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.
I always tend to believe what I see or experience over what people say since seeing or experiencing it yourself is empirical perception which Aristotle called 'the flower of knowledge'. When us kids were young back in the 1950s everyone I knew smoked. All my uncles and Aunts and older cousins and neighbors and almost everyone smoked and a person could smoke anywhere they wanted except church. If you were in a restaurant there was always a cloud of smoke in the air and the same on a city bus or greyhound bus lines and at home and everywhere you went. It was just a fact of life and that is the way it was. Even universities had ashtrays connected to their desks believe it or not. After all that exposure to smoke all those years not one cousin or sibling has any lung problems of any kind. So you can throw out that second hand smoke baloney.
Anecdotes are not data. Not everyone who smokes or is exposed to second hand smoke gets lung cancer. However, as another poster pointed out, the vast majority of lung cancer victims are smokers. Nonsmokers who live with smokers are at greater risk to get lung cancer than nonsmokers who are not exposed to second hand smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
Studies have really proven anything. How many of us grew up breathing second hand smoke everywhere even in doctors offices? Any study can prove anything the group doing the study wants to prove. Let me make this clear, I do not like the smell of smoke, I can't imagine why anyone continues to smoke, and I don't want to be anywhere near any form of tobacco, but I also do not take theses studies too seriously. If they were truly accurate many more people would be dying from second hand smoke causing diseases at an early age.
Secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of SIDS. Is that young enough for you?
The nanny state has become a very powerful entity. The mentality that allows the nanny state to flourish is everywhere. People now think it's ok to hand over personal freedom to government in order to gaurantee thier safety and welll being. I the age of the nanny state smokers are public enemy number one. I personally have never smoked, and have no desire to, however I am repulsed by the idea that government should punish me in some way if I choose to smoke. The health risks are well known and it should be my choice to smoke or not, as it should be my choice to wear a helmet on a motercycle, put my kid in A car seat, eat too many Big Macs etc. The nanny state has crept into every part of our lives. If you live up north in a liberal state it is expidentially worse. I hear smokers pay an unbelievable amount of taxes for a pack of cigarettes. Once nanny state laws are in place it's impossible to get rid of them. Supporting smokers rights means supporting cancer, opposing car seat laws means you hate kids, opposing seatbelt laws means you want more people to die in car accidents etc. It is easy for nanny staters to paint out those who oppose thier efforts as being dr. Evils right hand man. I see it different, I support the right to choose to assume a risk.....why? Because as an American I was taught the value of freedom.
As long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your choices feel free to make them. Pay for your lung cancer treatment out of pocket; do not use health insurance. Mourn your dead child who might be alive if you had insisted on that seat belt or car seat. Do not expect the taxpayers to provide lifelong care for your traumatic brain injury that might have been prevented by wearing a helmet when you rode your motorcycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610
You do know that there are people who have smoked for years that have never gotten cancer right?
Did you also know that there are people who have never smoked or been around smoke often that get lung cancer?
Did you also know there are children who are any age that have cancer, even babies?
Your *cancer stick* comment is very narrow minded and not completely true.
The fact remains that the majority of people who do get lung cancer are smokers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
During the smoggiest days in Los Angeles, just breathing in the air was the equivalent of smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day.
Today, in the smog pits of Beijing or New Delhi, I'm guessing breathing in the air is the equivalent of smoking 4 packs a day.
And? 30% of the air pollution in California today comes from polluted China, streaming across the Pacific!
2nd hand smoke dangers will never be proved.
I grew up in a small 800SF home in MN, with the windows closed during winter, father smoking 3 packs of Kool's every day, with a wife and 3 kids in the house, and my mother died at age 86, her lungs as clear as a bell. If I crossed the street to see a friend, both parents were smoking, so there was no escape from it. And the children of those parents, I've known thru the years, never developed any respiratory problems.
I've been rolling my own for 15 years with natural tobacco, and I've made the long arduous journey cutting down from 2 packs to 1 1/2 packs to 1 pack to 1/2 pack today, and I'm staying put! Cold turkey is not for everyone!
Instead of urging someone to quit, try: cut down, cut down, cut down!
We all have our addictions, everyone of us, and if you can't comprehend a smoker quitting, then think: could you live without a car or a Smartphone or the Internet?
The fact remains that half of smokers die from smoking related conditions.
The hazards of secondhand smoke are well documented. Magical thinking will not make them go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia
The last thing America needs is more government interference. The only reason they haven't regulated vaping more than they already have is because they're still figuring out a way to impose high taxes.
He probably wasn't young (grandfather being the key word). I'm guessing he smoked a lot of years. Sounds like the cure (radiation) killed him.
No, the radiation failed to cure him. The cancer killed him.
I like the way the OP thinks, there are many things that should be considered crimes.
1. If someone in your neighborhood paints their house a color you don't like or fails to maintain their lawn in the proper manner they are reducing your property value which should be felony theft
2. It has been proven that loud noise can be detrimental to your health leading to a reduction in life expectancy. Therefore, any child that makes noise while playing, any person that rides a loud Harley down the block, someone that plays music too loud or any American that uses fireworks on July 4th is guilty of 1st degree intentional cold blooded murder. The fireworks users are also creating smoke, so add on an assault charge too.
3. Yoga pants on a woman that weighs more than a set limit or any man that wears a tank top in public is committing a crime against humanity and clearly guilty of disturbing the peace. All violators should be subject to immediate execution in the most painful manner possible.
4. Country music fans -beheadings for all in the public square
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 41,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1
Secondhand smoke causes 7,333 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 33,951 annual deaths from heart disease.1
I'd have to read about how they estimate that....and how I detest reporting done in odd numbers to convey a preciseness that is nothing near the reality of their estimating procedures. Any scientist would round off correctly to significant digits. 91.353% of the article was about anything OTHER than second hand smoke - that research is rapidly evolving. And I still want a comparison with other pollutants, just to judge magnitude properly.
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 41,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1
Secondhand smoke causes 7,333 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 33,951 annual deaths from heart disease.1
I'd have to read about how they estimate that....and how I detest reporting done in odd numbers to convey a preciseness that is nothing near the reality of their estimating procedures. Any scientist would round off correctly to significant digits. 91.353% of the article was about anything OTHER than second hand smoke - that research is rapidly evolving. And I still want a comparison with other pollutants, just to judge magnitude properly.
Other pollutants are irrelevant to the discussion. Introducing the idea is just an attempt to deflect from the issue of secondhand smoke. It's like saying we should not try to do anything about drowning deaths because more people die in traffic accidents.
For lung cancer, see Chapter 7 here, which summarizes research going back to the early 1980s.
"Conclusions
1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.
2. The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.
For cardiovascular disease, see chapter 8.
"1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among both men and women.
2. Pooled relative risks from meta-analyses indicate a 25 to 30 percent increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke."
Evidence was suggestive of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and stroke and subclinical heart disease.
The estimates of deaths due to secondhand smoke are derived by multiplying the total number of lung cancer and heart disease deaths by a percentage calculated using the the prevalence of SHS exposure among nonsmokers, and the relative risk of death of SHS–exposed nonsmokers compared with that of unexposed nonsmokers. See the equation here:
Of 158,530 lung cancer deaths, 4.63%, or about 7,330, can be attributed to secondhand smoke.
Of 412,590 coronary heart disease deaths, 8.23%, or about 33,950, can be attributed to secondhand smoke.
That adds up to about 41,280 deaths per year in the US attributable to secondhand smoke. Note the rounding of the final total estimate to 41,000 per year. That is not a trivial number. It's equivalent to almost half the population of the county I live in.
Smokers need to realize that their smoking does affect others, and denying it will not make the facts go away.
Sure, the degree of exposure outdoors may be trivial from a health point of view, but cigarette smoke also stinks. I do not want my hair and clothing to smell like smoke because you want to walk or stand and smoke where I cannot avoid you in order to get where I need to be.
I think the only thing society has left to do to smokers is imprison them. If that doesn't work, then that's what the death penalty is for. Why stop at assault? Let's charge smokers with attempted 2nd degree murder. That will fix the problem.
Frankly, the average smoker has been humiliated, taxed, and ostracized to the limit. They have had people cross entire parking lots to where they cower behind the dumpsters in puddles of urine as it pours rain upon them just for a smoke, and then have to endure that person giving them holy righteous hell for smoking. This is not an exaggeration, ask any smoker. They have been yelled at for lighting up in wide open spaces 100 yards from another person. They have been fired by jobs, they have been left by lovers. Their pack-a-day habit runs them close to $300 a month, with most of it going to the government.
How about this? Do you own a car? Don't you realize you pump far more poison into the air on a typical day than a smoker ever will in his short, miserable, pariah life? We have to breathe that air, you know.
Amen.
When I was a teenager we were allowed to smoke in the smoking area behind the school, now no one is allowed to smoke on school grounds, not even the teachers.
There were smoking sections on airplanes, movie theaters, restaurants, etc. People smoked in the main aisles of the malls which had ashtrays in the seating area.
People who live excessive environmentally harmful lifestyles are a much greater threat to your lungs than smoke from a cigarette but smoker bashing is the big snowflake hobby right now.
I read tobacco use is higher amongst 18-24 year olds than other age groups. Don't know how many will quit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nurider2002
aren't we down to just 18 percent of the U.S. population being smokers? They will likely die off in 30 years. I don't see smoking coming back in fashion with younger folks. Not sure why its even an issue?
Other pollutants are irrelevant to the discussion. Introducing the idea is just an attempt to deflect from the issue of secondhand smoke. It's like saying we should not try to do anything about drowning deaths because more people die in traffic accidents.
I beg to differ - it is important because resources are limited and there should not be excess effort, expense, and stress laid on something that has fewer effects than something else...I don't want to pay billions to try to prevent shark attacks if I can spend that money and prevent far more deaths from some other cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
For lung cancer, see Chapter 7 here, which summarizes research going back to the early 1980s.
I'm really not overly interested in a report that is more than a decade old unless more recent studies are also included because that newer research shows risks have been overstated: Secondhand smoke isn’t as bad as we thought. Most of the original studies are cited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Smokers need to realize that their smoking does affect others, and denying it will not make the facts go away.
Sure, the degree of exposure outdoors may be trivial from a health point of view, but cigarette smoke also stinks. I do not want my hair and clothing to smell like smoke because you want to walk or stand and smoke where I cannot avoid you in order to get where I need to be.
Seriously? You had to throw in the stink factor? Back in the day, sitting in a bar for an hour would definitely leave your hair and clothes smelling. Walking outside through a 3 foot cloud of cigarette smoke may affect your nose (as would the typical fart) but it would not leaving a lingering odor on your clothing...any more than a fart...
Half of smokers die from a smoking related condition.
But they lived a life, the fools who think they are God have never lived.
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.
