Rant: Im over this spoon-fed tobacco ignorance crap!

[jam4484]

In ct, we have places outside of bars for people to go to so they can still smoke and it is nice because there are people out there to talk to and you don't piss off the people who hate smoking. I just feel that people will always do what they want. I mean I know smoking is bad, but I like it and that is my decision, I just try and not smoke around my friends who do not like smoke, but most of my friends smoke anyway so it isn't very hard.

Jon

 

[IJ.]

Exactly! Same thing about the seatbelt and helmet laws. My choice if I want to go splatter my brains out.

Couldn't have said it better myself Ian. Just sad that so many people want more and more freedoms, but want more and more laws taking every one elses' (freedoms) away at the same time.

Only problem with this is BillyBobdropout would sue the County because he gets sick each time he has to shovel up Brains........

 

[CTsupra]

give me a fucking break with all of your retoric bs about banning smoking laws opening up other ways to ban other freedoms. stop trying to act like we non-smokers are the bad guys. the government will do what it wants anyway.

 

[jam4484]

I just think that the government should allow business owners to open their ownplace and allow smoking. If people do not smoke, they do not have to go. I know it will never happen but if a place wants to allow smoking...shouldn't they be allowed to?? I understand that people who do not smoke do not like to be around smoke, I just think it is stupid that the owners of the place have no say what so ever. And there is nothing wrong with non smokers so do not get me wrong.

Jon

 

[Nick M]

Justin- I agree that smoking is your choice, and if you find it enjoyable then by all means go ahead and do it. But second hand smoke is also very harmful and, in my opinion,

The dangers of second hand smoke are greatly exagerated.

If a bar has smokers and you don't like it, don't go to that bar. That is your right as the consumer to have competition.

Problem is, when some idiot drags his head down the road and racks up $1M in hospital bills I have to pay for it in my insurance premium, and I don't get the choice to tell the guy to go bleed to death for free on the road cause he was too stupid to use basic safety gear.

That is an insurance problem, not a health problem. Same reason 16 year olds pay more for car insurance. That is however why we have a seatbelt and helmet laws. When in a crash, taxpayer money is spent on ER costs. Unlike an HMO. Don't like the HMO? Shop elsewhere.

I don't smoke cigarettes either, but an occasional cigar is nice. But since health care is not the concern of the anti-smoking crowd, (socialism is) cigars are not attacked like cigarrettes. "Big Tobbacco" does make billions. But not from mark up, from high volume. Just like McDonalds, Wal Mart and oil. And the left wants a piece of that pie.

 

[Insidious Surmiser]

i don't smoke cigs, never have, but yeh, i totally agree, not to mention 100% of all of the other commercials piss me the fuck off :-/ i try not to watch tv in the first place, about 99.9% of it's just pure crap

 

[meggs521]

The dangers of second hand smoke are greatly exagerated.

If a bar has smokers and you don't like it, don't go to that bar. That is your right as the consumer to have competition.

Regardless of how "greatly exaggerated" the dangers of second hand smoke are, there are still negative consequences. And I didn't ever say that bars should ban smoking nor was I only talking about smoking in bars or similar places. I was simply saying that, in my opinion, it's extremely rude to smoke around non-smokers. Be it in a bar or simply walking down the street, I think it's inconsiderate. And even if it was 100% healthy I would think it was inconsiderate. I find cigarette smoke disgusting; it's not exactly enjoyable smelling it. And no, it's not because I don't smoke, but there should be some level of common courtesy. But it seems that common courtesy went out the window with common sense. Because of that, many smokers will continue to think that enjoying a cigarette is always more important than making a clean environment for others around them, and people will continue to sue tobacco companies when they get cancer.

I do also agree with suprahreo that the ads are aimed at younger people, but I think the newest string of ads they've come out with are a bit overdone and over obvious.

 

[robeats91t]

Just some info for those that asked:

From http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/:

More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. This is true for both males and females. In 2002 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available), lung cancer accounted for more deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer combined.36 In that year,

* 100,099 males and 80,163 females were diagnosed with lung cancer
* 90,121 males and 67,509 females died from lung cancer


And from http://www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm:

Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths United States, 2003

• 
  Motor Vehicle 44,800

So, doing some simple statistics, more than 3.5 times as many people (157,630 in total) died from lung cancer in 2002 than those that died from auto accidents in 2003.

So light up people...

 

[meggs521]

^thanks! I kept meaning to look it up, but I also kept forgetting. I didn't think deaths from car accidents would be that much lower, but (like someone else said) a lot of accidents aren't fatal. And that 3.5 ration doesn't even take into account how many more people drive than smoke, so I'm sure a much greater percentage of smokers die from lung cancer than drivers from car accidents.

Another interesting point- from those statistics, about 80% of males and 75% of femals that are diagnosed with lung cancer die from it, where as not nearly that many car accients are fatal.

 

[MDCmotorsports]

Good info, but was the lung cancer 100% surely caused by smoking?

There are thousands of other lung cancer causers - asbestos to name one.

 

[meggs521]

Good point, so I just did a search.

According to the first site that poped up (I know, not good research but I'm lazy): Current or former cigarette smokers make up approximately 90% of patients with lung cancer.

So even taking into account the other types of cancer, there are still quite a few more deaths- around 72,000 for men and 62,000 for women.

In response to someone else's comment: It is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually.. Clearly not nearly as many people die from second hand smoke as actual smoking, but 3000 is still something. I think that makes it so that about 2% of people that die from smoking related lung cancer only had second hand smoke.

-edit- 2 other websites say that 87% of lung cancer is smoking related. So my "bad researching" wasn't far off.

 

[MDCmotorsports]

Not saying that smoking isn't the leading cause, or trying to sway the topic: but I wonder what age group those deaths are.

You must remember that the 45-75 group that are dying now from cancers were exposed to chemicals and elements now outlawed in society. Alot of pesticides and other things that are now just showing up after years of exposure.

Case in point: 25 years ago it was a good healthy practice to feed your children raw fluoride once a month, and sometimes once a week. Although fluoride is good for your teeth, your body doesn't always agree.

 

[robeats91t]

MDCMotorsports: Of course the ads are lame! If the government told you that you had to fund ads telling the general public your products are 'bad', wouldn't you want them to be overcooked and as lame as possible? Funding in-your-face ads will surely cause many smokers to dig in deeper in defense. It seems Phillip-Morris took notice of how overagressive Bible-beaters that 'preach' on college campuses almost always have a group of 'sinners' encircling them, often yelling their own ideologies back.

I've lost two family members in the past 3 years to lung cancer, and neither death was painless or peaceful. One included emphysema, blindness, memory loss, weight loss (195 lbs to 90 lbs in 2 years) and more...I saw a strong, confident Air Force Colonel fall apart in front of my eyes.

Smokers have their rights, sure. If you love smoking, keep on. But if nothing else, just realize what you're going to be putting your family and friends through in the end.

 

[robeats91t]

I don't mean to be abrasive about smoking, it's a big part of many people's lives. I just hope that everyone understands the risks and consequences of their choice to smoke.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_cessation#Statistics:


"No smoking cessation methods have consistently achieved better than a 25% quit rate after six months. About 1.5%–3% of smokers manage to quit each year without support from health services. Enrollment into the placebo arm of medical trial and receiving a minimum level of counselling increases this rate to about 5%–10% after one year, partly reflecting participants' motivation."


Age doesn't mean much when it gets harder and harder to quit with each cigarette smoked. Nicotine is already very addictive--but its potency is enhanced by chemicals added by cigarette manufacturers.

Ok, the CDC's statistic is more recent, and more striking:

"Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, resulting in approximately 440,000 deaths each year. More than 8.6 million people in the United States have at least one serious illness caused by smoking."

And here's a fun fact about smoking snagrets while breathing asbestos:

"Risk Factors

The level of asbestos exposure that leads to lung disease depends on several factors. The most important of these are (1) how long you were exposed, (2) how long it has been since your exposure began, (3) your body’s specific response to asbestos fibers, and (4) whether you smoked tobacco. The most important way to lower one’s risk of developing asbestos related disease is to avoid or lower exposure to asbestos. There are established accepted exposure levels for both the general public and asbestos workers; however, any exposure to asbestos carries a risk. Smoking and asbestos together significantly increase your chances of contracting lung cancer. Some studies have shown the risk of developing lung cancer is 50 times greater for smokers vs. non-smokers. Therefore, if you have been exposed to asbestos you should stop smoking. This may be the most important action that you can take to improve your health and decrease your risk of cancer."

 

[Nick M]

Good info, but was the lung cancer 100% surely caused by smoking?

No. There is not a provable link. As people that do not smoke or are ever around it still get lung cancer.

There are many dangers to smoking. It would be insane to dispute that. But smoke particulates attach to whatever solid they pass through. Which is why second hand smoke is so diluted.

Smokers get emphasima really bad. Smoking is very unhealthy. But I don't give a shit.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=second+hand+smoke&domains=www.junkscience.com&sitesearch=www.junkscience.com&btnG=SearchHave a read or three.

edit:

in which statistician John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D. concludes that “we still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease.”

Warning, that link also contains links to the hype over man made global warming, and weather records.

 

[meggs521]

No. There is not a provable link. As people that do not smoke or are ever around it still get lung cancer.

True, but that's only because it wouldn't exactly be ethical to "prove" it. But among people with lung cancer, many many more people that smoke get lung cancer the those that don’t smoke. That isn't something that's likely to be a coincident.

And people that get lung cancer without smoking are just like people that get other kinds of cancers. But it does seem that smoking may in some way trigger it. Does smoking cause it cancer? Probably not. But does it trigger it or make the “environment” so to speak more susceptible to cancer? It seems like it.

But no, there is no actual "proof", just connections. I mean, to really “prove” it, the only way I could see doing so would be to take identical twins, put them in separate bubbles and give them the exact same controllable environment and have one smoke and the other one doesn't. But even then it would just be a stronger connection.

 

[robeats91t]

No. There is not a provable link. As people that do not smoke or are ever around it still get lung cancer.

True. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. "While there is no evidence that nicotine contributes to the induction of tumors, it has been demonstrated that nicotine promotes the growth of solid tumors in vivo, suggesting that nicotine might be contributing to the progression of tumors already initiated."

Source

 

[robeats91t]

Getting back on topic:

It should be up to the restraunt owners and bar/tavern owners to make up their own minds. If you don't like the smoke, and you don't go to the restraunt, sooner or later the sales dwindle, and the owners will get the hint.

I agree 100%. Give the public it's free will to choose. Cigarette smoke is disagreeable to me, yes. But what I find even less appealing are the carcinogens, the second-hand smoke clouds floating around the U.S. political circus--lobbyists that endorse more government regulation, in this case, clumsily wrapped up in the crusade against smoking.

 

[Nick M]

But among people with lung cancer, many many more people that smoke get lung cancer the those that don’t smoke. That isn't something that's likely to be a coincident.

See, that is where it isn't true. Many scientists studying cancer believe it to be largely genetic, and certain things will trip it. But cancer is not consistent from one victim to the next.

As I already said, the dangers of inhaling smoke are obvious and well documented. Even a small child will move away from the smoke at a campfire. What isn't documented is second hand smoke.

What is documented is the non smokers that are elitist in their mentality and should not have to be inconvienced by what somebody else near them is doing.

Secondhand Smokescreen
By Steven Milloy
Copyright 2001 Fox News
March 9, 2001, FoxNews.com

Researchers reported this week that nonsmokers living with smokers are exposed to tobacco smoke. That’s obviously not news. So that’s not how the study was touted by the researchers and reported by the media.

“Study: Wives of smokers absorb cancer chemicals from smoke,” alarmed an Associated Press headline.

Dr. Stephen Hecht and other University of Minnesota researchers compared blood samples from 23 women who lived with smokers with blood samples from 22 women who lived with nonsmokers.

Hecht reported that the women who lived with smokers had blood levels of two chemicals – NNAL and NNAL-Gluc – about five times higher than the women who lived with nonsmokers.

The chemicals are produced when the body metabolizes a chemical called NNK, a component of tobacco smoke. Laboratory experiments indicate that massive doses of NNK – on the order of the NNK exposure from smoking two packs of cigarettes per day for 40 years – increase lung cancer rates in rodents.

Based on finding the byproducts of NNK in the women exposed to secondhand smoke and NNK being associated with cancer in lab animals, Hecht concluded to the Associated Press, “A number of studies have shown a connection between environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Our study provides the first biochemical support for this data.”

If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel prize.

Biochemistry aside, Hecht’s grossly misrepresented the state of the science on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. A credible link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer remains elusive despite more than 40 published studies.

The largest-ever study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, published in 1998 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, reported no statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to secondhand smoke.

That result was no surprise. It was the result the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should have reported in its notorious 1993 secondhand smoke risk assessment – the study that greatly accelerated efforts to ban smoking in public places.

At the time of the EPA study, there were about 30 studies from around the world involving human populations exposed to secondhand smoke. Some studies reported weak statistical associations between exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The vast majority of studies reported no statistical association. None of the studies were very good. All were statistical, not scientific in nature. All lacked data on how much secondhand smoke study subjects were exposed to.

But since the EPA already had pre-determined that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer – issuing guidelines for banning workplace smoking in 1989 – something had to be done to whip the science into shape.

The EPA statistically combined the results from the 11 published studies of U.S. populations. The agency hoped that statistical magic could be worked on the pooled results to produce the “correct” answer.

Alas, there was still no joy for the EPA. The statistical combination produced yet another a weak association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The association was not statistically significant, meaning that the agency could not rule out that the association occurred by chance.

More bad news arrived. Two more studies were published of U.S. populations exposed to secondhand smoke. Neither associated secondhand smoke with increased lung cancer risk.

Back to the drawing board in panic, the EPA brazenly abandoned standard statistical practices. The agency released a fudged result as its final product, concluding that secondhand smoke was a lung carcinogen that caused 3,000 deaths per year.

The tobacco industry challenged the EPA in court. A federal judge vacated the EPA’s main conclusions stating that,“EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; ... deviated from its [standard procedures]; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative records.”

The ruling should have been a devastating blow to the hysteria surrounding secondhand smoke, except that it came more than five years after the EPA issued its report. The anti-tobacco industry exploited that time to convert the EPA’s secondhand smoke junk science into conventional wisdom.

Now researchers like Hecht unabashedly cite the nonexistent EPA report to support the unsubstantiated assertion that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer.

Without the EPA report, after all, Hecht’s new study is merely biochemical support that nonsmokers living with smokers are exposed to tobacco smoke.

Did taxpayer dollars need to be spent to prove that?

 

[robeats91t]

What is documented is the non smokers that are elitist in their mentality and should not have to be inconvienced by what somebody else near them is doing.

If you're talking about non-smokers complaining about smokers inside a bar or out in a public place, I'll give you that--that's being a bit oversensitive; although some people with allergies have an adverse reaction when they come into contact with cigarette smoke, in which case they should do their best to minimize exposure and avoid their known allergens when possible.

My fiancee's mother is hypersensitive to cigarette smoke, and she'll get a migraine if she's exposed to it for too long. At least she's polite about it; I've never heard her complain. (Good thing she's not a bar-hopper.) I will say it's annoying when people have a special condition and freely announce to anyone and everyone that they deserve--no, demand--special attention.

Especially when their condition is self-imposed, as in the case of nicotine addicts. Smokers choose (or at some point chose to start) to smoke, and I think it's safe to assume anyone that's started smoking in this country within the last 20 years knew of the addictive nature of cigarettes prior to taking their first drag. A smoker must realize that the majority of non-smokers that are not constantly exposed to the acrid smell of cigarette smoke may find it to be objectionable, overpowering the taste of food and drink. Now, you have the right to smoke, there's no law denying you the ability to purchase and enjoy cigarettes. However, ask a smoker and a non-smoker where appropriate places to consume those cigarettes would be, and you'll likely get two very different answers.

When you consider the aesthetic aspects of smoking, it's hard to describe it as attractive or enjoyable from a non-smoker's point of view. The common side-effects of smoking--yellowed teeth, halitosis, continual smoky smell, mood swings, etc.--don't exactly draw non-smokers in. Don't be injured if your habit is not always well-received.

Please understand that I respect you Nick, especially for the manner in which you have researched and supported your point of view. However, I will say that I have a different viewpoint, especially in regards to smoker's rights. I look forward to a response from you and other smokers on this issue; I've been rather sucked in to this debate.