Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 12-27-2011, 08:01 PM
 
6,757 posts, read 8,254,798 times
Reputation: 10152

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The research speaks for itself:

Pulmonary Function Abnormalities in Never Smoking Flight Attendants Exposed to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke in the Aircraft Cabin
***This cohort of healthy never-smoking flight attendants who were exposed to SHS in the aircraft cabin showed pulmonary function abnormalities suggestive of airway obstruction and impaired diffusion.

Associations between respiratory illnesses and secondhand smoke exposure in flight attendants: A cross-sectional analysis of the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Survey
***Flight attendants experience increased rates of respiratory illnesses compared to a population sample. The frequency of symptoms of nasal congestion, throat or eye irritation is associated with occupational SHS exposure in the pre-smoking ban era.

Plus much more!
As I understand it, the latency period for lung cancer is twenty to thirty years. So my mother in law's oncologist said, right before they removed a lobe of her lung. I wonder if it's approximately the same for emphysema and other COPD?

Most of the smokers I used to know had the nasty habit of smoking outside (but leaving the door open so the smoke came INSIDE the office) or smoking outside and coming in to blow the last lungful of cigarette stank in the office. My asthma hates that, especially in a nonsmoking office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:07 PM
 
22,618 posts, read 24,436,315 times
Reputation: 20262
I have a hard time thinking of a truly filthy habit I hate being around more than filtharette smoking.

That being said, I think that private businesses should make the decisions about if they want to allow/disallow this filthy, disgusting, pathetic habit on THEIR property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,476,558 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The research speaks for itself:

Pulmonary Function Abnormalities in Never Smoking Flight Attendants Exposed to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke in the Aircraft Cabin
***This cohort of healthy never-smoking flight attendants who were exposed to SHS in the aircraft cabin showed pulmonary function abnormalities suggestive of airway obstruction and impaired diffusion.
Did you actually read the questionnaire this "science" is based upon? It's laughable!

They asked former flight attendants to estimate the number of hours they could smell smoke or rode in cars with smokers over a 30 year period AND to differentiate between that exposure as an flight attendant and on any other job; asked them to self-report (without any controls or verification) suspected smoking related health problems, gave them some standard health tests and then extrapolated their "conclusions" from that.

And, what were their conclusions? That "51% of them having diffusing capacity below the lower limit of the 95% prediction interval for their sex, age, and height..." Below 95% of what should be expected of them? That's a pretty easy standard to fall below, isn't it? Nor is there any indication of at just what level a reduced diffusing capacity becomes a health issue. Additionally, apparently 49% of them showed no reduced capacity beyond what would be expected for their age, sex and height. In other words, just barely half showed ANY reduction at all, perhaps as little as 5% below what would normally be expected of them.

Then...they used their "estimated" exposure times to connect their reduced capacity to exposure to second hand smoke.

This "study" is a classic example of the kind of junk science smokers are always talking about. But, who bothers to actually find out how such alarmist conclusions are actually arrived at? After all...it's SMOKING... right?








Quote:
Associations between respiratory illnesses and secondhand smoke exposure in flight attendants: A cross-sectional analysis of the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Survey
***Flight attendants experience increased rates of respiratory illnesses compared to a population sample. The frequency of symptoms of nasal congestion, throat or eye irritation is associated with occupational SHS exposure in the pre-smoking ban era.

Plus much more!

A year later, the same school, and almost entirely the same researchers, used an expanded version of the same questionnaire administered to a larger group on-line to come to even more alarming conclusions. It's equally as questionable as the first one and the conclusions are probably as bogus.

Hmmmm. I wonder who's paying for these redundant "research" activities and what they hope to achieve by them? Don't you wonder too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,476,558 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Yes. All the smoker has to do is put out his/her cigarette to use the above businesses and services if they have a no-smoking policy.

Your missing what I'm saying.

I'm not commenting on smoking, but on the prejudice and bigotry shown to smokers by the anti's. Whether or not the smoker can avoid that bigotry by submission to the desires of the anti is beside the point. That's like saying apartheid was no big problem so long as blacks stayed in their place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,476,558 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
Has anyone ever forced you out of a place simply because you are a smoker? I doubt it.
Do you mean forcibly ejected me? No.

If you mean denied my entrance or asked me to leave? Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:25 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,177,354 times
Reputation: 6998
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Do you mean forcibly ejected me? No.

If you mean denied my entrance or asked me to leave? Yes.
You were denied entrance to a place simply because you are a smoker? Explain. How did they even know that you were a smoker?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,476,558 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
You were denied entrance to a place simply because you are a smoker? Explain. How did they even know that you were a smoker?
I see your point, but when a place puts up a sign which tells me I can't eat, drink, sleep, swim, play, hang out, walk or do anything else and smoke at the same time, it's the same to me. I'm not wanted there and, if I went in and lit up anyhow, I'd be asked to leave and even forced to leave if I did not comply. Right?

How is that any different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:50 PM
 
306 posts, read 354,268 times
Reputation: 342
Default Don't forget to look under your bed tonight! Boo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Michigan and Wisconsin have banned smoking in hotels. This happened last year. Jennifer Granholm is an anti-freedom slob and a left wing zealot. It's no wonder that Michigan elected a Republican this time for Governor.

My wife and I recently went on vacation down south. Coming back north we discovered that we couldn't get a smoking room at any hotel in WI or MI.

Why would these states discourage tourism? Tourism is one of Michigan's biggest industries. It's stupid.

If someone smokes in a hotel room -- IT WILL NOT KILL THE FAMILY IN THE NEXT ROOM. Get it Democrats?

Why is it that whenever LIBERALS are in charge ..... AMERICANS lose their FREEDOM?
Yes! * evil laugh * Our plan to destroy all American's Freedom is working! * twirling moustache *

Because thats what liberals are all about - Destroying all that precious to conservatives! Bwaaaahahahahahahaaaa!

* rolling eyes *

/sarcasm

Ain't no Drama Queen that can get hysterical like a conservative Drama Queen.

Buy a tent sweetheart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 08:54 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,177,354 times
Reputation: 6998
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
I see your point, but when a place puts up a sign which tells me I can't eat, drink, sleep, swim, play, hang out, walk or do anything else and smoke at the same time, it's the same to me. I'm not wanted there and, if I went in and lit up anyhow, I'd be asked to leave and even forced to leave if I did not comply. Right?

How is that any different?
Smoking is an activity, it's not who you are. I do understand that smokers feel that people are against them, and look down on them, that's understandable, but it can't be compared to the Holocaust, or Apartied where people are discriminated against, or even killed because of their race, something they were born with and can't change, it's who they physically are. It is a different thing, and it only hurts your argument to compare them because these are events where people were MURDERED for who they were. I'm not saying don't express that you feel discriminated against, I'm just saying that those aren't good comparisons.

You can go anywhere you want, you just can't smoke anywhere you want. It's like if I only went barefoot, I may think it's right and healthier, but I still can't do that anywhere I want, most places will ask me to leave unless I comply with the rule of wearing shoes, that's not the same as asking someone to leave just because of their skin color.

Last edited by detshen; 12-27-2011 at 09:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2011, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,476,558 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
Smoking is an activity, it's not who you are. I do understand that smokers feel that people are against them, and look down on them, that's understandable, but it can't be compared to the Holocaust, or Apartied where people are discriminated against, or even killed because of their race, something they were born with and can't change, it's who they physically are. It is a different thing, and it only hurts your argument to compare them because these are events where people were MURDERED for who they were. I'm not saying don't express that you feel discriminated against, I'm just saying that those aren't good comparisons.

You can go anywhere you want, you just can't smoke anywhere you want. It's like if I only went barefoot, I may think it's right and healthier, but I still can't do that anywhere I want, most places will ask me to leave unless I comply with the rule of wearing shoes, that's not the same as asking someone to leave just because of their skin color.

Discrimination is discrimination. Bigotry is bigotry. Prejudice is prejudice. It all comes from the same place: A hardened, unloving and self-righteous heart.

It matters not what the object of that discrimination is. To differentiate between "right" prejudice and "wrong" prejudice is to excuse it, to empower it, to embolden it, to justify it.

It saddens me to see that you seem to think discrimination based upon behavior is justified. I can't help but believe you also favor bigotry and prejudice against illegal immigrants, the homeless, alcoholics, church goers/non-church goers or any other behavior you don't happen to like. I suppose you'd favor banning them from certain places too, or taxing their behavior until they quit offending you, or starting threads here for the sole purpose of belittling and reviling them. After all, they don't HAVE to do those things, do they, so prejudice is acceptable for the common good...right?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top