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.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,546,892 times
Reputation: 8559
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Start a thread about it if you want. We are supposed to be talking about taxing smoking (more, since it's already taxed).
Yes. Taxing smoking. And the OP also suggests taxing obesity. It follows naturally that someone is going to point out that there are plenty of other vices that could be taxed.
And the OP states, implicitly, that they believe that smoking is the nation's biggest health problem. Why is everybody making an argument about that? I smoke. It's icky. It's probably unhealthy.
But the OP is neither about my freedom to smoke nor someone else's freedom to live in a smoke-free atmosphere. It's a no-brainer. Maybe another thread should be created for those who want to argue endlessly about whether or not smoking is harmful.
Personally, I think the OP comes across as being pretty smarta** and should not be taken seriously. I just came into this thread because someone says, "Hey smokers! C'mon in here and get beat up". I'm here. Go ahead and try to "stick it to me" any further than it's already been done. It ain't easy.
..and studying it, and studying it, and studying it, and studying it...
How many billions of dollars have to be spent? How many decades of research do you need? They've been trying to prove this for the better part of my life, and they can't! Maybe... they can't!
I realize that anti-smoking has become an industry in and of itsel......
......oops. I let out the dirty little secret that nobody wants to consider.
Swagger won't see this, but anyway...
More money has been spent over the years by Phillip Morris on lobbying for Big Tobacco than all of the independent research showing strong correlations between smoke and illness combined.
PM wouldn't have to work so hard at self-preservation if science were actually on their side.
More money has been spent over the years by Phillip Morris on lobbying for Big Tobacco than all of the independent research showing strong correlations between smoke and illness combined.
PM wouldn't have to work so hard at self-preservation if science were actually on their side.
All of the tobacco companies have done their own research trying to disprove the health risks and probably spent more money than government researchers.
If they had anything that would demonstrate that there are no links between tobacco and disease they would be publishing papers and inviting laboratories everywhere to duplicate their research and prove it.
Explain why asthma is more common now that it was during my parents , mine and my childrens time?
I can't even recall any of my parents friends or my classmates with asthma ....take that back....one classmate 'developed' a problem in her 40's.
More people smoked than didn't. Smoking was done 'everyplace'....even in hospital rooms.
I won't even begin to argue that ones lungs are going to have an easier time performing their function if not gummed up with deposits from cigarette smoking but can't see how generations that were absolutely inundated with direct and indirect cigarette smoke didn't produce very high incidences of asthma.
Explain why asthma is more common now that it was during my parents , mine and my childrens time?
I can't even recall any of my parents friends or my classmates with asthma ....take that back....one classmate 'developed' a problem in her 40's.
More people smoked than didn't. Smoking was done 'everyplace'....even in hospital rooms.
I won't even begin to argue that ones lungs are going to have an easier time performing their function if not gummed up with deposits from cigarette smoking but can't see how generations that were absolutely inundated with direct and indirect cigarette smoke didn't produce very high incidences of asthma.
That would be because smoking and/or being around SHS does NOT cause asthma. It may irritate but it does NOT cause it. I said may irritate because it does not irritate all asthma sufferes. One must remember that many people like to have the disease dejour of the decade also.
If they had anything that would demonstrate that there are no links between tobacco and disease they would be publishing papers and inviting laboratories everywhere to duplicate their research and prove it.
You can't prove a negative.
To be clear, I haven't and won't argue that direct smoking can't be harmful. My beef is with SHS. If you've paid attention to my posts, that should be obvious.
But don't let that stop you from bringing something that's completely irrelevant into the debate - honesty has never been part of the anti-smoking agenda anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky
That would be because smoking and/or being around SHS does NOT cause asthma. It may irritate but it does NOT cause it. I said may irritate because it does not irritate all asthma sufferes.
My girlfriend smokes and has for the 11+ years we've been together. She also has asthma - something I didn't even know until about a year ago, when she had an attack that was brought on by an allergic reaction, probably to our cat.
People are trying to portray SHS as being on the same level as chlorine gas. One whiff and you could die! They hysteria over SHS is so obviously politically based, I have to laugh at the people (like some in this thread) who make wild claims of violent allergic or asthmatic reactions by simply being near someone, out of doors, who happens to be smoking. Sorry folks, but that doesn't pass the smell test. There's much more than cigarette smoke to be found outdoors that would cause a reaction that would be equal or greater in severity.
I find some of this conversation a little weird. I'm a smoker & I KNOW the effect it's had on my lungs, not good. Yet I have an addiction so I continue smoking. I don't know about any research results but I really do not think that smoke can be good for you....or if you want to be technical, I don't think that smoking cannot be bad for you or others.
A common sense evaluation isn't applicable in this case. While it is a toxin, like many toxins we come in contact with daily, it is the amount that is important, not that it is a toxin.
Every chemical has a Permitted Exposure Level (PEL). Some toxins have a very low limit where even the slightest contact with a very small amount is more than a human body can safely filter.
For instance, we deal with radiation all day long. Pick up a Geiger counter and walk around measuring the things you come in contact with daily. You will be surprised that many things we deem safe expel a level of radiation. The key is that the levels are low enough that the body can safely filter the effects of it.
Chemical properties are the same way. Check your water report and you are likely to see very small traces of chemicals we deem to be hazardous, but the reason people aren't going crazy is simply because the levels of these substances are not above a PEL. The body safely filters these toxins.
Here is a link that explains some of the chemical break downs and the PEL required to reach harmful levels.
Note: All of the information in this site is easily verifiable. Chemical break downs are common chemistry knowledge and PEL/TLV can easily be obtained from the EPA or OSHA's site as well as through the cited Surgeron General reports.
An interesting part I noticed was the following:
Quote:
To return to the chemistry of smoke, let us look at the 6 elements in tobacco smoke that IARC (The International Agency for Research on Cancer) classifies as Class A (Human) carcinogens. One of those is arsenic, which we looked at earlier. You’ll remember that you’d have to sit in a room with a smoker smoking 165,000 cigarettes to be exposed to as much arsenic as you would get from a large glass of water.
What about the other five carcinogens though? Are nonsmokers likely to be exposed to enough of those to have them correctly perceived as threats? While most of them occur in even smaller quantities than arsenic (naphthylamine, aminobi-phenyl, vinyl chloride and chromium average only about fifteen nanograms apiece), let’s look at the one with the largest quantity present so as to clearly make the case that is least favorable to our own argument. This is benzene: a human carcinogen that cigarettes produce in quantities not measured in picograms nor even in nanograms, but in micrograms, a unit that is one million times larger than a picogram, but still only one one-millionth of a single gram (1989 Report of the Surgeon General. p.87)
The average cigarette produces roughly 300 micrograms of benzene (1986 Report of the Surgeon General. p.130). If the estimates of smoke exposure for the average nonsmoker in Appendix B hold true, then such exposure would equal roughly three tenths of a microgram per hour of sharing a space with a reasonable number of smokers in a decently ventilated public indoor setting.
Benzene is normally found in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages, and eggs. The National Cancer Institute estimates that an individual may safely ingest up to 250 micrograms in their food per day, every single day of the year.Thus, the “safe†exposure to benzene from one day of a normal diet is roughly equal to the exposure experienced by a nonsmoker sharing an airspace with smokers for over 750 hours. Another way of looking at it would be to compare it to the normal work exposure of a waiter in a decently ventilated Free-Choice restaurant: the waiter would have to work there for four months to receive the equivalent benzene dosage ingested in one day of a “safe†diet.
The point is, by the same institutions own exposure lists, SHS is less than many common products people ingest or come into contact with daily. So how does the EPA clasify it as a class A carcingeon and yet at the same time not do the same with products that are equal or higher limits?
The answer is, by not discussing the science and using proper quantifiable evidence, but to rely on statistical studies that allow for extreme interpetation and flexability to achieve support for a specific bias.
All of the tobacco companies have done their own research trying to disprove the health risks and probably spent more money than government researchers.
If they had anything that would demonstrate that there are no links between tobacco and disease they would be publishing papers and inviting laboratories everywhere to duplicate their research and prove it.
They have done numerous studies that are in more controlled environments and achieve a much higher level of significance than those done by various organizations. The results are inconclusive, no link can be found. This is also the same results that various anti-smoking organizations have found, yet the administrative summaries use failed mathematical practices to achieve results they claim are significant.
The Tobacco industry has even taken these organizations to court and had them disqualified for unethical practices in study as well. This has been going on for years and yet you have seen a steady increase in bans and taxes using these inconclusive studies as evidence of fact.
Here is the thing, this is an issue that can not be fought with facts and quantified evidence. As I have said, much work has been done to show these facts, to show that these studies are inconclusive and nothing more than sloppy attempts at science. They are losing because you can't fight a political issue with facts. Facts are irrelevant to this crowd. All that matters is that you give the appearance of being correct and it sways the masses.
Look on this very board. Most of the people here claiming SHS is harmful, that it should be taxed, etc... have absolutely no intimate knowledge on the subject and the studies. They haven't read them, they do not care about them (as many have stated), they merely want something they dislike to be banned or taxed for their own personal benefit. The anti-SHS organizations know this, they know that the battle is lost in the realm of science and so they operate like political entities on election day. It gains results and the mobs they stir up don't ask questions, they just need someone they deem important who agrees with them so they can proclaim the appeal to authority when they argue their position.
Epidemiological research is a fast growing field because it produces results that favor the groups doing the research. Remember that medicine when it involves humans is nothing more than a practice. No one size fits all, there is no definitive. That is why they call it a clinical practice. Epidemiology attempts to claim itself as scientific, but it really is nothing more than a consensus whose statistical relevance is in the hands of the one playing with the statistics. It goes hand in hand with political motives as it can easily be twisted through its vague and assumptive behavior to achieve any result that is required.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,733,455 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
You can't prove a negative.
To be clear, I haven't and won't argue that direct smoking can't be harmful. My beef is with SHS. If you've paid attention to my posts, that should be obvious.
But don't let that stop you from bringing something that's completely irrelevant into the debate - honesty has never been part of the anti-smoking agenda anyway...
My girlfriend smokes and has for the 11+ years we've been together. She also has asthma - something I didn't even know until about a year ago, when she had an attack that was brought on by an allergic reaction, probably to our cat.
People are trying to portray SHS as being on the same level as chlorine gas. One whiff and you could die! They hysteria over SHS is so obviously politically based, I have to laugh at the people (like some in this thread) who make wild claims of violent allergic or asthmatic reactions by simply being near someone, out of doors, who happens to be smoking. Sorry folks, but that doesn't pass the smell test. There's much more than cigarette smoke to be found outdoors that would cause a reaction that would be equal or greater in severity.
ya like pollution dust and pollen!!!!! can i have a marlboro now.. oh and all you non smokers don't stand by me when i have my marlboro
All of the tobacco companies have done their own research trying to disprove the health risks and probably spent more money than government researchers.
If they had anything that would demonstrate that there are no links between tobacco and disease they would be publishing papers and inviting laboratories everywhere to duplicate their research and prove it.
Well, nobody trusts tobacco companies anymore.
Secondly, I've seen secondhand smoke studies that have found NO risk or even reduced risk and in the conclusion the author/s state that the study supports smokings bans. Yes, even when there own study doesn't support it, they try to spin it into "another piece of mounting evidence".
Hell, Kabat is an anti-smoking activist and the movement basically ate him alive when he conducted the largest cohort study ever done on secondhand smoke that found no risk.
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.
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.
