U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-03-2012, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
608 posts, read 503,833 times
Reputation: 377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
This is an interesting link re Las Vegas and second hand smoke exposure

CDC - NIOSH Science Blog Secondhand Smoke and Casino Dealers
PM, you'll note that I responded to that article (See post #40) and showed some of the weaknesses of the NIOSH argument.

You're aware of what that study found, correct? Basically they found that nonsmoking dealers in smoking casinos were exposed to smoke and that it was possible to tell that through blood tests. They found that there was no statistically significant difference in respiratory symptoms between the exposed dealers and the theoretically non-exposed managment/engineering personnel (The study was poorly designed in having so few man/eng subjects.)

They also found that a particular carcinogen level (NNAL) in nonsmokers from nonsmoking homes and nonsmoking environments had a geometric mean level of the carcinogen NNAL of 4 picograms per milliliter (pg/ml) before starting their shifts which went up to 7 thousandths after their shift. That's an increase of 3 pg/ml, right near the bare LOD (Limit Of Detection) of NNAL of 3 pg/ml by even our most sensitive scientific instruments. By comparison smokers average close to 350 pg/ml -- over a hundred times the increase. ( CDC - NER - Chem Info - NNAL (http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/data_tables/NNAL_ChemicalInformation.html - broken link) )

You'll also note that the concentrations in the measurements were almost doubled between the "cleanest" and the "dirtiest" casinos, likely indicating that filtration and ventilation can have very significant effects.

There was nothing in the reference you gave that would really back up a claim of significant levels of successful workmen's comp claims for secondary smoke exposure though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2012, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
608 posts, read 503,833 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
A child sitting in an unventilated home or car is not at small risk. Three members of my family have been diagnosed with tobacco related illnesses, my mother and father died. The doctors on both death certificates checked that tobacco use contributed to death. Cigarette smoke is toxic in any amount.
PM, while I am sorry about your parents dying, you should understand that if they died from any condition that could possibly be related to smoking and they smoked... then most doctors would automatically check off that box. I *think* that in California and/or Oregon they may be REQUIRED to check the box even if they disagree with it.

Also: you have never seen me say that a child in an "unventilated home or car" is at small risk. Obviously if a person is in a completely unventilated environment for long enough they'll not just be at risk -- they'll die. I only talk about conditions that are realistic... such as driving in a car where any considerate smoker would open some windows if they were smoking.

In terms of cigarette smoke, or ANYTHING being "toxic in any amount," you should check out the highly respected text, "Fundamentals of Toxicology" published in 2006 by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Here is what they had to say about it:

"Since all chemicals can produce injury or death under some exposure conditions, there is no such thing as a "safe" chemical in the sense that it will be free of injurious effects under all circumstances of exposure. However, it is also true that there is no chemical that cannot be used safely by limiting the dose or exposure." They go on to give the example of sodium chloride: something we all like to sprinkle on our food but which is used as a suicide agent in some parts of the Far East.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
608 posts, read 503,833 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
No, there's no disagreement. Did you read the selection I asked you to criticize? Your reference is referring to health INSURANCE costs for WORKERS. That's obviously a very different thing than health care COSTS for EVERYONE. During their working lives smokers may have higher health care costs, partly probably due to their smoking and partly probably due to lifestyle confounders that correlate with smoking (drug use, drinking, poor diet, etc). But, if you believe the figures from Antismokers about smokers dying earlier than nonsmokers then their total lifetime health cost burden is actually up to 15% LOWER than that of nonsmokers. By the time you add in all the extra taxes that smokers pay, the numbers get even wilder.

Would it be a good thing healthwise if everyone stopped smoking? Probably. But it would also drive up the taxes on nonsmokers by something on the order of a hundred billion dollars or more per year... perhaps over 200 billion dollars!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,964 posts, read 10,721,895 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
so do all you smokers think it is harmless. on a scale from one to ten?
Harmless? No. Like anythingin life, it has it's dangers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,964 posts, read 10,721,895 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71 View Post
hmm... i've been waiting for legislation saying you can't smoke around animals because that's cruelty to animals.
Just wait.....any day now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,964 posts, read 10,721,895 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
yep I did answer. I don't believe in banning anything that I can think of off the top of my head. If you want to make the debate about our civil rights to do this and that in a free country and consider regulation against smoking as bad, then that is another argument all together. yes I can see where when government start to regulate something it can worry one of the famous slipperly slope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
smoking is a hot button issue because it goes to personal liberty. you should be free to do what you want, when you want to do it.
Wrong on all counts I'm afriad.

The debate about banning smoking, at least from my standpoint, has nothing to do at all with my "right to smoke" That Is why I loath the term "smokers rights". The issue, the real issue I mean, gets lost in all the banter about being able to do "what I want, when I want" talk. I don't believe that I have anymore right to smoke than you do to do whatever.

The real issue is business owners and private prioperty rights. I don't think I have a right to smoke in my favorite bar, but I do think theowner of said bar has the right to tell me whether I can or can't, and to choose what LEGAL prioducts he/she allows on his/her private peoperty { that just happens to be open to the public } in regards to what is best for business. See the difference?

I also think that we as adults, should have the right to decide whether or not to smoke in our own cars, regardless of the presence of children. Do I think parents SHOULD smoke in their cars with children? No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:29 PM
 
4,101 posts, read 6,106,786 times
Reputation: 5644
Default Smoking in the car - with children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden View Post
Nite, I partly agree with you, but why do you specify this:

How often do you see parents driving a car with THE WINDOWS CLOSED *AND* with children in the car? I don't think I have EVER driven around with a smoker who smoked away merrily with his or her windows rolled up tight. And yet that is the sort of deceptive phraseology that we see the Antismokers use all the time, and they use it so pervasively and successfully that they even co-opt many ordinary nonsmokers and smokers into using it as well.

I've just publicly challenged Dr. Robert Blakes, a Cleveland physician "who specializes in smoking risks impacting children" to back up his claims about car bans being needed to protect the children from "increased cardiovascular problems." You can see the challenge and see what kind of response he offers at:

Should Ohio limit smoking in cars? | wkyc.com

I'm not a smoker, but I did smoke 40 years ago. Personally I think the non-smokers have carried their message far enough. Smokers need to have some freedoms too. I don't care who you are or what you do, you can't protect every kid from ever possible harm, sometimes, enough is enough. Where will all of the nonsense end? We lose freedoms every time the legislature meets because of new laws being voted in. One of these days the American people are going to revolt. Our forefathers got tired of British rule, our rule today is ten times worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:43 PM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,252,549 times
Reputation: 2234
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
And all the employees who work there will have worker's comp claims for respiratory illnesses.
Yes, and in the 90+ years where smoking was both commonplace and permitted indoors resulted in epidemics of respiratory illness among non-smokers...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayneb View Post
Smokers are in the minority, if they want to avoid a complete ban in the future it might not be a bad idea to show a little consideration for others and not smoke right in front of the doorways where everybody is forced to walk through their smoke. Very few people smoke in California, I would say smoking would be abnormal, as in actions deviating from that which is normal.
Without even realizing it you have hit the nail on the head. That has always been the goal of anti-smoking organizations and activists. The term that is used is "Denormalization". The goal is to make smoking and smokers viewed as abnormal deviants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
Have you ever considered the fact that smokers drive up the cost of healthcare? Your taxes on cigarettes pale in comparison to the dollars spent on smoking related illnesses. We won't miss your cigarette taxes.
Do you know the extra amount? I am curious. Because I remember reading claims that smoking costs an extra $2 or $3 or $5 or $10 per pack going back to the late 80s. Of course whenever tobacco taxes increase. What cha know, a new report comes out claiming it costs a few dollars more.

Have you ever considered that since smokers die a few years earlier on average they also have fewer years where they collect social security and other retirement benefits, plus they also have fewer years where they are a member of the demographic group that consumes more medical resources per capita: the elderly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoconoPete View Post
I hope the militant anti-smokers elect to donate their upcoming tax refunds to the state & fed.

Because once the smokers quit, there is going to be a BIG REVENUE HOLE.

What then, another wealth-redistribution plan justified by the fact that the ex-smokers now have extra cash in their bank accounts?
The anti-smoking movement is mostly fueled by cigarette tax money and lawsuit settlements. Despite all their claims, the majority of those organizations (with some exceptions like The Heart Foundation and so on) would disappear in a few months if they had their cigarette tax money and MSA payments cut off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,964 posts, read 10,721,895 times
Reputation: 7242
How Ironic that This has come about in my state: Smoking in cars will be illeagal in Ohio under Senate Bill

Also, from another link......

Quote:
Because a law, by itself, is unlikely to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in cars, we recommend that any smokefree car campaign be accompanied by a strong education effort, stressing the health hazards of smoke-filled vehicles
So basicly they are saying, "weknow having a law will do no good, but lets put one on the books anyway, shall we?"

Why not just have the education effort WITHOUT the interference from gov't in to our personal lives?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 01:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,573,399 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Wayneb isn't missing the point at all. But maybe you're missing his. So long as people can get into the building without going through a cloud of smoke, that's enough in a situation where no other alternative (like in your car) is practical. If the area outside is so crowded that you can't find a place where you're not smoking around someone else, smoke wherever, with the exception of right there at the door. Other people can simply move any number of places in the area, but they can't typically enter the building in more than one place.

If it's that simple, why can I not smoke in parks, on some sidewalks and beaches, on a lot of hotel balconies or other places which are outside, but not next to the door?

The point is that as smokers are pushed farther and farther away, one has to wonder at what point it becomes the non-smokers responsibility to avoid me instead of my responsibility to avoid them.

Non-smokers DO have a responsibility to look out for themselves, don't they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top