The Most Restrictive City Smoking Ban Yet Has Been Approved (Brown, how much)

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by I_extinguish_smokers

For people who say that smelling it does not=Inhaling it, if you had an iota of scientific knowledge you would understand that smoke and the strong smells that result are particulate, meaning they spread the physical particles, through walls and all, of the source they emanate from. In this case, the cigarette smoke. Particulates get into the lungs, they come into contact with your skin, they embed themselves into your clothing, curtains, walls and furniture, they CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS. There are far too many people on this thread who have ZERO idea what they are talking about and need to be humble and allow those with actual knowledge to educate them on this subject.

The molecules which provide the smell coming from a cigarette, are not the same as the molecules that make up the smoke a person inhales from smoking one. Just like inhaling the molecules that create the smell of frying fish are not the same as eating one. Have you ever smelled a dead skunk from a mile away?

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Even more hilarious when this argument is used about those working in bars when you consider the air in working environments like garages, drywallers, welders etc. I should be quiet though because someone they will be advocating fixing these issues next and it's going to cost me $100 to get my oil changed so the owner can pay for his new air purification system mandated by law.

You gotta love anti-smokers. Cigarette smoke consists of well-understood chemicals. Chemicals that are also found when food is being cooked, incense is being burned, or when a fireplace has been lit. Chemicals that have safe levels as defined by a number of regulatory agencies and organizations.

However, the second those chemicals come from a cigarette, the smoke is much deadlier and impossible to disburse. There are safe levels of arsenic, chlorine, carbon monoxide, and any other potentially deadly or carcinogenic chemical you can imagine. But not for tobacco smoke.

So it seems that tobacco smoke is the only known substance that chemistry and physics does not apply to.

Originally Posted by I_extinguish_smokers

You're obviously uneducated on this subject and are ill equipped to comment. There are studies linking second hand smoke to all the forementioned diseases and conditions. Studies, you know? Not opinions. I know science might be a tad bit difficult for you to digest, but give it a try before you imitate a smoking chimney again.

There are also studies that saying that secondhand smoke has negligible health risks. There are also studies (including one done by Oakridge National Laboratory) that say that non-smokers breathe in far less smoke than what is claimed by anti-smoking activists. Ones that actually measured the amount of smoke in the air.

Here is where I discussed some studies from a previous post:

This one is a case control study which was funded by the World Health Organization. They actually tried to bury the study when the results didn't support the WHO's official stance on secondhand smoke. In fact, when it the results of the study came to light, they issued a press release titled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You".

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte.../1440.full.pdf

"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure."

This study was mostly funded by the American Cancer Society. When they reviewed the raw data, they pulled all funding from the project and refused any comment. The two scientists who conducted the study did end up receiving the a small grant from an organization known to have received tobacco funding to complete the study. It was the largest cohort study ever conducted on secondhand smoke (to my knowledge, it is still the largest study conducted on secondhand smoke). Virtually all the criticisms of the study were directed at the two scientists, with virtually no word as to the actual contents of the study itself.

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

"Conclusions 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."

[Lahaina Lopaka]

Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin

No, there should be no ban.

When we ban the stench that comes from cooking a cauldron of curry, THEN we can talk about multi-unit apartments and smoking.

The responsibility should be on the landlord to prevent cross contamination of air quality from apartment to apartment.

Smokers are liable under law and equity for their poison and its ill-effects.

At some point in the future,, nicotine addicts are just going to accept the fact that they spew poisonous stench that is disgusting and offensive to others, and act responsibly, instead of narcissisticly.

[I_extinguish_smokers]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

The molecules which provide the smell coming from a cigarette, are not the same as the molecules that make up the smoke a person inhales from smoking one. Just like inhaling the molecules that create the smell of frying fish are not the same as eating one. Have you ever smelled a dead skunk from a mile away?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And I say that with utter confidence and certainty. Allow other's to educate you.

[Frank_Carbonni]

With the rhetoric of some of the anti-smokers in this thread, I am waiting for one of them to claim that smokers use the blood of non-smoking infants to flavor their cigarettes.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by I_extinguish_smokers

Till such technology exists these bans are the only option.

Live where smoking has been banned by the management/owner. Are you incapable of making this decision on your own?

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Lahaina Lopaka

Smokers are liable under law and equity for their poison and its ill-effects.

At some point in the future,, nicotine addicts are just going to accept the fact that they spew poisonous stench that is disgusting and offensive to others, and act responsibly, instead of narcissisticly.

Most smokers do in fact act responsibly, and respect the rights non-smokers. I am a smoker, and do not smoke in my house due to having a child, and my wife being a non-smoker. Here is the problem. Let' use a restaurant as an example. First they had smoking, and non-smoking sections, and that was OK. Nobody b***ed about it. Then they banned smoking in restaurants, and that's fine (bars I have a harder time with). But now you have it where they're trying to ban smoking in public places OUTSIDE or in certain residential areas! That is flat out ridiculous! Especially when there are a lot more harmful pollutants in our atmosphere than what may be coming from a smoker several feet away. So, shall we ban cars, trucks, factories, ect...? Might as well, because they're spewing a lot more hazardous materials, and at a much greater magnitude. Furthermore, while you choose not to smoke that is fine, and I respect that. We've been pushed over and over and have accomodated you non-smokers, but you all continue to push! Face it, you all just want to control other peoples lives just because you don't agree with their choices. Hopefully the nanny state comes after one of your lifestyle choices. Anymore it seems that all everyone in this country just loves to b*** and moan about everything, and act like a bunch of little snitches, I'm sure they'll find something to restrict that you like.

[I_extinguish_smokers]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

You gotta love anti-smokers. Cigarette smoke consists of well-understood chemicals. Chemicals that are also found when food is being cooked, incense is being burned, or when a fireplace has been lit. Chemicals that have safe levels as defined by a number of regulatory agencies and organizations.

However, the second those chemicals come from a cigarette, the smoke is much deadlier and impossible to disburse. There are safe levels of arsenic, chlorine, carbon monoxide, and any other potentially deadly or carcinogenic chemical you can imagine. But not for tobacco smoke.

So it seems that tobacco smoke is the only known substance that chemistry and physics does not apply to.



There are also studies that saying that secondhand smoke has negligible health risks. There are also studies (including one done by Oakridge National Laboratory) that say that non-smokers breathe in far less smoke than what is claimed by anti-smoking activists. Ones that actually measured the amount of smoke in the air.

Here is where I discussed some studies from a previous post:

This one is a case control study which was funded by the World Health Organization. They actually tried to bury the study when the results didn't support the WHO's official stance on secondhand smoke. In fact, when it the results of the study came to light, they issued a press release titled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You".

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte.../1440.full.pdf

"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure."

This study was mostly funded by the American Cancer Society. When they reviewed the raw data, they pulled all funding from the project and refused any comment. The two scientists who conducted the study did end up receiving the a small grant from an organization known to have received tobacco funding to complete the study. It was the largest cohort study ever conducted on secondhand smoke (to my knowledge, it is still the largest study conducted on secondhand smoke). Virtually all the criticisms of the study were directed at the two scientists, with virtually no word as to the actual contents of the study itself.

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

"Conclusions 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."

Yea, look at the money trail. A Tobacco company funding it? I have access to a database where I attend college which contains hundreds of research papers, studies and various other proof that there is a large degree of certainty in the scientific community that second hand smoke and particulate smoke cause disease incidence, and certainly increase the risks of such. Here are some more.

And none of these were funded by tobacco companies, all independent, epidemiological studies. And there are hundreds, vs your ONE study funded by whom?

Greenbaum, L.; Wilson, A.; Bastian, V.; Ferris, M.; Bernert, J.;
Stolfi, A.; Patel, H., "Cigarette smoking and second hand smoking exposure in adolescents
with chronic kidney disease: a study from the Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium,"
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation [Epub ahead of print], August 4, 2010.

A survey of aged 13 to 18 years with chronic kidney disease (CKD) were found to have a
high prevalence of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. The authors suggested
that doctors factor this information in when evaluating " renal and cardiovascular risk
factors and outcomes in children with CKD."

Wilson, M.D.; McGlothlin, J.D.; Rosenthal, F.S.; Black, D.R.; Zimmerman, N.J.; Bridges,
C.D., "Ergonomics. The effect of occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke on
the heart rate variability of bar and restaurant workers," Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene 7(7): 44-49, July 2010.

This study examined the impact of workplace secondhand smoke exposure on bar and
restaurant employees' heart rate variability. The authors wrote that, "Occupational
exposure to ETS may decrease heart rate variability."

Sims, M.; Maxwell, R.; Bauld, L.; Gilmore, A., "Short term impact of smoke-free legislation in
England: retrospective analysis of hospital admissions for myocardial infarction," British
Medical Journal [Epub ahead of print], June 9, 2010.

This study examined the impact of England's smokefree air law on hospital admissions
for heart attacks. The authors concluded that following the introduction of smokefree
laws in England, there were 1,200 fewer emergency heart attack admissions during the
first year following implementation.


Flouris, A.D.; Metsios, G.S.; Jamurtas, A.Z.; Koutedakis, Y., "Cardiorespiratory and immune
response to physical activity following exposure to a typical smoking environment," Heart
96(11): 860-864, June 2010.

This study examined the impact of secondhand smoke exposure at typical
bar/restaurant levels on healthy nonsmokers' cardiorespiratory and immune response to
physical activity after exposure. The authors concluded that one hour of exposure
adversely affects the response to moderate physical activity in healthy nonsmokers for
at least 3 hours following the exposure.

Seki, M.; Inoue, R.; Ohkubo, T.; Kikuya, M.; Hara, A.; Metoki, H.; Hirose, T.; Tsubota-
Utsugi, M.; Asayama, K.; Kanno, A.; Obara, T.; Hoshi, H.; Totsune, K.; Satoh, H.; Imai, Y.,
"Association of environmental tobacco smoke exposure with elevated home blood pressure in
Japanese women: the Ohasama Study," Journal of Hypertension [Epub ahead of print], May
6, 2010.

The abstract for this study reported that there was a correlation between high blood
pressure in Japanese women with secondhand smoke exposure.


Kim, D.B.; Oh, Y.S.; Yoo, K.D.; Lee, J.M.; Park, C.S.; Ihm, S.H.; Jang, S.W.; Shim, B.J.;
Kim, H.Y.; Seung, K.B.; Rho, T.H.; Kim, J.H., "Passive smoking in never-smokers is
associated with increased plasma homocysteine levels," Internal Heart Journal 51(3):183-187,
May 2010.

This study found that secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmokers is positively and
independently associated with increased plasma homocysteine levels in a dose-
dependent manner. Smoking is associated with increased plasma homocysteine levels,
and both smoking and increased plasma homocysteine levels are associated with heart
disease.


Nadif, R.; Matran, R.; Maccario, J.; Bechet, M.; Le Moual, N.; Scheinmann, P.; Bousquet,
J.; Kauffmann, F.; Pin, I., "Passive and active smoking and exhaled nitric oxide levels
according to asthma and atopy in adults," Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 104(5):
385-393, May 2010.

This study examined how smoking and secondhand smoke exposure affected exhaled
nitric oxide levels and how these levels might be interpreted for patients with asthma
and atopy.


Kiyohara, K.; Itani, Y.; Kawamura, T.; Matsumoto, Y.; Takahashi, Y., "Changes in the SF-8
scores among healthy non-smoking school teachers after the enforcement of a smoke-free
school policy: a comparison by passive smoke status," Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
8:44, April 28, 2010.

This Japanese study found that enforcement of a clean indoor air policy in the
workplace enhances healthy nonsmoking teachers' health-related quality of life
(HRQOL).

Need more? I assure you, I have an endless supply. See I am a medical student, which grants me free access to these references. And I assure you, the consensus amongst the scientific and medical community is that there is definitely a correlation between increased disease factors and second hand smoke exposure. Your arguments fall short and are defeated in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

[MJJersey]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

Thank you Adolph..

Yup, I'm a real Hitler not wanting innocent people to get poisoned by gas.

[I_extinguish_smokers]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

With the rhetoric of some of the anti-smokers in this thread, I am waiting for one of them to claim that smokers use the blood of non-smoking infants to flavor their cigarettes.

A TON of scientific references to actual studies is not, as you so arrogantly and erroneously put it, 'rhetoric'. Please quiet down and allow those with knowledge to proceed educating you.