Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Surgeon General: No Secondhand Smoke is Safe" (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: "Surgeon General: No Secondhand Smoke is Safe"
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly my concern, Drake - which was why I was looking for that information. I don't think that's the whole story, however. I'll get back to this when I have more time - I've run out for today, however.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm basically less inclined to curtail freedom due to esthetics, DonaldD. Not completly AGAINST it, just less inclined. It should be extreme (like your urination thing), basically.

p.s. - some people see smoking as no less esthetically unpleasing then farting in public.

I don't agree that extreme should really be the qualifier here, if only because the word is too loaded to mean much. How about simple "cost"? I go to a restaurant where there are 20 other non smokers and 10 smokers. At the end of the evening, the 20 non-smokers have incurred a certain amount of breathing irritation at the hands of the smokers (loss of enjoyment of the meal they paid for) as well as a certain amount of laundering costs to remove the smell from clothes (and possibly additional shampoo costs for an additional shower, etc, etc).

Why should these costs NOT be passed on to those causing them? I would also argue that on the "extreme" spectrum, smoking "on" someone is more more akin to peeing on them than farting - unless someone's got a real digestive tract problem.

When was the last time you walked out of a place, sniffed your friend's hair and told him/her "Gross! you smell like an unflushed toilet!" On the other hand, smoking provides immediate and fairly consistent/continual discomfort to the smokee (just like being peed on) there are cleaning costs asociated (just like being peed on) and you smell nasty afterwards (just like being peed on). Being farted around generally is a very temporary and forgettable incident.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can I pass on the cost of lost work because the screaming, kicking kid behind me on the airliner won't let me concentrate?

Also, she stinks because she **** her pants.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now what if that was a screaming, kicking 25 year old? [Smile] And did she fling her feces on your clothes at the same time?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Deja Vu

Water is wet. My cat eats cat food. Inhaling carbon monoxide is bad for everything with lungs.

And yet... a friend of mine just got a ticket for smoking next to a roaring bonfire.

We subject each other to carcinogens every day, from the crap people feed their kids to the fumes leaking out of 20 year old gas caps that have never been replaced (and don't try to tell me that's neccesary to maintain the economy).

Sometimes, unfortunately, courtesy has to be legislated in order to preserve civil order. No one should be such a ummm burro's burrow as to light up a cigarette in a reasturant with children present. No one should be such a jerk as to walk around in public with their genitals hanging out either, but we had to pass laws about that too.

The neighbor who lights his fireplace on Christmas is subjecting you to multiple carcinogenic substances, but there's no vast drive to ban that. The guy using a leaf blower could use a broom instead of assaulting both your lungs and your ears. You sure don't NEED a two stroke lawn-mower.

We make compromises. People who toss their butts out the window ought to be hit to the fullest extent of the law with existing anti-littering statutes. Trust me, handing out the 1000 dollar tickets would curtail it. Don't get me started on gum-chewers.

Yes, people should have the same OSHA protections against cigarette smoke they would have against any other toxin. Only a complete *&$#%^$ smokes in the house their kids live in. Yes, people should have to be over 15 feet from the entrance of a building to smoke.

Jav, go to HR and file a complaint about people who can't seem to find the designated smoking area. I'm not kidding.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jav, go to HR and file a complaint about people who can't seem to find the designated smoking area. I'm not kidding.
The good and bad news is that it ain't people working for my company - just my building. And sometimes they are visitors. And sometimes they go to the designated area when I tell them about it, and sometimes they don't.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the issue of other carcinogens in the air, in particular, cars: my father cited a study to me a little while ago, around the time his sister died of lung cancer. He didn't say which journal he got it from, so you can take it for what it's worth.

The gist of the study was this: people who live in the country typically have a rate of lung cancer that is virtually nil. People who live in the city have a hugely increased rate of lung cancer, but still relatively small overall, like 1 in several thousand. People who smoke have a rate of 1/4 to close to 1/2.

The interesting part of the study was that there was virtually no difference between the city-dwelling smoker and the country-dwelling smoker. Both had the exact same risk of lung cancer. The point being that smoking is the 800 lbs gorilla; no other source of smoke even comes close.

This, of course, has nothing to do with second-hand smoke. I had to eat crow last time we debated this, because to my chagrin, my med school friends supported some of the other posters on this board vis a vis there being no evidence of a direct link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. After last time, I'm not so quick to jump to conclusions, although this study certainly isn't a shock to me.

I usually like to think of myself as a libertarian in many respects. I'm against fat taxes, seatbelt and bike helmet laws, and all the other nanny state measures that are so popular in Canada. So if you can convince me that secondhand smoke is harmless, then as much as I loathe smoking, I'll have no choice but to oppose restaurant/bar and other bans. And after all, if I think it's ok for you to commit suicide (which I do) why should I object to you smoking?

But if there's one iota of evidence that this secondhand smoke could be damaging MY lungs, I want every bloody cigarette banned from every public place within reason. Cigarettes are not analogous to cars; cars drive our economy, cigarettes do not. It's not even in the same league. Our society can easily do without the tobacco industry. Without cars, our economy would collapse. Big difference. And cars serve a useful purpose. Cigarettes serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

[ June 27, 2006, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr -

What if someone that isn't wearing a seatbelt is ejected in front of you? What if someone that isn't wearing a seatbelt has slightly less control during an emergency maneuver? How is secondhand smoke less harmful than the poor lifestyle choices brought on by parents that do not encourage exercise and proper dietary habits with regard to their kids?

It seems to me that this is a very steep slope. Rather than developing thicker lungs, I think people need to develop a thicker skin. There are all kinds of risk in this world, and the nature of our society militates against any action having only a single reaction. Unless the behavior of a parent is a clear and present danger to their children, the government should stay out of the home.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr said:
quote:
Our society can easily do without the tobacco industry. Without cars, our economy would collapse. Big difference. And cars serve a useful purpose. Cigarettes serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
I like to pistol shoot in my free time. It's not particularly productive, and does not drive society forward.

Perhaps my ability to practice my hobbies, as odd or esoteric as they may be should be removed under the banner of 'not useful'?

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At least smoking produces jobs. I just hope the Mexicans aren't stealing them... ;-)

Jav,

"But if there's one iota of evidence that this secondhand smoke could be damaging MY lungs, I want every bloody cigarette banned from every public place within reason."

I would agree with this, if you mean banning it in actual public places (like parks, on the sidewalk, in front of buildings.) But I still disagree with smoking bans in restaurants/bars. These aren't public places, they are privately owned businesses. When you start up a business, you should be allowed to chose who comes into your restaurant, if you are willing to sacrifice customers (coming to the restaurant... not their lives) to allow others to smoke, that is your business, and the government has no reason to intervene. If you feel threatened by SHS you can bring your business elsewhere.

I don't get how the surgeon general figures his conclusions. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but please help me figure this out. I must have my facts wrong, or just read the report wrong. I was under the impression that smoking caused health problems like lung cancer over the long run? So say, while smoking for one year is definitely not good for you, your chances of getting cancer still probably won't go up to noticeably. So why is he telling us that any exposure to SHS is dangerous?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I like to pistol shoot in my free time. It's not particularly productive, and does not drive society forward.
And when your stray bullets start hitting random people passing by, then I'll want your useless activity banned. But in the meantime, why should I care what you do on your own property?

quote:
What if someone that isn't wearing a seatbelt is ejected in front of you? What if someone that isn't wearing a seatbelt has slightly less control during an emergency maneuver? How is secondhand smoke less harmful than the poor lifestyle choices brought on by parents that do not encourage exercise and proper dietary habits with regard to their kids?
The key difference between my argument vis a vis secondhand smoke and the examples you gave is that my reasoning is genuine: I really don't want to be exposed to something that is going to harm me, even if it's only a small harm.

The examples you gave, by contrast, are akin to the rationalizations used by nanny statists to justify state intrusion into all aspects of our lives. Of course anyone can dream up a "harm" to almost any activity, especially when you live in a society like Canada with a huge social safety net where citizens must indirectly for the bad choices of others. The real problem with the nanny statists is motive: they're not primarily interested in attacking the harm, but in controlling the behaviour of their fellow citizens. Remember that employer they interviewed on CNN who fired his smoker employees because of the cost to his company's health plan? Did you notice how he kept talking about how much healthier people would be? The health plan junk was an excuse; he really just wanted to exercise power over other peoples' lives.

Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure. But I propose we start with actual direct harm caued by one individual to another. No bloody "collective" harm, no speculative "well what if" rube goldberg scenarios. This is common sense. Like a judge once said of pornography, I know it when I see it.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you feel threatened by SHS you can bring your business elsewhere.
And anyone who works in such a business has a choice between sacrificing their health or working elsewhere. What happens when all the employers choose to permit smoking, like they did until not too long ago? What "choice" did those employees have?

Sorry, smoking is no different than any hazard we forbid under normal occupational health and safety laws. We don't let businesses run equipment that is faulty or unsafe, and then say "oh well, if the workers don't like the fact that the deep fryer can spontaneously spew boiling oil on their faces, they can go work somewhere else." or "Oh well, if the worker doesn't like the fact that we don't provide masks for work around asbestos, he can go work in a different asbestos mine"

This is one of those examples of direct harm that I was talking about. If we were dealing with almost any other occupational health issue, like, say, fumes from a dishwasher, or some other piece of equipment, we'd either ban the equipment, or insist on some reasonable protection. But because this hazard happens to be a recreational activity for lots of people, suddenly it's "well they can just find another job".

It's awfully easy to tell people to just "find another job". Tell me, if all the law offices in the city permitted smoking, would I be forced to choose between being a lawyer and breathing second-hand smoke? Would I have to go back to school to become something else? This is some choice. Easy for people like me, because thankfully smoking is banned in offices. Shame about those waiters and other low level workers. They're pretty much stuck with secondhand smoke.

[ June 28, 2006, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But OSHA laws are always listed in terms of parts per million, acceptable levels, etc.

FDA rules even allow a certain percentage of insect parts to fall into the peanut butter.

Isn't a "not a whiff" policy toward smoking (like sidewalk smoking bans - even when the person is in motion and away from entrances) indicative of society's attempt to stamp out smoking, rather than analogous to being soaked with burning oil from the fryer?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't a "not a whiff" policy toward smoking (like sidewalk smoking bans - even when the person is in motion and away from entrances) indicative of society's attempt to stamp out smoking, rather than analogous to being soaked with burning oil from the fryer?
So don't ban smoking on sidewalks. It's possible to take things to the other extreme.

I would just be in favour of keeping the cigarrettes out of enclosed places, especially at places of work.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Workplace smoking bans are already in effect in much of the US. Restaurants and bars are really the last to go. Even Irish pubs are banned from smoking on premises.

Some state law bans smoking within a radius of the front door. That's where it is starting to get silly.

Then there's Calabasas

quote:
"We asked if they'd be in favor of laws requiring nonsmoking sections or nonsmoking buildings (in apartment complexes), including the units. Again, a very large percentage said 'yes.'"

If apartment owners designated smoke-free areas, healthy living conditions would be preserved for future tenants, according to Steve Gallegos of the American Heart Association.

"I myself recently moved from North Hollywood to Glendale and in looking for an apartment, it was interesting to have to go into a lot of apartments where people have actually smoked," Gallegos said.

"You could smell (smoke) in the carpet, in the walls, in the popcorn ceiling and sometimes even in the paint of the apartments. It was rather disgusting to try and find a place that you would consider clean that you would want to move into."

Gallegos said that cotinine, which is a by-product of nicotine, will seep into the carpet lining pads and other materials in a home and remain there. He said children who live in a household that either has had a smoker can get sick from cotinine.

"This is what (experts) call third-hand smoke," Gallegos said. "It's poison."

Hmmm. Third-hand smoke.

I agree, it would be gross to move into a new apartment where the carpet hadn't been changed after the previous resident left. But does that mean we need non-smoking apartment sections mandated by law?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jav,

"But if there's one iota of evidence that this secondhand smoke could be damaging MY lungs, I want every bloody cigarette banned from every public place within reason."

That would be jasonr...
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't get how the surgeon general figures his conclusions. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but please help me figure this out. I must have my facts wrong, or just read the report wrong. I was under the impression that smoking caused health problems like lung cancer over the long run? So say, while smoking for one year is definitely not good for you, your chances of getting cancer still probably won't go up to noticeably. So why is he telling us that any exposure to SHS is dangerous?
I'm not sure his conclusions are right, but something ya'all might be missing - it's been proven that people exposed to second hand smoke are subjected to more dangerous substances than those actually smoking the cigarette. The dosage might be too small to matter, I don't know - but the number of harmful substances is larger.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. [1] though of course in vastly diluted amounts.

quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
...it's been proven that people exposed to second hand smoke are subjected to more dangerous substances than those actually smoking the cigarette. The dosage might be too small to matter, I don't know - but the number of harmful substances is larger.

Can you reconcile your two statements, Jav? They seem contradictory.

Not to mention non-intuitive, since certainly a smoker is also subjecting themselves to their own second-hand smoke.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ngthagg
Member
Member # 2737

 - posted      Profile for ngthagg         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the more immediate detriments are heart disease related, not cancer related. Restricting of blood vessels and such.

Regarding front door bans, I really like these. I don't normally have a lot of exposure to smoke. I don't smoke, my friends and family don't smoke, I don't go to bars (restaurant smoking is banned where I live). The only exposure I get is at University, where every time I step outside, I expect to have to walk by someone smoking.

ngthagg
ngthagg

Posts: 487 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is smoking in bars still allowable in Calgary, ngthagg?

The ban went into effect in Edmonton last summer and I went out with some friends, and believe me...the health aspects are great, but suddenly, and horrifyingly so...you can smell everyone's heavy, dancing perspiration.

And vomit.

Bar vomit.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
I'm not sure his conclusions are right, but something ya'all might be missing - it's been proven that people exposed to second hand smoke are subjected to more dangerous substances than those actually smoking the cigarette.[/QB]

...oh?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Source

quote:
* Contains more hazardous substances than inhaled smoke and contains 2.7 times as much nicotine, 70% times more tar and 2.5 times greater carbon monoxide levels.

* Two-thirds of the smoke from the burning cigarette goes into the air.

* Sidestream smoke has higher amounts of cancer-causing and other dangerous things than the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker.

* There is twice as much tar and nicotine in sidestream smoke than mainstream.

NOTE: Mainstream is inhaled directly from cigarette, sideline is the stuff that comes out the front of the cigarette.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Larfoutloud
Member
Member # 2881

 - posted      Profile for Larfoutloud   Email Larfoutloud       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Our society can easily do without the tobacco industry.

What would we do with Kentucky, then?
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
If you feel threatened by SHS you can bring your business elsewhere.
And anyone who works in such a business has a choice between sacrificing their health or working elsewhere. What happens when all the employers choose to permit smoking, like they did until not too long ago? What "choice" did those employees have?

Sorry, smoking is no different than any hazard we forbid under normal occupational health and safety laws. We don't let businesses run equipment that is faulty or unsafe, and then say "oh well, if the workers don't like the fact that the deep fryer can spontaneously spew boiling oil on their faces, they can go work somewhere else." or "Oh well, if the worker doesn't like the fact that we don't provide masks for work around asbestos, he can go work in a different asbestos mine"

This is one of those examples of direct harm that I was talking about. If we were dealing with almost any other occupational health issue, like, say, fumes from a dishwasher, or some other piece of equipment, we'd either ban the equipment, or insist on some reasonable protection. But because this hazard happens to be a recreational activity for lots of people, suddenly it's "well they can just find another job".

It's awfully easy to tell people to just "find another job". Tell me, if all the law offices in the city permitted smoking, would I be forced to choose between being a lawyer and breathing second-hand smoke? Would I have to go back to school to become something else? This is some choice. Easy for people like me, because thankfully smoking is banned in offices. Shame about those waiters and other low level workers. They're pretty much stuck with secondhand smoke.

I'm sorry to tell you that bars/restaurants and law offices are not analogous. The reason it is different is because restaurants allow smoking for the customers, not the employees. Some restaurants cater to smokers; some law offices have lawyers who do paperwork and whatever else lawyers do. I see the difference. I don't really see how it is the same as an unsafe deep fryer, since you wouldn't know it was unsafe until it was regurgitating hot oil all over you. But you start the job knowing they allow smoking.

The reason companies started banning smoking in their premises "not so long ago" is the detrimental health affects of SHS started to become common knowledge, and those business's decided they wanted the business of non smokers. I remember this happening long before the St. Paul smoking ban was initiated.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Source

quote:
* Contains more hazardous substances than inhaled smoke and contains 2.7 times as much nicotine, 70% times more tar and 2.5 times greater carbon monoxide levels.

* Two-thirds of the smoke from the burning cigarette goes into the air.

* Sidestream smoke has higher amounts of cancer-causing and other dangerous things than the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker.

* There is twice as much tar and nicotine in sidestream smoke than mainstream.

NOTE: Mainstream is inhaled directly from cigarette, sideline is the stuff that comes out the front of the cigarette.
The link you gave's symbol is the same as the depraved government's symbol in V for Vendetta...
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
NOTE: Mainstream is inhaled directly from cigarette, sideline is the stuff that comes out the front of the cigarette. - javelin
Are you assuming that smokers manage to avoid what's coming out of the front of their own cigarettes, while others yards away cannot?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
NOTE: Mainstream is inhaled directly from cigarette, sideline is the stuff that comes out the front of the cigarette. - javelin
Are you assuming that smokers manage to avoid what's coming out of the front of their own cigarettes, while others yards away cannot?
No. I assert that studies, like these, have concluded that the majority of smoke inhaled by the smoker is different than the majority of smoke inhaled by the "second hand" smoker. AKA mainstream vs. sideline.

[ June 28, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now I'm no chemist, maybe we could get Liberal in here, but doesn't smoke diffuse throughout the room?

So then it would seem logical that the mainstream smoke, which is presumably reduced in deadliness, since the study implies sideline smoke is the dangerous kind, and the sideline smoke diffuse into just normal smoke? ;-)

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I mentioned in my oh so distant original post on the sideline vs. mainstream smoke - the amount you are exposed to matters. If you are exposed to as much sideline smoke as a smoker is mainstream, then it's more dangerous. However, I don't know how this would be possible, except under artificial conditions. The dosage, therefore, as mentioned many times, even by me, matters.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
umm, jav... I understand what you are now saying, but your original statement was that "second hand" smokers come into contact with more numerous dangerous substances.

quote:
it's been proven that people exposed to second hand smoke are subjected to more dangerous substances than those actually smoking the cigarette.
This is patently wrong, unless you can figure out how to keep the primary smoker segregated from the second hand smoke he produces.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm assuming the total exposure is what matters, bu t that's not certain.

And the studies are obviously dealing with filtered cigarettes. [Wink]

Those Camels are deadly no matter which way you point them.

Maybe the answer is to require filters on both ends. That would stop people from smoking. [Big Grin]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cigarettes in a bottle?
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Smokeless tobacco?

I've said it before. There's no second-hand chew (I hope to God). Smokers should change their habit and take a pinch between cheek and gum. You can do it at your desk.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
There's no second-hand chew (I hope to God).

Tell that to a merman. The people who live under the giant squid are having this very same argument right now. Unfortunately, the data on second-hand chaw is just as inconclusive.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pickled shuttlecock:
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
There's no second-hand chew (I hope to God).

Tell that to a merman. The people who live under the giant squid are having this very same argument right now. Unfortunately, the data on second-hand chaw is just as inconclusive.
Ever kisssed a girl who chews chaw?

[ June 28, 2006, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was going to have dinner soon, Tommy. Thanks a lot.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact sheet on second hand smoke references the National Cancer Institute as a source, so I went to their website and searched for info on second-hand smoke.The fact sheet that I found on NCI's website references the 1992 EPA study, which was discredited
thirteen years ago. So, unless someone can find another study that was done recently, this is based on research that has already been struck down in court.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
Ever kisssed a girl who chews chaw?

Nope. But I have kissed a girl who smokes, and it's no treat either. There's a reason why smokers tend to date smokers. And really, who could find someone who stinks of tobacco attractive under any circumstances?

Also note that products like Skoal Dry or Camel Snus are slow to be adopted in place of second-hand smoke generating cigarettes because the manufacturers are restricted from advertising new products in most media.

June 21 article

quote:
Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds say they're developing the new pouches in response to smokers' demands.

Many smokers who use their products, they say, are looking for the most convenient ways they can enjoy nicotine, especially because of increasing smoking bans. A pouch that can be simply tossed out, the companies say, is what consumers want.

And when everyone is changed over, I imagine all the anti-tobacco groups will have to figure out some other excuse to make people live healthier.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
umm, jav... I understand what you are now saying, but your original statement was that "second hand" smokers come into contact with more numerous dangerous substances.

quote:
it's been proven that people exposed to second hand smoke are subjected to more dangerous substances than those actually smoking the cigarette.
This is patently wrong, unless you can figure out how to keep the primary smoker segregated from the second hand smoke he produces.
I might be wrong, but the statements I read said differently. I posted them. Is there some confusion of what they are saying? Are you confused that there are two types of smoke that one can be exposed to, in the explanation - one for 2handsmokers, and one for the actual smoker? And that the actual smoker doesn't get exposed to both?

That's my understanding of what's being said. Not that the smoker doesn't get exposed to any of the smoke coming out the front of the cigarette, necessarily, but that the smoke toxicology that they are describing are very distinct, and includes all of the exposure for both types - the 2ndhandsmoker and the smoker.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
I'm assuming the total exposure is what matters, bu t that's not certain.

And the studies are obviously dealing with filtered cigarettes. [Wink]

Those Camels are deadly no matter which way you point them.

Maybe the answer is to require filters on both ends. That would stop people from smoking. [Big Grin]

Yep, pretty sure that filters are required, actually.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1