fact that they are being unwillingly subjected to carcinogens. It does not matter what their exposure time is90 minutes at dinner, two hours at a bar, whatever, ANY amount is too much, regardless of the obvious health concerns (seriously, when you see a real human lung from a smoker and one from a non-smoker it's obvious to a four-year-old that smoking is not good for you) it's just rude and filthy to do indoors.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Stompy

Just goes to show people complain just to hear themselves talk.

I don't really care either way. Chances are it bothers you more than it does me

__________________
I love lamp.

raveneye

KMA, it sounds like you read a couple studies, didn't understand them very well, and came to the conclusions that you already decided you were going to come to before you read them.

I notice you didn't tell anybody which particular studies "didn't use the same methodology." Care to let us know, so we can check if you're right or not?

And after discarding two studies, what did you decide about the other 98 that you didn't read? That they are all bogus, too?