Smoking section
Published Thursday, March 20, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 16, 2008
To the editor:
My heart goes out to you, you poor things putting up with secondhand smoke. Bad people smoking. Just what are they thinking?
Maybe they think they still have some rights in Alaska. Maybe if more people move up here with the laws from their old state — you know, the ones they were trying to get away from — we could lose the rest of the freedoms that this great state of ours had at one time.
The point is, if you don’t like it, leave it!
Use your Permanent Fund dividend and go south. Don’t sit and whine that people are picking on you because if you didn’t want to be picked on you would have kept your mouth shut or taken your business to a place with no smoking.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Thanks for the advice. How bout this? You take yourself out of the Health Care system, so that we dont have to pay for your medical care down the road and we will follow your advice in turn.
YouMustBConfused: What a stupid thing to say. Next will you suggest that I don't let my kids play out in the backyard for fear that YOU will end up having to pay for their medical care if they get hurt? There are 49 other states that are severely over regulated to protect even the slightest gripe someone like you may have. No one asked you to fix us. Trust me, we're good.
Are you responding to somebody or are you just talking to everybody that doesn't smoke? When you are talking about these laws that we are trying to get are trying to get away from...who is "we"? You?? Maybe your right, it would be better if we never progressed. Nothing good ever comes out of change...Maybe it is you that should stay home and be miserable by yourself.
Unfortunatly you won't be able to smoke in the hospital. Have fun with chemo. Hear its a blast.
It’s possible the author may be confusing rights with privileges. Smoking is a privilege and smokers are not a protected class.
The corporation that employs me does not allow smoking anywhere on the property, and that includes sitting in one’s car while it’s in the parking lot. Violations can result in lawful reprimand and/or termination. There are also laws here that ban smoking in bars and clubs. I won’t belabor the issue by going into why this is so. Most of us are aware of the studies and statistics.
Telling residents of Alaska to “like it or leave it” because they disagree with you is an impractical proposal. Almost everyone who lives in the state came from somewhere else. I was born in territorial Alaska and would never suggest that someone leave simply because they have rightfully expressed their point of view.
Thank you.
(YMBC - I sure wish I could pick and choose where my taxes went. There are all sorts of things that I wouldn't fund. Ever consider how much tax revenue would be lost if smoking were banned? I haven't really, but it's an interesting question.)
The issue here is not who should leave or who should go. The issue here is personal choice and responsibility. Some people choose to smoke - they get that choice. Others choose to have diets of butter and meat. Still others choose to engage in promiscuous or unprotected sex. Some people drive cars, while others ride a bike. These are just a few examples. Everything we do has certain risks involved and we, especially as adults, make those choices knowing full well that "chemo is fun" for example.
There is also personal choice and responsibility involved in picking a restaurant to eat at. I, typically, don't go to places that are primarily pasta based, because I don't like pasta a whole lot. If one knows that a restaurant has a smoking section, then it is incumbent upon that individual to choose whether or not to eat at that establishment. Is smoking a "deal-breaker" for you? If so, picking a place like Food Factory probably isn't the most responsible choice for YOU.
I think the letter-writer's main intent, albeit written in a way that was more polarizing than not, was just that: don't try to take away the right of the smoker to make their choices as well. There are still businesses in this town that cater to smokers because there is still a public desire for it. There are businesses that cater to non-smokers as well for this same reason. The attitude of "get smoking out of everything" (as presented in the letter that this letter responds to) is offensive because it presents an attitude of "we know what's best for you" and frankly, none of you know what's best for me.
If it's the health effects of SHS that worries you, then again, it is incumbent upon you to avoid places that allow smoking. Kind of like I avoid the roads late at night, especially on Friday and Saturday nights because I fear the drivers on the road who drink. Personal choice and responsibility. Too many people look to the government to help them make their choices for them, from health to parenting. I prefer to make my own decisions. Even when they are stupid ones.
ok, but can you at least take a shower or bath after your cigarette? YOU STINK!!!!
LOL personal choice goes out the window when someone does something that affects everyone...namely health insurance. Yes, this is the slippery slope people. If someone wants to sit at home and put their lips over their smokestack, that is fine by me...just dont call the ambulance, police or government to help them out. To me there is no difference? You know smoking is bad for you...it is smoke PEOPLE!! Fine, smoke but I should'nt have higher insurance to cover your medical care!! It is a choice people!
This topic is a little difficult for me because I was a smoker for 37 years and just recently quit 6 months ago (am still fighting the urge), but to smoke or not to smoke is not the issue to me - it's WHERE you can smoke. I agree that if you want to smoke you should go ahead and smoke .. one right after the other if you choose, but the question is where is it appropriate to smoke. If it's a business where other people go, and a business not owned by you and your smoking effects others (I'm considering children and infants who have not been exposed to those kinds of toxins) then I believe we should be considerate and not smoke in those places.
I think its sad though that we have to enact laws to protect children rather than making it be a common sense kind of respect thing and people should just choose not to smoke in those places rather than pass laws governing people's personal habits. Laws have a tendency to go, in my opinion, too far and too extreme. Many places have laws that you cant even smoke on the streets, or even in California where you can get a ticket for driving impared if you've had too many espresso's *lol*
This is a delicate balance, so restaurants and where minors go into is one thing .. a bar, in my opinion, is another. People in there are adults and to limit people's smoking (for health reasons) where they are drinking in excess (where no one is questioning the alcohol being a factor concerning health or the harms that does to the body just makes no sense to me. If you work in those places and dont want to be exposed to the smoke - then choose a different career or make a statement by wearing one of those masks during your shifts.
artic_army -
Can we also make sure that those who wear patchouli oil bathe before they are in my presence?
How about those nasty colognes that some men seem to bathe themselves in?
What about all those wood burning cabin hippies that don't have water? Shouldn't we be able to ban their stink from the public as well?
And damnit, what about those mushers that are always covered in dog hair? Don't they know that some people are allergic to dogs and they may be posing a health risk?
And, I just can not stand the smell of diesel. I really wish we could ban those infernal diesels from the road...
Shall I go on?
DvD - Well said, well written. The only thing I'd like to add is that its the business owner's right to run their business how they see fit, within the confines of the law, of course.
YMBC - The slippery slope is more and more government intrusion/interference in our lives.
Hey! The first time I agree with newsreader. He/she must be getting smarter.
Fine, so you dont want the government involved? Do you like paying for higher insurance costs each year? That is not our government doing that? Tell me when and how much you are willing to pay before you say..."hey, these smokers are costing me too much money"?
YouMustBConfused - Damnit, you're right!
We should ban alcohol too because it is costing taxpayers too much money to bust all those DUIs - just think of the cost in cops and courts, not too mention all of the jail space! And, the health risks are attrocious! Not to mention all of the people killed by drunk drivers! What an absolutely horrible health risk and financial drain on the American public!
Oh, wait, we already tried that, didn't we? It didn't work did it?
Ok, I guess you are not right after all... *rolls eyes*
I agree... well said DvD.
YMBC; You are right about the slippery slope. Ought we ban trans-fats (wait a minute...)? Ought we ban sugar? Ought we ban meat? Ought we ban (insert anything)? I disagree with your health insurance argument. I have read a couple of reports that point out that people who smoke, as well as those with generally sedentary lifestyles, and others, do impose greater costs on the healthcare system in this country.... while they are alive. However, they tend to die earlier, saving the healthcare system the money that would otherwise be spent caring for them in old age. In the end it's a wash. Cost us more now with your self-inflicted lung cancer, diabetes, etc, but save us money later by dying at a younger age.
If you want to smoke, you have my blessing (although I think it's a studid thing to do... I think highmarking on a snowmachine is stupid too, but go for it if you wish). Also, I agree with the poorly worded point of the orignal letter writer. The permittal of smoking in privately owned public venues (restaraunts, bars, etc) should be up to the proprieter. If people don't want smoking, then don't go to those establishments. If enough people boycott such establishments, then those businesses will either adapt and change the smoking rules, or go out of business. Conversly, if an establishement can make money while still permitting smoking, more power to them.
There is a general lack of personal responsibility in this country (and around the world). If you don't like second hand smoke, don't patronize places that permit it, and don't work at places that permit it (an argument that I hear all too often is that waiters and bartenders are subject to second hand smoke... Don't work there if you don't like it... if a bar/restaraunt can't get employees because of smoking, then they will have to change thier ways). If you are worried about your kids, dont' take them to places that allow smoking.
In the end, this issue should me market driven... Not regulated by the gonvernment.
By YMBC's logic, we should only be allowed to drive cars, and drink in our own homes, because those things tend to effect everyone. Not to mention that all chimneys should be closed up because "it is smoke, people". And I'd like to see that magical smoke from a smoking restaurant that effects EVERYONE - even those not inside. That's impressive stuff. It's nice to know that to some, personal choice and responsibility are only important as long as the choice is agreed upon. Another point of reference: smokers pay taxes too, YMBC. Possibly more because of the taxes on the cigarettes they buy.
DlCarter - I agree with you about how hard it is to quit. I'm seven months off cigarettes after 16 years of the habit, so kudos to you. I must say, however, that I disagree with you about the children aspect of your post. Here's why: parents. It is the parents responsibility to ensure that their children are not exposed to places where there is smoke (if the parent deems that the risks are too much) - Denny's is a wonderful family friendly restaurant that is non-smoking. I am a parent. I don't need anyone telling me where to go/not to go to take care of my children's health. Kids also need a lot of vegetables, but I don't want anyone dictating to me how much I have to give them. If I can be a parent, then I get to make these choices until it is found that I am not capable of making them.
Photodude705 - AMEN. When the smoking ban went into effect in Wenatchee, my Aunt's bar suffered some major losses, which included laying off employees, cutting back hours, and numerous other negatives. How's that for effecting people?
Here's the deal folks. Smoking is legal. If you don't like it, then lobby your representatives to try to make it illegal. Until then, using your dollar at business where you support their practices is a strong bargaining tool. This is how I use my dollar.
Tobacco was a factor in both my parents deaths. I've already had a brother-in-law and sister-in-law dead from lung cancer in their 50's. Smokers are truly stupid addicts. Smoking isn't a choice. It's an addiction. It's odd to still see folks saying it's a choice and their right to smoke where they will. Apparently the population doesn't read anything about tobacco addiction before posting truly ignorant remarks.
Hey Newsreader,
I more or less agree with you, but I have one small problem. See, I like to run, bike and ski, but when I'm done I usually smell so bad that even I'm offended. But in the tiny Goldstream neighborhood I dwell in, showering is strictly forbidden by the local covenants. I don't want to get sued by neighbors for cleaning up, but boy, sometimes I really reek. Any ideas on how I can escape my own presence?
Is it a stupid, but LEGAL addiction batman_ak?
Even in addiction there is a choice. You choose to continue the addictive behaviors; you choose to gain knowledge and stop the behavior. To assume otherwise makes us all quite powerless.
People should and do have the privlege to smoke in smoking establishments and in their homes. Personally I chose to avoid bars and smoking homes.
However, as a pregnant woman and an asthmatic I find it hard to "avoid" people that light up as they are walking out through the door at the grocery store, mall or other stores that I patronize that are non-smoking establishments. Why should I be forced to have coughing fits and expose my unborn child to SHS when I want to go buy a half gallon of milk? If you can't wait to light up your cigarette until your in the car, at least have some common courtesy and wait until you are 20+ feet from the door.
Powerless is what addicts thrive on. (I recognize that I'm powerless over drugs, alchohol, gambling, etc. etc.) To me, that's just another way of saying, "I don't have to take responsibility here." For every addiction out there, there exist a bunch of programs and people just itching to give you a hand in overcoming addiction. The only problem is: They expect you to do some work yourself.
A central claim of those eager for restrictions on tobacco use is that smokers cost society more.
A new study from the Netherlands may help lay that oft heard chestnut to rest. The study shows that there would be no cost savings for governments and taxpayers from preventing obesity or reducing illnesses caused by smoking.
The study found, quite to the contrary, that healthy people cost more.
The study, undertaken by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Holland, found that ultimately healthy people, who live on average four years longer than obese people and seven years longer than smokers (yet some of the longest lived beings were smokers), cost the health system about $417,000 from the age of 20 compared to $371,000 for obese people and $326,000 for smokers.
One of the economists working on the study commented: “if you live longer, then you cost the health system more.”
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/cost...
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...
Long-living healthy people cost more than the obese, smokers
Imusuallyright ---
The first thing that they teach you in AA or NA is that you are powerless. They teach that you have to believe in a "higher power" that you can place your problems on.
This is exactly why I refused to be involved in either of those programs. I refuse to believe in a higher power. I am my own higher power.
Speaking from experience, being addicted makes you feel quite powerless. It is only through lots of very hard work and a strong will that anyone is able to overcome a true addiction.
So, yes, addicts feel powerless. But, those same programs you refer to, as their first step, force you to admit you ARE powerless. (Which is total BS in my book).
I do not believe that smokers have a "right" to smoke anywhere they want. However, I do believe that private property owners (not the government) have the right to say which legal activities (such as smoking) can happen on their property - be it in their homes, cars, or place of business. Unlike public nuisances, such as loud music, someone can smoke in a restaurant or in their home without it interfering with another private property owner's enjoyment of their own property.
The right to own private property, benefit from it, and to control its use is what separates us from the Communists.
As Forrest liked to say, "Stupid is as Stupid does." Yup, it is a slippery slope. It has been pointed out correctly that smoking is not a right it is a choice. Smoking is addictive but I guess I am just supposed to hope you die sooner to get you off the insurance role or dole. Wow, all of this freedom of choice for a little piece of tobacco and 300 chemicals that people want to suck into their lungs! Oh, and lets not talk about the butts cast around the ground of our great city! Freedom of choice, People! We are just supposed to take it because those people are addicted and they need to pass the love around to their children, family and close passer Byers. Don’t complain, take it, it’s our God given right to smoke wherever, whenever and near whomever we choice. You are stepping on my rights if you take that away! YouMustBConfused
http://www.cigs4u.com/americansmokers.ht...
This site is dedicated to the rights of smokers. free links to sites that support smokers' rights.
Dana, you must be very young. I'm guessing in your 20's. I've seen 4 people close to me smoke themselves to death. After you are addicted, it is NO LONGER A CHOICE. You have to go through a lot of work to get off tobacco. It's not a matter of reason. It's a biological hold. It is a physical addiction.
Please read something about addiction and tobacco.
I've found that most people use reason to back up what they believe emotionally. That is, reason & logic are minor players in the lives of most people; we think we act logically but when we examine our past, we find resentments, anger, ease of options (taking the lazy way out), and such to govern many of what we call our life choices.
batman - if it's no longer a choice than how do people successfully quit smoking? Choice and addiction are not mutually exclusive. I've chosen not to practice my addiction for over two years now.
I think every resturaunt should be smoke free i sure as hell dont want to be subjected to your damn smoke or the smell.There are some people that are nice enough to wait and smoke outside but then you just have the morons that in my opinion just do it to be irritating have to sit there and suck on their cancer stick. Hope you enjoy your lung cancer and heart disease.
Newsreader-
We don't disagree here.
The_Alaska_Curmudgeon -
Have you tried transcendental meditation? That might work for ya! ;)
Newsreader-
So, yes, addicts feel powerless. But, those same programs you refer to, as their first step, force you to admit you ARE powerless. (Which is total BS in my book).
I also don't disagree here.
Wow! Maybe I'm not such a raving lunatic after all ;)
batman_ak - I'm 32, an ex-smoker with a grandmother who died of lung cancer. Just because I disagree with you does not make me young or ill-informed. Addiction is a choice. Which is why we have EX-smokers, drinkers etc. Those that are still addicted just haven't made a different choice yet.
I could choose not to smoke, I already know it's an addiction, don't preach to me. I choose not to smoke in public areas, or when driving with a clean-air-breather, but when you pass through my smoke cloud when I'm off minding my own business, don't start that coughing and wheezing B.S. You could just as easily choose not to breathe in the 15 seconds it takes to pass by.....
Let me get this straight. As a non smoker, I should choose not to go where people smoke. Which limits me to... my home. Because even if I go to work, or the grocery store, or to a non-smoking restaurant, or the movies smokers feel that it is perfectly acceptable to stand directly outside the door and smoke without regard to those around them.
What about my rights as a non-smoker to not be inflicted with the stench and asthma attack-inducing cloud produced by these people? Why should my health be endangered by people who chose to start smoking, who choose to continue to smoke, and who are too rude to realize that their behavior negatively impacts those around them? Addicts or not, common decency for other people should come in to play. At least junkies have the manners to not shoot up in front of Fred Meyers or Chili's.
Jenna - it's LEGAL...if you dislike it so much, contact your legislators. A "cloud" outside a door does not "induce" asthma.
Smoking bans do not allow for accommodating tobacco users. As a result of kicking all tobacco users out into the streets, (which is where you say that you are exposed) has caused your inability to avoid tobacco smoke exposure. Because smoking bans are promoted by Anti-s funded through by the most part tobacco taxes and big pharma, property owners are pressured into NOT accommodating tobbaco users in a controlled atmosphere where ventilation is used ( http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/vent... ) and ash trays are readilly availble.
These are the unintended consequences of smoking bans or is it?
I believe that Anti-s know that smoking bans pressured by government or other ways will put tobacco users in a position which forces them to be placed in outside environments that are not comfortable ( http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/addi... ) ,ie cold, rain etc,. the purpose of course is to attempt to create an association of discomfort with the choice to smoke. The other agenda is too purposely create a situation to which non tobacco users are offended by tobacco use outside. Once enough people are outside and SHS becomes unavoidable they will then make further attempts to ostracize tobacco users.
Anti-tobacco NAZI History
http://www.data-yard.net/nazi/7070nd2.ht...
Cost to society
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/cost...
In 1993, EPA labeled secondhand smoke a "known human carcinogen." This was based on its analysis of about 30 epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. But 80 percent of the studies did not support EPA's decision. So how did EPA justify its conclusion?
EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent.
But this result was criticized because for a number of reasons, including:
Epidemiologic studies are not generally capable of reliably identifying small relative risks (i.e., less than 2.0).
None of the 30 studies used quantitative exposure data. All the studies used "guesstimated" exposure data.
The relative risk of 1.19 was not statistically significant at the conventional 95 percent level.
EPA underadjusted for the effect of smoking misclassification (i.e., the tendency for smokers to claim they are nonsmokers).
EPA (and the rest of the junk science world) chose to ignore these criticisms.
Now, consider a new study just published in the journal Epidemiology on diesel exhaust and lung cancer.
Researchers from the University of California (San Francisco) and the University of California (Berkeley) did a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies of diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Note: 7 other diesel exhaust/lung cancer studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, 6 of which did not support the researcher's ultimate conclusion).
The researchers reported a relative risk of 1.33 (95 percent confidence interval 1.24. - 1.44).
But in an accompanying editorial, the National Cancer Institute's Debra T. Silverman wrote:
Skepticism regarding the carcinogenicity to the lung of diesel exhaust in humans arises from three main concerns about the epidemiologic evidence. First, and probably most important, the magnitude of the effect observed in most studies is low, with relative risks (RRs) typically under 1.5. Second, of the 30 studies conducted on the relation between diesel exhaust and lung cancer, only four have obtained either quantitative data on current exposure or semiquantitative data on historical exposure. None has obtained quantitative data on historical exposure, the measure most relevant to the development of lung cancer...Third, the effect of cigarette smoking has been controlled in only about one-half the studies...
[The authors] conclude that the data support a causal association between diesel exhaust and lung cancer in humans. Has science proven causality beyond any reasonable doubt? Probably not. The repeated finding of small effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation.
How would Mr. Rogers would put it? "Can you say 'double-standard'?"
batman_ak - I'm sorry for your loss. It don't mean to sound harsh, but the one thing you're missing is that those who smoke chose to put that first cigarette in their mouth. They also chose to put the second one and so on down the line until they became addicted. The addiction is what drives them to continue to smoke, but they can choose to quit.
And, yes, I too am an ex-smoker. I quit 15 years ago. It was hard, but I managed to do it. I made the choice to quit.
Far fewer children are showing high levels of lead in their blood or the effects of secondhand smoke, a government report has found - but childhood asthma rates are doubling.
The number of children whose blood levels showed effects from second hand smoke declined by about one-fifth to one-half between 1988 and 2000, depending on their levels of exposure. Those figures are obtained by tracking the amount of cotinine, a breakdown product of nicotine in blood.
But the report also found that the percentage of children getting asthma has doubled in two decades, rising from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 8.7 percent, or 6.3 million children by 2001.
What more can be said? Even the Environmental Protection Agency, the author of the discredited, vacated and debunked secondhand smoke report, admits that asthma is not caused by secondhand smoke. This admission should make the public see red. After years of harping that smoking and secondhand smoke causes nearly every ailment under the sun, the evidence keeps mounting that the so-called experts have been barking up the wrong tree. Asthma rates rise and the EPA and its cohorts in the tobacco control industry scream secondhand smoke. Smoking declines and the hysterics still scream about smoking. Now that the end of their road has been reached, they scratch their heads in puzzlement and ask for more money to figure it all out. Dismantling the EPA would be a very good start.
According to the first long-term study of patients with "at risk" asthma, the key triggers for asthma attacks are: cold air, exercise, the menstrual cycle and aspirin. NO mention of ETS. The study was conducted by the National Heart and Lung Institute in the UK, and its findings were reported at a recent meeting of the British Thoracic Society.
The study found that 70% of the asthma patients in the study group said that cold air and exercise was a key trigger for an asthma attack; 2% claimed allergies to peanuts could trigger an attack; 14% said aspirin was a common trigger; 10% of females said their menstrual cycle was related to their attacks; and 55% said laughter could trigger an attack.
Apparently few if any claimed ETS exposure triggered an attack. This is, of course, at odds with the antis' claims that smoking bans must be enacted to protect asthmatics.
Does passive smoking increase the frequency of health service contacts in children with asthma?
I K Crombiea, A Wrighta, L Irvinea, R A Clarkb, P W Slanec
a Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK, b Department of Medicine, Stracathro Hospital, Brechin, Angus DD9 7QA, UK, c Wallacetown Health Centre, West Lyon Street, Dundee DD4 6PQ, UK
Correspondence to: Professor I K Crombie i.k.
Received 14 April 2000; Returned to authors 7 June 2000; Revised version received 19 June 2000; Accepted for publication 3 July 2000
BACKGROUND
Passive smoking is a major cause of respiratory morbidity in children. However, few studies give accurate estimates of the health effects of passive smoking in children with asthma using an objective measure of exposure. The effects of passive smoking using salivary cotinine levels to measure exposure were investigated.
METHODS
A sample of 438 children aged 2-12 years with asthma who had a parent who smoked were recruited in Tayside and Fife, Scotland. Health service contacts for asthma, assessed from GP case records, were used as a proxy for morbidity.
RESULTS
A weak U-shaped relationship was found between the salivary cotinine level and health service contacts for asthma: compared with low cotinine levels those with moderate cotinine levels had a reduced contact rate (relative rate (RR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.05), whereas high cotinine levels were associated with an increased rate of contact (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.37). In contrast, a strong association was seen with the amount the parent reported smoking in front of the child: the higher the level the fewer visits were made for asthma (RR for everyday exposure = 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77). This effect was not seen for non-respiratory visits. Demographic factors, age of child, and number of children in the family all had a powerful effect on the number of visits for asthma. The parents' perception of asthma severity was associated with visit frequency independent of actual severity (derived from drug treatment).
CONCLUSION High levels of parental smoking in the home are associated with a reduction in health care contacts for asthma.
USER6244 you are a great foot soldier for the industry...that is where you got this info., right?
Nope it can be found in the journal of medicine for instance and at a sites that have gathered the information from medical and government sources.
Alot of these studies are the ones your not supposed to know about of course..
http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
DID YOU KNOW?... - Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease says: >NO CONNECTION< - this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:
"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."
The word "surprisingly" even betrays the expectation of the researchers that passive smoke hurts - quite indicative of today's superstitions induced by the antismoking frauds: but the results betray politics. In spite of all the USSR-like suppression of positive information by the "public health" gangsters, therefore, more evidence that the nearly universal smoking bans on passenger airlines is unjustified comes from researchers who examined the specific health risks associated with working in commercial aviation. Banning smoking on airlines makes no more sense than banning smoking in a restaurant or office building. None of the studies on secondhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE STUDY
http://www.data-yard.net/39/cabin.pdf
I misspoke. Got irritated. My apologies.
As smitrob noted earlier: Smokers are NOT a protected class. Go ahead and smoke, enjoy the resulting chemotherapy, but please, spare me and my kids from your carcinogens. I sure hope, for your sake, you enjoy the inclement weather associated with your idyllic "Alaskan living". I would (along with many other people, I'm sure) love to see tobacco classified with asbestos.
Wow! After all of the REAL DATA supplied by user6244, you still get accused of being a foot soldier for industry and attacked for pressing our carcinogens on someone and their kids.
This is as bad as trying to present evolutionary facts to religious nuts - once the sheeple are brainwashed, there really is no getting through to them is there?
Ummm a study funded by the Airline just doesnt do it for me? I can throw studies at you all day
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml...
The mortality rates from cancers of the esophagus, upper respiratory tract and lung were at least 15 times higher in smokers than in nonsmokers. ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3...
We all know what smoking is all about...YouMustBConfused
YMBC -- The issue here is the danger of 2nd hand smoke. Not the danger to smokers. I don't think a single person here has stated that smoking is good for you. What has been stated is that the dangers of 2nd hand smoke have been DRASTICALLY over touted.
And, you mention the Airline study. How about the German study? The England study? The one from Scotland? The one from California? Did you conveniently ignore those, or what?
Nice try though...
The bottom line is that people will continue to smoke. Regardless if it's made illegal, then people will just smoke illegaly (just like alcohol during the prohibition era). Everyone on the planet knows fast food is bad for them as well (obesity causing just as or more problems than cigarettes do) but people still eat it, and a lot of it. Are we going to make hamburgers illegal if we make cigarettes illegal? Come on now.
It's just a matter of lifestyle choices. If someone doesn't care if they smell like an ash tray, then they will keep smoking. If you don't like smoke, there are plenty of restaraunts that do not allow it in any part of their building.
First I am told to like it or leave it, now we are down to, its a choice Man, just go somewhere else. The choice to inhale leaves and 300 chemicals and then blow it back out is the real issue here. Comments here have centered around the people and businesses have choices. Others have said it is a addiction. I am still at the heart of it, your smoking costs me money, your second hand smoke costs me money, your cigs. out your window cost me money. Sorry but society is getting tired of it. I am not in the mood for comprimize and industry paid research is not cutting it. It comes down to money. If you dont see that, YouMustBConfused
YMBC: Your children cost me money to educate, your tires cost me money by wearing down our roads, your wood-stove pumps a known corcinogen into my air, your car pumps know corcinogens into my air, your landscaping dumps know carcinogens into my water, your fender-bender from sliding on the ice increases my insurance. You cost me money. Sorry but society is getting tired of you. It comes down to money. If you don't see that, YouMustBeConfused.
Ok, so that is my harsh way of saying that, yes, smoking may cost us money (I would argue that, in the long run smokers die young and save us money), but since we all live on this planet, and use shared resources, we all cost each other money. Saying that we should prohibit people's actions simply because of indirect social expenses is ubsurd, and could lead to the ban of absolutely everything.
That said, littering with cig butts is just not nice. Smoking near high foot-traffic areas, such as right at the door to a restaraunt, etc. is not nice. If you are going to do anything around other people (smoking, driving, walking, skiing, etc.)please try to be a little courteous.
You see through the history of man, there has been norms that in time have played themselves out. I know you know what they are so I wont make reference, but they are now looked upon as stupid, wasteful and wrong. The tired "you can pull my cigarette from from my cold dead fingures" is getting old. It is no longer looked upon as acceptable, get over it. No amount of placating the "freedums" will work and this tired habit will go the way of so many sad habits of our history. Man, will survive. YouMustBConfused
http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Smo...
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/...
Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].
When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100.
Here's an idea: Let's compile a list of establishments that allow smoking. Then, if you don't want to patronize such places, it will be easy to avoid them... and feel free to let the management know why you're going somewhere else. If you're a smoker, you'll know where you can go and enjoy a meal, your friends, and cigarettes.
1.) Food Factory (?)
Journal of Drug Issues 31(2), 325-394, 2001
Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical
Evidence
Dale M. Atrens
__________
Dale Atrens received a B.A. from the University of Windsor, an A.M. from Hollins College, and a Ph.D. from Rutgers University. He has held
appointments at universities in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. He is currently a Reader in psychobiology at the University of Sydney.
He is the author of several neuroscience textbooks and a number of popular books on diet and lifestyle.
_____________
The present review is a critical analysis of the concepts behind and the empirical data supporting the view that tobacco
use represents an addiction to nicotine. It deals with general aspects of the notion of addiction, while concentrating on
specific problems associated with incorporating nicotine into current frameworks. The notion of addiction suffers from
unprecedented definitional difficulties. The definitions offered by various authorities are very different, even contradictory.
Definitions that reasonably include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such as salt,
sugar, and watching television, to be considered addictive. Definitions that exclude the trivia also exclude nicotine. The
addiction hypothesis, in general, is strongly shaped by views that certain drugs bring about a molecular level subversion
of rationality. The main human evidence for this is verbal reports of smokers who say that they can't quit. On the other
hand, the existence of many millions of successful quitters suggests that most people can quit. Some smokers don't quit, but
whether they can't is another matter. The addiction hypothesis would be greatly strengthened by the demonstration that
any drug of abuse produces special changes in the brain. It has yet to be shown that any drug produces changes in the
brain different from those produced by many innocuous substances and events. The effects of nicotine on the brain are
similar to those of sugar, salt, exercise, and other harmless substances and events. Apart from numerous conceptual and
definitional inadequacies with the addiction concept in general, the notion that nicotine is addictive lacks reasonable
empirical support. Nicotine does not have the properties of reference drugs of abuse. There are so many findings that
conflict so starkly with the view that nicotine is addictive that it increasingly appears that adhering to the nicotine
addiction thesis is only defensible on extra-scientific grounds.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/download/...
http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Smo...
http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Smo...
http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/
http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/...
http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_previ...
Nearly five years ago the famous, gigantic study of James Enstrom (right) and Geoffrey Kabat (right, below) on passive smoking in California demonstrated conclusively that there is no way to associate passive smoking with any disease. For that reason Kabat – and particularly Enstrom – were attacked viciously by the antitobacco ideologues and the junk scientists on the payroll of either “public health” institutions or the pharmaceutical industry. The assault extended to the British Medical Journal, that “dared” publishing an immense and scrupulous study that demonstrated – conclusively – that the passive smoking “dangers” are an epidemiological fraud because they cannot be measured.
Listen to to the audio in the link above.
http://www.forces.org/static_page/consti...
Why They Believe Antismoking
Why They Believe Antismoking | CNNN | February 18, 2008
Those of us who are engaged against the Fraud of the Century often have a hard time understanding how the epidemiological swindles and propaganda against smoking are so easily bought by John Q. Public. This video highlights the answer: astonishing ignorance.
http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/...
Yes user6244, its all a big conspiracy! Wow, you won, your right smoking is good for you. I will go out and buy a pack right now! LOL, NOT! Dude, you can get all the reference you want and I can disprove your references. Smoking is going the way of the DODO, good luck with this thing you got going, the industry is so proud of you. YouMustBConfused
Sorry but I grow my own right here in Fairbanks :)
People must be allowed freedom of choice despite the supposed dangers.
Let adults who are informed decide which risk's they are willing to take in there life.
Especially when it's legal and the government and everyone to include non tobacco users like you obtain benefits from it sale and use.
I have no interest in tobacco companies many who have capitulated to Anti-tobacco, Big Pharma, etc...
The Unconstitutional Master settlement agreement MSA, was nothing but away for one tobacco company to gain a monopoly over it's competitors. The large tobacco companies took the path of least resistance and left it's customers holding the bag.
The sun causes skin cancer. Perhaps we should ban the sun from the public? Where do we draw the line? Everything on earth has the potential to be hazardous to our health. By the way, if your sharing my cigarette smoke, you owe me $3.50.
Maybe so, but the industry is still proud of you, YouMustBConfused
http://images.kodakgallery.com/servlet/I...
My Tobacco last year
User6244: We are all able to use a search engine. You really don't need to keep doing the "research" for us.
Many people do not have the skills to locate the studies so I will continue to inform them as I see fit.
You're using the word "studies" pretty loosely there, dude. A lot of what you've haphazardly cut and pasted is anecdotal at best. Is there something tricky about typing "smoking's not so bad" or "pro-smoking" in a little box that I don't know about? Information sharing is a delicate balance, and I daresay you've alienated the people you may have othewise reached.
I personally don't think that there is anything left to say on the issue of "Smoking".
Everybody has already said it all. Except, the issue of insurance. "Who some seem to think of as their savior". I could go on and on. But to keep it simple.
Keeping track of the World, National and Local news. Specifically an article from last summers news. Insurance companies "Profit generating institutions" affect the whole nation. Floods, fires, hurricanes and even mud slides.
This article referred to the wildfires in the U.S. and how Insurance companies were requiring people to clear overgrowth and forestation within certain distances of their homes or risk losing their home-owners insurance. A $100.00 here and a $100.00 dollars there. "The cost of living, how high is it going to go".
The article written, specifically applied to, an Alaskan family, who was required to clear 200 yards around their property site, or lose their insurance. The problem was that they only owned 100 yards. Three or four years ago the smoke was so thick from the wildfires that I had to wipe the ash off of my windshield "from over 20 miles away" just to drive to work. How many of these complainers were out there fighting the fire too protect their lungs.
YMBC - Tobacco has been around since BC (or BCE, to be politically correct), and the first recorded picture appears around 600-1000AD (or CE if preferred):
http://www.tobacco.org/History/Tobacco_H...
I don't know that this one is just going to one of the bad habits you discuss that will just "go away". Society is tired of a lot of things.
I know one thing that many of us in society are tired of is losing our freedom to exercise personal choice in the name of political correctness. I know I'm one of those.