Does anyone smoke Cigarettes ?

[fab5freddy]

Just curious, Does anyone reading this forum smoke cigarettes ?

I think it is rather disgusting to even watch people smoke...
I am currently living in New York City, and i see loads of people
smoking cigarettes on the street.

How can people in year 2008 still smoke ?
I just don't get it....It baffles my mind that people still smoke....

[iBlue]

It baffles my mind that you couldn't find the massive amounts of threads on this very topic by searching. :p

[vincebio]

can we close this thread?

ive seen more interesting topics in a morgue forum

[fab5freddy]

so, i guess you 2 guys smoke.... i'd put $ 20 on that.

and like you're posts are any more interesting mr. vincebio... sure...

[scotthayes]

Marlboro lights (or golds as I think they are called now) however planning on giving up very soon.

[Virgil-TB2]

so, i guess you 2 guys smoke.... i'd put $ 20 on that.I think that's a fair bet.

I am also amazed that people smoke and the sheer amount of them, but I live in Canada so compared to the USA the number of smokers is a lot lower.

On one of my few trips to the US I was stunned by people smoking on busses and in restaurants. :eek: It's been so many years since that has been legal up here that it was truly like going back to the 1970's or something. Why would anyone be allowed to smoke in a restaurant? Boggles the mind really.

The real answer though is that smoking is a simple drug addiction, similar to any other drug addiction. Even the smokers don't really want to smoke, they just think they do because they are addicted the same as any crack-head or junkie is.

Once you clean them up and "dry them out" they become normal again and usually don't want to smoke. But convincing them of that when they are "on a bender" is almost impossible. :)

[ucfgrad93]

I don't.

[~Shard~]

Why would anyone be allowed to smoke in a restaurant? Boggles the mind really.

This reminds me of an experience I had a few years ago. I was dining with a friend (we are both non-smokers) and someone lit up a cigarette next to us. My friend leaned over to him and said, "Hey, why don't you just ***** on my plate?" Awesome. :D :cool:

If smokers want to abuse their health, give themselves heart and lung disease, or whatever complications (take your pick, there are many!), it honestly doesn't bother me - people can do with their bodies as they wish. However once a harmful addiction starts impacting people who choose not to engage in such destructive behavior, then I have a problem. This is why I am for smoking bans in public places. Smoke all you want, but I don't want to breathe in the second-hand consequences of your destructive choices. To me it's no different than being a heroin addict, and instead of just injecting yourself with heroin, you run around the street injecting other people you run into as well!

Smoke if you want, just keep your addictions to yourself. :)

[rockthecasbah]

Smoking is gross, but if you really must talk about it, there's already a thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=156050&highlight=cigarettes

[fab5freddy]

Dear rockthecasbah, i really don't there can be enough threads about this topic.... read on:

yeah, it seems to me that all smokers are oblivious to
the news and scientific reports for the last 20 years...

Smokers are walking around in a haze, ignoring all scientific proof
that it will make you, ill, kill you, cause disgusting pflem in your throat,
decrease you impotence, make you smell bad, cost you loads of money,
etc...

[sowillo14]

Dear rockthecasbah, i really don't there can be enough threads about this topic.... read on:

yeah, it seems to me that all smokers are oblivious to
the news and scientific reports for the last 20 years...

Smokers are walking around in a haze, ignoring all scientific proof
that it will make you, ill, kill you, cause disgusting pflem in your throat,
decrease you impotence, make you smell bad, cost you loads of money,
etc...

The last time I checked this was still a free country. People can do WTF they want to themselves. It is people like you who have to stick their noses in others business that ruin freedom for the rest of us. Why don't you worry about yourself, and go on a diet or something. Or while your at it, you can take a cholesterol test of everyone on the forum, then preach to us about animal fats.

[scotthayes]

yeah, it seems to me that all smokers are oblivious to
the news and scientific reports for the last 20 years...

Smokers are walking around in a haze, ignoring all scientific proof
that it will make you, ill, kill you, cause disgusting pflem in your throat,
decrease you impotence, make you smell bad, cost you loads of money,
etc...

NEWS FLASH... We know all of that, but it's up to us if we smoke or not.

But I will say one thing, if everyone in the UK stopped smoking Income tax would have to go up to cover the loss of tax to the government. So we are really doing everyone a favour by smoking...

[~Shard~]

The last time I checked this was still a free country. People can do WTF they want to themselves.

NEWS FLASH... We know all of that, but it's up to us if we smoke or not.

Completely agree, this is exactly as I mentioned in my above post. People can and should be able to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't negatively impact others.

[----Bowie----]

I don't smoke, but I find it very annoying that people feel the need to harass smokers all the time.

[Virgil-TB2]

NEWS FLASH... We know all of that, but it's up to us if we smoke or not.Only if you do it in your house. When you are in a public space you are not the only one to consider.

This is called "civilised" behaviour. :)

But I will say one thing, if everyone in the UK stopped smoking Income tax would have to go up to cover the loss of tax to the government. So we are really doing everyone a favour by smoking...Not so much.

If all the smokers stopped smoking the decrease in health-care costs would mostly offset the loss of tax revenue.

I am in favor of people being able to do whatever the hell they want, but only as far as it doesn't affect others. So to me, a rational drug policy is one that allows people to take and get addicted to whatever drugs they want, but pretty much to "keep it at home."

Most countries already do this with popular legal drugs like alcohol. It's legal for an adult to buy and consume it, but there are still laws against being drunk in public or driving a car under the influence.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Dear rockthecasbah, i really don't there can be enough threads about this topic....
Ok, lets do it like this.
Your point has been noted.
We respect your wish that there can't be too many threads about this topic, and you respect the forum rules not to start new threads on a topic already discussed?
Agreed?

...and just to satisfy your curiosity freddy...No, I do NOT smoke. I contrary to you, I believe that people are free to do as they wish as long as they don't interfere on others.

[jsw]

But I will say one thing, if everyone in the UK stopped smoking Income tax would have to go up to cover the loss of tax to the government. So we are really doing everyone a favour by smoking...
Except, of course, for the high medical costs incurred by your demonstrably poorer-than-if-you-didn't-smoke health.

I have no problem with people screwing up their own bodies. But I do have an issue with them screwing up mine (toxic smoke) or with them eating up my taxes to cover their poor health.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I have no problem with people screwing up their own bodies. But I do have an issue with them screwing up mine (toxic smoke) or with them eating up my taxes to cover their poor health.
Agreed. However, I am not sure whether second-hand smoking or intolerance worries me the most.
Second-hand smoking has most surely caused many lives, but I do think that intolerance in all its forms have caused many many more lives.

I don't know about you, but ideas like that scares me.

[jsw]

This thread is making me want a cigarette.
Mmmmm.
http://www.csmngt.com/smokers%20lung.jpg

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Mmmmm.
http://www.csmngt.com/smokers%20lung.jpg

Still it is his choice, and nobody else's.

[jsw]

Still it is his choice, and nobody else's.
As long as he doesn't eat up my tax money or affect my health, yes.

[leekohler]

Oh lord. It's amazing the amount of threads started in these forums just for the sole purpose of wailing on smokers. It really is getting tired, don't you all think? You've made your point, you've passed your laws, and really it's getting to be a bit obsessive. You hate smokers. We get it already.

[yg17]

I think it's disgusting and I don't want to be around anyone who is smoking or still reeks of smoke from their last cigarette.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

As long as he doesn't eat up my tax money or affect my health, yes.

That is what I said.
Moreover most smokers tend to die before they get eligible for medicare and/or retirement and thus, according to some studies, actually costs less than someone that gets very old and can use the social services for a very long time.

[pkoch1]

camel lights, baby

[Much Ado]

Moreover most smokers tend to die before they get eligible for medicare and/or retirement and thus, according to some studies, actually costs less than someone that gets very old and can use the social services for a very long time.

Much as i don't want to enter the battlefield, i must pick you up on this comment. Saying that a group of people die earlier than others and as such cost society less is not on. And some countries have state-funded Healthcare too, but I'll leave that to Michael Moore.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Much as i don't want to enter the battlefield, i must pick you up on this comment. Saying that a group of people die earlier than others and as such cost society less is not on. And some countries have State Funded Healthcare too, but I'll leave that to Michael Moore.

I merely pointed out there are studies that actually indicates this.
We do agree that smokers have a higher mortality rate right? The increased mortality rate and a high tobacco tax together with benefits never claimed, apparently can have that result. I don't put any moral values on this statement. I just wanted to point out that it is not absolutely clear that smokers are costly to society.

[Much Ado]

I don't put any moral values on this statement. I just wanted to point out that it is not absolutely clear that smokers are costly to society.

Leaving aside your morals whilst trying to quantify social benefit doesn't work.

Enough from me.

[Davie42]

i eat large quantities of cheese

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Leaving aside your morals whilst trying to quantify social benefit doesn't work.

Enough from me.

Social benefit? I might have been unclear, so let me clarify. I was referring to the social monetary cost.

There is no need to try to quantify the social benefits/losses in this case. We all know it is a loss, but that is a different topic.

[scotthayes]

Except, of course, for the high medical costs incurred by your demonstrably poorer-than-if-you-didn't-smoke health.

I have no problem with people screwing up their own bodies. But I do have an issue with them screwing up mine (toxic smoke) or with them eating up my taxes to cover their poor health.

Only if you do it in your house. When you are in a public space you are not the only one to consider.

This is called "civilised" behaviour. :)

Not so much.

If all the smokers stopped smoking the decrease in health-care costs would mostly offset the loss of tax revenue.

I am in favor of people being able to do whatever the hell they want, but only as far as it doesn't affect others. So to me, a rational drug policy is one that allows people to take and get addicted to whatever drugs they want, but pretty much to "keep it at home."

Most countries already do this with popular legal drugs like alcohol. It's legal for an adult to buy and consume it, but there are still laws against being drunk in public or driving a car under the influence.


As I'm English I stated in my post that people in UK would have to pay more tax if everyone stopped smoking. The simple fact is in the UK smokers pay around £7 billion in tax on cigarettes, it costs around £1.5 billion to treat smoking related diseases. I'll do the maths for you, if everyone stopped smoking in the UK there would be a short fall of £5.5 billion pounds in the governments pockets.

Putting smoking in the same bracket as alcohol is as pointless argument.

And again in the UK the you are not allowed to smoke in any public building, office or enclosed space so we are only smoking on the street and there is no way that is going to effect you.

[sowillo14]

i eat large quantities of cheese
Can't you stop!!! I have to suffer from your secondary fart gas!! Your arteries are clogging, and were gonna foot the bill!!!:) BAN CHEESE FROM RESTAURANTS!!!

[tkidBOSTON]

i eat large quantities of cheese

Best. Reply. Ever.

[Much Ado]

Social benefit? I might have been unclear, so let me clarify. I was referring to the social monetary cost.

Fair enough, I figured as much.

(Although there's an odd overlap in economics where social benefit/cost is taken into account. Both are somehow quantified, despite being more than just figures. Which is why i don't believe in ever using the words 'society' or 'social' and then tagging on a word such as 'cost'. Which means i also disagree with a lot of the 'my taxpayer's money' arguments as well.)

[~Shard~]

Can't you stop!!! I have to suffer from your secondary fart gas!! Your arteries are clogging, and were gonna foot the bill!!!:) BAN CHEESE FROM RESTAURANTS!!!

If someone's eating of cheese has an adverse effect on another individual's heath and could subsequently lead to disease and/or death for that other individual, then yes, we better ban it. :p ;) :D

[.Andy]

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3428/impotencemediumsmallpz4.jpg



http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9678/41249391nhssmoking2ey4.jpg

[Mord]

Addiction, the fact that some people don't have the guts to kill themselves quickly and spliffs.

I know loads of people who started smoking cigs as they got addicted to the baccy from spliffs.

Personally I don't smoke and never will, brown would kill me due to a cardio condition and green doesn't do a thing to me.

[Badandy]

But it's so cool!

[skunk]

But it's so cool!Only if it's mentholated.

[Cleverboy]

Oh lord. It's amazing the amount of threads started in these forums just for the sole purpose of wailing on smokers. It really is getting tired, don't you all think? You've made your point, you've passed your laws, and really it's getting to be a bit obsessive. You hate smokers. We get it already.Sometimes its amusing to think that SHAME and NAGGING can change the world and correct behavior, when it often does the exact opposite. Bugs the crap out of me when some folks drone on and on about being pro-life and against teaching birth control to teenagers... and then shutter pregnant teens away like living breathing embarrassments to morality. I don't think thread like this have anything to say to people. Just find an existing thread and add more comments if you really must.
Just curious, Does anyone reading this forum smoke cigarettes ? If you REALLY wanted to know if anyone in this forum smoked, you could have searched. There's a whole thread about what brands people like. I think its fine to make new threads about honestly new questions or ideas, but its disingenous to start a new thread as a pretext for condemning people. Why would anyone even answer you if you follow up with...
I think it is rather disgusting to even watch people smoke...
I am currently living in New York City, and i see loads of people
smoking cigarettes on the street. How can people in year 2008 still smoke ? I think smoking is bad, but this type of self-righteous attitude is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. It pollutes the possibility of people even listening to the truth. All they'll see for years is the guy that was judging them, antagonizing them, trying to manipulate them rather than simply to inform.

~CB

[SMM]

so, i guess you 2 guys smoke.... i'd put $ 20 on that.

and like you're posts are any more interesting mr. vincebio... sure...

I used to smoke and will do so occasionally when in the right social setting (drinking and camping for example). I think what the other posters are referring to is the fact that this subject has been discussed ad nauseam. I generally pass over threads like this, after reading the first post (you never know if something new and remarkable is being offered). So, I would not just assume that counter-posts are by smokers.

[kainjow]

I don't care if people smoke, as long as they're not blowing it my face and I can get away from it. Most people I'm around who smoke are polite about it and ask me if it's OK.

[faintember]

Oh lord. It's amazing the amount of threads started in these forums just for the sole purpose of wailing on smokers. It really is getting tired, don't you all think? You've made your point, you've passed your laws, and really it's getting to be a bit obsessive. You hate smokers. We get it already.Sometimes its amusing to think that SHAME and NAGGING can change the world and correct behavior, when it often does the exact opposite. Bugs the crap out of me when some folks drone on and on about being pro-life and against teaching birth control to teenagers... and then shutter pregnant teens away like living breathing embarrassments to morality. I don't think thread like this have anything to say to people. Just find an existing thread and add more comments if you really must.What amazes me is the fact that this thread is still open despite the fact that there are numerous threads about this very same subject already open and that a mod has posted. If people feel the need, make your point in one of the other threads.

[Hawkeye411]

Does POT Count?

[maestro55]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I smoke from time to time. I know it is harmful to my health and so is the fast food I ate last night abd the beers I drank. I live my life and you can live yours.

[~Shard~]

Does POT Count?

In terms of your health and well-being, when comparing the two, marijuana appears to be even worse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7217601.stm) actually.

[wonga1127]

I seriously wish people could just let other people be. You have your restaurants and bars, you have your office buildings, you have any public enclosed space. Just **** already. I like to smoke and I never smoke inside or around people without asking their permission. Non-smokers don't piss me off and I can generally live a happy life until pricks come up to me and act all superior and tell me it's going to kill me. Those people can just shove off.

I am going to smoke until the day I die, and if I change my mind, I wouldn't smoke until the day I die, either way I end up dead.

[KingYaba]

Cigars and or pipe tobacco on holidays such as Christmas or the usual graduation/baby sort of thing.

[dopey220]

This reminds me of an experience I had a few years ago. I was dining with a friend (we are both non-smokers) and someone lit up a cigarette next to us. My friend leaned over to him and said, "Hey, why don't you just ***** on my plate?" Awesome. :D :cool:

NOTE: I don't want to sound presumptuous, but I'm going to assume you were sitting in a bar/smoking section of the restaurant. If I'm wrong, please feel free to disregard what I'm about to say.

If my assumption is correct, you were sitting in the smoking section of the restaurant. Were this the case, and had I been the offender, I'd have just blown a nice lungfull in his face. Such rudeness is COMPLETELY uncalled for.

I'm respectful of the rights of non-smokers. When I'm in public, I make sure I'm in a designated smoking area before I light up. I really don't want to cause anyone any undue health problems/anger, but I also don't appreciate being treated like a second-class citizen when I AM in designated smoking areas.

Not a smoker? Stay away from the smoking section.

[Iscariot]

Oh lord. It's amazing the amount of threads started in these forums just for the sole purpose of wailing on smokers. It really is getting tired, don't you all think? You've made your point, you've passed your laws, and really it's getting to be a bit obsessive. You hate smokers. We get it already.

I don't think you understand the passion with which some of us hate smokers. Hate!

In fact, I'm building a concentration camp in my home for smokers. So far it'll only fit about one person, and it's just a lock on my bedroom door. My bedroom is where I store my silky smooth, sensual bed, and my vast pleasure chest. My candles and massage oils, of course, are in there as well, as are bottles of dry gin and single malt whisky and rose petals and scented oils and my slow jams and my satin robes.

Anyways, Lee, do you want to come over for, uh, dinner? Yes. Dinner.

[~Shard~]

NOTE: I don't want to sound presumptuous, but I'm going to assume you were sitting in a bar/smoking section of the restaurant. If not, please feel free to disregard what I'm about to say.


Assumption incorrect, actually, but point taken and agreed with nonetheless. We were in a non-smoking restaurant (no smoking section at all!) which is why the situation was so bad. ;)

But yes, if you don't like smoking, don't hang out some place where smoking is specifically permitted - pretty straight forward really... ;)

[dopey220]

Assumption incorrect, actually, but point taken and agreed with nonetheless. We were in a non-smoking restaurant (no smoking section at all!) which is why the situation was so bad. ;)

But yes, if you don't like smoking, don't hang out some place where smoking is specifically permitted - pretty straight forward really... ;)

Cool, I was hoping I wouldn't come off sounding like a jerk. I Agree, the guy shouldn't have been smoking in an area where it's not permitted. I wouldn't tolerate such behavior either.

[fab5freddy]

in new york where i live, smokers disregard many rules and smoke in some cafe's, and work places....... i have gotten smoke blown in my face one too many times here to think it is funny....

[Virgil-TB2]

I seriously wish people could just let other people be. You have your restaurants and bars, you have your office buildings, you have any public enclosed space. Just **** already. I like to smoke and I never smoke inside or around people without asking their permission. Non-smokers don't piss me off and I can generally live a happy life until pricks come up to me and act all superior and tell me it's going to kill me. Those people can just shove off.

I am going to smoke until the day I die, and if I change my mind, I wouldn't smoke until the day I die, either way I end up dead.Yeah, well what about the fact that even when you are smoking "outside" I still have to breathe it all in? When I am walking down the sidewalk on the way to work, I can smell a smoker walking 15 metres in front of me easily. If it's windy or the idiot is puffing hard it's quite a bit further.

Also, why should I have to hold my nose every-time I go by a coffee shop or a bar because 10 or 20 people are all sitting outside in the cold sucking back ciggies? Worse, if the alcove is small and it's raining, I have to walk within inches of several people all huddled together in the doorway smoking. Sure they guiltily open the door for you but it's ******** disgusting and violates my right to clean(ish) normal fresh air.

Bottom line is your rights end where your neighbors begin and non-smokers are by far the majority. We have a right to breathe fresh air, (it's pretty basic actually) and the rights of a drug addict to poison themselves shouldn't trump those of the majority IMO.

[iBlue]

so, i guess you 2 guys smoke.... i'd put $ 20 on that.

and like you're posts are any more interesting mr. vincebio... sure...
^ heh

Actually, you're (as opposed to your) wrong on both counts. ;)

1, I am a girl.

2, Hell no I don't smoke.

I just thought it was lame not to look around the forum first for threads on the topic before laying into the smokers.

but you can keep your $20 anyway.

[fab5freddy]

hi iBlue, Sorry to Say,

the more posts like this, the better.

PS. Virgil, i agree you 100 % !

and they should ban cigarette smoking 100 feet in front of all bars and restaurants.

[scotthayes]

I seriously wish people could just let other people be. You have your restaurants and bars, you have your office buildings, you have any public enclosed space. Just **** already. I like to smoke and I never smoke inside or around people without asking their permission. Non-smokers don't piss me off and I can generally live a happy life until pricks come up to me and act all superior and tell me it's going to kill me. Those people can just shove off.

I am going to smoke until the day I die, and if I change my mind, I wouldn't smoke until the day I die, either way I end up dead.

Well put... Strange you don't see the anti smoke mob outside KFC or McDonalds. Over weight people cost the UK tax payer more each year for medical care than smokers do.

[leekohler]

I don't think you understand the passion with which some of us hate smokers. Hate!

In fact, I'm building a concentration camp in my home for smokers. So far it'll only fit about one person, and it's just a lock on my bedroom door. My bedroom is where I store my silky smooth, sensual bed, and my vast pleasure chest. My candles and massage oils, of course, are in there as well, as are bottles of dry gin and single malt whisky and rose petals and scented oils and my slow jams and my satin robes.

Anyways, Lee, do you want to come over for, uh, dinner? Yes. Dinner.

If you're in Toronto, I'll come over for dinner. But you have to marry me and make me Canadian first. :) And yes, just for the purpose of making me Canadian.

in new york where i live, smokers disregard many rules and smoke in some cafe's, and work places....... i have gotten smoke blown in my face one too many times here to think it is funny....

You live in NYC and that's the rudest thing you can find to complain about? While I like New York, it is truly the rudest place in the US. There are far too many behaviors that are awful in that city. Just try walking down the street and not have someone run into you for one.

[Virgil-TB2]

... I think smoking is bad, but this type of self-righteous attitude is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. It pollutes the possibility of people even listening to the truth. All they'll see for years is the guy that was judging them, antagonizing them, trying to manipulate them rather than simply to inform...Interesting points you made (although I don't agree with most of them), but this particular bit above, stands out as a bit wrong headed to me.

You are assuming here that the person smoking is making an adult rational choice that should be respected etc. and that the person complaining is biased in their own right. I don't think this is true at all.

Smokers are drug addicts and as such not in control of their own behaviour. This has been established many times over by scads of research and anyone who argues otherwise is really in denial of the facts. I do agree with your first point about how "shaming" is not likely to work as it's pretty clear that the crack heads that sleep in doorways and scrounge for crack on their hands and knees each day are unaffected by the shame of it all either. Drug addicts are generally weak personalities that no amount of reasoning will affect either. That's why the only effective method of eliminating smoking from society has always been the rule of law. I've had a good deal of experience with drug addicts and find that if you don't force an addict to quit, they simply won't.

Also I don't think you can say the smoker is biased simply because they disagree with smoking. By far the majority of regular average people don't smoke and are fairly disgusted by it. It's more to do with human rights than it is to do with the majority of us going around trying to make smokers "feel bad." That's just the smokers explanation to themselves to justify their acts.

The "judging" argument you make at the end is also wrong IMO. In the first place there is nothing wrong with judging per se, it's what humans do all day long all the time and always have. Without each of us judging each other all the time it's arguable that society could not exist at all. It's really just a current popular misconception that "judging someone" is a bad thing. Secondly, the smoker is a drug addict, and as such will always feel as if they are being "judged" by the regular people. So thats not going to change regardless of what anyone says to them.

Finally, it's arguable that "judging" drug addicts is one of the longest running entertainments in modern society. ;) It is also the only means by which any progress is made on these kinds of issues perhaps.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Smokers are drug addicts and as such not in control of their own behaviour. This has been established many times over by scads of research and anyone who argues otherwise is really in denial of the facts. I do agree with your first point about how "shaming" is not likely to work as it's pretty clear that the crack heads that sleep in doorways and scrounge for crack on their hands and knees each day are unaffected by the shame of it all either. Drug addicts are generally weak personalities that no amount of reasoning will affect either. That's why the only effective method of eliminating smoking from society has always been the rule of law. I've had a good deal of experience with drug addicts and find that if you don't force an addict to quit, they simply won't.

I am speechless...

Weak people huh? Must be bad genetics. We might just as well get rid of them for good, right?

You talk in the same language as a spokesperson for an arbitrary totalitarian society. Did you sleep through ALL your history classes?

FYI, both coffee and tea are also addictive. Should we outlaw Starbucks? Or is your hate for weak people just pointed towards smokers?

[paul.b.davis]

If you guys knew anything at all you would know that second hand smoke has been linked to second hand coolness.

Sorry, had to make a joke.

But seriously, yes I smoke, and yes I am addicted. However, I do smoke for the pleasure I get from tobacco. I hand roll my own cigarettes using premium blends of rolling tobacco and I smoke fine pipe tobacco.

There is a difference between being a mindless smoker and someone who enjoys a tradition with a lot of history. A nice pipe does more than relax me via nicotine. It takes me to a time when smoking was viewed as a pleasure and done so to be enjoyed with good conversation and a nice pint.

Perhaps I am idealistic, but I don;t want that taken away.

But on the other side, I know many people who don't like the smell (especially from cigarettes you can get anywhere e.g. Camel, Marlboro, which I think have a much less pleasant odor than a nice hand rolled one) and I respect that. I would ask then to refrain from coming into my house and taking a dump on my floor. It smells bad and I don't want to step on it.

My point I guess is that there are self righteous jerks on both sides of the fence. Just as with any group, you can't judge the members by the way you perceive the group. Everyone is their own person and thats something you can't change.

[wonga1127]

Yeah, well what about the fact that even when you are smoking "outside" I still have to breathe it all in? When I am walking down the sidewalk on the way to work, I can smell a smoker walking 15 metres in front of me easily. If it's windy or the idiot is puffing hard it's quite a bit further.

Also, why should I have to hold my nose every-time I go by a coffee shop or a bar because 10 or 20 people are all sitting outside in the cold sucking back ciggies? Worse, if the alcove is small and it's raining, I have to walk within inches of several people all huddled together in the doorway smoking. Sure they guiltily open the door for you but it's ******** disgusting and violates my right to clean(ish) normal fresh air.

Bottom line is your rights end where your neighbors begin and non-smokers are by far the majority. We have a right to breathe fresh air, (it's pretty basic actually) and the rights of a drug addict to poison themselves shouldn't trump those of the majority IMO.
Okay, then no one is allowed to drive cars or really run any internal combustion engine, and everyone must shower and use deodorant too, because all those thing smell bad. Oh yeah and everyone must shove bags up their butt so I don't have to smell their farts.

Guess what, you're going to smell some unpleasant things in life, get over it.

[davidjearly]

Okay, then no one is allowed to drive cars or really run any internal combustion engine, and everyone must shower and use deodorant too, because all those thing smell bad. Oh yeah and everyone must shove bags up their butt so I don't have to smell their farts.

Guess what, you're going to smell some unpleasant things in life, get over it.

Now that is just ridiculous. I am doing my best not to be lured into this argument, but it is points like these that make it really difficult.

Guess what? I don't think it was so much the smell, but rather the health implications which follow that smell that he was getting at.

[fab5freddy]

i didn't know that this topic I
started would have caused such a heated debate.

I don't care what some people do to their bodies, as long as i don't
have to breath in smoke when passing a bar on every street corner.
or having people break rules and smoke in some bars that look the other way with smokers.

In my opinion, Cigarettes should be classified with Heroin and Crack.

[wonga1127]

Now that is just ridiculous. I am doing my best not to be lured into this argument, but it is points like these that make it really difficult.

Guess what? I don't think it was so much the smell, but rather the health implications which follow that smell that he was getting at.
And its ridiculous to get mad at smokers who are outside enjoying something because of the health detriments when there is probably 100's of pounds of harmful gas being emitted by cars driving on the street.

And is that silly too? Yeah, it all is. You aren't going to die from breathing in a little smoke OUTSIDE. Just ********** deal with it and quit crying about it. The fact of the matter is that if you don't get cancer from a little cigarette smoke, you'll get it from a microwave or a charred steak or cell phone radiation. Either way we all end up dead.

I can see people getting mad inside, I do too. Outside its a silly thing to get mad at. Unless its absolute zero outside, the smoke is going to go away and dissipate, so its really not a big deal. Inside it is because it has no where to go.

[miniConvert]

FWIW I think the sentiment against smoking is building very rapidly now. I'd love to see the UK's sales figures for cigarettes atm, I bet the last 20 years would make some really interesting graphs.

We recently introduced a no smoking policy at work to include the grounds and entrances/exits. Breaks for smoking are also not permitted. Support to quit is offered.

I believe in freedom, I really do, but in the modern world I just don't think the vast majority of us have time for smoke and smokers any more.

[davidjearly]

i didn't know that this topic I
started would have caused such a heated debate.

I don't care what some people do to their bodies, as long as i don't
have to breath in smoke when passing a bar on every street corner.
or having people break rules and smoke in some bars that look the other way with smokers.

In my opinion, Cigarettes should be classified with Heroin and Crack.

Yes, they should.

And its ridiculous to get mad at smokers who are outside enjoying something because of the health detriments when there is probably 100's of pounds of harmful gas being emitted by cars driving on the street.

And is that silly too? Yeah, it all is. You aren't going to die from breathing in a little smoke OUTSIDE. Just ********** deal with it and quit crying about it. The fact of the matter is that if you don't get cancer from a little cigarette smoke, you'll get it from a microwave or a charred steak or cell phone radiation. Either way we all end up dead.

I can see people getting mad inside, I do too. Outside its a silly thing to get mad at. Unless its absolute zero outside, the smoke is going to go away and dissipate, so its really not a big deal. Inside it is because it has no where to go.

No, you still don't get it. In a city, it is very difficult to walk in the pedestrian zones without having someone smoke directly in front of you or beside you. This should not be allowed. The smoke doesn't get the chance to become diluted with the air before reaching my lungs under such circumstances.

In addition, as the OP stated, since the smoking ban, many smokers forget that it is also unlawful to smoke within or outside of doorways as this is a public passage. This means that when walking past, or into and out of buildings, the public become affected by the smoke being puffed around.

You can also apply this to basically any outdoor shelter, which many smokers still feel entitled to pollute to the detriment of everyone around them.

Finally, to compare an individual who chooses to smoke to the motoring market is frankly, self-promoting nonsense. There is a huge difference. In other words, please do not compare the health effects of smoking to the health effects of the motoring industry just to amplify your argument.

Btw, **** doesn't make cursing any better, so please don't - we all get what that implies.

[fab5freddy]

mini Convert took the words right out of my mouth:

the modern working world &
the vast majority of us don't have time for smoke and smokers any more.

[scotthayes]

was going to post a long reply to the anit-smokers. But Denis Leary put best in 'No cure for cancer'

I love to smoke. I smoke seven thousand packs a day, ok. And I am never ***** quitting! I don't care how many laws they make. What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out? Is that the rule now, huh?! The cops are outside, "We know you have the cigarettes. Come out of the house with the cigarettes above your head." "You'll never get me copper! I'm never coming out, you hear? I got a cigarette machine right here in my bedroom. Yeah!"

and...

we tried to be nice to you non-smokers. We ***** tried. Okay? You wanted your own sections in the restaurants. We gave you that, huh. But that wasn't enough for you. Then you wanted the airplanes. We gave you the whole damn plane! You happy now? You own the ***** plane! I'd like an explanation about that one folks because I will guarantee you if the plane is going down, the first announcement you're gonna hear is, "Folks, this is your Captain speaking. Look, uhm, light 'em up, 'cause we're going down, okay. I got a carton of Camels non-filters, I'll see you on the ground. Take it easy.

and...

Yeah, we tried to be nice to you non-smokers. We tried. But you just ***** badger us, you know? You won't leave us alone! You got all your little speeches you're always giving to us. All these little facts that you dig out of a newspaper or pamphlet and you store that little nugget in your little ***** head, and we light up and you spew 'em out at us, don't ya? I love these little facts. "Well you know. Smoking takes ten years off your life." Well it's the ten worst years, isn't it folks? It's the ones at the end! It's the wheelchair kidney dialysis ***** years. You can have those years! We don't want 'em, alright!?

Because you're always telling us, "You know, every cigarette takes six minutes off your life. If you quit now you can live an extra ten years. If you quit now, you can live an extra twenty years." Hey, I got two words for you, ok. Jim Fix. Remember Jim Fix? The big famous jogging guy? Jogged fifteen miles a day. Did a jogging book. Did a jogging video. Dropped out of a heart attack when? When he was ***** jogging, that's when! What do you wanna bet it was two smokers who found the body the next morning and went, "Hey! That's Jim Fix, isn't it?" "Wow, what a ***** tragedy. Come on, lets go buy some butts."

It's always the yogurt sprout eating mother f'ers who get run over buy a bus driven by a guy who smokes three and a half packs a day. "Sorry officer, I didn't see him. I was too busy smoking!"

[wonga1127]

" Hey, I got two words for you, ok. Jim Fix. Remember Jim Fix? The big famous jogging guy? Jogged fifteen miles a day. Did a jogging book. Did a jogging video. Dropped out of a heart attack when? When he was ***** jogging, that's when! What do you wanna bet it was two smokers who found the body the next morning and went, "Hey! That's Jim Fix, isn't it?" "Wow, what a ***** tragedy. Come on, lets go buy some butts."
[/I]
He stole that from Bill Hicks.

[MikeTheC]

In response to this thread's question:

No.


In response to the verisimilitude of awesome responses...

OMG, some of you had me practically on the floor.

I'll second the vote for the "I eat large quantities of cheese" response being the Best. Reply. Ever.

[slooksterPSV]

Ok time to make my point:

1 - Yes I do smoke
2 - Someone asked me if I wanted to try and I said yes
3 - I liked the high of smoking for the first couple of weeks then it helped me when I'd stress out and worry
4 - I know it's bad, but cause of how much I work I only smoke between 4-7 a day instead of 1 pack a day.
5 - This thread is starting to irritate me so I'll bb

Smoking is addicting and I wish I only did it when I was drinking or just socially instead of put on a coat, put on shoes, go outside, walk 25 ft away from the building, light up, get too cold, smoke half, go back in and start doing other thing. I only like to drink socially, I wish that were true with smoking just hang out having a cig. drinking some pepsi or what not then after that fine I'm doing other stuff don't need a smoke.

The one thing that irritates me is how people can act like they know everything and say smoking is bad and I'm gonna die from it. Oh well, I know this, don't rub it into my face or you're gonna kill me quicker by making me want another smoke lol. But where I live, 50% of the town smokes, I swear, it's a mining town and there's not a whole lot to do, so people smoke, drink, (or for the others; use drugs) and hang out. People should try walking a mile in our shoes (for those of us who smoke) and find out what it's like.

EDIT -- I didn't edit this part, but I did remove it for certain purposes --

POINT IS - WALK IN OTHERS SHOES OR SHUT UP!

[Marble]

POINT IS - WALK IN OTHERS SHOES OR SHUT UP!

Unfortunately, some of us have to. If you were eating tobacco or something, that would be one thing. Having to deal with smoke on the streets or in my room or at seminars in school is seriously unpleasant. And being told that that sort of forced discomfort should be acceptable is a bit like being told to go to hell. It's just mass rudeness.

[Unspeaked]

That is what I said.
Moreover most smokers tend to die before they get eligible for medicare and/or retirement and thus, according to some studies, actually costs less than someone that gets very old and can use the social services for a very long time.

And don't forget that once they're dead, the government can use them as food.

"Marge, darling - does your Soylent Green taste a little smokey today?? Hmm..."

[Dr.Gargoyle]

And don't forget that once they're dead, the government can use them as food.

"Marge, darling - does your Soylent Green taste a little smokey today?? Hmm..."
LMAO... indeed

[riscy]

Never have smoked, never will.

I know some people trot out the old cliche "never say never", but what I say is fact!

[jessica.]

Is this supposed to be a poll? The why's of people smoking vary. I took it up just casually one year 12 years ago and didn't stop until my 23rd birthday when I woke up in the hospital. It was a fun 5 years but since then I've had a few but eventually gave that up. I'm a quitter.

[~Shard~]

Is this supposed to be a poll? The why's of people smoking vary. I took it up just casually one year 12 years ago and didn't stop until my 23rd birthday when I woke up in the hospital. It was a fun 5 years but since then I've had a few but eventually gave that up. I'm a quitter.

Good for you - your lungs are probably thanking you for it. ;) :)

[Iscariot]

If you're in Toronto, I'll come over for dinner. But you have to marry me and make me Canadian first. :) And yes, just for the purpose of making me Canadian.


I live right downtown, baby. Done and done.

[KingYaba]

Also, why should I have to hold my nose every-time I go by a coffee shop or a bar because 10 or 20 people are all sitting outside in the cold sucking back ciggies? Worse, if the alcove is small and it's raining, I have to walk within inches of several people all huddled together in the doorway smoking. Sure they guiltily open the door for you but it's ******** disgusting and violates my right to clean(ish) normal fresh air.

I understand efforts to ban smoking in public places. But no one is forcing you to enter a private business, such as those coffee shops you mentioned.

[EricNau]

I understand efforts to ban smoking in public places. But no one is forcing you to enter a private business, such as those coffee shops you mentioned.
And those who have health problems affected by smoke should be restricted from visiting or working in these places too?

[KingYaba]

And those who have health problems affected by smoke should be restricted from visiting or working in these places too?

Restricted by whom?

[EricNau]

Restricted by whom?
Both those who are smoking and those who allow the smoking.

For anyone with a respiratory disease, second-hand smoke can quickly become fatal.

[KingYaba]

Both those who are smoking and those who allow the smoking.

For anyone with a respiratory disease, second-hand smoke can quickly become fatal.

So let me get this strait. We should ban those 10 or 20 smokers, as Virgil pointed out, from smoking so the potential customer with lung disease can purchase coffee at a private place of business? I guess property rights can be thrown in the ashtray along with our butts.

[EricNau]

So let me get this strait. We should ban those 10 or 20 smokers, as Virgil pointed out, from smoking so the potential customer with lung disease can purchase coffee at a private place of business? I guess property rights can be thrown in the ashtray along with our butts.
If that be the case, the business owner might was well post a sign in the window stating "Persons with respiratory disease not welcome."

...I suppose you also believe businesses should not be required to accommodate persons with disabilities?

[KingYaba]

If that be the case, the business owner might was well post a sign in the window stating "Persons with respiratory disease not welcome."

...I suppose you also believe businesses should not be required to accommodate persons with disabilities?

Are we talking about the customer or employee? Or both? I think the law is 50 employees or more, companies are required to accommodate. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Do coffee shops who cater to smokers employ that many people?

I personally wouldn't care if a business racially discriminates. In this day in age no one would go there (including myself) to do business and thus, it would be the downturn of their vocation. The same can be said about smokers. Take your money elsewhere if you don't like it.

... and to those individuals applying for coffee shop jobs with emphysema... knowing people smoke there... are they really that stupid or are they trying to be selfish?

[EricNau]

Are we talking about the customer or employee? Or both? I think the law is 50 employees or more, companies are required to accommodate. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Do coffee shops who cater to smokers employ that many people?

I personally wouldn't care if a business racially discriminates. In this day in age no one would go there (including myself) to do business and thus, it would be the downturn of their vocation. The same can be said about smokers. Take your money elsewhere if you don't like it.

... and to those individuals applying for coffee shop jobs with emphysema... knowing people smoke there... are they really that stupid or are they trying to be selfish?
I'm thinking of both the customer and employee.

And I guess we must agree to disagree, because we hold completely different philosophies.

Although, I'm sorry to say I think you vastly overestimate some Americans. Racial discrimination (or other forms of discrimination including discrimination based upon disability) is still very prevalent in certain communities, and I guarantee you, even those not willing to actively discriminate would still attend establishments that did.


As far as smoking is concerned, it is a direct and immediate endangerment to the safety of others, and under those grounds, I feel it should be restricted from public establishments.

[lost eden]

I have nothing against people who smoke, as long as they have the courtesy not to smoke in such a way that it irritates the people around them. Of course I wholly support the recently introduced smoking bans that now affect enclosed public spaces in England, Wales & Scotland; the one thing I used to really hate about going to pubs/clubs/gigs was coming home stinking of smoke & being forced to shower & wash all of my clothing.

However, even though I don't smoke tobacco myself (I have tried, mostly rolled with cannabis, but the tobacco itself did nothing for me, at least not enough to warrant the damage it would do), I can appreciate why some people do; it makes them feel good, it makes them feel relaxed & they have decided that this is worth degrading & shortening their lives for. We all do things that are bad for us & I don't think that we are in any position to prevent smokers from taking their pleasure in smoking cigarettes if they make sure that they don't force their smoke upon unwilling passers-by. At least in the UK, the tax placed on cigarettes by the government makes sure that smokers here more than pay for their hospital bills incurred through various lung diseases, cancer, etc., so as long as they stay out of my way I have no qualms.

[Marble]

If only smoke weren't so damned sticky. At school, students would go out for a smoke break during the 10-minute breaks in a seminar. If I was unlucky enough to end up sitting next to one of those people at a roundtable, it became very difficult for me to concentrate for the remainder of class. Every breath was like inhaling over an ashtray.

Sometimes I don't think smokers realize how insidious the smell can be. It creeps in through closed windows; it attaches itself to clothes as you walk down the street; it can linger in your damn nose for twenty minutes if you're unfortunate enough to get a random lungful. Ugh!

[fab5freddy]

hey Marble, You hit the nail right on with that last comment.

How many times do we have to knock smokers on the head before
they get how gross they are !

[leekohler]

hey Marble, You hit the nail right on with that last comment.

How many times do we have to knock smokers on the head before
they get how gross they are !

Apparently, it's limitless. The amount of threads created in these forums just to rip on smokers is unbelievable. As I said before- you've passed your laws and made your positions very clear. We know we're gross, thanks to all of you. Why don't you say it one more time, just so we get it for sure? I'm sure you have no habits that anyone finds nasty. I'm sure you're perfect in every way. :rolleyes:

If only smoke weren't so damned sticky. At school, students would go out for a smoke break during the 10-minute breaks in a seminar. If I was unlucky enough to end up sitting next to one of those people at a roundtable, it became very difficult for me to concentrate for the remainder of class. Every breath was like inhaling over an ashtray.

Sometimes I don't think smokers realize how insidious the smell can be. It creeps in through closed windows; it attaches itself to clothes as you walk down the street; it can linger in your damn nose for twenty minutes if you're unfortunate enough to get a random lungful. Ugh!

I thought you knew! We're out to kill you all. It's an insidious plot to destroy the entire human race! We love to torture you and make you smell. It's our lifelong goal! We are nasty. We're like Darth Vader. Really. We hate all non-smokers and wish to make all of you our slaves. It's true. Just ask any smoker. :rolleyes:

[Cromulent]

If all the smokers stopped smoking the decrease in health-care costs would mostly offset the loss of tax revenue.

That is an urban myth. The cost to the NHS from smokers is a lot but it is less than the money the government make from taxes. Plus the fact that smokers also pay normal taxes that everyone else pays as well and it is clear that it is smokers who are paying for non-smokers health care.

I believe the government gets something like £11 billion a year from cigarette taxes. Take that away and the NHS would have a hard time surviving.

[Mord]

I'd argue that the overall cost to humanity of producing and consuming an addictive health damaging substance can only ever be negative.

[bigandy]

I'd argue that it's a personal choice. All of the smokers I know are perfectly aware of the dangers of smoking.

To the people that argue against it, who are you to tell others what to do? Just because you choose not to, why should you push your views on others?

In my view, people who push decisions on smoking, and health in general, are as bad as religious groups who knock on your door repeatedly trying to preach to you the word of something/someone you may not want anything to do with.

Yeah, I smoke. Yeah, I know it's 'bad'. But you know what? It's my bloody choice. I'm considerate - I won't smoke indoors (in fact, I can't stand it, much like non-smokers, I can't stand a restaurant/bar/club that's smoky, and applaud the bans already implemented in the UK), and I'll make a concerted effort not to make others passively smoke.

But I hate people ranting on about it being inexcusable in the modern world, and all that bull.

Why can't some people just accept that people are free to make whatever decisions they want, and they're happy to pay the consequences?

...I mean, the US did vote Bush in for a second term. :rolleyes:

[elisha cuthbert]

i still do smoke, been smoking for about 6 years and im not getting any better at quiting,
finally got back to my marboro reds again and i think im better for it

although it seems pretty common these days for people to be smoking, dont know why but ive noticed that alot of people just smoke because they think its cool

[bigandy]

marboro reds
talk about something strong enough to make you want to quit ;)

although it seems pretty common these days for people to be smoking, dont know why but ive noticed that alot of people just smoke because they think its cool
i've noticed, here in scotland, far less people smoking (the age has been increased to 18 minimum, from 16 - may be partly to credit for this). there are still large groups that do, but it's certainly a trend that doesn't seem 'on the up'.

[samh004]

For the record, I don't smoke.

[elisha cuthbert]

talk about something strong enough to make you want to quit ;)


i've noticed, here in scotland, far less people smoking (the age has been increased to 18 minimum, from 16 - may be partly to credit for this). there are still large groups that do, but it's certainly a trend that doesn't seem 'on the up'.

its been 18 + here for a while to buy it, but its not illegal to smoke it underage. and its not hard to get people to buy them when your under 18

still cant understand how i managed when i was 13, but hey all in the past now, i can buy them for myself now

[bigandy]

For the record, I don't smoke.

and for the record, i smoke about 10 (self rolled*) a week. :p


* = lower tar, better taste, etc etc.

[KingYaba]

public establishments.

I can agree to that but the example is a coffee shop which is a part of the private sector (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/private_sector).Restricting smoking in public parks, sidewalks, schools, government offices those are all fair game in my mind.

talk about something strong enough to make you want to quit ;)
I found that comment to be quite funny. :)

[Marble]

Apparently, it's limitless. The amount of threads created in these forums just to rip on smokers is unbelievable. As I said before- you've passed your laws and made your positions very clear. We know we're gross, thanks to all of you. Why don't you say it one more time, just so we get it for sure? I'm sure you have no habits that anyone finds nasty. I'm sure you're perfect in every way. :rolleyes:



I thought you knew! We're out to kill you all. It's an insidious plot to destroy the entire human race! We love to torture you and make you smell. It's our lifelong goal! We are nasty. We're like Darth Vader. Really. We hate all non-smokers and wish to make all of you our slaves. It's true. Just ask any smoker. :rolleyes:

I don't get what you're trying to say with your sarcasm exactly; is it that smokers do care about the comfort of the people around them? I get that smokers aren't evil. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Surely that can't be all you're saying?

If you have control over your habit, it's just lousy for you to put your pleasure before other people's comfort. Otherwise, you're not in control of behavior that affects others negatively, and everyone would benefit if you got help.

The act of smoking around others is somewhat like cranking your sound system up at 4am, or never bathing. If I had a nasty habit like that, I would indeed be infringing upon your personal space and sense of comfort unduly. I would be in the wrong.

[leekohler]

I don't get what you're trying to say with your sarcasm exactly; is it that smokers do care about the comfort of the people around them? I get that smokers aren't evil. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Surely that can't be all you're saying?

If you have control over your habit, it's just lousy for you to put your pleasure before other people's comfort. Otherwise, you're not in control of behavior that affects others negatively, and everyone would benefit if you got help.

The act of smoking around others is somewhat like cranking your sound system up at 4am, or never bathing. If I had a nasty habit like that, I would indeed be infringing upon your personal space and sense of comfort unduly. I would be in the wrong.

I smoke 2 cigarettes a day. I'm doing just fine with my habit thanks. I live in Chicago where they've gone so far as to ban smoking not only indoors, but many places outdoors too, including parks, beaches and many places on the sidewalk. You got what you wanted, now leave it alone. It gets to be a bit much to listen to people still complain even though there's hardly a place left that's legal to smoke anymore.

How many times do we have to knock smokers on the head before
they get how gross they are !

I quote this again because this isn't exactly the kind of comment you reserve for people you like.

[Zwhaler]

If I lived in Japan (I'm there traveling) I probably would smoke occasionally. It is very convenient to smoke here, with smoking allowed indoors and in restaurants, and they have cigarette vending machines on the street. Lots of people smoke here too, so you wouldn't feel out of place. Although back in the states, I wouldn't consider it. Don't ask me why but its just not for me. I don't like the taste much either (unless its a menthol)

[MikeTheC]

I had once thought about giving up smoking, what with all the public emphasis on how bad it is for your health.

And then I remembered, "Oh, wait. I never started." :cool:

[paul.b.davis]

and for the record, i smoke about 10 (self rolled*) a week. :p


* = lower tar, better taste, etc etc.

What do you roll? I love me some Bali Shag.

[Eric Piercey]

Dear rockthecasbah, i really don't there can be enough threads about this topic.... read on:

yeah, it seems to me that all smokers are oblivious to
the news and scientific reports for the last 20 years...

Smokers are walking around in a haze, ignoring all scientific proof
that it will make you, ill, kill you, cause disgusting pflem in your throat,
decrease you impotence, make you smell bad, cost you loads of money,
etc...

God forbid it decrease their impotence!!! We'd see quite a rise I'd think if this were true. /ba dum

But seriously, do you really entertain the notion that smokers are just walking around in a haze? What about drinkers? What about speeders? What about the obese? What about right wing evangelicals? (well they ignore scientific proof anyway)

This post is nothing but an attempt to pass judgement. Smokers are indeed killing themselves. Smoking is stupid. There's no argument from smokers on the ill effects of smoking. Just pissing off the self righteous self proclaimed "clean folk" who'd pass judgment on someone without having a clue themselves is one reason among many to smoke. I agree with you all, it's a ridiculous behavior- but so are about 10000 other things we all do every single day and take for granted. How about we stop uh.. destroying the planet? Oh my god no, not when there's profit at stake!!

[stevegmu]

Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?
Few health issues are as controversial, emotional, and as subject to political correctness as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoking. So this week I invited Michael D. Shaw, an environmental scientist, to comment on the latest news released on Wednesday the 9th from the California Air Research Board, that second-hand smoke causes breast cancer in 20 - 90% of women and children. The American Cancer Society said that the study is "controversial."

As a scientist who regularly writes about indoor air quality, I must approach this topic with an appropriate degree of objectivity: I do not have a vested interest in the politics of this matter, but I do have a responsibility - both as a biochemist and member of the scientific community - to dispel some commonly held myths about secondhand smoke and the risk of cancer.

Unfortunately, the entire subject of secondhand smoke resides in an area of discourse heavily laced with activists, who, passionate about their mission of improving public health, far too readily exaggerate the dangers. Moreover, the whole notion of ETS being listed as an indoor air pollutant started in the mid-1980's, as hapless tenants in overpriced windowless high-rise office buildings sought creative means of breaking their leases. No doubt, workers could be irritated by ETS, but then, they could also be irritated by perfume. Indeed, excessive perfume is considered an indoor air pollutant in some quarters, along with cooking odors.

As to the matter of someone being "allergic" to ETS, based on the traditional definition of an allergen being an agent that promotes an immunological response, ETS fails that test, and so far, at least, can only be classified as an irritant. Properly, people are "sensitive" to ETS. But, playing on the well known dangers of smoking, the doom-profiteers have worked many people into a frenzy, by conflating the bad habit of smoking with the much different matter of breathing in secondhand smoke.

Science, at its best, should never have an agenda, and should aid the quest for truth. In the days before big media and big research grants, bizarre claims could be subjected to the harsh light of objective science. Nowadays, though, it is sometimes the alleged "science" that promotes the bizarre claims.

Back in the 1960's, many health agencies proffered a set of two graphs. One tracked the increase in cigarette smoking from 1900-1930, and the other tracked the increased incidence in lung cancer from 1930-1960. That the two graphs could virtually be superimposed was as ringing an indictment of smoking as any gory autopsy picture of a smoker's cancer-ravaged lungs. Contrast this with the paradoxical claim by the Centers for Disease Control a few years ago that passive smoking could explain an increase in asthma over the last decade, even though as asthma was increasing, the number of smokers was decreasing.

So, how dangerous IS secondhand smoke? The most reliable data would indicate that it is nowhere near as serious a threat as elements of the media (and their supporters within academia) would have us believe. In fact, ETS is, at its most extreme, far less dangerous than numerous other indoor air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and radon.

The biggest study on this topic, covering 39 years, and involving 118,094 adults, with particular focus on 35,561 who never smoked, and had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits, came to this conclusion:

"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."

Not surprisingly, considering the non-PC findings, the May, 2003 article detailing the study generated a good deal of hate e-mail on the journal's website.

Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette.

But this issue is controversial, right? Just a few days ago, the trend-setting California Air Resources Board announced results of their draft report, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant." The report concludes that women exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke have a 90 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The document also pegs the annual death toll of secondhand smoke at 73,400.

It should be noted that the World Health Organization and other groups that examined the same evidence found no link to breast cancer. Furthermore, the Air Resources Board gives more weight to animal studies, but much epidemiology of suspected human carcinogens indicates that animal data overstates the actual risk.

My gut tells me that the Air Resources Board is wrong, but we'll see how this all plays out.

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html

New grounds for skepticism about secondhand smoke claims

CLA epidemiologist James Enstrom and State University of New York epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat analyzed data from an American Cancer Society study that tracked 118,000 Californians from 1959 until 1998. They focused on 35,561 subjects who had never smoked and whose spouses' smoking habits were determined through a questionnaire. As is typical of research in this area, Enstrom and Kabat used marriage to a smoker as an indicator of ETS exposure, subdividing subjects based on how much their spouses smoked.

"No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke," they report. "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....Given the limitations of the underlying data in this and other studies of environmental tobacco smoke and the small size of the risk, it seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer."

Since anti-smoking activists and public health officials confidently assert annual death tolls from secondhand smoke of 50,000 or more, you may suspect that Enstrom and Kabat's findings are unusual. They are in fact similar to the results of most studies looking for a connection between ETS and lung cancer or heart disease. Such research typically finds small, statistically insignificant associations.

If you pool the data together, you can generate statistically significant results. But such meta-analyses tend to mask the weaknesses of the studies on which they're based.


The question is whether there's a threshold below which tobacco smoke has no measurable impact on mortality. Based on the epidemiological data, Enstrom and Kabat calculate that smoking one cigarette a day would be associated with something like a 20 percent increase in lung cancer risk (as opposed to an increase of roughly 1,000 percent for a pack a day) and virtually no increase in heart disease risk.

"It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day," Enstrom and Kabat note. If so, a small increase in lung cancer risk is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk—the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke—is highly implausible.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/35718.html

The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 – when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. That’s not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?

http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html

[.Andy]

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html



http://www.reason.com/news/show/35718.html



http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html
You're highly proficient with google stevemgu! Try a search of pubmed and see what you come up with.

[stevegmu]

You're highly proficient with google stevemgu! Try a search of pubmed and see what you come up with.

Why should I?

[leekohler]

You're highly proficient with google stevemgu! Try a search of pubmed and see what you come up with.

In all fairness .Andy, can you provide a link?

[.Andy]

In all fairness .Andy, can you provide a link?
To pubmed? Sorry I assumed that you guys would know what it is. It's a free resource available to everyone who wishes to search the medical literature. It's got al the medical journals indexed that anyone would care about. Enjoy - it's great for all you medical searches. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
Search to your hearts content (literally) :).

And again, as in every one of these threads, here's a selection of the literature references from a patient handout on the effects of passive smoking. People who still assert that there isn't a scientific link between passive smoking and illness have their heads in the sand. It's as strong as can be.

[1] , Smoking and health: report of the advisory committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Public Health Service, Publication #11031964. Washington: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
[2] Brownson R.C., Figgs L.W., Caisley L.E., Epidemiology of environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Oncogene (2002) 21: pp 7341-7348. Abstract
[3] Chan-Yeung M., Dimich-Ward H., Respiratory health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Respirology (2003) 8: pp 131-139. Abstract
[4] Arbes S.J., Agustsdottir H., Slade G., Environmental tobacco smoke and periodontal disease in the United States. Am J Public Health (2001) 91: pp 253-257. Abstract
[5] Bonita R., Duncan J., Truelsen T., Jackson R., Beaglehole R., Passive smoking as well as active smoking increases the risk of acute stroke. Tob Control (1999) 8: pp 156-160. Abstract
[6] Mack W.J., Islam T., Lee Z., Selzer R., Hodis H., Environmental tobacco smoke and carotid arterial stiffness. Prev Med (2003) 37: pp 148-154. Abstract
[7] Panagiotakos D., Chrysohoou C., Pitsavos C., Papaioannou I., Skoumas J., Stefanadis C., The association between secondhand smoke and the risk of developing acute coronary syndromes, among non-smokers, under the presence of several cardiovascular risk factors: The CARDIO2000 case-control study. BMC Public Health (2002) 2: pp 9-.
[8] Penn A., Chen L.C., Snyder C., Inhalation of steady-state sidestream smoke from one cigarette promotes arteriosclerotic plaque development. Circulation (1994) 90: pp 1363-1367. Abstract
[9] Sandler R.S., Sandler D., McDonnell C.W., Wurzelmann J., Childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the risk of ulcerative colitis. Am J Epidemiol (1992) 135: pp 603-608. Abstract
[10] Zeegers M., Goldbohm A., van den Brandt P.A., A prospective study on active and environmental tobacco smoking and bladder cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control (2002) 13: pp 83-90. Abstract
[11] Zhu B.Q., Heeschen C., Sievers R.E., Karliner J.S., Parmley W.W., Glantz S.A., Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth. Cancer Cell (2003) 4: pp 191-196.
[12] , International Conference on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Child Health: consultation report. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobGeneva: World Health Organization Division of Noncommunicable Diseases Tobacco Free Initiative (1999) .
[13] Morkjaroenpong V., Rand C.S., Butz A.M., Huss K., Eggleston P., Malveaux F.J., Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and nocturnal symptoms among inner-city children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 110: pp 147-153. Full Text
[14] Elliot J., Vullermin P., Robinson P., Maternal cigarette smoking is associated with increased inner airway wall thickness in children who die from sudden infant death syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1998) 158: pp 802-806. Abstract
[15] Gilliland F.D., Berhane K., McConnell R., Gauderman W.J., Vora H., Rappaport E.B., Maternal smoking during pregnancy, environmental tobacco smoke exposure and childhood lung function. Thorax (2000) 55: pp 271-276. Abstract
[15] Gilliland F.D., Li Y.F., Peters J.M., Effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy environmental tobacco smoke on asthma and wheezing in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2001) 163: pp 429-436. Abstract
[16] Li Y.F., Gilliland F.D., Berhane K., McConnell R., Gauderman W.J., Rappaport E.B., Effects of in utero and environmental tobacco smoke exposure on lung function in boys and girls with and without asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2000) 162: pp 2097-2104. Abstract
[17] Lux A.L., Henderson A.J., Pocock S.J., , Wheeze associated with prenatal tobacco smoke exposure: a prospective, longitudinal study. Arch Dis Child (2000) 83: pp 307-312. Abstract
[18] Connolly G.N., Wayne G.D., Lymperis D., Doherty M.C., How cigarette additives are used to mask environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control (2000) 9: pp 283-291. Abstract
[19] Cook D.G., Strachan D.P., Carey I.M., Parental smoking and spirometric indices in children. Thorax (1998) 53: pp 884-893. Abstract
[20] Dezateux C., Stocks J., Dundas I., Fletcher M.E., Impaired airway function and wheezing in infancy: the influence of maternal smoking and a genetic predisposition to asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1999) 159: pp 403-410. Abstract
[21] Dezateux C., Stocks J., Lung development and early origins of childhood respiratory illness. Br Med Bull (1997) 53: pp 40-57. Abstract
[22] Stick S., Pediatric origins of adult lung disease. 1. The contribution of airway development to paediatric and adult lung disease. Thorax (2000) 55: pp 587-594. Full Text
[23] , Asthma mortality and hospitalization among children and young adults-United States, 1980-1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (1996) 45: pp 350-353. Abstract
[24] Halfon N., Newacheck P.W., Wood D.L., St Peter R.F., Routine emergency department use for sick care by children in the United States. Pediatrics (1996) 98: pp 28-34. Abstract
[25] Malveaux F.J., Fletcher-Vincent S.A., Environmental risk factors of childhood asthma in urban centers. Environ Health Perspect (1995) 103: pp 59-62. Abstract
[26] Malveaux F.J., Houlihan D., Diamond E.L., Characteristics of asthma morbidity and mortality in African -Americans. J Asthma (1993) 30: pp 431-437. Abstract
[27] Peden D.B., Influences on the development of allergy and asthma. Toxicology (2000) 181-182: pp 323-328.
[38] Cook D.G., Strachan D.P., Summary of effects of parental smoking on the respiratory health of children and implications for research. Thorax (1999) 54: pp 357-366. Abstract
[29] Wilson S.R., Yamada E.G., Sudhakar R., Roberto L., Mannino D., Mejia C., A controlled trial of an environmental tobacco smoke reduction intervention in low-income children with asthma. Chest (2001) 120: pp 1709-1722. Full Text
[30] Frew A.J., Advances in environmental and occupational disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 111: pp S824-S828. Full Text
[31] Meijer G.G., Postma D.S., van der Heide S., de Reus D.M., Roorda R.J., Koeter G.H., Exogenous stimuli and circadian peak expiratory flow variation in allergic asthmatic children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1996) 153: pp 237-242. Abstract
[32] Gilliland F.D., Berhane K., Islam T., Rappaport E., Avol E., Gauderman W.J., Environmental tobacco smoke and absenteeism related to respiratory illness in schoolchildren. Am J Epidemiol (2003) 157: pp 861-869. Abstract
[33] Cook D.G., Strachan D.P., Parental smoking, bronchial reactivity and peak flow variability in children. Thorax (1998) 53: pp 295-301. Abstract
[34] Drongowski R.A., Lee D., Reynolds P.I., Malviya S., Harmon C.M., Increased respiratory symptoms following surgery in children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Paediatr Anaesth (2003) 13: pp 304-310. Abstract
[36] Mannino D.M., Homa D.M., Redd S.C., Involuntary smoking and asthma severity in children: data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Chest (2002) 122: pp 409-415. Full Text
[37] Nuhoglu C., Gurul M., Nuhoglu Y., Effects of passive smoking on lung function in children. Pediatr Int (2003) 45: pp 426-428. Abstract
[38] Schwartz J., Timonen K.L., Pekkanen J., Respiratory effects of environmental tobacco smoke in a panel study of asthmatic and symptomatic children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2000) 161: pp 802-806. Abstract
[39] Gergen P.J., Environmental tobacco smoke as a risk factor for respiratory disease in children. Respir Physiol (2001) 128: pp 39-46. Abstract
[40] von Mutius E., Environmental factors influencing the development and progression of pediatric asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 109: pp S525-S532. Full Text
[41] Larsson M.L., Frisk M., Hallström J., Kiviloog J., Lundbäck B., Environmental tobacco smoke exposure during childhood is associated with increased prevalence of asthma in adults. Chest (2001) 120: pp 711-717. Full Text
[42] Leuenberger P., Schwartz J., Ackermann-Liebrich U., Blaser K., Bolognini G., Bongard J.P., Passive smoking exposure in adults and chronic respiratory symptoms (SAPALDIA Study). Swiss Study on Air Pollution and Lung Diseases in Adults, SAPALDIA Team. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1994) 150: pp 1222-1228. Abstract
[43] Randon K., Busching K., Heinrich J., Wichmann H.E., Jorres R.A., Magnussen H., Passive smoking exposure: a risk factor for chronic bronchitis and asthma in adults?. Chest (2002) 122: pp 1086-1090. Full Text
[44] Larsson M.L., Loit H.-M, Meren M., Polluste J., Magnusson A., Larsson K., Passive smoking and respiratory symptoms in the FinEsS Study. Eur Respir J (2003) 21: pp 672-676. Abstract
[45] Eisner M.D., Yelin E.H., Henke J., Shiboski S.C., Blanc P.D., Environmental tobacco smoke and adult asthma. the impact of changing exposure status on health outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1998) 158: pp 170-175. Abstract
[46] Janson C., Chinn S., Jarvis D., Zock J.P., Torén K., Burney P., Effect of passive smoking on respiratory symptoms, bronchial responsiveness, lung function, and total serum IgE in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey: a cross-sectional study. Lancet (2001) 358: pp 2103-2109. Abstract
[47] Barnes K.C., Gene-environment and gene-gene interaction studies in the molecular genetic analysis of asthma and atopy. Clin Exp Allergy (1999) 29: pp 47-51. Abstract
[48] Jenkins M.A., Hopper J.L., Giles G.G., Regressive logistic modeling of familial aggregation for asthma in 7,394 population-based nuclear families. Genet Epidemiol (1997) 14: pp 317-332. Abstract
[49] Wang Z., Chen C., Niu T., Wu D., Yang J., Wang B., Association of asthma with β2-adrenergic receptor gene polymorphism and cigarette smoking. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2001) 163: pp 1404-1409. Abstract
[50] Xu J., Meyers D.A., Ober C., Blumenthal M.N.., Mellen B., Barnes K.C., Genomewide screen and identification of gene-gene interactions for asthma-susceptibility loci in three US populations: collaborative study on the genetics of asthma. Am J Hum Genet (2001) 68: pp 1437-1446. Abstract
[51] Ober C., Moffatt M.F., Contributing factors to the pathobiology: the genetics of asthma. Clin Chest Med (2000) 21: pp 245-261. Full Text
[52] Colilla S., Nicolae D., Pluzhnikov A., Blumenthal M.N., Beaty T.H., Bleecker E.R., Evidence for gene-environment interactions in a linkage study of asthma and smoking exposure. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 111: pp 840-846. Full Text
[53] Oryszczyn M.P., Annesi-Maesano I., Charpin D., Paty E., Maccario J., Kauffmann F., Relationships of active and passive smoking to total IgE in adults of the Epidemiological Study of the Genetics and Environment of Asthma, Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness and Atopy (EGEA). Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2000) 161: pp 1241-1246. Abstract
[54] Bergren D.R., Chronic tobacco smoke exposure increases airway sensitivity to capsaicin in awake guinea pigs. J Appl Physiol (2001) 90: pp 695-704. Abstract
[55] Nishikawa M., Ikeda H., Fukuda T., Suzuki S., Okubo T., Acute exposure to cigarette smoke induces airway hyperresponsiveness without airway inflammation in guinea pigs: dose-response characteristics. Am Rev Respir Dis (1990) 142: pp 177-183. Abstract
[56] Omini C., Hernandez A., Zuccari G., Clavenna G., Dafonchio L., Passive cigarette smoke exposure induces airway hyperreactivity to histamine but not acetylcholine in guinea pigs. Pulm Pharmacol (1990) 3: pp 145-150. Abstract
[57] Giovino G.A., Epidemiology of tobacco use in the United States. Oncogene (2002) 21: pp 7326-7340. Abstract
[59] Shaham J., Ribak J., Green M., The consequences of passive smoking: an overview. Public Health Rev (1992) 20: pp 15-28. Abstract
[60] Tredaniel J., Boffetta P., Saracci R., Hirsch A., Non-smoker lung cancer deaths attributable to exposure to spouse's environmental tobacco smoke. Int J Epidemiol (1997) 26: pp 939-944. Abstract
[61] , Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The health cosequences of involuntary smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Publication #(CDC) 87–83981986. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
[62] , Committee on Passive Smoking, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposure and assessing health effects. 1986. Washington: National Academic Press.
[63] Pershagen G., Passive smoking and lung cancer. Samet J.M.Epidemiology of lung cancer 1994New York: Marcel Dekker: pp 109-130.
[64] Witschi H., Espiritu I., Peake J.L., Wu K., Maronpot R.R., Pinkerton K., The carcinogenicity of environmental tobacco smoke. Carcinogenesis (1997) 18: pp 575-586. Abstract
[65] Lee C.H., Ko Y.C., Goggins W., Huang J.J., Huang M.S., Kao E.L., Lifetime environmental exposure to tobacco smoke and primary lung cancer of non-smoking Taiwanese women. Int J Epidemiol (2000) 29: pp 224-231. Abstract
[66] Blot W.J., McLaughlin J.K., Passive smoking and lung cancer risk: what is the story now?. J Natl Cancer Inst (1998) 90: pp 1416-1417. Citation
[67] Boffetta P., Agudo A., Ahrens W., Benhamou E., Benhamou S., Darby S.C., Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst (1998) 90: pp 1440-1450. Abstract
[68] Boffetta P., Ahrens W., Nyberg F., Mukeria A., Bruske-Hohlfeld I., Fortes C., Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of adenocarcinoma of the lung. Int J Cancer (1999) 83: pp 635-639. Abstract
[69] Brown K.G., Lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke: exposure-response relationships with application to occupational risk. Environ Health Perspect (1999) 107: pp 885-890. Abstract
[70] Reynolds P., Epidemiologic evidence for workplace ETS as a risk factor for lung cancer among nonsmokers: specific risk estimates. Environ Health Perspect (1999) 107: pp 865-877. Abstract
[71] Flora S.D., Balansky R.M., D'Agostini F., Izzotti A., Camoirano A., Bennicelli C., Molecular alterations and lung tumors in p53 mutant mice exposed to cigarette smoke. Cancer Res (2003) 63: pp 793-800. Abstract
[72] Husgafvel-Pursiainen K., Boffetta P., Kannio A., Nyberg F., Pershagen G., Mukeria A., p53 Mutations and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in a multicenter study on lung cancer. Cancer Res (2000) 60: pp 2906-2911. Abstract
[73] Gealy R., Zhang L., Siegfried J.M., Luketich J.D., Keohavong P., Comparison of mutations in the p53 and K-ras genes in lung carcinomas from smoking and nonsmoking women: cancer epidemiology. Biomarkers (1999) 8: pp 297-302.
[74] Bennett W.P., Alavanja M., Blomeke B., Vahakangas K.H., Castren K., Welsh J., Environmental tobacco smoke, genetic susceptibility, and risk of lung cancer in never-smoking women. J Natl Cancer Inst (1999) 91: pp 2009-2014. Abstract
[75] Malats N., Camus-Radon A.M., Nyberg F., Ahrens W., Constantinescu V., Mukeria A., Lung cancer risk in nonsmokers and GSTM1 and GSTT1 genetic polymorphism. Cancer Epidemiol (2000) 9: pp 827-833.
[76] Miller D.P., De Vivo I., Neuberg D., Wain J.C., Lynch T.J., Su L., Association between self-reported environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer: modification by GSTP1 polymorphism. Int J Cancer (2003) 104: pp 758-763. Abstract
[77] Weinberg C.R., Sandler D.P., Gene-by-environment interaction for passive smoking and glutathione S-transferase M1. J Natl Cancer Inst (1999) 91: pp 1985-1986. Citation
[78] Olivieri M., Poli A., Zuccaro P., Ferrari M., Lampronti G., de Marco R., Tobacco smoke exposure and serum cotinine in a random sample of adults living in Verona, Italy. Arch Environ Health (2002) 57: pp 355-359. Abstract
[79] Seccareccia F., Zuccaro P., Pacifici R., Meli P., Pannozzo F., Freeman K.M., Research group of the MATISS project. Serum cotinine as a marker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure in epidemiologic studies: the experience of the MATISS project. Eur J Epidemiol (2003) 18: pp 487-492. Abstract
[80] Wortley P.M., Caraballo R.S., Pederson L.L., Pechacek T.F., Exposure to second hand smoke in a workplace: serum cotinine by occupation. J Occup Environ Med (2002) 44: pp 503-509. Full Text
[83] Barnes P.J., Kharitonov S.A., Exhaled nitric oxide: a new lung function test. Thorax (1996) 51: pp 233-237. Citation
[84] Kharitonov S.A., Yates D.H., Barnes P.J., Changes in the dose of inhaled budesonide effect exhaled nitric oxide levels in asthmatics. Eur Respir J (1996) 9: pp 196-201. Abstract
[85] Yates D.H., Breen H., Thomas P.S., Passive smoke inhalation decreases exhaled nitric oxide in normal subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2001) 164: pp 1043-1046. Abstract
[86] Eisner M.D., Katz P.P., Yelin E.H., Hammond S.K., Blanc P.D., Measurement of environmental tobacco smoke exposure among adults with asthma. Environ Health Perspect (2001) 109: pp 809-814. Abstract
[87] Jaakkola M.S., Jaakkola J.J., Becklake M.R., Ernst P., Effect of passive smoking on the development of respiratory symptoms in young adults: an 80 year longitudinal study. J Clin Epidemiol (1996) 49: pp 581-586. Abstract
[88] Winickoff J.P., McMillen R.C., Carroll B.C., Klein J.D., Rigotti N.A., Tanski S.E., Addressing parental smoking in pediatrics and family practice: a national survey of parents. Pediatrics (2003) 112: pp 1146-1151. Abstract
[89] de Groh M., Morrison H.I., Environmental tobacco smoke and deaths from coronary artery disease in Canada. Chronic Dis Can (2002) 23: pp 13-16. Abstract
[90] Denson K.W., Passive smoking in infants, children and adolescents: the effects of diet and socioeconomic factors. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2001) 74: pp 525-532. Abstract
[91] He J., Vupputuri S., Allen K., Prerost M., Hughes J., Whelton P., Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. N Engl J Med (1999) 340: pp 920-926. Abstract
[92] Moskowitz W.B., Schwartz P.F., Schieken R.M., Childhood passive smoking, race and coronary artery disease risk: the MCV Twin Study. Medical College of Virginia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med (1999) 153: pp 446-453. Abstract
[93] Steenland K., Sieber K., Etzel R.A., Pechacek T., Maurer K., Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk factors for heart disease among never smokers in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Epidemiol (1998) 147: pp 932-939. Abstract
[94] Tutka P., Wielosz M., Zatonski W., Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and children health. Int J Occup Med Environ Health (2002) 15: pp 325-335. Abstract
[95] Wahlgren D.R., Hovell M.F., Meltzer E.O., Meltzer S.B., Involuntary smoking and asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med (2000) 6: pp 31-36. Abstract
[96] McMillen R.C., Winickoff J.P., Klein J.D., Weitzman M., US adult attitudes and practices regarding smoking restrictions and child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: changes in social climate from 2000-2001. Pediatrics (2003) 112: pp e55-e60. Abstract
[97] Lam T.H., Leung G.M., Ho L.M., The effects of environmental tobacco smoke on health services utilization in the first 18 months of life. Pediatrics (2001) 107: pp E91-. Abstract
[98] , Healthy people 2010. 2nd edition. 2000. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services.
[99] Recommendations and reports: reducing tobacco use. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (2000) 49: pp 1-27.
[100] , Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med (2001) 20: pp 10-15.
[101] Thun M.J., Henley S.J., Calle E.E., Tobacco use and cancer: an epidemiologic perspectives for geneticists. Oncogene (2002) 21: pp 7307-7325. Abstract
[102] http://www.newscientist.com/article/...irst-time.html Passive smoking linked with diabetes.
[103] http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstr...ild%3b71/4/353 Passive smoking and impaired lung function in cystic fibrosis

[stevegmu]

I posted 3 unbiased articles which clearly show the studies correlating 2nd hand smoke with cancer are junk. Even when a non-smoker lives with a smoker, there is miniscule increase in cancer rates.
Some medical studies 'find' the results they were after form the beginning.

Neither of the links at the bottom you posted are working.

[.Andy]

I posted 3 unbiased articles which clearly show the studies correlating 2nd hand smoke with cancer are junk. Even when a non-smoker lives with a smoker, there is miniscule increase in cancer rates.
Some medical studies 'find' the results they were after form the beginning.
Absolutely brilliant. I concede defeat.

[EricNau]

While second-hand smoke may or may not cause cancer, it is still a very serious concern for anyone with a respiratory illness, and can be fatal. ...Please just keep that in mind. ;)

[Iscariot]

I thought you knew! We're out to kill you all. It's an insidious plot to destroy the entire human race!

Can you start with the women and children first? Their souls are worth more to me. They're like premium for my doom machine.

[stevegmu]

While second-hand smoke may or may not cause cancer, it is still a very serious concern for anyone with a respiratory illness, and can be fatal. ...Please just keep that in mind. ;)

So is mold, certain carpeting material, strong perfume, and peanuts to those with peanut allergies.

[.Andy]

So is mold, certain carpeting material, strong perfume, and peanuts to those with peanut allergies.
None of those really cause respiratory problems. Some medical studies 'find' the results they were after form [sic] the beginning.

Your ability to accept and reject the scientific literature at a whim to back your arguments is breathtaking.

[Badandy]

Your seeming inability to either ask a smoker to put out their cigarette or to walk away a few meters is equally as breathtaking. Well, maybe not equally, but close.


I do not smoke, by the way.

[.Andy]

Your seeming inability to either ask a smoker to put out their cigarette or to walk away a few meters is equally as breathtaking. Well, maybe not equally, but close.
Nice sideswipe. I'm purely in this thread combating the idiocy of people trying to claim that there is no link between passive smoking and illness. As I've said before we fail some of our medical exams if we don't take a history of exposure to tobacco smoke in the home/workplace.

I'm all for people smoking if that's what they choose to do, but am strongly of the opinion that they have no right to do so in a way that unavoidably impacts on the health of others. I can honestly say I've never called anyone on smoking anywhere, and do just walk away. Check my past history in all smoking threads - I've no problem with people smoking or your fictional charge of not being able to walk away.

[leekohler]

Can you start with the women and children first? Their souls are worth more to me. They're like premium for my doom machine.

Like I said before- only if you marry me and make me Canadian. :)

Nice sideswipe. I'm purely in this thread combating the idiocy of people trying to claim that there is no link between passive smoking and illness. As I've said before we fail some of our medical exams if we don't take a history of exposure to tobacco smoke in the home/workplace.

I'm all for people smoking if that's what they choose to do, but am strongly of the opinion that they have no right to do so in a way that unavoidably impacts on the health of others. I can honestly say I've never called anyone on smoking anywhere, and do just walk away. Check my past history in all smoking threads - I've no problem with people smoking or your fictional charge of not being able to walk away.

No one is saying there's no link, just questioning the prevalence of the link. However, I've never known one person who died from second hand smoke. That's not to say I haven't known smokers who've died from it. I've known one.

[stevegmu]

Nice sideswipe. I'm purely in this thread combating the idiocy of people trying to claim that there is no link between passive smoking and illness.

There, there now. No need to resort to name calling.
I provided 3 articles showing there is virtually no correlation between 2nd hand smoke and sickness. You posted titles of books and research papers, and 2 links that don't work.

[leekohler]

None of those really cause respiratory problems. Some medical studies 'find' the results they were after form [sic] the beginning.

Your ability to accept and reject the scientific literature at a whim to back your arguments is breathtaking.

What about barbeques and campfires? Those are equally dangerous. Do you avoid those as well?

[.Andy]

No one is saying there's no link
You must have stevemg on ignore :). He's posted three articles that there is no link and rejected the 100+ articles I posted as tainted by a secret medical science agenda.

just questioning the prevalence of the link.
By all means question the prevalence, but do so by reading the peer-reviewed literature. Not blogs, not action websites. Although I've posted that list of papers three times now, twice in reply to your posts, how many can you say you've honestly read? Are you just questioning the prevalence or are you really trying to understand the prevalence by questioning it?

However, I've never known one person who died from second hand smoke.
I've not known anyone that's died from a brain tumour, that doesn't make me believe the scientific evidence of their causation any less. Anecdotes are the evidence of the uninformed.

That's not to say I haven't known smokers who've died from it. I've known one.
I've known none personally. Spoken to plenty of patients ward after ward of who are hacking up their lungs though or dying from all sorts of cancers. There's still enough smokers out there to keep my pockets lined with cash for my whole medical career. It's of little comfort though - I'd prefer they didn't die from something completely avoidable, especially when they make it obvious they never understood the dangers.

What about barbeques and campfires? Those are equally dangerous. Do you avoid those as well?
Do you have any evidence that BBQs and campfires are equally as dangerous as passive smoking? Or are you just trying your darnedest to hit on a line of argument that holds water? You certainly aren't trying to reasonably question the prevalence as you claim.

Regardless I'd suggest that my patients who have respiratory problems avoid camp fires and any type of inhaled irritant that could trigger their ailment.

[Iscariot]

Like I said before- only if you marry me and make me Canadian. :)

And like I said before- done and done.

And boy do I mean done.

[leekohler]

Do you have any evidence that BBQs and campfires are equally as dangerous as passive smoking? Or are you just trying your darnedest to hit on a line of argument that holds water? You certainly aren't trying to reasonably question the prevalence as you claim.

Regardless I'd suggest that my patients who have respiratory problems avoid camp fires and any type of inhaled irritant that could trigger their ailment.

Smoke is smoke. It's all dangerous. Are you suggesting that it isn't? Anything burned is carcinogenic. If you're going to start saying that it's not, here's something from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5428963

And the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/chemicalworld/story/0,,1219603,00.html

And Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene

[Iscariot]

Smoke is smoke. It's all dangerous. Are you suggesting that it isn't? Anything burned is carcinogenic. If you're going to start saying that it's not, here's something from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5428963

And the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/chemicalworld/story/0,,1219603,00.html

And Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene

This discussion has taken an interesting turn, so I'm going to chime in on where it is now.

The most commonly sourced article for the dangers of second-hand smoke -- and the one that really banged the drum for attention -- is the EPA report, IIRC. A lot of follow-up studies and reviews have found that the EPA report was largely exaggerated, and that the policies that have since been implemented as a result are a little more reactionary and lack the solid grounding that they should have.

I'm glad bars are going smoke-free elsewhere, and I was pleased when they went smoke-free here in Toronto, in no small part because I worked in one at the time. I'm not going to exaggerate the health risks of second-hand smoke, but bars are a workplace and I believe that all workplaces should be mimimizing employee risk as much as possible. I also think this is a positive move for most patrons, but I think the benefits/hazards for someone spending a few hours in a bar are pretty exaggerated.

Most of the really good bars and many restaurants here have rooftop patios or rear patios, and most of those are heated during the winter. I think this strikes a good compromise between protecting peoples rights to a smoke-free environment without making smokers into pariahs. As far as I know there's been no move to ban smoking on patios, and I think it would do smokers a disservice to go down that road. (As a note, I supported the idea of enclosed smoking sections with proper ventilation).

[leekohler]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn, so I'm going to chime in on where it is now.

The most commonly sourced article for the dangers of second-hand smoke -- and the one that really banged the drum for attention -- is the EPA report, IIRC. A lot of follow-up studies and reviews have found that the EPA report was largely exaggerated, and that the policies that have since been implemented as a result are a little more reactionary and lack the solid grounding that they should have.

I'm glad bars are going smoke-free elsewhere, and I was pleased when they went smoke-free here in Toronto, in no small part because I worked in one at the time. I'm not going to exaggerate the health risks of second-hand smoke, but bars are a workplace and I believe that all workplaces should be mimimizing employee risk as much as possible. I also think this is a positive move for most patrons, but I think the benefits/hazards for someone spending a few hours in a bar are pretty exaggerated.

Most of the really good bars and many restaurants here have rooftop patios or rear patios, and most of those are heated during the winter. I think this strikes a good compromise between protecting peoples rights to a smoke-free environment without making smokers into pariahs. As far as I know there's been no move to ban smoking on patios, and I think it would do smokers a disservice to go down that road. (As a note, I supported the idea of enclosed smoking sections with proper ventilation).

Oh come on! Why stop there? It should really be banned everywhere, don't you think? Let's take a legal substance and make it illegal to use. It's already almost there here in Chicago. You would absolutely not believe how weird it's gotten here. It's totally ridiculous.

By the way, where's my ring? ;)

[Iscariot]

Oh come on! Why stop there? It should really be banned everywhere, don't you think? Let's take a legal substance and make it illegal to use. It's already almost there here in Chicago. You would absolutely not believe how weird it's gotten here. It's totally ridiculous.

Why stop there? Because I think it's a perfectly reasonable proposition that's going to come as close as possible to satisfying everyone. But as Calvin said "a good compromise leaves nobody happy."

But there's still that concentration camp I've been working on :3

By the way, where's my ring? ;)

I hope you're not allergic to any precious metals... because then you'd never be able to hold me in your arms.

[davidjearly]

Oh come on! Why stop there? It should really be banned everywhere, don't you think? Let's take a legal substance and make it illegal to use. It's already almost there here in Chicago. You would absolutely not believe how weird it's gotten here. It's totally ridiculous.

By the way, where's my ring? ;)

Yeah, it really should be banned everywhere. I'm with .Andy on this one, and have many articles that I could reference here to reinforce my opinion.

However, going on how .Andy's post with over 100 citations was completely ignored and this frivolous argument is still continuing, I ask you, what is the point?

[leekohler]

Yeah, it really should be banned everywhere. I'm with .Andy on this one, and have many articles that I could reference here to reinforce my opinion.

However, going on how .Andy's post with over 100 citations was completely ignored and this frivolous argument is still continuing, I ask you, what is the point?

The point? The point is- if it's so bad then make it illegal. Grow a pair and do what you've been wanting to do forever. Because ya know, tobacco smoke is the single most worst thing in the world. Nothing could be more evil, at least it seems that way from the amount of threads in these forums. And it's also apparent by .Andy's links, isn't it? It is the single most worst thing in the world. There- I said it. Happy now?

Why stop there? Because I think it's a perfectly reasonable proposition that's going to come as close as possible to satisfying everyone. But as Calvin said "a good compromise leaves nobody happy."

But there's still that concentration camp I've been working on :3[/I]

Oh- a concentration camp for smokers! Can I come? That's exactly what I deserve! :) Oh wait a sec- then non-smokers will complain they can't go there. Sorry! Next idea! :) And no- the patio idea won't work either for the same reason. There is no pleasing non-smokers no matter what you do, as is illustrated by davidjearly's post. Going outside will no longer be an option soon.


I hope you're not allergic to any precious metals... because then you'd never be able to hold me in your arms.

What are you? Darth Vader? :)

[Iscariot]

What are you? Darth Vader? :)

No baby -- I'm solid gold.

[JSchwage]

Never have smoked, never will. I see smoking as basically slowly killing yourself.

[leekohler]

No baby -- I'm solid gold.

Haha! That was a good one. That must make it difficult to move, no? ;)

And .Andy, you know I love you- here's big wet sloppy smooch. :) Wanna play doctor? ;)

[davidjearly]

The point? The point is- if it's so bad then make it illegal. Grow a pair and do what you've been wanting to do forever. Because ya know, tobacco smoke is the single most worst thing in the world. Nothing could be more evil, at least it seems that way from the amount of threads in these forums. And it's also apparent by .Andy's links, isn't it? It is the single most worst thing in the world. There- I said it. Happy now?

Oh- a concentration camp for smokers! Can I come? That's exactly what I deserve! :) Oh wait a sec- then non-smokers will complain they can't go there. Sorry! Next idea! :) And no- the patio idea won't work either for the same reason. There is no pleasing non-smokers no matter what you do, as is illustrated by davidjearly's post. Going outside will no longer be an option soon.

Your posts are now simply becoming insulting. Please refrain from going in that direction. I do not like words being put into my mouth.

1. I am happy as long as my rights to not breathe in smoke are not diminished.

2. If you want to smoke, please do so - I have no concern (other than to advise you against it) for your health or anyone who is not in my immediate family.

Please however do not dispute the clinically accepted facts that passive smoking is detrimental to ones health without providing vast, scientifically verified studies to back up your claim.

David

[leekohler]

Your posts are now simply becoming insulting. Please refrain from going in that direction. I do not like words being put into my mouth.

1. I am happy as long as my rights to not breathe in smoke are not diminished.

2. If you want to smoke, please do so - I have no concern (other than to advise you against it) for your health or anyone who is not in my immediate family.

Please however do not dispute the clinically accepted facts that passive smoking is detrimental to ones health without providing vast, scientifically verifies studies to back up your claim.

David

Now who's putting words into whose mouth? Never once did I say it wasn't detrimental. I did however, question how often it occurs. And I'm sorry if you thought I was being insulting or putting words in your mouth, but did you or did you not say that smoking should be banned everywhere? Yes, you did:

Yeah, it really should be banned everywhere.

I don't see how I'm misinterpreting that. It leads me to believe you won't be happy until it happens.

And there have been plenty of insults directed at smokers in this thread.

[.Andy]

Smoke is smoke. It's all dangerous. Are you suggesting that it isn't? Anything burned is carcinogenic. If you're going to start saying that it's not, here's something from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5428963

And the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/chemicalworld/story/0,,1219603,00.html

And Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene
You're purposefully being obtuse to the point that it's getting nauseous now. With passive smoking sections of society such as bar workers and children are constantly exposed to it, often unavoidably. This is why I support the banning of smoking in indoor businesses and in cars with children where the health of others is impacted by your choice of recreational activity unavoidably. Nothing more. You've absolutely no right to harm the health of others, and an employer has absolutely no right to knowingly put their staff in harms way.

I'm more than happy if you smoke and choose to do so from an informed position. I've even defended your right to smoke before in threads before. With my scientific and (limited) medical training and knowing you on these boards I'd prefer you didn't for our own health. But ultimately it's your own choice.

But as in all these threads before we're continuing to go down these lines of you trying to justify your harming other people's health by trying to discount the dangers of passive smoking that has been well and truly established scientifically.


Now who's putting words into whose mouth? Never once did I say it wasn't detrimental. I did however, question how often it occurs.
No. You're aren't reasonably questioning how often it occurs as you've been provided links to the scientific literature that answer this and other questions. But you've not read any of them. You're purely trying to dismiss and discount your smoke harming others purely because you enjoy smoking at pubs and clubs. You're purely obsfucating for your own argument. Have you even known anyone to die of mesothelioma? Do you have doubts that asbestos is really that dangerous?

[~Shard~]

You've absolutely no right to harm the health of others, and an employer has absolutely no right to knowingly put their staff in harms way.

I'm more than happy if you smoke and choose to do so from an informed position. I've even defended your right to smoke before in threads before.


I just wanted to say thank you to Andy for your posts. I share the same opinion as you do and think you have worded and explained things quite well. I appreciate the links as well.

As I said earlier in the thread and will say again, I have no problems with nicotine addicts engaging in whatever destructive behavior they want as long as it doesn't negatively impact the health of others who choose not to engage in those said destructive activities. Plain and simple. :)

[leekohler]

You're purposefully being obtuse to the point that it's getting nauseous now. With passive smoking sections of society such as bar workers and children are constantly exposed to it, often unavoidably. This is why I support the banning of smoking in indoor businesses and in cars with children where the health of others is impacted by your choice of recreational activity unavoidably. Nothing more. You've absolutely no right to harm the health of others, and an employer has absolutely no right to knowingly put their staff in harms way.

I'm more than happy if you smoke and choose to do so from an informed position. I've even defended your right to smoke before in threads before. With my scientific and (limited) medical training and knowing you on these boards I'd prefer you didn't for our own health. But ultimately it's your own choice.

But as in all these threads before we're continuing to go down these lines of you trying to justify your harming other people's health by trying to discount the dangers of passive smoking that has been well and truly established scientifically.



No. You're aren't reasonably questioning how often it occurs as you've been provided links to the scientific literature that answer this and other questions. But you've not read any of them. You're purely trying to dismiss and discount your smoke harming others purely because you enjoy smoking at pubs and clubs. You're purely obsfucating for your own argument. Have you even known anyone to die of mesothelioma? Do you have doubts that asbestos is really that dangerous?

.Andy- I apologize for not being clear and letting emotions get in the way. You have to admit it's difficult to come in here and read some of the very insulting posts that are in this thread. What I really mean to say is that I feel that the non-smoking thing has grown into almost mass hysteria, as if anyone who gets even a whiff of tobacco smoke is going to keel over. I think we can certainly agree that is not the case. We can also agree that all people who smoke don't get ill from it and not all people who inhale second-hand get ill from it.

That said, (and we will never agree one this) tobacco is a legal product and as such, I feel there should be some sort of place where people who want to engage in smoking can gather socially and have a drink if they want, especially given the extreme taxes placed on tobacco products. If there needs to be specific rules regarding such businesses (innovative ventilation systems, added fees or taxes, etc.), then fine.

In addition, I think people overplay the health thing. If non-smokers were so afraid of the effects of second-hand smoke, then none of them would ever enter a bar. But they do, don't they? Are they absolved of all responsibility for their own health, or is it only the fault of the smokers? The way people are talking these days, I bet they would blame the smoker for any health problems they might have as a result. I can't agree with that line of thinking. You have a point about employees, though.

Again, these are no-win discussions. I'm not going to change my mind and neither will you. I am who I am and make my own choices. I've said before I smoke about 2 cigarettes a day. I don't that's that big a deal.

[.Andy]

.Andy- I apologize for not being clear and letting emotions get in the way. You have to admit it's difficult to come in here and read some of the very insulting posts that are in this thread. I agree with this in all threads where people have strong opinions. I think half the time they are more keen to show their own holier than thou position by condemning something rather than adding to the discussion. There's a few of them about...

What I really mean to say is that I feel that the non-smoking thing has grown into almost mass hysteria, as if anyone who gets even a whiff of tobacco smoke is going to keel over. I think we can certainly agree that is not the case. We can also agree that all people who smoke don't get ill from it and not all people who inhale second-hand get ill from it.
I agree with this completely. Unfortunately for the last sentence (and I'm sorry to draw this parallel again) but not everyone gets ill from asbestos exposure. We unfortunately have no way of finding out who will be and who won't be. Likewise with smokers, not everyone will die from their habit, a large proportion will but some are seemingly completely resistant. And there is plenty of research being done to find out why these people are. In the meantime doing everything possible to reduce needless illness and death isn't really too far-fetched an idea.

That said, (and we will never agree one this) tobacco is a legal product and as such, I feel there should be some sort of place where people who want to engage in smoking can gather socially and have a drink if they want, especially given the extreme taxes placed on tobacco products. If there needs to be specific rules regarding such businesses (innovative ventilation systems, added fees or taxes, etc.), then fine.
I don't think the taxation argument really holds much water. No one can claim that they've paid their dues and therefore be able to harm others (i.e. workers of such establishments).

In addition, I think people overplay the health thing. If non-smokers were so afraid of the effects of second-hand smoke, then none of them would ever enter a bar. But they do, don't they? Are they absolved of all responsibility for their own health, or is it only the fault of the smokers? The way people are talking these days, I bet they would blame the smoker for any health problems they might have as a result. I can't agree with that line of thinking. You have a point about employees, though. I agree with this - if people voluntarily choose to walk into a smoking establishment it's somewhat their own responsibility. However it's also the responsibility of the owner of the venue to ensure that is safe. It's not as simple as it appears at first glance. I do see however see why people get upset (myself included) when you're enjoying a meal outdoors at a cafe and smokers light up next to them. It really isn't pleasant and I doubt society would be accommodating to anything similar for which there isn't a precedent.

As far as overplaying it - I'm sure some people are. There's a poster on these boards that uses the 'hysteria' tactic to dismiss the danger of nuclear power (or weapons) and climate change, whilst at the same time indulging in overplaying the advantages of fire arms to defend one's family from mass-murdering, raping, immigrants. It's a great way to synthesise an argument from nothing. Luckily these boards have plenty of people that are able to discuss beyond the rhetoric.

Again, these are no-win discussions. I'm not going to change my mind and neither will you. I am who I am and make my own choices. I've said before I smoke about 2 cigarettes a day. I don't that's that big a deal.
As I said above there is no real 'safe' level of smoking. For people it varies - some can smoke a pack a day their whole lives with no problems, others can smoke for a few years in their teens and come down sick. It depends on genetic and environmental factors which we're only just beginning to understand. A good example is the discovery of alpha-1 antitrypsin which predisposes to a form of emphysema. We can categorically call them morons for smoking ;). However as we discover such dangers it really is our obligation to make sure that information is available to the public and the health impacts of people's activities on others are minimised.

One thing that these threads never bring up is any obligation of the cigarette companies themselves. They are in the box seat to ensure that they produce a safer cigarette by reducing the levels of carcinogens in their products. It's not an ideal situation but it's better than it is currently. Instead the spend billions improving their product's taste, burn character and marketing. Reducing the carcinogens would in no way be detrimental to the character of the cigarette, but would make massive reductions in the health impacts of their products.

[leekohler]

I agree with this in all threads where people have strong opinions. I think half the time they are more keen to show their own holier than thou position by condemning something rather than adding to the discussion. There's a few of them about...


I agree with this completely. Unfortunately for the last sentence (and I'm sorry to draw this parallel again) but not everyone gets ill from asbestos exposure. We unfortunately have no way of finding out who will be and who won't be. Likewise with smokers, not everyone will die from their habit, a large proportion will but some are seemingly completely resistant. And there is plenty of research being done to find out why these people are. In the meantime doing everything possible to reduce needless illness and death isn't really too far-fetched an idea.


I don't think the taxation argument really holds much water. No one can claim that they've paid their dues and therefore be able to harm others (i.e. workers of such establishments).

I agree with this - if people voluntarily choose to walk into a smoking establishment it's somewhat their own responsibility. However it's also the responsibility of the owner of the venue to ensure that is safe. It's not as simple as it appears at first glance. I do see however see why people get upset (myself included) when you're enjoying a meal outdoors at a cafe and smokers light up next to them. It really isn't pleasant and I doubt society would be accommodating to anything similar for which there isn't a precedent.

As far as overplaying it - I'm sure some people are. There's a poster on these boards that uses the 'hysteria' tactic to dismiss the danger of nuclear power (or weapons) and climate change, whilst at the same time indulging in overplaying the advantages of fire arms to defend one's family from mass-murdering, raping, immigrants. It's a great way to synthesise an argument from nothing. Luckily these boards have plenty of people that are able to discuss beyond the rhetoric.


As I said above there is no real 'safe' level of smoking. For people it varies - some can smoke a pack a day their whole lives with no problems, others can smoke for a few years in their teens and come down sick. It depends on genetic and environmental factors which we're only just beginning to understand. A good example is the discovery of alpha-1 antitrypsin which predisposes to a form of emphysema. We can categorically call them morons for smoking ;). However as we discover such dangers it really is our obligation to make sure that information is available to the public and the health impacts of people's activities on others are minimised.

One thing that these threads never bring up is any obligation of the cigarette companies themselves. They are in the box seat to ensure that they produce a safer cigarette by reducing the levels of carcinogens in their products. It's not an ideal situation but it's better than it is currently. Instead the spend billions improving their product's taste, burn character and marketing. Reducing the carcinogens would in no way be detrimental to the character of the cigarette, but would make massive reductions in the health impacts of their products.

Thank you for that. Just FYI- I smoke American Spirits. They claim to add nothing to their tobacco, and quite honestly I have to say I smoke less. I don't feel I have to run outside every second to smoke. I don't go outside every business day to smoke. Actually, I never take smoke breaks during work. I have one after work going to the subway and maybe one later. It just depends. Sometimes I have none. I used to smoke a pack a day. So yes, I do think the mainstream companies are doing something wrong, but I don't think it's all about tobacco.

[.Andy]

Thank you for that. Just FYI- I smoke American Spirits. They claim to add nothing to their tobacco, and quite honestly I have to say I smoke less. I don't feel I have to run outside every second to smoke. I don't go outside every business day to smoke. Actually, I never take smoke breaks during work. I have one after work going to the subway and maybe one later. It just depends. Sometimes I have none. I used to smoke a pack a day. So yes, I do think the mainstream companies are doing something wrong, but I don't think it's all about tobacco.
It's good to hear you smoke less though Lee :). If you quit altogether your currently increased risk of a heaps of diseases decreases over time. You probably know all this but it doesn't hurt to have it shown to you again! Shamelessly stolen from a lazy google from here (http://www.tobaccopreventionandcontrol.ncdhhs.gov/cessation/index.htm#benefits):

* Stroke risk is reduced to that of a person who never smoked after 5 to 15 years of not smoking.
* Cancers of the mouth, throat, and esophagus risks are halved 5 years after smoking.
* Cancer of the larynx risk is reduced after quitting.
* Coronary heart disease risk is cut by half 1 year after quitting and is nearly the same as someone who never smoked 15 years after quitting.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk of death is reduced after you quit.
* Lung cancer risk drops by as much as hslf 10 years after quitting.
* Ulcer risk drops after quitting.
* Bladder cancer risk is halved a few years after quitting.
* Peripheral artery disease goes down after quitting.
* Cervical cancer risk is reduced a few years after quitting (not a problem for you Lee :D).
* Low birthweight baby risk drops to normal if you quit before pregnancy or during your first trimester (also not a problem!).

I don't know if I was completely clear in my previous post but I was referring to tobacco itself, not additives in particular. A huge amount of research by the tobacco companies has, and still does, go into the breeding of tobacco plants as well as handling, processing, and cigarette manufacture to provide a product with a consistent flavour and character. One thing that they don't do (presumably because it isn't a profitable priority) is try and breed out/handle/process/manufacture the tobacco in a way that minimises the content of carcinogens within a cigarette. To be clear this won't adjust the flavour of the smoke, reduce the nicotine content, or change any other characteristics - it will make the product relatively 'safer' for consumption. Interestingly there has been little if any govt regulation in most countries in this regard, although we accept the practice with countless other products for human consumption. It's interesting that tobacco gets a free pass ref (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_09_051107/gra10780_fm.html#0_i1091846).

Take the tobacco-specific nitrosamines and potent carcinogens 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) and N-nitrosonornicotine. Even within a specific brand, the levels of these compounds may vary up 9-fold per cigarette. So from cigarette to cigarette you are taking in widely fluctuating levels of carcinogens. From one smoke you might get a moderate carcinogen insult to the lungs and not much cell or DNA damage, whereas the next a massive insult and lots of damage. All because it's not profitable to remove the nitrosamines, their levels aren't checked by any quality control, and there is no regulation. As an interesting aside these nitrosamines carcinogens are more concentrated in side smoke (i.e. the passively inhaled smoke) than that inhaled by the smoker (This (http://tobaccodocuments.org/ahf/1000121813-1839.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1&end_page=27) is an interesting reference as the research was done a tobacco company and covered up). On balance the smoker does cop far more of it though as they're breathing in far more mainstream smoke.

[leekohler]

It's good to hear you smoke less though Lee :). If you quit altogether your currently increased risk of a heaps of diseases decreases over time. You probably know all this but it doesn't hurt to have it shown to you again! Shamelessly stolen from a lazy google from here (http://www.tobaccopreventionandcontrol.ncdhhs.gov/cessation/index.htm#benefits):


I don't know if I was completely clear in my previous post but I was referring to tobacco itself, not additives in particular. A huge amount of research by the tobacco companies has, and still does, go into the breeding of tobacco plants as well as handling, processing, and cigarette manufacture to provide a product with a consistent flavour and character. One thing that they don't do (presumably because it isn't a profitable priority) is try and breed out/handle/process/manufacture the tobacco in a way that minimises the content of carcinogens within a cigarette. To be clear this won't adjust the flavour of the smoke, reduce the nicotine content, or change any other characteristics - it will make the product relatively 'safer' for consumption. Interestingly there has been little if any govt regulation in most countries in this regard, although we accept the practice with countless other products for human consumption. It's interesting that tobacco gets a free pass ref (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_09_051107/gra10780_fm.html#0_i1091846).

Take the tobacco-specific nitrosamines and potent carcinogens 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) and N-nitrosonornicotine. Even within a specific brand, the levels of these compounds may vary up 9-fold per cigarette. So from cigarette to cigarette you are taking in widely fluctuating levels of carcinogens. From one smoke you might get a moderate carcinogen insult to the lungs and not much cell or DNA damage, whereas the next a massive insult and lots of damage. All because it's not profitable to remove the nitrosamines, their levels aren't checked by any quality control, and there is no regulation. As an interesting aside these nitrosamines carcinogens are more concentrated in side smoke (i.e. the passively inhaled smoke) than that inhaled by the smoker (This (http://tobaccodocuments.org/ahf/1000121813-1839.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1&end_page=27) is an interesting reference as the research was done a tobacco company and covered up). On balance the smoker does cop far more of it though as they're breathing in far more mainstream smoke.

Yes, I do know all that, but here's what they don't tell you:

1. Your risk for being an a**hole goes way up to the point that you probably will lose friends.

2. Food does NOT taste any better. Total myth from my experience after quitting for a year.

3. You'll replace smoking with something else- with me it was working out (I am a fitness freak as you probably know, I'm very athletic and always have been). After a year of quitting, I went to see my doctor, expecting a great visit. The result? High blood pressure and 20 extra pounds. My doctor was pissed off because he says I'm one of his favorite patients. He all but ordered me to stop lifting weights as much unless I was trying out for the Chicago Bears.

4. A general boredom that was inescapable. A real feeling of malaise. A feeling of failure. A general loss of lust for life quite honestly- even after a year.

After a year of being a total jerk and becoming extremely unhealthy, I gave up. Everything is pretty much back to normal. Blood pressure went back down and I went from 210 (muscle weight, not fat) back to 190 pounds. My doctor, while not pleased that I started smoking again, is much happier with my general health than he was when I quit for a year. I bring this up because these are issues that never get discussed, and if you want people to quit, they need to be dealt with in a real way, not just be told that you're "weak".

[Iscariot]

not just be told that you're "weak".

please don't crush me with your bear-like size and strength

[leekohler]

please don't crush me with your bear-like size and strength

I thought you wanted me to crush you. :)