What is up with America and the growing popultaion of smokers? Anywhere you look you will almost always see someone smoking or a cigarette butt littering our streets. Do people not realize that smoking is just a simple way of commiting a slow suicide?

Did I?

...I did. Whoops. Radon/Asbestos exposure is obviously much worse. My bad. That was an oversight on my part.

You drew a parallel with asbestos and radon exposure. That's simply not true.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
Actually prolonged exposure to those with a smoking spouse was included in the studies and showed no statistical risk.

It's just common sense. And I'm just saying that since it's so unlikely to get SHS lung cancer from someone, it's impossible to get it in 3 hours on a beach or 2 seconds in a revolving doorway.

quote:

It HAS to be repeated, constant exposure (i.e. a working environment with asbestos/radon/pollution or a chain-smoking spouse.)

Actually prolonged exposure to those with a smoking spouse was included in the studies and showed no statistical risk.

quote:

Try telling that to smokers who love to dwell outside entrances to stores, restaurants and in public areas. Am I not allowed to enjoy it as well? Mind you, beaches (for example) are relatively small, so how am I to avoid that area?

Only exclusive beaches are small, and some are non-smoking anyway. I've never been to a small beach.

You can't get lung cancer from passing someone smoking outside the mall, or spending one day in a smoky bar to see a hot band. It HAS to be repeated, constant exposure (i.e. a working environment with asbestos/radon/pollution or a chain-smoking spouse.)

quote:

Yeah, actually it can be. Wear bullet proof costumes everywhere. Duh. Then again, the question still wasn't answered: would you live in an area with a higher rate like that?

If this "higher drive-by shooting rate" was countered with a particularly spectacular school system? I might.

quote:

Anyways, let's say I've got a viral, airborne disease. For instance, tuberculosis. (Afterall, some that are infected with TB do end up dying, but the overall percentage isn't what I'm aiming for.) Should I be able to walk around in public and knowingly spread the virus, or should I be limited, or should other people just wear masks or what?

No, as the virus/pathogen is HARMFUL to non-carriers. SHS has not been shown signifigantly increase cancer rates, and is not harmful. It may be annoying or unpleasent to some people, but it's by no means dangerous. Now, when I say "signifigantly" I mean that study after study has actually shown no statistical difference in cancer rates than in normal, non-SHS-exposed people.
The EPA and WHO studies, despite manipulation and outright lies about the results, actually show no correlation whatsoever.

All of your arguments seem to be based upon smoking harming non-smokers. It doesn't. After that, you argue on mild displeasure and inconveinece, which are NOT a reason for banning or legislation.

And you name had nothing to do with it. I'm just generally of the opinion that unless you're doing harm to someone else, do what you want. Smoking, like drinking, overeating, extreme sports, and unprotected sex, is risky (not deadly or debilitating) but generally doesn't hurt anyone around you. And over-zealous laws that infringe upon the rights of private bar and restaraunt owners are ridiculous and go against the spirit of individual freedom.

Also, I have no idea where you get this notion that beaches are usually small. God Bless the barrier islands.

quote:

There are enough people who do not smoke, and smokers who are respectful of nonsmoker's wishes to have a perfectly sociable life without inhaling someone else's unfiltered crap.

Try telling that to smokers who love to dwell outside entrances to stores, restaurants and in public areas. Am I not allowed to enjoy it as well? Mind you, beaches (for example) are relatively small, so how am I to avoid that area? Some smokers are not respectful, that's all. But how will they become respectful?

quote:

Second, SHS is preventable. Completely. Getting killed in the crossfire of a drive-by is not.

Yeah, actually it can be. Wear bullet proof costumes everywhere. Duh. Then again, the question still wasn't answered: would you live in an area with a higher rate like that?

As for the Doc's comment about freedom...

First, don't let my name confuse you. There are many freedoms I am willing to argue for, but it's all a matter of ethics. Plus it's a also a statriotic statement...

Anyways, let's say I've got a viral, airborne disease. For instance, tuberculosis. (Afterall, some that are infected with TB do end up dying, but the overall percentage isn't what I'm aiming for.) Should I be able to walk around in public and knowingly spread the virus, or should I be limited, or should other people just wear masks or what?

And yes, semantics probably is an issue.

quote:

First, I'd like a source for that.

clpo's source - http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html.

quote:

But you should remember it isn't miniscule if you do not smoke.

Again, if you don't smoke, you should stay away from those who do. There are enough people who do not smoke, and smokers who are respectful of nonsmoker's wishes to have a perfectly sociable life without inhaling someone else's unfiltered crap.

quote:

According to the statistics, there is a 15% greater risk of them being shot in a drive-by in the next thirty years (keeping law enforcement constant). Now, which do you believe they'll chose?

First, I don't know how many drive-bys really occur in suburbia.

Second, SHS is preventable. Completely. Getting killed in the crossfire of a drive-by is not.

quote:

First, I'd like a source for that. But you should remember it isn't miniscule if you do not smoke.

Yes it IS miniscule. Read the links that clpo13 posted. Most major studies have found no statistical connection between SHS and cancer. Smoking is only really dangerous to the smoker. There may be a small amount of doubt to any rational person (ie. not fanatical anti-smoker zealot), but that doubt is nowhere near what would be needed to justify legislation. A freedom, albeit not really a "noble" one, is being restricted upon false pretenses. It's this atmosphere of blind fear that's the greatest threat to our freedom, in my opinion. And right now movements like that anti-tobacco lobby are the largest offenders.


As to the cancer stuff, I believe it's an argument of semantics.

quote:

Lung cancer can also be caused by the spreading of other cancers from within the body.

Then it isn't true lung cancer. The lung may end up with a cancerous tumor on it, but that's not exactly lung cancer. Cancer is the overgrowth, if you will, of new cells. The tumor wouldn't have originally been from the lung, so it wouldn't be lung cancer, by definition, unless you can prove otherwise.

quote:

You're at what...a 15% greater risk? That's...miniscule.

First, I'd like a source for that. But you should remember it isn't miniscule if you do not smoke. Consider this situation: A family needs to move into a suburban residence, and has narrowed it to two neighborhoods. Practically identical, the only problem is the rate of crime in one neighborhood. According to the statistics, there is a 15% greater risk of them being shot in a drive-by in the next thirty years (keeping law enforcement constant). Now, which do you believe they'll chose?

quote:

I've no sympathy at all for people who are stupid enough to smoke when they know it will kill them.

me either, it is quite possibly a miracle that we agree on something.

Well obviously cancer just doesn't pop out of nowhere. I meant to say that those cases were most likely caused by an unfortunate number of coincidences in normal life that lead to cancer, and not from some easily identifiable source. It's sort of "random" cancer, and isn't linked to second hand smoke exposure.

And all cancer can come from genetic degradation from various factors. Lung cancer can also be caused by the spreading of other cancers from within the body.

You didn't. I just don't agree that lung cancer patients just "happen to get cancer." I think that's one of the two cancers that IS caused by an outside force.

But I do agree that it's not always second-hand smoke.

quote:

..When in the hell has lung cancer just happened to have occurred? 80% of lung cancer patients have lung cancer because of smoking. As for SHS, that's just crap. You're at what...a 15% greater risk? That's...miniscule.

My point was referring to second hand smoke. You agree with me that the threat of getting cancer is statistically insignifigant, so I don't know why I just apparently got flamed.

quote:

clpo...population conrol...hmmm...kinda cold.
but i dont get the warm and fuzy vibe from you anyway.

I've no sympathy at all for people who are stupid enough to smoke when they know it will kill them.

..When in the hell has lung cancer just happened to have occurred? 80% of lung cancer patients have lung cancer because of smoking. As for SHS, that's just crap. You're at what...a 15% greater risk? That's...miniscule.

And as for "many, many" reasons for lung cancer? There are about ten, smoking being the most common. Asbestos and Radon exposure are next (although radon is rarer and usually accidental) for those who inhale it every day for long periods of time. Weed, family history, some lung diseases that scar the lungs, and air pollution.

ALL of those are still less risky than smoking, and smoking in combination with any of those increases the risk. With the exception of mouth cancers, lung cancer is one of the only cancers that is nearly avoidable.

However, there is no need for anti-SHS or anti-smoking legislation. Don't want to get second-hand smoke? Don't go near people who smoke. There are plenty of restaurans and bars that ban smoking. It's pretty damn simple. Don't want lung cancer? Don't smoke. No one's forcing you to.

quote:

what about all the people who worked in a place around others smoking but they never smoked and now are diagnosed with lung cancer? i realize cancer can srrike anyone at anytime but it just seems strange that it targets their lungs....where alot of prople who do smoke get cancer at.

Firstly, lung cancer can be caused by many, many things.

More importantly though, the actual scientific studies rarely if ever show any correlation, and if they do it's statistically insignifigant.

So, those people actually do just "happen to get cancer", and they really can't prove that it's from the second hand smoke. Thus, no legislation is needed.

quote:

In reality MANY laws are passed that don't have good reasoning behind them.

that is something i have to agree with...


clpo...population conrol...hmmm...kinda cold.
but i dont get the warm and fuzy vibe from you anyway.

can i pose a question without getting "prove it" thrown at me??
i cant prove it is am just asking...

what about all the people who worked in a place around others smoking but they never smoked and now are diagnosed with lung cancer? i realize cancer can strike anyone at anytime but it just seems strange that it targets their lungs.. (where they inhale SHS in into)..where alot of people who do smoke get cancer at.

Second-hand smoke doesn't pose any substantial risk to the general public. The WHO proved it. And then covered it up.

More here.

I say let people smoke if they want to. It's an efficient form of population control.