The Truth About Second Hand Smoke

[metalhead]

This post was directly pulled, with minor modifications, from another thread in order to stop the threadjacking madness. See, one person can make a difference!

OK, here we go.

There was a "landmark" study published by the EPA in 1993 regarding the dangers of second hand smoke. Keep in mind that the AMA, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and World Health Organization have used this study as their exclusive source of data for warnings about the dangers of secondhand smoke. That study:

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

In 1998, a federal judge decided in favor of the tobacco companies in a suit brought against the EPA, claiming that the EPA was guilty of fraud in publishing that study. The net result was that every single claim made by the EPA was vacated and determined fraudulent. Judge Osteen's decision:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epaf...iles/osteen.htm

A 1998 article from the UK Sunday Telegraph alleging suppression of a study by the WHO on passive smoking

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788186/posts

Finally, a press release from the WHO about the findings of the above mentioned WHO study. Note two things - the full study has yet to be released 5 years after it was conducted, and this text about the study itself admits that the study's findings about the risks of passive smoking are statistically insignificant.

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

The bottom line? There is, as of yet, no hard scientific evidence that secondhand smoke has any contribution to health problems, and the science which has linked the two has been dismissed in court as fraudulent. Those who have convinced people otherwise are guilty of a rampant propoganda campaign, most likely due to a personal vendetta against the tobacco companies.

Congratulations. You've all been duped!

 

[Tacit_Exit]

"But as extreme right wing liberals, we see no moral quandry in lying about the true effects if it serves our cause"

 

[thestonesfan]

Like I said before, who cares? It still stinks and I don't want to smell it, or smell like it, and I think it's the height of rudeness to smoke in public around people who do not. If people are too self-centered to refrain from it, then laws are needed.

Smoking alone is stupid, smoking in public is stupid and inconsiderate.

 

[metalhead]

So, smoking should be banned completely because you don't like it? Exactly who is the one being self-centered? You know, if there is someone smoking near you, you can always move.

 

[Akka]

Spitting does also not cause any health problem.
Am I allowed to spit on your face, Metalhead ?

Making noise does not cause any health problem.
Am I allowed to shout in your ear ?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by metalhead
So, smoking should be banned completely because you don't like it? Exactly who is the one being self-centered? You know, if there is someone smoking near you, you can always move.

If I was the only person in the world that it bothered, I'd be fine with it. But it bothers a lot of people, in fact, I'd say every non-smoker I've ever spoken to hates the smell of cigarette smoke. Smokers know this, yet some choose to smoke around non-smokers anyway. That is being selfish.

 

[smalltalk]

@metalhead:

I am a smoker sometimes, luckily my collegues are too, sometimes. So I can get away with it ...

Otherwise, worst thing to have in the morning is some smoke in yer face. So I perfectly understand non-smokers.

I'm sure smoking is unhealthy to everybody, except PhilipMorris or Marlboro maybe.

PS: thanks a lot!

 

[thestonesfan]

Metalhead, you should find a way to withdraw gracefully from this one, because you are going to come off looking like an arrogant jerk if you aren't careful.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Akka
Spitting does also not cause any health problem.
Am I allowed to spit on your face, Metalhead ?

Making noise does not cause any health problem.
Am I allowed to shout in your ear ?

Actually, you are allowed to do both of these things. You may be risking a punch in the mouth, but you are allowed to do theses things.

Stonesfan - the whole "smoking near me" argument really doesn't make sense - they've seperated smokers and non-smokers in restaurants, all office buildings and practically every other private enterprise are smoke-free, with the notable exceptions of bowling alleys, pool halls, and bars. In other words, you have pretty much gotten your way and 99.9% of public establishments are smoke free.

I find it hard to believe that no one seems to care that they've been lied to for second hand smoke for 10 years. Isn't anyone bothered by this?

 

[CornMaster]

Smoking is shown to have a negative health impact. Therefore no one should do it.

That goes for everything else that has a negative health impact.

But I know that will never happen...cause people are stupid.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by metalhead

Stonesfan - the whole "smoking near me" argument really doesn't make sense - they've seperated smokers and non-smokers in restaurants, all office buildings and practically every other private enterprise are smoke-free, with the notable exceptions of bowling alleys, pool halls, and bars. In other words, you have pretty much gotten your way and 99.9% of public establishments are smoke free.

Right. But It seemed as if you were saying that it was all unnecessary because second hand smoke isn't as harmful as we thought.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by metalhead
Actually, you are allowed to do both of these things. You may be risking a punch in the mouth, but you are allowed to do theses things.

Spitting spreads disease, and is illegal in some towns and areas. Few people enforce...but the law is on the books.

Stonesfan - the whole "smoking near me" argument really doesn't make sense - they've seperated smokers and non-smokers in restaurants, all office buildings and practically every other private enterprise are smoke-free, with the notable exceptions of bowling alleys, pool halls, and bars. In other words, you have pretty much gotten your way and 99.9% of public establishments are smoke free.

You can't smoke in bowling alleys, pool halls or bars in many towns around here. Where do you live?

I find it hard to believe that no one seems to care that they've been lied to for second hand smoke for 10 years. Isn't anyone bothered by this?

Regardless of the degree of the impact, there is still a negative impact from smoke. So we haven't been lied to.

You are just blowing it out of proportion.

 

[cromagnon]

Originally posted by metalhead


Actually, you are allowed to do both of these things. You may be risking a punch in the mouth, but you are allowed to do theses things.

You just invited all non-smokers to punch smokers in the face when they smoke around them.

Metalhead, I think you need to modify your last statement to sound more like "the jury is still out on second hand smoke," not "we've been lied to about second hand smoke." There is a lot of evidence that second hand smoke causes health problems. Recently, some of the methods of those studies have come under question. I can give you abstracts from several recent articles that suggest second hand smoke causes problems.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by metalhead
Actually, you are allowed to do both of these things. You may be risking a punch in the mouth, but you are allowed to do theses things.

Well, except for the macho stance, it means that you just perfectly agree with me about smoking then.
Let's have a deal : you won't pollute me with your smoke, I won't insult you with my spit.

Stonesfan - the whole "smoking near me" argument really doesn't make sense - they've seperated smokers and non-smokers in restaurants, all office buildings and practically every other private enterprise are smoke-free, with the notable exceptions of bowling alleys, pool halls, and bars. In other words, you have pretty much gotten your way and 99.9% of public establishments are smoke free.

Well, that's the theory.
Or perhaps that it's true in USA.
Here, there is still a big load of selfish polluters.

I find it hard to believe that no one seems to care that they've been lied to for second hand smoke for 10 years. Isn't anyone bothered by this?

I'm bothered by having to remind people basic respect when they consider they have the right to pollute me.
I'm bothered by the smell.
That the second hand smoke is true or false, is irrelevant, because I don't even need this reason to be bothered by irresponsible smokers.

 

[gael]

Smoking around people that don't like it is a matter of manners and not principle.

I smoke, but I hate it when people light up and start blowing smoke around me when i'm eating. I also don't like people blowing smoke around my face.

As far as bars are concerned, I think smoking should not be banned from them. Its a place were people go to smoke and/or drink. They're damage rooms, thats the whole point.
Your not going to get cancer from going to a bar a couple of nights a week.

 

[Kentonio]

I agree totally with Gael. If you want to go to a bar and not smoke, start a trendy new non-smoking establishment where people can go destroy their livers in peace without having to worry abour hurting their lungs.

Kentonio

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by cromagnon

You just invited all non-smokers to punch smokers in the face when they smoke around them.

Metalhead, I think you need to modify your last statement to sound more like "the jury is still out on second hand smoke," not "we've been lied to about second hand smoke." There is a lot of evidence that second hand smoke causes health problems. Recently, some of the methods of those studies have come under question. I can give you abstracts from several recent articles that suggest second hand smoke causes problems.

I knew someone would say that. You risk a punch in the mouth by doing anything that annoys the guy next to you. And I don't think it's macho to say I would punch someone for spitting on me.

Oh, but we have been lied to. The media and anti-smoking advocates, along with the AMA, WHO, etc. have proported that it is a fact that second hand smoke is dangerous. It has recently come out that it is not a fact. These organizations have purposefully given us false information, that they knew was false. That is lying, plain and simple. And people have bought into it. The worst part is, local and state governments have used the falsified public health risk to force bars and restaurants to ban smoking. Seems pretty sinister, don't you think?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's rude to light up near someone who doesn't smoke. With so few places left where smoking is allowed, it isn't exactly difficult for anyone to find a place where people aren't smoking. I can smoke in my car, at the bar, at the pool hall, bowling alley, or restaurant. Or outside. That's it! Anywhere else you go, you are free of my pollution. You know the deal going into these places, and you don't have to deal with it in restaurants. Seriously, can't smokers have a couple places where it's not considered rude or inconsiderate to be smoking? I feel like a freakin pariah!

 

[Skullbones]

I have a problem with people being anti-smoking but not mentioning anything about smoke from burning trash, leaves or wood in fireplaces. That smells a helluva lot worse and you can't walk ten feet to get away from it like you can a smoker.

 

[Maj]

What I don't understand is what the AMA, WHO, etc. have to gain from either falsifying their reports or basing their studies on "fraudulent" science.

I'll stick with the the health organizations for now until the report has finished undergoing its 5 year?!? peer review.

This quote from the WHO struck me as interesting:
"The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant."
No mention of children nor the second-hand smoke levels in their case studies made here. And what does that "due to small sample size" blurb in there mean? Any statisticians here?

I'm not going to admit to having been duped until I hear from the major players on the other side of this cuffufle: the tobacco companies.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by metalhead
I knew someone would say that. You risk a punch in the mouth by doing anything that annoys the guy next to you. And I don't think it's macho to say I would punch someone for spitting on me.

Why would you find repulsive that someone spit on you and not that someone pollute you ?
It's no more dangerous for your health and it shows the exact same lack of respect of others.

Oh, but we have been lied to. The media and anti-smoking advocates, along with the AMA, WHO, etc. have proported that it is a fact that second hand smoke is dangerous. It has recently come out that it is not a fact. These organizations have purposefully given us false information, that they knew was false. That is lying, plain and simple. And people have bought into it. The worst part is, local and state governments have used the falsified public health risk to force bars and restaurants to ban smoking. Seems pretty sinister, don't you think?

And ?
Even if - and I say IF - it was a lie, how would it suddendly make the smoke and the smell any more bearable ?
The smoke makes me cough and irritate my nose and my breast.
The smell is totally repugnant.
What these both fact have to do with the danger for the health ?

Isn't the fact that you are irritating physically people around you and putting bad smell on them a reason enough to be considered rude ?
What does it need more to be rude ? Belch in their face ?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's rude to light up near someone who doesn't smoke.

I don't see how it's rude to put my feet on the knees of someone I don't know. After all he won't get any disease this way. Why would he consider it a rude behavior ?

With so few places left where smoking is allowed, it isn't exactly difficult for anyone to find a place where people aren't smoking. I can smoke in my car, at the bar, at the pool hall, bowling alley, or restaurant. Or outside. That's it! Anywhere else you go, you are free of my pollution.

I always thought that it was the one who is bothering others that should move. If someone wish to smoke, he can go to a place where he can do it without pollute people (outside, or in a room that is made for it). I don't see why it should be the others that should move.

You know the deal going into these places, and you don't have to deal with it in restaurants. Seriously, can't smokers have a couple places where it's not considered rude or inconsiderate to be smoking? I feel like a freakin pariah!

Places where it's not rude to smoke ?
Well, simple : place where you don't bother others by smoking.
I thought that it was BASIC POLITENESS to not do things that are rude/unpleasant to others. I never got why smokers think that smoking is an exception to this rule.

Spit purposedly on them, they will punch you.
Walk purposedly on their foot, they will punch you.
Scream purposedly in their ear, they will punch you.
Defecate purposedly on their floor, they will punch you.
Pollute them purposedly, well, then they should go away if the smoke bother them.
Hu ?