PDA

View Full Version : Split discussion: Smoking



Candy
2006-Jan-08, 07:18 AM
[Moderator note: split comments from this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36782).]

When is smoking a crime, boys?

I'm in the process of quitting, but why do you pick on smokers?

Don't give me that my girlfriend died of cancer stuff... unless she died of cancer from smoking!

Wolverine
2006-Jan-08, 07:41 AM
......

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 07:50 AM
Hey, you let it get this far.

cjl
2006-Jan-08, 08:16 AM
When is smoking a crime, boys?

I'm in the process of quitting, but why do you pick on smokers?

Don't give me that my girlfriend died of cancer stuff... unless she died of cancer from smoking!
Well, my grandma has emphysema, and can barely walk 20 feet without gasping for air. I can't see how that would be in any way a good thing.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 08:31 AM
Well, my grandma has emphysema, and can barely walk 20 feet without gasping for air. I can't see how that would be in any way a good thing.
She's old, she should be breathing funny. :rolleyes:

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 09:23 AM
What?

Wolverine
2006-Jan-08, 09:24 AM
Hey, you let it get this far.

Mak's post on the originating thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=647588#post647588) was just a cute tongue-in-cheek comment. The topic was intended to focus upon observing, not smoking. I don't understand the reason for your reaction.

OT comments split.

Edit: removed a misplaced "from"

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 09:26 AM
Mak's post on the originating thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=647588#post647588) from was just a cute tongue-in-cheek comment. The topic was intended to focus upon observing, not smoking. I don't understand the reason for your reaction.

OT comments split.
You know what's funny, his post are not tongue and cheek. :D

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-08, 10:02 AM
She's old, she should be breathing funny. :rolleyes:

Was that a joke? My father talked that way too, between hacks. I've mentioned before what smoking did to my father and his father. My grandfather was in bed on an oxygen tank for 8 years before he died, much of that time in a VA hospital. I never knew him. My father had to take medical retirement because of massive emphysema. He died when I was 13.

If you possibly can, get off that horrible stuff.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:05 AM
Was that a joke? My father talked that way too, between hacks. I've mentioned before what smoking did to my father and his father. My grandfather was in bed on an oxygen tank for 8 years before he died, much of that time in a VA hospital. I never knew him. My father had to take medical retirement because of massive emphysema. He died when I was 13.

If you possibly can, get off that horrible stuff.
NO, I'm breathing funny myself...

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 10:08 AM
My dad smocked for a year- it made me have urges to smoke...

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:10 AM
This Was Not My Discussion!

Thomas(believer)
2006-Jan-08, 10:16 AM
Dear Candy,

You say, you are in the process of quiting. Does that mean you are thinking about it, or exually don't smoke at the moment? From experience I can tell, it takes about three days untill your mind comes to rest. Try to drink a lot of water and sleep a lot. After that it takes a strong will. After three months there will be moments you don't think about cigarettes.
I quitted for 1.5 years. Then I had to go away for a few months to a far and strange country and I started my bad habit again. I still regret that.

Good Luck

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 10:19 AM
Ok


When is smoking a crime, boys?
I'd say smoking is a crime if you are under 18 or force it upon others(via second hand smoke).

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:24 AM
I'm trying to quit.

Hey, I've done nothing wrong but voice my opinion.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:25 AM
I want the BA to come and moderate.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:30 AM
Here is what makes me angry. I did not start this thread. I am trying to stop smoking and this is not helping.

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 10:31 AM
That's great :D :D

I can't imagine how hard it is, and I wish you the best of luck.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:34 AM
Wolverine is great for separating the threads, he should be awarded...

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 10:36 AM
Hey, I've done nothing wrong but voice my opinion.

I agree- what I was saying was that the only way smoking is a crime I'd say is if "you are under 18 or force it upon others(via second hand smoke)." or otherwise, and this technicly isn't an actuall crime...




I think you may be just crabby because your tring to quit. ;)

Thomas(believer)
2006-Jan-08, 10:41 AM
Oh, I forget to mention, failure is not an option.:naughty:
You will give a bad example to people who visit this board.
But really, quitting is not as hard as you think it is.
May the force be with you.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 10:43 AM
Okay, I'm logging off to call my mother.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 11:53 AM
It was Okay.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 11:54 AM
It was OKAY!

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 11:57 AM
I meed a mental hug!
No body is going hug me?
Are they?

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 11:58 AM
Gillian would be prould of me. I hope.

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 11:59 AM
I tried, over in the quickest banning thread.

Here's another one for you!!

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:01 PM
Thank you, cyswxman.

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 12:04 PM
I'd give you a real hug, but I don't have an 875 mile reach. :sad:

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:10 PM
I talked to both parents.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:10 PM
The Sister and a Dumas!

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:11 PM
Really, a Dumas!

Ex-boyfriend...

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 12:14 PM
I hope you are doing o.k.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:16 PM
OKAY, I don't this thread being associated with me.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:18 PM
I wouldn't mind if it were about Einstien, but it is about SMOKINIG!

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:19 PM
I don't want to be about SMOKING!

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 12:34 PM
You're not about smoking.
(or did you mean this thread???)

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:36 PM
THIS IS NOT A THREAD I STARTED.
but should I maintain?

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:39 PM
now, I have to quit smoking.

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 12:43 PM
I don't clearly understand how it did get started....

It wasn't your idea, so you don't need to maintain it if you don't want.

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 12:49 PM
Good luck with quitting smoking, Candy!! I wish I could give you some helpful advice, but since I can't say I know what you're going through...:sad:
I think you can do it!

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:50 PM
I'm on the patch.... but...

R.A.F.
2006-Jan-08, 12:50 PM
OKAY, I don't this thread being associated with me.

Posting totals for this thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=36787)

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 12:51 PM
It's not helping a lot???

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:52 PM
RAF, this is not me.

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:55 PM
FINE - I'll take the thread... can someone tell me what the original post was about?

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 12:55 PM
Is wasn't about smoking...

cyswxman
2006-Jan-08, 01:00 PM
smoking not the original topic, but mentioned as the reason he went out and subsequently noted the clear skies...

Then the topic comments were split...

I don't know. It's too early in the morning (too late in the day for me)

R.A.F.
2006-Jan-08, 01:08 PM
RAF, this is not me.

What is "not you"? This thread?

You stated that you didn't (like, I assume) being associated with "this thread", yet you keep posting to it.

It's like you're jumping up and down, shouting, "don't associate me with this thread", and obviously, it is having the exact opposite effect.

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 01:11 PM
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/images/smilies/Hole.gif

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 01:14 PM
God and Science Bless Me.

mickal555
2006-Jan-08, 01:17 PM
Isn't that OT...

Candy
2006-Jan-08, 01:27 PM
Stuffy nose, God worked!

R.A.F.
2006-Jan-08, 02:29 PM
Re. thread split...from the other thread...


So, tonight I was working at my night job and every time I went outside for a smoke...snip...Just as I was driving home, clouds started rolling in... is my luck bad or what!!!


Perhaps you were smoking while driving and had the windows rolled up

Obviously a joke, referring to snabald previous reference to smoking.

That is the only mention to smoking until
Candy posted...


When is smoking a crime, boys?

I'm in the process of quitting, but why do you pick on smokers?

Both questions having nothing to do with what was being discussed...

It therefore became necessary to split the thread, because Candy was asking "off topic" questions. And I "assume" she wanted answers or she wouldn't have asked the questions.

I just don't see why Candy is having such a "problem" with this...

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-08, 04:00 PM
I just don't see why Candy is having such a "problem" with this...
Withdrawal symptoms from drug addiction. Yes, that's how I view smoking.
When going cold turkey on smoking it is common to get very irritable and flare up over what would normally be totally insignificant stuff, especially if it's in any way related to smoking and therefore reminds the person quitting about what's happening.

Gullible Jones
2006-Jan-08, 07:19 PM
Withdrawal symptoms from drug addiction. Yes, that's how I view smoking.
When going cold turkey on smoking it is common to get very irritable and flare up over what would normally be totally insignificant stuff, especially if it's in any way related to smoking and therefore reminds the person quitting about what's happening.

It's not just how you view it, it's how it actually works. IIRC, nicotine's addictiveness is comparable to heroin's.

Monique
2006-Jan-08, 08:48 PM
I must comment. Nicotine addictive, alcolhol addictive, caffeine addictive. Many substance addictive. Is no evidence to link second hand smoke to disease or addiction.

laws make some drugs illegal, some drugs legal. I do not understand logic behind way laws are. I believe choice is for individual for many drugs. If individual become violent or disrupt society, is crime. Example is drunk driver. Drink alcolol not crime, drive as drunk is crime. I agree addiction is hard for loved ones, but many choices for life cause hardship for loved ones. I believe in choice of individual. Hazard for smoking well know. If adult loved one wish to smoke I believe is responsiblity of society to protect choice. I also believe society must protect children, provide education, but allow adult to have choice.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-08, 09:33 PM
I must comment. Nicotine addictive, alcolhol addictive, caffeine addictive. Many substance addictive. Is no evidence to link second hand smoke to disease or addiction.


Sorry Monique, but we've discussed this before. There is a great deal of evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous, not to mention horrible stuff to breathe for many non-smokers. It is dangerous pollution and needs to be controlled like any other pollution. And from what I saw with my father, it is far more addictive than caffeine or even alcohol.



laws make some drugs illegal, some drugs legal. I do not understand logic behind way laws are. I believe choice is for individual for many drugs. If individual become violent or disrupt society, is crime. Example is drunk driver. Drink alcolol not crime, drive as drunk is crime.


I agree that many of the drug laws are ridiculous. But, yes, laws are needed to protect others from the effects of drugs. That includes protection from second hand smoke.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-08, 09:36 PM
It's the old one about your freedom to swing a fist stops at my face.
You can smoke all you want, as long as you don't pollute the air I'm breating when you do it.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-08, 09:47 PM
It's the old one about your freedom to swing a fist stops at my face.
You can smoke all you want, as long as you don't pollute the air I'm breating when you do it.
Exactly!:clap:

Monique
2006-Jan-08, 09:55 PM
Sorry Monique, but we've discussed this before. There is a great deal of evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous, not to mention horrible stuff to breathe for many non-smokers. It is dangerous pollution and needs to be controlled like any other pollution. And from what I saw with my father, it is far more addictive than caffeine or even alcohol.

Evidence please.

No definitive study show to be true.



I agree that many of the drug laws are ridiculous. But, yes, laws are needed to protect others from the effects of drugs. That includes protection from second hand smoke.
I make suggestion. Do not go to restaurants have smokers... make smokers go outside. I do not see big problem... Addiction is hard thing, I do not believe addiction illegal.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-08, 10:53 PM
Evidence please.


See here:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html#Summary



No definitive study show to be true.


That's what the tobacco companies liked to say about first-hand smoke for years. Meanwhile, we control the same chemicals in other contexts much more carefully, and we require much less evidence that they are dangerous.



I make suggestion. Do not go to restaurants have smokers... make smokers go outside. I do not see big problem... Addiction is hard thing, I do not believe addiction illegal.

Monique, I like you, but I am happy I live in a place where I can go to a restaurant where I can expect to be able to breathe the air, taste the food and not have to wash my clothes afterwards to get the stale smoke out of them.

We've discussed this before and we're not going to agree on it. Smoke is horrible stuff and I have the right not to be subjected to it everywhere I go. That's all I'm going to say on it.

Gillianren
2006-Jan-08, 11:07 PM
Here's what I don't get. Studies have shown that any amount of cigarette smoke is bad for the smoker, right? I mean, even the "we have to put these PSAs up because of the settlement" Philip Morris commercials say very clearly that that's true.

So what makes the person not actually smoking the cigarette safe from the smoke? It's still got all those horrible chemicals in it, right? There's no magic "I didn't pay for it" filtering process, right? Of course it's bad for nonsmokers, too! The more so if you're the girl who lived down the hall from me for a while when I was in college who got migraines from cigarette smoke. Knowing that this was so, some of the people in our building actually blew smoke towards her.

Monique
2006-Jan-09, 12:15 AM
Monique, I like you, but I am happy I live in a place where I can go to a restaurant where I can expect to be able to breathe the air, taste the food and not have to wash my clothes afterwards to get the stale smoke out of them.

We've discussed this before and we're not going to agree on it. Smoke is horrible stuff and I have the right not to be subjected to it everywhere I go. That's all I'm going to say on it.
I agree. I do not agree that you have right to anywhere. If I own restaurant, if I wish to allow smoking. Do not come to my restaurant.

Do not allow smoking on plane, in office building, on bus, on train. Allow smoking outside behind building, in home. I do not see problem??


Edit to Add:

You may disagree, but I do not seem crime in smoking.

worzel
2006-Jan-09, 12:21 AM
Here's what I don't get. Studies have shown that any amount of cigarette smoke is bad for the smoker, right? I mean, even the "we have to put these PSAs up because of the settlement" Philip Morris commercials say very clearly that that's true.

So what makes the person not actually smoking the cigarette safe from the smoke? It's still got all those horrible chemicals in it, right? There's no magic "I didn't pay for it" filtering process, right?You have a point. But surely the amount inhaled is significant. You wouldn't argue that one particle of smoke per year is harmfull, would you? Second-hand smoke has already been inhaled, diluted, exhaled, and then diluted some more before it ever reaches your lungs. For the record, I am totally in favour of a smoking ban in all enclosed spaces - I prefer smoke free environments, don't mind going outside for a smoke, and I can see no good argument for why I should be able to subject others to the fumes of my disgusting addiction. But I really don't buy this "if I can smell it then it must be bad for me", or the "if I don't like the smell then I shouldn't be subjected to it", attitude. I find petrol fumes, London's drains and people's BO nausiatiung, but I have to live with them. I'll restrict my smoking to outside so long as you all restrict your anti-smoking crusades to inconsiderate smokers - and before you ask, I do hold my breath when someone is passing me on the street rather than exhale in their face - consequently I can't smoke on Oxford Street :)

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 01:00 AM
I agree. I do not agree that you have right to anywhere. If I own restaurant, if I wish to allow smoking. Do not come to my restaurant.

Do not allow smoking on plane, in office building, on bus, on train. Allow smoking outside behind building, in home. I do not see problem??


I said I wasn't going to say more on this, but ...

There are health regulations to prevent people from getting sick at restaurants. Dangerous materials and chemicals are controlled, like lead and asbestos. We don't allow lead paint to be used anymore, or asbestos tiles. Why should cigarette smoke be an exception?

But if you want to have a place where smokers can smoke - that's okay with me. The problem is that, until the smoking laws here, there were virtually no choices for a non-smoker. There was no place to go without having to breathe far too much smoke. It is precisely because smoke goes everywhere that it is such an issue.



You may disagree, but I do not seem crime in smoking.

I agree that smoking, in itself, is not a crime. However, smoke pollution needs to be controlled to protect non-smokers, and the only effective way to do that has been through law.

ToSeek
2006-Jan-09, 02:05 AM
All the restaurants in my county are required to be smoke-free as of the beginning of this year.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 02:32 AM
Theoretically. One resteraunt I was in said, "Real Texans don't ban!" In short, you can smoke in that resteraunt, even if it would be against the law.

Titana
2006-Jan-09, 03:12 AM
Humm..:think:...interesting


Well, is cigarrette smoke bad? Yeah it is, but, cigarrette smoke is not the only cause of lung cancer or emphysema. There are many other chemicals in the air that we all breath daily that can as well cause lung cancer or emphysema. I known of people who have died of either of the two diseases mentioned, and they were people who have never even touched a cigarrette in their whole lives. The only reason i brought this up is so that we realise that we can not only blame cigarrette smoke for all those diseases. There are many other chemicals that can cause them as well.



Tobacco smoke and other pollutants are thought to cause the release of chemicals within the air sacs of the lung that damage the walls of the air sacs. When chemicals are released, a chemical imbalance occurs. There are many different reasons this chemical imbalance occurs. Smoking causes the imbalance as well as exposure to air pollution, and irritating fumes and dusts on the job.


Biological pollutants: These are mostly allergens that can cause asthma, hay fever, and other allergic diseases.

Volatile organic compounds: Volatile compounds can cause irritation of the eye, nose and throat. In severe cases there may be headaches, nausea, and loss of coordination. In the longer run, some of them are suspected to cause damage to the liver and other parts of the body.

Formaldehyde: Exposure causes irritation to the eyes, nose and may cause allergies in some people.

Lead: Prolonged exposure can cause damage to the nervous system, digestive problems, and in some cases cause cancer. It is especially hazardous to small children.

Radon: A radioactive gas that can accumulate inside the house, it originates from the rocks and soil under the house and its level is dominated by the outdoor air and also to some extent the other gases being emitted indoors. Exposure to this gas increases the risk of lung cancer.

Ozone: Exposure to this gas makes our eyes itch, burn, and water and it has also been associated with increase in respiratory disorders such as asthma. It lowers our resistance to colds and pneumonia.

Oxides of nitrogen: This gas can make children susceptible to respiratory diseases in the winters.

CO (carbon monoxide): It combines with hemoglobin to lessen the amount of oxygen that enters our blood through our lungs. The binding with other harem proteins causes changes in the function of the affected organs such as the brain and the cardiovascular system, and also the developing foots. It can impair our concentration, slow our reflexes, and make us confused and sleepy.

SO2 (sulfur dioxide): SO2 in the air is caused due to the rise in combustion of fossil fuels. It can oxidize and form sulfuric acid mist. SO2 in the air leads to diseases of the lung and other lung disorders such as wheezing and shortness of breath. Long-term effects are more difficult to ascertain as SO2 exposure is often combined with that of SPM.

SPM (suspended particulate matter): Suspended matter consists of dust, fumes, mist and smoke. The main chemical component of SPM that is of major concern is lead, others being nickel, arsenic, and those present in diesel exhaust. These particles when breathed in, lodge in our lung tissues and cause lung damage and respiratory problems. The importance of SPM as a major pollutant needs special emphasis as a) it affects more people globally than any other pollutant on a continuing basis; b) there is more monitoring data available on this than any other pollutant; and c) more epidemiological evidence has been collected on the exposure to this than to any other pollutant.

How to protect from air pollution?

people can protect themselves from the effects of air pollution by doing the following:

It is recommended to stay indoors as much during the day. Many pollutants have lower levels indoors than outdoors. One should limit outside activity to the early morning hours or wait until after sunset. This is important in high ozone conditions (as in many large cities) because sunshine drives up ozone levels. More pollution taken into the lungs in case of faster breath.

These steps will generally prevent symptoms in healthy adults and children. However, if people who live or work close to a known pollution source, or if you have a chronic heart or lung problem, talk with your doctor about other ways to deal with air pollution.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 03:22 AM
Well, is cigarrette smoke bad? Yeah it is, but, cigarrette smoke is not the only cause of lung cancer or emphysema.


No, but it accounts for the vast majority of cases.



There are many other chemicals in the air that we all breath daily that can as well cause lung cancer or emphysema. I known of people who have died of either of the two diseases mentioned, and they were people who have never even touched a cigarrette in their whole lives.


What about second hand smoke? But, yes, some get it without exposure to cigarette smoke.



The only reason i brought this up is so that we realise that we can not only blame cigarrette smoke for all those diseases.


No, just most of them.



There are many other chemicals that can cause them as well.

Which is exactly why we regulate them - and in many cases they are the same or very similar agents as what comes out of a cigarette.

Monique
2006-Jan-09, 03:38 AM
All the restaurants in my county are required to be smoke-free as of the beginning of this year.
This seem great foolishness to me. No one force to eat in restaurant. Protect self, do not eat in restaurant if not smoke free.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 03:51 AM
This seem great foolishness to me. No one force to eat in restaurant. Protect self, do not eat in restaurant if not smoke free.

I know you don't realize it, but that is exactly the attitude that led to the smoking bans. For a non-smoker, being told that I just shouldn't go to a smoke filled restaurant effectively meant that I should never go to a restaurant. And that simply was not acceptable. Here (and just about everywhere with increasing smoking regulation) there was a lack of voluntary compromise. A large part of the issue is that smokers don't seem to realize just how bad that stuff is for most non-smokers to breathe. In short, they don't get it.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 04:08 AM
For the record, I'm entirely for banning smoking from resteraunts. People are free to smoke outside, but inside, I don't want to bother with people blowing smoke towards me.

I once talked with someone who had severe emphysema throughout all of his life because (supposedly) his mother smoked around him all the time when he grew up. In short, he grew up in an environment of constantly inhaling second-hand smoke. It messed up his entire life, and destroyed his health.

I do not support that.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-09, 04:31 AM
In Denmark a system was recently introduced to help smokefree restaurants, which now means that restaurants can indicate clearly near the entrance whether they are smokefree, separated or smoking, this indication became mandatory mid last year.
I have seen no indication that this has actually made many restaurants smokefree, causing me to be more sympathetic to a complete ban.

I edited the first sentence after actually checking what the law says.

Gillianren
2006-Jan-09, 08:02 AM
Not all secondhand smoke has been inhaled/passed through the filter. What's that coming out of the end of the cigarette all the time, confetti?

Now, I have dealt with considerate smokers. However, I have overwhelmingly dealt with inconsiderate smokers, which is why so many nonsmokers get so passionate about smoking bans.

pumpkinpie
2006-Jan-09, 03:02 PM
I feel very similar to Gillianren. I do not think smokers are bad people, nor are they committing crimes. I don't understand why they would choose to poison their bodies in that manner. But hey, I eat stuff I know is bad for me, and occasionally overindulge in alcohol. That's definitely a poison. I try not to be a hypocrite!

I've never smoked in my life. Everyone close to me has been or is a smoker. My parents did while growing up, but have since quit. My sister did when she went to college, but has since quit. Her husband has smoked half his life. He plans on quitting, but it's going to be very hard for him. His motiviation is his little girl. :)

I always said I would never date a smoker. But a couple months into my current relationship, I found out my boyfriend does smoke "occasionally." I told him that he's lucky I didn't know that when we started dating, because I would have considered it a huge strike against him, and I might not have continued the relationship! Alas, it was too late for me. He knows not to smoke around me, and he does have a plan for quitting this year. I have faith in him.

I do wish that everyone would stop smoking, most of them would be much better off health-wise. But I know that's never going to happen, so I'm not going to preach to the masses. Only when it effects me. I'll support smoking bans so I can go to any bar or restaurant I choose and not have my air polluted by cigarrette smoke. And I'll work with those I care about to help them quit, so I don't have to see them suffer later on in life from something they did to themselves, knowing what a hazard it is.
I

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 03:13 PM
I find it incredible that people have such a problem with secondhand smoke and choose to legislate against it so stringently, but take a different tone when it comes to pollution as a whole. I think the much larger problem of pollution in cities must be dealt with.

By all means argue for smoke free restaurants, but I for one think that instances of asthma due to traffic smoke are just as avoidable, dangerous and see no reason why smokers are persecuted for their polluting the atmosphere by people who drive around in cars with 3 litre engines. Smacks a bit of hypocrisy!!

SeanF
2006-Jan-09, 03:19 PM
I find it incredible that people have such a problem with secondhand smoke and choose to legislate against it so stringently, but take a different tone when it comes to pollution as a whole. I think the much larger problem of pollution in cities must be dealt with.

By all means argue for smoke free restaurants, but I for one think that instances of asthma due to traffic smoke are just as avoidable, dangerous and see no reason why smokers are persecuted for their polluting the atmosphere by people who drive around in cars with 3 litre engines. Smacks a bit of hypocrisy!!
It's called a cost-benefit analysis. The cost to an individual (and to society as a whole) of being told they can't smoke in public is a little bit different than the cost of being told they have to buy a new car . . . especially given that the resale/trade-in value of their existing car has just been legislated to zero.

PS And this is brought to you by a guy who, generally speaking, doesn't approve of anti-smoking ordinances! :)

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 03:27 PM
It's called a cost-benefit analysis. The cost to an individual (and to society as a whole) of being told they can't smoke in public is a little bit different than the cost of being told they have to buy a new car . . . especially given that the resale/trade-in value of their existing car has just been legislated to zero.

PS And this is brought to you by a guy who, generally speaking, doesn't approve of anti-smoking ordinances! :)

I agree wholeheartedly. When all restaurants, and public areas are smoke free, and they discover that instances of lung diseases and cancer have risen despite the ban, I wonder if we'll get the admission that actually banning smoking was a futile exercise? Or will we get the usual statistics which the spindoctors have rolled out?

Pollution is pollution whether its caused by a cigarette or a factory. I agree that people shouldn't be subjected to second hand cigarette smoke, don't get me wrong, but if someone chooses to kill themselves slowly and painfully, having paid a vast amount of tax in the process covering the cost of their treatment, then I say let them get on with it.

Lets stop persecuting the smokers and spend our energy on tackling the problem as a whole! (Jake steps slowly down from his soapbox acknowledging the boos from the crowd!)

Swift
2006-Jan-09, 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Monique
This seem great foolishness to me. No one force to eat in restaurant. Protect self, do not eat in restaurant if not smoke free.
I know you don't realize it, but that is exactly the attitude that led to the smoking bans. For a non-smoker, being told that I just shouldn't go to a smoke filled restaurant effectively meant that I should never go to a restaurant. And that simply was not acceptable. Here (and just about everywhere with increasing smoking regulation) there was a lack of voluntary compromise. A large part of the issue is that smokers don't seem to realize just how bad that stuff is for most non-smokers to breathe. In short, they don't get it.
I'm going to echo what Van Rijn said (and my comments will only apply to the US, though I suspect they apply elsewhere).

I easily remember a time, 15 to 20 years ago (IIRC), when most restaurants did not even have a non-smoking section. Today, virtually all restaurants do, but in many cases, its a joke. Just this past Friday, my wife and I tried out a new restaurant near us. We asked for non-smoking and the hostess was going to seat us at a table that was in non-smoking, but literally the tables next to us were in the smoking section (with people smoking). We had to ask to be put as far from the smoking section as possible. In this particular restaurant the non-smoking section (at the far end) wasn't too bad for smoke, but in many restaurants, the ventilation is poor enough that it doesn't make much of a difference.

It is particularly hard to find non-smoking bars or clubs, or even bars with non-smoking sections. My wife and I do not go dancing or to bars as much as we used because of this.

I have a lot of sinus problems and smoke will literally make me sick. I have very little tolerance for it. I understand the argument that I could take my business elsewhere (and I do), but to me this is not the same as being annoyed by cell phones or body oder. This is literally a hazard to my health and I don't know why I should have to tolerate being poisoned by it.

Various cities in the US are thinking about smoking bans in public places (including restaurants and bars). Usually the restaurants and bars scream that they will lose business. My argument is that the will gain as much as they lose, from non-smokers who would now go to those places; that is certainly true for me.

I also don't buy the argument that "other things will kill you too". The health risks of smoking are one of the more well proven health hazards. Sure, things like air pollution are bad - well then let's clean that up too! Should the owners of polluting industries be allowed to argue that they don't have to clean up their messes because smoking is killing more people?

I don't think smokers are evil people (any more than the rest of us ;) ), but smoking is an evil thing, IMHO.

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 03:40 PM
I find it incredible that people have such a problem with secondhand smoke and choose to legislate against it so stringently, but take a different tone when it comes to pollution as a whole. I think the much larger problem of pollution in cities must be dealt with.

Industrial pollution is heavily regulated in Canada. (Draconically so, to hear big industry bleat about how hard-done-by they are.) Mass transit is available in larger cities and its use is encouraged.

Cars and SUVs are required to be inspected yearly. The exhaust system is one of the many parts inspected. Motor oil and car batteries are legally required to be recycled. We also have emissions standards that are comparable (though not identical) to those in California.

While there's room for improvement, it cannot be said (at least in Canada) that pollution is unrestricted. And technological advances have clearly improved the situation in the last sixty years or so, mostly welcomed by drivers. Taxes on gasoline have also helped encourage the use of smaller cars (though not universally so), and while nobody likes taxes, most folks don't find the use of smaller, more efficient cars to be much of a hardship, if at all.

So now I have to ask, exactly what improvements and willing compromises offered by the tobacco industry and/or smokers have we seen towards solving the tobacco problem in the last 60 years or so? In my mind, none whatsoever.

If I could find a single restaurant even pretending to have an (ineffective) non-smoking section, it's because non-smoking sections were legally mandated. If I can find a single non-smoking restaurant at all, it is because my provincial government banned smoking in public places outright last year. And I know of only one restaurant (chain) that anticipated the ban: Tim Horton's/Wendy's.

Until Timmy's went smoke-free, there were no restaurants available to non-smokers. None at all.

Maksutov
2006-Jan-09, 03:43 PM
I feel very similar to Gillianren. I do not think smokers are bad people, nor are they committing crimes. I don't understand why they would choose to poison their bodies in that manner.But they do, and unfortunately the way they choose to do so causes problems with the health of non-smokers' bodies.


But hey, I eat stuff I know is bad for me, and occasionally overindulge in alcohol. That's definitely a poison. I try not to be a hypocrite!Do you drive, operate machinery, etc., so that you could endanger someone else after you've overindulged in alcohol? Then that's something known as "bad" and you are liable for the ill results of your intoxicated actions, whether you like it or not. If not, then congrats on controlling the effects of your actions.


I've never smoked in my life. Good. Hope you keep it that way. You know, if tobacco had never contained nicotine, I really doubt the Native Americans would have have found it all that appealing. As well as those they introduced it to.


Everyone close to me has been or is a smoker. My parents did while growing up, but have since quit. My sister did when she went to college, but has since quit. Her husband has smoked half his life. He plans on quitting, but it's going to be very hard for him. His motiviation is his little girl. This sounds very much like a codependence situation.


I always said I would never date a smoker. But a couple months into my current relationship, I found out my boyfriend does smoke "occasionally."You must be a smoker, or a recent former one. There's no way a non-smoker "just finds out" their SO is a smoker (even occasionally). The nose tells you immediately. As in "Pew! What is that stench?"


I told him that he's lucky I didn't know that when we started dating, because I would have considered it a huge strike against him, and I might not have continued the relationship! Alas, it was too late for me. He knows not to smoke around me, and he does have a plan for quitting this year. I have faith in him.This is definitely a codependence situation. Good luck with the future.


I do wish that everyone would stop smoking, most of them would be much better off health-wise. But I know that's never going to happen, so I'm not going to preach to the masses. Only when it effects me. I'll support smoking bans so I can go to any bar or restaurant I choose and not have my air polluted by cigarrette smoke. And I'll work with those I care about to help them quit, so I don't have to see them suffer later on in life from something they did to themselves, knowing what a hazard it is.
ISounds as though you're already "preaching to the masses". But instead of "preaching" (which is always based on authoritarianism and intimidation, and therefore individually ineffective), you're actually dealing directly with people, which is the best way to get your point across.

Good attitude, and, good luck!

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 03:44 PM
I also don't buy the argument that "other things will kill you too". The health risks of smoking are one of the more well proven health hazards. Sure, things like air pollution are bad - well then let's clean that up too! Should the owners of polluting industries be allowed to argue that they don't have to clean up their messes because smoking is killing more people?

I've never heard a power station owner arguing that case!

I would like to see smoking tollerated as a question of personal choice. If an adult chooses to smoke then control it and tax it. Don't try and prohibit it, as that approach won't work.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 03:55 PM
So now I have to ask, exactly what improvements and willing compromises offered by the tobacco industry and/or smokers have we seen towards solving the tobacco problem in the last 60 years or so? In my mind, none whatsoever.

As an occasional smoker, I don't mind if I can't smoke in work, have no objction to a proper well ventilated non-smoking section when I go out for a beer or whatever. What I strongly object to is people marching into my life and discriminating against me because of the colour of my lungs!

I agree with your comments about the tobacco industry. I think that smokers and non-smokers should be meeting halfway, ensuring the health and rights of the non-smoker whilst protecting the rights of the smoker too. Smokers have no right to insist on lighting up anywhere and everywhere, but there are places where smokers are persecuted these days like bars where their custom is far greater in economic terms to the owner. If it would benefit the bar in terms of custom, free market economics dictates that there would be far more smoke free bars already anyway.

Like I said, we should deal with the pollution problem as a whole without singling out a very small bit of it for particularly vitriolic legislation.

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 03:57 PM
I've never heard a power station owner arguing that case!

Of course not. It's clearly fallacious whichever way you argue it.

In any case, the power-station-owner knows such an argument would never wash with the voting public. The overwhelming majority of the voting public aren't personally involved nor chemically addicted to power plants. Cognitive dissonance can't get much traction under those conditions.


I would like to see smoking tollerated as a question of personal choice. If an adult chooses to smoke then control it and tax it. Don't try and prohibit it, as that approach won't work.

If only this was an issue of personal choice. I'd love nothing more for it to be the case. To be able to actually freely choose to smoke or not. It sounds nice.

Unfortunately, I've never lived in that world. No living non-smoker has.

Although I will grant that the public smoking ban has been the first effective step in that direction.

The irony is that the public smoking ban only became possible because of the utter refusal to compromise by the majority of the smokers, commonly citing the "personal choice" and "go elsewhere" arguments.

I note that the shoe doesn't appear to fit any more comfortably on the other foot.

But hey, if your favorite restaurant is smoke-free, you can "always go elsewhere", right?

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 04:03 PM
I agree with your comments about the tobacco industry. I think that smokers and non-smokers should be meeting halfway, ensuring the health and rights of the non-smoker whilst protecting the rights of the smoker too.

I agree, but the time to do this was fourty years ago. But since there's been no movement, accomodation, or even insincere sympathy whatsoever on the part of the majority of smokers, I have a hard time believing in the sincerity of the overall smoking lobby when they only start talking compromise after the bans have taken place.

This makes it difficult for me to bear much sympathy now for "the plight of the hardtrodden smoker".

The political bed is one of the smokers' own making.

[Edit:] But I'm not totally unreasonable. I have no objection to talking compromise, say, in fourty-fifty years or so.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 04:04 PM
But hey, if your favorite restaurant is smoke-free, you can "always go elsewhere", right?

Yes, or you can go without a cigarette for an hour it isn't torture. I see no reason to ban it in all public places, like I mentioned earlier, it is vitriolic, over the top and shows a lack of tollerance. Not all smokers are so unwilling to compromise.

There should be non smoking bars for you, and smoking bars for me. If I come to your bar, then I don't smoke. If you come to mine, you know what to expect. Don't come in to my bar preaching, and I won't to yours. Problem solved.

pumpkinpie
2006-Jan-09, 04:07 PM
I've never smoked in my life.

Good. Hope you keep it that way. You know, if tobacco had never contained nicotine, I really doubt the Native Americans would have have found it all that appealing. As well as those they introduced it to.


I always said I would never date a smoker. But a couple months into my current relationship, I found out my boyfriend does smoke "occasionally."

You must be a smoker, or a recent former one. There's no way a non-smoker "just finds out" their SO is a smoker (even occasionally). The nose tells you immediately. As in "Pew! What is that stench?"

Oops, did you forget what you just responded to? I've never smoked.

Apparently there is a way a non-smoker "just finds out their SO is a smoker." It happened to me! Believe me, my nose is very sensitive to that. But up until the subject came up, he had never smoked recently enough before seeing me that any trace of it was apparent. Every now and then I can tell from his breath, but I never smell it on his clothes.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 04:08 PM
I agree, but the time to do this was fourty years ago. But since there's been no movement, accomodation, or even insincere sympathy whatsoever on the part of the majority of smokers,

Well you've found one here. I don't think it applies to the majority of smokers and think that people's attitudes have changed hugely over here. For example every single one of my friends will not smoke in the same room as their children. 20-25 years ago when I was growing up, this was unheard of Moose (probably why I started smoking I know), so there has been progress.

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 04:11 PM
Yeah, thankfully attitudes are changing. In another 20-25 years, attitudes will have changed enough, I think, that we'll have figured out how to share space without trampling each other's rights/privileges.

Still, until we can physically accomodate each other, the ban remains necessary.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-09, 04:15 PM
Well, seeing as though you're in Canada and I'm in the UK, we shouldn't have too much trouble physically accomodating each other!!

ToSeek
2006-Jan-09, 04:37 PM
This seem great foolishness to me. No one force to eat in restaurant. Protect self, do not eat in restaurant if not smoke free.

Well, in principle I agree with you. But if I'd followed that rule 20 years ago, I would never have eaten out as all the restaurants in the area allowed smoking. So (somewhat hypocritically) I find the situation a blessing.

Grey
2006-Jan-09, 04:39 PM
You know, if tobacco had never contained nicotine, I really doubt the Native Americans would have have found it all that appealing. As well as those they introduced it to.In Isaac Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery he mentions the first introduction of tobacco to the Europeans in the 16th century. Then he says something like, "the Native Americans probably didn't intend for thousands of Europeans and their decendants to die from lung cancer, emphysema, and so forth as revenge for killing them and taking their land, but it sort of worked out that way." :neutral:

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 05:01 PM
In Isaac Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery he mentions the first introduction of tobacco to the Europeans in the 16th century. Then he says something like, "the Native Americans probably didn't intend for thousands of Europeans and their decendants to die from lung cancer, emphysema, and so forth as revenge for killing them and taking their land, but it sort of worked out that way." :neutral:

Don't forget Syphillus (sp?)

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jan-09, 05:58 PM
"Moctezuma's Revenge" ;)

nokton
2006-Jan-09, 06:55 PM
I meed a mental hug!
No body is going hug me?
Are they?
You got a hug from me Candy.
Nokton.

nokton
2006-Jan-09, 07:21 PM
Tobacco,
Re the above, the North American Indians smoked a different
kind of tobacco, and only in ceremony, even then in a pipe, they never
inhaled the smoke. Read Sir Compton McKenzies book 'Sublime Tobacco'
if you interested in the history of tobacco.
Nokton

Gillianren
2006-Jan-09, 07:46 PM
I am, officially, very much in favor of limiting all forms of pollution. Heck, I grew up in The Land of the Brown Air, down in Los Angeles County. My lungs were severely damaged even though I didn't smoke, and I'm perfectly aware of that. One of the things I love most about Olympia is that the smog's bad when you can't see Mt. Rainier, as opposed to the mountains only three or four miles away, like back home.

However, there is actually a benefit to the other causes of pollution. Cars pollute, but there are innumerable benefits to the ease of transportation they provide. (I take the bus, but that's largely because, not owning a car, I don't have a choice. It's awfully hard to go grocery shopping on the bus.) I grew up in a place with very strict emissions standards. Admittedly, given the obsession with cars back home ("A walk in LA! Ha!"), it was necessary if you were going to be able to breathe at all, but the air is actually improving from what it was when I was young. I'm hugely in favor of that.

Smokers arguing their personal right to smoke in public seem to forget that they are choosing for everyone around them. I chose not to start smoking, largely because my father, who smoked, died at age 44 of a heart attack. I don't know it was from smoke, but I know that he smoked and died young, and I was six when it happened. That sort of thing leaves a mark on a child. I don't want someone who happens to be sharing a restaurant with me--or, as in my former place of employment, is hovering outside the door of the building--negating my choice.

nokton
2006-Jan-09, 08:16 PM
Humm..:think:...interesting


Well, is cigarrette smoke bad? Yeah it is, but, cigarrette smoke is not the only cause of lung cancer or emphysema. There are many other chemicals in the air that we all breath daily that can as well cause lung cancer or emphysema. I known of people who have died of either of the two diseases mentioned, and they were people who have never even touched a cigarrette in their whole lives. The only reason i brought this up is so that we realise that we can not only blame cigarrette smoke for all those diseases. There are many other chemicals that can cause them as well.
Titania,
Something of a hobby horse with me, you touched upon it.
Take my 16 year old daughter to school in my car, equipped with a cat
converter by law, only to see the old school buses belching out black diesel
smoke, full of P10s, and her fellow students walking through the haze.
No law to stop it. They get lung probs...Oh it's exposure to tobacco smoke,
give me a prayer, please.
Nokton.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 08:32 PM
So, Nokton, your argument is that tobacco smoke causes no problems at all?

Nicolas
2006-Jan-09, 08:36 PM
If all smokers would be considerate smokes, there would be little problems indeed. And little no-smoking laws as well.

The probems you get from smokers being a non-smoker have multiple levels.

Today I had an appointment. Fresh clothes, clean shoes, hair washed etcetc. Waiting for the bus, the person next to me is smoking, with the wind towards me. Result: I arrive with the odour of smoke around me, even though I do not smoke and contrary to what the company's psych writes down, I did not smoke before the meeting because I was nervous.

Well, wouldn't I have been going to a business appointment, I would "only" have gotten my perfectly clean clothes stinky within one day, so that wouldn't be too much of a problem. Not something we would quickly get laws from.

What does really bother me, are the unmannered kind of smokers:
*smoke where signs say it's forbidden (obviously against the (building) law, but anyway it's a common thing)
*smoke where people have no other choice than to stand in the smoke (or have to move far away), like their working place (which is against the law now overhere)
* people carelessly throwing away their cigarette on the street, result a black burn mark in my new pants.
* smoking in a car or on the bike, result having one hand and some attention less available. "it makes me calm" is not an excuse. If you're not calm enough without a cigarette in the car, you shouldn't be driving.
* on parties: people who go into the crowd with a burning cigarette.

If people would smoke only where no others would be around and they did not need their hands and attention for other things, there would be a lot less smoking laws.

That does not make smoking a crime, it just depends on how and when you smoke. If you agree with the health risks/problems yourself, smoking can be done without other people having anything to worry about. Except for taking care of you when your health should degrade maybe.

Doodler
2006-Jan-09, 08:43 PM
When is smoking a crime? Ask an fire official in Oklahoma or Texas how many of these wild fires this year were started in close proximity to a major highway...

Sometimes correlation does equal causation.

SeanF
2006-Jan-09, 08:44 PM
But hey, if your favorite restaurant is smoke-free, you can "always go elsewhere", right?
Well, if it was up to the restaurant owners, then sure. But since it's mandated, no, you can't "go elsewhere" because every "elsewhere" is also smoke-free.

And I don't believe for one minute that there'd be no smoke-free restaurants without a law. The market for smoke-free dining was growing before any ordinances were passed, and entrepreneurs would've been falling over themselves to meet that market.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 08:53 PM
Well, if it was up to the restaurant owners, then sure. But since it's mandated, no, you can't "go elsewhere" because every "elsewhere" is also smoke-free.


Given the attitude I used to run into, I can't feel sorry for that.



And I don't believe for one minute that there'd be no smoke-free restaurants without a law. The market for smoke-free dining was growing before any ordinances were passed, and entrepreneurs would've been falling over themselves to meet that market.

Believe what you want, but I sure couldn't find them before the laws changed things here.

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 09:02 PM
And I don't believe for one minute that there'd be no smoke-free restaurants without a law. The market for smoke-free dining was growing before any ordinances were passed, and entrepreneurs would've been falling over themselves to meet that market.

Believe it. In my triple-decade lifetime, I've neither encountered nor even heard of a single one before Tim Horton's / Wendy's which went smoke-free (in 2002, IIRC).

Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

For that matter, nobody who's suggested there were smoke-free establishments before 2000 or so has ever bothered to cite a few as evidence. I'm simply supposed to believe they were all over the place all this time and I just kept unnecessarily choosing all the smoky places by some cosmic coincidence.

Just like after sixty years of being told by the tobacco lobby that tobacco smoke is harmless, I'm now supposed to believe cigarette smoke is magic smoke that only gets breathed in by the people actually holding the cigarette and thus can't harm me, even in concentrations where the air is literally blue.

Meh.

Believe me, Sean, I chose my restaurants by where they did more than pretend they had a non-smoking section. Had there been a non-smoking restaurant anywhere in Eastern Canada, there are good odds I'd have known about it.

Just like I found out through the grapevine a few weeks before Timmy's went smoke-free. In fact, it would have been hard to miss; just about everyone was talking about it like it was an unheard of thing. And that's because it was.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 09:02 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. When all restaurants, and public areas are smoke free, and they discover that instances of lung diseases and cancer have risen despite the ban, I wonder if we'll get the admission that actually banning smoking was a futile exercise? Or will we get the usual statistics which the spindoctors have rolled out?


You're making the assumption that will happen. It might - smokers might still end up smoking more, there might still be more second hand smoke exposure at home - but you can't assume that.

Further, a simple safety calculation isn't the only reason to limit public smoking. Stuffed up noses, hacking up crud, headaches and more were not fun. Why should I have to put up with that nonsense in a public place?



Pollution is pollution whether its caused by a cigarette or a factory.


That's why we regulate it.

SeanF
2006-Jan-09, 09:11 PM
I'll say it again.

If you believe that, without government laws, you wouldn't be able to find any (or hardly any) smoke-free restaurants, then the smoking bans are a pretty significant "tyranny of the minority." There wouldn't need to be very many people who want smoke-free eating to support a smoke-free restaurant, and if there aren't even that many...

NOTE: I am not claiming that there was a significant market for smoke-free dining in every community, even as recently as ten years ago. But I do believe that society was moving quickly in that direction without the government needing to get involved and force the issue.

And if the government hadn't gotten involved, then that minority who do want (or will tolerate) smoking with their dining would have the option of "going elsewhere" - at least until they became too small of a market to support the establishments.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 09:14 PM
I find it incredible that people have such a problem with secondhand smoke and choose to legislate against it so stringently, but take a different tone when it comes to pollution as a whole. I think the much larger problem of pollution in cities must be dealt with.


What different tone? Go to China sometime to see what minimal pollution control is like. There have been steadily increasing pollution controls here for decades.



By all means argue for smoke free restaurants, but I for one think that instances of asthma due to traffic smoke are just as avoidable, dangerous and see no reason why smokers are persecuted for their polluting the atmosphere by people who drive around in cars with 3 litre engines. Smacks a bit of hypocrisy!!

Engine size isn't nearly as much an issue as design and pollution control. Two-stroke lawnmower engines on backyard equipment are much worse than the new ultra-clean cars, where the exhaust has measurably less pollution than what went into the air filter.

Look, if somebody wants to smoke next to me in a restaraunt, and can somehow filter it out of the air like a car or a power plant filters the crud out of its exhaust, that's fine with me. I think they should be subject to the same kind of regulation: Keep the stuff out of the air I have to breathe!

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 09:24 PM
I'll say it again.

If you believe that, without government laws, you wouldn't be able to find any (or hardly any) smoke-free restaurants, then the smoking bans are a pretty significant "tyranny of the minority." There wouldn't need to be very many people who want smoke-free eating to support a smoke-free restaurant, and if there aren't even that many...


And I'll say it again: smoking is a classic third-party or public problem. It is very difficult to control smoke, so it isn't easy to set up smoke free areas separate from smoking areas. Non-smokers, when faced with the option of going into smoke filled establishments or living like hermits will usually go to the smoke filled establishment - but they won't like it. A good many will protest, but given that part of the market wants to smoke and control is so difficult, voluntary smoke control is rare.

Market solutions do not work well with third-party problems. If that bothers you, too bad.

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 09:36 PM
If you believe that, without government laws, you wouldn't be able to find any (or hardly any) smoke-free restaurants, then the smoking bans are a pretty significant "tyranny of the minority." There wouldn't need to be very many people who want smoke-free eating to support a smoke-free restaurant, and if there aren't even that many...

What you believe I believe is irrelevant.

Fact: until 2002, there were no non-smoking establishments in Eastern Canada.

Fact: (http://www.tobacco.org/news/199032.html) According to the Globe and Mail:

When it comes to smoking, the OECD said about 17 per cent of Canadians partake on a daily basis, down from 33 per cent in 1981.

I think you're woefully mistaken about exactly who enjoyed the "tyrrany of the minority" for the past sixty years.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 09:37 PM
I hate to say this, but wasn't the ending of segregation a "tyranny of the minority" too?

Titana
2006-Jan-09, 10:08 PM
So, Nokton, your argument is that tobacco smoke causes no problems at all?


I think what he tried to say is that people automatically blame cigarrettes for it all. When pollution has alot to do with it too..




Titana.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 10:12 PM
I think what he tried to say is that people automatically blame cigarrettes for it all. When pollution has alot to do with it too..




Titana.

And what I'm saying is that that isn't an argument against banning smoking. That's an argument for banning pollution. Smoking is pollution. Ergo, ban smoking in public locations.

SeanF
2006-Jan-09, 10:13 PM
Fact: until 2002, there were no non-smoking establishments in Eastern Canada.
Well, I'll just say that that doesn't seem to reflect well on the entrepreneural spirit of restaurant owners in Eastern Canada. Or, did some restaurants attempt to go smoke-free and revert because they lost so much business? I mean, seriously, was there really no market for a single smoke-free restaurant anywhere?


I think you're woefully mistaken about exactly who enjoyed the "tyrrany of the minority" for the past sixty years.
Since I never said anything about who had or hadn't a "tyranny of the minority" prior to the legislated smoking bans, I don't see how I possibly could be mistaken about it. I don't think that minority of smokers ever had the government forcing restaurants to allow smoking, did they?


I hate to say this, but wasn't the ending of segregation a "tyranny of the minority" too?
That's a bit over the top, isn't it?

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-09, 10:13 PM
I think what he tried to say is that people automatically blame cigarrettes for it all. When pollution has alot to do with it too..

From here:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39853


Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking is directly responsible for 90 percent of lung cancer deaths and approximately 80-90 percent of COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) deaths.

(emphasis added) - Not all, just the vast majority.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-09, 10:16 PM
That's a bit over the top, isn't it?

"Tyranny of the Minority" just sounds like one of those slogans that's a pure crock. The US Government is not set up to protect the majority, it's set up to allow freedoms for ALL citizens. If there is something that will cause damage to its citizens, it will (or should) legislate against it; even if those affected are in the minority (like African Americans or non-smokers). I certainly don't want a deadly habit to be forced upon me.

Oh, sure, I could just avoid going to supermarkets, resteraunts, bars, clubs, etc. to avoid lung cancer. To be honest, that doesn't affect *ME*, since I'm a recluse anyways. But I will still speak up for those that feel that they're trapped by smokers.

Titana
2006-Jan-09, 10:21 PM
From here:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39853



(emphasis added) - Not all, just the vast majority.



Oh, i am aware that cigarrette smoke is pollution too. And also aware that cigarrette smoke also causes many of the diseases mentioned. But the only thing i am trying to say is that the everyday pollution (not just the pollution caused by cigarrettes) is just as bad for a person.


Titana.

SeanF
2006-Jan-09, 10:31 PM
"Tyranny of the Minority" just sounds like one of those slogans that's a pure crock.
Well, I don't think I've ever heard "tyranny of the minority" used in reference to something that is actually tyranny. It's a figure of speech.


Oh, sure, I could just avoid going to supermarkets, resteraunts, bars, clubs, etc. to avoid lung cancer. To be honest, that doesn't affect *ME*, since I'm a recluse anyways. But I will still speak up for those that feel that they're trapped by smokers.
Hey, I think non-smokers should be able to go shopping or go out to eat without having to breath second-hand smoke. I'm just not convinced that a universal, legislated ban on all public smoking (or even all restaurants) is the appropriate way to get there. Does it really need to be an all-or-nothing situation?

Taks
2006-Jan-09, 10:41 PM
See here:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html#Summary

a study which has been shown to irrelevant, and invalidated in federal court, btw... in particular, the EPA used a 90% confidence interval instead of 95% since the results were negligible at 95%. in other words, they intentionally doubled the results to make their case. even at 90% the relative risk was only about 1.2 and half of the studies used in the EPA report actually showed a reduced risk (relative risks below about 2 are typically considered meaningless for a variety of reasons).

dishonesty at its highest levels. i am surprised they still post this paper on their website. i am not surprised, however, that they don't post anything more recent.

taks

Moose
2006-Jan-09, 11:21 PM
Does it really need to be an all-or-nothing situation?

Apparently so.

worzel
2006-Jan-10, 12:37 AM
Well, I'll just say that that doesn't seem to reflect well on the entrepreneural spirit of restaurant owners in Eastern Canada. Or, did some restaurants attempt to go smoke-free and revert because they lost so much business? I mean, seriously, was there really no market for a single smoke-free restaurant anywhere?
Well we have exactly the same problem here in London. One thing I loved about Canada was that my girlfriend was happy to stay out late with me in the local bars playing pool and listening to great live music. Why? No smoke. Slipping outside for a smoke every hour or so was a small price to pay. And it's not just my girfriend. Many of my friends here would rather not meet in a pub or club or leave earlier than they otherwise would simply because of the smoke.

Moose
2006-Jan-10, 01:18 AM
Yeah, exactly. As shop owners are discovering, there is a market for smokefree. There always was. But until the government forced them to make the jump, nobody was willing to take the chance of leaping first.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-10, 04:07 AM
One of the problems here is that yes, there have been considerate smokers, even from the beginning. It is quite possible that all smokers on this board are considerate smokers.
They are not the ones blowing smoke in my face, so they are not the ones whose attitude I define my image of smokers by.

As for pollusion vs. smoking/secondhand smoke, they work together in causing health problems, removing either will lower but not remove the health problems.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-10, 07:20 AM
a study which has been shown to irrelevant, and invalidated in federal court, btw...


Shown to be irrelevent? Who has done this?

You might be interested in what Sammy (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=1718) previously said about that report. From

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=570652&postcount=16



I worked on the final (an earlier peer review addressed the first draft and requested some significant changes) of the peer review of this study. We assembled an expert committee of academic/industry scientists in relevant disciplines (including individuals who had consulted for the tobacco industry). [snip]

The tobacco industry and various sock puppets have attacked the report but no independent scientists (to my knowledge) have raised serious objections.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-10, 07:30 AM
Oh, i am aware that cigarrette smoke is pollution too. And also aware that cigarrette smoke also causes many of the diseases mentioned. But the only thing i am trying to say is that the everyday pollution (not just the pollution caused by cigarrettes) is just as bad for a person.
Titana.

Sorry, I don't understand that statement. While he would admit to the dangers, my father had a habit (between hacks and coughs) of downplaying the dangers of smoking and playing up other dangers. My impression is that you are doing the same. If you want to say that similar pollution from any source is dangerous then sure, we agree, but isn't that obvious? If you want to say all sources of this pollution should be controlled, then we agree again, but this also should be obvious. However, it is clear that typical pollution exposure is definitely not as bad a causative agent for lung cancer and emphysema as smoking.

worzel
2006-Jan-10, 08:33 AM
One of the problems here is that yes, there have been considerate smokers, even from the beginning. It is quite possible that all smokers on this board are considerate smokers.
The problem for us would-be-considerate smokers is that it is not at all obvious to us how obnoxious our habbit is. We do need to be told in no uncertain terms by the non-smokers to take it outside :)

I am constantly amazed by the lack of consideration shown by some smokers, especially today when there is so much awareness of passive smoking. People who light up as soon as they get off the train and puff away in a crowded tunnel leading to the street, for instance. The sad truth is that although most of us want to live in a tolerant society, many people won't play their part and be considerate and need seemingly draconian rules and no smoking signs with threats of penalties everywhere to force them to be.

We're not allowed to eat on the tram, for instance. Why? Because some people are incapable of holding on to their rubbish and putting it in a bin when they get off and feel compelled to just drop it on the seat next to them. It's a lot easier to just ban it than it is to punish those who litter. I can see the same sort of logic leading to an eventual ban on smoking outside as well as in enclosed public places if smokers refuse to be considerate.

worzel
2006-Jan-10, 08:35 AM
However, it is clear that typical pollution exposure is definitely not as bad a causative agent for lung cancer and emphysema as smoking.
Is it clear, though, that typical pollution exposure is not as bad a causative agent as outdoor second-hand smoke?

Taks
2006-Jan-10, 08:41 AM
Shown to be irrelevent? Who has done this?
90% confidence interval with a 1.2 relative risk? do a little research and i think you'll see this invalidates the results, or at least shows them to be negligible.

i could care less about someone's opinion (sammy?). the numbers speak for themselves. ask sammy which credible scientists think a 1.2 relative risk is meaningful? also ask him which credible studies use a 90% confidence interval when the norm is 95%?

taks

PS: it is also interesting to note that your friend sammy starts out by immediately insulting those that have criticized the report. we are first expected to believe they are sock puppets (an ad-hominem attack to begin with) - must be from the tobacco industry - and also not credible (another ad-hominem, batting 1.000) because... because he says so. oh boy.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-10, 08:43 AM
Edited because I'm getting too emotional on this issue. Time to take a step back and take a breather.

If you replied to my post before I edited it, then sorry, but please disregard it.

teri tait
2006-Jan-10, 08:58 AM
Slow suffocation is not as bad as it seems. Only hurts very slightly.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-10, 09:54 AM
90% confidence interval with a 1.2 relative risk? do a little research and i think you'll see this invalidates the results, or at least shows them to be negligible.


This section of a larger page

http://www.ehso.com/SmokingAllAbout.htm#90%%20vs.%2095%%20confidence%2 0intervals

discusses the issue (I've bolded one bit for emphasis):



The consistency of results that are seen in the numerous studies examined lead to a certainty of greater than 99.9% that secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Use of what is called in statistics a one-tailed test of significance," which often corresponds to a 90% confidence interval, is a standard and appropriate statistical procedure in certain circumstances. The one-tailed test" is used when there is prior evidence that if there is an effect from a substance, it is highly likely to be an adverse rather than a protective effect, or vice versa. In the case of secondhand smoke, an extensive database exists for direct smoking indicating that if chemically similar secondhand smoke also has a lung cancer effect, this effect is likely to be similarly adverse. EPA used one-tailed significance tests for lung cancer in both external drafts of the risk assessment document as well as the final report. Ninety percent confidence intervals were also used in other EPA cancer risk assessments, including methylene chloride, coke oven emissions, radon, nickel, and dioxin.

In the non-cancer respiratory effects portions of the report, two-tailed tests" and 95% confidence intervals were used, since there was less prior evidence from smokers to suggest that secondhand smoke would cause bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections in children.

So, we shouldn't worry about dioxon, radon, etc. since they used the same flawed procedure?



i could care less about someone's opinion (sammy?). the numbers speak for themselves.


Well, obviously you have a different interpretation of those numbers. So why should I care about your opinion? And should I dismiss your screen name as well?



ask sammy which credible scientists think a 1.2 relative risk is meaningful? also ask him which credible studies use a 90% confidence interval when the norm is 95%?


Why don't you?



PS: it is also interesting to note that your friend sammy starts out by immediately insulting those that have criticized the report. we are first expected to believe they are sock puppets (an ad-hominem attack to begin with) - must be from the tobacco industry - and also not credible (another ad-hominem, batting 1.000) because... because he says so. oh boy.

You'll have to ask him his intentions, but I certainly didn't see it as an ad-hominem. It is very well known that the tobacco companies and those they work with have done everything they legally (and sometimes illegally) can to deny and obfuscate anything that would make them look bad. That's reality and that's how I read his statement.

Titana
2006-Jan-10, 06:00 PM
Sorry, I don't understand that statement. While he would admit to the dangers, my father had a habit (between hacks and coughs) of downplaying the dangers of smoking and playing up other dangers. My impression is that you are doing the same. If you want to say that similar pollution from any source is dangerous then sure, we agree, but isn't that obvious? If you want to say all sources of this pollution should be controlled, then we agree again, but this also should be obvious. However, it is clear that typical pollution exposure is definitely not as bad a causative agent for lung cancer and emphysema as smoking.


If you want to say that similar pollution from any source is dangerous then sure, we agree, but isn't that obvious? If you want to say all sources of this pollution should be controlled, then we agree again, but this also should be obvious.


Well yes, that is my point. I feel that we should not only pay attencion to pollution caused by cigarrettes but pollution in general. And yes i am also saying that all sources of pollution should be controlled.



While he would admit to the dangers, my father had a habit (between hacks and coughs) of downplaying the dangers of smoking and playing up other dangers. My impression is that you are doing the same.


Nope, i dont smoke. I use to yes, but i quit.



Titana.

Taks
2006-Jan-10, 07:01 PM
So, we shouldn't worry about dioxon, radon, etc. since they used the same flawed procedure?jjust because the EPA likes to deviate from the norm on other issues as well does not validate the idea. sorry van rijn, but you're using the EPA evidence to validate itself. sort of circular, don't you think?

the fact of the matter is that 90% confidence interval and 1.2 relative risk means negligible impact. this is probably why they still use the 1992 report as subsequent reports don't show any increased risk.


Well, obviously you have a different interpretation of those numbers. So why should I care about your opinion? And should I dismiss your screen name as well?i have a scientific interpretation based on industry standard methodologies. people can interpret things in many different ways, but the reason we use standards is to put us all on common ground. the fact of the matter is that 90% confidence intervals are NOT standard, nor is a 1.2 relative risk considered significant. that low of a risk from just a few studies can be attributed to chance alone.

several of the studies, btw, actually show an RR of less than one. explain that?


You'll have to ask him his intentions, but I certainly didn't see it as an ad-hominem.dismissing others' work as a shill for some corporate agenda is, by definition, ad hominem. referring to all other reviews as not credible is ad-hominem. i suggest you look up the term.


It is very well known that the tobacco companies and those they work with have done everything they legally (and sometimes illegally) can to deny and obfuscate anything that would make them look bad. That's reality and that's how I read his statement.another ad-hominem.

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-10, 07:04 PM
Why don't you?you used his comments as some sort of "evidence" or validation, the onus is on you. if you want others to trust his opinion, it is up to you to explain why. he is just someone that agrees with the report until he can explain why 90% confidence intervals are suddenly acceptable and why a relative risk below 2 is meaningful for nobody but the EPA.

taks

Moose
2006-Jan-10, 07:12 PM
Taks, that is not an ad hominem. The statement is unsupported in that specific instance, but it is most definitely supportable. Something like ten years ago, during one of the very first tobacco trials (if not the first), internal memos came out clearly showing that the tobacco industry had been deliberately obfuscating the science in order to hide the fact that tobacco smoke is harmful.

If you really need cites to that effect, I'll try and find some references tonight, but to be honest, I've got better things to do than research links that patently established.

At no point in my statistics and psychology training was it suggested that a 90% confidence interval wasn't suitable from which to base conclusions, though 95% is far better if the results could support it. What was stressed was that the confidence interval be clearly stated.

Most of your criticism these past few posts have been grossly unfair, Taks.

Taks
2006-Jan-10, 07:24 PM
Taks, that is not an ad hominem. The statement is unsupported in that specific instance, but it is most definitely supportable. Something like ten years ago, during one of the very first tobacco trials (if not the first), internal memos came out clearly showing that the tobacco industry had been deliberately obfuscating the science in order to hide the fact that tobacco smoke is harmful. saying that anyone working for the tobacco industry is automatically not credible because of this is an ad-hominem. saying that people in the tobacco industray have done these things is not.

that's a subtle difference, but a major point. he's discrediting all criticism that comes from the industry because of these things, rather than discrediting the science itself. that's the very definition of an ad-hominem.

i don't argue that the tobacco industry has made unsupportable claims, but in this instance, the claims are supportable.


At no point in my statistics and psychology training was it suggested that a 90% confidence interval wasn't suitable from which to base conclusions, though 95% is far better if the results could support it. What was stressed was that the confidence interval be clearly stated.the problem is that if we move to a 95% confidence interval with this study, the relative risk drops to something even epidemiologists would agree is negligible. i.e. if they had published using 95% confidence interval, they would not have been able to draw the risk conclusions they did.

certainly if the relative risk had come up as 2.0 or 3.0 a 90% confidence interval would be sufficient... but it didn't.


Most of your criticism these past few posts have been grossly unfair, Taks.grossly unfair? in what manner? i've criticized nothing but the numbers. how is that unfair? the fact remains that had the EPA used a 95% confidence interval, their relative risk would have dropped from negligible to unmeasurable. i think i'm being very fair.

even the post that van rijn linked to last has some dubious claims. "we use 90% confidence intervals when we think there may be a harmful effect!" (paraphrased). unbelievable. in other words, if we think the data fit our pre-conceived notions, we'll relax our standards to let negligible impacts look worse. double unbelievable.

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-10, 08:06 PM
here's a nice little blurb about relative risk (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm).

taks

nokton
2006-Jan-10, 09:29 PM
So, Nokton, your argument is that tobacco smoke causes no problems at all?
Not at all Lonewulf, just reason, and the rebuttal of current concern and
it's focus, regarding health and our children. Lonewulf, you think fast food
outlets giving our children promises of goodies not pose a problem?
Wolverine, hope am not out of order here, just wish could slap a health
warning on fast food outlets of junk food trying to entice our kids in
with promises of toys et al.
Lonewulf, all am trying to say, is, there is a balance in everything.
Every drug taken has a side effect, that is the nature of things.
I choose to smoke a pipe but am branded as a smoker of cigarettes
because I smoke. Excuse me, wish I could generate so much feeling
into the care of our next generation. I will.
Nokton.

Moose
2006-Jan-10, 10:27 PM
I choose to smoke a pipe but am branded as a smoker of cigarettes because I smoke.

:eh:, I don't think anybody especially cares about the source of tobacco smoke, just that it's in the air.

Pipe tobacco smoke isn't magically any less hazardous.

Taks
2006-Jan-10, 11:15 PM
i think pipe and cigar tobacco are processed differently... they may be different.

taks

worzel
2006-Jan-10, 11:26 PM
I know for a fact (i.e. this is pure anecdote) that roll-your-own cigarettes are less addictive, less harmfull, and less noxious to others. Partly because they're not full of chemicals, partly because one rolls them thinner, and partly because they don't carry on burning when one is not sucking--which has the added benefit of being able to chain smoke at a rate of one an hour while posting on BAUT or playing the guitar :)

Probably just urban myth, but I've heard that the chemicals they add to the tobacco in taylor mades are worse than the tobacco itself.

I shoudl imagine pipe tobacco is similar to roll-your-own, and pipe smoking is similar to smoking rollies in that you light it, take a puff, and it goes out. I say imagine, I have rolled a few from pipe tobacco when I've been desperate :o

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 12:12 AM
i can't guarantee, either, but i do think there are different additives in cigarettes... er, MORE additives in cigarettes.

taks

Sammy
2006-Jan-11, 02:25 AM
Taks, I have had first-hand experience with industry sock puppets and outright liars paid for by the industry. Specifically, I had to give sworn testimony to the Maryland OSHA to counter multiple industry claims that the EPA study was never peer-reviewed.

In my original post, I did not intend to say (and I don't think that I did) that ALL critics of the EPA position on seconfhand smoke were suspect because of their affiliations/backgrounds.

And the position I put forth was not MY opinion, but the opinion of two different expert panels which reviewed EPA's data, analysis, and conclusions.

If you have references to critics of the studies, who are credentialed experts and who are NOT working for the industry, please provide them.

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 05:18 AM
i never said you did. my point was merely that van rijn posted your comments as if they were some sort of specific evidence. i can refer to my friend "joe" as backing the counterclaim, and you have no way to refute that, either. there was no merit in his post, in that respect.

i also never commented on whether there was any credible scientific rebuttal, but noted that dismissing all rebuttals as the opposite merely because they may be associated with the tobacco industry is an ad-hominem.

there is credible statistical refutation, and i've already provided that. peer review or not, 90% confidence interval with a ~1.2 relative risk is nigh meaningless. had they used a 95% confidence interval, the risk would have even been lower...

putting things in perspective, a 1.2 relative risk (not even going into the confidence interval) applied to 5 deaths per 100,000 becomes a whopping 6 deaths per 100,000. hardly a concern. had the number been double, or even triple that, there would be a concern, even at 90%. but it wasn't...

oh, btw, as for actual refutation in court, the osteen decision (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm) comes to mind. the relevant quote:

After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies.

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 05:20 AM
If you have references to critics of the studies, who are credentialed experts and who are NOT working for the industry, please provide them.dismissing anyone due to his association is an ad-hominem by definition. i could just as easily dismiss all current and former EPA associates as driven by an agenda.

taks

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-11, 08:00 AM
i never said you did. my point was merely that van rijn posted your comments as if they were some sort of specific evidence. i can refer to my friend "joe" as backing the counterclaim, and you have no way to refute that, either. there was no merit in his post, in that respect.


I refer you to my post:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=649626&postcount=124

How you interpret the comment that "You might be interested in what Sammy previously said about that report" as a declaration of "specific evidence" I simply do not understand. I was doing something I do quite often: Providing a link to another BAUT member's post and quoting selections from it, since I thought it was an interesting comment on the subject. I am also far from the only one here to do that.

Taks, given your accusations and your attitude I don't see much point in trying to discuss this issue with you further.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-11, 08:12 AM
Wolverine, hope am not out of order here, just wish could slap a health warning on fast food outlets of junk food trying to entice our kids in with promises of toys et al.


That is a legitimate health concern. You will note, however, that they are not force feeding fast food to everyone that just happens to be in the area. Until they do that, it is in no way similar to the issue of second hand smoke.



I choose to smoke a pipe but am branded as a smoker of cigarettes because I smoke.


:wall:

Moose
2006-Jan-11, 12:50 PM
dismissing anyone due to his association is an ad-hominem by definition. i could just as easily dismiss all current and former EPA associates as driven by an agenda.

The way you pre-emptorily dismissed the direct experience Sammy brings to the table, and hotly label anything you seemingly don't like an ad hom?

Van Rijn is right. There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this discussion any further. In any case, I'm quite satisfied with the status quo in my province.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-11, 01:55 PM
Ok, question, in all honesty, how many people posting here are non-smokers, how many people here are ex-smokers, and how many currently smoke?

I smoke by the way.

worzel
2006-Jan-11, 01:57 PM
I smoke.

Moose
2006-Jan-11, 02:00 PM
Only indirectly.

pumpkinpie
2006-Jan-11, 02:05 PM
non and never smoker.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-11, 04:10 PM
Never have, never will. My dad was a smoker, a heavy smoker, and I would hear him coughing and hacking everytime he did anything exerting, like climbing up stairs. His lungs were pretty much messed up. But when he became a fitness freak, and tried to quit smoking (instead just getting addicted to Nicorette gum), he didn't have that problem.

Anecdotal? Yes. He was unhealthy and slightly overweight before he exercised and such, so I can't really say it was smoking any more than I could say that he just got healthier.

Still, smoking attacks lungs, he coughed and hacked... to me, that's evidence that smoking does something.

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 04:31 PM
The way you pre-emptorily dismissed the direct experience Sammy brings to the table, and hotly label anything you seemingly don't like an ad hom?not at all. van rijn posted a quote by another board member as if he were some sort of expert without backing the claim first. his opinion is just another opinion that flies in the face of the facts.


Van Rijn is right. There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this discussion any further. In any case, I'm quite satisfied with the status quo in my province.i'd be wary of trusting any statistical evidence that does not make a solid case. in this instance, there is no statistical validation...

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 04:35 PM
I was doing something I do quite often: Providing a link to another BAUT member's post and quoting selections from it, since I thought it was an interesting comment on the subject. I am also far from the only one here to do that.and again i ask, what relevance is another baut member's opinion?


Taks, given your accusations and your attitude I don't see much point in trying to discuss this issue with you further.accusations? attitude? now YOU are treading on thin ground.

i've accused noone of anything. i've attacked the statistical basis for the conclusions in that paper. my objections to the paper are valid and, not coincidentally enough, based on industry standards and practices.

you can pin your hopes on flawed studies all day but that does not justify accusing me of some misconduct. i've done nothing of the sort. if you have valid statistical analyses that actually adhere to accepted practices, and draw their conclusions from the same, i will be more than willing to listen.

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 04:44 PM
you guys take the cake...

i mean really, attacking me and accusing me of some sort of misconduct simply because i provided an analysis critical of you preconceived notions. scientists review data based on standard practices. if a report contains conclusions about a some subject, and the statistical evidence does not support such conclusions, it is the responsibility of ANY scientist or analyst to report such discrepencies.

you, van rijn, should know better than accuse me of this as well based merely on your signature "if i say i have an elf in my backyard prove me wrong." well, you told me you had an elf named sammy and i was expected to weight his opinion as if it were some sort of gold for no reason other than you said so. give me a break.

taks

Sammy
2006-Jan-11, 04:53 PM
Taks, please try READING what other people post. Nothing in my post, or the references to it, were MY opinion. I was reporting the findings of two expert panels which reviewed an EPA study. NOT MY opinion. As to my comments on the affiliations of industry scientists/lobbyists, all I can say is that I'm not aware of anyone from EPA/publioc health organizations who has been accused of lying under oath.

You migtht want to look again at the peer panel report. My recollection is that it pointed out that, in addition to the excess cancer deaths, exposure to second hand smoke had serious effects on the respiratory systems of children in smoking families, particularly reduced lung capacity in later life. I believe that the peer panel considered this to be a more serious problem than the lung cancer issue.

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 05:01 PM
Taks, please try READING what other people post. Nothing in my post, or the references to it, were MY opinion. I was reporting the findings of two expert panels which reviewed an EPA study. NOT MY opinion.i was not commenting on that, actually. i did not "dismiss" you, either, as suggested. van rijn made a post that said "see here, what another baut member says!" and i merely pointed out that what another baut member says is no more credible than what i say. your opinion, however, was apparent in the sockpuppet and lack of credibility comments (both ad-hominems).


As to my comments on the affiliations of industry scientists/lobbyists, all I can say is that I'm not aware of anyone from EPA/publioc health organizations who has been accused of lying under oath.i didn't say that, either.


You migtht want to look again at the peer panel report. My recollection is that it pointed out that, in addition to the excess cancer deaths, exposure to second hand smoke had serious effects on the respiratory systems of children in smoking families, particularly reduced lung capacity in later life. I believe that the peer panel considered this to be a more serious problem than the lung cancer issue.i never commented on the dangers of second-hand smoke. i commented on the validity of the EPA paper and the conclusions it made regarding increased risk. why don't you try reading MY posts.

taks

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Jan-11, 06:58 PM
Okay, now it really isn't my place to do so, but can I recommend that we all take a break and calm down a bit?

Titana
2006-Jan-11, 07:14 PM
I agree :whistle:




Titana.

Gillianren
2006-Jan-11, 07:43 PM
Nonsmoker. Had a best friend who smoked, and he was actually pretty considerate--he used to say we were going to bring rain someday from all the dancing around, trying to keep me upwind of the smoke. However, I know a lot of people not that considerate, including those who ignore the big "no smoking in the booth" sign my boss keeps up at ren faire.

nokton
2006-Jan-11, 08:41 PM
i think pipe and cigar tobacco are processed differently... they may be different.

taks
Taks, you not wrong, pipe and cigar tobacco are processed different,
It's the curing of the leaf, pipe and cigar air cured, as against flue cured
cigarette tobacco.
Nokton

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 10:10 PM
Taks, you not wrong, pipe and cigar tobacco are processed different,
It's the curing of the leaf, pipe and cigar air cured, as against flue cured
cigarette tobacco.
Noktonyeah, but i thought there were additives to cigarette smoke, too. in particular, i thought that nicotine is not found in tobacco at nearly the levels present in cigarettes.

taks

Sammy
2006-Jan-11, 11:05 PM
I mentioned what a panel of expert scientists conccluded.

Taks then wrote, Re my post and it's sue by Van Rijn



...if he were some sort of expert without backing the claim first. his opinion is just another opinion that flies in the face of the facts.



When I reiterated that the comments WERE NOT my opinion, he
then followed with


I was not commenting on that, actually. i did not "dismiss" you, either, as suggested. van rijn made a post that said "see here, what another baut member says!" and i merely pointed out that what another baut member says is no more credible than what i say

Looks like you don't read your own posts.

I don't know what credentials you bring to the table, but I strongly doubt that they approach the level of expertise of the toxicologists, epridemiologists, biostatisticians, biochemists, pulmonary function experts, and others which we assembled.

Grand_Lunar
2006-Jan-11, 11:17 PM
I'm in the process of quitting, but why do you pick on smokers?



Good to see you are quitting.


I personally pick on smokers because I think they can spend their money on better things, especially in this age of high gas prices.

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 11:38 PM
Looks like you don't read your own posts. except for that word "if" that i used... eh?


I don't know what credentials you bring to the table, but I strongly doubt that they approach the level of expertise of the toxicologists, epridemiologists, biostatisticians, biochemists, pulmonary function experts, and others which we assembled.credentials mean nothing. i understand what "relative risk" means and i also understand what "90% confidence interval" means.

nobody has yet explained why they don't do the study with a 95% confidence interval and why a 1.2 relative risk is significant. even the various cancer institutes refuse to recognize relative risks that low...

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-11, 11:56 PM
sammy, i think the point that i'm making and you're missing is that at the time i made that post i had not even read your comment purely because i did not care about another board member's opinion about the paper. i think i've made that last bit at least very clear.

i have since read your postings and still don't care about two expert review panels as they obviously don't seem too inclined to standard practices.

also, i think none of you seem to realize what i'm saying. i DO NOT think there is no harm in second-hand smoke - quite the opposite. i just think the EPA meta-study (it is a study of several other studies) provides valid data with invalid conclusions. a 1.2 relative risk can be attributed to many things, including a real rise in risk. however, in the absence of an extremely tight confidence interval (difficult with the number of studies used), the statistical conclusions cannot be trusted.

it seems the only validation for the EPA using 90% confidence is the EPA itself. it also seems that every other cancer institute in the world thinks a relative risk as low as 1.2 is meaningless (the relative risk was for cancer, not other diseases). given this information, regardless of credentials (i do have an extensive background in statistics, btw), one MUST question the conclusions.

taks

FWIW, i do smoke occasionally and hate it. i have smoked off and on for over 20 years and i cannot bring myself to quit for good. i have smoked as much as two packs a day, but NEVER around those that don't smoke. as a matter of fact, my parents only saw me smoke two or three times in the entire 11 years i lived with them while smoking. it is a nasty, ugly habit

Sammy
2006-Jan-12, 03:17 AM
A good place to end this thread.

nokton
2006-Jan-12, 08:21 PM
yeah, but i thought there were additives to cigarette smoke, too. in particular, i thought that nicotine is not found in tobacco at nearly the levels present in cigarettes.

taks
Taks, dwell with me, a doctor, Peter Alexander, years ago, did many tests
with the result that nicotine was beneficial to the brain.
Certain tobacco manufactures produced an additive,to make their
cigarettes more addictive, smoke a pipe myself.
Nokton

worzel
2006-Jan-12, 08:28 PM
Does anyone know if the additiives in regular cigarettes are also present in rolling tobacco?

nokton
2006-Jan-12, 08:39 PM
So, Nokton, your argument is that tobacco smoke causes no problems at all?
Lonewulf, never said that, you know it. Just revealing two standards.
In fact Lonewulf, at present videoing the pollution by school buses,
taking the tapes to my MP, and asking the problem to be raised in
parliament.
Nokton

sarongsong
2006-Jan-13, 01:49 AM
Does anyone know if the additiives in regular cigarettes are also present in rolling tobacco?None in American Spirit (http://www.nascigs.com/)'s.

nokton
2006-Jan-15, 07:34 PM
I would say no to that sarongsong. Most rolling tobacco is produced in
Denmark and Holland. The cigarette companies responsible in the US
were successfully prosecuted a few years ago. They introduced the
additive to give the smoker a bigger 'Hit'. The additive was proven to
be a nasty carcinogen.
To my current knowledge, no additive is added to hand rolling tobacco
produced in the EU.
Nokton.

Thomas(believer)
2006-Jan-15, 08:48 PM
I'm from the Netherlands and smoke rolling tobacco myself. From experience I can tell also rolling tobacco is addictive, with or without additives.

worzel
2006-Jan-15, 11:42 PM
I'm from the Netherlands and smoke rolling tobacco myself. From experience I can tell also rolling tobacco is addictive, with or without additives.
But maybe less addictive (and less unhealthy) than with the additives?

suntrack2
2006-Jan-16, 12:39 PM
I am not a smoker, but i have heard that smoking supports for weakening the lungs, and moreover "carseginic substances" in the body, but if it is herbal smoke then sometime this is useful for the choked throat or particularly in the cold conditions.

sunil

Dave Mitsky
2006-Jan-16, 02:01 PM
In Isaac Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery he mentions the first introduction of tobacco to the Europeans in the 16th century. Then he says something like, "the Native Americans probably didn't intend for thousands of Europeans and their decendants to die from lung cancer, emphysema, and so forth as revenge for killing them and taking their land, but it sort of worked out that way." :neutral:

Thousands? Try millions.

http://www.who.int/docstore/tobacco/ntday/ntday96/pk96_3.htm

Approximately 114,000 people in the United Kingdom die from smoking each year. Multiply that by all the nations worldwide that have large numbers of smokers and the yearly death toll is incredible.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html

Tobacco has more than evened the score I suppose.

Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky
2006-Jan-16, 02:06 PM
I meed a mental hug!
No body is going hug me?
Are they?

Here's one from me, Candy. Hug!

Be strong.

Dave Mitsky

suntrack2
2006-Jan-16, 04:05 PM
many people who do not smokes, but they have suffer due to the other nearer smokers who came in their contact, (business point of view, in journey, in the theatres, in the bus/train, some places like gardens etc).

nokton
2006-Jan-16, 07:31 PM
Ref the above, paranoia comes to mind, not science or reason,
I would be the first to agree that cigarette smoking produces a
health risk. Cigar and pipe smokers less at risk because the smoke
is not inhaled. But OMG the biggest health risk now is obesity, anyone
slapping a health warning on McDonalds? And for the record, research
just in is clear that diet is the most important factor in longevity.
Am 73 now, been smoking tobacco since I was 7 years old, yes.
Gave up cigarettes 30 years ago in favour of pipe smoking.
But always ate well, as I do today, fresh fruit and veg, chicken and
oily fish. Anyone here know about P10s? The diesel particulate?
A nasty carcinogen. You villify a smoker then get in your diesel car
and pollute the air our children breathe, with a powerful cancer inducing
exhaust? Give me a prayer.
Nokton

Thomas(believer)
2006-Jan-16, 08:54 PM
But maybe less addictive (and less unhealthy) than with the additives?
That's very well possible. But still it is very unhealthy.

worzel
2006-Jan-16, 11:13 PM
Approximately 114,000 people in the United Kingdom die from smoking each year. Multiply that by all the nations worldwide that have large numbers of smokers and the yearly death toll is incredible.This can be a very misleading statistic. I'm not denying that us smokers live shorter lives on average, but to take it to its extreme, if every smoker died a minute earlier than they otherwise would have would you say that smoking killed them all? It is a matter of degree, life expectency, and quality of life, not death toll per se. Many other things in life shorten ones life expectency but don't attract anywhere near the same degree of moralistic criticism.

LurchGS
2006-Jan-16, 11:33 PM
speaking as an ex-smoker (20 years, smoke free) I say, Go Candy, Go!

having to hide the habbit from my parents may have made me a de facto 'considerate' smoker. I never smoked indoors or in a car, or around non-smokers (but I still managed to get in my pack and a half a day). i was able to quit cold-turkey (interesting phrase, that).

My business partner was a 2-pack-a-day smoker, but he quit when he realized that if he quit, he could afford cable TV. (Funny, but no joke. We'd just started the business on a shoestring and neither of us could afford much)