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.
Look at what I said previously, I said there is no right to smoke to wherever you want. I never said there was and I don't recall anyone claiming that. I noticed you also brought up the Constitution as well, but there is nothing about the "right to clean air" or even anything about public health in general. Huh, maybe going strictly by the Constitution isn't the best way to go about this debate. Because the Tenth Amendment can be interpreted to support both state smoking bans and the "right to smoke".
You can accuse me all you want of trying to hijack the thread, but there are a large number of factors that include just as much risk as environmental tobacco smoke and if tobacco smoke is considered to be a threat serious enough to legislate against, it is only morally and logically consistent to expand the ban to other threats as well, which some studies include candles, incense, and barbecue smoke and that's just for lung cancer risks.
I noticed you did not mention anything else I said. You took a few sentences out of context from the larger argument and went for them. You didn't mention the discussion on the inconclusive results of the majority of secondhand smoke studies and how anti-smoking groups and government bodies have claimed that there is an air tight case against secondhand smoke when it is pretty tenuous.
Sorry you think I took your quote "out of context". I took the parts that were relevant to my concerns. Plus, I hate these long posts which consist of a foot of space of someone else's quotes. I do think it's hijacking a thread (otherwise known as changing the subject) to get going about trans-fats, auto exhaust, drinking and the like on a thread that is supposed to be about smoking. The majority of the research shows a 20-30% increase in lung cancer with long-term exposure to second-hand smoke. Anybody can find a study showing otherwise, of course, but the preponderance of the evidence shows the above.
Sorry you think I took your quote "out of context". I took the parts that were relevant to my concerns. Plus, I hate these long posts which consist of a foot of space of someone else's quotes. I do think it's hijacking a thread (otherwise known as changing the subject) to get going about trans-fats, auto exhaust, drinking and the like on a thread that is supposed to be about smoking. The majority of the research shows a 20-30% increase in lung cancer with long-term exposure to second-hand smoke. Anybody can find a study showing otherwise, of course, but the preponderance of the evidence shows the above.
Can I have a link to the source study showing a 20-30% increase in lung cancer due to exposure to second hand smoke?
The majority of the research shows a 20-30% increase in lung cancer with long-term exposure to second-hand smoke.
And a majority of research on carbon monoxide shows that the amount of carbon monoxide absorbed by the body per cigarettes lowers your chance of heart attack and stroke. This is because the carbon monoxide alters the blood so that it doesn't clot as much - allowing possible clot buildups to be broken down by the body.
There are benefits and problems associated with smoking.
If there are such huge risks involved with smoking, why does the government ban the use in private businesses (not public in the slightest) but not in public areas (like sidewalks) where everyone who passes will be entertained with the smoke?
The concept of "stepping outside to smoke" actually hinders people with asthma and other conditions to not go to restaurants as much. The restaurants put the cigarette bins right by the door. So people like my daughter have to walk through the cloud of health-affecting smoke to get in the door.
That's actually a lot worse than making a separate section with ventilation and filter requirements.
If smoking is so dangerous - why is there a ban on the act and not on the purchase? IMO, the government wants to put on the face of actually caring about people - while in the background, they need the tax money from cigarettes to fill the holes in their budget.
Furthermore, why does the government (and people) really feel the need to ban whatever they feel is unhealthy? From my perspective, a lot of these laws and initiatives that they are taking are merely a test of how much they can get away with.
And finally, many restaurants are becoming Smoke-Free by choice. The market is showing a trend towards Smoke-Free establishments becoming more and more prominent. So, a ban doesn't seem necessary when there are choices. In fact, even though my daughter's condition is affected greatly by smoke, I still feel that even a few smoking restaurants should be allowed.
In all, I really don't like the idea of allowing the government to ban anything just because it's "unhealthy". This only gives them leeway for more bans - similiar to the prospected banning restaurants to cater to the obese.
Quote:
You have every right to move to an area that doesn't ban smoking in clubs and restaurants. That choice is available to you.
Why can't the non-smokers move to a restaurant that chooses to be smoke free? That choice is available to you.
Just for the record, I enjoyed a "Smoke-Free" dinner last night at a Seafood Restaurant that is No Smoking - right down the street from the one that Allows Smoking. Same restaurant, different locations, different rules.
Why can't this type of scenario be allowed over all restaurants being smoke free?
For those of you who question the "slippery slope" expansion theory of this ban, consider that California has banned smoking in restaurants and bars, and last year added making it illegal to smoke in vehicles with an occupant under 18 years old.
Next up, they are pushing for making it illegal to smoke in apartments.
I actually read the section of the Surgeon General's report they referred to.. Here's an interesting quotes from the "Cancer Among Adults from Exposure to Second Hand Smoke" - Chapter 7
Quote:
Active smoking histories were collected at the time of urine collection; no information was collected on secondhand smoke exposure
Another interesting statement:
Quote:
There are 52 studies in this analysis on spousal secondhand smoke exposure (8 cohort, 44 case-control studies). Those studies that lacked specific information
on spousal smoking were not included
Also, if you view page 436 of the Surgeon General's report, it shows the results of the studies that they incorporated. According to each of these reports, the chance of getting lung cancer is between .81% and 1.59% - this not taking into account genetic pre-dispositions to lung cancer, job risk, daily activity, or locale.
So let's say that this averages to even 1.2% chance of cancer if exposed to SHS. That means that your chance of lung cancer WITHOUT being exposed to SHS is 1%.
Since .20 is 20% of 1 - the claim of "20-30%" is accurate. It's just the numbers are so insignificant that they have to use the percentages instead of actual numbers. It's for what's known as Shock Value.
Here is a start. If you google it, you will find tons.
Guess you haven't been keeping up with the debate have you? We have already covered that.
Do you know anything about the fact sheet you just gave? Scroll down to the "sources" listed. Now, go to those sources links. From there you will see yet more summaries pointing to more sources. Follow those sources and you might come to another facts sheet that points to another source or it may dead end with just a reference to an organization again leading you back to the original facts sheet you started with (its called circle sourcing).
Now, if you dig with some of them you may be able to Google to the listed study. There you will probably find yet another "administrative" summary of the actual research. Don't give up now, you are getting close. Within that "summary", they list the researchers and the abstracts (hopefully not summarized by the administration). At that point you may be able to find some facts, if not, do a search for the listed research under the organization and the author of that research.
This will probably take you to a scientific research site. From there (hopefully you won't have to pay to read the research which is all too common these days as it keeps people from looking easily into the details) you can pull up the original abstract and the full report of the research.
Now you are where you should be. Here is some of the things you should be looking at:
1. Is the research for ETS or was it piggy backed on to some other research.
2. Did the research for ETS start with the beginning of the study or was it began partially through the primary study it was piggy backing on.
3. What is the testing bed? Does the testing bed have any relation to ETS or is it coincidental association?
4. What was the process of achieving their results? Did they mail out a questionaire? Ask one simple question? Require people to "remember" their interaction with ETS over a time period?
5. Does the report rely heavily on proxies (mathematical assumptions through statistics).
6. What is the confidence interval of their research? How do they handle a divergence within their models? Is it ignored, brushed aside?
7. What do the researchers themselves conclude of the study? Do they say data is not consistent, inconclusive, needs further study? Do they use lots of words like "may", "might", "possible", "probable" and so on?
8. Compare the actual research to the administrative summaries of your "facts sheet" that you started with. Do they compare validly? Does the research match the conclusions drawn by the administration? Do the researchers and the administration agree on the conclusions?
Do all of that, and you are ready to discuss this with me. Do that, and I know at least you are informed about the issue. If you can't do that or refuse to, then you are ignorant of the issues. You are ignorant of the science and acting like a sheep who is easily led around. Use your head here, there is no room for emotions or subjective opinions in this area of the debate. You say you have the science to back you, then prove you even know what the science is. So far, you are posting politics, not science.
Here is a start. If you google it, you will find tons.
Page #487 in this study:
The total number of years of combined residential and occupational secondhand smoke exposure was not associated with a significant trend of increased risks for lung cancer.
Page #488 in this study:
The investigators found no significant trends of an increase in risk with increasing years of exposure to spousal or workplace secondhand smoke.
Page #490 in this study:
After the investigators adjusted for age and region, they found that the risk of lung cancer among female lifetime nonsmokers was not significantly associated with secondhand smoke exposure during
childhood (OR = 0.78 [95 percent CI, 0.56–1.08]) or adulthood, including exposure from husbands (OR = 0.96 [95 percent CI, 0.70–1.33]), in the workplace (OR = 1.14 [95 percent CI, 0.83–1.57]), in vehicles
(OR = 0.96 [95 percent CI, 0.57–1.60]), and in other indoor settings (OR = 0.95 [95 percent CI, 0.66–1.38]). Similar results were obtained when they considered cumulative pack-years of exposure from husbands, or duration of exposure (in hours) during childhood and from spouses (Kreuzer et al. 2000).
Obviously, I am selectively picking out results from this extensive review of second hand smoke studies. My purpose is to point out that the extensive linkage between second hand smoke and cancer is not as strong as many assume, and is being used to propose legislative changes.
I can find one, but it may take a while. Things to do today.
Actually you are right, about 20-30% is about the most common, but they are still in the minority. If you have ever seen the charts of the Relative Risks of secondhand smoke, you see a huge variation in RRs. Also, about 87% of the 130 or so epidemiological studies concerns the effects of secondhand smoke have Confidence Intervals so wide they are basically considered in conclusive.
Yes, that 87% includes studies that find no risk or a decrease in risk as well. Just so you know I'm not cherry picking.
Also, there was the post mentioned a while that discussed the methodology of one secondhand smoke. One of the studies that the EPA used was basically made by asking a thousand people how much tobacco smoke their (mostly) deceased relatives were exposed to in their lifetime, often many years after the person died. It doesn't take an expert or even someone who knows much about gathering data to see the problems with accuracy in that study. And yes, many secondhand smoke studies are just like that and it seems that the larger and more thorough the study is, the less chance it has for coming up with a RR more than 20%. I would say most, but I have only looked into the methodology of a bit more than a dozen, a majority of them were like that, but since it is only about 10% of the total, it would be very dishonest of me to claim that it is a majority.
I will concede there is one proven health hazard regarding environmental tobacco smoke that I think a ban or heavy restrictions on smoking in establishments open to the public can be justified, that is the risk to people with asthma and other respiratory diseases. Tobacco smoke isn't the only thing that can aggravate their condition and if it is genuinely a concern, other things will have to be restricted as well (or at least laws requiring better ventilation and/or air filtration), but at least it would be consistent, genuinely aimed at reducing an involuntary health risk, and wouldn't be used for political purposes.
MOD CUT
Last edited by NewToCA; 03-03-2008 at 09:44 AM..
Reason: P.S. - Discuss the topic, not fellow posters
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.
