Question:
what do you think? this issue has become big here and in Europe, and ive heard it is the case in the US? they have agreed to ban smoking in pubs and resteraunts which serve food, also have banned smoking by the bar in any establishment and smoking in workplaces, what do you guys think?

Choices:
I agree with a total ban on sale of tobacco
I agree with a ban in pubs/clubs/resteraunts
I agree with a ban in all public places
I agree with a ban on smoking in the workplace
I think smoking should be allowed anywhere

 

1. Smoking is nothing but a harmful habit to both the smoker and the ones in the company of the smoker.
2. The smell is horrible. Therefore, the smoker smells horrible.
3. My nana has emphysema and will likely die from that disease. She developed it from smoking. I love her with all my heart but, because of an irresponsible habit, she will die sooner.

I am not anti- on most subjects. But, honestly, what is the point of smoking? It is nothing but STUPID.

I wish it could be banned all together, not simply in public.

My Grandfather Ray died from lung cancer on October 24th this year because he had been smoking cigarettes. My Aunt Terri was very sad, and so was my Grandmother, my Uncle Larry, Cousin Ryan, and cousin Racelyn.

I personally dislike smoking! It hurts you and I don't really see much good about it at all. I don't think there should be sale of cigarettes or alcohol really. Just my opinion.

Honestly, I don't care if you smoke or not. Heck, most of my family does. Just be curtious of those and take it outside because who really wants to breathe in second-hand smoke?

Banning smoking in public In certain places I think is a good idea. Like when served around food, but I don't see why bars are becoming non - smoking. I smoke but I think of others and go outside I don't stay in an area where the smoke can't drift anywhere. But personally that's my opinion. ~Elizabeth

Philly just did that too.

wooooooo! my state just made all bars and resturants smoke free!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

Just came out today...

quote:

but the nice thing is, if we accept them at face value, then it's much harder to justify the legalization of crap like pot. YAY!

And what's so wrong with marijuana?

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
I'm sorry Doc, but as long as people who do not smoke still end up with lung cancer (more than there were before cigarettes existed) I will believe that there is a link. Oh wait, I'm not sorry.

"More than before cigarettes existed"??? You're talking about hundreds of years there. The records for cancer rates don't go back that far, at least not in a manner that are useful to studies today.

And the fact that you automatically assume that over the course of a period that long, that it's cigrattes, shows your bias. There's all sorts of things that have increased cancer rates, lung cancer included. Asbestos, Benzene, etc. Lung cancer is NOT only caused by cigarrette smoke. And the fact that so many studies have shown no statistical corellation tells me, WITH PROOF, NOT CONJECTURE, that it's extremely likely that second hand smoke is not dangerous.

You should be sorry, you're acting on bias. It's the same problem that has hit global warming, the intelligence leading up to the Iraqi War, and the same problem that lead to the rise of Eugenics.

I'm sorry Doc, but as long as people who do not smoke still end up with lung cancer (more than there were before cigarettes existed) I will believe that there is a link. Oh wait, I'm not sorry.

Look at it this way: Yeah, the studies claiming SHS causes this and that are probably bullsh!t, but the nice thing is, if we accept them at face value, then it's much harder to justify the legalization of crap like pot. YAY!

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
First, her name is MEAGAN. Second, you haven't looked at EG's data, obviously. And why in the world do you continue to use one source, a guy named "Dave Hitt" who's probably down in his mom's basement concocting reasons for him to be out in the world with people?

One, I post that site because it's a convienent page that's laid out in a fairly straightforward manner. It's not the place that I take my position from, but rather a site where I can give someone some information without showing them all the articles, documentaries, and other information I've come across over the years.

Two, the site that EG posted was from the EPA itself, which in and of itself is suspect as they've already been exposed through the court system for being misleading. They also hardly respond to the points against them at all.

quote:

First, her name is MEAGAN. Second, you haven't looked at EG's data, obviously.

Who cares how her name is spelled. And you misinterpreted me, obviously.

First, her name is MEAGAN. Second, you haven't looked at EG's data, obviously. And why in the world do you continue to use one source, a guy named "Dave Hitt" who's probably down in his mom's basement concocting reasons for him to be out in the world with people?

Megan and Kate:

Here's the problem with the "facts" you're posting- They're not really evidence. What they are are press releases and informational websites. You have no idea where they get thier data from.

Now here's the crux. To you it makes sense that SHS is dangerous, smoking's dangerous, so SHS should be harmful too right? Well that's what everyone thinks intitally, and this tends to taint how things get researched and policy gets determined.

What actually happened back in the early 90's when these studies were first coming out, is this: The EPA announced the findings of it's studies well before they were finished, and lo and behold, most studies in their meta analysis showed that SHS showed no statistical link to lung cancer. More information on this here.

Of course since they already announced that SHS caused massive rates in cancer increase, they had to fudge their numbers and outright lie to make it work.

The WHO also found that there was no statistical link to cancer, but then buried that study and released a very questionable "revised" one.

From what I know about how buereuacracies work and how science is conducted, and often politicised, I'm convinced that the EPA studies, and most of the information that's been put out about SHS, is just total bunk.

Go look up groupthink.

SHS is not dangerous, and the laws banning smoking in private buisness and outdoor public areas are an infringement on general freedoms.

quote:

Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. killing 38,000 to 65,000 nonsmokers every year.

Uh-ooohhh. Bullshit alert...

quote:

EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among nonsmokers in the U.S

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

That's a pretty big difference.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke (SHS) or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day, and has warned that all patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease or with known coronary artery disease should avoid all indoor environments that permit smoking.1


The California Air Resources Board has determined that secondhand smoke is a toxic air contaminant -- an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.2


The effects of even brief exposure (minutes to hours) to secondhand smoke are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking.3


Secondhand smoke is as damaging to a fetus as if the mother were inhaling the smoke directly from a cigarette.4


Long-term exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal, women.5


A study of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction in Helena, Montana before, during, and after a local law eliminating smoking in workplaces and public places was in effect, has determined that laws to enforce smokefree workplaces and public places may be associated with a reduction in morbidity from heart disease.6


A June 2004 study published in the British Medical Journal reaffirmed that there are virtually no health disparities between active and passive smoking. The risks of heart disease associated with secondhand smoke are twice what were previously thought and are virtually indistinguishable from those associated with active smoking.7


There is a link between secondhand smoke to an increased risk of stroke. Regular exposure to secondhand smoke, such as in restaurants, heightens one's chance of stroke by 50 percent.8


The 1999 National Cancer Institute Monograph 10, based on the 1997 Cal-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) review of population-based studies, confirmed that SHS is fatal and has numerous non-fatal health effects. SHS chemicals include irritants and systemic toxicants, mutagens, and carcinogens, and reproductive and developmental toxicants. More than 50 compounds in tobacco smoke are known carcinogens. SHS exposure causes lung and nasal sinus cancer, heart disease, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Serious impacts of SHS on children include asthma induction and exacerbation, bronchitis and pneumonia, middle ear infection, chronic respiratory symptoms, and low birth weight.9,10


SHS is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one nonsmoker with them.11,12


SHS is a major source of PM [particulate matter] pollution - a risk factor for pulmonary disease, asthma, and lung cancer - and that three cigarettes smouldering in a room emits up to 10-fold more PM pollution than an ecodiesel engine. The study concluded that high levels of PM exposure from SHS may account for frequent episodes of short term respiratory damage in nonsmokers.13


Secondhand smoke exposure during childhood has been associated with an increased risk of spinal pain, such as neck pain and back pain in adult life. Researchers suggest this may be due to the negative effects of smoke exposure during childhood on the developing spine.14


Secondhand smoke exposure impairs a child's ability to learn. It is neurotoxic even at extremely low levels. More than 21.9 million children are estimated to be at risk of reading deficits because of secondhand smoke. Higher levels of exposure to secondhand smoke are also associated with greater deficits in math and visuospatial reasoning.15


The excess risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) associated with passive smoking is 50-60%, twice what was previously thought by researchers, and the risks of CHD for passive smoking are virtually indistinguishable from active smoking. A study published in the July 2004 edition of the British Medical Journal found higher risks of CHD because, rather than using marriage to a smoker or working in a smoky environment as their measure of exposure, the study's authors used plasma cotinine (metabolized nicotine), a direct biochemical measure of total SHS) exposure. By doing so, they captured SHS's entire exposure effect.16


Even a half hour of secondhand smoke exposure causes heart damage similar to that of habitual smokers. Nonsmokers' heart arteries showed a reduced ability to dilate, diminishing the ability of the heart to get life-giving blood. In addition, the same half hour of secondhand smoke exposure activates blood platelets, which can initiate the process of atherosclerosis (blockage of the heart's arteries) that leads to heart attacks. These effects explain other research showing that nonsmokers regularly exposed to SHS suffer death or morbidity rates 30% higher than those of unexposed nonsmokers.17,18


The 1986 Report of the Surgeon General; the 1986 National Research Council report, Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects; and the 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, established that SHS exposure causes lung cancer.19,20


The 2002 Environmental Health Information Service's 10th Report on Carcinogens classifies SHS as a Group A (Human) Carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans. There is no safe level of exposure for Group A toxins. In addition, the 2002 World Health Organization International Agency's (IARC) Monograph on Tobacco Smoking, both Active and Passive concluded that nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers.21,22


In 1991, data showed that nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population had measurable levels of serum cotinine in their blood. In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals found more than a 75 percent decrease in median cotinine levels for nonsmokers in the U.S. since 1991- an indication that smoke-free environments significantly reduce exposure to SHS.23,24
May be reprinted with appropriate attribution to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, © 2005.

Some newer facts for you, sorry I didn't look at the date on the last one

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenos:
Explain to me how you can prove those 30-some THOUSAND people were otherwise healthy. You can't. That's ridiculous.
/QUOTE]
It did say that they were non smokers